Day after day our news media report blatant examples of denigration, disrespect, disenfranchisement and neglect towards men and institutionalized favouritism towards women, but here’s one that deserves some kind of prize. The title is “Home detention after underage sex with boy“, and there’s another report on it headlined “Detention for woman over sex with boy“. A 34-year old woman had sex with a 15-year old boy repeatedly over several months. The boy was in the care of her and her husband for “mentoring” because of behavioural problems. The woman became pregnant to the boy, left her husband and continued to have sex with the boy until one day he allegedly assaulted her. She was reported by others as being very controlling and as seeming to have an attraction to young teenage boys. Yet this female offender was sentenced to 10-months home detention with some counselling, and she was granted name suppression to protect her family. CYFS found “no evidence” that she was a risk to her own or other children and left the boy’s baby and her previous children in her care. No worries.
Any man who had repeatedly sexually violated a 15-year old girl would always go to jail and CYFS would ensure no children were allowed to live in any house with him. Moreover, CYFS would be likely to threaten to remove the children from any woman who so much as maintained an intimate relationship with him. For a male offender, the fact that he was in a position of trust as the victim’s caregiver/mentor would be seen as a serious aggravating factor that increased the penalty. Police would almost certainly have prosecuted him for sexual grooming and any other offence category they could think of. And why is it that this female offender’s family deserves protection through her name suppression but families of similar male offenders are almost never shown that consideration?
These unbelievable double standards are further evidenced by the judge’s reported comment that there was no suggestion she was a bad mother. But wait a minute, she was in a parental role towards this troubled boy, a position of trust that she exploited for her own sexual gratification. (Incidentally, the news coverage does not explain how this woman came to be caring for someone else’s troubled teen; was she a CYFS caregiver?) Also the judge is reported to have taken her childcare responsibilities and personal circumstances into account in sentencing. Since when has a male offender’s responsibility to provide for his children stopped him from being imprisoned for sexual violation? Incredibly, the judge said “this relationship developed inappropriately” and attributed it to “circumstances”. It wasn’t circumstances; it was a much older woman exploiting an underage boy. When on earth would we hear a male’s sexual offending being blamed on circumstances? Feminist groups would screem loudly at any such minimization when it came to a male offender; have we heard them on this case? Then, believe it or not, the woman’s lawyer is quoted essentially blaming the boy for the offences against him and claiming that the offending had not “set this young man up for a fall”. Yeah right, when women offend against males there’s no harm done. So when things eventually became so crazy for this boy that he assaulted his abuser, wasn’t that a “fall” for him already?
The merciful treatment shown to this offender may well be humane and reasonable. But if so, there is no excuse other than sexism for withholding the same mercy from males who offend similarly and their families.
Note also that the news articles refer euphemistically to “sex with boy”, “this unhealthy relationship” and “a consensual sexual relationship” (but when a man offends sexually against a minor, consent is seen as legally impossible and any victim who agreed to the the sexual contact is seen as having been manipulated).
And to top off this incredible story, the lawyer went on to say “It just means he has to be responsible in some way for his actions as well, further down the track”. Can you guess what that doublespeak means? It may mean that he will face charges for assaulting his abuser. It also means this lad will soon face bills from Inland Revenue for so-called Child Support, plus vicious compounding penalties when he gets behind on his payments for any reason. That is, he will be fined constantly for almost two decades for being a victim of sexual violation, made financially responsible for the consequences of the crime committed against him. Worse still, the money he pays will probably go towards reimbursing the government for funding his abuser’s lifestyle.
Can this really be happening? Can so many people keep pretending it’s not?