AbuseVictims, I see you're still referencing your favourite scab-picker. So be it, but you may as well get some real information out of it.

The NIS-4 summary for congress can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/nis4_report_exec_summ_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Some quotes:
"Classifying these abused and neglected children according to the level of injury or harm they suffered from Harm Standard maltreatment revealed only one change: a significant decrease in the incidence of children for whom injury could be inferred due to the severe nature of their maltreatment. This group declined from 165,300 children in the NIS–3 to 71,500 in the NIS–4 (a 57% decrease in number; a 60% decline in the rate in the population)."
and

"Significant decreases in the incidence of abuse and all specific categories of abuse contrast with a significant increase in the incidence of emotional neglect"

and

"Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."

all of which bear out exactly what I and others have been saying. Noone is suggesting that abuse doesn't occur, just that it occurs at much lower rates than advocates on behalf of women who want to be single mothers would like us to think. Moreover, most of it occurs when Mum hooks up with a new boyfriend and there's no Dad around.

Those are realities, not spin.

BTW, there is no "huge government funded Fatherhood Initiative". I suspect the main reason the data are not separated by parental gender in NIS-4 is that it would show clearly that Mum is the main perpetrator and there is a strong Feminist lobby in the US exemplified by your favourite man-hater, which would scream discrimination and try to tie the report up in the Courts, using all their lovely Government funding.

<UNBIASED - not paid for by dad or courts - experts>

Now where is someone going to find one of those?

More than a few female author have been highly critical of the standard applied in the socalled centres of higher learning to the subject of gender studies.

So who decides which expert is unbiased and which one is biased.

Perhaps that is code for an unbiased expert agrees with me and supports feminism, and a biased one disagrees with me and feminism.

<are pretty selfless when it comes to their children> I think that called "martyrdom"

Marytyrdom is one of the signs of maternal gatekeeping.

<A maternal gatekeeper limits her husband's involvement with chores and children by placing obstacles in his way. She may question and criticize his actions as a parent and fail to encourage his interaction with his children.>

<"Even fathers who wanted to be involved with their kids often drifted away in the face of persistent maternal criticism">

Pelican:"It appears only men are victims in your view Antiseptic. "

What a lot of tosh. All I do is point out the data. What you and some others find confronting is that I point out data that is not normally publicised a great deal because it doesn't support the female-centric view of feminists.

You get offended because you're used to thinking of yourself as involved in a "noble cause", that of "protecting women's rights" and it turns out that women already have a great deal more "rights" than men and are still demanding even more. It is confronting to you that some men ARE victims of the system that feminism has created, which is to your credit. Some posters here (where is Suzeonline anyway?) regard the creation of male victims as a highly desirable outcome.

Pelican:"Men are equally protected under the Discrimination Act"

Actually, no we're not. Only women can claim discrimination on the basis of gender, not men except in very limited circumstances, such as wanting to work part-time and being sacked as a result.

Pelican:"you can fight for the rights of men as regards the CSA and child custody without demonising women."

No demonisation here, just the facts, ma'am. Here's a tip: "feminist" is not synonymous with "woman", despite the best efforts of some feminists to pretend otherwise.

Also, thank you for your apology. I did think you sounded a little more strident than is your wont

Another couple of quotes from the NIS-4:
"In nearly all categories, the incidence of maltreatment and levels of harm increased since the NIS–3 for children living with one parent but decreased for those living with two parents. The largest rate increase for children with one parent was in Endangerment Standard neglect (58% higher in NIS–4 than in NIS–3), especially the specific category of emotional neglect (a 194% increase)."

Having read a little further, I discovered that gender is indeed discussed:
"Perpetrator’s sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 68% of the maltreated children were maltreated by a female, whereas 48% were maltreated by a male. (Some children were maltreated by both.) Of children maltreated by biological parents, mothers maltreated the majority (75%) whereas fathers maltreated a sizable minority (43%). In contrast, male perpetrators were more common for children maltreated by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners (64%) or by other persons (75%)."

and

"Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (51% and 54%, respectively), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners, or by other, perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (74% or more by males versus 26% or less by females)."

IOW, it was often Mum's new boyfriend, but rarely Dad.

Thanks for pointing out thet report, Abuse Victims, I hope you've read it and digested it. It backs up the studies done in Australia by reputable bodies and gives the lie to the claims of the very well-funded single mother's groups.

Abuse victims

"Afterward is kind of too late wouldn't you say?" Nope. Maybe he didn't spend enough time with the kids before the break-up. He may well decide that there is nothing that he can do about that now except do a better job for his kids from now on. Additionally, there may well be factors that stopped him from spending time at home. James mentioned maternal gatekeeping. Some blokes hide from a crap marriage at work.

Pelican

The tone of your post at 10:26 yesterday was the problem. Everything that we complain about was "blah, blah, blah" and not worth worrying about. Everything that you complain about is worthwhile and we should feel guilty that you are so poorly treated.

BTW Who gets to decide the best interests of the child? It is odd how the best interests of the child often just happen to coincide with the interests of people who define what those best interests are.

Cry me a river boys.

I don't think pelican really needed to apologise at all, and I think you could at least get over it by now. Man, so much drama.

Give 'em an inch and they take a mile. They've sniffed a sympathetic ear and are going for the jugular. You guys are lucky she's one of the few chicks who debates reasonably and concedes ground rather than the usual one-eyed all men are bastards lot.

I see all these debates as a bunch of guys pleading for one women, any women, to accept men aren't all sporn of the devil and that men have problems too. A bunch of guys needing validation from women.

But the girls read it all as anti-woman stuff or an appeal for victim status of men (something they guard preciously for women;-), where really all the guys seem to want is to appeal against what they see is the monopoly women have on victim status. They're just looking for some concession that the world cant always be summed up as man= abuser woman=victim, but it comes off as claiming woman=evil man= victim.

I think women seem to respond better to raising mens issues up rather than tearing womens issues down, but then men don't think anyone will listen to their stuff as they feel women always have the stage and will never let go of the mic.

It's a funny world. To the victim go the spoils!