The Evil World Men Have Created & How do we Fix It?

(Originally posted on the Rasa Von Werder blog)

William Bond speaks:

I’ll try answering your questions. 

 

What is love? 

I looked it up in dictionaries and this was the best I came up with.

 

Love is an emotion involving strong attraction, affection, emotional attachment or concern for a person, animal, or thing. It is expressed in many forms, encompassing a range of strong and positive emotional and mental states, from the most sublime virtue, good habit, deepest interpersonal affection, to the simplest pleasure.

 

How is love employed in time of war

 

Strangely enough there are many instances of love during wars. At the beginning of a war the soldiers on each side are indoctrinated to hate the opposing side, but it doesn’t always work out like that. The most famous example of this is, The Christmas Truce of 1914 in WW1.

 

It was a spontaneous, unofficial ceasefire that occurred along parts of the Western Front during World War I, primarily on Christmas Day, 25 December 1914.  Around 100,000 British and German troops participated in localized truces, with fighting halting from Christmas Eve through Boxing Day in many sectors. 

 

Origins: The truce began on Christmas Eve, when German soldiers sang Stille Nacht (Silent Night) in their trenches.  British troops responded with their own carols, sparking a mood of shared humanity.

Activities: Soldiers from both sides climbed out of their trenches into no man's land to exchange gifts—cigarettes, food, alcohol, and souvenirs like buttons and hats.  They shared stories, played football (soccer) matches, and even held joint burial services for the dead.

 

So even though both sides were taught to hate each other, the love the men for others overcome this hatred. So the generals of each side had to work really hard to end this unofficial truce and get the men back in their trenches, so they could go on fighting and killing each other once again. This demonstrates that in war the men fighting the war are only, “cannon folder”. In many cases the ordinary soldiers had no interest in fighting and killing the “enemy”. War always comes from the rulers of patriarchal countries, and the men blindly follow their orders. 

 

My Dad fought right through WW2 but he never expressed any hatred for the Germans or the Italians whom he fought against. So it is possible for ordinary men to, “love their enemies”. 

 

Did Martin Luther King Jr. employ love in the Civil Rights Movement? How would you describe his love?

 

I think Martin Luther King Jr employed the love black people have for each other so they could unite in love to face the threats of violent racialist white men. They must of known when they had unarmed peaceful protests that some of them would be beaten up and murdered. But they were willing to be martyrs because of the love they had for each other. Martin Luther King, also depended on the love of white people who when seeing peaceful black people being beaten up and murdered, turned against the racists and supported the black people’s cause. 

 

How was Rosa Parks using love when she refused to sit in the back of the bus - was arrested, fined, & she & her husband both lost their jobs. Explain her love.

 

I think Rosa Parks must have had a love and respect for herself, to no longer want be discriminated against. But she must of taken a stand knowing most black women wouldn’t do this. So because she loved her own people she was willing to be persecuted, because she was strong enough to endure it and so helped other black women who weren’t as strong-minded as her. 

 

How was Mahatma Ghandi using love when he taught his countrymen to stand up to the British? 

 

The tactics and strategy of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, were very similar. A lot more Indians were murdered and martyred than what happened in the USA. Probably because the UK was a long way from India and so the British public were less aware of what was going on in India. Ghandi knew that violent protests would turn the British public against his cause but peaceful protests and the brutal reaction to them by the military, gave Ghandi a lot of support in Britain and all over the world. This was only possible because large numbers of Indians were willing to be martyred to give India it’s freedom. While the British public like the USA public, sympathised with the people being beaten up and murdered rather than the persecutors. 

 

We are asking here how does the underdog – the one defenseless, the one pushed down, use love in the lifting up of themselves & getting free from an oppressor?

 

The tactics and strategy of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, was showing up the oppressors to gains the support of the common people. When loving people confront oppressors who beat up and murder peaceful loving people, then the majority of public sympathy always goes to the people willing to be martyred. So it is about mobilizing the people against the oppressors. 

 

 Sure, we all want loving & kind hearted leaders. Sure, we all want to be loved, accepted, tolerated, treated fairly – but how do we get up from the heel of the oppressor pushing us down – the tyrant who has no love, but the desire to use & exploit us at any cost & will even kill us for seeking freedom? How do we use love to get away from this oppressor, turn around & become the kind, benevolent leader?  Can you answer this?

 

To put it in the words of a politician we have over-here called Jeremy Corbyn. “We are the many, they are the few”. In other words we have to invoke the power of the people. The crazy part about patriarchy is that the rulers of patriarchal countries are very few in number. 

 

The billionaire class refers to the extremely wealthy elite—approximately 3,300 individuals globally—who collectively control vast amounts of global wealth, often exceeding $11.8 trillion.  This group is increasingly scrutinized for its influence on politics, economy, and democracy.

 

So we are talking about a very tiny minority of the people, yet they are able to rule and control the governments of Western countries through simple bribery. It’s true patriarchy will use coercion to control the people, but their main form of control is propaganda and indoctrination. Also the rulers, are better organized while the people have no form of organization. 

 

So in the end it’s a propaganda war. So we have to look at the tactics and strategy of Karl Marx. 

 

He emphasized the need to educate the working class by exposing the contradictions of capitalism and revealing the material basis of social relations.  In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels presented a systematic critique of capitalism and a call to action, which functions as both revolutionary agitation and propaganda—aimed at awakening class consciousness and mobilizing the proletariat.

 

And the communists were very successful in doing this. Using these methods they successfully turn large countries like Russia and China into communist countries as well as smaller countries like Vietnam and Cuba. The communist succeeded because they convinced large numbers of ordinary people they would be better off, if they lived in a communist system. And to some degree the communist system has worked. The Soviet Union gave the people free health-care, free housing, free education, guaranteed employment and pensions when people retired. While in China the communist party has lifted millions of Chinese people out of poverty. The problem with communism is that it’s not democratic and how successful it is, depends on who ends up as the leader. So it works well if the leader is an intelligent and caring man, but it can become a nightmare if the leader is an idiot, or cares nothing for the people he rules. 

 

We have to be aware of the weakness of patriarchy. Most patriarchal rulers do not serve the needs their people, we see this in the huge gap between rich and poor. For this reason most people are not loyal to patriarchy but put up with it because they do not see any alternative to it. As some people cynically point out, “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.”

 

The problem is that patriarchal politicians are all liars and no there is no guarantee that anyone the people vote for won’t turn out to be a corrupt, self-serving politician. Only a matriarchal political party empathizing women’s maternal love can give a guarantee they will genuinely care about the people they rule. 

 

Oh yes, & explain what exactly is a ‘dick in skirt’ or ‘dick in frock?’

 

I got this expression from my friend Pamela Suffield. I think she was referring to female politicians like Margaret Thatcher who was called “The Iron Lady” because she tried to act and behave like a macho man. Another example would be Hillary Clinton who made infamous remark on TV about the murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi when she said. "We came, we saw, he died". She might of thought that this remark was, big and clever, but didn’t realize that the destruction of the Muammar Gaddafi government would caused a stable and prosperous country, to become a failed state, now being ruled by brutal warlords. Hillary Clinton was later shocked when she went to Ireland and a Irish crowd shouted at her and told her she was a “war criminal”. I can name many other cases of female politicians behaving like this. 

 

 What does she do, how does she act, & how should she act to be loving? Like if an enemy strikes her country should she say,

 

“No, don’t fight back. We love them. Let them do what they want to do.”

 

I think any future matriarchal government has to be pragmatic. Women leaders have to work from their basic maternal instincts and not from blind idealism. After all, a loving maternal mother looking after her children has to many pragmatic decisions all the time, on what is best for her children. For this reason a mother will always keep her house locked up at night to protect her children. A matriarchal government that allows a patriarchal country to invade and conquer them, is not showing love for their own people. For this reason, like it or not, a matriarchal government cannot disarm and disband it’s military forces. This is because even if every government on the planet become matriarchal and give up their military. But one country remains patriarchal and retains it’s military force. Then it would be too easy for that patriarchal country to use it’s military the conquer the whole word and re-impose patriarchy onto the world once again. 

 

I also think any matriarchal government has to be aware of the economic theories of both Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. The reason for this is in the case of Margaret Bondfield. -

 

Margaret Bondfield was the first female government minister in the United Kingdom, appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour in January 1924 under Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald.  She later became the first woman to serve in the Cabinet when she was appointed Minister of Labour in 1929, a role that also made her the first female Privy Counsellor in British history.

 

She gained political power by standing up for the working class and showing she was a caring woman, but as government minister she was a disappointment as she behaved like any other male politician. The reason is that she was bamboozled by her “advisors” that the government had no money and for that reason she couldn’t go ahead with all her policies to help the people. But had she known about the economic theories of either Marx or Keynes or had some idea about how the banking system works. She would have known the advice that was given to her was a complete pack of lies. (This wasn’t a mistake the labour government made after the war. In spite of the fact Britain was bankrupted by the war. They still went ahead with nationalizing major industries, creating the NHS and the welfare state.)

 

Patriarchy may have first gained power though violence and conquest, but has since retained its power through lies, manipulation, propaganda and indoctrination. So we have to challenge these lies and expose patriarchy for what it is and give the people a credible alternative to patriarchy.   William

 

Pete pipes in:

Well said overall, William.  Thank you for sharing your insights. 

Indeed, in a nutshell, I will note that we must remember leading from a position of love does NOT rule out "tough love" or even "cruel to be kind, in the right measure" (as Shakespeare would say) as well.  But it DOES rule out *gratuitous* cruelty/violence and stooping down to the level of the evil enemy and becoming evil oneself.  This is a very, very important nuance!   Pete

 

From William:

Agreed Pete, if a person has a genuine love for others then they don't need ideology, laws or scripture to guide them. Their love and caring for others, will always guide them to do the right thing. 

William

 

Rasa says: Where are they hiding?

 

                   From Rasa:      

I have many more questions & they go into details of how does one apply love, say in domestic hard situations - with bad men in the house? American men are more violent than other 'Westerners' - they are dangerous. How do we apply love with abusers?

        It gets difficut to apply love in a world that has none. Where do we start? Politically, there is no love nation to nation - their words are all a farce. "Brothers'" "Peace"" - all lies. A woman enters their world, what does she do? How does she apply love in a demonic Patriarchy?

    And what about my Community - Village - Order? How will I ensure, in this blueprint, that we follow love & how do we manage these men, some of whom are dangerous {& it only takes one} but we don't want to put the kabosh on all of them, but protect ourselves from the bad ones.

    And btw, there IS no world organization working to empower women toward Matriarchy - none in the entire world. Once again, like with so many things, I am the first. Don't know how far I'll get but will do the best I can.

    Your answers were terrific William, thank you. Maybe one question.  A woman has 3 children, small, no family of her own for support - she thought she had a decent husband - he pays the bills - but he's become abusive to her & the children - really bad - to the point their lives are threatened. How does she apply love here? It's a microcosm of a nation. Nations get abused. How do they deal with it? How do they escape?   Rasa

 

From Pete:

          One thought I just had about why American men are so much more violent than other Western men.  One possible culprit is the fact that America is the "land of 300 million guns", which makes already dangerous individuals MORE dangerous, since guns are a more easy and "frictionless" way to kill and injure people. But even that doesn't explain all of it. My theory?  CIRCUMCISION!  It is relatively rare in almost any other Western country (and it's something America has in common with Middle Eastern countries that so many Americans claim to dislike).  That early trauma likely makes boys grow up to be more violent than they otherwise would be, and indeed the proof is in the pudding.  Fortunately, this barbaric practice it is becoming far less common with each new generation of Americans, dropping from nearly universal (80-90% of Baby Boomer males)  to just under half of newborn boys per the latest statistics.    Pete

 

Rasa speaks up:

YES INDEED CIRCUMCISION IS A MONSTROUS BARBARIC PRATICE WHICH IS MUTILATION OF A CHILD & SHOULD BE OUTLAWED.  THOUSANDS OF NERVE ENDINGS ARE TAKEN OFF WITH THE FORESKIN, MAKING SEX LESS  PLEASURABLE.  THIS PRACTICE IS TRULY DEMONIC - & THE BABY IS GIVEN NO PAIN KILLER!  TORTURE!

 

From William Bond:

Hi Rasa.  To answer your question.

 

Rasa asks:  A woman has 3 children, small, no family of her own for support - she thought she had a decent husband -  he pays the bills - but he's become abusive to her & the children - really bad - to the point their lives are threatened. How does she apply love here? It's a microcosm of a nation. Nations get abused. How do they deal with it? How do they escape?

 

William says:  Love works best on the collective level but not so well individually. An example of this is the bonobo ape. The females rule through sisterhood, so female bonobos are powerful because all bonobo females love and support each other. But put bonobos in a zoo and then put two bonobo apes, male and female, together in a cage, then all the advantages of being a female bonobo ape disappears. Simply because if the male uses his greater size and strength to abuse the female there is nothing she can do. Because being locked in a cage she cannot call on the help of her sisters. The only thing she can do is have sex with the male and hope that will quiet him down and limit the abuse, but it still means he has the advantage of this greater size and strength. 

 

This is what has happened in human society. Patriarchy was created by men for the benefit of men. So they deliberately created marriage so men and women are alone together and a husband can use his greater size and strength to dominate his wife. So marriage has become a cage for women. It’s a bit like going to a casino, all the games there are rigged to favour the casino. And if some clever gambler find ways to beat odds, then the casino simply changes the rules of the game, to favour itself. So the problem is that men rule our world and they create laws and customs that favour male dominance. 

 

Yes, wives can use love and sex to quieten her husband down and even teach him how to love, So some men can be pacified or even dominated by love and sex, but that doesn’t always work. And because the game is rigged to favour male dominance. The man who is not influenced by love or sex, is still able to abuse and dominate his wife. 

 

          Rasa relates:  Indeed, I’ve been preaching this since 2004 in my first Internet-available book “Can Female Power Save the Planet?” I said it again & again, ‘the nuclear family is the hotbed of abuse. It is designed to separate the woman from her female relatives & sisters & gives the man a free-for-all toward her & the kids.She is on her own & God help her when trouble starts – a married female is not allowed to have single women friends! Since female are not invited to hob nob with married couples because it empowers the wife! But single males, conversely, are welcome. Why? It empowers the man…..

I might add that women are sisterly until the time when they pair off – after they finish school - & once they take on a male partner sisterhood diminishes or ends entirely. She is now owned by her Massah who calls the shots & as I just explained, he & Patriarchy don’t allow her single female friends. Married female friends are tolerated because they are presumably OWNED by a male also, lol, less risk of empowering the wife when she’s a slave herself.  Rasa

 

William continues:  This ties into what Pete said about circumcision. Patriarchy not only abuses women but men and boys as well. They claim the reason they do this, is to make men tough. If a boy is abused as a child he learns how to hate the world and becomes an abuser himself. So when he grows up he is more resistant to love and women find it nearly impossible to tame him through love and sex. So abusing boys and men is another method patriarchy uses to keep male dominance going. As it makes them resistant to love. 

 

          Rasa says: How true. A school master said to give him a boy at a young age & he can train him how to be for the rest f his life. “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” I have notied  that most of those who became Saints in the Catholic Church came from pious families who respected God, were devoted to God & even prayed together as a family every night. They went to Church & received the sacraments.  But abuse a child & they might become hard-hearted – even turn to criminals. I know a lady personally who has blocked God because she was abused by an alcoholic Dad & no one helped – she blames God. I tried to persuade her to allow God into her heart but she said, “It hurts too much.”   Rasa

 

William continues:  Abusing girls and women also has a similar effect. If girls and women can also be taught how to hate, then as women they are unable to influence men by teaching them how to love. Patriarchy thrives on conflict, fear, hatred and violence. While matriarchy thrives on love and unity. The weakness of patriarchy is that people, both men and women don’t want to live in a world of hatred, fear and conflict. Both sexes would far prefer to live in a loving world of unity and compassion. But patriarchy tells us that a loving world like this is impossible. But it’s only impossible while we still live in a patriarchal society. We can live in a loving world if we allow loving women to rule our world.   William

 

          Rasa’s response:  Women don’t hate everyone but they have a tendency, in a certain way, to hate themselves & they certainy do not love their sister. They love men – you said so yourself - & they should stop pampering them & teach men to love {which is almost impossible, as this has to start in infancy.} Under the influence of men, who are the dominant factor in our society boys learn from them how to be. If there’s a man in the house he supposedly teaches his son ‘how to be a man.’ This can result in teaching not love, but toxic masculinity: be hard, not soft. Revenge, retaliation, not forgiveness. Learn to kill animals {in rural/farm setting or as hunters ‘for pleasure’} – later kill men. They teach them all that is against the truly great male teachers – Buddah & Jesus, {a reincarnated Buddhist Guru} – who pray for ‘all sentient beings.’

Males pass down from generation to generation NOT to care about others – they teach the demonic.  Rasa

 

Pete appears:

Excellent response, William!  Very well said overall.  Thank you for sharing your insights.

 

Indeed, as history has shown, "collective security" works FAR better than "peace through appeasement", while the latter tends to backfire.  Bonobos understand this quite well.  They have a powerful sisterhood where they all have each other's backs, and have absolutely ZERO tolerance for male-on-female violence of any kind.  Unfortunately, under patriarchy, human Women have been historically divided against one another, making true sisterhood much more difficult to achieve.  And from slut-shaming to victim-blaming, or even simply putting the ONUS on Women not to "get themselves victimized" by men (rather than on men, where it belongs), ironically the biggest "enforcers" of this illiberal regime are actually other Women against each other, while the men in charge just sit back and laugh at them, and carry one with their atrocities.  That is of course NOT a sisterhood, that is a CARTEL that serves only to prop up the "glided cage" of patriarchy, benefiting some Women at the expense of others, to the detriment of Women as a class.  That is gradually changing, of course, but at very glacial pace.  And the "sexual revolution" remains half-finished at best.

 

Much like the eagle in the Great Seal of the United States, bonobo females wield both a proverbial olive branch in one hand AND arrows in the other, as it's NOT either-or.

 

And indeed, both circumcision as well as child abuse in general, do tend to make boys become more resistant to love, and eventually hate and violence becomes the only language they understand.  It mutilates their psyches even more so than it mutilates their bodies.  And when done to girls, that also has a similar effect, and further "normalizes" in their minds them being on the receiving end of such horrible behavior from males.  For both, it can even have an addiction-like effect as well.  So of course, the demonic patriarchy absolutely luuurrrrves all of that, as these pernicious effects are seen as FEATURES rather than bugs.  Pete

 

          Rasa’s response: Women are prisoners of the gender war & it behooves them to try to escape even if there are great risks involved. If they do not try, the Patriarchy perpetuates every generation. They must fight for the future generations of women so they can do what has to be done: empower women to be leaders, disempower men to stop their atrocities.  Rasa

 

William says:

Yeah, the feminists were on the right track when they used the slogan, "the sisterhood is powerful", but then they gave up on it.

Child abuse does not seem to be as bad as it used to be.

 

Pete continues:

A couple more things I will add about bonobos:

 

1) In bonobo society, it is GAUCHE for males to make the first move when it comes to sexual activity with females.  It is understood that females make the first move, and also "whoever has the yoni makes the rules" as well.  And after the emergence of affirmative consent laws and especially after the MeToo movement, we are beginning to see such a tendency developing for humans as well, with men less likely to want to make the first move (for obvious reasons), at least in the Anglosphere.  Some Women are apparently a bit dismayed by this development, likely feeling that it puts a burden of yet more "emotional labor" onto Women, but "them's the breaks" as all things considered, it is certainly a LOT safer for Women (and men too!) all the same.

 

2) While there is absolutely ZERO tolerance for male-on-female violence in bonobo society, some degree of male-on-male violence (mainly among adolescent juveniles) is tolerated and sometimes even encouraged by the females in charge. That, within LIMITS of course, most likely serves as a sort of "pressure-release valve" to prevent a "powder keg" from developing.  They do fight, but do NOT seem to murder or torture each other.  Which ironically, before the advent of current zero-tolerance, one-strike-and-you're-expelled policies regarding mild schoolyard fisticuffs, used to be the norm for adolescent humans as well.  So what we have now is a "powder keg" of less fisticuffs, but unfortunately more mass shootings. 

 

3) Female-on-male violence, which is apparently tolerated, unfortunately DOES seem to be somewhat of an issue for bonobos.  While such violence it is usually defensive, alas it isn't always.  Anecdotal observations do unfortunately exist of such unprovoked attacks, sometimes even serious ones too.  However, the exact prevalence of unprovoked female-on-male violence among bonobos remains unknown, and is most likely exaggerated by those with an obvious axe to grind, and not nearly has high as they claim it to be.

 

4) One thing that is notably absent from bonobo society is any sort of punishment or sanctions for females who somehow "put themselves in harm's way" in regards to males. The onus is thus entirely on the males, NOT the females.  The other females have their backs regardless.  That is a true sisterhood!   In contrast, for most of recorded history under patriarchy, from the Old Testament to Emperor Constantine to the Puritans and beyond, Women who were raped or otherwise victimized by men were also punished as well, sometimes even more harshly than the males. (I like to call such a phenomenon "Constantine Syndrome".)  Nowadays that is far less likely in the West at least (though still common in some more patriarchal parts of the world), though some degree of victim-blaming and shaming still unfortunately exists even to this day.  And that utterly toxic and counterproductive phenomenon really needs to end yesterday!

 

          And yes, you are very likely correct about that, William.  Child abuse is still a serious problem, of course, but the best statistics show that is indeed significantly less than it was decades ago.  Even if that is a pitifully low bar to clear.

 

Rasa checks the internet:

          Substantiated cases of child sexual and physical abuse—crimes predominantly committed by men—have significantly decreased in the United States and other high-income countries since the early 1990s, with studies showing declines of 30% to over 50%. While physical and sexual abuse rates dropped, reports of emotional or psychological abuse have risen, and neglect cases have shown less reduction. 

Key trends and findings from the last 30 years:

·                                 Significant Declines: Child sexual abuse cases dropped by 53% to 62% between 1990 and the late 2000s. Physical abuse, often involving male perpetrators, also decreased by over 50% during this period.

·                                 Long-Term Trend: The decline in sexual abuse has been consistent across most U.S. states, with many reporting decreases of over 30% in the 1990s alone.

·                                 Reasons for Decrease: Potential factors contributing to these declines include increased prevention programs, better child protection efforts, economic improvements, and potentially, greater awareness and reporting of abuse leading to earlier intervention.

·                                 Limitations: Despite these declines, some studies note that while official reports are down, this does not necessarily mean the total incidence of abuse has dropped by the same amount, as underreporting and differing definitions of abuse make tracking difficult. 

While the overall trend for physical and sexual abuse by men shows a decrease, it is important to note that these forms of abuse still occur frequently, but at a lower rate than in the early 1990s.

 

Rasa says:

                   Years ago I saw a study by the military – from personnel filing out questionnaires & the statistics said female 49% sexually abused as kids, & boys 25%. I suspect it’s higher because not everyone wants to admit these horribe crimes, & some even have amnesia regarding them.

          So that’s your pitifully low bar to clear. And then again, men have become more clever to HIDE their activities so they don’t get reported - & are they murdering children after abusing them, moreso than before, so they can’t tell?

 

Just as I thought – Since 2013 murder of children by men has INCREASED.  How many of these murders were preceded by sexual abuse?  After reading the following items it proves that child murderers were sex offenders before the murder {From Internet:}

 

Based on data from the last 30 years (roughly 1994–2024), the murder of children by men in the United States has shown complex trends, with significant declines in the 1990s and 2000s, followed by a notable increase starting around 2013. 

While overall violent crime dropped during the 1990s, pediatric homicide rates began rising again consistently after 2013, with a sharp increase observed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2020). 

Here is a detailed breakdown of the trends:

·                                 Long-Term Trends (1990s–2010s): Following a peak in the early 1990s, the number of youth homicide victims fell by 37% by 2020.

·                                 Recent Trends (2013–Present): Pediatric homicides (victims under 18) have risen consistently since 2013, with a 27.7% spike between 2019 and 2020 alone.

·                                 Perpetrator Gender: Males are overwhelmingly the primary perpetrators of pediatric homicide across all age groups, responsible for over 90% of adolescent homicides and roughly 65–75% of infant/child homicides.

·                                 Perpetrator Profile: For children under 5, the most common killers are male family members (36.5%), followed by female family members (26.9%).

·                                 Increase in Firearm Use: A key factor in the increase of child murders is the rising use of firearms, which has significantly increased since 2006–2010. Firearms surpassed motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. in 2020.

·                                 Filicide (Parent killing child): The annual number of children killed by parents has remained relatively stable at around 500 cases per year over the last three decades, meaning it did not decrease in proportion to population growth. 

Key Findings on Demographic Risk:

·                                 Age Matters: For infants and toddlers (0–4), the percentage of homicides committed by males increased over time, from 61.1% in 1976–1980 to 65.3% in 2016–2020.

·                                 Race Disparities: Black children are disproportionately affected, experiencing higher homicide rates, with firearms used in 20.8% of Black infant/toddler homicides, compared to 10.2% for White counterparts (2016–2020). 

Note: The statistics primarily refer to U.S. data, which is often used in global longitudinal studies of this nature.

 

{Rasa tried to discover how many of child-murdering men first abused the child sexually, but this was the best she could find.  It des nt answer her question exactly.  Internet:}

 

Based on analyses of child homicide and abuse data from the last 30 years, sexual abuse is not the primary cause of death in most cases of children killed by men, though it is a significant factor in specific, rare subsets of these crimes.

·                                 Overall Context: While sexual abuse is a frequent, often unreported form of child maltreatment, it is not the leading cause of child fatality. Child fatalities are most commonly caused by neglect (over 70%) or physical abuse.

·                                 Sexual Homicide Rates: Research indicates that sexual homicide (which involves a sexual crime contemporaneous to the homicide) accounts for approximately 1% to 4% of all recorded homicides.

·                                 Perpetrator Profile: Data on child sexual homicide offenders (SHOs) shows that these offenders are overwhelmingly male (95%).

·                                 Prior Victimization: Among child sexual homicide offenders (SHOs), studies show they are more likely to have committed acts of sexual child abuse before the sexual homicide (46% vs. 16% in non-homicidal cases).

·                                 Relationship to Victim: In cases where children were killed by men, the perpetrator was often a parent or known caregiver (80% of child fatalities involve at least one parent). 

In summary, while sexual abuse is a tragic aspect of some child homicides, the vast majority of children killed by men in the last 30 years die from other forms of physical abuse or neglect, rather than homicide preceded by sexual abuse. Sexual homicide of children remains a rare, albeit high-profile, phenomenon. 

Pete adds:

Excellent answers, Rasa. 

Indeed, while overall long-term trends in child abuse are positive (i.e. decreasing), they are also nonlinear and complex, and there is clearly still a LONG way to go before the numbers are anywhere low enough to be worthy of a civilized society. And I will add that the more recent regress since 2013 and especially 2019 after decades of progress seems to coincide with two things: 1) the opioid crisis, which had a number of obviously negative effects, and a fortiori 2) the plandemic and especially the lockdowns, which acted as gasoline on the fire and made the "gilded cage" of the patriarchal nuclear family even worse. And as renowned sociologist and youth-rights activist Mike Males has noted, the fact that the much-hyped "mental health crisis" among young people really took off since around 2013 when depression and anxiety and suicide increased after being at relatively low-ebb for a while, that the talking heads luuurrrve to glibly blame on smartphones and social media, should be much more accurately blamed on the still-rampant abuse of various kinds by the so-called "adults" around them, along with (and often fueled by) the rampant substance abuse by such adults as well. And we know from the statistics that, while men don't entirely have the market cornered on that, they still do account for the lion's share of such abuse overall.

That's basically all I have to say about this topic for now.  Thank you 😊