St. Petersburg, Florida: where a model cop was investigated for allegedly citing crime stats to the father of an armed-robbery victim, and the property crime rate is over 50 percent in at least one downtown neighborhood. Could it get any worse?
Yes. Yes it could.
February 21, 2011: 16-year-old sophomore Nicholas Lindsey (allegedly) pops the lock on a white Dodge Neon, breaks the steering column with a brick, but can’t get it started. A witness calls 911, and Lindsey flees. Officer David Crawford (46, married with one daughter), a 25-year veteran of the SPPD, responds to the call and spots Lindsey half a block away from the scene of the crime. Crawford calls out to him.
David Crawford.
Lindsey (allegedly) immediately turns and shoots Crawford four times in the chest (missing once) with a .380 pistol, killing him. He then runs to his mother’s apartment, where he is arrested the next day on a first-degree murder charge (Tampa Bay Online, February 24; ODMP).
Cop-killer Nicholas Lindsey.
Lindsey has already confessed to the murder, and is scheduled to stand trial on December 12 (Bay News 9, March 7, June 28). The justice system may consider him innocent until proven guilty, but the day after the murder, Lindsey’s guilt “almost seemed like an open secret” in the community, according to tampabay.com (April 12):
One witness heard two women talking about it in a crab shop on 16th Street S. Another woman heard two drug dealers talking about it. But people are scared and don’t want to be seen talking to police.
…
One neighbor sidled up to one of the backup officers to say they had the right man. Lindsey ran through his back yard the night before as helicopters flew overhead. But don’t question me here, the witness said, not in front of people.
…
Some witnesses who came forward did so fearing retaliation. Others said they felt uneasy after word of their cooperation quickly spread.
…
The day after the teen’s arrest… an upset high school student told his teacher he saw Lindsey return to Citrus Grove the night of the shooting with a gun.
The witness said he knew “someone took care” of the gun and no one will ever find it. But he refused to say more.
The student said he “had to take the secret to the grave,” telling the officer:
“In my neighborhood you don’t snitch.”
According to WTSP, the cop-killer’s (single) mother, Deneen Sweat, blames the gun (February 23):
“[The officer] said, ‘Take your hands out of your pockets,’ and he said he knew he had gun on them. [Nicholas said,] ‘I just tried to break into this car. I took my hands out of my pockets and the gun came out with it.’ He thought the safety was on. It fired and it kept firing and it was jerking. He did not mean to shoot the officer,” she explained.
He didn’t mean to shoot Officer Crawford. He just heard him call out, turned around, stepped forward, reached from his waistband, and upon pointing his hand at the police officer with the notepad, was surprised to find a gun had somehow come out with it. Then the .380 just went ahead and fired, and it kept firing until Crawford had four bullets in his chest (tampabay.com, April 12).
Crawford was the third St. Petersburg cop shot to death in less than a month, and at least the seventh in Florida since June 2010. Here’s a game you can play at home: guess the races of the six other cops, and the three other cop killers. Answers later today.
Unamusement Park 
Single mother says it all.
“I took my hands out of my pockets and the gun came out with it.’ He thought the safety was on. It fired and it kept firing and it was jerking. He did not mean to shoot the officer,”
I honestly believe his account of the shooting. No punch line here. I don’t think this is an attempt at rationalization, I think that from Lindsey’s point of view that this was how he experienced the event.
Most people assume that other people’s minds work the same or at least similar to their own, but I don’t think this is the case. Dogs and cats are also conscious creatures but compared to humans they are barely conscious: their actions come from their natural impulses with little if any deliberation. The same is true of some (many?) human beings. They are conscious in a way closer to how a dog or a cat is conscious, and I’m sure if dogs could speak they would say the same thing “your steak just jumped into my mouth and chewed itself!”
You’ll see something similar when a cheating spouse says “it just happened!”. For a long time I thought this was rationalization, but now I don’t think this is so. I think for some people, they really are so barely conscious that “it just happened!” really is a reflection of their subjective experience.
And this is part of why I’ll be pool-side a few chairs down from Roissy when the machines become self-aware and decide to go Cylon on us.
@Walenty Lisek,
I agree. Much human thought is rationalization after the fact. A lot of our free will is merely illusion.
Neuropsychologists are beginning to pick up on this.
If there’s anything worse than these “youths” and the way the media reports (or doesn’t) about them, it’s the way their relatives attempt to make excuses for them.
Single mother says it all.
It says something, but also in the end perhaps not as much as you might imagine, because as I recall, what they used to call the illegitimacy rate among Blacks is over 2/3. So pick any black kid at random, and there’s a significantly greater than 50:50 chance he’s from a single parent family.
Correction. Single MOTHER or grandMOTHER family. In other words single WOMAN family.
And as I said, Single mother…says it all.
In particular women are GREAT at birthing kids. NOT so great at raising them. AS a GROUP I say that. Exceptions wont counter the rule.
Single motherhood is a problem, but given the quality of these peoples’ male progenitors, I wonder if they’re not better off with them out of the picture.
That’s a loop though. The women typically are single mothers because their mothers were single mothers. The men that the boys would be “better off without” were also raised by single mothers. Even when they are not and they would be good fathers, the single mother is bound and determined to do everything to keep the father out of the picture. Most of the time though, since she’s been raised by a single mother (among other issues like low intelligence) the likelihood that she’s going to pick a man unworthy of fatherhood, to father a child for her, is great.
Sterilization though, no matter how bad the parent, is of course…”wrong”..
In any case on the main topic. this is typical for the course. If she really cared for her son she would have raised him right. The fact that she is scrambling for excuses demonstrates she has no interest in him, and certainly no interest in protecting society from the monster she bred and raised.
The cop-killer is of fighting age, and the Black community has an ethnic war mentality, as demonstrated by the taboo on testimony.
“In particular women are GREAT at birthing kids. NOT so great at raising them. AS a GROUP I say that. Exceptions wont counter the rule.”
I think this is kind of a half-truth. I don’t think men or women are that great at raising kids by themselves. Men and women bring different skill sets to the task. That’s why children, as a general rule, are dramatically better off if BOTH parents are active presences in their lives. It’s just tremendously unfortunate that our society has crafted a system in which a spiteful woman can keep a man away from his children when he isn’t inherently dangerous to them.
I’m sure when the cops at the station were beating him with nightsticks, they didn’t mean for that to happen either. They just raised the nightsticks and their hands kept jerking towards his skull over and over again.
I’ll just leave this here
http://blackvsfastfood.tumblr.com/
So, I’m putting my money down for the cop killers being “urban” and “youthful” and more than likely skilled basketball players.
“I think this is kind of a half-truth. I don’t think men or women are that great at raising kids by themselves.”
Actually statistically the rates of success for a child are enhanced with the presence of the father, and not at all enhanced by the presence of the mother Children of single mother households fair by far the worst across the spectrum. Children with both parents fair better. FAR better. Children with just the father fair the BEST.
That is because women are neurotic and a man has to spend as much time raising his wife as he does raising his children. When he can focus on just raising the children, without the interference of a female, they do far better. Girls are more confident, boys aren’t whiny little bitches (like we have today), and everyone eats their meat. Cause only women give a fuck about vegetables which shows how neurotic they are.
“Men and women bring different skill sets to the task.”
Sure I will agree with that. Men bring logic, women bring, “Why the hell did I get married to her”.
“That’s why children, as a general rule, are dramatically better off if BOTH parents are active presences in their lives.”
No. They are dramatically better off if the FATHER is active and present in their lives. Statistically the lack of the female not only doesn’t impact the child for the worse, it tends to be of benefit to them.
“It’s just tremendously unfortunate that our society has crafted a system in which a spiteful woman can keep a man away from his children when he isn’t inherently dangerous to them.”
I know men who are refusing to allow this anymore. Family court is wholly criminal. They just walk away. When more men do this and start enforcing their COMMON LAW and NATURAL LAW rights and making their Declaration of Individual Rights and enforcing them, then women who try to rob a man will find they live in poverty.
Keep in mind that ALLLLLLL the “rights” you have, are nothing more than PRIVILEGES GRANTED to you by men. Even with advances in technology which WE have created to help level the playing field, at ANY TIME, it only takes a small percentage of men to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. And just refuse to participate anymore. Which is already starting to happen.
This case, and case after case after case after case, is an example of how bad single MOTHERhood is for a child. While intellect and other factors create a situation where blacks, the smallest part of our society, commit the highest crimes, there is a factor ignored on this site. That is that MOST blacks are raised by single mothers. And that contributes DRAMATICALLY the the neurosis that blacks suffer, infliced upon them by their mothers.
Do you know who is more violent than that black man who shot the cop? HIS MOTHER. There is a great likelihood that he grew up being beaten by her, being called nigger by her, being reminded that he was nothing by her, being “reminded” that “society” hates him, when in fact it was she who hates him. I’ve dated black women for years. The women I dated were mostly FINE women. But the things that I saw when around the black community, in grocery stores, the bus stop, wherever, made me sick. I wont date them anymore as a result, no matter how good they are. Unless they self identified as Irish and just refused to be around their former “community” anymore.
Now most of the time white mothers are better than that. But most of the time they have the husband keeping them in check. And women typically need to be kept in check. They are one step away from the entitlement attitude of blacks. Once they realize they can just claim something and people, including illegal law enforcement will believe them, with no facts, they start making claims of domestic violence, rape, anything to get the man “controlling them” away from his kids. Of course the “control” was making them NOT behave with ill towards their children. And too many women won’t broker that kind of control.
A test you can perform is to ask yourself or other women if you DESERVE respect. Do you DEMAND to be respected. Do you claim or think that a woman has to perform at THREE times a man to get the same respect (a woman can’t typically perform at 90% or 50% of a man..so how’s she going to perform at THREE TIMES)?
That DEMANDING of respect is a demonstration of the ENTITLEMENT that women have. Black women have it IN FUCKING SPADES. Respect is EARNED. It is not deserved, it is not demanded. Some women on the right CLAIM to think this way. Especially Christian women CLAIMING to submit to their husbands. But they are anything BUT submissive. And I’m not suggesting any woman should SUBMIT. I am suggesting that the presence of the female is irrelevant if we want boys to become honorable men and girls to grow up to noble women. The only thing needed is a father that cares, a TRUE patriarchy, and the government to get the fuck out of the way.
“Actually statistically the rates of success for a child are enhanced with the presence of the father, and not at all enhanced by the presence of the mother Children of single mother households fair by far the worst across the spectrum. Children with both parents fair better. FAR better. Children with just the father fair the BEST.”
Statistically speaking, children of single father homes fare the best? Citation?
Will a black criminal ever take responsibility for their actions, ever? I bet they do when they are on death row and find Jesus or Allah and seek a commuted sentence through their rebirth in religion. There is always some other power responsible for bad black behavior.
This kid is luck because even in Florida in 1981, this kid would be dead and buried in a swamp.
No citation. I read and I move on. You’re welcome to do your own research though.
[If you state it without evidence, the anonymous commenter gets to dismiss it without counter-evidence.]
I myself couldn’t tease out the effect of father-only versus mother-only from the effects of income / SES, because father-only households bring in more money than mother-only ones.
Higher income means nicer housing, which means nicer schools, which means you don’t get beat up as much for failing to get the Ds and Fs required to be cool.
(Cool is the opposite of uppity.)
Happy US Independence everyone!
I am sure the Mexicans are celebrating it with as much as vim and vigor as we celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Also I am sure that their equivalent to Robert Kennedy will put all the Zetas in prison tomorrow, or the day after.
Certainly. Even if I provide evidence she gets to dismiss it with or without counter evidence. Un, I make statements these statements, as I do on all blogs for myself, not for other readers. I’m making no claim to be a statistician, scholar or intellectual. I make these comments soley for me. Whether others believe my statements or not is irrelevant to me. If they wish to do as Olave has done and search out my claims for themselves, then so be it. If not so be it. ANYONE is free to agree or disagree with me with or without facts.
[From the comments policy: “This is a place for constructive debate…”]
Mothers typically think of love as a FEELING, because women think of love as a feeling. Men think of love as something you do. Fathers show love by providing for their children, food, shelter, education, preparing them for life, and so on. Often people tell me that my mother “loved me in her own way.” No thanks. I’d have preferred her hate. Her “loving way” was to spirit us away from our uncles (who would have put us first), take up with unseemly men, and then not feed us for days or weeks at a time.
Father only households earn more money because they HAVE to. Men cannot rely on the paltry sums the state offers to sell out their spouses. They know that those sums don’t actually help children. So they work.
There are two other things to take into account Olave. 60% of child abuse is inflicted by mothers. Children abused run a greater risk of turning out to be violent criminails than those not. So thats one thing.
The other thing to take into account is that mothers are given custody almost out of hand. Even to get shared custody fathers have to FIGHT hard. Without resources, wealth and friends in the right places, chances are he’s not going to get custody. So those very rare times when a father does get sole custody, it’s because the woman has demonstrated herself to be completely and totally unfit. Not just mostly unfit as in the majority of single mother cases. So when a woman’s that unfit that even the entirely pro-woman illegal family court hands custody to the father, it should be evident that those children will definitely fair better than single mother cases, and dual parent.
Higher income means nicer housing, which means nicer schools, which means you don’t get beat up as much for failing to get the Ds and Fs required to be cool.
(Cool is the opposite of uppity.)
Precisely. Though I would postulate as I just did above, that the fathers in those cases earn more than single mothers because they are going to put everything on the line for their children. Something even good single mothers *typically* are not doing.
Now what’s the point of all of this? Take a look at the cases that are being posted here. Videos of blacks involved in mob violence (even against each other), incredibly high statistics of rape, violence and others. While I won’t deny that intellect can certainly come into play, this doesn’t explain those whites with low intellect that are not involved in these things. But as pointed out from the article, and a couple comenters, single motherhood is par for the course for young black men. These children are at higher risk for abuse from mothers, EXPONENTIALLY higher risk at abuse from her boyfriends, higher risk for poverty, higher risk for poor education, and in general higher risk for everything that a child should be avoiding in their formative years.
So it is little wonder that they then fall right into the same activity since that’s what they’ve been taught. Now that being said, it doesn’t excuse it. I’m not one of these basket weaving whiny liberals who thinks that such a young man should get off on a crime because his mother hated him. I was raised in a similar environment and I am a LAWFUL, KIND and PRODUCTIVE person who has never been in trouble with the law, never threatened anyone even when threatened myself and never caused bodily injury to another human being. But still knowing these facts, I think it’s reasonable to push harder for fathers rights and modify the law back to the point that children are almost always wards of their father, not mother.
Oh and happy fourth!
Some interesting points by Aoirthoir.
You wonder how many of the pathologies of the black community are the result of female headed households. If what feminists tell us were true, then America’s inner cities (to use a euphemism) would be paragons of peace and prosperity. Female headed families would teach non-violence, and women, without the oppression of men, would create their own gentile society.
Well, we have seen men driven out of the black home, either as a result of the welfare state or the wars on crime (or by female hypergamy), and we have seen black women de facto in charge of the inner city household.
How’s that working?
It’s the dysgenics thing. Government policies promote the worst kind of breeding among blacks, and then people scratch their heads and wonder why the black community is dysfunctional. Similar policies are working their way into the white middle class. Men are being driven out of their homes by the insane divorce laws, and more men are joining in the “marriage strike” as they see matrimony the death knell for their own futures.
This is why race realism turn can not simply turn into a whites versus blacks things. The center of gravity of the problem is in the liberal ideologues — of all races, creeds and colors — who are wrecking American society. Wrecking? Heck, they have pretty much hosed it for good.
Californian, 70% of pathologies in the black community are a direct result of black single mothers who abuse their children. The other 30% are a result of the “good” black single mothers.
In any case it is interesting in this space to see someone talking about the marriage strike. Right now in the UK there are men that won’t get on elevators if a woman is on them, considering the ridiculous numbers of sexual assault and rape allegations women there make. And have you SEEN British women? One can only wonder if these allegations are just dime store novel fantasies of theirs. I mean fuck sake, I’d rather rape a dog.
Where was I? Ah ok so some men are beginning to take things back. We’re making our own declaration of rights (individually), demanding that women file their own declaration of equality, just what she MEANS by it, informing employers that we, as males, have a RIGHT to a SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT and if there are women working there, we’re entitled to either know what steps they take to protect us from false sexual harrassment/assault charges, or to NOT have to work with women at all, declaring our right to trial by a jury of our PEERS (sorry but a Muslim or leftist Christian is NOT my peer), the right for all judgements and penalties to be 100% voluntary, and the right that ALL taxation, ALL of it is voluntary.
I suspect that as men start to take things back, strip women of the “right” to abuse children you will find more fathers in the black community participating and fewer neurosis and less violence. How much less? Dunno and its going to take about 3 generations to clean up the mess these women have caused.
“I am a LAWFUL, KIND and PRODUCTIVE person”
“And have you SEEN British women? One can only wonder if these allegations are just dime store novel fantasies of theirs. I mean fuck sake, I’d rather rape a dog.”
I have no argument about lawful or productive, but the second quote here is just one of numerous posts on Unamusement Park’s blog alone to make your claim to being “kind” rather dubious.
“I have no argument about lawful or productive, but the second quote here is just one of numerous posts on Unamusement Park’s blog alone to make your claim to being “kind” rather dubious.”
Because I speak the facts? :D
And sure I’ll admit to ALSO being an asshole. Keep in mind though a number of things when I say sh’t like that:
1. Aoirthoir is Gaeilge for Satirist.
2. I’m Irish. You can’t insult me. I have a terribly hard time believing that insults are real. If someone said “aoirthoirs are fat and toothless and creepy and look like child molestors*” I’d not be offended. Cause I can’t be insulted.
(* ALL of those things have been said about me many times merely because of statements I’ve made (non insulting ones) or the way I look)
3. Most of my insults have a basis in fact, usually the ignoble behavior of the person or demographic in question. It thus, is perfectly reasonable when a woman makes a false rape allegation (the majority) to call her unattractive. The thing I said about Brits and elevators is true. Right now in parts of England men are being stopped, questioned and nearly arrested for merely being men, in public parks. Because of course they MUST be predators hunting for children or women. So, the women that created this ridiculous sense of fear and loathing of innocent men, deserve to have huge piles of disdain heaped upon their character.
4. I often extremely exaggerate my claims to make it obvious I’m being an ridiculous asshole (100% of marriages fail because of women…remember that one? Though it IS true wives are annoying. So are husbands :D)
5. I’ve being kind to all of those persons who are of the demographic under attack by the persons in the demographic groups whose bad behavior I am highlighting.
So, if a woman is upset because I mock women who abuse their children, or women who make false rape allegations (SK anyone?), or who women who seek to criminalize lawful behavior of men and demonize men or women who seek to strip lawful men of their property through socialist taxation or illegal family and Uniform Commercial Code courts, or any other tactic that women are using to encourage government thugs to inflict violence on men, so be it. That doesn’t make me any more unkind than unamused calling blacks who run around in packs attacking whites, “animals”.
But sure, I am speaking with a wry and sharp tongue and not with gentleness, which some believe is what is kindness.
Moderation eh:D
[You stated you’d “rather rape a dog” than a British woman. Setting aside how off-topic that is, moderation is the price you pay for my not wanting to scare off the ‘Park’s female readers/commenters.]
Moderation isn’t a price. And note the smiley. I’m not offended that you’re moderating. I was just noting that that’s what was going on.
But look if British women are offended I’m still not going to violate them.
I do believe gentleness has something do with kindness. Incidentally, so does Merriam-Webster.
“adj
Definition of KIND
1. chiefly dialect : affectionate, loving
2. a : of a sympathetic or helpful nature
b : of a forbearing nature : gentle”
I can’t help being prickled by a lot of your statements regarding marriage and motherhood.
I’m sorry your mother did what she did to you; I can see where that might make motherhood look like a joke. But my mother was stellar when my father walked out on us and never looked back. She didn’t try to “keep us” in the divorce–he just didn’t want us, or anything to do with us, as we found out over and over again when we would try to set up times to see him, and he would make promises and then not show up. I can only imagine the hell our lives would have been if a court had handed us over to him.
As a wife and mother myself, statements like this:
“Children with just the father fair the BEST.
That is because women are neurotic and a man has to spend as much time raising his wife as he does raising his children. When he can focus on just raising the children, without the interference of a female, they do far better.”
are intensely hurtful (what can I say, I guess being only part Irish means I’m not impervious to insult). The idea that my husband has to spend time “raising me” is disgusting. The idea that my presence is interference in their lives is offensive. The idea that our child (or my husband for that matter) would fare better if I were gone is preposterous. And yes, I know, you didn’t say anything about “Annie L.” You just said something about “women,” a category of which I am a subset.
I don’t know…maybe it seems silly to you to be hurt by things you know aren’t true. I myself find I’m MORE hurt when people assert things that aren’t true. I’ve always found it pretty easy to laugh at the insults I know are true (with a few sore-spot exceptions). My big feet and blinding pallor are as much a joke to me as anyone. But I’ve been IQ tested at 145, and one of the insults that stings the most is when people accuse me of stupidity.
In the first weeks after my child was born, I discovered what my whole life was FOR. Being told I’m at best extraneous and at worst harmful is like being sucker-punched straight to the heart.
I certainly don’t expect you to change your style for my benefit, but I thought it worth mentioning that your hyperbole does not necessarily come across in the spirit of ridiculous play you intend it (though the occasional smiley faces help, of course). There are plenty of people who would say the same things you do and mean every word of it, and without the benefit of facial expressions and body language, it’s not always easy to tell the difference.
A lot of the stuff Unamused is doing is here is stuff women REALLY need to see: race realism, the dangers of gender feminism, the ridiculous “rape” crap. A lot if it, if it gets through, will make a huge impact on women’s safety, but since women ARE, in general, more emotional, more fragile and more sensitive, it’s very tricky. I think when a lot of men start exploring this stuff, they have a reaction of “Ahhhh. At last. Something that explains and resolves this horrible cognitive dissonance I’ve been living with for the last 20 years.” For a lot of women, it’s gonna be more like, “Ugh…this information feels really awful. It’s so much nicer to think that everyone is the same and everyone is equal.” Blanket statements about the general horribleness of women, intended in fun or not, are going to make it really easy for a lot of women to walk away and disregard the entire subject.
And the talky broad strikes again.
And, by the by, I didn’t mean for my request for a citation to be anonymous. I had already commented on another post and thought my log-in info had been saved.
[I fixed it.]
“I do believe gentleness has something do with kindness. Incidentally, so does Merriam-Webster.”
I am applying 1 and 2 to myself in regards to men. I am affectionate, loving, sympathetic and of a helpful nature to men when I mock women who make false allegations against the men.
“I can’t help being prickled by a lot of your statements regarding marriage and motherhood…”
Don’t be. Are you a good mother? Are you a good wife? Are you going to stay one? Are you going to raise your children right, build confidence in them, do all that you can to ensure that their uncles, grand dads, father are involved in their lives?
Don’t Unamused’s words prick many blacks? But if someone is a black who is not raping, not being violent, not trying to strip people of their property, not expecting handouts, do unamused’s words apply to them? Nope.
If my words don’t apply to you, then they don’t. If you aren’t neurotic, if you aren’t abusive, if you are mature, if you act with responsibility and nobility, then none of what I said, applies to you.
The things I am stating about mothers, I am stating about regarding STATISTICALLY. Statistically mothers account for over 60% of child abuse. That’s married mothers, not married mothers, mothers with a man, mothers without. Mothers alone account for something like 40%. No man, just the mother. Father’s with or without a partner 30%, just fathers alone something like 17%, which is less than half of mother alone.
Single mothers DO statistically expoentially increase the risk to children of abuse from step fathers, boy friends, including sexual assault. While we’re told that even fathers sexually abuse their children, the numbers are so low, when compared to a non-familial male brought in by the mother.
Now if you aren’t in the demographic that is abusing their children, not a single word I said applies to you.
—
Finally the entire point of my statements at all were in regards to the thug who murdered the police officer who was raised by his single mother. A black single mother. Black single mothers are the most abusive parents I’ve ever seen. Beating their sons and daughters in public. Grabbing little two year olds by the arms and flipping them up and swinging them by it. Calling them nigger and other names IN PUBLIC. And, even with their low IQs comparitively, in the vast majority of the cases of men like this thug, a single abusive black mother is behind them.
And as in the cases when I talk in broad strokes about single mothers of all races, everything I just said about single black mothers doesn’t apply to those to whom it doesn’t apply.
—
Finally there IS a portion of the way that I write that is funny. When you mentioned the guy from the other site who says women file for divorce in 70% of the cases (true) and he makes it like they are repsonsible in at least a portion of the other cases as well….well that’s funny. What percentage of the 70% file because they’ve been abused? Or for other legitimate causes, or mutual separation? So his making it out that ALL of those 70% are the fault of the women, and then most of the other 30% are also the fault of the women, is FUNNY because it is PREPOSTOROUS.
So I retort that its womens fault 100% of the time because wives are fucking annoying, because that’s FUNNY. Just like when I say that all women on this planet are hitting on me, not because they are, but because that seems to be the attitude of so many men.
So yeah, that appears that I am mocking the woman, but in reality I’m mocking the claim of the guy from the other site.
“The things I am stating about mothers, I am stating about regarding STATISTICALLY. Statistically mothers account for over 60% of child abuse. That’s married mothers, not married mothers, mothers with a man, mothers without. Mothers alone account for something like 40%. No man, just the mother. Father’s with or without a partner 30%, just fathers alone something like 17%, which is less than half of mother alone.”
My trouble with these statistics is that I don’t believe they are corrected to account for the quantity of time spent in the children’s company. Children can be extremely frustrating and aggravating. A woman is much more likely to be subjected to that frustration and aggravation for extended, unrelieved periods of time. I think if a woman is half as likely to slap a child in a given situation as a man, there are still going to be more incidents of a woman slapping a child, because in just about ANY situation, a woman is simply more likely to be physically present.
You’re correct that men and women have different responses to child-rearing in regards to providing. When our child was born, my husband began lamenting that he doesn’t make more money. I began lamenting that I have to work at all. He wanted to know he was taking care of our family’s physical, financial needs. I wanted to never have to leave my baby in someone else’s care. If a woman is raising a child alone, chances are, she’s still going to focus less on financial providing and more on being able to provide direct in-person care. If a man is raising a child alone, he’s going to be more likely to focus on providing food/shelter/clothing and leave the child in some kind of daycare. So, who is it that’s present when, for the 5th day in a row, the child has carried out a 45-minute screaming, stomping tantrum at nap time?
Statistics about abuse provide only one facet of what constitutes a child’s well-being (and it’s certainly a very important one), but plenty of people end up spending years in therapy because their fathers, who were perfectly good providers, never gave any other demonstration of affection, were never around, never had a real conversation with them.
Don’t get me wrong, I think one of the HUGE mistakes in our society has been the undermining of the significance of the father. I just think it’s not any better to devalue the mother.
Women are around the children more because they chose it. In particular for single mothers, they choose to fight for custody, against shared custody, against fatherly visitation, and violate court orders requring fatherly visitation. Cases like your father are extremely rare since most fathers fight vehemently for visitation and are denied at every turn.
Single mothers in particular cannot at one and the same time DEMAND full custody, doing everything to prevent even visitation by the father and then complain that they are around the children more and that led them to abuse the child.
Apply that argument to ANY other demographic and see how absurd it is.. “black men rape white women they work with because they are around them more…” “Husbands abuse their wives more than the mailman abuses those wives because the husbands are around their wives more.” “Cat owners abuse their cats more because they are around them more…”
Proxmity to the potential victim is no excuse for abuse.
If that frustration and aggravation is going to lead you to abuse them, then don’t have children, don’t sue for custody after you’ve had them and don’t deny fathers visituation.
The abuse statistics do not take into consideration slapping. Corporeal punishment is legal in most states. The statistics about abuse are regarding criminal abuse. If we were to include incidents of slapping and screaming at a child out of frustration, the rates of abuse by mothers would be far in excess of the paltry 60%.
So let me emphasize that. We’re not talking about slapping or being upset or sending child to their rooms. We’re talking about cases of ACTUAL VIOLENCE against children.
Which is precisely why women should not have sole custody (and I would argue against shared custody).
Which is exactly what he should have been lamenting.
If a person fights for SOLE custody, then too bad. Their FIRST responsibility isn’t “loving” the child (as a feeling) but SHOWING “love” to the child by taking care of their financial provisions. Again, she cannot at one and the same time sue for sole custody, doing everything to prvent the man from being present, and then neglect her responsibility to do the things the man would have done if she had not expended great effort to have him ejected him from their child’s life.
Then she needs to do like the man and focus on providing financial care. Because by being present and abusing the child she’s not actually able to “provide direct in-person care” because abusing a helpless child is not in person care, it’s in person abuse.
“Statistics about abuse provide only one facet of what constitutes a child’s well-being (and it’s certainly a very important one),”
Lets flip that. Statistics only provide one facet of what costitutes a victim of black violence and their well being… I’ll take not being abused by violence over this:
“but plenty of people end up spending years in therapy because their fathers, who were perfectly good providers, never gave any other demonstration of affection, were never around, never had a real conversation with them.”
This is a fable. It happens occasionaly but is the exception. Most people don’t end up in therapy because daddy was working hard to provide for them and thus gone for long hours. They DO end up at greater risk for a whole host of issues (criminality, lack of education, poor work opportunities, perpetuating abuse) when then are the victims of abuse, when their fathers are prevented by the courts and the mothers from being involved in their lives.
“Don’t get me wrong, I think one of the HUGE mistakes in our society has been the undermining of the significance of the father. I just think it’s not any better to devalue the mother.”
Except I’m not devaluing mothers. I’m devaluing ABUSIVE mothers.
—
Long and the short is you’ve not made a convicing argument that women should be more present around children. If proximity to children is going to lead them to abuse children more, then they need to not be around children.
—
We’d not accept any such excuse for black crime. We should not accept it for mother crime.
I don’t believe I said anywhere that women being around children more excuses their violence. I said that it might skew the statistics to make women appear more abusive than men, when that may not truly be the case. It seems strange to me that, across the board, men are convicted overwhelmingly more of violent crime, except in this particular demographic, and yet people are willing to say this is proof positive that women are innately more dangerous to children than men.
“Except I’m not devaluing mothers. I’m devaluing ABUSIVE mothers.”
Okay, but do you understand how I might have misinterpreted that when your response to my statement that children in general are better of with both parents was this?
“No. They are dramatically better off if the FATHER is active and present in their lives. Statistically the lack of the female not only doesn’t impact the child for the worse, it tends to be of benefit to them.”
“I don’t believe I said anywhere that women being around children more excuses their violence.”
What you did was provide an excuse to account for the greater violence at the hands of mothers (they are around the children more).
“I said that it might skew the statistics to make women appear more abusive than men, when that may not truly be the case.”
Except that the percentages can be compared across numbers of single fathers compared to numbers of single mothers.
“It seems strange to me that, across the board, men are convicted overwhelmingly more of violent crime,”
Which men are convicted overwhelmingly of more violent crime? Mostly it is black men. Most men convicted of violent crime are convicted of out of family violence. Most in-family child violence is women. Fathers that are present, (not most black fathers) tend to be supportive of their children and commit violence against them in fewer numbers than mothers that are present. This goes for fathers across the spectrum (single, married…etc) and mothers across the spectrum (single, married etc…)
“except in this particular demographic, and yet people are willing to say this is proof positive that women are innately more dangerous to children than men.”
I could also extrapolate from the data that MEN are committing 80% of violent felonies, rapes, murders and so on. But I won’t extrapolate the data which says that BLACK men are doing these things in most instances, to ALL men. I also will not extrapolate the data that says black men are committing 80% plus of violent crime to fathers. Neither should you.
If you accept statistics about black violence and conviction rates as being evidence that blacks are more violence, why dismiss the very same sources that say mothers are more violent than fathers towards their children?
Blacks don’t like statistics that say blacks are responsible for most of the violence committed. Women don’t like statistics that say mothers are responsible for most child abuse.
Here is a study which indicates that, of several family types, father-only is worse than mother-only, natural mother & father, and natural parent & a step parent.
The father-only household entails the highest risk of both abuse and neglect.
This applies to each age class of children.
The above study covers only abuse & neglect. This study covers delinquency (apprehended by police for minor crimes, running away, etc.) as well, but doesn’t tease out the man-headed from the woman-headed. In each “bad outcome” category, kids are better off with two rather than one parent.
One interesting thing about the first study I cited (browse it, really, it’s short and interesting) is that stepparents in the house tends to make abuse and neglect about equally frequent. In every other household type, neglect is much more common.
It seems that the stereotype of the mean old stepmonster who cuffs you in the head but at least gives you a square meal is supported.
Perhaps coincidentally, 85 percent of the single-parent households were headed by women.
That’s a USDA estimate, probably related to that department’s supervision of the Food Stamps program. If men and women are equally abusive, we would expect 85% of the child abuse in single-parent homes to be perpetrated by nasty old mothers and 15% by nasty old fathers. (Any percent can be perpetrated by either gender in two-parent homes, and still be consistent with the USDA data.)
Hmmm…interesting to see what DOES get through moderation here. So my entire post was comparable to saying I would rather rape a dog than an English woman. Everything else he said, with no citations (quoting actual statistics) was okay with you?
[If someones calls him out, demanding a citation, and he doesn’t provide one, then no one is obligated to believe him. That is the normal consequence of not citing your sources: you won’t convince anyone.
You, on the other hand, were simply being a bitch, so when you refused to cite sources for your insulting lies, I moderated you. I’m pleased to see this upset you.]
Why thank you, Olave! And I found some more!
As I was trying to say earlier, the 60% of total children being abused by mothers (which also isn’t true, by the way. The 2010 stastic I found was roughly 37%) does not control for the fact that dramatically more children are living with just their mothers. You cannot just look at the percentage of the total, you must look at proportions. (This is the same logic we use when talking about black crime rates. Who commits more crime in the US, blacks or whites? Whites. Because there are dramatically more white people in the US. Blacks just commit crimes at a higher RATE, given their smaller population.) If you look at the numbers of abuse commited per every 1000 children, it looks pretty different:
–“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.”
Data from The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (1996).
So, it would appear that women being less abusive is not, in fact, the exception to the rule at all. Single mothers being less abusive than single fathers IS the rule.
And, when trying to hunt for this data, I found tons and tons of sites that looked at single parent (non gender-specific) versus married, biological parents and every single one overwhelmingly supported that married, biological parents are, statistically speaking, far and away the BEST possible environment for raising children, which was the point I was actually trying to make in my very first comment on this post.
“Long and the short is you’ve not made a convicing argument that women should be more present around children.”
I hope I have now.
The study you quote is 35 years old and extrapolates data into the millions. Here are some statistics that are more up to date and deal with the data in relation to each other, rather than the population at large.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm00/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm01/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm02/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapterfour.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/chapterfour.htm
Year 2000:
Notice specifically that in this case the abuse by is divided by each parent. You are going to find as you look at the following years that this separation is strangly absent. Instead the claim will simply be made that abuse by a parent occurs in 80% of the cases (give or take).
Since men are most often [wrongly] perceived as the abusers, this lack of separation serves to perpetuate that fable. Yet, year after year the actual stats are exactly like what we see here (Mother only = 40% of abuse, father only = 17% of abuse…together = 19% of abuse….) (give or take).
Now notice that specifically sexual abuse by the mother is left unmentioned. Why would they state the percentages of sexual abuse by a father, but not the mother. Fortunately they gave us the total number of sexual abuse percentages by their parents. So, what we do find though is these numbers:
Rate. Perpetrator
———————–
21.5% Father Only
19.4% Other Relative
24.9% Other Perpetrator
=======================
65.8% Total So Far
100% – 65.8% = 34.2% undefined (yet).
Rate. Perpetrator
———————–
43.5% Parents
21.5% Father Only (subtract)
=======================
22.0%
Mother? or
Mother with Father? or
Father with Grandfather? or
Father with neighbor?
Or some mixture thereof?
That still leaves us with 12.2% undefined.
It is SIGNIFICANT that they leave out the mother from the stated statitics on sexual abuse, especially considering that sexual abuse is seen as a male only crime. They also do not separate “other relatives” into male and female. Now if mothers were really as guiltless in cases of sexual abuse as we all so often believe, why would they do that? Wouldn’t they herald that its 0.01%? It is also significant that they also state that 43.5% of sexual abuse involves the parents.
But as I just mentioned above, this same pattern is repeated in the following years regarding physical abuse not just sexual abuse. That is the numbers are hidden and instead speak of “parents” instead of mother and fathers. Of course there has also been an upsurge of MRAs pointing to this data, thus squashing the fable that fathers are typically the abusers when in fact it is typically women.
Sorry, but as much as you try you’re not going to make me think English women are more attractive than dogs. Also, dogs are loyal and English women drink tea.
Unamused already covered it. But the point is that I don’t stomp demanding either policy changes based on statitistics I am not providing (although I do occcasionally) or demand that people believe me. I, being a man, and not a feminist wimpy whiny man who never gets laid but thinks I will by cowtowing to the feminist party line, am logical. Thus I understand that if I do not provide evidence of something, no one is under any obligation to believe my claim.
On the other hand I have also found out that feminists don’t actually believe in reality. Instead they believe in their made up fantasy world where just declaring that they should not be victimized by malicious criminals who would as soon kill and rape them as take a breath, makes it so. And in this fantasy world anyone saying HEY THE EMPEROR IS NAKED, is seen as victim blaming, woman hating, racist, capitalist sexist chauvenist pig behavior.
Since we are going to be accused of these things ANYWAY, just as white cops defending women (white and black) from black racist male rapists are going to be accused of being racists, we might as well just create a patriarchy, and truly protect women.
Actually yes it is almost always true. The 37% is part of the 40% give or take (varies each year…) of Mother ONLY abuse. The 60% is mother WITH ANOTHER party, be it the father, boyfriend, grandma, etc.
I’ve already covered how this is an excuse. If living with children is going to drive mothers to abusing those same children that they are protecting, then they should cease sueing for full custody and at least have shared custody, or no custody.
Except what you just said isn’t factual. At least not in regards to violent crime. 80% (give or take) of violent crime is commited by blacks. Unamused might correct me if I am wrong on this. I would wager they have higher rates of theft and less violent crimes as well. Perhaps whites commit more fraud, or white collar crime. Perhaps those doing so, do so in higher percentages compared to other whites, than blacks do compared to other blacks. Again Unamused can likely speak more about those things.
Now there are things that whites might do that are illegal, but not unlawful. It is illegal for someone to accept money from me to cut my hair if they don’t have a license. But there is nothing unlawful about it.
I rarely accept the validity data that then is extrapolated to the population because so often the real world results do not end up matching the claims. One source calimed that my community experienced a dozen rapes, handful of murders, and a number of other violent crimes “per 100,000”. Well there are 17000 people here so I knew they were extrapolating. With that small a population you are going to find out if you had six murders in a year. So we dug deeper and found the actual reports. We had two violent crimes here in that year, no rapes, no murders. An a car theft.
The extrapolated claims you quoted directly contradict the data that I quoted from the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The data there is similar to Justice Department data (which is where I had been originally directed some number of years ago).
No. At best what you’ve done is demonstrate that there is disagreement among the rates of abuse. But I already knew that. Sources that I’ve seen over the years directly contradict the claims that you made and the study that Olave posted. A study that is 35 years old. Those were the first wave single mothers. Now we’re seeing the effect of how their daughters (and their daughters daughers) raised children and the data is significantly different.
Yes, the study I found was really old. If I were less tired I would probably be able to look at this with more rigor.
My opinions on the matter are:
(A) Men are far from the violent, raving psychopaths the genderfemz would have us believe. Whether they commit more or less child abuse than women is largely irrelevant, because
(B) I firmly believe the traditional family structure is the best thing. Best thing in the whole world. Mint ice cream with hot fudge comes close, but if you have a mom and dad, they can get you that AND chili dogs.
(C) In slightly more seriousness, even if single fatherhood does result in less abuse (I’m too tired to read all of Aoithoir’s* links, though I appreciate the work), I recommend against it vehemently. If my queen, partner, advisor, and assistant** didn’t come home to help with my little baby, I would implode from the stress.
* I was going to call you RoboCelt, but I realized you probably can’t store a Beretta 93R in your thigh. Also you have better hair.
** This is all one person. I ain’t no Big Love-Mormon-type thing.
“Except what you just said isn’t factual. At least not in regards to violent crime. 80% (give or take) of violent crime is commited by blacks. Unamused might correct me if I am wrong on this. I would wager they have higher rates of theft and less violent crimes as well. Perhaps whites commit more fraud, or white collar crime. Perhaps those doing so, do so in higher percentages compared to other whites, than blacks do compared to other blacks. Again Unamused can likely speak more about those things.”
I would actually appreciate it if Unamused would step in here, because I don’t have the energy to go looking for stats, but I am virtually certain that I am correct and in terms of sheer numbers, more crimes are committed by whites. According to the flyer, blacks are 3.9 times as likely as whites to commit violent crimes, but whites are roughly 4.5 times as numerous as blacks in this country, so the straight number of violent crimes committed is going to be greater for whites. It does appear that blacks outnumber us on robbery and murder, but it does say that overall, they are 2.3 times as likely to be arrested for “some kind of crime” and that means there are greater numbers of whites being arrested.
“I’ve already covered how this is an excuse. If living with children is going to drive mothers to abusing those same children that they are protecting, then they should cease sueing for full custody and at least have shared custody, or no custody.”
Living with children is going to, inevitably, drive some people, male or female, to abuse those children. What the data shows, when taken in proportion, is that women are going to be driven to it less. As Olave said, women get primary custody of the children about 85% of the time. So if men and women were EQUALLY abusive, about 85% of the total abuse should be coming from women. If only 60% of it is coming from women, it means that that 15% of men with extensive contact with their children are doing 40% of the abusing. This means that, for the number of men who have custody of their children, they are doing more abusing on average than the women are.
And yes, I know I over-simplified those percentages, because there are categories of abuse by “others,” but, overall, the percentage of “father-only” abuse is still a HIGHER percentage than the percentage of father-only households, and the percentage of “mother-only” abuse is LOWER than the percentage of mother-only households.
Hey Annie L. You’re right about race and crime.
There are so many more whites than blacks that whites commit more crimes total. Of course, this is irrelevant in any discussion of crime, because (a) it is easy to identify someone’s race — that information is available; and (b) only rates matter. (I can explain that in detail if anyone really needs me to.)
Over 80 percent of violent inter-racial crime involving blacks and whites is committed by blacks; for multiple-offender crimes, it’s closer to 100 percent. That’s where the 80 percent statistic comes from.
However, for certain crimes, the black crime rate is so outrageously high that more blacks are committing them than whites in total. Also, the black crime rate tends to be highest (relative to whites) for more violent crimes, robbery (mugging) being one exception. From “The Color of Crime” (2005):
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) shows that blacks commit about 55 percent of robberies, 45 percent of car thefts, 40 percent of aggravated assaults, 40 percent of burglaries, 35 percent of rapes/sexual assaults, and just under 30 percent of simple assault.
According to the independent National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), blacks commit about 70 percent of robberies and just over 50 percent of murders. (The NCVS surveys victims, so of course it cannot tell us about murder.)
What matters is not all the fathers lumped together. Rather, what percentage of abuse is perpetrated by single fathers. (Actual numbers). As I pointed out, as MRAs started to quote the numbers of abusers, showing that it is mostly women, suddenly they’ve stopped providing those numbers. One has to really really dig to find them. Since they are not separating by gender now, they’re not going to easily provide us the percentages of actual abuse victims by single father homes vs two parent homes (by the father).
Same statement as above.
Alright I stand corrected. The 80% is 80% of INTERRACIAL crime. I’ll make a note of it for future discussions.
To me the only relevance it really has is the complete disdain that not only feminists, but society and yes “conservative” women have for men in general and fathers in particular. I stopped celebrating Vajayay Day* a few years ago and won’t celebrate it again unless I am ever with a woman that puts as much effort into protecting abused fathers as has been put into protecting abused mothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
http://www.erinpizzey.com/
Are a couple of resources from someone “in the trenches.” She started the woman’s shelter movement, to protect women from abusive men. What she found out was that many of the women that were showing up at her (and other) shelters, were more violent (or as violent) than the men they were claiming to flee from. So now she’s started the men’s shelter movement. Her admissions have garnered her death threats and other abuses. She’s found that though the problem of father/husband abuse is as prevalent as that of wife/mother abuse, no one’s really interested in doing anything about it.
Since being raised by a single mother is one of the linchpins of murderers and other violent offenders like the one in the OP, I note it when I once again I see it ( eg. “According to WTSP, the cop-killer’s (single) mother, Deneen Sweat, blames the gun” ). If you follow the comment thread from the top you see that Eh, just had to respond, pointing out that most black children are raised by single “parents”. I corrected noting, no, it’s typically single mothers and single grand mothers. The fact that Eh was pointing out that 70% (or more) of black children are raised this way does nothing to prove that single motherhood is irrelevant to the violence of the murderer in question. Or as Eh claimed “It says something but not as much as you might think..” When in fact the higher prevalance of single motherhood amongst blacks is a predicter for the violent behavior of black men and women raised by these mothers. And the discussion went on from there.
As I’ve mentioned before I don’t write in particular for others. You will examine these issues on your own or not. (Though it appears you are at least examining the possibility that women are violent). But I’ve spent years educating myself on these issues with no real intent other than to be aware. Indeed I’ve got a bone in this fight having been on the recieving end of various forms of violence from my mother, even into adulthood when she threatened to use government thugs (police) and their guns to abuse me (NOTE..police are NOT thugs but they can BECOME thugs when they will use their weapons to attack a man on the mere word of a woman with ZERO evidence…). So, because the conversation will always tend towards excusing violence of women, or trying to equate it as less than that of men (not factual) I’ll speak up about it.
But more importantly, though it may be claimed in certain cases that children fair worse with their fathers only, the facts are that the vast majority of violent offenders will share at least one thing in common (perhaps two or three after reading Unamused). Those things in no particular order are PERHAPS going to be being born black, being raised by a single mother, and having a lower intelligence.
Some sources claim that when accounting for all other things, single motherhood is the single most common contributing factor. That is that whites raised by single mothers tend towards having the higher (or claimed the same) rates of violence, rape, murder and so forth, as any other demographic. THAT part of the claim/statistic I’ve not examined yet in depth enough to make a decision**.
But what I have examined enough is that over and again in these sorts of events, as in the original piece, tend the majority of the time to have “single mother” somewhere along the line of the perpetrator. When I start noticing the same thing with single father being common amongs the pepetrators of violence, I’ll start taking note of that as well. But if raising kids is so hard for a single mother that she’s going to use it as an excuse to lead her child towards a violent life, then she’s given up any rights of claim to the entitlement of raising children.
And this is where a patriarchy comes in. Most of you prefer two parent households. Excellent. I do not. I prefer multiple “guide” households and communities. That is, the FATHER is present, the MOTHER is present (and never countermands the father), the UNCLES are present, the AUNTS are present, the GRANDPARENTS are present, the COUSINS are present…in short those grown adults who act and live with nobility, honor and righteousness, that are teaching qualities of character to their children. In order for this truly to happen, men have to be the decision makers. While it is true that there are women of good breeding out there, women often simply have no stomach for the real disciplining (which means training not punishment) that children need. (Plus most of them hate talking about politics, ..I mean wtf!? Politics is great)
In the least we should admit that the great ease with which single mothers are churning out criminals and foisting them upon us, and then coming up with excuses for their violent children time and again (really in an effort to excuse their OWN failure at motherhood) informs upon us the need to strictly forbid any single mother status. If the father has left, and she has no familial relations that could take over the tasks assigned to the father (uncles, granddads etc) then she should be made to join some sort of community of righteous persons who have demonstrated an ability to bring children into adulthood as responsible, capable human beings that practice violence only in defense. Now, if you conclude through your own research that single fathers result in the same sorts of bad circumstances, and even if not, I am willing to agree that it is likewise a protection for society, children, mothers and the family that single fatherhood be applied to the same ruleset.
Finally if you have demonstrated yourself incapable of rearing children as decent human beings, you have no right to produce them. If you are practicing violence yourself by having birthed and raised a walking, talking, living, breathing beast which exists as nothing more than a weapon intended to degrade, harm, rape, and murder other human beings, then sorry, or not actually, but NO you do NOT deserve to produce anymore children. You should be tried as an unfit parent and summarily sterilized.
But such conversations are…. “ist” in nature aren’t they? I must hate women, minorities or worse, French people. Because they eat snails and smell and do we really want them watching television shows that we produce?
In any case, I can always make statements like I just did, thoroughly depressing a great segment of the readers because contending you don’t have a natural right to abuse or produce abusers is verboten in our society. (And sets you up as a target of THE MAN because you actually seem able to resist them with LOGIC) Or I could be bemusing, sarcastic and make ridiculous statements. (Which protects you from THE MAN because if you are nuts, what do they care? They tend to leave us alone)
And yes I could be somewhere in between but I’ve found that each time I end up discussing abuse in great detail like this it’s exhausting and certainly doesn’t do much too cheer me thinking about what I’ve experience. Because you never really get over those things, you just heal in some ways and in others, ignore. And it also really does not dissuade anyone from the course of anti-male, anti-father violence that is the condition we live in. Being funny, now that at least is memorable. If not to you than to me.
Doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy life now, I do, or be productive, I am. It just means that sometimes it’s better to make a wildly sweeping ridiculous statement that one expects by virtue of their being wildly sweeping and ridiculous no one thinks you ACTUALLY mean (all divorce is ALWAYS the fault of the woman 100% of the time cause wives are fucking annoying) than to have to go back over the sources, find them again, lay out exactly in detail all of the problems associated with the “men are evil fucking bastards and women are just innocent victims of ravishing men and single mothers aren’t raising monsters” meme.
And one hopes that persons that ARE of quality character, will realize that when you’re talking about persons NOT of quality character, it doesn’t apply to them. When people talk about drunken Irish I don’t get offended, I’m not one of them. (Not for lack of wanting mind you, I just hate alcohol, it tastes nasty)
* Valentines Day. It’s Vajayjay Day because it has nothing to do with the man and there is no recriprocol Holy Day for men. Steak and a BJ Day doesn’t count.
** Alright I make no excuses for having misread the percentages that Unamused quoted. But the fact that whites do commit more violent crime informs exactly on my point. I believe I stated that there are some sources that claim that accounting for all other factors, the single trait that violent criminals hold most in common is having been raised by a single mother. Ann Coulter is a big fan of that claim.
So it seems worthwhile to explore more in detail, AGAIN. (I had hitherto mostly focused on the disparate numbers between mothers that abuse and fathers that abuse, and not as much on who commits other crimes).
Okay, I think we’re gonna just have to agree to disagree on this, because I think I’m reading a lot of the same info you are and still coming to a different conclusion. However, I did want to address this little tidbit:
“Finally if you have demonstrated yourself incapable of rearing children as decent human beings, you have no right to produce them. If you are practicing violence yourself by having birthed and raised a walking, talking, living, breathing beast which exists as nothing more than a weapon intended to degrade, harm, rape, and murder other human beings, then sorry, or not actually, but NO you do NOT deserve to produce anymore children. You should be tried as an unfit parent and summarily sterilized.”
I totally thought I was the only pro-Eugenics person left in this country. Granted, my policy is not quite so severe, in terms of permanent sterilization. My idea is that, upon menarche, all girls will have an IUD placed or mandatory Depo shots. There will be a strict checklist of criteria that must be met before it will be removed.
-The person or people in question will not have to be rich, but they will have to prove they can provide for the child without government assistance. People who live on a productive farm, for example, will not have to prove as high an income because they can supply food in other ways.
-They will not have to be geniuses, but they will have to prove they are smart enough to understand basic parenting concepts, i.e. don’t beat your children, don’t shake your infant, yes you have to feed them and change their diapers.
-They must demonstrate a respect for the law, i.e. cannot have an extensive criminal record themselves.
-They must demonstrate evidence of at least a minimal support network, because child rearing is hard, and if you’re trying to do it all by yourself, the odds that you’re gonna snap go WAY up.
I had other criteria too, but I’ve never written this down before and I can’t remember them all.
Well then we need to get a list going.
Ugh, this conversation is so interesting. I am not dropping out because of boredom or thinking it’s not an important subject; I’m dropping out because I’m busy.
In closing, child abuse sucks.
“My trouble with these statistics is that I don’t believe they are corrected to account for the quantity of time spent in the children’s company. Children can be extremely frustrating and aggravating. ”
That’s utterly disingenuous.
I can at the same time say that:
women spend more time with children and therefore they become accustomed to how to make them behave without abusing them. Or children behave nicer with them because they spend more time with them. etc. etc.
“I think if a woman is half as likely to slap a child in a given situation as a man”
and I say this is precisely because of the longer time spent.
How?
Let’s start with the feminist way:
men and women are equal. (I hope so that’s what feminism still believes)
ergo, both are equally likely to abuse children.
Women spend more time with children.
However, women are found to abuse children less for the same time spent.
thus the time spent with children decreases the likelihood of abuse.
therefore it’s posited that children become less frustrating and aggravating the more time you spend with them.
and don’t you wonder why didn’t this common sense suggestion make an appearance when feminists cry about wage gap? Women don’t spend as much time in the company, and thus get paid less. See, so simple. QED.
But that’s sexist!!
Now let’s add in where men and women are not equal. That’s physical strength.
A man’s shove becomes abuse, a womans’ does not.
Now let’s say that women’s voices are prone to be more high-pitched and not taken seriously.
A man’s admonition becomes more threatening than a woman’s squeal.
Thus it is posited that men are more likely to be perceived as the perpetrators of abuse than women.
And we can keep playing this game.
Men are more violent towards other men than towards women, so why is it hard to think that it might be even less against children?
Men kill more strangers than women.
Intimate partner homicide is much closer between genders than one might think.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/dershowitz3.htm
Let’s apply the time spent magic, men spent more time in volatile situations so that women don’t do the same.
Then let’s apply the physical strenght principle, men’s punches are more likely to break a jaw than women’s hair-pulling and nail scratching and is more likely to go to the police.
However, it’s much easier to beat up children.
Mothers kill more children than fathers.
And yet, in the links that Aoirthoir posted,
In this report, the terms “Mother” and “Father” include biological parent, adoptive parent, and stepparent.
the same is noted by Welmer here:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/10/male-children-of-all-ages-more-likely-to-die-from-abuse/
Then, stepfathers are about 100 times more likely to kill a child than biological fathers.
Click to access cinderella%20effect%20facts.pdf
If both parent families are better for children, biological fathers are the least harmful group to their own children and if default father custody in case of divorce leads to drop in divorce rate, why not have that?
Also from another Welmer’s article:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/19/worst-nightmare-for-divorced-fathers/
“Analyzing reports of fatal child abuse in the United States, one study found that stepfathers were approximately 60 times more likely than biological fathers to kill their preschool children. ”
http://www.enotalone.com/article/9871.html
And abuse in all other forms.
Holy shit, I missed that part.
This I knew. The bringing in of another man NOT the biological father EXPONTENTIALLY increases the risk for the child of ALL forms of abuse. ALL step fathers should be vetted.
Having said that since they amount of abuse in those reports I quoted lump step fathers in with biological fathers, then the rates of father only violence ACTUALLY DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY since the violence inflicted by step fathers is out of proportion.
Annie doesn’t think she’s a feminist Namae Nanka. (The majority of women in western countries are feminists, even when they deny it to themselves.)