I've been reading up on this some more, trying to get a handle on some of the information. What the Hay, I think the numbers point to different reasoning than what you're following. This is from the site:
The information is gathered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.The following is from one of the pages on 'Caretaker' Offenders.
Types of Caretaker Offenders
Within the parent and other caretaker offender category
defined in this Bulletin, parents are responsible for 60
percent of all crimes. Stepparents and parents’ boyfriends
and girlfriends account for another 19 percent. Males are
considerably more likely than females (73 percent versus
27 percent) to be perpetrators. This gender difference holds
true even among babysitter offenders, although males are
much less likely than females to be babysitters. Biological
fathers account for two-fifths (41 percent) of all offenders,
and stepfathers and parents’ boyfriends account for nearly
one-fifth (18 percent) (figure 4). Men account for 92 percent
of caretaker sex assault, 67 percent of aggravated assault,
68 percent of simple assault, and 58 percent of kidnaping
offenders.
---
Unfortunately it looks like the high numbers - 92% of 'caretaker' sex assault and 67% of aggravated assaults - speak to why the media coverage and interest would be greater for male cases than female cases as you stated (and I'm still not convinced they are)... simply because there are more cases to be covered for male perpatrators. The number of spouses, ex-spouses, relatives, etc. that are male is more than female. They also note that, as you state, even though men are less likely to be in a 'babysitter' caretaker role, their %'s of incidents seem to remain the same. And men account for 3/5ths of the total number of offenders.
I don't know, I can't read your mind. I know other people voice the same perception as you are, it's seemed like that to me at times too. But I'm starting to think that it's more perception than fact. We might want to THINK that there's a public fascination with male offenders and seeing them get what's coming to them, but it looks more like that's a natural response to the number and types of incidents that occur. Overall though, as a parent myself who's raised children and had them in many different family, school and private care situations my own interest is to the overall RISK at any time and how to handle it as much as the whether males or females are involved. There's evil in the world and evil wears many faces.
I also have to say I don't think it's unnatural for men to have interest in the 'caregiver' role, at all. When my son was born I really found it hard to return to work after a couple days. I so enjoyed the time with him. I have a friend who's recently become a father and had some time for a couple months to be with him. He said it was the hardest thing for him to 'go back to work', knowing all the moments he was going to miss not being with him.
The idea of men having a strong interest in being with and working with children of all ages is very common. Scouting, sports, mentoring, traing and teaching situations for crafts, trades, etc. "Big Brothers". Many many men have a strong desire to participate and contribute in the growth of young people of all ages and that involves more than just showing up and reading to them. Do a lot of men view involvement, 'caregiving' with children about as enjoyable as a stick in they eye? Sure. But not all, by any means. Either way, the preferences and interests are valid. Those that do, will. Those that don't, won't. It seems very simple.
quote:A convicted child molestor that has the complete and public SUPPORT of TWI.
THINK ABOUT IT INNIES!
ROR
I'm thinking about this, and it makes about as much sense as TWI giving their complete and public support of Martindale, after everyone knew about his sexual abuses.
Are folks to believe that TWI has absolutely no problem, no scruples at all, and with full knowledge supports this vast orgy of evil celebration of child molestation as is being suggested by some here?
How stupid is it for TWI to openly support child molestation?
Are folks to believe that TWI has absolutely no problem, no scruples at all, and with full knowledge supports this vast orgy of evil celebration of child molestation as is being suggested by some here?
It isn't the first time, and probably, sadly, will not be the last time.
Who would have believed Craig was having sex with married women?
Who would have believed TWI would support him, even after knowing about it?
I think you are giving TWI too much benefit of the doubt Oldies.
Hell, even suggesting TWI has scrupples is stretching it...
OM, they fully supported LCM and even recruited women for him to abuse!
The ONLY REASON they ousted him was because some people had the balls to sue.
The ONLY REASON they had to do something about it was because they were about to be exposed!
It was reported that even after MN was convicted in a court of law and sent to prison (meaning GUILTY AS CHARGED!!![/b]) That they helped pack up his house and continued to support him. It was reported and documented that he had been turned in numerous times to leadership who DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
quote:Who would have believed TWI would support him, even after knowing about it?
But they didn't support him after the charges were viewed as valid. When it was legally proven, or "threatened" to be legally proven that the charges were valid, what did TWI do? They booted him. They didn't continue to support him. They could have even kept him in that same position and just paid the same amount of cash out for the lawsuits. But they did get rid of him.
Not only are the TWI directors being accused of openly, with full knowledge, publicly supporting child molestation (which would be a stupid thing for them to do even on a 5 senses level, even if they couldn't give a rat's a$$); but also the folks who "packed the house" in support of Mark are being accused as well. In other words, you're average twi Joe Believer supports child molestation as well?
Maybe I look like I have the word DOPE imprinted on my forehead, but I don't believe some of these accusations that are flying.
I have been thinking.. what do they have to gain by supporting this guy?
True, Loy was the "charismatic cash cow" of the organization. And they stood behind them to the end. Cripe, they made him head over the "research" dept before things got real ugly, and they were fully aware of what he had done, for YEARS.
But this guy.. what gives?
I think they are desperately trying to salvage whatever perceived hopes they have of keeping their little cult afloat. Makes me wonder how many innies have been informed of this. From the suprised posting of one of them, I would venture to say not many.
Doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe they still have the arrogance to think that the "old wineskin" tactics of old will save them- keep the few followers left in isolation and ignorance about the situation, and attribute the legal ramifications to "attacks of da adversary". Protect and hide the perpetrator, if they could get away with it. Intimidate and/or threaten anybody that knows anything about it. Lie, beg, borrow and steal to keep it quiet, at least as quiet as possible. "That the ministry be not blamed".
But they didn't support him after the charges were viewed as valid. When it was legally proven, or "threatened" to be legally proven that the charges were valid, what did TWI do? They booted him. They didn't continue to support him. They could have even kept him in that same position and just paid the same amount of cash out for the lawsuits. But they did get rid of him.
Good God! Do you actually believe that?
Craig voluntarily took a break from STS teachings after it became obvious that Paul was going forward with the lawsuit, 1 year after the entire BOT knew about it. The bot never questioned the validity either.
Craig was never "booted." He voluntarily stepped down from President, after it was obvious very few in TWI were going to support him in that position any longer. He was given the research department.
Six months later, he is put on spiritual probation, whatever that is.
He was never booted.
It's not even clear what his relationship with TWI is now. Given TWI's relationship with Mark, it makes one think.
Not only did the BOT not question the validity of the lawsuit, the judge in the case noted that evidence existed that Rosalie aided in securing Mrs. Allen for Craig.
Why is it so surprising that a group of people purporting to be a do-good religeous type, is in fact, evil incarnate. Nothing new. Only history repeating itself, over and over again.
Religeon is a great facade for those who know how to use it.
One of the real sad parts of this is, most innies have no idea of what's going on. Sometimes I think it would take Ole Rosie being hauled off in chains, but they'd find some way of hiding that..
"... Personally speaking I feel there is something wrong with a male who is put directly in the charge and the care of children (regardless of what the gender of the child may be) with perhaps the exception of one who has been put in an administrative function - but definately not the direct care of children. _It's just wrong!_"
I see. I have been a stay-at-home 'Mom', since I retired from the US Navy. For the past 3 years, I have had 5 children at home. Some of them have been in public school, some of them have been receiving a Homeschool education.
I have bought them shoes, I have prepared meals [yes I cook], and I got three of them up to grade-level and back into public school [placed back into age-appropriate grade-levels]. [bonnie does clothes shopping and food shopping, as she is better in those areas. Bonnie is also the certified teacher, so she lays out each day’s curriculum for me to follow.] When they bleed I do the triage and either bandage or take them to the ER. I pull the ticks out of their hair, etc.
So you say: “ _It's just wrong!_ "
“The whole situation seems very unnatural to me since it is not the tendancy of most men to desire to function or serve as caregivers. Perhaps I am coming off sounding a bit chauvinistic, but it's just not in the male "genes" for men to want to function in that particular role - unless they already have genetic ties to the child, i.e. they are the father.â€
I see.
Yes it does sound rather sexist.
If I were to state “X is the role of all women, while Y is the role of all menâ€; I would get loads of grief.
I was on a trip in Israel with a CES group once, and a group of the ladies were running down men and making very sexist remarks. When I commented that those were sexist remarks and that likewise I would hope that I would never make similar sexist remarks. They leaped all over me [figuratively], and I remained their enemy the remainder of the trip.
Is it only because I am a federal employee? that I am held to a different standard.
“However it cetainly makes me wonder if this case would have received the same attention had the perpetrator been female instead of male, or would this case have been "swept under the rug" if that been the situation?â€
True, the daily cases of child abuse don’t make it into the media at all.
There must be some other twist to deem it ‘news worthy’.
“Unfortunately cases of child abuse never receive the same amount of attention by the media unless the female perpetrator commits homicide or some other felony upon their victim.â€
True, the majority of child sexual abuse cases that I have been in some way involved with, were never big in the media. Whether they be male perpetrated, or female perpetrated. It just does not routinely get reported in Newspaper or TV, unless there is some other twist to it.
“If "SEX" wasn't involved, I highly doubt many would care much about the issue, but that's rarely the case isn't it?â€
The information I posted was taken from the US Department of Health and Human Services - Administration for Children and Families. The link to this information is Child Maltreatment: 2002 found under the heading: Perpetrators. There are likely to be many aspects that affect the accuracy and consistancy of these reports, as well as between these different agencies. Another discrepency perhaps may be not distinguishing between reports of child abuse and child neglect. While a great percentage of physical abuse is caused by fathers and male caregivers, mothers are most often held responsible for cases of child neglect. There are by far a larger number of cases of child neglect reported than of physical abuse, but then, child neglect is just another form of abuse.
A greater concern is whether child abuse and neglect is increasing. It could well be, or it could be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. Consider the following: {This information was also taken from the Administration for Children and Families web site: Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities}
Are Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities Increasing?
The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems) has increased slightly over the last several years from 1.84 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 1.96 in 2001 and 1.98 in 2002. However, experts do not agree whether this represents an actual increase in child abuse and neglect fatalities, or whether it may be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. For example, statistics on approximately 20 percent of fatalities were from health departments and fatality review boards for 2002, compared to 11.4 percent for 2001, an indication of greater coordination of data collection among agencies.
A number of issues affecting the accuracy and consistency of child fatality data from year to year have been identified, including:
Variation among reporting requirements and definitions of child abuse and neglect.
Variation in State child fatality review processes.
The amount of time (as long as a year, in some cases) it may take a fatality review team to declare abuse or neglect as the cause of death.
Miscoding of death certificates.
What Groups of Children Are Most Vulnerable?
Research indicates very young children (ages 3 and younger) are the most frequent victims of child fatalities. NCANDS data for 2002 demonstrated children younger than 1 year accounted for 41 percent of fatalities, while children younger than 4 years accounted for 76 percent of fatalities. This population of children is the most vulnerable for many reasons, including their dependency, small size, and inability to defend themselves.
From the pie chart provided at the site the greatest percentage of child abuse and neglect occurs with children 4 years of age and under, with the greater percentage falling on children 1 year of age or less. Sexual abuse accounts for less than 1% of fatal child abuse. A link to a bar chart is on the same page and can also be accessed here: Maltreatment type
There is a wealth of information on this site, including the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The URL is located here: Preventing child abuse and neglect
"I've been reading up on this some more ... The following is from one of the pages on 'Caretaker' Offenders .... parents are responsible for 60 percent of all crimes. Stepparents and parents’ boyfriends and girlfriends account for another 19 percent."
"Males are considerably more likely than females (73 percent versus 27 percent) to be perpetrators."
Wow.
Among support groups for foster-families that we attend, the over-whelming majority of those children have been abused in some way. We hear of abuses from both male-adults, female-adults, and from other children.
Not meaning to argue with you. :-)
Do your numbers include all forms of abuse? Neglect: such as leaving dirty diapers on a child long enough that the child develops Attachement-Disorders? Or drug-usage by bio-parents to develop fetal-development issues like: crack-babies, or Fetal-Alcohol-Syndrome?
Or are those numbers specifiv to sexual-abuse?
"This gender difference holds true even among babysitter offenders, although males are much less likely than females to be babysitters. Biological fathers account for two-fifths (41 percent) of all offenders"
"and stepfathers and parents’ boyfriends account for nearly one-fifth (18 percent)"
May I point out that single-parents are predominantly female, so secondary-relationships and short-term relationships are going to mostly be men. If an adult is in the home, not-related to the child, but a part of a two-adult home; that adult is most likely to be a male. I think.
I dont think that there is a huge percentage of single-men out there with children, who would have girl-freinds staying over.
"Men account for 92 percent of caretaker sex assault, 67 percent of aggravated assault, 68 percent of simple assault, and 58 percent of kidnaping offenders."
Wow.
I wonder how much of this is adult-male to child-female rape, which often leads to physical wounds, thus gets reported more quickly.
It is my understanding that in the cases of child-sexual-predators, the original abuse was not reported, as it left no physical marks. It does not 'show' until the child is mingled with younger children who are easier to over-power. In the support-group that we attend, we have both little boys and little girls who are sexual-predators. They dont always have any preferences to which sex they will abuse, it is more a matter of having an opportunity with a smaller child or a child without natural defenses [like in the case of our FAS teen].
"They also note that, as you state, even though men are less likely to be in a 'babysitter' caretaker role, their %'s of incidents seem to remain the same. And men account for 3/5ths of the total number of offenders."
Wow, I had no idea.
"Overall though, as a parent myself who's raised children and had them in many different family, school and private care situations my own interest is to the overall RISK at any time and how to handle it as much as the whether males or females are involved. There's evil in the world and evil wears many faces."
Oldies, I agree that the local believers might not have known the story behind this guy. They may have come to like him enough (read LLP's posts) that any warnings coming from an ex just sounded like the rantings of a woman with a grudge.
However...
The guy was Corps, and ordained. Didn't HQ know anything about the divorce? Didn't it concern the BOD that the stepmom got custody of MN's son? Did they wonder why the court did that?
MN also stated that "compliance with Megan's Law mandates, he said, would make it difficult for him to return to his ministerial career," according to the article. Does MN still think he has a ministerial career with TWI when he gets out of prison?
Does TWI still think so?
Hopefully, they won't hold a place for him now, after Greasespot has put this case out in the open.
I don't think he was ordained. He was dropped long ago. Regardless of what they thought, they teach that you can discern devil spirits. Anyone else that displays traits they think are related to devil spirits gets the thumbs down treatment. They decided to support this guy over a woman and her children that needed protections. How's the discerning of spirits doing in that situation??
I guess we can lay to rest "All nine all the time" from Way speak.
You wrote: "Thanks for posting LLP. I appreciate hearing your point of view, and I'm glad you're here."
Sometimes we get so involved "working" over our differences, we forget to take a step back and bask in the comfort of those areas where there is no disagreement. I should have acknowledged your post sooner. Thanks for your kind words, I'm glad you're here, too.
LLP, you're alright. :)--> I am still praying for you to see TWI for what it really is and I'm glad that you're trying to think logically and not emotionally refusing to see what's so horribly obvious. I'm also glad you post here even if you frustrate the he11 out of me sometimes. ;)-->
quote: They decided to support this guy over a woman and her children that needed protections. How's the discerning of spirits doing in that situation??
I guess we can lay to rest "All nine all the time" from Way speak.
Tumbleweed, that's priceless and I think I'll add it to the Gems thread of the board.
I've read so much recently about all the false prophecies and missed signs that the TWIts have on their record that it just amazes me how they can continue to "cover" themselves to the general TWI population. Maybe they aren't really and that's why it continues to shrink. I hope so anyway. Even the wife of an adulterous husband has to face facts eventually....whether she does something about it or not is a different story. I feel for the TWIts who don't do anything about it.
It's been over a month since we last heard from you on this topic. I'm still interested to know what your thinking on this is.
I hope you have not dismissed it, but either way, and I can't speak for everyone here, it would be very helpful to me to know how you either justified TWI's position, or have done something other with it.
Of course, if you don't want speak, that's fine too.
I agree Vickles....so many though have been put throught the winger so to speak, and are really at a disadvantage.
I beleive we should return to something like the old orphanage system of days gone by. In this setting the children would return to the same environment, and not have to readapt to a new setting and new people each time they were taken from their bio parents. Some continuity would be very helpful and would be much less expensive.
Yeah a few more George Muellers around would be a great asset to our world. I just loved his book Delighted in God.
I noticed you posted on the "Anyone new here" thread. Seeing you're back, I wonder if you could take the time to tell me how or why you accepted and or justified TWI's position (since it appears you have).
Not trying to badger you. It is a question I really would appreceiate if you could answer. There's no wrong answer.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
14
21
21
Popular Days
Aug 8
24
Dec 19
20
Jan 4
19
Jan 7
18
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 20 posts
Belle 14 posts
Bob 21 posts
Ham 21 posts
Popular Days
Aug 8 2005
24 posts
Dec 19 2004
20 posts
Jan 4 2005
19 posts
Jan 7 2005
18 posts
Popular Posts
pjroberge
I think a minister should be allowed to go back to being a minister if: 1) They have child molester branded in their forehead 2) They are castrated 3) They are un-paid as part of their making amend
socks
I've been reading up on this some more, trying to get a handle on some of the information. What the Hay, I think the numbers point to different reasoning than what you're following. This is from the site:
" target="_blank">http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_5_1/contents.html]
]http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_5_1/contents.html://http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjb...ntents.html
The information is gathered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.The following is from one of the pages on 'Caretaker' Offenders.
Types of Caretaker Offenders
Within the parent and other caretaker offender category
defined in this Bulletin, parents are responsible for 60
percent of all crimes. Stepparents and parents’ boyfriends
and girlfriends account for another 19 percent. Males are
considerably more likely than females (73 percent versus
27 percent) to be perpetrators. This gender difference holds
true even among babysitter offenders, although males are
much less likely than females to be babysitters. Biological
fathers account for two-fifths (41 percent) of all offenders,
and stepfathers and parents’ boyfriends account for nearly
one-fifth (18 percent) (figure 4). Men account for 92 percent
of caretaker sex assault, 67 percent of aggravated assault,
68 percent of simple assault, and 58 percent of kidnaping
offenders.
---
Unfortunately it looks like the high numbers - 92% of 'caretaker' sex assault and 67% of aggravated assaults - speak to why the media coverage and interest would be greater for male cases than female cases as you stated (and I'm still not convinced they are)... simply because there are more cases to be covered for male perpatrators. The number of spouses, ex-spouses, relatives, etc. that are male is more than female. They also note that, as you state, even though men are less likely to be in a 'babysitter' caretaker role, their %'s of incidents seem to remain the same. And men account for 3/5ths of the total number of offenders.
I don't know, I can't read your mind. I know other people voice the same perception as you are, it's seemed like that to me at times too. But I'm starting to think that it's more perception than fact. We might want to THINK that there's a public fascination with male offenders and seeing them get what's coming to them, but it looks more like that's a natural response to the number and types of incidents that occur. Overall though, as a parent myself who's raised children and had them in many different family, school and private care situations my own interest is to the overall RISK at any time and how to handle it as much as the whether males or females are involved. There's evil in the world and evil wears many faces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I also have to say I don't think it's unnatural for men to have interest in the 'caregiver' role, at all. When my son was born I really found it hard to return to work after a couple days. I so enjoyed the time with him. I have a friend who's recently become a father and had some time for a couple months to be with him. He said it was the hardest thing for him to 'go back to work', knowing all the moments he was going to miss not being with him.
The idea of men having a strong interest in being with and working with children of all ages is very common. Scouting, sports, mentoring, traing and teaching situations for crafts, trades, etc. "Big Brothers". Many many men have a strong desire to participate and contribute in the growth of young people of all ages and that involves more than just showing up and reading to them. Do a lot of men view involvement, 'caregiving' with children about as enjoyable as a stick in they eye? Sure. But not all, by any means. Either way, the preferences and interests are valid. Those that do, will. Those that don't, won't. It seems very simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Are folks to believe that TWI has absolutely no problem, no scruples at all, and with full knowledge supports this vast orgy of evil celebration of child molestation as is being suggested by some here?
How stupid is it for TWI to openly support child molestation?
Come on folks. Doesn't make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
It isn't the first time, and probably, sadly, will not be the last time.
Who would have believed Craig was having sex with married women?
Who would have believed TWI would support him, even after knowing about it?
I think you are giving TWI too much benefit of the doubt Oldies.
Hell, even suggesting TWI has scrupples is stretching it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Would somebody pt me and tell me who this guy is who molested the children?
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
It's in the opening post, Mark Naberschnig, 46, of Duluth, Ga.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
OM, they fully supported LCM and even recruited women for him to abuse!
The ONLY REASON they ousted him was because some people had the balls to sue.
The ONLY REASON they had to do something about it was because they were about to be exposed!
It was reported that even after MN was convicted in a court of law and sent to prison (meaning GUILTY AS CHARGED!!![/b]) That they helped pack up his house and continued to support him. It was reported and documented that he had been turned in numerous times to leadership who DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
How much more proof do you need, man?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Not only are the TWI directors being accused of openly, with full knowledge, publicly supporting child molestation (which would be a stupid thing for them to do even on a 5 senses level, even if they couldn't give a rat's a$$); but also the folks who "packed the house" in support of Mark are being accused as well. In other words, you're average twi Joe Believer supports child molestation as well?
Maybe I look like I have the word DOPE imprinted on my forehead, but I don't believe some of these accusations that are flying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I have been thinking.. what do they have to gain by supporting this guy?
True, Loy was the "charismatic cash cow" of the organization. And they stood behind them to the end. Cripe, they made him head over the "research" dept before things got real ugly, and they were fully aware of what he had done, for YEARS.
But this guy.. what gives?
I think they are desperately trying to salvage whatever perceived hopes they have of keeping their little cult afloat. Makes me wonder how many innies have been informed of this. From the suprised posting of one of them, I would venture to say not many.
Doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe they still have the arrogance to think that the "old wineskin" tactics of old will save them- keep the few followers left in isolation and ignorance about the situation, and attribute the legal ramifications to "attacks of da adversary". Protect and hide the perpetrator, if they could get away with it. Intimidate and/or threaten anybody that knows anything about it. Lie, beg, borrow and steal to keep it quiet, at least as quiet as possible. "That the ministry be not blamed".
I think it's a tactic that's doomed to fail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
Good God! Do you actually believe that?
Craig voluntarily took a break from STS teachings after it became obvious that Paul was going forward with the lawsuit, 1 year after the entire BOT knew about it. The bot never questioned the validity either.
Craig was never "booted." He voluntarily stepped down from President, after it was obvious very few in TWI were going to support him in that position any longer. He was given the research department.
Six months later, he is put on spiritual probation, whatever that is.
He was never booted.
It's not even clear what his relationship with TWI is now. Given TWI's relationship with Mark, it makes one think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
AND in court proceedings Rozilla admitted that she knew about loyboy's "liaisons" as early as 1995.
Non-supportive? HAH
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
Not only did the BOT not question the validity of the lawsuit, the judge in the case noted that evidence existed that Rosalie aided in securing Mrs. Allen for Craig.
Why is it so surprising that a group of people purporting to be a do-good religeous type, is in fact, evil incarnate. Nothing new. Only history repeating itself, over and over again.
Religeon is a great facade for those who know how to use it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
One of the real sad parts of this is, most innies have no idea of what's going on. Sometimes I think it would take Ole Rosie being hauled off in chains, but they'd find some way of hiding that..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
What The Hay:
"... Personally speaking I feel there is something wrong with a male who is put directly in the charge and the care of children (regardless of what the gender of the child may be) with perhaps the exception of one who has been put in an administrative function - but definately not the direct care of children. _It's just wrong!_"
I see. I have been a stay-at-home 'Mom', since I retired from the US Navy. For the past 3 years, I have had 5 children at home. Some of them have been in public school, some of them have been receiving a Homeschool education.
I have bought them shoes, I have prepared meals [yes I cook], and I got three of them up to grade-level and back into public school [placed back into age-appropriate grade-levels]. [bonnie does clothes shopping and food shopping, as she is better in those areas. Bonnie is also the certified teacher, so she lays out each day’s curriculum for me to follow.] When they bleed I do the triage and either bandage or take them to the ER. I pull the ticks out of their hair, etc.
So you say: “ _It's just wrong!_ "
“The whole situation seems very unnatural to me since it is not the tendancy of most men to desire to function or serve as caregivers. Perhaps I am coming off sounding a bit chauvinistic, but it's just not in the male "genes" for men to want to function in that particular role - unless they already have genetic ties to the child, i.e. they are the father.â€
I see.
Yes it does sound rather sexist.
If I were to state “X is the role of all women, while Y is the role of all menâ€; I would get loads of grief.
I was on a trip in Israel with a CES group once, and a group of the ladies were running down men and making very sexist remarks. When I commented that those were sexist remarks and that likewise I would hope that I would never make similar sexist remarks. They leaped all over me [figuratively], and I remained their enemy the remainder of the trip.
Is it only because I am a federal employee? that I am held to a different standard.
“However it cetainly makes me wonder if this case would have received the same attention had the perpetrator been female instead of male, or would this case have been "swept under the rug" if that been the situation?â€
True, the daily cases of child abuse don’t make it into the media at all.
There must be some other twist to deem it ‘news worthy’.
“Unfortunately cases of child abuse never receive the same amount of attention by the media unless the female perpetrator commits homicide or some other felony upon their victim.â€
True, the majority of child sexual abuse cases that I have been in some way involved with, were never big in the media. Whether they be male perpetrated, or female perpetrated. It just does not routinely get reported in Newspaper or TV, unless there is some other twist to it.
“If "SEX" wasn't involved, I highly doubt many would care much about the issue, but that's rarely the case isn't it?â€
And your point is? [you sexist you]
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
The information I posted was taken from the US Department of Health and Human Services - Administration for Children and Families. The link to this information is Child Maltreatment: 2002 found under the heading: Perpetrators. There are likely to be many aspects that affect the accuracy and consistancy of these reports, as well as between these different agencies. Another discrepency perhaps may be not distinguishing between reports of child abuse and child neglect. While a great percentage of physical abuse is caused by fathers and male caregivers, mothers are most often held responsible for cases of child neglect. There are by far a larger number of cases of child neglect reported than of physical abuse, but then, child neglect is just another form of abuse.
A greater concern is whether child abuse and neglect is increasing. It could well be, or it could be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. Consider the following: {This information was also taken from the Administration for Children and Families web site: Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities}
Are Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities Increasing?
The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems) has increased slightly over the last several years from 1.84 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 1.96 in 2001 and 1.98 in 2002. However, experts do not agree whether this represents an actual increase in child abuse and neglect fatalities, or whether it may be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. For example, statistics on approximately 20 percent of fatalities were from health departments and fatality review boards for 2002, compared to 11.4 percent for 2001, an indication of greater coordination of data collection among agencies.
A number of issues affecting the accuracy and consistency of child fatality data from year to year have been identified, including:
Variation among reporting requirements and definitions of child abuse and neglect.
Variation in State child fatality review processes.
The amount of time (as long as a year, in some cases) it may take a fatality review team to declare abuse or neglect as the cause of death.
Miscoding of death certificates.
What Groups of Children Are Most Vulnerable?
Research indicates very young children (ages 3 and younger) are the most frequent victims of child fatalities. NCANDS data for 2002 demonstrated children younger than 1 year accounted for 41 percent of fatalities, while children younger than 4 years accounted for 76 percent of fatalities. This population of children is the most vulnerable for many reasons, including their dependency, small size, and inability to defend themselves.
From the pie chart provided at the site the greatest percentage of child abuse and neglect occurs with children 4 years of age and under, with the greater percentage falling on children 1 year of age or less. Sexual abuse accounts for less than 1% of fatal child abuse. A link to a bar chart is on the same page and can also be accessed here: Maltreatment type
There is a wealth of information on this site, including the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The URL is located here: Preventing child abuse and neglect
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
socks:
"I've been reading up on this some more ... The following is from one of the pages on 'Caretaker' Offenders .... parents are responsible for 60 percent of all crimes. Stepparents and parents’ boyfriends and girlfriends account for another 19 percent."
"Males are considerably more likely than females (73 percent versus 27 percent) to be perpetrators."
Wow.
Among support groups for foster-families that we attend, the over-whelming majority of those children have been abused in some way. We hear of abuses from both male-adults, female-adults, and from other children.
Not meaning to argue with you. :-)
Do your numbers include all forms of abuse? Neglect: such as leaving dirty diapers on a child long enough that the child develops Attachement-Disorders? Or drug-usage by bio-parents to develop fetal-development issues like: crack-babies, or Fetal-Alcohol-Syndrome?
Or are those numbers specifiv to sexual-abuse?
"This gender difference holds true even among babysitter offenders, although males are much less likely than females to be babysitters. Biological fathers account for two-fifths (41 percent) of all offenders"
"and stepfathers and parents’ boyfriends account for nearly one-fifth (18 percent)"
May I point out that single-parents are predominantly female, so secondary-relationships and short-term relationships are going to mostly be men. If an adult is in the home, not-related to the child, but a part of a two-adult home; that adult is most likely to be a male. I think.
I dont think that there is a huge percentage of single-men out there with children, who would have girl-freinds staying over.
"Men account for 92 percent of caretaker sex assault, 67 percent of aggravated assault, 68 percent of simple assault, and 58 percent of kidnaping offenders."
Wow.
I wonder how much of this is adult-male to child-female rape, which often leads to physical wounds, thus gets reported more quickly.
It is my understanding that in the cases of child-sexual-predators, the original abuse was not reported, as it left no physical marks. It does not 'show' until the child is mingled with younger children who are easier to over-power. In the support-group that we attend, we have both little boys and little girls who are sexual-predators. They dont always have any preferences to which sex they will abuse, it is more a matter of having an opportunity with a smaller child or a child without natural defenses [like in the case of our FAS teen].
"They also note that, as you state, even though men are less likely to be in a 'babysitter' caretaker role, their %'s of incidents seem to remain the same. And men account for 3/5ths of the total number of offenders."
Wow, I had no idea.
"Overall though, as a parent myself who's raised children and had them in many different family, school and private care situations my own interest is to the overall RISK at any time and how to handle it as much as the whether males or females are involved. There's evil in the world and evil wears many faces."
I humbly agree.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Oldies, I agree that the local believers might not have known the story behind this guy. They may have come to like him enough (read LLP's posts) that any warnings coming from an ex just sounded like the rantings of a woman with a grudge.
However...
The guy was Corps, and ordained. Didn't HQ know anything about the divorce? Didn't it concern the BOD that the stepmom got custody of MN's son? Did they wonder why the court did that?
MN also stated that "compliance with Megan's Law mandates, he said, would make it difficult for him to return to his ministerial career," according to the article. Does MN still think he has a ministerial career with TWI when he gets out of prison?
Does TWI still think so?
Hopefully, they won't hold a place for him now, after Greasespot has put this case out in the open.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
I don't think he was ordained. He was dropped long ago. Regardless of what they thought, they teach that you can discern devil spirits. Anyone else that displays traits they think are related to devil spirits gets the thumbs down treatment. They decided to support this guy over a woman and her children that needed protections. How's the discerning of spirits doing in that situation??
I guess we can lay to rest "All nine all the time" from Way speak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Linda Z:
You wrote: "Thanks for posting LLP. I appreciate hearing your point of view, and I'm glad you're here."
Sometimes we get so involved "working" over our differences, we forget to take a step back and bask in the comfort of those areas where there is no disagreement. I should have acknowledged your post sooner. Thanks for your kind words, I'm glad you're here, too.
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
LLP, you're alright.
:)--> I am still praying for you to see TWI for what it really is and I'm glad that you're trying to think logically and not emotionally refusing to see what's so horribly obvious. I'm also glad you post here even if you frustrate the he11 out of me sometimes. 
;)-->
Tumbleweed, that's priceless and I think I'll add it to the Gems thread of the board.
I've read so much recently about all the false prophecies and missed signs that the TWIts have on their record that it just amazes me how they can continue to "cover" themselves to the general TWI population. Maybe they aren't really and that's why it continues to shrink. I hope so anyway. Even the wife of an adulterous husband has to face facts eventually....whether she does something about it or not is a different story. I feel for the TWIts who don't do anything about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
LLP,
It's been over a month since we last heard from you on this topic. I'm still interested to know what your thinking on this is.
I hope you have not dismissed it, but either way, and I can't speak for everyone here, it would be very helpful to me to know how you either justified TWI's position, or have done something other with it.
Of course, if you don't want speak, that's fine too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
Yeah a few more George Muellers around would be a great asset to our world. I just loved his book Delighted in God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
LLP,
I noticed you posted on the "Anyone new here" thread. Seeing you're back, I wonder if you could take the time to tell me how or why you accepted and or justified TWI's position (since it appears you have).
Not trying to badger you. It is a question I really would appreceiate if you could answer. There's no wrong answer.
Private topic is fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Back to the top by request
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.