The Untruths and the Outright Lies
Topics covered by this page
Many lies are being told, some because of ignorance but others simply because of
maliciousness. The problem with these lies is that there are so many people telling
them. Once they make it into the media they become part of the vast collection of
urban folklore about the violence of men only men. Here is an example,
a quote from:
A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States
Chapter One: What Do the Data Tell Us? [Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Peer Review Status: Not Peer Reviewed]
Who Is Committing These Acts?
What sort of parent would attack or severely neglect a child in a manner that leads to
death? In recent years we have learned that the average abusive parent is in his or her
mid-20's, lives near or below the poverty level, often has not finished high school, is
depressed and unable to cope with stress, and has experienced violence first hand.
However, no single profile fits every case, and there are many exceptions to the
One of the most interesting new findings that demonstrates the critical importance of
better information is that most physical abuse fatalities are caused by enraged or
extremely stressed fathers and other male caretakers (Levine et al, 1994; Levine et al,
1995). These men primarily assault infants and very small children by beating their heads
and bodies, shaking them violently, intentionally suffocating them, immersing them in
scalding water, and performing other brutal acts.
Such findings have turned a common assumption upside-down: that mothers are the culprit
in most abuse and neglect deaths. In fact, the adult most dangerous to an infant or
small child is male - including birth fathers, stepfathers, and boyfriends. Studies
show that mothers are most often held responsible for child neglect deaths from causes
such as bathtub drowning, fires started by unsupervised children, dehydration, and
starvation (Margolin, 1990). However, the supposition that the female is generally
responsible can lead to unfair assignment of blame when a mother is held accountable for a
neglect death even when the father was the parent in charge of the child. Clearly, these
findings demonstrate a serious need for rethinking the design of prevention and treatment
strategies that now focus primarily on females.
(see the note below) ]
supporter sent me a note (August 27, 2000), telling me that the preceding URL is no longer
active and returns a 404 error.
I searched on the Net for the text of the article and could
only find one little excerpt from it at the website of the Backlash!, quoted from a
statement made by Donna Shalala.
Do you suppose that posting the excerpt here made an impact
on someone? There is now no reference at all to child abuse and neglect data at the
website of the Virtual Hospital. Of course, it would have been better if they would
have posted a correction containing the correct information, instead of just simply
obliterating their link to the URL containing the hate propaganda produced by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to which they had linked from their website.
Failing to correct their information, they could have simply
linked to the correct information at the website of Fathers for Life, but, I guess,
honesty in feminist circles doesn't extend that far and no farther than to pretend that
they weren't caught with egg on their face, however, honest and objective passion for the
plight of children abused most often by
violent women almost exclusively biological
mothers they have not.
Unfortunately their false information lives on in numerous
publications, brochures and bibliographies mentioned in various study reports. Once
such lies and distortions are distributed, whether they'll be retracted or not, they take
on a life of their own.
Update 2004 10 09 The following is a URL with the
complete text of the article:
That link is located at the website of The National Center on Child
for the full report:
Now, almost ten years after the report had been
manufactured, it still hasn't motivated any "peers" to review it.
It is doubtful that any reputable researcher will ever come forth and be
willing to support the extremely propagandistic views presented in the
What are we to think of the credibility of The National Center on
Child Fatality Review Once a liar, always a liar?
Based on the report by Dawson, J., & Langan, P. (1994, "Murder
in Families, Bureau of Justice Special Report. Washington, DC: Department of Justice,
NCJ-143498," 55% of convicted child murderers are the biological
mothers of the victims. That percentage has crept up to 61 percent since then,
because violence by mothers against their children is inexorably increasing year after
year. Would anyone expect prospective criminals to restrain themselves if they are
permitted to commit their crimes with impunity and if the crimes that they commit
are literally invisible?
The male-bashing that is contained in the above quoted excerpt from the
article could be excused if the authors of the report weren't aware of that DoJ
report. However, they included it in the references to chapter one of their
report. Biological, married fathers of children account for about 6% of convicted
murderers of children. (see also "Single-Mother Households
Accomplishments" and "Women were over half of the
defendants (55%) in only one category of family murder: parents killing their
There is a problem with violence statistics that are based on
convictions. Although the dead body of a child can seldom be successfully hidden,
our society is only too ready to look for all kinds of excuses when the obvious
perpetrator is a woman. We are surprised, for example, when investigations show that
specific women killed all or a number of their children in years gone by. A number of such
cases have recently surfaced. There is no telling how many more of such cases go
undetected and unsuspected. That is where the hiding of the truth starts. The
myth of the innocence of women is so all-powerful that we are virtually incapable of even
suspecting that a woman is truly capable of murdering "her" child. But
even if a woman is suspected, it often happens that the powers involved in prosecuting her
do all they can to disprove that she could have done the deed.
If no avenue of escape is open, and if a conviction is inevitable, then
it happens that the murder of a child is downgraded to manslaughter or even to
infanticide (a category of crime of which only women can avail themselves), or it is ruled accidental, if at all possible. The true number of
children murdered by their mothers is for those reasons in reality far higher than
statistics based on convictions indicate. It doesn't make any difference to the
murdered children. They are dead one way or another, and nothing will call them back
However, isn't it in the best interest of our surviving children to
recognize that their lives are most at risk when they are with their mothers without the
protection by their fathers, especially if a given mother murdered one of her children
The Truth and the Facts
Statistics for the US (1999 DCDC data)
(When you look at the data presented at that URL, keep in mind that, as usual, the
definition of "male parents" encompasses: stepfathers; foster fathers;
common-law husbands and mothers' boyfriends. Keep in mind as well that child sexual
abuse by women is generally invisible because it is held to be unthinkable.)
According to the ZENIT article Traditional Families Protect
Kids Best (2000 12 22), shown in the text box below,
Rates of Child Abuse in the U.K.
- Child sexual abuse takes place within 4% of families (National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children
- About 1% of children are abused by a parent (NSPCC),
- About 3% of children are abused by other relatives, with brothers or stepbrothers by far
the largest category (NSPCC),
- About 13-14% of sexual abuse involves non-relatives - which is to say, people outside
the family. (NSPCC),
- Sexual abuse occurs mainly in families that have broken or reconstituted; marriage is
actually the best protector for children. (NSPCC)
- Children are 20 to 33 times safer when they live with their biological parents than when
they live in any other type of household. (NSPCC)
- Non-natural fathers were almost four times as likely as natural fathers to sexually
abuse children in their care. (A 1989 study by the University of Iowa of 2,300 cases of
- Although mothers boyfriends contributed less than 2% of non-parental child care,
they committed almost half of all the child abuse by non-parents. (Unidentified study)
- The risk of children being killed by a stepparent was 50 to 100 times higher than at the
hands of a biological parent. (American sociobiologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson)
- Preschool age children not living with both parents were 40 times more likely to be
sexually abused than those who were. "The presence of a stepparent is the best
epidemiological predictor of child abuse yet discovered." (American sociobiologists
Martin Daly and Margo Wilson)
- The natural two-parent family was in a significant minority in every category of child
abuse. This was even more remarkable since the majority of children lived in such
families. (in Britain in 1994 by Robert Whelan, of the Family Education Trust, drawing on
research by the NSPCC and the Family Court Reporter, Whelan)
- Children living with a lone mother were at more than three times the risk of abuse than
children living with their two natural parents (Robert Whelan, 1994)
- Children living with their natural mother and a father substitute were at more than
eight times the risk. (Robert Whelan, 1994)
- If both natural parents were cohabiting, the risk to the child was as much as 20 times
greater than if the parents were married. (Robert Whelan, 1994)
- Such details about the marital status of families are no longer available in official
statistics. "Its impossible now to find out about the relative risks of
biological and non-biological parents because Whitehall no longer wants them to be
collected. Whats needed is a proper research study which will give us the
marital status of families involved in child abuse." (Robert Whelan, 1994)
- Physical abuse is more common than sexual abuse in families, and it is mothers -
not fathers - who are most likely to be violent to their children. The group defines such
violence as being hit with a hard implement or a fist, kicked hard, shaken, thrown or
knocked down, beaten up, choked, burnt or threatened with a knife or a gun. Some 11% of
children studied had been the victims of such violence, with 49% of them saying that their
attacker was their mother and 40% saying that the attacker was their father. (NSPCC)
- American reports indicate that physical abuse is most likely to occur among lone
mothers. In one such survey, unwed mothers reported a rate of "very severe
violence" toward their children that was 71 times higher than the rate among mothers
who lived with fathers. (Unidentified reports mentioned in the ZENIT article
Families Protect Kids Best)
- Mothers tend to spend more time than fathers with their children; and unwed mothers are
under extra pressure because they have to rear children without assistance, and also
because they are likely to be poor. (Richard Gelles, a leading American expert on family
Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom A Study of the
Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect, by NSPCC,
Traditional Families Protect Kids Best
ZENIT - The World Seen from Rome - Daily Dispatch - 22/12/2000
Myths Aside, Traditional Families Protect Kids Best
British Report Stirs Up Debate About Sexual Abuse
LONDON - A widely publicized recent study on sexual child abuse only helped to feed
media misconceptions about the dangers of family life for youngsters, the Sunday Times
reported. Media reports of the findings by the National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) generally gave the impression that families were the main
culprits in the area of sexual abuse. Picking up this portrayal was BBC2s
"Newsnight," which devoted an entire program to a horrific case of alleged
systematic sexual abuse that went on for years. The programs message, noted the
Sunday Times, was that sexual child abuse is widespread within families and that parents
are the chief villains.
Yet the facts are rather different, demonstrated not least by the NSPCCs own
report based on information from just under 3,000 young adults, according to the Sunday
Times. Even the NSPCC was taken aback by the way its statistics were distorted by the
media. The charity, in fact, found that child sexual abuse takes place within 4% of
families, a lamentable statistic in itself, but hardly one that proves an epidemic in
About 1% of children are abused by a parent, the NSPCC said. The rest of these are
abused by other relatives, with brothers or stepbrothers by far the largest category.
Significantly, the researchers estimate that about 13-14% of sexual abuse involves
non-relatives - which is to say, people outside the family.
So the NSPCCs research destroyed some potent myths about child abuse, the Sunday
Times said. But the stereotype of sexual abuse of children hidden within the family has
become deeply embedded in the public consciousness in Britain, the newspaper observed.
Some commentators, for instance, give the impression that the traditional family is a
dangerous place for a child to be. This view was on display on "Newsnight."
Forget stranger pedophiles, said the program: Child sexual abuse was rampant within the
family and was perpetrated mainly by parents.
Yet the program did not acknowledge the NSPCCs finding that sexual child abuse
within families was, in fact, relatively rare. Moreover, it talked constantly of
"parents" and "families" as the abusers, failing to acknowledge that
its own harrowing example featured a fractured family and a stepfather. There was no
discussion of the role of family disintegration in child sex abuse, the Sunday Times
noted. In fact, sexual abuse occurs mainly in families that have broken or reconstituted;
marriage is actually the best protector for children.
According to the now defunct British Family Court Reporter Survey, children are no less
than 20 to 33 times safer when they live with their biological parents than when they live
in any other type of household. In 1989, the University of Iowa studied 2,300 cases of
sexual abuse and found that non-natural fathers were almost four times as likely as
natural fathers to sexually abuse children in their care. Another report found that,
although mothers boyfriends contributed less than 2% of non-parental child care,
they committed almost half of all the child abuse by non-parents.
American sociobiologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson found that the risk of children
being killed by a stepparent was 50 to 100 times higher than at the hands of a biological
parent. They also found that preschool age children not living with both parents were 40
times more likely to be sexually abused than those who were. "The presence of a
stepparent is the best epidemiological predictor of child abuse yet discovered," they
The thrust of such findings was confirmed in Britain in 1994 by Robert Whelan, of the
Family Education Trust. Drawing on research by the NSPCC and the Family Court Reporter,
Whelan showed that the natural two-parent family was in a significant minority in every
category of child abuse. This was even more remarkable since the majority of children
lived in such families.
From the NSPCC figures, Whelan calculated that children living with a lone mother were
at more than three times the risk of abuse than children living with their two natural
parents; while those living with their natural mother and a father substitute were at more
than eight times the risk.
The Family Court Reporter figures showed, in addition, that there was an even more
remarkable and sensitive conclusion to be drawn. There was a specific risk of child abuse
in cohabiting households. If both natural parents were cohabiting, the risk to the child
was as much as 20 times greater than if the parents were married. In other words, although
the relationship between the adults and the child was the same in both cases, what made
all the difference to the risk of child abuse was marriage.
Such details about the marital status of families are no longer available in official
statistics. "Its impossible now to find out about the relative risks of
biological and non-biological parents because Whitehall no longer wants them to be
collected," said Whelan. "Whats needed is a proper research study which
will give us the marital status of families involved in child abuse."
The NSPCC says physical abuse is more common than sexual abuse in families, and
that it is mothers - not fathers - who are most likely to be violent to their children.
The group defines such violence as being hit with a hard implement or a fist, kicked hard,
shaken, thrown or knocked down, beaten up, choked, burnt or threatened with a knife or a
gun. Some 11% of children studied had been the victims of such violence, with 49% of them
saying that their attacker was their mother and 40% saying that the attacker was their
This fits with other research that reveals mothers to be more violent toward children
than fathers are. Yet the NSPCC study omits the further disturbing factor, brought out in
American reports, that such physical abuse is most likely to occur among lone mothers. In
one such survey, unwed mothers reported a rate of "very severe violence" toward
their children that was 71 times higher than the rate among mothers who lived with
Richard Gelles, a leading American expert on family violence, says that this is not
surprising. Mothers tend to spend more time than fathers with their children; and unwed
mothers are under extra pressure because they have to rear children without assistance,
and also because they are likely to be poor. And this seems to indicate once again the
value of stable marriages for children.
Copyright 2000 (c) Innovative Media Inc.
UPI Science News
SAN FRANCISCO, 19 Oct. 1998 (UPI) -- Researchers say children living with adults who
are not their biological parents face six times the risk of other youngsters of dying as a
result of abuse.
The scientists say today at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy
of Pediatrics in San Francisco this is the first study to implicate biological factors in
fatal child abuse.
"The presence of a biologically unrelated adult or non-parent in
the home increases the risk of fatal child maltreatment six times," said Dr. Michael
Stiffman of Health Partners Research Foundation, based in Bloomington, Minn.
Stiffman, his colleagues and scientists from the University of
Missouri, Columbia, compared children under the age of five who had died from abuse to
those who had died from natural causes or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, SIDS, in Missouri
between January 1992 and December 1994.
"After controlling the sample for
race and socioeconomic status factors, we found injury death due to maltreatment among
children under age five is six times more likely when there is a biologically-unrelated
or adult not in the social role of parent, in the home," Stiffman said.
There was no increased risk found in households where related
adults were present.
The study, the first to link biological factors to fatal child abuse, could be used to
help prevent such abuse in the future, the researches said.
As of Oct. 1997, Dr Stiffman was a member of the clinical faculty of the family
practice residency program, Regions Hospital, and assistant professor of family practice
and community health, University of Minnesota Medical School.
For an abstract of the report go to:
"Risk Factors for Fatal Child Maltreatment
Michael N. Stiffman, MD, MSPH, Bernard Ewigman, MD, MSPH,
Patricia Adam, MD, MSPH, Robin Kruse, PhD, and Darla Horman MS"
Update 2003 05 23
Infanticide "SIDS" in Australia; four children killed in one family
Proving that women who kill no more than one of their infants get away with murder,
Kathleen Folbigg raised the suspicion of the authorities only after she had killed her
fourth child of her four children she had killed, a 19-month-old baby girl.
Mind, you, if her husband would not have found her diary, she would have
gotten away with murdering that child, too. (Full
A meta analysis of child abuse studies was presented in
An Examination of Assumed Properties of
Child Sexual Abuse Based on Nonclinical Samples
Paper presented to the symposium sponsored by the Paulus Kerk,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, on the 18th of December 1998
More recent information from Health Canada:
Information from ... The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence
Female Adolescent Sex Offenders
XXX. Though a majority of adolescent sex offenders are male, research emerging over the
past ten years has begun to document female sex offending. Studies of hospital, child
welfare agency, and treatment programs have found that females comprise between 3% - 10%
of the sex offender population. General population and victimization surveys
report significantly higher numbers and extend the range up to 50%
2 and even higher
3, depending on the victim sample population studied.
[My emphasis --WHS]
Last but not least, the Canadian Children's Rights Council posted
a collection of quotes and links, articles and excerpts from studies
regarding Sexual assault of children by females at their website
that more than bears out all of the above indications of the extent
of female culpability in child sexual abuse cases. Our laws
and the indoctrination of the public have a long way to go before
they catch up to reality. However, that is not likely to
happen for as long as there as many feminists in power as we have
become afflicted with.
Family Violence Statistics
National Data Archive on Child Abuse and
A project of the
Life Development Center
College of Human Ecology, Cornell University
National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect
Spousal Murder Statistics
For a summary of an analysis of spousal murder statistics, check
[U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Executive Summary, September 1995, NCJ-156831, Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban
Counties, (Note: This file does not contain graphics or tables. The full
report may be ordered using the title and NCJ number above by calling the BJS
Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277.)] An abbreviated version of the full report is
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:20:44 -0700
From: Bob Karls <email@example.com>
About 10 years ago I did a lot of research regarding child abuse statistics on
perpetrators. Everything I found, regardless of source, proved that the natural mother was
by far the largest perpetrator of child abuse. Natural mothers were responsible for 55 to
70 % of all child abuse.
Below you will find some child abuse statistics that were lost for several years. I
have tried several times to obtain this kind of info from Washington's child protective
agency since, to no avail. I recently saw a claim on the net that there is a federal law
which requires state child protective agencies to maintain records/statistics on their
cases. If anyone knows about this law please post a cite to me.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES - PUGET SOUND AREA, CASES BY PERPETRATOR
Between natural parents, the mother commits 2.6 times the amount of abuse the father
Female parents committed 69.5% of the child abuse, 2.3 times the rate for male parents.
Data that did not indicate the sex of the perpetrator was not used, but if we assume
the category is indicative of the sex of the perpetrator, we would add 670 males (paramour
category) and 341 females (baby sitter/daycare category). The
outcome is not significantly changed.
If anyone would like a copy of the data and the DSHS cover letter, send me a self
addressed, stamped envelope. [Rex Ballard ]
Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools is concerned about the plight of our children and that
much of the abuse is not being recognized. Go to one of her speeches on
child abuse and neglect, and
another in relation to
The Safest Place for Women and Children, by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson,
Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1535
Additional information about child abuse.
The protectors of women time and again
praise to 'Wessi' (Westie) women the wonderfully complete world of the 'Ossi' (Eastie)
women, ever since the end of the GDR, whose all-encompassing children-crèche system
secured full-time earning potential and thereby the personal freedom of mothers.
What a full-day program for the children of fully-employed
looks like has been thoroughly experienced by the mothers of the former GDR. Marlene,
herself a crèche-child and subsequently an educator for child-educatoresses from Potsdam,
told it to me. [Full Story]
Germany devours its children
Families today: Exploited and burned out