Women the champions of child abuse! Want proof? Have a look at the statistics...

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 15 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, single-parent families (approximately 34% of all families in the US) are overwhelmingly likely to be headed by women (approximately 84% female-headed vs. 16% male-headed). In matriarchal single-parent families, it is by definition impossible for a father to abuse a child.

Secondly, in two-parent families, it makes sense to me that women would be more likely to be the abuser, because men spend approximately 65% as much time around their children on average as women. More time spent with a child means more opportunities for abuse to occur.

Tl;dr: The statistics listed on the linked blog do not necessarily imply that a given woman is any more or less predisposed towards abusing her child with respect to her gender than that child's father is with respect to his gender.

Edit: clarity.

[–]MeloJelo 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Actually, you're wrong.

NIS-3 (you'll have to request a free print copy at http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/nis.cfm ) has show that single-mother households have a rate of abuse THREE TIMES that of dual-parent households. In fact, single-father households actually have a rate of abuse just below dual-parent households!

Now, beyond that.. just allow me to repost what I've said elsewhere: I want to deflect, at this very instant, the "mom is with the child more" defence. That is meaningless and I've had this argument reciently. Incidents and accidents may happen more with the person who has the child more as incidents and accidents are mostly random chances of fate (altho they can be influenced). If a child spends more time with the mother, the cumulative chance that something may harm the child (fall, burn, etc.) will increase over time. However, incidents and accidents are NOT abuse. Abuse is a concious choice by the abuer. It does not matter how much time a child spends with a person who is not an abuser, that person will not abuse the child.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

First, are you using the word "rate" correctly? Are you certain you don't mean "incidence?"

Secondly, would you like to provide the numbers for that, for those of us who aren't going to send off for NIS-3?

Thirdly, I'm looking at NIS-4, a study done from 2004-2009: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

I can't see where they've listed a break-out of single parent households by gender of the single parent. Can you point me towards a page number?

However, there is an interesting passage in the executive summary of that study:

Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (51% and 54%, respectively), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners, or by other, perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (74% or more by males versus 26% or less by females).

For the same reasons that the statistics linked by the OP don't tell us very much, the above-quoted statement doesn't tell us much, but it is in opposition to the statistics linked by the OP.

To your second point: you seem to have the idea that a given human being is inherently either an abuser or a non-abuser, and that an abuser will abuse children no matter any other factors, and that a non-abuser will not abuse children no matter any other factors.

I think you will find that most psychologists, social workers, therapists, and other professionals who work in the area of child abuse would disagree with that assertion.

Edit: added some stuff.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You will not find that data in the NIS-4. NIS-3 had the break out of single-parent households by gender; that breakout was not done in NIS-4 (IIRC, mother/father breakdowns are disappearing from recent Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) stats and instead are only listed as "Parent" without a mother/father breakdown... can't disparage the wemin!)

I used "rate" as the data was calculated as the rate of abuse: number of incidences divided by number of households. I don't remember the page number off hand and I don't remember the absolute rates.. only the relative differences between single-mother, dual-parent, and single-father (3x, 1x, and .95x respectively).

The passage you quoted conflicts with DHHS data from 1996 to 2006 (stats quoted by the OP), FYI. I'll have to look further into NIS-4 to see what the difference is.

As to my second point: I view abuse as an action taken intentionally by the abuser, not some type of "chance" which will inherently increase as a function of time spent with parent/caregiver. I understand that there are variations in human behavior where some person A may decide not to abuse under conditions X but will decide to abuse under conditions Y (often referred to as "boundary cases" in behavioral studies), but I do not believe that "time spent with children" will be a significant factor in influencing abusing behavioral patterns. If that were to be the case, we would find rampantly higher rates of a abuse among home-schooled children, where, in opposition to this assertion, we actually find lower rates of abuse. As such, I find the excuse "well mom spends more time with the kids" to be absolutely bunk and nothing more than the attempt to rationalize/excuse bad female behavior being demonstrated.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Re: NIS-3 vs. 4: fair enough, makes sense. Would still like to look at the raw data, but I am too lazy to order the document.

Re: your use of rate - that is a meaningless number, then. In order to properly calculate a useful rate, you would need to calculate the ratio between single-mother households that contained abuse and total single-mother households, and then compare that ratio to the ratio of single-father households that contained abuse and total single-father households.

Otherwise the fact that there are approximately five and a quarter times the number of single-mother households as single-father households would skew your data rather considerably.

Re: the DHHS data conflict - the study I'm quoting was done from 2004-2009, so the data is probably different. Not sure what would account for the significant difference in percentages, but it's good to know that there's not consensus out there, stats-wise, and that it's not best practice to rely on one study or one number.

Re: time with children. I have no data to indicate that time spent with children increases likelihood of abuse; only anecdotal evidence. My urge to punch a bratty kid in the mouth increases the longer I am forced to be in a room with said bratty kid (this is why I am not a father). But given how neither of us have any real evidence on the subject, we can probably call this one a draw.

Edit: forgot the word "times" in the third block of text.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In order to properly calculate a useful rate, you would need to calculate the ratio between single-mother households that contained abuse and total single-mother households, and then compare that ratio to the ratio of single-father households that contained abuse and total single-father households.

That's what I said, apparently poorly. The rates were calculated (abuse in x type household)/(total number of x type household) where x:{single-mother, dual-parent, single-father}

Re: the DHHS data conflict

Actually, I looked back at the OP. Apparently I was incorrect and DHHS does keep mother/father separate all the way up to 2009 and keeps reporting the same 2:1 ratio for mother:father abuse. Hrm, now I'm going to have to find out which other data source stopped separating the data a few years back.

But given how neither of us have any real evidence on the subject

Like I said, homeschooled children (more time spent with children) has a lower abuse rate than the average. Therefore I'm very disinclined to believe that it is a factor at all.

What many studies have shown as the strongest correlating factor with abuse rates is household income. And, yes, single-mothers tend to be lower income than any other household type. And that's not surprising, considering that single-mother households tend not to have significant work:

66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full-time

10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full-time

7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly

24.5% of single custodial fathers work more than 44 hours weekly

46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance

20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance

--Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, now THAT makes for a more valid set of statistics. Though I'm still not sure what point they're supposed to prove besides helping women haters feel smug and superior. Are you saying women should never be given the kid? That men should be the primary caretaker in all instances? what are you actually trying to use that number to achieve?

I still disagree with you on the second point though because I work in customer service and here's how every week goes. The first few days of the week I'm chipper and helpful and would do anything to help these people reactivate their stupid email account they forgot the password and security question to. By thursday however, I want to punch every last one of them in the god damn face and I take special measures to make it more difficult and time consuming for them so that next time they wrote their god damn password down and don't bug me.

Same with other parts of the job. I'm a much nicer, more lenient and less vindictive person Monday and Tuesday than I am after have to put up with it for a long time. the only reason I'm not openly abusive to and yelling at these people later on is that I'll lose my job. If I had legal right to this job I'd be screaming at people and flat out refusing to help some of them after a while.

When I worked at a football stadium I actually had much less pleasant people to deal with, I had swings taken at me sometimes because I was telling people they couldn't get in the beer line anymore but I never got nearly as upset and never lost my cool because I only ever worked one day a week so I had time to cool down.

It's always AFTER an extended period of putting up with them that I really want to scream at these people. So yes, abusive behaviour DOES depend on how long you spend with the person.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL

So you feel like you want punch people in the goddamn face by the end of the week? Do you act on those impulses? I would guess not. Same goes for children. They may irritate you and get on your last nerve, but you've got the choice whether or not you want to be a shitty parent or a good parent. An abuser makes poor decisions regarding the welfare of the child. There are people who, when putting up with someone for a very long period of time, will control themselves and not act inappropriately. Just because you get fed up and lash out doesn't mean you should or that it's normal human behavior. We have institutions for people who can't control their impulses.

What's the point of it all? To raise awareness. To bring to light the fact that men are constantly demonized unjustly. Furthermore, in order to prevent child abuse people have to be aware of the goddamn facts. Would you rather we didn't discuss it? Because you're a feminist and don't ever want to place blame on the shoulders of those who deserve it? If you ask me, this is the main problem with most women in the US and probably the world over these days... No accountability.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My point is that if I worked at that job for 2 days a week, even if I was the type of person who, when really stressed and angry, WOULD lash out at those people, I still would never actually hit anyone because I wouldn't be stressed or angry enough after only 2 days. That means that primary custody and partial custody DOES matter for this set of statistics.

Second off, I'm not a feminist. Feminist is a stupid term that intrinsically implies the problems of women are always bigger and more important and leads to women demonizing men as a whole instead of the people responsible for whatever the issue facing them at any given time is. Furthermore, feminists have dug themself into a hole by letting the more extreme voices get so much air time and rise so prominently that many people with moderate views are still considered terrible woman haters to them. I personally consider myself a Human Equality Advocate. The people posting in this thread however, come off as just Misogynists, which is something I disapprove of just as much as I do Misandrists. You seem to be looking for any dig they can take at females at large. Nobody presented why women being more likely to abuse children mattered for anything other than giving men extra "points" in some ridiculous battle of the sexes you think you're playing.

Nobody provided stats or evidence saying "women are more likely to get the child because men are assumed to be less fit parents and this goes against that so we should take action X and educate people Y on how the assumptions about why each parent would be more fit are statistically incorrect." Your comments all read like "Fuck those bitches."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought that the reason for presenting the fact that women are more likely to abuse children was obvious. It never occurred to me that I should expound on that. Cancer is bad too... Does anyone need to know why?

None of the part-time vs. full time custody arguments matter. I still don't agree with that I'm afraid. Those just sound like excuses for something that should not happen under any circumstances. And the paper that was posted earlier does show that this behavior is not shared by the men involved in these kids lives. Hence the whole "champions of child abuse" title. It's accurate. I'm sorry that it rubs you the wrong way or that there's a lot of anger in these replies, but that's all besides the point. While we're sitting here arguing, more kids are being ignored, malnourished, beaten, burned, drowning... etc.

I'm glad to hear you're not a feminist. But really, you've got to be one or the other at some point. You can't be both at the same time. Truly impartial doesn't exist.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]widgetmaker 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I dont know about anyone else, but I do know this is exactly what happened with my ex. She was abusive towards me, and towards our kids, to the point that when I confronted her about her treatment of our youngest she called the police, went to the state, told them I was abusive, and move everything out of the house. They didnt need any proof I was abusive, and they would never find it.

However, every time the cops would show up to a call from my neighbors and see me scratched, bruised, and obviously battered, they would ask her if I hit her and laugh off my situation.

She is still very abusive towards my youngest and now I cannot be there to protect them. Her husband told my youngest he likes to look through the crack in the door while they are in the restroom. I get regular reports of emotional abuse from both my kids, and still the state is unwilling to do anything about it.

So I guess I will get down votes too. Because men are always the abusers, women rarely are, right? FWIW both my parents were abusive and I vowed to never treat my kids like that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry to hear this dude... Really really sorry. You're in a tough spot. I would suggest talking to a lawyer and bring charges against your wife AND the goddamn state where you live. And more importantly, get those kids away from her. Take pictures of the bruises, use your cell phone to record verbal abuse and write everything she does down in a journal of some kind.

We really live in shitty times these days... Don't forget, come election time, that it's the feminist MALES in power that pass the unfair, discriminatory, misandrist laws that ensure men (especially WHITE MEN) are mistreated at every turn.

Keep voicing your opinion and call out these cops... Talk to their superior. Do not let them get away with this. Battery is battery... Doesn't matter if it's a woman doing it. It's still illegal.

Good luck my friend... If there's anything I can do to help, let me know.

[–]Aavagadrro 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetNerd 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetNerd 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quazz -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have to leave work in six minutes, so I'm going to put some words in your mouth, and you let me know if I've misconstrued your position.

You might say the point of the study was to indicate that any given abused child is significantly more likely to have been abused by their mother than by their father. And you would be correct, according to these statistics.

The language I was responding to is the statement "Women are the champions of child abuse!" There are two relevant definitions of the word "champion" that we can examine.

One that wins first place or first prize in a competition.

Though it's true that more women abuse their children than men, I would question our categorization of women as winning first place in the "game" of child abuse. This would be rather like saying that a soccer team composed of eleven players legitimately won a game against a team composed of seven players.

One that is clearly superior or has the attributes of a winner.

This collection of statistics, as I said in my earlier comment, simply does not support the statement that women are more capable ("clearly superior") or more inclined by their natures ("has the attributes of a winner") to abuse their children.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigbadbyte 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure. But there's a vast difference between "more likely to" and "more inherently inclined towards" abuse.

If you concluded that proportionately more education, outreach, and support ought to be extended towards single mothers (and mothers in general) with the intent to reduce the amount of abuse in those populations, I would wholeheartedly agree.

If you concluded additionally that work ought to be done to raise the public's awareness of this statistical imbalance, especially in order to correct the mis-perception that men are the majority of child abuse perpetrators, I would also agree.

However, if you were to use these statistics to support statements and sentiments like, "Women the champions of child abuse!" our paths would diverge quite sharply. Such statements help no one. Not men, not women, and certainly not children.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments