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

Which study? Many studies have been cited in the past day or so. My analogy was not meant to replicate the findings or methods of a specific study, it was to demonstrate the concept of relative risk in simple terms since you seem to be struggling with it a great deal.

You explained it wrong. The study clearly said that not all were abusers. Why did you say they were when it clearly said that most were not? As stated by your good friend too...

You just didn't understand the data that was shared and assumed all were abusers but it very clearly states that the vast majority are not abusers. You chose to ignore that, that is on you not me.

@schmeler Good grief. I suspect even if Sir Ian Diamond were to explain it you, you'd still argue with him until you were blue in the face.

This woman is 24 years old and given a 10 year sentence. She could be out before then. This gives her at least 6 years to conceive another child which she does not deserve.

Anyone who is done for child neglect/manslaughter/assisting to these should be sterilised.

Why did you label all 100 as abusers as the study clearly says that 88% of them were not. So 88 out of 100 were not?

It is 100 people not 100 abusers. Your mate was the one who misrepresented it as he/she never read the study.

At no point did that study say they interviewed only abusers. They said that of the sample 88% were not abusers.

100 abusers are sitting in a hall for their first Child Abusers Anonymous meeting.
The abusers are asked to sit at one of two tables:
Table A: Those abused as children
Table B: Those not abused as children
75 abusers sit at Table A (abused as children)
25 abusers sit at Table B (not abused as children)
Which table has the largest proportion of abusers sitting around it?

Let me explain it to you as that is not what the data said.

It said 100 ppl (not abusers, just people) so that is your first mistake.

These ppl are a mix of abusers and non-abusers. They are not 100 abusers. The data did not say that. It was 100 ppl of which SOME are abusers but most are not. That is your bias assuming they were abusers but it clearly states and I have quoted many times - the vast majority of these are not abusers.

Table A has 88 of them were abused as a child but who do NOT go on to abuse their kids. This is a table of 88 ppl who are NOT abusers. The majority.

The remaining are split over table B and there are two parts to this table.

Table B has some who were abused as kids and abused as adults (75% of those sitting at this table NOT 75% of all of the ppl in the room).

Table B also has some who were not abused as kids but still abused as adults (25% of the table B NOT 25% of all of those in the room).

Table A has the most on it - those who did not abuse - 88% of them are not abusers.

Table B has the least on it - 8.25% meet the criteria of being abused as kids and being an abuser.

While 2.75% meet the criteria for being abusers but not abused as kids.

You have misunderstood as not all who were in the study were abusers. YOU have labelled ALL as abusers which they were not. It specifically says the majority are not abusers.

I think there is probably a lot of abuse and gaslighting in the relationship so just like abuse of partners, abuse of kids will come on gradually and be explained away or minimised or hidden by the abusive partner. And over time the child is scapegoated and dehumanised as the abuser makes sure they are no. 1 in the parents life and the child seen as an annoyance or the problem. There was a lot of this in the Star Hobson story.

I don't think I have ever encountered somebody so dedicated to demonstrating their total ineptitude in a subject until now.

@schmeler you are confusing absolute risk with relative risk. I'm going to do an Explain it Like I'm 5 for you.

100 abusers are sitting in a hall for their first Child Abusers Anonymous meeting.

The abusers are asked to sit at one of two tables:

Table A: Those abused as children
Table B: Those not abused as children

75 abusers sit at Table A (abused as children)
25 abusers sit at Table B (not abused as children)

Which table has the largest proportion of abusers sitting around it?

Most people who were abused as children do not become child abusers.

But 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).

So, although most people who were abused as children do not go on to become child abusers themselves, being abused as a child significantly increases the likelihood of becoming an abuser.

You are the only person I have met who can read very clear data saying x is greater than y and still try and argue that x is less than y.

You yourself posted the statement that said “It is important to note that across studies, findings suggest that the vast majority of adults who were abused as children did not abuse their own children, thus breaking the cycle of violence (Augustyn et al., 2019; Kim, 2009; Pears & Capaldi, 2001). ”

And taking that statement and saying this means most were abused.

The vast majority of adults who were abused as children did NOT abuse their own children. Maybe read it a few times before you understand it. So it happened less often than not. Basic probability and understanding words. Meaning it is more likely that if you were abused you do not go on to abuse others as the majority do not.

So you haven't read the raw data then as it clearly states it. You have googled a link and posted it without reading the studies that contributed to it and are now blaming me for doing so.

I read it all. I most certainly know how to calculate a fraction of a fraction.

I also saw the bias in the studies that they purposely selected - those on drugs, with a history of alcohol misuse, poverty, previous police involvement and purposely chosen the majority of men as in their words men are the main abusers. So no those you linked to have significant limitations and is not representative of a population at all. Unless you are now saying that those who were abused are mostly drug users and alcoholics etc as that is who they chose in the studies!

No you did not because I checked the systemic review and the individual studies referenced for the 75%, which you have completely misunderstood/misrepresented.

You most certainly did not read the review because you are asserting the exact opposite of what the review showed in its results, discussion and conclusion and using bogus figures to give your maths a veneer of competency. I doubt you have even read all of what I have quoted from the review. You are the only person I have met who can read very clear data saying x is greater than y and still try and argue that x is less than y.

I used the reference list directly to go to the study which you quoted and took the data directly from there. No bullshitting. One would ask why you posted something you have not read but just lifted quotes from someone else who has collated things?

Why is that?

You post a link and ask me to read it so I did including the reference list and the linked studies. Now you are complaining that I read the reference list studies and the original data and are not happy?

Make it make sense! Sorry I did as you asked and responded to the information you provided with the raw data not a 2nd hand study which referenced it.

“The vast majority in the study as being 88% as stated by the study..”
”100% all in the study (whole)
88% of those did not abuse but were abused (part)
11% did abuse of which 8.25% were previously abused and 2.75% were not (2 parts).”
The numbers were lifted directly from study…”

Stop with the bullshitting. @schmeler

The systematic review did NOT state those 88% or 11% figures at all. You have made them up. You then multiplied those numbers randomly to come up with more bogus figures of 8.25% and 2.75%. You pulled them out of thin air. And it’s not a study, it’s a systematic review of 97 studies that met the review criteria. So there is no “100% was all those in the study..” because it wasn’t a study! That’s not how systematic reviews work.

“The study then says that 75% of the remaining who did abuse were abused in childhood. So the 75% is of the minority who go on to abuse not of the 100% as part of that 100% are people who have not abused (the majority in your own words).”

No. The systematic review did NOT state this. The 75% in the review refers to the minimum reported % of ALL (100% of ) maltreating parents that abuse their children who reported having been abused as children. The remainder, 25%, are the maximum % of maltreating parents that abuse their children who reported not having been abused as children:
”Nevertheless, the experience of abuse in childhood confers significant risk for the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting behaviors, as the majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood (Coohey & Braun, 1997; Herrenkohl et al., 2013; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%.”

The review has a lot of discussion and proof showing that adults who were abused as children are more likely to abuse their own children than adults who were not abused as children:

”Studies in which the additive effects of multiple maltreatment experiences were examined consistently indicated that a history of childhood abuse, neglect, and/or interparental violence was associated with greater likelihood of perpetrating physical abuse or neglect on one’s children (Banyard, Williams, & Siegel, 2003; Ben-David, 2016; Chung et al., 2009; L. R. Cohen, Hien, & Batchelder, 2008; Dubowitz et al., 2001; Ferrari, 2002; Frías-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998; Fulu et al., 2017; Heyman & Slep, 2002; Jackson et al., 1999; Kim, Pears, et al., 2010; Kim, Trickett, & Putnam, 2010; Milaniak & Widom, 2015). These findings held even after controlling for other child and adult risk factors (Ben-David, Jonson-Reid, Drake, & Kohl, 2015). Further, in cluster analysis, physically abusive parents tended to report greater levels of cumulative abuse histories compared with parents who scored low on the use of physical discipline (Thompson et al., 1999).”

”In spite of the breadth of populations, definitions, and methodologies included in these studies, there was general consistency in findings that a history of CPA [child physical abuse] confers increased risk for engaging in abusive or neglectful parenting, either directly or indirectly.”

”This finding is consistent with, and in several ways extends, results from Savage et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis, which found a small but consistent relationship between women’s histories of childhood maltreatment victimization with their use of negative parenting behaviors with their young (ages 0–6 years old) children.”

Edited to correct autocorrects incorrect spelling

The 75% of former victims who abuse their children is out of 100% of parents who abuse their children. It is not “75% of 11%” (reminder you made up 11% as the % of former victims who go on to abuse).

Nope the 100% was all those in the study - basic maths (parts and wholes). The whole amount is the 100% of people in the study.

100% all in the study (whole)
88% of those did not abuse but were abused (part)
11% did abuse of which 8.25% were previously abused and 2.75% were not (2 parts).

Those included can be:
Abused and not abuse themselves (88%)
Abused and abuse themselves (8.25%)
Not abused and abuse themselves
Not abused and not abuse themselves

The study talks about the majority not going on to abuse (88% which you conveniently quoted as saying:

“It is important to note that across studies, findings suggest that the vast majority of adults who were abused as children did not abuse their own children, thus breaking the cycle of violence (Augustyn et al., 2019; Kim, 2009; Pears & Capaldi, 2001). ”

The vast majority in the study as being 88% as stated by the study. You are saying that despite it clearly saying that the vast majority did not abuse your words then said that the study is made of 100% of parents who abuse. The study then says that 75% of the remaining who did abuse were abused in childhood.

So the 75% is of the minority who go on to abuse not of the 100% as part of that 100% are people who have not abused (the majority in your own words).

The numbers were lifted directly from study and calculated as a percentage of the whole and a percentage of a percentage.

Nope the data was from the study. I used the reference list to then read the study and took the data from there. The data was presented and as the article said almost all didn't abuse then my estimate was correct. I used the data YOu gave me or did you not read your own study you shared? Seems like you didn't.

1/5 do not commit most of the abuse. The majority of those who commit abuse have not been abused. You are now saying that because there are 20% of the population are victims (very low estimate given other data says otherwise) and most of those are abusers despite your own data showing that 88% of that 20% do not go on to abuse. Only 8.25% of that 20% do.

And based on such low numbers from the study I do not consider that to be typical for all of the population either. And given they said they purposely chose ppl from poor backgrounds and ppl with criminal histories already then the bias of the study hasn't been accepted on your behalf and not a representation of society as a while.

You are saying only a small minority and then saying it is 75% of all those abused are abusers. Which is wholly inaccurate and you have clearly misunderstood the basics of a fraction of a percentage.

Likely is a mathematical term based on probability. It means that it is more than a 50% chance that someone will do this. That is not true. Using mathematical terms incorrectly doesn't make it so. Likely means it more often than not will happen. That is not the case. Less likely means it happens less often than not which is correct. Basic mathematical language used accurately.

You are the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don’t think I have ever run across anyone who displays it quite so well as you.

No, your “estimate” which was more of a wild guess based on changing ‘vast majority’ to ‘almost all’ is incorrect, it is also not listed anywhere except in your own posts.

Furthermore you have attributed numbers you have pulled out of thin air to me & the links I posted - there is no 89% vs 11% as you have alleged. You have also made some glaring mathematical errors! The 75% of former victims who abuse their children is out of 100% of parents who abuse their children. It is not “75% of 11%” (reminder you made up 11% as the % of former victims who go on to abuse).

In terms you may understand better:
Because 1/5th the population (former victims) commit 75% of parental child abuse, they are more likely to commit parental child abuse than the 4/5ths of the population (never victims) that commit only 25% of parental child abuse. [this is the evidenced ONS data and the review data I have posted upthread on this p12 of this thread at 23:15.]

Just like because 1/2 the population (men) commit 95% of homicides, they are more likely to be killers than the 1/2 of the population (women) who commit only 5% of homicides.

In both cases, only a small minority of each commit these crimes so we can still say it is unlikely that former victims will abuse their children or that a man will kill anyone.

However, the comparison of less likely/more likely to commit a crime is always between two populations that are committing a crime and is not a comment on general likelihood.

This was a comparison you have made with numerous unevidenced statements along these lines in the thread:
“…if you suffer abuse you are less likely to abuse others.” (Schmeler Yesterday 17:16)

You were unsurprisingly incorrect:
”Nevertheless, the experience of abuse in childhood confers significant risk for the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting behaviors, as the majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood (Coohey & Braun, 1997; Herrenkohl et al., 2013; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%.”

Your claim “…if you suffer abuse you are less likely to abuse others.” (Schmeler Yesterday 17:16)” is worlds away from what you are now saying is your claim:
”…the numbers you are showing support my claim that most do not abuse when they have been abused.” (Schmeler today 03:01)

which isn’t your claim but something I posted in the form of a quote from the systemic reviews:

Me 23:15 “In addition
“It is important to note that across studies, findings suggest that the vast majority of adults who were abused as children did not abuse their own children, thus breaking the cycle of violence (Augustyn et al., 2019; Kim, 2009; Pears & Capaldi, 2001). ”

so yes the real data supports this. However the real data doesn’t support your “less likely claim” it supports the exact opposite.

Ah so it's not "another" thank god. It's been in the news weeks now. Lots of other threads.

Poor baby.

My estimation was correct. The amount who didn't go on to abuse was listed as 89% and those who did were 11%. Meaning it is 75% of 11%. Which equates to 8.25% of those abused go on to abuse. meaning that 91.75% of victims of abuse do not go on to abuse. Meaning they are not likely at all by your own data.

This.
“Contact at all costs” is their underlying rationale while claiming “best interests of the child”!
How can it be in the best interests of the child to have unsupervised overnight contact with a domestic abuser?
make it make sense. 🤷🏼‍♀️

If abused children were less likely to become abusive parents than children who were not abused as you have repeatedly stated on this thread, then we would not be seeing these numbers.

The fact that your numbers show 92.5% of those abused do not go onto abuse based on estimates of 'almost all being 90% or thereabouts' then the numbers you are showing support my claim that most do not abuse when they have been abused. 92.5% in fact using estimations.

20%...That is odd when 75% of female students report sexual abuse....you mean that number is an estimate based on the crime data which is clearly states. As we know the majority are not reported so that is a very low estimate.

Your maths isn't mathing. Almost all of those abused do not abuse others. Almost all being a high % (likely in the 90% range). Meaning that only a tiny proportion did abuse. It says that most of those abused did not go onto abuse so approximately 90% as an estimate of those who were abused did not abuse.

So that 75% is of the 10% who did abuse. So 75% of 10 is 7.5% of those abused go on to abuse others using the data as an estimate meaning 92.5% do not go on to abuse others. So over 90% of those abused do not abuse others and apparently abused ppl go on to abuse others?

Many are lying based on the data for other crimes showing many criminals lie and the fact we have abuse cases which have evidence that the perpetrator is a liar supports that. Without liars there would be no trials. Not rocket science. Or else why do criminals get taken to trial if they are not lying? If they admitted it they would get sent straight down. The fact there are trials and often shows how often abusers will lie. So there is evidence they lie. Not sure why you dismiss it.

You are very much mistaken if you think abusers are honest folk. Not sure why you are defending them so much and suggesting they are the only criminals who do not often lie. Quite a statement and with no back up either.

You ignored it as you said that I accused victims of lying. Nope I accused liars of lying. Not hard to understand. You just couldn't get your head around the fact that some will pretend to be victims and therefore are not victims being accused of lying but are not victims at all. Just liars.

Given that many lie in all other crimes it would stand to reason that the same applies in this crime. Or would you care to explain why there would be an unique difference in this case?

Nope that is not the case relating to rape. I said rapists (you do know rapists are ppl who rape, right) and those are the ones who falsely accuse. You have a view that false accusation comes from the reporters when in fact data shows the main false accusers are the rapists themselves when found out. So no not once did I mention victims of rape falsely accusing or ppl reporting falsely nor mentioned the data relating to those who falsely report (as that also shows it is men who falsely report more often and fabricate rape cases) specifically said rapists (meaning those who have raped). You have little understanding of how a rape victim is falsely accuse almost every single time by the perpetrator and are trying to pretend that I am on about those reporting it falsely which I never once stated. You just automatically assume I was on about those reporting as it has never crossed your mind that victims of rape also suffer false accusation on top of rape in most cases. I never once brought in the he said/she said as rape is rarely that as most has evidence and also quite homophobic too to assume that rape is male on female.

So no when you mention and merge two different statements you get the false statement that you have just come up with which is again more of a fabrication on your behalf. If they lie about being raped as a child then that is them lying about rape and being the perpetrators as I stated.

So now onto child rape - yes it does happen and perpetrators of rape will pretend to be victims to excuse their own behaviour in some cases - as I stated - perpetrators pretending. If they were not raped then they are not rape victims - not that hard to understand is it?

I do not regret saying those who have been abused as kids are not lying but those who have not are liars as that is the case. And merging two comments when talking about police reports and you assigning it to something else which was not about police reports is quite something else....an agenda maybe?

So how many are raped as kids given you suggest it is most? Despite those studies saying that experience of CSE show they are less likely to abuse others so those who report being sexually abused are the least likely to abuse others. So your attempt to link the two didn't work really did it. Being abused sexually it says is not linked to abusing later on in life.

So no it was not 75% of those abused go on to abuse others
Of course it wasn’t. I cited what was written. You are correcting your initial misunderstanding here.

The studies showed the vast majority did not abuse....while those that did 75% reported being abused so almost all of those who were abused did not go on to abuse others. 75% is of a small proportion not 75% of the whole amount. So no it was not 75% of those abused go on to abuse others it was most do not but of those who do 75% were reporting a history of abuse.

You have failed to understand the maths here.

20% of children suffer from child abuse.
80% do not

This is a ratio of 1 in 4 children are abused (ONS report)

Out of 100% of adults who abuse children, 75% of them reported they were abused when they were children, with physical abuse being the #1 risk factor.

This is a ratio of 3 in 4 abusive adults reported they were abused as children

If abused children were less likely to become abusive parents than children who were not abused as you have repeatedly stated on this thread, then we would not be seeing these numbers.

Your response to this is “many are lying” and with no data whatsoever have invented your “less likely” and written it as if it were fact.

Well, just like every other poster, I give up trying to have a conversation with you. I don’t know how you not having any data to support your “many are lying”proves that “many are lying”. I’ve never said “I believe them all”.

I don’t know how you have the guts to constantly accuse us of ignoring or saying things we haven’t ignored or said.

I never mentioned people pretending to be raped Oh? Child rape happens and falls under child abuse. By saying “many are lying” you are in fact accusing “many” of pretending to have been raped. And as you say “Almost all rape victims are falsely accused of being a liar.” That is why it is similar. You brought in the dynamics of the he said/she said rape as a comparison to the I said/they said of child abuse, are you going to now regret that?

“You assume that the only person lying is the one making the report not the criminal”. Not at all, rather it is you assuming that no one can be the victim of a historic victim.