Who is really to blame for men killing more children?

Shuan Chaiyabhat of WREG in Memphis TN tells us in Latest Child Death Example of Growing Trends that more children are being killed by men. But who does he chose to focus on? Who does he blame? Single mothers. He writes:

FAST FACTS:
3-year-old killed by mother's boyfriend
More babies being born to single mothers
Majority of murdered kids killed by men

According to the Memphis Child Advocacy Center, it's a growing problem. Since 2007, of the 20 children murdered, most were killed by a man. That should be a warning to all single moms because killer boyfriends continue to show up on the lists of accused murderers child advocates maintain. A new report by the Urban Child Institute says of the roughly 15,000 babies born in 2007, 59 percent were born to single moms. So experts say the message to these women should be: Who will you allow in your home?

I am concerned here. Of course I am. I am a single mother. I want to protect my child from dangerous men. But the focus in this article shouldn't be the mother who was duped into believing that this man may be a good future husband and good parent to her child. The focus should be on MEN WHO KILL CHILDREN.

A better use of this reporter's time would be exploring these questions: Why is it that more men are killing children? How are we teaching our boys to become men? What are we teaching our boys and men about nurturing? What are we teaching them about the use of power and violence? How are we teaching our boys and men to express their anger? What can we do to educate our men to be better caretakers of those who are smaller, weaker, and have less power?

Yes, it is sad that a woman who has been told by all the experts that her children must have a man in their lives tried to find one, and found a dangerous one. But even the experts will tell you, men who are dangerous, don't announce that they are. Usually, men who are violent hide that from potential victims until it is too late. So, let's put the blame where it belongs.

The man killed the child. Let's blame the man. And start some discussion how we can stop men from killing children committed into their care.

But there could be larger agenda behind this attack on single mothers.

Apparently, in some states, having non-related men around can be used against single mothers should there ever be some kind of custody issue. Court appointed therapists have become more inclined to include the sexual behavior of single mothers in their reports because some children have been endangered by non-related men in the home, so they see it as poor judgement on the part of the mother. For a while, lawyers stayed away from issues surrounding sex and the single mom -- when they could be blamed for simply mudslinging. But now, they have the "research" that says having non-related men around endangers children. It's funny, however, that they don't look at the research that shows a similar pattern with having related men around. The sad truth is - statistically speaking - having a man around - related or not - increases the risk of problems. But attorneys for fathers focus only on what helps their cases. They recognize the value of fathering to help their case, but privilege the biological over the non-biological father, not recognizing that the statistical likelihood of abuse is similar.

We want fathers or father-figures in the lives of our children regardless because the benefits tend to outweigh the risks. There are many great fathers out there -- biological and not. But we have to consider how this information about abuse and men in the home is being used against single mothers. No one is using the same information to tell married women to be concerned about their husbands. But reporters, like Shuan Chaiyabhat, who reports on the rising "trend" of single mothers' boyfriends killing children, tell us that that the message to single mothers should be: "Who will you allow in your home?" The implication is -- the abuse is the woman's fault.

When we look at Shuan Chaiyabhat's article more closely, we can see it for what it is: logically flawed, full of alarmist diction, such as "killer boyfriends," and scapegoat obsessed.

I'd fail it in a freshman composition course.