Originally Posted by thismama
I'm not sure what you mean. If a woman provides access to a child for an abuser, she is not the perp. He is still the perp. She still sucks though, big time.
I don't leave my child with men who don't get this issue and whom I don't trust, or with women who minimize the importance of protecting children.
I know a woman who seems to "get this issue", yet would happily tell you that she will be the only one home, and will them invite her boyfriend over if she wants the company. She's not deliberately providing access to a child for an abuser - he may not be an abuser. But, she would feel no hesitation about lying to another mom if that meant the kids would get their sleepover. She has the "my man would never do that" attitude, but she wouldn't tell another mom that...she'd just pretend he wouldn't be there.
So, my point is that putting the men
through an extra screening wouldn't do anything to a protect a child, if the woman involved happened to be of this type. If the boyfriend is an abuser (and she is in the category of single mom of small children, so it's not statistically unlikely that a pervert would target her and her kids), another mom could easily leave their kids with him without even knowing she was doing so...because she trusted the woman. The woman is presumed not to need "extra screening", but that leaves the children wide open to potential abuse.
No - she wouldn't be the perp. I thought the point was to protect the kids from abuse. If so, it doesn't matter who the perp actually is
- it matters whether the child is exposed to said perp...and trusting this particular woman could easily leave a child in that situation.