Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sininenn t1_j0i2x55 wrote

Reply to comment by absolute_yote in Child abuse in the U.S. - victims by perpetrator relationship 2020 by Not_that_wire

More like mother danger

67

mywan t1_j0igbhf wrote

These numbers are raw totals. There are far more mothers with full custody than fathers. So by raw totals mothers would outnumber fathers even if the mothers and fathers were equally likely to be abusers. This also applies to differences in day care provider and foster parents. Far more kids are exposed to day care than to foster parents. So the fact that the totals are nearly the same indicates that foster parents have a far higher rate of abuse. The opposite applies to friends and neighbors. The fact that friends and neighbors are essentially universal among kids while their raw abuse numbers aren't that much higher than day care providers means that abuse from friends and neighbors is particularly rare on a per capita basis.

37

Sininenn t1_j0iijis wrote

Are you suggesting that single mothers are the majority of all types of family units, even outnumbering families with both parents?

Even if you are right, it does not make abuse permissible whatsoever, no matter the sex of the perpetrator, or their familial relation to the victim.

The fact is, as the data clearly shows, that mothers abuse their children a lot. And it's an issue that needs attention.

−7

mywan t1_j0ij8cg wrote

Never said that. Only that single mother households outnumber single father households. Neither did I suggest any of it is permissible, no matter whether single mothers, single fathers, both parents, day care, foster parents, friends and family, or strangers.

19

Sininenn t1_j0ippej wrote

You suggested it though.

By trying to explain the majority of abusers being women through the fact that women tend to get primary custody.

The data does not distinguish between single or dual parenthood. So if it were the case, that abuse by women is caused by exclusive contact with the child, it would have to follow, that the number of single mothers vs fathers/dual parents is proportional to the abuse being perpetrated.

I doubt it is. Single mothers, or fathers, for that matter, are, thankfully, still a minority.

If abuse is not excusable no matter the perpetrator, why is women's custody brought up as an argument at all?

−23

mywan t1_j0irp9r wrote

> You suggested it though.

No, I did not. I did not even suggest that woman aren't the majority of abusers, and it can't be determine whether that is true or not based on the data provided. The only thing that I said wasn't a suggestion, it was a fact. That fact being that the raw numbers provided can't answer that question. The exception being that we can know, from the OP link, that foster parents tend to be abusers more often than day care providers because the raw numbers are nearly identical while far more kids are exposed to day car.

16

Sininenn t1_j0j0til wrote

Yes, you very much did suggest so:

"These numbers are raw totals. There are far more mothers with full custody than fathers. So by raw totals mothers would outnumber fathers even if the mothers and fathers were equally likely to be abusers."

This is a direct quote from your original comment.

It would only be a logical conclusion, if the number of single mother households was almost half of all family units, as would be proportional to the abuse numbers.

−16

Mithious t1_j0j2di8 wrote

When NASA wanted to put a man on the moon, they should have called you up with how far you're reaching here.

He's just saying to make proper sense of these numbers and the relative risk individuals pose you also need to consider how often they have access to the kids, nothing more.

15

Sininenn t1_j0j39hi wrote

Thank you, captain obvious.

And I am saying that OP's explanation is only valid, if the number of single mothers whose children only have contact with the mother, would be almost as big as the number of dual family homes.

That's not reaching, it's following logical conclusions.

It's as if people assume that the 'mothers' category does not include mothers in a dual parent home where the mother is the only abuser...

−1

Mithious t1_j0j42yk wrote

The only person bringing up dual family homes is you, it's well known that a two parent home is statistically a far more stable environment for a kid. Plus it's harder for one parent in a two parent home to get away with abuse without the other finding out.

We're talking about single mother and single father homes, because those are more directly comparable. There are a lot of single mother homes, and relatively few single father homes. The stats above therefore make it difficult to make any assumptions about who is more likely to abuse kids.

Clear?

3

Sininenn t1_j0j5cs9 wrote

Yes, I am bringing up dual parent homes, because they are the majority of all family units.

Single mother homes are still a minority of family units.

Uh, no. There are plenty of homes in which there is one primary abuser. And often it is the mother.

Have you even read the link?

It does not mention anything whatsoever about what type of family unit the abuse takes place in. In fact, one of the categories is "both parents".

So the data actually includes all types of families, and abuse by either, or even both of the parents. Is that clear to you?

3

djb1983CanBoy t1_j0j7utk wrote

Yup she was trying to make excuses to explain why the majority of abusers are women. Its very close to being r/everydaymisandry.

“Well its mens fault women are the majority of abusers because men force women to stay home they also skip out on their families” - thats my paraphrase.

−4

Valkia_Perkunos t1_j0l9gzz wrote

People just don't want accept numbers. They are so used that man are evil and violent that they create excuses to excuse women.

The only way this graphic could be good (for both sides) is to have , like in each one women as a single mother and women as family. The same with men. Only way to be accurate.

0

Not_that_wire OP t1_j0ks8yo wrote

You should look into *** Tender Years Doctrine *** that instituted arbitrary gender bias in child custody. Fathers were / are routinely separated from their children with wide legal and institutional support.

Some states changed this legal default as recently as 2016 (needs fact checking).

The doctrine's bias is well known and documented as being a critical factor of enabling abuse in plain sight as you put it.

7

Sininenn t1_j0l1js0 wrote

Yes, I am aware of the doctrine and its damages.

1

P12oooF t1_j0i3dih wrote

Space lord mother mother...

*slap.

6

[deleted] t1_j0ibi2z wrote

[deleted]

−6

DukeBeekeepersKid t1_j0ipmvr wrote

You should pay the fee and read the study. Your logic to blame the father is stretched beyond it's snapping point, to the point of being sexist and discriminatory.

8

Wizard_Tendies t1_j0iy1df wrote

May I respectfully ask that you copy+paste what you’re referencing?

I think it would be helpful to the discussion to have more info but everything I googled can otherwise be found for free and by clicking the links in the posted article.

2

Sininenn t1_j0ibp02 wrote

That does not make abuse permissible.

Oh and just an fyi, I had both parents in my life, the worst physical abuse was by my mother.

5

Wizard_Tendies t1_j0ixqhl wrote

They didn’t excuse abuse, they provided potential insight on why there is disproportionate abuse from mothers reported.

Which might make sense when accounting for single parent households. If women, more than not, gain primary custody of children then we should expect higher rates of mothers that abuse their children. Again, it doesn’t excuse abuse. I don’t know where people got this idea.

3

mytunacan t1_j0iy22a wrote

Strange how people get all defensive just because someone attempts to interpret the data.

3

Wizard_Tendies t1_j0iyxmr wrote

My hypothesis; this is an article with information that might be used against women. Please allow me to specify; the issue here isn’t just child abuse, but who commits it. Without knowing who or why, it’ll be hard to remedy. However, anyone disingenuous will take this and say “look, another example of fathers and men being disenfranchised!” and that is absolutely not the case.

Anyone to try to understand further or disagree with the disingenuous will be called “abuse excusers” because it helps create the inner dichotomy of “us and them.” Aka basic primate brain shit doing basic primate brain shit.

1

Sininenn t1_j0j04hv wrote

I will repeat myself. If that was the case, single mother households would have to outnumber dual parent homes, which is not the case.

It's funny you mention "primate brain shit". Look up "Women are wonderful effect". That is some "primate brain shit", which is exactly what people trying to explain higher abuse by women through simple numerical majority are doing.

As if women could not be shitty, abusive and violent human beings, even more than people think men are... But that would shatter their preconceptions about the big bad violent man and the soft beautiful innocent powerless woman.

2

[deleted] t1_j0irqev wrote

It’s funny. I read the data and showed my girlfriend. Then mentioned something about how the mother base would mention the single mother variance to excuse the mother to father variance. Then I saw that very excuse in the comments.

0

Wizard_Tendies t1_j0ixujb wrote

It’s not an excuse for abuse. It’s a potential reason there is disproportionate data.

Why do you think understanding disproportionate data equates to excusing violence against children?

4

Sininenn t1_j0j0zmr wrote

It's only a "potential reason" if almost half of all family units were single mothers.

1

Wizard_Tendies t1_j0j200f wrote

Approximately 80% of all single parents in the U.S. are single mothers.

1 2 3

Please don’t argue for the sake of arguing. Trying to understand who and why people commit child abuse, and how to solve that should be a common agreement.

0

Sininenn t1_j0j4j6f wrote

From your first link:

"Living With Both Parents: 50,609,000 Living With Mother Only: 15,607,000"

It may be the case that 80% of single family units are mothers. But it is NOT the case that single parent households are the majority. And it is definitely not the case for single mothers.

Why is is so hard to understand?

IF higher numbers of abuse perpetrated by mothers could be explained by women's primary custody, the number of single mother households would have to be proportional to the difference between abuse perpetrated by women vs men.

2

Wizard_Tendies t1_j0j50h5 wrote

The statement wasn’t that single mother households outnumber both parent households. It was that the disproportionate number of mothers might be also due to more single mother households.

All cases of child abuse do not happen in co-parenting households. They mostly occur there, but why is there a difference between single parent households? Specifically, why do more single mothers abuse kids? Those are the questions, damn.

0

Sininenn t1_j0j5v8h wrote

And my statement is that the disparity could be explained by single mother households only if single mother households comprised a large enough portion of all family units, one large enough to be able to cover disparity.

It's as if people were unwilling to accept that women can be even more violent than they think men are.

2