If you haven't already, you'll want to read Part I, Part II, and Part III of this series.
The other major quibble I have with this book is the failure to differentiate between abuse by stepfathers versus stepmothers, until the very end, when the topic is briefly/haphazardly thrown out and not given nearly as much discussion or data to back it up.
Thinking logically, I would assume that more stepfathers would be abusers than stepmothers, just based on the fact that men tend to be not only physically bigger and stronger (thus more likely to inflict injury at the level that it would be reported to authorities), but also more physically aggressive, as males tend to be.
Their finding?
"Does this mean that it is really only stepfatherhood that is a threat to children? No, that is not the implication. Remember that stepmotherhood is itself rare, especially for the very youngest children. Indeed, stepmothers are so infrequent, both in the population-at-large and in the homicidal and abuse data archives, that we have been reluctant to compute per capita rates and odds ratios, because the estimates are so sensitive to the effects of one or a few cases. Nevertheless, it is clear that stepmothers as well as stepfathers are greatly over-represented in child maltreatment, and our best guess is that the hazards are roughly comparable." (p. 60)
Maybe I misunderstood something...but their best guess? Where is the data to back that up? And where are they getting that stepmotherhood is "itself rare"? Because it doesn't seem so rare to me. If the current popular saying that half of all marriages will end in divorce is true, you've got to assume that a large proportion of those failed first marriages will involve children, will result in second marriages, and they won't all be mother-stepfather remarriages. I have a really, really hard time believing stepmotherhood is so rare.
And didn't they pretty much admit in the middle sentence (Indeed, stepmothers are so infrequent, both in the population-at-large and in the homicidal and abuse data archives) that abuse by stepmothers is, to use their own word, INFREQUENT?
Maybe they mean custodial stepmoms, which I definitely concede are infrequent and possibly even rare. But I still don't see how they can "guess" that the risk of abuse is "roughly comparable" to that of stepfathers. In fact, the opening sentence to this chapter (7) says it all:
"In the Canadian and British homicide archives that we discussed in Chapter 4, there were dozens of children slain by stepfathers for every one killed by a stepmother. This imbalance is also conspicuous, if not quite so large, in the data archives of non-lethal child abuse." (p. 60)
Stay tuned for Part V tomorrow.
It's very obvious that this book is pandering to a certain section of the population and that they have absolutely no sound scientific data to back up the ridiculous claims they're making. What a bunch of garbage.
ReplyDeleteYep, a tiny little load of garbage wrapped in a 60-something page book.
ReplyDeleteI did find one redeeming quality, that post is upcoming.
I think it's "rare" because people don't want to talk about the fact that they are stepmoms...why??? I can't imagine. Could be because the second you mention it you are treated like a 2nd class citizen. I always say that stepdads are looked at like they are picking up the slack of a deadbeat dad and they are heros...where stepmoms are home wreckers and out to steal children from the real moms...because god forbid any woman who gives birth be seen as a deadbeat mom. Ugh...I agree with Laura...garbage.
ReplyDeleteSIT, you are sooooo right, especially about how stepdads vs. stepmoms are viewed. Just look at my Grrrrr post for proof.
ReplyDelete