Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Senator, Proposes Law That Declares Single Parenthood Child Abuse

maybe it isn't so much single parents, but rather the dysfunctional families, which usually lead to divorce, that is an issue when it comes to abuse???
is so then why is the family disfunctional to begin with would be an issue. is there issues stemming from outside of the family's control, such as economic problems? is one of the partners having a problem with communication...or both? is one of the partners abusive, or both....ect.....

like it or not, there are times when removing one of the partners from the picture can turn a dysfunctional family into a more functional one!!! so while we are talking about "blanket statements", well, just got to point out. the statement that "single parenthood causes child abuse" is also a blanket statement at best. more than likely, it's more like, the problems that lead to divorce, can also lead to child abuse!!!

I do believe that we should do something with the social service system we have that makes it more beneficial monetarily for a women to ditch the man after the kid comes into the picture though. not so much that I believe she is gonna be an abusive parent after that, but rather, I see it as a method of coercion, a gov't trying to force her to make a decision that she wouldn't be making if the coercion wasn't present in too many instances!

Agenda 21 and populatiuon control.reply to post by silo13


Agenda 21 and population control.

nuff said.

Originally posted by dawnstar
maybe it isn't so much single parents, but rather the dysfunctional families, which usually lead to divorce, that is an issue when it comes to abuse???

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. OF COURSE.

Single parenting is a symptom of dysfunctional families, dysfunctional parenting . . . I suppose we could trace all the way back to Adam and Eve.

There are families that get it right.

However, in my watching families almost obsessively for most of my 65 years, I've seen relatively few who got it exceedingly right.

My guesstimate IIRC is that I've observed less than 12 families get it 92+% right in all my 65 years. I can probably count less than 5 families that had no teen rebellion etc. etc. etc.

I'd guesstimate that Probably 12% to 20% got parenting mostly right sufficiently that their adult children have done pretty well in life, over all.

There's probably a middle 21-80% who got it mostly wrong to varying degrees.

And a 20-50% (the 50% end would, of course, include 30% out of the above 80%) who's kids have had some brush with authorities due to alcoholism, drug abuse, drunk driving, spouse abuse, child abuse or ended up in prison for those and/or other reasons.

Certainly all my parents (4 individuals) had significant degrees of ATTACHMENT DISORDER in their own lives. Probably all of their parents, the same. No one helped any of them overcome such. No one knew enough.

Of the last 10 classes of say 24 college students each--less than 4 students in each class had minor degrees of or relatively no ATTACHMENT DISORDER. All the rest had varying degrees and probably 1/3 to 70% had serious degrees of one kind of ATTACHMENT DISORDER OR ANOTHER.

That's a lot of dysfunction.

However, one doesn't need to teach classes to see it.

The next time you go to WalMart . . . look at the faces. Just simply notice ALL THE PAIN, hurt, dysfunction on virtually 75% or more of the faces. See if you can find in the whole store 8 families with mostly pain free, serene or happy faces.

is so then why is the family disfunctional to begin with would be an issue.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. It's an enormous foundational issue.

is there issues stemming from outside of the family's control, such as economic problems?

In and of themselves, SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS can exacerbate individual and family dysfunction. They don't cause it. In the USA and China both, I've seen more very poor folks with relatively to very healthy families and individual psychologies. Actually, the probabilities were significantly higher that poor people would be more functional in their families and psychologies than richer or middle class people.

is one of the partners having a problem with communication...or both?

That's a HUGE problem.

However, communication skills in and of themselves don't solve it all. Folks can be great at communicating effectively. But WHAT they are communicating out of inner horrors, pains, angers etc. of long standing from their own serious degrees of ATTACHMENT DISORDER--can be VERY destructive, dysfunctional.

A huge side-effect of ATTACHMENT DISORDER is the raging insecurities caused thereby. The insecurities foster tons of fears, manipulations, !!!CONTROL!!! freakism, blaming etc. etc. etc. And things spiral down from there. Throw in stressors from high pressured lives, dysfunctional TV values; alcohol, drugs, consumerism gone mad and to hell; etc. etc. and it's a thorough going mess start to finish.

is one of the partners abusive, or both....ect.....

IIRC, about 30% of abused children grow up to abuse their children. It IS a serious problem. CLASSES TEACHING how to respond well emotionally, supportively, lovingly to children regardless DO HELP A LOT.

like it or not, there are times when removing one of the partners from the picture can turn a dysfunctional family into a more functional one!!!

ABSOLUTELY.

the statement that "single parenthood causes child abuse" is also a blanket statement at best. more than likely, it's more like, the problems that lead to divorce, can also lead to child abuse!!!

ABSOLUTELY.

I do believe that we should do something with the social service system we have that makes it more beneficial monetarily for a women to ditch the man after the kid comes into the picture though.

ABSOLUTELY.

However, the oligarchy has a plan for all that. Implement total automatic birth control in the water or food. Exceptions for antedote would require a determination by The State that The State NEEDED that particular combo of DNA for State purposes. I'm serious. That's the plan. By these blokes:

twoday.net...

The Horrors have just begun, folks.

reply to post by wildtimes


I was respectful of your training and took it at face value as valid.

I even respected a fair amount of your assertions and information as valid to mostly valid.

I don't see any call to be nasty.

I realize these are sensitive issues that we all have strong emotions about.

Authentic mutually respectful dialogue is better than otherwise.

reply to post by BO XIAN

CLASSES TEACHING how to respond well emotionally, supportively, lovingly to children regardless DO HELP A LOT.

That was my job. Home visits to first-time parents. Teaching them. That was the job I took AFTER years of doing clinical psychotherapy, youth groups, and school liaison work, when my clients were nearly all affected by substance use either personally or in their families. I know about dysfunctional families, poor parenting, the development of the brain from infancy to maturity, and the variety of learning styles and degrees of responsiveness/resilience. I have spoken at inservices, and was a presenter at a National Convention in these subjects.

I don't see any call to be nasty

But you do apparently "see a call" to tell every parent on this board that they probably really, really screwed it up and were abusing their children.

That's the difference between psychologists and social workers, friends. Psychologists consider the client a "patient" who is "ill" and themselves to be the "expert authority" who will "cure" the client's problem.

Social workers see the client as a partner in working toward maximizing satisfaction and attainment of goals as set by the client, who is considered to be the EXPERT on themselves, their lives, and their goals. Their coping strategies are just that, strategies, that have developed over a lifetime (no matter how long that lifetime has been!) of experience and response to their environment.

There is a spectrum of functioning, and EVERY INDIVIDUAL responds in a unique way to stimuli.

Your information is akin to abuse, by smearing the parenting of nearly everyone, and proclaiming they are utter failures.
I don't see any call for that.

My message is one of empowerment and the very real possibility for better outcomes, and of self-determination, not of condemnation or an emotional death-sentence.

I admonish you to stop talking to people like you know them personally and are superior. More importantly, stop abusing your "position" to tell people they are failures without so much as ever having glanced at them!! That is rampant misuse of your "power" as an authority figure. Shame on you!

This "you are sick and wrong and I'll fix you" is an attitude common to psychologists, and it is why I always, always recommend a person seeking clinical help for emotional or behavioral issues see a SOCIAL WORKER rather than a psychologist. And for clients dealing with issues of family strife, a Social Worker with a background in Family Systems and other strategies such as Narrative Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and most especially, a warm, inviting, safe, hopeful attitude and atmosphere in which to do this hard work.

If there are neurological or chemical problems in the brain, both the psych and the social worker will refer to a psyCHIAtrist for that "medical issue." In terms of therapy, I highly recommend the Social Workers' approach.

reply to post by silo13

I believe that the reason TPTB want our kids is so they can sexually abuse them, especially the young boys. Most of them are Pedophiles, and we just happen to be the greatest source of victims that they can conveniently obtain
for their sick rituals and abuse! Look this stuff up, it's real! Check out the pedophile ring that operated at Boy's Town in Nebraska! And so many more! Wake up people! DO NOT LET CHILD SERVICES TAKE YOUR KIDS!

reply to post by candismoo

Welcome to ATS. I already admire your passion, but I'm not clear on something you said.

Wake up people! DO NOT LET CHILD SERVICES TAKE YOUR KIDS!

I don't remember seeing anything in the articles talking about Child Services or losing your kid. If I missed something, please let me know. I agree with you, losing your kids is a terrible thing to have happen. It should only be used in cases of obvious necessity.

reply to post by wildtimes


Ahhhhhhhhhhh . . . it FELT like there was another agenda, meme, emotionality underneath all that intensity somewhere.

Soooooo the old Social Worker hostility to psychologists stuff comes screaming through.

LOL.

FWIW, I never called my clients anything but clients. I always emphasized it was a collaborative effort toward THEIR goals. etc. etc.

Certainly I greatly respect Family Systems therapy; cognitive behavioral therapy etc.

No. I don't retract my assertions about ATTACHMENT DISORDER being epidemic and needing some serious attention--probably in most families most folks know and most families reading these words.

Certainly there is a RANGE of degrees of severity.

I do NOT have any need for even single parents to be burdened with unfitting guilt. I would like to see them and other parents in less than ideal families (isn't that everyone?) motivated to minimize ATTACHMENT DISORDER stuff that may already exist and to prevent such as much as possible. I'm not the least bit ashamed for those goals and motivations.

In terms of high horse . . . I've met at least as many, if not more, social workers traveling routinely on their high horses than I have psychologists.

Psychologists can be imperious, smug etc. and that's one reason I didn't buy into that whole professional psychologist culture and meme.

However, Social Workers can be routinely smug, haughty, prissy, authoritarian etc. No thanks.

so is there definition of single parent a divorced and living alone parent or does it count as abuse if your not married as the guy who wrote the bill said out of wed lock meaning if you have kids and aren't married then that would be child abuse even if you had two parents? pretty much sticks it to any one trying to adopt whos not married as well and probably shortens gay and lesbian prospective adopters at least if it defines "single" as un married.....whats with all the states passing shady crazy laws all of a sudden?

Originally posted by Astrithr
I think the title of the article is a little misleading. If I understand it correctly, he's saying that single parenthood is a contributing factor to child abuse, not child abuse itself. Which is true, some studies have shown that child abuse in single parent households is nearly double that of two parent households.

I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence with this one. Child abuse is an awful thing, and far too common here in the U.S.. Something really needs to be done to stop it... But at the same time, I don't like people being singled out like this.

Ahhh...and there we have the key and relevant fact don't we?

"SOME studies show..."

OK...who did the "studies"? We can automatically throw out anything done by anyone who has a vested political interest in the matter. That means anybody who pushes candidates, policy, or receives federal money. No Focus on the Family, No religious groups, no right or left-wing think tanks, no lobbyists, and no universities. They all are inherently biased, therefore any and all results must be taken with a grain of salt.

So who's left?

Oh...by the way...any publication which gets advertising revenue from any parties which would have a vested interest in this "political" issue must also be disregarded.

Meanwhile...being an alter-boy in a Catholic Church anywhere in the world puts you on the short-list for anal rape irrespective of how many parents you have in the house. Yet...oddly...State Senator Douchey McAssclown doesn't seem to be proposing any legislation to criminalize Catholicism.

Hmmmm.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
so is there definition of single parent a divorced and living alone parent or does it count as abuse if your not married as the guy who wrote the bill said out of wed lock meaning if you have kids and aren't married then that would be child abuse even if you had two parents? pretty much sticks it to any one trying to adopt whos not married as well and probably shortens gay and lesbian prospective adopters at least if it defines "single" as un married.....whats with all the states passing shady crazy laws all of a sudden?

What about married by common-law?

What if I was married in a tribal ceremony and then immigrated to the States. Just because we came into the country as "married" doesn't mean that my tribal religion in my home country filled out the forms...can it be called into question?

What if I'm a strict Mormon or even one of it's kookier offshoot cults and the only "valid" form of marriage in my "belief" system is a polygamist arrangement with about 10 wives? Does this mean that as a U.S. citizen I can be arrested for child abuse in Wisconsin but I can be Mayor in Utah?

Personally, I feel we should legislate that living with parents who are not capable of basic critical thinking skills is "child abuse".

Originally posted by milominderbinder
This whole right-wing dictatorship that took hold w/ the Walker administration is beyond deplorable. It's downright treasonous.

Haha, you must be a government worker?

I know quite a few here in Wisconsin that were upset when forced to pay EXCATLY what the private sector has been paying, well, FOREVER.

I have always had to pay what and contribute what you are being "forced" to now.

I am not a Democrat nor a republican, but I will say KUDOS Walker, thanks for leveling the playing field and forcing people to pay what I and most other private sector workers pay.

Now, if only my tax bill would be reduced since I am responsible for a little bit less of milominderbinde's pension fund and health care bill.

Dorian Soran

The good doctor!

reply to post by BO XIAN

Soooooo the old Social Worker hostility to psychologists stuff comes screaming through.

LOL.

Glad you find it amusing. Very respectful dialogue and impressive opening to this response!. (Not) What did you expect, when you came riding in with your flag of ridicule and not one bit of credible sourcing for your blanket accusation that all but 8 in one hundred parents are abject failures?

Your pronouncement was damning across the board, and you then identified yourself as a psychologist! Of course that would bring out the hostility! You set it up yourself in that manner, so don't act surprised that I joined the opinion with the credential and thought, "Oh, one of those!"

We were trained against the "medical model." Simple different philosophy.

I do NOT have any need for even single parents to be burdened with unfitting guilt. I would like to see them and other parents in less than ideal families (isn't that everyone?) motivated to minimize ATTACHMENT DISORDER stuff that may already exist and to prevent such as much as possible. I'm not the least bit ashamed for those goals and motivations.

Then you might have made that clear, rather than coming across as someone who finds fault with everyone, and flaws in every parent. Parenting is an art. If you want to motivate people, I suggest you not first berate them as failures. It's a turn-off and insulting.

(And btw, teen rebellion is a healthy, normal, necessary rite of passage into differentiated adulthood. Those who fail to go through it as teens will either go through it later as nasty adult children, or become dysfunctional as adults, and poor parents as well. So that's not something to be desired. The parents' job is to assist the teen in their effort to differentiate, with respect and unconditional love, while attempting to hear the youth and validate their concerns.)

In terms of high horse . . . I've met at least as many, if not more, social workers traveling routinely on their high horses than I have psychologists.

Yep. Every practitioner is different, I've known compassionate and strengths-based psychologists too, and worked shoulder to shoulder with them, even tag-teamed and consulted. Likewise, I've known some very opinionated Social Workers who push their agenda onto their clients ruthlessly. The whole lot of them tend to be smug in many ways, and many have serious issues themselves.

Psychologists can be imperious, smug etc. and that's one reason I didn't buy into that whole professional psychologist culture and meme.

Correct. So, you have turned away from mainstream psychology's approach. Good for you.

However, Social Workers can be routinely smug, haughty, prissy, authoritarian etc. No thanks.

Some of them, yes, especially the higher-ups. Which is why I left the profession long before retirement age.
Too much hypocrisy and self-serving schmoozing of philanthropists. When I was required to take a class on Grant-writing I was severely shocked by the very tenets of fund-raising.

I was not quiet about it, nor was I quiet about challenging my own supervisors and directors. They didn't like me much.
Oh well. My clients got a lot out of my work with them, and in the end, they were the ones who mattered, not my bosses.

I'm glad you clarified your position, and I appreciate your approach to clients as a partner rather than a "healer". Sounds like you follow the client-self-determination philosophy, which is that of (some but not all) Social Workers. Depends on their educations and the philosophy used by the school....and then by their choice of approaches, which you know are myriad.

In fact, after our little duel I was thinking about the subject. There certainly are NO PERFECT FAMILIES. It is an ideal to strive for, but we are human, and parenting requires thinking on one's feet, spontaneously making choices. It's impossible to avoid mistakes. This is one of the reasons I would recommend that every person receiving prenatal care be required to attend classes and given training. It's the most important job in the world, and the most difficult and it doesn't "end" when your child turns 18. It's permanent.

When we leave the teaching of it to poor parents, we get poor results.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by candismoo

 

Welcome to ATS. I already admire your passion, but I'm not clear on something you said.

Wake up people! DO NOT LET CHILD SERVICES TAKE YOUR KIDS!

I don't remember seeing anything in the articles talking about Child Services or losing your kid. If I missed something, please let me know. I agree with you, losing your kids is a terrible thing to have happen. It should only be used in cases of obvious necessity.

Well...no...there was no specific reference of Child Services.

However...I'm not really sure there needs to be. I mean...what happens when kids are found to be living in abusive conditions? Social Services comes in and hauls the kids away and the parent/guardians ass to jail, right?

That's like sort of like being surprised that the Fire Department shows up when you call in a 10-story blaze. Who else is going to show up? The Coast Guard? The DMV? The Post Office?

Think about for a little bit and then get back to us.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Dear milominderbinder,

I'd be happy to give you my impression of the article, correct me if I'm wrong. This law directs the Wisconsin board that has administrative control over the Wisconsin Children's Trust fund to use single parenting as a factor when teaching and helping communities to have better parenting results.

There is no penalty to any single parent. This has nothing to do with law enforcement or Child Protective Services, no child gets taken away just because they're in a single parent home.

It's just saying to a research and education group "Please remember single parenting as a factor when your researching or teaching about abuse prevention." That's it, at least as I see it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by DorianSoran

Originally posted by milominderbinder
This whole right-wing dictatorship that took hold w/ the Walker administration is beyond deplorable. It's downright treasonous.

Haha, you must be a government worker?

I know quite a few here in Wisconsin that were upset when forced to pay EXCATLY what the private sector has been paying, well, FOREVER.

I have always had to pay what and contribute what you are being "forced" to now.

I am not a Democrat nor a republican, but I will say KUDOS Walker, thanks for leveling the playing field and forcing people to pay what I and most other private sector workers pay.

Now, if only my tax bill would be reduced since I am responsible for a little bit less of milominderbinde's pension fund and health care bill.

Dorian Soran

The good doctor!

edit on 4-3-2012 by DorianSoran because: R* = 20/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 1, fi = 0.1, fc = 0.1, and L = 100,000 years

Nope. I'm not a government worker at all...nor do I have any in my immediate or extended family. I have been self employed my entire life. Most notably in consulting, construction, and real estate.

Your logic is all backwards. Rather than wish other people got screwed TOO....you should be looking for ways to make sure that YOU DON'T GET SCREWED.

There is no reason at all that private companies cannot provide government-grade benefits to all of their employees with private insurance companies...just like we always did. We just started allowing the insurance and pharmaceutical companies rape employer and employee alike in premiums...then ALSO turn around and weasel out of claims by labeling everything either an "experimental" treatment or a "pre-existing condition" under the guise of "free markets".

It's criminal fraud...plain and simple. There is a reason why casino's, banks, and insurance companies always seem to have a lot of really big, gaudy, and stupidly over-engineered buildings. It's a damn racket.

Believe me...I pay PLENTY in Federal tax and WI state income tax. However, the day those public workers get their "new" benefits package is the same day that your insurance company starts working on their new benefits package for you. If the past has been any indication it should result in a 50% increase in your premium and $30,000 deductible. Remember...those fat, juicy "government benefits" are only the benefits that just about every full time worker in America had in the '80's.

Hurting someone else's benefits won't make yours any better or balance any budgets...and it sure as hell won't improve the benefits I can offer my employees. It just lowers the bar for everyone. Besides...any new amount of cash will quickly be squandered on some other pet project.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Dear milominderbinder,

I'd be happy to give you my impression of the article, correct me if I'm wrong. This law directs the Wisconsin board that has administrative control over the Wisconsin Children's Trust fund to use single parenting as a factor when teaching and helping communities to have better parenting results.

There is no penalty to any single parent. This has nothing to do with law enforcement or Child Protective Services, no child gets taken away just because they're in a single parent home.

It's just saying to a research and education group "Please remember single parenting as a factor when your researching or teaching about abuse prevention." That's it, at least as I see it.

With respect,
Charles1952

EXACTLY!!!!

THAT'S THE POINT!!! Why would or should a research or education group "remember" single parenting as "factor" of child abuse.

Here is an extremely incomplete list of Notable Bastards in world history.

John James Audabon
Giovanni Boccacio
Giovanni Casanova
Paul Cezanne
Pope Clement VII
Macauley Culkin
Leonardo Da Vinci
Bobby Darin
Frederick Douglass
Alexander Dumas fils
George Foreman
Jean Genet
James Kier Hardie
Billie Holliday
Bo Jackson
Jesse Jackson
T.E. Lawrence
Jack London
Anna Magnani
Tobey Maguirre
Rod McKuen
Maria Montessori
Shaquille O'Neal
Evita Peron
August Strindberg
Richard Wagner
Booker T Washington
Reggie White
Henry Morton Stanley, African explorer
Jack Nicholson

I'm sure Frederick Douglass would have been surprised indeed to learn that single-parenthood was "abusive". I would have thought that it was the whippings and slavery. Likewise...good thing that Leonardo Da Vinci didn't have that "considered", huh? He might have been hustled off to a monastery with all the orphans.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Dear milominderbinder,

It seems as though we're really missing each other here.

I'm sure Frederick Douglass would have been surprised indeed to learn that single-parenthood was "abusive". I would have thought that it was the whippings and slavery. Likewise...good thing that Leonardo Da Vinci didn't have that "considered", huh? He might have been hustled off to a monastery with all the orphans.

Nobody in Wisconsin is saying single-parenthood is abusive. There are many factors which might make abuse more likely; parental poverty or lack of employment, parents who had been victimized as children, no support network, lack of education, living in a crime-ridden neighborhood. All of those can make it more likely that abuse will occur. None of them by themselves mean that abuse will occur, only that it's more likely. All this law does is tell the Children's Trust Fund to throw single-parenthood into the mix with all the other factors.

Maybe single-parenthood makes it a half percent more likely, maybe 20% more likely. But it's not grounds to take any action against the parent or the child. Are we together now?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by wildtimes


I agree with most of your elaborations.

However . . .

. . . are abject failures?

I did not characterize 92% as abject failures.

I think I've noted from the beginning that there's a range of severity on dysfunction from little or none to very serious.

In terms of teen individuation . . . yes, all teens go through individuation, if they are remotely healthy and a lot who aren't try.

HOWEVER, I HAVE KNOWN a handful of families that did it right enough that their teens NEVER REBELLED. Zip. Nada. none. And THOSE TEENS HAVE NOT REBELLED LATER IN THEIR LIVES nor become dysfunctional later in their lives and they are as old as I am--65 years or so.

Parenting CAN be done mostly right.

BTW, the time to solve teen problems is age 0-8. Otherwise it's catch-up at best . . . as you likely know.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Yes, I can come across as shrill and startlingly stark in my wording. I probably have somewhat of a habit of that from my teaching arena. I like to grab attention and stir the pot initially.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Dear milominderbinder,

It seems as though we're really missing each other here.

I'm sure Frederick Douglass would have been surprised indeed to learn that single-parenthood was "abusive". I would have thought that it was the whippings and slavery. Likewise...good thing that Leonardo Da Vinci didn't have that "considered", huh? He might have been hustled off to a monastery with all the orphans.

Nobody in Wisconsin is saying single-parenthood is abusive. There are many factors which might make abuse more likely; parental poverty or lack of employment, parents who had been victimized as children, no support network, lack of education, living in a crime-ridden neighborhood. All of those can make it more likely that abuse will occur. None of them by themselves mean that abuse will occur, only that it's more likely. All this law does is tell the Children's Trust Fund to throw single-parenthood into the mix with all the other factors.

Maybe single-parenthood makes it a half percent more likely, maybe 20% more likely. But it's not grounds to take any action against the parent or the child. Are we together now?

With respect,
Charles1952

EXACTLY!! We are saying the exact same thing. What's weird to me is that you don't find anything wrong all of those other categories either.

The ONLY "factor" which is reliable is ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE.

Not having money, being a single parent, or having had #ty parents yourself should not be considered at all. "Condsidering" such things vastly distorts perception and puts undue bias into all of those "considerations". Unfortunately, although the bill doesn't specifically cite that "child services will come and take your kids away" the REALITY is child services makes their decisions on all of those "factors which are considered".

Again...why not factor in being Catholic? They have a two-thousand year track record for institutionally-sanctioned child molestation, torture, murder, and witch-hunts on every continent on earth. WHY ISN'T THAT A "FACTOR"?? The Boy Scouts of America rape a lot of little boys too. Let's profile them, huh?

For that matter...why don't we "factor in" TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLDS!?! Think about...who abuses more kids...the mothers or the fathers? THE Fathers do... by AN ABSOLUTE LANDSLIDE. Therefore, any child living with a father in the house should have that "factored" in, right? Note: That's YOUR logic...not mine.

Gimme a break. If the state were to start "factoring" and "considering" Catholicism, the Boy Scouts, and having a father in the house. The right-wing "family-values" crowd would scream bloody murder and throw a national temper tantrum about The War on Jesus or whatever. The HYPOCRISY IS ASTOUNDING.

Meanwhile...I thought good ol' Governor Walker and his boys were all about "small government"? What could possibly be more intrusive into the lives of law abiding, private citizens than being profiled without cause based solely upon their marital and economic status for CHILD ABUSE of all things.

I know...it's different when it fits with the right-wing's rhetoric and dogma, right? More 'merican or something.

Every single day I encounter this sort of nonsensical thinking and every single day I become more and more ashamed and embarrassed to be an American and a human being.

Just the fact that I have to literally walk people through the faulty logic in the first place is enough to make me want to vomit.