Warning: Illegal string offset 'video_embed' in /home/askhtcom/public_html/survivingdating.com/wp-content/themes/WP-Prosper/functions.php on line 983
by Dr. Michael Flood
In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.
Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement
The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).
Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.
The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.
Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.
Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women
The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.
Priviledging contact over safety
Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children's Stories at the bottom of this post.--Deborrah]
An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.
The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.
Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.
The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.
First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.
Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.
I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.
Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)
Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.
While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.
To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.
First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).
Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.
Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).
Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.
Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.
CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).
There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.
A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).
Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).
Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).
The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.
First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.
Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.
Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims
The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.
Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.
Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.
Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).
This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).
Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.
Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.
Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign
This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.
White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men's violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.
To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/
To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.
We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.
We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.
We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.
The achievements of the father’s rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.
However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).
Beating the backlash
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.
Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;
Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.
‘Speaking as a father…’
Tell women’s stories
Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.
More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.
Contact the Author:
Dr Michael Flood
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602
Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.
Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!
Veteran social researcher, relationship advice columnist, author and radio host. Author of hundreds of articles on American and black culture, gender issues, singles, dating and relationships. Author of "Sucka Free Love!" , "The 24 Types of Suckas to Avoid," "The Black Church - Where Women Pray and Men Pray," and "Why Vegan is the New Black" all available on Amazon.Com. Her unique voice and insightful commentary have delighted fans and riled haters for 20 years. Read her stuff on SurvivingDating.Com and AskHeartBeat.Com.
Yet another article that shows Worlwide men commit heinous acts against children and women mostly out of spite against the mother. This happened in Brazil on Monday. ************************************************************************************************* Brazil - Stepfather 'tried to kill' needle boy Monday, 21 December 2009
The Brazilian man who pushed dozens of sewing needles into his two-year-old stepson says he wanted to kill him to spite his wife, say media reports.
Roberto Carlos Magalhaes, 30, made his confession in a telephone interview from jail with Globo Television.
The boy is recovering after surgery to remove the needles, which came perilously close to his heart.
Mr Magalhaes said he got the boy drunk on wine before inserting the needles, up to three times in a month.
"It was a crazy idea. I mixed wine with water and had him drink it. He drank it and passed out, then I inserted the needles," he told Globo's Fantastico programme.
"It was to get back at the boy's mother. I thought the needles would work their way through his body and kill the boy. It was a way to kill without anyone discovering."
'Ritual killing' X-rays revealed some 30 needles lodged throughout the child's body. Four needles were removed by surgery on Friday, and doctors are planning more operations to extract needles from the boy's abdomen, intestines and bladder.
Brazilian police said last week the stepfather had confessed to sticking the needles into the toddler with the help of another man and a woman. Police said Mr Magalhaes, a bricklayer, told them his mistress had urged him to ritually kill the child to take revenge on his wife.
The boy's mother had taken him to hospital in the north-eastern state of Bahia, suffering from stomach pains and vomiting.
She suspected the child had been the victim of a black magic ritual after she found suspicious objects in the home she shared with Mr Magalhaes - her husband of six months - and her six children.
In response to the poster that wanted acknowledgement that women kill children, no one ever said they didn't. Where did you ever get that idea from?
All we are saying is that the vast and overwhelming majority of child molestation, rapes and murders are committed by MEN. Either the father, step-father or some other person the child is acquainted with and trusts. Here are just a few of the thousands of recent cases where some unbalanced man with no patience, or who failed to control his lust did things to a child and the child's mother that he should not have done:
@Dave Let's agree to disagree on this article and leave it at that. You can interpret it the way you want and I'll read what I see. We don't HAVE to see things the way you want us to Dave just because you want us to see it. You wrote: "I hope that you are intelligent enough to see this and honest enough to admit it."
Don't worry about my intellect, worry about your own. I can read and decifer this article for myself. You do realize that 10 people can read the same article and each interpret it based on their own frame of reference which is what you're doing. You can't impose where you're coming from when you read this article on where I'm coming from when I read it.
Get what you want to get out of reading it and leave it at that. NOTHING you've written will change what I view when I read this article. So you can stop trying to beat me over the head with YOUR truth and what YOU want me to get out of this article ok? Just be content with what you see and let others read and get out of it what they see.
Raz says: "You continue to say that this article is biased towards ALL FATHERS and I continue to say that it isn’t."
Nope. This article clearly focuses on the fathers’ rights movement, period. Once again: "The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives." The author clearly categorizes all fathers' rights groups as the enemy of womankind who are intent on getting control of their women and "gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities." Those are the author's own words. Are you not able to see this?
This guy is clearly trying to portray all of those involved in the fathers' rights group as the enemy to women. What a joke! I can post a whole laundry list of fathers' rights groups that were either founded by women or have women who hold prominent positions in their organization. I am proud to say that I have worked with a couple of these groups to bring about some much needed reform in my home state.
"People use legitimate platforms with well meaning intentions all the time to push their own agenda and this brings about a bad reputation for the organization as a whole."
Absolutely! But that is not what this article says. I would have no beef with it if it were worded in that manner, but it isn't. There are also women who use domestic violence programs and child abuse programs to push their own personal agenda. I hope that you are intelligent enough to see this and honest enough to admit it.
@Mr_Book wrote "Hey Raz, explain to me how a male is responsible for this:"
Why don't you answer your own question. I don't answer rhetorical questions. Besides don't even try it. Don't go there pulling up articles depicting what women do vs men. For every 1 article you find, I could locate 5 depicting men committing violent acts against women and children worlwide! The fact remains whether you and Dave and other men wish to accept it or not is that WORLD WIDE, men commit violent acts against women and children in far greater numbers EVERYDAY!!
@Dave wrote: " Absolutely! All people, men and women, who do this should be addressed. But let's do this by focusing on the people who are committing the abuse, not by trying to generate mass hysteria by making false, unsubstantiated claims on a whole group of people based upon nothing more than gender.'
Dave You're the one who needs some perspective. You're the one who is so defensive against any critique against men that you see only what you want to see in this article. You're too busy being defensive to get past that barrier to see what the article is actually addressing. Your defensiveness acts as a deflection and keeps you from looking at all sides of the issue.
I see an article addressing the negative impact of the 'Father's Right's movement and the effect it is having on women and children of divorce. You see an article that is simply bashing all males because of their gender.
Read your own last paragraph and see how you took this entire article. It's written there in your last summation paragraph. You're the one who can't separate gender from what this article is really discussing. You're the one who thinks that any critique of men is male bashing and ALL men are being bashed.
You only want people to focus on the good the Father's Right movement supposedly does while ignoring the negative fall out of this same group.
You and I must be reading 2 different articles because we are getting two different interpretations from it. You are viewing it through 'your eyes' and I am viewing it through mine. You continue to say that this article is biased towards ALL FATHERS and I continue to say that it isn't. You think that people lack the sense to know the difference. Those to whom this article doesn't apply then pass it on by. But there are men within the Father's Rights movement who do use this as a platform to commit revengeful hateful violence against their ex spouses and children and cases have been documented by social workers, courts etc.. where kids have been abused by angry vengeful fathers who use the Father's Right movement to exact personal revenge against their ex SO out of spite. Again not ALL, (get that through your skull OK?) But a significant number of cases have been documented enough that is is noticable and hence the criticism of what is happening as a result of the Father's Rights movement and its impact on women and children of divorce.
You may not want to accept this but it is true. People use legitimate platforms with well meaning intentions all the time to push their own agenda and this brings about a bad reputation for the organization as a whole. Accept that this is going on within the Father's movement. Not every father within that movement is operating from a 'good place. Some are, but not all. But just because some are, doesn't mean the ones who aren't should be ignored or the issue of the negative impact of the Father's movement caused by those father's who aren't operating from a 'good place' should go ignored.
There is truth behind what the author has written. You don't have to like it but it is there. Also accept that people have sense enough to know that this doesn't apply to ALL fathers within the father's right movement, but for the percentage that it does apply, it is noticed, and people are going to call them on that shyt. Simple as that. You just don't want this group criticized period and you are outraged that people are daring to speak out against the negative flak that is the fall out behind this Father's right movement. Well too bad. This group isn't beyond reproach and people have a right to come on this blog speak out against the negative outcomes that this Father's right group is generating.
Raz says: "When I read this article I automatically realize that this article is not talking about ALL Men so no need to bring out the 'ALL' police. I know this, but for those men who this applies to then this article is on point."
I'm glad that you believe this, unfortunately that is not what this article portrays. In the very opening of the article the author sets the tone with the completely false statement: "The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives." It only goes down hill from there. The author clearly attempts to paint the fathers' right movement as collection of people intent on helping abusive men. The author is either ignorant of what the fathers' rights movement is about or he is deliberately attempting to mislead people about it for his own purposes.
Raz says: "Men violently retaliating against ex spouses SHOULD be addressed."
Absolutely! All people, men and women, who do this should be addressed. But let's do this by focusing on the people who are committing the abuse, not by trying to generate mass hysteria by making false, unsubstantiated claims on a whole group of people based upon nothing more than gender.
@Dave you wrote "The fact is, the overwhelming number of parents, male and female, love their children and only want the best for them."
When I read this article I automatically realize that this article is not talking about ALL Men so no need to bring out the "ALL" police. I know this, but for those men who this applies to then this article is on point.
I know that there are men out there who don't abuse their kids and are good fathers and even after a divorce they continue to play an active role in their kids life. I personally know men like this, however that said, this doesn't mean that one should ignore that there is a growing concern for the men who are violent and use the Father's Right movement as a platform to commit violence against the spouses who rejected them and the children who get caught in the middle. Men violently retaliating against ex spouses SHOULD be addressed.
Your attempt to come on this board and deflect by using the worn out reasoning of 'So women do it too' doesn't change the fact that world wide men commit violent acts against women and children everyday and that crimes against women by their SO is on the rise!
Just because ALL men don't do it doesn't mean people who realize that there are atrocities that are committed against women by men under the guise of these Father Rights movement should not be addressed. You seem to want people to not have a voice or say anything at all. You have this 'all or nothing attitude as though the author of the article and the owner of this blog have no right to say anything against the Father's right movement unless the criteria is met and that is 'ALL Fathers are committing crimes against women and they are child abusers. That seems to be your threshold.
If there are 10 men in a contentious situation involving women and children and 4 of those men committed a violent act against the woman and child but the other 6 did not, you seem to think that's ok. Well since the majority of men don't do these dastardly deeds no need to sound the alarm. What kind of logical thinking is that? It isn't logical. Violence has a cumulative effect. It is not in isolation. 4 this year out of 10, next year 3 out of 9, the crime is still happening, Are people not supposed to notice? Are people not supposed to observe the cause and effect the negative outcomes occuring under these so called Father's right?
Is the supposed 'good' that this Father's Right movement outweighs the fallout that is being observed not just by the author of this article but by other people who personally experience what is is like when kids go back home to be with a violent angry bitter father. Try telling that to child welfare agents, social workers, teachers etc.. people who personally witness men who abuse their spouses and their children.
So we are going to speak out about it the cons of the Father's right movement and violence against women because that is what is being seen. You only want to see one side. All sides of the Father's movement is not positive nor is it beneficial for the child. You may not like that but that is just the way it is and posting unending statistics doesn't change a thing nor does it matter when a child or a woman is hurt at the hands of an angry father in the name of the Father's right movement.
Raz says: "@Dave just what exactly is your point posting these stats?"
Simply an effort to clear up some apparent misunderstandings about child abuse and who commits these heinous acts. Apparently some commenters here have the mistaken impression that only men commit child abuse. Apparently some commenters here believe that divorced fathers having more time with their children automatically places these children in danger.
The fact is, the overwhelming number of parents, male and female, love their children and only want the best for them.
Deborrah says: "Too many men see their children as property, not as people that they need to be involved with mentally and emotionally"
And too many women see their children as their propety, to do with as they please, even if it includes using them as a tool to hurt their former spouse or to extract something from them.
In another study, 40% of divorced mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband's access or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety considerations. [Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) "Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers," Sanford Braver et al, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.]
Your comments make it seem as if you see all divorced fathers as rapists and child abusers. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have that view, including Dr. Flood. You and he apparently believe that ANY woman who makes a claim of abuse should automatically be believed without any need for evidence or proof. THAT is why there is a need for Father's Rights groups.
As I stated before, in only about 6% of cases women claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands. So you and Dr. Flood want to treat the other 94% as rapists and abusers?
@Dave just what exactly is your point posting these stats? What are they supposed to prove? They are out of context, they're just statements, numbers without any type of context. That's like if I posted a bunch of random sentences and had nothing cohesive to make them meaningful. Child abuse and neglect and you post a bunch of numbers up there. What defines that child abuse and neglect? What is the socialogical context of these numbers? Concerned Citizen posted the same thing. So what? None of what you posted means anything because they are just numbers and statements posted without any sort of supporting descriptive information or anecdotal details about this information that provides pertinent background into these numbers. This is just raw stats and is meaningless in and of itself.
We could do a statistic that says obesity is higher among poor people than people of means. Just by saying this along, could paint a picture that poor people don't care about their health or their weight, but closer studies and other sociological factors are brought into play that takes into account the who/what /where/whys the reason for the higher rate in obesity among people of a lower socioeconomic background. So in other words, just posting numbers about abuse and neglect don't mean anything, that's not impressive. That alone doesn't say anything except you just cut and pasted some numbers. What is the sociological reasons for those numbers, descriptive factors etc....
GetALifeDickwad says: "On women initiating divorce: So what? What does it prove anyway? That men can’t screw, to say the least."
I see, so you believe that women who become bored with their husbands should be free to divorce the guys, be guaranteed to receive custody of the children, and be guaranteed financial support from their boring husbands so that they can be free to hook up with more exciting guys? Meanwhile the fathers should be grateful if they get to spend a weekend here and a weekend there with their children. Does that about sum up your views on the matter, Dick?
Wow! So many interesting comments, I hardly know where to begin.
GetALifeDickwad says: "My bad for the language. My vocab is colorful"
No problem Dick (may I call you Dick for short?)
Deborrah says: "Your ONE report conflicts with hundreds that point to MEN as being the perpetrators of violence against women and children worldwide."
Oh, you want more? Okay.
Daveisnothereman says: "Statistics from the 90s?? "
Sorry, you want more current? Okay.
Data from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services "Child Maltreatment" reports, 2001-2006 Victims by Parental Status of Perpetrators
Child abuse and neglect Child fatalities 2001-2006 2001-2006 Mother Only 1,452,099 1,704 Mother and Other 222,836 565 Mother total 1,674,935 2269 Father Only 661,129 859 Father and Other 37,836 77 Father total 698,965 936
"Anyway, what is this need for wimin to push out children to solve your problems? Its a very base mammal need I suppose, and men have a similar view of their own genitals, but if men use their own genitals to avoid their problems, its generally only themselves who get hurt."
Anyway what is this need for men to engage in bareback sex thus impregnating women who then pushes out the child. If men are so concerned with how the kids will be treated, then they need to make a decision with where they choose to deposit their sperm. Don't deposit it in a fertile woman thus potentially making a baby. Then you dont' have to worry about what a woman might or might not do with a baby. Men are solely responsible for where they deposit their sperm. It should be in a condom. Then regardless of what a woman says or does, men don't have to worry about Father's rights, women using 'their kids to solve their problems or any of that other stuff you brought up. Instead of asking why women push out babies to solve their problems, ask yourself why men choose to engage in bareback sex in the first place and potentially make a baby and then turn around a blame a woman for conceiving? It takes 2 you know.
And BTW, men use their genitals all the time to abuse women and make themselves feel better! And they hurt far more than just themselves!! Just check out rape and molestation stats. Men rape women, boys, girls, kids! They use their genitals to do it.
@Krigsman.inc LOL at these men drawn to the power of the woman! LOL. They claim to not like what the women post but they can't resist reading it. If you don't like it just don't take the time to sign into the board to read it much less comment. You've just given me the satisfaction of knowing that you've read my posts. Yeah me!! You just can't resist the very women you claim to despise.
@Beven "I suppose like many of the wimin who use this site to vent"
"Learn how to write and spell. Are you deliberately mispelling the word "women" "clamboring" is that a word"? I can post if I want to , you don't have to read it or comment on it. Who cares what you think. This isn't your site. Attempting to be contemptuous, invalidate and be dismisive of the women who post here by calling their posts 'rants' doesn't make it so. I can call your post the same thing 'Rant"
If you don't like these so called 'Rant's why do you make a point to log onto this site, read them and post comments? Why not just pass it on by?
"Bevin wrote: "I suppose like many of the wimin who use this site to vent, you must have had some negative life experiances which have left you somewhat broken. Has this left you all with the feeling of inadequacy about your gender? "
And stop with the pseudo psychobabble. You don't know me and I would run a mile from you. Most people (men and women) get involved in relationships sometimes they work out sometimes they don't. That's life. It doesnt' mean people have to flip off into the deep end. I don't know anyone who has not been involved in some sort of disappointing relationship on some level. Real life relationships are not the fairy tale that Hollywood portrays them to be. There is no 'happily ever after' Life happens and it goes with the territory of dating and getting involved with people, you win some and lose some. That's what dating and relationships are all about, people meeting others trying them on for a fit and if it works out great, if not next. Plenty of men and women in the sea.
So you FAIL in that regard trying to size me up. I'm far from some emotionally broken down woman Ha! I can get a man any day of the week and twice on Sunday if I wanted. LOL. (But I'm content with the man I have).
Why is it men in their arrogance have to assume that when a woman speaks out about the injustices they suffer at the hands of men, these women have to be emotionally broken down/bitter/saddened singing the blues or they are feminist? I guess it suits men's ego to label women who speak up for themselves, who call them on their crap who 'peep it' because this goes towards what is being said all along. Men and their almighty egos and pride. They can't take it when a woman speaks out. It goes against the grain. They'd rather the woman shut up and let the man run things.
I also happen to know for a fact that there are great men out there just not on this site so far. Not all are crazed and like the men who are posting on this site appear to be based on their posts. I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with quite a few stellar men who are family members, friends, acquaintences, work colleagues, and significant other. None of them come even close to being like the personalities represented by the men on this post. Uggh!
I do agree with some of your points though Raz, like compulsory sterilization for both genders. I've had a number of female friends become pregnant because it distracted them from the problems they themselves created in their own life. And since the original problems were never resolved, the relationships broke down & now the mothers hate the fathers for not "being supportive enough" LOL!
Anyway, what is this need for wimin to push out children to solve your problems? Its a very base mammal need I suppose, and men have a similar view of their own genitals, but if men use their own genitals to avoid their problems, its generally only themselves who get hurt. But if a womin use their genitals and drag a child into the situation to avoid their own problems, the poor child has their rights trampled over because of the "mother" cannot solve her own problems.
I think the rights of a child should trump the rights of the mother or FATHER any day. Too many children are suffering at the hands of parents who cannot sort their own lives out themselves.
Raz, wow, you must have had a fair bit of spare time to come up with those rants. I suppose like many of the wimin who use this site to vent, you must have had some negative life experiances which have left you somewhat broken. Has this left you all with the feeling of inadequacy about your gender?
What I really notice from many of the rants on this site is the dependency on emotive vitriol to get any point across. Much of the time its unfocused hate speech, with a flimsy excuse of "Men are responsible for ". I can assure you, if I was to use the language you have used to describe men, but about wimin, you all would be clambering to use what I have just said to justify your belief that men are bad. Hypocrites much?
Personally I think that upon birth people should be sterilized (They can figure out some sort of way to invent a reversible sterilization process that is effective in both men and women). Then in order for them to have it reversed they need to pass certain benchmarks.
1. college educated with at least a BS degree
2. Obtain a Job making an income that shows they can support the children they wish to have and have been on that job for at least a year.
3. Show where they have contributed to society at large through charitable acts and community service consistently (contribute volunteer so many hours untiil they attain xxx # of community servicce hours
4. Attend parenting classes, obtain a certificate upon completion of parenting training. Write down a plan of action they have in place for becoming a parent
5. Attend social skills and human relationship classes.
6. Take a battery of test which show their mental and physical health. (Do we need more cracked brain and diseased kids in this world taking up resources in our already overstretched planet coming from parents with the stupid muthafuka gene?
7. Sign a waiver/release that should they create an offspring, they will forfeit x amount of their income AND Time AND attention for the next 18 to 21 years of the offspring's life
Only then can they be allowed to be de-sterilized and the government can give out a one time monetary bonus for those parents who reach all the benchmarks. Like money towards a home or fully funding college for their kids (and if the kids make the grades, fully funding the college of the parent's choice, or something along those lines. Haha, the human race would come to a standstill.
Concerned Citizen "My quote referred to how many women are able to leave bad marriages in the U. S. because they are economically able to do so. In countries where women have less economic autonomy divorce rates are lower – because women can’t afford to leave bad marriages. When many women began to gain economic autonomy in the U. S., angry and controlling men – like the kinds you find in the father’s and men’s rights movements – petitioned and lobbied for laws that would enable them to regain control of their wives, i.e., making it harder and more painful for them to leave their marriages"
I thought this is what you meant but this isn't what you wrote in your part of your earlier post. Thanks for clarifying and I agree with you on this point.
@Concerned Citizen Wrote "It’s a mistake for welfare reform to demand child support from an unmarried man simply because he impregnated the mother. That’s not a father. That’s a sperm donor. If he acted in the capacity of father for those children and they and the mother see him that way, that of course is a different issue. Rather than rely on child support, help single poor mothers earn a living wage so that they are able to provide for their children on their own"
There is no 'simply because he impregnated the woman about it'. If an unmarried man impregnates a woman then he pays it's as simple as that. If unmarried men don't impregnate a woman then they don't have to worry about paying. You may not think this is right or fair but that is the way it is so get over it.
I don't like it when my insurance premium goes up "simply" because I have to pay for others on the same insurance plan as me who smoke and do other things that cause them to not be healthy. But the insurance company has to raise the cost of the premiums so everybody on that plan can get health care. It's not a perfect system but that's what we have so far, and without it, costs would spiral even more out of control than what we have now. Insurance companies spread the cost/risk among everyone on their plan so all can have benefits. I don't like it but that's the way it is so I have to get over it.
Taking away child support because you think is how it should be for men who 'simply impregnate a woman' (love how you have such a dismissive tone in how you state that), would provide further burden on mothers who may need that check to help supplement their income and to provide support for their kids. Not having it would make it even harder on children who are living below poverty line and don't have much in the way of money. I see women all the time get aid from the government so there are programs already in place in addition to father's paying child support which is supposed to provide for the children's welfare. Aid for dependent children, wic, food stamps medicaid etc..
My tax dollars in all of my paycheck goes toward govt. run social programs. The last thing we need is yet another social program. And why aren't you advocating for these men to take classes and learn how to be men instead of males 'simply impregnating women'? Why aren't you advocating for men to learn to take responsibility and be fathers? Why is it the mothers have to be the ones always in these programs you mentioned? I volunteered for a grant run welfare to work program and not one man attended any of those classes. They were all attended by single mothers living in the project. Where were the men? Oh I know, "simply impregnating the women" (rolls eyes). Now you want to reward them for doing this by making it possible for them to drop seed and walk away without any financial repercussions. I don't think so.
When you absolve men who 'simply impregnate women' from the responsibility of paying guess what will happen... The pregnancy rate will go even higher than it ever has. Men can have bareback sex without repercussion without penality. They don't have to worry about paying a dime for that baby. Social programs for the low income already strapped for funding will sky rocket beyond anything we've seen previously as more women will apply for benefit. Meanwhile the man will continue to spread his seed far and wide because hey all he is doing is 'simply impregnating women'. He's not a father, he just impregnates so he doesn't have to take responsibility for that, not even a financial one according to your thinking.
So your solution is bogus. Because it sends the message that it is OK for unmarried men to 'simply impregnate women' and walk away without any parental responsibility (which most of them already do) but this time they can also walk away without any financial responsibility. How is that teaching unmarried men to be responsible when they don't even have to pay for the fruit of their loin?
You mean well but your ideals are not practical and certainly not realistic and it sets it up where the man is rewarded for 'simply impregnating the woman' while the woman has to raise the baby, take classes to be a better mother and do all this without receiving any money from the unmarried father who impregnated her. Nice try but I see through what you're really slyly advocating here and it is not for the benefit of the woman involved..
My quote referred to how many women are able to leave bad marriages in the U. S. because they are economically able to do so. In countries where women have less economic autonomy divorce rates are lower - because women can't afford to leave bad marriages. When many women began to gain economic autonomy in the U. S., angry and controlling men - like the kinds you find in the father's and men's rights movements - petitioned and lobbied for laws that would enable them to regain control of their wives, i.e., making it harder and more painful for them to leave their marriages.
Raz you've seriously misinterpreted my comments. In no way am I blaming mothers for abusing children. I'm well aware of the reasons the mothers studied in govt. reports abuse and neglect their children. They are living at or below poverty in dangerous neighborhoods, have little social support in raising their children, get little if any support from the fathers of their children, may have substance abuse or alcohol problems, do not earn enough to adequately support themselves and their children, and other problems related to being poor rather than being single mothers. The govt. programs that have been proven to help them have been cut back for many years, yet "responsible" fatherhood programs that have never been proven to work continue to get funding. I'm all in favor of defunding those fatherhood programs in favor of providing more funding for poor moms to get their GEDs, college education, child care, and other things they need to help lift them out of poverty.
There is also a huge difference between a father and a sperm donor. I believe that single mothers are better off without any involvement from their children's DNA donor because far too often he had not made any form of commitment to her or her children. I believe that helping these women to raise their children well on their own is the best way to go. It's a mistake for welfare reform to demand child support from an unmarried man simply because he impregnated the mother. That's not a father. That's a sperm donor. If he acted in the capacity of father for those children and they and the mother see him that way, that of course is a different issue. Rather than rely on child support, help single poor mothers earn a living wage so that they are able to provide for their children on their own. The fatherhood programs are a failed social experiment that seeks to place a man as head of the household solely because he impregnated the mother, and that has to stop. Those programs have not been shown to work, but since they provide lots of govt. funding to various fatherhood and related organizations, they aren't going away any time soon.
Concerned Citizen, you are quoting information out of context and this alone doesn't give the full picture. Anyone can fling up stats and quote information. "Mothers are more likely to neglect children while fathers are more likely to abuse them. Also, since mothers are most likely to be the primary caregivers of the children, there is more likelihood of them having opportunities to abuse and neglect their children. Mothers are held responsible for all abuse and neglect, even when perpetrated by a male in the household (failure to intervene)."
However what is the reason behind it. Mothers are more likely to 'neglect children' because... why? Could it be a single mother is working 2 jobs to support her family and she can't be breadwinner, parent, and everything at once because the 'father is out of the picture? You make it seem as though mothers deliberately neglect their kids just because they can. Many mothers have no choice in the matter. If fathers would step up to the plate and be active parents instead of sitting back grumbling and complaining and resenting the fact they they are fathers and they have to pay child support, perhaps mothers wouldn't neglect t heir kids so much.
And just because mothers are the primary caregivers doesn't mean they are 'likely to abuse and neglect their kids either. That's bogus. However when you cut and paste information like you have done without delving into the psychological/socialogical reasons of cause and effect you paint a skewed picture.
Most single mothers live below the poverty line and they are uneducated, they also lack proper parenting skills because they didn't receive any. They parent based on what they know which isn't much. Parenting is a 'learned behavior' and how many mothers and fathers for that matter pick up books to learn how to be good parents? Poor parents are less likely to read magazines like "Parent today'.
So you post all of these out of context statements up there to prove what? You can't post that without looking at the entire picture. A single mother working 2 jobs tired and trying to be superwoman will most likely lash out at her kid who is crying when her feet hurt and she just needs 5 minutes of rest. This is by far not the same as some punk azz Father's rights movement who come from a vindictive controlling, domineering and vengeful standpoint where they angry and they want to hit back at the mother and often use the child to do this.
The courts shouldn't have to get involved for a father to do right by his kid. A single mother who is tired and struggling would most likely welcome the father stepping up to the plate and being DAD. A check doesn't raise a kid. But most of these so called Father's rather than just doing the right thing for their kid, they're too busy creating strife with the mother because they are mad at her. She got their check and that's all they can focus on. The courts should be a last resort.
Once that man is proven to be the father of that child 99% of the time, he gets angry and wants the mother to suffer and ultimately the child suffer. It doesn't have to be like that. The father coudl voluntarily do what he needs to do by being actively involved in the child's life in ALL aspects. Courts shouldn't have to decide visitation rights, the parents involved should be able to come together and do that. But most times this isn't the case. In a divorce, the man is mad as hell because the woman got half of his stuff so he is going to make things difficult for her and make her suffer and ultimately the kid suffers. It is a vicious circle with both parents going after the other. "There was a movie about divorcing parents warring with each other and the kid is caught in the middle. It starred Drew Barrymore' called Irreconcilable Differences who sues for divorce from both the parents and wants to live with the housekeeper and this was granted by the courts because the parents were tripping so caught up in getting vengeful with each other.
This whole Father's rights movement is bogus. If Fathers want to do what is right, just do it already. No need to involve the court system. All this back and forth posting stats, the bottom line is the kid suffers the most in the breakdown of a relationship. There are a lot of angry men who take their anger out on women who rejected them and on the kids. This is world wide, not just in the states. In the Middle East women are still stoned and hung (executed) for the least little infraction. They are declared guilty by men. There are a lot of men who want to see that middle eastern mindset imposed on women in the U.S.
Another thing, who is it convincing those kids to kill themselves in suicide bombing missions? Men!! When you think of cults in this country most of them were headed by Men!! Jim Jones, David Koresh, who was it that killed all those kids in Columbine. Those were angry teenaged boys whose parents embraced violence, shooting guns and militia like behavior. Most if not all Militia in this country are headed by men.
Look at the news and see the cases where it was Men who kidnapped and molested young girls. That crazy man who kidnapped that girl and she had 2 kids by him starting at the age of 14. Uggh!!
Look at those men in the Morman sect...
So yeah, men want women under their thumb. If they had their way women would not have any rights, not vote, stay tied in the home barefoot and pregnant with no say so. Men would have the first and last word.
But what men don't realize is that humans are not unlike the animal kingdom. Most animals who live in groups are female lead, with the males acting as loners. They protect the territory but without the female holding down things, the males would have nothing. There are a few exceptions but by and large with the big cats and other animals such as elephants, killer whales, Emperor penguins, it is the female that is important and without her males would be powerless.
Males have had females fooled for a long time. It's brainwashing. Covering up. Men have been allowed to be out of the household and do what they want to do meanwhile keeping women subjugated, but that is changing now. Women are getting a taste of what men have enjoyed all along.
Up until the last 30 years, what rights did women have outside of the home? Men had the first and last say so. Now that is no longer the case and men are running scared. It's a woman's world out here now and men are just struggling to hang on!
LOL at Dave posting some 10 and 12 year old erroneous data Get outta here with that.
"Uh… actually, most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not fathers. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are "
Concerned citizen the latter part of your comment is confusing. Can you clarify what I've excerpted below?
"Since women in the U. S., for instance, are able to leave bad marriages because they are economically able to do so, they seek to control women in other ways, such as child custody (so-called “shared” parenting laws), disallowing moveaways, bogus “theories” such as parental alienation syndrome, “friendly” parent provisions, and other punitive treatment. Divorce “reform” is not about fairness or what is best for children. It’s about getting those damned women under a man’s control."
Hey, Deborrah, you're very right about why women file for most divorces these days. They refuse to put up with emotionally dissatisfying marriages and abuse. They weight the pros and cons, decide that there are many more cons, and leave.
The main reason they leave is that they are economically able to do so. In industrialized countries where women earn enough money to support themselves and their children you are more likely to see women leave bad marriages than women in countries where they do not have as much economic autonomy. That's why you see so much divorce "reform" pushed by father's rights types.
Since women in the U. S., for instance, are able to leave bad marriages because they are economically able to do so, they [men] seek to control women in other ways, such as child custody (so-called "shared" parenting laws), disallowing moveaways, bogus "theories" such as parental alienation syndrome, "friendly" parent provisions, and other punitive treatment.
Divorce "reform" is not about fairness or what is best for children. It's about getting those damned women under a man's control.
Here's more on children suffering the most abuse and neglect in father-only homes:
"For example, under the Harm Standard of NIS-3 (see Chapter 4 for a definition of the Harm and Endangerment Standards), children in single-parent households were at a higher risk of physical abuse and all types of neglect than were children in other family structures. Children living with only their fathers were more likely to suffer the highest incidence rates of physical abuse and emotional and educational neglect. (See Figure 5.1.) Under the Endangerment Standard, higher incidence rates of physical and emotional neglect occurred among children living with only their fathers than among those living in other family structures. (See Figure 5.2.)"
Read more: Causes and Effects of Child Abuse - Some Contributing Factors To Child Abuse
Statistics from the 90s?? come on Dave...get real....this decade is also almost over the statistics you spew from earlier in it. You guys just CANNOT stand to be told the truth by smart women. There will be a new report coming out on how many fathers have killed their children or wives/ex-wives/girlfriends...and 2009 is going to put all of your shit down in the sewer...poor little fellas...
Mothers are more likely to neglect children while fathers are more likely to abuse them. Also, since mothers are most likely to be the primary caregivers of the children, there is more likelihood of them having opportunities to abuse and neglect their children. Mothers are held responsible for all abuse and neglect, even when perpetrated by a male in the household (failure to intervene).
However, when you break down stats according to children living only with the mother and children living only with the father, you get an entirely different picture. These are the populations you need to watch - mother-only homes and father-only homes. Even though fathers spend much less time with their children than mothers, and they are much less likely to have primary care over their children, fathers of children living in father-only homes are more likely to abuse and neglect them than mothers of children in mother-only homes.
Here are the actual rates, broken down by mother-only and father-only homes:
Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 36.6 per 1,000."
PHYSICAL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 6.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 10.5 per 1,000 children. "When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households..."
NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 16.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 21.9 per 1,000 children.
EMOTIONAL NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 3.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.
SERIOUS INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 10.0 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 14.0 per 1,000.
MODERATE INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 14.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 20.5 per 1,000.
ALL MALTREATMENT: Children living with only their mothers: 50.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 65.6 per 1,000.
ALL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 18.1 per 1,000 children. Children living only with their fathers: 31.0 per 1,000."
Your ONE report conflicts with hundreds that point to MEN as being the perpetrators of violence against women and children worldwide.
Why would 75% of divorced fathers say their exes have "interfered" with their visitation? What does that mean? That he didn't get what he wanted the way he wanted? That the children didn't want to be with his angry, vindictive behind and he wrongly blames the mother for their lack of interest in building a relationship with him? I think its primarily the latter.
Too many men see their children as property, not as people that they need to be involved with mentally and emotionally, that they need to support, brag about, care for, empathize with, and love. No, too many of married men especially see child rearing as their wife's job and even though they are right in the home, the woman still exists as a single parent! She has sole responsibility for preparing meals, helping with homework, chauffeuring them around, buying school uniforms and clothes, taking them to the doctor, caring for them when they are sick, teaching them life skills. Dads don't do shit but want to complain about what women might not do to their standards. That is why I say Women Should Stop Having Children.
Courageous Kids of California provides stats that are vastly contradictory to the Cathy Young article that you quote. 80% of these kids report they don't WANT to see their abusive fathers and were forced to by courts back into an abusive situation because their father "had rights" to hurt them and their mother.
Marriage does not create a chattel relationship dude. A woman has every right to divorce a man that is not giving her the marriage and commitment she seeks. Why be married to someone that wants to live as a single man getting his needs met and overburdening you with responsibility while he does nothing to go out of his way to make you or his children happy? Are you kidding me!? That is why women file for 75% of the divorces - men's lying, cheating, selfishness, abuse, verbal cruelty, and cold emotional distancing of their partners. That type of relationship is not rewarding and no one wants to live a lifetime like that. I'd divorce that man too!
Sexual abuse DOES occur in homes by fathers and step-fathers and boyfriends. Reports by the mother of sexual abuse in child custody cases should always be thoroughly investigated and never dismissed by those in power whose jobs it is to protect children. After all, what pedophile is going to openly admit his crimes?
A University of Victoria Sexual Assault Centre post provides the following childhood sexual abuse statistics:
1 in 3 females and 1 in 6 males in Canada experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18.
80% of all child abusers are the father, foster father, stepfather or another relative or close family friend of the victim.
Incestuous relationships last 7 years on average
75% of mothers are not aware of the incest in their family
60-80% of offenders in a study of imprisoned rapists had been molested as children
80% of prostitutes and juvenile delinquents, in another study, were sexually abused as children.
Don't worry, I edited your comment. Love your research and passion (reminds me of me!), just please watch your language in the future.
Deborrah says: "Dennis Pakkala: Your goal is to muddy the facts with repetitive long-winded posts that attempt to refute the facts that: (1) men are the rapists, killers of women and children around the world and molesters of both boys and girls that trust them as fathers"
Uh... actually, most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not fathers. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female.
Deborrah says: "(2) men that would exert so much energy trying to lambaste women on the Internet are truly representative control freaks that are out to â??getâ?? the women that donâ??t want to be with them anymore and disagree with them like you;"
No... now who is tying to muddy the facts? The truth is:
70% or more of all divorces involving couples with children are initiated by mothers, not fathers. [Source: Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" American Law and Economics Review 2â??1 (2000): 126â??169.]
A randomized study of 46,000 divorce cases published in the American Law and Economics Review found that in only 6% of cases women claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands. Surveys of divorced couples show that the reasons for their divorces are generally a lack of closeness or of "not feeling loved and appreciated." [Source: Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" American Law and Economics Review 2â??1 (2000): 126â??169.]
Meanwhile, three-quarters of divorced fathers surveyed maintain that their ex-spouses have substantially interfered with their visitation rights. [Source: Joyce A. Arditti, "Factors Related to Custody, Visitation, and Child Support for Divorced Fathers: An Exploratory Analysis," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 17, 1992, pp. 34, 39.]
... and a study of children of divorce found that 42% of children who lived solely with their mother reported that their mother tried to prevent them from seeing their fathers after the divorce. [Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, p. 209.]
Beven I didn't call any names, but you did take a bait LOL which just proves what I said, A hit dog will hollar, I skimmed the comments and didn't read any one's comment long enough to single any one poster out. I just know that there will be opposition to what this article is saying and namely by men who buy into this father's right movement. But thanks for proving my point exactly. When I say " A hit dog will hollar", I'm addressing those men who resent the discussion of these so called fatherhood rights which is really a cloak for men trying to be dominant and vengeful. They don't want to accept it and they are outraged that people are speaking out against it.
I guess these men expect people not to notice what they do to women and children. They expect women to just roll over and accept it that violence and misogyny against women is on the rise. It has always been the case but previously women were legally subjugated, couldn't vote, rarely worked outside the home and were limited in their career choices.
Now that woman have a stronger voice and bank account and therefore wield a voice and power of their own, they are speaking out against this violence and subjugation and men can't stand it. They want the status quo back. They want women under their shoe. Men who buy into this mentality are not men, but they are cowards. They are bullies who derive their power by subjugating women and children. Men will deflect and throw up the small number of violent acts that women commit against men, and this number is miniscule when compared to the overwhelmingly large number of violent acts men commit against women and children world wide every single day!
And stats show most of the acts that women do commit against men are provoked and after the woman has endured years of emotional/physical/sexual/abuse and or watched her kids being abused. If you kick someone long enough sooner or later they will retalitate.
The violence that men commit against women is not derrived from self defense or provocation, it mostly comes from the men being bullies, wanting to assert their authority over women and their unwillingness to accept women as being equal to them with a mind of their own and rights and a voice to speak out.
This just happened yesterday morning around 7 am. A mother killed in front of her daughters. Whether men want to accept it or not, it is cold hard fact that the violence against women around the world is high and is escalating!!! ***************************************************************************** Bronx mom Lakisha Scriven shot in head, killed in front of daughters while taking them to school Originally Published:Monday, December 7th 2009, 11:35 AM
A Bronx mom taking her kids to school Monday was killed by a brazen gunman who fired a bullet into the back of her head as her daughters screamed in horror, police and witnesses said.
Lakisha Scriven, 30, a supervisor for the city's Administration for Children's Services, was shot execution-style as she loaded her girls into her parked SUV.
"I heard crying and screaming," said neighbor Alicia Parks, 25, who was awoken by the gunshots.
"The only thing I kept hearing was, 'Mommy!'" said Parks, an administrative assistant. "When I finally woke up, I heard, 'The bad man killed Mommy.'"
Scriven died at Jacobi Medical Center an hour and a half after the 7:15 a.m. shooting in Wakefield, police said.
Her girls, ages 5 and 8, were unharmed but terrified, Parks said.
Parks was barefoot and wearing only her nightgown when she dashed into the street to whisk the girls into her home as police swarmed the bloodstained SUV.
"At first, I hugged them, consoled them," said Parks.
"The little babies were traumatized. I tried to ask for their father or a number, but they couldn't give me any information," she said. "After today, you know you're not safe anywhere."
Investigators - who believe the shooting was a hit - were questioning the father of Scriven's children as well as the victim's new boyfriend at the 47th Precinct stationhouse last night, police sources said.
The kids told Parks and police that they did not recognize the gunman. Police believe the killer walked up to Scriven's Ford Explorer as she piled her girls into the vehicle and then opened fire.
Scriven lived with her girls in a well-maintained building just steps from where she was slain, relatives said.
"It feels like a bad dream," said Donna Hamilton, 50, the dead woman's aunt. "She was a good mother, a professional. She took care of kids who had problems at home."
Last week, Scriven forced Clarence White, the father of her girls, to move out of her home after months of fighting, neighbors and relatives said.
Police responded to the home to investigate calls for domestic disturbances in 2003 and again last year, but no one was arrested either time, a police source said.
White's relatives insisted that he would never harm her. "He loved her," said his sister Diane Greer. "She was the mother of his children. He picks up his children every day after school."
It was not immediately clear when Scriven started dating her new boyfriend, according to neighbors and police sources. His name was not released.
"To the men who are crying fowl against this article on what Father’s right truly means, all I can say is ‘A hit dog will hollar’."
Are you implying that I'm a dog? Is that some bait you want me to bite? You have no idea what circumstances in my life have led me here and be motivated to "speak my mind". I was never intending to make so many posts, but I found the reation to Denis Pakkala's posts interesting.
There are always three sides to every story, and the feminist view is just one....
My first comment didn't violate any of the three guidelines you listed, yet it was deleted.
Nor was my responce to "A Concerned Citizen" regarding the Duluth model violated any of your three guidelines.
Comment No: 197 by WhitePower openly equate Fathers Rights organizations with a race hate organization(KKK). I take it that you must believe that men who are members of fathers rights organizations must also be radical racists.
I understand that this is your forum and that you can define the guidelines, but should include a fourth guideline stating only comments and opinions(not any facts, as they would only cloud the situation) which you want to see get listed.
HAHAHAHA!!!!! Why are you so scared of my comments Deborrah? ---
Not scared at all. I have very specific guidelines here though that include (1) no flaming of me or other posters; (2) no spamming saying the same thing over and over using bandwidth with nonsense; and (3) no profane names. When a post violates one or more of those rules, it is summarily deleted without an apology or notice. -- Deborrah
Spamming the comments here with material that bases its conclusions on the faulty Conflict Tactic Scales does not change the fact that the CTS is very methodologically flawed. Dr. Flood already addressed the serious problems with the CTS in his article. The CTS has been recognized as very flawed for over a decade, and it isn't any better today. Reputable researchers do not believe misleading and flimsy "research" that claims that men and women are equally abusive, or that there is an epidemic of men out there being battered by women. Repeating lies does not make them true.
Dennis Pakkala: Your goal is to muddy the facts with repetitive long-winded posts that attempt to refute the facts that: (1) men are the rapists, killers of women and children around the world and molesters of both boys and girls that trust them as fathers, uncles, grandpas, brothers, etc.; (2) men that would exert so much energy trying to lambaste women on the Internet are truly representative control freaks that are out to "get" the women that don't want to be with them anymore and disagree with them like you; and (3) the men's rights movement is nothing but a bunch of sad, angry men's attempts to legally beat and control women.
Well, it won't work.
Get a life dude. This post was not shared to personally offend YOU because I don't know you and at this juncture wouldn't want to. Accept that males are the primary perpetrators of violence and murders in domestic situations. It's reality. You might not like it, but no amount of your ranting and raving with pseudo science and fake stats is going to change the fact that the bodies of women in graveyards and on slabs in morgues have been primarily put there by men they thought loved and cared for them. The children being raped worldwide by pervert pedophiles, filmed, photographed, then killed and buried in wilderness and under homes was done by men. Primarily by men they thought loved and cared for them. Lots of those men are their own fathers, stepfathers, trusted relatives, extended family members and neighbors. People they THOUGHT they could trust. Violent, sneaky, hate filled wierdos.
Yeah, you men did that. So stop trying to change history. You sound like those people that say the Holocaust didn't happen.
Dutton, Nicholls, 2006 THE GENDER PARADIGM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH AND THEORY
The Self Defence Debate - Female Intimate Violence is Defensive
Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time. … Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicate that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992)
The latter result is difficult to explain from a feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive
The CTS is both the most widely used measure of family violence and also the most widely criticized. Extensive critical examination is appropriate for any widely used instrument because, if the instrument is wrong, then a great deal of research will also be wrong. In the case of the CTS, however, the most frequent criticisms reflect ideological differences rather than empirical evidence. Specifically, many feminist scholars reject the CTS because studies using this instrument find that about the same percentage of women as men assault their partners. This contradicts the feminist theory that partner violence is almost exclusively committed by men as a means to dominate women, and is therefore taken as prima facie evidence that the CTS is not valid. Ironically, the fact that the CTS has provided some of the best evidence confirming the link between male dominance and partner violence and other key aspects of feminist theory of partner violence (Coleman and Straus 1990; Straus 1994) has not shaken the belief that the CTS is invalid.
Another irony is that despite these denuncifications, many feminist researchers use the CTS. However, having used the CTS, they reaffirm their feminist credentials by routinely inserting a paragraph repeating some of the erroneous criticisms. These criticisms are then cited in other articles as though they were empirical evidence showing the invalidity of the CTS, whereas there is only endless repetition of the same invalidated opinions.
PROCESSES EXPLAINING THE CONCEALMENT AND DISTORTION OF EVIDENCE ON GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE
In this paper, Murray A Strauss lists the different ways in which feminist activists deliberately distort and conceal evidence in order to create the false impression that men are more violent to their partners than women.
FReaks need to put on leashes...build your own shelters...maybe Sacks or Holstein can help you out...or maybe Warren Farrell can make room by unloading some of his 1977 issue of Penthouse and give you a SAFE place to stay...just do not bring any underage females.
Here are some recent statistics on DV that many of you may find interesting- especially ideologues who get their information from the feminisms disinformation machine. These findings donâ??t really get jibe with what feminists have been saying for the past forty five years - but then, truth and feminists â??statisticsâ?? were never too well acquainted.
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 247 scholarly investigations: 188 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 240,200.
SUMMARY: A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner. Strausâ?? new research also found that dominance by the female partner is even more closely related to violence by women than is male dominance. These results call into question the widely held belief that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is self defense.
The KKK and Father's Rights are the same group of people. FR groups try to befriend the weak Negro man so that they can continue to get away with treating all women like dogs, and then they turn around and shit on everybody (that means, their new Black men friends, too).
Father's rights activists claim that they were successful in destroying the documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories", but they weren't as successful as their bragging indicates.
PBS in the end came out in support of the documentary. Sadly, the producers of "Breaking The Silence" were under so much pressure and received so much hate mail from angry and abusive father's rights activists that they edited the portion of their documentary with Sadiya Allilre and her daughter, Fatima Loelinger. The only reason they saw fit to edit was that they were under attack by malicious thugs.
Here is Fatima's statement describing abuse heaped upon her by her father. Father's rights activists prefer to ignore a girl's own personal statements about abuse she suffered. They refused to believe her. And they claim to be concerned about children's safety and welfare. Far from it.
Here is what really happened regarding "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Keep in mind that this documentary was about children speaking out about abuse they experienced at the hands of their fathers. Father's rights activists didn't believe any of them. Typical.
PBS Final Statement Supportive Of "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"
PBS's final statement is out. It supports "Breaking The Silence".
The documentary was not seen by PBS as being one-sided and lacking balance, as fathers' rights activists have claimed it is. There was also no mention of one of the mothers in the documentary being an alleged abuser, which was a big sticking point for fathers' rights activists, in particular Glenn Sacks. There were no problems seen with the people who had been interviewed.
This part is very interesting - Glenn Sacks is crowing about PBS's final statement on his web site, but he doesn't post the entire statement. He only quoted from the last paragraph about a new documentary being made.
He can't post the entire statement because it so clearly comes out in support of "Breaking The Silence". Sacks put his name behind the biggest protest against the documentary, and especially against Sadiya Alilire, whom he and numerous fathers' rights activists claimed was the "real" abuser. PBS did not come to the same conclusion about Alilire. PBS concluded that "[i]n stark and often poignant interviews, children and battered mothers tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts." No mention of one of the mothers interviewed being a "child abuser" or abuser herself. Sacks wouldn't dare post the entire statement because it would show that fathers' rights activists - in particular, himself - were not successful in getting "Breaking The Silence" discredited as poorly-researched, biased material. PBS clearly stated that the documentary was neither. PBS found the documentary to be "open-minded" and "fair".
PBS wrote that "[t]he producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program." PBS supports the documentary.
PBS also concluded that the topic is very complex, and was perhaps not best described using first-person stories that the documentary used, especially in describing Parental Alienation Syndrome. Please note that PBS stated that "the documentary's "first-person story telling approach" did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been." This means that PBS agrees that producers' presentation of PAS as junk science was supported by research, but the way it chose to describe PAS didn't make it as clear to viewers as it could have been.
It has commissioned an hour-long documentary to delve more deeply into these kinds of custody cases, PAS, and family issues.
Fathers' rights activists are taking this as a big win, but that's not the case. The topic is going to get further, more in-depth analysis. That doesn't mean that fathers' rights activists will be able to force PBS to air their propaganda. I'd welcome the fathers' rights garbage be presented in a documentary where the other side - the side with the facts and valid research behind it - will make them look even more petty, vindictive, and stupid than they already look.
This final statement is actually good news for the supporters of "Breaking The Silence". Here's the final statement:
PBS STATEMENT RE: BTS
Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories (BTS) chronicles the impact of domestic violence on children and the recurring failings of family courts across the country to protect them from their abusers. In stark and often poignant interviews, children and battered mothers tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts. The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program. Funding from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation met PBS's underwriting guidelines; the Foundation had no editorial influence on program content.
However, the program would have benefited from more in-depth treatment of the complex issues surrounding child custody and the role of family courts and most specifically the provocative topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Additionally, the documentary's "first-person story telling approach" did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been.
PBS has received a substantial body of analysis and documentation from both supporters of the documentary and its critics.
It is clear to us that this complex and important issue would benefit from further examination. To that end, PBS will commission an hour-long documentary for that purpose. Plans call for the documentary to be produced and broadcast in Spring 2006. We expect that the hour-long treatment of the subject will allow ample opportunity for doctors, psychologists, judges, parent advocates and victims of abuse to have their perspectives shared, challenged and debated.
Holstein and Sacks are disgusting examples of their gender...they promote hate of women and also the pro-pedophile Warren Farrel...do you think that WE all forgot about that Penthouse magazine interview your buddy did?? If so..you can find the TRUTH here! http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm because NONE of you would recognize the truth if it hit you in the face.
Here is an FYI for those who read this article and watched the video. Truthfulness is greatly diminshed in this piece. Here is the real story about "Breaking the Silence":
PBS Portrays Known Child Abuser as Hero Juvenile Court Found Mother Culpable of Multiple Acts of Child Abuse
Fatherhood advocates have publicly revealed extensive court findings, records and testimony that indicate that Sadia Loeliger--portrayed as a heroic mom in a recent, nationally-broadcast PBS documentary--abused children under her care. A Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed multiple acts of abuse, and adjudged both her daughters as dependents of the Juvenile Court.
Sadia Loeliger and her 16 year-old daughter Fatima were key figures in PBS's Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. The film purports to detail an alleged crisis of fit mothers losing custody of their children to violent husbands in divorce. In the film, Sadia is portrayed as the victim of anti-mother bias in family courts.
The documents were revealed by Los Angeles-based newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks, who has helped lead a protest of the show, and Scott Loeliger, Fatima’s father who was divorced from Sadia in 1991. According to Sacks:
"It’s amazing that PBS and the filmmakers decided--despite repeated warnings--to nationally televise Sadia and her claims. Not only were there clear Juvenile Court findings of her abuse of Fatima and also of Fatima's cousin Sara, who lived with Sadia, but we have extensive testimony from Sadia's babysitter, Sara, and several mental health professionals about Sadia's violence. The filmmakers put a child [Fatima] in an extremely difficult position."
Doris Nava Arellano, Sadia's babysitter for 18 months, testified that "every child in the house is afraid" of Sadia and that “Sara actually has scars on the back of her legs and on the left side of her head from Ms. Ali-Loeliger's attacks on her.”
Sara, then aged 15, penned a desperate letter detailing the abuse she suffered at Sadia's hands, writing “she hits in front of anyone anywhere with anything. I fear for my life sometimes. Just recently she hit me in the head.”
In the documents Sadia is portrayed by numerous mental health, judicial and investigative authorities as violent and abusive towards the children under her care.
A child abuse investigator for Tehama County wrote that Fatima, then age eight, "says she is afraid to go home because she fears being hit again. She also expressed concern for the two other female minors in her mother's residence."
A therapist who conducted investigations for Shasta County Child Protective Services wrote that Fatima "told me she did not want to go home because she was afraid her mother was going to hit her."
Another therapist wrote "On two separate occasions this child reported to me that she was burned 'with a match' by her mother, Sadia Ali Loeliger....I am extremely concerned regarding this child's welfare."
Among the documents revealed are a series of letters, written to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Breaking the Silence co-producers Tatge-Lasseur Productions and Connecticut Public Broadcasting, informing them of Sadia's history of child abuse. The letters were written earlier this year by Scott Loeliger, a Northern California physician, and his attorney Dennis Roberts. They asked that footage of Scott’s daughter Fatima be excluded from the film. Despite this, PBS went forward with the broadcast, including the sections featuring Sadia and Fatima.
Breaking the Silence is already the source of considerable controversy. At the instigation of Sacks, Fathers and Families, Help Stop PAS Inc., the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and others, PBS and its affiliates have been flooded with over 10,000 calls and letters protesting the show. Sacks calls the show a "direct assault on fatherhood" which "portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers."
Holstein, President of Fathers and Families, says:
"A few groups are concerned about the accelerating trend towards joint custody of children, and are striking back by accusing most fathers who seek custody of being batterers and child abusers. It's a shame PBS has dispensed with objective reporting and chosen to air an extremist point of view without looking at the political motives of the advocates it features.”
“It’s a shame they didn’t check the backgrounds of the mothers they chose to lionize more carefully, too."
Subscribe to This Site
Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.