I am pointing out that your saying a hierarchy itself is abusive and controlling. I am saying with these examples they they are not in themselves and it takes an abusing person to make them so.
But by hierarchy we are not talking about some arbitrary ranking on an abstract measure. We are talking about relationships with a power differential.
We went through the rigid roles of household settings. A trad marriage has rigid roles but is not controllong in an abusive way.
If the roles are so rigid that they are not open to renegotiation as desired, then yes, they are controlling in an abusive way.
We only know these beliefs because of the abuse. But beforehand we didn't. There was no way to tell which beliefs were negative and led to abuse. So theres no way to tell which beliefs will lead to abuse in the future until they actually are linked to abuse. Its always hindsight.
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 can tell the risk factors because we understand how humans think and behave and that certain thinking and psychological disorders do lead to bad behaviour through the science.
But we know this about the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse!
Except if someone has a belief in hierarchies which is often subconscious and natural we cannot say that belief is hierarchies is abusive and controlling.
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.
Its only grounding beliefs in what actually happens and not speculating which beliefs are negative and abusive that we can know for sure which beliefs are abusive and controlling in a negative way.
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.
I think this language and narrative is damaging in itself as you keep conflating that hierarchies themselves are part of the problem.
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.
The same beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles can be shown to not be abusive.
Then show it. With actual evidence, not just your own claims.
You might like to start with responding to this:
The issue | Our Watch | Preventing violence against women
"Promoting and enforcing rigid and hierarchical gender stereotypes reproduces the social conditions of gender inequality that underpin violence against women."
And this:
https://www.anrows.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NCAS-report-2018.pdf
"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’)."
It is partly why they abuse
No, sorry. I reject that utterly. People don't abuse because they're disadvantaged.
All and I repeat all the evidence states that the negative experiences of a person and the distress and other factors or determinants linked to abuse are exactly why parents abuse.
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.
Well your the one who is saying that a parents experiences are irrelevant to their behaviour and situations.
That's not at all what I'm saying, either.
Most of why people stop abusing is due to practical support and not particularly about beliefs.
Evidence is required for this kind of claim.
For example when a distress parents with unreal beliefs and expectations who is behaving inappropriately towards their child recieves therapy the abuse eventually stops.
As if therapy doesn't impact our thinking and attitudes...
As my links showed when disadvantaged parents are given resources and support the abuse deminishes.
Reports diminish. That's not the same thing.
Just as the previous reply is saying that its addressing the psychological state of the person which changes beliefs and attitudes and not addressing the belief itself. Addressing the beliefs and attituides means addressing the psychological mindset of the person because the belief is caused by the psychological mindset which has been cultivated through personal experiences.
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.
So your advocating repentence for society to overcome abuse.
In effect, changing beliefs and attitudes is a form of repentance.
Most of the time this is a long process.
I don't believe I have suggested otherwise.
You don't tell an addict to repent as they will run away.
In general, I've observed that "telling" anyone to repent is not effective.
Yes and to do that means lifting the lid on whats going on inside the person, their negative thinking, feelings and perceptions. What happened that they come to a point where they are acting so destructive and not constructive.
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.
Then you have just wiped out all child organisations that help and protect children and support parents as well as every other research and approach that uses the risk and protective factors for every other social behavioural problem regarding health and wellbeing.
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.
What is this so called "a lot" that is not related to abuse. Give me some examples.
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.
Saying the PRIBS doesn't measure abusive beliefs and attitudes of parents is like saying a an anxiety scale doesn't measure the most important anxiety disorders.
The PRIBS doesn't measure acceptance of violence, for example.
What you need to do is explain why say 'Demandingness' which is the core beliefs behind ideas like rigid roles and abusive controlling hierarchies is not a measure for those beliefs.
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.
What is it that makes roles rigid. Is it the role itself or the thinking behind the idea.
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.
It takes a person with this mindset to come up with the idea of using roles and hierarchies to abuse and control.
Not really. There are plenty of people who accept and use these structures who are not engaged in irrational thinking on those measures.
You then made up some stuff about the PRIBS not covering abusive and controlling parental beliefs also without a shred of evidence or reasoning explaining how exactly this is the case.
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.
For example the core belief of Low Frustration Tolerance has been linked to abusive and controlling parenting ...
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!
This feeds into the other 2 core beliefs of Awefulizing and Global Evaluations of self or self downing. These I think are more about the distress, the low self worth and esteem which often comes with depression and anxiety. Beliefs about self efficacy and locus of control where abusive parents seem to have an external locus of control.
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.
The idea of the PRIBS is for a clinical scale to measure the core irrational beliefs through measures on how the parent thinks in regards to volnurability for irrational beliefs.
But what it is not, is a clinical scale to measure the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.
In other words if a parent does not display the patterns of thinking, schemas and unreal expectations about self, others and the world then they will not be open to irrational beliefs like rigid roles and abusive and controlling hierarchies.
I still don't buy the claim that these are "irrational" beliefs. They are perfectly rational in a society which normalises them.
So in that sense the belief itself doesn't tell us about which type of mindset or physhe is volnurable to abuse and control
Well, if we had a clinical measure for those beliefs, it certainly would.