Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

But then you get all the dictionaries saying something like, Oxford a system in which the people within a company or organization are organized into levels according to the authority they have: and Cambridge a system or organization in which people or things are arranged according to their importance.

I copied that definition from dictionary.com. Hierarchy in marriage might be fairly simple, but it's still hierarchy.

Nevertheless a Hierarchy within a marriage is not necessarily abusive.

But it does provide one of the conditions within which abuse is more likely to occur, because it disempowers one person relative to the other. Remember that abuse is driven by belief by one person that they have the right to control the other.

But thats not what intersectionality is according to CRT.

The word now has application far beyond CRT. And with regard to domestic violence, it may have nothing to do with race at all.

your sneaky lol.

I have very carefully avoided flaming you, I would appreciate the same courtesy in turn.

I am not sure what that had to do with anything. You somehow equated that because I had worked in behavioural change program that I must not criticise programs that use ideology. I am not sure what your point was.

My point was that if you had been involved with such programmes, I would be astonished if you were saying they were ineffective.

Part of the ideology to prevent DV is gender equality including all genders and the idea that gender is a social construction. Its a fundemental basis for all State sanctioned abuse and violence approaches including child abuse. There will be equivelant ideology applied to child abuse prevention and behavioural change programs.

Not so much, because IPV is driven by inequality between men and women. But the abuse of children has a different problem; the inequality between adults and children. And to some degree that's something that can't be changed, we can only help adults to handle their power and control of children responsibly.

Wait a minute your contradicting yourself. You just said you have always said its more than just awareness but also what forms our attitudes and beliefs and also our personal history.

Yes. Because abuse is driven by the beliefs and attitudes of the abuser; so in preventing abuse we need to deal with what forms our attitudes and beliefs. This is why I have insisted all along that abuse prevention is not just "awareness campaigns."

So how is say personal mental history like past abuse not contribute to why someone abuses, why someone may form a belief that abuse is ok.

You are misunderstanding what I mean. An abuse survivor may be the person most determined to break the cycle of abuse. When I talk about personal history I am talking about the things which influence our beliefs and attitudes, and that's deeply personal, it's not as simple as "past abusers will abuse in turn."

The question is how do I know that every single piece I linked is nonsense and irreleevant if you have given me nothing but kept it all in your own head.

I have pulled out key aspects and critiqued them, shown you where you have misread or misunderstood particular claims, where they don't say what you have claimed they say, and given you pieces which show the flaws in particular approaches. Since you haven't engaged meaningfully with any of that, why on earth would I waste my time going through the masses of things repeating the same mistakes?

 

[stevevw]

I copied that definition from dictionary.com. Hierarchy in marriage might be fairly simple, but it's still hierarchy.

Ok so we have 3 different definitions. But anyway.

But it does provide one of the conditions within which abuse is more likely to occur, because it disempowers one person relative to the other. Remember that abuse is driven by belief by one person that they have the right to control the other.

You just identified the crucial ingredient that identifies abuse and power control the individual or group who do the abusing. Not the marriage itself or the company or social structure. People end up in positions of differing power and control by nature, by natural evolution of things.

There are many differing positions of power and control in work, health, sports, education, wealth, politics ect that are just the natural way of things. Everywhere there is unequal and different power and control relationships. So really everywhere can be identified as the ingredients where abuse happens according to your logic. Thats why I say its a narrow way to look at the world where everyone is either a victim or oppressor.

The word now has application far beyond CRT. And with regard to domestic violence, it may have nothing to do with race at all.

Yes but its identified as being associated with CRT because of the other language it uses like equity, quotas, affirmative actions and sex assigned at birth which is a dead giveaway.

My point was that if you had been involved with such programmes, I would be astonished if you were saying they were ineffective.

Your trying to create some fallacy that I must also think all preventative programs must be good because I have been involved in effective ones and therefore all must be good so I have no justification in criticising other programs. The logic doesn't follow.

Not so much, because IPV is driven by inequality between men and women. But the abuse of children has a different problem; the inequality between adults and children. And to some degree that's something that can't be changed, we can only help adults to handle their power and control of children responsibly.

But the adult represents the child in the world. Thats the connection back to adults. So the state of the parent, their mental and emotional state and the conditions they are subjected to become the childs problem as well or end up being reflected back on the child. So if the parent is in a disadvantaged and unequal and disempowered situation that will effect the child as well.

Yes. Because abuse is driven by the beliefs and attitudes of the abuser; so in preventing abuse we need to deal with what forms our attitudes and beliefs. This is why I have insisted all along that abuse prevention is not just "awareness campaigns."

But remember way earlier when I said people are primed to believe and you objected. Now you finally agree when you say what forms the belief in the first place. So belief is just a symptom of something else underlying the belief that causes people to believe and these are the practical everyday conditions people end up in. Like I said its like the chicken and the egg.

You are misunderstanding what I mean. An abuse survivor may be the person most determined to break the cycle of abuse.

But that doesn't change the fact they are in the high risk group for abuse being committed against a child. It doesn't change the fact that if they do become someone who breaks the cycle of abuse they are emotionally resilent and intelligent which comes from the protective factors.

When I talk about personal history I am talking about the things which influence our beliefs and attitudes, and that's deeply personal, it's not as simple as "past abusers will abuse in turn."

If its deeply personal then this supports the idea that individual psychological distress and the conditions people are subjected to contribute to that personal history which cul;tivated in them thiwse beliefs and behaviours.

I have pulled out key aspects and critiqued them, shown you where you have misread or misunderstood particular claims, where they don't say what you have claimed they say, and given you pieces which show the flaws in particular approaches. Since you haven't engaged meaningfully with any of that, why on earth would I waste my time going through the masses of things repeating the same mistakes?

Not really you give rationalisations but they are fallacious. For example I said poverty is highly associated with physical abuse and gave several links. You chose to respond to one out of all those with an objection that they were not speaking about physical abuse. I then showed you where they were speaking about physical abuse.

Then you again objected that this was not about physical abuse itself but reports of physical abuse which itself was a fallacy because it was still about potential physical abuse as the reports spiked directly with financial shock.

You then acknowledged that an increase in physical abuse reports is a still risk factor and even more serious then a red flag as to the possibility of actual physical abuse occuring.

This was related to me saying how an increase or decrease in economic circumstances can directly be measured with an increase and descrease in abuse.

So I did uphold that claim but in your mind you think you have defeated it which you have not.

 

[Paidiske]

You just identified the crucial ingredient that identifies abuse and power control the individual or group who do the abusing. Not the marriage itself or the company or social structure. People end up in positions of differing power and control by nature, by natural evolution of things.

There are many differing positions of power and control in work, health, sports, education, wealth, politics ect that are just the natural way of things. Everywhere there is unequal and different power and control relationships. So really everywhere can be identified as the ingredients where abuse happens according to your logic. Thats why I say its a narrow way to look at the world where everyone is either a victim or oppressor.

However, a marriage structure which people invest as giving one party to the marriage power and control over the other, gives rise to and reinforces the beliefs which drive abuse. This is why gender inequality is a key driver of domestic violence.

There is no "natural" reason why marriage should be seen as a structure of hierarchy, power and control.

Yes but its identified as being associated with CRT because of the other language it uses like equity, quotas, affirmative actions and sex assigned at birth which is a dead giveaway.

"Sex assigned at birth" has nothing to do with race, let alone CRT. This is part of what I mean when I say you throw together unrelated ideas and claim something which is not supported by the sources.

Your trying to create some fallacy that I must also think all preventative programs must be good because I have been involved in effective ones and therefore all must be good so I have no justification in criticising other programs. The logic doesn't follow.

Well, you weren't very clear about any distinction you wanted to make between effective and ineffective programmes. It seemed you were just dismissing them all.

But the adult represents the child in the world.

?? What do you mean by this?

But remember way earlier when I said people are primed to believe and you objected.

I objected because you were claiming this for things which have nothing to do with what forms our beliefs and attitudes on the key matters which drive abuse.

But that doesn't change the fact they are in the high risk group

And this is why I'm objecting to this way of characterising people. An abuse survivor may be among the most committed to not perpetuating abuse, and yet you'd lump them into a "high risk" group based on something that has nothing to do with their attitudes or beliefs at all.

Not really you give rationalisations but they are fallacious. For example I said poverty is highly associated with physical abuse and gave several links. You chose to respond to one out of all those with an objection that they were not speaking about physical abuse. I then showed you where they were speaking about physical abuse.

Then you agains objected that this was not about physical abuse itself but reports of physical abuse which itself was a fallacy because it was still about physical abuse reports increasing due to financial shock. You then acknowledged that an increase in physical abuse is a risk factor and more serious then a red flag as to the possibility of actual physical abuse.

To my mind, this seriously misrepresents our exchange. You do not admit that various kinds of abuse and neglect were being conflated, despite being quite separate problems. You do not admit that reporting levels are not accurate measures of actual abuse. And I absolutely did not agree that an increase in reports is a "risk factor" or a red flag; I said that reports, unlike any other "risk factor" you proposed, indicate actual abuse taking place, but could not be generalised to a wider group.

I also gave you sources which discredit the claim that poverty drives abuse at all, but that abuse reporting rates differ between socioeconomic groups for other reasons, but you dismissed it as "ideological."

So I did uphold that claim

Yeah, no. You persisted in it despite it being seriously discredited.

 

[stevevw]

However, a marriage structure which people invest as giving one party to the marriage power and control over the other, gives rise to and reinforces the beliefs which drive abuse. This is why gender inequality is a key driver of domestic violence.

There is no "natural" reason why marriage should be seen as a structure of hierarchy, power and control.

But you keep conflating the marriage itself as the cause for abused power and control when its the individual who abuses and not the marriage itself. Like I said the new trad wife movement makes the wife 'less powerful and in control' because they are not able to be independent and work. She is in some ways dependent of her husband financially.

But they choose this setup and its not abusive or no one is controlling anymore in a purposely abusive way. It may be the opposite where the father stays at home. Its just a natural way they choose to set their family up to how they believe is best for their children and the overall happiness and functionality of the family.

"Sex assigned at birth" has nothing to do with race, let alone CRT. This is part of what I mean when I say you throw together unrelated ideas and claim something which is not supported by the sources.

Its not unrelated though. I am citing the belief that 'sex is assigned at birth to show that this is the type of belief ideologues have with CRT. It was evidence to show that the language is about CRT because it comes from the same ideology. So its relevant.

Well, you weren't very clear about any distinction you wanted to make between effective and ineffective programmes. It seemed you were just dismissing them all.

No I said that its not just about wrong beliefs and attitudes but about which beliefs and attitudes we should adopt to prevent abuse. So I was making the destinction between how we measure what are the 'right ones' the right beliefs about equality and justice ect.

I made myself very clear that there can be harmful ways of ordering society even in the name of good prevention programs. In no way that is saying that all programs are bad but rather the need to detsingusih them. You conflated this to undermine my claim that your example of a so called 'right way' to prevent abuse may very well be the wrong way' or 'wrong one' as you say.

?? What do you mean by this?

The parent represents the child in the world. So if the parent is disadvantaged, disempowered and victimised then the child is disadvantaged, disempowered and victimised. So there is a connection to the wider society like with DV and power, control and oppressive relations.

I objected because you were claiming this for things which have nothing to do with what forms our beliefs and attitudes on the key matters which drive abuse.

But they do and you just acknowledge this. You said that their personal histories will drive them to believe and have attitudes for abuse. What are their personal histories but the individual experiences and conditions they find themselves in like disadvantage, mental illness, severe stress, substance abuse ect.

These all not only create a higher risk of abuse they also prime people to believe abuse is ok. They go hand in hand. As opposed to people just coming to a belief that abuse is ok out of thin air. Its the individual, family and social conditions people find themselves in that prime the person and create the risk.

And this is why I'm objecting to this way of characterising people. An abuse survivor may be among the most committed to not perpetuating abuse, and yet you'd lump them into a "high risk" group based on something that has nothing to do with their attitudes or beliefs at all.

No if they are doing stuff where they are not at risk then they are not in the risk group but are in the protective factor group. Your conflating the two.

The parent who is not at risk are doing things that put them into a completely different group (the Protective factors). Just as the Risk factors reveal the negative situations, beliefs and individual state the Protective factors reveal the person or groups positive thinking, beliefs and conditions they have created to avoid becomeing a risk.

But as you have been doing throughout this entire thread your conflating the two and not seeing the destinction.

To my mind, this seriously misrepresents our exchange. You do not admit that various kinds of abuse and neglect were being conflated, despite being quite separate problems.

But I did when I said that even if this was just about increased reports its still a serious risk and red flag for actual physical abuse potential being higher. You agreed so I cannot see how I am misrepresenting things.

You agreed that as the article said when there is financial shock and there is a spike in physical abuse reports that this is still a risk factor and red flag for potential physical abuse that we must take seriously. My point was to show how economic status can increase or decrease abuse.

So that article even though it doesn't state 'physical abuse itself' has actually risen the risk of increased reports itself is serious enough to be a risk that leads to increased possible physical abuse compared to other groups who don't have such a spike in reports. Its plan and simple and clear as day and you agree with the logic.

You do not admit that reporting levels are not accurate measures of actual abuse.

My point was it did not matter because the fact that they were even talking about increased reports of physical abuse was itself a red flag for physical abuse. You acknowledged this. Thus even increased reporting of physical abuse is a risk factor for physical abuse compared to other groups who don't have an increase reporting of physical abuse.

I explain this ealier and I am sure you understood this but you continued with the fallacy that the article had nothing to do with physical abuse. The spike in increased reports from financial shock was not a concern for actual potential physical abuse.

In other words I went along with your logic that increased reports may not mean actual increased abuse and still supported the arguement with increased reports that link increases and decreases in the risk of physical abuse which was my whole point. That we can measure increases and descreases in the risk for physical abuse in certain groups and situations. So you did not defeat this with your objection that reports are not real abuse.

And I absolutely did not agree that an increase in reports is a "risk factor" or a red flag;

You said "Every report deserves to be taken seriously and responded to. That's beyond a red flag." That makes even increased reports of physical abuse itself a risk factor for potential actual abuse if its a serious enough to be beyond a red flag and deserve to be responded to.

So anywhere we see increased reports of physical abuse its a risk factor for physical abuse and can help us identify where physical abuse is more likely to happen. Likewise as the report said a descrease in finances with financial shock will increase that risk and compensation will decrease that risk. That links poverty or financial wellbeing directly to increased abuse and for helping to decrease abuse.

I said that reports, unlike any other "risk factor" you proposed, indicate actual abuse taking place, but could not be generalised to a wider group.

That was not my point, that is what you used to create a false analogy to divert it away from my point was that poverty was the risk factor for increased physical abuse and that the increase in reports for physical abuse due to increased financial shock was the evdience.

I also gave you sources which discredit the claim that poverty drives abuse at all, but that abuse reporting rates differ between socioeconomic groups for other reasons, but you dismissed it as "ideological."

I don't suppose you could relink that article. I did look at it but can't be bothered finding it.

What your forgetting is that poverty is one risk factor and its the combination of accumulated risk factors that build towards abuse. Poverty just happens top be one of those risk factors for a lot of things because its so devastating and brings other problems like homelessness, substance abuse, mental illness, crime, poor health, lack of education which all can contribute.

But evenso as with the above having supported that increases and decreases in finances is directly linked to increases and decreases in reproting for physical abuse and thus a risk for actual physical abuse and the many others I linked saying the same. How is one article hold such weight over the several I linked. But even this one article above is enough.

Parental stress and physical violence against children during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a population-based survey in Germany

Parental stress and physical violence against children during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a population-based survey in Germany - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

Background Parents and caregivers belonged to those with the highest burdens during the COVID-pandemic. Considering the close link between parental stress and child maltreatment, identifying families with high parental stress is of utmost importance to prevent violence against children. Within...

capmh.biomedcentral.com

Note that the above article is talking about "violence against children", not just neglect but 'physical violence' against children.

Berger et al. (2011) showed an increased risk of physical abuse during the economic recession, which was a time marked with increased unemployment.

https://bettercarenetwork.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/1-s2.0-S0190740919308527-main.pdf

This following article explains how financial disadvantage brings not only neglect but deteriorates into stress and then physical abuse as poverty brings other risk factors.

"The neglect starts in a benign way, maybe not getting school books or clothes but quickly, as stress takes hold, it can deteriorate to parents using alcohol and kids being left to their own devices."

The risk of physical abuse also rises.

"Parents under stress may struggle to manage their own emotional state so, in a stressful environment, they might overreact to something and hurt a child while trying to discipline them."

How cash crunch can impact on child abuse

The financial downturn has created a "recipe for a crisis" for Australian children, who face greater risk of abuse just as child protection groups face cuts to services, a child welfare expert says.

www.smh.com.au

Combined with prior research, our results suggested interventions to improve financial well-being may be a novel way to reduce physical IPV perpetration.

Associations of financial stressors and physical intimate partner violence perpetration - PMC

Contextual factors, such as exposure to stressors, may be antecedents to IPV perpetration. These contextual factors may be amenable to modification through intervention and prevention. However, few studies have examined specific contextual factors. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Severe and persistent stress can overload our ability to manage emotions. This helps to explain why child abuse and neglect rates have historically increased during recessions. We also know that reducing family economic burdens and adding supports can make a huge difference, quickly.

Research has shown that providing families with stronger household financial security through economic supports is a primary prevention strategy that reduces stress and therefore the likelihood of incidences of abuse and neglect. We can create a more equitable system by investing upstream in families.

What happens when we support families through economic supports? | Positive Childhood Alliance NC

We can build strong, safe, stable families by building concrete economic supports, unlocking the potential to invest in effective public policy that can prevent child maltreatment and reduce foster care entries.

preventchildabusenc.org

Increasing household financial security is a primary prevention for reducing and preventing child abuse including physical abuse and neglect.

Yeah, no. You persisted in it despite it being seriously discredited.

Seriously discredits, you weren't even refuting the right point but some strawman.

 

[Paidiske]

But you keep conflating the marriage itself as a means for power and control when its the individual who abuses and not the marriage itself.

The individual abuses, but they can't do that unless they are within a structure that lets them. And for many people, marriage is exactly that.

Its not unrelated though. I am citing the belief that 'sex is assigned at birth to show that this is the type of belief ideologues have with CRT. It was evidence to show that the language is about CRT because it comes from the same ideology. So its relevant.

Neither of these things have anything to do with domestic violence prevention! You are making objections because someone used some language in a resource, which has some (perceived) connection to something unrelated to the topic of the resource, to which you have an objection.

The parent represents the child in the world. So if the parent is disadvantaged, disempowered and victimised then the child is disadvantaged, disempowered and victimised. So there is a connection to the wider society like with DV and power, control and oppressive relations.

What there is not, however, is a situation where a disadvantaged parent becomes someone who physically abuses their child. There is no causative relationship there.

You said that their personal histories will drive them to believe and have attitudes for abuse. What are their personal histories but the individual experiences and conditions they find themselves in like disadvantage, mental illness, severe stress, substance abuse ect.

Having been disadvantaged doesn't form the beliefs which underpin abuse. Nor does mental illness or severe stress or the like. Being taught or having modelled or experiencing social norms which normalise violence, power and control, rigid roles, and so on, do.

No if they are doing stuff where they are not at risk then they are not in the risk group but are in the protective factor group.

Doing what "stuff"? If they don't hold attitudes and beliefs which justify abuse, they're not in the risk group. Anything else is irrelevant.

But I did when I said that even if this was just about increased reports its still a serious risk and red flag for actual physical abuse potential being higher. You agreed so I cannot see how I am misrepresenting things.

That's not even responding to the point I was making, which was wanting to distinguish between, say, physical abuse and neglect, which are quite different things.

You agreed that as the article said when there is financial shock and there is a spike in physical abuse reports that this is still a risk factor and red flag for potential physical abuse that we must take seriously.

No, I did not. I said when we get reports, there is abuse. It's not a risk factor. It's not a red flag for potential abuse. It's a report of actual abuse.

My point was to show how economic status can increase or decrease abuse.

But you didn't.

Its plan and simple and clear as day and you agree with the logic.

No.

My point was it did not matter

Well, of course it does. If you want to measure whether something affects abuse, you need an accurate measure of abuse.

I explain this ealier and I am sure you understood this but you continued with the fallacy that the article had nothing to do with physical abuse.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. I said it didn't establish what you were claiming.

That makes even increased reports of physical abuse itself a risk factor for potential actual abuse if its a serious enough to be beyond a red flag and deserve to be responded to.

It's not a risk factor. It's not, at that point, a statistical calculation. It's a report. But you can't generalise from that report to any other household or group.

that is what you used to create a false analogy

What false analogy? I was, if anything, closing off a false analogy by saying a report only gives you reliable information about the household concerned.

I don't suppose you could relink that article. I did look at it but can't be bothered finding it.

Nope. I've made my point. If you can't be bothered, that's on you.

How is one article hold such weight over the several I linked.

Because it demonstrated that the shared methodology and underlying assumptions were flawed. Repeating a mistake several times doesn't make it any less of a mistake.

 

[stevevw]

The individual abuses, but they can't do that unless they are within a structure that lets them. And for many people, marriage is exactly that.

Actually that would be any situation where two people are in some sort of relationship be it siblings, child over parent, parent over child, business partners, defacto relations, SS relationships, friends or housemates.

So marriage should not be considered a relationship that causes more abuse itself no more than any other relationships. In other words marriage itself is not the risk factor or a red flag for abuse its the people in it.

Neither of these things have anything to do with domestic violence prevention! You are making objections because someone used some language in a resource, which has some (perceived) connection to something unrelated to the topic of the resource, to which you have an objection.

Yes it does. Domestic violence prevention is about gender equality. The idea of sex assigned at birth is about gender equality because its gender inclusive and supports gender equality.

If we want to support gender equality for women in overcoming abuse then I would have thought the same logic applies to other genders which means recognising diverse genders. Opposing the idea of sex assigned at birth is denying gender equality like women and is regarded as oppressive and even abusive.

What there is not, however, is a situation where a disadvantaged parent becomes someone who physically abuses their child. There is no causative relationship there.

I don't know what you mean by causative relationship. You seem to be saying because there is no 'causative relationship' that disadvantage and disorders or dysfunctional conditions are irrelevant for higher risk of abuse.

Having been disadvantaged doesn't form the beliefs which underpin abuse. Nor does mental illness or severe stress or the like. Being taught or having modelled or experiencing social norms which normalise violence, power and control, rigid roles, and so on, do.

Yes it does according to the research. People are primed to believe in violence and abuse. The conditions they are subjected to are what cultivates their hate, anxiety, anger, basically negative emotions making it more likely they have negative attitudes to believe in negative stuff like violence and abuse of others as a way to deal with life.

Doing what "stuff"?

Doing the 'Protective Factors as opposed to the Risk Factors. By doing or having the Protective Factors you avoid the Risk Factors.

If they don't hold attitudes and beliefs which justify abuse, they're not in the risk group. Anything else is irrelevant.

Thats what I said, "if they are doing stuff where they are not at risk then they are not in the risk group but are in the protective factor group". Thats how you tell.

But say they had risk factors which we can measure clearly because they are grounded in data and this gives us increased predicting power to know where abuse is more likely to happen. What measure is used to determine a person or group have attitudes and beliefs that abuse is ok. How do you tell.

At least with the risk factors we have clear measures because they actually represent the higher % of people performing the abuse in those particular risk situations.

That's not even responding to the point I was making, which was wanting to distinguish between, say, physical abuse and neglect, which are quite different things.

But it was my original point that you somehow made it into something else which I was also happy to address. But it gets confusing when you do that as we lose what the original point was which was that poverty or economic status or financial shock are directly linked to increases and decreases in abuse.

No, I did not. I said when we get reports, there is abuse. It's not a risk factor. It's not a red flag for potential abuse. It's a report of actual abuse.

Ok so as you say a report is for actual abuse I was saying that this is serious enough that we should treat it like its potential real physical abuse happening in that group more often than other groups. Are you with me so far.

But you didn't.

lol that is what we were trying to sort and havn't finished yet. You can't claim an arguements defeated when all the evidence has not been checked properly. Lets just say my paper showed an increase in reports of physical abuse due to financial shock. Agreed.

No.

The reason why I didn't acknowledge the different forms of abuse in the article is because it was irrelevant. It didn't matter because the article was about how neglect and physical abuse reports rose with financial shock. It was still talking about physical abuse. There may be different paths these abuses take due to financial shock in that neglect is about not having the money to look after a child properly.

But as the article said and what all the other articles say is that there is also a pathway from financial shock or economic setbacks to physical abuse through stress and other risks that come as a result.

Well, of course it does. If you want to measure whether something affects abuse, you need an accurate measure of abuse.

And that is what these papers are doing. It mentions the stress and other issues that come with financial shock or economic hardships being the path to parents having a higher risk of commiting physical abuse.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. I said it didn't establish what you were claiming.

Yes it did. What was I claiming. I was claiming that financial shock and severe financial hardship are a risk factor for physical abuse. That we can identify a decrease and increase in rates and risks for abuse with increases and decreases in severe financial hardships. I think the articles upport that claim. Even if we use increased reports for physical abuse because they are potential real abuse that needs to be taken seriously as a risk factor.

It's not a risk factor. It's not, at that point, a statistical calculation. It's a report. But you can't generalise from that report to any other household or group.

At what point are you saying it should be at to establish it as a real risk factor. I would have thought because increased reports can potential be about real abuse happening as I think most are verified then this is a risk factor for abuse for that group.

I agree you can't generalise to all other groups but you can identify a higher risk for all groups that fall within the disadvantaged and increased financial shock group.

So when for example a sudden society wide setback happens like the GFC or Covid we can know that all existing lowest economic status populations will have higher risk due to the financial shock which then causes stress, relationship conflict, anxiety, possible substance abuse ect (additional risk factors for abuse) putting them at highest risk.

What false analogy? I was, if anything, closing off a false analogy by saying a report only gives you reliable information about the household concerned.

No it actually gives reliable information about the conditions people live in as well over populations. So if more individual families have higher rates of abuse within a risk group such as identified being poor and suffering financial shock then all groups throughout the nation who are poor and suffer financial shock will come under that risk factor.

The same with past abuse. This will tell us that all families throughout the nation whose parent has experienced past abuse has a higher risk of committing abuse themselves.

It may not tell us which families exactly but it does tell us that there will more, a higher number of families effected in that group that we should be concerned about. And the more risk factors that greater the liklihood of actual abuse.

So someone with low economic status, financial shock as well as past abuse the risk % increases. For some situation the risk can be as high as 70 times greater which is something to be concerned about.

PS: I notice you are awefully quiet about the links I included in this post to support my claims.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually that would be any situation where two people are in some sort of relationship be it siblings, child over parent, parent over child, business partners, defacto relations, SS relationships, friends or housemates.

The point is that marriage can be structured in ways which give one partner power over the other. Yes, that can also be true of other relationships, but that doesn't make it less true of marriage.

So marriage should not be considered a relationship that causes more abuse itself no more than any other relationships.

But nobody claimed that.

In other words marriage itself is not the risk factor or a red flag for abuse its the people in it.

However... in societies in which marriage is structured in such a way as to give one party power over the other (for example, marriages in which wives vow to obey, or marriages in which the husband has financial control, or the like), marriage can provide the conditions which form abusive attitudes, and the conditions in which it is more difficult to challenge or escape the abuse.

Domestic violence prevention is about gender equality. The idea of sex assigned at birth is about gender equality because its gender inclusive and supports gender equality.

The matter of equality between men and women is separate to the matter of how we handle the gender identity of transgendered people.

I don't know what you mean by causative relationship.

Cause and effect. That one thing directly causes the other.

You seem to be saying because there is no 'causative relationship' that disadvantage and disorders or dysfunctional conditions are irrelevant for higher risk of abuse.

Yes.

Yes it does according to the research.

You certainly have not presented any evidence that people who have experienced disadvantage are more likely to accept violence, to value rigid roles, hierarchy, power and control.

Thats what I said, "if they are doing stuff where they are not at risk then they are not in the risk group but are in the protective factor group". Thats how you tell.

Except that you want to include all sorts of things as risk and protective factors which are actually irrelevant.

What measure is used to determine a person or group have attitudes and beliefs that abuse is ok. How do you tell.

At the moment I'm not aware that we have good instruments for this, but it would be far more useful to develop one, than to judge people on irrelevant measures.

But it was my original point that you somehow made it into something else which I was also happy to address. But it gets confusing when you do that as we lose what the original point was which was that poverty or economic status or financial shock are directly linked to increases and decreases in abuse.

What I did was point out why your source for this claim didn't actually establish this point.

Ok so as you say a report is for actual abuse I was saying that this is serious enough that we should treat it like its potential real physical abuse happening in that group more often than other groups. Are you with me so far.

Absolutely not. I do not agree with stereotyping groups in this way.

Lets just say my paper showed an increase in reports of physical abuse due to financial shock. Agreed.

I believe (without going back to check) it was an increase in reports of "child mistreatment," which includes but is not limited to physical abuse. This leaves you with two problems; we don't know how much, if any, of that was physical abuse, and we don't know if the increase in reports actually reflects any change in the incidence of "child maltreatment," let alone physical abuse in particular.

The reason why I didn't acknowledge the different forms of abuse in the article is because it was irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If you want to claim that x thing causes a rise in physical abuse, you need to measure physical abuse. Otherwise the rise might actually all be in, say, neglect, and not in physical abuse at all.

And that is what these papers are doing.

Well, no. You can't lump a whole bunch of different things into one category, measure that one category, and then claim anything specific about one component on its own.

Yes it did.

No, it didn't, for all the reasons I've just outlined again.

At what point are you saying it should be at to establish it as a real risk factor. I would have thought because increased reports can potential be about real abuse happening as I think most are verified then this is a risk factor for abuse for that group.

I reject the whole idea of using "risk factors" to categorise groups in this way.

PS: I notice you are awefully quiet about the links I included in this post to support my claims.

You edited them in after I replied. I don't have time to look at them right now, although at a glance some look interesting and some look like they're repeating the same kinds of problems.

 

[stevevw]

You certainly have not presented any evidence that people who have experienced disadvantage are more likely to accept violence, to value rigid roles, hierarchy, power and control.

First lets clarify something. When I say disadvantaged in the context of abuse and violence as I have said many times being disadvantaged often involves other risks. For example disadvantaged often means low socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status is associated with a number of other stressors such as poor education, unemployment, homelessness, substance abuse and these are highly associated with anxiety and deperessive disorders and other psychological and emotional dysfunction.

It is the accumulation of these risk factors or stressors that lead to a higher risk and incident of abuse and violence. As the evidence shows the pathway to physical abuse due to disadvantage and low socioeconomic status is the additional stressors both environmental and on the parents mental and emotional states.

Experiencing poverty can place a lot of stress on families, which may increase the risk for child abuse and neglect. Rates of child abuse and neglect are 5 times higher for children in families with low socioeconomic status.
Fast Facts: Preventing Child Abuse & Neglect |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

That being said here is the evidence I previously posted and some additional ones.

Development of the Parent Irrational Beliefs Scale*
The results of study showed that the irrational beliefs about parenting were significantly associated with level of parental stress (Graeves, 1997; Mcdonalt, 1993; Starko, 1991) and depression (Eryüksel & Akün, 2003), perceived parenting efficacy (Ackerman, 1991), parent-adolescent conflict (Robin ve Foster, 1989).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936304.pdf

Correlation Between Perceived Stress, Sense of Entrapment, and Irrational Beliefs of Mothers
There is a positive significant correlation between “mothers’ perceived stress and their feelings of entrapment” and also between “mothers’ feelings of entrapment and their irrational beliefs”.
https://www.cjmb.org/uploads/pdf/pdf_CJMB_551.pdf

How Anxiety Causes Irrational Thoughts - and Vice Versa
Particularly unusual or irrational thoughts are typically a symptom of chronic or severe anxiety. Irrational thoughts are likely also caused by your environment as well. By environment, we're talking about everything you've ever experienced, seen, heard, etc. Studies have shown that long term stress can actually create anxiety, and thus create irrational thoughts.

How Anxiety Causes Irrational Thoughts - and Vice Versa

www.calmclinic.com

Anxiety and irrational thoughts: The link
Irrational thoughts (beliefs my emphasis) are a coping mechanism. Some mental health conditions that may lead to persistent irrational thoughts include: anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, personality disorders, substance use disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and eating disorders.
How to Manage Irrational Thoughts and Cognitive Distortions

Irrational Beliefs and Psychological Distress: A Meta-Analysis
Irrational beliefs were positively associated with various types of distress, such as general distress, anxiety, depression, anger, and guilt. Irrational beliefs and distress are moderately connected to each other; this relationship remains significant even after controlling for several potential covariates.
Irrational Beliefs and Psychological Distress: A Meta-Analysis - PubMed

The development and validation of the Parent Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale
Irrational and rational cognitions/beliefs are evaluative cognitive structures. Irrational thinking has been consistently associated with psychopathology; in contrast, rational thinking is considered important for resiliency.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811022749

 

[Paidiske]

the pathway to physical abuse due to disadvantage and low socioeconomic status is the additional stressors both environmental and on the parents mental and emotional states.

You haven't provided any evidence for such a pathway, only asserted it. And you have not demonstrated how such a pathway would form the requisite attitudes and beliefs, only asserted it.

As to your links, I make the same objections I have made before; your first link has the same problem of conflating different forms of abuse and neglect, rather than singling out physical abuse; and abuse does not rest on "irrational beliefs."

 

[stevevw]

The point is that marriage can be structured in ways which give one partner power over the other. Yes, that can also be true of other relationships, but that doesn't make it less true of marriage.

I'm just saying its the same level of true for all those situations and marriage is no different. I guess I don't like the institution or organisation or partnership itself to be classed as abusive when its the human who is abusive,.

However... in societies in which marriage is structured in such a way as to give one party power over the other (for example, marriages in which wives vow to obey,

Does the marriage vows say to love, honor and obey. The bible says husbands and wives should obey each other be servants to each other.

or marriages in which the husband has financial control, or the like), marriage can provide the conditions which form abusive attitudes, and the conditions in which it is more difficult to challenge or escape the abuse.

Any agreement people go into written or unwritten can provide the conditions.

The matter of equality between men and women is separate to the matter of how we handle the gender identity of transgendered people.

Its seperate as in they that have different needs and relationships to heterosexual couples but as far as equality of gender and males oppressing and abusing females its the same for oppression and abuse between SS couples and gender diverse couples. They will face the same inequality, descrimination and abuse because of their gender.

Cause and effect. That one thing directly causes the other.

Ok so as the papers said financial shock and economic distress directly increased the risk of phycial abuse and compensation or financial security directly decreased abuse.

Yes.

That cannot possibly be right with all the evidence. They say exactly the opposite and theres no way to misunderstand them.

Another reason its impossible is that even your links and many others say that part of prevention is helping parents overcome their past trauma and psychological problems as well as improving their financial status.

Another reasons it seems impossible is that as I have pointed out changing or avoiding conditions like financial shock or prolonged povertry directly increases or decreases abuse.

Except that you want to include all sorts of things as risk and protective factors which are actually irrelevant.

No I am including the risks and protective factors based on the evidence that makes them risk and protective factors. The same type and standard of evidence that provess smoking or poor diet is a risj factor for heart disease and not smoking, healthy diet and exercise are a protective factor.

At the moment I'm not aware that we have good instruments for this, but it would be far more useful to develop one, than to judge people on irrelevant measures.

This seems back to front thinking. The logic is we havn't got a measure of belief and attitudes for child abuse so we are limied in identification and working in the dark. While at the same time rejecting evidnece that shows certain situations have up to a 70 times greater risk for abuse because of some assumption they are irrelevant.

If someone has a 70 times greater risk for any negative issue we would quickly recognise and acknowledge the situation as a higher risk.

What I did was point out why your source for this claim didn't actually establish this point.

No you actually first made the claim that the paper was not talking about physical abuse but neglect or rather did not destingusih whether disadvantage and low socio economic status led to increased physical abuse.

I then pointed out that the article did say that there was an increase in reports for PA through stressors which you said is not actual abuse. I then asked whether reports for PA indicates a red flag for higher risk of actual PA which you agreed and should be taken seriously.

So I did established the link for a higher risk of PA by low socio economic status through the pathway of stressors and thus is a risk factor for PA itself.

As you just acknowledged you were only talking about one source and ignored the others. So I added some more backup to my point with further links you ignored originally which clearly show the direct link. If you want to claim I havn't established this point then you have to explain why so many credible articles say the same things as the one you dispute.

Absolutely not. I do not agree with stereotyping groups in this way.

Then you do not agree to all approaches that use the Risk Factors to identify higher risk of certain environments and behaviours. You do not agree that pointing out the higher risks of over eating and lack of exercise for obesity because it sterotypes people overweight. Is that correct.

I believe (without going back to check) it was an increase in reports of "child mistreatment," which includes but is not limited to physical abuse. This leaves you with two problems; we don't know how much, if any, of that was physical abuse, and we don't know if the increase in reports actually reflects any change in the incidence of "child maltreatment," let alone physical abuse in particular.

This shows that you are not paying attention or choosing to dismiss and ignore important facts to avoid acknowledging the truth of my claim. THis may explain much of why you are misrepresenting my arguements because you are basing them on false assumptions about what I actually am saying.

Here is what the link actually said.
Without compensatory benefits, shocks were associated with a 27% increase in any investigation, a 38% increase in physical abuse investigations, and a 25% increase in neglect investigations.

https://research.hud.ac.uk/media/assets/document/hhs/RelationshipBetweenPovertyChildAbuseandNeglect_Report.pdf

So it seperates physical abuse which has a 38% increase in reports and investigations. In fact as I pointed out to you earlier this is actually a bigger increase in reports for neglect. So if anything economic shock was causing more PA then neglect.

 

[stevevw]

I reject the whole idea of using "risk factors" to categorise groups in this way.

Its not categorising groups but rather the situation that creates the risk. That is where I think you are going wrong. Your poersonalising and politicising things.

You edited them in after I replied. I don't have time to look at them right now, although at a glance some look interesting and some look like they're repeating the same kinds of problems.

Yes sorry I explained this in another post. When I re-read my post I thought I should add some further support to back up my point.

 

[Paidiske]

Does the marriage vows say to love, honor and obey.

It used to be (and I guess, in some traditions/places still is the case) that only the wife vowed to obey.

Any agreement people go into written or unwritten can provide the conditions.

Well, no. Agreements can be deliberately structured to be egalitarian, and to provide necessary protections.

Its seperate as in they that have different needs and relationships to heterosexual couples but as far as equality of gender and males oppressing and abusing females its the same for oppression and abuse between SS couples and gender diverse couples. They will face the same inequality, descrimination and abuse because of their gender.

A non sequitur to what I was actually saying.

Ok so as the papers said financial shock and economic distress directly increased the risk of phycial abuse and compensation or financial security directly decreased abuse.

They didn't show that. At best they showed a different rate of reporting under different situations. More work would need to be done to establish whether underlying abuse was being reflected in changed reporting patterns.

That cannot possibly be right with all the evidence.

Nonetheless, that is my understanding.

They say exactly the opposite

They don't.

and theres no way to misunderstand them.

My guess is that there are, in fact, many ways to misunderstand them; since it seems to me that you misunderstand them.

No I am including the risks and protective factors based on the evidence that makes them risk and protective factors.

Statistical correlation is not evidence of causation.

The same type and standard of evidence that provess smoking or poor diet is a risj factor for heart disease and not smoking, healthy diet and exercise are a protective factor.

Except heart disease is not a chosen behaviour. Abuse is.

No you actually first made the claim that the paper was not talking about physical abuse but neglect or rather did not destingusih whether disadvantage and low socio economic status led to increased physical abuse.

Correct. It talked about "child maltreatment," but that was a category which included multiple forms of abuse, including neglect, and did not distinguish physical abuse in particular.

I then pointed out that the article did say that there was an increase in reports for PA through stressors which you said is not actual abuse.

Indeed.

I then asked whether reports for PA indicates a red flag for higher risk of actual PA which you agreed and should be taken seriously.

No. I did not agree. I said a report indicates an incidence of abuse but cannot be generalised to higher risk in any other household.

If you want to claim I havn't established this point then you have to explain why so many credible articles say the same things as the one you dispute.

Repeating a bad argument doesn't make it any better.

Then you do not agree to all approaches that use the Risk Factors to identify higher risk of certain environments and behaviours. You do not agree that pointing out the higher risks of over eating and lack of exercise for obesity because it sterotypes people overweight. Is that correct.

I do not agree that we should consider abuse the same way we consider public health issues. It's not a public health issue. It's chosen behaviour.

So if anything economic shock was causing more PA then neglect.

It was causing more reports. One thing I'd be fascinated to investigate further was whether those households had, in fact, been experiencing abuse for some time before the economic shock, but the economic shock in some way finally triggered the report.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't provided any evidence for such a pathway, only asserted it.

How can you know this if you only read the first one. Your quick to dimiss.

And you have not demonstrated how such a pathway would form the requisite attitudes and beliefs, only asserted it.

Are you serious. The links posted actually explain the pathways. One is even in the heading "Correlation Between Perceived Stress, Sense of Entrapment, and Irrational Beliefs of Mothers" Thats the pathway how warped perceptions cause by stress and anxiety lead to a sense of threat and entrapment which then leads to being primed to take on irrational ideas and beliefs to protect ones self and their world. This includes controlling and abusive behaviour of others.

I am not sure what you want as far as the pathway. I have provided plenty of evidence that shows disadvantaged and low socioeconomic status brings other stressors like mental illness including (anxiety and depression). I have shown that psychological disturbance like anxiety disorders lead to cognitive errors in thinking and irrational beliefs such as percieving threat when theres none. I have shown that this leads to controlling behaviours in parents and abuse.

As to your links, I make the same objections I have made before; your first link has the same problem of conflating different forms of abuse and neglect, rather than singling out physical abuse;

The first observation seems to be that you are not disputing that stressors associated with economic hardship and shock can lead to some maltreatment but just not physical abuse. So that more or less supports my claim that economic status and stressors can compromise parents ability to care properly for their kids.

The second is you only make this claim for one of the 8 links. Once again you form judgements on poor research and factual basis.

The third the first article does state its also about physical abuse in the heading "Fast Facts: Preventing Child Abuse & Neglect". Its seperating abuse and neglect as two different things. Physical abuse comes under child abuse.

But it also clarifies its talking about physical abuse when it states "This issue includes all types of abuse and neglect of a child". So it includes physical abuse. Also here "Children who are abused and neglected may suffer immediate physical injuries such as cuts, bruises, or broken bones".

The point was actually about forming irrational beliefs about abuse and not actual abuse so it didn't matter.
But what I find ironic is that at least I am trying to support what I am saying. You keep dimissing things with unsupported assertions like " I don't believe this or that is true".

and abuse does not rest on "irrational beliefs."

We have already gone through this. Theres no way anyone can rationalise in any objective and coherent way based on reasoning facts that damaging a human baby or child is good for their health and wellbeing.

Saying that a person can rationalize harming kids in obvious ways can be logical or rational to the abuser and therefore we cannot determine if these thoughts and beliefs actually stand up to facts and reality does not make those thoughts and beliefs rational in any objective way.

And that is what we are trying to determine what is abuse and what is not to prevent it. We can clearly draw a line between damaging a human baby and child or not and therefore what is rational as a belkief in line with those facts and reality.

 

[Paidiske]

How can you know this if you only read the first one. Your quick to dimiss.

I can look at what the study is actually measuring or analysing and see if it's relevant. A lot of them aren't.

Are you serious. The links posted actually explain the pathways. One is even in the heading "Correlation Between Perceived Stress, Sense of Entrapment, and Irrational Beliefs of Mothers" Thats the pathway how warped perceptions cause by stress and anxiety lead to a sense of threat and entrapment which then leads to being primed to take on irrational ideas and beliefs to protect ones self and their world.

"Irrational beliefs" is not the same as the beliefs which underpin abuse. Which are not necessarily even irrational.

I am not sure what you want as far as the pathway.

I would consider a study which measured the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse, before and after the claimed cause of abuse, and which showed an increase in those beliefs after the claimed cause, in the same cohort, to be evidence which deserved to be considered, especially if it also offered an explanation for how the claimed cause created the rise in those specific beliefs.

The first observation seems to be that you are not disputing that stressors associated with economic hardship and shock can lead to some maltreatment but just not physical abuse.

I am saying it is impossible to tell from that study.

The second is you only make this claim for one of the 8 links.

You post many similar links; I'm not going to go through every single one.

The third the first article does state its also about physical abuse in the heading "Fast Facts: Preventing Child Abuse & Neglect". Its seperating abuse and neglect as two different things. Physical abuse comes under child abuse.

It doesn't measure them separately, though.

You keep dimissing things with unsupported assertions like " I don't believe this or that is true".

If you want to make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Theres no way anyone can rationalise in any objective and coherent way based on reasoning facts that damaging a human baby or child is good for their health and wellbeing.

That is blatantly false. That is exactly what people who use physical abuse as discipline do.

Any argument about what causes abuse that rests on the argument that abusers are irrational in their thinking is going to be completely off base, because they often aren't.

 

[stevevw]

It used to be (and I guess, in some traditions/places still is the case) that only the wife vowed to obey.

The point being even biblically it says that we must obey others, be of service, sacrifice our own wants in loving and caring for others. In other words duty and sacrifice to the marriage or relationship or family.

A non sequitur to what I was actually saying.

How is it a non sequiturwhen in both situations its about gender equality and rights. Whatever applies to a relationship with women and men applies to relationships with gender diverse people. For example a trans women is abusing their partner to is a biological women. Or a biological man is abusing a trans women. Denying their status as a women or trans women or gender diverse person.

Its the same principles and attitudes on which violence and abuse is based. Its just a different gender. Its still gender abuse and denial of their autonomy.

They didn't show that. At best they showed a different rate of reporting under different situations.

No they just showed the data for increased reports for which physical abuse increased the most. It doesn't matter about what the situations were because it was about how many reports. Remembering you said even increased reports regardless of the situation is a very serious matter we should be concerned about.

More work would need to be done to establish whether underlying abuse was being reflected in changed reporting patterns.

Yes so the increased reports for physical abuse are serious and need further investigation. The further investigation is based on the elevated risk for actual physical abuse. Therefore we give more attention to this group and investigate further as compared to another group who do not show any increase in PA reports or with no reports at all.

Nonetheless, that is my understanding.

I am glad you said my understanding as this is a subjective and unqualified opinion rather than a claim based on facts.

They don't.

I notice when I persist you only give short unsupported replies. How does the reply "They don't" explain why they don't when you have not even read them or commented on them.

My guess is that there are, in fact, many ways to misunderstand them; since it seems to me that you misunderstand them.

How do you misunderstand several articles that may say the same thing in plain english and mean what they say. For example when they all say poverty and low socioeconomic status is either directly or closely linked to physical abuse. Why would they say that and then not mean it.

Or when they say child abuse is caused by a number of factors and theres no single factor. How can they mean something else or be misunderstanding their own research on this matter.

This is a common ploy by some who have no arguement to the facts. They then claim people don't really understand, theres some special considerations that they all have missed that only I know. Everyone is wrong except for me.

Statistical correlation is not evidence of causation.

It doesn't matter. If they are correlated then they are associated outcomes with that behaviour or situation enough that we take them seriously as a risk to children. For example theres a 70% greater risk for a infant being killed by a non biological partner of a single mother. Do we not take this seriously as a higher risk for infants because it may not be the cause. It may not be the direct cause but its certainly a contributing factor.

Except heart disease is not a chosen behaviour. Abuse is.

Yes it is. If you choose to smoke or have a poor diet and exercise (lifestyle choice) that abuses your body and leads to a higher risk of heart disease and eventually a heart attack that is a chosen behaviour. I have shot down this objection before.

Correct. It talked about "child maltreatment," but that was a category which included multiple forms of abuse, including neglect, and did not distinguish physical abuse in particular.

Yes it did when it said under the heading 'Can benefits protect against maltreatment?' it said Without compensatory benefits, financial shocks were associated with "a 38% increase in physical abuse investigations".

Indeed.

But you did acknowledge it was a risk for potential physical abuse. Or at least a serious issue that we need to investigate further. It is also a fact that a large number of reports turn out to be validated. So this is also a risk for actual abuse.

No. I did not agree. I said a report indicates an incidence of abuse but cannot be generalised to higher risk in any other household.

I am talking about a higher risk for that situation and not specific households. The risk for low socio economic status and suffering financial shock. We can then look at situations where there is low economic status and financial shock and increase compensation to avoid increases in PA reports as the article said.

Repeating a bad argument doesn't make it any better.

Are you saying the articles themselves are making bad arguements. All of them even those from professionals in child protection and wellbeing.

I do not agree that we should consider abuse the same way we consider public health issues. It's not a public health issue. It's chosen behaviour.

Public health issues include wellbeing. Smoking, drinking, drugs, poor diets, lack of exercise, speeding, theres a lot of behaviour that is chosen that is classed as a public health and wellbeing issue.

It was causing more reports. One thing I'd be fascinated to investigate further was whether those households had, in fact, been experiencing abuse for some time before the economic shock, but the economic shock in some way finally triggered the report.

How do you know that, You were just saying the article did not specify details about the PA and now your conjecturing all sorts of things when it benefits your objections.

Heres the issue. From the data we get increased reports of PA. We need to take that seriously as a risk factor for PA there and then and not hestitate because we don't know whether the abuse was happening for a long time or not.

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't but you don't dismiss this because of some unknown variables. Risk factor means theres a higher risk and not that it is actually happening. We have to take the risk seriously.

But I would say as neglect and abuse is already connected to lowe socio economic status and the related distress there would probably be a high proportion who were already abusing. But the financial shock pushed some to the point where it became known by neighbours and police. For others the financial shock may have lead to the initial PA.

There may have been neglect and emotional abuse already going on. But I would say for the majority there was already some abuse going on as financial shock doesn't have the same effect for parents who are not abusing or don't have any emotional abuse or neglect but rather have the protective factors.

The protective factors is what prevents them from developing into abusers. Like how the compensation helps reduce increases in reports. The extra money relieved the stress and reduced some of the risk and avoided increases in reports. The same as the other articles which showed increasing financial support prevented abuse.

 

[stevevw]

I can look at what the study is actually measuring or analysing and see if it's relevant. A lot of them aren't.

You say that but you don't tell me. Its all in your own head. If you were looking at the articles and you found its irelevant rather than just make some unsupported claim explain why its irrelevant.

"Irrational beliefs" is not the same as the beliefs which underpin abuse. Which are not necessarily even irrational.

You say that like some expert in psychology. How do you know this. I have studied psychology for years and at Uni. What academic qualifications do you have for making such a claim.

Notice how the article was talking about teh irrational thinking and beliefs or mothers. Why would it be that their condition causes them to think and belief irrational in their life except for when it comes to dealing with their child they suddenly become superhuman and all their psycological distress and thinking is cured.

I would consider a study which measured the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse, before and after the claimed cause of abuse, and which showed an increase in those beliefs after the claimed cause, in the same cohort, to be evidence which deserved to be considered, especially if it also offered an explanation for how the claimed cause created the rise in those specific beliefs.

I think that would be hard in lining up all these things to happen in such a coordinated way let along be ethical. But we do have this evdience from single studies which do link say irrational thinking and beliefs to psychological disorders and then seperate studies which link psychological disorders with lack of emotional regulation and agreesive and violent behaviour. Or in the case of parenting controlling and rigid parenting which can turn abusive.

This is good science as its showing the connections from two seperate and independent paths. It would be like showing that smokers or unhealthy people have certain thinking and beliefs and then showing that unhealthy people suffer more sickness. Its joining the dots.

I am saying it is impossible to tell from that study.

You post many similar links; I'm not going to go through every single one.

No they are not similar and you could not know because you admit not reading them. But even if some are making the assumption they are all exactly the same and attributing what you read in oine to all are all logical fallacies and not basis to make any claims that the evdience is irrelevant or wrong.

It doesn't measure them separately, though.

Thats not the point. The point is even though it doesn't measure them seperately it still states that physical abuse in involved. Your equating that because they don't specifiy then theres not PA involved at all. But there is and because there is there is a risk for PA happening.

Thats unless you want to take the gamble and dismiss the concern because you havn't got the exact numbers. None of this negates that PA is happening at least more than for groups where there is no increase or no reports of abuse at all.

If you want to make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I do but thats when you make your unsupported assertions after I post the evdience.

That is blatantly false. That is exactly what people who use physical abuse as discipline do.

No they don't. They do not use reasoning based on objective facts. Remember Rational thinking is critical thinking, is reasoning against the objective facts of what is real and unreal. Its a way of telling irrational thinking from rational thinking. I've said this many times and you still persist with this mistruth.

Let me ask you how do we tell irrational thinking from rational thinking.

Any argument about what causes abuse that rests on the argument that abusers are irrational in their thinking is going to be completely off base, because they often aren't.

Once again how do you know, It may be they often are irrational in their thinking. I mentioned Mum Rage a real problem where a mother becomes irrational enraged and finds it hard to control their emotions.

I gave evdience that parents suffering from psychological disorders like anxiety can develop irrational thinking. In fact we all engage in irrational thinking. Its just that those under stress and psychological issues suffer this more often.

Once again I noticed you ignored the links especially the ones which directly refute your claim that the articles were not speaking about physical abuse. ie you said

I believe (without going back to check) it was an increase in reports of "child mistreatment," which includes but is not limited to physical abuse. This leaves you with two problems; we don't know how much, if any,

But we do because it told us which you dismissed.
Without compensatory benefits, shocks were associated with a 38% increase in physical abuse investigations

So my point was upheld.

 

[Paidiske]

The point being even biblically it says that we must obey others, be of service, sacrifice our own wants in loving and caring for others. In other words duty and sacrifice to the marriage or relationship or family.

Sure. But the point is not to create a situation where one party to the marriage is a tyrant to the other.

How is it a non sequiturwhen in both situations its about gender equality and rights.

My point was that gender equality between men and women was separate to how we handle the gender identity of transgendered people. You then made some unrelated point about same-sex couples or gender diverse couples.

Whatever applies to a relationship with women and men applies to relationships with gender diverse people.

I don't think that's entirely true.

It doesn't matter about what the situations were because it was about how many reports.

The situations matter if you're trying to claim particular situations cause abuse.

The further investigation is based on the elevated risk for actual physical abuse.

You mean, actual reports? I should blinking well hope we investigate actual reports (rather than assumptions about risk).

I notice when I persist you only give short unsupported replies.

Because we've been over and over this. I've given longer and more detailed replies. If you then keep repeating the same flawed arguments, I am not of a mind to repeat myself.

How do you misunderstand several articles that may say the same thing in plain english and mean what they say.

Steve, I have given you examples where I've read through an article you claim is stating one thing, and pulled out the quote where it says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

So the question "how do you misunderstand?" is not really best directed at me!

For example when they all say poverty and low socioeconomic status is either directly or closely linked to physical abuse.

That's not the same as causing it, though. And when we start to recognise that part of the reason this perception is in place is because abuse often goes unrecognised in higher socioeconomic households, we start to see that any claims about a causative relationship are very shaky indeed.

Or when they say child abuse is caused by a number of factors and theres no single factor. How can they mean something else or be misunderstanding their own research on this matter.

Most of the time they've demonstrated no causative relationship between any of those factors and abuse. They've stretched from a statistical correlation to causation without any evidence.

It doesn't matter.

If you want to claim "x causes abuse," of course it matters. You'd better front up with some evidence that it's more than correlation. Otherwise you end up (for example) claiming that ice cream sales cause abuse because ice cream sales correlate with abuse reports (but really, it's the underlying heat affecting both).

If they are correlated then they are associated outcomes with that behaviour or situation enough that we take them seriously as a risk to children. For example theres a 70% greater risk for a infant being killed by a non biological partner of a single mother. Do we not take this seriously as a higher risk for infants because it may not be the cause. It may not be the direct cause but its certainly a contributing factor.

If it's not the cause, then (for example) trying to prevent blended households is irrelevant as an abuse prevention strategy.

Yes it is. If you choose to smoke or have a poor diet and exercise (lifestyle choice) that abuses your body and leads to a higher risk of heart disease and eventually a heart attack that is a chosen behaviour. I have shot down this objection before.

Sorry, but your argument here doesn't wash. Yes, someone can choose to smoke and have a higher risk of heart disease. But someone doesn't choose to do something that leads to a higher risk of abuse; they directly choose to abuse. It is absolutely not the same.

Yes it did when it said under the heading 'Can benefits protect against maltreatment?' it said Without compensatory benefits, financial shocks were associated with "a 38% increase in physical abuse investigations".

An increase in investigations is not an increase in abuse!

But you did acknowledge it was a risk for potential physical abuse.

No. That's not what I said. A report is not a "risk." It is a report; a disclosure; an instance of abuse. At that point we're beyond statistical probability, and we are also not able to generalise from that instance to any wider group.

I am talking about a higher risk for that situation and not specific households.

I know; and that's what I'm pushing back against.

Are you saying the articles themselves are making bad arguements. All of them even those from professionals in child protection and wellbeing.

Some of them, yes, and I have given you sources explaining why.

Public health issues include wellbeing. Smoking, drinking, drugs, poor diets, lack of exercise, speeding, theres a lot of behaviour that is chosen that is classed as a public health and wellbeing issue.

Many of those are quite different to abuse in that abuse is a much more direct choice, though.

How do you know that,

I don't. That's why my sentence began with "One thing I'd be fascinated to investigate further..." It's a hypothesis I would like to see tested. I can, for example, see how economic shock could bring abusive households into contact with welfare or social workers for the first time, creating relationships and trust in which abuse could be disclosed.

But I would say for the majority there was already some abuse going on as financial shock doesn't have the same effect for parents who are not abusing or don't have any emotional abuse or neglect but rather have the protective factors.

Well, I'd argue more that since parents who abuse in situations of financial shock are likely to have held the beliefs which underpin abuse before financial shock, it is very likely that there was already abuse going on.

You say that but you don't tell me.

This is a forum thread, not an academic discussion. I am not obliged to reply to every single point made, or respond to every single link posted. I do so enough to demonstrate the problems with your argument, but I am not going to do more than that.

You say that like some expert in psychology. How do you know this. I have studied psychology for years and at Uni. What academic qualifications do you have for making such a claim.

I'm not going to claim particular expertise in psychology (although I did a bit across my different degrees), but I can critically read sources. Studies which measure unspecified "irrational beliefs" are not even measuring the beliefs which drive abuse. Nor have you given any study which shows that the very specific beliefs which drive abuse are held irrationally. Claiming that because a study says stress increases irrational beliefs, it must be driving abuse, is missing a whole bunch of necessary steps in that argument.

I think that would be hard in lining up all these things to happen in such a coordinated way let along be ethical.

I think I can see how it would be done. But I am not arguing that it could, or even that it should. I'm simply outlining the standard of evidence I'd consider robust enough to support your claim.

But we do have this evdience from single studies which do link say irrational thinking and beliefs to psychological disorders and then seperate studies which link psychological disorders with lack of emotional regulation and agreesive and violent behaviour. Or in the case of parenting controlling and rigid parenting which can turn abusive.

This is good science as its showing the connections from two seperate and independent paths.

Umm, no. It's not good science to take the sets of answers to two quite different questions, neither of which directly address your question, and then draw conclusions on your question.

No they are not similar and you could not know because you admit not reading them.

I can skim an abstract.

Thats not the point. The point is even though it doesn't measure them seperately it still states that physical abuse in involved.
Your equating that because they don't specifiy then theres not PA involved at all. But there is and because there is there is a risk for PA happening.

I'm not saying there's no physical abuse. I'm saying that if the basket of behaviours called "child mistreatment" is bigger, but the forms of child mistreatment aren't being measured separately, you can't tell which forms of mistreatment are increasing under particular conditions.

My argument is not about risk. It's about causes. You can't use this to demonstrate causes.

No they don't. They do not use reasoning based on objective facts.

You said "Theres no way anyone can rationalise in any objective and coherent way based on reasoning facts..."

But you yourself have done that, in this thread! For corporal punishment in schools in other cultures, for example. It's exactly the same. People who are abusive do rationalise their behaviour. They are not all irrational, and their abuse is not resting on "irrational beliefs."

As long as you keep claiming that, I think you're going to quite miss the point about abuse. It's chosen by people who believe it is justified.

Once again how do you know, It may be they often are irrational in their thinking.

We know because we have studied the beliefs and attitudes of believers in depth. We know exactly which beliefs drive abuse. And while they might be ethically problematic, they are not "irrational."

Without compensatory benefits, shocks were associated with a 38% increase in physical abuse investigations

So my point was upheld.

Again, an increase in investigations is not the same as an increase in abuse. That kind of basic flaw undermines your whole argument.

 

[stevevw]

My point was that gender equality between men and women was separate to how we handle the gender identity of transgendered people. You then made some unrelated point about same-sex couples or gender diverse couples.

I don't think gender diverse people are a seperate issue though as far as the principle involved. Just like race is relevant in abuse between couples so is gender. Its any abuse and control of one gender over another.

The dynamics may be different and I agree we need to tailor the support and prevention according to the specific gender but the logic and reasoning is the same as far as the attitudes and disempowering of one gender or sex over another.

I don't think that's entirely true.

It does as far as the perpetrators attitudes about demeaning and using violence and control over their partner no matter what gender or sex they are. A female can abuse a male so a transwomen (male) can abuse a biological women. In fact as the transwomen is really a male then they can have the male traits of more agression and act much like a abusing male acts.

The situations matter if you're trying to claim particular situations cause abuse.

Like I said its not about cause but what situations increase the risk of abuse. The article was showing how financial shock increased physical abuse by 38% and neglect by 27% I think. If compensation is given this increase is reduced and avoided. So though it may not be the individual cause of PA its a contributing factor that increases the risk of it happening.

You mean, actual reports? I should blinking well hope we investigate actual reports (rather than assumptions about risk).

So in other words treat the higher risk as though its real or potentially real. Like its actual physical abuse that is happening or poytentially happening.

So in that case as I said the article was showing how there was a real higher risk for PA due to economic hardships and shocks. Its a risk factor. If that same group had say mental illness or substance abuse as well which are usually at a higher risk in this group as well then that increases the risk again to be more likely.

Steve, I have given you examples where I've read through an article you claim is stating one thing, and pulled out the quote where it says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

Your talking about the article that said they did not destinguish from neglect and PA and that neglect was the most likely risk from poverty.

But I showed you that this was wrong when I linked evdience that PA was directly associated with poverty with other papers. So you have found a contradiction in one of the articles but that doesn't prove that PA was not directly linked. You take that one contradiction and run with it like its the only conclusion that is correct.

So the question "how do you misunderstand?" is not really best directed at me!

The point was most people would understand this like myself. Its like 2 + 2 = 4. Theres no hidden message saying the clear statements they make have a second meaning. They say what they mean and mean what they say.

For example when they say child abuse doesn't have a single cause. How else can you take this but it doesn't have a single cause. Its not as if they say somewhere in the article "oh sorry we meant to say child abuse has a single cause'. I think you make stuff up to muddy the waters. So long as you throw some objections it can bring doubt.

That's not the same as causing it, though.

It doesn't matter for the purposes of identifying where it happens more and then trying to prevent that risk factor happening with protective factors.

As there is no single cause I think this is a strange way to understand abuse rather than look at it holistically as a multipronged issue where risk increases due to a number of factors. That is the actual cause the combination of risk factors either building towards abuse or away from abuse with protective factors.

And when we start to recognise that part of the reason this perception is in place is because abuse often goes unrecognised in higher socioeconomic households, we start to see that any claims about a causative relationship are very shaky indeed.

Thats because lookiung at this problem from a single cause will skew things. Like say socioeconomic status is not itself a single cause of abuse. So yes being poor or rich itself is not the cause. But its the combination of risk factors. But the data will show that theres something like a 5 times higher risk in having a low economic status because that comes with other problems like money stress and anxiety, poor education and unemployment, substance abuse and homelessness.

Whereas higher socioeconomic status avoids most of those additional risks and is less likely to have a higher risk. We cannot say wealthy people have a higher risk in that sense. But at the same time we cannot say there is no risk at all. Perhaps we can identify the particular higher risk for wealthier people. Like you said one maybe that they can believe they are more priviledged or enjoy power over others. But once again being wealthy is not a cause either.

Most of the time they've demonstrated no causative relationship between any of those factors and abuse. They've stretched from a statistical correlation to causation without any evidence.

Maybe thats where your going wrong by treating each risk factor as a cause when they are an association or influencing factor that increases the risk of abuse. Like smoking is not a cause of heart attacks but a contributing factor. Add to that poor diet, no exercise and stress and the likihood increases towards a heart attack.

They have proved each and every risk factors link to the issue. The link between abuse and past parent experience of abuse, anxiety and depressive disorders, low socioeconomic status, severe stress, substance abuse, poor education, have all been linked to being influencing factors for abuse and violence.

But none of these are a cause inthemselves but its the increasing accumulation of these risks that build towards abuse. Exactly the same logic as for all other health and wellbeing issues like heart attacks, suicide, mental illness, homelessness ect.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think gender diverse people are a seperate issue though as far as the principle involved.

The point is that just because a source uses some language around gender identity that you associate with an ideology you reject, doesn't invalidate its points about primary prevention of domestic violence.

Like I said its not about cause but what situations increase the risk of abuse.

If it's not about cause, I'm not interested. I'm interested in prevention, and that means dealing with the cause.

The article was showing how financial shock increased physical abuse by 38% and neglect by 27% I think.

Once again, no, it didn't. It showed an increase in reports, which is not the same thing.

Your talking about the article that said they did not destinguish from neglect and PA and that neglect was the most likely risk from poverty.

No, I'm talking even further back in the thread, but I'm not willing to go back through 71 pages to find it again.

I think you make stuff up to muddy the waters.

I don't make stuff up. My position is based on my experience in primary prevention of abuse. In which it is explicitly understood that the idea that all these other things "cause" abuse is a myth which needs to be debunked, because abuse is driven by the beliefs and attitudes of the abusers.

It doesn't matter for the purposes of identifying where it happens more and then trying to prevent that risk factor happening with protective factors.

That's not "preventing" a risk factor; that's mitigating it. But I'm not interested in mitigating risk factors; I'm interested in transforming the attitudes which cause abuse in the first place.

That is the actual cause the combination of risk factors either building towards abuse or away from abuse with protective factors.

No. The cause is the beliefs and attitudes of abusers, which justify their abuse. The rest of the risk factors might affect how those beliefs are expressed, but it's the beliefs and attitudes which are the cause.

But the data will show that theres something like a 5 times higher risk in having a low economic status because that comes with other problems like money stress and anxiety, poor education and unemployment, substance abuse and homelessness.

We also know that abuse in higher socioeconomic households tends to be more likely to go unreported. It still happens, it's just less recognised. (As I gave you sources for, earlier).

Maybe thats where your going wrong

Or maybe... just maybe... I'm not "going wrong" at all.

Exactly the same logic as for all other health and wellbeing issues like heart attacks, suicide, mental illness, homelessness ect.

But abuse is not a health issue. It's a choice. Someone who picks up a belt and beats their child is not experiencing a health issue. They are making a choice.

 

[stevevw]

If you want to claim "x causes abuse," of course it matters.

See you start with another misrepresentation. How many times have I told you that no individual factor is a cause. Your creating a strawman and then protesting about that and not what I am actually saying. I just explained this above again.

You'd better front up with some evidence that it's more than correlation. Otherwise you end up (for example) claiming that ice cream sales cause abuse because ice cream sales correlate with abuse reports (but really, it's the underlying heat affecting both).

No it doesn't. First there is no consistent evdience that increased icecream sales coincides with increased abuse. Second we could not even formulate a reason why icecream would be a risk but we can with say poverty due to the added stress and stress is known to cause emotional problems including agression and violence.

So we can make logical and rational reasons why certain risks are related to increased abuse and its not just any correlation but those that we find mechanisms that contrinute to the chain of events that lead to abuse with each and every stage verified. I mean if anything we could link say tooth decay to icecreams because theres a logical connection but not abuse.

If it's not the cause, then (for example) trying to prevent blended households is irrelevant as an abuse prevention strategy.

No ones talking about preventing certain families just like we don't force people to give up smoking. Its just data on higher risks which is a fact of like, certain conditions and situations bring more risks.

Sorry, but your argument here doesn't wash. Yes, someone can choose to smoke and have a higher risk of heart disease. But someone doesn't choose to do something that leads to a higher risk of abuse; they directly choose to abuse. It is absolutely not the same.

Yes but there are certain risks that cause them to choose to abuse. Just like there are certain risk why a youth will choose to speed in a car and kill everyone or a person chooses to drink drive and kills a child on the road. The choice to abuse involves a lot of other choices and behaviour well before the actual event that makes them more likely to choose to abuse than not. .

An increase in investigations is not an increase in abuse!

Yes but we went through this. As far as a risk factor for PA its serious so we have to treat it like its potential actual PA as far as risk is concerned. Your repeating the same strawmans by creating a misrepresentation of the point I am making about risk factors.

No. That's not what I said. A report is not a "risk." It is a report; a disclosure; an instance of abuse. At that point we're beyond statistical probability,

Not really. A report of PA should be treated like actual PA as far as risk goes. The reports could potentially be true so we have to treat them as such as far as the seriousness and risk is concerned.

and we are also not able to generalise from that instance to any wider group.

We can apply the data for that situation to any similar situation in the population. It has already been done and I posted links on it showing consistent links between lowest socioeconomic status and abuse and violence with and across cultures.

Some of them, yes, and I have given you sources explaining why.

So what about the others. I would say that you have argued against maybe 4 articles out of around 40 odd. You can't go making claims based on such weak evidence. Especially when I have actually refuted your explanations or rather logical fallacies. One or two points don't make a strong case to refute the evdience.

Many of those are quite different to abuse in that abuse is a much more direct choice, though.

Putting a cigarette in your mouth could be deemed a direct choice. Sticking a needle in your arm which could result in an overdose is a direct choice. Speeding through a school zone can be argued as a direct choice which may kill a child.

I don't. That's why my sentence began with "One thing I'd be fascinated to investigate further..." It's a hypothesis I would like to see tested. I can, for example, see how economic shock could bring abusive households into contact with welfare or social workers for the first time, creating relationships and trust in which abuse could be disclosed.

I think there is already some research on this. I remember coming across some articles which went into this issue a lot deeper as far as the dynamics. I will try to find them and read them.

The logic is with enough research and investigation we could break down the dynamics of why people behave the way they do for better health and wellbeing.

Well, I'd argue more that since parents who abuse in situations of financial shock are likely to have held the beliefs which underpin abuse before financial shock, it is very likely that there was already abuse going on.

Maybe but for the same reasons that financial shock pushed them to increased abuse the financial hardship before the added stress also contributed to forms of maltreatment which primed them to also PA.

In other words they were already primed to use abuse and violence due to their low socio economic status and other risk factors building like substance abuse or mental illness, ie anxiety which is connected to threat and using control as a coping mechanism.

I'm not going to claim particular expertise in psychology (although I did a bit across my different degrees), but I can critically read sources. Studies which measure unspecified "irrational beliefs" are not even measuring the beliefs which drive abuse. Nor have you given any study which shows that the very specific beliefs which drive abuse are held irrationally. Claiming that because a study says stress increases irrational beliefs, it must be driving abuse, is missing a whole bunch of necessary steps in that argument.

But if you lack the knowledge about the psychological theories about cognition and behaviour then your going to assume things on limited understanding. Some of the articles came from Psychologists and they supported what I was saying. For example.

Individuals with symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) suffer from emotional dysregulation that often causes them to lash out towards individuals who are close to them.
Why BPD Causes Lashing Out at Family and Friends

Child-abusing women also lack self-esteem and strength of will (termed “poor ego strength” by psychologists). They are more likely to be guided by their environment than by their own intentions (referred to as “greater external locus of control”). They are more depressed, feel rejecting of their children more often, withdraw from them often, use anger to control them, and, in general, show less affection toward them.20)
Effects of Family Structure on Child Abuse [Marripedia]