family

World State Policies V: Common Core

“Everything you have been told about Common Core is a lie. It is not a state initiative. It was not developed by educators. It is not going to better prepare students for college or real world applications. It is part of a century-long process of using the education system to mold students into more obedient workers and tax cattle. And it is promoted by billionaires with hidden agendas of their own.”

James Corbett, Eye-Opener Report, Boiling Frogs Post


publicschoolfactoryLet it be said that there is nothing inherently wrong with a little Marxism in the right context just as there is nothing wrong with communitarianism should the society be well-adjusted enough to make it work. But that’s not what we are talking about here. Any belief that is foisted on the public using disinformation, manipulation and deceit – however noble the intentions – deserves to be analysed and outed. Moreover, when those beliefs are channelled through people who are cynically used as chess pieces to achieve long-term objectives of control, the need to counter such moves cannot be over stated.

Other than the usual think-tanks and government agencies, there doesn’t seem to be an exact replica of Common Purpose in the United States but there are  signs of the same corporate-cultural Marxism appearing within the education system. With the rise of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and SMART Society, education is seen as a key foundational strategy that must give rise to the acceptance of all three movements.

Education and the programming of young, malleable minds has long been a major component of social engineering, the first experiments of which lay with the industrialists and now with a blend of cultural Marxism upon a SMART-communitarian template. Common Core is the latest curricula to roll off the Elite think-tank conveyer belt. As with so much of Obama-marketing, it sounds good on paper until you dig deeper and do the research only to see the same disingenuous manipulation through the back-door of good intentions. Universal standards for all children in preparation for college? The problems inherent with such a vision are buried under an avalanche of nebulous propaganda. President and founder of Ink think tank Vicki Cobb, made it plain what this nationwide project was about: “Policies, laws and now the Common Core State Standards are all sets of rules designed to guide and shape human behavior. These rules are implemented through institutions. How does an individual find one’s way through all these rules, regulations, and institutions to become an informed, self-reliant, productive citizen?” [1]

Common Core advocates appear to operate in much the same way as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has long been politically compromised. After analysing Common Core documents the American Principles Project released an analysis last year of Common Core, where it described itself as “internationally benchmarked,” “rigorous,” and “evidence-based.”

This is simply untrue. No such benchmarks or evidence exists. As we shall see, it adheres to the usual propaganda notwithstanding some sporadic positive applications which are unfortunately lost in the pendulum swing from one traditional extreme to a centralised blanket of standardised conformity and group think. As you’d expect, many Conservatives are running around shouting about a socialist or communist take-over while democrats and the Establishment-left are singing its progressive praises.

Putting aside the idea of an overarching agenda behind this re-structuring even the most myopic should see that any centralised, one-size-fits-all attempt to redefine education will never work. Yet, it appeals to those with left-liberal tendencies and the Marxist technocrats lost in ideas of World State Utopia and it doesn’t take much for them to buy into it. As usual, conservatives and authoritarians in general are clueless and are merely reacting to anyone who doesn’t happen to be part of their flock. Anything that has the slightest whiff of socialism will be left in a cloud of emotional dust. That is not to say that Obama wasn’t chosen precisely for his left-leaning sentiments, though that in itself is hardly cause for concern. As we have discussed previously, this is not an issue of left and right politics. Obama is just another slickly marketed puppet for psychopathic dominance. He takes his orders and plays his golf. Being at the helm of a New Order of Cartel-Capitalism on an icing of collectivist principles remain part of his valued role – whether he is fully conscious of this or not.

America’s Common Core education otherwise known as The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a product of standard-based education reform of the Obama Administration with close participation of the National Governors Association(NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) along with support from Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). (There’s that “SMART” wording again…we’ll return to this meme presently) As an obvious top-down standardisation of state and local education systems which has been almost universally panned by left and right alike – it is still being pushed through. Diversity of education is essential due to the basic truth that we are all made up of different intelligences and different experiences. So, at the outset it is no wonder that more control from the Federal government insisting on standardisation would not be gratefully embraced.

Before we delve deeper into the appearance of Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) at this time, let’s get some of the other concerns about the initiative out of the way. A wide range of organisations and civic bodies across the political spectrum have voiced opposition to these reforms on the grounds that:

  • The US education has been predicated on a one hundred year old problem of market economics being the driver of state learning. This will not be solved on National Standards being applied to all. This conclusion is supported by the absence of a relationship between the repeatedly low scoring score on these tests and its economic ranking.
  • Common Core assessments of these standards will obviously mean more testing, more administration and bureaucracy which is already at breaking point.
  • A “one-size-fits-all” curriculum ignores cultural differences among classrooms and students while diluting the need for initiative.
  • Corporate interests and policy-makers determined the standards rather than educators. Which is probably why it accentuates “learning by rote” and conformity rather than understanding and creativity despite protestations to the contrary. Thus innovation and the potential for State, cultural and individual tailoring will be further squeezed out.
  • Common Core removes local control over what is known as K-12 curriculum in maths and English. This will also apply to private schools and homeschoolers.
  • Critics have also said that the standards emphasize rote learning and uniformity over creativity, and fail to recognize differences in learning styles.
  • There will inevitably be an emphasis on non-fiction “informational texts” and manuals rather than literature and classics. When historical documents are included they are without context or sufficient analysis. Detractors have said that such non-fiction amounts to government propaganda.
  • Public consultation was not in evidence before or after Common Core Standards began rolling out across 46 States.

It seems that public input on CCSSI was not required and subsequent meetings on the implementation and adoption of these standards shows that the panel takes a very dim view of disagreement. This was graphically shown from a community video posted on the internet where one Robert Small, a Maryland Parent, had the temerity to reasonably question Common Core principles and was promptly ejected from the public meeting, arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer and disrupting a school function. The amateur video of the incident showed nothing but a member of the public exercising his right to free speech and being shoved out of the hall for doing so.

Small attempted to tell the assembled teachers, administrators and parents that he wanted to know: “… how many parents here are aware that the goal of Common Core standards isn’t to prepare our children for full-fledged universities, it’s to prepare them for community college,” While being strong-armed out of the meeting by an off-duty Baltimore police officer moonlighting as a security guard, he was applauded by the audience who were shocked by the overreaction and silence of the panel. On the video Small is heard shouting: “Parents, take control,” as the Policeman pulls out some handcuffs: “I’m not an activist, I’m a parent. I have a right to speak.” The obviously groundless charges of assault against the police officer were later dropped and we can see why. Since the debacle Small’s actions have placed Common Core further into the spotlight.

common core

Still from the The video Arkansas Mother Obliterates Common Core in 4 Minutes which sums up the serious concerns of parents across America. A teacher wipes the floor with an analysis of the curriculum. Source: www.arkansasagainstcommoncore.com


CCSSI supporters – such as they are – repeatedly assert that the Federal government wasn’t involved in the development of standards and refute the idea that it is a national curriculum. Rather, according to the “myths and facts” explained on corestandards.org they believe there is “… a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed.” Which manages to say very little. One might as well say “because the Bible says so.”

It is difficult to give one’s blessing to the CCSSI when so much of its agenda is underhand and just plain wrong as is so often the case with disingenuous think-tank “products.” For instance, advocates claim it is voluntary. This is true if we do not include the fact that the system is based on an educational grant program but only if State schools agree to adopt the Obama Administration’s policies – especially Common Core. If they do so the government will give those obedient States a gold star and higher scoring in the grant applications. As a result, a mish-mash of standards are currently vying for supremacy as teachers and educators grapple with what a vast untested, unpiloted National Standard policy really means.

Alongside this preferential treatment is the inadequacy of the grants themselves which are not stretching far enough. Mike Johnson, the superintendent of Bexley schools in Ohio stated in an article in The Christian Post that: “We were spending a disproportionate amount of time following all the requirements,” and where: “It was costing us far more than that to implement all of the mandates.” [2] He is not the only one concerned about cost on top of an actual dilution of standards. In a Washington Post article Valerie Strauss reports:

“The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core’s ‘college and career ready’ performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.” [3]

There is money to be made from educating the young, where companies creating the school curriculum tests, the preparatory test materials, computer and software industries, and the federally-funded states which have been dutifully compliant will ensure an industry of dumbing down, where quality and politics will be the winner. So far the indications are only confirming what experienced teachers already told the D.C. policy-makers – that failure rate will rise exponentially.

Rachel Alexander, Attorney and editor of the Intellectual Conservative makes several important points on the curriculum stating in a recent article that if the curriculum replaces classics with “informational texts,’ government documents, court opinions, and technical manuals” where “Over half the reading materials in grades 6-12 are to consist of informational texts rather than classical literature” and context and sufficient explanatory criteria are lacking, it is little wonder children are bewildered. She draws our attention to Maths standards which have proven to be “equally dismal” Alexander continues:

Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only mathematician on the Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the math standards, because they would put many students two years behind those of many high-achieving countries. For example, Algebra 1 would be taught in 9th grade, not 8th grade for many students, making calculus inaccessible to them in high school. The quality of the standards is low and not internationally benchmarked. Common Core denies this on its website as a “myth,” but Professor Milgram’s opposition contradicts this. [4]

It would be wrong to think this is merely a conservative back-lash and lose sight of the core agenda in yet another “progressive” guise. And we come to the financial and ideological source of this initiative which has allowed Washington D.C. policy makers and the National Governors Association to set CCSSI in motion.

 Common-Core-States-Map-2014

Common Core has some supporters that by now will be familiar to those of us who have seen how often they seem to crop in relation to the same ideologies and perceptions. These are the non-profit organisation of inBloom created by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (a red flag right there) the Achieve Organisation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York and state school officials.

The sharp decline in the quality of education has continued since the war and even though it was based on a corporate agenda from its very inception, at least the pre-War standards allowed some form of quality and measurable performance to evolve. From billions of dollars of wasted money spent on Goals 2000, to School to Work, to No Child Left Behind now a Bill Gates financed experiment numbering millions, this has resulted in the Common Core Initiative. Let’s not forget that our Bill is part of the minority within the 000.0.1% who believe in eugenics, depopulation, corporate domination and the corporatist-collectivist ethic at the elite level. He is a globalist dedicated to Elite centralisation.

Unsurprisingly, in amongst the standardised modules are the usual “progressive” principles, human-influenced global warming theories and the logic of carbon taxes, cap and trade, group consciousness and One World ideology all of which is designed to be taught in every class, at every level, starting from Kindergarten to post graduate secondary education. Since every teacher will teach the same material most children will be under the same yoke of conformity. In fact, the CCSSI is a continuation of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and UN/UNESCO education principles which sound laudable and sensible at first hearing but when placed in context and with the idea of a pretext aligned to a particular mind-set, it takes on an entirely different hue.

Gates has donated millions to all three Elite-inspired organisations. It is not hard to understand why the Establishment is so keen to get America to adopt these uniform standards. A cardinal rule to remember: if the Establishment thinks it’s a good thing for our children you can be quite sure that it isn’t. Readers familiar with Bill Gates’ antics will also know that he is a frequent partner and supporter of Rockefeller social engineering in both agribusiness and social science. Therefore, educators should be concerned that he is one of the original founders of the Common Core movement and its copyright holders, NGA/CCSSO.

800px-Bill_Gates_June_2015

Bill Gates at the DFID – UK Department for International Development (wikipedia)

Although CCSSI claims to foster critical thinking, analysis and creativity it actually reinforces the opposite through group-think commonality to the exclusion of individual, unpredictable and non-linear, lateral thinking. Here’s how: At the root of the massively expensive Common Core is the education theory of Bloom’s Taxonomy developed by psychologist Benjamin Bloom in 1948. There are six levels of learning progressing from memorisation to analysing and creating. This, essentially, describes Common Core. If you take the time to compare the two, the difference is only in the modern syntax but the concepts are exactly the same. Hardly a revolutionary new platform for change. But who could argue that learning to think critically and creatively is not a good thing?

Therefore, what’s so bad about Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Absolutely nothing.

The difference here is: that the content and direction of this methodology is being carefully directed towards uniformity and away from a initiative that is a creative application truly rooted in community – thus divorced from monolithic, state control. More importantly, in the hands of a psychologically compromised government and its agencies it follows an entirely different agenda which disguises propaganda as progressive education. When a universally accepted education is applied then it becomes far easier to tailor the theory behind these national standards and begin a process of attrition starting in the very impressionable minds of the young. (So, much easier to keep the pesky population in line). Children can be taught perfectly well to think critically and creatively using Bloom’s Taxonomy and many other forms of education but when an agenda is lying in the background in order to prepare the new generation of children for World State policies then ANY standards and curricula will be suspect. Pretext and context is everything.

The re-orientation of the world’s young towards Agenda 21, One world, One government, group consciousness, social justice, sustainable development, global warming science and SMART society is channelled into the CCSSI which serves as a primary conduit for disseminating such propaganda whose only objective is to offer global totalitarianism – by the back door. Once adopted there will be very little chance to debate the veracity of the claims in such “standards” since they will underpin the whole framework of Common Core itself. Like the British Common Purpose, the edifice upon which they are created is immovable. It is unlikely that you will hear the other side of the global warming debate for example, or the downside of the emerging SMART society and its ubiquitous “efficiency.”

For instance, educator John W. Whitehead explains the role of InBloom and its educational software partner, Compass Learning who provide:

“Common Core participants data collection tools geared toward collecting enough information to provide each student a personalized learning experience, delivered through an online gateway. Compass Learning’s privacy page acknowledges collecting personal information and while pledging not to share data with third parties indiscriminately, it does admit exceptions, and it disclaims responsibility for how school hosts handle data security. The company’s terms of use page disclaims liability for damages caused by loss of data.” [5]

Perhaps more importantly, Common Core slides neatly into the US and European governments’ obsession with National Security and surveillance. It provides a vast upload of data collection which will inevitably intrude on citizens’ privacy and that of their children. Everything from students’ and parents’ voting habits, level of income, sex, age, ethnicity, health status, blood type, religious views, criminal records, is of a type of information far in advance of anything seen before in the collection of “education” data.

Previous whistle-blowers have been sounding the alarm at just how extensive and pervasive surveillance and snooping by the government agencies has become and Common Core simply plugs in to that surveillance and the unresolved presence of invasive data collection. The aforementioned Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) solicits the information, though it tells us that large demographics are obtained rather than individual data. But can we honestly trust that this is the case given the track record so far? Aside from the NSA accessing exactly what it wants, when it wants and who it wants, the outsourcing of data to States bypassing constitutional protections opens up another channel for abusing privacy rights and unwarranted Federal search and seizure deployments. In fact, there are no safeguards to prevent voluminous data from being passed on to Federal authorities and certainly not if you have deemed to have stepped out of line.

This brings us to why it is so important that teachers and educators get informed and stand up to these infiltrations by unelected entities. American youth are already some of the most dumbed down citizens on the planet. But it wasn’t always this way, as John Whitehead mentions:

“The purpose of a pre-university education in early America was not to prepare young people to be doctors or lawyers but, as Thomas Jefferson believed, to make citizens knowledgeable about ‘their rights, interests, and duties as men and citizens.” And Jefferson continued: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

And here we see where the real problem lies: a total lack of knowledge regarding the presence of psychopaths in positions of power which have been allowed to eviscerate basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This lack of knowledge has in turn, permitted education to become something other than a learning experience and more of an exercise in various forms of mind control so that a crucial understanding of the US constitution and civil rights is excluded.

According to Whitehead, numerous studies confirm this:

“… when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29% of respondents couldn’t name the current vice president of the United States. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why America fought the Cold War. More critically, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6% couldn’t even circle Independence Day (the Fourth of July) on a calendar.

A survey of American adults by the American Civic Literacy Program resulted in some equally disheartening findings. Seventy-one percent failed the test. Moreover, having a college education does very little to increase civic knowledge, as demonstrated by the abysmal 32% pass rate of people holding not just a bachelor’s degree but some sort of graduate-level degree.” [6]

If teachers and parents are going to accept that government and their think tanks know best and that they should have little or no say in how their children are educated then we will receive an education system that suits that chosen ignorance. And as we have seen it isn’t just the education system that is being re-shaped according to a minority mind-set. Which is why it may be that the only viable alternative is home-schooling, a movement that is increasing in popularity year by year. The advantages are clear in the present state of Official Culture theatrics.

940px-Homeschool_Legality-World.svg Map of the Legality of Homeschooling around the world. Green is legal, yellow is legal in most political subdivisions but not all or is practiced, but legality is disputed. Red is illegal or unlawful. Orange is generally considered illegal, but untested legally. (wikipedia)

To build real community it must start with family and friends outside state control. Admittedly, with so many toxic socio-economic factors pressing in from all sides, establishing community support has never been more important. Indeed, as economic and social conflict increase home-schooling may become the preferred option, by default. There are many advantages to making such a move, the most obvious of which is the natural alignment toward the same philosophy of autonomy and independence of mind that is such an anathema to the powers that be who require obedient, unthinking drones to inhabit its future. This is why home-schooling (along with refusal to accept vaccinations for your children) will likely become illegal in the not so distant future. Indeed, in some European countries this is already happening. The extraordinary case of the Wunderlich family from Darmstadt in Germany is worth noting.

In September 2013, they had the pleasure of surprise visit by armed police who arrived at their home to enforce a ban on home-schooling. Youngsters aged 7-14 were taken from their home under instruction from the presiding judge to use force “against the children” if necessary. Journalist Damian Gayle that: “A team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed the home of Dirk and Petra Wunderlich because they refused to send their children to state schools. The youngsters were taken to unknown locations after officials allegedly ominously promised the parents that they would not be seeing them again ‘any time soon’”. [7]

It was clear that the legal grounds for removing the children was purely due to the parents insistence on home-schooling their children. There were no allegations of abuse or neglect. Mr Wunderlich said:

“I looked through a window and saw many people, police, and special agents, all armed. ‘They told me they wanted to come in to speak with me. ‘I tried to ask questions, but within seconds, three police officers brought a battering ram and were about to break the door in, so I opened it.’

He went on: ‘The police shoved me into a chair and wouldn’t let me even make a phone call at first. ‘It was chaotic as they told me they had an order to take the children.At my slightest movement the agents would grab me, as if I were a terrorist.

‘You would never expect anything like this to happen in our calm, peaceful village. It was like a scene out of a science fiction movie. ‘Our neighbours and children have been traumatised by this invasion.”

The Wunderlichs have, over the past four years, moved from country to country in the European Union looking for a place to where they could freely homeschool their children. [8]

Nor are they the only family to become victims of Germany’s draconian laws on home-schooling.

The Romeikes fled the country in 2008 after uniformed police officers arrived at their home and took their children which resulted in their enforced attendance to state run schools. After years of resistance the Romeikes were forced to pay thousands as a result of their resistance. The family fled to America in 2008 in a bid to escape these laws only to face US authorities keen to deport them.

The Washington Times ran the story on April 2013 under: ‘A plea from abused home-schoolers – Parents seek asylum to keep family intact’ which described they plight in detail:

The Romeikes, who say German schools teach subjects that go against their evangelical Christian beliefs, are parents of three boys and three girls, ranging in age from 20 months to 15 years. They live now on a farm in eastern Tennessee’s Great Smoky Mountains. They sought and were granted political refuge in the United States in 2010, but the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals overturned the decision last year, contending that Germany’s ban on home-schooling doesn’t violate the Romeikes’ human rights. The administration essentially says parents have no fundamental right to educate their own children, hence no political asylum. Should the Romeikes be forcibly repatriated, fines are the least of their worries. They could face stiff prison sentences, and their children could be taken away from them. [9]

While it is likely that this is a preventative measure so that similar asylum claims do not become norm, according to Karla McKanders, an asylum and refugee law specialist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville it should be a low priority with minimal resource expenditure for non-criminal immigration issues, yet, as a March 2013 ABC News report indicated entitled: ‘Home Schooling German Family Fights Deportation’ this is not the case as one official stated. “… they meet the standard.” After a public uproar and legal wrangling which lasted a year, in March 2014, the family were finally granted permission by Homeland Security to stay “indefinitely.”

It is almost a formality that we can expect exactly the same scenario in the United States as Common Core makes inroads into education. Indeed, if you are part of the opt-out of our Official Culture as it stands and do not wish to be absorbed into the Establishment’s version of a sustainable SMART society rather than the principles of individual freedom, minimal government interference, self-sufficiency, community organic farming and alternative modes of finance, trade and economical living, then you will be targeted as being a threat to the vast global social engineering program that is currently fanning out from America as the primary experimental model.

Refusing to participate in State Education whether for religious beliefs or because you do not wish for your child to be part of the state-mandated vaccination or even simply – horror of horrors – you feel you might know what is best for your children, this should be an absolute civil right. But there are numerous cases that the US government is coming down hard on such signs of freedom to choose. It isn’t just parental rights at issue here these are the first signs of the “scientific technique/method” merging with the Police State. Home-schoolers are another social grouping persecuted by a mentality that cannot abide independent thought which chooses to operate outside the group-think of Official Culture.

On the rise once more is an even stranger belief but one which never died, only changed its label. A bizarre mix of Social Darwinism and ecological determinism is presently spreading through many UK and American institutions and is one of the potent streams of pseudo-science so enamoured by the Establishment: Eugenics.

See also: Learning is Fun?

The extreme irrationality and insanity of Common Core

Creating a generation of Authoritarian Followers: Interview with 5th grade teacher reveals ideology behind Common Core 

Common Core idiocy triggers homeschooling surge in North Carolina 

New Hampshire Lawmaker Equates Homeschooling To “Child Abuse” – Nanny State To Be Pushed On Parents


Notes

[1] ‘Common Core State Standards, Rules and Art’ by Vicki Cobb, Huffington Post October 2013.
[2]’Common Core Curriculum: A Look Behind the Curtain of Hidden Language’ By Rachael Alexander, The Christian Post, March 2013.
[3] ‘‘The Common Core’s fundamental trouble’ Bu Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, June 18, 2013.
[4] op.cit Alexander.
[5] ‘Common Core: A Lesson Plan for Raising Up Compliant, Non-Thinking Citizens’ By John W. Whitehead, rutherford.org September 23, 2013.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Armed police turn up at family home with a battering ram to seize their children after they defy Germany’s ban on home schooling’ By Damien Gayle, Daily Mail, 31 August 2013.
[8] Ibid.
[9] http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/romeike/Romeike_CaseUpdates.asp

Advertisements

Rule of Law? IV: Gender Bending and the True Enemy

images

© infrakshun

Feminism – at least as we know it today – and its various complex sub-categories of benign and malign forces had its beginnings way back in the 19th century. The religious influences upon men and women had defined those roles for millennia; the assumed inferiority to man and her qualities of “temptress” alongside “feminine wisdom” was the backdrop to the burning of witches in the Middle Ages to the witch-hunts of the 17th century and the stultifying sexual repression of Victorian England.

In the United States, the roles of men and women were already defined before the Founding Fathers arrived and changed Native American lives forever. Long before the UK suffragettes began rebelling against these enforced roles, it was taken for granted that women existed as mothers and wives, a presumption that was both divinely ordained and thus a natural duty. The developing democracy rested on man as the giver or provider and women as the enabler or nurturer. Women were more or less property of the husband with the belief in the sacred mother-child bond and the woman’s natural instinct for child rearing. The physical prowess of the male (imagined or otherwise) determined that the “hunter-gatherer” would do just that.

The inability of the woman to provide for herself was also directly related to the male holding the reins of financial power which precluded any property rights or ability to earn for women. That being so, in early England and America up to the mid-1800s, fathers had sole rights to custody, because custody was closely tied to inheritance and property law.[1]  Several early feminist activists of the day, most notably English-born Caroline Norton fought to have these ruling turned in favour of women after being deprived of her own children in the aftermath of divorce. [2] That changed when the legal principle of the Tender Years Doctrine automatically gave rights to mothers based on what was seen as developmentally sensitive years of 13 and under.

Custody rights were shaped by these gender precepts: the love and emotional support of the mother and the more distant, intellectual, financial provision of the father. These gender roles were sacrosanct in society and in law. Upon the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, the nuclear family was in the process of disintegrating due in part, to fathers having to go further afield to locate work opportunities. The British Empire was the hub of this economic and capitalist revolution which would have serious repercussions for family and community.

Although initially new wealth was created for Western European peasantry due to outsourcing by emerging companies, this soon changed. The majority of middle and working class women worked from home. The American economy for example, relied a great deal on home businesses such as woodwork and textiles. With centralisation came disenfranchisement and disconnection from communities built on these crafts and skills intimately connected with an understanding of the land. Factories replaced a network of cottages industries largely dominated by women and their highly skilled handcrafts. The home traditionally carried by women was replaced with mass production. Women’s domestic duties rapidly disappeared so that rearing children for the majority became their only destiny. Single mothers and young women often had to move into boarding houses close to factories with the consequent lack of sanitation and poorly paid wages that accompanied such a move.

In summary, the gender roles became increasingly defined by economic constraints where the male breadwinners were the benefactors of monetary power. This meant that fathers’ capacity to nurture their children from the masculine polarity was further reduced at the same time the mothers’ foundation for community and cottage industry income was removed.

When set against custody decisions the differences became stark. Since women’s only validation for their existence was now from the maternal role it was seen as horribly cruel to deny the mother what was after all seen as a biological and thus a fundamental right due to this new social prison. The father however, was forced to provide economically for his children without ever having rights to see them. Emotional bonds of mother and child were reinforced while the father’s presence became a purely financial consideration.

Through no fault of his own and from the causes of macro-social forces rather than intrinsic gender pre-dispositions, fathers’ rights in custody battles became increasingly fractured due to the obvious fact that women were indeed spending much more time with their children and thus having the advantage when questioned by the judge regarding “quality time”. By the late 20th century very few fathers now retained children in custody trials. [3]

The idea that the mothers had an unassailable right to child custody was now firmly entrenched in the legal system. But what made this doubly unfair that with the onset of the World War and its closure, women had rightly become wage earners in their own right therefore taking on the male role as provider and nurturer. [4]  Prevailing views cemented these stereotypes by presuming that unless women were financially destitute and compelled to work it was unnatural and morally wrong, whereas if the man’s career ambitions evolved to the total exclusion of the family unit, functioning as a hotel to be fed and watered, this was somehow understandable and correct, despite the fact that many men so desperately wanted a relationship with the children. At this stage, socio-cultural dictates in general were making it difficult for men to be emotionally in touch with their feelings at all, let alone to express a natural desire that true shared parenting was perhaps healthy and vitally important.

By the 1950s the legal maxim in custody battles was “the best interests of the child” which in practice seldom worked out that way. This did not alter the mythology of women as automatically the best bet for custody regardless of the evidence or circumstances. For decades an almost subconscious aversion to awarding rights to the father developed in the minds of many judges as a matter of principle. Furthermore, large economic shifts in the 1960s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s and throughout the chaos of the 2000’s have clearly placed men in general at a disadvantage regarding accessibility rights during and after divorce proceedings.

Large scale fragmentation of the family unit has unequivocally taken place due to the many factors already discussed in this series so far, most obviously due to globalisation as a euphemism of international corporatism and its doctrine of ever greater centralised consumption devoid of social and ecological values. As a consequence, the resulting economic disparity between men and women – while taking account of the many exceptions to the rule – has placed the onus on men to uphold an impossible and singular financial standard usually on a single income and in a highly volatile and shifting global economic market place. Technology and automation is overseeing the demise of traditional work connected to the land. The 9-5 working day with the feminist agenda for gender equality will offer needed rights to mothers but also exacerbate another problem.

A painful and recurring irony has arrived that indicates the divide and rule scenario in operation so favoured of think tanks, the Empire’s intellectual vanguard of change. The dichotomy of men and women’s rights is increasingly reversed in the affluent Western world. Where financial solvency was praised as vital for the support of the family it is now seen as an impediment to proper family cohesion and parenting. Another bizarre twist has taken place. While many women have played the game of “success” under the push for illusory equal rights and juggled the family life with a corporate career; headed companies and donned the mask of the capitalist entrepreneur or boss,  in many cases women are repeating the exact same reasons that men lost their custody battles: by being distant from the family and not participating in “quality parenting.” Now that women have got what men had in the corporate world they too are being penalised for precisely the same reasons. [5]

While some men stay at home and care for the children the gender stereotypes remain. Men are not “house-husbands” they are shirking their manly responsibilities or just “unemployed”. Yet women who work still retain both roles and then complain when it becomes too demanding. The net result is a constant dichotomy that flips between genders creating and perpetuating multiple levels of tension.

In custody cases successful career women have to justify their work role by not assuming the traditional role of mother love. Whereas men the “hunter-gatherers” are forced to justify why they cannot support their family financially and are thereby somehow deficient of masculine genes. This is not a gender issue and never has been. What this represents – as in so many of the issues we have addressed so far – is an issue of reductive economics and the international financial architecture that has been built on exploitation of such depth and profundity that it is little wonder that it has ultimately defined who we are. Behind this wholly exploitative framework is the psychopathic mind that delights in such obfuscation and confusion. These anti-human ways of being allow it to be hidden from scrutiny. It is a shocking indictment of our society that the key benefactor of this descent will continue to be the wealthy Elite.

It is obvious that such a state of affairs does not just happen but results from an integration of Christian ethics with the organisation of Roman legal systems which were progressively adapted into our Western institutions. The human cruelties, indifferences and inconsistencies were also incorporated and laid the groundwork from one Pathocratic Empire to another. Łobaczewski talked about this “Western civilization” and how its degeneration was due to a “serious deficiency” in recognising the signs of decay which inevitably led to evil consequences. This was  due to the simplistic appraisal of human psychology upon which the societal structures of law, justice and philosophy were based. The insufficient resistance to evil was easily taken advantage of due to the “enormous gap between formal or legal thought and psychological reality.” [6] And so it is. We are still sourcing our knowledge and understanding from a juvenile dictionary and total lack of comprehension which has locked in economics, law, justice and just about every other domain in society. Is it any wonder that we are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance concerning the nature and direction our societies are taking?

It is the knowledge that we have an inherited the workings of societies “insufficiently resistant to evil” that can inform our future thoughts and actions on this issue. It will require that we become cognizant of how ponerogenesis plays out in our own lives and how we can best avoid its traps. Learning to see how we can understand this process will mean whether or not we become the scapegoats of this degeneration or the pioneers of its eventual dissolution.

Is gender equality a possibility? It depends on society’s current enforced assumptions about our roles. Equal opportunities cannot be approached when the very fundamentals of our socio-economic systems are skewed. Equal opportunities to be treated civilly and with respect cover both genders. Unfortunately, much as feminists would rail at the statement: men and women ARE fundamentally different – physiologically, neurologically and how we process reality – as a thousand studies have underscored time and again. So, while our conception of gender roles have indeed been enforced and expected, there are natural even timeless differences of masculine and feminine which only truly work when they meet in the middle to create that third force. It is the integration of the dualities while retaining differences which alter reality for the better rather than seeking to displace, out-do or gain ascendency over the other, or even worse to claim “rights” as though women in the Western world are somehow separate from the inculcated pathology of which we are ALL apart.

The inherent assumptions of those in positions of power which mean that women are seen as objects and where they are not deemed worthy of attaining the CEO position does happen. Similarly, men can be ridiculed for being stay-at-home dads or a job as a nurse. The problem is, within these positions are also wider implications denoting much more than mere ignorance or bigotry. It may be that the kind of roles that moderate feminists wish to see cannot be observed in the type of social reality we have right now, for the reasons so far given in this series.

Does that mean we don’t press for change? Or course not, but until we see that such urging of women’s rights without due awareness of ponerology which has our Western societies comprehensively in its palm means that much of the core reasons for seeking gender equality will be as authentic as Live Aid.  This is a problem not of female rights against male rights. It is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue against the PSYCHOPATH. All else derives from this. One talks of gender equality immediately assuming that men are not expressing the exact same victimhood. And this where so often white, middle-class, Western female entitlement arrives in much the same way as Jewish ethnocentrism and the reflex assumption from African-Americans that slavery by white traders of the past still demand recompense.

Until we embrace the fact that we are ALL victims of a centuries old evil that resides both in concrete reality and the metaphysics of myths and imagination within our own hearts we will never be free. We must take a grand, bird’s eye view of humanity which has in the modern era all the tools necessary to forge a new awareness of the multitude of horrors we have collectively suffered over lifetimes. That means truly joining together against a common foe and defending ourselves against it. Not by wasting energy on gender issues and spectres of the past. The only thing that will change these issues is SEEING who is stirring the pot of constant division and conflict. That does not mean doing nothing but it does imply that we choose our battle very, VERY wisely.


Notes
[1] Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon, Published by UNC Press Books, 1989 | ISBN 0807842443, 9780807842447.
[2] Family Life in the Nineteenth Century, 1789–1913: The History of the European family. Volume 2. By David I. Kertzer, Yale University Press, 2002.
[3] Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System  By Edith Greene, Kirk Heilbrun, Cengage Learning, 2010. 049581301X, 9780495813019.
[4] ‘The Mother-Love Myth: The Effect of the Provider-Nurturer Dichotomy in Custody Cases’ by Kalie Caetano The Macalester Review: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 2.
[5] More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce’By Lisa Belkin, New York Times, November 17, 2009.
[6] op. cit. Lobaczewski; (p. 48)

Crowd Control III: Mixed Messages (2)

“The witch-hunt narrative is a really popular story that goes like this: Lots of people were falsely convicted of child sexual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s. And they were all victims of a witch-hunt. It just doesn’t happen to line up with the facts when you actually look at the cases themselves in detail. But it’s a really popular narrative — I think it’s absolutely fair to say that’s the conventional wisdom. It’s what most people now think is the uncontested truth, and those cases had no basis in fact. And what 15 years of painstaking trial court research (says) is that that’s not a very fair description of those cases, and in fact many of those cases had substantial evidence of abuse. The witch-hunt narrative is that these were all gross injustices to the defendant. In fact, what it looks like in retrospect is the injustices were much more often to children.”

– Ross E. Cheit, The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children


The already seriously flawed European Justice system was brought into sharp relief with the case of Myriam Delay (now Badaoui) in France, where although abuse did take place, an extended ring of paedophilia was said to have been absent. “The trial had shattered the lives of 18 people accused in the case, with one committing suicide and others losing custody of their children, while sending France into a paroxysm of soul-searching.” [1]

The Outreau abuse trial started in 2000 and lasted until December of 2005 where over 66 adults were accused of raping, sexually abusing and prostituting 45 children between January 1999 and February 2002. By July 2005 videotaped testimony of the children provided “horrific details of abuse” which took place on a poverty stricken council estate “in a chronically deprived community.” [2]

One of the country’s biggest criminal trials, and the largest paedophile trial held in France, the Deputy public prosecutor Herve Lollic told the AFP news agency: “We are certain of not having identified all the victims and it is probable that we have not identified all the aggressors,” which doesn’t inspire the greatest confidence that justice would be done.  Charges were brought against an intra-familial paedophile ring in a poor area of a town in Western France. ‘These were people in difficulty, excluded from normal society, who found each other. And for them, everything was sexualised,’ said one local news journalist.  Another expert at the trial mentioned that ‘these were people who were unable to manage their sexual impulses. And nobody told them these things shouldn’t be done …’ [3]

Many of the accused were said to have been innocent of the crimes, with just four of the 17 men and women originally charged found guilty. What was deemed as evidence was later said to be no more than the imaginings of Myriam Delay  and the wild inventions of other children. As well as crucial evidence that was never heard in court which would have exonerated many of the accused, most of the 13 suspects who continued to plead their innocence were placed in detention in 2001. In the beginning of 2006 President Jacque Chirac called the case of the Outreau 13 “… an unprecedented judicial disaster…” [4]

France has been repeatedly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights and campaign groups for its pre-trial detention that can last up to five years. Many lost their jobs and saw their children taken into care. The case has revealed serious flaws in France’s judicial system, which should never have allowed most of the cases to come to court. This can only benefit those who commit the crimes and serves to feed the idea that much of the organised paedophilia and sexual abuse are children’s fantasies.  It underlines just how difficult it is to obtain prosecutions of high level networks if isolated groupings within society are loaded with incompetence and purposeful obstructions. It remains worrying however, that Miriam Delay on 10th day of her trial, suddenly admitted to fabricating much of the story concerning tales of gang rapes and a child prostitution ring based in her home. After a trial that shattered lives of 18 people accused in case, with one committing suicide and others losing custody of their children it begs the question was it all lies? The answer is no. There were cases of abuse. Delay’s retraction appeared to prove that no “commercial” bartering of “services” was organised.

outreau “The innocent and politicians first!”

After so many cases of abuse coming to light in the last 20 years it could be argued that social workers were trying to cultivate due caution coupled with suitable vigilance. 21 of the 23 families in the case had been monitored by French social workers after the first report in 1999, but the investigation only began in earnest in 2002 which seems more than a little apathetic in light of the severity of the abuse.

The Deputy public prosecutor said “… I fear that these things do not just happen in Angers…” With such painfully slow realisations forming at this late stage it is no wonder that intra-familial abuse and other forms of exploitation continue to rise in society. Where cases of intra-generational abuse occur, how does one penetrate the wall of secrecy set up as a natural course by the victims and perpetrators alike? When these walls are finally broken down, the methods adopted often lead to fatal flaws that see the wrong persons accused and caught up in the ensuing and very slippery shadows, which then causes suspicion and accusations to all, regardless of tangible evidence.

From the UK to the US and things are no better. Children are suffering unnecessarily as victims only to become further victims of court ineptitude and cultural and personal bias resulting in families being broken up and effectively destroyed. Meanwhile, the real abusers continue to get away quite literally, with murder.

From a series of life history interviews conducted by Sara Scott Ph.D from the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University Liverpool, UK, the stories from one particular family detail a history of “violence, cruelty and sexual abuse.” One interviewee responded to a question about her uncle and abuse:

… once I was at boarding school he used to have to pick up us up from the airport and stay overnight and going back to school and things like that; he used to abuse then a fair bit…. My uncle in many ways was like my dad. He’d come across as a very nice bloke, good laugh and a joke. They managed to do what my parents had done, build up and image of everything’s fine, nothing’s wrong… ‘We’re the perfect family.’  My uncle has a daughter and four grandchildren – at least one I know that’s been abused.  I’m almost certain he’s abused his own daughter, he abused my sister, he abused my dad… very much into abusing people.

He abused you dad when he was young?

Yeah, from what I can gather from what my sister’s told me from when he was fairly young until his teens. Quite badly abused my dad, because of the 18 years [between them]. [5]

Scott goes onto emphasize the “ordinary” and “routine” nature of such abuse which existed in these families. Abuse began when the children were infants where it was so much part of their formative years that it became normalized:

[Kate]: Yeah, I can remember what I call normal abuse … which basically didn’t have any cult meaning, it was just my father. That was pretty much a regular occurrence as much as eating my meals actually. I can’t really distinguish particularly … It would happen at home or used to take me for walks in the park … anywhere really … I don’t think it really bothered him at all. […]

[Sinead:] As soon as I saw my mum each day I would get bath. And my mum used to pay particular attention to my private parts. She would wash me quite roughly and insert her fingers inside me. Sometimes my dad would help and he would help, and he would do the same thing. That must of gone on since I was born really. I do remember my dad would quite often insert things inside me, his hand was a favourite. It got to be normal, I just used to relax, it didn’t hurt so much. It was so ordinary, I didn’t think: ‘O, my God, what are they doing?’ That went on till I went to school. [6]

It seems to be true with many cases of intra-familial abuse that emotional cruelty and degradation also featured to a greater or lesser degree. In the case of the above middle class English family such instances included: “….pissing on me when I was in bath and putting my head down the toilet and putting faeces in my mouth. Nice, you know, nice things like that … I hate him.” [7]  Far from being merely a product of a dysfunctional family, incest is carried out most often by parents committing rape upon their own child which tends to cut through the psychoanalysis double-speak of “parents loving too much” [8] or the “failure of family obligations.”

***

If we look to the internet there are ample opportunities for those to find others who are attempting to make incest acceptable along with paedophilia. As with most forms of deviancy of the kind that includes bestiality, sadomasochism and fetishes of all types the internet provides a homogenous and anonymous entry into all manner of fantasy that is attempting to slip from pathology to normalcy.

There are even chat-rooms and websites that are de facto support groups for people engaged in incest. Ideas that advocate a better understanding of consensual sex between “kin”, blur the line yet again between the complexities of father-daughter relationships for example, where perhaps the only way to find a proper relationship is to give in to the adult’s manipulations, sex being the only way to gain “love” and attention. However, our concern here is for the child for whom the idea of consent, when confronted by the father or mother in such cases is a cruel abstraction devoid of any meaning. It can only be a form of parental rape at this stage and must be prosecuted as such.

In the UK, the old offence of incest was replaced with a more modern law that prohibits sexual relations between children under 18 and their blood relations, adoptive parents and siblings, step-parents, foster carers and those in a position of responsibility in the family. The “position of responsibility” covers people such as a friend of the child’s mother, a relative by marriage, such as an uncle, or another adult that lives in the same household. Whereas in New York, US, the penalty for those who molest an unrelated child differs greatly for those who molest children to whom they are related.

One may ask, which is worse: a stranger who rapes a child or the child’s own father committing the crime?

20051128© infrakshunghg

Not so, overseas. Sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law ensures significantly more lenient treatment, to the extent that the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. The problem being this is not listed as a sex offence, but as an “offense affecting the marital relationship,” It is therefore a Class E felony, whereby even a convicted offender may be granted probation. [9]

Can you imagine how useful a political tool this has become for the high-flying family man with a supercharged career and a penchant for abusing his children as he climbs the ladder to the top? Find the right lawyer, pay the money and rely on incest loopholes to finish the job. Such inconsistencies are not so surprising when we look at some of the definitions of sexual practices in law. In the State of North Carolina orgies are defined as “7 people in a closed room with their feet off of the ground.” Necrophilia (sex with corpses) was not illegal in Iowa until the late 1980s. It is surely little wonder that child abuse and the courts are in such chaos.  Similar eccentric laws exist in many Southern States.  Regardless of the precise statistics of each category there is a high probability that the prevalence of familial abuse and sexual abuse in general is not decreasing, though more overt and unplanned violent crime may well be on the decrease.

If we return to the US, in 1970 the results of one study recorded 86,324 persons arrested for sexual offences. In 1986, 168,579 persons were arrested for sexual offences which are almost double the number. The United States Department of Justice recorded in 1981 and 1989 respectively, that from 1970 to 1979 the rate of increase for sexual offences, other than forcible rape and prostitution was 5 percent. From 1979 to 1988 the rate of increase for these offences was 44.5 percent. [10] Therefore, we can make the tentative observation that the single largest group in our prison population may be those convicted of sexual offences, second only to drug offences. This maybe as much to do with sex-paranoia as puritanical authoritarianism where both are doing battle and squeezing any semblance of objectivity.

It is also worth noting that the high rate of physical and sexual abuse (including rape and violence within the family) will induce post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children in particular, especially where genital pain is involved. This becomes understandable when we realise that an estimated 61 percent of violent sex offenders in State prisons have a prior conviction history and a further estimate of 1 in 4 imprisoned rape and sexual assault offenders with dominant past histories of violent crime, with 1 in 7 having been previously convicted of a violent sex crime. [11]

With child abusers who have been known to re-offend as late as 20 years following release into the community, this is not a problem that will disappear with sporadic under-funded, community-based supervision and management. This is a problem that goes very deep indeed into all aspects of social systems: economics, politics, and education.


“Society does not believe that women really do sexually abuse children … There’s almost a perception that boys should be happy or grateful, or certainly not experiencing sexual contact with females as abusive.” – Dr Joe Sullivan  [12]


As mentioned previously in discussions of The Female Psychopath female sexual abuse is another taboo the recognition of which still lags behind of male abuse both in reporting and investigations. Women in society are seen as the carers, nurturers and protectors. To accept that some women also abuse, whether sexually or physically is unconsciously resisted which has led to a paucity of research and data, though this is slowly changing. As always, this too creates tensions between child advocates, agencies and feminist groups who fear that it will feed into the already difficult plight of women in society generally, not least the arena of abuse.

There is one theory that suggests that women frequently abuse children physically rather than sexually. This is the most readily available individual, or individuals to whom the abuser can claim to exert control and retain that power normally denied to them, especially within a fragmented and disintegrating home environment where pathologies tend to manifest. [12]  Examples of female sexual abuse fall into distinct categories including: teachers who are involved with adolescent and/or pre-pubescent boys or consider themselves “in love” and/or want to teach them about sex; [13] women who are coerced into offending and who are initially abuse dependent i.e. allows another male to initiate the action but can end up abusing on their own; [14] and abusers who have been sexually abused themselves from a very young age and go on to inflict the same abuse towards their own children. This may not be necessarily aggressive, threatening abuse, rather “a cry for emotional intimacy.” [15]

Pathological narcissism and psychopathy may also play its part where cases are just too extreme to be classed as anything else. The case where a mother feared she would “lose her boyfriend while she recuperated from surgery arranged for her 15-year-old daughter to have sex with him,” is but one example. [16]

Though the above suggests there are important differences between male and female abuse, this type of offending, despite the cultural stereotyping of young boys “enjoying it and wanting it” can be just as detrimental, creating concerns regarding masculinity, deep-seated anger, betrayal, helplessness, negative attitudes towards relationships with the opposite sex and continuing occurrences of self-blame and guilt. In other words, female sexual abuse, like male abuse, has long term psychological effects that can ruin lives.

Social service and mental health professionals are unused to the idea that females can and do abuse children making the detection and of such crimes even more difficult. This means that children remain vulnerable to continuing and undetected abuse of this kind. There are estimates that 5 percent of girls and up to 20 percent of boys that have been abused are perpetrated by women, though the small amount of data available is less than definitive. [17]

With inter-generational physical and sexual abuse being unreported yet prevalent, anti-sexuality set against sexualisation form dominant forms of “edutainment” with a vacuum of appropriate role models and a widening of the gap between the rich and poor. However, with power comes impunity and while society at large battles with its demons, locked into a cycle of self-abuse, we begin to get an idea that all is not well with the authorities and established institutions in the Western world that purport to guide, instruct and look after its populace. Children are not only becoming victims within the family but are also manifesting narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies which have been inflicted upon them.

There can be no greater barometer than by looking at the plight of children under globalisation. There is thus something very wrong indeed in our institutions and social systems if the very core of the family is exhibiting symptoms of emotional decay and psychological disorders to the extent that parents, siblings resort to the abuse, torture and murder. This is further exacerbated by a climate of fear placing pressure on parents who are made to feel hypersensitive and over protective of their own children. Like certain representatives of the climate change industry, the child abuse industry often has some fat pay cheques to offer their employees.

The traditional roles of the father, mother and the family unit in general are deteriorating in the UK and the US.  Similarly, children are desperately in need of enduring role models that nurture and nourish their growth rather than creating unnecessary tensions which are pulling the child’s psyche apart. To say that children globally are receiving mixed messages would be an enormous understatement.

The spectre of the lone paedophile / child molester is given endless mileage and moral panics are whipped up to protect the organised networks of abuse. These are sometimes mirrored in the family and communities at large. The ability to tackle these issues remains diffused at best, due to the active or passive acquiescence of law enforcement and authorities already tied to what is institutional abuse in secret. This situation can only worsen if the core reasons for its presence continue to be brushed under the proverbial carpet. And these reasons are to be found in our present systems which define the very societies themselves. The Rule of Law only goes so far in protecting the innocent, but ensures immunity to those with money, prestige and power on a scale that is unacceptable for so-called democratic nations. Perhaps it has always been so, but the structures upon which our present laws were founded seemed to have all but crumbled away when the courts and custody battles are placed under the microscope.

 


Notes

[1] ‘French paedophile ring case turns into judicial fiasco’ The Guardian, December 2, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Outrage over innocent 13 jailed in sex abuse scandal’ The Times, January 20, 2006.
[4]  ‘Child abuse gang horrifies France’ By Sarah Shenker, BBC News, July 27, 2005.
[5] p.66; The Politics and Experience of Ritual Abuse: Beyond Disbelief By Sara Scott, 2001, published by Open University Press. | ISBN 0-335-20419-8.
[6] op. cit. Scott (p.67)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook.T.S Trepper and M. J Barrett, New York: Brunner/Mazel. (1989).
[9] The Incest Loophole’ By Andrew Vachss, The New York Times Op-Ed, November 20, 2005.
[10] U. S. Department of Justice (1981). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics-1981. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C. /U. S. Department of Justice (1989). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics-1989. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C.
[11] US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1997.
[12] ‘Female paedophiles more prevalent than conviction rates suggest, leading forensic psychologist says’ By David Lewis
28 Apr 2015. ABC News Australia.
[13] ‘Unspeakable Acts’, Trouble and Strife 2 I(Summer), I3 p. I5 by L. Kelly. 1991.
[14] Bridget Mary Nolan, a former Australian teacher was convicted in December 2005 of having sexual intercourse with an underage student at her school. She was sentenced on March 1, 2006 to two years and four months but which led to a suspended sentence after Nolan entered a $1,000, three-year good behaviour bond. The sentencing judge justified his decision not to hand down a jail sentence due to her showing “genuine remorse.” The Australian, January 2006, p. 5./ The Australian. 2 March 2006, p. 3.
[15] A woman told investigators that she was “…coaxed into raping her 6-year-old son when her husband threatened to leave will spend the next 16 years in prison….The woman’s 30-year-old husband was sentenced …to two concurrent life.” published in The Akron Beacon-Journal, October 5, 2002.
[16] ‘Breaking the last taboo: child sexual abuse by female perpetrators’ By Renee Koonin, Australian Social Work journal, Volume 30, No 2. May 1995.
[17]  ‘Police: Teen given to older man for sex.’ Associated Press, August 10, 2006.
[18] A paper: Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, ‘Women as Perpetrators,’ by D. Finkelhor, and D. Russell New York: Free Press. (1984).