(CW Child abuse) Why do mothers not protect their children from abusive boyfriends

In other words: a significant proportion of abusers will be abuse victims

A significant proportion of those abused will NOT abuse. Almost all will not abuse - not 75% at all. 8.25% as stated and as you said nope it is not 8.25% of those abused who go onto abuse other it is 75%.

You said ALL are abusers on both table A and B. You said they are 100 abusers and 75% of them were abused in childhood so most of those abused will abuse others (75% of them).

Now you are copying me saying that they are different statements - thanks for finally reading my words and copying it back to me that they mean different things.

You said that all of them in the study were abusers. I said that not all were. You said they were.

That is quite the claim using your analogy and those stats do not make sense. Nope 74.475 % of all females are not abusers but you just said that 75% of all who are abused are abusers.

You oddly changed your stats now so lets just change them to what you originally said with the tables that 75% of all who are abused will abuse.

you said 75% of abuse victims will abuse.

and you said 75% of abuse victims will be abusers

@schmeler

No, I didn't say any of those things. What I said was:

among those who do become child abusers, a much larger proportion come from Table A (those abused as children) than from Table B (those not abused as children).

In other words: a significant proportion of abusers will be abuse victims

Using the 75% of attendees from my Abusers Anonymous analogy, and using your phrasing, it would look like this:

75% of abusers will be abuse victims

⚠️ !!! NOT !!! ⚠️ 75% of abuse victims will be abusers

Can you spot the difference between these two statements?

1. 75% of abusers will be abuse victims
2. 75% of abuse victims will be abusers

Even if they do know its not right and/or are told its not right and its abuse, your blueprint for attachment, your very early developmental experiences and modelling is very difficult to contain in a vacuum, it affects brain development, social and emotional development, patterns of attachment, self esteem and concepts of identity.

And there is usualy lots of focus in discussions and debates about abuse on physical and sexual abuse, but huge numbers of children are abused by being neglected, both with or without physical and sexual abuse.

So on the theme of willfull ignorance,

I was discussing with a friend how Sara Sharif’s father’s original story from his note, to his phone calls (not the later lies blaming the stepmother), all expressed a surprising view that child beating is a legal form of child punishment. He says several times “I legally punished her but went too far..” or “I was punishing her but lost it” and that he swore to God that he will return from Pakistan for arrest and be judged (which he did). But at the trial he seemed to not comprehend that child beating itself is illegal and is child abuse. He thought he would be judged for loss of control during legal child punishment, a sort of accidental death by legal beating, an involuntary manslaughter kind of trial.

I have met adults who did not discover they were abused until they have been told that what was done to them was illegal child abuse. It shatters their worldview and sense of self, explodes family relationships like a grenade.

So abused children do in fact get to adulthood not knowing they were abused, and therefore some would get to parenthood not understanding the boundary between disciplining and abusing.

This had us talking about if being abused is your normal and you are gaslit to think that you’re not being abused but “legally punished” or “disciplined” then is it possible to grow to adulthood thinking that you’re not abusing your children if you do similar? Or in the case of mothers, if you’ve grown up in that sort of environment, brainwashed and conditioned and then your partner is spanking your child black and blue might you think it’s not abuse? And mutely stand by or even report misbehaviour to the partner to get the child a beating?

Sara Sharif’s dad reminded me slightly of many adults that are against a child smacking ban in England. You know the ones. The ones who say “I was hit as a child and it did me no harm, in fact getting the belt did me a world of good and taught me respect and kept me in line. If I hadn’t been smacked, I would have gone off the rails as a teenager and likely be dead right now. Kids these days are out of control, we need to bring caning back…” or variations on this theme.

The brainwashing of childhood being so powerful that even when told smacking is abuse over and over, their response is wilful ignorance. A blinkered insistence of ‘no its not’ because if they admitted to themselves it is and was abuse, then that completely changes everything they thought they knew about their childhood and their parents love or lack of love for them.

Obviously these people are not fine, they survived abuse but they fervently deny it was abuse, and therefore believe that if they smack their children they are not abusing them.

This could be one reason why those who were abused are more likely to abuse. They don’t know the boundaries of abusive vs normal behaviour unless they are told them (say in parenting classes) and accept that over what they were conditioned to accept as normal their entire childhood.

So you said looking for patterns can help stop it. So patterns are that they are in complete control and excusing it will stop it?

Because they want to and have control to do so. Same as how I have control over what I eat. I could eat pizza again tomorrow or not - it is a choice based on if I want to or not.

What brain chemistry?

The brain chemistry theory was debunked many years ago when it comes to mental health etc.

If that was the case tell me what chemicals change with mental health and what units are they are measured in, what is the normal levels of these brain chemicals and what the tests entail - what is a high level of such chemicals and what is a low level. What is the test for brain chemicals called and when you go to the Drs how do they perform it? How often is it repeated to check changes in chemicals and monitor them? How many children have these tests as routine to check their chemical levels? How does one request a chemical test after abuse? How long does the test take?

Because they want to. Same reason I had pizza for tea. I wanted it.

But why do they want to?

What is strange is excusing child abuse perpetrators and saying the have no control over abusing one person in private and their genes know they are in the vicinity of that person and in private.

What is strange is pretending someone is mental with a fabricated illness to silence them. Now why would you do that?

Because they want to. Same reason I had pizza for tea. I wanted it.

Do you think you posting on mumsnet will protect children by excusing their abusers and saying they couldn't help it there there we need to give them sympathy and let them do it some more instead of cracking down on them and holding them to account for their choices.

Saying awwww but they were beaten as a child so they couldn't help it - what will that do to help kids who are abused? It will empower abusers to do more if they are not held to account for what they choose to do to others.

Same as you choose to excuse their behaviour I do not.

@schmeler but why do people make those choices?

It is certainly very strange behaviour.

Whys - I said that - choice. There is no lacking of autonomy in an abusers actions. They are purposeful and they are calculated and show control not lack of.

Solutions would be to hold them to account not excuse them and say it is because they were abused so we just pander to them and let them off the hook to do worse and more harmful things in future which is what excusing them does.

Think about it - murder and rape are not entry level crimes. They happen because that person made a choice and each time they chose to commit a crime, society excused it - they had suffered as a child, they didn't mean it, they lost control, they were pushed to it etc. This empowers them to do more and more and they feel empowered that they will not get held to account as they know that most of society will excuse it and say well they were abused as a kid so they couldn't help it. Bullshit they could. They make a choice each time. And instead of wiping arses and pandering to abusers we should hold them to account instead of your 'there there' approach.

Do you understand the concept of more likely and increased risk? These are not certainties or absolutes or claims of "all x will y".

Abuse and/or trauma will make some more LIKELY (not a certainty though) to have their brain chemistry altered, to suffer from addiction , mental health issues, be incarcerated etc. These things CAN(not will) be risk factors to a child raised by such a parent.

I wonder what is in it for that poster, what is this all about? Sure as hell isnt about protecting children or supporting parents to parent safely.

So those who have had the trauma of lung cancer are more likely to abuse others with cigarettes? Really?

Not quite sure how that links but hey ho! Apparently correlation equals causation and ppl have no control over hitting someone or starving them. Excuses, excuses!

Also maybe look up more likely and less likely. The two are linked. If you are more likely to do one thing then the other is less likely. So if you are more likely to not abuse then you are less likely to abuse. Opposites - 4 year old English.

Do you realise you are falsely accusing the majority of females in the country of being abusers which is shocking for you to say almost 75% of females are abusers and certainly no idea why you are saying that you have proof of this as that is certainly not in any of those studies.

I said they are less likely to abuse than not to abuse. It is a comparison - I am not sure you understand that. That is not the same as saying they are less of a risk than others or more of a risk to others. The two statement mean different things.

You again are lacking basic understanding of what is being said and again suggesting that puts them at risk is also quite a statement and one that could get you in deep shit if you are making defamatory statements that I will make decisions that put kids at risk as that is in writing and is wholly untrue and you have made that public. Not a wise move. Not at all.

So no comparing a group that are less likely than more likely is making a basic comparison and not making any statement about risk factors at all as I haven't discussed risk factors.

Quite the fabricator aren't you? Now calling me mental and fabricating mental illness is what abusers do when they want to silence someone - it also shows how easily ppl will abuse others and how it is a choice behaviour. Or are you saying you lacked autonomy over your fabrication then?

I mean I didn't say any of those things, but sure.

Speaking of maths , you remind me of the kid that answered pink to any maths question.

Shame i'm still biting and that this thread got derailed, because only by looking at whys and trying to identify patterns and looking for solutions will any real change happen.

Why are you changing the way you are using stats because you know that writing 75% of all smokers will get lung cancer is bullshit.

You said 75% of abuse victims will be abusers. So will 75% of all smokers get lung cancer - nope they will not. Also do smokers have a choice if lung cancer grows inside their body or not like they have a choice to punch someone or not?

Seems like a daft analogy when one is a choice and one is not.

Maybe a better option would be out of all lung cancer survivors (abuse survivors) a % will choose to harm others with their cigarettes such as burning someone with it on their arms etc.

Thanks @SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice for posting data completely debunking the fictitious claim by @schmeler that people who were abused are less likely to abuse.

@schmeler do you realise that you are doing child abuse victims a disservice by insisting on your fantasy in the face of hard evidence? If you do work in safeguarding as you have implied, then your delusion that parents who were abused are less of a risk to their children than other parents will drive decisions that then expose children to additional danger.

Jesus Christ

I do not. No one is saying they were not abused as children. I actually said they were abused but the majority did not become abusers. Learn to read.

People are not more than 50% chance of becoming an abuser if they were abused. As not more than 50% of those abused do not go onto being an abuser.

As they are less than 50% of those abused go onto being that means it is less likely than likely. Basic understanding of words. Not sure you know what likely and less likely means.

You oddly changed your stats now so lets just change them to what you originally said with the tables that 75% of all who are abused will abuse.

75% of smokers getting lung cancer is a different statement to out of all lung cancer cases 75% of them are smokers. Now you are suddenly swapping your statements and your new analogy doesn't match what you said before.

So lets put it to how you stated it with the kids. You said that 75% of smokers will get lung cancer as you said 75% of abuse victims will abuse. However the data says that 88% of those 'smokers' will not so again your 75% is of what is left not of the whole amount. Going back to 4 year old maths of parts and wholes again and basic understanding of there being different parts AND parts of parts.

So 75% of smokers will get lung cancer using your analogy and you said 75% of abuse victims will be abusers despite data saying 88% will not as not all will smoke and not all will get lung cancer.

They therefore have a 88/100 chance of not getting it and 8/100 chance of getting it.

So they are less likely to not get it than are likely to get it. More ppl will NOT have lung cancer than will have. Not quite sure why you assume that most ppl who smoke will get lung cancer as that is not the case. It is a false statement that most who smoke will get cancer - and no you didn't say that but I am correcting your mistakes when you are creating a new analogy and then using the percentages to mean different things so I am making sure it is used as you said with the abuse analogy.

One is biological change which is out of control and one is a choice and shows there is control throughout.

Like saying chances of getting chicken pox and choosing a lolly in a shop - one is out of your control and based on changes internally and one is a choice. Abuse is a choice and most abuse victims choose not to however you state most abuse victims do - 74.475% of the female population according to you!

Yours was trying to explain the data from the study being disputed and you waded in and got it wrong. Mine also talked about risk factors as you are claiming that 75% of almost all teenage girls (75%) so 75% of 75% are abusers and 75% of 99.3% of women are abusers.

That is quite the claim using your analogy and those stats do not make sense. Nope 74.475 % of all females are not abusers but you just said that 75% of all who are abused are abusers. Nope they are not. Then using your stats for males - 75% of 70% of boys which means 52.5% of boys as teens are abusers and then added onto the 16% which means that by adulthood 68.5% of males are abusers. So your claim is nationally that 74.475% of girls and 68.5% of males are abusers = 71.5% of the population are abusers of just children. Then add on their abuse to adults....and you actually think that the majority of the population are abusers? Well into the 70% bracket of all adults? Makes no sense at all.

I showed you that there are different categories:
Abused and abuser
Abused and not abuser
Not abused and abuser
Not abused and not an abuser.

The biggest one is abused and not an abuser. Meaning the risk is low for them to go onto being an abuser as this is the most likely outcome when you have been abused. You are saying that out of almost all females 75% of females are abusers which is wholly inaccurate. 74.475% of females are not abusers in the UK.

Maybe 74.475% of your mates are but that nationally doesn't tally up!

You have a very poor understanding of statistics and research. The fact is, that out of the people who did abuse , the majority WERE abused as children. Which makes your claim that people who were abused as children are LESS likely to become abusers themselves, absolute fiction.

Let's put it this way . You look at 100 people , the vast majority of them do not have lung cancer. Out of those who have lung cancer, 75% are smokers. Does smoking increase your risk of getting lung cancer? Yes or no?