Women abuse children more then men!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women abuse children more then men!

Women abuse children more then men!
fpmax
Visitor
fpmax
You hear a lot of arguments form women posting herein about bad fathers and what not. The truth of the fact, most all child abuse is committed by women. Society only talks about the abuse men give to women, however that is not always clear nor true, domestic abuse between spouses is almost even, women commit just about the same amount of abuse towards their partner’s. The real figures show that women commit approximately about 45% of the spousal abuse. No one ever mentions the flip side of abuse and the treatment some men receive from their spouse.
Now when it comes to child abuse, guess what, women take the whole cake for most of the abuse children receive. Most children murdered by a parent, are in fact murdered by their mothers. Child abuse has always been a huge problem and no one ever addresses this issue. Many call it the pecking order; women take out the fury on their offspring because they are bigger. If society and media would publish both sides off all stories, you would clearly see that women are no saints, victims and what not they claim to be as they cry foul all the time.
The only difference is that women are not held accountable for their actions. This is why men are getting fed up of the system and frankly no longer care about what women have to say anymore. You can cry wolf all the time, but it no longer holds any truth behind the words spoken from any woman. You do not hold more intelligence, just the education system is geared all towards educating girls and not boys. In essence the new age male has to educate himself these days because all our taxes now go for female oriented needs.

09-03-2006 11:43 AM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

A disproportionate amount of women care for children. On a proportionate basis, women do not abuse children more. This is old news.

09-03-2006 11:45 AM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

You’re probably correct about women being no worse than men proportionately. But I think the point being made here is that the media and women’s groups always claim that child abuse is solely a problem of male behaviour, rather than acknowledging that females are equally to blame. It’s not that women are the only ones doing this: it’s more that it’s not just men, and feminists tend to sweep this under the rug, just as they do the statistics about women abusing their husbands.
But this points to the general tendency, often expressed by the men writing here, for women to always look for a scapaegoat to blame for their own behaviour, of an inability on their part to be responsible for themselves. I think this may be because in contrast to men, who are socialized to “be a man” and do the “honourable thing” by taking responsibity, women seem to grow up being allowed to argue their way out of any situation. While men in marriages try to be reasonable with their wives, their wives will do or say anything not to accept any blame. I don;’t think that this is intentional on their part- I don’t think they even realize that they’re doing it.
Part of this may be the desire of women to look perfect in order not to be publicly shamed. Perhaps women feel that unless they’re perfect, no one will  love them. If so, this is very sad, but something women are going to have to deal with if they’re ever going to become full adults. But many men see this as one of the biggest problems with feminism: it has evolved into being a mechanism through which women can blame men for everything wrong with women, and rationalize it as part of their “liberation”.

09-03-2006 11:55 AM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
yohan
Contributor
yohan

DontMarryNoer:
A disproportionate amount of women care for children. On a proportionate basis, women do not abuse children more. This is old news.

—————-

For sure, US Career women do not abuse children. Either they do not have children, or they push their children away into the arms of a Latina or filipina nanny.

We should be fair and we cannot call this situation an abuse, but we also cannot call it ‘a good mother of this child’.

A foreign nanny should not be used to replace the mother, who has nothing in mind but her career and to earn for herself as much money as possible.

09-03-2006 12:20 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
aldarris
Contributor
aldarris

A disproportionate amount of women care for children. On a proportionate basis, women do not abuse children more. This is old news.

Joannah Smith, which somehow cares for some children, somehow compensates for Jessica Brown, which, not somehow, but in a rather specific and well-defined even in the legal system ways abuses specific children.

Brilliant, just brilliant. With such vague definitions one can ignore any problem and all problems. And still consider oneself to act right.

Guess what — evil things can not be compensated. They can only be prevented…. or repaired, if at all possible.

09-03-2006 01:01 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
The facts about women and Child Abuse:

Family Violence in America
The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
May 2006

http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FamilyViolencePressRelease

“…The vast majority of these “families” are in fact single mothers, and even critics of the child wel-fare system are often doctrinaire advocates for the rights of such mothers to raise children without fathers.130 This may be another instance where impre-cise language, driven by political ideology, obfuscates the picture and limits the terms of debate and range of options. If we step back, we wil find that in most cases family dissolution and the progression toward an abusive environ-ment for children have already begun a stage earlier with the separation from their father. This would also account for the corelation between low-income homes and involvement with the child protection system. This is largely Children in sin-
gle-parent… ignored even by previous critics of child protective services…The importance in understanding the causes of child abuse is that it is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of single-parent homes. Figures from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and others confirm that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in intact two-parent homes.131

Others have suggested that the HHS study may seriously undereport this diference.132 An independent British study more strikingly found that children are up to 33 times more likely to sufer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a single mother than in an intact maried family.13

Here we return, as with domestic violence, to the central role of the
father. For in practical terms what these figures efectively demonstrate, shorn of ideological euphemism, is that the presence of the second parent, usualy the father, constitutes the principal impediment to abuse. “Although, “The presence of the Father…
as a literary theme, the ‘good father’ protecting his children from the bad” placed the child at lesser risk for (the) mother’ is almost unheard of (so idealized has mothering become),” writes child sexual
abuse.” feminist Adrienne Burgess, who heads Britain’s Fathers Direct program, “in real life fathers have often played the protector role inside families.”134 This is confirmed by academic research, however diffident scholars have become about stating it clearly. “The presence of the father…placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse,” concludes one of the few studies wiling to state

this undisputed fact explicitly. “The protective efect from the father’s presence in most households was suficiently strong to ofset the risk incured (p.47) by the few paternal perpetrators.”135

In fact, the risk of “paternal perpetrators” appears to be minimal. Con-trary to the innuendo, if not the explicit claims, of both domestic violence and child abuse activists, it is not fathers but mothers – especialy single mothers – It is not fathers who are the most likely to injure and kil their children. HHS data consistently
… show that women are much more likely than men to be perpetrators of child (abuse)

mothers— who are likely to maltreatment: “almost two-thirds were females,” the 1996 report states, and injure or kill their
children. Subsequent studies contain similar findings.136

Given that “male” perpetrators are not necessarily fathers but more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as the least likely child abusers.137 “Contrary to public percep-tion,” write Patrick **bleep**an and Dorothy Hanks, “research shows that the most
likely physical abuser of a young child wil be that child’s mother, not a male as the least likely child abusers. in the household.”138

Maggie Galagher sums up the reality: “The person most likely to abuse a child physicaly is a single mother. The person most likely to abuse a child sexualy is the mother’s boyfriend or second hus-band.”139

Women accounted for 78% of child murders according to HHS.140… (p. 48)…

Here again feminist ideology plays a role, since feminists regularly ex-cuse mothers who abuse their children. Reports of mothers (again, usually single mothers) murdering their children are now so common that there is no need to multiply examples; sensational media stories – Andrea Yates, Marie Noe, Latrina Pixley, Susan Smith – are only the tip of the iceberg. Mothers often receive notoriously light punishments for injuring or kiling their children.

“Even child killers can get sympathy if they can claim victimization by a male,” writes Cathy Young, who quotes one feminist activist as saying, “When a woman [is] so alone that she wants to kil herself and her children, it’s not her fault.”149 With child abuse, a destructive double standard appears to be endangering children. According to Patricia Pearson “most women aren’t incarcerated for infanticide (Baskerville, Family Violence in America P.51).”

Just in case you wanted a collaborating source:

OPEN FORUM
Sharing the blame for child abuse
Keith Thompson
Wednesday, August 28, 2002

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/28/ED94547.DTL

“…empirical data from numerous studies decisively challenges the notion that child abuse in America is exclusively — or even primarily — a men’s problem. “Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States, a greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse, an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults,” writes feminist author and crime journalist Patricia Pearson in her book “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. ”
A study by the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System found that approximately 879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment in 2000. Based on reports provided by U.S. child protective services agencies, 60 percent of perpetrators were females and 40 percent were males. The Department of Health and Human Services reached a similar conclusion for the prior year: “Female parents were identified as the perpetrators of neglect and physical abuse for the highest percentage of child victims.”
Powerful cultural prejudice works against recognizing abusive women as a widespread malaise. For instance, a Washington state human services professional reported that an accused female offender was brought before a judge who dismissed the case, declaring, “Women don’t do things like this.” Boston psychologist Laurie Goldman, who analyzed how society minimizes the scale and impact of female sexual abuse, initially located only one woman offender willing to discuss what she had done. Goldman knew from reliable sources that female perpetrators were getting treatment, but clinic administrators insisted that no such women were under their care….”

Please refute these studies, if you can.

Have a good holiday.

09-03-2006 01:39 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

You’re probably correct about women being no worse than men proportionately. But I think the point being made here is that the media and women’s groups always claim that child abuse is solely a problem of male behaviour, rather than acknowledging that females are equally to blame. It’s not that women are the only ones doing this: it’s more that it’s not just men, and feminists tend to sweep this under the rug, just as they do the statistics about women abusing their husbands.

Because until relatively recently, the voices of women and children were not taken seriously or were silenced. And on a proportionate level, yes, men do abuse children more than women. Even now, women in a household where a man abuses a child is considered an “abuser” because that is considered “neglect”. That isn’t applied when the situations are reversed.

Women/feminists/whomever are not sweeping anything under the rug; they were just the first ones to acknowledge that such things exist. People can’t expect women to be quiet about what we and children experience and not bring attention to it simply because men didn’t bother to do so with their own issues. Nor should feminists be expected to do everything for men when they look around and see that their fathers and grandfathers were too caught up in the macho thing to consider change and flexibility would make things easier.. Also, when bring up statistics about abuse against husbands, be sure they are contextual. That goes both ways.

But this points to the general tendency, often expressed by the men writing here, for women to always look for a scapaegoat to blame for their own behaviour, of an inability on their part to be responsible for themselves.

I’m not understanding what you’re saying: not being responsible for themselves when men abuse them? Well, often it is hard when you fear an abuser will come after you or you have no place to go because he has more money.

As for what the guys say here? There is no real consensus. It ranges from blaming feminists for censoring the article and essentially telling people criticism is censorship, to complaining that men have to play child-support after women get primary custody when they have been the primary care-givers all along, to saying women are responsible for all divorce except when men leave and when they do that is the woman’s fault to, to a woman’s place is in the kitchen and leaving it is responsible for all the ills in society, to you should be more like traditional women from impoverished nations, to obscure posts about things Thai women say.

It seems there is a lot of men laying the blame for their problems at the feet of women (just like Noer’s article) and then wanting to take credit for the good things that happen to them.

I think this may be because in contrast to men, who are socialized to “be a man” and do the “honourable thing” by taking responsibity, women seem to grow up being allowed to argue their way out of any situation. While men in marriages try to be reasonable with their wives, their wives will do or say anything not to accept any blame. I don;’t think that this is intentional on their part- I don’t think they even realize that they’re doing it

The problem with that generalization? 50 women can come in here and tell you it is the exact opposite in their life. This is why nothing is getting done in this forum and weird, off-topic issues come up.

But many men see this as one of the biggest problems with feminism: it has evolved into being a mechanism through which women can blame men for everything wrong with women, and rationalize it as part of their “liberation”.

I really don’t know to what you are referring to. All I know is, ironically, Noer’s article seemed to lay everything wrong at the feet of women in the marriage.

For sure, US Career women do not abuse children. Either they do not have children, or they push their children away into the arms of a Latina or filipina nanny. A foreign nanny should not be used to replace the mother, who has nothing in mind but her career and to earn for herself as much money as possible.

At least have the courtesy to distinguish people from the lower part of the American continent. Also, I think you pulled that right out of your butt. Career women often juggle children and work. My boyfriend’s mother, for example? Both she and her husband work. But she does most of the care for her two younger sons when she gets home, does the PTA thing, cuts their hair, does their laundry, etc. A nanny would actually be nice for both her and the children – foreign or not. But the father contributing more would be nicer. Funny, you don’t mention fathers who put the child work off on their wives. You only want to punish the mother for wanting a career. Then, when they get divorced, they complain they have to pay child support as she was the primary care-giver.

ETA- Refute them? Simple. That is merely a press-release from a tank that is undistributed. People have to remember association is association but coorelation does not show causation. When you break down all the factors, other things can be contributing to ill effects which measn it isn’t being with a sinle mother perse but, perhaps, if the man was abusive and then left and that is what the child saw. For example. Or they don’t have enough money.

Myth — Children are at greater risk of physical abuse in single mother households than in single father households.

Fact:
Children are at greatest risk of physical abuse in a household with a biological parent who is cohabitating with a paramour. However, “[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.”

Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information P.O.Box1182 Washington, DC 20013-1182 Telephone: (703) 385-7565, (800) FYI-3366 FAX: (703) 385-3206; http://www.mhsource.com/hy/cabuse.html

Fact:
“[T]here does not appear to be a significant difference in quality of parenting between divorced mothers and mothers in intact homes, when controlling for income.

Rosenthal, D., Leigh, G. K., & Elardo, R. (1985). Home environment of three to six year old children from father-absent and two-parent families. Journal of Divorce, 9 (2), 41-48.

Colletta, N. D. (1979). The impact of divorce: Father absence or poverty? Journal of Divorce, 3(1), 27-35.

Fact: “[S]ingle mothers have higher poverty rates than other families and …a substantial portion of their poverty is a consequence of marital disruption.”

McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and politics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 (3), 557-580.

Fact: “A new multiethnic study at Cornell University has found that being a single parent does not appear to have a negative effect on the behavior or educational performance of a mother’s 12- and 13-year-old children What mattered most in this study, Cornell researcher Henry Ricciuti says, is a mother’s education and ability level and, to a lesser extent, family income and quality of the home environment. He found consistent links between these maternal attributes and a child’s school performance and behavior… The study is a follow-up of children who were assessed when they were 6 and 7 years old. The first study, published in 1999, found that single parenthood did not affect young children’s school readiness or social or behavioral problems…” Adverse affects of “single parenthood” did not emerge over a period of 6 to 7 years in which children’s mothers did not have a spouse or partner living in the home.

Cornell News
, May 6, 2004. Ricciuti, Henry. Journal of Educational Research (Vol. 97, No. 4) http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May04/single.parents.ssl.html.

Fact: Stress negatively impacts parenting, as well as other kinds of functioning. Stress factors that are more likely to be present and to affect single mothers than happily married mothers include: financial problems, living in a bad neighborhood, juggling increased outside employment and childcare demands, post-break-up domestic violence and harassment, divorce and custody litigation, and interference with family and household routines by nonresident parents and other third parties (i.e. responsibility without decision-making authority).

See, e.g., Tama Leventhal, Ph.D. (Center for Children and Families, Columbia University) Does Neighborhood Disadvantage Affect Family Well-being? Evidence From a Randomized Mobility Experiment; Jennifer Jenkins, Ph.D. (Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto), Thomas O’Connor, Ph.D. (Institute of Psychiatry), and John Rasbash (University of London) Understanding the Sources of Differential Parenting: The Role of Family and Child Level Effects; Xiaojia Ge, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis), Gene Brody, Ph.D. (University of Georgia) and Ronald Simons (Iowa State University) Contextual Amplification of Pubertal Transition Effects on Deviant Peer Affiliation and Externalizing Behavior, all cited at http://www.srcd.org/pp12.html

Fact:
“[S]ociologists have found that the factor most decisive to a girl’s increased sexual vulnerability was living in a household with adult males after her parents’ separation. This increased risk held true whether that male was the natural father or someone brought into the family by the child’s mother… Research findings also confirm that stepfathers represent a greater proportion of abusers than their incidence in the general population would predict. [However, d]aughters living in their father’s custody are equally at risk. A national survey of sexual abuse risk factors found “markedly higher risk” for girls following their parents’ divorce, “particularly when living alone with [their] father.

“[C]ompared to children living with only females after separation, children living with males in their household after separation “were more than 7 times more likely to be abused. Girls living with males in the household after separation are not only at a markedly higher risk for sexual abuse, but that risk is substantial: Bolen found that 53% were sexually abused.”

Wilson, Robin Fretwell “CHILDREN AT RISK: THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF FEMALE CHILDREN AFTER DIVORCE,” Cornell Law Review, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 251, January, 2001.

Message Edited by DontMarryNoer on 09-03-200601:52 PM

Message Edited by DontMarryNoer on 09-03-2006 01:52 PM

09-03-2006 01:40 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

Yet another example of a stupid biitch trying to justify her mental illness by blaming men.

Of COURSE women and children shouldn’t be heard–they’re too STUPID to contribute anything meaningful. I mean look at this forum. It’s just males explaining to stupid females the problems with feminism. Women are too stupid to figure out their own problems so men have to do it FOR THEM.

And women constantly blame men for their own problems. This is a childish mentality. It’s like children blaming the candy for giving them a stomach ache instead of realizing they were the ones putting it into their mouth.

Women are too stupid to realize this.

And what’s worse is the pussified generation of men who tolerate this abuse. Women can demonize male behavior, disrespect men, belittle men and berate them, but if a man turns around and does it, he’s being a “sexist pig.” These men need to learn how to get their balls back. Before a biitch will listen, she has to respect you first. And we have a bunch of clueless biitches running off at the mouth that simply need to be put in check. Men are making the classic mistake of reasoning with retards (aka females) and trying to use common sense when they should be using biitch training methods. Just like when you train a dog, you have to get the dog to respect you before you can teach it commands. Same with women. Instead of qualifying yourselves to these obvious idiots, you need to command their respect first.

These biitches just need to go to obedience school first. Then common sense will actually have an effect on them. With men, you give them respect until they lose it. With women, they have to earn every ounce of respect they get.

Message Edited by tellafriend on 09-03-2006 01:59 PM

Message Edited by tellafriend on 09-03-2006 02:01 PM

09-03-2006 01:49 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
Thanks DMN,

A feminist who finally knows how to back up her assertions with research!

Unfortunately… it looks like your data is several years old… whereas mine is not.

Lets do some comparisons!

A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (HHS)
Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, Kennedy
Year Published: 2003

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm

“Family Structure

Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents.45 Single parent households are substantially more likely to have incomes below the poverty line. Lower income, the increased stress associated with the sole burden of family responsibilities, and fewer supports are thought to contribute to the risk of single parents maltreating their children. In 1998, 23 percent of children lived in households with a single mother, and 4 percent lived in households with a single father.46 A strong, positive relationship between the child and the father, whether he resides in the home or not, contributes to the child’s development and may lessen the risk of abuse.

In addition, studies have found that compared to similar non-neglecting families, neglectful families tend to have more children or greater numbers of people living in the household.47 Chronically neglecting families often are characterized by a chaotic household with changing constellations of adult and child figures (e.g., a mother and her children who live on and off with various others, such as the mother’s mother, the mother’s sister, or a boyfriend).48

The Child Abuse and Father Absence Connection

*

The rate of child abuse in single parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, which is nearly twice the rate of child abuse in two parent households (15.5 children per 1,000).
*

An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:
– 77 percent greater risk of being physically abused
– 87 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect
– 165 percent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect
– 74 percent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect
– 80 percent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse
– 120 percent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.

*

A national survey of nearly 1,000 parents found that 7.4 percent of children who lived with one parent had been sexually abused, compared to only 4.2 percent of children who lived with both biological parents.
*

Using data from 1,000 students tracked from seventh or eighth grade in 1988 through high school in 1992, researchers determined that only 3.2 percent of the boys and girls who were raised with both biological parents had a history of maltreatment. However, a full 18.6 percent of those in other family situations had been maltreated.
*

A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother’s boyfriend.49”

Mental Health Journal
Child Abuse: An Overview

http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Abusers.html

“Abusers

Most abusers are members of the victim’s family, either a caretaker or parent or a close relative. This includes physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and child neglect.1,2,10,27 90% of confirmed physical abuse and neglect cases involve caretakers of children.10 Contrary to common belief, males and females perpetrate abuse against their own children at surprisingly similar rates. “Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers).”27

(It seems to me that, since there are so many fatherless homes, with live in boyfriends and step fathers, this 90% number is heavily skewd. Parenthesis mine.)

On the whole, children are somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: “65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. (Read, some male other than their natural father parenthesis mine).”

Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children
by Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. **bleep**an, and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1732
March 9, 2004 |

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1732.cfm

“The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.

Specifically, data from the NCVS survey show that:

* Married women with children suffer far less abuse than single mothers. In fact, the rate of spousal, boyfriend, or domestic partner abuse is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married (including those separated or divorced).
* Married women with children are far less likely to suffer from violent crime in general or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers. Mothers who have never married–including those who are single and living either alone or with a boyfriend and those who are cohabiting with their child’s father–are more than twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than are mothers who have ever married.

Other social science surveys demonstrate that marriage is the safest place for children as well. For example:

* Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.2”

I think that the key issue is that BOTH parents should ideally be present, athough the evidence is clear that single mothers are more hazardous to their children than single biological fathers.

While I respect your ability to produce information to back up your claim, the fact remains that children need thier MOTHER and thier FATHER.

Your research has not debunked this fact. If you wish to dispute this further… I have a lot more goodness waiting in the wings for ya.

Have a good day.

09-03-2006 02:26 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
aldarris
Contributor
aldarris
What a nice collection of facts. They were indeed carefully selected… to give the right perspective

Myth — Children are at greater risk of physical abuse in single mother households than in single father households.

Fact:
Children are at greatest risk of physical abuse in a household with a biological parent who is cohabitating with a paramour. However, “[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.”

Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information P.O.Box1182 Washington, DC 20013-1182 Telephone: (703) 385-7565, (800) FYI-3366 FAX: (703) 385-3206; http://www.mhsource.com/hy/cabuse.html

By two thirds, eh? But consider the following: single fathers account for some 13%. Now, let’s do the math.

Take an arbitrary number of single parents. Say, 1000. So, we have some 850 single mothers and 150 single fathers.
Set the probability of child being abused by a female parent to an arbitrary number. Say, ten percent. Multiply it by one and two thirds to get the probability of abuse by single father. Thus, we have 850*.1 = 85 children abused by single mothers and 150*.16 = 23 children abused by single fathers.

Ergo, as the subject of the thread says:

Women abuse children more then men.
In this day and age, at least.

Let’s play with numbers a bit. Suppose that 100% of single fathers abuse children. Thereofer, using the “by two third” ration, 60% of single mothers abuse their children. Thus, 150 abused by fathers and 510 by mothers.

This discussion outlines the fact that a woman would rather yell out “they are worse!” than to actually address a problem.

09-03-2006 02:37 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women abuse children more then men!

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
“By two thirds, eh? But consider the following: single fathers account for some 13%. Now, let’s do the math.

Take an arbitrary number of single parents. Say, 1000. So, we have some 850 single mothers and 150 single fathers.
Set the probability of child being abused by a female parent to an arbitrary number. Say, ten percent. Multiply it by one and two thirds to get the probability of abuse by single father. Thus, we have 850*.1 = 85 children abused by single mothers and 150*.16 = 23 children abused by single fathers.”

/Agree

Ladies, you must understand… we are MEN, not little boys who can’t add nor subtract.

I know my dear Debatress Ish chided me for my “arrogant” assumptions and my bold statements that some of our Feminist posters are dead wrong.

Please believe, I have not, nor would not, comment on anything that I knew that I was unable to back up.

Ladies, welcome to the world of Men. Remember the expressions Boasting?
Tall Tales?

It’s baaaaaack!!

If Feminists are going to debate us, you need to learn how to play the game.

The time of Feminists employing shaming language is over.

We MRAs, and other guys out here, refuse to bring a knife to a gunfight any longer. Expect us to use all the powers of Debate that God gave us.

The fact that DMN would even consider posting stats from 1979(!!!) is mindboggling!!

In the world of StreetBall (basketball) we would say something like…

Get that SHYIT outta here!!

So Femmies, consider yourselves warned… put up or get ready to get shut down!!

Peace.

09-03-2006 03:22 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
Here are the statistics from the U.S. Health & Human Services Department:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/figure3_6.htm

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/figure4_2.htm

Notably, the statistics do not differentiate between biological fathers and stepfathers. There is a wide body of evidence which indicates that stepfathers are many, many times more likely to abuse children than are stepfathers.

In fact, biological fathers are the least likely among all adult caretakers to abuse their children.

09-03-2006 03:42 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

But this points to the general tendency, often expressed by the men writing here, for women to always look for a scapaegoat to blame for their own behaviour, of an inability on their part to be responsible for themselves.

I’m not understanding what you’re saying: not being responsible for themselves when men abuse them? Well, often it is hard when you fear an abuser will come after you or you have no place to go because he has more money.

_______________________________________________________

To be more clear: I’m pointing to the fact that women tend to make child abuse and spousal abuse purely problems of how men treat women, rather than acknoqwledging that women also abuse children and their spouses. Your response, ironically, demonstrates exactly the tendency to blameshift that I’m addressing. You provide the evidence to rebut your own arguyment.

The notion that only men do these things is another feminist myth that research study after study has refuted, but women continue to displace balme onto men for the reasons I’ve attempted to discuss. This kind of project is very common, as I’ve mentiojned. Elsewhere on another thread I’ve pointed to some specific cases where women have been successful at displacing blame onto men, usually by taking advantage of cultural biases against men, baises constructed by feminist propaganda. I’m sorry, but blaming and shaming men, pretending ignorance, rationalizing and name calling just aren’t going to cut it any more. If any of you women out there don’t get it yet: the party’s over.

09-03-2006 03:49 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Myth — Children are at greater risk of physical abuse in single mother households than in single father households.

Fact:
Children are at greatest risk of physical abuse in a household with a biological parent who is cohabitating with a paramour. However, “[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.”

Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information P.O.Box1182 Washington, DC 20013-1182 Telephone: (703) 385-7565, (800) FYI-3366 FAX: (703) 385-3206; http://www.mhsource.com/hy/cabuse.html

By two thirds, eh?

One and two-thirds.

But consider the following: single fathers account for some 13%. Now, let’s do the math.

Take an arbitrary number of single parents. Say, 1000. So, we have some 850 single mothers and 150 single fathers.
Set the probability of child being abused by a female parent to an arbitrary number. Say, ten percent. Multiply it by one and two thirds to get the probability of abuse by single father. Thus, we have 850*.1 = 85 children abused by single mothers and 150*.16 = 23 children abused by single fathers.

Except, since there is a higher number of women heading single-mother homes – not to mention that women get called abusers when another man in the home abuses the child and she can’t do anything about it (yet the same doesn’t apply to men) – the number of children abused will disproportionately be perpetuated by mothers because they are over-represented in people who care for children as single parents.

You’re forgetting that they already broke down the numbers. You didn’t.

Ergo, as the subject of the thread says:

Women abuse children more then men.
In this day and age, at least.

No. And by that same flawed logic, you can say more single mothers take care of children than fathers exist that don’t abuse their children. It must be done proportionately. And on a proportionate basis, children are one and two-thirds more likely to be abused by fathers.

Mamonaku wrote:
Thanks DMN,

A feminist who finally knows how to back up her assertions with research!

Unfortunately… it looks like your data is several years old… whereas mine is not. (1)

Lets do some comparisons!

A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (HHS)
Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, Kennedy
Year Published: 2003

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm

“Family Structure

Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents.45 Single parent households are substantially more likely to have incomes below the poverty line. Lower income, the increased stress associated with the sole burden of family responsibilities, and fewer supports are thought to contribute to the risk of single parents maltreating their children. In 1998, 23 percent of children lived in households with a single mother, and 4 percent lived in households with a single father. (2)46 A strong, positive relationship between the child and the father, whether he resides in the home or not, contributes to the child’s development and may lessen the risk of abuse.

In addition, studies have found that compared to similar non-neglecting families, neglectful families tend to have more children or greater numbers of people living in the household.47 Chronically neglecting families often are characterized by a chaotic household with changing constellations of adult and child figures (e.g., a mother and her children who live on and off with various others, such as the mother’s mother, the mother’s sister, or a boyfriend).48(3)

The Child Abuse and Father Absence Connection

*

The rate of child abuse in single parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, which is nearly twice the rate of child abuse in two parent households (15.5 children per 1,000).(4)
*

An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:
– 77 percent greater risk of being physically abused
– 87 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect
– 165 percent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect
– 74 percent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect
– 80 percent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse
– 120 percent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.(5)

*

A national survey of nearly 1,000 parents found that 7.4 percent of children who lived with one parent had been sexually abused, compared to only 4.2 percent of children who lived with both biological parents.(6)
*

Using data from 1,000 students tracked from seventh or eighth grade in 1988 through high school in 1992, researchers determined that only 3.2 percent of the boys and girls who were raised with both biological parents had a history of maltreatment. However, a full 18.6 percent of those in other family situations had been maltreated.(7)
*

A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother’s boyfriend.49”

Mental Health Journal
Child Abuse: An Overview

http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Abusers.html

“Abusers

Most abusers are members of the victim’s family, either a caretaker or parent or a close relative. This includes physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and child neglect.1,2,10,27 90% of confirmed physical abuse and neglect cases involve caretakers of children.10 Contrary to common belief, males and females perpetrate abuse against their own children at surprisingly similar rates. “Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers).”27(8)

(It seems to me that, since there are so many fatherless homes, with live in boyfriends and step fathers, this 90% number is heavily skewd. Parenthesis mine.)

On the whole, children are somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: “65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. (Read, some male other than their natural father parenthesis mine).”(9)

Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children
by Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. **bleep**an, and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1732
March 9, 2004 |

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1732.cfm

“The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.

Specifically, data from the NCVS survey show that:

* Married women with children suffer far less abuse than single mothers. In fact, the rate of spousal, boyfriend, or domestic partner abuse is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married (including those separated or divorced).
* Married women with children are far less likely to suffer from violent crime in general or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers. Mothers who have never married–including those who are single and living either alone or with a boyfriend and those who are cohabiting with their child’s father–are more than twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than are mothers who have ever married.

Other social science surveys demonstrate that marriage is the safest place for children as well. For example:

* Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.2”

I think that the key issue is that BOTH parents should ideally be present, athough the evidence is clear that single mothers are more hazardous to their children than single biological fathers.

While I respect your ability to produce information to back up your claim, the fact remains that children need thier MOTHER and thier FATHER.(10)

Your research has not debunked this fact. If you wish to dispute this further… I have a lot more goodness waiting in the wings for ya.

Have a good day.

(1) Some of your data is just about as old as my data. My data accounts for factors your data doesn’t and therefore, aged or not, your data doesn’t always address what my data does. For example? Accounting for low-income factors.

(2) That is undistributed data. It says “children in single parent homes are likely to suffer, etc., etc.,”. It does not distinguish and account for A] single mothers VS single fathers, B] poor single mothers and poor single fathers and poor single mother VS poor single fathers, and C] why exactly they are poor. It does acknowledge stress, burden of family responsibility, and poverty, but it does not examine whether the ills faced by the child in the cases where ills are faced are because of that. Like if the father was the primary bread-winner and then took off when the woman was pregnant and there was nothing she could do. If that child faces ills due to poverty it is not simply because s/he was with a single mother it was because the father abandoned them. That is just one example. Your data there is just free-flowing numbers. Mine isn’t.

(3) Just redundant with no real data or explanations.

(4) See (2) and (3).

(5) See (2), (3), and (4).

(6) Okay, but don’t really see how it pertains to the subject at hand.

(7). See (6).

(8). They do not distinguish which of those children came from single-parent homes. Nor did they then compare the rate of abuse in single mother homes to the rate of abuse in single father homes on a proportionate basis. Statistically, if 10 children were abused and each came from single parents homes, they would be more likely to be abused by mothers not because mothers are more likely to abuse children but because single parents are more likely to be mothers.

(9). See above. They compared the number of abused children and not the number of abused children from single homes and then the number of abused children from single mother homes to the numder of abused children to single father homes proportionately.

As for the stuff after that, I thought we were talking about whether women abuse children more. Not what kind of men are more likely to beat women. So I don’t understand why it is there.

(10). I agree with you. However, that does not necessitate they stay married as there is no reason for a child to be with an abusive parent. It does not necessitate the child be with each parent an equal amount of time because chances are, even while married they weren’t with their parents an equal amount of time. When I’d go with my dad, he’d be at work most of the time and I’d see my babysitter, Rachelle.

Also, on the subject of who abuses whom more, you can’t count the number of children abused and then see who is the single-head in order to find the answer. Women are more likely to be the single parent and even YOUR data acknowledges that. Its like the old “men are worse drivers and that is why insurance is higher and that is why they get into more bad accidents”. Well, men are more likely to be driving on high-ways too.

09-03-2006 05:21 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

Don’t marrynoer: thanks for taking so much time and efforts to argue this point. We need a lot more research and data than pure emotional rhetoric on this topic, as on others.
Having said that, could I point out that the real issue here is not really who abuses whom more — these stats can clearly be spun any way one wishes. But your own argument has tacitly acknowledged that there is a huge amount of female abuse of children, both sexual and physical. It is also the case that there is a huge, unspoken problem of women abusing their spouses. More than one metastudy (a study of studies) has demonstrated this as a problem which goes almost completely unacknowledged in American culture.
The point is not that men or women are worst perpetrators of these acts, but that feminist propaganda has always attempted to create a cultural consciousness which paints men as unmitigated abusers and bullies, and women and children as their helpless, innocent victims. The stats on both sides here prove that this is more than a simple overexaggeration, but a deliberate attempt to distort the entire debate about women’s place in society. If these stats are even approximately true, then male “oppression” turns out to be more apparent than real, and females as victims of the oppressive “patriarchy” much more active and powerful agents than feminists have heretofor acknowledged. Here in Canada, a study of domestic abuse in several provinces revealed, to everyone’s surprise, that women were as likely to abuse their husbands as men were to abuse their wives. The study was almost immediately buried as a result of a a feminist s*** torm over the contents. Any evidence refuting feminist beliefs is routinely buried in this country.
What the men on these posts are complaining about is not that women are worse abusers than men, but the social attitude that prevents us all from seeing the elephant in the room, that women are either just as likely or very nearly as likely, to be abusers themselves. The reason for that, most might argue, is a deliberate attempt by feminist ideologues, over the past 30 years, to create a mythological America in which men rule women with an iron hand, and in which becoming a career woman is the only option available. Personally I’m all in favour of career women, having married one, and successfully navigated a 35 year relationship which includes three daughters, all of whom are career women. Independent women are better wives, I think, regardless of what Noer says. But I refuse to buy any longer into the antimale rhetoric of feminism which excuses its own sexism on the grounds that it’s all part of a fight for equality. Time has proven otherwise. Women need to acknowledge their own culpabilty in these issues, and help us turn our attention towards the issue of spousal and child abuse free from the antimale, sexist propaganda of radical feminism. And women like you have an important role to play in that evolution.

09-03-2006 06:08 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
aldarris
Contributor
aldarris
Except, since there is a higher number of women heading single-mother homes – not to mention that women get called abusers when another man in the home abuses the child and she can’t do anything about it (yet the same doesn’t apply to men) – the number of children abused will disproportionately be perpetuated by mothers because they are over-represented in people who care for children as single parents.

Over-represented? That’s the most ridiculous argument I have heard in years. There are — in physical, real world — more single mothers than there are single fathers. Therefore, they raise more children. Therefore, we already did the math. Since we count absolute numbers here, rather then relative, that over-representing argument makes no sense.

not to mention that women get called abusers when another man in the home abuses the child and she can’t do anything about it (yet the same doesn’t apply to men)

Yet another attempt to escape responsibility and blame men for everything.

You’re forgetting that they already broke down the numbers. You didn’t.
Have they? Document not found error prevents from going and checking what exactly breaking the numbers means. Yet another meaningless statement.

No. And by that same flawed logic, you can say more single mothers take care of children than fathers exist that don’t abuse their children. It must be done proportionately. And on a proportionate basis, children are one and two-thirds more likely to be abused by fathers.

To show how ridiculous proportinalism is, let me make an analogy…
A and B have applied for a job.
A claims he has to get a job, because his GPA is 3.5, which is higher than B’s.
B’s GPA is 3.0. However, he is a four-year graduate, while A is in second year.
Should we hire A, because, overall, he did better in his courses? Of course not, we should hire B, because he knows more.

Likewise, in real life, we should address bigger problems first. And women abusing and neglecting children is a bigger problem than men abusing and neglecting by sheer numbers.

Message Edited by aldarris on 09-03-2006 06:20 PM

09-03-2006 06:19 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Having said that, could I point out that the real issue here is not really who abuses whom more — these stats can clearly be spun any way one wishes. But your own argument has tacitly acknowledged that there is a huge amount of female abuse of children, both sexual and physical. It is also the case that there is a huge, unspoken problem of women abusing their spouses. More than one metastudy (a study of studies) has demonstrated this as a problem which goes almost completely unacknowledged in American culture.

I agree. Part of it is the mentality that men are protecters, women must be protected, and any man that is hurt by a woman is a wuss. That is the same one that says women are responsibel when they are raped. It needs to be changed, but I think it is unfair when it is laid at the feet of feminism as if they are expected to do everything themselves or when in order to acknowledge that abuse and problems men face one must trivialize what women face.

I don’t know about what happened in Canada, but I know something similar happened here once in my state with the paternity fraud numbers. When they didn’t publish what MRAs had been saying, it was once again a case of the eeevil feminists censoring things. Come to find out they didn’t print them because their logic used to get the results were incorrect (like feminists had been saying, though). In fact, 30% of people in a given population who got paternaty tests for any reason (as in, it doesn’t mean she lied – she could have been raped, they may have been unsure) were not the fathers of their children, not that 30% of fathers aren’t the real fathers of the children because women lie and the 30% were not defrauded into believing they were. Needless to say, MRAs were red in the face.

Then of course they wanted PBS not to air the special about abused children and a ****storm ensued when they didn’t get their way. So, I’m a bit skeptical about things like this.

Over-represented? That’s the most ridiculous argument I have heard in years. There are — in physical, real world — more single mothers than there are single fathers. Therefore, they raise more children. Therefore, we already did the math. Since we count absolute numbers here, rather then relative, that over-representing argument makes no sense.

Um, you’re saying exactly what I am saying except you’re getting it wrong. If you are to measure whether men or women abuse children more and you do so by counting how many times children are abused by single-mothers VS how many children are abused by single-men? Yes, women are over-represented because more women care for children than do men. Like I said, going by that logic there are more women who care for children than there are fathers who don’t not abuse their children. Its about proportion. Take a statistics class.

Yet another attempt to escape responsibility and blame men for everything.

Yet another exagerration and straw-man. Yes, single mothers are tracked for “neglect” when neglect is considered being in the house when a man abuses a child or not doing anything about it, yet with men it isn’t. It isn’t blaming men for everything, use your head. It is just what they tend to do. If you don’t like it then I don’t know what to tell you.

Have they? Document not found error prevents from going and checking what exactly breaking the numbers means. Yet another meaningless statement.

Then type it in and Google it. I can’t help you if you don’t like what you see and I’m about done spelling things out for you. But if bother to try and understand instead of whipping through everything I type and saying the first thing that pops into your head, you’d know that refers to judging them on a proportionate basis. You know, like the men who get into major car accidents more than women, yet since they drive on the high-way more it is statistically logical? That we should judge it proportionately with how many women drive on the high-way VS how many men do and do the math with the results? This is the last time I’m going to draw this in crayon for you.

Likewise, in real life, we should address bigger problems first. And women abusing and neglecting children is a bigger problem than men abusing and neglecting by sheer numbers.

The question was about sheer numbers, though. Anybody abusing anybody is a big problem. But it doesn’t mean the basic rules to math and statistics are inapplicable.

09-03-2006 06:43 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

I agree. Part of it is the mentality that men are protecters, women must be protected, and any man that is hurt by a woman is a wuss. That is the same one that says women are responsibel when they are raped. It needs to be changed, but I think it is unfair when it is laid at the feet of feminism as if they are expected to do everything themselves or when in order to acknowledge that abuse and problems men face one must trivialize what women face.

___________________________________________________

I’m sorry Don’t marry… but this is unresponsive. The reason why feminists are being blamed is because they have created the climate that allows this kind of disregard for female abuse to continue, while continually blaming men when it is unwarranted. Feminists are not expected to “do everything themselves”– they are expected, however, not to engage in sexist, male bashing propaganda and then claim that they occupy the moral high ground. Nor is it appropriate to somehow link this to women getting raped, as if somehow what happens to women justifies what happens to men. This is the logical fallacy known as “pointing to another evil”. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and feminist ends don’t justify their sexist means.
The rest of your post is so incoherent that I can’t make sense of your reply. This isn’t a put down– I just don’t know how what happened in your state has anything to do with how feminists in Canada have managed to control public debate over all gender issues, spreading false information and anti-male propaganda in the process. This is another attempt to point to another evil. Feminism just can’t justify its own gender stereotyping by arguing that “men do bad things too,” not when it is their position that they are fighting for equality. They have taken on the mantle of fighting for a non-sexist culture–  they cannot then logically excuse their own gender stereotyping by pointing the finger at anyone else. Get it?

09-03-2006 07:02 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
aldarris
Contributor
aldarris
Um, you’re saying exactly what I am saying except you’re getting it wrong.

Unquestionably

Since your post is a repetition of arguments, allow to summarize what we came up with.

1. A single father is more likely to abuse his children than a single mother.
2. Due to the fact that single mothers outnumber single fathers by an order of magnitude, more single mothers abuse their children than single fathers.

Based on this statistics, one can blame almost anyone for almost anything.
As for practical conclusions… as usual, there aren’t any.

09-03-2006 07:53 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
DMN,

Dude, come off it.
Argue as you must, spin it as much as you like. However your data is quite worthless.

The info that comes from “Family Violence in America” comes straight from the US Gov.

Health and Human Services.

“Figures from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and others confirm that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in intact two-parent homes.131

Others have suggested that the HHS study may seriously undereport this diference.132 An independent British study more strikingly found that children are up to 33 times more likely to sufer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a single mother than in an intact married family.13

Maggie Galagher sums up the reality: “The person most likely to abuse a child physicaly is a single mother. The person most likely to abuse a child sexualy is the mother’s boyfriend or second hus-band.”139

Women accounted for 78% of child murders according to HHS.140… (p. 48)…”

If you don’t like it… take it up with Uncle Samantha.

Then the dates of your sources…

“McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and politics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 (3), 557-580.”

“Rosenthal, D., Leigh, G. K., & Elardo, R. (1985). Home environment of three to six year old children from father-absent and two-parent families. Journal of Divorce, 9 (2), 41-48.

Colletta, N. D. (1979). The impact of divorce: Father absence or poverty? Journal of Divorce, 3(1), 27-35”

Journal of Divorce?

1979???
1985?? (Back to the future anyone??)
1989???

I reject with authority your claim that since the data is acceptable because… “(1) Some of your data is just about as old as my data. My data accounts for factors your data doesn’t and therefore, aged or not, your data doesn’t always address what my data does. For example? Accounting for low-income factors.”

Get outta here with that. If we followed your logic, NASA would still be rolling out on the Gemini space capsules because, no matter how old it is, it’s still good.

If you think people will go for that, I got a bridge to sell you.

“A national survey of nearly 1,000 parents found that 7.4 percent of children who lived with one parent had been sexually abused, compared to only 4.2 percent of children who lived with both biological parents.(6)
*

Using data from 1,000 students tracked from seventh or eighth grade in 1988 through high school in 1992, researchers determined that only 3.2 percent of the boys and girls who were raised with both biological parents had a history of maltreatment. However, a full 18.6 percent of those in other family situations had been maltreated.(7)”

You didn’t see the relevancy of this section.

It bolsters my argument that children need their MOTHER, and their FATHER, which was my premise from the beginning of my inital response to this thread.

And, yes, I think that couples should take greater care in entering the marriage covenant, and do what it takes within the reason of decency and common sense to work out problems between them, for the sake of their children.

BOTH PEOPLE. Not just the Man.

We can argue stats all day. I will leave it to the readers to decide if they want to believe something that was published during the days of Huge Afros and Jimmy Carter, or the numerous, up to date studies I have referenced.

Natural single mothers beat and kill their children more than a married couple that consists of the natural mother and natural father.

Accept it.

You have a nice day!

Message Edited by Mamonaku on 09-03-2006 10:24 PM

09-03-2006 10:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women abuse children more then men!

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

Well isn’t this a beautiful example of how to lie with statistics. I am keeping a copy of this log saved this is textbook perfect manipulation!

First cab off the rank is the use of ambiguous word manipulation.

I.E. the use off words like abuse, now this word in its self has no meaning and can be juxtapositioned  to cover physical, emotional, psychological abuse or even neglect. the emphasis of this word changes every time a new poster wants to hold someone else accountable given different types of abuse are more prevalent in different demographics! Other words such as proportionate then rear there ugly head. What’s not covered is proportionate to what? Men vs women in total? Men vs women that have left a legitimate marriage? men vs women with illegitimate kids? men vs women who fought for there kids as opposed to those who were stuck with them? And what about the mix and match demographic? mother who tricked father into getting her pregnant, so now we have a child who is wanted by one parent but not by the other and a system that tells the other parent they can save money by spending time with the kid. The same applies in reverse when daddy knocks some girl up then says if you abort I’ll kill you! Paternity fraud and children from multiple farther also through a spanner in the works when you try and use words like proportionate!

Next cab to take a passenger

The use of survey statistics as figures and facts. A survey or analysis is usually conducted by a self interest group looking to either justify its existence or increase its funding. I made mention in another post of the anti-male bias in the latest Australian safety survey, which still failed to give the results the surveyors wanted and thus has not yet been published on their website (www.kittennews.com for a link). These figures are also often taken from reports not conclusive data. I.E. most rape state are based on incidence of report not conviction. Which led to ridiculous documents in Brittan writing 2,500 conviction 7,500 inconclusive cases and 40,000 proven false reports, as 50,000 rapes in the year 2005! And video documentaries popping up saying how the conviction rate was therefore failing victims as it was only at 5%. These surveys also do not take culture into account, for example in some cultures e.g. India/Spain the age of consent is twelve. and in others e.g. china, stimulation of the genitals by the opposite gender parent e.g. the mother masturbating her son saying what a big boy he will grow up to be (I give this example because that is what I saw reported I have no evidence to suggest one gender does it more than the other) are also considered a social norm. so our figures are massively distorted as to what is actually taken into account as people from like minded cultures are not going to report anything wrong.

Another cab to take a slice of the action:

Failing to relate results to statistics, and act on outcomes. FACT in jail at the moment we have a massive amount of people whose history is a single mother household. Now without knee-jerk reaction such as “it would be the same if it were single men all genders have evil”. As true as that may be its not helpful. We should be looking at this “FACT” in a pure analytical sense.

First it is impossible to conclude it is the mother who is the problem at all! an alternate explanation is that the necessity to be more opportunistic due to lack of finance in single parent household breeds an opportunistic nature in children who know only that lifestyle, with most opportunistic behavior being illegal.

second we should be the real issues from this fact like that in our society we isolate people raising children and we also impose gender rules in the event of family meltdown and we should then be actively trying to stop it!

Wake up people! Beneficial change is achieved by a deep understanding of cause and effect and the mutual goal of the improvement of those around you. Treating figures as weapons that only improve your own position by virtue of destroying the other persons will do more damage than any self interest group.

09-03-2006 10:46 PM

Re: Women abuse children more then men!
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
100% of cases of fetal alcohol syndrome and babies born addicted to crack are caused by women. Now I suppose someone will try to argue that it is only because 100% of all babies born are born to women.

09-05-2006 02:22 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: