Shannon Mathews

I would not have described the death of my father, at 72 as being 'elderly', nor my FIL who died at 70.

Nor would I describe the death of anyone year old as being 'elderly' because they had dementia.

What does 'elderly' mean? Are these people who are elderly subject to being pressed into doing things they don't want to do? Are they vulnerable?

Can we not recognise that there are certain people out there who will target those who are seen as vulnerable. Teenage girls by Boko Haram, young people by IS. Adults can be vulnerable too.

Online, why preface 'elderly' with 74 year old woman?

Possible (but not definitely) because they are in possession of a more detailed description they have not printed.

My mother is 74. She is not elderly.

FIL was still working in his 80s. Nobody would have described him as elderly until about six months before he died in his late 80s.

MIL died at 74. She was elderly a good couple of years before her death. Time was really not kind to her in the way it has been to other people in the same age bracket. The same could be said of her cousin, who died at 72 and most would have described him as elderly at least 18 months before his death.

The description might be evidence of some kind of discriminatory mindset. But until the story develops it isn't possible to say with any real accuracy.

The use of elderly is patronising and ageist. There are any number of reasons why more information was not given.

In the case of the man making racist comments I think it is perfectly justified to report that not only were racist comments made but that they were made by a person who is rich and powerful.

They knew her age! They put 'elderly' in.

Online, why preface 'elderly' with 74 year old woman? There was no need to do this.

If they had no further information, then why say 'elderly 74 year old woman

Possibly they are restricted in what they can say until family has been informed ? Although if that is the case it might have been better to not give a specific age.

but he had some hold over them and they chose to do whatever it took to please him

I googled one of the women. Turns out she can apply for parole now, so there was a fair amount of stuff. From what I can gather, neither she, nor the other women, were abusing the children solely to gratify their desire to gratify the man.

"had some hold over" implies helpless passivity. But I haven't seen anything yet that suggests any of the women were reluctantly performing the abuse at the behest of Blanchard despite their own lack of sexual interest in children. More a case of they were doing it enthusiastically in part because of their sexual interest in children and in part because it cemented the relationship between the five of them. A relationship all five actively and freely took steps to establish, develop and maintain.

Not saying it doesn't happen, that people abuse primarily to gratify their desire to gratify another, despite their own lack of specific sexual interest in a child, animal, or other vulnerable person. But this specific case does not appear to have those characteristics. Or at least, it doesn't based on what I've just read about it.

The principle that women behave better than men is pretty much signed, sealed and delivered on this forum too.

That's not part of this discussion though.

If they had no further information, then why say 'elderly 74 year old woman'? She could have been a billionaire magnate who did great things. A 74 year old is not elderly. Donald Trump could well be described then as elderly during his term of office. However elderly statesman has a whole different meaning to elderly woman, despite similarities in age.

"Anyone over the age of 18 is an adult. I was at school at the time when it was common for most people to leave at 16."

When I was at school my 18-year old schoolmates still had to have a form signed for their parents to go on any trip (Form B it was called at the time).
When I went to university, the amount of my grant was determined by my parents' income, not my own.
To get married before 18 I think you need parental consent.

But generally yes, we are adults at 18.

But women are seen as grown women when they are teenagers!

Anyone over the age of 18 is an adult. I was at school at the time when it was common for most people to leave at 16. Plenty of people in my school year had left the parental home, were working and married by 18.

Does the phase 'grown man' exist? And what age is he?

She was described as an 'elderly 74 year old woman', nothing else

The second was about a vile racist comment towards the Obama's made by a man, he was described as a '70 year old business magnate

In the case of the second you can interpret that to be more critical than if they had said nothing. I'd actually like to know if "a business magnate" was making racist remarks. In the case of the former - possibly they had no other information.

women are supposed to be carers and nurturers and not behave like men. This view is signed, sealed and delivered by the main stream media

The principle that women behave better than men is pretty much signed, sealed and delivered on this forum too.

Also what age is a 'grown woman' supposed to be?

How many men would be happy to leave their children over to all male nursery staff every morning?

"Isn't it actually really common for those who abuse children to not be paedophiles?
They're actually sadists who just want to hurt someone and children are easiest"

There are also people who are just selfish and will take advantage of whoever is around and is weak.

But women are seen as grown women when they are teenagers!

Elendon

I dont think you are suggesting that grown women and teenagers have the same agency ? But that's what it sounds like.

I dunno - I think if people actually suspected that women could be paedophiles to the extent they suspect men then society would be in big trouble. Maybe there is something of that in it. I wonder how many women would be happy to hand over the children to a nursery staffed entirely by men every morning.

Islamic State are known to groom people online. Many teenagers are warned about sexual grooming online. Is it their fault? Have they agency in this and are they able to stop it? Is it infantalising teenagers?

Isn't it actually really common for those who abuse children to not be paedophiles?
They're actually sadists who just want to hurt someone and children are easiest

People can be inculcated into a sect, political group. One case that springs to mind is Patty Hearst. She was definitely groomed into the group in order to survive the terrible abduction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hearst

I know of Matthews and what she did to Shannon. I don't really know the uncle involved, who was just as bad.

I think throw away the key relates to people who act alone. When a woman is involved the focus seems to be on her. She will be the person who is evil incarnate, the worst mother in the UK, the devil's spawn. (The devil is always depicted as male of course).

" hadn't even met the man who supposedly had such power over them that they had no choice but to abuse children at his behest. "

Well, it's likely that he didn't have any real power of them, but he had some hold over them and they chose to do whatever it took to please him.

"I find it hard to imagine how anyone could molest a child (without being forced or threatened into doing so) who isn't on some level a pedophile. "

That's a bit like when people say "they must be insane to have done this". People sometimes just don't want to believe that people who don't have a condition would do bad things, but I'm afraid I think they do.

"I would venture these were women with latent pedophiliac tendencies who found in the male instigator someone who they could project responsibility onto."

That's one explanation for what happened, but it's just your view, there's no evidence for that as far as I know.

Could you maybe give an example OP, of a man who has committed a crime involving abuse of children who you feel has "gotten off" ? The media typically describe such men as "the devil incarnate" and give the impression they should "throw away the key" etc if not kill them. I think that since it is unusual relatively to hear about women committing the kinds of abhorrent crimes against children that men do the cases might get slightly more column inches, but they are not reviled more than men IMO.

No one is denying that women are capable as fully fledged humans of degrading and disgusting acts, similar to those men do. The argument is that when women do it, it is seen as an aberration to the feminine gender, women are supposed to be carers and nurturers and not behave like men. This view is signed, sealed and delivered by the main stream media.

Just this morning I read two news articles. In one, a woman fell from a cruise ship and the search for her was abandoned. She was described as an 'elderly 74 year old woman', nothing else.

The second was about a vile racist comment towards the Obama's made by a man, he was described as a '70 year old business magnate'.

Thanks for that link JerryFerry - it is an excellent article.

Vanessa George and those other women who abused in the nursery hadn't even met the man who supposedly had such power over them that they had no choice but to abuse children at his behest.

I find it hard to imagine how anyone could molest a child (without being forced or threatened into doing so) who isn't on some level a pedophile. In the George case I would venture these were women with latent pedophiliac tendencies who found in the male instigator someone who they could project responsibility onto.

No one who is not a pedophile or completely insane could do something like that to a child. Any normal person would vomit with horror and run to the police. They simply would not be capable of committing such an act.