Are there differences in the perceptions of male and female paedophiles?

[AgentZigzag]

I'm thinking in particular about Vanessa George who was found guilty of sexual assault and distributing indecent pictures of children in a Plymouth nursery (I'm writing an essay/report if you wondered about my motivation, and although it's about children's eyewitness testimony, the case brief we were given made me think about how I felt differently about male and female sexual offenders).

My first thoughts when hearing about women taking part in this type of crime is 'what on earth would make them to do that'? and wonder about the experiences and circumstances that led her up to that point, other peoples influences on her maybe? Possibly abused as a child or adult?

And although I would eventually wonder the same on hearing of a man doing the same, my first reaction would be one of 'you fucking bastard ' .

Could society/people/the general public, whatever you want to call us collectively, be less inclined to blame a woman for sexually assaulting a child and diffuse responsibility for her actions on to her environment? Whereas men are assigned more personal responsibility for their actions and could stop if they wanted to?

I've asked it in the feminist section because I think it comes down to the 'caring' role women are seen as having, nobody wants to believe a woman would do such a thing. But if it's a role mostly constructed by and for men, surely the perceptions would be reversed and men would promote more understanding of other men who sexually assault children wouldn't they? (although I'm not saying men or women are 'better' or 'worse' than the other when it comes to assaulting a child, both are despicable).

Do you think society does perceive them differently?

Does it have anything to do with the different roles men and women are perceived to have by some people?

It's the same when there are child murders in custody disputes. There was a thread about how a man had killed his kids during a custody dispute and the response was 'he did it to spite her, what a selfish bastard, child murdering scum' etc etc

A few weeks later another thread was on AIBU about a woman who did the same thing and there was a lot of posts about 'oh she must have been depressed/ mentally ill' etc and many expressing pity.

It's quite sad that people can't eitrr consider that the man might have been mentally ill, of that the woman may have just wanted to spite her ex etc.

I don't know why the differences exactly but I have seen them on MN and it does make you wonder. Maybe because the majority of us here are women who couldn't contemplate murdering out children so therefore struggle to comprehend how another women could without being 'ill' iyswim. I think it's sad for all regardless of who did it

Even as recently as 20/30 years ago , people would never have considered a woman capable of child sex abuse ( outside of specialised medical/SS), children simply weren't believed - it's only just beginning to scratch the surface of it now, I've read ( can't remember where) that there are probably as many female abusers as male ones.
Perhaps women aren't seen as quite so bad because they can't physically rape? If that's the case then it ignores the very obvious fact that you don't actually need to own a penis to do horrific damage to a child.

In part I personally believe that society as a whole still find it difficult to fathom a woman (a potential mother if not one already) from harming children in any way, particularly sexually. I think it doesn't fit in with the stereotype we women are supposed to conform intonuturers, mothers, carers. For a man to do thata hunter--it somehow seems more easy to digest, although still horrific. I also believe that another part of this is to do with the victims being children. Children still do not have a strong voice to be heard, there are often worries of asking "leading" questions thus influencing their stories and of children having good imaginations on which to blame their fanciful stories of attacks and abuse. There is still an awful lot of consideration given to those accused of rape or sexual abuse, both against grown adults and against children.

(the next part of my post is upsetting, just a warning)
On a personal level, I will never forget reading up at work (a male prison) about an offender we had with us who had sexually abused and raped his partners daughter (12 at the time of the arrests) over a number of years. His partner, a woman, the mother of the victim, took part and actively encouraged these events, going so far as to force her own child to perform sex acts upon her. Fortunatly (I use that word hesitantly, but you'll see what I mean) most of this was filmed by the perpetrators and thus convictions were secured. I have to admit that although I was sickened by what the man had done, I was more horrified by the woman. I imagine that had something to do with the fact that the child was her own flesh and blood, but I think that deep down I was shocked by the mere fact that she was a woman. I went over and over it in my head, wondering what drove her to be so cruel in a way that I didn't with the male offender.

Thanks for your posts.

I've also wondered whether the fact a lot of women are 'unsupervised' most of the time with children could contribute to a sweeping under the carpet of the reality. To acknowledge it happens frequently would mean sefeguards having to be put in place in what is the very private domain of the home, which would be nigh on impossible.

And the majority of people have been at a vulnerable age and at the 'mercy' of their mother, and so maybe prefer to believe mothers hold mystical powers to get it right/be whiter than white at all times?

Your second paragraph LWW, rings true with Vanessa George and Peter Connellys mother, both women who stood by/complied with small children being assaulted and were portrayed as being led astray by the evil men.

Is their choice to go along with them to do with their individual characteristics and experiences do you think? That it just so happened the two people got together and did things that separately they'd never consider? Like James Bulgers murderers, more than the sum of their parts.

A child sex offender isn't the same thing as a paedophile though. I haven't heard of any cases of female paedophiles, although presumably they must exist. Perhaps there has been a study done on the differences between male and female paedophiles.

It would depend on how you're defining it Milly.

A broader inclusion of the distribution of images or video, grooming children for an assault etc could be described as paedophilic behaviour. It's not necessarily a narrow focus on the amount of assaults they've taken part in.

Vanessa George was somehow involved in taking the photos for her own sexual gratification (maybe linked to the imbalance of power between her and the children? Or because she got something out of providing such material to others?) I would call her a paedophile, the children were very young and her crimes were much more than an isolated assault.

Deciding whether or not somebody is a paedophile or not isn't about the severity of their crimes through, Zigzag. Paedophilia is a particular psychological diagnosis. There will be lots of people who have committed the most serious crimes as child sex offenders who would not be diagnosed as paedophiles.

Is a traumatic childhood enough for them to expect compassion SGM? That's like saying they don't have a choice in the matter.

It's often said, but lots of people have violent childhoods who don't go on to offend.

Rosemary West had terrible experiences as a child, but that doesn't excuse her torturing and murdering.

It isn't about compassion though, is it? It is about understanding why people commit these crimes, which may be for reasons other than being a paedophile. If there is a good understanding of why it happens, there is a greater opportunity to treat people so that they do not offend or do not reoffend.

I think that society clearly likes to understand the actions of women offenders in general in a way that they don't with men.
People assume that when a woman and man offend together that the woman has been coerced by the man. I would also assume that a defence lawyer would be happy to go along with this/ encourage this view of things, but is it the truth?

In the same way as there are vunerable women there are vunerable men.

If that is the case, why is there a massive genre of books about getting inside the mind of the killer, finding out about the killer's childhood and hearing criminal psychologists talk about the killer, hearing about the psychological profile of killers in general.

The public seems obsessed with 'understanding violent and/or sexual offenders, of either gender, aren't they?

I don't mean the books like that I mean more the general public view of tabloid headlines.
there seems to be a Oh God what made her do that? view of a woman who commits a crime, but not the same instant question about why a man would commit an offence

I think you're right that we want to understand, regardless of the sex of the offender. But when it's a woman - yes, I think part of me does assume she was coerced/had been abused herself - I try to make some sort of vague excuses, because the alternative - that the offender was just plain evil - is too uncomfortable for me. Is that because I'm a woman, though? Does a man try to find a reason for a woman's crimes in the same way?

wasn't vanessa Gorge taking the photographs primarily because a male paedophile asked/persuaded her to or am I mixing up cases?

The growth of psychological research into the subject milly, has probably gone hand in hand with the public taking an interest in what drives murders and sexual offenders.

Maybe more interest is taken in women offenders because they, rightly or wrongly, seem less of the norm?

It is IMO important to see the person behind the offender - sorry if that is a lilly livered liberal view. But I can not bring myself to believe that anyone is born naturally evil so something has made them feel that this behaviour is acceptable.

As for the conversation about paedophilia, I understood (may well be wrong) that this is when someone believes that children are capable of sexual maturity and capable of having sexual relationships below the current given age of consent.
The age that they feel maturity comes seems to vary within the community of paedophiles, with those who see a 9 year old as sexually mature feeling sickened by a paedophile who feels that coming around the age of 5.

I haven't read much about female paedophiles, but feel that this sort of distortion of reality can't just be a male trait.

sorry that took me so long to type thread had moved on

A bloke she was in contact on fb with I think Fanjo.

I might be wrong but I don't think they met until the trial?

Thing is, some people are horrible. Irrespective of gender. Some people really like having power over others and being able to hurt them. Some of such people were hideously mistreated in the course of their own childhoods. (Fred West was brought up in a household of continual violent and sexually-motivated abuse, so was Ted Bundy). But most people are reasonably nice. Most people do not want to hurt others, most people feel pity and empathy and whiile they might lash out in anger or get their undies in an unethical bundle about some stranger the tabloids have turned into a hate figure. most people do not inflict continuouse mental/physical pain on others.

got to step in here before the "men and women can be just as bad as each other" trope takes off:

"In 1973, Walter Gove found that ?for women the shift from being single to being married increases the likelihood of being murdered, while for men the shift decreases their chances.? Gove obtained similar findings for single as compared to married women as regards to ?accidental deaths.? It is, of course, likely that many accidental deaths were murders.

It was also found that:

Virtually all mass murderers are men, and most of their victims have been women.

Incest is a form of sexual violence that is primarily directed against female children by adult male perpetrators (Finkelhor (1980; Herman with Herschman, 1977). Herman and Herschman found that 92 % of incest victims are female and 97% of the perpetrators are male.

So yes, while much is made in the media of female paedophliles, it's very important to point out that women are often accomplices to men. And if all male paedophiles were given the same kind of coverage that fermale paedophiles are, then there'd never be room for anything else. "Paedophile" is practically synonymous with "male" (again please see the stats)

I don't think you understood MillyR when she was saying that there is a difference between a child sex offender and a paedophile.

Since this is for an essay, I think you need to get your terminology right, otherwise it gets confusing. What you are talking about is male and female sex offenders. The term paedophilia only ever refers a person who can only be sexually aroused by children. It refers to their sexuality, not their behaviour. They may or may not act on that arousal. It is fairly rare. Most child sex offenders, male or female, are not paedophiles. I don't actually know if there have been any documented female paedophiles.

Using paedophile as a blanket term for all child sex offenders is a tabloid thing.

This is a fascinating area for study though, I wish I had some more time today to join in properly.

There are many academic boks on the subject of paedophilia/sex offenders/abusers and societies view of them, from all angles, psychology, sociology (Chivilary theory, cultural norms, labeling, Anomie etc).

I carry out parenting assessments and will say that i have never come across an abusive parent who has had a 'normal' childhood, i have discussed this on numerous occassions, as i believe that empathy can be blocked or removed by early experiences and no-one i have spoken to has said that there hasn't been clues as to why the person is capable of their crimes. But then that means that there is a danger of labeling people and counseling only works if a person is willing to engage.

There has been new research on racism that involves reading brain patterns in different situations and it has been found that held beliefs completly changes how the brain reacts to what is being seen/done. So if you believe that a person is inferior the pity/empathy responce is blocked, similar research is being carried out on sexual behaviour.

The problem is getting consent and the research holding up to scrutiny.

"Paedophile" is practically synonymous with "male"

I'm hoping that was just awkward wording, and you meant something more along the lines of "male paedophile is practically redundant". Because male and paedophile are not synonymous - they cannot be used interchangeably!