[This is a photograph of a man, Matthew Knott, who raped a thirteen year old girl where he taught and will be allowed to teach again in just over five years. No, really. Read on...]From the UK Timesonline
!!!!!SERIOUS TRIGGER WARNING!!!!!
I've added commentary into the piece, in brackets and in bold:
October 1, 2009
Teacher Matthew Knott groomed girl for sex over internet
by Russell Jenkins
Matthew Knott
A science teacher who invented an online teenage alter ego to groom a 13-year-old girl for sex has been jailed for four years at Manchester Crown Court.
[Four years... so she'll be JUST old enough then for him to rape as an adult??]
Matthew Knott, 24, who taught at Elton High School in Bury, Greater Manchester, targeted his victim through a social networking site and then sent her explicit sexual messages demanding photographs of her naked.
He created an online profile that he called Jessica, posing as a 15-year-old, and used it to facilitate a meeting with the child, who was not a pupil at his school.
A week after meeting online he picked her up in his car, drove her to his flat and gave her orders, “like a teacher”, to take off her clothes and had sex with her.
[As teachers do? WTF: As rapist teachers do!]
Knott, of Miles Platting, Manchester, was barred from working with children for five years after admitting grooming a child for sex on the internet and having sexual activity with a child.
[Excuse me?: for FIVE years?! He rapes a girl-child and gets to be a teacher again after FIVE YEARS???? And imprisoned for FOUR?? And why isn't his teaching license being revoked forever?? What does a white hetero male teacher in the UK have to do for THAT to happen? Misgrade a paper? Steel copy paper? Be physically abusive to a child in the classroom? What level of white heteromale supremacist contempt for all girls does this sort of sentence show? A LOT.]
Judge Michael Henshaw told him that they were carefully planned and calculated offences carried out in a devious way.
[Really? Ya think?! What a brilliant judge!]
He said: “The type of activity you engaged in is of enormous public concern. Parents throughout this country are no doubt worried sick what their offspring might be doing when they are using the computer.
[I'd say "the concern" isn't what the children are doing, it's what ADULT HETERO WHITE MEN are doing. Does this EVER get named as such in the press? WHAT/WHO THE PROBLEM REALLY IS?]
“There are people like you who adopt identities to encourage children to commit offences.”
[Who encourage CHILDREN TO COMMIT OFFENCES?!?! Someone disbar that judge. What a completely perp-invisibilising and victim-blaming thing to say.]
Adrian Farrow, for the prosecution, told the court that Knott spotted the girl’s profile on the website, Tagged.com. It gave details of her age and where she lived. He engaged her in an hour-long online conversation.
[Thanks for advertising and promoting THAT information, Timesonline!! You getting a pimp's cut of the earnings? Just imagine the rapists rushing to that site. To encourage children, not themselves, to commit offences. Anyone catching the problem here?]
When she made it clear how young she was, he replied that he felt bad. When she asked why, he replied: “Because I want to shag a 13-year-old”.
[THAT IS SO FUCKING GROTESQUE! So he's a goddamned misogynistic, misopedic sociopath and THAT won't get your teaching license taken away for life, let alone your freedom??? Oh, wait, no, someone who says THAT gets to teach children again in six years. THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!]
Knott told her that he worked in a laboratory, asked explicit questions about her sexuality and then demanded photographs of her naked.
Although reluctant, she sent a photograph of herself in her underwear and one in her knickers.
At this point she began receiving messages from “Jessica” who asked her whether she was looking for some fun, “knickers-off sort of fun”.
[So the hetero male prick lures girls by pretending to be a girl sexually interested in girls. And LESBIANS are stigmatised as being dangerous to children?!!?]
He persuaded her to meet him on May 31 this year but her plan to take a friend for protection fell through when her friend was “grounded” for staying out late. She was said to have panicked because Knott was already on his way.
He appeared kind and calm as he drove her to his flat but then ordered her to get undressed and began fondling her.
[One gets the sense that it's the ordering part that is the real crime here, along with what THE CHILDREN not THE MEN are doing online, that is.]
Mr Farrow said: “He took her into his bedroom, sat her on the bed and began to kiss her. He pushed her back on to the bed and continued to kiss her.
[And we need to know these grim details WHY exactly? The UK Times is just making this into pornographised bullshit.]
“At his request, in a manner she described as ‘like a teacher’ she undid her trousers and pulled them off. He had sexual intercourse with her. Immediately afterwards he took her home.”
[NO HE DIDN'T HAVE "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER": HE RAPED HER. So where are the MRAs NOW complaining about how "feminists" mix up rape with sexual intercourse. See, for example, this complete asshole's male supremacist/antifeminist understanding of how FEMINISTS, not RAPIST MEN, mistake sex for rape and rape for sex:
Around this time it surfaced that a “feminist legal theorist, ” Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared voluntary sexual intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat; what she says is that in “male-dominated, patriarchical, heterosexist society” the line between voluntary consent and coercion is blurred, so that in sexual relations between men and women a fine distinction between “voluntary” intercourse and rape can’t be drawn. [written by some jerk named By Steven Yates, August 1, 2006 NewsWithViews.com, posted at the blog of The Rooster. For more of Yates' ridiculousness, including my replies to Rooster regarding Yates' article in the comments section calling his ass out, see here.]
Later “Jessica” sent her a message asking: “Did you have fun?” She replied that she had not. She was told to delete the record of their online contacts and to deny anything if the police became involved.
[What a completely disgustingly fucked up thing to do. Not that we should be surprised by anything this rapist does. What does it say about a society that the law gives this man, this outrageously sadistic man, the right to teach in six years time?? What does it say about a society that the Internet is so stocked full of pornography and that the society as a whole is so misogynistic, racist, and misopedic, that such men as Matthew Knott are produced socially?]
“He used that fictional character to destroy evidence, just as he used ‘Jessica’ to encourage the girl to meet him in the first place,” Mr Farrow said.
The girl later told her mother what had happened and the police were called.
I publicly applaud the victim for not keeping his rape of her a secret, and I also know that is very rare for a child who has been sexually assaulted to do; the vast majority of survivors of child rape and sexual assault are too ashamed, humiliated, self-blaming, in need of blocking it out, and terrified to speak about it at all to anyone.]
Knott, who offered no reaction as he was jailed, was also banned for five years from having internet access except in a public library and barred from being alone with a female under 16.
[EXCEPT IN A PUBLIC LIBRARY?! WTF!?!? Well, how horrendous for him that he's limited to having the opportunity to lure and rape children still, especially if they are 16!!]
This is some of the worst fucked up reporting and ruling I've ever seen in a man/teacher-raping-a-girl/student case.
(I see that Cara at The Curvature blog has also posted on this; you can get there by clicking here.)
My latest reply to the idiot, Rooster, at his blog, is this:
Hey Rooster,
Please see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6855294.ece
and:
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2009/10/and-jerk-men-say-its-radical-feminists.html
I think the content of that article and what the rapist himself says, makes it abundantly clear when feminists question men's understandings of rape as sex and sex as rape, there's nothing wrong with the feminists for simply observing that men and the white male supremacist media can't make the distinction in practice or in the press.
Easy to attack the feminist theorists when men's rapist practices (that THEY call "sexual intercourse") are just right there in your face, huh?
Any comment?
END OF POST.
I agree with much of your commentary, but other parts are simply OTT.
ReplyDeleteE.g. "NO HE DIDN'T HAVE "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER": HE RAPED HER"
That's for the jury to say, not the lawyer. Fair trial principles and all...
Additionally, while it might seem ridiculous that he's allowed to use the internet in a public library, there are legal reasons why that is so. As unfortunate as it might sometimes feel, even those who commit offences like this one retain some rights and freedoms (although I also don't think that the right to teach should be one of them!!!).
Also, I think that it might be a mistake to use articles in the way that you do. "A society"? "The society"? It pretty much comes off as if you think this would only happen in the UK, or that the UK has some particularly unique social circumstances that lead to this sort of thing happening.
Additionally, I'm not even really sure what your major issue with the reporting is, unless it's a question of them merely factually reporting and not inserting commentary similar to your own. A lot of the truly objectionable parts are quotes from the actual trial itself, not from the reporter's pen, at least from what I see.
I totally think the actions of the man are sick, that quite a lot of what the judge seems to have said (because I haven't read a full transcript, I won't make a definitive judgment) is appalling, and that the lenience of the sentence is just one of many problems in the justice system. I don't think your commentary needed to be quite so hysterical, though; it just detracts from the real matters at hand... (And, yes, I use the term 'hysterical' deliberately precisely because I think that the tone of what you've written here is vitally, and detrimentally, different from what the media normally calls "condemning in the strongest possible terms")
Julian you are absolutely correct rapist Knox raped a 13 year old girl but I see already a rape apologist claims it cannot be true 'because a jury has to decide. Oh yes, so this means if an adult male is charged with raping a child aged 0-16 then it is for the jury to decide whether or not the 'child consented.' Ergo did rape occur or not?
ReplyDeleteHysterical reaction - a common diversionary tactic designed to deflect attention away from the deliberately pornified reporting The Times engaged in. Note to anonymous the media commonly engages in pornified sensational and titilating reporting when cases of male sexual violence against women and children are reported.
Such practices are designed to increase newspaper sales and simultaneously give 'male readers a sexual thrill!'
The media in general needs to be educated with regards to what constitutes 'factual reporting' because the days of 'factual reporting ended decades ago.' Now the media's sole purpose is to provide sexual titilation in order to ensure massive newspaper sales.
By the way anonymous I suggest you read News Coverage of Violence Against Women: Engendering Blame by Marian Myers. Or perhaps you might care to read Victim or Vamp by Helen Bennedict. Both books detail precisely the various male-dominated media is never impartial or objective but promotes and reinforces rape myths and women-blaming whilst simultaneously excusing and/or justifying male violence against women and children.
To yet another "Anonymous":
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
I agree with much of your commentary, but other parts are simply OTT.
E.g. "NO HE DIDN'T HAVE "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER": HE RAPED HER"
That's for the jury to say, not the lawyer. Fair trial principles and all...
To Anon,
What "fair trial principles" are you referring to? The world I live in is set up to protect rapists and the complete expense of women and other raped people. That's "fair" for whom exactly?
Most rapists never get caught, charged, or face any sort of accountability or sentencing. How is that "fair"?
The entire criminal justice system was created, in the West, by white men wanting to protect our privileges and entitlements, including the right to own slaves and to possess women as things.
The white male supremacy woven into the law is not "fair" for people who aren't white and male. Please read this and this and this for a reminder of what the real world offers those who are not white or male.
Additionally, while it might seem ridiculous that he's allowed to use the internet in a public library, there are legal reasons why that is so. As unfortunate as it might sometimes feel, even those who commit offences like this one retain some rights and freedoms (although I also don't think that the right to teach should be one of them!!!).
Anon. writes:
Also, I think that it might be a mistake to use articles in the way that you do. "A society"? "The society"? It pretty much comes off as if you think this would only happen in the UK, or that the UK has some particularly unique social circumstances that lead to this sort of thing happening.
What happens in the UK, in the US, and in Australia, for example, is most definitely particular. That doesn't mean some aspects of what happens doesn't happen elsewhere. But what are you making a case for?
What happens in any white male dominated and controlled society is for white men to deal with, no? If it isn't for the white men in these countries to deal with, to challenge, to change, who are we relegating that task to?
Anon writes:
Additionally, I'm not even really sure what your major issue with the reporting is, unless it's a question of them merely factually reporting and not inserting commentary similar to your own. A lot of the truly objectionable parts are quotes from the actual trial itself, not from the reporter's pen, at least from what I see.
I think we see things differently, Anonymous. What I see is how the white male supremacist press and the while male supremacist criminal justice system, and the dominant media generally all work out of the same assumptions and value system that treat rapists with kid gloves, while putting raped women and girl through hell in and out of court.
Anon writes:
ReplyDeleteI totally think the actions of the man are sick,
I think they are also very normalised, typical, and protected by white male supremacist laws which don't care one bit about ending rape or significantly reducing men's opportunities to rape. It's a [white] man's world, particularly in the West.
Anon writes:
that quite a lot of what the judge seems to have said (because I haven't read a full transcript, I won't make a definitive judgment) is appalling, and that the lenience of the sentence is just one of many problems in the justice system. I don't think your commentary needed to be quite so hysterical, though;
Do you know the expression, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention"? Why aren't there marches in the street BY MEN over this, over the matter of the systematic rape of girls and women by men? It appears to me, based on what men spend our time doing, that men think it is just not as important to speak out against rape as it is to spent dozens of hours each week playing video games, polo, football, or watching sports on the TV, or staring at images of raped women on the Internet. Men harming women just doesn't seem to occur to men as something men should be outraged by. Can you please explain to me why that is? Why is watching football MORE important than working to end rape? My answer is this: because men benefit materially and in many other ways by the systems remaining as they are, so men, by pretending that what men do to women that harms women is "not the central matter of concern" get to allow things to remain as they are. How utterly callous of men, eh? What do you think is "better" ethically, and socially: outrage at injustice, or sloth and callousness and indifference at the rape of women and girls by men? I welcome hearing your answer to that.
One person's "hysteria" is another's "sane reply". I think my reply is utterly appropriate to what was done to that girl, what was NOT done to that rapist, and how the press and courtroom dealt with this whole matter. And we can agree to disagree. I think men going about their days as if this isn't atrocious is, well, sociopathically indifferent. Your thoughts on that?
Exactly what DOES generate outrage in white heterosexual men? When women spouses who don't work outside the home don't have "his" meals cooked by the time he's ready for it? Women demanding real justice? Women calling out men for what men do to women that is oppressive?
ReplyDeleteI've seen men get quite "histerical" over that stuff and can lead you to the websites where such histeria is in abundance. Do you plan to call them out on their "hysteria"? If not, why not?
And when some misogynist men get "histerical" they beat the women up and break their bones, causing the women to end up in the hospital and sometimes die. There are at least 3000 deaths a year by husbands and boyfriends of their female partners in the U.S. So what do you have to say about that? Do you think men should organise against men's violence against women? Do you organise or at least speak out against it? Why, or why not?
You think there's something wrong with me expressing my outrage by calling it hysterical? I think there's something wrong with a man who takes the time to point out a man's outrage at the injustice done to women, rather than pointing out to histerical Men's Rights activists, and other active misogynists, what THEY do.
Anon writes:
it just detracts from the real matters at hand...
Please, Anon, describe to me what those more important matters at hand are, would you?
Anon writes:
(And yes, I use the term 'hysterical' deliberately precisely because I think that the tone of what you've written here is vitally, and detrimentally, different from what the media normally calls "condemning in the strongest possible terms")
And the problem with that would be what? This is my blog, right? You chose to come here. And so if one man, who is upset at how fucked up shit is regarding the willful ignorance of men to know and respond to what men do to women that is harmful and oppressive, explain to me where the problem is in that.
I look forward to your reply. And please use a name next time other than "Anonymous". For men to do so here is terribly cowardly. Let us know who you are, please. Or are you ashamed of who you are and what you don't do to end rape?
Hey "Anonymous",
ReplyDeleteI hope you read the books that were recommended to you by Jennifer Drew here. Did you note that her name isn't "Anonymous"?
And I left this paragraph in my reply without identifying it as yours or responding to it, so I'll do so here:
Anon writes:
Additionally, while it might seem ridiculous that he's allowed to use the internet in a public library, there are legal reasons why that is so.
That serve whose interests, Anon? Girls? Please specify the "social good" of him being able to do so, or how the "legal reasons" are, well, "reasonable".
Anon writes:
As unfortunate as it might sometimes feel
"As unfortunate as it might sometimes feel"???
You're kidding right? That's humor maybe? This isn't about what's "unfortunate" or about "feelings" primarily. It's about gross injustice, Anon. It's about the rape of a girl. That's not simply "unfortunate": that's systemically and legally protected behavior by men against women and girls. This is not just "a feeling" I have, it's a condition women live with, or die from. Do you get that at all?
Anon writes:
, even those who commit offences like this one retain some rights and freedoms (although I also don't think that the right to teach should be one of them!!!).
No, Anon: the rapists get to retain virtually ALL rights and freedoms, because almost ALL rapists do not face any consequences whatsoever. You know that, right? You know that most rapists aren't caught? Do not face jail time? Go on to rape again? So what "rights and freedoms" are they ever in jeopardy of losing? Please explain.
And at least we agree he shouldn't be teaching. But wow, Anon, utter callousness and rape-protecting commentary you put out here... wow. It's stunning. Really stunning. And it says a whole fucking lot about why men, generally, don't "get it" that rape law ISN'T something that negatively impacts rapists, it is something that actively protects them from reasonable consequences.
That you can't see that... wow.
The irony is that this is exactly what female teachers who groom and rape 13-year-old boys receive, sans the actual prison time and the following condemnation for the sentencing or the continued access to children. In fact, it is so common for female rapists who did the exact same thing this man did to receive those sentences that prosecutors and judges acknowledge that it is wrong to hand out those kind of weak sentences as they hand them out.
ReplyDeleteIf you find no issue is female teachers receiving this type of sentence, which appears to be the case, it does seem somewhat odd to read your above reaction when a man is given the same pass, particularly since the man actually received a prison sentence and not probation.
Hello Jacob,
ReplyDeletePlease don't infer what my perspective is on something I haven't explicitly addressed here.
I believe female teachers who sexually assault underage students should receive precisely the same length prison sentences as the men who do so.
You'd like for me maybe to write about rape as if females raping males is somehow about as systematic, endemic, and protected as the rape of females by males, in the context of teachers and their students?
Keep in mind, there is no "level playing field" or world where "women get away with worse" than what men get away with. There are no female supremacist societies that promote industries where women rape men or boys, after all. There are no "rings" of women sharing their rape of boys with one another "live" on the Internet. There is no global problem of women traveling across the globe for the sole purpose of raping boys, or buying them as sex slaves.
Before going much further on the matter you raise, please produce for me stats on the percentage of male teachers vs. female teachers who rape their own underage students or other teacher's underage students. And I'd like plenty of evidence to back up those stats please.
The narrowness of your focus becomes yet another form of denying the rape atrocity men commit against women and girls. There is no social or structural "parallel" in which women do the same to men and boys. You get that, right?
But do get on that research about stats and let me know what you come up with.
Keep in mind, there is no "level playing field" or world where "women get away with worse" than what men get away with.
ReplyDeleteWith the exception of the fact that women and girls who rape boys and men typically get away with it and receive far lesser sentences, which you acknowledged.
That said, to completely deny female sexual predation, to mitigate it and then go so far as to essentially support and condone it is most unfortunate, although given one's political views it is not unexpected. Therefore I will withdraw from further conversation as I do not associate with anyone who holds such views.
Information about male victimization and the female perpetration of sexual violence can be found at www.jimhopper.com. Further information regarding female sexual violence can be found on www.malesurvivor.org. In regards to female pedophile rings, one could start with the organization Butterfly Kisses.
Jacob, you seem intent on misconstruing my perspective on child sexual abuse. Is there a reason for that?
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
With the exception of the fact that women and girls who rape boys and men typically get away with it and receive far lesser sentences, which you acknowledged.
No, I didn't acknowledge THAT. What I acknowledge is that most sexual abusers of children are not reported or caught or prosecuted, across gender.
I do not understand women to be better than men, or men to be better than women. I see all humans as capable of commiting atrocious acts, especially when positioned structurally to do atrocious things with encouragement and no accountability.
Re:
to completely deny female sexual predation,
Please quote where I do that, Jacob. Read through everything on my blog and find the quote to back up your ridiculous and erroneous claim.
Re:
to mitigate it and then go so far as to essentially support and condone it is most unfortunate, although given one's political views it is not unexpected.
What ARE you talking about, Jacob? Are you confusing someone else's blog with mine? Again, please quote where I do this: where do I "condone" women sexually abusing children, for example? I have never in my life done that, and never would.
Re:
Therefore I will withdraw from further conversation as I do not associate with anyone who holds such views.
I'm sorry to see you go with such strange conceptions of what is written here. Please do the honorable thing and quote where I make such spurious claims or statements, rather than simply accusing me of doing so and then running away like a coward who throws a rock through someone's window.
Re:
Information about male victimization and the female perpetration of sexual violence can be found at www.jimhopper.com. Further information regarding female sexual violence can be found on www.malesurvivor.org. In regards to female pedophile rings, one could start with the organization Butterfly Kisses.
I've never in my life heard of such an organization. But I'll check that site out. Thanks for that information.
For the record, I am totally opposed to any and all forms of adult sexual access to and exploitation, abuse, and enslavement of children, completely regardless of gender.
Jacob, I have to ask you: are you a survivor of adult female predation? If so, I'm so sorry. I am a survivor of adult male predation. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I hope you will return just so we can at least get clear on the common ground that exists between us, because we're probably not as far apart as it seems to you at this moment.
My heart goes out to you if you have survived child sexual abuse in any form, from any one.
I don't think these guys are going to get outraged at their fellow men for being rapists. I don't see men marching in the streets to protest the rape of women and girls. They do sit home and watch football. I've never once heard a man get morally outraged to the point of anger over women getting raped ever. Never ever heard a man IRL ever say anything like this. Hey I'm in my 50s, I meet thousands of men and women every year, I travel widely. Never hear men ever bring up attrocities against women of their own free will. I have to bring up the subject always, and they never care when I do bring this up.
ReplyDeleteAll objections to male behavior are called "man hating" -- that's right it's always labeled man hating.
I don't really see men ever getting outraged over the treatment of women and girls in the media period. Their silence is just defeaning. The only time I ever see men get outraged is when "their" property rights are being violated or THEIR taxes are increased or THEIR porn is taken off the market. Then I see men getting good and mad.
I really don't think men as a species are capable of caring about women or girls at all, they just want to own women, have sex available or provide for their property upkeep.
And why is it that men who are supposedly so "logical" and "scientific" don't deal with the stats about who does what to whom and how frequently? If hundreds of thousands of women and girls are raped in a male led civil war, where is the international male outrage against this? I don't see it, I don't hear it. I can honestly say that I never ever hear any male outrage about any of their sex crimes, their sexual obsessions, their sex saturate lifestyles.
Perhaps men really aren't fully human afterall. I really wonder beccause there is no action on their part that I can see IRL. Blogs like this are rare to non-existent. I don't think men want to care about anyone but their own selfish interests, and they'll keep on doing this till the end of time, that and letting rapists out of jail so that these men can continue to have access to children.
P.S. I am not giving myself a name, because I don't want men to attack me by name or make more degrading remarks about women. Although it might be good to document just what men say in response to your profeminist viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteI rarely if ever thank men, but I thank you!
To the "Anonymous" who posted comments here on October 7:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to post what you say here in a separate blogpost. Would that be ok?
And I adamently support ALL and ANY women being "anonymous" online. I know what's happened to some of the women who didn't, and it's yet another atrocity.
By all means, please call yourself Anonymous. I'll refer to you by the comments made or the dates they were sent.
To anonymous woman poster on October 7th:
ReplyDeleteI too want to take your ENTIRE POST and post it up at my blog which is women friendly, no men are allowed to post there, with the exception of Julian that is.
I, like you, don't blog or write in my own name for the same fear, and for fear of men coming after me IRL due to me calling them on their shit without taking care of their feelings.
That said, ALD or Divine Purpose here wants to let you know a. you're not alone b. you have support, and c. that what you said needs to be seen and read by all. If you feel uncomfortable here blogging under ur name, or even a made up one, because Julian allows men to comment, that's fine and completely understandable. I don't tolerate men commenting at my blog at ALL, so you're free to come there if you want.
Please go ahead and post the comment where you think appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty outraged now over Roman Polanski, just in shock that so many in Hollywood are defending a girl rapist. I think this says a lot about the child abuse that is routine in the movie industry, and the above average occupational hazard movie making, TV shows etc. pose for child stars or kids who are left alone with male photographers. Jack Nicholson's how no less as the scene of the crime.
I'd like to see men get in large groups and protest Polanski, maybe picket the studios or movie theaters. I know women's groups intend to do this.
Again, let us know where the men's groups will be, so we can watch safely on CNN. I bet the male protests against Polanski will get good media coverage, especually if it's a group of white men.
Again, thanks for your blog.
PS The source of my info on bad child labor practices in Hollywood is Robin Morgan's autobiography. She's the only person who actually put together statistics to reveal how unsafe Hollywood is for child actors--girls and boys.
I work for a lil non profit where we do national background checks on our volunteers. I've looked at thousands of these reports and almost every single sex offender record that shows up are that of men. I can think of a handful of times where a woman's name popped up in these searches. Not to discount any abuse towards children by any adult, let's not belittle the fact that men are much greater perpetrators of this violence then their female counterparts.
ReplyDeleteOh and this org I work for, about 70% of volunteers are women.
Thanks for writing about this, I've been a longtime lurker finally posting.
Re: Unsafe Hollywood
ReplyDeleteThanks for letting me know where to find that information about children in Hollywood. I haven't (yet) read Robin Morgan's autobiography.
(I'm so glad so many feminists, well at least a few, are writing their autobiographies and memoirs!)
Welcome, BP-xy.
ReplyDeleteYes. Yes. Yes. And one more thing: Yes.
While I have no problem at all saying that I'm against any and all forms of sexual abuse and emotional neglect of children, also against physical abuse, child labor, child sexual and non-sexual slavery, and the oppression of children by adults, I also have no problem at all focusing here, on this one tiny blog, on what men do to women and girls.
The issue here is white and male supremacist violence in the context of men's war against women, and that necessarily includes the violence men do to girls.
As you note, even putting that political focus aside, YES: BY FAR, by any known measures of such atrocity known to "man" and woman, the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of sexual violence against people of any age are MEN, and the vast majority of victims of men's sexual violence are FEMALE.
I know a few male survivors of sexual abuse. All but one were perpetrated by one or more male abusers. And I have reached out to many of them in many ways, and also to the man I know of who was grossly abused by his father's female partner.
Almost ALL of the women I know (but not every one) are survivors of multiple forms of men's sexual violence against women and girls, in the form of fondling, invasive touching, molestation, incest, date rape, marital rape, stranger rape, and so many other forms of gross sexual assault.
And of course every woman in any patriarchy knows the harm of being deemed second class, inferior, and "for" men.
As a survivor myself, I don't want to minimise the pain of anyone who has experienced this, and also I won't buy into the masculinist idea that men's harm against women, when protested, has to be "balanced out" by also speaking of what men do to boys, or what women do to children that is abusive.
Fuck that shit.
I won't and don't feel the need to qualify or make addenda to statements I make about men's harm to girls by adding "and boys too" unless it's to note that "boys too" also harm girls and sometimes women.
Thanks for lurking, and thanks for posting a comment. Don't let it be your last, ok?
Also to October 7 poster of comments, Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Roman Polanski thing is just disgusting in so many ways. I blogged once about him but more is needed, especially about the ways that fucker rapist has evaded accountability, has minimised his crime, and has been so, so supported by those in Hollywood and elsewhere, who think just because the asshole is an "artist" that somehow means he should be exempt from whatever the white male supremacist lawbooks can charge him with.
In my mind, I await his next film, an autobiographical documentary about what it's like to spend your life behind bars.