And if I have a article to prove my point with researched back-up, rather than simply spouting my opinion, well pardon me.

If a woman stood up to sexist commentary by a man, I’ll bet you wouldn’t call her sexist for doing so.

Here are 2 more articles for you to ignore, 1-from US Dept of health and Human Services on Child Abuse; AND 2- from the NY TIMES, written by Cathy Young, called “FEMINISTS PLAY THE VICTIM GAME”

Child Maltreatment 2004 : Summary of Key Findings
Author(s):  Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published:  2006

This factsheet presents excerpts from Child Maltreatment 2004, a report based on data submissions by the States for Federal fiscal year 2004. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System was developed by the Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in partnership with the States to collect annual statistics on child maltreatment from State child protective services (CPS) agencies.1

The press release announcing these data is available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2006/Child_Maltreatment_2004.htm

The full Child Maltreatment 2004 report is available on the Children’s Bureau website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm

Limited print copies are available from Child Welfare Information Gateway.

(Back to Top)

Victims

An estimated 872,000 children were determined to be victims of child abuse or neglect in 2004. The rate of victimization per 1,000 children in the national population has dropped from 13.4 children in 1990 to 11.9 children in 2004.

More than 60 percent of child victims experienced neglect. Almost 18 percent were physically abused, 10 percent were sexually abused, and 7 percent were emotionally maltreated. In addition, 15 percent of cases were associated with “other” types of maltreatment, based on specific State laws and policies.2

Children ages birth to 3 years had the highest rates of victimization at 16.1 per 1,000 children of the same age group. Girls were slightly more likely than boys to be victims.

African-American, Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native children had the highest rates of victimization when compared to their national population, with rates of 19.9, 17.6, and 15.5 per 1,000 children, respectively. White children and Hispanic children had rates of approximately 10.7 and 10.4 per 1,000 children, respectively. Asian children had the lowest rate of victimization at 2.9 per 1,000 children.

(Back to Top)

Reports and Investigations of Child Abuse and Neglect

In 2004, an estimated 3 million referrals concerning the welfare of approximately 5.5 million children were made to CPS agencies throughout the United States. Of these, approximately 63 percent were accepted for investigation or assessment; 37 percent were not accepted. Since 2001, the rate and number of children who received an investigation has been increasing. For 2001, the rate was 43.2 children per 100,000, resulting in an estimated 3,136,000 children who received an investigation. In 2004, the rate was 47.8, resulting in an estimated 3,503,000 children.

More than one-half (56 percent) of all reports that alleged child abuse or neglect were made by professionals such as educators, law enforcement and legal personnel, social services personnel, medical personnel, mental health personnel, child daycare providers, and foster care providers. Friends, neighbors, relatives, and other nonprofessionals submitted approximately 44 percent of reports.

Approximately 30 percent of the reports that were investigated included at least one child who was found to be a victim of abuse or neglect. About 60 percent of the reports were found to be unsubstantiated (including those that were intentionally false); the remaining reports were closed for additional reasons.

(Back to Top)

Fatalities

Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died due to abuse or neglect. More than 80 percent of children who were killed were younger than 4 years old; 12 percent were 4 to 7 years old; 4 percent were 8 to 11 years old; and 3 percent were 12 to 17 years old.

Infant boys (younger than 1 year) had the highest rate of fatalities, with nearly 18 deaths per 100,000 boys of the same age in the national population. Infant girls (younger than 1 year) had a rate of 17 deaths per 100,000. The overall rate of child fatalities was 2 deaths per 100,000 children. More than one-third of child fatalities were attributed to neglect. Physical abuse also was a major contributor to fatalities.

(Back to Top)

Perpetrators

Approximately 79 percent of perpetrators were parents. Other relatives accounted for 7 percent, and unmarried partners of parents accounted for 4 percent of perpetrators. The remaining perpetrators included persons with other (camp counselor, school employee, etc.) or unknown relationships to the child victims.

Female perpetrators, who were mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, who were mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent.

Of all parents who were perpetrators, fewer than 3 percent were associated with sexual abuse, while 63 percent committed neglect. Nearly three-quarters of perpetrators who were friends or neighbors committed sexual abuse.

(Back to Top)

Services

Approximately 59 percent of victims and 27 percent of nonvictims received services as a result of an investigation or assessment. Children with a disability were 70 percent more likely to receive services than other victims. Victims of multiple maltreatments were 65 percent more likely to receive services than children who were victims of physical abuse. In contrast, child victims of an unknown race or ethnicity were 66 percent less likely to receive services than White victims, and children who were maltreated by someone other than their parents were 60 percent less likely to receive services than children maltreated by their mothers.

Services included both in-home and foster care services. Approximately 19 percent of child victims were placed in foster care. About 4 percent of nonvictims also experienced a removal-usually a short-term placement during the course of the investigation. When compared with White child victims, victims of “other” or multiple races were 56 percent more likely to be placed in foster care.

(Back to Top)

1 CPS agencies respond to referrals regarding harm to children caused by parents or primary caregivers. Incidents of harm to children caused by other people, such as acquaintances and strangers, are not included in these data. back
2 These numbers add up to more than 100 percent because some children were victims of more than one type of maltreatment. back
–

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.

The New York Times
November 26, 1999

Feminists Play the Victim Game

By CATHY YOUNG

MIDDLETOWN , N.J. — An increasing number of women are being arrested for domestic assaults, and the response to this news shows just how pervasive sexist attitudes still are in our culture.

But this time the sexism is coming from feminists and their allies, who insist that most women arrested must have acted in self-defense. This sentimental insistence on female innocence does no service to women, who should be treated as human beings with a capacity for aggression and held equally accountable for their actions.

In many states, women now account for a quarter to a third of all domestic violence arrests, up from less than 10 percent a decade ago. The new statistics reflect a reality documented in research: women are perpetrators as well as victims of family violence.

A review of 70 studies of domestic violence in which both men and women were interviewed was published in 1998 by Martin Fiebert, a psychologist at California State University at Long Beach.

Usually the violence was reciprocal, the research found, with women not only fighting back but initiating attacks; when only one partner was abusive, it was at least as often the woman as the man.

And while differences in strength put women at higher risk of serious injury or death, men are hardly invulnerable. According to an article to be published next year in Psychological Bulletin, analyzing data from dozens of studies, men incur a third of injuries in domestic combat.

Shouldn’t the growth in female arrests, then, be seen as representing a fairer, more realistic attitude toward gender and aggression? Not according to feminist and other advocacy groups whose ideology equates battering with male oppression of women.

They cry “backlash” and claim that women are being penalized for defending themselves.

Assertions that female abusers are really victims can be based on rather tortured logic.

A 1991 paper by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin classified a woman as “abused” if she said that her partner had been the first to use violence in their relationship, even if she was usually the aggressor later on.

Women’s advocates also point out that most female offenders are arrested for minor, non-injurious acts like pushing, grabbing or hair-pulling.

But the same is true of most men swept up in the net of strict domestic-violence laws passed by many states in the last 10 years.

Many women who are arrested for domestic assault say they were striking back. But so do many male defendants.

The truth in these situations can be hard to sort out.

Unfortunately, many public officials have been swayed by extreme woman-as-victim arguments.

Some jurisdictions have tried to reduce female arrests by training the police to see violence “in context.” Often, the guidelines instruct officers to decide who is “in control” and who is “in fear” — vague terms likely to be used as code words for “arrest the man.”

Measures intended to get women off the hook violate not only the constitutional principle of equal protection but true feminist principles.

The slogan “There is no excuse for domestic violence” should not end with the exemption “unless you are female.”

a man who killed his 5 kids either knew what he was doing, or had a dangerous enough break with reality to be a danger to others.

The latter is equivalent to a woman’s PPP, ie: not his fault.

Biology is not sexist, nor am I. If anything, you are, in your insistence that men have the short end of the stick. The fact remains that men commit disproportionately more violent crime than women, sane or no.

You’ll forgive me for not posting the text of an entire article to back myself up.

Sexism is alive and well, it’s just OK if the victims are men.

This shows the man-hating double standard so accepted in our culture. You practically defined it with your sexist comments.

See below for related BBC transcript of sexual abuse committed by women:

http://www.menweb.org/panosumm.htm
for this column and other links, to full transcript, etc

The Sexual Abuse by Women of Children and Teenagers

Summary of UK TV programme - Panorama - BBC1 - 10 pm Monday 6th October 1997

The sexual abuse of children by women was once thought to be so rare it could be ignored.
In this programme the victims tell a different story.

Summary

This was a vivid and horrific programme in which the victims of sexual abuse by women told disturbing stories of emotional and physical damage:

* Rape and attempted murder of a 12 year old boy by a 19 year old girl
* Rape and abuse of a 12 year old boy over a two year period by a 28 year old mother of four
* Rape and abuse of boys by their mother
* Rape and abuse of girls by their mother
* Women taking a lead role in pornographic violence and abuse
* Children abused by nuns
* Children abused at playgroup
* Boy abused by lesbians
It was acknowledged that the scale and nature of these attacks had been severely underestimated and there were examples of women using excessive force with implements such as chair legs and cutlery.

A surprising 86% of survivors of sexual abuse were not believed when they said the abuser was a woman.

Many myths were exposed, such as the one that women only sexually abused when coerced by men - they in fact played the lead part. Also the myth that women are incapable of cruelty - what was shown was beyond belief.

But despite the seriousness of these offences, women generally escaped custodial sentences.

Statistics
The programme claimed that:

* Women commit 25% of all child sexual abuse
* 250,000 children in UK have been sexually abused by women

People find it difficult to believe
The issue strikes at the core of what women perceive themselves to be:

* The whole view of women is of nurturers, carers, protectors - people who do anything to look after children
* The crime seems so unnatural it offends against all instincts, so society is reluctant to even associate women with sexual abuse
* It’s easier to think that it’s men - men the enemy, somehow - but it can’t be women - it’s one thing women can’t do

Society excuses female abusers
What tends to happen is that the female sexual abuser is excused in some way.

* “She must have been misguided”, or it was a “chronicled affair”. We wouldn’t have said that about a man. And what happens is that the sentences are more lenient.
* The judges might even think “Well a woman really couldn’t have done this - it must have been a mistake”.
* And they usually get probation or they walk free. A man doing that would be locked up.
* their testimony shatters the myth that women only sexually abuse if coerced by men.

Women are seen as victims
Women are seen as victims rather than enemies or perpetrators of any abuse.

* Women in our society have been portrayed as victims, but somewhere within their victimisation they have learned that to abuse children gave them a sense of power, control, agency, and therefore they use the abuse of children to gain those things.

Disbelief the biggest trauma

* The biggest trauma for some victims is disbelief. A survey of 127 survivors by the children’s charity Kidscape showed 86% were not believed at first when they named a woman as their abuser.
* The fact that we are not expecting women in our society to do this - not expecting that women our society do this actually has profound effects on the victims, often making the experience go on much longer than it would have done in other cases, but also making them feel more stigmatised, more different, more betrayed, more powerless.

More traumatic to be sexually abused by a woman

* It was more traumatic to be sexually abused by a woman - children feel more betrayed, they feel very angry, they feel the woman should have cared for them, should have loved them instead of abusing them.

Violent and sadistic attacks

* The violence that often accompanies the abuse is unexpected of a woman.
* Victims often report excessive force equivalent to if not greater than that of a man.
* Women are supposed to be the gentler sex, women are supposed to be incapable of cruelty in a sense
* Many of the abusers have been very sadistic - cruelty that is almost unimaginable.
* Half the women in a recent survey of 50 convicted female sexual abusers said they derived sadistic pleasure from inflicting pain on victims.

Across the board
The research showed neither class nor age were barriers to their behaviour. We can’t make assumptions about the type of woman who will sexually abuse a child - sexual abuse is committed by:

* Women of any age from young teenagers to grandmothers
* Women from any class - from women who barely had a house to live in during their life to women with very large houses.
* Women from any level of education - women who can barely read and write to women who’ve got degrees.

Female abusers acquire positions of trust

* Some children aren’t just at risk from the people they live with; they are vulnerable targets when they leave their homes.
* Out in the community female sexual abusers can manoeuvre with even more ease than men into positions of trust with authority over lost of children.

Eternal victims

* Some of those abused become eternal victims and never recover from that.
* Other children will mask their confusions and go into adulthood and never really be able to sustain relationships, or have very distorted relationships because of their enormous confusions.
* And there are other children who will go on to hurt not only other children in their own childhood but in adulthood.

The need for more work

* There’s very very little being done to look at the issue of female sexual abuse. We have no programmes in this country that are aimed at working with female sexual offenders specifically. Quite a lot of professionals are picking up women offenders now. What they’re not doing is having the resources to help them deal with these women offenders. It’s because so many professionals are now getting to pick up women offenders that we are now getting to realise some of the extent of the problem throughout the country.
* Few abusers ever volunteer their guilt, and behind closed doors it is difficult to prove. A woman’s traditional role in the home as a mother often puts her above suspicion, and medical evidence is hard to obtain. But as more and more of women’s victims come forward and speak out they may just force us to face up to the ultimate taboo.

| |

Did you miss the part where she was going to be institutionalized? She won’t be free, she just won’t be in prison. Regardless, she’s not exactly a danger to anyone except a child that trusts her enough to come into the bathroom with her, which is a pool of zero, I’m guessing. If you read the link I posted initially, it says that often, people found NG by reason of insanity spend more time institutionalized than they would have incarcerated, the difference being, there’s actually the intention of rehabilitating them.

Not all criminality is a form of insanity, no, not even close. Most is a form of decision-making that weighs the odds of getting caught, and the eventual penalty, against the potential payoff. Just ask GE.

Personally, I don’t see why other people in a mental institution should have to hang around her.

OTOH - she really showed that asshole husband of hers a thing or two, didn’t she?

Also, and this applies to almost as many insanity plea defendants as to self-defense defendants, Yates was never a threat to anyone other than her children. Post-partum psychosis is extremely well-documented, but does not remotely imply that sufferers will hurt anyone except themselves or their children.

I find it fascinating that people who have done embarrassing things when blind drunk can still have very strong opinions about what others are capable of when impaired, and what punishment they should suffer as a result. This whole country would be better off if people were a little less repressed and a lot better at extrapolation.