Boys with dad and mom at home are half as likely to be incarcerated,
regardless of their parents' income or educational level. According to
a Men Against Domestic Violence survey, 85 percent of youths in prison
come from fatherless homes.


    Another distorted statistic. This means, again, that if there is 1
incarcerated kid per 100 living in two-parent families, there's twice
as many, or 2 incarcerated kids, per 100 living in (however defined)
"father-absent" households. (I knew you'd be shocked.) The statistic
is going to depend on what families one manipulates into and counts in
that "father-absent" category. (It implies "single mothers," but that
may or may not be the case. Are incarcerated married fathers "present"
or "absent"?) The "half as likely" proportion holds only because boys
"with a dad and mom at home" are infinitely more likely to not have a
"dad" or "mom" in prison! (Obviously. The parents are at home.) But
such boys also are thousands of times more likely to not have a father
who spent any time at all in prison.

 

 

 

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
A Response to the Claims Made
in "Be Thankful for Dads" by Amy Ridenour


This page responds to a typical example of propaganda that uses the
false father-absence claims, in this case an article published on the
rather ridiculous "shalomjerusalem.com" website. This piece states
that it is "CNS Commentary from the 'National Center for Public Policy
Analysis' " (doesn't that sound official?) dated "16 June, 1999." The
complete text of the drivel, which is only partially reproduced here
in purple, can be found at:
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/culture/culture13.htm)

...Children with fathers are twice as likely to stay in school.

    This is a specious distortion of the statistic that says, in
effect, that if there's 1 dropout for every 100 children in two-parent
homes, we can expect there to be 2 dropouts for every 100 children in
single mother homes. Hardly alarming. And it's not true anyway.

    The greatest predictors of child academic success are (1) the
educational level of a child's mother and (2) the socioeconomic level
of the home. Kids whose fathers stay married to their mothers also
inherited both of their parents' different genes and dispositions.
When we take out from the equation these confounding factors, and
attempt to isolate the "father influence," we find that "adolescents
from single father households are judged by teachers to be less well
behaved and to show less effort in class. They also score slightly
less than their single-mother counterparts on standardized tests, both
verbal and math, and are perceived to be less academically qualified
for college. Children raised by single fathers attain on average six
months less education." See Downey, D. B., Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., &
Dufur, M. J. (1998). Sex of parent and children's well-being in
single-parent households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4),
878-893

    So fathers transmogrify into a positive influence if they are
married? No. It isn't a generic "father" thing at all. While
particular kinds of fathers with particular individual characteristics
may indeed benefit their children, it's overall family resources --
especially family income and mother's education -- that show the
strongest associations with competency levels.
http://www.nzcer.org.nz/publications/reports/competent.htm

    And, the most powerful predictors of child progress are the
mother's education and household economic well-being. (Married or
not.) http://www.hull.ac.uk/children5to16programme/briefings/joshi.pdf

    Mother's education is a primary predictor of child well-being.
Russell Sage Foundation, c/o CUP Services, P.O. Box 6525, Ithaca, NY
14851 http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/news/fall97/5fall97.html

    Is it about two-parent families being more likely to have higher
resources? No. It's about mother's educational and socio-economic
levels, which are somewhat correlated themselves, and which were at
least partly established long before that mother ever had children.

    For more, see Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and Myths and
Facts About Motherhood.

Boys with dad and mom at home are half as likely to be incarcerated,
regardless of their parents' income or educational level. According to
a Men Against Domestic Violence survey, 85 percent of youths in prison
come from fatherless homes.

    Another distorted statistic. This means, again, that if there is 1
incarcerated kid per 100 living in two-parent families, there's twice
as many, or 2 incarcerated kids, per 100 living in (however defined)
"father-absent" households. (I knew you'd be shocked.) The statistic
is going to depend on what families one manipulates into and counts in
that "father-absent" category. (It implies "single mothers," but that
may or may not be the case. Are incarcerated married fathers "present"
or "absent"?) The "half as likely" proportion holds only because boys
"with a dad and mom at home" are infinitely more likely to not have a
"dad" or "mom" in prison! (Obviously. The parents are at home.) But
such boys also are thousands of times more likely to not have a father
who spent any time at all in prison.

    Here's another statistic: 63% of young men who are serving time
for homicide killed their mother's abuser.

    The most significant predictor of criminality is having a parent
or other close relative who exhibits anti-social behavior or has been
incarcerated. The set of families in which a father is incarcerated
are a subset of the families included in the "single mother" or
"father-absent" demographic group (depending on your perspective),
skewing the statistic for the rest of them. (Makes me wonder how the
isolated subset of boys whose fathers were anonymous sperm donors
compares incarceration-wise with boys whose fathers had a relationship
of any sort with their mothers... venture a guess?)

    Once again: the greatest predictor of a child's criminality is
having a parent who has been incarcerated. (This is not proof of
causation either, but it does kind of bode against all those
fatherhood programs that want to inject criminals into the life of yet
more kids, doesn't it?) See DiLalla, L. F., & Gottesman, I. I. (1989).
Heterogeneity of causes for delinquency and criminality: Lifespan
perspectives. Development & Psychopathology, 1 (4), 339-349.

    For more, see Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and Myths and
Facts About Motherhood.

Girls 15-19 raised in homes with fathers are significantly less likely
to engage in premarital sex, and 76 percent of teenage girls surveyed
said their fathers are very or somewhat influential over their
decisions regarding sex.

Girls raised in single mother homes are more likely to give birth
while single and are more likely to divorce and remarry. Studies have
shown that girls whose fathers depart before their fifth birthday are
especially likely to have permissive sexual attitudes and to seek
approval from others.

    And the problem here is... what? That fatherless homes are bad
because the girls who grow up in fatherless homes are more likely to
create their own fatherless homes? Isn't that circular reasoning? It's
not circular reasoning, though (it's a fact) that girls who are raised
with any adult male in their home, including their fathers, also are
far more likely to be raped in their home, to get married while still
teenagers, and to not get a college education.

    See Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and Myths and Facts About
Motherhood.

Paternal praise is associated with better behavior and achievement in
school while father absence increases vulnerability and aggressiveness
in young children, particularly boys.

    Better achievement in school is likely to engender more interest
from fathers when they are around. A correlation is not causation. And
"father-absence" has not been shown to "increase vulnerability and
aggressiveness in young children." That's flat out prevarication.
Isolating out other influences in order to test the "father-absence"
factor, we find:

    "Andrew Cherlin and his colleagues studied random samples of over
11,000 children in Great Britain and over 2,200 children in the U.S.,
using information gathered on parents' and teachers' reports of
behavioral problems and the children's reading and math scores. They
statistically controlled for the children's social class, race, the
children's early behavioral and test scores, and factors such as
physical, mental, and emotional handicaps as assessed by physicians.
After controlling for those factors, boys of divorced parents scored
as high as boys from intact couples on the behavioral and academic
tests...This work implies that most of the problems we see in children
of divorced parents are due to long-standing psychological problems of
the parents, the stresses of poverty and racism, disabilities the
children themselves suffer, and so on." Mahony, Rhona, Divorce,
Nontraditional Families, and Its Consequences for Children,
http://www.stanford.edu/~rmahony/Divorce.html, citing to Cherlin, et
al., Science, 1991, June 7, 252 (5011), pp.1386-89

    There's plenty more. See Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and
Myths and Facts About Motherhood.

Young children living without dads married to their moms are five
times as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.

    More statistical nonsense. First, note that this means that for
every 1 child out of 100 children in two-parent homes who is poor,
there are 4 additional children in every 100 children counted in
single mother homes who are poor. (Theoretically, this could be the
same number of actual families if one poor single mother home had five
children.) Second, it's a gratuitous slam against all mother-headed
families to arbitrarily lump together with families formed by
never-married undereducated women (a distinct group) as one amorphous
"single mother" category, all unmarried cohabitating couples, blended
families, comfortable divorced mothers, and so forth. Each individual
family is what it is -- it is not more or less likely to be otherwise!

    Young children whose fathers are poor, dysfunctional, alcoholic,
drug addicted, uneducated, unemployed, abusive, incarcerated, or
otherwise undesirable and therefore not married to their mothers are
the children whose mothers create this statistic. It's the mothers
(not the children) who are poor, and not being married to a
dysfunctional isn't the reason for their poverty. Where these
biological "fathers" (and I use the quotation marks advisedly)
themselves actually live is itself a symptom of the particular
fathers' characteristics -- these children would be no better off, and
likely even worse off with these men present in their homes.

    For the research, see Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and Myths
and Facts About Motherhood.

Fatherless children are "at a dramatically greater risk" of drug and
alcohol abuse, says the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Children living in households with fathers are less likely to suffer
from emotional disorders and depression.

When dads don't live with their kids, the children are 4.3 times more
likely to smoke cigarettes when teenagers.

    "Dramatically greater" than what? The White House Drug Policy
website itself gives us this "drama": the highest risks of youth
substance use, dependence, and need for illegal drug abuse treatment
are found in families with a father and stepmother. And children who
live with only their biological father are more likely to use
substances, to be dependent on substances, and to need illegal drug
abuse treatment than youths who live with only their biological
mother. Johnson, Hoffman, and Gerstein (1986), on the effects of
family structure on adolescent substance abuse, data from 1995
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/parenting/r_familystructure.html

    For more, see Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and Myths and
Facts About Motherhood.

A white teenage girl with an advantaged background is five times more
likely to be a teen mom if she grows up in a household headed by a
single mom instead of with her biological dad and mom.

    (This is a repeat factoid, notice.)

Children with involved dads are less susceptible to peer pressure, are
more competent, more self-protective, more self-reliant and more
ambitious...

    (Ditto. The list runs dry pretty quickly, doesn't it...)

It doesn't take a lot of modern sociological data for people to
realize that involved dads make an irreplaceable contribution to the
lives of their kids.

    And it's a good thing for the propagandists that it doesn't,
because, actually, there IS no sociological data indicating that
"fathers" (in the abstract -- not talking here about a specific
person, but an imaginary idealized penised person who does not exist
some kids' homes, any more than an idealized millionare mother or the
tooth fairy does) make an irreplaceable contribution to the lives of
their kids.

    "While it would be a seemingly obvious proposition to most of us,
that fathers' consistent and substantial involvement in child care
would benefit the child, this appears to have not been well
established. The relationship between paternal involvement and
children's well-being seems to be mediated by a number of other
conditions that involve the father, the mother, and the child. In
other words, increased paternal involvement does not automatically
result in improved child outcomes. Nor is it clear whether the
father's involvement provides unique nurturance that can not be as
readily provided by substitute caregivers." THE MEANING OF FATHERHOOD
Koray Tanfer, Battelle Memorial Institute; Frank Mott, Ohio State
University; Prepared for NICHD Workshop "Improving Data on Male
Fertility and Family Formation" at the Urban Institute, Washington,
D.C., January 16-17, 1997,
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/fathers/cfsforum/apenc.htm

    For more, see Myths and Facts About Fatherhood, and Myths and
Facts About Motherhood.

Back in 1909, Mrs. Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington invented
Father's Day. Her own father, Henry Jackson Smart, a Civil War
veteran, raised six children after his wife died in childbirth. His
daughter wanted a special day to honor the sacrifices he made raising
six children alone and the sacrifices of all devoted dads. She
selected June 19, her father's birthday, as the first Father's Day.

    How nice. So in the 1800s, long before women had the right to
birth control, or to control their own property and earnings, or the
right to vote, a mother had pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy
until it killed her, in fact giving her very life to provide one man
with sex and his family of six children... and WHO is the one who is
claimed to have "sacrificed?" WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Amy Ridenour is President of The National Center for Public Policy
Research.

    A better title would be National Center for Public Policy Propaganda.

    Now let's group and assess families demographically by something
other than a biodad presence. Let's compare child rearing outcomes
based on some other kinds of offensive arbitrary measures. Let's
compare children by religion. On average, Christians don't do as well
as Jews and Asian-Americans academically. They are less likely to go
to college. They are more likely to end up being divorced. So, would
you say that this proves that being Christian is a social problem we
must do something about?... But wait. Maybe that's not causation, but
merely correlation. Let's research these families by state of
residence. Well... Southerners don't compare as well to Northerners or
Westerners either economically or eduationally. But then they also
have more churched Christians. Oh dear, a "confounded statistic."
Hmmm... We could speculate that perhaps the real problem is the
heat... People reared in warmer climates do seem to tend to be less
motivated, at least that's the stereotype... How about which group of
families are more likely to rear alcoholics? Irish Catholics?
Ukranians... uh oh... maybe it's cold climates that are the problem...
so let's see... which families are tens of thousands of times more
likely to rear boys who turn into serial murderers... well, that's an
inarguable statistic. We must work to eliminate white boys who grow up
with religious fathers and guns in their homes, the demographic
profile that most often yields this dangerous outcome...









--- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertcedric2001@y...> wrote:
> http://fatherless.net/fv/nl971223.htm
> Domestic Violence Statistics
>     The same study which found that a woman is abused by her spouse
every 15 seconds, also found that a man is abused by his spouse every
14 seconds.[1]
>
>
>       In the USA, wives or girlfriends assault 2 million men every
year, 1.8 million women are assaulted by their spouses or boyfriends.[2]
>       54% of all domestic violence termed 'severe' is committed by
women against their husbands or boyfriends.[3]
>       Over 2/3 of the child abuse committed by a parent is committed
by the mother.[4]
>       Mothers (55%) are more likely than fathers (45%) to murder
their children.[5]
>       Mothers kill sons (64%) more often than daughters (36%) and
78% of the child victims are under age 11.[6]
>       A study of inner city child abuse found that 49% of all child
abuse is committed by single parent mothers.[7]
>       Studies of domestic violence . . . . . have shown both sexes
to be equally culpable. Some of the research, such as a recent
Canadian national survey, "left out data on women abusing men...
because it's politically embarrassing." [8]
>       Women and men are almost identical in terms of the frequency
of attacks such a slapping, shoving, and kicking. [9]
>       The rate for assaults by wives is 124 per 1,000 couples,
compared with 122 per 1,000 for assaults by husbands. [10]
>       The rate of minor assaults by wives was 78 per 1,000 couples,
and the rate of minor assaults by husbands was 72 per 1,000. [11]
>       The rate for severe assaults is 46 per 1,000 couples for
assaults by wives and 50 per 1,000 for assaults by husbands. [12]
[Note: With respect to the preceding five items, Mr. Strauss wrote in
the journal Issues in Definition and Measurement. "As these rates are
based exclusively on information provided by women respondents, the
near equality in assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender bias
in reporting."]
>       Half of spousal murders are committed by wives, a statistic
that has been stable over time. Wives reported that they were more
often the aggressors. Using weapons to make up for physical
disadvantage, they were not just fighting back. [13]
>       The Journal for the National Association of Social Workers
found in 1986 that among teenagers who date, girls were violent more
frequently than boys. [14]
>       Mothers abuse their children at a rate approaching twice that
of fathers.[15]
>       ALL violence is responsible for about 3% of women's
INJURY-RELATED visits to emergency rooms, and domestic violence for
about 1%. Since fewer than a third of women's emergency-room visits
are injury-related, this means that domestic violence accounts for
fewer than 0.3% of these visits. While it is possible that some
domestic violence cases were not identified in the study, it is
noteworthy that its estimates include not only positively established
but probable cases of violence from injuries. [16] [That means that
even these low numbers are quite likely over-estimated with respect to
them being caused by domestic violence -WHS]
>       The leading cause of injury, to both women and men, is
accidental falls, followed by motor vehicle accidents. 13.6% of
injuries to women seen in emergency room are from car accidents-a
total of nearly 2 million, or almost 10 times the number of injuries
from domestic violence. [17]
>       More than twice as many women visit emergency rooms due to
being injured by an animal (459,000 a year) than by a male partner. [18]
>       The primary victims of interpersonal violence in the United
States are men: Men account for 60% of patients with injuries from
violence. [19]
>       Of the first hundred women coming into the first battered
women's refuge in the world in Chiswick, London, 62 were as violent as
the partner they left. [20]
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>

> Children and Single Moms
> Whether it is caused by violence or not, children living with single
moms don't do well in our society. It used to be the exception.  Now
it is becoming the rule and progressively worse.  Is that not child
abuse too?   WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN FROM SINGLE-MOTHER FAMILIES
 Single-Mother FamilyTwo Parent FamilyRelative Odds1Problem%(n)2%
> (n)2
>  Hyperactivity15.6(69,480)9.6(221,573)1.74Conduct
disorder17.2(73,659)8.1(180,786)2.36Emotional
disorder15.0(67,205)7.5(173,714)2.18One or more behaviour
problems31.7(137,460)18.7(418,894)2.02Repeated a grade
311.2(36,288)4.7(78,026)2.56Current school problems
35.8(18,862)2.7(46,120)2.22Social
impairment6.1(25,105)2.5(51,344)2.53One or more total problems
340.6(128,895)23.6(381,715)2.21
>
>
>       Children from single-mother families are 2.21 times (221%) as
likely to have one or more total problems than those from two-parent
families, twice as likely to have an emotional disorder, etc. (The
probability of this being due to chance is smaller than 1 in 1,000)
>       Weighted projections to reflect national population of children.
>       Data for items so annotated apply for 6- to 11-year-olds only.
All other data in the table apply to 4- to 11-year olds.
>
>
> [Source: GROWING UP IN CANADA National Longitudinal Survey of
Children and Youth (Human Resources Development Canada, Statistics
Canada, Catalogue no. 89-550-MPE, no.1, November 1996, p. 91.
Available from StatCan. It is only available in hard copy. $25 +GST)]
>
>
>

>

>