19 Oct 2015

Jenni Murray Discovers Female Paedophiles

By MRA-UK: Jenni Murray has, it seems, just discovered a brand new phenomenon: adult women sexually abusing young boys. She is shocked, apparently, to find that these female sex offenders are being treated so leniently in the courts. Really, Ms Murray, really? Odd that, with your finger on the pulse of gender issues for the last 30 years, why, pray, did you not notice earlier?
[Jenni Murray, left]
You pretend it is a recent phenomenon. But it isnt. And you know it.
Perhaps, Ms Murray, you could benefit from reading Toy Soldiers. But, no. It’s not necessary, because you knew all along, didn’t you? But the sisterhood – your sisterhood – suppressed knowledge of these issues emerging. Deliberately. Cold bloodedly. Because it challenged your power. And this is all about power. It’s always been about power. Your latest article is about power. You think you fool me with your sanctimonious late conversion? You think I don’t know that the mechanism of your power lies in the annexation of the perceived moral high ground? And this article is merely you repositioning yourself as you sense the popular moral centre shifting.
Do you expect us all to thank you for your great insight and compassion, Ms Murray? Do you? In truth, you are merely trying to control the narrative – as always.
This is the truth about the role of feminism in hiding the sexual abuse of children by women.
In 1993 Michelle Elliott wrote a seminal work on female paedophiles, Female Sexual Abuse Of Children: The Ultimate Taboo. While compiling the book, Elliott organised a conference in London on the subject. It was to include testimony by victims of abuse by females. The audience was infiltrated by feminists who disrupted the meeting and discouraged victims from speaking. They effectively undermined the whole event, as they intended. After publishing the book, Elliott was subject to a deluge of hate mail from feminists.
That was 23 years ago. Ms Murray, you were in charge of Woman’s Hour in 1993. Michelle Elliott would have been an obvious choice of guest, surely. She was causing a stir. Haven’t you heard of Kidscape, Ms Murray? Didn’t think of inviting Michelle Elliott on your programme? I wonder why not.
Watch the three videos of Michelle Elliott below. They are essential viewing. (I acknowledge ManWomanMyth as the creator of these videos). Amongst many other interesting things, Elliott refers to the 800 cases of female paedophiles which have been reported to her personally. (I have heard her say that she estimates perhaps 20% of all paedophiles are women). This video also tells the story of a TV appearance which led to more than 1000 people ‘phoning in to tell of their sexual abuse by a women. Another interesting fact which Michelle Elliott reveals here, which I have not come across elsewhere, is that “the vast majority of female paedophiles are single parents”.
And what ideology has led to large numbers of single parents, Mrs Murray? Nothing to do with you, at all?

Jenni Murray claims that,
as little as two decades ago the idea of a grown woman having sex with a child would have caused a huge moral outcry
as if that proves it didn’t happen. Michelle Elliott created an outcry amongst the sisterhood all right, and that’s why no one else ever heard of female paedophilia. Because the feminist control of the narrative has deliberately kept it hidden. But it can’t be hidden much longer, and you know it, Ms Murray – hence the article.
But even as you sense danger to your ideology and attempt to politically re-position yourself to minimise the damage, you cannot disguise your essential gynocentricity. Take this gem,

If we ignore the harm done by the exploitation or sexualisation of boys and set aside their emotional feelings, we doom ourselves to producing yet another generation of males with little respect for women.
Yet another generation of nasty blokes like me, eh? Actually, I used to have automatic respect for all women when I was younger – but it was women like you, Ms Murray, that forced me to become more discriminating. What’s more important is that you imply, Ms Murray, that the sexual exploitation of boys is a bad thing only because it may lead to men who do not correctly prioritise “respect for women”. Yup, the only bad thing about abusing boys is that it’s bad for women. I have a novel idea for you, Ms Murray. The sexual exploitation of boys is actually a bad thing because boys are human and worthy of the same consideration as girls. By your own words you are betrayed.
You note that,

It’s not uncommon for victims of historical abuse to reveal that they were once abused by their mothers. We’ve been reluctant to acknowledge this fact because we don’t like to think of a mother as a danger to her children.
No, “we” haven’t been reluctant to acknowledge it, you have. You and your blasted sisterhood. Erin Pizzey understood very well that abusers frequently had themselves been abused as children, by their mothers as well as their fathers. She knew this over forty years ago, and the sisterhood drummed her out of the country to silence her. Many studies have shown the link between male sexual abusers of females and a history of these men having been sexually abused, specifically by women.
In “The Invisible Boy: Revisioning the Victimization of Male Children and Teens “,  Frederick Mathews cites various sources showing, “an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men, namely 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and  Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in the Table below, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O’Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by “females only” chose female victims almost exclusively.”

Male Sex Offenders’ Victims and Victimisers (O’Brien, 1989, cited in The Invisible Boy

Gender of offender’s own abuser
Gender of victim of sex offender
Male or both Female only
Male only 67.5% 32.5%
Female only 6.7% 93.3%
The implication is that the sexual abuse of boys by women is as old as the sexual abuse of females by men. It is no new phenomenon. Why is it being reported somewhat more frequently of late? Perhaps there is merely a greater readiness to report it. Or perhaps it is actually becoming more common. There is some evidence from the literature that this might be expected as a by-product of the increasing status of women and the increasing hostility towards men: see D.A.Hines, Predictors of sexual coercion against women and men: a multilevel, multinational study of university students, Arch Sex Behav. 2007, 36(3):403-22. The Abstract is worth quoting in full,

Several explanations have been forwarded to account for sexual coercion in romantic relationships. Feminist theory states that sexual coercion is the result of male dominance over women and the need to maintain that dominance; however, studies showing that women sexually coerce men point towards weaknesses in that theory. Some researchers have, therefore, suggested that it is the extent to which people view the other gender as hostile that influences these rates. Furthermore, much research suggests that a history of childhood sexual abuse is a strong risk factor for later sexual victimization in relationships. Few researchers have empirically evaluated the first two explanations and little is known about whether sexual revictimization operates for men or across cultures. In this study, hierarchical linear modeling was used to investigate whether the status of women and adversarial sexual beliefs predicted differences in sexual coercion across 38 sites from around the world, and whether sexual revictimization operated across genders and cultures. Participants included 7,667 university students from 38 sites. Results showed that the relative status of women at each site predicted significant differences in levels of sexual victimization for men, in that the greater the status of women, the higher the level of forced sex against men. In addition, differences in adversarial sexual beliefs across sites significantly predicted both forced and verbal sexual coercion for both genders, such that greater levels of hostility towards women at a site predicted higher levels of forced and verbal coercion against women and greater levels of hostility towards men at a site predicted higher levels of forced and verbal coercion against men. Finally, sexual revictimization occurred for both genders and across all sites, suggesting that sexual revictimization is a cross-gender, cross-cultural phenomenon. Results are discussed in terms of their contributions to the literature, limitations of the current study, and suggestions for future research.”
While you are on your voyage of discovered, Ms Murray, you might like to take on board the idea that the sexual abuse of boys by women is perhaps related to these women’s sense of entitlement when it comes to their sexual behaviour with adult males too. “We” know that sexual coercion is common on both sides, even if you don’t, Ms Murray, – see Martin Fiebert’s compilation of studies on the sexual coercion of men by women.
If correct, these findings suggest that the hostile treatment of men on university campuses would be expected to lead to a greater sexual victimisation of male students. The incessant talk of a ‘rape culture’ may actually be a mechanism for bringing about the opposite, though our culture would not recognise it since male sexual victimisation goes unnoticed.
You react, Mrs Murray, with incredulity that these paedophile women seem so normal, writing,

So why are seemingly sane, intelligent and often attractive women behaving in such a manner?
Ah, I see your confusion. It’s because, of course, male paedophiles are none of these things, but rather insane, moronic monsters – lumbering troglodytes, weeping pustulence as they sate their priapic cravings. Ms Murray, you are confusing reality with the black and white picture which you yourself have painted. If you treat people, of either sex, as humans, you might find that “sane, intelligent and attractive” people are, nevertheless, capable of weakness and acts of great wrong. It’s called being human. You find it hard to believe that a female could slip from perfection, but have no difficulty at all in believing the worst of men. But that, Ms Murray, is because you are a sexist.
You continue,

Could this corruption of women be borne out of the fact that a growing number of females are deeply disappointed with their relationships with adult males? All too often we hear that the internet is enabling men, to pursue affairs for which they might otherwise have had no opportunity. The rise of internet porn has made some men assume extreme and brutal sexual practices are normal and theirs to enjoy by right. Could it be that sex with a boy makes women who have fallen foul of such men feel they have regained the upper hand?
No, Mrs Murray, it couldn’t. Really, could you not find a straw with greater buoyancy than that? Please provide sources for the claim that “extreme and brutal sexual practices” are encouraged by porn. And as for the claim that men using porn causes some women to sexually abuse boys….just run that argument past me again.
Your alternative ‘explanation’ for female paedophilia, i.e.,

There are a number of theories for this apparent rise in female sexual abuse. Many believe social media and the proliferation of text messaging and sexy selfies have begun to erode traditional moral boundaries.
is equally otiose. At least some of the causes of paedophilia have already been identified, above, and are common between male and female abusers. The principal causes of sexually abusive behaviour is a history of having been abused and also the influence of the relative status of the abuser versus hostility towards the abused (see above D.A.Hines quote). Most importantly, there is little difference between the sexes in this respect.
But your attempt to shift the blame to men is unending, Ms Murray. You write,

There is, though, a more pernicious strand to that recent case of the 11-year-old boy and his 21-year-old babysitter – and that’s the response of the boy’s father. …Surely only the most outdated, unaware father, still steeped in the old macho values, would fail to recognise his own child’s sensitivity.
I agree that the father’s attitude is repugnant. But your attempt to align his attitude with being “outdated” and “macho”, for which read “pre-feminist”, is absurd. Let us consider that much maligned chap, the 1950s white patriarch. How would he have reacted to the discovery that the baby sitter had fucked his 12 year old son? Initially he would have reacted with stunned disbelief, shortly followed by incandescent outrage. You seriously think, Ms Murray, that such an old fashioned father would have reacted like this dreadful man?
No, Ms Murray, it won’t wash. This father is a product of our times. He is a product of the society which you and your sisterhood created, as is Jade Hatt. This man reflects the value system which your ideology has foisted on society. Who else is it that has promulgated the myths of male power and privilege? Who is it that portrays male sexuality as intrinsically toxic? Who is it that insists sexual victimisation of males is impossible; that males are always up for sex; that no consent of males is necessary? Who is it that has inculcated the view that males are always to blame, in every circumstance, and women always blameless? It is you, Ms Murray, and even in this article you fail to suppress your usual urge to blame men. This nasty father blames his son because that is what our society regards as the correct allocation of blame. Men’s psychology has been broken on the anvil of hate which you constructed for the purpose, and this man is the product.
And the judiciary, with their habitually lenient treatment of female sex offenders, are merely a reflection of society. Don’t bother wringing your hands in mock anguish, Ms Murray, because the attitude of the judiciary is your doing too. It is also a result of the gender-biased mindset which feminism has encouraged, as is the fact that the witnesses to this event did not think it necessary to inform the police.
Ms Murray writes,

Today’s boys face quite enough problems as it is, not least the proliferation of pornography and wrong-headed ideas about what sex and being a man is all about. We’ve struggled for years to help boys understand that becoming a man doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the old stereotype of the cold, distant, insensitive pater familias who expects a woman to pander to his every need.
Today’s boys do indeed face quite enough problems. But the bulk of them are the product of feminism which has taught them, virtually from birth, that they are a problem – by virtue of their sex. You repeat the mantra here: the description of masculinity as intrinsically “cold, distant and insensitive”. Are you being disingenuous, Ms Murray, or just too obtuse to realise that the psychological mauling that your ideology dishes out to boys might be the problem? And as for what “being a man” is all about, who the hell knows what that means? What I do know is that “being a man” is not what Jenni Murray thinks it is. It does not mean merely subjugating one’s self for the benefit of women.
Feminism has given us a society in which a 15 year old girl will invent a story that a 12 year old boy raped her at gun point – because he wouldn’t take her to the cinema. And feminism has given us a society which then takes this 12 year old boy off his mother for potentially up to 6 months (7 weeks as it happened) with not a shred of evidence, nor a shred of concern for the boy. And when the girl did confess that she had made up the whole thing, no action was taken against the girl, nor was any apology or support provided to the boy or his mother. Don’t tell me this was not the doing of feminism. Before feminism no one would have believed that a 12 year old raped anyone at gun point – not unless there was compelling evidence. But feminism has obliged the police to act as if the word of any female on matters of sexual transgression is the command of an oligarch.
As an illustration of where such gynocentrism lands a man, consider this illustration of how men are psychologically blinded to their own victimisation. This young man awoke, in his own bed, to find himself already inside a women whom he hardly knew, with her humping away on top of him. She had entered his room uninvited while he was asleep.

The most traumatic part was the complete assumption of consent,” he said, “I was physically revolted by the experience. It just felt so shockingly wrong. I didn’t really have the mental framework to encapsulate it as a violation at the time. It was just a really invasive experience. All I could think was, How can I get this to end? How can I get this to end without hurting her?”
By any sensible definition, this man was raped by the woman. But so strong is his social conditioning that, rather than feeling outraged by this violation, his first thought is consideration towards his rapist – not wanting to hurt her – whilst she is raping him. I do not find this incredible. I find it very credible, because this social conditioning acts on me too. It is a most graphic illustration of how men subjugate their own interests in favour of that of women. This is deep psychological manipulation of men in which they are programmed to collaborate with their own disadvantage.
Most people simply do not believe that the sexual exploitation of boys is damaging. There have been cases (though only a few) when women offending sexually against boys have been sentenced to prison. But when this happens, the public signal their displeasure. Consider the case of Madeleine Martin, the 39-year-old RE teacher and mother of two, who was jailed for 32 months and placed on the sex offenders’ register for sleeping with a 15-year-old male pupil. Barbara Ellen was cross. She wrote in the Guardian, “do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t. And neither, I’d wager, would most 15-year-old boys….If anything, one would have thought they might be jealous. The internet is awash with sites dealing with “older woman teacher-pupil” fantasies. And there lies the rub – should the law be treating male and female pupil victims equally when male and female teenagers are so different?”
This is your sisterhood’s contribution to the protection of boys, Ms Murray. Don’t imagine you are going to crawl out of it now. You have actively facilitated the ideology which gives rise to such sentiments. This will not be forgotten.  I can see the day coming when you try to claim that you were not “one of those feminists”. Oh yes you were.
But I must give some credit to Jenni Murray, because, amid the snipes at men to which she is too addicted to resist, she does identify the truth of the matter,

“..we need to acknowledge that women can be sexual predators and can do serious harm to the children they abuse….The potential for evil doing is in us all – male or female – and we shouldn’t be surprised that an embittered or cruel woman, who generally has less physical power than an adult male, may well choose a child as her victim. Equality means equal treatment for men and women and that includes the severe punishment which, in this kind of case, undoubtedly fits the crime.
A pity, Ms Murray, that you are four decades too late to avoid the damage you and your kind have done to our society by insisting on the opposite of the above statement. All that remains for you to do now, Mrs Murray, is to slink off into a hole somewhere and never be heard of again. But before you go, can you please write to Baroness Corston and tell her about the new feminist ruling that Equality means equal treatment for men and women and that includes the severe punishment which fits the crime. She has definitely not got the message.


No comments:

Post a Comment