665
Shouting at children can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse, study says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
665 points (95.4% liked)
News
23274 readers
3382 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Although I don't think verbal abuse is acceptable, I think that equivalency is a bit much
You miss-read (or didn't read) the article if that's your take-away. It's saying the long-term effects can be roughly the same. It's not equivocating the actions themselves.
the title is purposely misleading is what I think they meant.
Then I disagree with that assessment. "can be as damaging" speaks to the effects of the act, not its inherent heinousness.
I'm saying it's a sensationalized headline. it's meant to draw you in with a wild statement to make you angry and then the article is something completely different.
And I'm saying that's wrong. The title accurately describes the article.
ok
They're not equivocating the malice of verbal abuse vs. sexual abuse. They are equivocating the damage this kind of abuse can do to children, which their research supports. There's no reason to take offense as if they were taking a stand on the non-severity child sexual abuse, which they are not.
I guess I'm surprised sexual abuse doesn't do more damage
Verbal abuse when I was growing up was backed up with the threat of physical abuse. And having been bit and hit by my dad, and seeing my mom and older brother hit by my dad, those verbal threats carried a lot of weight.
I've walked on eggshells around my dad and every man that reminded me of him my whole life. It's affected my relationships and made it impossible to hold down a job as most bosses have the same authoritarian streak my dad did.
So yeah, verbal abuse is damaging. Rather it's equivalent to other forms of abuse I can't say. But it took me 44 years and a skilled emdr therapist to finally heal enough that I don't feel overwhelmed whenever I get emotional.
And for much of the last fifteen years I've been trying to find a therapist that took my trauma seriously and knew how to help me with it. So many misdiagnosis (anxiety, substance use, and depression were symptoms, but not the diagnosis that helped). Many suicide attempts. Many psych meds that didn't help. Many many years feeling unheard by the medical establishment.
So yeah, it's damaging.
While what you and I feel doesn't matter much, we truly need a scientific study of this. Oh, wait! That's what this was. Please defer to objective consensus...
Lol. Fuck off. Objective consensus? Are you part of team "trust the science" thinking every fucking study is well done or non biased?
How about you take the study at hand and point out, where it is not well done?
this. things like this are starting to annoy me. lets me clear. sexual abuse is worse than physical abuse which is worse than verbal abuse. The first should never happen in the least. 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.
I think there's a missed distinction here.
"Yelling" at your child to get them to stop something, or not step into traffic, or not eat pills is one thing. That's certainly not verbal abuse.
Shaming and berating your child for getting a C, telling them they are worthless, they are the reason Dad left, they are ugly is very different. This is clearly verbal abuse.
It's conceivable that the sustained verbal abuse as I defined it could absolutely harm a child in a long term way, and cumulatively have an impact similar to physical abuse.
You're completely misunderstanding everything written here. You created arguments that don't exist in this article, and do not understand the definition of verbal or physical abuse, because the examples you give are not that
except that there is no hard line of where something moves into abuse. In the end my comment was that yes these are not equivalent. There is no level of sexual contact that is ok but there is a level of physicality and yelling that is ok as long as it is not type of constant thing. and physicality is way less ok than yelling and only should be used in rare, usually dangerous situations.
Ok, but again, you're arguing against a strawman. Nothing you're saying here is relevant to what I said about you misunderstanding the definitions of physical and verbal/emotional abuse as evidenced by you standing up and knocking down examples that are clearly not abuse
yeah but you are taking a whole conversation and not looking at my initial comment. you just don't get the jist of the whole and where it goes. you concentrate on the last thing said and take no context at all.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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:
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
I actually found the link now so thank you but yeah im not arguing the study you are. Im arguing the use of language and its impropriety no matter the study finding. Hey just so you know I still find the conversation cool (if frustrating I think for both of us as we are talking from different perspectives) but the federated system after so many comments the notifications no longer get you to the place the comment is at. I had to do this one by clicking your user and looking at your last comments (pro trick for anyone using kbin website). So its possible I may not respond after this. Anyway I think I understand your stance about being against my stance but again I think your not really groking whay my point is about. this is the type of thing where I wish we were shooting the shit in a room verbally to hash out what the position really is.
Is it really? Honestly I'd rather a child touch something hot and learn the lesson that it is unsafe than potentially learn the lesson the people charged with taking care of them are unsafe. I mean, I remember burning a finger on the stove when I was little. It sucked but I was and am fine. I was lightly verbally abused by my Dad exactly once (he apologized after), and it was much, much worse. I was verbally abused by teachers and peers, and it was much, much worse.
[edit: I retract the sentence "Honestly I'd rather a child touch something hot and learn the lesson that it is unsafe than potentially learn the lesson the people charged with taking care of them are unsafe." It was poorly thought through and poorly worded. To be clear, I do not condone intentionally allowing a child to touch a stove to teach them it is dangerous. I also do not think that the threat of a child touching a stove justifies physically and verbally abusing a child, as OP said.]
Letting your child touch something hot (like a stove) to teach them a lesson is in itself physical abuse...
This is a generation of soft pussies. Triggered little bitches who can't live in the real world.
Lol. Calm down snowflake. No reason to get offended. You have some big feelings about this but you don't have to be a wuss about it. You can sack up and face them.
How much you wanna bet their parents say the same type of “this generation” things to them?
Or that they get called a pussy by their dad?
Whose triggered here? It seems like you're the one getting emotional.
If you went through the same type of shit as me growing up, get help. It's much better not feeling angry 24/7.
why does the real world have to be hard? because you say so and refuse to adapt to gentler standards??
If you're not able to control your emotions well enough to be kind you're the soft one.
So... like trump supporters who cant handle the fact they lost an election you mean?
Did the existence of soft pussies ... trigger you?