Key to the safety of women and children? Married men

[old_tony]

Washington Post with an interesting report. The numbers indicate that married women and the children of parents who are married and living under the same roof are much, much, much safer than women and children in single-woman or single-woman-living-with-boyfriend households.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/

Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research (see here and here, as well) that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.

Yet a certain segment of society (rhymes with "theft") keeps telling us how husbands and fathers are simply not necessary.

 

[LongTimeListener]

In the real world this is well-known and very old information, but it may be new to you since I'm not really sure what world you live in.

 

[heyabbott]

Washington Post with an interesting report. The numbers indicate that married women and the children of parents who are married and living under the same roof are much, much, much safer than women and children in single-woman or single-woman-living-with-boyfriend households.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/

Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research (see here and here, as well) that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.

Yet a certain segment of society (rhymes with "theft") keeps telling us how husbands and fathers are simply not necessary.

having spent a number of years prosecuting domestic violence, sex offenses and child abuse cases and being very good friends with similar prosecutors and law enforcement officers I can say, categorically that the two dirtiest words in the english language are " mommy's boyfriend'

 

[outofplace]

Tony, you could have made the point without violating the board policy regarding politics.

Silly me. Of course you can't. You just don't have it in you.

 

[User 11148]

... I can say, categorically that the two dirtiest words in the english language are " mommy's boyfriend'

I agree. I cannot fathom how some men can cheat on their spouses in the knowledge that they're increasing the chance that some other man is going to be around their kids full-time.

 

[Big Circus]

The lower rate of abuse among married couples has a whole lot more to do with socioeconomic status than marital status.

 

[MisterCreosote]

It never ceases to amaze me the cottage industry revolving around deflecting blame from the truly guilty parties.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Wouldn't more women be less inclined to marry an abusive boyfriend as opposed to a non-violent one?

 

[old_tony]

... I can say, categorically that the two dirtiest words in the english language are " mommy's boyfriend'

I agree. I cannot fathom how some men can cheat on their spouses in the knowledge that they're increasing the chance that some other man is going to be around their kids full-time.

This is just a fantastic point.

There should be a PSA along these lines.

"Thinking about an affair? Just remember that after the divorce this guy (picture of a shady looking dude) -- your wife's next boyfriend -- will be around your kids a lot more than you will.

 

[britwrit]

I think men do settle down when they're in a marriage but a wedding band isn't magical. A violent, abusive prick isn't going to turn into a calm, mature guy just because he's been to the altar.

 

[Big Circus]

It never ceases to amaze me the cottage industry revolving around deflecting blame from the truly guilty parties.

Also, this. Yet another think piece about violence against women that puts the onus for preventing that violence on the victim.

 

[old_tony]

The lower rate of abuse among married couples has a whole lot more to do with socioeconomic status than marital status.

True. The No. 1 indicator of a child in poverty is a single mother.

 

[old_tony]

The lower rate of abuse among married couples has a whole lot more to do with socioeconomic status than marital status.

True. But then again, the No. 1 indicator of a child in poverty is a single mother.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Keep in mind that the piece in the OP came on the heels of this gem from neanderthal George Will a few short days earlier, in which he says the whole rapey thingamabob the kids are talking about these days is nothing more than a way to confer privileges on victimhood:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

 

[Paynendearse]

Many of society's problems have a similar element...the absence of a father in the house and in an active role with their wife and kids.

 

[LongTimeListener]

And they ask me where I got it
I get it from my Pops
Put a man in the house and all the bull**** stops

--Chuck D

 

[Big Circus]

The authors are also badly misrepresenting the study they cite, which shows that women who are married but separated are abused at the highest rate, by a very wide margin. The causality could go either way - the violence could have resulted in separation, or the separation could have resulted in violence. They also don't mention that the study deals with the respondents' current living situation, not necessarily their living arrangement when the violence occurred. The actual conclusions of the study don't support the Post writers' argument.

 

[qtlaw]

Washington Post with an interesting report. The numbers indicate that married women and the children of parents who are married and living under the same roof are much, much, much safer than women and children in single-woman or single-woman-living-with-boyfriend households.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/

Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research (see here and here, as well) that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.

Yet a certain segment of society (rhymes with "theft") keeps telling us how husbands and fathers are simply not necessary.

If you believe your last sentence, then you're not reading carefully enough.
Compassion doesn't mean that what's not there is unnecessary;
Compassion doesn't mean that you don't wish that what's not there was;
Compassion means that trying to do the best given the circumstances.

 

[LongTimeListener]

The authors are also badly misrepresenting the study they cite, which shows that women who are married but separated are abused at the highest rate, by a very wide margin. The causality could go either way - the violence could have resulted in separation, or the separation could have resulted in violence. They also don't mention that the study deals with the respondents' current living situation, not necessarily their living arrangement when the violence occurred. The actual conclusions of the study don't support the Post writers' argument.

But in the writers' defense, any time you can feed the welfare queen media machine, you have to take that opportunity. And besides, it was tremendous SEO to link violence against children to a mass killing of adults on a college campus.

 

[User 11148]

Keep in mind that the piece in the OP came on the heels of this gem from neanderthal George Will a few short days earlier, in which he says the whole rapey thingamabob the kids are talking about these days is nothing more than a way to confer privileges on victimhood:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

That's not at all what he said.