|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:32 PM January 25th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have found that the contrary is usually true about abuse from Females towards Male Children. Most of the Men that I have met that have been abused by their mothers are rather subservient to Women. When I was growing up no one was allowed to speak out against their mothers. Other Women would chastise anyone speaking poorly about their mother. The training began a long time ago. It is a small percentage that actually become violent towards Women, and a smaller percentage still that are able to realize what has happened and take steps to change it. Institutionalized subjagation of the Male with the systems blessings, how else do you suppose the government is able to choose the "right" People for black bag actions? They know all about the psychology that made them how they are, and they use that. It seems it doesn't matter where a person lives, the same systems are in place, oh yes, India was a chattel of the UK wasn't it? Just my opinion Folks.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:43 AM January 26th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I learned to be somewhat mis trusting of women at a young age.
When I was a kid, I was very small for my age. I was bullied by a few other boys, on occasion, but was bullied more often by older girls. One of them even tried to drown me in a swimming pool. I was chased, beaten up and teased. Then I was sexually abused by a teenage girl in the neighborhood. No one took it seriously. (Not even my usually understanding and good parents)
The abuse leveled off when I began to hit puberty. I was now bigger and stronger than my female tormentors. They got real nice to me, real quick, and never bothered me again, thankfully.
My point is I learned from an early age the secret of femininity. The secret is that we are told that females are nurturing, kind, considerate and can do virtually no wrong. But I learned that that is a lie. And I learned it as a child.
For a long time I really hated and mis-trusted all females. But as I got older and got more experience with them I realized that they are not all bad. But the ones that were, were/are still getting away with their evil. That, among other things, is why I became an M.R.A. Because I know that some where, out there, maybe just down the street, there is a little guy who knows all too well what I learned as a small boy that females, too, can be vile, evil and violent, just as any male can.
The difference is males are held accountable, females, generally are NOT.
It is those small male victims that I think about when I do my work as an M.R.A. and I'm doing my dead level best, as many of us here are, to speak out on their behalf. Because too few others are willing to.
The females that harmed me as a child got away with it. But I am working towards a day that their sisters in vileness will some day not be able to likewise get away with their crimes.
Though abused by females, I became neither fearful nor subservient to them. But I DID become aware of a truth that is taboo to talk about.
I hope that some day soon, that taboo will be lifted.
I will fight until I either die, or that mission is accomplished.
And I will not forget my little brothers. especially the smallest of them.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:06 PM January 26th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
That's right Thundercloud, you are one of the smart ones. I was abused as well, by my Mother, and Father. But, my Father died when I was 12, and I swore that no Man would ever beat me again, and get away with it. My Mother taught me many things, because I was smart enough to learn from what she tried to do. I never was surprised by abusive behavior from Women, but I used to dream of meeting a Woman that actually saw me as a Human Being, I still do, but that dream is waining. I too do what I do for the Children, but not just the Male Children, the farther we get from nature the more we all suffer. But Men do come first as we are at the bottom of the heap. "Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 12:21 AM January 26th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Sumanth asks what feminists have to say about female perpetrated child abuse. Well, the short answer is that they blame it on patriarchy. It's men's fault that women abuse children at about twice the rate that men abuse children. Read this report to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which is the leading advisory body to the Australian federal government for family issues;
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc6papers/fitzr oy.html
Basically, this report is saying that as women are themselves victims - of patriarchal society, male abuse, blah, blah, blah - the only people they can find to exert power over are their own children or other people's children. It isn't women's fault: it's men's.
Note that the report urges social workers to always keep this fact in mind when dealing with child abusive women. Even when women are the abusers they are still treated as victims. Meanwhile children go on being abused and more than likely will grow up to abuse.
As for Sumanth's inference that male children are especially targetted by female abusers, I haven't actually seen any gender representative statistics. But I wouldn't be surprised. Just look at a few quotes by women who are revered by feminists.
"The future - if there is one - is female ... the proportion of men must be reduced and maintained at 10% of the human race." Sally Miller Gearhart, author, lesbian activist.
"If life is to survive on this planet there must be a decontamination of the earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." Mary Daly, former professor at Boston College.
"Men are scum." Valerie Solanas, author of S.C.U.M (which is standard reading for women's studies courses), nutcase almost assassin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 12:28 AM January 26th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry the link isn't working so here is the article:
Offending Mothers : Thoughts and Ideas
Lee FitzRoy
Lecturer, RMIT Social Work
This paper is an opportunity to open up some dialogue around a difficult issue. That is : mothers who chose to physically, emotionally or sexually assault their children1 or neglect children’s needs2. As this is a complex topic and we have a short time today, I really just want to identify some thoughts and ideas that have emerged from workers who work with women as mothers, in a variety of settings. These settings include women’s health, sexual assault, domestic violence, child protection and post prison release programs. Some of the points raised by workers may resonate with yourselves and I am hoping that this process will encourage further discussion and debate about the reality of mothers who are violent towards their children.
Before I begin, it is worth acknowledging that although I stated that women do chose to assault their children, I am very aware of and sensitive to the reality that women grow up and live within a very oppressive social, political and familial context. In this context, men are the majority of perpetrators of sexual, physical and emotional abuse on women (ABS 1996, Hall & Lloyd 1989, Herman 1992). In relation to the abuse of children3 even within the difficulties of obtaining accurate statistical accounts of child abuse, there is general agreement that women perpetrate approximately 50 per cent of physical abuse (Finkelhor 1986, Tomison 1996), 2-3 per cent of sexual abuse (Finkelhor 1986, Saradjian 1996) and an unspecified percentage of emotional abuse and neglect (Tomison & Tucci 1997).
In addition to this context of violence, we can also acknowledge women’s unpaid labour whereby they are the primary carers of children, their partners, disabled family members and aged parents. This context has a fundamental impact on women’s knowledge and opportunities to make active self affirming ‘choices’ about their employment, living or family situation. However, within this context, we need to acknowledge that some women may still make choices4 to abuse5 a child and that this abuse is an unacceptable crime. In this way, I would like to engage in a discussion which critiques a ‘mother blaming’6 ideology, whilst still acknowledging that women are active agents who make clear choices about how they will use or abuse their power.
I would like to locate this discussion within a short case example which presents some of the dilemmas and difficulties experienced by workers when working with what is sometimes called ‘difficult women’.
Margaret is a 35 year old woman who has had regular contact with the Child Protection Unit within the Department of Human Services over a twelve year period. Margaret has five children, all of whom occasionally live with her. Margaret has little contact with the fathers of her children. Margaret has a history of substance abuse, depression and psychiatric illness. In addition, Margaret has identified that she has been the victim of child sexual abuse, adult rape and domestic violence. The Department has been involved with Margaret and her family due to numerous allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse perpetrated against the three girls by male members and friends of the family. In addition there have also been numerous allegations of physical, verbal and emotional abuse and neglect, perpetrated by Margaret against her children. These allegations have never been proven as Margaret denies any assaults and the children, upon investigation, retract their disclosures. Margaret has demonstrated extreme maternal ambivalence towards her three girls, manifested in comments that she would die if she lost them, whilst on other occasions actively perpetrating abuse against them and failing to protect them from abuse perpetrated by male family members and other men.
There are a number of issues that are evident in the example of Margaret which I will briefly discuss, drawing on the knowledge and experience of workers. The main points that I will present today emerged from a number of focus groups I facilitated with workers about offending mothers. Let us start with an important issue for many of us, that is, the issue of maternal ambivalence.
Maternal ambivalence
The majority of human service workers clearly acknowledge the reality and existence of maternal ambivalence in the lives of the women they work with. In other words, workers work with women who sometimes behave in ways which indicate clear ambivalence about their role as mothers, the responsibility they feel for the well-being of their children and the dependent nature of the relationship between themselves and their children. Maternal ambivalence has become the subject of increased scrutiny by feminists who have engaged in a critical analysis of the social construction of motherhood contrasted with women’s experience of mothering (Hollway & Featherstone (ed.) 1997, Featherstone 1997, 1998, Featherstone & Trimble 1997, Parker 1995, 1997, Welldon 1988). As Parker concluded
Women mother within cultures that maintain impossible, contradictory maternal ideals which render the range of feelings considered ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ in mothers narrow indeed. Hence maternal ambivalence is viewed askance and defended against by both idealisation and denigration of mothers. Ambivalence of itself is not automatically a problem. But the shame that often surrounds it renders it deeply problematic (1997, p. 35).
I would suggest that a thoughtful engagement with women’s often ambivalent relationships with their children, can assist us in developing a further understanding of women’s choices to perpetrate physical, emotional or sexual abuse on the bodies of their children (Featherstone 1996, Maynes & Best 1997). As Featherstone (1997) has noted, workers and human service organisation may also ignore women’s expressed ambivalence towards their children, reflecting the general societal perceptions for example, that "mothers know best" or "that all mothers love their children". This lack of acknowledgment can lead to situations where workers are attempting to case manage complex family situations where children are placed back into a situation where it has been generally acknowledged, however unsubstantiated, that the children are at risk of further abuse or neglect perpetrated by the mother. As Featherstone commented, when reflecting on the difficult role of child protection workers,
Acknowledging such ambivalence in themselves and others would be an important step forward in fostering a climate of thought and reflection. Furthermore, it would name and make visible the everyday practices in which they engage and which seek to mitigate the effects of unmanageable ambivalence (1997, p. 188/9).
The dualistic construction of women as either ‘victims’ or ‘villains’7
Clearly linked to the above discussion on maternal ambivalence, is the reality that women have primarily been constructed as ‘victims’ of male violence and historical and cultural patriarchy. This discussion does not seek to deny women’s experience of extreme violence and oppression perpetrated by men. However, we can acknowledge that parallel to this definition of women as powerless victims, we have the converse situation where women who do commit crimes, have historically been defined as either ‘mad’ or ‘bad’. Indeed women who are convicted of violent offences against their children have often been defined as monsters or evil unnatural mothers, because they are "offending against their natures". However, the dualist construction of women as either victims or villains has denied us the opportunity to explore the diverse and multiple identities women share. In other words, focusing solely on woman as victims, disallows us critical engagement with the complexities of women’s subjectivity as daughters, lovers, wives, mothers, and the intersection of other variables such as class, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and age. Consequently, we are not forced to critically confront the different levels of power different women embody or enjoy, depending upon their class, age or colour for example. I would suggest that incorporating an analysis of such issues would greatly enhance our understanding of women’s choices to abuse children or indeed other women or men.
Workers that I have spoken with, identify their own difficulties with this seemingly mutually exclusive definition of women - as either victim / or villain. In this process, workers commented that they found themselves responding to women, solely in relation to their victim experiences of violence or oppression perpetrated by men, and failing to respond to women’s disclosures of, or workers concerns as to the possibility that women may be actively abusing their children or failing to protect them. In addition, workers also commented on the limitations within current theorisations of women – as either victims or offenders, which fail to incorporate more complex analyses of women’s differing levels of power, their experiences and choices. I would suggest that there are a number of feminist theorists who are developing more complex readings of women’s lives and their choices to act, which would be useful for us to engage with (see for example Featherstone).
These thoughts lead workers and myself to a few ideas that are worth briefly identifying.
‘Hierarchy of vulnerability’8
This term refers to the reality that children are vulnerable within hierarchies of age, gender, race and geo/political identity. Within this context, children have a right to be nurtured and protected by their adult care-givers. Therefore, although we can acknowledge that women may experience oppression or violence in their own lives, there is a need to acknowledge the rights of children. As Wise commented
The point being made here is that, contrary to the feminist empowerment model, women are not always the target ‘client’ in a given situation, although they may be the carers of someone more vulnerable. Moreover, the needs of the more vulnerable person – be it a child, elderly relative and so on – may very often conflict with the needs of the woman (Wise 1995, p. 111).
Many workers acknowledged that there is a broad assumption within the field, that when we (as workers) meet the needs of women, we automatically meet the needs of their children. The assumption that children’s needs and rights converge with those of their mothers, is a general difficulty within the provision of services for women and their children. It has been suggested by a number of workers in the field, that often children’s needs are ignored within the process of meeting the needs of their mothers. However workers were also mindful of not returning to the conservative ideology of the recent past, where women’s identity and needs were completely indivisible from those of their children. A few workers raised the possibility that mothers may chose to abuse their children as a strategy which enabled the meeting of previously unmet needs (Maynes & Best 1997, Parker 1995, 1997, Welldon 1998). This is a complex point that I am unable to fully discuss in the context of this paper, however I would suggest that it would benefit from further research.
Acknowledge women as active agents
Interlinked to the above, are the issues related to the difficulties in defining and therefore responding to women as active agents, who make choices to enact violence against others. In exploring the difficult notion of ‘choice’ for women, workers felt stuck within their analysis of women’s experience of oppression within the general social, political and familial context, and wondered how to reconcile this analysis with an understanding of women’s choice to enact violence against others. This paradox created a sense of powerlessness in workers and was linked to a broader discussion about the current welfare context9.
The other forms of violence that workers raised included racial violence against other women, domestic violence and sexual assault within lesbian relationships, physical and sexual violence perpetrated by young women against workers, other young women or men, sibling violence, elder abuse or the abuse of disabled friends or members of the family, and adult women perpetrating physical, sexual or verbal abuse against other women or men. Clearly, these other forms of violence perpetrated by women would also benefit from further research.
Acknowledge that women also learn to oppress / abuse those defined as "other"
Clearly, any acknowledgment that women can be and are, active agents within their own social world, has meant that we need to acknowledge that women also learn to view some members of our community as ‘other’. Or in other words, as less important or less valuable than those members who are, by definition, members of the dominant order. Such distinctions would be familiar to you and include for example, issues of ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, gender, age, ability and geographical location. Given the historical and social context of such systems of hierarchical ordering, it is reasonable to assume therefore, that women also learn (as do men) to perpetrate forms of explicit or implicit oppression or abuse upon those who are defined as ‘inferior’.
Acknowledgment that violence is not solely located within the masculine
As a result of the analysis offered above, clearly we can acknowledge that violence does not emerge from and is not solely located within the masculine. Many authors have deconstructed the social construction of a dominant hegemonic aggressive masculinity (see for example Connell 1989, 1995, Pease 1997, in press) and the co-location of this definition with a constructed passive femininity. In this way, we can acknowledge that women, as constructed subjects within a social order built on hierarchies of difference, too have the capacity for and ability to enact violence. In this way, we can also acknowledge that violence is an intrinsic component of social relationships and is legitimatised within the formal and informal structures and systems within society.
Conclusion
Given the limited nature of critical research on women’s violence towards their children which locates women’s violence within an analysis of the diverse and contradictory nature of women’s lives and their relationships with their children, my conclusions are tentative at best. I would suggest that we need further research with women about their relationships with their children and their behaviour along with further discussions with workers about their experiences working with women and their families.
In addition, there is the need to incorporate information on domestic violence and child abuse in a more critical manner that addresses the impact of cultures of violence on women’s choices to enact violence against their children. This clearly leads me to the need to incorporate a more complex analysis of the impact of childhood experiences, class & culture on women’s access to power and choices to enact violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:55 AM January 26th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this. It's rally nice to see double standards in action, and equally "nice" to see women defending the right of other women to torture children, destroy families, create lopsided, sexist societies for themselves and murder sleeping men with impunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 06:10 AM January 26th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The whole soft tone and excuses are ridiculous.
Men who are abusive are criminals, but moms who do it are "needed to be understood" (paraphrase)?
And notice how they completely changed the stats on mom on child violence? They say that women who were abused as children are not to be counted, so therefore men are the abusers.
What convoluted nonsense.
"Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. Sleep safe tonight, we're on the job."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Daoistfire on 06:46 AM January 26th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, as everyone know. The feminist gonna block all these to show on TV. (Well of course use some really lame accuse you can think about lol) Everyone thing wil be normal soon
The Feminist will be continue screaming about woman right.
More child abuse from Woman.
More Sexual abuse on woman (Fake of course)
More War cause by man (same as above)
AND the "patriarchy system" will be continue!!!(In feminst's imagination)
The road to truthful truth is ful of darkness and despair, as it always do ...
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
