But we have no reason to believe that adding another adult into an abusive situation, without addressing the drivers of abuse, will actually prevent abuse.
No one is saying that. As I said its a multipronged approach to this problem which means addressing the current sitaution as it stands today and also working on encouraging more parents especially fathers to get involved. That could mean encouraging fathers who are seperated to get more involved (not necessarily making them get back with their partners). But also supporting more longer term efforts to establish strong families where parents take responsibility.
??? There are many kinds of abuse. Well, only the relevant ones.
Where talking about physical abuse and most physical abuse comes from trying to control kids. How else could it be abuse. Whether its a belting from a single mum, a backhand from a disgruntled boyfriend because the child didn't do what he said, or a cigarette burn because the kid wouldn't shut up, its all related to trying to control kids behaviour .
The point is the parent or step parent thinks the kid needs to stop a certain behaviour whether they did something wrong or not.
You'd need to demonstrate that with some evidence.
What, I have supplied about 20 odd articles from academia, independent policy researchers and child organisations who supplied independent evdience. Are you not reading them because you would not have claimed this otherwise.
But even so, it doesn't matter. Because the problem of abuse will exist wherever those attitudes exist, and they exist across the spectrum of household structures. Household structures are neither the cause of, nor the solution to, the problem.
Yes they are according to the experts. I just gave you the evidence that family structure is part of the solution. It prevents abuse simple fact. When looking at solutions we look at the Risk and Protective factors with any wellbeing issue. Family structure can be a risk or protective factor.
Only if the actual causative factors remain unchanged.
Actually even just the presence of a loving father will make a difference regardless of the cause. A father more involved will protect their kids for example against non biological partners who don't have as much vested interest in the child. That alone without will protect kids. The father will report any signs of abuse if not confront the abuser themselves as its their biological kid. Its simple nature.
That's the same paper I linked to earlier to show you that many of your own arguments are flawed because they are misinterpreting the evidence!
How so. Lets just take the statement I linked. How is this not saying that family structure also needs to be considered. Read the plain englich they did not make that statement without understanding the context in which abuse happens. Once again it clearly says
these studies also clearly show a role for selection in the relationship between family structure and child outcomes.
They said the studies they did on child abuse clearly (not maybe or not we actual mean something else) but clearly that family structure plays a role in relation to child abuse. But heres the science. Several other articles said the same thing and when the same findings are repeated by independent sources its good science.
Only if the people being more involved are actually equipped to not abuse.
I would say encouraging parents and fathers to get more involved because its prevents child abuse logically follows that this also means being equipped. But naturally on average biological parents are more protective as 70% of such setups prevents all child abuse without being equipped because they naturally have a vested interest more than anyone else in protecting their kids.
But at least you are beginning to acknowledge that its an option by implying that if they are equipped then it would be good for kids rather than just dismissing the idea out of the hat.
Who's been able to link to studies saying the same thing.
No you havn't, I think you have linked maybe 2 articles. Certainly nowhere in the same variety of different evidence from independent sources all saying the same thing. Most of your arguement is just your opinion which is not necessarily fact.
Then stop blaming it on the kids' behaviour. Seriously. Just stop. It's utterly vile to blame child victims of abuse for what is done to them.
Can you show me where I blamed kids for child abuse or are you reading that into things. In fact I have said earlier its not the kids fault.
That one is looking at, when children are victims of abuse, whether family structure makes a difference in how much damage it does, and saying that extended family helps reduce the impact of abuse. It's not even talking about how much abuse occurs, but how much damage is incurred when abuse occurs, and saying that (for example) care from grandparents is beneficial. Which makes sense, but doesn't really relate to any of the arguments you've been making.
Because your approach doesn't want to even acknowledge the problem of abuse in your preferred household structure, and would do absolutely nothing to address it. And from where I'm sitting, that's just not good enough. Abused children in "traditional" families deserve better than our society turning a blind eye because we care more about enforcing an ideology of family, than we do about actually dealing with the root causes of abusive parenting.
Its funny I have noticed when I linked 2 or 3 articles you always pick out one and stay silent on the others.
Child victimisation or abuse its much the same as far as protecting child from negative life outcomes. The point was the article was saying that family structure plays an important role.
Sure grandparents are also good support in reducing abuse and better than single parenting or at least will help minimize negative outcomes for single parents. But the point was that you were saying family structure has nothing to do with it and the articles states it does.
It does hurt, though. Making it all about trying to encourage a particular household structure doesn't acknowledge the very good reasons people aren't in that household structure in the first place. It would push people who would be better off in other situations into a situation that is harmful for them. And it would completely fail to actually address the causes driving abusive behaviour, leaving cycles of abuse to be perpetuated.
See once again your misrepresenting what I said. I have not said we should force parents to get back together though I think we have failed to perhaps save a lot of marriages with our casual and indifferent attitudes to marriage and easy divorce. But no I am not saying that. Nor am I making it all about one solution. Ultimately the optimal solution is stronger families and tahst been a recognised fundemental basis for stronger societies for millenia.
I have advocated for a multipronged solution that includes supporting families as they are, also encouraging parents especially fathers to get more involved and looking at the societal and policy level of encouraging better attitues and values about family and parenting. This is not some radical thing but something most people believe is just common sense.
I'm a survivor of this abuse. My ideological motive is to see abuse stopped, and I have very little inclination to pander to people who want to get in the way of that.
Well I'm a father and don't want a world where child abuse happens. Unfortunately it does. I was given the belt on occassions by my dad when young. I remember my mu saying just wait till your father gets home. Even my mum has slapped me a couple of times when I was really naughty. But that didn't do me any harm. What did the most harm was when my parents split, that sent me off the rails and it took a long time to overcome.
Then there are good reasons why some people aren't in your preferred household structure. How about we afford them the basic courtesy and respect of acknowledging that.
No one is denying them the courtesy and respect. As I said its a multipronged approach which includes supporting people in existing families regardless of their setup.
Perhaps its the breakdown in marriage and families as to why some people aren't in traditional families, have you ever considered that. But still 70% of kids don't experience abuse in what you call my preferred family setup which isn't really my preferred setup but what the evdience states as the preferred setup as far as protecting kids from abuse.
I don't believe that, and if you want me to even consider it, you'll have to produce some significantly robust evidence.
I though I already did. The simple fact that single parenthood is highly associated with poverty, stress and the trauma of broken families points to single parents being under more pressure.
I mean the poor single mums not only have to content with more behavioural problems from their kids due to family breakup but also do this while experiencing their own psychological problems from the breakup and stress of single parenting. Its a double whammy and bad mix that will lead to conflict and chaos.
Single mothers are more likely than cohabitating mothers (mothers who live with a spouse or partner; Kendig & Bianchi, 2008) to experience episodic and chronic depression, anxiety, substance abuse, stressful life events, low self-esteem, social isolation, and lack of emotional support.
More specifically, single mothers were significantly more likely than cohabitating mothers to engage in psychologically controlling parenting behaviors
We hypothesized that single mothers would be more likely than cohabitating mothers to engage in negative parenting behaviors, which would predict adolescent psychopathology prospectively. Single mothers were more likely to engage in psychologically controlling behaviors.
Children raised in single-mother families are at increased risk for psychopathology, but the mechanisms that help explain this relationship are understudied. In a community sample of diverse adolescents (N= 385, 52% female, 48% Caucasian) and their ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Studies report that single mothers are at a higher risk for psychological stress than married mothers. Cumulation of several stressors causes a significant increase in stress in the domain resulting from the child's behavior and characteristics, i.e. single mothers with several simultaneously occurring stressors experience many times more stress especially in this domain than those who are affected by only one stressor.
Sole mothers are more likely than other women to experience debilitating psychological health problems.
The psychological health of sole mothers in Australia
www.mja.com.au
Isn't it interesting that not one of their five areas of recommendation there relate to household structure.
Not in those exact words but if you consider one of the recommendations was to promote health child development through family relationships approaches then that is related to family structure.
But nevertheless its also interesting that you latch onto a single article and ignore 10 others which do mention family structure. Seems a little bias don't you think.
