"Sure there are people who don't get upset"

That's the point JamesH.

Centrelink doesn't get upset. They provide these child/mothers with large amounts of money, enough for them to choose their own living arrangements, often with their statutory rapist/fathers of their children. Centrelink then keeps these living arrangements confidential from distraught parent/s.
The police don't get upset. Charges arn't laid.
Children's services don't get upset. They don't bother unless they have concerns about the infant
The hospital's where these child/mothers give birth don't get upset.
They don't report that children are being born as a result of a crime being committed against the child/mother by an adult father.

Rob513264

Until very recently it has been unthinkable to even suggest that any woman, let alone a mother, could neglect or abuse a child or permit it to happen.

Astoundingly, this myth largely prevails still, despite community knowledge that (for instance) women also abuse drugs, which is connected with child neglect and abuse and that women are just as likely to have been neglected and abused as a child and could similarly be enmeshed in a victim/persecutor life cycle.

The feminist mantra that only men are violent and their focus on child sexual abuse in lieu of the broad, inclusive subject of child neglect, have done a very great disservice to the 200,000 children affected by neglect and abuse each year (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2004) and especially to the mothers who need help but cannot come forward lest they be seen as monsters and traitors to their 'side' of the gender divide.

Mothers need to be encouraged to indulge in help seeking behaviours and to seek information and support outside of their immediate circle of friendship, but this is hardly likely to occur where they fear they will be labeled and and sent to Coventry by other women because they did something that few women would even acknowledge exists and then only in hushed whispers behind closed doors.

It is simple fact that women (and men) are not born knowing how to care for children and how to deal with the problems that arise from managing a household and raising children. It is from this ignorance and time and resource pressures that many problems can arise. It is the worst of possible scenarios that mothers who have found that things have gotten off the rails feel they cannot come forward for fear of extreme criticism from other women.

Lobby groups have consistently hijacked the debate to focus exclusively on issues and 'findings' that suit their own secondary gain. The very use of the term 'abuse' shifts attention away from the elephant in the room that is child neglect."

Cornflower said:
"Until very recently
it has been unthinkable
to even suggest that any woman,
let alone a mother,
could neglect or abuse a child
or permit it to happen."

I am very glad
that someone acknowledges this
- in the patriarchal society
it was not just the achievements of women
that were ignored
but also their crimes.

she also said:

"...mothers who need help
but cannot come forward
lest they be seen as monsters
and traitors to their 'side'
of the gender divide."

I think that far from a legitimate fear
of being persecuted,
mothers who come forward,
would be treated as you treat them
- as people in need of help.

it is fathers
who abuse their children
who are treated
as people in need of punishment.

Women dont admit child abuse
because they dont have to
- there is absolutely no societal pressure
on women to come clean.

If you can cite me a single example
of mothers abusing children
who were treated as 'monsters'
by other women, as you contend,
please bring it.

In every case
I have ever heard about
other women give sympathy and support
and even make excuses for other women,
"she was post-partum" ,
"she was pre-menstrual",
"she was 'hormonal'" etc.

It is men who are treated as monsters
if they abuse children
and it is not that I want women
treated in the same way as men
but that I want men
treated in the same way as women

CHILD ABUSE AND THE USE OF CHARACTER REFERENCES IN COURTS.

Two recent court cases (reported in a regional newspaper) taking place in two different cities in the same Australian State, support the view that child abuse is indeed accepted as a norm in Australia. In both cases the defendants were professionals who owed their victims "a duty of care". Both pleaded guilty and in both cases character references supporting them were submitted to the Court.

CASE 1. A psychologist indecently assaulted an apparently articulate female aged 17. He was treating her for low self esteem and an eating disorder. His character references came from parents of other young patients with Asperger Syndrome or Autism. Since inability to communicate effectively is a symptom of these conditions, how could these parents be sure their children were safe with this man?

The penalty was a suspended jail term and a fine, but at least the psychologist was de-registered by the relevant Board.

CASE 2. A priest committed indecent acts on a child, procured a child for the purposes of child pornography etc. Four character witnesses described him as "respected" and "devoted to the Catholic Church". Sentencing was scheduled for 4 November. Indications are that it will be appropriate.

However, the use in Court of character references or witnesses in such cases (where the defendant is known to be guilty) is at best irrelevant, and at worst it seems to condone the abuse of vulnerable young people by those in positions of power and respect.

one of my favourite examples
comes from the Simpsons cartoon

I like this one particularly
because it is only a cartoon
so we can be sure
that no-one has actually been hurt

this circumvents any problem
around assessing
‘how much’ damage is actually done
in an attack

it means that we are dealing
with concept only

Homer frequently
strangles Bart
so severely that his eyes bulge
and his neck retains
the imprint of Homer’s fingers
long after he has let go

I read an article by a psychologist
who claimed to be a feminist
who said that
‘Homer was a good father figure’ etc

I would just like any ‘feminist’
to transpose that behavior
onto the character of Marge

remember no-one
is actually getting hurt
it is concept only

if Homer frequently strangled Marge
such that her eyes bulged
and her neck retained
the impression of Homer’s fingers
long after he had let go
I don't think a lot of feminist psychologists
would be calling him ‘a good husband figure’

even if we move the transposition
onto the character of Lisa
the situation changes completely

if Homer did to Lisa
what he does to Bart
there would be feminist outrage

the brutalization of boys
is not only accepted in this culture
it is often seen as good parenting
even by feminists (modern women)
who then complain
about why so many men
grow up to be so brutal
go figure…

GOOD MORNING, AUSTRALIA! - in the words of Robin William.

I wondered where Antiseptic and KidsinDistress had gone.You moved to recent debate, discontinuing Sunita's " CHILD ABUSE IN FAMILY COURT". Still discussing male/female abusers, or WHO is abusing children and what is: ABUSE?

Too many of you jump in,supposing this is a sexual act in all cases. There is abuse of the children's rights, and I would imagine there are more of us women then men harming children.We might have a higher proportion of access to children. How many men are single parent families compared to females? If 25% are male households, say, then the amount of abused children would be greater in the matriachal ones - being 75%. Then, look at how many kids are in a male based household compared to a female one.

You are losing sight of the issues. And its scarey. The Commission for Special I/Enquiry into: Child Protection Services NSW ( THE COURTS, & legal system, Ombudsman, the Health Services, DOCS, the Children's Care teams -foster/and hostel) etc etc is due out next month.

ASK YOURSELVES - WHY?

This is the 20th since 2000.

The DOCS hotline is occupied 24/7 with these suspicions, & getting busier, now the schools are being encouraged to check for mental health issues. Apparently 1:5 pupils have mental health issues (Stephen Lunn, The Australian 8/9/08). There is the word "neglect" is being used in the same sense as "abuse". tTis is a more amorphous notion open to many interpretations. NOw, women if not sexually abusing kids, will be neglecting them.

WHATEVER - Antipasto, on 24/09/08: "Do you really think that there is a vast legal conspiracy determined to hand children to their abuser?"

Lama: Yup - and it's not parents/carers.

I'm back to Sunita's site - anyone want to join me. I notice HuffnPuff's dreadful life went without any comment from you. WHO DO YOU THINK DOCS CAME FROM? Check Aborigines Act 1969 NSW - the Aboriginals Protection Board-Aborigines Welfare Board - The Community Welfare Board - The Department of Community Services.

Lama (Happy 9/11 - in Commonwealth terms)