“Perpetrators of CSE are usually male but may belong to any socio-economic, ethnic group or culture.” Is this statement true or false?

[Brokenness]

This question was part of the assessment at the end of an online course for school staff about child sexual exploitation. I selected "true", which was marked as incorrect. Of course perpetrators can be female, but I'm not convinced that "usually male" is untrue.

Aiding and abetting a male offender doesn't make it OK though does it. I mean would you turn a blind eye if you knew your husband/partner/brother/father was going upstairs to rape your 10 year old or even watching or joining in?

No one has said it is ok

Where did you get that idea. The point is that the sexual abuse is usually, almost exclusively, carried out by men. The women when convicted are often protecting for or doing things for a male offender.

And even then there's very few compared to men.

If you want to put turning a blind eye in the same category as physically carrying out the abuse then you still won't get 50/50 I'd have thought and you would paint a totally incorrect profile of sex offenders.

I can't think of any good reason to pretend that women are as likely to be sexual predators of children as men.

I've come across a few mothers who know about abuse, but don't prevent it, through my work. Every single one of them was being abused too, by the same man (usually their partner, sometimes another relative). And their abuse was complex, not just physical. Eg being prevented from learning English or being financially controlled or being forcibly estranged from family and any potential support networks. The other striking thing is often this abuse began when the mothers were children themselves.

I’m sure the number of female sexual offenders and paedophiles is higher than reported, however, I am yet to see any evidence that it is anywhere near the level of male offenders. Violence and sexual abuse all around the world is overwhelmingly committed by men and the victims are almost exclusively women and children.

I understand the importance of highlighting that men can also be victims and females can be perpetrators, but it’s disingenuous and potentially harmful to state that these are crimes committed equally by men and women and victims are equally male and female. We should be trying to understand and tackle what is literally a war waged by men against women and children since the dawn of time instead of saying “women can be bad too!” And “not all men!”.

*Sexual violence

I think it's more likely that there is a much larger number of male victims (boys in particular but men too) than reported.

Strangely the MRA focus never seems to be on that, bit on insisting that there is a massive under reported problem with female sex offending (despite all global official stats and also anecdotally eg people trying anon stories on things like Twitter like metoo, or what were you wearing).

I understand the importance of highlighting that men can also be victims and females can be perpetrators, but it’s disingenuous and potentially harmful to state that these are crimes committed equally by men and women and victims are equally male and female

I think a lot depends on context though. It seems like the idea in this case is to make sure that people who may be looking for signs of abuse aren't missing things by allowing assumptions about who is likely to be an abuser to get in the way. Statistical averages are one thing, but in terms of looking at an actual, individual, child, an abuser could be someone unexpected.

It's essentially saying, don't dismiss what you see or hear because you think someone like that (white, non-white, female, rich, etc) couldn't be an abuser.

Just why are so many professional orgs pushing this though?

10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it males men look bad.

11th rule of misogyny: Basic pattern recognition skills are cruel and evil when they hurt men's feelings.

I think a lot depends on context though

The context is from the OP, "part of the assessment at the end of an online course for school staff about child sexual exploitation"

OP has also confirmed,
"The course materials did not discuss the proportion of perpetrators who are male."

Yes, which as far as I can see is just what I said. It's not about the demographics of abuse, it's about being open to spot abuse in any possible situation.

The course materials should have accurate information about the nature of CSE. The sex-based are relevent to training just as is the need to not be blinded by innacurate assumptions.

Interesting that child exploitation by males is based on a surfeit of evidence while child exploitation of children by women is based on a lack of evidence.

IMO this highlights the inadequacies of Safeguarding training when not done with a trainer present who has considerable practice experience who can discuss, challenge & answer questions in order to ensure effective working knowledge of CSE & appopriate responses.

The course materials should have accurate information about the nature of CSE. The sex-based are relevent to training just as is the need to not be blinded by innacurate assumptions.

But it's not inaccurate. It is usually (but not always) male people and they can belong to any socio-economic group or culture.

As a single question on an exam that's meant to assess that the person being trained understands that anyone could be an abuser, it's fine.

But it's not inaccurate. It is usually (but not always) male people and they can belong to any socio-economic group or culture.

OP has said,
"The course materials did not discuss the proportion of perpetrators who are male."

The course materials seem to have said they were usually male, that is, the proportion is mostly men. Which is true, and in a way more true than giving a statistic that is exact because we all know that they are only approximations.

Unless the OP is complaining that the asked a question on the test that they received no information about, but I didn't understand that to be her complaint.

Which is true, and in a way more true than giving a statistic that is exact because we all know that they are only approximations.

Statistics have a role to play in professionals' Safeguarding & Child Protection training, not least in understanding the nature /scope of forms of abuse.

But it's not fine

The question was, 'Perpetrators of CSE are usually male but may belong to any socio-economic, ethnic group or culture.” Is this statement true or false?'

OP said true. She got told it was an incorrect answer. When she asked they confirmed it was about the male bit.

But it's true.

So how is it fine.

If the question said always male, that would of course be false.

So much training now is done online and tested by multiple choice questions. The training provider needs to ensure that people on a safeguarding course have understood that CSE perpetrators can come from any background. From that perspective, removing ‘usually’ would mean the correct answer would be ’false’.

However, is that sufficient? I was thinking about R0wantrees’ point about the value of safeguarding training with a skilled and experienced trainer. Do we know if people who have done online training or personalised training with a trainer actually apply the knowledge they have gained in practice differently? If not, we should.

Does the sort of knowledge tested via multiple choice questions just contribute to ‘whataboutery’ whereby it becomes impossible to generalise, no matter how good the evidence, because of one or two outliers? It’s like Popper’s Black Swan theory gone wrong. Perhaps I’m extrapolating too much from this but there have been a few threads recently about the frustrations when women are presented as equally likely to be perpetrators of domestic abuse as men.

Anyone who's had to do one of these online multichoices knows how it works. You sit together and the first person to get them all "right" shares the answers and you all get them all "right," then you go for a coffee.

Nothing to do with child protection. Everything to do with protecting organisations from litigation. "We train all our staff..."

Nothing to do with child protection. Everything to do with protecting organisations from litigation. "We train all our staff..."

Yes

The end result is a widespread failure to actually understand Safeguarding in a way that it can be applied.

There is also no opportunity for experienced practitioners running training sessions to identify potential specifc Safeguarding issues within groups of staff which might be indicative of systemic failings.

I read an excellent post here a while ago about how safeguarding training doesn't include how good perpetrators are at manipulating other people, either with aggressive dominance so people don't question them or by being everyone's pal so they are hard to question. This should be looked at in training with a good quality trainer not reading off notes. And I have never experienced this although i work in an area that means I've had lots of safeguarding training.

I agree most training is tick box for the organisation to look good rather than really develop confidence and awareness in that area.

I once had to tell a board member that she could only contact the youth panel through me even though she had a clean dbs. She had been on safeguarding training but just didn't get it - and to be fair to her, that will have been because it wasn't good enough.

In what way is this statement untrue? Who decided that?

What message does it send to say that the statement is false? That perpetrators of abuse only come from a specific socio economic or ethnic group and that perpetrators are not usually male? What is this idiocy?

How clumsy to lump two questions together, so when the testee is told their answer was wrong, they don't know which element they got wrong or whether it was both. That's bad test design.

If the answer was wrong because perpetrators of CSE are not 'usually male', there should be statistics to support this. Moreover the word 'usually' is far too imprecise for use in true/false questions. It would have been better to give a range of percentages and have the testee choose between them.

Finally, anyone who holds back on believing statistics on the sex of CSE perpetrators because of a gut feeling that there must be hordes of women perpetrating away out there without ever being reported or detected or anything ever coming to light should not be setting test questions or involved in training anyone, surely? They may also equally well believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.