- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,292
- 19,101
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't really think it's that profound. They object to same-sex relationships, they don't want to affirm them, they won't place kids with those couples. There's nothing really profound there about roles or gender differences in parenting.Yes it is. They are stipulating the male and female roles and all that entails such as the need for a fathers influence rather than any other possible alternative to fill that role such as a Trans male or a female playing the role.
You raised it, and I'm saying it's not really relevant to the thread, which is about the physical abuse of children.But why does it matter,
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it's abusive, but perhaps I might say oppressive.its an obvious controlling of parental and marriage roles which relates to the same inequality, oppression and what many say is abuse of non cis and orientated people according to the Woke. So its abusive of certain people according to them which is one of the requirements similar to denting the autonomy and gender of a women by males controlling what they can and can't do.
And a bit over 50% of Australian parents use corporal punishment. So why is that not relevant?Put it this way Georgia has something near 50% of parents admitting using physical punichment and with 82% admitting to physical violence being an issue in Georgia.
I think that when abused kids grow up to abuse, it's because the beliefs which underpin abuse have been normalised for them. They, too, accept violence, hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles... it's all they've known.Given that psychological distress is well associated with a child who has been abused don't you think that they will grow up with distress and are more likely to abuse as the data says.
No, but it also means I'm not coming from a place of ignorance of the field.Well informed doesn't mean its correct.
Again, subjective value judgement. What's positive in one setting is wildly inappropriate in another.I suggest with the behaviour it produces and we certainly know what is positive or negative behaviour.
I didn't say that. I didn't say aggression "cannot" become out of control. I said that out of control aggression is not present in many instances of abuse and is not the cause of abuse.What, I linked evidence which contradicted your claim that aggression cannot become out of control and that some people are more prone to aggression than others.
That's not an unreal claim at all. Here's the APA definition of aggression: a tendency toward social dominance, threatening behavior, and hostility. It may occur sporadically or be a characteristic trait of an individual.Heres another unreal claim you make. "Aggression is not a feeling, it's a personality trait".
I think that none of this is what causes abuse.So tell me is there any difference in ability to control aggression between a person with 'trait aggressiveness' and one without. Do you think they have to work harder to control their aggression. Do you think that those who may be psychologically distressed meaning they are not good at spotting and dealing with stuff who have 'trait aggressiveness' may lose controlof their aggression sometimes compared to someone who does not have 'trait aggressiveness' or someone is has emotional intelligence and insight to control themselves.
And there are parents who don't have those struggles at all, and abuse. It's not about aggression.But this doesn't negate the fact that there are parents who have not learnt that and abuse.
No, I'm not interested, for the purposes of this thread, in smacking that doesn't amount to abuse.Your forgeting that even smacking below the line is an act of aggression.
So it's not saying that someone using "unreasonable" force is not rational, which was your rather strange claim.Thats because the law says nothing about peoples mental state full stop when it comes to crossing the line. They may hear mitigating circumstances and even reduce sentences but the law itself doesn't include peoples mental state. Its just if you cross the line its illegal or unreasonable.
No, they really aren't. You can be controlled and yet unreasonable. You can be reasonable and yet uncontrolled. These are not interchangeable terms.They are when it comes to abuse or violence against others.
And yet you may have gone over that line in quite a deliberate and controlled way.If you go over that line you have not controlled your behaviour to stay under.
Of course we always experience these things in a complex way. But we know from the research that it's not the feelings, emotions, or cognitive function of people which separates abusers from non-abusers.I don't think so. You are seperating feelings, emotions, cognition and beliefs and saying somehow they are irrelevant when they are always mixed and influencing each other. You want to isolate beliefs like they are the cause of everything when to believe means involving emotions and cognitions and our experience which we base beliefs on. Thats just a fundemental mistake in how humans and reality works.
Yes, our beliefs are formed by our experiences. Our beliefs are not formed by psychological and emotional problems, absent other influences. Abusers don't come to form the beliefs which underpin abuse simply because of psychological and emotional problems.How can that be when the basic principles about how humans come to believe in something involves a persons positive and negative experiences.
It might imply that, but the more important point is that treated mental illness is not.Then what did your link mean when it said "mental illness that is adequately treated would not be expected to lead to increased violence risk". That implies mental illness not treated is a risk factor.
This is another one of those studies looking at "child maltreatment" and bundling together neglect and different forms of abuse. I am making no claims about what does or does not cause neglect; that is not my area of expertise. But given that the significant majority of households in this study were impacted by neglect rather than other forms of abuse, my explanation for this result would be that it is likely not about physical abuse.How do you explain this evidence
Children of parents with depression or schizophrenia are 2 times more likely to experience abuse than children of parents without mental illness;
Maternal mental illness and the safety and stability of maltreated children
Children of mothers with mental illness are at risk for multiple untoward outcomes, including child maltreatment and foster care placement. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between maternal mental illness and children’s ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Given that they are measuring abuse by reports, I'd also be curious about whether abusive parents with mental illnesses are more likely to have reports made about them than abusive parents without mental illness (are parents with mental illness more exposed)?
Or it simply found different results than other studies.In light of the evidence above this is obviously not correct. So either you are reading that into it or the article itself is wrong.
Upvote
0