We see the same mistreatment of step children by mothers and even rejection of children from a first marriage by the mother in favor of children by her new husband.
It's true that it doesn't put women in estrus, but it probably would put the relationship with the man at risk of dissolution if she starts sticking up for her kid.
Yes. and I think its important to remember that the general context of child abuse is that the risk is much higher in broken or chaotic "families". So despite what feminists claim the "normal" family is very safe with risks rising the more broken and chaotic the family form. Like DV the risks rise also with mental ill health, addiction, alcoholism and intergenerational experience. In this country we had a TV show "Jeremy Kyle", which introduced the wider society to the chaotic maelstrom of all these factors, by exploiting their mess for the viewer. But it did do a service of revealing the reality of the circumstances where domestic and child abuse actually mainly occurs, and what Police and Social services actually deal with, rather than the very exceptional and therefor newsworthy cases that involve "ordinary" apparently stable families.
I've seen clips of Jeremy Kyle, very similar to the US show Maury Povich (famous for the line, "you are *not" the father").
The US shows that I found most illustrative about the disaster of "serial monogamy" were the numerous shows televising small claims cases. (Judge Judy, People's Court, Divorce Court, Paternity Court, Judge Joe Brown, etc., etc.) The parties to the suit would agree to have the case settled on TV instead of court.
They'd air any category of small claims case, (dog bites, withheld apartment security deposit, should there be a refund if the defective dress has visible pit stains?). But their bread-and-butter was adults and exes and new partners keying cars, filing unfounded claims of child neglect, and hair-pulling assaults. The frequency of such cases, and the participants' willingness to air it all before a nationwide audience was impressive in the worst possible way.
I never thought of the adult participants of being exploited, since so many seemed to relish being a TV star (if only for 12 minutes) and revealing to the world the abysmal behavior of the nemesis. Overall, participants seemed staunch in their belief in their own righteousness and the villainy of their opponent.
Weirdly, the other huge category was disgruntled brides whose "special day" was *ruined* by flowers one shade off from the requested color, too few smiling photos in the bridal album, or the DJ feeling entitled to be fed.
All the mayhem revolving around exes convinced me that however much people will claim to be done with the ex, go to the effort of uprooting their own lives and those of their kids, get new partners, the attachment remains unbreakable. Society has made a huge mistake in creating mechanisms that give the illusion that splitting up is a clean break, and has done untold damage to kids by allowing their parents so much latitude to indulge themselves.
Perhaps obtaining a marriage license should be far more difficult in the first place. I say this as the unmarried child or a mother twice divorced with 2 sisters also each divorced. Marriages are far too easy to create...and terminate.
Perhaps. I'd point out that in the days before no-fault divorce, there were mechanisms that made clear that marriage was permanent, and that the pair would have to expect tough times as well as good. The vows included for "better or worse, sickness & health, til death do us part." The Catholic church had - and still has - pre-wedding classes (called Pre-Cana) to impress the pair with the new duties they'd be assuming and teach them to get past conflicts. The Anglican church had the publication of the banns, several times, creating time between the decision and the actual marriage.
In the past, most people married people that either they knew, or were from close enough to their own social circle that family could vet the potential spouse.
Most of all, marriage being assumed to be for life was the standard - divorce always being allowed in cases of abuse, desertion or fraud.
I think the first most important step is to sever the assumption that marriage is supposed to make the partners happy. With 80% of divorces initiated by women, and being unhappy a very common reason they give to demolish the families they've created, this belief has fomented massive destruction.
PS, videos posted by women who divorced because the marriage was insufficiently happy, realizing several months later that life without the husband and family is utterly dismal, demonstrate the folly of legislating easy divorce.
"Society has made a huge mistake in creating mechanisms that give the illusion that splitting up is a clean break, and has done untold damage to kids by allowing their parents so much latitude to indulge themselves " Yes indeed
True, but the other guy is trying to explain from an evopsych position why step-dad might hurt kids.
Yes, the mother may not stop it for this reason, but why would the stepfather do it in the first place? Evopsych, imo, doesn't provide an adequate explanation.
Well of course the vast majority of step dads don't. It is important to remember that though they are next, after natural mothers. Child abuse is not nearly as common as feminists claim.
Good points. I think more explanatory power is in boring things like step parents are a bit more likely feel they aren't responsible for their step children (or indeed defer to the natural parents) and perhaps resent the competition for attention/affection. And of course the vast majority of step fathers are not abusive at all.
Indeed, my own stepfather made it clear that he married the woman, not the children she brought with her. That the mother agreed to this marriage should itself be considered child abuse.
We see the same mistreatment of step children by mothers and even rejection of children from a first marriage by the mother in favor of children by her new husband.
Yeah, but hurting kids doesn't put women in estrus. Seems like a faulty explanation.
It's true that it doesn't put women in estrus, but it probably would put the relationship with the man at risk of dissolution if she starts sticking up for her kid.
Yes. and I think its important to remember that the general context of child abuse is that the risk is much higher in broken or chaotic "families". So despite what feminists claim the "normal" family is very safe with risks rising the more broken and chaotic the family form. Like DV the risks rise also with mental ill health, addiction, alcoholism and intergenerational experience. In this country we had a TV show "Jeremy Kyle", which introduced the wider society to the chaotic maelstrom of all these factors, by exploiting their mess for the viewer. But it did do a service of revealing the reality of the circumstances where domestic and child abuse actually mainly occurs, and what Police and Social services actually deal with, rather than the very exceptional and therefor newsworthy cases that involve "ordinary" apparently stable families.
I've seen clips of Jeremy Kyle, very similar to the US show Maury Povich (famous for the line, "you are *not" the father").
The US shows that I found most illustrative about the disaster of "serial monogamy" were the numerous shows televising small claims cases. (Judge Judy, People's Court, Divorce Court, Paternity Court, Judge Joe Brown, etc., etc.) The parties to the suit would agree to have the case settled on TV instead of court.
They'd air any category of small claims case, (dog bites, withheld apartment security deposit, should there be a refund if the defective dress has visible pit stains?). But their bread-and-butter was adults and exes and new partners keying cars, filing unfounded claims of child neglect, and hair-pulling assaults. The frequency of such cases, and the participants' willingness to air it all before a nationwide audience was impressive in the worst possible way.
I never thought of the adult participants of being exploited, since so many seemed to relish being a TV star (if only for 12 minutes) and revealing to the world the abysmal behavior of the nemesis. Overall, participants seemed staunch in their belief in their own righteousness and the villainy of their opponent.
Weirdly, the other huge category was disgruntled brides whose "special day" was *ruined* by flowers one shade off from the requested color, too few smiling photos in the bridal album, or the DJ feeling entitled to be fed.
All the mayhem revolving around exes convinced me that however much people will claim to be done with the ex, go to the effort of uprooting their own lives and those of their kids, get new partners, the attachment remains unbreakable. Society has made a huge mistake in creating mechanisms that give the illusion that splitting up is a clean break, and has done untold damage to kids by allowing their parents so much latitude to indulge themselves.
Perhaps obtaining a marriage license should be far more difficult in the first place. I say this as the unmarried child or a mother twice divorced with 2 sisters also each divorced. Marriages are far too easy to create...and terminate.
Perhaps. I'd point out that in the days before no-fault divorce, there were mechanisms that made clear that marriage was permanent, and that the pair would have to expect tough times as well as good. The vows included for "better or worse, sickness & health, til death do us part." The Catholic church had - and still has - pre-wedding classes (called Pre-Cana) to impress the pair with the new duties they'd be assuming and teach them to get past conflicts. The Anglican church had the publication of the banns, several times, creating time between the decision and the actual marriage.
In the past, most people married people that either they knew, or were from close enough to their own social circle that family could vet the potential spouse.
Most of all, marriage being assumed to be for life was the standard - divorce always being allowed in cases of abuse, desertion or fraud.
I think the first most important step is to sever the assumption that marriage is supposed to make the partners happy. With 80% of divorces initiated by women, and being unhappy a very common reason they give to demolish the families they've created, this belief has fomented massive destruction.
PS, videos posted by women who divorced because the marriage was insufficiently happy, realizing several months later that life without the husband and family is utterly dismal, demonstrate the folly of legislating easy divorce.
"Society has made a huge mistake in creating mechanisms that give the illusion that splitting up is a clean break, and has done untold damage to kids by allowing their parents so much latitude to indulge themselves " Yes indeed
True, but the other guy is trying to explain from an evopsych position why step-dad might hurt kids.
Yes, the mother may not stop it for this reason, but why would the stepfather do it in the first place? Evopsych, imo, doesn't provide an adequate explanation.
Well of course the vast majority of step dads don't. It is important to remember that though they are next, after natural mothers. Child abuse is not nearly as common as feminists claim.
Agreed. Important to not slander step dads.
Most step dads are perfectly decent.
A problem that I see with this is that stepfathers don't necessarily kill the kids, just abuse them. Resources are still expended on them in the end.
Also, infanticide is committed by women. How can this be explained with evopysch?
Good points. I think more explanatory power is in boring things like step parents are a bit more likely feel they aren't responsible for their step children (or indeed defer to the natural parents) and perhaps resent the competition for attention/affection. And of course the vast majority of step fathers are not abusive at all.
Indeed, my own stepfather made it clear that he married the woman, not the children she brought with her. That the mother agreed to this marriage should itself be considered child abuse.
Well, it's not extraordinarily prone to it. Just significantly more. Most stepdads are fine.
But I see what you're saying. However, there could be other factors at play.
I'm afraid you drank Richard Dawkins' Kool-Aid.