Feminism or death?
Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
Like this:
Posted on September 22, 2011, in antifeminism, idiocy, MRA, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 1,516 Comments.
Rev, how would I define what? A matriarchal system? Or are you asking what label I would give to the situation Cassandra described?
“Or are you asking what label I would give to the situation Cassandra described?”
Yes, that’s what I’m asking. To describe that situation as matriarchal isn’t near as far reaching and obtuse as the 101 definition of “the patriarchy.”
I thought that 200 number was a little low. This was the first thing that popped up with the key-words mothers & murder. All the listings were about child murder.
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/ReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=10548
“More than 600 mothers kill their children each year, which gives rise to a psychological condition described as “maternal filicide,” according to a child psychologist who has reviewed the worldwide research on this topic.”
Not sure if that stat included neonaticide and infanticide.
I would call it an extended family.
You may be confused because so many movies and books talk about the family matriarch. Having a strong female personality in even a large number of families does not make our society matriarchal.
Hershele, I still refuse to play the game of “that’s what I think you wrote, therefore you wrote even if I can’t prove it.” That kind of delusional thinking may work for you here in this feminist circle jerk, but in the real world it just makes you look foolish.
“Could that be described as a matriarchal system? ”
No, that’s not what the word matriarchal means. A matriarchal society would be one in which women control govenment, business, the media, etc. Such societies existed in the distant past, but they’re very uncommon now. What I’m describing are societies in which extended families tend to live close to each other and be heavily involved in each other’s everyday lives.
I still have no idea what you mean when you use the word matriarchal, Rev. A clear definition from you might help this conversation unfold a little more smoothly - it’s almost impossible for people to engage with your arguments if you’re using words to mean things that they don’t actually mean according to the dictionary or in common usage.
Wow, Spinnaker, were you able to find the results that you wanted just like that? I googled, but all I found were reputable articles from believable sources, all saying that the number was at least 200 or more than 200 — no janky sites like the one you found.
So, then I googled Robert Butterworth psychologist, and guess what! He’s also an image consultant. Awesome. Oh, and the former resident psychologist for the Jerry Springer Show. I know how much you hate Oprah, Spinnaker, but Jerry Springer? Really?
Dude, your “source” doesn’t even indicate where these supposed 600 mothers do their murdering — he never even says that’s only in the US — let alone how many children are killed by these mothers, or what ages. Even if the guy weren’t a bogus source these stats are uselessly vague.
@Bee: “Oh, and the former resident psychologist for the Jerry Springer Show.”
Psychologist and media commentator, Robert R. Butterworth, Ph.D., has assisted radio, TV, and print media since 1984 find answers and provide insight to enhance understanding of psychological issues on a variety of topics. Dr. Butterworth has conducted extensive surveys focused on children and youth, social, political and trauma issues. His comments, observations and op-ed articles have appeared in most major newspapers in the United States and worldwide.He is seen quite often on NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and CNN network news especially during monumental events such as violence, disasters, youth tragedies and psychological reactions to breaking news and human event stories. Appearances also include ABC’s Nightline, and This Week, CNN’s Larry King Live, NBC’s, Oprah, Dateline NBC, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, O’Reilly, Factor, Extra, Entertainment Tonight, Dennis Miller Show and network talk and news programs. He is also featured as a psychology expert in various documentaries seen on Discovery, History, E and the Learning Channel. Dr Butterworth also serves as a psychology expert for public relations organizations and is a past consultant for national magazines. Dr Butterworth has cameo appearances in “Kate and Leopold,” with Meg Ryan and Michael Moore’s “Bowling For Columbine”
No mention of a “residency” at the Jerry Springer Show.
” but all I found were reputable articles from believable sources, all saying that the number was at least 200 or more than 200.”
Cool, that’s a good start. Specifically how many more? Please link your believable sources.
@Rev: Butterworth may have an enviable list of media appearances, but a quick search in the psychology academic datases is finding ZERO
Search in PsycARTICLES, PsycCRitiques, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Colleciton, and PsychInfo: under both Butterworth, Robert R. and Robert R. Butterworth showed ZERO publications in peer reviewed sources.
Shifting to Academic Search Complete and Soc Index in case he’s published in other social science venues outside “pure psychology”-zero.
Then I put some of your terms into the psychology databases.
Some results: Filicide: A comparative study of maternal versus paternal child homicide.
Images
Authors:
Liem, Marieke
Koenraadt, Frans
Source:
Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, Sep2008, Vol. 18 Issue 3, p166-176, 11p, 3 Charts
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
FILICIDE
HOMICIDE
MURDER
INFANTICIDE
MENTAL illness
MENTALLY ill
MEDICAL care
PRIMARY care (Medicine)
Geographic Terms:
NETHERLANDS
Abstract:
Background Filicide is the murder of a child by a parent. Historically, filicide was regarded as a female crime, but nowadays, in the West, men have become increasingly likely to be convicted of killing their child. Previous research on filicide has primarily focussed on either maternal or paternal filicide rather than comparing the two. Aim The aim of our study is to examine and compare the socio-demographic, environmental and psychopathological factors underlying maternal and paternal filicide. Methods Data were extracted from records in a forensic psychiatric observation hospital in Utrecht, in the Netherlands for the period 1953–2004. Results Seventy-nine men and 82 women were detained in the hospital under criminal charges in that period, having killed (132) or attempted to kill (29) their own child(ren). Differences between men and women were found with regard to age, methods of killing and motivation underlying the filicide. Conclusions The categories of filicide identified corresponded to those in studies from other countries, indicating that filicide follows similar patterns throughout the Western world. The fact that 25% of fathers had killed in reaction to threatened separation or divorce, and that over a third of men and more than half of the women were mentally ill at the time may suggest that increased monitoring by primary care physicians under such circumstances might have preventive value. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
ISSN:
09579664
DOI:
10.1002/cbm.695
Accession Number:
33226706
Database:
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Images:
Maternal filicide and mental illness in Italy: A comparative study.
Authors:
McKee, Geoffrey R., grmckee@aol.com
Bramante, Alesandra
Address:
McKee, Geoffrey R., P. O. Box 747, Columbia, SC, US, 29202, grmckee@aol.com
Source:
Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Vol 38(3), Fal, 2010. Special issue: Assessment and testimony in child abuse cases. pp. 271-282.
Page Count:
12
Publisher:
US: Federal Legal Communications.
ISSN:
0093-1853 (Print)
Language:
English
Keywords:
maternal filicide; mental illness; Italian mothers; mother child relations; demographic characteristics
Abstract:
This retrospective records review study of maternal filicide in Italy compared the demographic, historical, clinical, victim, and offense/forensic characteristics of mothers with (MI) and without (NMI) severe mental illness. MI mothers were found to be older, married, more intelligent, and unemployed at the time of their crime. They were more likely to be in psychiatric outpatient treatment and to have a history of suicide attempts. NMI mothers were more likely to have given birth in a nonhospital setting and to have a younger-aged victim. MI mothers were more likely to have confessed to their crime, but at trial almost all were acquitted by reason of insanity. Implications of the data for treatment planning and prevention are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Subjects:
*Demographic Characteristics; *Mental Disorders; *Mother Child Relations; *Mothers; *Filicide
Classification:
Psychological Disorders (3210)
Population:
Human (10)
Female (40)
Location:
Italy
Age Group:
Adulthood (18 yrs & older) (300)
Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs) (320)
Thirties (30-39 yrs) (340)
Methodology:
Empirical Study; Longitudinal Study; Retrospective Study; Qualitative Study
Format Availability:
Print
Format Covered:
Print
Publication Type:
Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal
Document Type:
Journal Article
Release Date:
20110117
Copyright:
Federal Legal Publications, Inc.. 2010.
Accession Number:
2010-26782-002
Number of Citations in Source:
21
Database:
PsycINFO
Full Text Database:
Academic Search Complete
Maternal filicide: a reformulation of factors relevant to risk.
Authors:
Simpson, Alexander I.F.
Stanton, Josephine
Source:
Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, Jun2000, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p136, 12p
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
FILICIDE
MENTAL illness
Abstract:
Background The current classifications of maternal filicide have relied on categorizations based on the immediate antecedents or motivations to the impulse to kill. The most useful outcome of these approaches has been to identify that the neonaticide group differ in terms of their age, demography, relationship profile and motivation from other maternal filicide perpetrators. The remaining groups are diverse and overlapping. Method Five case summaries are presented which demonstrate the interaction of a number of factors noted in the literature as separate categories of filicide. Results Mental illness, vulnerability factors, social isolation, and difficulty in forming successful relationships emerged as common themes. Conclusion It is postulated that only by examining a range of factors including mental state, relationship factors and the impact of developmental experience can a more useful understanding be developed that has clinical relevance and may be of value in risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
ISSN:
09579664
Accession Number:
6149965
Database:
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Maternal filicide: A cross-national comparison.
Authors:
McKee, Geoffrey R.
Shea, Steven J.
Source:
Journal of Clinical Psychology, Aug98, Vol. 54 Issue 5, p679-687, 9p, 3 Charts
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
INFANTICIDE
PSYCHOLOGY
Abstract:
Presents information on a study which compared the demographic, historical, clinical, forensic and offense characteristics of adult women charged with murdering their children who were referred to a forensic psychiatric hospital for pretrail evaluation. Reference to psychology; Number of women who were evaluated; Method used in the study; Findings of the study.
ISSN:
00219762
Accession Number:
901441
Database:
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Publisher Logo:
The last is most useful in terms of our discussion, but I cannot cut/paste from it because it’s a pdf. Drop me an email, anybody, if you’d like a copy of the peer-reviewed study.
Overall, from skimming — yeah, women are more likely to kill their children (up to age 12), then men.
THere’s scholarship on the phenomenon — and it’s often tied to low income and depression (not addiction!), but it’s not as if anybody is defending teh wimminz (and mental illness is cited as a reason for paternal filicide as well).
Basically: I wouldn’t trust Butterworth one bit because he may be a psychologist, but he’s created a career as a media consultant, not, you know, an actual scholar. He’s reading the scholarship and simplifying for people, and if he’s that popular in the mainstream media, he’s giving people what they want to hear, which is going to involve sexism and racism.
What ithiliana said, as to Butterworth’s reliability. (And here’s one of the sites that links him to Jerry Springer.) Jeez, these fucking trolls are getting demanding! I just want to make fun of trolls’ poor logic and incoherent grasp on reality, and here they are demanding that I make their points for them, since they are too dim to do research. So … I went scrounging around for something better than a news article citing a study, and here’s what I found.
Perpetrator’s relationship to child fatality (by abuse or neglect):
Mother 358
Mother and other 119
Father 170
Father and other 19
Mother and father 289
So, 477 mothers without fathers are responsible for their child’s (or children’s) death; 189 fathers without mothers are responsible for their child’s (or children’s death); and 289 mothers and fathers jointly are responsible for their child’s death.
From here (although it’s a government study and not one done by a men’s rights group, so probably Spinnaker will fail to credit it.)
This proves … what again, Spinnaker? What’s your fucking point?
Bee: Obviously, single mothers are more murderous than any other family model.
Ah… but see Molly, there is no data about have these mothers being single or not really. It’s all about that they killed their chiled alone or with their spouse.
Well, not that Spinnaker’s been able to admit what his actual point is, but I’m guessing that the only solution is to throw all mothers, single or not (and possibly just all women), in prison, as a preventative measure. He also seems really angry that not “enough” women get the death penalty, although he’s totally against the death penalty.
I’d like to point out that, although I had kind of forgotten about it, this morning is not the first time I’ve seen that HHS report. And I’m not even someone who claims child abuse as my “thing.” How embarrassing to go around claiming to be really involved with this one cause, and not be aware of the research surrounding that issue. Of course, how embarrassing also to claim to be against child abuse, but in fact only use it as a springboard for your gross variety of misogyny.
You laugh, but it’s really difficult to stack the abused children just right to get good height when jumping on them; Rev’s a pro. (The lack of springiness is probably the fault of their mothers, those bitches.)
Thanks again Bee: So what your saying is mothers are directly involved with 766 child murders and men are involved with 478. That comes out to 1244 total, lower than the 2009 stat of 1770 on MSNBC with Katty Kay but way higher than 200 one of you linked me to earlier. Statistics vary with studies but 200 wasn’t even close.
Also, do these numbers include neonaticide? That’s a relatively new term developed by Phillip Resnick. Read more here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580
By the way, it appears Butterworth took the motives for maternal child murder directly from this source. Resnick is highly regarded, working with the American Pychiatric Foundation, a reference I cited earlier.
ithiliana’s references dealt primarily with filicide, which sometimes include children as old as teenagers, but varies with individual studies.
And haven’t I been saying all along that single, poor and uneducated women were the most likely to be offenders? Haven’t I been saying lack of social programs and prenatal care was a contributing factor? Isn’t that a likely reason the Republican dominated state of Texas has the highest child murder rate in the country? Right along with the highest execution rate.
My point is none of you would have ever looked up any this, had you not been chafing at the bit to harangue-bang any male who doesn’t buy into your definition of feminist ideology hook, line and sinker.
@Bee: “I’d like to point out that, although I had kind of forgotten about it, this morning is not the first time I’ve seen that HHS report. And I’m not even someone who claims child abuse as my “thing.”
“Kind of forgotten?” Maybe if feminists made child abuse their “thing” more would be done to prevent it.
Remember prohibition? The Women’s Temperance League, which suprisingly included Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, made prohibition happen. It was also a large Democratic women’s organization that brought it to an end.
Kind of forgetting about child abuse accomplishes nothing.
Oh, do fuck off.
This month-long thread is all about making sure that everyone prioritizes our concerns the same way you do?
Fuck you twice. I can and do care about more than one thing at a time. If I prioritize my energy and actions on the issues that resonate more personally with me, it’s my right, privilege, and duty to spend my energy there.
Feminists work for equality and social justice. For EVERYONE. Including children and their parents.
We choose to spend our energy campaigning for a better society for everyone.
You seem to choose to spend your energy campaigning for (or at least complaining about) more punishment for female murderers and abusers of children so that they’re just as punished as males.
I strongly believe that our campaign will cause the amount of child abuse and infanticide to decline sooner than your campaign will.
Hmm, maybe you should make child abuse your thing, rather than spending a month harassing a blog where people come to snark about non-child-abuse-related issues. Is whining about Oprah really the best use of the last 25 years? Because that is apparently quite literally all you have done on this issue. “Oprah is a bitch, and until the entire blogosphere admits that I won’t rest in my pursuit of justice. Justice for me and teh menz, that is. Fuck the dead children.”
But hey, just because feminists are actively working towards exactly the kinds of programs that help prevent child abuse and murder, don’t let that stop you from relentlessly lying about our motives and interest in the subject! God knows that alienating potential allies in a dishonest and ignorant month-long trolling campaign is definitely in the best interest of the murdered children you
masturbate tearfully overclaim to care about. 9_9Just wanted to point out the math fail. Again.
You’ve included the 289 Mothers and Fathers figure in with both mothers and fathers, and then added the two numbers together. Meaning that your total is 289 higher than the actual total is.
The total number of fatalities included in the 2008 report is 1344, for the record. Including people who aren’t parents also.
Ummm, instead of me reading your link, why don’t you read the link I gave you, which might answer your answer about what those figures include. (And if it doesn’t, you know I can’t answer it. I didn’t compile the study. Although if it’s really recent, I’m going to say that the report doesn’t mention it, under that name anyway, since the report is from 2008 (which you would know if you read it, you child abuse fanatic, you!).)
Although I just said that I had looked up that HHS report previously, right there where I was making fun of you for never having seen it…
Oh Jesus, I forgot the url to a government study that you didn’t know existed, you child murder enthusiast, you. Maybe if people who pretended to care about child abuse did more than go to random sites and spout misogynistic and incorrect nonsense, more would be done to prevent it. BAM! BOOYAH. Etc.
I’m not saying Rev gets off on this stuff, I’m just saying he has all those dead kid sites bookmarked and always minimizes them real quick when someone else walks in the room. We’re discussing child murders, Rev, please keep both your hands on the table.
So having less poor and uneducated mothers would lower the amount of child abuse. Wherever can we find a movement trying to help women get education, promote birth control so women have children when they are ready, and break down barriers to employment for women…
A man once bored me for an evening by explaining that the single most important things that feminists should do was make sure men paid their childsupport! And it was because he paid his ex-wife child support, but the women he dated were not given child support by their ex-husbands. And that was so unfair! And what was I, as a self-declared feminist, doing???????
Of course he also thought that me being a Wiccan meant I was interested in wicker furniture.
I wonder WHY I am so reminded of that night, so long ago (1986)?
Why, it’s the mansplaining here all about what feminists should do because one man thinks it’s the most important thing ever.
I’ve been a feminist since the early 1980s. I have never worked with any program involving domestic violence or child abuse or rape not because they are not important, but because I am involved in other areas of feminist movement. Changing social and institutional structures and attitudes requires changes in all venues-I teach.
And I don’t pay any more attention to the men telling me how I should “do” feminism than I do to the people who told me I SHOULD marry back in the day.
You see something you want changed, you go work on it. And shut the fuck up about lecturing everybody else about doing the job you want done.
“You see something you want changed, you go work on it. And shut the fuck up about lecturing everybody else about doing the job you want done.”
Cue MRA response, “I know what you are, but who am I?”
And then the cycle continues again…
@ Red_Locker: Up to 1500 posts!
And what do you know, we have Toy Soldier doing that exact thing in another thread at the moment. I know you are but what am I - the only argument an MRA needs.
It is, “I know you are but what am I?” And yes, it is the height of irony for feminists to tell anyone to “go work on it [and] shut the fuck up about lecturing everybody else about doing the job you want done” because lecturing everybody else about what they want done is essentially all feminists do. But what I truly love about that line is that it is worst advice for advocates. The only way to really make changes to be loud and get heard. Telling men’s groups to not talk about male victims is a wonderful piece of abuse apologism.
40 years ago there were shelters for men who were domestically abused, according to you,TS.
No one else has ever seen them , nor are they documented anywhere.
@TS: “Look, no one actually expects feminists to care about male victims or even want to help them…”
Indeed TS.
@ ithiliana: “I have never worked with any program involving domestic violence or child abuse or rape not because they are not important, but because I am involved in other areas of feminist movement.”
i.e. Blaming “patriarchal oppression” when feminists should be blaming maternal abusers.
@ ithiliana reiterated by red_locker: “You see something you want changed, you go work on it. And shut the fuck up about lecturing everybody else about doing the job you want done.”
My original point being maternal child abuse is a real shut-face issue for feminists..
Bagelsan, however, says it all. “Hmm, maybe you should make child abuse your thing, rather than spending a month harassing a blog where people come to snark about non-child-abuse-related issues.”
Is snark the new bitch? What’s the point? To purge your angst driven animosity to men.
@ ithiliana: Regarding Butterworth, “and if he’s that popular in the mainstream media, he’s giving people what they want to hear…”
Exactly, whatever sells Tampons in Peoria when it comes to issues regarding “women & girls.” Which doesn’t include female abusers or male victims. Just like feminists.
It’s not cuz you’re a man, RevSpinnaker. It’s because you can’t do math, never heard of a woman receiving the death penalty for child murder when a two-second Google search found ten of them, and made up a story about children being thrown to pit bulls like Christians to lions.
When you lack all credibility, you don’t need a feminist conspiracy.
@Molly Ren:
“…and made up a story about children being thrown to pit bulls like Christians to lions.”
Don’t blame me for making up that story, MSNBC must have fabricated the lie. They must be part of some patriarchal conspirasy.
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/02/8099645-connecticut-toddler-dies-after-pit…
I simply stated it was an obvious case of pathological malnurturing resulting in the death of a child. Someone was responsible and the fact is, horrible as it is to comprehend, it may have been a deliberate act.
Don’t selectively forget, Carla Poole didn’t need to throw Demond Reed to pit bulls. She left her own bite marks on the child’s torso as she beat him to death, while she ordered her own children to hold their cousin down. He vomited his last breaths. She coached her children to lie to police.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/12/beatingcharges
If you need a reminder.
How can we forget? You’ve been jerking it all over that poor corpse this entire thread.
Elsewhere on manboobz:
@ Molly Ren: “Heh, maybe I should point RevSpinnaker towards this thread. His whole schtick on the “Feminism or Death?” thread has been that either feminists or women never talk about this stuff.”
“…either feminists or women never talk about this stuff.” Like regular women? Interesting distinction.
Some women do, such as Darlene Barriere, the woman who runs the following web-site. I have an article there called “I Was on Oprah.” She agreed with my take on media and feminist denial and distortion of the issue of maternal child abuse 100%. So apparently she’s not a feminist but a regular woman. Glad you clarified that!
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/why-parents-target-a-specific-child-for-abuse.html
And in typical chauvinette fashion, feminists don’t cite “target abuse” as a possible cause of misandry, but only misogyny.
Afterall, the patriarchy invented hate.
@unimaginative:
“I would call it an extended family.”
Would you agree that an extended family is an extension of a nuclear family?
I think the only way to put this thread out of our misery is to nuke it form orbit.
Rocks fall? Everyone dies?
eons later, Rev emerges from the grave to blame rocks and gravity on the Matriarchy?
Well, you know what they say about cockroaches, KathleenB and Erl…
“By and large, society has no problem accepting that fathers are capable of harming their children. Men have had to deal with this unfounded societal bias since the beginning of time. There is a preconception that because boys are more physical and display anger more readily, they are somehow predisposed to violence against children when they become adults. But statistics reflect that women use physical abuse more than men. Society as a whole has difficulty wrapping their minds around this statistic. If society accepts that women, the caregivers and nurturers, are capable of physically harming their children, then it undermines the very core of our belief system.”
Darlene Barriere, Child Abuse Effects and no “MRA” ax to grind.
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/why-parents-target-a-specific-child-for-abuse.html
“…then it undermines the very core of our belief system.”
That belief system is can be described as matriarchal.
Right. The belief that women are incapable of physical violence is somehow an expression of women’s overwhelming power in society. Because believing that an entire class of people is too gentle/weak/docile to ever damage another human being means you totally respect them and/or fear them to the extent that they can control society. Also the idea that women are necessarily caregivers and nurturers is super matriarchal, as if we don’t have anything else to do with ourselves. Women as complex and occasionally malicious human beings with the capacity to harm? Oh noes, we couldn’t harm a fly — we can’t even open jars! To the fainting couch with us! Our uteri forbid us to do anything against our mothering natures, like the 3 Laws of Robotics, because autonomy (even fucked up autonomy) is for meeeen! And our limp harmless obedience is because matriarchy. Obviously.
But yeah, shorter Rev = still beating his meat over moms beating kids. It’s like the people who watch pornography in which women kill little animals, except more sanctimonious. :p
Misery? It’s like performance art! How low can Rev stoop in his quest to make some women look bad and thus disprove all feminism everywhere? How inept can his math be? How dishonest his sources? How tangled his logic? How chafed his dick?
Western civilization could fall and Rev would be crouching in the back of a burned-out truck with a laptop, posting stories about mothers killing their babies.
@Bagelsan:
“But yeah, shorter Rev = still beating his meat over moms beating kids. It’s like the people who watch pornography in which women kill little animals, except more sanctimonious. :p”
You and Ami Angelwings visit some very morose, sick web-sites.
For a change of pace try the following, unless you’re too busy killing little animals and posting it online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that for each year between 2000 and 2005, “female parents acting alone” were most likely to be perpetrators of child abuse.[32]
32.^ Stats for 2000; Stats for 2001; Stats for 2002; Stats for 2003; Stats for 2004; Stats for 2005.
Toysoldier already posted the following link to the most comprehensive government study to date (2009).
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm
I’m sure it was summarily dismissed on principle. Afterall, child abuse isn’t a feminist issue.
But it’s never too late to become a Children’s Rights Advocate (CRA). Or just go back to killing little animals. That might suit Bagelsan better.
Speaking of dismissing data…
18.5 Million children live in a single parent household with their mothers.
http://www.prb.org/Publications/PolicyBriefs/singlemotherfamilies.aspx
While only 2 Million children live in a single parent household with their fathers.
http://diversityeducation.cas.psu.edu/Newsletters/DIVol7(1).pdf?bcsi_scan_D93EF5AA08308DE4=0&bcsi_scan_filename=DIVol7(1).pdf
So while 9 times more children live with single mothers than with single fathers, there are only twice as many deaths from abuse and neglect among single mothers than single fathers.
That makes single fathers 4.5 times more likely to abuse or neglect their children than single mothers.
cynickal: Your 18.5 million children raised by single mothers is from one study done in 2009. Your 2 million children raised by single fathers is from a completely different, non-referenced article in a college newsletter from 2003. There is no correlation.
“…there are only twice as many deaths from abuse and neglect among single mothers than single fathers.”
Citations please. Here’s the stats Bee provided earlier. They look accurate and came from a reputable source. No mention of whether the mothers or fathers acting alone were single or still a couple..
Mother 358
Mother and other 119
Father 170
Father and other 19
Mother and father 289
@ Bee: “So, 477 mothers without fathers are responsible for their child’s (or children’s) death; 189 fathers without mothers are responsible for their child’s (or children’s death); and 289 mothers and fathers jointly are responsible for their child’s death.”
Also do the statistics include filicide? That includes teenagers and are more often killed by fathers. Children yonger than four are more likely to be killed by mothers.
Nice try.
That is my day job.
As for cites:
So yeah, looks like women account for up to twice the mistreatment that men do. So unless you can prove that men are actually engaging in more than half the childcare that women do, kinda looks bad for the men stats-wise here.
“Your 18.5 million children raised by single mothers is from one study done in 2009. Your 2 million children raised by single fathers is from a completely different, non-referenced article in a college newsletter from 2003. There is no correlation.”
Really, Rev? You’re just going to brush these bits of reality aside and post more shit that you THINK supports your argument, but doesn’t?