Suggests the Times of London,

For the public, the most obviously shocking aspect of the case was the fact that George was a woman, a mother, and had therefore behaved in every way contrary to the instinctive nurturing role with which it is generally assumed most women are born. There was further disbelief and outrage when it transpired that George had also posted naked images of her own 14-year-old daughter online, together with a handful of smutty, sexual comments.

While it's certain that the molestation of small children - particularly in a child-care professional - would appall us regardless of the sex of the perpetrator, is it true that there's an extra element of shock when it's a woman? And does it make it more horrifying, or less if, as the defense claims, George was committing the crimes to satisfy a man's sick predilections rather than her own desires? Isn't this a sickness in itself, and just as potentially harmful to victims? Acknowledging a difference in psychology of perpetrators is not to place any less blame.

Continues the article,

Certainly, as a phenomenon, it feels unfamiliar, something the media didn't report until recently and whose existence was denied even in psychiatric circles until the 1980s - in the same way that incest was denied until 20 years before that. But even now, when similar cases surface all the time, there is a public reluctance to get to grips with the underlying meaning of such crimes. It is a reluctance which, say the female psychiatrists who have done the most to understand such cases, not only gets in the way of effective treatment and implementing preventative measures but is at heart a denial of female agency, sexuality and capacity for violence.

If indeed a systemic denial of female sexuality generally and its deviations specifically is at work, it may be true, as some have claimed, that sexual violence by women is under-reported. The fact is that a woman's abuse is simply not going to result in the stark physical end that a Fritzl's is. But it's also true that, while - to take an example quoted by the Times - Nancy Garrido did not physically impregnate Jaycee Dugard, she was wholly complicit in her kidnapping and active imprisonment. I was concerned to read, immediately, a piece, "the hidden face of female depravity" - decrying the widespread, hidden evil of women; this is not an open call for Biblical misogyny, and the simple truth is that even if it is under-reported, violent sexual abuse is not as common amongst women. But not acknowledging the issue is, ironically, doing everyone a disservice - and, it need not be said, particularly any young victims.

Vanessa George And The Evil That Women Do [Times of London]
Nursery Worker Vanessa George: Women And Child Sex Abuse [Telegraph]< a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1217800/The-Vanessa-George-case-reveals-hidden-face-female-depravity.html">The Vanessa George Case Reveals The Hidden Face Of Female Depravity [Daily Mail]

Charlotte Philby looks at this, "society's last taboo," in a long and disturbing article for The Independent. It's clear from her report that sexual abuse by women can be just as devastating as abuse by men. She interviews Sharon Hall, who suffered "sustained sexual violence," and as a result became anorexic, agoraphobic, and unable to bond with her own daughter. Hall says, "the worst thing about it is that even though my mother is now dead – and never even met her granddaughter – she has managed to ruin my daughter's childhood too." Compounding her pain is the fact that doctors didn't believe she was abused, saying, "Don't be silly, mothers don't sexually abuse children." According to Philby, this response is common.

Reliable data on the prevalence of sexual abuse by women is almost impossible to come by. Philby cites one UK abuse hotline, ChildLine — 11% of its callers in 2004 reported being abused by a woman. But women make up only 1% of convicted sex offenders in England and Wales. The picture is just as complicated in the US, according to an article by Lisa Lipshires in Moving Forward Newsjournal. One report found that women were responsible in 20% of US abuse cases between 1973 and 1987, but states report their data differently, and not all divide abusers by gender. And Philby's research indicates that people may not want hard data on female sexual abusers. Anonymous sources in the British justice system told her, "they just aren't being given the tools they need to address this issue, or even being made aware that it is an issue at all." And Zoe Hilton, a policy advisor at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said, "Professionals in all areas of the system tend to be disbelieving of cases of female sexual abuse."

One therapist who studied victims of maternal incest found they suffered many of the same after-effects as those who have been abused by men: "depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and high rates of eating disorders and substance abuse." They also had "a nearly universal wish to tell society that 'this really happens.'" So why don't the US or the UK want to address sexual abuse by women? One possible reason Philby proposes is the fact that most abuse by women seems to take place in the home, and that mothers are often the perpetrators. She quotes a spokeswoman for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Services, who says, "women are perceived as the nurturers, those who are there to look after our young people." Then there's the idea (bandied about a lot in cases of teacher-student sex like that of Mary Kay LeTourneau, pictured) that sex with an older woman is a welcome experience for boys. And, Philby says, "sexual abuse is usually understood as something bound up with issues of male aggression and power."

But women can exert power and express aggression too, and viewing sexual abuse as solely a tool of the patriarchy may prevent some victims from getting help. Stereotyping women as nurturing and men as dangerous isn't just bad for men (every dad on the playground becomes a potential rapist) and women (every mom is expected to be an angel), but for children too. We need to be able to recognize when they are at risk from the women in their lives, and protect them from abuse even when it comes from unexpected places. Sexual abuse is often linked with violence against women, and while the two are frequently connected, we need to be aware of violence by women as well. Assuming every woman is a saint does no one any favors.

Female Sexual Abuse: The Untold Story Of Society's Last Taboo [The Independent]
Female Perpetration Of Child Sexual Abuse: An Overview Of The Problem [Canadian Children's Rights Council]

Emily (she and her mother asked that their names not be used) says that Senyonga touched her stomach and thigh, then began tugging on her underwear. She pushed him away repeatedly, and tried to put her teddy bear between them, but he persisted, stuck his hand down her pants, and touched her genitals. At that point, Emily (showing remarkable presence of mind in a scary situation) jumped up and told a flight attendant, "I want to move! I want to move!" Once the flight attendant heard Emily's story, Senyonga was questioned by police.

Senyonga is pastor with a thousand churches in four countries, including Uganda and the United States. He has ties to US religious leaders, including Pat Robertson, and he operates an "orphan village" of 1,000 children in Uganda. When questioned, he at first said, "I never touched the young lady with my hands," but then admitted, "Possibly my hand, um, several times probably, um, brushed over her as we rode the plane. And that's all." Later, when police accused him of lying, he did not argue, and a deputy said his denials "were weak and without emotion." But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the testimony is his assessment of Emily. Ashley Harrell of the SF Weekly writes,

When asked about Emily, Senyonga estimated her to be 21 or 22 years old. He believed this, he said, because "she was a big girl." He also told police she was mature and that she was well-endowed in the breasts. When asked if he took notice of the pin on her chest, the one that indicated she was an unaccompanied minor, he said he never saw it.

The "I didn't know she was underage" defense works even less well if the victim is wearing a button that says she's underage — but Emily's case does highlight the fact that the buttons aren't adequate protection for kids flying alone. Harrell writes that a LexisNexis search "turns up 10 instances of child molestation cases aboard airplanes from the past couple of decades, though there have almost certainly been more." On a 2007 Delta Airlines flight, a man allegedly kissed an 11-year-old girl flying by herself and "jabbed his hands into her stomach" — she was later treated for a ruptured ovary, but no charges were ever filed. Airline policies on unaccompanied minors differ, but most charge $40 to $100 extra for taking care of a child flying alone. Emily's mother had paid $99 extra, but apparently that didn't include protecting her daughter from molestation, or noticing when Senyonga switched seats to be next to her, as many airline predators do.

Hopefully Emily's case will inspire airlines to better protect the unaccompanied kids in their care, but that doesn't do much for Emily. A flight attendant says Emily blamed herself after the molestation, saying, "I should have done something sooner." Her mother says her grades and "outlook on life" have suffered. The U.S. Attorney's office won't be filing criminal charges against Senyonga, but Emily's mom is suing Senyonga and United Airlines. She advises other parents to remember that airlines don't truly protect kids flying alone, saying, "Look what happened to my daughter."

Predators Are Free To Move About The Cabin [SF Weekly]

Alex Hart has an IQ of 47, and is classified as mentally retarded. He can neither read nor write. Unable towork, he lived with his parents, did odd jobs and was, they say, courteous and gentle.

On the eve of his arrest, he was excited about a fair coming to town and asked a neighbor if he could mow her lawn to make a few dollars. She found him in the back shed fondling her 6-year-old stepson. When the police arrived, they read Hart his rights, and he confessed to what he'd done. As they transported him to jail, he asked repeatedly whether he'd get paid for mowing the lawn.

The sentence, which, as the Dallas News reports, is harsher than those typically meted out to repeat child molestors and rapists, has raised the larger question of how the state prosecutes the profoundly disabled.

The question is whether Hart was capable of understanding right from wrong; the court said yes, his parents say no. Many blame Hart's court-appointed lawyer for the severity of the sentence. Hart may not have understood his Miranda rights, and confessed to all five counts without an attorney present. Once appointed, the lawyer, assuming his client would get probation, apparently neither called witnesses on Hart's condition nor hired a liaison to help Hart understand what was going on. He also didn't challenge the finding that Hart was competent to stand trial, which his parents claim came after a cursory inspection. As a result, both judge and jury "say they would have preferred not to send Hart to prison," but they were presented with no option - no mental health facility or group home for disabled offenders. (Some jurors are saying the judge ignored their requests for alternatives, and that they were appalled that he chose to stack the sentences.) The District Attorney, however, stands by his decision to prosecute Hart on all counts, saying, "I hope people will remember he committed a violent sexual crime against a little boy."

Hart is currently in Texas' "Mentally Retarded Offender Program." He will appeal later this year; in the meantime, his father says the one upside is that his son has no idea of the severity of his situation. I use "upside" loosely, as the story is a tragedy. If Alex Hart is going to harm children, however unknowingly, he must obviously be kept away from them. One can only hope the child will sustain as little emotional damage as possible and receive counseling. But it's hard not to agree with the law professor quoted in the article who calls the sentence "not helpful to society or the offender."

Fairness Of 100-Year Prison Sentence For Mentally Disabled Offender Questioned [Dallas News]

Most of the women on this show have hard exteriors, which they admit contributes to a lot of their attitudes about fighting, their defensiveness, and in some cases, excessive drinking. When Bubbles revealed that she'd been molested, many of the women said that they had similar experiences in their pasts. They all came to a better understanding of each other — for this episode at least — and comforted one another in a rare but much-needed act of solidarity.

The woman has admitted in Roscommon Circuit Court to "having sex with" (aka, "raping") her son numerous times, starting when he was 13. The boy, now a teen, says his mother was drunk each time she forced him to sleep with her, made him watch porn, and that when he was taken into foster care she threatened to rape him again during visitation if he told anyone. According to the Irish Times, "She said her son had been shocked and afraid. He said 'no' but she told him it would not hurt."

The mother has pleaded guilty to two counts of incest, two charges of sexual abuse against this son, and to neglecting and ill-treating each of her six children from 1998 to 2004 . “If I could turn back the clock I would,” she said. Us too. 'House of horrors' mother admits incest [Irish Times]

Dinsale was raped by her father from the ages of 6 to 13, when she ran away from home; after raping her, he would often bribe her with money. Her mother knew about the abuse, and even started sleeping in her daughter's room to protect her. However, the secret was regarded as so shameful that Dinsale didn't come forward until after her mother's death. As she said to Daily Mail, "In the end I felt that the only way I could really move on was to face up to this, and ensure that the person who caused all of my pain would pay. That day has arrived today and now I can look forward to Christmas, and to the future." Dinsale also hoped going public with her identity would encourage other victims of abuse to come forward.

As the Daily Mail's headline attests, this openness - "Abuse victim waives anonymity to reveal her ordeal as tormentor is jailed" - is noteworthy. But why? While one can certainly understand anyone being publicity-shy, there has always been something which Joan Didion, in a 1991 essay on the rape of New York's "Central Park Jogger" called "quite specifically masculine assumptions." Rape is, after all, the only case in which identity is treated so gingerly.While, as she says, the practice "derives from the understandable wish to protect the victim, the rationalization of this-special protection rests on a number of doubtful, even magical, assumptions."

The convention assumes, by providing a protection for victims of rape not afforded victims of other assaults, that rape involves a violation absent from other kinds of assault. The convention assumes that this violation is of a nature best kept secret, that the rape victim feels, and would feel still more strongly were she identified, a shame and self-loathing unique to this form of assault; in other words that she has been in an unspecified way party to her own assault, that a special contract exists between this one kind of victim and her assailant.

Is this practice doing women a disservice, "self-fulfilling, guiding the victim to define her assault as her protectors do" as Didion would have it? Does it stigmatize the victim, tacitly identifying the crime as something to forget quickly, swept under the rug, because of women's fragility? If, after all, Dinsale's openness can serve as a positive example, is not the converse true? That said, wouldn't it be equally fraught to expose their identities at will? It would be disingenuous to suggest that rape is not a fraught and particularly horrible violation. And there is a certain arrogance in suggesting a unilateral commonality of experience: the sad truth is that cultural concerns also make rape a more complicated issue.

When I was in college, a young woman in my dorm from a very conservative religious background was raped near the urban campus. Her family found the incident so shameful that they repudiated her, and not long after, she committed suicide. Such awful things happen, and we can't pretend such a family would have taken kindly to her name being made public, even if they should. Women like Dinsale coming forward is indeed empowering, and it should be applauded. But whatever the legal ramifications, it's an act of courage and should always be treated as such.
Raped by my father: Abuse victim waives anonymity to reveal her ordeal as tormentor is jailed [Daily Mail]
New York: Sentimental Journeys [New York Review of Books]

Related: Julie Hosler [Wikipedia]

Lines of Obscenity Blur in Text-Related Case [AVN]
Web Site Operator Charged With Obscenity [BreitBart]