If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I
especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want to hear. I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40 deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less often, I have to wonder. ----------------- http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/c...6,7168496%255E 953,00.html Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads' Phil Bartsch 05sep03 A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers. Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers. "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers," she said. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said. The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent families. Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW between 1996 and 1999. The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by all these violent men out there". In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning, Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no penalties of perjury". But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody arrangements in favour of shared parenting. She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law Act. "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said. "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or restricting the time they have with them. "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own arrangements to see their children as much as possible." Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens to children". The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared for full-time by grandparents and other relatives. "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman Maree Lubach said. Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the children. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want to hear. I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40 deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less often, I have to wonder. What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. You can not claim, just because men don't get custody of their kids all that often, it might be different. both men and women are vastly different in their chemical make up and women are prone more so to medical problems. Even in the feminist court where Judges are giving bad mothers more often and I'm talking about, druggy junkies, hookers, and the list is huge. The feminist courts do not care about the child, as there reasoning is, just let the mothers have the kids anyhow. Part of the other problem is the government response on violence, jail men, let women go, as it is not politically correct to really jail women, mother to the fullest like they do men and women are not responsible for their actions attitude by the courts, so in the end they are not given all that much time in jail for their crimes. Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal--even hiding behind it--go much further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they label the "patriarchal family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women. Behind the Lace Curtain Among those who argue that the Lace Curtain exists, no issue is cited more frequently than the media's coverage of domestic violence. While this is not the appropriate forum in which to debate the true extent of the problem of battered men, suffice it to say that even advocates for battered women admit that some men are beaten by their female partners, and that not all female-on-male assaults are in self-defense. It is, of course, impossible to agree on the exact percentage of victims of unprovoked domestic assaults who are men, but for the sake of discussion, let's use 10%--a number admitted to by even the most skeptical women's advocacy groups. The question, then, is whether battered men and violent women are getting their "fair share" of media coverage. According to Laura Flanders, "they're getting too much. There have been op-ed articles on the subject in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today." Besides op-ed articles, however, there has been virtually no coverage of male victims of domestic violence. A computer search of over two million articles appearing in the nation's largest newspapers revealed 112 that focused on battered women. Only one focused on battered men. A similar search of over 1,500,000 magazine and journal articles located 203 on battered women and, again, only one on battered men. When Kim Gandy, executive vice-president of NOW, was asked to comment on this seeming disparity in coverage, she replied that perhaps "there should be proportional coverage of domestic violence issues." (She wasn't, however, able to say who would establish the correct proportions.) But Gandy's views are hardly universally shared. "Talking about battered men simply detracts from the real problem," says Laura Flanders. She and other women's advocates fear that giving battered men even proportional coverage would jeopardize the already pathetic amount of money available for women's shelters. In some ways, it's almost possible to justify the media's reluctance to adequately cover violent women. After all, it's only relatively recently that the women's movement succeeded in getting the issue of domestic violence against women out of the closet. (Advocates for battered men, however, maintain that the issue of violence against men is still in the closet.) The media, then, may be ignoring or minimizing men's victimization in order to protect feminism's hard-fought gains. This raises an interesting contradiction. On one hand, the media is quick to condemn paternalism when it seeks to "protect" women from the pressures of work outside the home, the public life of politics, or the dangers of combat.. But when paternalism operates to judge women less harshly (or to absolve them of responsibility for their behavior) in the name of "protecting" past gains, the media sometimes seems to be far slower out of the box. "If a politician made an outrageous statement, or if the concrete lobby or the tobacco lobby said something that common sense told you was crazy, we'd be all over them," says Bernard Goldberg, a correspondent with CBS News. "But when it comes to people in groups that have an agenda to "do good," it's considered bad form to challenge them." An article on domestic violence in a recent issue of a national parenting magazine illustrates this point perfectly. The author of the article made reference to a 1992 letter by Surgeon General Antonia Novello, and quoted her as having said that "one study found that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury of women 15-44." In an attempt to maintain the highest factual standards, most national magazines require writers to submit backup for every statistic or quote used in an article--especially one on a controversial topic. In this case, the magazine's fact-checkers routinely should have asked to see Novello's letter. Had they done so, they would have found that what Novello actually said was that "One study found violence to be... the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 through 44 years." Nowhere did she say "domestic violence," just violence. The study Novello referred to was a study of extremely poor, crime-ridden, inner-city African-American women in Philadelphia--a population not even vaguely representative of the rest of the country. In a recent phone interview, Dr. Jeane Ann Grisso, the study's lead researcher, cautioned that even if her study had concluded that domestic violence was the leading cause of injury, she would "never apply that conclusion to the total population of American women." Unfortunately, when inaccurate statements--such as those mentioned above--are left unchallenged, they soon take on the status of "fact." In one part of a recent "Eye-to-Eye With Connie Chung" segment, Bernard Goldberg wanted to debunk an assertion by NOW president Patricia Ireland that domestic violence was the number one cause of birth defects. (If you think about it, does it really make sense that domestic violence could cause more birth defects than crack? than alcohol abuse?, than car accidents?) But rather that raise their eyebrows and check out Ireland's (non-existent) sources, CBS's army of attorneys made Goldberg prove that Ireland was wrong. This brings up the dueling paternalism contradiction raised above, but with a dangerous twist. By allowing what are perceived to be "pro-women" stories to use lower standards for truth and accuracy, the stage is set for a backlash against all "pro-women" data, which may be treated as suspect out of fear that the research methods that produced it were motivated more by politics than by science. But paternalism is not the only explanation for why coverage of female violence and male victims of that violence is suppressed. Some writers who might otherwise be interested in seriously investigating the issue are simply afraid to do so. Take, for example, the experiences of Erin Pizzey, a lifelong advocate for battered women who opened England's first shelter over twenty years ago. Pizzey's involvement with battered women apparently gave her a rare insight into women's capacity for violence, a topic she discussed in her book, Prone to Violence. In an interview with British journalist David Thomas, Pizzey describes the threats on her life and bomb scares at her house that began to happen after the book was published. "I finally decided that I couldn't take any more of that intimidation, not for my sake, because I'm used to it, but for my children's sake," she said. "So we went abroad." Suzanne Steinmetz, one of the first American researchers to document female-on-male domestic violence, had similar experiences. Dr. Steinmetz told me that after she published an article called "The Battered Husband Syndrome," she received verbal threats and anonymous phone calls from radical women's groups threatening to harm her children. In addition, all of her female colleagues were contacted and told to "do everything possible to deny" Steinmetz tenure. And when the ACLU invited her to speak on domestic violence, it received a bomb threat. Both Steinmetz and Pizzey found it ironic that the same people who claim that women-initiated violence is purely self-defense are so quick to threaten violence against people who disagree. Fortunately, as David Thomas notes, few researchers have "stirred up the kind of hostility" that Pizzey and Steinmetz have provoked. Nevertheless, he writes, "anyone arguing against the view that women can only be seen as innocent victims can expect, at the very least, trenchant criticism." Some argue that, besides protecting women by punishing their critics, the Lace Curtain attempts to protect women by silencing their critics before they even have a chance to criticize. In an extensive analysis of bias at the New York Times Book Review, John Ellis, literary editor of Heterodoxy, claims that pro-feminist books are "protected by assigning them to ideological clones of their author," thus protecting them from negative attack. "How do you ensure a respectful review of feminist eminence Gloria Steinem's Revolution From Within? Since Steinem is the former editor of Ms., the book goes to Dierdre English, former editor of Mother Jones: a close match. Susan Faludi's Backlash is the work of a journalist with a sour view of any criticism of feminism, so let's find another like her: the equally sour Ellen Goodman." Others within the media have also noted a corollary trend: books by those who criticize feminism or who write favorably about men seem to be given either highly negative reviews (Christina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism) or not reviewed at all (Jack Kammer's Good Will Toward Men, and Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, for example.) http://users.erols.com/jkammer/nieman.html -- Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads' Phil Bartsch 05sep03 A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers. Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers. "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers," she said. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said. The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent families. Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW between 1996 and 1999. The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by all these violent men out there". In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning, Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no penalties of perjury". But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody arrangements in favour of shared parenting. She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law Act. "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said. "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or restricting the time they have with them. "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own arrangements to see their children as much as possible." Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens to children". The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared for full-time by grandparents and other relatives. "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman Maree Lubach said. Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the children. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want to hear. I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40 deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less often, I have to wonder. What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. You can not claim, just because men don't get custody of their kids all that often, it might be different. both men and women are vastly different in their chemical make up and women are prone more so to medical problems. Even in the feminist court where Judges are giving bad mothers more often and I'm talking about, druggy junkies, hookers, and the list is huge. The feminist courts do not care about the child, as there reasoning is, just let the mothers have the kids anyhow. Part of the other problem is the government response on violence, jail men, let women go, as it is not politically correct to really jail women, mother to the fullest like they do men and women are not responsible for their actions attitude by the courts, so in the end they are not given all that much time in jail for their crimes. Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal--even hiding behind it--go much further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they label the "patriarchal family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women. Behind the Lace Curtain Among those who argue that the Lace Curtain exists, no issue is cited more frequently than the media's coverage of domestic violence. While this is not the appropriate forum in which to debate the true extent of the problem of battered men, suffice it to say that even advocates for battered women admit that some men are beaten by their female partners, and that not all female-on-male assaults are in self-defense. It is, of course, impossible to agree on the exact percentage of victims of unprovoked domestic assaults who are men, but for the sake of discussion, let's use 10%--a number admitted to by even the most skeptical women's advocacy groups. The question, then, is whether battered men and violent women are getting their "fair share" of media coverage. According to Laura Flanders, "they're getting too much. There have been op-ed articles on the subject in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today." Besides op-ed articles, however, there has been virtually no coverage of male victims of domestic violence. A computer search of over two million articles appearing in the nation's largest newspapers revealed 112 that focused on battered women. Only one focused on battered men. A similar search of over 1,500,000 magazine and journal articles located 203 on battered women and, again, only one on battered men. When Kim Gandy, executive vice-president of NOW, was asked to comment on this seeming disparity in coverage, she replied that perhaps "there should be proportional coverage of domestic violence issues." (She wasn't, however, able to say who would establish the correct proportions.) But Gandy's views are hardly universally shared. "Talking about battered men simply detracts from the real problem," says Laura Flanders. She and other women's advocates fear that giving battered men even proportional coverage would jeopardize the already pathetic amount of money available for women's shelters. In some ways, it's almost possible to justify the media's reluctance to adequately cover violent women. After all, it's only relatively recently that the women's movement succeeded in getting the issue of domestic violence against women out of the closet. (Advocates for battered men, however, maintain that the issue of violence against men is still in the closet.) The media, then, may be ignoring or minimizing men's victimization in order to protect feminism's hard-fought gains. This raises an interesting contradiction. On one hand, the media is quick to condemn paternalism when it seeks to "protect" women from the pressures of work outside the home, the public life of politics, or the dangers of combat.. But when paternalism operates to judge women less harshly (or to absolve them of responsibility for their behavior) in the name of "protecting" past gains, the media sometimes seems to be far slower out of the box. "If a politician made an outrageous statement, or if the concrete lobby or the tobacco lobby said something that common sense told you was crazy, we'd be all over them," says Bernard Goldberg, a correspondent with CBS News. "But when it comes to people in groups that have an agenda to "do good," it's considered bad form to challenge them." An article on domestic violence in a recent issue of a national parenting magazine illustrates this point perfectly. The author of the article made reference to a 1992 letter by Surgeon General Antonia Novello, and quoted her as having said that "one study found that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury of women 15-44." In an attempt to maintain the highest factual standards, most national magazines require writers to submit backup for every statistic or quote used in an article--especially one on a controversial topic. In this case, the magazine's fact-checkers routinely should have asked to see Novello's letter. Had they done so, they would have found that what Novello actually said was that "One study found violence to be... the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 through 44 years." Nowhere did she say "domestic violence," just violence. The study Novello referred to was a study of extremely poor, crime-ridden, inner-city African-American women in Philadelphia--a population not even vaguely representative of the rest of the country. In a recent phone interview, Dr. Jeane Ann Grisso, the study's lead researcher, cautioned that even if her study had concluded that domestic violence was the leading cause of injury, she would "never apply that conclusion to the total population of American women." Unfortunately, when inaccurate statements--such as those mentioned above--are left unchallenged, they soon take on the status of "fact." In one part of a recent "Eye-to-Eye With Connie Chung" segment, Bernard Goldberg wanted to debunk an assertion by NOW president Patricia Ireland that domestic violence was the number one cause of birth defects. (If you think about it, does it really make sense that domestic violence could cause more birth defects than crack? than alcohol abuse?, than car accidents?) But rather that raise their eyebrows and check out Ireland's (non-existent) sources, CBS's army of attorneys made Goldberg prove that Ireland was wrong. This brings up the dueling paternalism contradiction raised above, but with a dangerous twist. By allowing what are perceived to be "pro-women" stories to use lower standards for truth and accuracy, the stage is set for a backlash against all "pro-women" data, which may be treated as suspect out of fear that the research methods that produced it were motivated more by politics than by science. But paternalism is not the only explanation for why coverage of female violence and male victims of that violence is suppressed. Some writers who might otherwise be interested in seriously investigating the issue are simply afraid to do so. Take, for example, the experiences of Erin Pizzey, a lifelong advocate for battered women who opened England's first shelter over twenty years ago. Pizzey's involvement with battered women apparently gave her a rare insight into women's capacity for violence, a topic she discussed in her book, Prone to Violence. In an interview with British journalist David Thomas, Pizzey describes the threats on her life and bomb scares at her house that began to happen after the book was published. "I finally decided that I couldn't take any more of that intimidation, not for my sake, because I'm used to it, but for my children's sake," she said. "So we went abroad." Suzanne Steinmetz, one of the first American researchers to document female-on-male domestic violence, had similar experiences. Dr. Steinmetz told me that after she published an article called "The Battered Husband Syndrome," she received verbal threats and anonymous phone calls from radical women's groups threatening to harm her children. In addition, all of her female colleagues were contacted and told to "do everything possible to deny" Steinmetz tenure. And when the ACLU invited her to speak on domestic violence, it received a bomb threat. Both Steinmetz and Pizzey found it ironic that the same people who claim that women-initiated violence is purely self-defense are so quick to threaten violence against people who disagree. Fortunately, as David Thomas notes, few researchers have "stirred up the kind of hostility" that Pizzey and Steinmetz have provoked. Nevertheless, he writes, "anyone arguing against the view that women can only be seen as innocent victims can expect, at the very least, trenchant criticism." Some argue that, besides protecting women by punishing their critics, the Lace Curtain attempts to protect women by silencing their critics before they even have a chance to criticize. In an extensive analysis of bias at the New York Times Book Review, John Ellis, literary editor of Heterodoxy, claims that pro-feminist books are "protected by assigning them to ideological clones of their author," thus protecting them from negative attack. "How do you ensure a respectful review of feminist eminence Gloria Steinem's Revolution From Within? Since Steinem is the former editor of Ms., the book goes to Dierdre English, former editor of Mother Jones: a close match. Susan Faludi's Backlash is the work of a journalist with a sour view of any criticism of feminism, so let's find another like her: the equally sour Ellen Goodman." Others within the media have also noted a corollary trend: books by those who criticize feminism or who write favorably about men seem to be given either highly negative reviews (Christina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism) or not reviewed at all (Jack Kammer's Good Will Toward Men, and Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, for example.) http://users.erols.com/jkammer/nieman.html -- Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads' Phil Bartsch 05sep03 A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers. Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers. "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers," she said. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said. The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent families. Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW between 1996 and 1999. The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by all these violent men out there". In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning, Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no penalties of perjury". But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody arrangements in favour of shared parenting. She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law Act. "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said. "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or restricting the time they have with them. "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own arrangements to see their children as much as possible." Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens to children". The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared for full-time by grandparents and other relatives. "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman Maree Lubach said. Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the children. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
...8MM.. wrote:
What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people, but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15 children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me think the person using them is trying to hide something. I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one, etc., that would cloud the issue even further. I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. remainder snipped for brevity |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
...8MM.. wrote:
What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people, but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15 children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me think the person using them is trying to hide something. I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one, etc., that would cloud the issue even further. I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. remainder snipped for brevity |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... ...8MM.. wrote: What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people, but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15 children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me think the person using them is trying to hide something. Dave, numbers game Subject: Child abuse and neglect -- U.S. data http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...cands97/s7.htm 7.1 Relationship of Perpetrators to Victims (SDC) Based on data from 39 States, 401,598 perpetrators (75.4 percent) were victims' parents, and 54,573 (10.2 percent) were other relatives; 9,646 perpetrators (1.8 percent) were people in other caretaking relationships (e.g., foster parents, facility staff, and child care providers); and 66,915 perpetrators (12.6 percent) were non-caretakers or had an "unknown" relationship with the victim. N=532,732 victims in 39 States. 7.2 Age and Sex of Perpetrators (DCDC) DCDC data reveal that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3 percent) were female, and 111,473 (37.7 percent) were male (table 7-1). Perpetrators tended to be young, with 237,865 (80.5 percent) younger than 40 years old. Of the perpetrators, 122,569 (41.5 percent) were between 30 and 39 years old, the most frequent age category. Only 16,441 perpetrators (5.6 percent) were 50 years old or older, the least frequent age category. Table 7-1 Perpetrators by Sex and Age (DCDC) Age Sex Total Male Female 19 years or younger Count 9,177 9,882 19,059 % within Age 48.2% 51.8% 100.0% % within Sex 8.2% 5.4% 6.4% 20 to 29 years old Count 26,646 69,591 96,237 % within Age 27.7% 72.3% 100.0% % within Sex 23.9% 37.8% 32.6% 30 to 39 years old Count 45,958 76,611 122,569 % within Age 37.5% 62.5% 100.0% % within Sex 41.2% 41.6% 41.5% 40 to 49 years old Count 21,258 20,061 41,319 % within Age 51.4% 48.6% 100.0% % within Sex 19.1% 10.9% 14.0% 50 years old or older Count 8,434 8,007 16,441 % within Age 51.3% 48.7% 100.0% % within Sex 7.6% 4.3% 5.6% Total Count 111,473 184,152 295,625 % within Age 37.7% 62.3% 100.0% % within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 7-2 Type of Maltreatment by Sex of Perpetrator (DCDC) Type of Maltreatment Perpetrator Sex Total Male Female Physical Abuse Count 18,960 20,115 39,075 % within Type of Maltreatment 48.5% 51.5% 100.0% % within Sex 17.5% 12.0% 14.1% Neglect Count 29,587 83,769 113,356 % within Type of Maltreatment 26.1% 73.9% 100.0% % within Sex 27.4% 49.8% 41.0% Medical Neglect Count 1,035 4,716 5,751 % within Type of Maltreatment 18.0% 82.0% 100.0% % within Sex 1.0% 2.8% 2.1% Sexual Abuse Count 15,606 5,453 21,059 % within Type of Maltreatment 74.1% 25.9% 100.0% % within Sex 14.4% 3.2% 7.6% Psychological Abuse Count 6,540 7,005 13,545 % within Type of Maltreatment 48.3% 51.7% 100.0% % within Sex 6.0% 4.2% 4.9% Other Abuse Count 14,511 18,355 32,866 % within Type of Maltreatment 44.2% 55.8% 100.0% % within Sex 13.4% 10.9% 11.9% Multiple Maltreatments Count 21,881 28,888 50,769 % within Type of Maltreatment 43.1% 56.9% 100.0% % within Sex 20.2% 17.2% 18.4% Total Count 108,120 168,301 276,421 % within Type of Maltreatment 39.1% 60.9% 100.0% % within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 7-3 Perpetrators of Child Fatalities by Sex and Age (DCDC) Fatality Perpetrator Age Perpetrator Sex Total Male Female 19 years or younger Count 15 30 45 % within Age 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% % within Sex 11.6% 13.8% 13.0% 20 to 29 years old Count 63 127 190 % within Age 33.2% 66.8% 100.0% % within Sex 48.8% 58.3% 54.8% 30 to 39 years old Count 26 30 56 % within Age 46.4% 53.6% 100.0% % within Sex 20.2% 13.8% 16.1% 40 to 49 years old Count 20 16 36 % within Age 55.6% 44.4% 100.0% % within Sex 15.5% 7.3% 10.4% 50 years old or older Count 5 15 20 % within Age 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% % within Sex 3.9% 6.9% 5.8% Total Count 129 218 347 % within Age 37.2% 62.8% 100.0% % within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one, etc., that would cloud the issue even further. I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. remainder snipped for brevity |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... ...8MM.. wrote: What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people, but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15 children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me think the person using them is trying to hide something. Dave, numbers game Subject: Child abuse and neglect -- U.S. data http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...cands97/s7.htm 7.1 Relationship of Perpetrators to Victims (SDC) Based on data from 39 States, 401,598 perpetrators (75.4 percent) were victims' parents, and 54,573 (10.2 percent) were other relatives; 9,646 perpetrators (1.8 percent) were people in other caretaking relationships (e.g., foster parents, facility staff, and child care providers); and 66,915 perpetrators (12.6 percent) were non-caretakers or had an "unknown" relationship with the victim. N=532,732 victims in 39 States. 7.2 Age and Sex of Perpetrators (DCDC) DCDC data reveal that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3 percent) were female, and 111,473 (37.7 percent) were male (table 7-1). Perpetrators tended to be young, with 237,865 (80.5 percent) younger than 40 years old. Of the perpetrators, 122,569 (41.5 percent) were between 30 and 39 years old, the most frequent age category. Only 16,441 perpetrators (5.6 percent) were 50 years old or older, the least frequent age category. Table 7-1 Perpetrators by Sex and Age (DCDC) Age Sex Total Male Female 19 years or younger Count 9,177 9,882 19,059 % within Age 48.2% 51.8% 100.0% % within Sex 8.2% 5.4% 6.4% 20 to 29 years old Count 26,646 69,591 96,237 % within Age 27.7% 72.3% 100.0% % within Sex 23.9% 37.8% 32.6% 30 to 39 years old Count 45,958 76,611 122,569 % within Age 37.5% 62.5% 100.0% % within Sex 41.2% 41.6% 41.5% 40 to 49 years old Count 21,258 20,061 41,319 % within Age 51.4% 48.6% 100.0% % within Sex 19.1% 10.9% 14.0% 50 years old or older Count 8,434 8,007 16,441 % within Age 51.3% 48.7% 100.0% % within Sex 7.6% 4.3% 5.6% Total Count 111,473 184,152 295,625 % within Age 37.7% 62.3% 100.0% % within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 7-2 Type of Maltreatment by Sex of Perpetrator (DCDC) Type of Maltreatment Perpetrator Sex Total Male Female Physical Abuse Count 18,960 20,115 39,075 % within Type of Maltreatment 48.5% 51.5% 100.0% % within Sex 17.5% 12.0% 14.1% Neglect Count 29,587 83,769 113,356 % within Type of Maltreatment 26.1% 73.9% 100.0% % within Sex 27.4% 49.8% 41.0% Medical Neglect Count 1,035 4,716 5,751 % within Type of Maltreatment 18.0% 82.0% 100.0% % within Sex 1.0% 2.8% 2.1% Sexual Abuse Count 15,606 5,453 21,059 % within Type of Maltreatment 74.1% 25.9% 100.0% % within Sex 14.4% 3.2% 7.6% Psychological Abuse Count 6,540 7,005 13,545 % within Type of Maltreatment 48.3% 51.7% 100.0% % within Sex 6.0% 4.2% 4.9% Other Abuse Count 14,511 18,355 32,866 % within Type of Maltreatment 44.2% 55.8% 100.0% % within Sex 13.4% 10.9% 11.9% Multiple Maltreatments Count 21,881 28,888 50,769 % within Type of Maltreatment 43.1% 56.9% 100.0% % within Sex 20.2% 17.2% 18.4% Total Count 108,120 168,301 276,421 % within Type of Maltreatment 39.1% 60.9% 100.0% % within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 7-3 Perpetrators of Child Fatalities by Sex and Age (DCDC) Fatality Perpetrator Age Perpetrator Sex Total Male Female 19 years or younger Count 15 30 45 % within Age 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% % within Sex 11.6% 13.8% 13.0% 20 to 29 years old Count 63 127 190 % within Age 33.2% 66.8% 100.0% % within Sex 48.8% 58.3% 54.8% 30 to 39 years old Count 26 30 56 % within Age 46.4% 53.6% 100.0% % within Sex 20.2% 13.8% 16.1% 40 to 49 years old Count 20 16 36 % within Age 55.6% 44.4% 100.0% % within Sex 15.5% 7.3% 10.4% 50 years old or older Count 5 15 20 % within Age 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% % within Sex 3.9% 6.9% 5.8% Total Count 129 218 347 % within Age 37.2% 62.8% 100.0% % within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one, etc., that would cloud the issue even further. I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. remainder snipped for brevity |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... ...8MM.. wrote: What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people, but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15 children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me think the person using them is trying to hide something. I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one, etc., that would cloud the issue even further. Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts hand the children over to the mother because the father is a danger to them.... period! I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. remainder snipped for brevity |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... ...8MM.. wrote: What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after children, and that plain to see. That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people, but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through. Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children. Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15 children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me think the person using them is trying to hide something. I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one, etc., that would cloud the issue even further. Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts hand the children over to the mother because the father is a danger to them.... period! I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are blamed for everything including women killing their children. remainder snipped for brevity |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?
The truth? I would have to say the government, the legislatures and the
profit minded, sick, evil lawyers who advise (and makeup) the legislative committees. They created the "battle system" in the first place. "The DaveŠ" wrote in message ... Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want to hear. I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40 deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less often, I have to wonder. ----------------- http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/c...6,7168496%255E 953,00.html Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads' Phil Bartsch 05sep03 A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers. Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers. "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers," she said. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said. The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent families. Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW between 1996 and 1999. The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by all these violent men out there". In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning, Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no penalties of perjury". But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody arrangements in favour of shared parenting. She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law Act. "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said. "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or restricting the time they have with them. "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own arrangements to see their children as much as possible." Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens to children". The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared for full-time by grandparents and other relatives. "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman Maree Lubach said. Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the children. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case | Fern5827 | Spanking | 8 | October 4th 05 03:43 AM |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |