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?

I didn't pick up on sakua's post because the data is so old and now irrelevent.

Tbh female crimes against children are often ignored when compared to male crime (i find in my work, anyway). Things don't work as they should and people are not charged with the actual crime, they are charged with what will secure a conviction.

I would love to see some reliable stats which support female sex abuse of children being as prevalent as male sex abuse of children. That does run counter to everythibg I have read, although I have never studied this.

Thanks Grandhighpoohba (and the other posters who talked about the definitions) thankfully I've got to write a report as an expert witness (forensic psychology) about how children are treated in court as eyewitnesses and victims of sexual assaults, and what factors might corrupt the credibility and accuracy of their eyewitness testimony.

I'd have fallen at the first post if it was dependent on my knowledge of the strict definition of a paedophile wouldn't I?

Could female sexual assaults on children be grouped by being 'low level' and therefore going under the radar of official stats?

Crimes that are difficult to detect and easier to explain away by the child misunderstanding?

This is a pece from an article after George was convicted:

"Women suspected of committing sexual offences have traditionally been treated differently by the criminal justice system, often being referred on to social services or welfare agencies for treatment. While male paedophiles tend to be viewed as predators, female paedophiles have in the past been regarded as mentally ill.

When cases involving women offenders do go to court, they are often referred to family court for trial and are not reported because of confidentiality restrictions.

What has also led us to assume that women abusers are a rarity is that there is less reporting of sexual abuse by women."

Research suggests that the incidence of mother-son incest is far greater than we imagine it to be. Again, there are various reasons why it does not get discovered: if the mother is a single parent, it is less likely to be spotted by a fellow adult. Then there is the nature of the behaviour - say, bathing an 11-year-old child. This would be considered abusive if carried out by a father, but merely eccentric or abnormal if done by a mother. And whatever the precise nature of the abuse, if it started at an early age it is likely to be regarded as 'normal' by the child.

In the case of abused teenagers, the incest becomes apparent when the girl becomes pregnant. With a boy, there is no such giveaway sign.

The myth that women are not involved in child sexual abuse is being challenged with the explosion of internet child pornography and the high number of women users involved.

The laws to convict women didn't exsist until recently to include oral etc.

"However, statistics indicate that female child abusers not only exist, but in numbers approaching those of males. In New Zealand, 48% of child abusers for 2006, where the perpetrator gender was known, were women.
In the USA, in 2002, 63% of all child abuse, from neglect to sexual abuse, was perpetrated by the mother. In 40% of cases the mother acted alone."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14596811

news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15396996

The second link has the details of a two year study started in 2009, so it will shortly publish its findings.

I think that male paedophiles are seen as sexual predators. If a man is a paedophile then he is doing it because he enjoys it. Whereas if a woman is convicted of it, people look for reasons - her being abused being the top one. either abused as a child, or the victim of a man who is forcing her to do these things. Or her being mentally ill.

For some reason, most people are totally unwilling to accept that women can do these things for the same reason men do. A woman who does this must also be a victim somehow.

I don't understand why. Perhaps it is to protect our own perception of women as child nurturers and not child abusers?