Keeping Moms Safe is Best for Kids, but Nevermind All That


I, like the writer at Dastardly Dads, thought that this article was about to be pointed in the right direction because of the name of the title. I'm not sure why the fuck I thought that. In fact, I'm almost laughing my ass off at the "false journalistic balance" that is presented.

Here are some great excerpts with my commentary on the info presented:

Education and awareness are the only way to change things, Cross said. “Then we can get better court orders to keep everybody safe.” Family courts “desperately need to be educated” because women are not believed when they talk about abuse.
Wrong. We've been educating and awaring for about 20 years now. And during that time, there has been education and awareness that is in direct opposition.
But change is slowly coming, she said. Until 2006 for example, there was no legal requirement for a judge to consider violence in the family when making a custody decision.
2006? Isn't that a damn shame. Women have been getting beaten and killed for years and it took until 4 years ago to come up with that?  See Womanist Musings,
White men have a very long history of physically abusing women without consequence.
Laws are written by men and for men...that means that men's bests interest are in mind. Period.
But “genderized solutions” create “screwed-up kids,” and only deal with half the domestic violence problem, said Brian Jenkins, a director with Fathers Are Capable Too (FACT), a non-custodial parents and children's rights organization. Jenkins was not at the conference.
Of course this is about gender, but father's rights sympathizers try to paint this gender issue as being malicious. Well, if fathers would stop beating the fuck out of their children's mothers, then, it wouldn't be a gender issue, would it?

And this article wasn't even about "genderized solutions" it was about domestic violence. Notice the language, once again. We talk about domestic violence, they have to bring up equality language to mask men's violence against women. Here it is,
“In about 60 per cent of (abuse) cases both parties are abusive,” Jenkins said, adding that in the remaining 40 per cent of cases about half have exclusively abusive mother and half have exclusively abusive fathers.

And where is the evidence that "genderized solutions" create "screwed up" kids? That is an opinion. So, I guess the kids of lesbian parents are screwed up? That's not what I read--then again, those studies have less to do with sexual preference than they have to do with income, decision-making, and resources. I personally believe that kids with fathers that have beaten and killed their mothers are the ones that are "screwed up."
“Kids should not be subjected to parental abuse no matter what the situation … but just by putting your child with one gender of parent or the other is not a solution to abuse,” he said."

So what is the solution?

He really just sounds stupid right about now in the way that he is speaking. No one wants a child with an abuser, period.
Children need both of their parents intellectually and emotionally, Jenkins said, adding that taking any parent out of a child's life can stunt their development and cause problems.
False. Laughable.
“It's about having both parents there, having support for them and making sure that whatever abuse is in the relationship is kept out of the children's lives,” he said.
And so here you have it, folks. Any parent will do. They both just need to be in the child's life, as long as one is the biological father. That's it. TADAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!