This is a survey, not reported to police rates. I'm certain police reports are way more skewed.
]]>Imo it's either a 60/40 or a 50/50, but it's always presented as a 95/5 issue (if not 100/0).
I don't think there are enough studies yet. Police reports are unlikely to catch it.
"So are these ratios due to human nature/nurture or a reporting issue? And I know I'm getting a bit off topic here but it is related to the equality issue and I have run into the issue personally."
Definitely a reporting issue there. 0.4 to 4% of convicted sex offenders is the tip of the iceberg.
"Back in 1984, a study done by Finkelhor & Russell estimated that about 5% of female children and 20% of male children exposed to sexual predation were abused by women. More recent research among victims suggests that the rate of female predation is alarmingly higher than we thought back then. "
from there http://www.child-safety-for-parents.com/female-pedophile.html#.UVoJ2VfDkbw
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/women/female_peds_undetected.htm
This one says 6% of reported cases are women's, and that 2% of the cases reported to the police result in jail time, compared to 16.5% of reported men.
"Heather Moulden’s 2007 follow-up to Finkelhor’s research verifies, “despite a social reluctance to acknowledge female sexual abusers, reports suggest that they account for between 3% and 15% of all sexual offences” (387). However, as Richard Tewksbury reports, that number is probably much higher since “female sex offending is […] acknowledged as possibly less likely to be detected or reported” (30). Despite the general reluctance to pursue female suspects and to incarcerate them (Moulden 199), criminal acts by female offenders have reached a ratio of 6:1 compared to male criminal acts (Palmero 30). Moulden’s study of female sex offenders found that “females offended against younger victims and were more violent as compared with male abusers”"
from there http://female-offenders.com/Safehouse/2010/08/female-pedophiles-2.html
If you look at certain rape definitions (like those requiring penetration of the victim), 99% of offenders are male. But if you include rape by envelopment, in the last 12 months, men were raped just as much as women (so 50/50), with 80% of the perpetrators of rape against men being women, so 40% of overall offenders. But like DV, it's underreported.
Lots of brushing-off-attitudes about female predators and "you-got-lucky" attitudes about male victims, means few even think to report it.
Kids raped by women don't think it's possible, are constantly told to look for signs of sexual abuse with men (but not women), and the overall societal attitude is that women, but mothers especially, would never do this.
Certain stereotypes die hard, particularly regarding the incapacity of women to do evil (even more so sexual evil). A few feminists fight it, but feminism itself makes it no priority. Conservatives want it to stay that way. Other people think "it's just the way it is" (don't think to question received wisdom about it).
Cultural feminism is a second wave branch based on the idea of women as more moral from birth. Aka Goddess feminism.
]]>The ratios are unknown, it's been thought until pretty recently that female pedophilia was outright impossible (due to notions of women not being sexual, or violent).
It's likely to be a result of previous abuse (few abused people go on to abuse, but those that do abuse tend to have been abused themselves), so it's likely mostly learned.
Trivia: It's possible to be a pedophile while not having a penis, and having zero testosterone. Ergo: chemical castration is likely to not do a thing for men, and ignores women even exist.
I mean, I'm "chemically castrated", take the same drugs sex offenders, and prostate cancer patients take (cyproterone acetate, aka androcur) and I can still have sexual desire. It doesn't matter much, though it can cause impotence and a reduction of libido in some.
My T levels are 0.0 nmol/L. And have been for years. It didn't lower my libido and I'm not sure how it affected my 'potence' given I didn't really care about it then, and don't now.
Women's pedophilia is ignored on the basis that sexual crimes are "things men do", just as women's rapes are (wether it's rape of women or of men). Conservative notions that have never been fought against and are thus still widespread.
Just check the India rape law that was pressured, by women's groups, to remain a law stating that only men can rape only women, only using a penis, instead of making it a gender-neutral "sex without consent" law as it should be.
The reasoning? It never happens, so no need to reflect the very possibility of it in law. That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy now, is it?
Pedophilia should be seen as a crime any adult can commit, and the hype gotten down to reasonable levels, not like now where being in a child's proximity-while-male is viewed extremely suspiciously (in a "must have ulterior motives" way, because male).
When I was younger, I babysat my younger brothers (for years, I'm the oldest of 4). I couldn't have been hired to babysit anyone else though, because everyone knows (common sense) that only girls can have the skills to babysit, right? I was seen as a boy then.
This was my first becoming aware of society-wide sexism against males that wasn't about clothing. Next but related was the presumption of an inherent predatory (and hypersexual) nature. Another undefeated conservative notion.
]]>I'm not certain you're referring to a trans man or a trans woman here. I would guess trans woman, but it's iffy I guess. I certainly wouldn't call a trans woman "a transsexual male" (lest I want to deliberately insult her).
]]>I generally try to stamp out any implicit bias I may have, consciously. I question everything I think (and yes, this makes me have no reprieve from thinking besides deep-sleep or zoning out, which I do often since I was a kid).
Critical thinking was something that wasn't really "optional" to me. It was that or just doing nothing at all. Common sense wasn't something I was given the booklet for, maybe it got lost in the mail. So I work by general, strict, principles of ethics (It works out better in results than most people's empathy - for example, I'm a pacifist - but I can't comfort people, just feels alien) and need clear and detailed instructions for doing something asked of me. I judge people individually and generally abhor stereotypes, even less people who think they're true for most/all of a group.
I do think equality isn't quite there yet, but I question the wisdom of using the term feminism and considering sexism and privilege using the feminist definitions of the words (ie as something only men can do/have), nowadays and in the West anyways.
I'm a trans woman, I've had time to "see it from both sides" even as I transitioned young (or at least not old). Feminist theory using marxist-like language (class warfare with one winner and one loser) simply doesn't make sense, not in the US, Canada and other first world countries (well, I think it makes no sense anywhere, but the "women are definitely more oppressed" notion can work in some other countries).
I'm not saying femimism's work is done, over and let's pack up and go home. I'm saying we're at the fork where we need to check everyone's issues and that unnecessary polarizing of issues as a war of the sexes is contributing to delaying the equality it aims to reach, both by antagonizing potential allies (calling them oppressors and privileged) and by ignoring half the issues (with a naive view that by toppling some vague hierarchic structure and working to only give rights to one side, everything will be okay for everyone, all inequalities gone). I deny any official label to this end, any would be unnecessarily polarizing.
Old ideas such as women more suited for caregiving are not dying easily, because men are not represented in caregiving. If no care is made to breakthrough the barriers preventing male caregiving (like pedophilia scare, no role models, shaming of not being a provider), the situation is likely to stall for decades to come. All caregiving areas, from being a stay-at-home parent, a single parent, a babysitter, a daycare worker, a kindergarten teacher and working in older people's homes.
As for the cultural ideas preventing more women in IT and related fields, it seems to come from the cradle and gender stereotypes thought by parents themselves (strong willed parents can superimpose their ideals over media and peer ideals, in an open-minded society - hence making real change).
My theory is the parents are insecure about their own sex identity (outside evident material markers, like pink/dresses/make-up/breasts/hair) and push this view on children who are themselves at a normally-insecure stage by overly inflating the value of being one or the other sex (ie to kids it's not that important, but to parents its a BIG deal).
There needs to be less toy segregation, more freedom of expression for boys, more caring about boys (hugs, and positive reinforcement when hurt/struggling, instead of negative reinforcement in the form of shame), and please no "Lego for girls", ghettoizing stuff is just making it worse. Lego itself is gender-neutral. Just buy the basic blocks if the preset stuff is too gendered, you decide what you build. Same for videogames, it's gender-neutral, don't buy Barbie's dream castle to your daughter as the only game, unless you want to reinforce existing stereotypes (the games are extremely limited, even as they might have educational aims, the devs don't make "boy games", but if they did they would be just as botched, because it's a ghetto - and so are the vast majority of "movie games"). And encourage the girls to get dirty, run and just plain have fun, no worry about being gentle and having manners, they can be polite and that's plenty for a kid of either sex.
As a child, by a boy standard I was on the lower-limit of masculine enough (and failed it because I didn't fight back), by a girl standard I was a tomboy, willing to get dirty and play with "boy toys". I liked my plushies, but didn't own dolls, or even want any. Androgyny in behavior and in looks, is where I'm at, always have been (naturally). It's easily workable if you help the self-esteem of the kid and stamp out bullying attempts (even after the fact).
Sorry for the length.
]]>