Feminists keeping it classy at Toronto mens event.
- Thread starter Un-AmericanDreamer
- Start date
Yuzo Lightheart
Rookie
You're well-trained, but I don't think your claims can stand up to scrutiny.
1. Ok, so you're reducing the entirety of legitimate power relations to undergraduate demographics. In other words, you're not meeting the concept of patriarchy on its own terms, and choosing to focus only on specific areas where you think you can prove your argument and have them stand in for all indicators. Obviously, I reject that move.
2. Your attempt to place the wage gap outside of legitimate politics and into the world of natural science remains unproven by the science you cite. Everyone knows about the statistical distributions of secondary sexual characteristics, but I challenge you to provide a single study that suggests that disparities of the sort we have now can be reduced entirely to those differences. Without that, your claim here is worthless.
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach, not a science, and it's not an approach that offers legitimate support to your functionalist view of the status quo. Again, let's see some of the studies you claim do this.
"When you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace"
1. The article’s inaugurating gesture is to eliminate many of the relevant factors. Controlling for occupation (which includes job title,) for example, ignores hiring and promotion disparities that influence the gap.
2. Once those factors are eliminated, the disparity drops to (at the lowest estimate) 7%, which is then declared "insignificant" by the author.
In other words, the real disparity cannot be arrived at by this method.
Honestly, I don't have the time to watch a 35 minute long video in order to debate you, but I do want to point out that some of the arguments presented here are atrocious. For example, she literally claims that men writing about rape being bad since the dawn of time means that rape culture cannot exist. If you don't see why this claim cannot achieve logical coherence, then I'll explain it to you, but for the moment, suffice it to say that the vast majority of white people publicly decry racial inequality and write about that and maintain it as law- but that doesn't mean white supremacy isn't a valid sociological concept, as the indicators suggest otherwise.
If you want me to address some of the claims here, please write them down, citations included.
I can confirm that your scenario isn't the paradigm one, yes. Just read this year's report, which you're citing yourself (though I suspect you're pasting it in from a Men's Rights website, rather than the original report, judging by the short, decontextualized quotes.)
@Type Username Here, this is a perfect example of Men's Rights sophistry, so you might be interested in looking at it. They throw out stats like this all the time.
See, at first glance, this looks like impressive evidence that women are worse parents than men and more likely to be abusive, but these are just percentages of raw numbers, so they can’t actually tell you any of those things. All they can do is tell you that any given abuse case has a higher probability of being the result of a mother. They need to be contextualized in order to be able to do what you want them to, and in fact, when you do contextualize them with relevant information about the percentages of single parent homes by gender, etc, they tell a very different story than you want to portray.
First of all, the latest DHHS report actually states that “more than one half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women, 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men,” so the initial disparity between male and female abuse isn’t as wide as your quote above implies.
However, since you want to make it specifically about parents, we can do that (you’ll find the results aren’t in your favor either way, once I’m done.) In order to figure out which parent is more likely to abuse a child on their own, we first need to control for influence by dealing solely with single mothers and single fathers. As of the latest Census report (Living Arrangements of Children), about 24% of children live in a single (biological) mother arrangement, while 4% live in a single (biological) father arrangement.
We can do 24 + 4 = 28 to arrive at the total single parent figure, then 24/28 and 4/28 to arrive at percentages for single mothers and single fathers.
So ~ 86% of single parent kids are single mother kids, while ~ 14% are single father kids. The real % of single mother kids is much higher when you account for the fact that single mother homes on average involve more children than single father homes, but for now, let’s assume that the amount of children per family is steady across the board.
Now we’ll convert those into the proper ratios. The denominator should be the percentages of single mother vs single father homes, respectively. The numerator should be the percentages of incidents of abuse per mothers and fathers, respectively. According to the same, initial DHHS study, “Nearly two-fifths (36.8%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone. One-fifth (19.0%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone.” We can assume that these percentages roughly correspond to the percentages of abuse by parent in single parent homes, since the study accounts for mothers and fathers who abuse together with a non-parent/relative (a boyfriend/girlfriend/etc.) as a separate category.
19 + 37 (let’s round up, which will increase the number of female abusers slightly) = 56.
37/56 = ~66% of victims maltreated by a single parent were maltreated by a mother
19/56 = ~34% of victims maltreated by a single parent were maltreated by a father
So let’s put the numbers together.
Women: 66% of abusers/ 86% of the total abusive single parent homes
Men: 34% of abusers/ 14% of the total abusive single parent homes
Now we need to equalize the denominators so that we can get a clearer picture of each sex’s abuse relative to the total. Let’s set it at 100 to make things nice and easy.
So for women, (100/86) x 66 = ~77/100
For men, (100/14) x 34 = ~243/100
Now we add the two numerators to get the total number of abuse cases, so 77 + 243 = 320. Then we make that the common denominator for both numbers, which represent each parent’s specific number of abuse cases, to get the comparable ratios.
Women: 77 cases of abuse/ 320 total cases of abuse
Men: 243 cases of abuse/ 320 total cases of abuse
Now we can convert these into percentages for our final, convenient numbers.
For women: (100/320) x 77 = ~ 24.06/100, or 24.06%
For men: (100/320) x 243 = ~75.93/100 or 75.93%
In other words, starting from the source you cited, in the context of single-parent homes, a mother acting alone has a .24 comparative likelihood of being an abuser while a father acting alone has a .76 comparative likelihood of being an abuser. Fathers are thus more than 3 times more likely to be abusers than mothers.
Of course, if we factor in all the elements I avoided, like the fact that single mother homes on average contain more children than single father homes, and the fact that women spend more time caring for children than men, well, the numbers would look even worse for you.
You've thrown out a large volley of other such decontextualized stats. I'll deal with them bit by bit, when I have the time.
1. Ok, so you're reducing the entirety of legitimate power relations to undergraduate demographics. In other words, you're not meeting the concept of patriarchy on its own terms, and choosing to focus only on specific areas where you think you can prove your argument and have them stand in for all indicators. Obviously, I reject that move.
2. Your attempt to place the wage gap outside of legitimate politics and into the world of natural science remains unproven by the science you cite. Everyone knows about the statistical distributions of secondary sexual characteristics, but I challenge you to provide a single study that suggests that disparities of the sort we have now can be reduced entirely to those differences. Without that, your claim here is worthless.
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach, not a science, and it's not an approach that offers legitimate support to your functionalist view of the status quo. Again, let's see some of the studies you claim do this.
"When you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace"
1. The article’s inaugurating gesture is to eliminate many of the relevant factors. Controlling for occupation (which includes job title,) for example, ignores hiring and promotion disparities that influence the gap.
2. Once those factors are eliminated, the disparity drops to (at the lowest estimate) 7%, which is then declared "insignificant" by the author.
In other words, the real disparity cannot be arrived at by this method.
Honestly, I don't have the time to watch a 35 minute long video in order to debate you, but I do want to point out that some of the arguments presented here are atrocious. For example, she literally claims that men writing about rape being bad since the dawn of time means that rape culture cannot exist. If you don't see why this claim cannot achieve logical coherence, then I'll explain it to you, but for the moment, suffice it to say that the vast majority of white people publicly decry racial inequality and write about that and maintain it as law- but that doesn't mean white supremacy isn't a valid sociological concept, as the indicators suggest otherwise.
If you want me to address some of the claims here, please write them down, citations included.
I can confirm that your scenario isn't the paradigm one, yes. Just read this year's report, which you're citing yourself (though I suspect you're pasting it in from a Men's Rights website, rather than the original report, judging by the short, decontextualized quotes.)
@Type Username Here, this is a perfect example of Men's Rights sophistry, so you might be interested in looking at it. They throw out stats like this all the time.
See, at first glance, this looks like impressive evidence that women are worse parents than men and more likely to be abusive, but these are just percentages of raw numbers, so they can’t actually tell you any of those things. All they can do is tell you that any given abuse case has a higher probability of being the result of a mother. They need to be contextualized in order to be able to do what you want them to, and in fact, when you do contextualize them with relevant information about the percentages of single parent homes by gender, etc, they tell a very different story than you want to portray.
First of all, the latest DHHS report actually states that “more than one half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women, 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men,” so the initial disparity between male and female abuse isn’t as wide as your quote above implies.
However, since you want to make it specifically about parents, we can do that (you’ll find the results aren’t in your favor either way, once I’m done.) In order to figure out which parent is more likely to abuse a child on their own, we first need to control for influence by dealing solely with single mothers and single fathers. As of the latest Census report (Living Arrangements of Children), about 24% of children live in a single (biological) mother arrangement, while 4% live in a single (biological) father arrangement.
We can do 24 + 4 = 28 to arrive at the total single parent figure, then 24/28 and 4/28 to arrive at percentages for single mothers and single fathers.
So ~ 86% of single parent kids are single mother kids, while ~ 14% are single father kids. The real % of single mother kids is much higher when you account for the fact that single mother homes on average involve more children than single father homes, but for now, let’s assume that the amount of children per family is steady across the board.
Now we’ll convert those into the proper ratios. The denominator should be the percentages of single mother vs single father homes, respectively. The numerator should be the percentages of incidents of abuse per mothers and fathers, respectively. According to the same, initial DHHS study, “Nearly two-fifths (36.8%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone. One-fifth (19.0%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone.” We can assume that these percentages roughly correspond to the percentages of abuse by parent in single parent homes, since the study accounts for mothers and fathers who abuse together with a non-parent/relative (a boyfriend/girlfriend/etc.) as a separate category.
19 + 37 (let’s round up, which will increase the number of female abusers slightly) = 56.
37/56 = ~66% of victims maltreated by a single parent were maltreated by a mother
19/56 = ~34% of victims maltreated by a single parent were maltreated by a father
So let’s put the numbers together.
Women: 66% of abusers/ 86% of the total abusive single parent homes
Men: 34% of abusers/ 14% of the total abusive single parent homes
Now we need to equalize the denominators so that we can get a clearer picture of each sex’s abuse relative to the total. Let’s set it at 100 to make things nice and easy.
So for women, (100/86) x 66 = ~77/100
For men, (100/14) x 34 = ~243/100
Now we add the two numerators to get the total number of abuse cases, so 77 + 243 = 320. Then we make that the common denominator for both numbers, which represent each parent’s specific number of abuse cases, to get the comparable ratios.
Women: 77 cases of abuse/ 320 total cases of abuse
Men: 243 cases of abuse/ 320 total cases of abuse
Now we can convert these into percentages for our final, convenient numbers.
For women: (100/320) x 77 = ~ 24.06/100, or 24.06%
For men: (100/320) x 243 = ~75.93/100 or 75.93%
In other words, starting from the source you cited, in the context of single-parent homes, a mother acting alone has a .24 comparative likelihood of being an abuser while a father acting alone has a .76 comparative likelihood of being an abuser. Fathers are thus more than 3 times more likely to be abusers than mothers.
Of course, if we factor in all the elements I avoided, like the fact that single mother homes on average contain more children than single father homes, and the fact that women spend more time caring for children than men, well, the numbers would look even worse for you.
You've thrown out a large volley of other such decontextualized stats. I'll deal with them bit by bit, when I have the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
damn....I see some nikkas getting schooled in here
Zapp Brannigan
Captain of the Nimbus
In other words, you can't disprove the many, many ways that society's current unreasonable gender expectations that it places upon men, so you decide to say that I'm ignoring the fact that it's a patriarchy because I'm bringing in too much new information that you just don't want to acknowledge because of how it challenges your original theory of patriarchy. You want to think that only feminists are allowed to say who has power and who doesn't, and by bringing in the many ways that men are disadvantaged (I haven't even listed them all) that I'm denying the power structure as it is, when in reality, something feminists have a hard time with, you don't realize that I'm offering a really solid criticism of your theory of what constitutes who holds the power in this country.
That's a very well-worded assertion without any claims yourself. Then again, all of your responses have been like this, so I'm not surprised to see this. If it's sources that you want, here they are:
The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth - CBS News
www.consad.com - An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women
CNN Grudgingly Concludes on Maddow-Castellanos Debate: Men Make 'About 5 Cents' More Than Women | NewsBusters.org
It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth - Forbes
Study: Young, Single, Childless Women Earn More Than Men - TIME
Photo Album - Imgur
Gravity and Evolution are also "just theories." Should we deny their importance as well? Oh, wait, this board seems to be full of feminists who don't like science and sources and completely skim over tons of claims that I've made.
http://www.pitt.edu/~machery/papers/Discovery_and_Confirmation_in_Evolutionary_Psychology_FINAL.pdf
http://www.jamesrliddle.com/uploads/Liddle-Shackelford-EP-Coyne-2009.pdf
That last sentence seems to summarize the entirety of all your arguments at this point, which is that you don't seem to be able to support your claims with science, data, and studies, but rather just declare whatever you set out to prove without having to support it. The last bit of statistical disparity is probably best explained by something like height more so than anything else, but that's just me.
Maligning MRAs with white supremacists or people that decry racism against white people is nothing more than a meaningless ad-hominem that doesn't really dispel the idea that men are also openly discriminated against, disadvantaged in many ways, and that feminists are in no way looking to help or advance men's interests, but will only pay lip service to cover their hides in case of accusations of man-hating.
Just watch the whole video. You've been whimpering the whole time about how all these statistics were not properly contextualized, yet you don't seem to want to watch an entire video that would properly put them into context. Is it that you're just afraid of watching a 35 minute barrage against what was once your foundation for how you thought the world had worked? Are you shaken in your belief that MRAs are bad people and you've now resorted to ad-hominem, setting out what you declare to prove, ignoring things from my last post, and lacking any kind of sources to back your claims?
Oh, really? Well I can confirm that YOU'RE the one who's wrong, since we're just declaring what we're setting out to prove here. Maybe you should provide said context rather than simply say that I'm wrong? You do realize that this doesn't really make for a sound argument, right? @Type Username Here, this is a perfect example of how feminists argue. They start from the position that they're already correct because they've been fed their whole lives that they're gentler, kinder, more nurturing, and therefore more moral people, so when someone argues against them, all they have to do is declare what they believe in order to make an argument.
You've thrown out a large volley of other such decontextualized stats. I'll deal with them bit by bit, when I have the time.
[/QUOTE]You first address this isse by saying that there is only a 8-9% disparity wherein women are more likely to be abusers than men, as if that's something negligible or that it's still justifiable to take a man's children away from him and as if it justifies the huge disparity of unfairness in family court law, but of course you avoided that because you avoided so many other of the points that I made. That's what feminists do, though, so that wasn't surprising to me.
Your "contextualizing" is something that makes the following assumptions:
- The abuse rate will follow the same pattern for single fathers as it would single mothers.
- That the rate would be the same for two parent households as it would for single parents, let alone single fathers.
- That single fathers wouldn't be very deterred from the unfairly stilted family courts against him (something you ignored!) and would therefore be much less likely to be abuse than single mothers, who the courts favor.
In other words, you threw out TONS and TONS of bullshyt math that might impress the untrained eye, ignored at least half of my contentions, refused to see the contentions that I was making in context, decided to make up your own bullshyt context for child abuse statistics without taking any of the other independent factors into consideration while you were drawing up your rebuttal, and provided no sources or studies of your own.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is becoming tedious and potentially messy, so I'm going to focus on one thing at a time. Let's stick with the stats about child abuse and finish that up before moving on to the other stats you posted.
When did I say it was negligible or justifies the disparity in custody cases? Also, I didn't say that women are more likely to be abusers than men. The opposite conclusion is what your source suggests. What I said was that a greater percentage of total abuse cases were perpetrated by women.
And what pattern is that? You need to be more specific. The abuse rate is a fixed analytical category in the original study. It's what you assumed when you posted your first stat about biological mothers and fathers. I just ran with it. Now you want to start qualifying gender differences that you ignored in your original, thoroughly decontextualized statistic.
I did not assume this at all. In fact, I specifically used the stats that controlled as much as possible for single parents, and then for single mothers vs single fathers. Again, though, if you think more specific numbers on this point would help you, then be my guest and post them.
I've got an idea, though. If all this context is too much for you, we can keep it as vague as you did in your original quote and just do a calculation for comparative likelihood of abuse between men and women on the whole, using only stats in the DHHS studies. That way we can avoid specific variables for more specific demographics, since you seem to take issue with those. Would you agree to that? Or would it be invalid, despite you employing those same stats yourself?
If you think this is a statistically relevant factor that somehow wasn't accounted for in the DHHS study, then please provide some numbers for it. We're talking about abuse rates as recorded, so they should already be part of the final numbers.
So you've proposed no math of your own and offered a single, decontextualized quote, but have no problem rejecting my entirely transparent math as decontextualized and fabricated, though tellingly, you don't offer any specific objections to it beyond more variables you'd like controlled (which wouldn't end up in your favor.)
I haven't ignored any of your contentions with respect to child abuse. I quoted everything you said about it and addressed it directly in my post. I find it funny that you think I made up a context, when all the stats I cited were directly from your own source, the DHHS, and that you claim I offered no new numbers, when I did provide additional stats from the DHHS and Census that weren't in your post. I'm starting to wonder if you actually read my post or just skimmed it, as the new links are quite clearly there.
Like I said, I'll get to the other stuff later. It's more convenient for the sake of debate to deal with one issue at a time.
When did I say it was negligible or justifies the disparity in custody cases? Also, I didn't say that women are more likely to be abusers than men. The opposite conclusion is what your source suggests. What I said was that a greater percentage of total abuse cases were perpetrated by women.
And what pattern is that? You need to be more specific. The abuse rate is a fixed analytical category in the original study. It's what you assumed when you posted your first stat about biological mothers and fathers. I just ran with it. Now you want to start qualifying gender differences that you ignored in your original, thoroughly decontextualized statistic.
I did not assume this at all. In fact, I specifically used the stats that controlled as much as possible for single parents, and then for single mothers vs single fathers. Again, though, if you think more specific numbers on this point would help you, then be my guest and post them.
I've got an idea, though. If all this context is too much for you, we can keep it as vague as you did in your original quote and just do a calculation for comparative likelihood of abuse between men and women on the whole, using only stats in the DHHS studies. That way we can avoid specific variables for more specific demographics, since you seem to take issue with those. Would you agree to that? Or would it be invalid, despite you employing those same stats yourself?
If you think this is a statistically relevant factor that somehow wasn't accounted for in the DHHS study, then please provide some numbers for it. We're talking about abuse rates as recorded, so they should already be part of the final numbers.
So you've proposed no math of your own and offered a single, decontextualized quote, but have no problem rejecting my entirely transparent math as decontextualized and fabricated, though tellingly, you don't offer any specific objections to it beyond more variables you'd like controlled (which wouldn't end up in your favor.)
I haven't ignored any of your contentions with respect to child abuse. I quoted everything you said about it and addressed it directly in my post. I find it funny that you think I made up a context, when all the stats I cited were directly from your own source, the DHHS, and that you claim I offered no new numbers, when I did provide additional stats from the DHHS and Census that weren't in your post. I'm starting to wonder if you actually read my post or just skimmed it, as the new links are quite clearly there.
Like I said, I'll get to the other stuff later. It's more convenient for the sake of debate to deal with one issue at a time.
Zapp Brannigan
Captain of the Nimbus
Translation: I don't have rebuttals to the other things that you posted so I'm going to call this tedious and act like it's not worth my intellectual energy to try and save face despite the fact I've got time to keep responding to some of the longest posts that made it onto the coli. Despite this, I'm going to cling to one part of the post I thought that I was making a decent rebuttal to so when people look at how this conversation devolved, they'll ignore that I didn't address any of the other points and I can try to escape the conversation with this scrap.
The problem with the assertions that you make is that you keep making jumps and inferences where they're not suggested to exist. You are assuming that ti's the single fathers that are going to carry a certain amount of the abuse cases, as will the single mothers, without having any kind of proof of this besides arbitrary assumptions about how the numbers will calculate into your future predictions about the abuse rate.
You keep whining quite a bit about context but I don't think that you seem to realize that what you're doing is fabricating a context for the abuse statistics that don't exist. I know that it's easy to complain that things are taken out of context when the facts are laid out to someone on their face, but declaring what you set out to prove is not a viable method of argument.
I did not assume this at all. In fact, I specifically used the stats that controlled as much as possible for single parents, and then for single mothers vs single fathers. Again, though, if you think more specific numbers on this point would help you, then be my guest and post them.
Maybe you should be taking your own advice? Might as well, considering that your assumptions are based on literally no hard data aside from what you were inferring from how the abuse rate would carry over into single parent households.
Can I be disingenuous and lazy and just make some up like you did?
I don't think that you understand how data works and how you're not able to assume things without actual proven statistics and studies to back it up. You made a bunch of logical inferences that had no grounding with the rest of your abuse statistics that didn't follow the rest of the numbers in the larger context. Why offer up "math of my own?" I don't feel the compulsion to make things up as I go along, I guess. I don't make logical fallacies that mislead people that are going to read this conversation. I don't base "math of my own" on assumptions that I have no hard data for because that would be disingenuous.
Maybe you should re-read my post? I wasn't just talking about the child abuse statistics but about how feminism addresses men's issues and how it's a harmful force in society on the whole. But oh wait, fabricating a new context on data that doesn't exist and ignoring the rest of my post along with its sources and stats is just as good...
Doubt it'll happen, but hey... whatever floats your boat.
Actually, I "clung" to this part of the argument specifically because it has numbers involved, and so it's where you have the best chance of proving me wrong. I did both of us a favor by making this an empirical debate, but it unfortunately, it seems you don't want to actually discuss the stats in your own source.
Declaring what you set out to prove is when you already assume the specificity of your answers in the beginning. I arrived at the answers at the end. Besides, an argument can't be begging the question when it can be disproven. My argument can be disproven with numbers that will skew the ratio against women. All you have to do is provide them.
Your argument currently amounts to: "you don't have proof that the rate of abuse would carry over into single parent households, so your entire calculation is unreliable."
While this claim is ludicrous, since it assumes that I made up the stats out of nowhere rather than sourcing them directly from your study, you'd still have to prove that the numbers would be significantly different such as to change the results by a significant margin.
So I ask you yet again, if I did a calculation that didn't restrict itself to single parent households, using the same numbers from the study, would you accept it? There would be no unknown variables to miss, because we'd be dealing with men and women in general, rather than specific demographics with specific contextual variables.
Zapp Brannigan
Captain of the Nimbus
The phrases that I used were perfectly applicable. Just because you didn't understand how they worked doesn't mean that they don't apply to the current conversation.
Does that help?
===MALTREATMENT===
===NIS-4==
For all cases of biological parent child maltreatment, 43% involved fathers, and 75% involved mothers. (From NIS-4 table 6-2)
With respect to biological parent families, 71% of children are raised in a nuclear family, 29% are raised in single-parent families, and 83%
of children in single-parent families are mother-led. (From PRB Data brief) We can deduce that:
76% of children have a father present, and 95% of children have a mother present.
For the 76%, 43% of the child maltreatment involved the father.
For the 95%, 75% of the child maltreatment involved the mother.
1 million children were maltreated. (NIS-4 table 6-2)
Thus, approximately:
56 million children have a father involved in the household.
70 million children have a mother involved in the household.
0.43 million children were maltreated by the father.
0.75 million children were maltreated by the mother.
Thus, approximately:
0.8% of children who had a father involved in the household were maltreated.
1.1% of children who had a mother involved in the household were maltreated.
Mothers are 1.4 times more likely to maltreat their children.
==HHS==
For all cases of biological parent child maltreatment, 45% involved the father, and 77% involved the mother. (HHS Figure 3-6)
With respect to biological parent families, 71% of children are raised in a nuclear family, 29% are raised in single-parent families, and 83% of children in single-parent families are mother-led. (From PRB Data brief) We can deduce that:
76% of children have a father present, and 95% of children have a mother present.
For the 76%, 45% of the child maltreatment involved the father.
For the 95%, 77% of the child maltreatment involved the mother.
0.78 million children were maltreated. (HHS Ch.3)
Thus, approximately:
59 million children have a father involved in the household.
70 million children have a mother involved in the household.
0.33 million children were maltreated by the father.
0.60 million children were maltreated by the mother.
Thus, approximately:
0.6% of children who had a father involved in the household were maltreated.
0.9% of children who had a mother involved in the household were maltreated.
Mothers are 1.5 times more likely to maltreat their children.
===FATALITY===
==HSS==
For all cases of biological parent child fatality, 50% involved the father, and 77% involved the mother. (HHS table 4-5)
With respect to biological parent families, 71% of children are raised in a nuclear family, 29% are raised in single-parent families, and 83% of children in single-parent families are mother-led. (From PRB Data brief) We can deduce that:
76% of children have a father present, and 95% of children have a mother present.
For the 76%, 50% of the child fatalities involved the father.
For the 95%, 77% of the child fatalities involved the mother.
955 children were killed. (HHS Ch.3)
Thus, approximately:
56 million children have a father involved in the household.
70 million children have a mother involved in the household.
478 children were killed by the father.
735 children were killed by the mother.
Thus, approximately:
0.0000085% of children who had a father involved in the household were killed.
0.0000105% of children who had a mother involved in the household were killed.
Mothers are 1.2 times more likely to kill their children.
Keep in mind, I'm posting this in order to tie into the central sub point we've been running into on a tangent here.
Also, you didn't address this so we could have a debate over it, you addressed it the way you did because you knew you could disingenuously manipulate the numbers there and try to avoid everything else you got wrong.
Hey, look what else I found:
BBC News - Michael Petit: Why child abuse is so acute in the US
This is a fantastic post. You tackled a centuries-long, and extremely complex, multi-faceted issue with absolute precision. Im very impressed.
Zapp Brannigan
Captain of the Nimbus
Ain't nobody care what you thinkin'! I'm gonna throw your ass in the bushes when we get donuts tomorrow!
Does that help?
Why would you post a picture of the exact table I used in my calculations as if it was new information that would discredit me? Now I really think you didn't read my posts at all. If this table is acceptable grist for the mill for you, then you have conceded my calculations.
Convenient to paste all this stuff in here, but I can address it. First, though, you need to explain how the author arrived at the final numbers after starting with the initial numbers. The method here is not transparent in the least. I explained myself at every step of the way. You need to do the same, or I have no reason to give any credence to the conclusions.
Scustin Trillberlake
Banned
Ignorance.
Scustin Trillberlake
Banned
Completely and utterly false. Feminism has never, ever been about providing a safe space for men, ever. Look what happens when men try to create their own space in one of the most successful democracies on earth
Last edited by a moderator:
Scustin Trillberlake
Banned
I was going to debate with you in this thread, but it is actually comical how blind you are to current cultural misandry. Sad to see intelligent people like Victor dap your false, misandric information. The icing on the cake is you using the Good Men Project to support your argument. That site shames and demonizes males, and male sexuality.
Hugo Schwyzer: embracing racism, sexism, & cruelty | A Voice for Men
Refuting 40 years of lies about domestic violence | A Voice for Men
25 ways to make a shame sandwich | A Voice for Men