Wanted to make sure this graph made its rounds.

zarquon989 · 2011-10-25T21:31:18+00:00

Great graph, but a link to the context would be very helpful.

Calcipher · 2011-10-25T20:55:00+00:00

I hate to ask (especially if I missed the obvious), but perpetrators of what exactly?

fondueguy · 2011-10-25T21:29:33+00:00

I don't mean this in a sarcastic / offensive way, but does this take into account the fact that kids are more likely to live with just a mother than just a father?

aaomalley · 2011-10-26T07:20:20+00:00

What I find most interesting in this chart, beside the obvious, is some of the smaller groups. Specifically what caught my eye is abuse by parental significant other (dads girlfriend or moms boyfriend) and other aquaintences (separated male and female). This graph seems to report that in those 2 limited groups men are more frequently perpetrators of abuse, and I would find it interesting to discuss why that is.

Off the top of my head I would assume, given those groups, that the majority of child mistrreatment by those groups is likely sexual vs neglect, although it is pure assumption. That would mean the stats could be skewed by the under-reporting of male sexual molestation victims, who are more likely to have female abusers. It could also be due to the fact that the majority of mistreatment in this study is not physical/sexual abuse but rather neglect, and possibly mostly non-intentional neglect (due to poverty or other outside causes), and when removing neglect of that sort the distribution would more closely mirror that of the 2 groups that are opposite the main trend. I am certain there are other explanations for this variation.

I do believe, because the evidence demonstrates it, that women are more likely to emotionally/physically abuse children, and especially their male children preferentially over female children. I do not know the distribution of solely sexual mistreatment of children which is more difficult to measure due to the underreporting as well as the difficulty defining the terms (what constitutes sexual mistreatment and what is measured as a child). I would have to read the study deeply to determine if the science and statistics are accurate, and even then it likely comes from criminal reporting data which is too subjective for my taste.

does anyone here know how this data was gathered, what criteria did they use for definitions, who was the data gathered from and how many people were involved? I simply don't have the time, due to other research I have to do, to read this study thouroughy but that info should be buried in there somewhere and would be very helpful in determinening if this report is over or under representing the results as a result of their methods.

ignatiusloyola · 2011-10-25T22:22:51+00:00

So mothers are 68% more likely to be involved in the abuse of a child than the father is. (Calculated as sum of percentage involving mother divided by sum of percentage involving father.)

happytobake · 2011-10-25T22:42:41+00:00

I did find it interesting that if the offender was either an other relative or spouse of the parent, they were far more likely to be male, even though it still pales in comparison to the abuse by mothers.

Bobsutan · 2011-10-26T03:30:13+00:00

I did the math for when parents are involved in abuse of their child:

Mothers are involved 62.2%
Fathers are involved 36.9%

Mothers are literally almost twice as likely than fathers to abuse their own children.

What I also found interesting, as should all divorced fathers, is that mothers and their new boyfriend/husband are 666% more likely to abuse a child than the father and his new girlfriend/wife. Yes that "other" could be anyone else, but if we're being honest we all know that it's most likely going to be the new significant other. What surprised me here though was that women were just flat out more likely to harm their kids. All this time I thought the figures only shot up when the new boyfriend came into the picture. Boy was I wrong.

2Weird2Live2Rare2Die · 2011-10-26T04:25:26+00:00

This graph doesn't mean what you think it means. It's taken completely out of context. You're being intellectually dishonest by linking to a single image instead of the whole page it was on. Why would somebody link to an image robbed of context with nothing but a vague title and not actually say anything about the graph? Why didn't the submitter offer any interpretation or commentary about it? Well I reckon it's because he cares more about hating women than reality. If he makes concrete claims then he won't be able to defend himself if they're challenged.

manboobz_ · 2011-10-25T23:06:01+00:00

A few bad women did a few bad things, big deal! Doesn't prove anything.

By the way, I've lost all hope that my cat, mancunt, will be found. He went missing last Wednesday after I took a long nap on the couch watching Springer. Couch stinks though.

Title	Wanted to make sure this graph made its rounds.
Author	Tobislu
Upvotes	139
Comments	70
Date	October 25, 2011 8:20 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/lotcd/wanted_to_make_sure_this_graph_made_its_rounds/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/wanted-to-make-sure-this-graph-made-its-rounds.1032616 https://theredarchive.com/post/1032616

Comments