Despite claims to the contrary, Jacob Taylor writes, the statistics suggest that women commit much more sexual violence than people think.
Female rapists are a taboo subject. People know women rape, yet few want to talk about it. When people do talk about it, they blame women’s violence on men, drugs, or mental illness. They treat female-on-male rape as a joke, a badge of honor, or an anti-feminist ploy. Few realize just how often women rape boys.
Case in point: In his recent article, Hugo Schwyzer claimed, “Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men, those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention—particularly when the woman involved is relatively young and conventionally attractive.” Schwyzer implies that the media covers most of the cases of women’s violence, yet most cases never make the news. Likewise, while there is a lack of research on female-on-male rape, the available studies suggest that women rape boys about as often as men do. Here are some of the statistics:
- In 1994, David Finkelhor published a paper reporting that women commit 20 percent of the sexual abuse against boys.
- In 1996, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect found that women committed 25 percent of sexual abuse against children.
- Both the 2000 American Association of University Women study and the Cameron study showed that about 42 percent of students reported abuse by women.
- The 2005 Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim study found that women committed 38 percent of the abuse against boys.
- According to a 2008 University of British Columbia study of homeless youths, nearly half the youths said at least one woman sexually exploited them, and 1 in 3 said that only women exploited them.
- The 2008-09 Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth report found that of the staff members who sexually abused juveniles, women committing 95 percent of that abuse.
- In 2009, ChildLine received 2,142 calls from children abused by women, and found that boys reported more abuse by women (1,722 cases) than by men (1,651 cases).
The research shows that women commit 20 to 50 percent of the sexual violence against boys. The prevalence rate increased as more researchers studied the problem and more male victims reported their abuse. The facts are clear: Women abuse boys almost as often as men do.
Schwyzer likely based his assumption on police reports and gender-skewed studies. Police reports are misleading because most male victims do not report their abuse, particularly those abused by women. Likewise, many of the studies that show a low rate of female-on-male rape rely on those police reports. Other studies do not include women as potential abusers or use gendered language on their surveys, which may result in male victims not reporting their abuse.
Yet the likely reason for Schwyzer’s claim is that it is the accepted social view. People simply do not believe women commit rape or count their acts as rape. Schwyzer summed it up best in his response to Pal Sarkozy’s account of his sexual encounter with his nanny at 11-years-old: “To suggest he was a victim is preposterous.”
That is the sentiment we must overcome if we want to address female-on-male rape. As long as people think it is preposterous to view males as potential victims and view women as potential rapists, we will never know the full extent of women’s violence. As long as people claim that women’s violence against boys is rare and frame it as a “relationship,” we will never help male victims. As long as people pay lip service to the sexual abuse of boys, we will never see society take this issue seriously.
Only when we stop treating women’s violence like a rare novelty can we stop the abuse.
–
photo by skimaskdude / flickr
About Jacob Taylor
Vocalyze
I don’t see how these two statements are contradictory.
Hugo Schwyzer
women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men
Jacob Taylor
The research shows that women commit 20 to 50 percent of the sexual violence against boys.
Women abuse boys almost as often as men do.
I guess you’re assuming “much less likely” means 1% instead of 20%? I don’t see why that should be the case.
No, the problem is that the “much less likely” claim does not match the available research. I listed the studies in chronological order to show that the known rate of female-on-male child abuse went up as more people began to research and report the abuse. According to Schwyzer, the ChildLine numbers should never happen. You should not have boys reporting more abuse by women than men, yet we do and at different locations. You should not have boys (and men) in prison reporting high rates of female-perpetuated sexual abuse, yet we do and at different locations. You should not have male and female students reporting high rates of female-perpetuate abuse, yet we do and from two different studies.
This suggests that the “women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than men” claim comes from outdated assumptions rather than current research. When we actually ask males and females what happened to them, we get higher than expected rates.
Yet the larger problem with the “much less likely” claim is why it should matter, especially since researchers believe female-on-male sexual violence is under-reported. What purpose does it serve to say women are much less likely to abuse every time we talk about female-perpetrated sexual violence?
“No, the problem is that the “much less likely” claim does not match the available research.”
There is a direct analogy that cost many people Billions of Dollars and even The Nobel prize. My brother was one of them. He hates this story.
He is a chemist and heads a research division for a multinational. When he was at college a new toy had just arrived. A mass spectrometer. There was one issue with it. When you ran some tests you got a spike that indicated a chemical compound that could not exist.
This happened all over the world – and in every chemistry lab all mass spectrometers had the same spike. Everyone was told it was just a fluke, and it did not matter who the manufacturer was, how advanced the spectrometer was – everyone was told the Spike was a fluke and just ignore it – it could not be true. That chemical compound did not exist.
You see, All over the world it was taught that we knew all about carbon chemistry. Over a hundred years of Organic Chemistry, history and tradition said that the spike could not exist. It did not matter that a spike existed because it just did not! That was fact and wisdom from tradition and history. Circular Logic and down a deep hole.
Carbon only came in certain forms such as Diamond and Graphite – there was no such spike that said Carbon 60. My brother accepted this for over 20 years. He did ask to do a Thesis on the subject but was told by wiser and older chemists it would be a waste of time and ruin his reputation.
Some students were not happy to disbelieve their eyes so they started looking for the cause of the elusive spike. They found it 1985 and called it BUCKMINSTER FULLERENE – They got the 1986 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Millions of chemists across the globed Kicked their mass spectrometers. They blamed the machine and not their own failings. My brother broke a toe.
Fullerine chemistry is one of the biggest research areas in global science and worth billions, with patents flying about – and so many missed the boat because they thought they knew all about carbon and would not believe their own eyes. Tradition and supposed wisdom told them so and cost so many any reputation for being wise and a leader in their field.
You will now not find a single person working in the field of chemistry saying that a spike in the mass spectrometer at C60 does not exist – they are all scrambling to get ahead in the field and are not so foolish as to deny reality due to past false logic and traditional wisdom that cost so many so much.
Ignorance is not bliss – it’s ignorance.
Refusing to believe your own eyes is worse, and can prove ever so costly.
If you think you know all about the subject and ignore the spikes – well – those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them!
And that’s not just lessons in chemistry.
Thanks for writing this much-needed article, TS. I’m pleasantly surprised it was published here.
PUHLEEEEZE!!!
No one gives a crap about what happens to men (or boys for that matter).
Get real.
And on that note, here’s a list of female teachers caught abusing their students.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783
For the record, I’d go for a few rounds with several of them, then or now. No such luck though myself. So it goes…
Saying you’d go a few rounds with them “then or now” pretty much invalidates the students’ experience of abuse.
No it just means that if wet_suit_one had been in their situation he would have wanted it. That doesn’t speak anything on how other people would feel about it.
Among female perpetrators between eight and ten percent are teachers. There seems to be a misconception that this is the only abuse that occurs or that it’s an epidemic among teachers. Those are circumstances which occur in environments where the activity is harder to keep quiet. As with girls for boys it’s much more likely to happen closer to home.
Right on wet-suit-one. People would tell any young guy in this situation to “Take it like a man.”
Thank you for adding some balance. The official statistics of anything in this area will be misleading because so many female on male underage attacks aren’t reported because they are not physically forced; thus, many people claim that the boy is not only not a victim but he’s lucky. So, there is far more pressure to stay silent. I know a kid who told me that he was molested by a distant female relative babysitter, years after the fact. I know for sure that wasn’t reported.
Excellent article, and I am surprised it’s published.
Violence against men and boys is not rare at all, however there are not many reports about it.
The feminist idea, that only women and girls are the victims of violence is simply said not true.
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/view/484/352
This is one of these VERY RARE documents, rather new, which is doing a deep research about MALES as victims of human trafficking.
The results and conclusions are remarkable, the document is worth to be read and can be downloaded.
Some sentences out of this text (PDF):
…..the alarmingly high demand for forced labor is marginalized even though it provides a greater incentive for human traffickers
….. social conditions indicate that males are most vulnerable to this form of human trafficking.
…..The absence of publicity regarding boy sex trafficking makes it increasingly attractive to criminal networks that specialize in obtaining young boys for sex and pornography…
…..in Sri Lanka 90 percent of all victims of trafficking into prostitution are MALES…
——————–
Interesting page 38 about female human traffickers, who are getting away with lenient sentences, especially when the victims are not females but men (including minors), used for everything from farmwork to sex-games.
Reminds me of an interesting article of how male victims just couldn’t be acknowledged in a major US DOJ
study:
http://www.citypages.com/2011-11-02/news/lost-boys-new-research-demolishes-the-stereotype-of-the-underage-sex-worker-mdash-and-sparks-an-outbreak-of-denial-among-child-sex-trafficking-alarmists-nationwide/
Oh! I see the usual views being expressed, and the usual nouns being applied.
It does not matter the gender of the child or the gender of the adult. I am wary of saying this as some will just want to use it as a red rag and load it into artillery for yet more assaults in their gender based warfare . But, there are many cases where the child is female and sexual abuse is carried out by a female adult.
I know that some just love to draw battle lines and throw grenades, but it is tiring and even unproductive as the children cower and wonder what to do to get out from under barrages and childish behavior by supposed adults.
This is an incorrect assessment I think. There is a political group – feminism, that uses abuse victims as weapons in gender war, they also cover up abuse that isn’t useful to them in their gender war. In order the end that war and create an egalitarian abuse system, feminism’s fraudulent claims about abuse have to be debunked and the only way to do that is to present the other side of the story.
“There is a political group – feminism”
WOW – do they have a website?
Are they correctly registered with the Authorities as a “Political Group”?
Do the IRS have any records of this “Political Group” and their activities?
I’m wondering where “their” declaration of war can be found? Does anyone have a copy handy?
Abuse and a gender war? Does the Red Cross Know – The United Nations?
“feminism’s fraudulent claims” – oh no! Have the relevant authorities been told of the fraud? Who are they claiming from? Is it IRS related?
I’ve googled “Political Group – Feminism”. It seems odd that even google and other search engines just aint making the links, and the few that do exist are by a small group of men. Does this mean that the “Political Group – Feminism” are covert in some way and they should be reported to those responsible for National Security?
A Covert “Political Group – Feminism”, no public profile and involved in warfare using children and even fraud! Yikes – it makes Al-Qaeda look like amateurs!
Cheers
Information is not knowledge.
Albert Einstein
Mediahound
Yes feminism is a political movement and ideology that uses the lie of gendered rape and abuse to fear-monger, rabble rouse and empower itself.
Go advocate for your movement elsewhere.
Ron could you make your mind up!
You keep on changing your mind. You have stated that feminism is;
1) political group – feminism
2) political movement
3) ideology
WOW – no wonder it’s so hard to see what this dangerous and pesky group are up to. They morph from post to post!
It’s almost as if they have evil super powers and change their nature and appearance at will!
Have law enforcement agencies been warned about them – especially the abuse, fear-mongering and rabble rousing?
Where is their HQ hidden? Area 51?
You keep telling me that It’s my Movement! Where do I find these them so I can join in?
Cheers!
PS Still wondering what to do with my penis and man boobs! P^)
A great number of the abuse related services in Australia are run by womens and feminist groups. That in itself is no problem. However when their track record includes aggressively rejecting actual victims who seek help that’s not such a good look. That has happened to too many victims. In my work – tax related – if I can’t help somebody I try to point them to somebody who can. I certainly wouldn’t laugh at them or call them liars.
MediaHound, initially I did include numbers about the rates of female-on-female sexual abuse, but I removed them because the focus of this magazine is men. The numbers about that type of abuse vary. The highest I have seen was 20%, but that is based on research that used a very small sample group. We honestly do not know how frequently that type of abuse happens because few people ever ask women if another woman abused them, and some women may not frame it as abuse. We keep coming back to the same problem: people already think they know what happens and who does it, so no one bothers to ask if we have it right.
Jacobtk – “We honestly do not know how frequently that type of abuse happens because few people ever ask women if another woman abused them, and some women may not frame it as abuse.”
That is a very valid observation. It opens up a whole can of worms.
It could well be a case of “Institutional Abuse” – and is by definition “Discriminatory Abuse”.
I am aware that the whole issue of “Institutional Abuse” and or “Discriminatory abuse” has been a Hot Potato(e) in Great Britain since The THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INQUIRY 1999, which labeled the London Metropolitan Police Institutionally Racist.
That does not mean that all Police Officers were racist, the racism was caused by systems and operational procedures that had been designed in such a way that racism was unavoidable. http://tinyurl.com/awold
To paraphrase SIR WILLIAM MACPHERSON who wrote the report:
“For the purposes of our Inquiry the concept of institutional gender discrimination which we apply consists of:
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their gender. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and gender stereotyping which disadvantage that gender.
It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such gender discrimination it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease.”
The rule in Great Britain is gender neutral at all times. It would seem lessons have been learned across all equality streams in some countries.
If any organization dealing with abuse has gender bias in it’s procedures – then that Organization is “Institutionally Abusive”.
If a group claims to deal with abuse against women and has policy, practice, procedure and through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness fails to act on female violence against female, that organization is cocking up.
If I was faced with such an issue, I would be challenging any and all figures/statistics – and asking anyone funding or supporting research to review all statistics to see if the questions asked have not been “Institutionally Abusive” and causing “Discriminatory Abuse”.
If the reports come from academic sources then the quality of that academic group should be queried. There are standards laid down for research, and if gender bias has been allowed to produce incorrect results there has been a gross failure. The whole lot should be reviewed.
You are quite right that questions generally define answers. So when you believe the answer is wrong, you have to investigate the questions asked in the first place!
Jacobtk – “We keep coming back to the same problem: people already think they know what happens and who does it, so no one bothers to ask if we have it right”
A better example of Institutional Abuse and “Discriminatory Abuse” would be hard to find! I think you have your answer – so now it’s time to ask the right questions.
When I find that issue I quote Einstein – “Anyone who doesn’t take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either”.
That way you only need a small truth to deal with a bigger issue. Einstein was a physicist – he did understand the use of a leaver.
If there is any extant research that shows “Discriminatory Abuse”, it’s best to use just one set of language about it. Calling it such things as Feminist Propaganda simply causes inertia – and headaches from banging head on wall!
I suspect you know all about headaches, and not just from the walls.
Say it’s “Manifesting Discriminatory Abuse”, and show the truth without comment.
Cheers.
Thanks MH. Your framing is something that may be very useful in taking on the Australian Labor machine which is the primary source of that discrimination over our way. Within Labor’s track record is interfering in the operation of our Bureau of Statistics to prevent boys and men being asked about abuse and to prevent questions about female abusers. Meanwhile, as I said earlier, there are rape victims I know from other states who have been laughed at and called liars by crisis and counselling services.
Gwallon – sorry for any delay in picking up on your comment. I found it whilst referencing on something else.
I am aware of one issue down under relating to abuse – particularly historical abuse of kids who were forced into migration to Oz. Empty Cradles – Forgotten Australians – it is quite a horror story. The Histories of sexual abuse beggar belief.
I know that Rudd as PM issued an apology – and that the UK then did so in February 2010. There is the whole issue about “Redress Schemes” for the 7000 or so survivors.
I do recall quite a debate in the UK about Financial Liabilities for the UK government – and chatter about a deal being done with Rudd so that money and claims would be limited.
Cover up the whole lot for political means and expediency.
Is there a political move ongoing in Oz to limit numbers of people ( mainly males ) report historical cases – given that evidence of need for support would increase payout?
It may sound Cynical – but I have seen the politics play out too often – most recently The Catholic Church abuse scandal ( Latest House of Cards to fall Holland ).
Just a thought as well – when it comes to handling and reporting abuse there is a rather good UK document “No secrets: guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse”,
It lays out detailed policy, practice procedure for abuse cases – such as refusal to provide services! It is an analogue of the same procedures in the UK for children – resulting from The North Wales Children’s Homes Abuse Scandal.
ref : Lost in Care – Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Care in the Former County Council Areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974
They are worth looking at to see if there are any similar failings where you are. I do now some folks in Oz who raid the UK for official reports and then use them to prompt attention from politicians. It’s one thing being called a crank – It’s quite a different matter holding a report from an Inquiry chaired by a High Court Judge and QC ( Queens Council ).
There are legal precedents for failures in Oz law to be referred to the UK PRIVY COUNCIL – and it would seem that politically that is to be avoided. P^)
It’s unappealing to have to play the me-too victim game, but the facts do need to be set out clearly. For too long men have been cast as the “default villains” of child abuse and rape, and it’s simply untrue. So now that we’ve cleared away the sexist men-are-at-fault nonsense, can we move on to actually solving the problem?
“can we move on to actually solving the problem?”
Not as long as feminists are controlling public perceptions and the abuse industry.
Indeed you are right Ron, how can a problem be solved if it is not even identified.
Great article TS
Dear Copyleft
I agree that action needs to be taken for solving the problem. It’s such a pity that some wish to see it all as warfare.
Some will just have to act as Red Cross, Red Crescent and even Médecins Sans Frontières while others insist that the only possible outcome is victory by warfare, and there will be no peace “As Long As [Fill In Blank] – and only after that the victims can get what they deserve.
It’s hard work and even dangerous helping others freely whilst some just love to snipe and thrown bombs. It takes courage and fortitude keeping a calm and rational head when others insist that supposed Might Is Right and they are going to use it!
Thank heavens that warfare in all forms is being seen as more antisocial and unproductive as time passes.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”.
Albert Einstein
Mediahound
You are projecting feminism’s use for abuse and abuse victims onto the men’s rights movement.
We want equal rights and recognition for abuse victims regardless of their gender and regardless of the gender of their abuser and an abuse industry that reflects that. Unfortunately feminism sees this as “anti-feminism” and fights against it, misleads the public with fraudulent information and lobbies of gender apartheid in abuse services.
The people setting the record straight are not the aggressors here, they just want what’s right. Your accusing them of wring doing is tantamount to accusing the people that went after the catholic church for its abuse cover ups as being the aggressor.
Ron – you do make me laugh!
The Feminist movement – the “men’s rights movement”!
Ever hear of the Equality Movement? They are the group sitting between the battle lines and not interested in using past bad behavior and error to get it wrong All Over Again! Everyone’s welcome – genitals are allowed. It’s quite a reasonable group of people who are interested in Transcending Differences not constructing some arbitrary wall.
As they say “Those Who Fail To Learn The Lessons Of History Are Doomed To Repeat them.”.
Drop in some time and have a look. You may find it enlightening – but do check all weapons at the door.
I also wonder at your ideas about aggressors. Having dealt with many abuse victims of clergy It’s remarkable how they are not interested in aggression. They do like Justice though.
Do you have an issue differentiating between Aggression and Justice?
Aristotle said “Law is reason free from passion”. Justice comes from reason and aggression just gets in the way! An over use of passion can often lead to aggression and it’s quite unreasonable even antisocial. .
It is also said “Reason is always weak where prejudice is strong.”.
Cheers
Mediahound
People are sick of sarcastic feminists like you, just go and and advocate for your movement somewhere else.
Dear Ron – what do I do with my penis?
I did ask a few ladies, but they suggested that as you are the one that has an issue with being challenged you may have a worth while and hysterical retort!
So I’m a feminist? Well that is the first time I’ve been called that one! My friends who nominally use the term about themselves are suffering incontinence as they laugh! My male friends who see me as an advocate of equality are wondering if they should be macho and harsh! They do feel affronted and hurt.
I’ve been called Buddhist, Humanist, Evolutionist, Centrist, Agnostic, Republican, Democrat and even Communist – but Feminist? – that is a first!
It seems that you are revealing a little hidden aggression there that is evidently clouding your judgment! Not everyone who disagrees with you because of an agenda you hold!
As for going and advocating else where – I’m just here reading and taking part! Odd how you see that as Advocating. Me thinks there may just be a little bit of projection there on your part!
Cheers
PS What should I do with my man boobs?
Ok, Ron, here’s your error. “Feminism sees this as anti-feminism…”
Feminism is not a person. It is not a sentient being. It is an ideology, an umbrella term for hundreds (if not thousands) of interpretations of feminism. SOME feminists may try to cover up or ignore or discredit female-on-male rape, but not all. Likewise, SOME feminists are pro-life, SOME are pro-choice, SOME wear high heels and lipstick, SOME are reject heels and lipstick because they’re symbolic of the beauty myth, etc.
My long-winded point is: There is no one entity, no one institution, no one group or spokesperson or doctrine that can speak for or apply to ALL feminists. So to say “feminism sees/believes/advocates” any one particular viewpoint or cause, when there is no singular definition of feminism, is erroneous.
Feminists are just like ordinary people and have different values. For some, rape/assault/sexual abuse are at the center of the debate; for others, it might be workplace rights, sexism in the media, the porn industry, etc. Just because a feminist advocates for female victims of rape doesn’t mean s/he denies that males can be (and are) rape victims. Similarly, just because s/he advocates for female rape victims doesn’t mean s/he HAS to advocate for male victims too. S/he’s allowed to just pick one group to advocate for.
If you don’t want feminism (read: feminists) lumping all males together under the umbrella of “jerks” just based on the behavior of a specific portion of males, don’t lump all feminists under the umbrella of being obstructionist and self-serving. It’s not that black-and-white.
KZZ
Don’t speak to me like I’m a simpleton thanks. It has long been a policy of feminism to cover up abuse. And its long been a policy if feminism to call criticism of this practice “anti-feminism” the fact that some people that identify as feminists don;’t cover up abuse, doesn’t change that in the least.
And can you feminists just go away if you are going to use this thread to advocate for yourselves please?
Its not about you, its abuse abuse victims that are largely in the closest and denied out of existence, often by your movement, I find the fact that you are making this thread about yourselves offensive. There are many places to advocate for feminism.
Ron
Do you have any links to the Policy Documents which reveal
1) It has long been a policy of feminism to cover up abuse.
2) And its long been a policy if feminism to call criticism of this practice “anti-feminism”
If you can’t find suitable hyper-links, do you have an address we can all write to and get a copy of the policies?
If nothing else can you at least tell me the years these polices came into force?
Having been told that I’m a feminist and then an advocate of feminism I would love to know what polices I’m supposed to be following!
And I’m still wondering who brought feminism into the discussion – can you also cite where the OP links what they have written to the revelatory policies you keep on mentioning from feminists!
Could you also clarify the use of the second person singular or plural pronoun “You” when you write:
“I find the fact that you are making this thread about yourselves offensive.”?
Cheers
PS Still wondering what to do with my penis and man boobs! P^)
I’ve already posted a link to a study about the deliberate covering up of abuse by the feminist movement on the thread.
The fact that feminists consider talking about feminism’s cover up abuse it “anti-feminist” is self evident. All the feminists on their thread are treating it as such.
Now that I look further up the thread, you were the first to throw a stone at feminism. MediaHound’s original comment didn’t say the word “feminism” in it anywhere. He decried the drawing of battle lines and advocated NOT for feminism, but for a gender-neutral view of sexual abuse – that it doesn’t matter if the victims are male or female, what matters is that there are victims at ALL (if you don’t mind me paraphrasing, MH). You replied by placing all the blame for the marginalization of female-on-male abuse squarely on feminism – or maybe you were trying to say, it’s feminists who draw the battle lines to begin with, but if that was your point, it didn’t come across by saying “feminism [...] uses abuse victims as weapons in gender war, they also cover up abuse that isn’t useful to them in their gender war. In order the end that war and create an egalitarian abuse system, feminism’s fraudulent claims about abuse have to be debunked and the only way to do that is to present the other side of the story.”
Certainly feminism, or some expressions of it, have had an influence on the general public’s perception of female-on-male sexual abuse, but it’s not the only force at fault. I would venture to say that the public at large is generally ignorant about the statistics surrounding sexual abuse; it is not something that everyone takes an active interest in or follows closely.
And we feminists who do NOT adhere to this so-called “policy” (enforced by whom, exactly) of covering up sexual abuse, are offended by you implying that feminism is entirely to blame. I am not so much advocating for feminism as I am defending it against unfounded attacks and trying to clarify the sweeping generalizations you’re making.
So now that I’m offended that you’ve hijacked this thread to lambast feminism and blame feminists for the problem at hand, which we were TRYING to discuss, can you go away? There are many places to attack feminism.
Yes KZZ
I don’t care if your offended that people are talking about feminism covering up abuse,
Feminism and feminists shouldn’t be lying to about abuse in the first place in the first place.
I read the full 23-page Grand Jury report on the crimes of Mr. Sandusky that somehow got Joe Paterno fired. I read it, and I was heartbroken and angry. Not because I am a feminist, or a woman, or a Penn State fan (I couldn’t care less about football and did not know who JoePa was before all this), or for any of my ideologies about women and men and relations between the genders. I am heartbroken for all the boys, now men, who carried those memories with them for so long and have had to see them relived in the media spotlight. I am heartbroken for the unnamed, unknown victims of Sandusky’s inexcusable behavior over the years. I am angry that Sandusky was able to get away with everything he did for as long as he did. I am angry that he was part of a charitable organization that put these boys within arm’s reach. I am downright pissed that he went to such pains to make the boys trust him and like him so they wouldn’t resist his advances, following an almost identical pattern with each victim, and that he did so CONSCIOUSLY. These were not random attacks. He knew what he was doing the whole time; it was entirely premeditated. The blame lies with him and only him, because he chose to act in a way he knew was harmful to others.
I’ve f*cked up pretty badly in my past, too, because of my own sexual appetites and bad decisions (not on this level or this scale, of course). As much as I would like to say I was possessed, or out of my mind, or otherwise forced to do what I did against my will, I know and have always known that it was my choices that lead me down that path. I take the blame, the same as I took the punishment (in this case, not a crime, but a betrayal to my significant other).
As a former member of the media, I think we do a disservice to the public when we grant more coverage to male-on-female (or even male-on-male) sexual abuse than we do to female-on-male. I hope something good comes out of this whole disgusting, horrifying thing, that more victims of ANY gender come forward and see their attackers put to justice. I hope more perpetrators of sex crimes will turn themselves in – but in reality, they will probably just go deeper into hiding and try to cover their tracks more. I hope more potential perpetrators are scared off from doing what they are thinking of doing by the crucifixion of Sandusky – but that, too, I doubt to be true. The fact that these things even happen is proof enough that people still believe they can get away with it, that they won’t get caught.
I hope too, that when someone hears about a female teacher having sex with her adolescent male student, the first reaction is true horror, not “Well, what does she look like?” While I was in the media, I saw the latter reaction frequently, often but not always from men, when my newspaper covered a recent case of a female teacher having sex with several of her male students. And if she turns out to be hot, the next comment is usually “Well sh!t, I would have done her too!” (But if she’s ugly, the reaction is, “She must have gotten those boys drunk, it must have been rape.”)
THOSE are the views I find damaging to the cause of exposing sexual abuse in all its forms. All rape, all sexual abuse and assault and manipulation and coercion, is BAD. WRONG. EVIL. There is no scale from 1-10, less evil to more evil. We cannot blame the victims, only the perpetrators.
These are my true feelings on the subject at hand, as concisely as I can put them for the purposes of publishing on the Internet. I hope I have not offended you.
@KKZ…
“Feminism is not a person. It is not a sentient being.”
It has a personal face where I come from. Very sentient and very deliberate in furtherance of goals driven by feminist ideology.
In my country one of our major political parties, or more correctly the acknowledged feminists among them, has engaged in political inteference in the operation of our Bureau of Statistics to prevent boys and men even being asked if they are victims of abuse. For the past two decades this party, through it’s own policies, has marginalised hundreds of thousands of victims of all types of abuse. Senator/Minister Kate Ellis asserted recently in parliamentary committee that women don’t lie about abuse in court. I wonder how the victims of female abusers are supposed to parse that?
The local feminist MP, who is also my cousin, spoke at a function of our region’s rape crisis service a while ago. Even though the service became fully inclusive five years earlier my cousin could not acknowledge the male victims and workers and members who were right in front of her. In one fell swoop she told the men and boys where they stood and also gave a slap in the face to all those women and men who’d worked so tirelessly to make the place truly inclusive.
Churches and a few other institutions are under great pressure because they have covered up instances of serious abuse. The Australian Labor Party has, by hiding the existence of male victims, female perpetrators and the abuse entailed, covered up abuse on an even broader scale – deliberately and for reasons of gender ideology and political correctness. I wonder how the ALP – our current federal government by the way – and the gender warriors within have any right to see themselves as any better?
Feminism has a face for you, okay, I can respect that. But feminism has MANY faces. If certain groups in your country and your government are actively covering things up and marginalizing male victims, that’s not right. But it’s also not right to blame FEMINISM itself for these problems – blame the groups themselves, not the ideology. Just the same as with the cases of abuse within the church – blame the church and the officials who committed abuse, not Christianity or Catholicism themselves.
What I’m trying to say is, it’s not the ideology that’s at fault, it’s the actions of specific people or groups of people, like the groups you’ve mentioned. Individual feminists have individual interpretations of feminism and what it means to be feminist, and I don’t deny that there are feminist extremists (which you’ll find with pretty much any “ism” out there, there will be extremists), but they are not the majority of the movement, nor do they represent the entire movement. From my perspective, the more extreme, exclusive, women-only views and practices of feminism are gradually fading out and being replaced by a younger, more inclusive movement that is more concerned with gender issues and relations as a whole, instead of just from the female perspective. Notice, I say gradually; the transition is by no means complete, it’s just a trend I’ve noticed. This, at least, is the case in the States; I can’t speak for Australia.
That progressive view of feminism is the only thing I advocate for. Don’t let the worst of us (the extremists) speak for all of us. White supremacists don’t represent the entire white race. Fundamentalist Christians who protest homosexuality at soldiers’ funerals (here in the States, at least, not sure if it happens abroad as well) don’t represent all of Christendom. Islamic radicals do not represent all Muslims.
You say that when your cousin neglected to address the male victims of abuse in her speech was “a slap in the face to all those women and men who’d worked so tirelessly to make the place truly inclusive.” To blame feminism for covering up male victims is a slap in the face to all of us who are working hard to make the movement more inclusive and work toward gender equality and better relations between the genders.
Maybe I should have mentioned that I’ve been attached to the political party I chastise since the sixties. I am what you are quite entitled to think of as an aging political hack. The type of position you present is nothing new to me. I probably used it myself when younger. Today I recognise that there are principles which must stand above my loyalty to party, institution and even ideology. I can express those principles even when they contradict my baser loyalties and allegiences without loss of self.
Ultimately when you refer to many faces you beg the question – behind which of the masks lies the real feminism? The politicians to whom I refer claim the label loudly and proudly as do you. Who am I to believe? One thing that is unquestionable is that among those bearing the label feminist the politicians concerned are the most effective. To believe they are anything other than the effective face of feminism is a leap of faith I will not make.
Your last paragraph is a cheap shot. Why do you obstruct me when the message I carry is of those who besmirch YOUR feminism? What are you willing to do about those even you call radicals? They have trained themselves to not hear male voices. Why do you act to make it even easier for them?
To all you anti-feminists in the comments: Have you read any feminist theory or are you just spewing pop culture ideology back at each other? (The simulacra of simulacra.) Most feminists want equality, not gender war. Is being a victim empowering? No. The very stereotypes that feminists decry allow the terrible things in this article to go undiscovered and unpunished, it being taboo in a patriarchal society to suggest that men can be victims precisely because it is not empowering to be a victim. So why blame the feminists? Blame a corporatized society that dehumanizes people by suggesting human emotions can be satisfied through things and that humans themselves can be replaced with things…
YOMAMA
That’s it, telling the truth abuse is “anti-feminist”, disguising.
We are talking about political feminism and the deliberate covering up of abuse by the feminist movement.
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
V74
Murray A. Straus
ht t p://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
Of course you blame your scapegoat, patriarchy, capitalism and men.
Yomama: Most feminists want equality, not gender war.
—–
Yes, but only when it’s fit them, when it’s an advantage for them – MRAs are demanding same punishment for the same crime regardless the gender of the criminal and suddenly women are considered to be ‘different’ and getting away with very lenient sentences and feminists in UK even started a campaign to abolish prison for females.
Lets not forget feminist groups in Israel recently blocked legislation that would be female on male rape a crime and american feminists recently had the definitions of rape expanded but made no mention of rape by envelopment.
In Israel it is even a rape-crime if the girl, who is of Jewish faith, gives her full consent for sexual intercourse because she thinks the man is of Jewish faith too, but later on it turns out he is a follower of another religion.
Feminists in the UK started a campaign to abolish prison for females?
Sorry – but that is a complete misrepresentation of reality. Its FALSE! It makes me angry as a man when others deliberately and purposefully make such false claims.
Maybe you should look at The Prison Reform Trust who are the owners of the relevant report you allude to. A National Charity in Brittan dealing with Prison, Prisoners and the Families of Prisoners. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk
I wonder how that organization is to be characterized as Feminist when the vast majority of the people they serve are male? It even employs more males.
They also address such inequality issues as Disability, Ethnicity, Economic Status, Age and they have quite a soft spot for dealing with Children detained under the UK Criminal Justice System. Does that make them Ageist?
I suspect that some just take any source they can find, such as BBC News Coverage 6 June 2011, look for words which fit an agenda and then regurgitate ad nausea. .
Do read the full report “Reforming Women’s Justice” – it’s only 42 pages, but packed with some interesting facts such as it costs less to work with suitable offenders in the community that to put them behind bars – especially when you factor in costs such as the government having to pay for child care!
To quote:
“Custody not only proves ineffective in many cases, it is also expensive. The Taskforce heard that the
average cost of a women’s prison place is £56,415 per annum. By contrast, an intensive community
order that commands the confidence of the police and the courts could cost in the region of £10,000
- £15,000. With this report, we are presenting an assessment of the costs and benefits of women’s
imprisonment, community penalties and women’s centres. If work to reduce women’s offending were
better integrated across governmant and more strategic, it could pay dividends – not only by getting
vulnerable women out of trouble but also by tackling costly inter-generational crime.”
The report also addresses misuse of resources, such as using prison as a drug detox facility – even using it as mental health assessment facility.
Feminist? Or Financial?
Oh, and there is similar research and reports from The Prison Reform Trust addressing male prisons too! Such a fine example of Misandry? – they want to set the males FREE!
Mediahound
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
[1] The report, Provision for women offenders in the community, is being launched in London on Wednesday 11 July. Speakers at the launch will include Baroness Jean Corston, Dr Katherine Rake (Director of the Fawcett Society), Dr Loraine Gelsthorpe (from the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge) and Julie Taylor (Director of Commissioning and Partnerships for the National Offender Management Service).
[2] Baroness Corston’s independent review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system for the Home Office resulted in the Corston Report.
[3] Dr Loraine Gelsthorpe and Gilly Sharpe are based at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge. Jenny Roberts is a former Chief Probation Officer (Hereford and Worcester) and an Independent Consultant.
[4] The Fawcett Society launched the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System in 2002 to examine women’s experiences of the criminal justice system.
h ttp://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=496
Have you read all the relevant reports and literature?
This particular group, the Fawsett Society were talking about closing women’s prisons and using the them to house men. Anyway, this thread is supposed be about creating awareness for sexual abuse victims of women and the tendency of the feminist movement to cover them up.
Its extremely poor taste to hijack it advocate for your movement. Just like the feminist that disrupt and heckle at meeting for the same victims.
There are many, much more appropriate places to advocate for feminism.
Similarly, it is in extremely poor taste to use this topic to devalue and point fingers at feminists and feminism (or more specifically, what you think feminism is).
Your comments have done no more for raising awareness about sexual abuse victims than those of MediaHound.
KZZ
Its bad taste for you movement to cover up abuse and for every single follower of the movement to deny its a problem. Can you leave just this thread.
“Its extremely poor taste to hijack it advocate for your movement. Just like the feminist that disrupt and heckle at meeting for the same victims.”
Maybe you need a better chair person at meetings?
I have been to many such meetings and even chaired them! There is an art to dealing with Hecklers – it takes practice and experience – say 30 years!
You also need to be fully conversant with all of the issues from all sides! If you are not, it;s easy for accusations of bias to be made – and you have to be quick witted and enlightened enough to show how such claims are wrong!
Of course – now that I am apparently a Feminist and a Feminist advocate according to some, one wonders what people will make of that!
KKZ – thanks for noting that I’m gender neutral! P^)
It comes from 30 years of dealing with the sexual abuse – especially male victims!
I suspect that some here may well have been in diapers when others were on the case.
Cheers
I was struck by how all the cites being thrown around relate to the United Kingdom of Britain.
I have had a chat with some associates who live and work there. They report the following.
In 1949 there was created The Council of Europe. Thereafter in 1953 the European Convention On Human Rights came into force and under the Treaty Of Rome there was created The European Union.
Human Rights Legislation has been developing and evolving since. All Europe Nations now have the European Convention On Human Rights enshrined in national law.
As part of the necessary legislation there are what are called Equality Duties. This means actively investigating if any group or minority is adversely affected by law, legal process and legal systems. This is to comply with Article 14 Duties which say:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The government of the UK along with all other European Governments investigate equality duties by commissioning organizations with knowledge in the relevant field to investigate and review matters and present reports and recommendations. In London there is the Equality and Human Rights Commission who also undertake investigation of Equality and Equality Duties covering all possible groups indicated under Article 14.
The UK government receives reports and recommendations which are then assessed in light of the whole legal system of the UK.
It is up to the government to change anything and not a group outside of the government.
It’s a complex and long process that takes years.
The British Press often sensationalize matters. The Daily Mail News paper is half(?) jokingly referred to as the Daily Heil due to the sensationalism of reporting and the knee jerk reactions of readers! Apparently the editor has publicly stated that He Is The Voice of the UK and he knows best for all people in the UK.
So unless some feminists set out in 1949 to infiltrate the Council Of Europe, have infiltrated and taken over the Council Of Ministers ( figures quoted was 95% male), Done the same with the European Court Of Human Rights and all Civil Administration of all European Governments and in doing so have the power to pervert European and National Laws to have commissioned reports to comply with Equality Duties from groups that set out to somehow or other enforce a Feminist Eutopia and the subjugation of all males in Europe…
Well – it would seem that the cites are a bit misleading in the big picture!
Any cites from nearer to home that don’t depend on some monstrous 60 plus year conspiracy theory for validation?
Mediahound
This is not a place to be advocating for feminism, the thread is abuse sex abuse victims and the the fact that they are covered up by the feminist movements abuse propaganda.
Just go and advocate for feminism elsewhere.
Again I’m told I’m advocating for feminism? Makes a change from me being told I’m a feminist. Did the revelation about my penis change some language suddenly?
Could you please explain very clearly where advocating reason and accuracy, and challenging inaccurate and misleading comments quotations and conflations means that I’m advocating for feminism!?
The OP addresses much evidence that is accurate concerning abuse and sexual assault. Can you show me with citation where the OP says it’s “fact that they are covered up by the feminist movements abuse propaganda.”?
To paraphrase you – this is not the place for anti-feminist propaganda.
I see precious little discussion or comment about abuse, but lots of propaganda !
Cheers
PS Still wondering what to do with my penis and man boobs! P^)
For anyone worried by that – please scroll up!
Thanks for some sanity and balance on this issue.
Thanks, good to see that you appreciate this article by ToySoldier Jacob Taylor about female rapists. It was long overdue to talk about this taboo issue. I am happy to see it was finally published.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html
All the women’s jails would shut within the next decade, and could instead be converted into prisons for men.
…..
Only the most dangerous female criminals should be kept behind bars, a controversial Government report has said
…..
The report claims: “Women and men are different. Equal treatment of men and women does not result in equal outcomes.”
Referencing upon the Daily Mail Newspaper of Great Brittan as a valid source for information, is the same as using The National Enquirer.
Why not link to the same story from the equivalent of the New York Times, Washington post or other less sensational media? Have a look for the same story in the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and The Times?
If you are looking for on point research and comment that is focused upon the male perspective, the consequences and has been built upon known methodologies you may find this useful.
Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (CRFR) l Briefing 44 l June 2009
Care and support needs of male survivors of childhood sexual abuse
http://www.crfr.ac.uk/reports/rb%2044%20web.pdf
If you are having issues with accessing websites due to geographical location please look up and use proxy services such as “megaproxy” or other public proxy services. Just as many US based services restrict access by geographical location to conserve bandwidth and costs, the same applies to Europe based services. The Daily Mail newspaper seem to take hits from all over the globe – mainly so they can use bad stats to drive advertising revenue.
I’m not just gender neutral – but Geo-neutral as well, via proxy.
The CRFR report keeps the message simple – it remains on point. It does not address the gender of the abuser.
In particular, this is very useful:
“Gender issues
The male survivors shared many experiences, effects and views with female survivors in the Beyond Trauma study. However they appeared to find it even harder to trust and tell, they were much more vulnerable to confusion over their sexuality and gender identitities, and issues about work and career problems were greater for the men.”
“even harder to trust and tell”- “greater for the men”! That is a very telling phrase found by research and contrasts gender difference!
If anyone of any gender is not listening – they need to be reminded of how hard it is to tell. There is the evidence and built upon research.
I would recommend vary careful study of CRFR publication – it even highlights the failures of Institutions to recognize issues that they are Mandatorilay obliged to deal with and report on.
Even better – it is a parallel study and report to A study with Scottish women abused in childhood,
Beyond Trauma (Nelson 2001). The newer study published 2009 was prompted by the Scottish Government recognizing that gender bias had not addressed the male victim perspective. So they required it to be done.
If one government can do it – so can others! If people who believe their view is empowered by statutory employment and pay makes them infallible, maybe they need to be reminded of examples where others have gotten it wrong, held up their hands – stated “Mea Culpa” – and then started putting it right!
Stats and gender bias are not the only issues raised is quality research! Reading for key words can be useful – but reading for content and meaning can be more so.
Cheers
I wonder if the feminists that frequent this site because of the regular misandric content can smell something in the air here? If it offends thy nose, that would be balance you are smelling.
Watch out Tom, Lisa. Much more of this and you might actually be bringing something needed to society.
The stench of the presence of MRAs is directly indicative of the bait that was left out.
Pass.
Women rape boys… granted. This happens and its a tragedy to those victims in the same way rape is to women. So women are less likely, according to your own stats, to abuse boys… and much less likely to abuse females by every stat on the planet and you somehow think this equates to an epidemic of female sex predators which can challenge that of males? If women (and I’m allowing a very liberal acceptance of your data) are responsible for 50% of sexual abuse against boys (which is still less frequent, by far, than frequency of abuse against girls) and responsible for a tiny fraction of sexual abuse against girls then we still come to the conclusion that men are far more likely to be the perpetrators of sexual abuse against anyone.
It is true that men are victimized by women. But to conflate physical abuse statistics with sexual abuse statistics is disingenuous at best, which is what Jacob does here with the stats from Childline.
Women rape boys, and it is awful. It is also comparatively rare. And though we can presume some degree of underreporting from boys, that underreporting cannot be quantified. What can be quantified makes it clear that the overwhelming percentage of sexual predators are men, and the overwhelming percentage of victims are women. Check out the most respected organization in America, RAINN, and their stats:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.
The suffering of that 10% is real. But it doesn’t a majority make.
This is not nearly as outrageous and absurd as calling virtually every married man alive a rapist, if his wife ever had sex with him, as an act of love when she wasn’t in the mood.
No, I did not. I included links in the original file, but they were not included in the post. You can read the two links here and here.
From the first link, “Some 2,142 children told ChildLine last year they had been sexually abused by a woman – nearly a quarter of all calls where the offender’s gender could be identified. … Last year ChildLine heard from 1,311 children who said they had been sexually assaulted by their own mother, representing 61% of all calls about abuse by females. Research for the helpline found that boys were more likely to say they had been abused by a woman (1,722 cases) than by a man (1,651).”
From the second link, “At all ChildLine call centres last year, 2,142 young people across the UK told the charity they had been sexually abused by a female. Of those callers counselled, 1,311 told ChildLine they had been abused by their mother. The overall proportion of children calling ChildLine about a female offender has risen from 11 per cent of sex abuse calls in 2004/05 to 17 per cent in 2008/09.
Neither of the two articles mention anything about physical abuse. Even a Google search for “ChildLine female abuse” comes up only with articles about sexual abuse. I am unsure how you concluded I conflated the physical abuse with sexual abuse. I understand that it is difficult to believe women would rape boys, but it is disingenuous at best change what boys reported to fit your argument.
If we can presume there is underreporting but we cannot quantify it, how can we then quantify who commits most abuse and who experiences most abuse when that is based on how many victims report abuse? How can you know that the overwhelming majority victims are female when you acknowledge that you do not know how frequently males are abused? How can you know that the overwhelming majority of abusers are male when you acknowledge that an quantifiable number of victims do not report their abuse? You seem to draw conclusions as you admit you do not have enough information to draw those conclusions.
Two points. One, RAINN does not conduct research. It lists research conducted by other people, and RAINN acknowledged that the study you cited “has serious shortcomings and that its definition of rape is too restrictive to capture all crimes [and] likely under-counts the lifetime risk of sexual assault for men.” They only use the NVAWS study because of its sample size and methodology, the latter of which is quite questionable.
Two, I listed several studies showing higher rates of female-perpetrated sexual violence against males. Why are those studies less valid than the NVAWS study (which incidentally excluded most of the sex acts that women commit against their victims)? The editors did not include the links I listed, but the studies are not hard to find. I would suggest reading the studies to see how they got their results before arbitrarily dismissing their findings.
Jacob
For clarity – The references to Childline can be confusing. Childline is a UK phone support service branded and aimed directly at children as a point of contact. It deals with all forms of abuse and risk behavior from a child’s perception and experience. Many of the children are dealing with multi-factorial abuse.
Childline was created in the 1980′s through work done by BBC TV. It was a separate charity until 2006 when it merged with the NSPCC. Childline has a high national profile in the UK. All public telephones have the Childline number displayed. All calls are free of charge. It is run quietly and openly for the benefit of children.
Childline is now in fact a service provided by The National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children, a British Charity which has operated for over 100 years. It was granted a Royal Charter under Queen Victoria 1895. They do have some relevant and significant history behind them.
Many get confused by the use of the term Childline – as Childline stats and reports are published via the NSPCC website. Your quotes are from secondary media sources. Some of those sources have a poor reputation due to sensationalism.
The relevant NSPCC SOURCE Documents can be found at http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/publications/casenotes/childline_casenotes_wda47964.html
The Childline data is ONLY for the Childline service and not all of the NSPCC’s activity and reporting systems. Childline is the voice of children on the subject. It is seen as Extremely Authentic!
The link provided above will also allow you to trace other sources quoted by media, such as “Calls to ChildLine about sexual abuse – February 2007″. This will allow comparison and analysis of data across a four year window. Page 7 is a good place to start.
” 82 per cent of the children who called ChildLine about sexual abuse in 2005/06 specified the gender of their abuser. Of this group, 5 per cent of female victims and 44 per cent of male victims said their abuser was female.”
The data is very blunt – The report only addresses sexual abuse – sexual abuse of children is carried out by females – and it can be against boys or girls.
It has to be noted that Childline operate a wide definition of Sexual Abuse that covers many activities from obliging the child to watch pornography to rape and sexual molestation. The data provided by Childline does not analyze the data they hold by activity – only be definition. They do however highlight cases of direct sexual activity by females against both boys and girls.
Childline/NSPCC don’t care who the abuser is and which genitals they have. Their interests is the child and the child’s welfare. The NSPCC are very much gender neutral.
I would suspect that there will be another Childline/NSPCC report in the near future! There is a two year data gathering and analysis window that the NSPCC follow.
The statistics produced by Childline/NSPCC have a “High Level” of validity. The NSPCC keep separate data and statistics from government sources. They record and report all cases made known to them by any and all routes to relevant authorities.
UK Government statistics (Police and Child welfare) are subject to different assessment criteria and this leads to variance in reports. Data is aggregated under the heading sexual offenses with no breakdown as to perpetrator or victim demographics.
The NSPCC have been very much aware of the issue of Females as sexual abusers for decades. They have been aware of under reporting. Due to issues of gathering and evidence the practice of excluding the abuser from the targets has been the preferred option for law enforcement and child welfare groups when deemed appropriate. For many legal reasons, statistics and reports on this are not public. When legal action is involved it is mostly taken through courts that are not public and findings are not made public. This is for child protection, and not always for the protection of the child victim. It can be due to other children in the home or abuse venue to prevent secondary victimization. Only Criminal Prosecutions are public. This leads to disparity in statistics as well as errors in public perception.
There is also a national system for The Safeguarding Of Children which the NSPCC feed into. The system is administered on a local basis, with statistics reported locally. This local approach has been criticized due to differences in perceptions and actions. The analysis provided from those stats does not break down cases to allow demographics and trends to be highlighted. UK national systems for managing reported cases has been criticized heavily in all areas of abuse. The recent scandal (2011) of adult abuse aimed at Disabled Adults – Winterbourne View hospital – Bristol, and the failures by Government Watchdogs to respond and act is a direct parallel to similar failures in child protection and welfare. The Winterbourne View case is significant as the matter was recorded on video by BBC Journalists, “Undercover Care: The Abuse Exposed” – footage on youtube. It created a similar outcry in the UK to that at PSU. The footage can be highly disturbing to watch. Experts state openly that the matter was “Torture”.
There are no implied links between child abuse and what happened at Winterborne View Hospital. However, the extensive footage does show how easy it is for Abuse to become normalized and how people the fail to act – even when absolutely obliged to by any and all standards of law, morality and even Contracts Of Employment. It also highlights just how hard it is for those who do report to be believed and for required action to be taken.
Spikes in UK statistical data of female on male sexual abuse during the last 10 years have been linked to a number of factors. These started back in the 1980′s. From the North Wales Childen’s Homes Abuse Scandal which uncovered a massive pedophile ring, to the prosecution of the most voracious pedophile ever seen in the UK, William “Bill” Goad, with his personal victims estimated to be over 1000. In total the victims are estimated to be over 4000 and his number of contacts/associates is till not publicly known. The police investigation is ongoing after 15 years. UK Social factors around the Moors Murders in the 1960′s (Ian Brady and Myra Hindley) are also seen at play. The murders which involved sexual violence against boys and girls have an extensive social legacy across 50 years. The Moors murders are recognized by many as the first public UK case involving sexual violence against a minor by a woman.
in 2007/8 The NSPCC-Childline ran a specific campaign aimed at boys and this co-coincided(?) with the investigation of and prosecution of the a Pedophile ring which involved four women. The most high profiled was Vanessa George who worked at a children’s nursery who used it as a venue to take indecent photographs for distribution to others including 3 women accomplices.
Media coverage is seen to increase reporting to Childline, as it educates both children and the public to the possibility of female sexual abuse of children. It is also seen as linked to reduced delay in reporting from abuse starting to the child seeking help.
There has been a long standing police task force in the UK dealing with cyber abuse and pedophiles, and they work with local police and national organizations such as the NSPCC to co-ordinate work. The work also has an international element where evidence shows activity and people outside of the UK. There is significant intelligence sharing via numerous systems including Interpol. There has also been a strategic tightening of Charity Regulation since 2000, due to suspected cases of Charities being used as a guise for Pedophile activity. In the past anyone could set up a charity in a matter of minutes! Now there are Mandatory police and background checks. Developments in Information technology over the last 15 years have made this possible. It is recognized that such IT enabled data sharing has and does allow for hidden issues to be uncovered. It has happened many times is all types of abuse cases.
The full details of cross organization co-operation is not public domain. The NSPCC have shared information with Police and Child Welfare for decades. There is also Mandatory Reporting involved. One factor that is relevant is that the NSPCC follow up all reports to quality check their own operation against other agencies. They do not just take input – they verify outcomes. The NSPCC acts as a Two Headed Guard Dog looking in two directions at the same time.
It is not surprising that there are three supposed co-incidences – an NSPCC campaign aimed specifically at boys – One of the highest profile cases involving women abusers – a spike in statistics identifying trends of female sexual abuse on children ( both male and female ). It would appear that a proactive stance was at work, quietly in the background.
The NSPCC have a very well managed relationship with the media – and will not comment on any work they are involved in, except where there is direct benefit to the public and especially children. They avoid comment in individual cases even when they are the first point of contact for a child or anyone reporting concerns about a child.
I hope some clarity and sources will prove helpful.
Cheers.
Hugo
RIANN themselves admit that the figures that they use don’t include female on male rape by envelopment.
I’m sick to the back teeth of you feminists erasing abuse victims and hiding abusers. Its disgusting.
The article is not about women raping men. It’s about women raping boys.
Hugo writes:
“Women rape boys, and it is awful. It is also comparatively rare. And though we can presume some degree of underreporting from boys, that underreporting cannot be quantified.”
Hmmmmm I’m confused. In various feminist spheres I have definitely been told that the amount of under-reporting of female rape victims can in fact be quantified.
If I remember correctly, I have heard time and time again that of 100 women raped only 2% every go on to file a claim (and they usually the monologue goes on about the low rates of police issuing an arrest warrant and attaining a conviction).
It sounds like somebody isn’t being completely honest.
The crimes of women against men is still a widely denied aspect of western society. Many men seem unable to grasp the idea that women are capable of both the good and the bad that humanity offers to itself; women are not born in any state of grace. Consider the reactions of the media where I live (Australia) when a father killed himself and his three children during a custody dispute. He was widely vilified and frequently portrayed as a monster. When a mother killed her daughter with an axe and then jumped to her death, she was lionised as “not a monster” (an actual newspaper headline) and a good mother, who was under a lot of stress and emotional pressure. The same crimes, very different media treatment.
Men, in the matter of refusing to acknowledge some women can be just as criminal as some men, we are our own worst enemy. Not even feminists pose as great a threat to men and our health and well being as the baseless assumptions we have grown up with. We need to ensure we don’t pass on these false paradigms to our sons.
Excellent point, Trans. Men are conditioned to view women as innocent/victims just as thoroughly as women are, and we do ourselves a disservice when we internalize that lie.
I am just so sad to read this thread. It sickens me actually. Here are some statistics: 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape. 9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003. (from RAINN.org–Rape Abuse and Incest National Network)
Statistics aside, I grew up as a girl knowing I would probably be raped in my lifetime. I learned this news at the age of about ten when I heard the statistic as told flatly by a news anchor on tv. From then on, I was in a state of fear. Every time I got in an elevator with a man alone, or walked through a dark parking lot I would go into defense mode in which all of my senses were on high alert. I remember riding my bike home from school and being followed by a man in a car and having to drive back to my school to call my mother. I was followed while riding my bike and walking home. All the while thinking, “this might be it.” Often, I when I would walk home from work at night, I would notice a man staring at me and I would find a place I could go so that he wouldn’t see where I lived. One time, I made a horrible error in judgment and found myself with a guy in his truck–at one point, he took my the neck and said, “You know, I could rape you right now and nobody would know.”
And while I believe that, yes, women rape and exploit men, I also believe that there is less violence involved. I don’t know for sure or what the numbers are–but I doubt a male is held at gun point or under threat of a knife–or that he is ever killed (by a woman). I can say that at least five women I know have been raped.
I say all this with a horrible ache in my heart. Because I don’t want to have to say “women have it worse than men.” Any boy or man who has been raped or sexually abused at the hands of ANYONE is a complete injustice and I feel for them just as I would feel for any woman. The Penn State debacle has at least brought that to the forefront (if the Catholic priests didn’t). And yet that is the whole point of this article–to prove something. To prove men have it just as bad as women or worse. Is that what it’s come to? Arguing that “my rape is worse than your rape?”
I could care less at this point about feminism or misandry–I’m just so sick of the finger pointing and lack of civility. And complete lack of compassion. But I know, these are the reasons there is so much hatred and misunderstanding in the world.
RAINN don’t count female on male rape by envelopment, so of course the stats are skewed.
“And yet that is the whole point of this article–to prove something. To prove men have it just as bad as women or worse.”
Take a look at the title of the article again. Maybe read it again, too. The author is doing no such thing. I feel a lot of sympathy for you because of the fear you face everyday that I am privileged not to fear, but you’re attacking an article that doesn’t exist.
“And yet that is the whole point of this article–to prove something. To prove men have it just as bad as women or worse.”
They project the characteristics of feminist activism on to others.
Yet here you are doing that. The point of my article is to show that women commit more sexual violence against boys than people think. I do not see how doing that means anyone has it worse than anyone else. It is not a competition. Both males and females can be victims of abuse, and acknowledging that does not deny women’s experiences. Rather, it just acknowledges the severity of men’s experiences.
As a survivor of abuse I would never suggest that anyone’s abuse is worse than anyone else’s. I would hope that female survivors would extend the same decency to me and other male survivors, yet…
That kind of comment is also why I wrote the article. That little “it doesn’t really count” reminder keeps a lot of men and boys from coming forward. Most sexual abuse against children does not involve violence, and it should not matter anyway because it wrong for ANY adult, even women, to assault a child. If the point is to stop all abuse, then we need to confront ALL of it.
@micheleyulo
“And while I believe that, yes, women rape and exploit men, I also believe that there is less violence involved. I don’t know for sure or what the numbers are–but I doubt a male is held at gun point or under threat of a knife–or that he is ever killed (by a woman). ”
I have head of at least one case of a woman threatening two men with a weapon if they didn’t preform a sex act on them; and several cases of women attacking a man’s genitals with their teeth.
What are you basing your assumptions on here? You don’t actually have any evidence to back up your assertion. There are zero studies on rape that either don’t fall prey to methodological issues or use a large enough community sample to draw an actual factual opinion on the rate of rape of men versus women.
“I say all this with a horrible ache in my heart. Because I don’t want to have to say “women have it worse than men.”
Then don’t. At least not until you actually have statistics that back it up.
“To prove men have it just as bad as women or worse. Is that what it’s come to? Arguing that “my rape is worse than your rape?””
So if women have it worse then men does that mean that ‘their rapes are more important then men’s'?
Less violence?
So those scars around my scrotum are really only some kind of stigmata rather than the result of threats to remove it?
Michele,
Thank you for clarifying things. With a 1 in 6 chance of being raped in your lifetime, you KNEW you were going to be raped.
And based on that 1 in 6 chance, you have lived your life in fear of every man, ever since.
That’s sad, pathetic even, in the root sense of the word. I hope you can move past a life based on fear.
And while I believe that, yes, women rape and exploit men, I also believe that there is less violence involved. I don’t know for sure or what the numbers are–but I doubt a male is held at gun point or under threat of a knife–or that he is ever killed (by a woman). I can say that at least five women I know have been raped.
Then why bring it up? If the point is to devote some attention to male victims of female sexual violence why bring up that “its not as violent as male against female abuse”? I don’t think pointing that out helps such male victims anymore than telling female victims of male abusers that “they should be glad that they aren’t boys because people would be telling them how lucky they are”. It might be true but I think mentioning it would only be painful and dismissive.
Honestly I would have taken the “too” off the end of it. When I read that it gives me a feeling of “(Oh yeah) Women rape boys too”.
But other than that impressive sir.
“And while I believe that, yes, women rape and exploit men, I also believe that there is less violence involved. I don’t know for sure or what the numbers are–but I doubt a male is held at gun point or under threat of a knife–or that he is ever killed (by a woman). I can say that at least five women I know have been raped.”
and she did exactly what she was claiming TS was doing
“And while I believe that, yes, women rape and exploit men, I also believe that there is less violence involved.”
She’s projecting her behaviour on to TS.
Jacob,
I’ve been a follower of your blog for many years now, and as always I’m glad to see you here in top-form at the forefront of confronting male sexual abuse mythology. Hugo Schwyzer does a great job at being a male Feminist, and honestly I’m glad he’s taking up that cause because people need to be doing things like that.
I just wish he wouldn’t do it at the expense of others, like every other privileged White person I know. Instead of saying, “here’s how it sucks for women, let’s do something about it!” he prefers to say, “here’s how it sucks for women, and guys have it SO EASY! So stop whining,” which seems to be disingenuous at best — fomenting gender warfare at worst.
Male victims need another helping hand, not an Oppression Olympics cheerleader rooting against us because we’re somehow “the other team”. For instance, how does 11 year-old Sarkozy become a victimzer? By definition he is a child. His “victim” is an adult capable of physically restraining him. Such ignorance is part & parcel to the problems that make a site like this, and conversations like these necessary.
Meanwhile, people are attacked for even *voicing* these concerns while Feminists may engage in similar identity politics (and to call modern-day Feminism anything but identity politics is naive) with nary a peep! And it is this small facet of the topic which can often so frustrate and derail the conversation because it is patently unfair.
However, I take hope from this article because as more knowledge is disseminated, action will follow. And I, for one, look forward to the day when I don’t have to defend my experiences just because I happen to have a penis.
Cheers