But you have only advocated for 1 solution changing peoples beliefs when I think this is unreal because their beliefs are not necessarily wrong or the cause of child abuse.
If they're abusing, darned right their beliefs are wrong. Because their beliefs are allowing them to abuse!
You have reluctantly agreed that fathers should be involved but have not said or perhaps once said TF being an important part.
Because for the purposes of preventing abuse, I don't think it is. There's abuse in "traditional" families. We need to look at what causes it, not advocate for a family structure which is no guarantee of safety.
Post
#627
The physical abuse of children can be seen in the context of the prevailing values in our society, where there is a degree of acceptance of violence as a legitimate means of attaining ends. This element of violence is represented in child rearing practices where physical force is condoned and in some cases encouraged as a disciplinary measure.
This article focuses on one of the priority issues identified by the National Council for the International Year of the Family - to address the problems of family violence.
aifs.gov.au
That is not addressing the prevalence of different attitudes in different household structures, at all. Nor do any of the other links you posted below it.
Ok so I will restate, how is the plight of a single mum with psychological distress and trauma and stress overload not influence her ability to make choices.
Irrelevant. Stress doesn't make a non-abusive person abusive. It might increase the severity of abuse from an abusive person. But the stress etc. is not the cause.
Actually the clue is in the title "Centre for Independent Studies". Why would they say independent studies if it was aligned with a party.
Even a quick google showed close ties to the Liberal party.
It also states if you bothered to check rather than assume that "We seek to engage with the general public, business, media, academics, policymakers and politicians across the political spectrum".
The Centre for Independent Studies promotes free choice and individual liberty, and defends cultural freedom and the open exchange of …
www.cis.org.au
Sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't biased or pushing a particular agenda. They very clearly are.
Then that logic would mean the correlation between smoking and health problems doesn't indicate cause. Smoking doesn't cause health problems.
No; because in that instance the causative relationship is well established. But in general, you cannot look at two factors with high correlation and assume causation. You might find this helpful:
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia
So the value of fathers has no direct link to child abuse prevention or increased risk of abuse. Is that what your saying.
Pretty much, yes.
Then why did you say that fathers may believe physical punishment was ok to dispute that fathers are a protective factor.
Because that's exactly my point. Some fathers abuse; some don't. Some will intervene when others abuse, and some won't. So you can't claim "fathers are a protective factor" in an unqualified way, when some fathers are perpetrators or passive bystanders.
I have continually knocked down and provide independent evidence against your objections.
Not anything substantial. And often what you post isn't even looking at the question you claim it's answering, or it says something completely different from what you claim it's saying. Your arguments simply don't stack up.
Your more or less saying your opinion is correct no matter what is said so stop disputing it.
No. I'm saying if you want to dispute it bring something credible and robust to support your points.
What does 'not necessarily even mean. Does that mean it could be correct or it could be incorrect.
Yes. You said, "a fathers presence is a protective factor and a lack of father is a risk factor." And in some cases that is correct, and in some cases it is incorrect. Which I would have thought was blindingly obvious, given the existence of abusive fathers.
Do you agree or disagree that we need to consider the Risk and Protective factors for child abuse.
I agree, but I think saying something like, "fewer kids who [still] live with their dads are abused, so we should try to make sure all kids live with their dads because that will lower abuse," is not doing that in any way which actually takes into account the reality of abuse.
So you don't think because 70% of children in TF have no abuse that this is not a protective factor.
I think you're way oversimplifying there, including ignoring the fact that many abused kids end up leaving "traditional" family structures, which skews the figures.
Saying you don't believe seems to indicate a personal belief rather than the facts.
The
fact (on your own figures) that 30% of kids in "traditional" families are abused ought to give you pause.
Why would anyone tell a mother to stay in an abusive situation.
Because "traditional" families are so much better! (/sarcasm). Seriously, every time I've pointed out that some people are not in "traditional" household structures for good reasons, or would be worse off in such a structure, all I get from you is "Yes, but..." and waffle about encouraging people to live in traditional families.
That certainly came across as you thinking "traditional" family structure was more important, and given how common it is for mothers to be told by people pushing "traditional" family stuff that they should stay in abusive situations, if you disagree with that, it would be good if you would make it clear. And state unambiguously that some people
are better off, and safer, away from "traditional" families and that we should support them in that, and recognise that sometimes leaving the "traditional" family is reducing risk and putting needed protection - distance from the abuser - in place.
And just cut down on pushing the "traditional" family stuff in general, because it definitely sends the message that leaving an abusive situation is bad.
No one is assuming that its automatically the safest in every situation. But we can assume with confidence, with the evdience behind it that the TF is safer.
You do realise that your second sentence here contradicts the first? If nothing else, steve, you're not making your position very clear.
Like I said 70% of children in TF have no abuse. So if we compare all family structures and wanted to create an optimal setup to recommend then it would be the TF.
And on that figure, 30% of those kids would still be abused. And you'd consider that good enough? Or can we actually deal with the underlying problem instead of fixating on something that's not going to fix the problem?
I enjoy our banter and debate lol.
I actually find this discussion quite distressing.
You say "given the risk of harm from corporal punishment". Your more or less doing exactly what your claiming I should not be doing in correlating two things, child harm and corporal punishment. I thought you said correlations was not an indication of cause.
In this case, the causative relationship is well established. Beat a kid hard enough, often enough, and trauma results. It's pretty straightforward and clear.
Your also using 'Risk' as the measure and yet when I use the Risk and protective factors as the measure for abuse you claim its irrelevant.
Because you are looking at "risk that a parent will abuse," and using that to argue for something which is not directly relevant to whether or not abuse will occur. Whereas I am looking at situations where abuse is occurring and the risk of severe harm.
So whats the difference between the correlation of corporal punishment and abuse and the risk and protective factors of a fathers involvement or absence and abuse
One actually involves abuse, and the other only involves statistical probability of abuse without even a direct causative relationship.
