Pynchme:"First of all those reports don't say what you purport."

I'm afraid they do dear, which is why I posted the links. Each of my quotes is a direct C&P from the reports I cited.

pynchme:"the definitions of child abuse have changed and broadened."

Yes, they have. So have the definitions of sexual assault and domestic violence. I know you support the broadening in those fields, so why do you not support it in this case? could it be that in the other cases they've been broadened to include normal male behaviours, while in the case of kids they've been broadened to include normal female behaviours in recognition of the damage done to kids by abusive or emotionally manipulative mothers?

The first lnk you posted relies heavily on a study of 50 selected (not random) children from severely dysfunctional families and on US "studies" from back in the 60s. Hardly relevant to anything other than getting grants for the author.

The second report makles no assessment of perpetrator gender and provides no data. it does say "The deaths of children from assault are rare in NSW, accounting for only 1.4 per cent of all the deaths of children and young people aged 0-17 over the ten-year period 1996 to 2005." Are you suggesting we should be basing our child protection policies on 1.4% of situations?

your third link is dated 2003) but contains the following quote:"Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children.
Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children.
It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent."

The AIC link is from 1996; it is irrelevant, and the last has nothing to do with Australia.

What are you going to post next, Nancy Astor's speech to the suffragettes in 1902?

A response of denial and idiocy; unfortunately I am not surprised.
Those reports detail total cases of fatal abuse over several years and provide information on patterns of abuse and on perpetrators. Abuse occurring in single mother households isn't necessarily carried out by the mother. The reports also point out the complexity of factors contributing to fatal abuse - existing abuse, poverty, drug and alcohol use, relationship breakdown, criminal history, ongoing violence. I provided the essay on female perpetration because ANY abuse of any child by ANY adult is unacceptable and that was a comprehensive investigation of the topic.

I didn't say whether I approve or disapprove of broadening of definitions - don't be allowing your biases and lack of knowledge of feminism put words in my post that I haven't written. What you fail to note is that broadening definitions makes women more accountable for abuse towards men and children. I don't see any reason to object to that.

The broadening of definitions of rape, as I have pointed out before, makes women accountable for rape and for child sexual abuse, especially towards boys. The way in which it does that is by redefining rape not just as penis in vagina penetration, but penetration of any orifice by any body part or object. Again, I agree and in fact was one of the early campaigners towards such changes.

The current definition that worries me re: child sexual abuse - and I could rely on you not to pick it up or care about it; defines child sexual abuse as,

"Any act by a person having the care of the child which exposes a child to, or involves a child in, sexual processes beyond his or her understanding or contrary to accepted community standards." (p.109)

Beyond his or her understanding? Compare that definition to others to date. What do you think the implications of a definition like that might be?