Mick Carroll, that’s not protecting, it’s child rape enabling

Screen Shot 2017-04-23 at 10.05.19 am

Written by Andrew Richards. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Men’s Rights Sydney

So Im going to respond to Mick Caroll’s editorial on Tim Simona, entitled “You’re not victims, you’re deadbeat dads

I will get to the article and its attitudes in time,

I became aware of this sorry excuse for an article because Miranda Devine shared it on twitter

I can only assume this was a terrible lapse in judgement by Miranda Devine and I told her as much but  as Twitter’s 140 character limit makes saying anything of substance virtually impossible, I emailed her regarding what I tweeted concerning her share but have yet to receve a response. Furthermore given that many people have no knowledge of the facts my letter to her contains, I have decided to rewrite it as an article.

I first need to go into the actual realities of not only our attitudes towards female-on-male sexual violence, but its actual prevalence and legal status.

One of the most dangerous myths about child support, is that only those who willingly became fathers are required to pay it. Sadly this is far from the case, with many men and even underage boys who have been raped by women – forced to engage in non-consensual vaginal intercourse, either while passed out, drugged or statutorily – knowingly being ordered by our family courts and family courts in other countries to pay child support to their rapists. This in turn is driven by widespread, acceptable social attitudes towards female-perpetrated sexual violence against males, which in many ways, ticks most of the boxes, if not all of them, were someone to de-gender the feminist definition of “rape culture”.

Part of the problem is that rape is still legally only defined as an act where the victim is forcibly penetrated. Here in Australia for example, rape by forced envelopment or being “made to penetrate”, to use the technical term, is classed as “other sexual violence” or “not real rape” and is legally classed as “Sexual Assault” – in other words, no more severe than a woman having her breasts briefly groped  . Yet when lawmakers have tried to rectify this, feminists have successfully lobbied against it, such as feminist groups in India and Israel .

I’ll put this further in context for you.

Very few studies have looked at female-on-male rape in any meaningful manner which didn’t frame it in terms of the rapey, feminist definition of rape exclusively being the act of a perpetrator sexually penetrating their victim. The most prolific one which did and entirely by accident, was the 2010 NIPSVS . What it’s data for the previous 12 months found, was that  men are raped by being forced to penetrate (Page 19, Table 2.2. “Made to Penetrate”) as often as women are by being penetrated (Page 18, Table 2.1 “Rape”) and that 79.2% of those men were raped by women (Page 24). In spite of this, or more likely because of this, the CDC reclassified the female-on-male rape of over a million men as “other sexual violence” in order to claim that only 1 in 71 men had been found to be raped, as compared to 1 in 5 women. When challenged on this, the CDC had no legitimate defence , however it should be noted not only that prominent radical feminist Mary Koss has had a longstanding influential roe with the CDC in defining what does and does not constitute rape   and that she has consistently viewed female-on-male rape with dismissive contempt – both in her peer-reviewed writings  and radio interviews she has given  on the subject.
Likewise, National Geographic reported in October 2013 on a study by JAMA Paediatrics which found that underage girls were at least as violent as underage boys – findings which even shocked the researchers . Likewise, in December 2013, TIME Magazine exposed the hidden epidemic of female-perpetrated war rape in the Congo – where 40% of female rape victims were raped by women and research into war rape by women in conflict zones, including the Congo, has revealed that female war rapists are even more violent and sadistic than male war rapists .

Sadly, not only are children no stranger to female perpetrated child sexual violence, but it is literally best described by the title of a documentary on the subject as an ultimate [social] taboo . Contrary to common misconception, the Canadian Children’s Rights Council have noted that at least 25% of all sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by women and that 86% of children who are sexually abused by a woman, aren’t believed when they disclose their abuse . Likewise, veteran researcher Michelle Elliot has noted on a youtube interview she gave , that her research has uncovered that over 75% of female child sexual abusers acted alone and that in the majority of cases (1:06), they were the victim’s mother (8:01). She also noted common social attitudes to female-on-male child sexual abuse when she recalled an exchange with Germaine Greer on live television, as follows:

“And as Germaine Greer said to me, on a television program “Well, if it is a woman having sex with a young teenage boy (i.e. a 13 or 14 year old) and he gets an erection, then clearly it’s his responsibility.”” (9:24)

Sadly this leads to many sexually abused children being forced to normalise their abuse, as expressed by the performance art piece “Why Rape Is Sincerely Hillarious (when it happens to dudes!)“.

The Canadian Children’s Rights Council have also noted in their special report, “The Invisible Boy” , notes on page 30:

:

“Self-report studies provide a very different view of sexual abuse perpetration and substantially increase the number of female perpetrators. In a retrospective study of male victims, 60% reported being abused by females (Johnson and Shrier, 1987). The same rate was found in a sample of college students (Fritz et al., 1981). In other studies of male university and college students, rates of female perpetration were found at levels as high as 72% to 82% (Fromuth and Burkhart, 1987, 1989; Seidner and Calhoun, 1984).”

It also appears that page 30 has unwittingly uncovered one of the greatest predictors of male-perpetrated sexual violence, if not the greatest predictor of it, when it notes:

“Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men – 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O’Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by “females only” chose female victims almost exclusively.”

In other words, our attitudes towards female on male child sexual abuse not only harm underage boys, but ultimately also harm women and girls.

Let me repeat that so that it doesn’t get lost in a sea of cognitive dissonance driven shock and confusion. In other words, our attitudes towards female on male child sexual abuse not only harm underage boys, but ultimately also harm women and girls

Sadly, the family courts even financially incentivise not only female-on-male rape, but female-on-male child sexual abuse. In the US for example, it is a matter of law that a male being raped is considered no barrier to being made to pay child support – even when the victim is a child.

“We really thought we had seen it all until these articles began arriving in our email.  A woman unlawfully has sexual contact and intercourse with a male and is charged with statutory rape. The union of the two produce a child.

 

The VICTIM — the male — *MUST* pay child support!”

You’ll note that even those who were 12 year old children when women raped them, have been legally re-victimised in this manner. One case which comes to mind is that of Nick Olivas . Olivas was 14 when a 20 year old woman statutorily raped him. 10 years later she came after him for child support. The law obligates him to pay it to her, but as the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse has passed, she can no longer be changed for the monstrous act of sexually violating a child

I have it on good authority from an experienced Family Law Solicitor working for Lone Fathers that the same laws apply here if the rapist of the man or the child has a “relationship with the child” that he was forced to conceive when he was raped; right before telling me it was a trivial matter compared to men who hire prostitutes and then don’t pay them being charged with rape.

Herein lies the problem with Mick Carroll’s argument

He says “I hate to break it to you fellas but if you get a girl pregnant you are responsible for looking after it.”

When he does so, he is in reality, claiming that – in a country where society DEMANDS that women and girls who are raped are given access to abortions – if a man or a 12 year old child is raped and used as an unwilling sperm donor, he should “man up to his responsibilities” – essentially being blamed for his abuse. I shouldn’t have to point out that such blanket statements aren’t only victim blaming against men who are raped, but against children who are raped.

He says “If the child is yours, you have to cough up. It’s not only the right thing to do — it’s compulsory.”

When he does so, he is defending the practice of branding men and children who have been raped with a figurative scarlet letter in the form of financially indenturing them to their rapists.

He says “While some of you may label yourselves as victims of unscrupulous women looking for a meal ticket, the rest of us call you deadbeat dads.”

In doing so he is labelling not only male rape victims, but child rape victims as “deadbeat dads”.

He defends this barbaric practice of financially enabling and incentivising rapists and paedophiles by claiming “You don’t get to decide. The law has already done that for you.” – in other words ‘It’s the law- so that makes it ok.’ Yet tell me, would you or he even remotely condone someone justifying someone stoning women to death for adultery or honour killings in some barbaric third world country by claiming ‘It’s the law – so that makes it ok”?

Yea somehow I think not.

Regards,

Andrew Richards

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s