The public is responsible for the largely unaddressed problem of child abuse. If the public demanded coverage, the media would follow. Think about it. The one court most used most often, and for the longest period of time is Family Court. But media short changes its readers or viewers by not covering this court. Which explains in part, how the nicer sounding "Family Court" evolved into the divorce and custody industry.
The business of government is Business folks. Nowhere is this more true than "Family Court." See www.FamilyLawCourts.com
This is very disturbing. If people don't feel comfortable seeing an adult man holding-hands with a female child, that community is sick. Besides the damage caused to the accused adult; who's life is practically ruined; think of the damage done to the child. They're stuck with a feeling of guilt forever as a man's life was ruined because of them.
In the Netherlands news of pedophiles still stirs the entire nation (which I think is good in one way), but our adults are well informed and so are the police. Untrue cases are never in the news, and they occur seldom. If someone is accused of pedophilia, they'd really better move though; especially the female civilians are prone to spread such stories, damn gossiping.
Yet another reason why men are highly superior... ...though there are some real perverts among them.
Bonnie: I don't think there is any way one can say that abuse is not addressed.
Derreck: Actually during the abuse panics in the US there were also abuse panics in England (in Rochdale , Orkney and Nottingham) and in Holland as well.
In Oude Pekela, which I don't think is very far from you. Hundreds of children were questioned and the town went crazy looking for attackers that didn't exist. The whole incident came about because two kids had some sex play in the bushes and decided to do something with a stick that left a cut.) Your national government got involved and the questioning and investigation went on for over a year.
Another panic hit the area of Emmer-Erfsheidenveen in Holland. Germany had similar panics in Coesfeld, Worms and Nordhorn. So these are not just an American phenomenon. I know of a similar case in Christchurch, New Zealand as well.
By the way there is a a fairly decent film version of the McMartin case called Indictment which is worth watching.
Apparently I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. Real Child abuse is *seldom* addressed appropriately.
However, anyone spending any time reading http://www.FamilyLawCourts.com, soon learns crimes against children *is* addressed as a business opportunity for a variety of so-called "non-profits." Very often real abuse is lost in a flurry of "expert" opinions and family court legal fees, rather than in the more appropriate, criminal court.
But the child abuse industry is one thriving industry.
Thank you for a clearly written and timely article on the hysteria that has swept over pretty much all of the Western world. Obviously, I come at this from the angle that we demonize men in general in our society, but we both wind up at the same place. We want to believe the worst possible scenario, and so we do. We're addicted to drama.
The McMartin case is a perfect example of this. The children - and the adults - who were traumatized by that fiasco will carry the legacy of that trauma with them for the rest of their lives. Not that they can't heal from it and move on, but the fact that they have to is the whole point.
The damage we are doing to ourselves and each other by creating and condoning this culture of hyper-vigilance is ultimately incalculable. I honestly don't think it can be reversed. It will take generations to heal, if we ever can at all.
I'm fascinated by the internal rules we follow without consciously knowing we've absorbed them. I, for example, feel that is inappropriate for me to call a young child I do not know 'honey' or 'sweetie'. On the other hand, I've heard women do that--my fiancee will with no second thoughts. In mandarin, you can say 'little brother' or 'little sister' - I'd like something similar in english.
In a similar vein (the pervasive idea that men are innately or more commonly dangerous, sexually or otherwise): I sat in a film course over this summer which three english teachers from one of the local high schools attended. Two were female, one was male. At some point, they began talking about high school and dress codes. The male teacher said he could NEVER approach a female student who was wearing something inappropriate and ask them to fix it. He would also go to a female teacher and have them talk to the girl in question. The female teachers both said that neither had any problems being direct. One said they would approach them privately and ask, "So, who are you trying to impress?"
Imagine a male teacher saying this to a female student. The fact that it makes me uncomfortable and uncertain, I think, points to something wrong in how genders relate to each other.
Commenting by HaloScan
