Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mother jailed for failing to protect daughters from sexual abuse by their father

109 replies

DonkeySkin · 17/01/2015 13:01

In line with the thread on women being jailed in El Salvador for miscarrying, this happened in Oz recently:

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-17/mother-sentenced-over-abuse-of-daughters-by-their-father/6022518

Sometimes I think the world is becoming more woman-hating by the day Sad

OP posts:
ThatBloodyWoman · 27/01/2015 19:58

I can understand the mind twisting shite that some men can come out with to convince a woman day is night,and I can understand how a woman can feel she is protecting her children from greater harm,even though she is allowing harm to come to them.
I don't feel qualified to condemn this woman without knowing a whole lot more than I do.

mathanxiety · 28/01/2015 17:33

I agree with AskBasil.

This woman wasn't close to being even a 'good enough' mother, but there are all kinds of obstacles in the way of women who might know deep down that what is going on is wrong, and might want to do the right thing.

And on the question of 'eternal, spineless victim with no responsibility for her actions' I think it's important to remember that the primary aim of an abuser is to make the victim feel she has absolutely no options apart from maintaining the status quo out of terror of things get worse, with 'worse' meaning murder.

It's important to try to understand the nature of a relationship that is so incredibly abusive (because that is always the case when the relationship is with a man who is so twisted that he would rape his own children.) It is also important to understand that people are conditioned from a very young age to accept this sort of domination. This can be seen in the life of the oldest daughter. She left the farm at age 18 according to the report, but apparently told no-one what was going on and it was only when a younger sister went to police seven years later the case was discovered and the oldest (then aged 25) gave her account.

By the prosecution's reasoning, should the oldest daughter be prosecuted too?

PhaedraIsMyName · 28/01/2015 23:56

By the prosecution's reasoning, should the oldest daughter be prosecuted

This has already been covered in the thread. Unless Australia has a "good Samaritan" rule ( which I don't think it has) the daughter has no responsibility to protect her siblings. Unless she herself was also participating in abuse she has not committed a crime.

Do you really think all of the points you've just listed would not have been raised by the defence if they even applied (which we don't know)

How bad does a woman have to be before excuses aren't made?

mathanxiety · 29/01/2015 00:33

There is no need for the snippy tone, Phaedra.

There is a difference between legal and moral responsibility. Even if the court had decided the mother was not culpable legally, many would consider her at least partially responsible from a moral standpoint. Likewise, though she was found guilty that doesn't mean she bears all the moral responsibility some feel a guilty verdict implies.

We don't know if any of the points I raised were raised by the defence. Therefore I don't think we can assume anything about how the jury reached its verdict, or about her degree of responsibility.

However, the dynamics of abusive relationships in general are known to have a serious effect on people involved in them. If the defence didn't bring this body of knowledge to bear on its presentation of her case then they were remiss. If they did and the jury dismissed them then perhaps there were cultural factors at play that made it hard for them to understand the position of a victim and weigh it properly.

There is no gain for the public interest in this guilty verdict.

Women in abusive relationships who suspect their partners are abusing their children are going to be frightened to report it as they will fear jail. Men who are abusing children will find it easier to scare the mothers into silence as they will say 'you knew this was happening, and you went along with it,' or 'I will tell the police you knew' -- a man who knows the prosecution has a good case against him has nothing to lose by bullying his partner like this, and actually has something to gain, namely time to continue the abuse, plus the gratification of seeing the effect of his words. And both women and men see a case where a woman was dominated by her partner not believed in court.

This is also incredibly disheartening for women who want to divorce abusive men but who are afraid of the spectre of visitation where the children are left completely defenceless against their ex. The bar of proof of abuse is set astronomically high in many places for women who want to prevent an abusive partner from contact or even unsupervised contact with children. Many societies have as one of their guiding myths that children without a father in their lives will turn out terribly, and that single mothers are not capable of ever being good enough parents or good enough influences on their own to bring up children. Men would have to actually murder one of the children to be barred from normal visitation -- every other weekend with maybe a weekday evening thrown in.

chaiselounger · 29/01/2015 05:36

I agree. There's just not enough details here.
It doesnt say mum was sexually assaulted.
It says she performed an indecent act.
What does that actually mean? What are the possibilities? Sex itself? Or more sordid? Or a blow job? Sorry for sounding dim , but what was actually done?

mathanxiety · 29/01/2015 06:30

And there is also a difference between legal and moral responsibility where the oldest DD is concerned imo.

PhaedraIsMyName · 29/01/2015 07:01

So far as the court not believing she was dominated by him have you considered the possibility the jury didn't believe her because it wasn't true? Or not to the extent that you have posited ?

It does not follow that this will deter anyone reporting abuse- if anything it emphasises that doing nothing is not an option.

In relation to the eldest daughter are you suggesting she is to blame but her mother isn't?

It would be in the public interest to do nothing in relation to the person with legal responsibility and rather pursue the one who didn't?

ThatBloodyWoman · 29/01/2015 07:27

If a partner tells you that if you tell tales,something far far worse will be visited upon not you (because you aren't the one you're so concerned about ) but someone you love,you believe them because you know what they are capable of.
Those who have been in abusive relationships know this.Its such a mess of your whole world view being so completely twisted that it becomes impossible to know how best to protect those you love.

mathanxiety · 29/01/2015 22:17

What I said was that we don't know what the court was told, and I have speculated about what might and might not have been stated and how it might have been received if stated. You seem to deny the possibility of domination or abuse without knowing what was stated in court. Why?

From your remarks about possible deterrence I don't think you understand much about domestic abuse. ThatBloodyWoman has described it's effects well.

You have also missed the point I made about moral and legal responsibility and the fact that the two sometimes overlap and sometimes do not.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page