Shouting at children can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse, study says - eviltoast
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.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    210·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        17·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          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

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            17·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
              6·
              1 year ago

              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.”

              • HubertManne@kbin.social
                14·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
                  6·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • HubertManne@kbin.social
                    12·
                    1 year ago

                    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.