Menu

State and Non-State Violence Compared

There is a certain kind of academic that simultaneously interests me and infuriates me. Jared Diamond, in The World Until Yesterday, is an example of this. He is knowledgeable guy and is able to communicate that knowledge in a coherent way. He makes many worthy observations and is often insightful. But there is also naivete that at times shows up in his writing. I get the sense that sometimes his conclusions preceded the evidence he shares. Also, he’ll point out the problems with the evidence and then, ignoring what he admitted, will treat that evidence as strongly supporting his biased preconceptions.

Despite my enjoyment of Diamond’s book, I was disappointed specifically in his discussion of violence and war. It seems fashionable right now to describe modern civilization as peaceful, that is fashionable among the main beneficiaries of modern civilization, not so much fashionable according to those who bear the brunt of the costs.

In Chapter 4, he asks, “Did traditional warfare increase, decrease, or remain unchanged upon European contact?” That is a good question. And as he makes clear, “This is not a straightforward question to decide, because if one believes that contact does affect the intensity of traditional warfare, then one will automatically distrust any account of it by an outside observer as having been influenced by the observer and not representing the pristine condition.” But he never answers the question. He simply assumes that that the evidence proves what he appears to have already believed.

I’m not saying he doesn’t take significant effort to make a case. He goes on to say, “However, the mass of archaeological evidence and oral accounts of war before European contact discussed above makes it far-fetched to maintain that people were traditionally peaceful until those evil Europeans arrived and messed things up.” The archaeological and oral evidence, like the anthropological evidence, is diverse. For example, in northern Europe, there is no evidence of large-scale warfare before the end of the Bronze Age when multiple collapsing civilizations created waves of refugees and marauders.

All the evidence shows us is that some non-state societies have been violent and others non-violent, no different than in comparing state societies. But we must admit, as Diamond does briefly, that contact and the rippling influences of contact across wide regions can lead to greater violence along with other alterations in the patterns of traditional culture and lifestyle. Before contact ever happens, most non-state societies have already been influenced by trade, disease, environmental destruction, invasive species, refugees, etc. That pre-contact indirect influences can last for generations or centuries prior to final contact, especially with non-state societies that were more secluded. And those secluded populations are the most likely to be studied as supposedly representative of uncontacted conditions.

We should be honest in admitting our vast ignorance. The problem is that, if Diamond fully admitted this, he would have little to write about on such topics or it would be a boring book with all of the endless qualifications (I personally like scholarly books filled with qualifications, but most people don’t). He is in the business of popular science and so speculation is the name of the game he is playing. Some of his speculations might not hold up to much scrutiny, not that the average reader will offer much scrutiny.

He continues to claim that, “the evidence of traditional warfare, whether based on direct observation or oral histories or archaeological evidence, is so overwhelming.” And so asks, “why is there still any debate about its importance?” What a silly question. We simply don’t know. He could be right, just as easily as he could be wrong. Speculations are dime a dozen. The same evidence can and regularly is made to conform to and confirm endless hypotheses that are mostly non-falsifiable. We don’t know and probably will never know. It’s like trying to use chimpanzees as a comparison for human nature, even though chimpanzees have for a long time been in a conflict zone with ecosystem destabilization, human encroachment, and poaching. No one knows what chimpanzees were like pre-contact. But we do know that bonobos that live across a major river in a less violent area express less violent behavior. Maybe there is a connection, not that Diamond is as likely to mention these kinds of details.

I do give him credit, though. He knows he is on shaky ground. In pointing out the problems he previously discussed, he writes that, “One reason is the real difficulties, which we have discussed, in evaluating traditional warfare under pre-contact or early-contact conditions. Warriors quickly discern that visiting anthropologists disapprove of war, and the warriors tend not to take anthropologists along on raids or allow them to photograph battles undisturbed: the filming opportunities available to the Harvard Peabody Expedition among the Dani were unique. Another reason is that the short-term effects of European contact on tribal war can work in either direction and have to be evaluated case by case with an open mind.” In between the lines, Jared Diamond makes clear that he can’t really know much of anything about non-state warfare.

Even as he mentions some archaeological sites showing evidence of mass violence, he doesn’t clarify that these sites are a small percentage of archaeological sites, most of which don’t show mass violence. It’s not as if anyone is arguing mass violence never happened prior to civilization. The Noble Savage myth is not widely supported these days and so there is no point in his propping it up as a straw man to knock down.

From my perspective, it goes back to what comparisons one wishes to make. Non-state societies may or may not be more violent per capita. But that doesn’t change the reality that state societies cause more harm, as a total number. Consider one specific example of state warfare. The United States has been continuously at war since it was founded, which is to say not a year has gone by without war (against both state and non-state societies), and most of that has been wars of aggression. The US military, CIA covert operations, economic sanctions, etc surely has killed at least hundreds of millions of people in my lifetime — probably more people killed than all non-states combined throughout human existence.

Here is the real difference between non-state violence and state violence. Non-state societies tend to spread the violence across entire populations. When a tribe goes to war, often the whole tribe is involved. State societies are different in that usually only the poor and minorities, the oppressed and disadvantaged experience the harm. If you look at the specifically harmed populations in state societies, the mortality rate is probably higher than seen in non-state societies. The essential point is that this violence is concentrated and hidden. More people are the victims of violence, overt violence and slow violence, but the academics who write about it never have to personally experience or directly observe these conditions of suffering and despair. Modern civilization is less violent for the liberal class, of which academics are members, but that doesn’t say much about the rest who live in modern society. The permanent underclass lives in constant violence within their communities and from state governments, which leads to a different view on the matter.

To emphasize this bias, one could further note what Jared Diamond ignores or partly reports. In the section where he discusses violence, he briefly mentions the Piraha. He could have pointed out that they are a non-violent non-state society. They have no known history of warfare, capital punishment, abuse, homicide, or suicide — at least none has been observed or discovered through interviews. Does he write about this evidence that contradicts his views? Of course not. Instead, lacking any evidence of violence, he speculates about violence. Here is the passage from Chapter 2 (pp. 93-94):

“Among still another small group, Brazil’s Piraha Indians (Plate 11), social pressure to behave by the society’s norms and to settle disputes is applied by graded ostracism. That begins with excluding someone from food-sharing for a day, then for several days, then making the person live some distance away in the forest, deprived of normal trade and social exchanges. The most severe Piraha sanction is complete ostracism. For instance, a Piraha teen-ager named Tukaaga killed an Apurina Indian named Joaquim living nearby, and thereby exposed the Piraha to the risk of a retaliatory attack. Tukaaga was then forced to live apart from all other Piraha villages, and within a month he died under mysterious circumstances, supposedly of catching a cold, but possibly instead murdered by other Piraha who felt endangered by Tukaaga’s deed.”

Why did he add that unfounded speculation at the end? The only evidence he has is that their methods of social conformity are non-violent. Someone is simply ostracized. But that doesn’t fit his beliefs. So he assumes there must be some hidden violence that has never been discovered after generations of observers having lived among them. Even the earliest account of contact from centuries ago, as far as I know, indicates absolutely no evidence of violence. It makes one wonder how many more examples he ignores, dismisses, or twists to fit his preconceptions.

This reminds me of Julian Jaynes’ theory of bicameral societies. He noted that these Bronze Age societies were non-authoritarian, despite having high levels of social conformity. There is no evidence of these societies having written laws, courts, police forces, formal systems of punishment, and standing armies. Like non-state tribal societies, when they went to war, the whole population sometimes was mobilized. Bicameral societies were smaller, mostly city-states, and so still had elements of tribalism. But the point is that the enculturation process itself was powerful enough to enforce order without violence. That was only within a society, as war still happened between societies, although it was limited and usually only involved neighboring societies. I don’t think there is evidence of continual warfare. Yet when conflict erupted, it could lead to total war.

It’s hard to compare either tribes or ancient city-states to modern nation-states. Their social orders and how they maintained them are far different. And the violence involved is of a vastly disparate scale. Besides, I wouldn’t take the past half century of relative peace in the Western world as being representative of modern civilization. In this new century, we might see billions of deaths from all combined forms of violence. And the centuries earlier were some of the bloodiest and destructive ever recorded. Imperialism and colonialism, along with the legacy systems of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism, have caused and contributed to the genocide or cultural destruction of probably hundreds of thousands of societies worldwide, in most cases with all evidence of their existence having disappeared. This wholesale massacre has led to a dearth of societies left remaining with which to make comparisons. The survivors living in isolated niches may not be representative of the societal diversity that once existed.

Anyway, the variance of violence and war casualty rates likely is greater in comparing societies of the same kind than in comparing societies of different kinds. As the nearby bonobos are more peaceful than chimpanzees, the Piraha are more peaceful than the Yanomami who live in the same region — as Canada is more peaceful than the US. That might be important to explain and a lot more interesting.

Advertisements

The Violent Narcissism of Small Differences

There are “many features of… warfare that turn out to be shared with wars in many other traditional societies… Those shared features include the following ones… So-called tribal warfare is often or usually actually intra-tribal, between groups speaking the same language and sharing the same culture, rather than inter-tribal. Despite that cultural similarity or identity between the antagonists, one’s enemies are sometimes demonized as subhuman.” (Jared Diamond, The World Until Yesterday, p. 120)

That isn’t something I’ve heard before. I’m surprised it isn’t a point brought up more often. It entirely undermines the case for racism being biological and instinctual. This intra-tribal warfare involves people who are extremely similar — in terms of ethnicity/culture, linguistics, lifestyle, diet, health, genetics, etc (and one would presume also in terms of epigenetics and microbiome). They are more similar to one another than is the rather diverse population of white Americans. Yet these basically identical tribal bands are able to not just see each other as different but even as subhuman, not that ‘subhuman’ has a scientific meaning in this context. It gives credence to Freud’s theory of the narcissism of small differences.

In modern nation-states, we forget how abnormal is every aspect of our society. Based on unrepresentative WEIRD research, we’ve come to some strange conclusions about human nature. Looking at the anthropological record demonstrates how far off from reality is our modern understanding. We think of warfare as only or primarily occurring between nation-states and we think of nation-states in ethno-racial terms. The world wars were fought with rhetoric declaring the other side to be of a different race or not fully human. That happened between the English and Germans who today are thought of as being so similar, what we now think of as white Westerners. But perceived differences has never had much to do with objective reality.

We should also put violence in perspective. We obsess over some violence while ignoring other violence. Most killings happen within societies, not between societies (unless your one of the populations historically targeted by Western imperialism). And most killings happen within specific demographics, not between demographics. For example, most American whites are killed by American whites, not by foreign terrorists or American blacks. About terrorism, most of it is committed by Americans against Americans; in fact, often whites against whites.

Race is as much a rationalization of violence than it is a cause. Westerners wanted to steal land and resources, to exploit populations. So, they invented racial ideology to justify it. But this basic tendency toward justification of violence is nothing new. As Jared Diamond describes, even groups that are essentially the same will use othering language in order to psychologically distance themselves. Otherwise, it would be harder to kill people. But creating perceived differences is quite simple (as shown numerous times: Jane Elliott’s eye color experiment, Rebecca Bigler’s shirt color experiment, Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment, etc).

Race is a social construct and a rather recent invention at that — for certain, it didn’t exist in the ancient world. There is nothing in human nature that demonstrates an instinct for racism. Rather, what humans are talented at is seeing differences and turning them into categories. This could be as simple as where one lives, such as two tribal bands or two neighborhood gangs fighting. Or it could be based on what clothes are worn and, when people are too similar, they will create artificial differences such as gang colors. But once we’ve created these differences, our minds treat them as essential. We need to learn to step back from our learned biases.

Black Global Ruling Elite

One of my favorite activities is reversing arguments, in order to make a point. It is using the structure of an argument to contradict someone’s claim or to demonstrate the fundamental irrationality of their worldview. Also, sometimes it can just be an act of playful silliness, a game of rhetoric. Either way, it requires imagination to take an argument in an unexpected direction.

To be able to reverse an argument, you have to first understand the argument. This requires getting into someone else’s head and seeing the world from their perspective. You need to know your enemy. I’ve long made it a habit to explore other ideologies and interact with those advocating them. It usually ends in frustration, but I come out the other side with an intimate knowledge of what makes others tick.

The opposing group I spent the most time with was HBD crowd (human biodiversity). HBDers are filled with many reactionaries, specifically race realists and genetic determinists. The thing about reactionaries is that they love to co-opt rhetoric and tactics from the political left. HBD theory was originated by someone, Jonathan Marks, making arguments against race realism and genetic determinism. The brilliance of the reactionaries was to do exactly what I’m talking about — they reversed the arguments.

But as chamelion-like faceless men, reactionaries use this strategy to hide their intentions behind deceptive rhetoric. No HBDer is ever going to admit the anti-reactionary origins of human biodiversity ( just like right-libertarians won’t acknowledge the origins of libertarianism as a left-wing ideology in the European workers movement). The talent of reactionaries is in pretending that what they stole was always theirs. They take their games of deception quite seriously. Their trolling is a way of life.

“There’s only one thing we can do to thwart the plot of these albino shape-shifting lizard BITCHES!” Their arguments need to be turned back the other way again. Or else turn them inside out to the point of absurdity. Let us call it introducing novelty. I’ve done this with previous posts about slavery and eugenics. The point I made is that, by using HBD-style arguments, we should actually expect American blacks to be a superior race.

This is for a couple of reasons. For centuries in America, the most violent, rebellious, and criminal blacks were eugenically removed from the breeding population, by way of being killed or imprisoned — and so, according to HBD, the genetics of violence, rebelliousness, criminality, etc should have decreased along with all of the related genetically-determined behavior. Also, since the colonial era, successful and supposedly superior upper class whites were impregnating their slaves, servants, and any other blacks they desired which should have infused their superior genetics into the American black population. Yet, contradicting these obvious conclusions, HBDers argue the exact opposite.

Let me clarify one point. African-Americans are a genetically constrained demographic, their ancestors having mostly come from one area of Africa. And the centuries of semi-eugenics theoretically would have narrowed those genetics down further, even in terms of the narrow selection of white genetics that was introduced. But these population pressures didn’t exist among other African descendants. Particularly in Africa itself, the complete opposite is the case.

Africa has more genetic and phenotypic diversity than the rest of the world combined. Former slave populations that came from more various regions of Africa should also embody this greater genetic diversity. The global black population in general, in and outside Africa, is even more diverse than the African population alone. As such we should expect that the global black population will show the greatest variance of all traits.

This came to mind because of the following comment:

“Having a less oppressive environment increases variance in many phenotypes. The IQ variance of (less-oppressed) whites is greater than (more-oppressed) blacks despite less genetic diversity. Since women are on average more oppressed (i.e. outcasted more for a given deviance from the norms and given norms that take more effort to conform to) their traits would be narrower.”

The data doesn’t perfectly follow this pattern, in that there are exceptions. Among certain sub-population in oppressed populations, there sometimes is greater IQ variance. There are explanations for why this is the case, specifically the theory that females have a greater biological capacity for dealing with stressful conditions (e.g., oppression). But for the moment, let’s ignore that complication.

The point is that, according to genetic determinism, the low genetic diversity of whites should express as low IQ gaps, no matter the environmental differences. It shouldn’t matter that, for example, in the US the white population is split between socioeconomic extremes — as the majority of poor Americans are white and the majority of rich Americans are white. But if genetic determinism is false (i.e., more powerful influences being involved: environment, epigenetics, microbiome, etc), the expected result would be lower average IQ with lower class whites and higher average IQ with higher class whites — the actual pattern that is found.

Going by the data, we are forced to conclude that genetic determinism isn’t a compelling theory, at least according to broad racial explanations. Some HBDers would counter that the different socioeconomic populations of whites are also different genetic sub-populations. But the problem is that this isn’t supported by the lack of genetic variance found across white populations.

That isn’t what mainly interested me, though. I was more thinking about what this means for the global black population, far beyond a single trait. Let us assume that genetic determinism and race realism is true, for the sake of argument.

Since the African continent has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined, the global black population (or rather populations) that originated in Africa should have the greatest variation of all traits, not just IQ. They should have the greatest variance of athleticism to lethargy, pacifism to violence, law-abiding to criminality, wealth to poverty, global superpowers to failed states, etc.

We should disproportionately find those of African ancestry at every extreme across the world. Compared to all other populations, they would have the largest numbers of individuals in both the elite and the underclass. That means that a disproportionate number of political and corporate leaders would be black, if there was a functioning meritocracy of the Social Darwinian variety.

The greater genetic variance would lead to the genetically superior blacks disproportionately rising to the upper echelons of global wealth and power. The transnational plutocracy, therefore, should be dominated by blacks. We should see the largest gaps within the global black population and not between blacks and whites, since the genetic distance between black populations is greater than the genetic difference between particular black populations and non-black populations.

Based on the principles of human biodiversity, that means principled HBDers should support greater representation of blacks at all levels of global society. I can’t wait to hear this new insight spread throughout the HBD blogosphere. Then HBDers will become the strongest social justice warriors in the civil rights movement. Based on the evidence, how could HBDers do anything less?

Well, maybe there is one other possible conclusion. As good reactionaries, the paranoid worldview could be recruited. Accordingly, it could be assumed that the genetically superior sub-population of black ruling elite is so advanced that they’ve hidden their wealth and power, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Maybe there is Black cabal working in secret with the Jewish cabal in controlling the world. It’s this Black-Jewish covert power structure that has promoted the idea of an inferior black race to hide the true source of power. We could take this argument even further. The black sub-population might be the ultimate master race with Jews acting as their minions in running the Jew-owned banks and media as front groups.

It’s starting to make sense. I think there might be something to all of this genetic determinism and race realism. It really does explain everything. And it is so amazingly scientific.

Percentages of Suffering and Death

Steven Pinker’s theory of decreasing violence is worth taking seriously. There is an element of truth to what he says. And I do find compelling what he calls the Moral Flynn Effect. But I’ve long suspected violent death rates are highly skewed. Depending on what is being measured and how, it can be argued that there has been a decrease in the rate of homicides and war fatalities. But there are others that argue these numbers are inaccurate or deceiving.

Even accepting the data that Pinker uses, it must be noted that he isn’t including all violent deaths. Consider economic sanctions and neoliberal exploitation, vast poverty and inequality forcing people to work long hours in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, covert operations to overthrow governments and destabilize regions, anthropogenic climate change with its disasters, environmental destruction and ecosystem collapse, loss of arable land and food sources, pollution and toxic dumps, etc. All of this would involve food scarcity, malnutrition, starvation, droughts, rampant disease, refugee crises, diseases related to toxicity and stress, etc; along with all kinds of other consequences to people living in desperation and squalor.

This has all been intentionally caused through governments, corporations, and other organizations seeking power and profit while externalizing costs and harm. In my lifetime, the fatalities to this large scale often slow violence and intergenerational trauma could add up to hundreds of millions or maybe billions of lives cut short. Plus, as neoliberal globalization worsens inequality, there is a direct link to higher rates of homicides, suicides, and stress-related diseases for the most impacted populations. Yet none of these deaths would be counted as violent, no matter how horrific it was for the victims. And those like Pinker adding up the numbers would never have to acknowledge this overwhelming reality of suffering. It can’t be seen in the official data on violence, as the causes are disconnected from the effects. But why should only a small part of the harm and suffering get counted as violence?

It’s similar to how one looks at all kinds of data. In the US, blacks now have freedom as they didn’t in the past. Yet there are more blacks in US prisons right now than there once were blacks in slavery. And in the world, slavery is officially abolished which is a great moral victory. Yet there are more people in slavery right now than there were during the height of slavery prior to the American Civil War. Sure, the imprisoned and enslaved at present are a smaller percentage of the total population. But for those imprisoned and enslaved, that is no comfort. For each person harmed, that harm is 100% in their personal experience.

It’s hard to argue that an increasing number of the oppressed is a sign of the moral arc of history bending toward justice. Morality isn’t measured in percentages. Suffering is a total experience.

* * *

Steven Pinker: This Is History’s Most Peaceful Time–New Study: “Not So Fast”
by Bret Stetka, Scientific American

Still, there are many ways to look at the data—and quantifying the definition of a violent society. A study in Current Anthropology published online October 13 acknowledges the percentage of a population suffering violent war-related deaths—fatalities due to intentional conflict between differing communities—does decrease as a population grows. At the same time, though, the absolute numbers increase more than would be expected from just population growth. In fact, it appears, the data suggest, the overall battle-death toll in modern organized societies is exponentially higher than in hunter–gatherer societies surveyed during the past 200 years.

The study—led by anthropologists Dean Falk at The Florida State University and Charles Hildebolt at Washington University in Saint Louis—cut across cultures and species and compared annual war deaths for 11 chimpanzee communities, 24 hunter–gatherer or other nonstate groups and 19 and 22 countries that fought in World Wars I and II, respectively. Overall, the authors’ analysis shows the larger the population of a group of chimps, the lower their rate of annual deaths due to conflict. This, according to the authors, was not the case in human populations. People, their data show, have evolved to be more violent than chimps. And, despite high rates of violent death in comparison with population size, nonstate groups are on average no more or less violent than those living in organized societies.

Falk and Hildebolt point out Pinker’s claims are based on data looking at violent death rates per 100,000 people. They contend such ratios don’t take into account how overall population size alters war death tallies—in other words how those ratios change as a population grows, which their findings do. There is a strong trend for larger societies to lose smaller percentages of their members to war, Falk says, but the actual number of war deaths increases with growing population sizes.

Slow Violence
by Rob Nixon, The Chronicle

We are accustomed to conceiving violence as immediate and explosive, erupting into instant, concentrated visibility. But we need to revisit our assumptions and consider the relative invisibility of slow violence. I mean a violence that is neither spectacular nor instantaneous but instead incremental, whose calamitous repercussions are postponed for years or decades or centuries. I want, then, to complicate conventional perceptions of violence as a highly visible act that is newsworthy because it is focused around an event, bounded by time, and aimed at a specific body or bodies. Emphasizing the temporal dispersion of slow violence can change the way we perceive and respond to a variety of social crises, like domestic abuse or post-traumatic stress, but it is particularly pertinent to the strategic challenges of environmental calamities. […]

The long dyings—the staggered and staggeringly discounted casualties, both human and ecological—are often not just incremental but exponential, operating as major threat multipliers. They can spur long-term, proliferating conflicts that arise from desperation as the conditions for sustaining life are degraded in ways that the corporate media seldom discuss. One hundred million unexploded land mines lie inches beneath our planet’s skin, from wars officially concluded decades ago. Whether in Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, or Angola, those still-active mines have made vast tracts of precious agricultural land and pastures no-go zones, further stressing oversubscribed resources and compounding malnutrition.

To confront slow violence is to take up, in all its temporal complexity, the politics of the visible and the invisible. That requires that we think through the ways that environmental-justice movements strategize to shift the balance of visibility, pushing back against the forces of temporal inattention that exacerbate injustices of class, gender, race, and region. For if slow violence is typically underrepresented in the media, such underrepresentation is exacerbated whenever (as typically happens) it is the poor who become its frontline victims, above all the poor in the Southern Hemisphere. Impoverished societies located mainly in the global South often have lax or unenforced environmental regulations, allowing transnational corporations (often in partnership with autocratic regimes) the liberty to exploit resources without redress. […]

Our temporal bias toward spectacular violence exacerbates the vulnerability of ecosystems treated as disposable by capitalism, while simultaneously intensifying the vulnerability of those whom the human-rights activist Kevin Bales has called “disposable people.”

Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World
by Timothy Morton
Kindle Locations 2154-2174

When we can see that far into the future and that far around Earth, a curious blindness afflicts us, a blindness far more mysterious than simple lack of sight, since we can precisely see so much more than ever. This blindness is a symptom of an already-existing intimacy with all lifeforms, knowledge of which is now thrust on us whether we like it or not.

Parfit’s assault on utilitarian self-interest takes us to the point at which we realize that we are not separate from our world. Humans must learn to care for fatal substances that will outlast them and their descendants beyond any meaningful limit of self-interest. What we need is an ethics of the other, an ethics based on the proximity of the stranger. The decision in the 1990s, rapidly overturned, to squirrel plutonium away into knives and forks and other domestic objects appears monstrous, and so would any attempt to “work” it into something convenient. Hyperobjects insist that we care for them in the open. “Out of sight, out of mind” is strictly untenable. There is no “away” to throw plutonium in. We are stuck with it, in the same way as we are stuck with our biological bodies. Plutonium finds itself in the position of the “neighbor” in Abrahamic religions— that awkward condition of being alien and intimate at the very same time.

The enormity of very large finitude hollows out my decisions from the inside. Now every time I so much as change a confounded light bulb, I have to think about global warming. It is the end of the world, because I can see past the lip of the horizon of human worlding. Global warming reaches into “my world” and forces me to use LEDs instead of bulbs with filaments. This aspect of the Heideggerian legacy begins to teeter under the weight of the hyperobject. The normative defense of worlds looks wrongheaded. 39 The ethical and political choices become much clearer and less divisive if we begin to think of pollution and global warming and radiation as effects of hyperobjects rather than as flows or processes that can be managed. These flows are often eventually shunted into some less powerful group’s backyard. The Native American tribe must deal with the radioactive waste. The African American family must deal with the toxic chemical runoff. The Nigerian village must deal with the oil slick. Rob Nixon calls this the slow violence of ecological oppression. 40 It is helpful to think of global warming as something like an ultra slow motion nuclear bomb. The incremental effects are almost invisible, until an island disappears underwater. Poor people— who include most of us on Earth at this point— perceive the ecological emergency not as degrading an aesthetic picture such as world but as an accumulation of violence that nibbles at them directly.

The Fantasy of Creative Destruction

An interesting take on the Nazis and their sympathizers comes from Jorge Luis Borges. What motivates a certain variety of reactionary authoritarianism isn’t straightforward politics. The vision is grander than that, almost a cosmic battle. Issues of who is victorious in war is maybe secondary.

In moments of honest admission, Adolf Hitler explained that the struggle he envisioned went beyond mere national interest. He wouldn’t allow German soldiers in Russia to retreat. Either Germans were superior and would succeed or they were inferior and would lose. His only purpose was to test the German race against foreign races. Let the best people win, that was his attitude. It had apocalyptic implications. Other races had to be destroyed and subjugated. Failing that, the German population must be sacrificed in the attempt. It was total war requiring total commitment.

This is similar to Karen Armstrong’s interpretation of Islamic jihadis. She has pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists seemed to intentionally flout Islamic law, as if they were demanding Allah’s attention and forcing the Divine Hand to intervene. They were trying to call down apocalypse, not unlike American evangelicals hoping to incite violent attack on Israel as they believe must happen prior to the Second Coming. It isn’t mere nihilism.

Some would argue that a similar attitude is held by Trump supporters. Not even those who voted for him, according to polls, thought he would do what he promised. But the one thing that he could accomplish was to destroy a corrupt system. Electing Donald Trump as president was like lobbing a grenade into a bunker. It may be an act of desperation, although it makes perfect sense as an all too human motivation. Studies have shown that individuals are willing to punish perceived wrongdoers even at great costs to themselves. It is what morality becomes when morality has been denied for too long.

In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne’s butler Alfred Pennyworth describes the Joker in saying, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” But that isn’t quite right. In his own words, the Joker explains himself: “Introduce a little anarchy – upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos – it’s fair.” Exactly! It’s fair. Death and destruction is the last refuge of fairness, what is necessary to bring on justice, even if it is the justice of a mad man’s chaos. The slate must be wiped clean. Then something new can emerge from the ashes. An apocalypse is a revelation.

To the reactionary mind, sacrifice of self can be as acceptable as sacrifice of others. It’s the fight, the struggle itself that gives meaning — no matter the costs and consequences, no matter how it ends. The greatest sin is boredom, the inevitable result of victory. As Irving Kristol said to Corey Robin, the defeat of the Soviet Union “deprived us of an enemy.” It was the end of history for, without an enervating battle of moral imagination, it was the end of the world.

There is a balance point in this, though. It is the fantasy of violence that matters most, the glorious battle that transcends mundane reality. The other way victory threatens is by making the violence all too immediately real. It was easy for Hitler, safely back in Germany, to play out his ideological visions on distant battlefields. When violence gets too close, it simply becomes terrifying. The Nazi sympathizers Borges described had the advantage of cheering on Hitler from a continent across the ocean. But even for them, the possibility of the Nazis actually winning caused trepidation.

* * *

The metal vultures and the dragon
by Alec Nevala-Lee

In another essay, Borges remembers the man who came to his house to proudly announce that the Germans had taken Paris: “I felt a confusion of sadness, disgust, malaise. Then it occurred to me that his insolent joy did not explain the stentorian voice or the abrupt proclamation. He added that the German troops would soon be in London. Any opposition was useless, nothing could prevent their victory. That was when I knew that he, too, was terrified.” This speaks for itself. But what troubles me the most is Borges’s conclusion:

Nazism suffers from unreality, like Erigena’s hell. It is uninhabitable; men can only die for it, lie for it, wound and kill for it. No one, in the intimate depths of his being, can wish it to triumph. I shall risk this conjecture: Hitler wants to be defeated. Hitler is blindly collaborating with the inevitable armies that will annihilate him, as the metal vultures and the dragon (which must have known that they were monsters) collaborated, mysteriously, with Hercules.

After the war, Borges explored these themes in one of his most haunting stories, “Deutsches Requiem,” in which he attempted to write from the point of view of “the ideal Nazi.” Its narrator, the subdirector of a concentration camp, writes out his confession as he prepares to face the firing squad, and his closing words feel like a glimpse of our own future, regardless of the names of those in power: “Now an implacable age looms over the world. We forged that age, we who are now its victim. What does it matter that England is the hammer and we the anvil? What matters is that violence, not servile Christian acts of timidity, now rules. If victory and injustice and happiness do not belong to Germany, let them belong to other nations. Let heaven exist, though our place be in hell.”

The Reactionary Mind
by Corey Robin
pp. 243-245

As Orwell taught, the possibilities for cruelty and violence are as limitless as the imagination that dreams them up. But the armies and agencies of today’s violence are vast bureaucracies, and vast bureaucracies need rules. Eliminating the rules does not Prometheus unbind; it just makes for more billable hours.

“No yielding. No equivocation. No lawyering this thing to death.” That was George W. Bush’s vow after 9/ 11 and his description of how the war on terror would be conducted. Like so many of Bush’s other declarations, it turned out to be an empty promise. This thing was lawyered to death. But, and this is the critical point, far from minimizing state violence— which was the great fear of the neocons— lawyering has proven to be perfectly compatible with violence. In a war already swollen with disappointment and disillusion, the realization that inevitably follows— the rule of law can, in fact, authorize the greatest adventures of violence and death, thereby draining them of sublimity— must be, for the conservative, the greatest disillusion of all.

Had they been closer readers of Burke, the neoconservatives— like Fukuyama, Roosevelt, Sorel, Schmitt, Tocqueville, Maistre, Treitschke, and so many more on the American and European right— could have seen this disillusion coming. Burke certainly did. Even as he wrote of the sublime effects of pain and danger, he was careful to insist that should those pains and dangers “press too nearly” or “too close”— that is, should they become realities rather than fantasies, should they become “conversant about the present destruction of the person”— their sublimity would disappear. They would cease to be “delightful” and restorative and become simply terrible. 64 Burke’s point was not merely that no one, in the end, really wants to die or that no one enjoys unwelcome, excruciating pain. It was that sublimity of whatever kind and source depends upon obscurity: get too close to anything, whether an object or experience, see and feel its full extent, and it loses its mystery and aura. It becomes familiar. A “great clearness” of the sort that comes from direct experience “is in some sort an enemy to all enthusiasms whatsoever.” 65 “It is our ignorance of things that causes all our admiration, and chiefly excites our passions. Knowledge and acquaintance make the most striking causes affect but little.” 66 “A clear idea,” Burke concludes, “is therefore another name for a little idea.” 67 Get to know anything, including violence, too well, and it loses whatever attribute— rejuvenation, transgression, excitement, awe— you ascribed to it when it was just an idea.

Earlier than most, Burke understood that if violence were to retain its sublimity, it had to remain a possibility, an object of fantasy— a horror movie, a video game, an essay on war. For the actuality (as opposed to the representation) of violence was at odds with the requirements of sublimity. Real, as opposed to imagined, violence entailed objects getting too close, bodies pressing too near, flesh upon flesh. Violence stripped the body of its veils; violence made its antagonists familiar to each other in a way they had never been before. Violence dispelled illusion and mystery, making things drab and dreary. That is why, in his discussion in the Reflections of the revolutionaries’ abduction of Marie Antoinette, Burke takes such pains to emphasize her “almost naked” body and turns so effortlessly to the language of clothing—“ the decent drapery of life,” the “wardrobe of the moral imagination,” “antiquated fashion,” and so on— to describe the event. 68 The disaster of the revolutionaries’ violence, for Burke, was not cruelty; it was the unsought enlightenment.

Since 9/ 11, many have complained, and rightly so, about the failure of conservatives— or their sons and daughters— to fight the war on terror themselves. For those on the left, that failure is symptomatic of the class injustice of contemporary America. But there is an additional element to the story. So long as the war on terror remains an idea— a hot topic on the blogs, a provocative op-ed, an episode of 24— it is sublime. As soon as the war on terror becomes a reality, it can be as cheerless as a discussion of the tax code and as tedious as a trip to the DMV.

Not All Men, And Not All Women, But Some

Now that the title has caught your attention, let me set up the context for the central point I want to make. After that, I’ll make clear what I mean and fully articulate my argument. This post has been in the writing process for several years. Simmering on the back burner, I finally decided it was ready to be served. The main motivation for completing this project had to do with data I found all those years ago, data that I rarely if ever see mentioned. So, if you are interested to know what largely inspired this post, go to the very end where you will find that data. But if you are hankering for a lengthy detailed analysis, I promise not to disappoint.

Before I begin, let me put the context into context. The following discussion of gender issues is part of a decades-long project to put all issues into an ever larger context, to put humanity in the context of the collective and intersectional, to put society in the context of the systemic and institutional, and much else along those lines — involving issues of the social justice and civil rights, social sciences and culture, socioeconomic inequality and environmentalism. Et cetera. It is only in taking the broad view that we can hope to glimpse the big picture. As always, my guiding principle is to push further beyond.

* * *

There have been more sex scandals in the news lately than at any other point in recent history, maybe in living memory. Many powerful men have had their careers ended and their personal lives destroyed. There is no doubt that many and probably most of them deserve it, especially the sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein. But I do feel wary about all of the cases and potential future cases being jumbled together as if they are equal, similar to my concern about someone criminally charged for public urination (or even an 18 year old high schooler who had sex with his/her 17 year old girlfriend/boyfriend) being put on the sex offender list along with serial rapists and child molesters.

Witch hunts quickly form when public shaming determines a guilty judgment before any legal trial and democratic process is allowed to begin. There is a long history of innocent people getting caught up in false accusations, not to say that is what is going on now. It’s just that there is blood in the water and a feeding frenzy of righteous outrage has begun. Of course, there is plenty of reason for righteous outrage. I might argue that, in some ways, it doesn’t go far enough. Our society needs a moral reckoning of the highest order. We are long past the point where we either need a truth commission or a revolution, for all the moral rot at the heart of America.

What also is concerning is the hypocrisy of moral condemnation in our society. There are forms of power and oppression all around us that do far more harm than even sexual predators, but these other acts of wrongdoing and injustice are more socially acceptable and with many legal loopholes that protect the victimizers. Take for example the illegal and unconstitutional wars of aggression that kill millions of innocents, mostly poor minorities. Or as another example, consider the profit made by corporations that pollute the water and air, leading to high toxicity rates primarily harming poor minorities. The harm caused by these is quite likely far greater than all the sexual abuse combined. Why is righteous outrage and public shaming so selective? It ends up feeling more like scapegoating that evades our collective guilt about the even vaster moral failure and social injustice in our society.

Also, I can’t help but notice that corporate media in promoting this situation prefers to focus on both victims and victimizers who just so happen to be wealthier and whiter than most Americans. It becomes yet another soap opera to distract from darker truths and harsher realities. Do they think by sacrificing a few rich white guys that populist anger will be appeased? Is this an attempt to prevent the coming political storm by diverting it? Or is it simply, in our collective frustration about our collective failure, we are seeking an outlet for the pressure building up that otherwise would erupt in mass protests, maybe even riots and revolts? We should be mad. If anything, we aren’t yet mad enough. The worst guilty parties among the ruling elite remain mostly unchallenged and unscathed.

No matter how bad the sexual abuse is among wealthy whites, the oppression among the poor and minorities is far worse. There is no comparison. This greater oppression doesn’t spare poor men and minority men for reasons of male privilege. And let us not forget that most men are poor and/or minority, not powerful plutocrats wielding their patriarchical authority. When we speak of violence and abuse by men, there is a long history of racism behind it. Black boys are more likely to be perceived, treated, and prosecuted as adults while black males in general are more likely to be perceived as scarier, more dangerous, and less innocent. That is on top of the fact that blacks, mostly black males, are more likely than whites to be stopped and frisked, arrested and prosecuted, punished and imprisoned in relation to crimes that whites commit at higher rates. Plus, men are more likely get prison time than women for the same crimes. The issue of ‘Not All Men’ can mean life or death for poor minorities facing a system and social order of racial violence that has benefited not just white men but also white women, especially the wealthier.

I take victimization as a serious issue, far more than do most people. But it must be understood as a system and cycle of victimization, as I’ve pointed out before (A Fucked Up World). The victims and victimizers are disproportionately determined by privileges as much if not more related to race and class than to gender. Certainly, the compounded impact of intersectionality involving race and class is a one-two punch that destroys more lives than most privileged white feminists would care to think about.

* * *

Some women like to criticize men as violent and blame all of violent society on men, but the overwhelming data doesn’t make women look all that better than men. Depending on the specific data in terms of which forms of harm and which demographics, female perpetrators often are a higher percentage than male perpetrators. A lot of child abuse also comes from women, much of it sexual abuse and sometimes leading to death, although most of it is neglect. Women could make excuses for this fact such as “not all women.” Though true women disproportionately spend more time with children, it still doesn’t explain why so many women choose to abuse and harm children when given the opportunity.

Also, it doesn’t explain why we have heard so little about wide-scale maltreatment, including sexual abuse, of boys by women. It took generations for larger number of male perpetrators to be brought to justice, beginning with Catholic priests and now focused on celebrities and politicians. How long will we have to wait for more female perpetrators to be forced to face justice? What will it take for boys and men to be supported enough to not fear coming forward? With recent cases, we might be barely seeing the tip of an iceberg. One would like to believe that, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But does it?

Consider the consequences and what they mean. Does child abuse by women lead to a more violent society? Hell yes. And does victimization lead to ever more victimization, in an endless cycle of vast suffering? No doubt about it. So, does scapegoating a particular demographic help in dealing with the problem? Not in the slightest. Such scapegoating is as much a part of the problem, in that it helps evade the real issues of how bad it all is, how systemic and pervasive. Instead of child maltreatment dividing the genders, it unites us all in a common problem with large numbers of perpetrators found in all demographics. The saddest part is how many victims grow up to become victimizers. This isn’t about blaming victims or excusing vicitmizers. But it is depressing truth, as studies show, that many victims grow up to be victimizers. And, specifically, I suspect that many (how many?) male victimizers of female victims were earlier in life child victims of female victimizers. This is suggesting that we live in a far more fucked up world than most people want to admit. Our collective problems are collective sins. It is never just about those other people.

Claims of male privilege has a major kernel of truth and yet, as a generalization, it is easily taken too far. What about poor men? And what about minority men? Poor and minority men (the two demographics combined being the vast majority of men) are disproportionately in military and on the front-lines and so disproportionately injured and killed in war. And black males are disproportionately stopped and frisked, harassed and killed, prosecuted and imprisoned compared to whites, even for crimes that whites commit more often (e.g. whites are more likely than blacks to carry, use, and sell illegal drugs, while blacks are more likely to be arrested, prosecuted harshly, and imprisoned longer for illegal drug crimes).

Consider an African-American woman who is a daughter, wife, and mother to black men. If she were to say not all black men are bad and don’t deserve what they get in our society, why should she listen to or care about what privileged white feminists have to say in broad brushing men? Why should she care more about anything that detached white activists say than she cares about the problems of racism and poverty that do more harm to her and her family on a daily basis than maybe all the gender bias combined? The idea of “not all men” might have a different meaning as she worries about her son heading off to school, in a world that is harshly unfair and violently unforgiving. Implied in the white feminists’ outrage is an unstated belief about “not all whites,” as if the sins of racism can be separated from gendered oppression.

There are a number of great books on racism. One of my favorites so far is Racial Paranoia by John L. Jackson. The author points out how the rhetoric of colorblindness and political correctness has made open debate very difficult and fraught. It is an improvement over slavery and Jim Crow, but in the place of overt racism there is now a paralyzing racial paranoia. This is harmful for all involved. Similarly, one could teach right-wingers and reactionaries how to speak in politically correct ways such as not saying “not all men,” but that would simply hide the problem and allow it to proliferate. Reactionaries, in particular, are more talented in using political correctness than liberals will ever be. There are few more powerful tools of manipulative rhetoric than politically correct language, behind which dark motives and cynical views can be hidden. The more politically correct someone is, the less you should automatically trust them.

I’ve read more books on racism than on feminism. But there is much crossover between the two. I was reading a recent book by Angela Davis who is a famous black feminist. Even my conservative dad knew who she was from her activism of past decades. I like her perspective of intersectionalism, where multiple oppressive forces meet. In her case, that involved being both a woman and being black. Intersectional feminism arose in response to and criticism of mainstream feminism. These other feminists saw that racial and class privilege dominated even within feminism.

These are difficult issues to understand, to communicate, and to discuss. Emotions tend to run high and there are always good reasons for people to feel angry and frustrated. I was wondering also if there isn’t a challenge of gender paranoia similar to the racial paranoia. We obsess so much about speaking politically correct that we don’t easily trust that people actually mean what they say. We need more consideration for not just demanding that others say the right things but also, for all involved, to communicate well and honestly. Communication is a two-way street that demands mutual respect and understanding, and a whole lot of intellectual humility and personal humility.

Several people I know have, in the past, posted about the “not all men” meme. I’ve found myself resistant to writing about it, even though it is important, for the meme itself doesn’t particularly interest me. The entire debate on both sides has been a distraction from the real issues. Over these past several years, I’ve given this topic way more thought and consideration than I planned. Maybe it is worth the trouble or maybe not. People get upset, angry, and exasperated for good reason. But this leads people often getting the better of themselves and so pushing for attitudes that are ultimately counterproductive.

I don’t identify as feminist and I’m certainly not an anti-feminist. If I were to pick a label, I’d go with humanist or maybe something even broader than that. I’ve never overtly thought of myself as a women’s rights advocate, not that I’m against women’s rights, and I would find no inspiration in being a men’s rights advocate. First and foremost, I’m simply a human rights advocate, no matter the gender, race, or any other identity of the humans in question. I try to not favor one demographic of identity politics over any other, although I can’t help myself in being particularly saddened by the most desperate of poverty. My capacity for sympathy is fairly large and inclusive — there is plenty of compassionate concern to go around. As far as that goes, I’m also an animal rights advocate, ecosystem rights activist, and biosphere rights advocate. I’m generally in favor of all varieties and arrangements of life forms. If you are some combination of animate, aware, and responsive, if you are capable of growing and reproducing, then consider me a strong ally. I’m more pro-life than most self-described pro-lifers.

I hold this position because human reality is complex, reality in general actually. Our lives involve overlapping identities and influences. This is what is referred to as intersectionality — what might get talked about as systems theory, complexity theory, etc when focusing on anything besides individual humans. The study of intersectionality originates from feminism, but the theory more broadly applies to any “intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination.” Outside of feminism, some might refer to this as an “extended self” or something along those lines, in that self-identity and subjective experience don’t easily fit into the classical liberal’s hyper-individualism (upon which is built the social Darwinian pseudo-meritocracy of capitalist realism). The basic idea is an old understanding, and I’m fairly sure I’ve come across versions of it going at least back to the Enlightenment thinkers (it definitely was understood by some like Thomas Paine during the American Revolution, a conflict that was as much about economics and class as politics and governance, as much about social identity as civil rights). The basic motivation behind this broader understanding of humanity and society is that people who begin by fighting one type of problem end up fighting against a whole web of problems. There are few if any isolated problems in the world.

Take the Elliot Rodger’s incident. It involved the intersectionality of ethno-racism, self-hatred, mental health, misogyny, and gun violence. Probably other issues could be added as well. The broader context could also be thrown in. When a disadvantaged minority male in an underdeveloped country does the exact same thing, it doesn’t attract the attention of most Westerners, particularly not most comfortable Western feminists who are well-educated, middle class, and white. The division of privilege and power between countries is greater than the division of privilege and power within most countries. Saying that someone is a woman or a feminist doesn’t say much about that person or their experience. Likewise saying someone is a man doesn’t say much either.

Intersectionalism is explained well at the Thinking Girl blog:

“It turns out that not all women have the same experience, thus making it impossible to universalize the experiences of women under one group title “woman”. […] Crenshaw also uses an analogy she calls the “Basement Analogy”. Imagine a room in which the most well-off members of society reside. Below is is a basement, filled with all the people whose identity prevents them from being able to access the room. There is a trap-door in the floor of the room, and the people in the basement are scrambling for access. Those on top, or most likely to be granted access to the room, are those who only have one factor of their identity working against them: white women, disabled white men, non-white men, white non-christian men, white poor men, and so on. These people are standing on the shoulders of those who have two factors against them: black women, gay non-white men, poor white women, disabled women, etc. And so on, and so on. These analogies, while perhaps not perfect, provide a great visual, yes? […] Because we are not just one thing, but a compilation of many facets that make up a whole person, it is next to impossible to talk about women as if we are a homogenous group.”

Take that explanation of society and magnify it by the demographic and geographic differences, the economic and political inequalities of the entire global society. This larger view can be overwhelming and so the typical activist more often than not focuses narrowly on their own local area, their society or their country or just their community. This is also why so many activists focus on single issues and ignore the complications of an intersectional understanding. But for obvious reasons this omission of a greater context can be problematic.

What forms the lived experience of oppression and victimization isn’t a single issue. It isn’t just about being a woman, being homosexual, being handicapped, being a minority, being poor, or being in a post-colonial underdeveloped country. Where it gets really bad is when a number of these intersect in the lives of individuals, and so act as compounding factors. This is why the average well-educated middle class white American feminist is better off (less oppressed and victimized) than most people in the world, including most men in the world. But you might assert that not all self-identified feminists are well-educated white women in wealthy countries. True, but quite probably most are.

I would argue that the real derailing of much-needed discussion is this lack of awareness and appreciation for intersectionality. The enemies of human rights are strengthened when activists separate their identity politics and special interests from that of everyone else. There are no successful movements without allies. There are no allies without alliances. And there are no alliances without mutual respect and understanding. Some feminists are demanding that others listen to them, but there is no genuine listening that only goes one way. Everyone wants to be listened to. Minorities want to be listened to. Poor people want to be listened to. The mentally ill want to be listened to. Victims of war want to be listened to. Numerous other groups could be named that all want to be listened to. But that doesn’t give the right of any of these people to tell everyone else to shut up and only listen to them.

It’s because such issues as feminism are so important that those who self-identify as feminist shouldn’t sell themselves short. They should radically push feminism to its limits, broaden it to touch upon all aspects of human experience and all of the issues of human rights infringement. They should seek mutually beneficial alliances with other activists from across the board. The criticisms I’m making here of mainstream feminism are the same criticisms that radical feminists themselves have made. Intersectionality studies comes specifically out of the black feminist movement. The criticisms came from black women who saw white privilege and other privileges as remaining dominant within the leadership of the feminist movement.

As Sara Salem explains in Decolonial Intersectionality and a Transnational Feminist Movement:

“One example of such an approach would be to conceptualize feminism as a project that views patriarchy as a system oppressing both women and men. Rather than view gender justice as an individualistic goal to be attained by every woman — a view that sometimes views men as ‘the enemy’ — alternative visions in which patriarchy is conceptualized as a system that oppresses everyone can be more useful. This is not to say that men do not benefit from patriarchy — all men do. Rather it is to complicate ideas of masculinity by showing that not all men benefit equally. Work on masculinities has shown that men who fit the ideal type are in a power relation not only with women but also with men who are outside of what is considered ‘masculine.’ Pushing this conceptualization further, it is also more applicable to societies in which individualism is not the norm. For many women in postcolonial societies, the aim is not to challenge men, but rather to challenge the system and structures that allow men to become dominant. This will lead to justice not only for women but for men as well. This is why many postcolonial feminists focus on class so extensively, because they see the ways in which other structures — such as class — intersect with patriarchy in ways that oppress everybody. Thus ‘reforming’ men or even ‘reforming’ gender relations will never be enough: entire structures that intersect and depend upon one another need to be dismantled. There can be no feminism without anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, and so on, because patriarchy does not exist in isolation from imperialism, capitalism and other structures.”

* * *

For years, I’ve heard the statistics on male violence. I don’t doubt that we live in a violent society and that men participate in it to a greater degree. This is true on the victimizing end and, in many cases, on the victimized end.

More men than women commit rape, more men than women get in fights, more men than women shoot others, more men than women belong to gangs, etc. At the same time, more men than women are injured in industrial accidents, more men than women are sent off to die in wars, more men than women are harmed in the line of police duty, more men than women are burned horribly as firemen, etc. Men are generally more likely to kill and be killed, more likely to harm and be harmed, both when involved in morally reprehensible acts and when involve in morally honorable acts. I’m not arguing that each harmful act by a man is balanced by a beneficial act by a man. That would be too simplistic of an analysis. This data just is what it is, whatever is one’s final judgment.

My interest in violence has been less about gender, though. What original motivated my research was discussions of race and racism, largely because of having spent so many years living in and observing the racial order of the Deep South. The debate on violence almost always is degraded to arguments over which race, ethnicity, regional population, or other demographic commits the most violent crime. The answer one comes to depends on how one slices up the data. And too often one slices up the data in the way that gives one the answer one wants to find.

Minorities, in terms of mainstream identity politics and ignoring radical intersectional feminism, tend to get portrayed as a more complex demographic than that of women and with a more complicated history. Minorities have historically been exploited, oppressed, and victimized in almost endless ways. They experience high rates of poverty and prejudice which inevitably correlates to all kinds of social problems, violence and sexual abuse included, and health problems as well such as environmental racism (e.g., toxic dumps disproportionately located in poor minority communities). However, there obviously is much crossover between the two demographics. Both minorities and women are marginalized. And minority women are marginalized the most. The more marginalized a demographic the more closely the issue of violence crops up. Minority women are more likely to be victims of violence, but going by a brief perusal of the data they are with some categories of violence sometimes more likely also to be the perpetrators. This all goes along with poor people having more untreated addictions and mental health issues because of less access to healthcare and addiction programs, and a million other factors involving stress and trauma. Life can massively suck if you are poor and, if you are a poor minority women, it can be worse than anything most others could ever imagine.

I remember growing up in South Carolina during the 1980s and 1990s. It was far from uncommon to see black parents, typically mothers and of the lower class, hit their kids and yell at them. That is just anecdotal evidence, but some data shows there is higher rates of such things as child abuse among that demographic, as among any other demographic of greater poverty. It can’t be doubted that poverty, especially in a high inequality and racist society, is a harsh and unhappy condition. It’s hard to know what to think about abuse in that kind of situation. A hard life tends to make people hard, sad as that may sound. Also, there is fear among poor minority parents that if they don’t forcefully get their children in line, the consequences could be much worse when their kids aren’t given the benefit of the doubt by dangerous authority figures such as cops. It isn’t an excuse for child abuse, but it is what it is.

One of the issues I’ve been returning to over the years is gender and violence. What is the actual data on the gender gap of violence? Besides commonly repeated statistics, I really didn’t know what to expect when I first began researching it. But it immediately became apparent that the issue would be a challenge to make sense of. For some reason, extensively detailed data hasn’t been kept about gender and violence, especially not about women as perpetrators. It has been assumed men commit most of the violence, and so apparently most of the data-gathering and studies have focused on male victimizers and female victims. Male victims have been wary about coming forward and often dismissed when they do come forward. And female victimizers (along with female criminals in general) are prosecuted less often and less harshly than men, since they are often perceived as mentally ill (or whatever) rather than personally responsible and legally culpable. We don’t have a good way to make clear comparisons, but there is beginning to be better data that is showing up.

Men are the main culprits in most categories of violence, in how the criminal system operates and the data is kept. But even ignoring the complications of limited reporting and prosecution, women still don’t have a lot to be proud of — particularly when it comes to the surprising rates of women committing child abuse, child neglect, and child homicide. Partly, if one wishes to make excuses for bad behavior, this can be explained by the fact that women spend more time alone with children and so simply have more opportunity. As always, there is more violence committed by all involved than should exist. I wonder what would be the feminist critique of the high rates of women abusing children, especially boys. I’m not a feminist. I don’t tend to put victimization and suffering into the categories of identity politics. But for the most vocal feminists I come across online, identity politics are recruited to explain so much.

Feminists refer to abuse data all the time, and for good reason. Violence tends to be directed toward the disadvantaged, which in many cases in our society means women. Still, if you are a poor under-educated minority boy, you might not feel much male privilege compared to the middle class college-educated white feminist. In identity politics, it easily becomes a contest about whose victimization is bigger and whose suffering is more worthy, a pointless game to play but such is human nature. For my purposes, I was initially and have been primarily interested in what the data might show, without any clear expectations or preconceptions. Yes, I was already aware that women in general experience much rape, spousal abuse, and other similar atrocities — not something I was ever questioning or doubting. That data taken alone can’t be debated for it points to an unhappy truth, which explains the defensiveness of the “Not All Men” meme.

But as far as that goes, neither are all women the same, for the experience of a wealthier white woman is not the same as that of a poor minority woman. So, what about situations where women are at more or less of a disadvantage? Is violence specifically and necessarily about masculinity, either as biology or patriarchy? Or is violence simply about the power and opportunity to do so? And why are wealthier white women given a greater voice about victimization even though it is poor minority women who are more likely to be abused, raped, etc? Heck, even poor black males are more likely to experience oppression and maltreatment than wealthier white women. If the police show up to a scene involving a middle-to-upper class white woman and a lower class black male, which one is more likely to be harassed, arrested, or shot (no matter which party is guilty)?

* * *

There are those trying to command and shame others to listen. Too many people wanting to be heard and too few willing to listen. One might suggest that the best way to get people to listen is by modeling the behavior in listening to others, an admittedly difficult task when so many people feel silenced and are struggling to be heard.

Feminism isn’t or shouldn’t be limited to women and their victimization, as strange as that might initially sound. Patriarchy, paternalism, male violence, etc effects men as much as women. Actually, men probably experience violence of the patriarchy more than women. War zones, prisons, and homeless camps are filled with the male victims of a cruelly unjust society that has been supported and promoted by privileged women as much as privileged men.

It’s about our inability to think or discuss anything with complexity. As with racism, there is always more going on. A major factor with racism is skin tone bias, even blacks being racist against darker-skinned blacks (i.e., blacks who are stereotypically blacker) along with whites being racist against darker-skinned whites such as the historical prejudice against swarthy Americans of southern European ethnicity, such that racism is so pervasive that it crosses the color line. Blacks, as research shows, internalize racism. And likewise, women internalize patriarchy. What about boys who are abused and told to toughen up by mothers, female teachers, and other female authority figures in a patriarchy in order to raise these boys with patriarchal values? What about boys who are shamed by sisters, girlfriends, and wives to go off to war and do other horrific acts? Then who is the oppressor and who the oppressed? When women often have the most direct and everyday influence in instilling values in young children, why is it that patriarchy continues to be learned by each new generation long before kids enter the larger world ruled by men? When each generation is victimized and enculturated into the victimization cycle, there are too few innocent people left untraumatized and without dysfunction. Innocence is hard to find and complicity is near unavoidable. No matter how much we struggle against it, we all get caught up the social order we are born into.

Complaining about people who say not all men are rapists, abusers, misognynists, etc is pointless and counterproductive. Most importantly, stating “not all men” is simply pointing out a fact. It is true that not all men or even most men are those things, even though at the same time more men are those things than is good for society. No one should ever complain, though, about someone pointing out an obvious truth. I’d add that not all women (fill in the blank) either, but some are. As with men, women are part of this same patriarchal society. It’s like complaining about a white person who says that not all white people are racists, bigots, white supremacists, and Klansmen. It is true, even as we all carry unconscious prejudices. I’m willing to bet that research would also show that most women, in our society, harbor gender bias against women. Not all men are male chauvinists, just as not all women are angry feminists and not all feminists are privileged activists. Nor are all feminists misandrists and dogmatic ideologues. Not all feminists seek to shut down open dialogue through thought police dismissals of men who dare to point out the obvious fact about “not all men”. And as not all women are feminists of whatever variety, not all feminists are women.

If you dismiss others, that will predispose people to dismiss you. If you listen to others, that will predispose people to listen to you. It is basic psychology. It is also a corollary to the Golden Rule. You do unto others as you’d like them to do unto you because it is a worthy moral guide to action, but also because it is pragmatic way to get beneficial results. I despise anything that closes down fair debate and open dialogue. It’s one thing to call someone names, but it’s another thing to tell someone what they can and cannot say. If you call me a name, I can argue about whether the label is accurate and we can discuss that. But if you simply refuse to acknowledge my position at all and dismiss me based on assumptions you make about me, that is problematic for all involved… and it is extremely irritating. It doesn’t encourage me to respond with sympathy, when I receive none. Why should I submit myself to your cause? Sure, in your own private space and in your own private meetings, you can argue about having a safe space where you choose who is invited in and who is allowed to say what. But don’t pull that bullshit in open discussions on the internet or in public forums.

It derails conversations by alleging others are derailing conversations. Oddly and sadly, some assume conversations can only be one way and controlled by one person or one group. Others go with the more traditional notion that conversations happen as a dialogue between and inclusive of two or more parties. Telling people to “shut up” about anything isn’t an invitation to dialogue or even a request for them to listen. It is blatant dismissal, a rude condescension, treating the other the way a short-tempered parent would a child. It isn’t seeking mutual respect and understanding, that is for sure. It is a command to be submissive and do as told.

This makes people feel unwelcome and uninterested in participating. This is the perfect recipe for making feminism irrelevant to most of the population. The average American isn’t interested in being shamed and bullied, no matter the claims of good intentions, higher purpose, and greater cause. It’s not that such things as public shaming aren’t sometimes necessary tools, but we must keep in mind that they are powerful and easily abused. Authoritarians will always be better at using shame than liberals. Consider how public shame, often with a focus on sexual issues, was used to attack the political left during the Cold War. And consider how false sexual accusations have destroyed numerous lives, such as the daycare fiasco that led to a number of innocent people being sent to prison for several years. Guilty until proven innocent is no way to promote morality and justice, much less democracy and freedom from oppression.

None of this is to claim that there aren’t men who are dangerous. My basic point is that we need to take these problems even more seriously by looking at them more carefully and fully, without fearing what we might see when looking in the mirror of our society. Too many women, like too many men, seem reluctant to honestly confront these problems. Those trying to over-generalize and blame a single demographic are part of the problem, not part of the solution. By default, they are codependently rationalizing away the wrongdoing of those they identify with and making excuses for the systemic moral failure of our society. This is a collective problem, far beyond being limited to one population or sector. That is probably what scares people so much. Scapegoating is easier than taking social responsibility that would require that we acknowledge that, as members of this society, we are all complicit.

We need to be as concerned with the rights and well being of others as we are for our own rights and well being. Mutual concern and compassion leads to mutual respect and understanding, mutual trust and cooperation, mutual support and alliance. There is strength in numbers, when seeking larger changes. Why do some self-righteous activists want to divide their own supporters and potential supporters? Isn’t divide and conquer usually a technique used by one’s enemies, rather than promoted from within a movement itself? Let us place justice for all above identity politics for some. If that means we have to go through a difficult phase of social conflict, public shaming, moral outrage, etc, then so be it. But instead of stopping short, we would make sure to push it as far as it can go, until full justice is attained. None of us will remain untouched by the changes that will follow.

* * *

The following are some of the sources for my thinking. I’ll begin with some of what I consider to be obvious observations about the “Not All Men” meme. Below that, there is much fascinating data about race and gender in terms of social forces and the legal system, victims and victimizers, etc. Much of the info is about what data we so far have about female perpetrators of child maltreatment.

Comment by rj paré

I would say that any complaint generalizing all of a given gender, or a particular ethnicity, faith or orientation is flawed to begin with. I don’t think anyone who points that out is ever saying that the particular complaint never happens – just that it is always wrong to paint with broad strokes.

Not All Feminists

There you are, explaining how we could simplify airport screening procedures by using racial profiling, and suddenly-

Not all Arabs!

Or you and your friends are just making some really good progress on figuring out the racial origins of our society’s crime and unemployment problems when-

Not all Blacks!

Then you think you can at least have a conversation about how women with a massive sense self importance and entitlement end up shifting everything into gender war terms when-

Not all Feminists!

It’s almost like you can’t sit around making generalizations about groups you don’t like without someone showing up to introduce a qualifier? If reasoned discourse doesn’t exist in order for us to draw massive negative generalizations about groups of people we don’t like, what exactly is it for?

Comment section of #YesAllWomen

ou812 writes:

Phil, how do you respond to people who say “Not all Muslims are terrorists” after a suicide bombing?

Matt W writes:

“Fourth—and this is important, so listen carefully—when a woman is walking down the street, or on a blind date, or, yes, in an elevator alone, she doesn’t know which group you’re in.”

Hence, group stereotyping is a useful practice that has gotten much undeserved bad press. The HBD folks will be thrilled that we’ve come around on this.

My only point is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you support sex-stereotyping, then you’ve gone and supported other stereotyping as well, such as racial. See a black guy, cross the street. You don’t know which group of black guys he is in, after all.

I don’t deny, stereotyping is useful. We should just stop berating everyone for doing it in ways we don’t approve of.

wc4 writes:

I have a little food for thought. When Westboro Baptist started receiving remarkable attention for its activities, Christianity almost in its entirety stepped back and marginalized (at least in my humble observation) them with little more than finger-pointing and “not all Christians are like that” allegory. We already knew that; this wasn’t the latest breaking news story. However, it seemed to work. That’s the important aspect. Christians pushed away and shunned their most deplorable effectively, simply by getting together openly and candidly, and saying, “No, we will NOT be THAT.”

So, I’m compelled to posit these questions. What happens when, in the midst of this immense and pivotal gender conflict, a bloody million men get up and marginalize misogynists and misogyny? Is it not possible that the “not all men” phenomenon as a demand of men by men that we will NOT be THAT, as well as a reassurance to women, no matter how weak?

I choose to speak up primarily because I really, genuinely want to see something constructive come out of the conflict. It’s the only way the conflict ever really ends with all parties on equal footing. That M&M analogy is remarkable and profound, and should disseminate with reckless abandon. However, it doesn’t tell me – an anti-misogynistic male – how to help you get what you want and need. When I look at a woman, I see a human being, an individual, and my equal; and that’s not enough for me either, as not enough men see the same. So, I offer the perspective that allows this “movement” to be a demand as well. I offer it in hopes that, even if I’m completely, mind-bogglingly wrong, something constructive will come of it.

Alf Fass writes:

“Why is it not helpful to say “not all men are like that”? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don’t need you to tell them.”

As I read the argument Phil makes he’s saying “sure, not all men are rapists, but there is a group of women who think that all men are potential rapists”

Such women I think are equivalent to people who think “sure not all black men are muggers, but all black men are potential muggers”

People who think that way are respectively sexists and racists.

Colin Robinson writes:

40 years ago, Susan Brownmiller published her influential book “Against our Will: Men, Women and Rape”. There she described rape as “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”. Note the words “all men”.

Still today, she quotes that statement on her website. http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/susanbrownmiller/html/against_our_will.html

I’d agree that it shouldn’t be necessary to say “not all men”. Unfortunately, because of feminists like Brownmiller, it is necessary.

Young Mice, Like Children, Can Grow Up Too Fast
by Alison Gopnik, WSJ (see To Grow Up Fast)

In the new experiment, published in 2015 in the same journal, the researchers looked at how the young mice reacted to early stress. Some of the mice were separated from their mothers for 60 or 180 minutes a day, although the youngsters were kept warm and fed just like the other mice. Mice normally get all their care from their mother, so even this brief separation is very stressful.

The stressed mice actually developed more quickly than the secure mice. As adolescents they looked more like adults: They were less exploratory and flexible, and not as good at reversal learning. It seemed that they grew up too fast. And they were distinctive in another way. They were more likely to drink large quantities of ethanol—thus, more vulnerable to the mouse equivalent of alcoholism.

These results fit with an emerging evolutionary approach to early stress. Childhood is a kind of luxury, for mice as well as men, a protected period in which animals can learn, experiment and explore, while caregivers look after their immediate needs.

Early stress may act as a signal to animals that this special period is not a luxury that they can afford—they are in a world where they can’t rely on care. Animals may then adopt a “live fast, die young” strategy, racing to achieve enough adult competence to survive and reproduce, even at the cost of less flexibility, fewer opportunities for learning and more vulnerability to alcohol.

This may be as true for human children as it is for mouse pups. Early life stress is associated with earlier puberty, and a 2013 study by Nim Tottenham and colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that children who spent their early years in orphanages prematurely developed adultlike circuitry in the parts of the brain that govern fear and anxiety.

Yes, Preschool Teachers Really Do Treat Black And White Children Totally Differently
by Rebecca Klein, Huffington Post

Black children are 3.6 times more likely to receive a suspension in preschool than their white classmates, according to 2013-2014 data from the Department of Education. But, “until now, no research existed to explain why boys or black preschoolers are at greatest risk for expulsion,” Gilliam said on a call with reporters.

According to Gilliam, a teacher’s implicit biases can have a big impact on a child’s future.

“Implicit bias is like the wind, you can’t see it but you can sure see its effects,” Gilliam said. “Implicit biases do not begin with black men and police, they begin with young black boys and their preschool teachers, if not earlier.”

Let Black Kids Just Be Kids
by Rogin Bernstein

George Zimmerman admitted at his 2012 bail hearing that he misjudged Trayvon Martin’s age when he killed him. “I thought he was a little bit younger than I am,” he said, meaning just under 28. But Trayvon was only 17.

What may be most tragic about Mr. Zimmerman’s miscalculation is that it’s widespread. To many people, black boys seem older than they are: In one study, people overestimated their ages by 4.5 years. This contributes to a false perception that black boys are less childlike than white boys.

Black girls are subject to similar beliefs, according to a recent study by the Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality. A group of 325 adults viewed black girls as needing less nurturing, support and protection than white girls, and as knowing more about sex and other adult topics.

People of all races see black children as less innocent, more adultlike and more responsible for their actions than their white peers. In turn, normal childhood behavior, like disobedience, tantrums and back talk, is seen as a criminal threat when black kids do it. Social scientists have found that this misperception causes black children to be “pushed out, overpoliced and underprotected,” according to a report by the legal scholar Kimberlé W. Crenshaw.

That’s why we must create a future in which children of color are not disproportionately caught up in the criminal justice system, a world in which a black 17-year-old can wear a hoodie without being assumed to be a criminal.

The Race Factor in Trying Juveniles as Adults
by Jennifer L. Eberhardt & Aneeta Rattan, NYT

But as our society has scrutinized this line between juvenile and adult, there has been little discussion of how race might influence people’s perceptions of juvenile status, despite widespread and substantial racial disparities in juvenile sentencing. Consider Florida, which is the state that had most often assigned juveniles life without parole sentences in cases other than homicide. As of 2009, 84 percent of the juvenile offenders who received this sentence were African-American.

In our own work, we find that race can have a sweeping effect even when people consider the same crime. Prompting people to think of a single black (rather than white) juvenile offender leads them to express greater support for sentencing all juveniles to life without parole when they have committed serious violent crimes. Thinking about a black juvenile offender also makes people imagine that juveniles are closer to adults in their blameworthiness. Remarkably, this was true for both people who were low in prejudice and those who were high in prejudice and for both liberals and conservatives.

Thus, race has the power to dampen our desire to be merciful. This is why race must be considered in discussions about how we protect juveniles and what punishments are deemed appropriate for them. Though often overlooked, perhaps race is key to helping us understand people’s support for punitive policies more generally.

Kids in Prison: Getting Tried as An Adult Depends on Skin Color
by Sarah Gonzalez, WNYC

The WNYC Data News Team went through state records of every person who is currently in a New Jersey prison, and isolated those who were minors on the date they committed their crime. Here’s what we found:

  • At least 152 inmates are still in prison today for crimes they committed as kids in the past five years
  • 93 percent of them are black or Latino
  • The most common crime they committed was robbery
  • 20 percent of them have sentences of 10 or more years
  • 2 are female inmates

Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Huffington Post

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

Other research has found evidence of the same gender gap, though Starr asserts that the disparity is actually larger than previously suspected because other studies haven’t looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system.

A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because “judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility.”

Past studies have also found that minority men are, on average, given longer prison sentences than white men convicted of the same crimes.

5 Bizarre Realities of Being a Man Who Was Raped by a Woman
Amanda Mannen, Cracked

a 2012 survey of 40,000 households found that a staggering 38 percent of sexual-assault victims were male. Nearly half of those men reported that their attacker was a woman.

Current evidence on sexual abuse by women
from Breaking the last taboo: sexual abuse by female perpetrators
Renee Koonin, South Eastern CASA

While it is essential to work with the most recent available research and not inflate figures through dint of emotion or ideology, it must be remembered that a couple of decades ago, abuse by men was considered rare. At least we have to be open to the possibility that sexual abuse by women may be more prevalent than we currently understand, and hence provide the opportunity for disclosure (Renvoize 1993). Is there any evidence to challenge current thinking on the prevalence of female sexual abusers?

It was courageous women speaking out about their abuse as children that first alerted us to the staggering incidence of sexual victimisation of children. Similarly, adult survivors of sexual abuse by women are coming forward, saying that until now they have felt doubly silenced. After the National Conference on Female Sexual Abuse in London, the radio program, ‘This Morning’ opened a hotline inviting callers to talk about abuse by women. In one day, they received over 1,000 calls, 90 per cent of whom stated they had never told anyone (Elliott 1993). In April 1993, a television program called ‘Unspeakable Acts’, was screened by the BBC. The Broadcasting Support Services Helpline received I60 calls by women abused as children by females immediately after the screening. National self-help groups for survivors of female abuse have been established in America and the United Kingdom. Closer to home, a group for women abused by females in childhood was established after the Incest Confest held in Sydney in July 1992. None of this gives us incidence or prevalence figures, but we are hearing from people who were silent until now.

Claims of sex abuse by women grow
Hannah Richardson, BBC News

Childline’s report did not claim that sexual abuse by women was on the rise.

It instead suggested that, as more boys were tending to call its helpline, more cases were being reported.

Female Perpetrators and Male Victims of Sexual Abuse: Facts and Resources 
Loree Cook‐Daniels, Forge

Of the studies listed, between of 37-53.8% of male children abused by female perpetrators

Sexual Abuse By Women: The Crime No One Wants To Investigate
Anna North, Jezebel

Reliable data on the prevalence of sexual abuse by women is almost impossible to come by. Philby cites one UK abuse hotline, ChildLine — 11% of its callers in 2004 reported being abused by a woman. But women make up only 1% of convicted sex offenders in England and Wales. The picture is just as complicated in the US, according to an article by Lisa Lipshires in Moving Forward Newsjournal. One report found that women were responsible in 20% of US abuse cases between 1973 and 1987, but states report their data differently, and not all divide abusers by gender.

Sharp rise reported in child abuse by women
Sam Marsden, U.K. Independent

New figures show a 132 per cent rise in complaints of female sexual assaults to the helpline service in this period, compared with a 27 per cent increase in reports of abuse by men. […]

The disturbing statistics follow the recent high-profile case of nursery worker Vanessa George, who was a member of an internet paedophile ring along with another woman.

Last year ChildLine heard from 1,311 children who said they had been sexually assaulted by their own mother, representing 61 per cent of all calls about abuse by females.

Research for the helpline found that boys were more likely to say they had been abused by a woman (1,722 cases) than by a man (1,651).

Child Maltreatment 2006
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

In 2006, nearly 80 percent (79.9%) of perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and another 6.7 percent were other relatives of the victim. Women comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 57.9 percent compared to 42.1 percent. More than 75 percent (77.5%) of all perpetrators were younger than age 40. […]

For FFY 2006, 48.2 percent of child victims were boys, and 51.5 percent of the victims were girls. The youngest children had the highest rate of victimization. […]

Nearly three-quarters of child victims (72.2%) ages birth to 1 year and age group of 1–3 (72.9%) were neglected compared with 55.0 percent of victims ages 16 years and older. For victims in the age group of 4–7 years 15.3 percent were physically abused and 8.2 percent were sexually abused, compared with 20.1 percent and 16.5 percent, respectively, for victims in the age group of 1 2–15 years old. […]

Nearly 83 percent (82.4%) of victims were abused by a parent acting alone or with another person. Approximately, 40 percent (39.9%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 17.6 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; and 17.8 percent were abused by both parents. 19 Victims abused by nonparental perpetrators accounted for 10.0 percent (figure 3–5). […]

Three-quarters (75.9%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents (figure 4–2). More than one-quarter (27.4%) of fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone. Nonparental perpetrators (e.g., other relative, foster parent, residential facility staff, “other,” and legal guardian) were responsible for 14.7 percent of fatalities. […]

Given the definition of child abuse and neglect, which largely pertains to caregivers, not to persons unknown to a child, most perpetrators of child maltreatment are parents. Also included are relatives, foster parents, and residential facility staff. During Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006:
■ Nearly 80 percent (79.9%) of perpetrators were parents of the victim;
■ Approximately 60 percent (60.4%) of perpetrators were found to have neglected children; and
Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women, and 42 percent (42.1%) of perpetrators were men.

Who abuses children?
Australian Institute of Family Studies

Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that of participants who had experienced physical abuse before the age of 15, 55.6% experienced abuse from their father/stepfather and 25.9% experienced abuse from their mother/stepmother. A further 13.7% experienced abuse from another known person and the remainder were family friends, other relatives or strangers (ABS, 2005).

A British retrospective prevalence study of 2,869 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse (49% of incidents compared to 40%). However, part of the difference may be explained by the greater time children spend with their mothers than fathers. Violence was also reported to be perpetrated by stepmothers (3%) or stepfathers (5%), grandparents (3%) and other relatives (1%) (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005).

Further research shows that when taking issues of severity into consideration, fathers or father surrogates are responsible for more severe physical abuse and fatalities than female perpetrators (US Department of Health and Human Services [US DHHS], 2005). Other researchers such as Daly and Wilson (1999) have argued that biological parents are less likely than step-parents to physically abuse their biological offspring due to their greater investment in the genetic continuity of their family.

Understanding Violence by Women: A Review of the Literature
Correctional Service of Canada

As noted earlier the interpretation of gender differences is difficult in this area because women are more likely to have care of children, often as single mothers, and to spend more time with them. In the US Reiss and Roth (1993) report that infants and small children are more likely to be killed by their mothers than their fathers, in part as a result of the mother’s greater caretaking role. Child deaths are also likely to result from combinations of circumstances and actors eg. an individual parent, both parents, boy-friends, step parents and grandparents, foster parents and babysitters (Greenland 1987). They may result from a single event or an extended history of battering or neglect. In very rare cases they may be identified with severe pathology (eg. the Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, Schreier & Libow 1993).

A detailed study of deaths from child abuse and neglect in Canada, the United Kingdom and the USA, and of the many problems of research in this field, was undertaken by Greenland (1987). Of the 100 cases examined in Ontario, he found that slightly more women than men were responsible for a child’s death, they tended to be younger than male perpetrators, and the child more likely to die as a result of neglect than abuse. Male perpetrators were more likely to have injured the child physically. In the United Kingdom, among 68 deaths, there was a higher frequency of male perpetrators.

Greenland stresses the variety of circumstances in such deaths and the importance of studying a total population rather than the most extreme cases. In both samples he attributed the largest proportion of deaths to the `battered child syndrome’, followed by child neglect and homicide (ie. a single event not related to a history of abuse). In both countries he also identified baby-sitters and temporary carers as a specific group. Some of the factors associated with high risk children and their parents were also identified. He concluded that the proportion of deaths attributable to mental illness was rare, and that there is an indisputable link between child abuse and neglect deaths, and poverty and family stress in all three countries.

Morris and Wilcznski (1993) in their study of mothers who kill their children report that children under one year of age made up 12% of all deaths in England and Wales in 1989. Most of those children were killed by parents. An analysis of all such cases where the suspect was a parent between 1982 and 1989, a total of 493, indicated that almost half of the children were killed by their mothers. As they underline, this is in marked contrast to other types of homicide where women are usually well outnumbered by men.

What is also evident from the work of Wilcznicki and Morris as well as other writers (eg. Allen, 1987a & b) is the differential way in which such men and women were treated by the courts. Of those originally charged with murder, more than half of the fathers were sentenced to imprisonment, compared with under 10% of the mothers. The great majority of those mothers were subsequently convicted on a lesser charge and received probation or (psychiatric) hospital orders. This was generally on the grounds of diminished responsibility (that at the time of the crime they suffering from an abnormality of the mind). Of those cases where the initial charge was manslaughter, just over half the mothers received a sentence of imprisonment, compared with the majority of the fathers. Thus overall, the criminal justice system in England and Wales is less likely to convict mothers who kill their children for murder, and less likely to sentence them to prison. In the USA the authors suggest, such mothers are more likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment.

Those mothers who do receive a prison sentence tend to be seen as ‘bad’ mothers in contrast to otherwise ‘good’ mothers who were seen to be suffering from some form of personality disorder or depressive illness. Morris and Wilczynski conclude that this tendency to see women’s violent behaviour as unnatural is not in the end helpful to women. Like Greenland (1987) they argue that the reasons mothers may kill their children are ‘many and varied’, and ‘normal’ women can kill their children when they are confronted by social and economic circumstances which are severe enough’ (p. 215). The focus on the pathology of the mother diverts attention away from the poverty and isolation in which such mothers often live and, they argue, their lack of social and economic power in a society which regards all women as natural mothers.

Husain, Anasseril and Harris (1983) in a study of 23 homicidal women admitted for pre-trial psychiatric evaluation found those who had killed a child were much younger than other women. Korbin (1989) in a study of nine women imprisoned for killing their child suggests that the deaths followed a pattern of abuse of the child, that the women had provided warning signals to professionals, family members and neighbours after previous incidents, and had rationalized and minimized the abuse to themselves. Her work confirms that of other researchers in the field in highlighting the `plethora of adverse conditions and risk factors’ in the life histories and current circumstances of the women, including their own histories of abuse. On the basis of other work in the field (eg. Daro 1987; Fontana & Alfaro 1987) she suggests that prediction of such fatal incidents may be impossible, but that intervention and education should be directed beyond individual families to community networks which can support them, and research, at the circumstances leading to such events.

Child sexual abuse
Wikipedia

“Research attention is now being directed towards women who sexually abuse children.”[4] It is not uncommon for a male who has been sexually abused by a woman in his youth to receive positive or neutral reactions when he tells people about the abuse.[5] Males and females sexually abused by male offenders, on the other hand, are more readily believed.[6]

According to a study done by Cortoni and Hanson in 2005, 4-5% of all recorded sexual abuse victims were abused by female offenders.[6] However, the Cortoni study numbers don’t match the official statistics by The United States Department of Justice which found a rate of 8.3% for “Other sexual offenses” for females and The Australian Bureau of Statistics found a rate of 7.9% for “Sexual assault and related offences” for females.[citation needed]

Other studies have found rates to be much higher. For example:

In a study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% had a female-only perpetrator and 22% had both male and female perpetrators.[7]

The sexual abuse of children by women, primarily mothers, constituted 25% (approximately 36 000 children) of the sexually abused victims. This statistic is thought to be underestimated due to the tendency of non-disclosure by victims.[8]

According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – In studies that ask students about offenders, sex differences are less than in adult reports. The 2000 American Association of University Women (AAUW) data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders).[9]

Some have even suggested that a greater degree of child molesters are female, estimating as many as 63% of sex abusers may be female.[10]

According to a 2011 CDC report there are an estimated 4,403,010 female victims of sexual violence that had a female perpetrator.[11]

[Criminology] Review: Sexual Abuse of Children (by Women)
J. H. Nomer

Overview

  • Accounting for self-reports bring the victimization rates to an alarming 58% (Kramer, 2011 & 2012).
  • In 1992, a hotline program hosted by the British children’s charity Kidscape, it was discovered that 90% of the victims of female rapists had never reported their abuse to anyone, making it the most under-reported crime of all time. The majority of the callers were women. (Elliot, 1994).
  • Women committed at least 25% of all child sexual abuse in the U.K — an estimated 250,000 children were victimized by women in the with 86% of their victims being met with disbelief when attempting to report (Elliot, 1994).
  • BBC1 broadcasted the documentary, “The Ultimate Taboo: Child Sexual Abuse by Women” in 1994. The sheer cruelty and sadism of female rapists portrayed was, at that time, beyond belief.
  • In 1996, a national report published by U.S Department of Health and Human Services found women perpetrated 28% of child sexual abuse. Similar examinations were also reported by Health Canada (Mathews, 1996).
  • “The sexual abuse of children by women, primarily mothers, once thought to be so rare it could be ignored, constituted at least 25% of the sexually abused victims. This statistic is thought to be underestimated due to the tendency of non-disclosure by victims.” (Boroughs, 2004).
  • In 2004, the U.S Department of Education (USDE) compiled known studies of educator sexual misconduct to find at least 43% of the perpetrators were women.
  • In a large-scale school survey in South Africa, 41% reported a female perpetrator while 27% reported both male and female perpetrators (Andersson, et al, 2008).
  • In the majority of cases, women who sexually abuse children, do so completely alone (O’Connor, 1987; Kalders, et al, 1997 & Aylward, 2002). The Correctional Service of Canada (CCS) reports similar findings in their 2008 case study.
  • Arrest report data are meaningless, as female rapists are generally either not arrested, not prosecuted or not sentenced to jail time (Finkelhor, et al, 1988; Vandiver, et al, 2006). A British Home Office study, found that the average sentence length for sex crimes for males was 41.2 months. This was twice the sentence length for females, averaging 22.2 months (Grey, et al, 2001). Feminist criminologists reported similar discrimination in sentencing (Embry, et al, 2012).
  • In cases that do result in incarceration, female rapists were not required to seek sexual deviance treatment (Aylward, et al, 2002).
  • Female offenders do not have an unusually high rate of mental illness (Faller, 1987; Saradjian, 1996).
  • It’s also important to note that in cases involving those who do have diagnosable psychiatric illnesses, it cannot be automatically concluded that this caused their offense. (Faller, 1995) reports that out of 23 women, who were coded as being mentally ill, only 3 showed that mental illness was related to offending behaviour.
  • Sexual sadism is unusually high among female perpetrators (Fedoroff, et al, 1999). (Kelley, et al, 1993) investigated sexual abuse of children in day care centers and found female pedophiles often forced children into watching them rape other children. (Kaufman, et al, 1995) reports women often used foreign objects to penetrate their victims. (Aylward, et al, 2002) reports female pedophiles were more likely to have the child engage in sexual behavior with another adult while they watched. (Wiegel, 2009) compared women who molested children, to women with other sexual deviances and reported that the women child molesters abused multiple children.
  • The First National Conference on Female Sexual Abuse, hosted by Kidscape founder Michelle Elliot, was violently disrupted by feminists in an attempt to block their discussions (Elliot, 1994). Feminist organizations continue to attack researchers who refuse to conform to biased scales of “patriarchal dominance”. Funds acquired for the “welfare of women” are instead funneled into extremism.
  • Feminist pedophiles. “The validity of three assumptions about self-esteem, sex-role identity, and feminism in female offenders was empirically investigated in a study of 73 women awaiting trial (ATU) in Massachusetts. ATU and a comparison group of women were administered several paper-and-pencil questionnaires measuring self-esteem, personal autonomy, psychological masculinity and femininity, and feminism. Despite age and educational differences, ATU women were similar to non-offender women. The results did not support assumptions regarding low self-esteem and increased masculinity in female offenders. The third assumption about feminism in young female offenders received slight support.” (Widom, 1979).

Bibliography

  1. Beck, A. J., Cantor, D., Hartge, J. & Smith, T. Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth 2012. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report. NCJ 241708.
  2. Hayes, S. L., & Carpenter, B. J. (2013). Social moralities and discursive constructions of female sex offenders. Sexualities, 16(1/2), 159-179.
  3. Koller, J. (2013). The ecological fallacy (Dutton 1994) revised. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 5(3).
  4. Turton, J. (2013). Betrayal of trust: Victims of maternal incest. In Participation, Citizenship and Trust in Children’s Lives (pp. 73-92). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  5. Brayford, J. (2012). Female sexual offending: An impermissible crime. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 14(3), 212-224. doi:10.1057/cpcs.2012.5.
  6. Embry, R., & Lyons Jr., P. M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146-162.
  7. Kramer, S. (2012). On becoming a victim: Power, gender and sexuality in the production of victims of South African female sex abuse. Paper presented at the Taking Victim Rights Forward national conference, St. Georges, SA.
  8. Landor, R. & Eisenchlas, S. (2012). “Coming Clean” on duty of care: Australian print media’s representation of male versus female sex offenders in institutional contexts. Sexuality & Culture, 1-17.
  9. McLeod, D.A. (2012). Assessing the Impact of Primary Perpetrator Gender In Substantiated CPS Child Sexual Assault Cases: A Secondary Data Analysis of the NCANDS Child FileFFY 2009. Society for Social Work and Research:Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Oral Paper Presentation.
  10. Plumm, K. M., Nelson, K. D. & Terrance, C. A. (2012). A crime by any other name: Effects of media reporting on perceptions of sex offenses. Journal of Media Psychology, 17(1).
  11. Smith, B. V. (2012). Uncomfortable places, close spaces: Female correctional workers’ sexual interactions with men and boys in custody. UCLA Law Review, 59(6), 1691-1745.
  12. Solis, O. L. & Benedek, E. P. (2012). Female sexual offenders in the educational system: A brief overview. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 76(2), 172-188. doi:10.1521/bumc.2012.76.2.17.
  13. Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E. & Payne, B. K. (2012). Community corrections professionals’ attitudes about sex offenders: Is the CATSO applicable? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 25(2), 145-157. doi:10.1080/1478601X.2012.699733.
  14. Tsopelas, C., Tsetsou, S., Ntounas, P. & Douzenis, A. (2012). Female perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors: What are the consequences for the victims?International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(4), 305-310. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.003.
  15. Van Arsdale, A. (2012). Is adolescent female sex offending a true paradox? A comparative study of gender differences in sex offending and delinquency.
  16. Bexson, L. (2011). The ultimate betrayal female child sex offenders: An exploration of theories, media representations and the role of the internet in relations to female perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Nottingham Trent University.
  17. Bullock, C. & Beckson, M. (2011). Male victims of sexual assault: Phenomenology, psychology, physiology. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(2), 197-205.
  18. Book, L. (2011). It’s ok to tell: A story of hope and recovery. Prospecta Press.
  19. Elliott, I. A. & Ashfield, S. (2011). The use of online technology in the modus operandi of female sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression: An international, interdisciplinary forum for research, theory and practice.
  20. Eher, R., Miner, M. H., Pfafflin, F. & Boer, D. P. (2011). International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: Theory, practice and research. New York: Wiley.
  21. Gakhal, B. & Brown, S. J. (2011). A comparison of the general public’s, forensic professionals’ and students’ attitudes towards female sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression: An international, interdisciplinary forum for research, theory and practice, doi:10.1080/13552600.2010.540678.
  22. Getz, L. (2011, March & April). Male survivors of childhood sexual abuse — looking through a gendered lens. Social Work Today, 11(2), 20.
  23. Gibbons, N. (2011). Why gender matters in child welfare and protection. A Presentation to the NUIG Gender and Child Welfare Conference.
  24. Hackett, M. (2011). Commentary: Female forensic worker sexual misconduct — who is the captive? The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(2), 166-169.
  25. Hatchard, C. (2011). Who Will Love Me? Four Stories of Mother-Daughter Sexual Abuse. Available from https://www.createspace.com/299205
  26. Kramer, S. (2011). Truth, gender and the female psyche: ‘confessions’ from female sexual offenders. Psychology of Women Section, 13(1).
  27. Kramer, S. & Bowman, B. (2011). Accounting for the ‘invisibility’ of the female pedophile: an expert-based perspective from South Africa. Psychology & Sexuality.
  28. Prentky, R. A., Lamade, R. & Coward, A. (2011). Sex offender research in a forensic context. Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 372-399). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
  29. Sandler, J. & Freeman, N. J. (2011). Female sex offenders and the criminal justice system: A comparison of arrests and outcomes. Journal of Sexual Aggression: An international, interdisciplinary forum for research, theory and practice, 17(1), 61-76. doi:10.1080/13552600.2010.537380.
  30. Tsopelas, C., Spyridoula, T. & Athanasios, D. (2011). Review on female sexual offenders: Findings about profile and personality. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(2), 122-126. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.02.006.
  31. Vess, J. (2011). Risk assessment with female sex offenders: Can women meet the criteria of community protection laws? Journal of Sexual Aggression: An international, interdisciplinary forum for research, theory and practice, 17(1), 77-91. doi:10.1080/13552600.2010.528844.
  32. Weedon, V. (2011). Girls 101: Psychosocial and Clinical Characteristics of Girls (10-17 years) with Harmful Sexual Behaviours in New Zealand. Massey University, Albany New Zealand.
  33. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Guerino, P. (2010). Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth 2008-2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report. NCJ 228416.
  34. Belshaw, S. H. (2010). Book Review: Gibson C. & Vandiver, D. M. (2008). Juvenile Sex Offenders: What the Public Needs to Know. Westport, CT: Praeger Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8, 86-88.
  35. Brents, B. G. (2010) Sex As Crime? Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 39, 58-59.
  36. Cromer, L. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). Child Sexual Abuse Myths: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Individual Differences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(6), 618-647.
  37. Crouch, H.(2010). Female Sex Offenders and Pedophiles. Special. California Men’s Centers.
  38. Duncan, K. (2010). Female Sexual Predators: Understanding Them to Protect Our Children and Youths. Connecticut: Praeger.
  39. Edelson, M. G. & Joa, D. (2010). Differences in Legal Outcomes for Male and Female Children Who Have Been Sexually Abused.
  40. Elliott, I. A., Eldridge, H. J., Ashfield, S. & Beech, A. R. (2010). Exploring Risk: Potential Static, Dynamic, Protective and Treatment Factors in the Clinical Histories of Female Sex Offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 25(6), 595-602.
  41. Head, A. (2010). Vanessa George: exploring broadsheet and tabloid newspaper representation of a female sex offender. University of Portsmouth.
  42. Knoll, J. (2010). Teacher Sexual Misconduct: Grooming Patterns and Female Offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(4), 371-386.
  43. Kramer, S. (2010). Discourse and power in the self-perceptions of incarcerated South African female sexual offenders. University of the Witwatersrand
  44. Lam, A., Mitchell, J. & Seto, M. C. (2010). Lay Perceptions of Child Pornography Offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52(2), 173-201.
  45. Martellozzo, E., Nehring, D. & Taylor, H. (2010). Online child sexual abuse by female offenders: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 4, 592-609.
  46. Mellor, D. & Deering, R. (2010). Professional response and attitudes toward female-perpetrated child sexual abuse: a study of psychologists, psychiatrists, probationary psychologists and child protection workers. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(5), 415-438.
  47. Pflugradt, D. M. & Allen, B. P. (2010). An Exploratory Analysis of Executive Functioning for Female Sexual Offenders: A Comparison of Characteristics Across Offense Typologies. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(4), 434-449.
  48. Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E. & Allen, L. (2010). The Effects of Victim Gender, Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making. Criminal Justice and Behavior 37, 47-63.
  49. Schweigert, K. (2010). The Effect of Gender on Perpetration Characteristics and Empathy for Juvenile Sex Offenders.
  50. Turton, J. (2010). Female sexual abusers: Assessing the risk. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 38(4), 279-293.
  51. Turton, J. (2010). Child Abuse, Gender and Society. New York: Routledge.
  52. Turton, J. (2010). Maternal Abusers: Underlying concerns for children.
  53. Whelan, C., Farr, C. & Hammond, S. (2010). Evaluation and validation of the revised Thorne Sex Inventory: implications for female sexual offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 21(5), 721-736. doi:10.1080/14789941003668293
  54. Abel, G. & Wiegel, M. (2009). Visual reaction time: Development, theory, empirical evidence, and beyond. Sex offenders: Identification, risk assessment, treatment, and legal issues (pp. 110-113). USA: Oxford University Press.
  55. Beech, A. R., Parrett, N., Ward, T. & Fisher, D. (2009). Assessing female sexual offenders’ motivations and cognitions: an exploratory study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 201-216.
  56. Brand, J. (2009). The best kept secret: Mother-daughter sexual abuse. Caper Consulting.
  57. Gamez-Guadix, M. & Straus, M. A. (2009). Childhood and adolescent victimization and sexual coercion and assault by male and female university students. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Dunham, NH 03824.
  58. Deering, R. & Mellor, D. (2009). Sentencing of male and female child sex offenders : Australian study, Psychiatry, psychology and law, 16(3), 394-412.
  59. Gavin, H. (2009). Mummy wouldn’t do that: the perception and construction of the female child sex abuser. In: Evil, Women and the Feminine, 1-3 May 2009, Budapest, Hungary.
  60. Higgins, C. & Ireland, C. (2009). Attitudes towards male and female sex offenders: a comparison of forensic staff, prison officers and the general public in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 11(1), 14-19.
  61. Johansson-Love, J. & Fremouw, W. (2009) Female Sex Offenders: A Controlled Comparison of Offender and Victim/Crime Characteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 367-376.
  62. Lambert, S. & Hammond, S. (2009). Perspectives on Female Sexual Offending in an Irish Context. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 1(9).
  63. Levine, K. L. (2009) When Gender Meets Sex: An Exploratory Study of Women Who Seduce Adolescent Boys. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 15(2).
  64. Mariathasan, J. (2009) More children telling Childline about female sex abusersChildline, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
  65. McCartan, L. M. & Gunnison, E. (2009). Individual and Relationship Factors That Differentiate Female Offenders With and Without a Sexual Abuse History. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
  66. Miller, H. A., Turner, K. & Henderson, C. E. (2009) Psychopathology of Sex Offenders: A Comparison of Males and Females Using Latent Profile Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36: 778-792.
  67. Porter, T. (2009). Women as molesters; implications for society.
  68. Wiegel, M. (2009) Adult Women Who Sexually Abuse Minors: self-reported characteristics and objectively measured sexual interest. Paper presented at 11th Annual Joint Conference, MASOC/MATSA, Marlborough, Massachusetts.
  69. Alaggia, R. & Millington, G. (2008). Male child sexual abuse: A phenomenology of betrayal. Journal of Clinical Social Work, 36, 265-275.
  70. Andersson, N. & Ho-Foster, A. (2008). 13,915 reasons for equity in sexual offences legislation: A national school-based survey in South Africa. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7(20), 1-6.
  71. Bader, S. M., Scalora, M. J., Casady, T. K. & Black, S. (2008). Female sexual abuse and criminal justice intervention: A comparison of child protective service and criminal justice samples. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(1), 111-119.
  72. Belanger, S. (2008) Characteristics and reactions of sexual victimization of adolescent male sexual abusers by female perpetrators. Smith College School of Social Work.
  73. Broom, R. (2008). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Norwich: Social Work Monographs, University of East Anglia.
  74. Correctional Service of Canada. (2008). Female Sex Offenders in the Correctional Service of Canada. Case Studies.
  75. Fanetti, M., Kobayashi, I. & Mitchell, DW. (2008). The effects of gender on decisions of guilt in cases of alleged child sexual abuse. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 26 (4) 31-40.
  76. Fromuth, M. E. & Holt, A. R. (2008). Perception of teacher sexual misconduct by age of student. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 17(2), 163-179.
  77. Gannon, T. A. & Rose, M. R. (2008). Female child sexual offenders: Towards, integrating theory and practice. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 21, 194-207.
  78. Humphrey, E. (2008). Female sex offenders; exposing the myth. University of Portsmouth.
  79. Johansson-Love, J. and Fremouw, W. (2008). Female Sexual Perpetrators: Is It More Than Just a Gender Difference? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, Hyatt Regency, Jacksonville Riverfront, FL.
  80. Lambert, S. (2008). Issues in female sexual offending. University College Cork.
  81. Lambert, S. & O’Halloran, E. (2008). Deductive thematic analysis of a female paedophilia website. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 284-300.
  82. Lawson, L. (2008). Female Sex Offenders’ Relationship Experiences. Violence and Victims, 23(3), 331-343.
  83. Logan, C. (2008). Sexual Deviance in Females: Psychopathology and Theory. In D. Laws & W. Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment, (pp. 486-507). New York: The Guilford Press.
  84. Matravers, A. (2008). Understanding women who commit sex offences. In G. Letherby, K. Williams, P. Birch, & M. Cain (Eds.), Sex as crime? (pp. 299-320). Devon: William Publishing.
  85. Peter, T. (2008). Speaking About the Unspeakable. Exploring the Impact of Mother-Daughter Sexual Abuse. Violence Against Women, 9, 1033-1053.
  86. Saewyc, E. M., MacKay, L. J., Anderson, J. & Drozda, C. (2008). It’s not what you think: Sexually exploited youth in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia School of Nursing.
  87. Seigfried, K. C., Lovely, R. W. & Rogers, M. K. (2008). Self-reported online child pornography behavior: A psychological analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 286-297.
  88. Simons, D., Heil, P., Burton, D. & Gursky, M. (2008). Developmental and offense histories of female sexual offenders. Presented at 27th ATSAAtlanta GA October 2008.
  89. Strickland, S. (2008). Female Sex Offenders: Exploring Issues of Personality, Trauma, and Cognitive Distortions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 474-489.
  90. Teichner, L. A. (2008) Unusual Suspects: Recognizing and Responding to Female Staff Perpetrators of Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Prisons. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 14, 259.
  91. Turner, K. (2008). A latent profile analysis of the PAI scores of female sex offenders: Implications for assessment and treatment. Sam Houston State University.
  92. Turner, K., Miller, H. A. & Henderson, C. E. (2008). Latent Profile Analyses of Offense and Personality Characteristics in a Sample of Incarcerated Female Sexual Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35: 879-894.
  93. Bennett, A. (2007). Assessing the implicit theories and motivations of rapists, child molesters, and mixed sexual offenders. University of British Columbia.
  94. Brand, J. (2007). A Mother’s Touch. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing.
  95. Bunting, L. (2007). Dealing with a Problem That Doesn’t Exist?: Professional Responses to Female Perpetrated Child Sexual Abuse. Child Abuse Review, 16(4), 252-267.
  96. Deering, R. & Mellor, D. (2007) Female-Perpetrated Child Sex Abuse: Definitional and Categorisational Analysis, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 14(2), 218-226.
  97. Fintel, T. R. (2007). Demonstrating the criterion-related validity of the Multiphasic sex inventory (adult female form): a comparison of adult female sex offenders and female non-sex offenders. University of Louisville.
  98. Frei, A. (2007). Media considerations of female sex offenders: a content analysis of US new paper reporting from 1975-2006. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia.
  99. Graham, A. (2007). Simply sexual: The discrepancy in treatment between male and female sex offenders. Whittier Journal of Child & Family Advocacy, 0, 145.
  100. Hidalgo, M. L. (2007).Sexual Abuse and the Culture of Catholicism : How Priests and Nuns Become Perpetrators. New York: Routledge.
  101. Jackson, S. (2007). Female Sex Offenders: A new challenge for the criminal justice system. California State University, Long Beach.
  102. Johansson-Love, J. (2007). A 2×2 comparison of offender and gender; what characteristics do female sex offenders have in common with other offender groups? West Virginia University.
  103. Moulden, H. M., Firestone, P. & Wexler, A. F. (2007). Child Care Providers who commit sexual offenses: A description of offender, offense and victim characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(4), 384-406.
  104. Oliver, B. E. (2007) Preventing Female-Perpetrated Sexual Abuse. Trauma Violence Abuse, 8. 19-32.
  105. Rumney, P. (2007). In Defence of Gender Neutrality Within Rape. Seattle Journal of Social Justice, 6, 481.Giguere, R. & Bumby, K. (2007). Female sex offenders. Center for Sex Offender Management, USA.
  106. Sandler, J. C. & Freeman, N. J. (2007). Topology of Female Sex Offenders: A Test of Vandiver and Kercher. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 19, 73-89.
  107. Benson, H. (2006). Female sex offenders and neutralization theory. Southern Connecticut State University.
  108. Carlson, B. E., Maciol, K. & Schneider, J. (2006). Sibling Incest: Reports from Forty-One Survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 15(4), 19-34.
  109. Carson, W. (2006). Women Who Molest Children: A Study of 18 Convicted Offenders. Prosecutor, 40(3), 26-41.
  110. Denov, M. & Cortoni, F. (2006). Women who sexually abuse children. In C. Hilarski & J.S. Wodarski (Eds.), Comprehensive mental health practice with sex offenders and their families(pp. 71-99). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
  111. Duncan, K. (2006). Gender Equity in the Field of Child Sexual Abuse: Does Gender Matter in Sexual Offense Treatment for Females and their Victims? Paper presented at the ATSA 2006 Conference in Chicago, Illinois.
  112. Ford, H. (2006). Women who sexually abuse children. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  113. Frey, L. L. (2006). Girls don’t do that, do they? Adolescent females who sexually abuse. In R. E. Longo & D. S. Prescott (Eds.), Current perspectives: Working with sexually aggressive youth and youth with sexual behavior problems(pp. 255-272). Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press.
  114. Hendriks, J. & Bijleveld, C. C. J. H. (2006). Female adolescent sex offenders—an exploratory study. Journal of Sexual Aggression: An international, interdisciplinary forum for research, theory and practice, 12(1), 31-41.
  115. Hunt, L.M. (2006). Females who sexually abuse in organisations working with children. Characteristics, International and Australian prevalence rates: Implications for child protectionMelbourne, Australia: Child Wise.
  116. Hunter, J. A., Becker, J. V. & Lexier, L. J. (2006). The female juvenile sex offender.In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (pp. 148–165). New York: Guilford Press.
  117. Johansson-Love, J. & Fremouw, W. (2006). A critique of the female sexual perpetrator research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 12-26.
  118. Levine, K. L. (2006). No Penis, No Problem. Fordham Urban Law Journal, Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 05-37.
  119. Peter, T. (2006). Mad, Bad, or Victim? Making Sense of Mother–Daughter Sexual Abuse. Feminist Criminology, 1, 283 – 302.
  120. Smith, J. (2006). Therapists’ reactions with adult female sex abusers/offenders: Implications for policy and practice. Smith College School for Social Work.
  121. Steen, C. (2006). Choices: A relapse prevention workbook for female offenders.Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  122. Vandiver, D. (2006). Female sex offenders: A comparison of solo offenders and co-offenders. Violence and Victims, 21, 339-354.
  123. Vandiver, D. & Kercher, G. (2006). Registered female sex offenders in Texas; an overlooked population. In H. Ford (Ed.), Women Who Sexually Abuse Children (p. 0). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  124. Vandiver, D. & Teske, R. (2006). Juvenile Female and Male Sex Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(2), 148-165.
  125. Alaggia, R. (2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 453-470.
  126. Beckett, R. (2005). What are the characteristics of female sex offenders? NOTA New, 51, 6–7. Available online: http://web.archive.org/web/20060117184837/http://www.nota.co.uk/pdffiles/NN51.pdf
  127. Bunting, L. (2005). Females who sexually offend against children: Responses of the child protection and criminal justice systems. NSPCC Policy Practice Research Series. London: NSPCC.
  128. Deering , R. (2005). Female-perpetrated child sexual abuse: impact, professional perspectives and management. Deakin University.
  129. Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Whitfield, C. L., Brown, D. W., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M. & Giles, W. H. (2005). Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 430-438.
  130. Ferguson, C. and Meehan, D. (2005). An Analysis of Females Convicted of Sex Crimes in the State of Florida. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14 (1), 75-90.
  131. Gartner, R, B. (2005). Beyond Betrayal: Taking Charge of Your Life After Boyhood Sexual Abuse. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  132. Kubik, E. K. & Hecker, J. E. (2005). Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Sexual Offending: A Comparison of Sex Offending Girls, Delinquent Girls, and Girls from the Community. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(4), 43-69.
  133. Reckling, A. E. (2005). Mother-Daughter Incest — When Survivors Become Mothers. Journal of Trauma Practice, 3(2), 49-71.
  134. Tardif, M., Auclair, N., Jacob, M. & Carpentier, J. (2005). Sexual abuse perpetrated by adult and juvenile females: An ultimate attempt to resolve a conflict associated with maternal identity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 153-167.
  135. Travers, N. (2005). A Brief examination of pedophilia and sexual abuse committed by nuns within the catholic church. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 12, 761.Anderson, P. B. & Newton, M. (2004). Predicting the use of sexual initiation tactics in a sample of college women. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 7.
  136. Boroughs, D. S. (2004). Female sexual abusers of children. Journal of Children and Youth Services Review, 26(5), 481-487.
  137. Bumby, N. H. & Bumby, K. M. (2004). Bridging the gender gap: Addressing juvenile females who commit sexual offences. In G. O’Reilly, W. L. Marshall, A. Carr, & R. C. Beckett (Eds.), The handbook of clinical intervention with young people who sexually abuse(pp. 369–381). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
  138. Denov, M. S. (2004). Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.
  139. Denov, M. S. (2004). The Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators: A Qualitative Study of Male and Female Victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(10), 1137-1156.
  140. Department of Education. (2004). Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing LiteratureOffice of the Undersecretary. United States.
  141. Duncan, K. (2004). Healing from the Trauma of Childhood Sexual Abuse: The Journey for Women. Connecticut : Praeger Publishers.
  142. Kite, D. & Tyson, G. A. (2004). The Impact of Perpetrator Gender on Male and Female Police Officers’ Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(2), 308-318.
  143. Lew, M. (2004). Victims No Longer: The Classic Guide for Men Recovering from Sexual Child Abuse. New York: Harper Collins.
  144. National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth (2004). NCSBY Fact Sheet: What Research Shows About Female Adolescent Sex Offenders.
  145. Ogilvie, B. (2004). Mother-daughter incest: A guide for helping professionals. New York: Haworth Press.
  146. Sanderson, C. (2004). The seduction of children: empowering parent and teachers to protect children from child sexual abuseLondon and New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  147. Schmidt, S & Keri, P. (2004). What research shows about female adolescent sex offenders. National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth.
  148. Tewskbury, R. (2004). Experiences and Attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68 (3).
  149. Vandiver, D. & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered female sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 121-137.
  150. Briere J. & Elliott D. M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and womenChild Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205-1222.
  151. Crawford, M. & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13-26.
  152. Denov, M. S. (2003). The myth of innocence: Sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 303-314.
  153. Denov, M. S. (2003). To a Safer Place? Victims of sexual abuse by females and their disclosures to professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(1), 46-61.
  154. Frieden, J. (2003, November) Female sexual abuse of boys often goes unreported. Clinical Psychiatry News, 1-5.
  155. Okonkwo, J. E. & Ibeh, C. C. (2003). Female sexual assault in Nigeria. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 83(3), 325-326.
  156. Palmero, G. (2003). Female Offenders in a Changing Society. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47(1), 493-497.
  157. Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: paedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our childrenNew York: Basic Books.
  158. Shoop, R. J. (2003). Sexual Exploitation in Schools. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks.
  159. Wiegel M., Abel, G. & Jordan, A. (2003) The self-reported behavior of adult female child abusers. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Research and Treatment Conference, ATSA, St. Louis, Missouri.
  160. Aylward, M. Christopher, R. & Newell, G. (2002). What about Women Who Commit Sex Offences? Notes from ATSA conference.
  161. Bauminster, R. F. & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166-203.
  162. Becker, J. V., Hall, S. & Stinson, J. D. (2002). Female sexual offenders: Clinical, legal, and policy issues. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1(3), 31-53.
  163. Behrendt, N., Buhl, N. & Seidl, S. (2002). The lethal paraphiliac syndrome: Accidental autoerotic deaths in four women and a review of the literature. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 116(3), 1437-1596.
  164. Christiansen, A. R. & Thyer, B. A. (2002). Female Sexual Offenders — A Review of Empirical Research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 6(3), 1-16.
  165. Chow, E. W. C. & Choy, A. L., (2002). Clinical characteristics and treatment response to SSRI in a female pedophile. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(2), 211-215.
  166. Corrections Service of Canada. (2002). Female sex offenders: A review of the literature. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
  167. Hatchard, C. (2002). Female Perpetrated Sexual Abuse: Redefining the Construct of Sexual Abuse and Challenging Beliefs about Human Sexuality.
  168. Hui, C. (2002). Knowledge, Behavior and Personality Characteristics of Females with Sexual Wrong Doings. Chinese Journal of Health Education, 11, 0.
  169. Kelly, R. J., Wood, J. J., Gonzalez, L. S., MacDonald, V. & Waterman, J. (2002). Effects of mother-son incest and positive perceptions of sexual abuse experiences on the psychosocial adjustment of clinic-referred men. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(4), 425-441.
  170. Kubik, E. K., Hecker, J. E. & Righthand, S. (2002). Adolescent females who have sexually offended: Comparisons with delinquent adolescent female offenders and adolescent males who sexually offended. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11(3), 63-83.
  171. Markham, D. (2002). Some facts about religious women and child abuse.Covenant, September 3.
  172. Munro, K. (2002). Male Sexual Abuse Victims Of Female Perpetrators: Society’s Betrayal of Boys.
  173. Robinson, S. L. (2002). Treatment Manual. Growing Beyond: A Workbook for Sexually Abusive Teenage Girls. Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press.
  174. Rudominer, H. S. (2002). Consummated mother-son incest in latency: A case report of an adult analysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association., 50(3), 909-935.
  175. Streit, C. (2002). Identifying Women Who Abuse: Law Enforcement Suspect That the Number of Women Abusers is Growing. Law Enforcement Technology, 29(8), 22-24.
  176. Vandiver, D. M. & Walker, J. T. (2002). Female sex offenders: An overview and analysis of 40 cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), 284-300.
  177. Vick, J., McRoy, R. & Matthews, B. (2002). Young female sex offenders: Assessment and treatment issues. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11(2), 1-23.
  178. Abramson, P. R. & Pinkerton, S. D. (2001). A house divided: Suspicions of mother–daughter incest. New York: Norton.
  179. Anderson, I. & Swainson, V. (2001). Perceived motivation for rape: Gender differences in beliefs about female and male rape. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(8), 107-122.
  180. Crockett, L. C. (2001). The deepest wound: How a journey to El Salvador led to healing from mother-daughter incest. Lincoln, NE: Writer’s Showcase.
  181. Denov, M. S. (2001). A culture of denial: Exploring professional perspectives on female sex offending. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 303-329.
  182. Glasser, M., Kolvin, L., Campbell, D., Glasser, A., Leitch, I & Farrelly, S. (2001). Cycle of child sexual abuse; links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator, British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 482-494.
  183. Grey, C. & Rogers, K. (2001). Home Office Research Development Statistics. London, British Home Office.
  184. Hansen, T. (2001). The Politics of Rape: Debunking the Feminist Myth. Official Website: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/
  185. Hislop, J. (2001). Female Sex Offenders: What Therapists, Law Enforcement and Child Protection Services Need to Know. Ravensdale, WA: Idyll Arbor, Inc.
  186. Nathan, P. & Ward, T. (2001). Female sex offenders: Assessment and treatment issues. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law, 8, 44-55.
  187. Righthand, S. & Welch, C. (2001). Juveniles Who Have Offended Sexually: A Review of the Professional Literature. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
  188. Taylor, T. (2001). Treating Female Sex Offenders and Standards for Education and Training in Marriage & Family Therapy Programs. Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout.
  189. Warren, J. & Hislop, J. (2001). Female sex offenders: A typological and etiological overview. In R. Hazelwood & A. Burgess (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach(pp. 421-434). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  190. Braveman, S. L. (2000). When Boys are Molested by Teachers and Others in Position of Authority. S.E.S.A.M.E. Newsletter.
  191. Brinton, C. (2000). A Comparison of Sexual Arousal Patterns of Female Sex Offenders and Non-offenders. San Francisco, CA: Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.
  192. Eldridge, H. & Saradjian, J. (2000). Replacing the function of abusive behaviors for the offender: Remaking relapse prevention in working with women who sexually abuse children. In D.R. Laws, S.M. Hudson & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders: A Sourcebook(pp. 402-426). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  193. Gallagher, B. (2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child sexual abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 795-817.
  194. Green, J. (2000). Maire Claire on Female Sex Offenders. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from Abuse Hurts Everyone, USA. Website.
  195. Lab, D. D., Feigenbaum, J. D. & De Silva, P. (2000). Mental health professionals’ attitudes and practices towards male childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(3), 391-409.
  196. Lewis, C. F. & Stanley, C. R. (2000). Women accused of sexual offenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(1), 73-81.
  197. Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2000). Adult and adolescent female sex offenders: Experiences compared to other female and male sex offenders. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 75-88.
  198. Watkins, B., and Bentovim, A. (2000). Male children and adolescents as victims: A review of current knowledge. In Mezey, G. C., and King, M. B. (eds.), Male Victims of Sexual Assault, 2nd edition(pp. 35-78). New York: Oxford University Press.
  199. Bell, K. (1999).Female offenders of sexual assault. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 25(3), 241-243.
  200. Blues, A., Moffatt, C. & Telford, P. (1999). Work with adolescent females who sexually abuse: Similarities and differences. In M. Erooga & H. C. Masson (eds.), Children and Young People Who Sexually Abuse Others: Challenges and Responses, (pp. 168-182). London: Routledge.
  201. Davin, P. A. (1999). Secrets revealed: A study of female sex offenders. In P. A. Davin, J. R. Hislop, & T. Dunbar, Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views, (pp. 9-134.) Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  202. Davin, P. A., Dunbar, T. & Hislop, J. (1999). Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views. Brandon, VT, Safer Society Press.
  203. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
  204. Dunbar, T. (1999). Women who sexually molest female children. In P. A. Davin, J. C. Hislop, & T. Dunbar, Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views, (pp. 311-377). Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  205. Dunphy, S. A. (1999). The forgotten ones: Maternal abusers and their victims: A pilot study. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 2(1), 81-100.
  206. Etherington, K. (1999). Maternal sexual abuse of males. Child Abuse Review, 6(2), 107-117.
  207. Fedoroff, P. J. & Fishell, A. (1999). Paraphilic and other unconventional sexual disorders in girls and women. In E. M. Palace (Ed.), Women’s Health: A Behavioral Medicine Approach. Oxford: Oxford Press.
  208. Fedoroff, P. J., Fishell, A. & Fedoroff, B. (1999). A case series of women evaluated for paraphilic sexual disorders. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 8(2), 127-139.
  209. Grayston, A. D. & De Luca, R. V. (1999). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A review of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4(1), 1999, 93-106.
  210. Green, A. H. (1999). Female sex offenders. In J. A. Shaw (Ed.), Sexual Aggression, (pp. 195-210). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
  211. Hetherton, J. (1999). The idealization of women: Its role in the minimization of child sexual abuse by females. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 161-174.
  212. Hislop, J. R. (1999). Female child molesters. In P. A. Davin, J. R. Hislop, & T. Dunbar(Eds), Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views, (pp. 135-310). Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  213. McClay, R. (1999). Female Sex Offenders: A Comparative Study of Beliefs and Attitudes of Mental Health Graduate Students and Non-mental Health Graduate Students. San Francisco, CA: Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.
  214. Miletski, H. (1999). Mother-Son Incest: The Unthinkable Broken Taboo. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.
  215. Mirkin, H. (1999). The Pattern of Sexual Politics — Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality, 37(2), 1-24.
  216. Schlesinger, L. B. (1999). Adolescent sexual matricide following repetitive mother-son incest. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(4), 746-749.
  217. Chibnall, J. T., Wolf, A. & Duckro, P. N. (1998). A National Survey of the Sexual Trauma Experiences of Catholic Nuns. Review of Religious Research, 40(2), pp. 142-167.
  218. Cranford, S. & Williams, R. (1998). Critical issues in managing female offenders. Corrections Today, 60(7), 130-135.
  219. Duncan, L. E. & Williams L. M., (1998). Gender role socialization and male-on-male vs. female-on-male child sexual abuse. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 39(9/10), 765-785.
  220. Ellis, Lee (1998). Why some sexual assaults are not committed by men: A biosocial analysis. In P. B. Anderson & C. Struckman- Johnson (Eds.), Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies(pp. 105-118). New York: The Guilford Press.
  221. FitzRoy, L. (1998). Offending Mothers: Theorising in a Feminist Minefield.Retrieved June 16, 2010, from SECASA, Australia. Website: http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/workers/25/34
  222. FitzRoy, L. (1998). Offending Women: Conversations with Workers. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from SECASA, Australia. Website: http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/workers/25/33
  223. Gallop, R. (1998). Abuse of power in the nurse-client relationship. Nursing Standard, 12(37), 43-47.
  224. Mars, D. (1998). A case of mother-son incest: Its consequences for development and treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychoanalysis, 7, 401-420
  225. Mathews, J. (1998). Working with female sexual abusers. In M. Elliot (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children: The Ultimate Taboo (pp. 50-60). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  226. Matravers, A. (1998). Women sex offenders: An exploratory study. Prison Research and Development Bulletin, 6.
  227. Matthews, J. (1998). An 11-year perspective of working with female sexual offenders. In W. L. Marshall, T. Ward, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), Sourcebook of treatment programs for sexual offenders(pp. 259-272). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  228. Robinson, S. (1998). From victim to offender: Female offenders of child sexual abuse, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 6, 59?73.
  229. Whetsell-Mitchell, J. & Morse, J. (1998). From Victims to Survivors: Reclaimed Voices of Women Sexually Abused in Childhood by Females. Washington, DC: Accelerated Development.
  230. Bumby, K. & Bumby, N. (1997). Adolescent female sex offenders. In B. Schwartz, & H.Cellini, (eds.), The Sex Offender: New Insights, Treatment Innovations and Legal Developments, Vol. II, pp. 10-1 10-16. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.
  231. Busby, D. M. & Compton, S. V. (1997). Patterns of sexual coercion in adult heterosexual relationships: An exploration of male victimization. Family Process, 36(1), 81-94.
  232. Crawford, C. (1997). Forbidden Femininity: Child Sexual Abuse and Female Sexuality. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co.
  233. Fitzroy, L. (1997). Mother/daughter rape: A challenge for feminism. In S. Cook & J. Bessant (Eds.), Women’s encounters with violence: Australian experiences (pp. 40-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  234. Ford, H. & Corton, F. (1997). Sexual Deviance in Females: Assessment & Treatment. In D. R. Laws & W. T. Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 486-507). New York: The Guilford Press.
  235. Fromuth, M. E. & Conn, V. E. (1997). Hidden perpetrators; Sexual molestation in a non-clinical sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 456-465.
  236. Grand, S. (1997). On the Gendering of Traumatic Dissociation: A Case of Mother-Son Incest. Gender and Psychoanalysis, 2, 55-77.
  237. Holmes, G. R., Offen, L. & Waller, G. (1997). See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: Why do relatively few male victims of childhood sexual abuse receive help for abuse-related issues in adulthood? Clinical Psychology Review, 17(1), 69-88.
  238. Hunter, J. A. & Mathews, R. (1997). Sexual deviance in females. In R. D. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment,(pp. 465-480). New York: The Guilford Press.
  239. Kalders, A., Inkster, H. & Britt, E. (1997). Females who offend sexually against children in New Zealand. The Journal of Sexual Aggression. 3(1), 15-29.
  240. Lane, S. & Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (1997). Special populations: Children, females, the developmentally disabled, and violent youth. In G. Ryan & S. Lane (Eds.), Juvenile Sexual Offending: Causes, Consequences and Correction, (pp. 322- 359). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  241. Mathews, R., Hunter, J. A. & Vuz, J. (1997). Juvenile female sexual offenders: Clinical characteristics and treatment issues. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9(3), 187-199.
  242. Maynard, C. & Wiederman, M. (1997). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of child sexual abuse: Effects of age, sex, and gender-role attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21 (9), 833-844.
  243. Mitchell, J. & Morse, J. (1997). From Victim to Survivor: Women Survivors of Female Perpetrators. London: Taylor & Francis.
  244. O’Shea, K. A. & Fletcher, B. R. (1997). Female Offenders: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  245. Rentoul, L. & Appleboom, N. (1997). Understanding the psychological impact of rape and serious sexual assault of men: a literature review. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 4, 267–274.
  246. Rosencrans, B. & Bear, E. (1997). The Last Secret: Daughters Sexually Abused by Mothers. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  247. Saradjian, J. (1997). Factors that specifically exacerbate the trauma of victims of childhood sexual abuse by maternal perpetrators. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 3(1), 3-14.
  248. Atkinson, J. L. (1996). Female sex offenders: A literature review. Forum, 8(2), 39-42.
  249. Bumby, K. M., Bumby, N., Burghess, A. W. & Hartman, C. R. (1996). From Victims to Victimizers: Sexually Aggressive Post-Traumatic Responses of Sexually Abused Adolescent Females.
  250. Department of Health and Human Services (1996). Child Maltreatment: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Special Report. United States of America.
  251. Hudson, A. H. (1996). Personality assessment of female sex offenders: A cluster analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(9-B), 5212.
  252. Mathews, F. (1996). The Invisible Boy: Revisioning the Victimization of Male Children and Teens. (p. 28), Health Canada, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
  253. Peluso, E. & Putnam, N. (1996). Case study: Sexual abuse of boys by females. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(1), 51-54.
  254. Robson, M. (1996). An overview of the literature about female sexual offending. Social Work Review, 6, September.
  255. Roys, D. T. (1996). Psycho-educational Curriculum for Adult Female Sex Offenders. Atlanta, GA: Highland Institute for Behavioral Change.
  256. Roys, D. T. & Timms, R. J. (1996). Personality Profiles of Adult Males Sexually Molested by Their Maternal Caregivers — Perliminary Findings. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 63-77.
  257. Saradjian, J. (1996). Women Who Sexually Abuse Children: From Research to Clinical Practice. London: John Wiley & Sons.
  258. Syed, F. & Williams, S. (1996). Case studies of female sex offenders in the Correctional Service of Canada. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Services of Canada.
  259. Welldon, E. (1996). Female sex offenders. Prison Service Journal, London, 107: 39-47.
  260. Atkinson, J. (1995). The Assessment of Female Sex Offenders. Kingston, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
  261. Collings, S. J. (1995). The long-term effects of contact and non-contact forms of child sexual abuse in a sample of university men. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(1), 1-6.
  262. Faller, K. (1995). A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused children. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(3), 13-30.
  263. FitzRoy, L. (1995). Mother/Rapist: Women’s experience of child sexual assault perpetrated by their biological or adoptive mothers. La Trobe University, Melbourne.
  264. Flowers, R. B. (1995). Female Crime, Criminals, and Cellmates: An Exploration of Female Criminality and Delinquency. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
  265. Freel, M. (1995). Women Who Sexually Abuse Children. Norwich: Social Work Monographs, University of East Anglia.
  266. Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and Sexual Offenses Against Children. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  267. Kaplan, M. S. & Green, A. (1995). Incarcerated female sex offenders: A comparison of sexual histories with eleven female nonsexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 287-300.
  268. Kaufman, K. L., Wallace, A. M., Johnson, C. F. & Reeder, M. L. (1995). Comparing female and male perpetrators’ modus operandi: Victims’ reports of sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3), 322-333.
  269. Koonin, R. (1995). Breaking the last taboo: Child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. Australian Social Work 30(2), 195-210.
  270. Larson, N. R. & Maison, S. R. (1995). Psychosexual treatment program for women sex offenders in a prison setting. Acta Sexologica, 1(1), 81-113.
  271. Miller, D., Trapani, C., Fejes,-Mendoza, K., Eggleston, C. & Dwiggins, D. (1995). Adolescent female offenders: Unique considerations. Adolescence, 30, 429-435.
  272. Ogilvie, B. & Daniluk, J. (1995). Common themes in the experiences of mother-daughter incest survivors: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 598-602.
  273. Rudin, M. M., Zalewski, C. & Bodmer-Turner, J. (1995). Characteristics of child sexual abuse victims according to perpetrator gender. Child Abuse & Neglect 19(8), 963-73.
  274. Schwartz, B. K. & Cellini, H. R. (1995). Female sex offenders. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The Sex Offender: Corrections, Treatment and Legal Practice,(pp. 5-1 – 5-22). Kingston, N.J. Civic Research Press, Inc.
  275. Schwartz, B. K. & Cellini, H. R. (1995). The Sex Offender: Corrections, Treatment and Legal Practice. Kingston, N.J. Civic Research Press, Inc.
  276. Williams, S. (1995). Female Sex Offenders: Addendum to Risk Assessment Training Manual. (pp.38-46). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
  277. Adshead, G., Howett, M. & Mason, F. (1994). Women who sexually abuse children: The undiscovered country. Journal of Sexual Aggression: An international, interdisciplinary forum for research, theory and practice, 1(1), 45-56.
  278. Allen, C. M. & Pothast, H. L. (1994). Distinguishing Characteristics of Male and Female Child Sex Abusers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 21(1-2), 73-88.
  279. Bachmann, K. M., Moggi, F. & Stirnemann-Lewis, F. (1994). Mother-son incest and its long-term consequences: A neglected phenomenon in psychiatric practice. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 182, 723-725.
  280. Eldridge, H. (1994). Barbara’s story: A mother who sexually abused. In M. Elliott, (ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 74-87). New York: The Guilford Press.
  281. Elliott, M. (1994). Female Sexual Abuse of Children. New York: The Guilford Press.
  282. Elliott, M. (1994). What survivors tell us – An overview. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 5-13). New York: The Guilford Press.
  283. Gabbard, G. O., Twemlow, S. W. (1994). The Role of Mother-Son Incest in The Pathogenesis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 42(1), 171-189.
  284. Green, A. H. & Kaplan, M. (1994). Psychiatric impairment and childhood victimization experiences in female child molesters. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 954-961.
  285. Harrison, H. (1994). Female abusers – what children and young people have told Childline. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 89-92). New York: The Guilford Press.
  286. Hunter, K. (1994). Helping survivors through counseling. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 37-46). New York: The Guilford Press.
  287. Jennings, K. T. (1994). Female child molesters: A review of the literature. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 219-234). New York: The Guilford Press.
  288. Kelley, S. J. (1994), Abuse of children in day care centers: characteristics and consequences. Child Abuse Review, 3(1), 15-25.
  289. Lipshires, L. (1994). Female perpetration of child sexual abuse: An overview of the problem. Moving Forward News journal, 2(6).
  290. Lisak, D. (1994). The psychological impact of sexual abuse: Content analysis of interviews with male survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 525-548.
  291. Longdon, C. (1994). A survivor and therapist’s viewpoint. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 47-56). New York: The Guilford Press.
  292. Matthews, J. K. (1994). Working with female sexual abusers. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 57-73). New York: The Guilford Press.
  293. Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A Definitive Study. Little Brown & Co., New York.
  294. Nelson, E. D. (1994). Females who sexually abuse children: A discussion of gender stereotypes and symbolic assailants. Qualitative Sociology, 17(1), 63-88.
  295. Saradjian, J. (1994). The trauma associated with childhood sexual abuse when the perpetrator is a woman.
  296. Sgroi, S. & Sargent, N., M. (1994). Impact and treatment issues for victims of childhood sexual abuser by female perpetrators. In M. Elliott, (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 14-36). New York: The Guilford Press.
  297. Turner, M. T. & Turner, T. N. (1994). Female Adolescent Sexual Abusers: An Exploratory Study of Mother-Daughter Dynamics with Implications for Treatment.Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  298. Wolfers, O. (1994). The paradox of women who sexually abuse children. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 93-99). New York: The Guilford Press.
  299. Young, V. (1994). Self-help for survivors. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female Sexual Abuse of Children, (pp. 198-218). New York: The Guilford Press.
  300. Anderson, P. B. (1993). Sexual victimization: It happens to boys, too. Louisiana Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 57(1), 5, 12.
  301. Bachmann, K. M. & Bossi, J. (1993). Mother-son incest as a defense against psychosis. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, 239-248.
  302. Bordon, T. A. & LaTerz, J. D. (1993). Mother/daughter incest and ritual abuse: The ultimate taboos. Treating Abuse Today, 3(4), 5-8.
  303. Christopher, F. S., Owens, L. A. & Stecker, H. L. (1993). An examination of single men’s and women’s sexual aggressiveness in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 511-527.
  304. Dunbar, T. (1993). Women Who Sexually Molest Female Children. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
  305. Elliott, A. J. & Peterson, L. W. (1993). Maternal sexual abuse of male children: When to suspect and how to uncover it. Postgraduate Medicine, 94(1), 169-180.
  306. Goldman, L. L. (1993). Female Sex Offenders: Societal Avoidance of Comprehending the Phenomenon of Women Who Sexually Abuse Children. Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.
  307. Grier, P. E., Clark, M. & Stoner, S. B. (1993). Comparative study of personality traits of female sex offenders. Psychological Reports, 73, 1378.
  308. Harper, J. F. (1993). Pre-pubertal male victims of incest: A clinical study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(3), 419-421.
  309. Hunter, J. A., Lexier, L. J., Goodwin, D. W., Browne, P.A. & Dennis, C. (1993). Psychosexual, attitudinal, and developmental characteristics of juvenile female perpetrators in a residential treatment setting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2, 317- 326.
  310. Kelley, S. J., Brant, R. & Waterman, J. (1993). Sexual abuse of children in day care centers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 71-89.
  311. Lawson, C (1993). Mother-son sexual abuse: Rare or under-reported? A critique of the research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(2), 261-269.
  312. Mathews, R. (1993). Preliminary typology of female sex offenders. In Safer Society (Ed.), Information packet: Female sexual abusers. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
  313. Mayer, A. (1993). Adult female incest offenders: Treatment considerations. Treating Abuse Today, 3(6), 21-26.
  314. Song, L., Lieb, R. & Donnelly, S. (1993). Female Sex Offenders in Washington State. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
  315. West, D. J. & Woodhouse, T. P. (eds.) (1993). Children’s Sexual Encounter with Adults: A Scientific Study Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
  316. Brodie, F. (1992). When the Other Woman Is His Mother: Book One/Boys As Incest Victims and Male Multiple Personality Disorder/for Partners and ProfessionalsTacoma, WA: Winged Eagle Press.
  317. Forbes, J. (1992). Female sexual abusers: The contemporary search for equivalence. Practice, 6, 102-111.
  318. Gray, J. L. (1992). From the Data of Therapists: An Exploratory Study of Adult Females Who Sexually Molest Children. Long Beach, CA: California State University.
  319. Higgs, D. C., Canavan, M. M. & Meyer, W. J. III (1992). Moving from defense to offence: The development of an adolescent female sex offender. Journal of Sex Research, 29(1), 131-139.
  320. Liem, J. H., O’Toole, J. G. & James, J. B. (1992). The need for power in women who were sexually abused as children: An exploratory study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(4), 467-480.
  321. Mayer, A. (1992). Women Sex Offenders: Treatment and Dynamics. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.
  322. Ogilvie, BA. (1992). The experience of Mother-daughter incest. British Columbia.
  323. Wolfers, O. (1992). Same abuse, different parent. Social Work Today, 13-14.
  324. Adams, Kenneth (1991). Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners – Understanding Covert Incest. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
  325. Allen, C. M. (1991). Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.
  326. Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L. & Kao, C. F. (1991). Detecting and labeling prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 115-123.
  327. Broussard, S., Wagner, W. G. & Kazelskis, R. (1991). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of child sexual abuse: The impact of victim sex, perpetrator sex, respondent sex, and victim response. Journal of Family Violence, 6(3), 267-278.
  328. Faller, K. C. (1991). Poly-incestuous families: An exploratory study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6(3), 310-322.
  329. Lawson, C. (1991). Clinical assessment of mother-son sexual abuse. Clinical Social Work Journal, 19(4), 391-403.
  330. Matthews, J., Matthews, R. & Speltz, K. (1991). Female sex offenders: A typology. In M. Patton (Ed.), Family Sexual Abuse: Frontline Research and Evaluation (pp. 199-219). Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications, Inc.
  331. Van Der Meer, T. (1991). Tribades on trial: Female same-sex offenders in late eighteenth-century Amsterdam. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 1(3), 424-445.
  332. Wakefield, H. & Underwager, R. (1991). Female child sexual abusers: A critical review of the literature. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 9(4), 45-69.
  333. Allen, C. M. (1990). Women as perpetrators of child sexual abuse: Recognition barriers. In Horton, A. L., Johnson, A. L., Roundy, B. L. & Williams, L. M. (Eds.), The Incest Perpetrator: A Family Member No One Wants To Treat, (pp. 108-125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
  334. Barnett. S., Corder, F. & Jehu, D. (1990). Group treatment for women sex offenders against children. Groupwork, 3(2), 191-203.
  335. Cooper, A. J., Swaminath, S., Baxter, D. & Poulin, C. (1990). A female sex offender with multiple paraphilias: A psychologic, physiologic (laboratory sexual arousal) and endocrine case study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35(4), 334-337.
  336. Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A. & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(1), 19-28.
  337. Haineault, D. L. (1990). To begin to believe. Working notes on a mother-daughter incest case and its implications on the formation of the pre-transitional object. Sante Mentale Au Quebec, 15(2), 181-201.
  338. Hunter, M. (1990). Abused Boys: The neglected victims of sexual abuseNew York: Ballantine Books.
  339. Kasl, C. S. (1990). Female perpetrators of sexual abuse: A feminist view. In M. Hunter (Ed.), The Sexually Abused Male. Prevalence, Impact, and Treatment, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  340. Margolin, L. (1990). Child abuse by baby-sitters: An ecological interactional interpretation. Journal of Family Violence, 5 (2), 95-105.
  341. Margolin, L. (1990). Gender and the stolen kiss: The social support of male and female to violate a partner’s sexual consent in a non-coercive situation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(3), 281-291.
  342. Margolin, L. & Craft, J. L. (1990). Child abuse by adolescent caregivers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14 (3), 365-373.
  343. Mathews, R., Matthews, J. K. & Speltz, K. (1990). Female sexual offenders. In M. Hunter (Ed.), The Sexually Abused Male: Prevalence, Impact and Treatment, (pp. 275-293). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  344. Mendel, M. P. (1990). The male survivor: The impact of sexual abuse. London: Sage.
  345. Ramsey-Klawsnik, H. (1990). Sexual abuse by female perpetrators: Impact on children. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Child Victimization. Tyler, TX: Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute.
  346. Rowan, E. L., Rowan, J. B. & Langelier, P. (1990). Women who molest children. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 18, 79-83.
  347. Travin, S., Cullen, K. & Protter, B. (1990). Female sex offenders: Severe victims and victimizers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35(1), 140-150.
  348. Wakefield, H., Rogers, M. & Underwager, R. (1990). Female sexual abusers: A theory of loss. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 2(4), 191-195.
  349. Weldon, E. V. (1990). Women who sexually abuse children. British Medical Journal, 300(6738), 1527-1528.
  350. Wilkins, R. (1990). Women who sexually abuse children: Doctors need to become sensitised to the possibility. British Medical Journal, 300(6738), 1153-1154.
  351. Banning, A. (1989). Mother-son incest: Confronting a prejudice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 563-570.
  352. Bolton, F. G., Morris, L. A. & MacEachron, A. E. (1989). Males at Risk: The Other Side of Sexual Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  353. Faller, K.C. (1989). Characteristics of a clinical sample of sexually abused children: How boys and girl victims differ. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 281-291.
  354. Fromuth, M. E. & Burkhart, B. R. (1989). Long-term psychological correlates of childhood sexual abuse in two samples of college men. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13(4), 533-542.
  355. Goodwin, J. & DiVasto, P. (1989). Female homosexuality: A sequel to mother-daughter incest. In J. M. Goodwin (Ed.), Sexual Abuse: Incest Victims and Their Families, (pp. 140-146), Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc.
  356. Hindman, J. (1989). Just Before Dawn. Baker City, OR: Alexandria Associates.
  357. Johnson, T. C. (1989). Female child perpetrators: Children who molest other children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 571-585.
  358. Krug, R. S. (1989). Adult male reports of childhood sexual abuse by mothers: Case descriptions, motivations and long-term consequences. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 111-119.
  359. Mathews, R., Matthews, J. K. & Speltz, K. (1989). Female Sexual Offenders: An Exploratory Study. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.
  360. Ryan, G. & Grayson, J. (1989). Female sex offenders. Interchange: Cooperative Newsletter of the Adolescent Perpetrator Network, June.
  361. Scavo, R.R. (1989). Female adolescent sex offenders: A neglected treatment group. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 70(2), 114-117.
  362. Singer, K. I. (1989). Group work with men who experienced incest in childhoodAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(3), 468-472.
  363. Adams, E. M. (1988). Sex of the Victim, Offender, and Helper: The Effects of Gender Differences on Attributions and Attitudes in Cases of Incest. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
  364. Briere, J., Evans, D., Runtz, M. & Wall, T. (1988). Symptomatology in men who were molested as children: A comparison study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58(3), 457-461.
  365. Crewdson, J. (1988). Silence Betrayed; Sexual Abuse of Children in America. Little Brown, Boston, MA.
  366. Faller, K. C. (1988). The spectrum of sexual abuse in daycare: An exploratory study. Journal of Family Violence, 3(4), 283-298.
  367. Fehrenbach, P. A. & Monastersky, C. (1988). Characteristics of female adolescent sexual offenders. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58(1), 148-151.
  368. Finkelhor, D., Williams, L. M. & Burns, N. (1988). Nursery crimes: Sexual abuse in day care. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  369. Hetherton, J. & Beardsall, L. (1988). Decisions and attitudes concerning child sexual abuse: Does the gender of the perpetrator make a difference to child protection professionals? Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(12), 1265-1283.
  370. Rowan, E. L., Langelier, P. & Rowan, J. B. (1988). Female pedophiles. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 34(3), 17-20.
  371. Vander Mey, B. J. (1988). The sexual victimization of male children: A review of previous research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(1), 61-72.
  372. Allen, H. (1987). Justice unbalanced: Gender, psychiatry and judicial decisions.Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  373. Brow, M. E., Knopp, F. H. & Lackey, L. B. (1987). Female Sexual Abusers: A Summary of Data from 44 Treatment Providers. Orwell: Safer Society Press.
  374. Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R. & McCormack, A. (1987). Abused to abuser: Antecedents of socially deviant behaviors. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1431-1436.
  375. Condy, S. R., Templer, D. I., Brown, R. & Veaco, L. (1987). Parameters of sexual contact of boys with women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16(5), 379-394.
  376. Eisenberg, N., Owens, R. G. & Dewey, M. E. (1987). Attitudes of health professionals to child sexual abuse and incest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11(1), 109-116.
  377. Evert, K. (1987). When You’re Ready. A Woman’s Healing from Childhood Physical and Sexual Abuse by Her Mother. Walnut Creek, CA: Launch Press.
  378. Faller, K. C. (1987). Women who sexually abuse children. Violence & Victims, 2(4), 263-276.
  379. Holubinskyj, H. & Foley, S. (1987). Escape or rescue: Intervention in a case of mother-daughter incest, with an adolescent girl. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage & Family, 8(1), 27-31.
  380. Knopp, F. H. & Lackey, L. B. (1987). Female Sexual Abusers: A Summary of Data from 44 Treatment Providers. Orwell, VT: The Safer Society Press.
  381. Larson, N. R. & Maison, S. R. (1987). Psychosexual Treatment Program for Female Sex Offenders: Training Manual. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, Minnesota Correctional Facility, Stillwater.
  382. Mathews, R. (1987). Female Sexual Offenders: Treatment and Legal Issues.Orwell, VT: The Safer Society Press.
  383. O’Connor, A. (1987). Female sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 615-620.
  384. Reinhart, M. A. (1987). Sexually abused boys. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11(2), 229-235.
  385. Risin, L. I. & Koss, M. P. (1987). The sexual abuse of boys: Prevalence and descriptive characteristics of childhood victimizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(3), 309-323.
  386. Cameron, P., Coburn Jr., W., Larson, H. & Proctor, K. (1986). Child Molestation and Homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 58(1), 327-337.
  387. Chasnoff, I. J., Burns. W. J., Schnoll, S. H., Burns, K., Chisum, G. & Kyle-Spore, L. (1986). Maternal neo-natal incest. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56(4), 577-580.
  388. Finkelhor, D. (1986). A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  389. Marvasti, J. (1986). Incestuous mothers. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 63-69.
  390. McCarty, L. M. (1986). Mother-child incest: Characteristics of the offender. Child Welfare, 65(5), 447-458.
  391. Russell, D. (1986). Female incest perpetrators: How do they differ from males, and why are there so few? In D. Russell, The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and WomenNew York: Basic Books.
  392. Burket, L. E. (1985). Guilt and Moral Judgment in the Juvenile Female Sex Offender: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
  393. Margolin, L. (1985). The effects of mother-son incest. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 8(2), 104-114.
  394. Rosner, R., Wiederlight, M., Wieczorek, R. R. (1985). Forensic psychiatric evaluations of women accused of felonies: A three-year descriptive study. Journal of Forensic Science, 30(3), 721-729.
  395. Wolfe, F. A. (1985). Twelve female sexual offenders. Paper presented at “Next steps in research on the assessment and treatment of sexually aggressive persons (Paraphiliacs),”. St. Louis, MO.
  396. Brown, M. E., Hull, L. A. & Panesis, S. K. (1984). Women Who Rape. Boston: Massachusetts Trial Court. Cited in Mathews, Matthews, & Speltz, 1990; and Syed & Williams, 1996.
  397. Finkelhor, D. & Russell, D. (1984). Women as perpetrators: Review of the evidence. In D. Finkelhor (Ed.), Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research,(pp. 171-187). New York: Free Press.
  398. Margolis, M. (1984). A case of mother-adolescent son incest: A follow-up study. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 53, 355-385.
  399. Petrovich, M., Templer, D. (1984). Heterosexual molestation of children who later became rapists. Psychological Reports, Vol. 54, No.3.
  400. Mathis, R. (1982). Mother-child incest: Characteristics of the offender. Child Welfare, 65, 447-458.
  401. Fritz, G. S., Stoller, K. & Wagner, N. N. (1981). A comparison of males and females who were sexually molested as children. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 7(1), 54-59.
  402. Catanzarite, V. A. & Combs, S. A. (1980). Mother-son incest. Journal of the American Medical Association, 243(18), 1807-1808.
  403. Ellerstein, N. & Canavan, W. (1980). Sexual abuse of boys. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 134, 255-257.
  404. Nasjleti, M. (1980). Suffering in silence: The male incest victim. Child Welfare, 59, 269-275.
  405. Shengold, L. S. (1980). Some reflections on a case of mother/adolescent-son incest. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 61, 461-476.
  406. Sroufe, A. L. & Ward, M. J. (1980). Seductive Behavior of the mothers of toddlers: occurrence, correlates, and family origins. Child Development, 51(4), 1222-1229.
  407. Goodwin, J. & DiVasto, P. (1979). Mother-daughter incest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 3, 953-957.
  408. Groth, A. N. (1979). Sexual Trauma in the Life Histories of Rapists and Child Molesters. Victimology, 4(1), 10-16.
  409. Widom, C. (1979). Female Offenders: Three Assumptions About Self-Esteem, Sex-Role Identity, and Feminism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 6,365-382.
  410. Margolis, M. (1977). A preliminary report of a case of consummated mother-son incest. Annual of Psychoanalysis, 5, 267-293.
  411. Finch, S. M. (1973). Sexual abuse by mothers. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 7(1), 191.
  412. Kubo, S. (1959). Researches and studies on incest in Japan. Hiroshima Journal of Medical Sciences, 8, 99-159.

 

 

 

A New Major Party

If leftist progressivism fails, right-wing reaction will be inevitable.

Because of the self-sabotaging failure of the Democratic Party, Donald Trump used pseudo-progressive rhetoric to push anti-progressive policies. Until the political left is able to fight off the oppression of the Democratic establishment, dissatisfaction with the status quo of plutocratic corporatism will continue to fuel Trump-style authoritarian demagoguery.

A new major party is nearly inevitable. Let’s hope we get another Franklin Delano Roosevelt instead of someone akin to Adolf Hitler. Out of a troubled era, both of those early 20th century leaders gave voice to inspiring visions in response to similar economic problems and populist outrage, yet toward far different ends and with far different results. They are the two archetypal choices of modernity, not communism vs fascism but social democracy vs authoritarian statism.

There are much worse consequences to fear than what we have so far seen with this Trump presidency. But as Bernie Sanders’ growing popularity shows, there are also far greater possibilities of hope. This historical moment is not an opportunity to be wasted. We might not get another chance like it. Failing all else, revolution is always another option.

* * *

Poll: Views of Democratic Party hit lowest mark in 25 years
by Ryan Struyk, CNN

Favorable views of the Democratic Party have dropped to their lowest mark in more than a quarter century of polling, according to new numbers from a CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

Only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Democrats, down from 44% in March of this year. A majority, 54%, have an unfavorable view, matching their highest mark in polls from CNN and SSRS, CNN/ORC and CNN/USA Today/Gallup stretching back to 1992.

The rating includes low favorable ratings from some core Democratic groups, including nonwhites (48%) and people under 35 years old (33%). The numbers come amid recent feuds and divisions in the Democratic Party, as former interim chair Donna Brazile’s new book has unveiled new questions about infighting during the 2016 presidential campaign.

But the Republican Party isn’t doing any better, with just 30% of Americans holding a favorable view. That’s essentially the same as September, when the rating hit its lowest point in polling back to 1992, but down from 42% in March. A broad 6 in 10, 61%, have an unfavorable opinion.

This means both parties sit at or near rock bottom as voters go to the polls across the country on Tuesday, most prominently in governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as dozens of local and mayoral races nationwide.

A substantial 33% of liberals and 41% of conservatives have unfavorable views of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Plus, 4 in 10 independents, 42%, say they have an unfavorable view of both parties vs. only 8% who say they have a favorable view of both.

Indeed, a bare majority of Americans, 51%, say it’s bad for the country that the Republican Party is in control of Congress. Only 38% say GOP control is good for the nation. That’s worse than at any point in CNN’s polling on the Democratic majority in Congress between 2007 and 2010.

Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation
by Richard Fry, Pew

Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living generation, according to population estimates released this month by the U.S. Census Bureau. Millennials, whom we define as those ages 18-34 in 2015, now number 75.4 million, surpassing the 74.9 million Baby Boomers (ages 51-69). And Generation X (ages 35-50 in 2015) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.

The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are older and their numbers shrinking as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.

Poll: Half of millennials independent
by Natalie Villacorta, Politico

Half of millennials identify as independents up from 38 percent in 2004, according to a new poll.

These are the highest levels of political disaffiliation the the Pew Research Center has recorded for any generation in its 25 years of polling. […]

Millennials hold the most liberal views on many political and social issues, including same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization. Sixty-eight percent support gay marriage, up from 44 percent in 2004. During the same period, the proportion of Gen Xers who support same-sex marriage increased from 40 percent to 55 percent and the portion of Boomers increased from 30 percent to 48 percent. Even more millennials approve of marijuana legalization — 69 percent, up from 34 percent in 2006.

Poll: Voters want an independent to run against Clinton, Trump
by Nolan D. McCaskill, Politico

Both candidates, however, have high unfavorability ratings — 56 percent for Clinton and 55 percent for Trump, and nearly six in 10 voters surveyed are dissatisfied with the option of choosing between just Clinton and Trump in November.

Fifty-five percent favor having an independent candidate challenge the Democratic front-runner and presumptive Republican nominee for president. An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.

According to Data Targeting’s ballot test, an independent candidate would start off with 21 percent of the vote.

Perceived Need for Third Major Party Remains High in U.S.
by Lydia Saad, Gallup

Nearly twice as many Americans today think a third major party is needed in the U.S. as say the existing parties do an adequate job of representing the American people. The 61% who contend that a third party is needed is technically the highest Gallup has recorded, although similar to the 57% to 60% holding this view since 2013. Barely a third, 34%, think the Republican and Democratic parties suffice. […]

At various points since 2007, a majority of Americans have contended that a third major political party is needed in the U.S., while the minority have believed the two major parties adequately represent the American people. That pattern continues today with an unprecedented five-year stretch when demand for a third major party has been 57% or higher, including 71% or higher among independents.

While this may seem promising for any group thinking about promoting such a party, it is one thing to say a third major party is needed and quite another to be willing to join or support it. Americans’ backing of the idea could fall under a mentality of “the more, the merrier,” in which they would be pleased to have more viable political choices even if they vote mainly for candidates from the two major parties. And that says nothing of the structural barriers third parties face in trying to get on the ballot.

With most Republicans and Democrats viewing their own party favorably, the real constituency for a third party is likely to be political independents, meaning the party would have to be politically centrist. Thus far, the Green and Libertarian parties have succeeded in running national presidential campaigns but not in attracting big numbers of registered members. But with record numbers of Americans frustrated with the way the nation is being governed, the country could be inching closer to having enough people who want an alternative to the status quo to make it a reality, at least with the right candidate at the helm.

Most Americans Desperate For Third Major Political Party In Trump Era
by John Halgiwanger, Newsweek

More Americans than ever—61 percent—say the Democratic and Republican parties are inadequate and the U.S. should have a third major political party, a new poll from Gallup shows. The desire among Americans for a competitive third party has been above 57 percent over the last five years, but Gallup’s latest poll marks a record high level of support.

Backing for a third major party also hit a record high among independents—77 percent—according to the new poll. Meanwhile, 52 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans say a competitive third party is needed.

This historic level of support for a third major party isn’t all that surprising when you consider the impact third-party candidates had on the 2016 presidential election: Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson won 3.3 percent of the popular vote—the best performance in the party’s history. Green Party candidate Jill Stein won 1 percent of the popular vote, which isn’t a record high for the party (Ralph Nader holds the title with 2.7 percent in 2000) but is still significant. […]

In short, third-party candidates have a long history of failure, but recent trends suggest that may not remain the case in the near future.

Press Release: Draft Bernie Launches ‘Movement for a People’s Party’ Amid Explosive DNC Rigging Revelations and Record Support for a Major New Party
Movement for a People’s Party

The American progressive movement is reeling from the back-to-back revelations that the 2016 Democratic primary was thoroughly rigged and that the party purged Sanders supporters from the DNC. The past few weeks have made clear a conclusion that progressives have long fought to avoid: there is no path to power inside the Democratic Party. […]

Public anger and frustration has reached a boiling point and neither major party is giving voice to policies that would alleviate the hardship that working people face. Last year, voters in both major parties tried to nominate presidential candidates who weren’t truly members of their party before the election. They succeeded on the right and were blocked on the left.

The revolution against establishment politics is not limited to the United States. Anti-establishment parties are rising across Europe. The two parties that have dominated French politics for decades, the Republican and the Socialist parties, were overtaken by two new parties in this year’s presidential election. Spain’s two -party system split into four parties in 2015. In Greece, Syriza overtook the country’s establishment parties and elected a prime minister.

The major parties are crumbling. The question is not whether there will be a new party in America. The question is what will the new party stand for and who will offer the country the alternative it so desperately craves? Will it be a right wing populist party, the kind that Trump, Bannon and Mercer foreshadow? A new neoliberal party masquerading as third way, the kind that French elites used with Macron? Or will progressives come together to offer working people a genuine alternative? asked Brana. “There is a new political reality in America. If progressives don’t offer an alternative that fills the anti-establishment void, someone else will, just like Trump did last year,” he said.

The majority of Americans are progressive and want a new party. However, progressives are fragmented into hundreds of organizations and numerous parties, which forces them to compete for supporters, volunteers, donors, and voters. That prevents them from building the critical mass of resources and support for a new party. Draft Bernie popularized the idea of starting a people’s party. The Movement for a People’s Party will unite that support into a coalition for a nationally viable progressive party.

The Case For a People’s Party
Movement for a People’s Party

Third Parties have Led Progressive Change Throughout U.S. History

❖ Third parties have succeeded by either forcing the establishment parties to adopt their platform or by replacing them outright. The current Democratic Party is free to dismiss progressives because we lack the leverage that a major third party has given our movements in the past.

❖ In the mid-1800s, the Liberty Party, Free Soil Party and newly formed Republican Party pioneered an abolitionist agenda. Later, the Equal Rights Party and Eugene Debs’ Socialist Party championed the fight for women’s suffrage. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Socialist Party, the People’s Party, Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party, and Bob LaFollette’s Progressive Party led the adoption of Social Security, unemployment insurance, food and drug regulations, the 8-hour work day, child labor laws, progressive income taxes, and the direct election of U.S. senators. In the 1930s, Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party pushed Franklin Roosevelt into the New Deal.

❖ Lincoln’s Republicans replaced the Whig Party in four years. It also elected Lincoln president and took both houses of Congress in six years. The formation of the Republican Party offers a successful model for replacing a major party in America: progressive politicians build a large following inside an establishment party by representing a neglected majority. After exposing the party’s inability to reform, they take the party’s base and start a new party that replaces the old one.

❖ Americans were much more sharply divided over slavery than they are over present-day inequality and money in politics. Yet the Republicans still replaced the Whigs in four years. Sanders can be the Lincoln of our times.

❖ Today, the Internet enables a speed and efficiency of organizing that the progressive movements of the past could only dream of. Digital organizing, fundraising and independent media drove the Bernie campaign. […]

The Numbers

Americans are Progressive

Issue polls show that a large majority of Americans are progressive. They would overwhelmingly support the new party’s platform. All figures are percentages.

Americans support:

Equal pay for men and women 93%
Overhaul campaign finance system 85%
Money has too much influence on campaigns 84%
Paid family and medical leave 82%
Some corporations don’t pay their fair share 82%
Some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share 79%
Allow government to negotiate drug prices 79%
Increase financial regulation 79%
Expand Social Security benefits by taxing the wealthy 72%
Infrastructure jobs program 71%
Close offshore corporate tax loopholes 70%
Raise the minimum wage to $15 63%
The current distribution of wealth is unfair 63%
Free public college 62%
Require special prosecutor for police killings 61%
Ensure net neutrality 61%
Ban the revolving door for corporate executives in government 59%
Replace the ACA with single payer health care 58%
Break up the big banks 58%
Government should do more to solve problems 57%
Public banking at post offices 56%

Why America Is Moving Left
by Peter Beinart, The Atlantic

What’s different this time? One difference is that in the 1960s and ’70s, crime exploded, fueling a politics of fear and vengeance. Over the past two decades, by contrast, crime has plummeted. And despite some hyperbolic headlines, there’s no clear evidence that it’s rising significantly again. As The Washington Post’s Max Ehrenfreund noted in September after reviewing the data so far for 2015, “While the number of homicides has increased in many big cities, the increases are moderate, not more than they were a few years ago. Meanwhile, crime has declined in other cities. Overall, most cities are still far safer than they were two decades ago.”

And it’s not just crime where the Democratic Party’s move leftward is being met with acceptance rather than rejection. Take LGBT rights: A decade ago, it was considered suicidal for a Democratic politician to openly support gay marriage. Now that debate is largely over, and liberals are pushing for antidiscrimination laws that cover transgender people, a group many Americans weren’t even aware of until Caitlyn Jenner made headlines. At first glance, this might seem like too much change, too fast. Marriage equality, after all, gives gays and lesbians access to a fundamentally conservative institution. The transgender-rights movement poses a far more radical question: Should people get to define their own gender, irrespective of biology?

Yet the nation’s answer, by large margins, seems to be yes. When the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law examined polls, it found that between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans now support barring discrimination against transgender people. It also found a dramatic rise in recent years in the percentage of Americans who consider anti-transgender discrimination a “major problem.” According to Andrew Flores, who conducted the study, a person’s attitude toward gays and lesbians largely predicts their attitude toward transgender people. Most Americans, in other words, having decided that discriminating against lesbians and gay men was wrong, have simply extended that view to transgender people via what Flores describes as a “mechanism of attitude generalization.” […]

In polling, Americans typically say they favor smaller government in general while supporting many specific government programs. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Americans said they favored “a smaller government providing fewer services” over “a bigger government providing more services” by 37 percentage points. When Obama took power in 2009, the margin was a mere eight points. And despite the president’s many economic interventions, the most recent time Pew asked that question, in September 2014, the margin was exactly the same.

On health care, the story is similar: no public backlash. When Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, most polls showed Americans opposing it by about eight to 10 points. Today, the margin is almost identical. Little has changed on taxes, either, even though Obama allowed some of the tax cuts passed under George W. Bush to expire. The percentage of Americans who say they pay more than their fair share in taxes is about the same as it was in the spring of 2010 (Pew does not have data for 2009), and lower than it was during the Clinton years. […] most Americans are not yelling “stop,” as they began doing in the mid-1960s. The biggest reason: We’re not dealing with the same group of Americans.

On issue after issue, it is the young who are most pleased with the liberal policy shifts of the Obama era, and most eager for more. In 2014, Pew found that Americans under 30 were twice as likely as Americans 65 and older to say the police do a “poor” job of “treating racial, ethnic groups equally” and more than twice as likely to say the grand jury in Ferguson was wrong not to charge Darren Wilson in Michael Brown’s death. According to YouGov, more than one in three Americans 65 and older think being transgender is morally wrong. Among Americans under 30, the ratio is less than one in five. Millennials—Americans roughly 18 to 34 years old—are 21 percentage points less likely than those 65 and older to say that immigrants “burden” the United States and 25 points more likely to say they “strengthen” the country. Millennials are also 17 points more likely to have a favorable view of Muslims. It is largely because of them that the percentage of Americans who want government to “promote traditional values” is now lower than at any other time since Gallup began asking the question in 1993, and that the percentage calling themselves “socially liberal” now equals the percentage calling themselves “socially conservative” for the first time since Gallup began asking that question in 1999.

Millennials are also sustaining support for bigger government. The young may not have a high opinion of the institutions that represent them, but they nonetheless want those institutions to do more. According to a July Wall Street Journal/ABC poll, Americans over 35 were four points more likely to say the government is doing too much than to say it is doing too little. Millennials, meanwhile, by a margin of 23 points, think it’s doing too little. In 2011, Pew found that while the oldest Americans supported repealing health-care reform by 29 percentage points, Millennials favored expanding it by 17 points. They were also 25 points more likely than those 65 and older to approve of Occupy Wall Street and 36 points more favorable toward socialism, which they actually preferred to capitalism, 49 percent to 46 percent. As the Pew report put it, “Millennials, at least so far, hold ‘baked in’ support for a more activist government.”

This is even true among Republican Millennials. The press often depicts American politics as a battle pitting ever more liberal Democrats against ever more conservative Republicans. Among the young, however, that’s inaccurate. Young Democrats may be more liberal than their elders, but so are young Republicans. According to Pew, a clear majority of young Republicans say immigrants strengthen America, half say corporate profits are too high, and almost half say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost—answers that sharply distinguish them from older members of the GOP. Young Republicans are more likely to favor legalizing marijuana than the oldest Democrats, and almost as likely to support gay marriage. Asked how they categorize themselves ideologically, more than two-thirds of Republican Millennials call themselves either “liberal” or “mixed,” while fewer than one-third call themselves “conservative.” Among the oldest Republicans, that breakdown is almost exactly reversed.

In the face of such data, conservatives may wish to reassure themselves that Millennials will move right as they age. But a 2007 study in the American Sociological Review notes that the data “contradict commonly held assumptions that aging leads to conservatism.” The older Americans who are today more conservative than Millennials were more conservative in their youth, too. In 1984 and 1988, young voters backed Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush by large margins. Millennials are not liberal primarily because they are young. They are liberal because their formative political experiences were the Iraq War and the Great Recession, and because they make up the most secular, most racially diverse, least nationalistic generation in American history. And none of that is likely to change. […]

If America’s demographics have changed since the Bush presidency, so has the climate among conservative intellectuals. There is now an influential community of “reformocons”—in some ways comparable to the New Democratic thinkers of the 1980s—who believe Republicans have focused too much on cutting taxes for the wealthy and not enough on addressing the economic anxieties of the middle and working classes. […]

This political cycle, too, will ultimately run its course. […] How this era of liberal dominance will end is anyone’s guess. But it will likely endure for some time to come.

Old School Progressivism

I’ve had a suspicion for a while and some statements by Trump’s adviser, Steve Bannon, seem to confirm it. Bannon said that he isn’t a white nationalist, rather an American nationalist and economic nationalist, and that if they do things right even minorities will support them. He talked about concrete policies like a trillion dollar infrastructure project. The Trump administration apparently is trying to revive old school progressivism. I find it interesting that liberal Democrats no longer recognize it, even as it smacks them upside the head — they viciously attacked economic populism as if it were a dangerous invader when it showed up in their own party. […]

There is another aspect of old school progressivism. It just occurred to me. The aspect is that of technocratic management, sometimes associated with modern liberalism but with its origins in early Progressivism.

The clear example of it was FDR’s administration. He saw society and the economy as something to be managed and, of course, it was assumed that those who would manage it were the technocratic experts. It wasn’t just that there needed to be central management. That had existed before. The difference was that it was an overt and direct management.

That is what justified forcing both organized labor and the capitalist class to work together. Prior to that, the labor wars were often violent, sometimes erupting into gunfights between workers and corporate goons, often the Pinkertons. The Progressive vision was in response to a violent and lawless time in US history, what felt like social breakdown with the rise of gangs and organized crime, along with the privatized police forces like the Pinkertons.

It was also a time of corruption with many politicians being openly bribed. The idea of Progressivism was to create a professional bureaucracy that eliminated cronyism, favoritism, nepotism, and all other forms of corruption. The idea was to create a meritocracy within the government. The most qualified people would be put into official positions and so this decision-making taken out of the control of party leaders.

It would be a well managed government.

So, it was interesting when I heard Trump use similar rhetoric, from something he said a year ago. The specific issue he was talking about is irrelevant, as he walked back his support immediately afterward. It was the way of talking itself that matters most, as it shows the kind of attitude he will bring to politics. In explaining how he would accomplish something, he stated that:

“It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures and we can do that… it’s all about management, our country has no management.”

The issue that he was talking about is relevant in one particular way. It was about law and order. That is what management meant in old school progressivism. A well managed society was an orderly society based on the rule of law and enforced by a professional bureaucracy. There is a paternalism in this worldview, the heart of progressivism. The purpose of a government was seen as taking care of problems and taking care of the citizenry.

Huge Human Inequality Study Hints Revolution is in Store for U.S.
Every society has a tipping point.

by Yasmin Tayag, Inverse

There’s a common thread tying together the most disruptive revolutions of human history, and it has some scientists worried about the United States. In those revolutions, conflict largely boiled down to pervasive economic inequality. On Wednesday, a study in Nature, showing how and when those first divisions between rich and poor began, suggests not only that history has always repeated itself but also that it’s bound to do so again — and perhaps sooner than we think.

In the largest study of its kind, a team of scientists from Washington State University and 13 other institutions examined the factors leading to economic inequality throughout all of human history and noticed some worrying trends. Using a well-established score of inequality called the Gini coefficient, which gives perfect, egalitarian societies a score of 0 and high-inequality societies a 1, they showed that civilization tends to move toward inequality as some people gain the means to make others relatively poor — and employ it. Coupled with what researchers already know about inequality leading to social instability, the study does not bode well for the state of the world today.

“We could be concerned in the United States, that if Ginis get too high, we could be inviting revolution, or we could be inviting state collapse. There’s only a few things that are going to decrease our Ginis dramatically,” said Tim Kohler, Ph.D., the study’s lead author and a professor of archaeology and evolutionary anthropology in a statement.

Currently, the United States Gini score is around .81, one of the highest in the world, according to the 2016 Allianz Global Wealth Report.

Non-White Elites and Ordinary Americans

Blacks and other minorities don’t like Bernie Sanders, an old white guy, because he is some combination of racist and out of touch. That is what some non-white elites keep repeating. I guess they’re hoping that if they repeat it enough voters will be persuaded to support the DNC establishment, which is to say the Clinton cronies. The implication seems to be that blacks should prioritize abstract identity politics over bread-and-butter progressivism. But most blacks aren’t persuaded. Maybe that is the reason for the ever more desperate obsession with this DNC talking point. What the elite fail to understand or else try to obfuscate is that economic populism cuts across the racial divide. Non-whites in the comfortable class are as much of problem as the rest.

This came up again in a clickbait article at The Roots, Bernie Sanders Is Not a Real Progressive by Terrell Jermaine Starr. I shouldn’t be surprised by still seeing this. But it is such  cynical ploy. Starr writes that, “All of this is fine with Trump’s supporters, as study after study after study (pdf) reveals that racism is what drives their support of him, not economic fears.Sanders seems unwilling to accept this. After robust criticism for lacking a racial analysis to complement his economic equality-heavy framework, he still insists on ignoring the fact that racial inequality is a leading concern of black voters in the United States and that racial anxiety was a motivating factor behind Trump’s base.” That is unreasonably simplistic. Much of the racism is xenophobia about immigrants stealing American jobs, which rather overtly makes it an economic concern. No one is arguing that it isn’t easy to rile up people with fear-mongering during economic hard times. Anyone who knows American history would be familiar with the reality that issues of race and economics have always been intertwined and often conflated. In fact, racism has been so powerful for the very reason it is typically how Americans talk about class, as the prevailing rhetoric has always been that the US isn’t a class-based society and hence that no class war exists. This is obvious bullshit. Even those pushing identity politics know it is bullshit. But just like the racist demagogues, the identitarian demagogues don’t want to talk about the problems of class and economics.

Continuing, he brings up this accusation: “So black and Latinx people aren’t concerned with bread-and-butter issues? We aren’t ordinary Americans? Why put such a break between race and economics? Sanders clearly means white Americans when he says “ordinary Americans.”” Sanders’ entire platform was based on the assumption that most Americans of all races and ethnicities are ordinary Americans who are concerned with bread-and-butter issues. It was his opponents who assumed otherwise, which is why like this author they keep trying to cynically use identity politics to divide these ordinary Americans. “Minorities disaffected with the political process should be Sanders’ true target,” is the suggestion he offers, apparently based on the view that many ordinary Americans are disaffected. I would agree and so would Sanders. So what is the point? The very demographics that Sanders won majority support from were those that were most disaffected in terms of low voter turnout, such as the poor and young minorities. But Sanders didn’t need to ‘target’ them to win their support. He just needed to treat them like normal humans, like ordinary Americans, and not as demographic categories in a campaign scheme to manipulate voters. Starr obviously doesn’t believe blacks are ordinary Americans and so should be treated differently. That is what Hillary Clinton did in her targeted speeches that shifted rhetoric according to demographics of each crowd. And that is why she lost the election.

The relentless accusations go on: “His most avid backers consistently point to his notable showing with young black voters in some states, while dismissing the votes of their parents and grandparents.” It’s progress that people this clueless are being forced to admit that many minorities did support Sanders after all. But even here he feels the need to lie about it. Sanders’ support of young minorities wasn’t limited to certain states, considering he won the majority of young minorities across the country. Look at the demographics. Starr comes across as an angry older black voter in his portraying young minorities as being told to, “Fuck your parents’ vote. And your parents’ parents’ vote, too.” If he really is concerned, maybe he should drop his paternalistic condescension toward young minorities. I’m sure young minorities know the reason they preferred Sanders. Just ask them. It’s not up to Sanders or any other white person to explain to cynical irate black journalists of the liberal class about why less economically secure younger minorities disagree about economic issues with more economically secure older minorities. Anyway, in speaking for older blacks, this black journalist’s words can be reversed: Fuck your kids’ vote. And your kids’ kids’ vote, too. But shouldn’t the younger generations be prioritized considering they represent the hope for the future and survival of our society? When older generations put their own interests before the well being of their children and grandchildren, that is a society that is on a suicidal decline. Besides, there is no need to make this into a generational fight, as presently Sanders’ popularity has grown beyond young minorities to now include most minorities over all. So, it appears there is no significant argument in the black population to sacrifice the future of the youth in order to appease old black voters with empty rhetoric. I suspect even older blacks, many of them having been loyal partisans, have begun to see through the con game that has been played on them by the Democratic establishment.

Racists like to complain that blacks all think alike and all vote alike. It’s amusing to see a black guy complaining that all blacks don’t behave in lockstep, daring to value their personal experience and economic position over identity politics. Why is it surprising that secular young minorities who are liberal progressives support different politicians than older black church ladies who are social conservatives? Related to this is the accusation that Sanders is not a Democrat. Sure. Then again, 70% of eligible voters aren’t Democrats either and that includes plenty of minorities. That is ignoring the further issue that a ton of eligible voters, across all races, don’t vote in most elections. This is what gets lost in identity politics. The average minority voter in the Democratic Party isn’t the same as the average minority in the general population. One argument used is that one in ten Sanders primary voters ended up voting for Trump. But the same pattern of one in ten was seen with Obama primary voters switching parties in the general election. I don’t know why it is surprising that there is a significant portion of non-partisans whose support of individual politicians doesn’t indicate any partisan loyalty. Besides, if that is evidence that Sanders isn’t a Democrat, then neither is Obama and Clinton. One in four of Clinton’s primary voters went to McCain in the general election, many of them having stated that racism was deciding factor. By the Clintonista’s own arguments, that proves that Clinton is a racist. And that point is emphasized by how much worse Clinton did among minorities compared to previous presidential candidates.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton was the favorite among conservative Democrats, including conservative blacks. The complaint seems to be that Sanders was ineffective in reaching out to conservatives, which is what establishment-supporting partisans call ‘moderate’. Well, why would someone on the political left appeal to those on the political right? And why would someone on the political left support those who are pushing the entire political spectrum toward the right? Asking why Sanders didn’t appeal to black conservatives is akin to asking why he didn’t appeal to black libertarians, black fascists, and black plutocrats. Sanders is a progressive liberal and so appealed to people who share his values and views. Should Sanders have cynically sacrificed all principles like Clinton in order to manipulate people to vote for him? Why should he do that when, while fighting a corrupt political system, he was already getting the largest crowds of any presidential candidate in US history? The point is that most blacks, like most other Americans, are far to the left of Clinton and her supporters. Why should most minority voters be dismissed for the sake of a small but influential group of older black church ladies and their liberal class handlers? Still, let’s keep in mind that not all older blacks are church ladies. Sanders still won a sizable portion of older blacks with Clinton only doing marginally better. It’s not as if Clinton won a landslide among minorities. She actually did quite badly.

Starr next brings the situation into the present: “For the moment, Sanders’ supporters are celebrating Donna Brazile’s allegations that Clinton hijacked the primary process. It will further bolster his base and the “Bernie would have won” crowd, but it will do nothing to unify the Democratic Party.” Considering that most Americans (including most minorities) are independents and not partisans, why should they be concerned about sucking the cock of the party establishment? Most Americans support Sanders even stronger now than they did a year ago. They don’t want the Democratic status quo. They want actual progressivism. No doubt they are pissed about having the election stolen from them. Most Americans are tired of the corruption and want functioning democracy. Even after admitting that Clinton was ‘seedy’, he sticks to his talking points: “None of this will help Sanders win over critical black and brown votes in the 2020 primaries, if he does decide to run.” That isn’t a problem. Sanders already is the most popular politician in the country. Why is that so hard to understand?

This is what stands out to me. This black journalist is the senior reporter for this respectable publication. He has had a successful career and, at this point, he is a professional firmly lodged within the liberal class. Yet he wants to pretend to speak for all black people. Most of the black people he interacts with on a regular basis would also be part of the liberal class. The media professionals working at The Root aren’t typical blacks, much less ordinary Americans. He is so disconnected from most blacks and most Americans that he can’t comprehend or even acknowledge why, among both whites and blacks, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician. It appears that Sanders is speaking to blacks and they are listening, no matter what elite blacks may want to believe.

Let me bring this point home. One commenter summarized it well: “Still, nothing you say can change the fact that Sanders is, in reality, more popular among Latinx and black voters than he is among whites, and more popular among women than he is among men. This is shown to be true in poll after poll. […] Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, and has been for some time, and continues to gain strength. He is viewed favourably by 92% of Democrats, and its more popular among Hillary voters than even Hillary is.” The most basic fact is that the policy positions of Bernie Sanders are rather moderate and smack in the center of public opinion. That is to say most Americans, across multiple demographics, agree with him. That is the actual center, the moral majority. If Sanders is a socialist, then so are the silenced majority. Why do some in positions of power and influence want to continue silencing this majority and those who speak to them and for them? I was about to say that Bernie Sanders represents the future. But the reality is that he represents the present, for most Americans. This is at a time when the American public is shifting left. If majority opinion matters whatsoever, including among the majority of minorities who soon will be the minority majority in the entire country, then the future will be far to the left of Bernie Sanders.

* * *

Skip to my Bayless
11/06/17 3:46pm
Everyone Bernie endorses loses.
This is completely false. So much so, that I’m not even going to take the time to correct you. Here’s the thing, what you libs don’t seem to get is that to us on the left, Bernie is the compromise. His policies are barely progressive enough. You all act like he’s a lunatic with these crazy assed ideas, when I see him as the only option. It’s crazy.
If you want to start stacking up losses, I’m down. 1,000 State Legislature Seats since 2009. 34 of 50 governorships. The House. The Senate. The Presidency. I guess Bernie started endorsing candidates to lose going back to 2009, now? Give me a fucking break.

Skip to my Bayless
11/06/17 4:00pm
Riiiiiight. The losses and the fact that the democratic party completely went to shit under Obama and Wasserman Schultz doesn’t count because Bernie is shallow. You people are legitimately insane. Seriously. I’ve never seen a group who has deluded themselves more. But you’re right. All I ever heard Obama and Clinton talk about was gerrymandering and the VRA and Citizens United (it was always thus). They wouldn’t shut the fuck up about it.
Even now, when Donna Brazile has basically said that the dems are a complete and total mess you just won’t come to terms with the fact that being “not the republicans” is not a platform that people will vote for. And then come the backhanded racism accusations. I’m shocked you didn’t slip something about russia in there. I think we’re done.

NoSale
11/06/17 10:39am
“Sanders isn’t the absolute, 100%, perfect candidate ever
…… so he’s trash, and I will never vote for him.”
This is how you get Donald Trump.

NoSale
11/06/17 11:25am
I’m not seeing that ‘act’ here. Economic insecurity affects minorities just as much if not more so than whites. Same with lack of universal healthcare, over-criminalization, and a poor minimum wage.
His whole message has been to not let anyone divide us up, and I feel like this over-analysis of this one statement (this article references another root article that basically says the same thing) is doing exactly that.

NoSale
11/06/17 11:30am
I really can’t answer that. It’s hard to be pragmatic and progressive. But you have a guy that wants to bring power to citizens and not corporations and obscenely rich people, all of which are verily skewed white. That has to count for a lot, and seems to be a rare thing.

NoSale
11/06/17 4:30pm
I feel like he’s done more than just tersely say it, though:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
I also feel like Democrats have miserably failed to identify just how bad racism and sexism is here, and while there may be a few that have comprehensive plans to address the issue, I feel like they’ve been all talk, little to no results.
Bernie doesn’t have magical solutions for everything, but he’s getting PoCs and women involved in his orgs. I feel like he’s doing his best. Without corporate dollars or party backing. I’m willing to give him that benefit of the doubt.

skeffles
11/06/17 10:13am
There is another article up today asking why the left is failing. This article is why. Like him or loathe him, Sanders did more to energize the voting left than anyone else has done recently.

Skip to my Bayless
11/06/17 11:01am
Oh, let me make it more explicit for you: There are “crossover voters” in every election. The difference is that no Sanders surrogate went out and explicitly endorsed Trump. Brining this up as if it tipped the election is asinine. Your “claim” (if you can call it that) that Bernie did more harm than good (what metric are using and how are you defining those terms) because 10% of Sanders voters turned around and voted for Trump is dumb. Does that work for you?

Spencer Walker
11/06/17 6:47pm
More bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama what happened buttercup facts disagree with you

BazBake
11/06/17 11:52pm
Heh…
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329404-poll-bernie-sanders-countrys-most-popular-active-politician
Democrats: “This Bernie Sanders guy is awesome.”
Progressives: “This Bernie Sanders guy is amazing.”
Black folks: “This Bernie Sanders guy is great.”
Women of color: “This Bernie Sanders guy knows what he’s talking about.”
Latinos: “This Bernie Sanders guy is pretty good.”
Asians: “This Bernie Sanders guy seems solid.”
The Root: “Fuck this dude.”
Also, here’s the actual video everyone keeps linking Daily Beast quotes about. He’s not comparing economics to bigotry, he’s comparing economics to Russian crap.

dudebra
11/06/17 10:39am
The fact that nice, church going older black ladies lock stepped for “super predator” labeling Hillary is almost as weird to me as union members who vote for republicans. Hillary would have been much better than Trump but that is the lowest bar in American political history.
Hillary 2016 may have limited her racist dog whistles but she has never been progressive. There is no corporation, including all-time serial worker abusers Tyson and WalMart, that she wouldn’t sell out consumers or employees for.
Blacks, Hispanics, women and LGBTQ people, along with other oppressed groups, have to work for a living. Single payer health care and enforced, fair labor regulations would help 99% of all American citizens. That is the foundation of Progressive political thought and any hope of a just society is not possible without it. Bernie is not perfect but he is a thousandfold more Progressive than Hillary or the majority of the Democratic leadership.

11/06/17 11:01am
He did energize PoC. He energized PoC under 30.

Or do only “Older church-going black ladies” count as PoC?

RebZelmele
11/06/17 11:49am
From the sound of things, conservative old people who would normally move to the Republican party stick with the dems when they’re black despite still having a lot of Republican views on homosexuality, religion, and economics, and that gave Clinton an advantage with the black vote.

Juli
11/06/17 11:59am
Actually all of the church going black ladies I know voted for Sanders because they knew about Sanders. That’s the power of the media blackout. Church going black ladies who didn’t know they had options because they get their information from TV

Juli
11/06/17 12:05pm
This is not true. He energized POC when they knew about him. This is what happens when one candidate controls the party. This is so obvious. All of the manipulation of the debate schedule was so POC would not get this information. All of the media black outs. Showing Trump being offensive instead of streaming Sanders speeches was all so that POC would not get the information they needed to make an informed decision so the defaulted for the familiar instead of voting Trump (because duh) and she still lost. I am a black woman not a bro. But I don’t watch TV and Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Who paid for this nonsense.

Edgar
11/08/17 6:12am
Yes Congress votes on the bill my point was ,Do you honestly believe things would have been less progressive under his presidency . Like would things like abortion becoming illegal be a thing if Bernie were president? I don’t believe any of that was an actual worry for anyone . Theres nothing wrong with compromise , I don’t believe even you have a problem with a little compromise , I’m sure if you voted you most likely voted for Hillary which is proof that you don’t have an issue with compromise
Reply

Edgar
11/08/17 6:18am
This from the article you linked “If we are going to protect a woman’s right to choose, at the end of the day we’re going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation,” he said. “And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.” how is he wrong ? I find it easier to compromise by electing a Democrat that might be behind on a few issues but can be shown the light ,than compromising by electing a republican that would never consider progressive thought what do you think

Ole Olson
11/06/17 5:10pm
You’re correct, he’s NOT a Democrat. You know who else isn’t? 70% of eligible voters. If 2016 should have demonstrated one thing with absolute clarity it’s that we can’t win elections with Democrats alone, we need independents to win.
And who is the most popular person in any party with independents? Bernie Sanders. He’s actually the most popular member of Congress in the entire nation too with the best net favorability ratings to boot.
So the real question is: do you want to start winning elections for a change, or are you happy that our party has lost over 1,000 seats nationally, and ultra-right wing Republicans now dominate EVERY branch of the federal government and have a trifecta of power in two thirds of states?

austroberta
11/06/17 10:59am
It is really quite a telling assumption, as nowhere in quote do you hear anything to suggest that POC are not ordinary assumptions. The folks that hate Bernie have ceased to argue a point without grasping at straws.
When Sanders is referring to ordinary Americans, he is referring to the working class, which includes White AND Black AND Latinos AND LGBTQ citizens, who struggle against a very small sliver of American society that is wealthy, powerful and can create laws which benefit them and only them.
Many times this country has made significant strides in social justice and economic progress, when POC AND Whites join together to fight the forces that oppress. Not all whites are demons and not all of them are exclusionary.

CrunchyThoughts
11/06/17 11:51am
Posts like this spur thoughts that theRoot is simply another establishment beachhead in the battle for our minds. No, he’s (Sanders) not perfect, but black people and black media have backed the Clintons for decades, and they’ve done nothing substantively positive for black/brown people or race relations.
Black people are not in position for any mass of dramatic change or severing from the system. So why not work with this man if you’re going to, currently, support this paradigm? He’s offered solutions that would ease the economic burden for everyone, and lessen if not remove the economic stress that inhibits real dialog and listening on the topic of race (as it pertains to anything). Just like mama doesn’t care about whatever game her kid wants when she can’t keep food on the table, when folks are struggling with debt (the real enemy) and hope, they leave little mental and emotional space for doing anything but solving that subsistence problem.
Stop playing checkers and think about the next generations.

ArtistAtLarge
11/06/17 10:55am
This country has moved so far right that ANY halt or reversal, no matter how small, it very damn important!
Fuck this purity bullshit. This country is in deep, deep shit, Poster child police state, deep state.

FireroseNekowolf
11/06/17 10:36am
I been through this on another one earlier. I think you’re reading it wrong. I think you got his strategy wrong. I think, personally, some people don’t get it because they’re not of the same political mindset.
Edit: Which, well, I am. I am a social democrat. Or “socialist” if you want. Just don’t tell that to the Communists, oh boy they get so salty when you compare social democracy to socialism!
You’re right, he’s not a progressive. He’s a social democrat. He’s not a “liberal,” he’s a “socialist.”
I’m not saying he’s perfect, but I always hear about how he ignores race or however you’d prefer to put it, I’m not really sure myself, but I’ve never seen it really explained why. Just “he does.”
He’s not saying minorities are not concerned with economic issues. But yes, he is saying “equally or more important, economics.” Because he’s a social democrat!
Look. Who are the poorest demographics in the US? Black and Latino minorities, no? So who would benefit the most from economic changes? Those same minorities.
But “equally or more importantly,” look throughout modern history. Social politics is tied to the state of economics, and economics is more widespread than minority issues. This is not to invalidate those issues or to suggest they’re put on the back burner. Absolutely not. Both can be engaged at the same time, because we’re humans, not some fucking computer from the 70s that can only run one process at a time.
However, economics is a cornerstone to leading that social change, both for the benefit of minorities, who with a new economic landscape would be able to have health care, have college, which brings down future debts and improving quality of life while finally getting at least a foot in the door, at all, even if small, for some degree of upward economic mobility, and for the benefit of the social policies that affect them, because when people have greater economic protections, they are more likely to be convinced of changing social attitudes.
No, it won’t stop racism, or solve it, or whatever. What it would do, however, is help level the playing field by bringing minorities upward most significantly, thereby aiding, with concerted efforts among lawmakers and representative organizations, in tackling racism in a way that could be quite effective because you’ve weakened one of the greatest tools of those who seek superiority – economics.
After all, what’s one of the best ways to suppress a minority? Keeping them poor, because when they’re poor, they’re not as integrated into the wider social system. By bringing them up economically, it allows them to become more integrated, where they became closer to the familiarity of the superior, for a lack of a better way of phrasing it.
That’s how we social democrats look at this issue. It isn’t that racism doesn’t matter, it’s that you have to tackle the economic structure otherwise you won’t make fruitful gains in the arena of social policy as well as economics, and that’s not even going into the distinction of class politics, which encompasses whites, blacks, latinos, etc. So it’s kind of a “greater good” kind of thing, cause, you know, classism is kind of our biggest deal as a social democrat.

AarghAarghII
11/06/17 11:58am
Speak for yourself, I may not be black or Latinx, but I am still an immigrant and proud to be a Sanders supporter. Your repeated attempts to paint Sanders as a whites-only candidate while devoid of any substantial policy discussion is telling in itself – it’s not the policies that matter, it’s the cult of personality that matters to you. For me, Sanders’ position as the best candidate was cemented when he boldly stood up against the leverage of Israel in US politics during the primaries and advocated for Palestinians. That was one of the most exciting moments of the 2016 election for me, especially considering the debate took place in NYC.
I’ll tell you what matters to me: a candidate that is willing to swing back at the economic conservatives in the DNC and RNC who insist that all deficits are bad (see the MMT article from Splinter for more on this) and those that are willing to overlook the harmful effects of austerities in small towns all across the US, including Flint and now Oakland, MI, Kansas, Puerto Rico and Wisconsin. All disproportionately affecting poor people, certainly including people of color. I challenge you to point out the real, substantial differences in identity politics between Hillary and Sanders if you really believe that Sanders is a whites-only candidate. As far as I can tell, their differences in this area are miniscule at best, it is their economics that differ widely with one candidate deriding the other’s economic ambition as ‘ponies.’ I bet fiscal conservatives felt they were real clever when PROMESA was enacted, sounding fiscally prudent and all. Enjoy the big bill coming your way as I laugh at your pennywise, pound foolishness. We have seen this movie before from the Tequila crisis to Argentina to the IMF age to modern day Greece, and some of us will not go along with any candidate that endorses the perverse notion of socialism for the rich and monetarism for the poor.

Torslin
11/06/17 11:45am
Really whether Bernie would have won or not is predicated on one specific group. The Obama voters who voted for Trump.
If you believe they voted for Trump because he appealed directly to their racism and they voted for Obama because he offered policies he liked, while Romney offered neither, Trump would have won anyway.
If you believe they voted for Trump because either they were worried economically, or because the Clintons have been hated in the midwest since Bill backtracked on NAFTA. He would have won.
While most voters who voted for Trump went with the former, i think that small group went with the latter, just because i know how angry people get about Clinton in those areas and did well before sanders. In a way i think Sanders support was over inflated due to Clinton hate. There are plenty of middle of the road people i know who voted Sanders.
That said, an actual progressive who excites the base could make winning way easier, as republicans have shown crossover moderate plans don’t work anymore.

Nightfox360
11/06/17 11:35am
These articles talking about immagration from a non hispanic or non immigrant writers is like me a hispanic person writing an article about slavery or black issues. And as much as i hate hearing people say it as I fully understand what went down, Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief and as for Bernie he spoke of fundamental issues that will plauge Americans weither a Republican racist or a Social Liberal Democrat hold office. Talking about both race relations and other social issues is important but so are economic issues the two arent mutualy exclusive both play a part in both uniting and dividing people. Even I someone who Im sure lacks the education this writer was fortunate enough to attain knows fully well that racial equality and equality of opportunity are needed to create a strong and fully functioning society.

Democratic Failure of the Democratic Party

“Many political actors around the world, similarly, think that epistocrats should rule and try to gain the emotional support of the population. Consider the slogan of the Democratic Party in the 2016 US election: ‘I’m with her.’ The Democrats were telling their own version of Plato’s salutary myth, or simple story meant to induce people to identify with a political cause.
“Democracy, instead, requires treating people as citizens – that is, as adults capable of thoughtful decisions and moral actions, rather than as children who need to be manipulated. One way to treat people as citizens is to entrust them with meaningful opportunities to participate in the political process, rather than just as beings who might show up to vote for leaders every few years.”
~Sam Haselby, Treat people as citizens

“The point of the Brazile story isn’t that the people who “rigged” the primary were afraid of losing an election. It’s that they weren’t afraid of betraying democratic principles, probably because they didn’t believe in them anymore.
“If you’re not frightened by the growing appeal of that line of thinking, you should be. There is a history of this sort of thing. And it never ends well.”
~Matt Taibbi, Why Donna Brazile’s Story Matters

Donna Brazile, acting Chair of the DNC, wrote that, “The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.” She is stating the obvious here and, if anything, understating it to an extreme degree.

That isn’t just unethical behavior and compromised integrity. That is blatantly undemocratic and anti-democratic, a direct attack on democracy itself. And this happened within a party leadership that hypocritically still calls themselves the Democrats, a party leadership that is still in power and still trying to eliminate the last traces of democracy. Those involved realized how damaging this could be, if it ever became fully known to the public. Even though “[t]he questionable nature of the Hillary Victory Fund was no secret during the Democratic primary,” the limited info that was revealed drew negative attention (as told by Abigail Tracy in Vanity Fair):

“As details of the arrangement emerged in the spring of 2016, the joint fund-raising effort drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Sanders camp, the Vermont senator’s supporters, and the state party committees that signed on. In July, hacked e-mails released by WikiLeaks revealed that party officials and the Clinton campaign sought to bury the particulars of the deal and tamp down criticism directed at the fund.”

After discovering the full documentation of what went on, there is no way someone then in good conscience and with moral courage could have done the following as Brazile describes her own actions:

“I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.”

She felt so tiny because she had betrayed the public’s trust. And she felt powerless because she had given her power away. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her in her pitiful complaints? And why would any of us now believe anything she claims, especially about Sanders? This is the same woman who cheated for Hillary Clinton. Working for CNN, she had slipped questions to the Clinton campaign for a CNN town hall debate. Intriguingly, the Wikileaks dump showed that the email she wrote for this purpose was sent to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri. I had forgotten about the details and, reading it again, it now stood out to me.

Podesta, along with his brother, is a high level DNC operative and powerful lobbyist. To show how much of an insider he is, consider the email (released by Wikileaks) he sent to George Soros and other plutocrats about a meeting they had on Democratic strategy to “Control the political discourse,” in which he wrote: “Create a robust echo chamber with progressive messaging that spans from the opposition campaigns to outside groups, academic experts, and bloggers.” More recently, Podesta has been in the news because of his connection to the fiasco of Donald Trump’s cronies and the special counsel’s Russia investigation, by way of Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Vin Weber. Podesta became a focus of the investigation because of his direct involvement in meddling with Ukranian politics, the reason Manafort and Gates are being charged for acting as unregistered foreign agents. In this activity, Podesta had meetings with Weber who is a former GOP congressman and also a powerful lobbyist.

The corruption connects corporate media to the party establishment and it crosses party lines. These kinds of well-connected figures, powerful and influential, are mercenaries deep within the party establishment and political structure. That is shown by how the two main party nominees, Clinton and Trump, were old family friends and political allies. But in politics as spectacle, all that matters is that they put on a good show so that the big biz media could play it 24/7 to increase their profits. Meanwhile, the real action happens behind the scene, which in this case was Clintonites controlling the DNC and sabotaging Sanders’ campaign.

It went beyond Hillary Clinton controlling the DNC financing by redirecting state funds into her own campaign. Brazile went on to say that, “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.” This seems to have included Clinton controlling, influencing, or having veto power over the party messaging, debate schedule, choice of superdelegates, and various major DNC decisions.

Brazile considered Podesta a close ally and trusted intermediary. She sent these debate questions to him, knowing he would get them to Hillary Clinton. That indicates how deep she was in this swamp of corruption. And in finding the inexcusable financial fuckery of Hillary Clinton’s control of the DNC a year before the nomination, Brazile’s immediate response was to hide this ugly truth from other Democrats and to manipulate Bernie Sanders to back the very person, Clinton, who was actively destroying the Democratic party. Now that the whole scheme is falling apart, the rats are fleeing the sinking ship.

Here is the most important part. Brazile admitted that, through Clinton’s control of the DNC, the primary was rigged or stacked in favor of Clinton and this began long before the primary. It’s not entirely new info — it’s just finally being acknowledged by an insider who knew it was true all along. And it’s not just one person saying this. A number of Democratic figures have come forward in agreement, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren but also including Gary Gensler who was the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign — speaking of a phone conversation Brazile had with Gensler, she explained that, “He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the [Vermont Sen.] Bernie [Sanders] camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”

At Law Newz, Elura Nanos writes:

“Let’s not forget—there’s a class action lawsuit proceeding against the DNC for defrauding campaign contributors who’d sent funds to support Bernie Sanders and expected him to get a fair chance at the nomination. At the heart of that lawsuit is a brazen contention by the DNC that seems even worse in light of Brazile’s statements: any assumption that the presidential nominating process was fair couldn’tbe the basis for a lawsuit, because any indications of fairness are nothing more than “purported political promises.” In other words, the DNC isn’t interested in even pretending it gave Bernie a chance.

“Perhaps the worst thing about Brazile’s revelation is its origin. This story isn’t coming from Fox or Drudge, but from someone deeply committed to furthering the interests of the Democratic party. A not-so-secret contract between Hillary and the DNC may not make Russiagate look any better, but it sure makes our democracy look a lot worse.”

For a long time now, critics on the left have been making such complaints and allegations while pointing out the facts and suspicious activity. Yet the Democratic establishment and their partisan lackeys kept lying to voters and gaslighting and trolling the political left. It’s nice that the truth has finally come out. But I’m not expecting too many apologies from the lesser evil bullshitters. I hope these chuckleheads finally understand how they were played like fools.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the lesser evil. She was simply one of two greater evil choices. The real lesser evil was Bernie Sanders. The thing about Sanders is he is a moderate, not a radical. He is a lifelong professional politician who is willing to work with anyone in either main party to get things done. As far as public opinion goes, he is a centrist. He represents what most Americans agree about, what most Americans want. But as recent events demonstrate, he has limited capacity for fighting the hard fight. He caved into the Democratic establishment. That is what makes him a lesser evil. He is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not even close. Sanders, by force of personality and strength of leadership, isn’t going to be the one to usher in a new era of progressivism. But he could make for a useful ally to move us in the right direction.

The point is that I don’t see Sanders as a populist savior nor an inspiring visionary. He is the kind of politician who will only do the right thing if we the public force him to do so, which is more than Clinton would ever do since she is in the pocket of big money. Although not much of a fighter, Sanders at least is honest and actually represents the American people, in giving voice to the silent majority. We need people like him to hold the center in Washington, which would allow the actual left to maintain pressure to keep the political system from shifting right.

This is what faux democratic “lesser evil” voters were utterly clueless about. They misjudged to an extreme what Clinton and Trump symbolized in relation to what the public was demanding. The Democratic establishment and partisans have lost all credibility, their political failure having become a national shame that they will never live down. The only respectable option left for them is to admit their failure and, as the losers that they are, to get the fuck out of the way. Change is coming, like it or not, be it reform or revolution. As John F. Kennedy put it, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

For context, consider this. Polling has shown that most Americans distrust major institutions: big government, big business, and big media — the trinity of power in our society. This lack of trust doesn’t even follow an expected partisan pattern, as seen even seven years ago in an AP-NCC poll: “Only 10 percent of Republicans expressed strong confidence in state governments, despite frequent GOP demands that Washington cede more power to the states. Just 10 percent of Democrats voiced strong trust in Congress, even though their party controls it.” Public trust and confidence certainly hasn’t increased over time.

Also seen in the data is that most Americans don’t think the US is a functioning democracy nor has an actual free market and fair economy. Generally speaking, very few see the system as working well as compared to those who see it as outright broken. To emphasize this point, here is further context (APA Stress in America Survey): “More than half of Americans (59 percent) said they consider this the lowest point in U.S. history that they can remember — a figure spanning every generation, including those who lived through World War II and Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” The citizenry isn’t happy right now. And for good reason, as both main parties have failed them and betrayed them.

* * *

Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False
by Glenn Greenwald

Viral Falsehood #1
The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the general election, not the primary.

Viral Falsehood #2
Sanders signed the same agreement with the DNC that Clinton did.

Viral Falsehood #3
Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.

Viral Falsehood #4
Evidence has emerged proving that the content of WikiLeaks documents and emails was doctored.

Donna Brazile, the DNC, and Democratizing the Democrats
by Richard Eskow

The weekend was filled with claims and counter-claims, revelations and counter-revelations. Here’s what’s known as of this writing: The Clinton campaign organization, Hillary For America (HFA) ,signed a Joint Fundraising Agreement and at least one other agreement giving it significant influence over the DNC’s hiring, budget, and strategy.

Claims that the Clinton team’s authority was limited to the general election appear to be false. While the document carried a legal disclaimer to that effect, attorney Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center commented that this clause is “contradicted by the rest of the agreement.” Fischer also pointed to a provision in the agreement that, in his words, meant “Clinton controlled every communication mentioning a primary candidate.”

Clinton’s defenders argued that the Sanders team was also offered a joint fundraising deal, but it was quickly revealed that the Clinton campaign executed a separate side agreement with DNC granting it oversight powers. As NPR points out, that agreement was executed while Joe Biden was still considering a run.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver denies it was offered the same veto power over staff. An email from an attorney representing the DNC, Graham Wilson of Perkins Coie, states only that “DNC staff would be happy to chat with the Sanders team and come to an understanding about the best way to use … funds to prepare for the general election at the DNC.”

The September 2015 email says that “the DNC has had similar conversations with the Clinton campaign and is of course willing to do so with all.” In fact, the Clinton deal had already been signed.

Perkins Coie represented both the Clinton campaign and the DNC when that email was written.

Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal
by Alex Seitz-Wald

The August 26, 2015, memorandum of understanding from Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, which supplemented a standard Joint Fundraising Agreement, more fully explains the relationship between Clinton and the DNC long before she won her party’s nomination.

In exchange for Hillary for America’s (HFA) helping the cash-strapped DNC raise money, the committee agreed “that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.”

Specifically, the DNC agreed to hire a communications director from “one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.” And while the DNC maintained “the authority to make the final decision” on senior staff it the communications, technology, and research departments, it said would it choose “between candidates acceptable to HFA.”

Read: The full memo here

Book Reveals Clinton Campaign Effectively Controlled DNC As Early As 2015
by Scott Neuman

Hillary Clinton’s campaign gained significant control over the Democratic National Committee’s finances and strategy more than a year before the election in exchange for helping the party retire lingering debt from the 2012 presidential campaign, according to a new book by a former party chairwoman. […]

Brazile’s account appears to contradict the DNC’s repeated assertions that it wasn’t favoring Clinton over Sanders and it bolsters charges from the Sanders camp that the primary itself was “rigged.”

During the campaign, Sanders had repeatedly charged that the DNC was working in league with the Clinton campaign to ensure her victory in the primary.

“The idea that the DNC was willing to take a position that helped a candidate in the midst of a primary is outrageous, and there is no justification for it,” Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to the Sanders campaign, was quoted in the Post as saying.

The party is over: Time for Democrats to clean house
by Douglas E. Schoen

The recent revelations by Donna Brazile that Hillary Clinton rigged the 2016 Democratic primaries through corrupt financing come as no surprise to me, especially as someone who before the election said he could not, despite longstanding ties to the Clintons, support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

In October 2016, I said that there would be a constitutional crisis if she were to be elected. Given the news from Brazile about rigging the primaries, the report from John Solomon of The Hill that U.S. uranium tied to an Obama era deal may actually have reached Europe, and ongoing questions about who paid for the infamous Steele dossier, there may well be a constitutional crisis even without Clinton in the Oval Office. […]

Though it is certainly important that Brazile offered these revelations about Hillary Clinton, she herself is no pillar of honesty, as previously leaked Clinton emails revealed that Brazile provided Hillary’s campaign with debate questions prior to the Democratic primary debates, which Brazile subsequently lied about when asked on television.

Above all and unequivocally so, this comportment is obscene, dishonest, and represents a level of malfeasance we have not seen before. […] There needs to be a complete and total housecleaning of the infrastructure of the Democratic Party. Ultimately, Hillary Clinton needs to go away, Bernie Sanders needs to go away, Donna Brazile needs to go away. They are all complicit. We desperately need a renewed understanding of ethics in politics. I am truly sickened by what I see today, but not just because of individual behavior, though the behavior of former Secretary of State Clinton is becoming increasingly egregious.

I am sickened by the behavior of the entire party establishment led by a former chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who uses dismissive ignorance as a defense of everything: “I know nothing, I know nothing, I know nothing.” Well, I know something. The body stinks from the head down, and the core itself is rotten too.

Democrats in Denial Over Brazile Allegations that Further Confirm Primary was Rigged
by Kevin Gosztola

However, what those in denial refuse to confront is that Clinton may have received more votes because citizens believed it was impossible for Sanders to win, since the news media kept reporting Clinton had so many more superdelegates than him. Plus, whether Sanders was able to overcome the impact of an unethical fundraising agreement does not change the reality that it made the primary unfair.

Hillary Rosen, a prominent Democratic Party strategist who regularly appears on CNN, insisted Democrats could not reckon with Brazile’s allegations when attention must be paid to the GOP’s tax proposals. She also misleadingly argued Brazile could not find any evidence that the system was rigged against Sanders, which is not what Brazile wrote. Brazile said she could not find any evidence to support widespread claims until she came across the joint fundraising agreement.

“The voters chose Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, and it had nothing to do with any staff person at the DNC,” Rosen asserted.

In May 2016, Rosen said, “Bernie Sanders is losing this race, and instead of taking it like a man, he’s working the ref. He’s encouraging his people to think that the system is rigged. The system he signed up for as an independent to run in a Democratic primary. This constant sort of whining and complaining about the process is just really the most harmful thing, in some ways, he could do because he’s encouraging his supporters to think that the process actually is cheating them, and they’re not.” So, Rosen has an interest in maintaining her denial of reality.

The reality is hundreds of superdelegates pledged their allegiance to Clinton before votes were cast in Iowa, a limited number of debates were scheduled to ensure voters had the least amount of exposure to Clinton opponents, the DNC and Clinton campaign falsely accused the Sanders campaign of “stealing” voter file data, and Democratic women supporting Sanders faced forms of retaliation for not supporting Clinton.

New Documents Suggest Clinton and DNC Conspired to Block Sanders from Key Voter Database
by Brian Hanley

In December 2015, just weeks before Sanders and Clinton faced off for the first caucuses in Iowa, something curious happened. The DNC cut off Sanders’ access to a critical voter database.

A software vendor, hired by the DNC, had incidentally exposed confidential voter information collected by the Clinton campaign to the Sanders campaign. The glitch and complications it caused were entirely the vendor’s fault, an independent investigation would later find.

Nevertheless, the DNC penalized Sanders for the error. The DNC leadership went as far as suspending Sanders’ access to the voter database, even though it was the DNC that had hired the company responsible for the mistake. NGP VAN, the software vendor in question, is the same vendor Guccifer 2.0 allegedly hacked to breach the DNC’s network. There were clearly vulnerabilities in the software, which Sanders had nothing to do with.

A campaign cannot function, let alone compete, without access to essential voter data. In suspending Sanders’ access, the DNC effectively crippled his campaign and deprived it of its lifeblood. Then-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (“DWS”) alleged that such a suspension was necessary to ensure the security of the committee’s voter files. But if that were the case, if security were the concern, DWS should have cut off data access to all campaigns until the issue was resolved. Instead, she let one candidate suffer and helped another prosper.

Later, she would resign from her role as DNC chair amid growing allegations that she had rigged the primary. It should be noted that DWS also happened to serve as Clinton’s campaign co-chair in 2008.

It should also be noted that in 2008, when DWS served as Clinton’s co-chair, the two women found themselves in an eerily similar position as Senator Sanders. NGP VAN, the same software vendor that would mishandle voter data in 2015, accidentally exposed Obama’s voter data to the Clinton campaign. But the DNC didn’t take any action in ‘08. It certainly didn’t suspend anyone’s data access.

Sanders, meanwhile, had to sue the DNC before his own data access was restored. All the while, Clinton’s campaign marched ahead at full throttle while Sanders’ camp scrambled. Keep in mind, this was mere weeks before the first caucuses in Iowa. Every minute without that voter data was a minute the Sanders campaign couldn’t afford to lose.

In emails released by WikiLeaks, we later discovered that the DNC’s communications official and communications director actively conspired to undermine the Sanders campaign. Mark Paustenbach and Luis Miranda, who, as DNC leaders, were expected to be neutral, discussed exploiting the software vendor’s slip up to make Sanders look sloppy. “Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Paustenbach wrote in an email to his communications director.

“Hurr, Durr, It’s A Conspiracy Theory!”
by Caitlin Johnstone

Brazile’s melodramatic “oh I was so grief stricken” admission that Clinton had taken over DNC operations long before becoming the party nominee is just the latest in a long series of revelations confirming things Berners have been saying for over a year now while being dismissed as conspiracy theorists by Democratic party loyalists.

This is coming straight off the back of Twitter’s admission that it hid half of all #DNCLeaks mentions in the leadup to the general election despite the fact that only two percent were considered to have come from suspicious accounts. As The Young Turks’ Michael Tracey rightly notes, people who pointed out at the time that tweets with this hashtag seemed to be hidden from view by Twitter admin “were called conspiracy freaks”. The American people were trying to communicate with each other about a very real thing that had been revealed about their democratic process, and Twitter actively worked to prevent them from doing so.

This thread goes all the way back. The thing Twitter was keeping people from discussing was the undeniable revelation in the DNC emails that the Democratic National Committee had violated the Impartiality Clause of their Charter when the DNC Chairwoman permitted a clear us-vs-them culture in the Committee, as revealed by the content of their communications. Berners were called conspiracy theorists again and again for claiming that this bias was happening, and then it was proven to have happened.

After that came the Podesta emails, proving that then-Vice Chair Brazile had served as a mole against the Sanders campaign and passed multiple debate questions in advance to Hillary Clinton, showing Clinton campaign staffers conspiring with the DNC to schedule debates and primaries in a way that benefitted Clinton, and showing blatant collusion between the Clinton campaign and the supposedly neutral news media to get Hillary into the White House. Again, any suggestion that Hillary hadn’t won the nomination fair and square got you dismissed by Clintonists as a daffy conspiracy theorist, but it was proven to be a true and legitimate grievance.

Dem Pundits Spent Yesterday Lying About DNC Primary Rigging Document
by Caitlin Johnstone

We’ve seen no indication that any similar agreement was entered into with any other candidate besides Hillary Clinton. Not from Sanders, nor from Brazile, nor from the DNC, nor from any former Clinton campaign staffers, nor from WikiLeaks. Nor could the same agreement have been made with any other candidate, since the Clinton campaign was giving itself authorities over DNC functioning which would be nonsensical if two parties had them, like that it would share authority with the DNC “over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.”

Regarding the claim by plutocracy teat sucklings like Howard Dean that that the agreement applied only to the general election (which would make the Clinton campaign’s added control of DNC operations standard practice) and not to the primary (which would make it a violation of the DNC’s Impartiality Clause), this is pure hogwash. Firstly, the dates on the document plainly contradict this assertion, as they were set during the primary contest and scheduled to end long before Clinton became the nominee, beginning September 1, 2015 and ending March 31, 2016. The DNC convention in which Clinton became the nominee wasn’t until July 2016.

Secondly, as the Campaign Legal Center’s FEC reform specialist Brendan Fischer notes, the claim that the document is intended to focus on the general election and not the primary is directly contradicted by the rest of the document, which explicitly gave Hillary For America control of every communication which mentioned a primary candidate. The agreement was very clearly and specifically geared toward giving Clinton an advantage in the primary elections.

Journalist Mike Sainato points out that with the agreement the Hillary campaign gave itself the authority to pre-approve DNC hires, an authority it then used to wave through the hiring of DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda. Miranda, one of only two candidates Hillary For America allowed the DNC to choose from per the agreement, would later resign from his position in disgrace after the DNC leaks revealed he’d participated in a discussion about how to construct a narrative against Sanders.

Perhaps far more impactful, Tim Tagaris, former Digital Fundraising Director for the Sanders campaign, said after Brazile’s admission that without the joint fundraising agreement Clinton would have been “majorly out-raised by Bernie Sanders in the primary”.

This joint fundraising scheme was why we saw things like Clinton inviting her donor class friends to dine with her and George Clooney for a whopping $353,400 a couple in April of 2016. Such large individual donations were permitted by campaign finance law via a loophole because the money was meant to be distributed throughout state party races across the country, but according to Donna Brazile virtually all of it got funneled to the Clinton campaign.

This was all happening long before Clinton became Democratic presidential nominee in July of 2016.

Clintonites Still Denying The Primary Was Rigged Proves They’ve Never Cared About Facts
by Caitlin Johnstone

On November 2, 2007, John Podesta wrote an email to billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, John Sperling, and high-level millionaire Steve Bing with a detailed and structured overview of material the group had covered during a meeting they’d had in September. And if seeing the names John Podesta and George Soros in an article about a conspiracy of elites makes you roll your eyes a little, hang in there, because this one is legit.

On page two of the attachment:

“Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place — grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere — we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system”

And on page four:

“Create a robust echo chamber with progressive messaging that spans from the opposition campaigns to outside groups, academic experts, and bloggers.”

So to recap, an elite insider of the Democratic party met with a group of powerful plutocrats to discuss how they would use their footholds in the media, the internet, academia, faith-based groups and think tanks to create “a group situation where information, ideas, and beliefs are uncritically bounced from insider to insider and amplified, while dissenting views are censored and/or ignored,” exactly like the idiocy-generating manipulation machine that conservative think tanks were inflicting upon Americans of the political right.

A Message to Democrats Who Still Support Hillary Clinton
by Rob Cotton

To the people who still support Hillary Clinton despite all of this, all I can say is that you must have a secret fondness for Donald Trump and far-right Republican governance. Unless you begin to realize that Hillary Clinton and the corrupt neoliberalism she represents are cancer and the Democratic Party needs a complete overhaul, you will keep losing to Republicans and those Republicans, down the road, will make Donald Trump seem like a pleasant memory of the past.

The damage done by Clinton and her cronies to the Democratic Party cannot be overstated. In fact, it’s quite possible that the damage is irreversible. Until and unless the Democratic Party as a whole admits its fatal error in 2016, it will see its support wane. While virtually no one on the left and center-left is happy with Trump and the direction his Republican Party are heading, the “lesser-evilism” offered by the Democratic Party is not seen as lesser enough by a critical mass of people who also happen to be the most active and energetic members of any potential Democratic Party base in future elections.

It’s time to wake up, Clinton Democrats. Your glass castle has shattered.

The DNC owes Bernie Sanders and all Dems an apology
by Brent Budowsky

The DNC owes Bernie Sanders and his supporters an apology if it signed a secret deal in 2015 that sought to fix the 2016 nominating process.

The DNC owes every Democrat and party candidates in every state an apology for failing to mobilize Democrats and better support Democratic candidates during an epic political struggle that will have gigantic impact on the nation after the 2018 midterm elections. […]

In other words, regarding the Democratic National Committee that should represent all Democrats equally and treat all candidates equally throughout presidential primaries, the fix was in before the 2016 primaries had even begun.

Two points are key:

First, the DNC has for some time been so incompetent and ineffective that any DNC-Clinton deal probably did not make much difference in the 2016 primaries.

Second, and more importantly, this DNC-Clinton deal, if it happened as Brazile suggests, was a disgraceful and unethical venture that violated a core principle of the DNC: that it should be neutral in presidential primaries between competing candidates. […]

For this, the DNC owes every Democrat across the nation a sweeping, comprehensive and humble apology.

Sanders would’ve beat Trump in 2016 — just ask Trump pollsters
by Brent Budowsky

As Democratic leaders and strategists consider how they should campaign in the crucial midterm elections of 2018, they would be wise to consider why so many polls throughout 2016 showed that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would have decisively defeated Donald Trump in a general election contest.

My view, stated throughout the 2016 campaign, was that whether one supported Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the presidential primaries, it was vital that all Democrats fully understand why Sanders ran so far ahead of Trump in polling — usually by double digits — and markedly stronger than Clinton in match-up polling against Trump.

As reported recently in The Hill, Trump’s own pollster, Tony Fabrizio, stated flatly at a recent Harvard University Institute of Politics event that Sanders would have beaten Trump. He said Sanders would have run stronger than Clinton with lower-educated and lower-income white voters. I could not agree more, on both counts.

The real working-class hero candidate was always Sanders, not Trump, who has always been a crony capitalist pretending to be a populist. […]

America is a far more progressive nation than most pundits understand. They are waiting for the next great progressive Democratic president, whoever he or she may be. That person will lift the nation after the Trump nightmare ends and the post-Trump America begins in earnest in 2018 and 2020.

Poll: Democrats Want To Ditch Their Leaders And Move To The Left. They’re Right.
by Richard Eskow

Poll: A majority of Democrats want the party to move left and oppose its leadership
by Andrew Joyce

As Tensions Simmer, Poll Shows Majority of Democrats Want Bold Leftward Shift
by Jake Johnson

As Donald Trump’s Popularity Dwindles, Bernie Sanders’ Surges
by Michael Sainato

Universal Mobilization
by Ralph Nader

…there has long been a broad convergence of agreement between Left and Right on many issues, especially when you deal with where people live, work, spend, and raise their families.

Binary politics thrives from the few real divisions between people. The drumbeats about “our polarized society” serve the agendas of the Republican and Democratic parties as well as the plutocracy. Divide-and-rule has been the tactic of ruling groups for thousands of years. Consider instead some areas of concurrence by the Left and Right that enjoy widespread public support, some as high as 70% or more—often a decisive eyebrow raiser for members of Congress. They include opposition to crony capitalism or corporate welfare, support for excision of anti-civil liberties portions of the Patriot Act, criminal justice reform, cracking down on corporate crime against consumers, clean elections, programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, worker rights and privacy, break-up of the big New York banks that are too big to fail, a higher minimum wage, not being the world’s policeman, ridding the Defense budget of its enormous waste, revision of trade agreements, access to the courts, a Wall Street speculation tax directed to investments in public works and upgrades in communities throughout the country, shareholder power, clean air and water, stopping commercialization of childhood that undermines parental authority, and many more. In the past, despite strong corporate opposition with campaign cash, Congress handily passed the auto safety law (1966), the Freedom of Information Act amendments of 1974, the False Claims Act of 1986 and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2013. Why? Left–Right support from back home.

US Demographics & Increasing Progressivism
Public Opinion On Government & Tea Party
Claims of US Becoming Pro-Life
Public Opinion on Tax Cuts for the Rich
Most Oppose Cutting Social Security (data)
The Court of Public Opinion: Part 1 & Part 2
Non-Identifying Environmentalists And Liberals
Environmentalist Majority
Public Opinion On Government & Tea Party
Gun Violence & Regulation (Data, Analysis, Rhetoric)
Warmongering Politicians & Progressive Public
Who Supported the Vietnam War?
Vietnam War Myths: Memory, Narrative, Rhetoric & Lies
Hillary and Honduras
The War Party Always Wins

Political Elites Disconnected From General Public
Wirthlin Effect & Symbolic Conservatism
Polarizing Effect of Perceived Polarization
Is there a balance point in a society of extremes?
Inequality Means No Center to Moderate Toward
What is the Moderate Center of a Banana Republic?
A Manifesto of Meaninglessness
What Liberalism Has Become
Confused Liberalism
Liberalism: Label vs Reality (analysis of data)
Sea Change of Public Opinion: Libertarianism, Progressivism & Socialism
Poll Answers, Stated Beliefs, Ideological Labels
Authoritarians in Authoritarianism
But Then It Was Too Late
Then What?
A Sense of Urgency

Partisanship vs Democracy
Obama’s Lack of a Legacy
The Partisan ‘Good’
Moral Failure of Partisanship and the Political Machine
Racial Polarization of Partisans
Of Dreamers and Sleepwalkers
Very Serious, Important Thoughts
Politics On My Mind: March 1-8, 2016
More Metaphors of Madness
American Populism, From Frustration to Hope
Class Divide and Communication Failure

Presidential Candidates and Voter Demographics
Data and More Data
Class Breakdown of the Campaigns
Right-Wing Politics of the Middle Class
The Comfortable Classes Remain Comfortable
Which Candidate Do the Poor Support?
MSMsplaining Poor Whites.
On Rural America: Understanding Is The Problem
It’s Time to End the Myth That Black Voters Don’t Like Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders and Civil Rights
Endless Nonsense of the Misinformed Mind
Note to Cynical Liberals and Useful Idiots
A Generation to End All Generations
Old School Progressivism
On Infrastructure and Injustice
Trump’s Populism, Something For Everyone
It’s All About Timing
“That party could find itself out of power for a generation.”
A Perfect Storm
All is Lost

American Democracy?
Democracy?
Protecting Elections From Democracy
Failed Democracy and the Demand for Justice
We’ve Been Here Before
From Progressivism to Neoconservatism
The Sting of the Scorpion
Investigation Hullabaloo
Democrats, Russians, and Uranium
The Complicity of Mainstream Politics and Media
Corporate Bias of ‘Mainstream’ Media

Happy Birthday, Charter of the Forest!

This is the birthday of an important historical document. Eight hundred years ago on this day, 6 November 1217, the Charter of the Forest was first issued. Along with the closely related Magna Carta (1215), it formally and legally established a precedent in the English-speaking world. It was one of the foundations of the English Commons and gave new standing to the commoner as a citizen. And it was one of the precursors for the Rights of Englishmen, Lockean land rights, and the United States Bill of Rights.

The Charter of the Forest didn’t only mean a defense of the rights of commoners for, in doing so, it was a challenge to the rights of rulers. This was a sign of weakening justification and privileges of monarchy. And such a challenge would feed into emerging republicanism during the Renaissance and Reformation, coming into bloom during the early modern era. This populist tradition helped to incite the Peasants’ Revolt, the English Civil War, and the American Revolution. The rights of the Commons inspired the Levellers to fight for popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance. And it took even more extreme form in the primitive communism of the Diggers.

Such a charter was one of the expressions of what would later develop into liberal and radical thought during the enlightenment age and the early modern revolutions. Democracy, as we know it, would form out of this. Through the American founders and revolutionary pamphleteers, these legacies and ideas would shape the new world that followed. The ideas would remain potent enough to divide the country during the American Civil War.

We should take seriously what it means that these core Anglo-American traditions have been eroded and their ancient origins largely forgotten. It’s a loss of freedom and a loss of identity.

Who owns the earth?
by Antonia Malchik, Adeon

The commons are just what they sound like: land, waterways, forests, air. The natural resources of our planet that make life possible. Societies throughout history have continually relied on varying systems of commons usage that strove to distribute essential resources equitably, like grazing and agricultural land, clean water for drinking and washing, foraged food, and wood for fuel and building. As far back as 555 CE the commons were written into Roman law, which stated outright that certain resources belonged to all, never owned by a few: ‘By the law of nature these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.’

The power of this tradition is difficult to explain but even more difficult to overstate, and its practice echoes throughout Western history. The Magna Carta, agreed to in 1215 by England’s King John at the insistence of his barons, protected those nobles from losing their lands at the whim of whatever sovereign they were serving. It also laid down the right to a trial by one’s peers, among other individual rights, and is the document widely cited as the foundation of modern democracy.

What is less well-known is the Charter of the Forest, which was agreed to two years later by the regent for Henry III, King John having died in 1216. With the Charter, ‘management of common resources moves from the king’s arbitrary rule’, says Carolyn Harris, a Canadian scholar of the Magna Carta, ‘to the common good’. The Charter granted what are called subsistence rights, the right that ‘[e]very free man may henceforth without being prosecuted make in his wood or in land he has in the forest a mill, a preserve, a pond, a marl-pit, a ditch, or arable outside the covert in arable land, on condition that it does not harm any neighbour’. Included was the permission to graze animals and gather the food and fuel that one needed to live.

These rights went over to America intact and informed that country’s founding fathers as they developed their own system of laws, with a greater emphasis on the rights of commoners to own enough land to live independently. (That this land belonged to the native people who already lived there didn’t factor much into their reasoning.) For Thomas Jefferson, according to law professor Eric T Freyfogle in his 2003 book The Land We Share, ‘[t]he right of property chiefly had to do with a man’s ability to acquire land for subsistence living, at little or no cost: It was a right of opportunity, a right to gain land, not a right to hoard it or to resist public demands that owners act responsibly.’

Benjamin Franklin, too, believed that any property not required for subsistence was ‘the property of the public, who by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition’. The point was for an individual or family to gain the means for an independent life, not to grow rich from land ownership or to take the resources of the commons out of the public realm. This idea extended to limiting trespassing laws. Hunting on another’s unenclosed land was perfectly legal, as was – in keeping with the Charter of the Forest – foraging.

The land itself, not just the resources it contained, was part of the commons. Consider the implications of this thinking for our times: if access to the means for self-sustenance were truly the right of all, if both public resources and public land could never be taken away or sold, then how much power could the wealthy, a government, or corporations have over everyday human lives?

The idea of the commons isn’t exclusive to English and American history. In Russia, since at least the 1400s and continuing in various forms until the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, land was managed under the mir system, or ‘joint responsibility’, which ensured that everyone had land and resources enough – including tools – to support themselves and their families. Strips of land were broken up and redistributed every so often to reflect changing family needs. Land belonged to the mir as a whole. It couldn’t be taken away or sold. In Ireland from before the 7th century (when they were first written down) to the 17th, Brehon laws served a similar purpose, with entire septs or clans owning and distributing land until invading English landlords carved up the landscape, stripped its residents of ancestral systems and tenancy rights, and established their estates with suppression and violence. The Scottish historian Andro Linklater examines variations on these collective ownership systems in detail in his 2013 book, Owning the Earth: the adat in Iban, crofting in Scotland, the Maori ways of use in New Zealand, peasant systems in India and China and in several Islamic states, and of course on the North American continent before European invasion and settlement.

But the commons are not relics of dusty history. The Kyrgyz Republic once had a successful system of grazing that benefited both herdsmen and the land. Shattered during Soviet times in favour of intensive production, the grazing commons is slowly being reinstated after passage of a Pasture Law in 2009, replacing a system of private leases with public use rights that revolve around ecological knowledge and are determined by local communities. In Fiji, villages have responded to pressures from overfishing and climate change by adopting an older system of temporary bans on fishing called tabu. An article in the science magazine Nautilus describes the formation of locally managed Marine Protected Areas that use ancient traditions of the commons, and modern scientific understanding, to adapt these communal fishing rights and bans to the changing needs of the ecosystem.

Preservation of the commons has not, then, been completely forgotten. But it has come close. The commons are, essentially, antithetical both to capitalism and to limitless private profit, and have therefore been denigrated and abandoned in many parts of the world for nearly two centuries.