MSM website prints an article that mothers abuse more kids than fathers

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...s/news-story/629b48b93abd22be2b63f1344c0c5de6

Archive it; blink and you'll miss it, this sort of shit tends to disappear real fast once the vaginal outrage train gets going.

DID you know children are more likely to be harmed by their biological mother than father? Neither did I until very recently. But why am I surprised — and why will you be shocked? Because we don’t talk about it.

No one wants to talk about it. Society is totally in denial that women aren’t always victims.

We have all been conditioned to believe the majority of people who commit abuse are men — but it’s not true.

There are good women and bad women. Children are far more likely to suffer neglect or abuse at the hands of their mothers.

It’s so important that we all put aside our preconceptions and look at the facts, even though they’re uncomfortable.

Statistics show a different story from the one we are accustomed to.

Data from Child Protective Services in the US, mirrors the pattern around the world. Of children who become victims of maltreatment, the huge majority of perpetrators of the crimes are the biological parents (not adopted or foster parents, as you might think).

The Child Family Community Australia reports, “A British retrospective prevalence study of 2669 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse 49 per cent of incidents compared to 40 per cent).”

Other sites that are trying to raise awareness in this area will bombard you with statistics. Breaking the silence, for instance, says 71 per cent of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers, 60 per cent of those victims are boys.

A report by Australian Institute of Family Studies released in October 2016 found, “boys were more likely to be the subjects of a substantiation of physical abuse, neglect or emotional abuse than girls.”

DHHS data in the UK shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6 per cent were abused by their mothers, 29.4 per cent were abused by their fathers.

You don’t have to drown in statistics to see reality. You only have to read news headlines that, sadly, are all around us.

The truth about violence is that it has more connection to morality than gender. And, not all women are natural caretakers.

Women who abuse children are criminals.

This is a million miles away from the Mrs Robinson stereotype. It is not more OK that female teachers have sex with their students than vice versa.

On Sunday, it was reported that an Australian mother pleaded guilty to 26 offences including sexually assaulting three of her own children. She’ll be in Newcastle District Court this week for sentencing.

Heartbreaking doesn’t even come close to the horrors these poor children have seen.

There are so many gruesome stories, why are we still in denial? Ultimately, it’s children who continue to suffer.

Why is society not being honest about abuse and violence?
Isn’t it all of our responsibility to help to protect children?
Doesn’t that start with acknowledging the truth?

But, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the article goes on to excuse women's abusive behaviour:

Author and psychologist Meredith Fuller says, “There is a societal idea that it’s easy to have children, you should be able to cope and feel blessed. Abusive mothers are a very real problem and we have to start talking about it to be able to help. We have no language around it. We have made it completely impossible for a mother to say, ‘I feel violent. I want to harm my child. I’m overwhelmed and I don’t know what to do.’ Mothers lash out because they’re frustrated, angry and feel despair. They want the noise to stop, the pain to stop and they don’t know what to do. We are in denial and it’s harming children.

As with all cases of vaginal whining: change the sexes in the proposition and see whether it would be acceptable to print this shite.

Given it's a psychologist, it's not surprising to see the same old elevation of identity over behaviour that psychiatry is famous for and which keeps on breeding and feeding narcissism in the West. This psychologist's patients have all provided, and have been encouraged to provide, the same self-diagnosis:

"I'm a good person, I just do bad things sometimes, and in each case I have an a reason for why I do it."

Yep, and the reason you abuse your kids is because you're a bad person. You had narcissists for parents, you're still trying to work a toy job that feminism demands of you, and you had your kids in your thirties, so you haven't got the energy or the cross-generational training and mentors available to handle this shit. But because you get to rationalise each instance of putting out cigarette butts on your kids as "exceptional" behaviour, your ego remains untouched and you don't have to change anything about yourself.

“We’ve created a culture where children can stand with their hands on their hips and say to their parent, ‘You’re not allowed to touch me. You can’t hit me.’ Parents feel powerless. They can’t cope and we see the result of that, but we’re not willing to talk about what we can do to help before it gets to breaking point.”

What you do before it gets to breaking point is fucking change who you are and to stop engaging in Category Error. The reason parents feel powerless when a kid defies them is mainly due to a lack of time: you have to get somewhere and Junior won't put his pants or boots on.

You lack time because you fucking work and you chase trinkets and you don't have an extended family around to provide either support or provide a certain level of societal disapproval for the kid's actions.

Because you lack time, you don't actually know your kid and you don't actually like spending time with him anyway because he isn't a fully real person.

You also don't inspire your kid because you're constantly running your ass off for filthy lucre, and you don't spend time with him, so he doesn't respect you. You also are getting back pretty much exactly what you dished out to the kid earlier, because kids are basically the last chance a narcissist has to look into the mirror and see himself for what he really is; kids do what you do, they behave as you model them to behave.

"You're not allowed to touch me. You can't hit me." Of course you can't. An actual parent would have the moral authority to provide punishments. But because you aren't an actual parent, just a sort of life support system for the kid, you don't have that moral authority and the kid fucking knows it. The problem for you is that by making those assertions, the kid is doing you a narcissistic injury, because you have a self-concept as a good parent (who just does bad things sometimes). The kid is really saying "You are not the person you think you see in the mirror." And there are only three responses to a narcissistic injury: psychotic break with reality, denial ... or rage.

Every kid tests their parent. Your reaction to him testing you will determine his response to authority telling him "No" -- for all time. Now, if you're not a narcissist, not completely stretched for time, not chasing all the shit society wants you to, you are able to understand that. You are able to step back, game the situation ... and even be proud of the fact your kid is growing powerful enough to stand up to someone three times his size with complete authority over him.

"He has to learn to respect authority." Here's the thing: you are authority in the most concentrated form a kid will likely ever experience, and have been since the day he was born. If he doesn't respect you by the time he starts defying you, he won't learn it from a belting. Respond with abuse, misuse your power as most narcissistic parents do, and the kid will learn that authority figures are always to be obeyed and feared because of the unspoken coercive power they hold. Authority does not always constitute a cop. Authority can include the university professor, the "accepted way of doing things" at his job, the demands of his society that he marry an ageing slut and pump out a couple of unhappy kids, the demands of his society that he go to university and not run down the opportunity of a trade school job that he knows he can do and which he's good at.

"Are you saying I should always let him defy me?" Only a Sith deals in absolutes. If you were not a time-poor narcissist courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg feminism, you might figure out another way to do things. But because you're a good person who just does bad things sometimes, that's unlikely.
 

Kabal

Pelican
Gold Member
The left-stream reporting makes me so annoyed. Information I was looking for:

- To what extent is IQ/education controlled for?
- To what extent is single-motherhood controlled for?
- What is the sample size, and degrees of freedom?
- Where the fuck is/are an obvious link to the original paper(s)? It's like MSM reports of "scientific" results make finding the paper in question an Easter Egg Hunt. Obviously, I could track this shit down, but I shouldn't need to.

None of which is directly and clearly reported, information of which is the most important.

One notion that I've posted on quite a few times:

To the extent child-abuse and single motherhood are positively correlated--child abuse will disproportionately come from numb-skull single moms and their boyfriend-of-the-night/week/month.

How well-treated are bastard lion cubs or bastard chimpanzee youngin's?

:jordan:

I have others, but perhaps for another day...
 
I'll have more to say on this later, however I will tell you this. Every time I was hit (& it was often) was either by her in a moment of pure narcissistic rage or by my father at her behest while she directed her rage at him.

Both cowards. But she was brutal.
 

Speculation

Kingfisher
Paracelsus said:
"He has to learn to respect authority." Here's the thing: you are authority in the most concentrated form a kid will likely ever experience, and have been since the day he was born. If he doesn't respect you by the time he starts defying you, he won't learn it from a belting. Respond with abuse, misuse your power as most narcissistic parents do, and the kid will learn that authority figures are always to be obeyed and feared because of the unspoken coercive power they hold. Authority does not always constitute a cop. Authority can include the university professor, the "accepted way of doing things" at his job, the demands of his society that he marry an ageing slut and pump out a couple of unhappy kids, the demands of his society that he go to university and not run down the opportunity of a trade school job that he knows he can do and which he's good at.

There's a lot of wisdom here about how rule followers (eg Betas) are created.

I wish more parents understood all this.
 

hv123

Woodpecker
The reality is women are probably "more violent" than men. By more violent I mean actually undertake acts of violence as opposed to being predisposed to it, which isn't the same thing. In modern society, there is heavy censure for male violence and almost encouragement for female violence. For that reason female violence is, I think, actually massively under reported in "proper" statistics. And, as per this this article, even official figures show that women are pretty violent.

Ask yourselves in life how many times you have seen a woman attack a man - kick, slap etc, even if the attack is pathetic, compared to how many times you've actually seen a man physically attack at a woman.

However, in reality, women spend more parenting time with children and these figures don't state whether the violence is over-all or per period of time. Also as women spent the more parenting time with children they should also bear most of the blame for the poor mental state of many children these days (depression, learning difficulties etc).
 

T and A Man

Pelican
Gold Member
Good old feminist double standards.

Can it ever be a case a husband beats his wife because "they’re frustrated, angry and feel despair. They want the noise to stop, the pain to stop and they don’t know what to do. "...

Or is there no crux for men to lean on?

Mark Latham here in Australia fights the male are brutes zeitgeist, pointing out DV is a thin wedge phenomenon, being 10 times more likely in low socio-economic areas and 25 times more likely in aboriginal communities.

Sounds like those suffering frustration and despair to me"

But alas, this article is not in line with the identity politics in play, it will penetrate very few minds as learned fact.
 
This stuff is well known around here and in sane circles.

Single motherhood is child abuse.
Women spend more time with their kids, thus abuse them more.

Also what is not known is that that some 30-40% of sexual abuse comes from women, which is amazing since the ones they use is far worse as they use sometimes objects to insert into the butts of their sons.

The percentage of abusive women is identical to those of men by the way. In addition you have the general bullshit of single mothers and the dangers it brings to kids as the wide assortment of bad boys coming home and seeing the young daughter is conducive to increase sexual abuse. A drug-addicted stranger will readily rape a the daughter of the woman he bangs, a biological father is far less likely to do so despite all the propaganda by Hollywood, that this is the main problem.
 

la bodhisattva

Kingfisher
The axiom of, "Wait until your father gets home," is a transferal of rage to a beta vessel mindlessly heeding the demands of a tyrannical mother/wife. Dad gets home from work, fuming wife demands he punish the child, dad dutifully follows orders. The man is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't (would woman who demands her husband hit her child idly step aside at his refusal? Of course not, she's likely to attack him as well)

Who is the true villain in this scenario?
 
Top