Shouting at children can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse, study says
Shouting at children can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse, study says
Research finds verbal abuse leaves young people at greater risk of self-harm, drug use and going to prison
Parents who shout at their children or call them “stupid” are leaving their offspring at greater risk of self-harm, drug use and ending up in jail, new research claims.
Talking harshly to children should be recognised as a form of abuse because of the huge damage it does, experts say.
The authors of a new study into such behaviour say “adult-to-child perpetration of verbal abuse … is characterised by shouting, yelling, denigrating the child, and verbal threats”.
“These types of adult actions can be as damaging to a child’s development as other currently recognised and forensically established subtypes of mistreatment such as childhood physical and sexual abuse,” the academics say in their paper in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect.
You're viewing part of a thread.
This is your initial comment and is explicitly what I'm talking about
So where is the effin straw man in that. The news item that references the study equates sexual, physical, and verbal abuse as equivalent and my comment is woa. They are so not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected. Yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine.
There is no one saying these things aren't fine. They give examples of verbal/emotional abuse in the article and study and they are not this. You are creating a strawman argument no one is saying (grabbing your childs arm when about to touch something hot is fine; yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine) and using that as a reason to dismiss the conclusions of this study
My argument is about equivalency. When they make the statement they are equivalent they are saying they are equivalent. My argument is not about abuse vs not abuse. Its about equivalency. There is no level of sexual situations with a child that is not abuse. there is with verbal and physical. Again you just are throwing out context and trying to make it something its not.
So your beef is with this:
A key attribute of childhood emotional abuse is the underlying adult-to-child perpetration of verbal abuse, which is characterized by shouting, yelling, denigrating the child, and verbal threats. These types of adult actions can be as damaging to a child's development as other currently recognized and forensically established subtypes of maltreatment such as childhood physical and sexual abuse.
So you're concluding that verbal/emotional abuse in no case can be as damaging to a child's development as physical or sexual abuse?
Not as much as they can't be and should not be even put into the same class as actions. There is a level of vocality that is ok, there is a level of physicality that is ok, there is never a level of sexuality that is ok when talking adult to child interactions. I understand they are talking in the extreme in all cases but making these out to be the same, even if limiting to the extreme, is not ok.
This isn't about the moral weight of one type of abuse over another, it's only about the psychological impact of abuse on people who were abused as children. There is literally no one saying anything like "sexual abuse is the same as verbal abuse." That is the strawman argument you created
except that when phrased that way it will in future. Your arguing in the context of this one little study and I am arguing from a moral position. I have seen it before and will see it again. This type of phrasing. Especially in the internet age of read headlines and not the details. Results in the strawman you speak of becoming reality. Equivalencies like this should never be made.
What are you even talking about... we're literally talking about this study, you're trying to critique it by saying verbal abuse isn't as bad as physical or sexual abuse, meanwhile the study authors are measuring life outcomes and finding similarities between all of them. You started off trying to critique this as invalid science because it's social science and now you're here, saying your argument is based on morality. It's ok to just say "I didn't understand the study," or "I didn't read the study." You don't have to continue making stuff up based on your "gut."
Man this is all over but lets see. I did not start off with social science critique. That came up in conversation. When a study or article is published into the public and on the internet it becomes more than an isolated thing. My comment chain started. From the begining. In talking about this is bad due to making equivalencies. Something that is a general comment and obviously had not been limited in scope the the study and nothing beyond. The article does not show the study and I don't care to read it or look into it further because again. The title. The equivalency suggested in it and the phrases used in the article. Should never be used.
The entire study is directly linked in the article! In the 3rd sentence!! You are literally forming all of these opinions based on the headline from the Guardian?! Lmfao
Even then, the headline is explicitly talking about psychological damage to victims, not a moral judgement or "which abuse is worse." Sheesh