Why wasn't there as much outrage about the rate of child sexual abuse? Credit:Stocksy Instead, the backlash was in response to Edwards' acknowledgment that men are the most likely perpetrators, and the resulting decision she and her husband made to not have men care for their children without a woman present. Cue articles and endless anger about how hurtful and offensive this is for men. Followed by strawman arguments about Edwards' husband caring for their children without supervision, despite her article clearly stating this was a decision they reached together. Likewise, suggestions that her children would miss out on male role models and have a warped view of men. (Edwards clarified on The Project this week that her daughter has a wonderful male teacher). Writer Amy Gray, who skilfully moderated a long and mostly respectful debate on this topic, said, "The uproar over this article hasn't been about how to combat rape culture, community enablement, lack of law or police reform, or suitable therapy or support for victims. The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do. The uproar should be tackling the overwhelming male presence in sexual assault of children.

"I want men to examine their role in this culture," she added. "I want them to actively combat it and question men who refuse to participate in that." The real difficulty with Edwards' article was that she outlined a single approach to preventing child abuse in her own family. But if we are talking about preventing child abuse at a community level then we need to talk about a community-wide response. Which comes back to the perpetrators. Again, they are mostly men, and yet men are so rarely part of the discussion about prevention, other than to object to the facts being discussed. Why is it that men are so much more likely to commit violence and abuse? What happened to those men, where did they learn this behaviour? How can they change? Of all the people who have told me how ridiculous and offensive I've been, not one of them has come up with a feasible alternative to keep children safe Kasey Edwards

Exploring this, without defensiveness and with a genuine desire to find solutions, is the most valuable way men can participate in protecting children. It's disturbing that many men are so aggressively unwilling to do this, leaving the burden of finding solutions to everyone else. This is why mothers are so often vilified when they do something as simple as wait outside while their children go to the toilet, and conversely, vilified again if they acknowledge the facts of child abuse and act to protect their children from possible perpetrators. It's not surprising given how fraught it can be to navigate the issue that parents like Kasey Edwards and her husband look for solutions that don't depend on community-wide protection. Their choice is not right for everyone – indeed for some, it's very much the wrong choice. But for them, it's the best way to keep their children safe. And given the deep, lifelong trauma caused by child abuse, it is both justifiable and understandable. Their solution, however, only works for their circumstances. It relies on them always having options for childcare that fit within their parameters, which is not readily available to many parents. It also assumes that they, their family, and their children's friends are always in partnered, heterosexual relationships. In the Edwards' policy, children of single fathers, or in families that do not include people who identify as women, already suffering exclusion and stigma, are excluded even further.

Even for families who do have the option to have women always present, it places an extra burden on those women, who are already taking on the majority of (unpaid) emotional and domestic caring labour. This is particularly difficult in the context of the systemic economic disadvantage women suffer, which requires men to take on an equal share of parenting. It's a quandary that can't be solved by making women the "abuse police". Men have to take responsibility for prevention and commit to unambiguous action on the causes and realities of abuse. While there are undeniable problems with the Edwards' choice, the outraged criticisms of it are equally problematic, and frankly blind to the realities of how abuse occurs and its effect on victims. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a paper this week describing the grooming practices of abusers. Grooming is not something abusers only do to victims. They also deliberately create relationships with parents and caregivers that involves trust, friendship and dependence. And they make sure their victims know about it. As feminist writer Cecilia Winterfox told Fairfax Media, "Every time we say, 'but my male friends are so lovely' we make it harder for victims to speak out. It reinforces and demonstrates clearly to them the reflexive disbelief they will almost certainly face. It's a kind of cultural gaslighting to victims, and a signal of protection to abusers". The royal commission paper was specifically about institutional responses to child abuse, so the recommendations were focused on cultural change to identifying and reporting grooming techniques. Which may work in well-monitored organisations, but it's not something any individual parent can enforce in their social group.