Submitted by Not_that_wire t3_znno50 in dataisbeautiful
Comments
Sininenn t1_j0i2x55 wrote
More like mother danger
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.
[deleted] t1_j0j30r1 wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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?
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.
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.
War_Eagle451 t1_j0j32yh wrote
They did not
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.
Sininenn t1_j0l1js0 wrote
Yes, I am aware of the doctrine and its damages.
P12oooF t1_j0i3dih wrote
Space lord mother mother...
*slap.
[deleted] t1_j0ibi2z wrote
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
mytunacan t1_j0iy22a wrote
Strange how people get all defensive just because someone attempts to interpret the data.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_j0j1btq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ibzkd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ikfp5 wrote
[removed]
[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.
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?
Sininenn t1_j0j0zmr wrote
It's only a "potential reason" if almost half of all family units were single mothers.
Wizard_Tendies t1_j0j200f wrote
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.
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.
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.
Blinking12s t1_j0k0fdb wrote
Mothers are just caught more often
Shitpostradamus t1_j0kxkx6 wrote
This ain’t fucking it
Traditional-Meat-549 t1_j0ik5sg wrote
was just thinking this
SexyDoorDasherDude t1_j0tw21z wrote
More like doctors mutilating infants.
zakats t1_j0ia26a wrote
This data is not beautiful
shialebeefe t1_j0i2ouq wrote
Would be interesting to see stats on how many children have a mother and no father and vice versa. Trying to establish if women are more likely to be abusive or if the numbers are comparable when you factor in the quantity of absent fathers.
alexja21 t1_j0i3wfp wrote
Excellent point. US courts heavily favor giving the mother custody of the children, and there are still lots of stay-at-home moms. Children are simply around their mother more often than the father.
katcheechuu t1_j0i7fsa wrote
Not to be rude, but I see people repeating this time and time again with only anecdotal evidence. Do US courts actually “heavily favor” the mother? Is this something we’ve just accepted as fact because it’s repeated by so many people?
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0j9x31 wrote
Not at all anecdotal. Quantitatively evident. It's gov't data from the US. You can examine the data and the methodology and even the data to have a go at it for your own peace of mind.
​
**Definitely hard facts here. No cultural wishy-washy perceptions or anecdotes - just gov't processing data. **
Tardigrade_Disco t1_j0j9rln wrote
The US family courts heavily favor awarding majority custody to the person the child is most familiar with. In the United States, it's very common that after birth, a wife will stop working and stay home to raise the child. So when you have a kid that see's one parent every waking hour and the other only a few hours a day, the child will obviously have a stronger bond to the stay at home parent, which is usually the mother. So of course, that's who the court will award custody to because it's who the child has the strongest bond with. The court doesn't care that the mom is unemployed, that's why there is alimony and child support. In the few instances of the father being the stay at home parent, it's almost 100% that the dad is awarded majority custody. People only look at the outcomes of family court and never consider the other factors leading up to the final judgement.
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0ksiat wrote
Can't concur with your analysis. The bias was part of legal guidance to judges called "Tender Years Doctrine".
Tardigrade_Disco t1_j0kuja4 wrote
> The bias was part of legal guidance to judges called "Tender Years Doctrine".
"Was" being the operative word. Decades ago. The fact that you overlooked the relevant point that men in stay at home parent roles usually are awarded custody is a bit disingenuous. You don't have to "concur" with my analysis because it's not an analysis, it's a fact written in legal precedent and observed regularly. So not really a debatable topic...
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0kw10m wrote
I'm just daylighting abusers of children, starting with the most likely to harm.
Schadrach t1_j0loclw wrote
>"Was" being the operative word.
...and it was replaced with "whatever the judge thinks is best". For judges that were either trained under "tender years" or grew up in the environment created by it. The social inertia of tender years extends beyond it being formally ended.
But then, there's notable opposition to the very idea of not favoring mother's - Kentucky passed a law a couple of years ago requiring judges to start from a position that equal custody is best unless there's a good reason otherwise. This was heavily fought, significantly by feminist groups who described supporters as the "abusers lobby", as in their mind the only reason a man would want significant custody of his children is to use them as a means to continue abusing their mother. The law passing was considered a big win by men's rights supporters specifically because it reduced bias in family courts.
[deleted] t1_j0lbr8j wrote
[deleted]
katcheechuu t1_j0luzyq wrote
Yes - I agree with most of what you said here. I have done the research myself and asked the question to provoke thought in people who repeat the “courts” statement.
Wouldn’t a more accurate statement be that “US society favors the mother”?
There is heavy implication in saying “US courts heavily favor the mother” … Yet the majority of custody decisions are decided without court rulings? But one could argue that fathers don’t try because they’ve heard that courts heavily favors mothers. Perhaps this is indicative of how the average person does not understand how the legal process works.
Maybe the statement should be “the courts favor the primary caretaker”? This is also a misleading oversimplification as most courts favor both parents being involved in a child’s life.
Some people would say that it’s just words - but all word choices have implications and most people involved in society, whether they admit it or not, pick up on those implications.
For example: the troll below saying that men are second class citizens. Or the OP coming to the conclusion that mothers are more abusive based off of raw data without interpretation. The wording of their data certainly implies this. I argue that the only useful conclusions from this data set is that : child abuse sadly still exists & child abuse is commonly committed by those with opportunity. Neither of these conclusions are ground-breaking.
I’ve enjoyed your objective responses. Thank you for the discussion.
P.S. - I would love to see a Water Bear Disco. Please link video.
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0kscvw wrote
Check out "Tender Years Doctrine" in the US.
Shitpostradamus t1_j0kxqc4 wrote
It’s accepted as fact because it absolutely is fact. Men are second class citizens when it comes to rights to their children
corgiiiiiiiiiiiis t1_j0lwyui wrote
80 percent of single prents are mothers. 26.4% of children on the US are raised by single parent households with about 22% of children in the US raised by a single mother and 5% raised by a single father. https://realdiapers.org/single-parent/
ozbug t1_j0nchyx wrote
It's statistically true that women are more likely than men to be awarded custody. However, it is also true that women are more likely than men to ask for custody, which is primarily responsible for that statistic. In contested cases, the father is awarded custody more than half the time. Obviously there are many gendered factors that likely come into play in a lot of court cases, but the idea that men are fighting that much of an uphill battle for custody is a myth.
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0i4dyu wrote
If you're on this sub, you'll probably like Statista. I'd recommend you sign up, it's free for basic functions. You should be able to download a spreadsheet and have go... but we might have different hobbies 🤓😎😅
corgiiiiiiiiiiiis t1_j0lwq9l wrote
I found this using recent census data https://realdiapers.org/single-parent/
Beginning-Rip-7458 t1_j0jnpvi wrote
Agreed. You could label this chart “who is a child with most frequently “ and the results would be about the same with the exception of childcare workers.
CodeEast t1_j0ibgvf wrote
Fathers are more likely than mothers to be active abusers, mothers are more likely to be passive abusers (neglect). Neglect is a slippery slope. Neglect is not a judgment based on the quality of life of the mother. But if her life is shit and filled with abuse, poverty, drugs, homelessness, mental illness, etc, then the quality of life of the child is going to be shit as well as a by-product.
Sininenn t1_j0iiyti wrote
The exact same thing can be said about fathers too.
Functioning, fulfilled and happy people do not abuse their children.
shialebeefe t1_j0ijfcs wrote
Hurt people hurt people
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0ja1s2 wrote
Can you point to credible data for that, please? Doesn't matter what country as long as the sample size is over 200.
CodeEast t1_j0jgytl wrote
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0ktynj wrote
Thanks. I work strictly with large-set open data. I don't do book report research as much of it is from a methological echo chamber. I let others debate that stuff.
Lots of synthesis of "existing literature" involving unrepresentative sample size and very, very laggy reporting.
I know in Canada, the government data science talent pool is extremely thin. Their output is known to be really slow and lumpy, generally using deprecated technologies.
In my country, we're still wrapping our heads around our indigenous genocide (in progress). The colonist thugs involved were teachers, social workers and bureaucrats. These have perpetuated lies for 200 yrs. It'll continue as long as we like mineral rights.
Despite federal open gov mandates, the Canadian data is but a trickle of molasses in winter.
ampron t1_j0l5boi wrote
There are a lot of commenters here mid-reading this data to mean that mothers are the most likely person in a child’s life to PHYSICALLY abuse them.
It seems that many do not realize, that “neglect” is an abuse counted in this data (as it should be). If you accept that there is likely a positive correlation between poverty and single-mother homes then the presence of mothers at the top of the list is easily explained by that correlation.
This data is not evidence that mothers are more likely to hit their children. It is a small glimpse into the reality that the US system has a bias toward taking children from homes rather than providing the economic support we all deserve.
-Foster parent
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0l7sug wrote
Totally appreciate your perspective and your devotion to helping kids in need. Sincerly, thank you!
At about 15, my precocious kid told me this about the boys at school who were having problems -
The aggressive knuckle head kids that are getting into fights tend to have had abandonment / absentee father stuff.
The quiet self-destructive kids - not aggressive but often intoxicated with whatever as often as possible. He said the kids that are dragging themselves around and are self-sabotaging are the ones with the mums who discarded or neglected them.
It seemed like a really insightful "ground truth". What are your thoughts, having lived with some of the kids?
ampron t1_j0lc92x wrote
My experience: Foster parent to one teen for less than a year. Tried to be prepared by taking lots of trauma-based parenting classes and reading, because studying is what I am familiar with. It helped, but I doubt anyone is ever really ready.
My perspective: Children’s behavior is complicated. I’d caution against assuming you can look at their behavior and guess what the cause is. Even when you’re in the middle of it things are difficult to understand. Also, the behavior of deeply traumatized children is often misunderstood. There are no easy answers.
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0prbku wrote
Totally agree. I really try to honour the individuals I know it looks like rows from data table. I'm always aware that each row is a child who is afraid, hurt and in need of TLC.
It's hard work form me. I cry often. But after 30 yrs of making people rich from data, this feels better for me.
I work with quantitative data only. I don't do lit reviews and book report type research. Much of it is rehashed and derivatives if not just conforming (easier to get funding).
I felt my son's insight, while admittedly a generalization, helped me open up my perspective which helps me ask more meaningful questions.
There's no precise approach to understand individual outcomes but, in aggregate, looking at abuse through a public health/public safety perspective, the more likely we are to identify and support victims while securing better evidence against perpetrators.
Tardigrade_Disco t1_j0mqp1y wrote
Abuse is abuse. This comment looks like you're saying "it's not the bad kind of abuse because women are doing it."
ampron t1_j0mwnm0 wrote
To be very clear for you, neglect is extremely harmful to children. I personally know of children that have been removed from their biological home due to neglect. The trauma cause by neglect comes in many forms. Unfortunately, the act of removing children from their biological home is also extremely traumatizing. I find it unfortunate that in the cases where the neglectful abuse could be remedied by therapy or BASIC economic security there is no option for that in out social systems.
_CHIFFRE t1_j0k1f5s wrote
ahh.. now i see why this has nearly as much upvotes as comments.
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0kriuv wrote
Thanks for taking the time to check it out.
[deleted] t1_j0kxx2p wrote
[removed]
Cuthbert_Allgood19 t1_j0l0et8 wrote
me squinting looking for the drag Queen category
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0l12ao wrote
Follow the glitter!
NoSuchWordAsGullible t1_j0lkcps wrote
I can’t find the immigrants either!
krashlia t1_j0mej1x wrote
No duh. Moms are everywhere and a constant. "Drag queens" are rare. None of that justifies the latter throwing shows for kids.
Cuthbert_Allgood19 t1_j0mnmt8 wrote
Ok killer. Then go do your soldier cosplay and shoot up some power stations
krashlia t1_j0n2cnk wrote
Don't worry. Me and the boys, we're working on it.
By the way, about that, have we discovered the identities of the guys who shot up those power stations? If not, where is the confidence that it was definitely "transphobes" coming from?
IHaveTheGrimoire t1_j0i5lod wrote
I'm curious about the actual rates of abuse from group home and residential staff. I'm willing to bet it's a lot higher than this makes it seem because most kids aren't in the care of group home or residential staff, but also those places have far more institutional power backing them up and covering up their abuse.
throowaawayyyy t1_j0jw70z wrote
Someone tried to justify his transphobia to me as he was just protecting the safety of his young daughters... "What if a trans person tried to use the women's bathroom to be a alone with one of them and sexually assault one!?" The argument doesn't make any sense... I sent him the stats from RAAIN and that sobered him up a bit.
It's sad, it's easier to focus on the boogieman than the monsters hiding in plain sight.
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0kre7q wrote
That's why I like Data Sci - unarguable facts can daylight the abusers.
Covid isolated children with their abusers. Expect to see more of this stuff under a public health lens.
It's like those studies (and PSA campaigns) years ago confirming violence against women is mostly from their partners. In this case child abuse, likewise is more likely from a mother.
SteelHardOne t1_j0l8mpi wrote
A lot of this is raw count data is simply correlation data (not true incident rates) closely related to time spent with children. Comparing raw counts can be very misleading, and make people think that "moms are 2X more likely to abuse children", which is not true...
Moms have much higher raw numbers than dads, not necessarily because they are more abusive, but because there are 5X more kids living with single moms than single dads by looking at divorce child custody rates, plus single parent rates, and overall living arrangement percentages.
According to a 2022 Living Arrangements of Children report released by the U.S. Census Bureau, "the majority (70.1%) of the nation's children under age 18 lived with two parents, 21.4% lived with their mother, 4.4% with their father, and 4.0% did not live with a parent". ( https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/living-arrangements-of-chldren.html )
Compare living arrangements percentages with Department of Justice abuse cases percentages. "The percentage of the total validated cases which involved abuse was determined for each of seven household types: two natural parents, 34.4 percent; natural mother only, 21.2 percent; natural father only, 30.4 percent; other relatives, 30.9 percent; natural mother and father substitute, 54.2 percent; natural father and mother substitute, 59.1 percent; and adoptive or foster parents, 59.1 percent. These results suggest that household composition is highly relevant to the risk of abuse and neglect." ( https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/household-composition-and-risk-child-abuse-and-neglect )
So as far as exposure risk due to simply "living full time with your mom" is about 91.5% compared to 74.5% living full time with dad. While that's still not 2X, there are more factors...
If you were to also factor in employment data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in 2022 that "Employed fathers remained more likely to work full time than employed mothers in 2021—95.5 percent compared with 79.6 percent." ( https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf ) So mothers in general provide more childcare than fathers and spend much more time with children.
Finally, there's a huge difference physically, mentally, and spiritually between occasional lighter verbal abuse, severe verbal & psychological abuse, occasional spankings deemed physical abuse, and debilitating & near deadly physical abuse. There are trends by mothers & fathers in that data, as well. (Do your own research on this one.)
This doesn't make child abuse acceptable in any way, but does help explain some of the larger trends in raw number data. Just remember that raw count data is never as good as per capita data or percentage of incidents type data.
ampron t1_j0lhcpb wrote
This a very important point about raw counts versus rates. This data is not in a form that lends itself to drawing useful insights.
It’s also worth noting that this data contains counts of neglect, which can often come from poor economic status. That compounds with your point about the employment differential, to further wipe away the idea that this data implies mothers are more physically abusive to children.
SteelHardOne t1_j0li97d wrote
👍So right! Well said!💪💞
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0prz9p wrote
Thanks, I'm still working on the data engineering so it can be accessible to open data/science. I've got another few months to contribute.
Raw counts and geolocations are helpful for law enforcement and "critical time-sensitive social program interventions" ie: tactical short-term program funding.
I
SteelHardOne t1_j0pwewp wrote
Cool! Yeah, a yearly abuse case count of 1,000 in a county of 100,000 is 1%. But that same raw count of 1,000 in a county of 1,000,000 is only 0.1%.
[deleted] t1_j0ilnj1 wrote
[deleted]
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0ja5ra wrote
Thanks for caring about facts enough to check the data. Keep it coming!
ampron t1_j0ldnr3 wrote
Did you really look at the data that close? This data includes much more than physical abuse. It also includes neglect driven by poverty. Mothers are more likely to be left with children and the poor are more likely to be visited by child protective services for harmful neglect. So of course mothers will be at the top of this list, but not because they are more violent toward children. This data does not support that conclusion.
From the Supplementary Notes “Each state has its own definition of child abuse and neglect based on standards set by federal law. Child abuse is defined as any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk or serious harm.”
maincocoon t1_j0luc85 wrote
In this case, the data is not that beautiful
[deleted] t1_j0io5x1 wrote
[deleted]
jgmoxness t1_j0j3sn1 wrote
Just show the damn chart by percent of data sets as well - the classic say to be disengenious with data...
Techutante t1_j0kwj4e wrote
Is this saying that kids who's parents remarry are less likely to be abused?
Not_that_wire OP t1_j0kxord wrote
I can't answer that from my work. If you want to play with the data, you can sign up at Statista for free and get spreadsheets you can smoosh around.
Smoosh, squish and grind aren't official DS terms, but go ahead and play.
[deleted] t1_j0l70sh wrote
[removed]
cnzmur t1_j0l71eu wrote
It's interesting it has 'unmarried partner of parent'. Does this mean that a married stepfather is counted as a father?
Sure_Surprise_1661 t1_j0m6qi5 wrote
This visualization implies who is more likely to abuse a child but proportions would much better tell that story.
Very deceptive, incendiary, and poor taste.
greatdrams23 t1_j0mcu25 wrote
This has always been the case. To many people get worried by the guy who lives to the street, but unlikely to know where the danger lies.
idunupvoteyou t1_j0ksisv wrote
These numbers skyrocketed after society converted to wire hangers.
[deleted] t1_j0ie3lb wrote
[deleted]
absolute_yote t1_j0i1iu7 wrote
Stranger danger? More like familial danger.