Though something tells me you won't be seeing any articles calling men "selfish" for going to work or not spending enought time with their children.

And yet, we should see articles like that. And articles talking about how more corporations should be encouraging/funding more paternity (and maternity) leave.

This is awesome. I hope this drives corporations to start funding just as much paternity leave as maternity leave. We can't expect guys to do their fair share of childrearing when society is geared against them doing it, any more than we can expect women to do things society sets up barriers against us doing.

Note that this is a British study on the British population. The UK is EONS ahead of where the U.S. is, not only on maternity leave, but also on paternity leave.
I'm not yet getting optimistic about the U.S. government taking a look at this study and thinking, "Wow, we should really do something for ALL new parents."

This study's results are completely consistent with my own experience, but I'd point out that the implication is a bit broader than just 'Dads-R-gud!'. Let's see if I can stir up a lil controversy in this fine comments thread.

My guess is that the most significant thing Dads do is provide care and support to Mum. For the first year of life, infants are really only a meatloaf-with-eyes unable to do much except express need and greed. And Dads are kinda under-equiped to do much about that. Once passed that initial stage of development, the balance shifts a little, but the mothering is the coal-face of caring for kids. My first priority--speaking as a Dad--is Mum. Sometimes that means supervising and ensuring the equitable division of play-dough amongst squabbling daughters. More often though, it means cleaning a bucket of stuff up off the floor so Mum can get to bed an hour early.

Mothers wake up one day and suddenly find themselves bearing a huge burden. And anything 'Dads' can do helps improve Mum's state of mind. Making sure she can sleep whenever the opportunity presents itself sounds like a small thing, but it's not.

Which leads to the broader point. As a society, I think we under-estimate the difficulty of motherhood, and as a result are neglectful of mothers. On this fine blog there have been a number of discussions about 'going back to work', vs. 'motherhood'. Now - I'd argue that's a socially constructed choice. In other cultures mothers work, bringing their kids along with them. I'm completely unclear on why one would argue for '6 weeks of maternity leave', when many times it makes more sense (to me) to mandate at work child care. Need to nurse? Grab the laptop, take the stairs to the creche, and go for it.

My guess is that kids in families where a partner is available to take the burden off the mother do well because mum is less stressed, and therefore saner.

Paul, my husband is a great father. He does everything for our ten month old daughter, except breastfeeding her (and that's possible for men to do too, if they're really into it). He's been on paternity leave for two months now, but he could take care of her before that, too.

If you don't take care of your infants, you're missing out. The bonding starts really early. (In our case, he got to hold her before I did, but that's what an emergency c-section will do to you.) If the father is actively caring for his children, he'll bond better with them.

Our daughter has pretty much the same reaction no matter who picks her up. She is close to the both of us, and I know that's because my husband has been an active father from the start.

In other cultures mothers work, bringing their kids along with them. I'm completely unclear on why one would argue for '6 weeks of maternity leave', when many times it makes more sense (to me) to mandate at work child care. Need to nurse? Grab the laptop, take the stairs to the creche, and go for it.

I guess I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. On the one hand, obviously I'm all for helping mothers (hell, PEOPLE) live their lives in a fulfilling way, without work getting in the way of child care, etc. By the same token, I don't have kids, and don't plan to any time soon (and if and when I ever do, they probably will be adopted, and thus likely at least toddlers by the time I get them). And I have to wonder -- if we're giving these benefits to parents, well, that's great. But... that's money my law firm is spending to help a select group of people. It's money that might otherwise go to, I don't know, a bigger bonus for me, more frequent computer updates, an in-office martini bar, whatever. But because that money's being spent specifically on parents, automatically singles/childless persons are getting a short shrift. Maybe if we had some compensation mechanism to correct for this, where people without kids get some other benefit to kind of "match" what the parents get? And of course it would have to be done in an equitable way, distinguishing between PARENTS and childless people, versus MOTHERS and childless people/non-primary-caregiver men. In other words, if a man has children, his benefit is the child care. He doesn't get to opt to have the kids take Mommy's work's childcare benefits and take the "singles" benefit himself. If you're a parent, you get the parent benefit. If you're not, you get the childless person benefit.

This is very stream of consciousness for me... obviously this system would have its flaws (inefficiency is a big one)... but I'm having trouble seeing any other way for it to be fair to everyone.

Though something tells me you won't be seeing any articles calling men "selfish" for going to work or not spending enought time with their children.

Nope. Not at all. But if they stayed home they'd be called much, much worse.

The paternity leave, that's paid right? I haven't had to take off any kind of leave so I don't know how that works.

And if you're a woman who doesn't breast feed (*dodges rotten vegetables) then the father can have just as much time with the child as you and the bonding is equal. (I'm of the understanding that women bond deeper with baby through breast feeding, though that doesn't seem to matter once they become teenagers;)

"I hope this drives corporations to start funding just as much paternity leave as maternity leave. We can't expect guys to do their fair share of childrearing when society is geared against them doing it..."-Law Fairy

I've heard of companies successfully accomplishing this by having management model paternity leave. Most men are afraid to take parental leave because they believe their bosses will think of them as "lazy" or slacking off work. Get the bosses to do it and the other guys will follow suit. Children need their fathers just as much as their mothers. If parents want to take those steps and be with their children, then businesses shouldn't discriminate.

"Maybe if we had some compensation mechanism to correct for this..."-Law Fairy

LOL! Supply and demand used to take care of this! I think people who take time off work to take care of their children should just be paid less. Simple solution: don't produce, don't get paid. However, they shouldn't have to fear being fired for taking paternity leave. "Compensating" single/childless employees for not having kids/spouses would just hamper businesses and deter all those lovely benefits we all want.

Thanks for posting this, Jessica. It is about time we had a study showing how important fathers are for their children.

Our daughter has pretty much the same reaction no matter who picks her up. She is close to the both of us, and I know that's because my husband has been an active father from the start.

That's certainly been our experience with both our kids. I was there early and often and have a strong bond with them. Having said that, when push comes to shove (often quite literally), Mom is really *the* one for our kids; Dad's great and all, but there is nothing as good as Mom.

“And if you're a woman who doesn't breast feed (*dodges rotten vegetables) then the father can have just as much time with the child as you and the bonding is equal.�
And even if you do. I know families where mom pumped her milk in the morning and later in the day dad would bring the infant to mom’s work for a breast-feeding break. So I very much disagree with “Dads are kinda under-equiped to do much about that.�

May I please add the caveat that dads who abuse women are very BAD for children, as they are between 50-75% likely to also abuse the children either physically sexually or psychologically? (I believe I read that in a Lundy Bancroft book, google him for more info). Those kind of dads should stay far far away from kids!

Men who abuse women are much more likely to try and seek custody of children, and much more likely to get it than men who are not abusive. I hate to see information such as this twisted into weaponry for batterers.

Good dads rock. My husband does so much more than just support me as a mom- he helps with housework, homework, helps with soccer practice, plays chess,cooks, changes diapers, and plays endlessly with both our girls- one is 9 months and the other is 10 years- I mean, yeah, I am the one that is lactating so I generally get dibs on feeding our younger child...aside from that, and certain 'girl talks' that my older daughter and I have been having lately, he is an incredible co-parent.

My mother had me when she was barely eighteen years old. She didn't want to give up her acceptance to the University of Paris, so I was raised between her, her parents, and my fathers parents, and I don't know what any of the participants would have done without each other to help out. I totally agree with Paul. It takes a village.

Also, in response to those who fear that in-work childcare (and as a single, childless working woman), I think allowing parents to have access to their children in such a way actually preserves resources for companies. When you can reduce family leave and family emergency outages, there's alot less slack to make-up. However, I do agree there is a difference between support and favoritism of parental/maternal employees.

I think the ideal situation is when both mom and dad are loving parents. I know plenty of kids who turned out fine when both parents worked, or when one or the other parent was at work all day.

If you do a good job instilling values into your children, you can make most situations work.

And from a "soft science" perspective, without seeing how this study was conducted, I'm reluctant to use it to suggest that families operate better when men stay at home verses women. There are a lot of associative vs causal factors to consider here, such as what kinds of families nowadays have the father at home, and what their economic situation might be.

I suspect that a stronger variable than father being present at home is economic well being, education, and other factors which may be indirectly represented by a father-figure who stays at home.

That's my analysis, anyways.

I love my dad!

I think this is because taking care of a newborn is never a single person job. It's stressful to stay home all day with a child alone. Right now I am staying home with my 3 month old daughter and it's not easy. It is stressful to be the dominate parent, I think mothers who have to do it mostly on their own probably set a bad example to their child, because they are stressed, maybe resentful of the other parent. Some mothers who also stay at home may feel like they are missing out on their social lives and careers.
The ideal situation would be if both parents could spend a significant amount of time with their child. But thats not always possible.

Okay, please don't hate me for bringing this up, but are the conservatives going to latch onto this study to "prove" that lesbians shouldn't have kids?

Until they figure out what exactly causes the correlation (two loving partners spending time with the kid, regardless of gender? male pheromones and mojo in the room? shared workload lets parents pay more direct attention to kid?), nobody should be throwing stones, but I can just see this study being used to justify discrimination.

touche. I think you raise an important issue. By gendering the "best sex" for child development, it will cut both ways.

But personally, I think its insulting that any conservative would suggest a child is better fit for a foster home than with a lesbian or gay couple.

First: Heck yes, this is a great message. I look forward to being a stay at home dad, some day in the hopefully not too distant future. I'm not sure there's any more than a case by case benefit, but I'm a firm believer that parents who hope not to rot in nursing homes through their elderly years ought to take an active role in the upbringing of their children. What goes around comes around.

Second: Steven, you make a good point about identifying "best sex" as cutting both ways, but followed it up with a, seemingly unrelated and in my mind non-sequitur, slam directed toward those "conservative" although I believe all the tangible cases are specifically Catholic.

I'm pretty sure those making the decision to close their doors in the adoption business are making decisions directed to not supporting what they view as an abnormal life style rather than a decision to keep those children in buried in the foster care system.

When an organization intent on doing goo and founded on a morality is not allowed the freedom to refuse service in cases identified as immoral then they really have little choice but to close their doors on the grounds that the good they intend to do cannot justify the purposed evil they will be forced to partake in.

I'm still not sure how this is applicable to this particular post, but if you have an ax to grind, I suppose I'll bite.

Hehehe, well I'm glad you bit and having been through a blogwar or two in my day, I'm pleasantly surprised at your friendly tone and honest approach to a very polarizing topic. But enough snuggling.

Catholics, and any conservative, has the right to believe as they wish and as private organizations have the right to promote any cause they wish within the law. But make no mistake what you call the "freedom to refuse service" is called in the real world discrimination when its directed at a particular group of people.

The idea that religious "faith based intiatives" have the right to discriminate their services based on their religious views is questionable at best, if not altogether morally unjustifiable.

By your logic, should the hungry go unfed if a shelter refuses services to Muslim or Mormon homeless? Forget about rights for a moment, and focus on the question of whether that's appropriate ethically or even consistant with the spirit of the Bible to discriminate services religiously, particularly when these organizations are non-profits which reap public benefits from the "public good" they offer society.

But more directly to the point I intended to make, whether the intention of the Catholic church is to keep children "buried in the foster care system," that is the effect of denying gay parents the ability to adopt children.

Furthermore, I assume that religious groups concede the following points: 1) Gay people are capable of the same love as anyone else 2) A stable living situation is superior to an unstable one for a child 3) An economically stable situation is preferable to poverty for a child 4) Access to health care and education helps a child develop 5) The individual attention a child receives in a gay family is superior to that of what they receive in a foster care system.

I submit to you that in every possible way, a gay family is superior to a child languishing in "the system" and yet religious groups "prioritize" a behavior, which is according to Catholic dogma no greater a sin than stealing a cracker, and according to Catholic dogma we are all sinners anyway, over all those factors which promote a healthy lifestyle for children.

I submit to you that it is MORALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE from a public policy perspective, to deny a child those opportunities based on a few verses in the Old Testament, which incidentally aren't too far away from verses in Leviticus which suggest slavery is acceptable (25:44).

I don't mean to be incindiary, but on the other hand I do intend to offer a decent amount of information which is food for thought. I personally think discriminating against gays is as wrong as discriminating against any other minority because quite simply - it's not merely a lifestyle, but a human condition as real as any other. We don't choose to be hetereosexual, and they don't chose to be gay. To suggest otherwise, is to place scripture above reality. And presumably, scripture cannot conflict with reality for it to be true.

Oops I forgot to make one other comment. Churchs "really have little choice but to close their doors on the grounds that the good they intend to do cannot justify the purposed evil they will be forced to partake in." Setting aside for a second the idea that as a matter of public policy foster care systems are not exclusively based on religion, and my post was really directed at their "view" that homosexuals should not adopt and therefore entering in the secular public policy issue, I still think there's a problem here.

In Reynolds v US, the Supreme Court ruled that there's a danger to letting religious organizations define for themselves what is legal or illegal in society, insofar as every man would become a "law unto himself." What if I created a religion which permitted me to deny employment to African Americans, would this not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Can one see then how if we see the law as forbidden discrimination (or in your words the right to refuse service), would not be acceptable even using a religious defense?

Ok sorry for such long rambling... have a good night peoples. (eh, you like that? gender neutral term...people... UNLIKE THE SUPREME COURT.) Ok im delirious.

My brother-in-law took paternity leave (he works with the RCMP) and was looked down on by most of my husband's family. It completely confused me - it was okay for his wife to stay home for a few months, but once she got back to work it was wrong for him to take over? The whole men-shouldn't-parent thing needs to end.

At least they aren't still making movies like "Mr Mom", are they?

"But because that money's being spent specifically on parents, automatically singles/childless persons are getting a short shrift"

...as well as parents of older kids. I'm more in favor of "cafeteria style" benefits: give everyone in the same job an equivalent amount of benefit, and let each one choose whether or not to spend part of it on the childcare downstairs or on another childcare closer to home or her/his partner's workplace or on no childcare or whatever.

"In other words, if a man has children, his benefit is the child care. He doesn't get to opt to have the kids take Mommy's work's childcare benefits and take the "singles" benefit himself."

But what if a man has one child instead of children? Should he and his partner send the child to both daycares? On one hand switching daycares might bother the kid, OTOH maybe she or he could make twice as many friends that way.

"May I please add the caveat that dads who abuse women are very BAD for children, as they are between 50-75% likely to also abuse the children either physically sexually or psychologically?....Those kind of dads should stay far far away from kids!"-kpsisu

Very good point, Kpsisu. Abusive spouses are more likely to abuse their children. Of course, I don't see any particular reason to single out abusive fathers. The same principle applies to mothers as well. In fact, according to data from the Administration for Children and Families, "mothers action alone" perpetrate 38.8% of all abuse, compared to 18.3% for fathers. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/cm04.pdf; pg 50 of 188) There's a little pie chart to put things in perspective. Plus, this is data is based on caseloads from CPS.

Across the board fathers are less abusive compared to mothers. There's no reason to single them out.

P.S.-This the author of that book mention anything about cross-over abuse for mothers?

"For the first year of life, infants are really only a meatloaf-with-eyes unable to do much except express need and greed."

That's not really true. From a very, very young age, infants are able to interact emotionally, and they do respond to familiar people and familiar behaviors--you can look into the work of recent infant researchers such as Daniel Stern for more info.

The reason mothers have a higher rate of child abuse seems fairly obvious to me: they are more likely the ones to be taking care of the children. You can't abuse kids you abandon.

These kind of studies bother me a little. How many people did they look at and where exactly were they?

I would think that kids can suffer when their parents can't afford or just can't take leave. Did the study take class into consideration?

The study looked at 19,000 children born in 2000 and 2001 in the UK. According to the article, the study talks extensively about class, warning "that British families face an income divide, with poorer families less able to afford the time away from work and the access to good quality childcare that will benefit their children....even allowing for recent reforms including the introduction of statutory paid paternity leave and the right to request flexible working for parents of young children, there remains a clear parenting divide between the 'have and have nots.' In 2001, 81% of fathers in professional careers had access to flexible working arrangements compared with only 46% of their low-skilled counterparts, and poorer fathers were also less likely to take leave around the child's birth."

Other highlights include the following:

"The analysis finds no evidence that mothers' employment influences the extent of development problems in three-year-old children..."

and the study "suggests that children who, at nine to 10 months, received formal childcare while their mothers worked had a lower likelihood of development problems at age three than those who were cared for by a parent or in other informal childcare such as by grandparents."

"Men who abuse women are much more likely to try and seek custody of children, and much more likely to get it than men who are not abusive. I hate to see information such as this twisted into weaponry for batterers...Okay, please don't hate me for bringing this up, but are the conservatives going to latch onto this study to "prove" that lesbians shouldn't have kids?"

May I also add that this study is likely to be used as another source of ammunition against single mothers? As both a feminist and single mother, I'm struggling to understand how this is being viewed as a score for feminists.

"The reason mothers have a higher rate of child abuse seems fairly obvious to me: they are more likely the ones to be taking care of the children. You can't abuse kids you abandon."

I'm extraordinarily leery of the argument that women abuse children more than men. For one thing, men are more likely to sexually abuse children than women. Sexual abuse often goes undetected because there often is no visible evidenc e and it's such a shameful matter it often isn't reported by the family even when it's known to be occurring.

"I'm extraordinarily leery of the argument that women abuse children more than men. For one thing, men are more likely to sexually abuse children than women."-Faith

Faith, for one thing, sexual abuse is not the most common form of abuse and focus on it because men are the predominant perpetrators is pointless. If you don't believe the claim I've made, because EG is basing her comments off my post, then check out the link I've provided in my post. It's from a credible, unbiased source.

EG, however we slice it, there's no excuse for abuse so it doesn't matter what the father had done.

"Faith, for one thing, sexual abuse is not the most common form of abuse and focus on it because men are the predominant perpetrators is pointless."

Sexual abuse is the most underreported type of abuse. Therefore, there are no reliable statistics that can give a true indication of its prevalence. Therefore, you cannot state that it is not the most common form of child abuse as you have no possible way of knowing this. And debating sexual abuse by men is hardly pointless considering the overwhelming extent of the problem (based on just the reported cases) and the extreme trauma caused by the abuse.

My first thought upon reading this post was, I wonder how long it will take someone to use this study as ammunition against single parents or gay couples wishing to adopt? I think it could be used to justify a lot of good things, like paternity leave and a better societal attitude about fathers taking on a familial role beyond that of bank account, but unfortunately the cynic in me suspects it's more likely some unscrupulous person will twist its results to justify an intolerant agenda.

Steven and Stocad, pardon me for butting in, but I wanted to offer an additional observation to your debate about gay adoption:
I think the Church is quite aware you can't catch teh gay, so when they deny gay couples the right to adopt, what they're really objecting to is the fact that those children will likely be raised to be tolerant of gays. That's the big no-no. Those poor children! They won't grow up to be good (gay-hating) Catholics! That's what they really mean when they talk about "not condoning an immoral lifestyle" isn't it?
It's a horrible sentiment, especially representing the Church, because it implies that morality & piety walk hand in hand with intolerance & bigotry, and that a person cannot separate the two and still be a "good Catholic." I'm no student of theology, so maybe someone can tell me: When exactly did Jesus preach that?

"My first thought upon reading this post was, I wonder how long it will take someone to use this study as ammunition against single parents or gay couples wishing to adopt?"

Thank you. Which again is why I'm struggling to understand how exactly this is a good thing for women and feminists.

Because instead of mother-blaming for every single problem under the sun, they're finally acknowledging that, hey, that other guy who's often part of the kid's primary family? Yeah, him. He just might have some responsibilities to take care of the kid as well.

Faith, what are you basing your judgment on? What data leads you to conclude sexual abuse so much more "under reported" than other forms of abuse? All abuse is "under reported" and if you're going to speculate about prevalence you should have some data to lead you to this conclusion. Let's examine the data from the study for which I've provided a link. 74,348 total victims of sexual abuse. The only categories that figure beats are "medical neglect" and "unknown".

What the data DOES show is that sexual abuse is not the most prevalent form of abuse and women certainly are perpetrators as well. Just look at the ever increasing number of female teachers who are having sex with their students. It makes no sense to single out one sex for this horrible crime just because they are the principle perpetrators. Stop chasing some giant in the hills, Don Quixote.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/cm04.pdf

Mina, right -- as I said, it would be inefficient. My concern is that if we make it optional rather than mandatory, we're going to see many more women than men taking advantage of it -- men will either have stay-at-home wives, or they will figure it's their wife's responsibility to make sure the kids are taken care of. So I love your cafeteria-style benefits idea -- I'm just tossing in a little social engineering on the side ;)

EG, I had the same thought. I like to interpret the study as meaning, where there IS a father, and that father is absent/unloving/etc., there is harm to the child. Maybe this is "spin" on my part, but I'm able to be much more comfortable with that interpretation. My thinking is, if a kid knows s/he has two parents, and one of them is more involved than the other, what kind of message does that send to the kid? This is precisely why I'm a billion times closer with my mom than with my dad. There's nothing "natural" or "biological" about it at all. It's the simple fact that, while we were growing up, MOM was the one who loved us, MOM was the one who took care of us, MOM was the one who sacrificed for us. She's a pretty damn awesome person, and NO DUH it was hurtful that I didn't feel that same amount of love/cherishing/etc. from my dad. You have the exact same problem in families where a parent/both parents appear to favor one child over another.

Steven/Stocad -- it's not just the Catholic church that doesn't want Teh Gayz adopting. Lots of protestant and Muslim churches do as well. My experience is only on the protestant side, but I can guarantee you that the unfair reprobation is just as bad there as on the Catholic side.

Steven, GREAT remarks on this issue. I wanted to jump in but you pretty much said it all as well as I could have :) The bottom line is, the church is harming children by taking a stand against homosexuality. This is not only immoral, it's a direct contravention of accepted church doctrine, which teaches that any sin is enough to separate us from God for eternity; and thus, every sin is spiritually equivalent. Thus there is no basis to turn away gay parents but not, say, persons who have been previously married and divorced.

By the way, Ivy, I didn't make any "excuse" for abuse. I noted that the discrepancy you note in mother v. father abuse stats is far more likely to be an artifact of gender roles vis-a-vis parenting than anything else--that is, my hypothesis is that mothers are not "more likely" to abuse children than fathers once you control for the variable of contact with children. I suspect that once you control for that, the stats will skew the other way.

"Faith, what are you basing your judgment on? What data leads you to conclude sexual abuse so much more "under reported" than other forms of abuse?"

Ivy,

I could actually produce plenty of links to the extent of the underreporting of child sexual abuse. Most cases of child sexual abuse are never reported. This is commonly accepted fact amongst anyone with any real insight into this matter.

"Accurate statistics on the prevalence of child and adolescent sexual abuse are difficult to collect because of problems of underreporting and the lack of one definition of what constitutes such abuse. However, there is general agreement among mental health and child protection professionals that child sexual abuse is not uncommon and is a serious problem in the United States."

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/

The majority of sexual abuse is committed by a male. In cases of female perpetrators, they are almost always previous victims of abuse themselves, normally by a male perpetrator.

Another link:

Determining the scale of child sexual abuse worldwide is complicated, not only because it is difficult to define the abuse cross-culturally, but also because of its hidden nature. Children typically do not have the wherewithal to defend themselves against abuse, and they often lack the resources to report or even acknowledge their victimization. In many instances, a victim’s dependent relationship to the perpetrator makes it that much more unlikely that the abuse will be reported. Protective surveillance - either by parents, caregivers or health, social and child welfare systems - is also challenging because many sexually abused children do not have visible injuries. Detecting such mistreatment “requires a high index of suspicion and familiarity with the verbal, behavioural, and physical indicators of abuse. As such, most victims of child sexual abuse suffer in silence...While women do commit sexual violence against children, the vast majority of abusers are men, regardless of the sex of the victim."

http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/child-sexual-abuse/

"n cases of female perpetrators, they are almost always previous victims of abuse themselves, normally by a male perpetrator."-Faith

And those women typically abuse males, so where does this vicious cycle end, Faith?

"And those women typically abuse males, so where does this vicious cycle end, Faith?"

The question is not where it ends; the question is where it begins.

"And those women typically abuse males, so where does this vicious cycle end, Faith?"

The question is not where it ends; the question is where does it begin.

Ack. Sorry for the multiple posting. I was trying to correct an error.

"The question is not where it ends; the question is where does it begin."-Faith

No, the question is, "where does it end?" We could sit here and debate this chicken-or-the-egg topic until the end of time; but that won't bring and end to the abuse. What is needed is recognition of abuse for what it is, not by who perpetrates it. My original objection was to a post which burned fathers. This anti-male bias has got to stop!

I mention abuse rates by mothers, and then you bring up sexual abuse. Why? Sexual abuse occurs less frequently than other forms of abuse. Yeah, we could speculate all we want, but this speculation, without data, means nothing. Design a study to capture the true amount of sexual abuse that's going on and you will be praised. Until that time you're just fighting against a formless, unmeasured, undetermined juggernaut. All you have to back your position is emotion. ACF data shows mothers as more abusive than fathers. Now EG's breathing down my neck about absent fathers and implying that, if fathers were more involved with their kids, the abuse figures would switch. Never mind what a baseless argument that is. Never mind that women initiate divorce 70% of the time, which frequently leaves mothers with sole custody. If EG wants to live in her own little world then so be it.

I looked over the links you posted. Few figures, if any, are mentioned; and they're more persuasive pieces than actual studies. I'm not interested in stories and fables about what might be, especially for so serious a topic. Hard data is needed, especially when they have such an emotional impact on us all. Plus, the Broken Bodies link you posted mentioned that men are more likely to be perpetrators but, again, no figures were posted. That would have been helpful to put things in perspective. Without them, we're left with only our imaginations to fill in the blanks and determine the "true extent of sexual abuse."

I just want to point out that any use of this study to attack single moms, or lesbian parents, would have to be willfully blind to the fact that it finds that whether or not a mother works outside the home has no effect on the well-being of the children, that it finds that children who go to day care tend to do better than the ones raised at home, and that it makes no mention of any comparison between straight couples and lesbian/gay couples.

Of course, that kind of thing has never stopped the loony right before, that's not the fault of the study or its conclusions.