Divorced Families – Myths and facts
Myth: Single-mother-headed households are not detrimental to children.
Truth: Single-mother-headed households are the most dangerous place a child can be.
Proof:
The US Office of Technology Assessment (1987): “The increase in the number of mother-headed households and the corresponding decrease in father-headed households paralleled a 158% increase in child abuse and neglect in the 8 years from 1976 to 1984. 2.3% of sexual abuse of girls was by biological fathers, and 17% by stepfathers. 37% of child maltreatment occurred in mother-headed households, versus 23% in all US families. 44,700 children were sexually abused in 1979 which was .07% of all children below the age of 18 years of age.” In 1983, a study found that 60% of perpetrators of child abuse were women with sole custody. According to the Department of Justice, 55% of child murders are by their own mothers, and 6% are by their biological fathers, making mothers 9 times more likely to murder their children than biological fathers.
The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from the US Department of Health and Human Services paints an appalling picture.
According to this report, children in mother-only households are 4 times more likely to be fatally abused than children in father-only households. Children in mother-only households are 40% more likely to be sexually abused than children in father-only households. Women (mothers and female care givers) are 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse, 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children, 72% of natural parents who moderately abuse their children, and 65% of natural parents who are inferred to have abused their children. Natural mothers are the perpetrators of 93% of physical neglect, 86% of educational neglect, 78% of emotional neglect, 60% of physical abuse, and 55% of emotional abuse.
Moreover, the lives of children are rarely improved when the custodial mother remarries. When the perpetrator of abuse is a non-natural parent, males [read: non-biological fathers] are the perpetrators of 90% of physical abuse, 97% of sexual abuse, 74% of emotional abuse, and 82% of educational neglect.
Between 1986 and 1993, as the number of single-mother households increased dramatically, fatal child abuse increased 46% and serious child abuse increased four fold. Clearly, eliminating fathers from the lives of our children has been a cultural catastrophe unmatched in history.
——————————————————————————–
Myth: 95% of all Domestice Violence is perpetrated by Men.
Truth: Women assault men more often than men assault women.
Proof:
Physical Assaults By Wives: A Major Social Problem Dr. Murray A. Straus, edited by Richard J. Gelles and Donileen R. Loseke. [1993, Current Controversies on Family Violence]. This report debunks many of the tabloid myths about domestic conflict in detail. (a) After adjusting for actual injuries, the numbers of cases of severe spousal abuse is only about 10% of the 1.8-million cases claimed by the domestic violence lobby (“one every 14 seconds…). ( Women initiate serious spousal conflict more often than do men. © Studies generated by “women’s centers” intentionally suppress unfavorable data and avoid questions that would lead to unfavorable responses. (d) Data generated from police reports is unreliable. (e) Murder rates for women are higher than than of men. (f) “the Clinical Fallacy”: public policy responses to domestic conflict behave as if all conflict were clinical in nature, and do not reflect the fact the most domestic conflict is minor and infrequent in nature. (g) Cultural norms encouraging minor assaults by wives encourages wife beating.
The May/June 1999 issue of Mother Jones magazine has an article by Nancy Updike titled “Hitting the Wall: After 20 years of domestic violence resarch, scientists can’t void hard facts.” It focuses on research showing that women are perpetrators as well victims of domestic violence. Here is the opening paragraph:
“A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence: Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men. This is not a crack by some antifeminist cad; the information will soon be published by the Justice Department in a report summarizing the results of in-depth, face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of 860 men and women whom researchers have been following since birth. Conducted in New Zealand by Terrie Moffitt, a University of Wisconsin psychology professor, the study suports data published in 1980 indicating that wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit their wives.”
The article then goes on to discuss the generally unreliable and ideology-driven state of domestic violence research, and analyzes Moffitt’s research:
“What she found was that the women in her study who were in violent relationships were more like their partners, in many ways, than they were like the other women in the study. Both the victims and the aggressors in violent relationships, Moffitt found, were more likely to be unemployed and less educated than couples in nonviolent relationships. Moff also found that ‘female perpetrators of partner violence differed from nonviolent women with respect to factors that could not be solely the result of being a violent relationship.’ Her research disputes a long-held belief about the nature of domestic violence: If a woman hits, it’s only in response to her partner’s attacks. The study suggests that some women may be prone to violence – by nature and circumstance – just as some men may be.” ————- Citation: Mother Jones May/June 1999, Hitting the Wall: After 20 years of domestic violence resarch, scientists can’t avoid hard facts, Nancy Updike
A 1994 British study by Michelle Carrado and others, interviewed 1,800 men and women with heterosexual partners. Some 11% of the men but only 5% of the women said heir current partner had committed acts of violence towards them, ranging from pushing, through hitting, to stabbing. Five per cent of married or cohabiting men ported two or more acts of violence against them in a current relationship, compared with only 1% of women. A further 10% of men but 11% of women said they had ommitted one of these violent acts.
Study after study shows women are not merely violent in self-defence but strike the first blow in about half of all disputes. The American social scientists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles reported from two large national surveys that husbands and wives had assaulted each other at approximately equal rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence more frequently. Elsewhere, they found more wives than husbands were severely violent towards their spouses.
Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that women initiate severe violence more frequently than men. A survey of 1,037 young adults born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, found that 18.6% of young women said they had perpetrated severe physical violence against their partners, compared with 5.7% of young men. Three times more women than men said they had kicked or bitten their partners, or hit them with their fists or with an object. (Quoted: The Sunday Times, 24 October 1999, NEWS REVIEW, “Women are at least as violent as men, but the evidence is everywhere being dismissed or ignored”, By Melanie Phillips
For more myths and facts click this link
Misandry means = hatred of men
Good work Julie. It is astounding the amount of BS they are teaching at universities these days about domestic violence and child abuse. The lawyers and the lawyer-judge witchdoctors are very much a part of this industry too and are reinforcing those myths that are helping to sow discontent amoung women, make women feel that they are part of a homogenous group and to break up families. There are simply no clear rules about anything, and everything must be ‘interpreted’ in court at great expense. Anyone who’s interested in this more might like to look at the website called Save the males . best regards
Comment by Jerry — Wed 5th March 2008 @ 10:42 am
There is a pair of newish books (mid 2006) titled “Legalising Misandry” and “Spreading Misandry” which are must reads in this area. Legalising Misandry is a big read 670 pages but the spreading misandry is a little easier at only 370 pages. Both titles are avaiable from Amazon. I have copies but have currently farmed them out to others to read so they can point me to the highlights. Too much of my present library is unread so I’m roping in helpers in the task.
Allan
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 5th March 2008 @ 10:48 am
Hi Julie- thanks for this, can you guide me to your source of information for this, it lines up well with the info I already have and I would like to use it.
Cheers
Viv
Comment by Viv Roberts — Thu 6th March 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Its OK I found it thanks
Viv
Comment by Viv Roberts — Thu 6th March 2008 @ 3:38 pm
After reading the truths about children living with mothers etc i was disgusted. I am a single mum of 3 children whom have always seen there fathers that is the right of all children. I do feel for those dads in some cases are better of with them as women do seem to have more rights. I on the other hand have 1 child to a father who is a chronic dope smoker and has neglected the child in the past i left him 2 get a better life for our child and now he is trying for week 2 week basis shared care, how can so many good dads miss out and dads who to them , drugs are more important get more rights??? if you live in invercargill new zealand you want a good lawyer to help with your rights as a father try Ann Robles she can do anything.
Comment by lita ford — Fri 7th March 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Hi Lita
You sound like you are a very responsible mother,protecting your child from a drug related scene.You’re right,your ex should not have shared care until he proves that drugs have become a distant part of his life.
Comment by rosie — Sat 8th March 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Having just been through the NZ family court system. My conclusion is that it is as bad as everyone says. The family court is a woman’s court. The lawyer for child just acts for the mother, he is there to find dirt (sorry “evidence”) against the father. On finding the “evidence”, he will ignore anything you have against her, he will not listen to ANY charges of Parent Alienation, although it is BLEEDIN’ obvious there is. He just is interested in his fees and not what is right or just. He is the lawyer who has the greatest sway with the judge AND he completely biassed.Once the mother gets temporary custody, she will keep the kids. and the law will aid her to do just that !
The default position of the law is that the kids go with the mother. She can do whatever she likes and will get away with it. The lawyer for child will tell her to ignore you if you complain about her hindering the kids contact with you (Thanks Mr Cochrane – I hope it happens to you one day !). If the man does anything, the law will come down on him like a ton of bricks. The lawyers, judges and politicians will say that it is all “Gender Neutral” – LMAO, Yeah Right, of course it is ! Thousands of fathers beg to differ, why thousands of men don’t take the law into their own hands, god only knows. Policemen kill estranged wives much more than other men, they KNOW how biassed it all is!
The police will never act if your wife is violent, they will believe her lies over what you say EVERY TIME, unless you are seriously injured AND she is holding the weapon. If you complain you will have a very high risk of being arrested yourself. All cupcake has to do is say that she is scared of you and you lose everything. You can complain to the Police Complaints committee, but it is all merely a rubber stamp brigade.
You are never quite confident in your own lawyer because she is in a sort of club with the other lawyers, they are earning each other money and YOU are the one who is paying for it all. They just want things to keep rolling along and do not like you to derail “the process”.
How did all this come about ? It started with the no-fault divorce and the financial support of single mother “families” by governments. Cupcake could now leave her husband when friction started and the state PAYS ! The number of divorces consequently shot up and the government expenditure rose (which meant less travelling expenses and pensions for MPs and judges). The governments decided to make the fathers pay for it all by “Child Support” payments. All the industrial world joined in. NZ is a small country that is 20 years behind the rest of the world in legal terms and will be the last one to give fathers any rights
Comment by Martin Swash — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 2:25 pm
But how can this change ?
It is a political struggle about human rights, all the industrial world has the same laws, except NZ is fairly extreme. Change will start in USA and UK, by men creating a backlash against this terrible feminised family discrimination. This is only just starting, governments are only interested in men bankrolling all this and will want to maintain the status quo. More and more men are beginning to realise that they are abused in family legal terms during a divorce. We must spread the word about how our rights have been eroded. NZ was one of the last countries to give all men the right to vote and will be the last industrial country to give men any rights in the family.
Comment by Martin Swash — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 2:56 pm
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=477#more-477
Comment by rosie — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Ann Robles: Have experienced her skills and this page is very appropriate to market them.
Is the below recommendation or sarcasm?
“”…… if you live in Invercargill New Zealand you want a good lawyer to help with your rights as a father try Ann Robles she can do anything.””
Comment by lita ford – Fri 7th March 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Yes She can do anything,was she the lawer of the Drug Dad?
Comment by Annod — Fri 8th August 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Comment by Annod — Fri 8th August 2008 @ 6:01 pm
i have odd and unsafe relationships with goats and other small animals
Comment by Fredrico — Fri 9th April 2010 @ 5:25 am
also, i shave odd places of my body, and, i know, for a fact, that i am, indeed, a homosapion. i’m a 300 lb asin man on saterdays, but normaly, im just me. good old fredrico. i work on a farm and in a small pet store where i, personaly, breed animals. 😉
Comment by Fredrico — Fri 9th April 2010 @ 5:28 am
Rosie: I disagree strongly with your advice. It’s not up to the mother to set lifestyle standards for the father as a condition of his role in the children’s lives. That kind of thinking has no limits; next thing you’ll be encouraging mothers to damage father-child relationships unless the father attends the mother’s preferred church, only eats vegetarian and becomes celibate.
Children have a right to be influenced by both parents. Only if one parent’s behaviour directly and signifcantly harms the children or places them at high risk of harm does the other parent have any place disrupting the relationship and contact.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 9th April 2010 @ 12:06 pm
I?m now not sure the place you are getting your information, but good topic. I must spend a while finding out much more or figuring out more. Thanks for excellent info I was searching for this information for my mission.
Comment by instep safari stroller — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 10:22 pm