Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77652968" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>But by hierarchy we are not talking about some arbitrary ranking on an abstract measure. We are talking about relationships with a power differential. </p><p></p><p>If the roles are so rigid that they are not open to renegotiation as desired, then yes, they are controlling in an abusive way. </p><p></p><p>So what? Sure we might learn more in the future. We can work on what we know now, instead of refusing to acknowledge it. </p><p></p><p>But we know this about the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse!</p><p></p><p>I don't believe there is such a thing as a "natural" belief. All of it is conditioned and learned. </p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, we can certainly say that belief in hierarchies is part of the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>But that's what we've done. We know which beliefs differentiate abusers from non-abusers. We know for sure which cluster of beliefs underpins abuse. </p><p></p><p>Well, they are, in that they normalise and legitimise relationships of control. They are one expression of a cultural norm which conditions the beliefs which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>Yes, we have. </p><p></p><p>Then show it. With actual evidence, not just your own claims.</p><p>You might like to start with responding to this: <a href="https://www.ourwatch.org.au/the-issue/" target="_blank">The issue | Our Watch | Preventing violence against women</a></p><p></p><p>"Promoting and enforcing rigid and hierarchical gender stereotypes reproduces the social conditions of gender inequality that underpin violence against women."</p><p></p><p>And this: <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NCAS-report-2018.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.anrows.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NCAS-report-2018.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>"When the influence of the individual gender equality themes on attitudes towards violence against women is examined, the measures of ‘denying gender inequality is a problem’ and ‘promoting rigid gender roles, stereotypes and expressions’ have the strongest influence on attitudes towards violence against women."</p><p></p><p>"Particular expressions of gender inequality consistently predict higher rates of violence against women:</p><p>1. Condoning of violence against women</p><p>2. Men’s control of decision-making and limits to women’s independence in public and private life</p><p>3. Rigid gender rols and stereotyped constructions of masculinity and femininity</p><p>4. Male peer relations that emphasis aggression and disrespect towards women."</p><p></p><p>"What are attitudes supportive of violence towards women and gender inequality?...</p><p>rigid gender roles, stereotypes and expressions – the idea that men and women are naturally suited to different tasks and responsibilities, and have naturally distinctive – often oppositional – personal characteristics (e.g. ‘women are emotional and are therefore better child carers’, while ‘men are rational and are therefore better politicians’)."</p><p></p><p>No, sorry. I reject that utterly. People don't abuse because they're disadvantaged. </p><p></p><p>No, sorry, that's not what all the evidence shows, at all. Some people claim that, but there is very flimsy evidence for it, and strong evidence for other influences on why people abuse. </p><p></p><p>That's not at all what I'm saying, either. </p><p></p><p>Evidence is required for this kind of claim. </p><p></p><p>As if therapy doesn't impact our thinking and attitudes... </p><p></p><p><strong><em>Reports</em></strong> diminish. That's not the same thing. </p><p></p><p>It's not that simple. It's not just psychological mindset, there is a whole complex interplay of all sorts of things which shapes beliefs and attitudes. </p><p></p><p>In effect, changing beliefs and attitudes is a form of repentance. </p><p></p><p>I don't believe I have suggested otherwise. </p><p></p><p>In general, I've observed that "telling" anyone to repent is not effective. </p><p></p><p>Sure. But every person's story is different, and you can't assume beforehand what those experiences will be, or even that it's all about "negative" thinking etc. </p><p></p><p>Not at all. But I have been pointing out, throughout the thread, that many of the assumptions underlying various claims about "causes" or "risk factors" are fairly well unfounded. </p><p></p><p>We agreed that demandingness was the trait measured by the PRIBS that was related to the attitudes and beliefs which underpin abuse. The other traits measured by the PRIBS are not. </p><p></p><p>The PRIBS doesn't measure acceptance of violence, for example. </p><p></p><p>No, I agreed from our earliest discussing that "demandingness" was the area of overlap between the PRIBS and the attitudes which underpin abuse.</p><p></p><p>However, someone could take the PRIBS, score low on demandingness, score highly on the other measures (which aren't related to the attitudes which underpin abuse), and therefore have a high measure of irrational beliefs, and yet not hold the attitudes and beliefs which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>It's the belief and assumption that different people have different responsibilities, tasks, and relational obligations based not on personal traits or relationships but place in the household structure. </p><p></p><p>Provided the role is flexible - that tasks, responsibilities, relational obligations and so on are able to be negotiated and changed - then they are not rigid, and the structure is not abusive. </p><p></p><p>Not really. There are plenty of people who accept and use these structures who are not engaged in irrational thinking on those measures. </p><p></p><p>I explained it very clearly. Of the traits measured by the PRIBS, only demandingness has any clear relationship to the attitudes and beliefs which underpin abuse. I don't know how many times I have said this, or how I could have said it more clearly. </p><p></p><p>What you go on to quote there is not discussing parenting; it's a study of the mental health of athletes, and the only mention it makes of abuse is the abuse of alcohol. </p><p></p><p>The next article is discussing a refinement of a clinical scale, and does not mention abuse, and only mentions studies of parenting as providing useful data for that refinement of the clinical scale.</p><p></p><p>The third one notes a correlation between low frustration tolerance and abuse risk, but notes that the processes underlying this correlation need further investigation. </p><p></p><p>That's not really showing that clinical scales of irrational beliefs are a good measure of the beliefs and attitudes which underpin the physical abuse of children!</p><p></p><p>These have nothing to do with the attitudes which underpin abuse, though. Nothing about self downing or awfulising relates to acceptance of violence, or rigid roles, or hierarchy and control. </p><p></p><p>But what it is not, is a clinical scale to measure the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>I still don't buy the claim that these are "irrational" beliefs. They are perfectly rational in a society which normalises them. </p><p></p><p>Well, if we had a clinical measure for those beliefs, it certainly would.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77652968, member: 386627"] But by hierarchy we are not talking about some arbitrary ranking on an abstract measure. We are talking about relationships with a power differential. If the roles are so rigid that they are not open to renegotiation as desired, then yes, they are controlling in an abusive way. So what? Sure we might learn more in the future. We can work on what we know now, instead of refusing to acknowledge it. But we know this about the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse! I don't believe there is such a thing as a "natural" belief. All of it is conditioned and learned. Meanwhile, we can certainly say that belief in hierarchies is part of the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. But that's what we've done. We know which beliefs differentiate abusers from non-abusers. We know for sure which cluster of beliefs underpins abuse. Well, they are, in that they normalise and legitimise relationships of control. They are one expression of a cultural norm which conditions the beliefs which underpin abuse. Yes, we have. Then show it. With actual evidence, not just your own claims. You might like to start with responding to this: [URL="https://www.ourwatch.org.au/the-issue/"]The issue | Our Watch | Preventing violence against women[/URL] "Promoting and enforcing rigid and hierarchical gender stereotypes reproduces the social conditions of gender inequality that underpin violence against women." And this: [URL]https://www.anrows.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NCAS-report-2018.pdf[/URL] "When the influence of the individual gender equality themes on attitudes towards violence against women is examined, the measures of ‘denying gender inequality is a problem’ and ‘promoting rigid gender roles, stereotypes and expressions’ have the strongest influence on attitudes towards violence against women." "Particular expressions of gender inequality consistently predict higher rates of violence against women: 1. Condoning of violence against women 2. Men’s control of decision-making and limits to women’s independence in public and private life 3. Rigid gender rols and stereotyped constructions of masculinity and femininity 4. Male peer relations that emphasis aggression and disrespect towards women." "What are attitudes supportive of violence towards women and gender inequality?... rigid gender roles, stereotypes and expressions – the idea that men and women are naturally suited to different tasks and responsibilities, and have naturally distinctive – often oppositional – personal characteristics (e.g. ‘women are emotional and are therefore better child carers’, while ‘men are rational and are therefore better politicians’)." No, sorry. I reject that utterly. People don't abuse because they're disadvantaged. No, sorry, that's not what all the evidence shows, at all. Some people claim that, but there is very flimsy evidence for it, and strong evidence for other influences on why people abuse. That's not at all what I'm saying, either. Evidence is required for this kind of claim. As if therapy doesn't impact our thinking and attitudes... [B][I]Reports[/I][/B] diminish. That's not the same thing. It's not that simple. It's not just psychological mindset, there is a whole complex interplay of all sorts of things which shapes beliefs and attitudes. In effect, changing beliefs and attitudes is a form of repentance. I don't believe I have suggested otherwise. In general, I've observed that "telling" anyone to repent is not effective. Sure. But every person's story is different, and you can't assume beforehand what those experiences will be, or even that it's all about "negative" thinking etc. Not at all. But I have been pointing out, throughout the thread, that many of the assumptions underlying various claims about "causes" or "risk factors" are fairly well unfounded. We agreed that demandingness was the trait measured by the PRIBS that was related to the attitudes and beliefs which underpin abuse. The other traits measured by the PRIBS are not. The PRIBS doesn't measure acceptance of violence, for example. No, I agreed from our earliest discussing that "demandingness" was the area of overlap between the PRIBS and the attitudes which underpin abuse. However, someone could take the PRIBS, score low on demandingness, score highly on the other measures (which aren't related to the attitudes which underpin abuse), and therefore have a high measure of irrational beliefs, and yet not hold the attitudes and beliefs which underpin abuse. It's the belief and assumption that different people have different responsibilities, tasks, and relational obligations based not on personal traits or relationships but place in the household structure. Provided the role is flexible - that tasks, responsibilities, relational obligations and so on are able to be negotiated and changed - then they are not rigid, and the structure is not abusive. Not really. There are plenty of people who accept and use these structures who are not engaged in irrational thinking on those measures. I explained it very clearly. Of the traits measured by the PRIBS, only demandingness has any clear relationship to the attitudes and beliefs which underpin abuse. I don't know how many times I have said this, or how I could have said it more clearly. What you go on to quote there is not discussing parenting; it's a study of the mental health of athletes, and the only mention it makes of abuse is the abuse of alcohol. The next article is discussing a refinement of a clinical scale, and does not mention abuse, and only mentions studies of parenting as providing useful data for that refinement of the clinical scale. The third one notes a correlation between low frustration tolerance and abuse risk, but notes that the processes underlying this correlation need further investigation. That's not really showing that clinical scales of irrational beliefs are a good measure of the beliefs and attitudes which underpin the physical abuse of children! These have nothing to do with the attitudes which underpin abuse, though. Nothing about self downing or awfulising relates to acceptance of violence, or rigid roles, or hierarchy and control. But what it is not, is a clinical scale to measure the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse. I still don't buy the claim that these are "irrational" beliefs. They are perfectly rational in a society which normalises them. Well, if we had a clinical measure for those beliefs, it certainly would. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Top
Bottom