Child Protection. Freda Briggs

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ on female victims was unhelpful in the longer term. Rape Crisis Centres had notices on doors that banned men from entering the premises. This confirmed the myth that only females were victims and only men were abusers. Unfortunately, men didn’t protest and say, “Hold on! Boys are victims too”. The only male voices heard were those labeIling the activists as lesbian man-hating feminists whose aim was to destroy the patriarchal family. It was not until 1993 that there was a phone-in for abused men in Western Australia. This confirmed that the abusers of boys were mostly men but one-third of caIlers reported being molested by females.

      The early rape crisis centres were significantly different from their counterparts today. The first centres were mutual support collectives of survivors, sometimes assisted by counsellors. Many sought social change and saw their anti-rape work as political. The first abuse prevention and empowerment programmes were written and provided for rape victims. Changes occurred slowly. A major change was that sex abuse victims were no longer examined by (predominantly male) police surgeons in police stations; hospitals opened specialist sexual assault units staffed by both male and female doctors.

      Male dominance and incest

      Incest is when a parent, grandparent or sibling uses a child or sibling for sex. Incest is a serious crime throughout western society because it constitutes the worst possible breach of trust, role reversal (where the child has to keep the secret to protect the parent and family instead of the child being protected). If sexual abuse results in pregnancy, there is a high risk that the baby will be born dead or with disabilities.

      In the 19th and 20th centuries, the frequency of incest was exposed then suppressed several times. The truth appears to have been too threatening for a dominant paternalistic male society⁸⁸. Sigmund Freud learned that many of his wealthy female patients were sexually abused by their highly respected fathers and grandfathers. Initially he accepted this, publishing his findings in 1896⁸⁹. Attacked by professional colleagues, his initial courage was short-lived. Within a year, he shifted the blame to victims, unashamedly presenting a revised explanation that his female patients’ descriptions of abuse were fantasies based on their sexual desires towards their fathers. Although these conclusions were not scientifically based, his opportunity to incriminate daughters instead of fathers provided a great sense of relief. It was much easier to accuse victims of lying than to accept or promote the truth⁹⁰. Freud’s retraction did child abuse victims incalculable harm because, thereafter, analysts routinely dismissed rape and incest as being “desired by the child unconsciously [because of an] abnormal psycho-sexual constitution”⁹¹.

      De Mause (1991) showed that despite its lack of a scientific foundation, psychoanalytic institutes accepted Freud’s revised theory enthusiastically and taught students that memories of incest reflected children’s wishes to have sex with their fathers. They were instructed to look sceptically on incestuous sexual statements made by patients⁹² and anyone who accepted disclosures as real was scoffed at as professionally naive. Thus incest offenders were protected by the most powerful male health professionals on earth⁹³. Psychiatrists neglected to routinely ask patients about their experiences of abuse until the early 1990s⁹⁴.

      Herman⁹⁵ noted that the early textbooks on child abuse did not mention sexual abuse and even Helene Deutsch’s massive Psychology of Women (1944) ignored incest. As recently as 1975, an American psychiatry textbook dismissed the frequency of incest as one case in a million. Herman noted that the legacy of Freud’s retraction was so deeply ingrained that, almost a century later, children who dared to report sexual assaults were disbelieved even when there was incontrovertible evidence such as sexually transmitted diseases. They were explained away unscientifically as transmitted by towels, toilet seats and germs on sheets.

      When incest was exposed again, it was by social scientists, not medical practitioners. However, both DeMause and Herman found that many of the authors were sexologists who advocated for paedophilia. They accepted that children were sexually abused but denied that it was harmful. Even now, some academics act as crusaders of sexual liberation, promoting paedophilia under the guise of equal rights for children, demanding the removal of laws relating to the age of consent, ignoring the inequality of power, enticements used to trap child victims and the fact that no child can be in control or exercise an informed, free choice when manipulated by authority figures. If adult relatives demand sex, most children will comply.

      De Mause⁹⁶, found that most writers on incest tried to justify the practice by showing its widespread nature⁹⁷. Wardell Pomeroy, wrote that “incest between adults and younger children can be a satisfying and enriching experience …”⁹⁸ De Mause found a staggering amount of literature promoting child sexual abuse without mentioning the harmful effects on children.

      The Kinsey Reports⁹⁹ discarded taboos around masturbation, extramarital sex and homosexuality but they minimised the trauma experienced by child sexual abuse victims and assured readers that if children were upset by their experiences, it was not the fault of the abuser but the result of prudish community attitudes. Ignoring issues relating to adult dominance and power, Kinsey took a position that advocated for greater sexual licence for men¹⁰⁰.

      Two years later, sociologist S. Kirston Weinberg published a scholarly work, Incest Behaviour, based on 203 cases reported to courts and social agencies. There was no public response and the book was soon out of print. The problem was buried again until the late 1970s and early 1980s when women became politically active. Herman quotes studies confirming that up to 97% of incestuous crimes were committed by fathers on daughters and only 3% involved mothers and sons. Briggs et al. (1994)¹⁰¹ confirmed Weinberg’s finding that when boys are molested by a parent, the aggressor is much more likely to be the father than the mother.

      Mandatory reporting legislation in Australia

      The Government of South Australia led the way when, in 1968, it introduced mandatory reporting legislation requiring doctors to report evidence of child abuse. This was a controversial step given that medical professionals had an obligation to maintain patient confidentiality. In Victoria, the Birrell brothers noted that GPs did not report abuse because they wanted to avoid involvement in time-consuming court proceedings. They also feared that, if patients were reported, their businesses might suffer, especially in country towns. Without legislation to protect them, they were also unwilling to risk civil action if the diagnosis was wrong¹⁰².

      In 1977, the South Australian Government extended the list of mandated reporters to include all those whose work involved children, including pharmacists and dentists. Initially teachers had to make reports of abuse and neglect to school managers but at that time, few were educated in matters relating to child abuse and some failed to pass reports to child protection services. The law was quickly changed to ensure that mandated persons were responsible for making their own reports directly to state child protection services. Volunteers in child-related activities and even clergy were subsequently added to the list of mandated reporters. There are financial penalties for those who fail to make reports but, nationwide, these have rarely been imposed.

      Penalties should be viewed positively. When managers deter reporting with:

       “It’s that kind of family. Reporting won’t make any difference”

       “The department’s useless. Reporting is a waste of time”

       “I don’t want parents coming after me. He’s got a foul temper”

       “Don’t rock boats or make waves. I’m retiring next year”

       “The department won’t like it”

      Concerned staff in most jurisdictions can say, “If I don’t report it, I can be fined several thousand dollars and we could be СКАЧАТЬ