That is why I didn't get you the DV and incest stats, but I believe the DV stats if they are to have any meaning concerning incarceration must be based upon serious violence. People don't go to prison for pinching someone. Even smacks must be serious smacks, so it is just not the initiation of violence that counts but the actual physical damage done to the spouse/partner.

I have seen you argue that a man should be convicted for rape when the alleged victim by her own admission lived in a house with multiple adult males, who gave not verbal consent but consent by not only not stopping or saying no but encouraging her undressing and penetration but did not bother to look back to see it was her bf's brother claiming it was sex by fraud even though this guy never vocalized a word. I bring this up to show the hypocrisy of your argument you make in the above quote.

What you have said is just not true. There has been at least a dozen if not more cases that have been widely known that a young kid has been put on a sex offenders list (don't remember if they did time or not but being on that list is worse than doing time) for grabbing and only grabbing a young girls ass or breasts.

It is procedure at this point pretty much in every police department that a call to a Dom. Dispute someone must go to jail for the night and it is in the vast majority of cases the man that goes to jail. The only times that the women go to jail for the night is if she has no marks along with the man having marks and she acts like an asshole to the cops. The charges are most likely not going to be filed even in those cases.

BTW, you aren't kin to Parson Jim, are you? You guys often show up in the same thread.

James which Jim is an nickname for is one of most common names for males so why would you think we are related? Or is it that all males sound the same to you? In other words nope not related as far as I know as I have no idea who he is or anything about him.

I have to respect what Carr is doing writing a book to be an Oprah book club choice and if the rest of the book matches this quote and the bio, there is little doubt that it won't be picked.

When a woman, any woman, has issues with substances, has kids out of wedlock and ends up struggling as a single parent, she is identified by many names: slut, loser, welfare mom, burden on society.

First you have to love the structure of this sentence. He writes it with such wordiness and vagueness that this is a guaranteed head nodder. The use of women, any women at first glance suggest that it is all women and more importantly mothers that are treated like trash so all of the women and mothers can nod along at every slight real or imagined they have ever encountered. He moves on to put so many conditions that the subset he is actually talking about is small compared to the one he implies with the first 5 words.

Then lets take the conclusion he is getting at. He of course provides no supporting evidence either in the sentence or the rest of the quote and I highly doubt in the book but the conclusion is a head nodder and taken as face value by American feminists. Of course there are those out there that say on Sunday mornings that all mothers of out of wedlock mothers are sluts but lets be real this is not a common place occurrence for this to actually be said to the face or in front of single, drug using, struggling moms. Society in the form of state family court and welfare divisions usually bend over backwards to help these mothers to kick their habits and reunite the child. And if that mother comes from the middle or upper middle class where Carr lives in a drug using mom will almost never face prosecution unless they do something so recklessly that it becomes news fodder and even then they will try to reunite mother and child.

Take those same circumstances and array them over a man, and he becomes a crown prince. See him doing that dad thing and, with a flick of the wrist, the mom thing too! Why is it that the same series of overt acts committed by a male becomes somehow ennobled?

This is just make believe here. If a man is single, a drug addict, and having a hard time he would not have custody of a child period. If for some reason the mother is dead the state will take the child away immediately on finding out. Again only going by the bio and the quote the only reason he would have been able to keep custody while on crack is for the mother to either be dead or to have abandon the family and the state not to have found out about his drug use. Other wise he is the one in the billion case.

To the letter writers that thinks this some how society saying mothers have to be perfect and any mistake and moms bad while fathers get a free pass if this is true the group to blame is the National Organization of Women. It was NOW that has fought tooth and nail to insure that women get primary custody in family court. There by implying that it is only women that can raise kids correctly no matter the circumstance.