« Happy Birthday, Kevin! | Main | Attacks Against DV Services By Men's Rights Groups Not New »

October 21, 2003

Men's Rights Attack Against Domestic Violence Shelters Dismissed

The men's/fathers' rights group National Coalition of Free Men failed in its attack against domestic violence shelters in southern California. Free Men attorney Marc Angelucci headed the lawsuits. Free Men and other men's/fathers' rights groups and individual men have engaged in similar attacks against domestic violence services and laws in other states. Men's/fathers' rights groups like Free Men are not interested in establishing services for battered men. They are interested in preventing battered women from obtaining help. The few battered men out there that do exist get no help from men's rights groups.


The California Women's Law Center is delighted that common sense and justice prevailed today when the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit against ten Southern California shelters for battered women and their children.  The shelters are located in: Artesia, Canoga Park, Carson, Claremont, Glendale, Los Angeles, Newhall, Pasadena, and San Pedro.

The lawsuit, filed by representatives of the National Coalition of Free Men, claimed that the ten shelters engaged in unlawful sex discrimination by not accepting men at their emergency shelters for battered women and children.  The California Women's Law Center and the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, representing a majority of the shelters pro bono, argued successfully that the lawsuit had no merit.

"This lawsuit should never have been filed in the first place.  It's great news for our community and for battered women and their children that these ten shelters will be able to again focus all their resource on what's important: saving the lives of victims of domestic violence," said Marci Fukuroda, staff attorney at the California Women's Law Center.

California law (CA Government Code, Section 11135) states that no state-funded program shall discriminate against any person on the basis of "race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color or disability."  Section 11139 of the law, however, clarifies that this prohibition against discrimination must not "be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs which benefit the disabled, the aged, minorities, and women."  The shelters in question all receive state funding under the California Battered Women Shelter Program, a program created by the legislature in 1994 specifically to aid battered women and their children.

"Rainbow Services has chosen to address the massive societal problem of violence against women.  Others are of course free to address other problems, whether it's violence against men, drug addiction, homelessness or something else," explained Ben Schirmer, Executive Director of Rainbow Services in San Pedro.  "I wish the National Coalition of Free Men luck if they choose to establish services for battered men.  In the meantime, Rainbow Services will continue to provide badly needed emergency shelter for battered women and their children."

Posted on October 21, 2003 at 05:01 PM | Permalink


'Men's/fathers' rights groups like Free Men are not interested in establishing services for battered men. They are interested in preventing battered women from obtaining help.'

Got proof?

'The few battered men out there that do exist'

There are more than a few, but your antimale agenda blinds you to the reality.


Posted by: Jim at Oct 22, 2003 1:28:33 AM

'There are more than a few, but your antimale agenda blinds you to the reality.'

Got proof? Or does your antiwoman agenda blind you to the reality? Given that men commit the vast majority of crime worldwide, why should this suddenly stop at the front door? I am reminded of this (sorry I don't know how to link it better): http://www.zmag.org/cartoons/show_toon.cfm?toonID=305&toonList=1457,1308,1251,1247,1248,1227,1223,1217,1206,1194,1185,1175,1162,1148,1129,1118,1100,1088,1076,1065,1061,1052,1029,1024,1017,1007,1002,998,992,977,968,964,946,938,930,921,912,885,873,869,856,850,841,839,809,803,794,780,774,764,759,750,725,710,712,705,702,697,691,663,651,639,628,609,598,574,568,565,554,545,532,527,525,515,510,502,496,479,467,459,441,438,431,425,418,413,400,378,372,370,358,353,328,319,307,305,303,301,300,290,287,286,285,284,277,271,272,270,262,258,250,247,241,238,234,226,218,209,208,202,191,190,189,188,187,186,181,178,171,165,161,138,137,136,135,134,132,115,112,108,105,102,99,88,85,82,78,75,68,70,71,72,73,74,69&index=by_artist.cfm&artist=10

Posted by: Spicy at Oct 22, 2003 4:08:19 AM

'Got proof?'

Of course I do. Here's a starting point for you: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

You can find a lot more information here: http://www.mensactivism.org/search.pl?topic=dv

'Or does your antiwoman agenda blind you to the reality?'

Sorry but challenging the unsupported antimale claims of someone who just happens to be a woman is not an 'antiwoman agenda'.

'Given that men commit the vast majority of crime worldwide, why should this suddenly stop at the front door?'

Look at the facts; they'll prove you wrong.

Posted by: Jim at Oct 22, 2003 7:12:23 AM

Spicy, that was a great cartoon! I know Barry, the artist. His blog is Alas, A Blog. I'm sure you already know about it.

Just ignore the little snert. He's sore that battered women's shelters have been able to squash the attacks of angry men's/fathers' rights types. There was a similar attack in Massachusetts a few years ago. Those men's/fathers' rights activists lost, too.

I'm already familiar with the "facts" he posted. The first one is to a long-discredited list of studies supposedly proving that men and women are equally abusive. Those studies rely almost exclusively on the misrepresented and problematic Conflict Tactic Scales. For more information about the CTS and how men's/fathers' rights activists misuse them to promote their political agenda, check this page on my web site: "The Myth of Battered Men"

The other link is a men's/fathers' rights propaganda site. Why can't men's rights types understand how those views are harmful to men? While, for instance, groups like Free Men try to shut down battered women's shelters and do away with laws that protect battered women, they do nothing for men who have really been abused. It's all about misogyny. These groups are harmful to women and men.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 22, 2003 11:00:06 AM

Folks, I just deleted a comment from this thread. I have also banned that poster, "Jim," from posting in my comments section. The only reason he has come over here is to harass me. He used to do the same to me on AOL and I will not tolerate it on my blog. I have not heard a peep from him for close to a year, and I stopped reading and posting on those message boards at about the same time. He's free to take out his feelings of powerlessness on his message board buddies on AOL. Not on my turf.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 22, 2003 5:58:39 PM

Yeah - I know about Fieberts list but thanks for the link anyway :)

My favourite study included on that list is the one that doesn't actually study domestic violence at all - it's a study of the violence used by characters in American 1950's comics!

And I agree with your assessment of men's rights groups - I would actually support them if they genuinely wanted to help abused men - of which there are some, it's just not equal. So far though, they seem far more interested in attacking (oh the irony!) services for abused women than actually assisting abused men.

Posted by: Spicy at Oct 23, 2003 4:05:58 AM

I think you have misinterpreted the intent of the previous poster (and apparently censored him as well). Men's rights groups don't want to attack services for abused women at all - that would be a horrible thing to do. We simply want to be treated equally and get services for those of us who ARE in need of them. As it stands now, at least in LA County, that is not possible. Saying that we don't deserve them because "not very men are battered" is logically flawed - what about the ones that are - do they matter ? Or are we all just disposable?

Posted by: Michael at Oct 27, 2003 2:48:29 AM

'Men's rights groups don't want to attack services for abused women at all'

Did you read the article at all?

'Saying that we don't deserve them because "not very men are battered" is logically flawed'

Yes it is. Trouble is that's not what I said.

I think you have misinterpreted my intent.

Posted by: at Oct 27, 2003 3:19:57 AM

isnt the real issue here equality under the law or the constitutional protection of due process? this isn't a man/woman issue. this is an issue all people having access to shelters who have a need of it. i could argue that there are men who need this right now more than some women/children but cant access these shelters because of sexual discrimination. this is wrong just as excluding black people from a bathroom or diner in the past was wrong. we need to move on and creating slots for some and excluding others isnt the best way or right way. how do we treat people with sex change operations? how do we classify them? or is it more important to take care of the most needy regardless of how you classify them? i know it is. the idea of shelters for most but excluding some smacks of a majority discriminating against a less politically powerful minority. when in history has that gone down as good thing? logical arguments matter more than personal attacks. keep it in that light.

Posted by: tom at Nov 18, 2003 8:04:09 PM

hi my ex Judy Luprypa assaulted me on many occassions, the police and social workers mocked me

Posted by: at Oct 24, 2004 2:35:41 PM

You cannot prove anything.

Posted by: Judy Luprypa at Oct 24, 2004 2:40:22 PM

Yes, that a good idea someone had...why don't the Free Men set up their own shelters for abused men...probably they would quickly find out that abused men exist but contrary to what the Free Men believe OTHER MEN are usually the ones abusing them. It's similar to what we're discovered about men in prison they abuse each OTHER horribly, far above what the numbers show happens in women's prison...Although the number of sexual assaults in women's prisons is increasing however, BUT IT'S DUE TO MALE GUARDS ASSAULTING FEMALE PRISONERS...

Sad isn't it, that even the best of men behave badly when given the opportunity...

A male as the larger and more aggressive half of a couple is generally the perpetrator of violence against his smaller and weaker opponent and this hold true throughout ALL species including our own...I mean when was the last time we heard of a female rapist following men home and sexually assaulting them in their hallway or something. Of course there exists the few RARE cases I'm sure where women attack men, just as in nature a male grizzly, for instance, might get attacked by a female and she MIGHT succeed in driving him off but that is rare and unlikely to happen very often. So too with humans. Men, for the most part, are the ones committing most physical assaults. Actually men commit MOST crimes worldwide and really if we factor out prostitution they are probably responsible for ALL crime in some societies...Also remember abuse does NOT consist of a one-time assault but is supposedly part of an ongoing pattern taking place over a period of time. So even if men could make the case that they got their faces slapped once or twice by a woman that would still NOT be domestic abuse...

Additionally we already have the experience that demonstrates how it is next to impossible for the average woman to successfully defeat the average man in hand to hand combat. Right after the Gulf War, the army tried to field a few integrated field units...it took a few hand-picked women and gave them training equivalent to what they give Special Forces or the Navy Seals, men like that...(I did a paper on this while taking a class and read quite a bit about it, the failure of the experiment led to the 'exclusion rule' which still exists today keeping women out of combat and all the Special Forces units, such as the Rangers, the Seals, Green Berets, etc.,)

Anyway, even though these were the 'best' women with Special Forces training, they were just able to 'hold their own' in hand to hand combat against the average male soldier who had NO special training...NOT however able to overcome these average men...but just not experience any serious injury to themselves while engaging in combat with them...

So it's pretty clear to any thinking person that this idea being put out there about women being just as abusive as men is just ridiculous, more political theatre by the men. Sigh...does it ever end with them...BTW, even the police when lecturing women about crime prevention will always advise women NOT to pull a knife or other weapon out when being attacked by a man. Why? Because even with a weapon the average women cannot overpower the average man. It's that simple and women who pull out a weapon are in MORE danger of just having it taken away from them and used by the perpetrator of the crime on them, the victim...

Thus, for the average woman to even be able to not get a serious injury in a fight with the average man, never mind 'abuse' him, she would probably need the equivalent of Special Forces training. Yet men expect us to believe that women like this exist in large enough numbers to justify setting up shelters to protect men from them...It's clearly ridiculous...

Now, I'm sure they are some small numbers of women out there who are truly abusive and able to beat up men but they are rare and don't justify spending the limited funds we have on men as victims of domestic violence...We must spend it where it will do the most good for the most people and that means spending it on women's shelters to protect them from men...

BUT for the small number of men out there being abused by women, I'm sure the Free Men could start a shelter movement for them...then if they get enough response maybe the government will see if the need justifies ANY expenditure on the problem...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 24, 2004 5:09:53 PM

You ladies are real stupid, women hit men as much as men hit women. The laws will change and soon

Posted by: matt at Oct 29, 2004 9:42:23 PM

No...the laws aren't going to change...Men are larger, stronger and more physically aggressive in every species and every society including our own...Right now we have over a million men in prison and just barely 100,000 women and these results are replicated in every other society on earth from China to Brazil so I find it hard to believe that ONLY in the US are women more aggressive then men...

It's just another ploy by men to get out of taking responsibility for their own bad behavior...just as men try to blame the government or women using PAS for men abandoning their families...Men have been doing this for generations, most of you just using the 'poor man's divorce' and dumping your wives and children off on others to take care of it until society just got fed up with it...That's the genesis of the strict child support and enforcement laws...not the government trying to make money nor women trying to force fathers out of childrens' lives...but selfish men not wanting to take care of their families...

This is the same sort of situation...men have been getting away with this domestic abuse crap for YEARS, now that we're finally doing something about it, you try to come with all these red herrings claiming women are guilty of domestic abuse also...

Well it's not going to work.

We are NOT trying to change public policies that help millions to reflect a small group of men dangling off the far end of the bell shaped curve because they had a one-time argument with their wife or something...We're talking about real, on-going domestic abuse here...okay...so quit trying to paint yourselves as victims just so you can change the focus to make men the center of attention once again...

Accept responsibility for your own bad behaviors JUST ONCE and quit trying to blame others, like your mother, your wife, the government, low sperm count, PLEEEEEEASE....

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2004 9:24:14 AM

"The few battered men out there that do exist..."

Who says there's 'few' battered men?

Women's rights groups inflate the number of women they claim are raped each year by explaining most women don't report rapes. Fine. Most men are embarassed to report that they were beat-up by their (often drunken) wives.

Men's rights groups are opposed to PUBLIC FUNDING of women's shelters when there is no PUBLIC FUNDING of men's shelters. That's gender discrimination and will eventually have to be addressed.

Posted by: Professor Bates at Feb 9, 2005 6:10:50 AM

You dismiss Martin Feiberts compilation of 166 scholarly investigations: 132 empirical studies and 34 reviews and/or analyses which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

His is simply a list, are you saying he made up all those names? are you implying, that he bribed or coerced those people to write what he wanted?


Posted by: ray at Feb 19, 2005 12:05:52 AM

The topic of this post is domestic violence shelters being under attack by men's rights activists. It is not the myth of men and women being equally abusive. Fiebert's list is made up of studies that used the faulty Conflict Tactic Scales, which I've addressed on this blog before. Those studies don't prove that men and women are equally abusive. Men's rights activists who have claimed that they are discriminated against by women's shelters have lost all of those cases. This post is about one of those cases. If men's rights activists want to help abused men, they should do the proper research into that population and apply for funding themselves.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 19, 2005 7:28:29 AM

In doing research for a paper in my Domestic Violence class at the University of Cincinnati, I came upon this website and after reading the comments, felt the need to add one of my own.

First off, let me preface my comments with the statement that it is grossly apparent that woman outweigh the men as victims of domestic violence. However, my research is focused on male victims of domestic violence. I welcome unbiased feedback for use in my paper...

My research has shown that there are definately male victims of DV. However, due to a variety of variables, most go unreported or the percentage is so low, they are considered insignificant. In chatting with a variety of woman about this issue, I have been surprised at some of the comments I have received. One in particular states "you can't hurt them" as verification of slapping their intimate. Or, "most men are raised to not hit a woman" as a safety net to their aggressiveness. Or worse yet, Hollywood has shown that a woman slapping a man in the face is just a fanciful statement of disapproval and gets many laughs, however, that same type of slap to a woman and the troops are called in. And you cannot disregard the woman who uses physical aggressiveness towards their intimates and then tells them to go ahead and call the police, they'll simply say it was self defense.

It is abhorrent to me that anyone would raise a hand to another individual for any reason with the exception of blatant assault by a stranger (as an example of many). I'm trying to look at both sides of the issue from a learning standpoint and my instructor indicates that there is not enough information/research out there to warrant any kind of substantial mention of it in class - however, it is a topic on a list from which to choose for a research project.

The research pointing to a possible equal number of assaults from both genders is based on studies from Family Research Laboratories and psychologists. These statistics are not duplicated in, say, the Federal Bureau of Statistics as those stats are generally pulled from crime reports...and it's already been established that men don't report such abuse.

In light of those facts, in an educational environment, all sides must be represented. I think men are finding themselves in the same position as women 25 years ago, and someone needs to take the initiative and stand up for change.

Posted by: Donna at Apr 6, 2005 9:03:25 AM

Dear Donna
If you are conducting the same sort of research that is usually done by feminist researchers into male "violence" (defined secretly as including shouting and that sort of thing) then I for one am a "victim of domestic violence": on one occasion my partner threw a mobile phone at me.
Boo-hoo-hoo poor me. Put me down in your list and campaign for jail sentencing for my partner and her ilk.
If you want to do some good for society confine your research to domestic "violence", that is what we here in England would call actual bodily harm and find out how male/female ratios differ.
We do not need more research seeking to criminalise and make taboo the sort of squabbles and spatsthat go on between all couples and would not be considered violence by anyone with more brains than a chicken.

Posted by: Steve at Apr 6, 2005 10:12:11 AM

Note that in a different thread, I mentioned that HUD's SuperNOFA for funding various housing projects, including Continuum of Care projects for the homeless, is now available. I'm not looking up the URL again, but you can find it by googling HUD. I also offered, free, pro-bono, no strings attached technical assistance to any male rights activist wishing to prepare an application providing transitional housing and supportive services to male victims of domestic violence. Have yet to hear from anybody,though. I have 15 years of experience in the grant field, and I would normally charge a client for these services. So come on guys. If you want to put the effort where your words are, get moving. Deadlines are coming up. I can't help you if you contact me a week before deadline.

If no one contacts Trish re this offer, I really don't want to hear how "feminists" won't help "us" establish services for battered men.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 6, 2005 11:16:02 AM

"Dear Donna
If you are conducting the same sort of research that is usually done by feminist researchers into male "violence" (defined secretly as including shouting and that sort of thing) then I for one am a "victim of domestic violence": on one occasion my partner threw a mobile phone at me.
Boo-hoo-hoo poor me. Put me down in your list and campaign for jail sentencing for my partner and her ilk.
If you want to do some good for society confine your research to domestic "violence", that is what we here in England would call actual bodily harm and find out how male/female ratios differ.
We do not need more research seeking to criminalise and make taboo the sort of squabbles and spatsthat go on between all couples and would not be considered violence by anyone with more brains than a chicken."

Well the above is the FIRST sensible thing you've said in a while Steve...

Since that's exactly what she appeared to be planning on doing until you called her on it...then trying to use the figures to get men admitted into a dv shelter or get a restraining order issued claiming men are 50% of the abused population...Please...more time wasters for the courts and the REAL reason why they never have time to go after real batterers...wading through all the crap generated by people like her encouraging men to file charges because someone yelled at them...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 6, 2005 11:42:57 AM

I have posted this elsewhere, but a while back, my local NPR affiliate had a call-in show with the local DV project. Someone asked if they ever had male clients, and they said they did. 45 men had sought services in the previous calendar year (probably advice and counseling) and two required shelter. In cases like this, or where the shelter is full, the batterer knows where it is, or an abused lesbian (which creates other problems), they have a network of safe houses in the region.

Most, but certainly not all, of these men were in gay relationships.

Abused lesbians have more to fear because the battering partner has been known to gain access to the shelter and continue abusing and stalking her. There was a fatal case of lesbian DV in my city a few years ago. The bigger one would get drunk and beat up the smaller one, and eventually killed her.

Women who are physically abusive are more likely to lash out at the kids, which is worse because the kids can't leave. They are also more likely to be MENTALLY abusive, which is much harder to prove and can be even more destructive.

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Apr 6, 2005 11:53:48 AM

Shelters should be provided for men and ladies according to need. The true scale of "domestic violence" meaning actual bodily harm needs to be properly established by real research to determine that need. The figures should not be distorted by the likes of our own Harriet Harman (government minister introducing new laws with draconian penalties and overriding spouses' wishes in prosecution (ie the state prosecutes whether the partner wants this or not)by saying "75% of women are victims of domestic violence" where the research has defined "violence" as raised voices and the like. Imagine: the law now in England is that if my girlfriend slaps me the police have to prosecute her whether I want them to or not! Keep these meddlers out of our hair.. horrid Labour politicians.. lets hope we are rid of them and that lying war-monger Blair on May 6th.

Posted by: Steve at Apr 6, 2005 12:20:06 PM

i think the "women can't hurt men" and "men are raised not to hurt women" thing(s) are kinda-sorta correct, in the general case. on average, the physical disparity is enough that a woman slapping a man in the face is reasonably unlikely to cause lasting harm, but the opposite scenario is not. that might be why the troops get called in in the latter case, and why there's a definite (and, IMO, desirable) socialization pressure on boys and young men not to strike women.

it is, of course, not necessarily true in every specific instance. but it's likely true in most instances. i'm not an athletic person at all, i'm more of a wimpy geek type, but i'm enough much stronger than my wife to see the disparity – and she's not any unusually weak woman, either. with power should come responsibility, and the "don't hit women, ever" taboo looks to me like a way to impart such responsibility.

i'm not so entirely abhorred by the use of force in general; i believe there are times and places for it, and that it can and does solve problems. but it has to be fairly carefully controlled, and balancing out our biological sexual dimorphism with a social taboo against men using violence on women is probably (in general, averaged out over society as a whole) a good form of control. not sufficient on its own, but possibly necessary.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Apr 6, 2005 1:12:17 PM

BTW, NYMOM, i have to disagree with you when you say women can't hold their own against men even if armed. weapons in general tend to work as force equalizers, although some kinds of weapons are better at this than others. with the proper weapon, a bit of training in how to use it, and the determination to damn well use it in her defense even if doing so means killing her attacker, an armed woman can very well hold off a larger, stronger male. especially if she's using a firearm – they particularly excel at being force equalizers, much more so than most other weapons.

i know i'd pay a great deal of polite attention to any woman who held me at gunpoint. i know the only way i could take that gun away from her would be through risking immediate death, in the case that she was willing to use the gun against me. i know i could only succeed in disarming her if she proved to not have the necessary mindset and determination to use violence and deadly force. i know i would not be willing to take such a chance at all lightly; any man who would, would likely not refrain from attacking her no matter what she was or wasn't armed with.

(i wouldn't recommend using a knife in self-defense, though. a knife is a fool's weapon, in my not at all humble opinion. all the backdraws of unarmed fighting with all the increased danger of armed fighting, and possibly no advance warning that you'll even be up against a weapon at all — no, thankyou.)

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Apr 6, 2005 1:26:16 PM

Mothers are twice as likely to murder their children, and almost 9 times as likely to seriously injurde and abuse children as as are dads.

U.S. department of Health and Humas Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1999).

Posted by: Robert at Apr 6, 2005 1:56:09 PM

I never said a woman could NOT hold her own with a weapon...I said the studies show the 'best women' those trained in special forces (and maybe they have some sort of physical attributes that most women won't have) can't hold their own against the average man in HAND TO HAND COMBAT...

With a weapon of course they can...even a child can...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 6, 2005 2:31:53 PM

oops, sorry, i misread you – i thought you were stating your own opinion, but on rereading i see you were merely stating what police officers hand out as advice in common "crime prevention" lectures. my apologies; my brain must not be in gear like it should be. :-(

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Apr 6, 2005 2:37:01 PM

Robert, uh no. Not exactly. The facts are this: mothers are credited with more child deaths due to neglect, which HHS defines in very vague ways, such as not getting the child to the doctor "on time" or not following "doctor's orders." (This in a country with no guarantees to health care). It is also clear, even by HHS research, that mothers represent the vast majority of primary care givers, so they will be credited, rightly or wrongly, with most neglect cases. What is in fact surprising, is the high proportion of fathers or father surrogates who are found guilty of neglect, as these men are overrepresented relative to their actual number of caregivers.

In terms of actual deliberate physical abuse leading to the death of a child, you have it wrong. Fathers and father surrogates outnumber mothers:

There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

and this:

...research shows that when we take issues of severity into consideration, fathers or father surrogates (cohabitating husbands or boyfriends who are not biologically related to the child) are responsible for more severe physical abuse and fatalities than woman perpetrators (Brewster et al., 1998; Klevens et al., 2000; U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. January 2005.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 6, 2005 2:53:55 PM

In the interest of providing the entire picture from the social services research standpoint (instead of blatant misrepresentations and lies), here is the summary of child abuse perpetrators by sex from the Executive Summary of the Third National Incident of Abuse and Neglect (1996). Note that it is easy to get tangled in the definitions here. "Maltreatment" seems to be abuse and neglect combined. Most maltreatment is, in fact, neglect. Neglect can be defined in any number of ways (see the HHS site and its definitions of neglect), but the emphasis is on how the adult failed to act. Physical abuse is deliberate physical abuse, which is different from neglect in that it is intentional harm.

Perpetrator's Sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, were more likely to have been maltreated by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).

Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females).

Posted by: silverside at Apr 6, 2005 3:22:20 PM


The stats I posted weren't my opinion, I posted the credits.

You dance very well, I enjoyed seeing you wiggle, some day, when women take responsibility for their humanity they will achieve equality.

Posted by: Robert at Apr 6, 2005 3:48:46 PM

"The stats I posted weren't my opinion, I posted the credits.

You dance very well, I enjoyed seeing you wiggle, some day, when women take responsibility for their humanity they will achieve equality."

Yes, they were your opinion...

You just went to some old stats from 97, almost 8 years old and pulled a line or two you liked...

Anybody can do that...

Anything trying to make mothers look bad...MOST mothers do NOT abuse their children so quit using these phoney stats to try and act like they do...

AND why should we work to achieve equality when we're better then men...

Equality would be a step backwards for us...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 6, 2005 4:05:32 PM