That seems strange logic.
Why? If they believed it was wrong, they wouldn't be doing it.
So what about those who believe its right and don't abuse.
Who believe it's right to abuse but don't do it? Are there many of those? Evidence please?
When they say that to stop smoking reduces the risk of health problems or lung cancer theres no guarentee that the person won't get health problems of lung cancer. But stop smoking sure helps. So we stop smoking as well as do other things to ensure good health. So both options should be promoted by encouraging TF and promoting no abuse. It doubly ensures minimising the risk of child abuse.
No, because the difference there is that smoking causes lung cancer, but being in a "traditional" family doesn't cause absence of abuse.
I am not sure what you mean now. You said I wasn't including links that mention changing attitudes, beliefs and values that physical abuse is ok to do.
No, that wasn't what I said. You claimed that particular attitudes to abuse were more prevalent in particular household structures, and I asked for evidence. I was looking for studies into the prevalence of different attitudes to abusive behaviour by household structure. I haven't seen anything looking specifically at that.
First its more than stress, the mother herself may have psychological stress which clouds her judgements and causes her to be more agressive compared to someone without that psychological distress. The psychological stress can cause her to be less in control of her emotions and more agressive thus more volnurable to lash out in situations others would not.
This is a basic fact in psychology that people under duress will react more, will act irrationally and are often more agressive.
That's a lot of hypothetical theorising. Once again I will ask for evidence that abusive parents are "out of control" when they abuse, rather than making deliberate and considered parenting decisions.
Why. Explain how they are pushing a particular agenda.
This is an opinion piece, but it's worth a read:
Are think tanks having too much influence on Australian schooling policies?
Note: "While there is an argument to be made that donors have the right to remain private, the flipside is that a lack of transparency about where money comes from means potential links between donors and the agendas pursued by think tanks remains murky. This murkiness makes it difficult to distinguish many think tanks from lobby groups, potentially pushing agendas for wealthy donors whose identities are concealed."
You look at the positions the CIS pushes, you look at who they're connected with, and the agenda becomes all too clear.
So has the correlation between absent fathers and more abuse or present and supportive fathers and less abuse.
But that's correlation, not causation! Do you actually understand the difference?
But I notice you could not bring yourself to say 'absolutely yes' which implies you have doubts on your part.
I have no doubt. You just expressed it differently than I would have (and have been throughout this thread).
But I haven't made unqualified cl;aims I have backed them with ample and clear evdience.
Sigh. Steve, an "unqualified" claim isn't one not backed by evidence (although your evidence is shaky, anyway). It's a claim that doesn't acknowledge the limitations of the claim or the instances where it may be inaccurate. In this case, saying "fathers are a protective factor" without qualifying that by acknowledging the existence of abusive or willing bystander fathers, fails to acknowledge the limitations of the claim.
When you say "some fathers do and some don't abuse" your implying that its a 50/50 chance that fathers will abuse or not and this is not the case.
No. I am not implying anything about the prevalence of abusive fathers, simply acknowledging their existence.
The far majority don't abuse when in TF. But the far majority do abuse when in non TF situations.
I don't think you've established either to be an accurate statement. Although I think it's funny, then, that it's not the presence of a mother that should be considered the protective factor, since clearly, if we accepted this picture, she'd be the one making the difference to his behaviour.
I already have and most people in the know agree.
Saying that doesn't make it true.
No your continually making false analogies.
My statement was neither an analogy, nor false.
This "some do and some don't" is an attempt to misrepresnt the actual facts by implying that its an even chance so that it hides the clear destinstion of a major difference in the presence or absence of fathers.
No. It is an attempt to have the basic fact that there is abuse in all household structures acknowledged and addressed. Absolute numbers are not my concern so much as getting to the point where we abuse is taken seriously wherever it occurs.
Here a thought experiment. If we took all the single mothers where child abuse is around 80% for kids and got dads to take repsonisbility to engage and support their kids then child abuse in these situations would come down to around lets say 30%. So thats a 50% reduction.
So many unfounded assumptions in that statements.
Your advocating for spending time and effort to educate single mums not to abuse but what about educating fathers to be good fathers.
I haven't singled out single mums for education. I have said that all parents need to be equipped not to abuse. So, yeah, that inclludes fathers. (Given that "not abusive" is a pretty low, but necessary, bar to being a "good father."
No if 70% of kids are not abused in TF then theres not many coming from TF that would have to leave.
Again, you're missing the fact that the ones that leave are then no longer counted as coming from "traditional" families. So it makes the abuse rate look lower in "traditional" families and higher elsewhere.
Your trying to make out that TF are as bad as single mums or something like that so theres no difference.
I'm not making claims about whether there's a difference or not. I want abuse addressed wherever it is; and not ignored in "traditional" families.
But not as great a pause for concern at the 80% who are abused in single parent setupss.
Every. single. abused. child. deserves our concern. Shoving kids into "traditional" household setups with abusive parents is not an answer. We have to tackle the underlying causes of the abuse.
If you say we should pause for concern about the 30% in TF shouldn't we also be concerned perhaps more than doubly concerned for the other non TF setups and child abuse.
Every child matters. Every one. Not just the ones in household setups you don't approve of.
I would go as far as saying of we set out to reduce child abuse by educating and supporting all non TF setups about abuse that there would still be high % of abuse because for these chaotic setups its more than just child abuse but rather the setup itself invites trouble no matter what.
Just the fact that you describe every non-"traditional" household as "chaotic" tells me this statement is completely biased and unrealistic.
Thats because you equate the small minority who are better off not in TF as devaluing TF when thats not the case. Your using the acceptions to make a general assumption that TF are no better at all.
I'm not making an argument about whether "traditional" families are better, or devaluing them. I'm saying that's not the key issue when we're looking at abuse prevention.
Your taking what I say and politicising it.
If you don't realise that what you're saying is politically loaded, that's on you.
Whats the the underlying problems, this needs to be established.
The fact that parents abuse. And that that abuse is driven by strong beliefs that abuse is acceptable, is justified, is normal, is harmless, and so on, so parents have no problem with continuing to use it.
Your fixated on the 30% that don't
Well, yes. In a discussion about preventing abuse, I'm fixated on people who abuse and how we impact their behaviour. Oddly, I'm not fixated on people who don't abuse, because for this discussion, they're not relevant.
Otherwise if we work on the 80% of abuse in non TF it would take a long time to get anywhere near the 30% of cases.
Steve, you need to let go of the assumption that abusive non-"traditional" households would become non-abusive by becoming "traditional," with no other changes in place. There's no evidence for that. Even if such households became "traditional," we'd still need to work on the abuse.
But thats a false comparison isn't it that doesn't relect the reality.
It's not a comparison at all. It's a statement of fact.
Anyway if you find it distressing to discuss this I will leave it at that for the time being.
I appreciate that. Although it concerns me that the reasons it's distressing - the fact that it's so difficult to get people to even acknowledge the nature of the problem - seem to be in something of a collective social blind spot.
PROVERBS 23:13-14
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
We seem to be seeing a clash between the Bible and modern thinking.
I'd be a bit more specific, and say, we perhaps see a clash between a very particular piece of ancient near eastern advice, given to us in a book of wisdom literature (which we generally don't read as commandments as such, but as worthy of reflection), and our best contemproary understanding of development, trauma, psychological health, and so on.
Here's the thing: this is not
commanding us to beat our children. It is advising it as a parenting strategy, one which, in our own situation, we may well want to rethink in the light of the best wisdom we have today (along with other pieces of ancient near eastern advice!)
After all, if we know that physical abuse - and I would definitely put beating with a rod in that category - causes lifelong harm, how can that parenting be in line with a Christian ethos, informed by Christ who came that we may have "life in abundance"? Life in abundance surely doesn't mean crippling PTSD.
