Following is a graphic representation of
the findings of the NIS-3 study showin that, as mothers are more involved with children,
the fatal abuse rate of children increases dramatically. Children in Mother-only
households are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused than children in Father-only
But note also that the term "Both
Parents" used in NIS-3 definitely includes step-households, and very likely includes
households where the mother cohabits. How disingenuous.
Does anyone really believe that children
living with both biological parents are more likely to be fatally abused than children
living in Mother-only Households? Do the feminists at Yeshiva really believe that?
If so, they are IGNORING each of the more than 2,000 studies which show that children
living with step-fathers are 3 to 8 times more likely to be abused than children living
with both biological parents. It is not just a few studies which note that fact--it
is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THEM:
Excerpted from "The Case For Father Custody", by Dr.
But males, although they spend less time with children and have less overall
responsibility for child care, are more likely than females to injure or kill
children....A child's mother is more likely to kill or injure him than his stepmother is.
Male offenders tend to be more distantly related to their victims.
A child's stepfather or the boyfriend of his mother is more likely to kill or injure him
than his father is.
Male offenders, in other words, tend not to be fathers--fathers tend not to be offenders.
Gelles says (if the reader takes the trouble to winkle out the meaning) that
the biological father is the child's best protector, not only against the stepmother but
against the mother, who is far more likely to abuse or kill the child than the father,
and who is especially abusive and murderous if she becomes single--i.e., if she and the
judge exile the child's best protector, the father.
The father protects the child better against the stepmother than the mother protects the
child against the boyfriend or stepfather. How many readers will understand
this truth behind Gelles's coyly evasive predication about the distantness of the
Sociologist Ira Reiss cites the findings of Diana Russell of Mills College, who
"studied sexual abuse of children with emphasis on father/daughter incest":
Russell found that 2 percent of those growing up with a natural father were sexually
abused as were 17 percent of those growing up with a
The child is thus eight and a half times safer with a father than with a stepfather. David
Finkelhor cuts Russell's estimate of danger from fathers in half:
Sociologist David Finkelhor, [a specialist in child sexual abuse] has estimated that for
the country as a whole about 1 percent of women are sexually
abused in some fashion by their fathers....Finkelhor's 1 percent amounts to about one
million American women aged eighteen and over who have
been sexually abused by their fathers! If these estimates are anywhere near the mark,
father/daughter incest is far from a rare phenomenon.
But why the emphasis on the threat of the father rather than on the far greater threat of
the stepfather or boyfriend, who enters the picture once the father is exiled?
Reiss cites Freud's skepticism of women's reports of father incest:
Almost all of my women patients told me that they had been seduced by their father. I was
driven to recognize in the end that these reports were
untrue and so came to understand that the hysterical symptoms are derived from fantasies
and not from real occurrences.
Today there are many who, like Freud, still prefer to deny the reality of such incest;
however, the evidence is overwhelming. Unfortunately,
father/daughter incest is a reality, not a fantasy.
But if almost all of Freud's female patients accused their fathers and if only two percent
of them (Russell's estimate) or one percent of them (Finkelhor's estimate)
were actually molested then "almost all" of them were mistaken and Freud was
The same suggestio falsi is found everywhere in the press and the media. Thus Carla Rivera
in the Los Angeles Times of 15 November, 1996:
Mothers, who were the largest single category of perpetrators, were involved in 20 of the
slayings. In 17 of the cases, death came at the hands of a
boyfriend, stepfather or other caregiver. The report found that 62% of the assailants were
men, most frequently either a father or the mother's
boyfriend, stepfather or other caregiver.
Again the fathers are lumped with the mothers' boyfriends and other caregivers to make up
the 62 percent of male villains.
A recent study based in Sacramento County found that abused children are 67 times more
likely than non-abused ones to run afoul of the law.
Based on the results of its study [says the Los Angeles Times of 20 June, 1997], the Child
Welfare League of America challenged President Clinton
to veto bills pending in Congress that would earmark federal funds for new juvenile prison
facilities. Instead the league...urged the federal
government to funnel more money to such programs as preschool for low-income kids, home
visits for teenage mothers, enrichment and mentoring
programs in high school and family counseling for first-time juvenile offenders.
According to the Times, "the arrest rate for abused children was 60 children per
1,000, compared with a rate of 0.89 for non-abused children." It quotes Buffalo
Police Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, as saying "If Congress is serious about fighting
crime, it won't pretend that just building more jails is going to solve the
problem. Those of us on the front lines know we'll win the war on crime when Congress
boosts investment in early childhood programs and Head Start, health care
for kids, after-school and mentoring and recreational programs."
If the child's principal abuser is the mother and the next worst abuser is the mother's
boyfriend, why invest in either juvenile prisons or "early childhood programs"
rather than protect the child from abuse by allowing his best protector, the father, to
remain in his home?
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala calls on "all Americans" to
help stop the growing harm inflicted on the country's children, over a million of
whom were victims of substantiated child abuse in 1994, an increase of 27 percent since
1990. "All Americans" includes divorce court judges--but they are the
ones who most frequently place children where they are at greatest risk, in female headed
households. Ms. Shalala seems not to know that children are safest in a
father-headed family and that the single mothers and mothers' boyfriends in whose care
judges place so many of "the country's children" are the principal abusers.
"All Americans" includes President Clinton, who tells ex-husbands "We will
make you pay"--pay to subsidize the singleness of the mothers who commit most of the
abuse--pay these mothers so that they can afford to expel them and drag their children
into the Female Kinship System. "All Americans" includes Ms. Shalala herself
who tries to implement President Clinton's policy of compelling ex-husbands to subsidize
the abusive arrangement which excludes them and thereby increases the
amount of abuse.
The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse issues a list of ten ways to prevent child
abuse. All ten are irrelevant to the major causes: "Support
activities...Volunteer at a local child abuse program...Report suspected abuse or
neglect...Advocate for services to help families...Speak up for non-violent
television...Make a contribution...Help a friend, neighbor or relative...Help
yourself...Support and suggest programs...Promote programs in schools."
Let's say, the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse is a screen organization which
pretends concern about the abuse in order to disguise the fact that its
program perpetuates and exacerbates abuse. There is no hint in its proposals that the best
means to protect children is to keep the father in the home.