The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study • Hacker News Board

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#191

Post by vivekd » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:45 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #113

This is troubling for the statistical validity of this: "At the time of study entry, comparison families were not informed that the study involved sexually abused females; rather, they were told that the study was of “female growth and development.” At the end of the initial interview, however, caregivers were told that the study pertained to sexual abuse" If you tell people you are surveying a particular thing, they…

I was wondering about this. That is a problem given that it seems the whole point of the study was to control for other factors to ensure that the trauma reported wasn't the result of something else - like more vulnerable or victimized women being more likely to suffer sexual abuse.

Not sure what to make of it. I think earlier onset of puberty is one effect that likely wasn't falsely reported. I'm not sure about the others.

I'd be nice if we could have a study that controls for reporting bias, but I wonder if research ethics would allow it - espically when working with young children.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#192

Post by vivekd » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:47 PM UTC

derbOac wrote: post #117

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this objection require that there be markers that predispose someone towards being a survivor of sexual assault? There probably are, but I'm sure that's not politic to say.

So I'm being downvoted, which I expected because of the subject matter, but I've done research in this area and many of the correlates they talk about are associated with familial and other ecological factors that tend to cluster very locally. I don't even personally believe that sexual abuse is not associated with the things they claim, but statistically speaking, you have many of these things clustering together (s…

I would agree with you. They did control for some factors, and that seemed to be the point of the study, but my first reaction to it was it seems like the controls they used seemed insufficent. It is a shame you were being downvoted - I expect that from other places but not from hacker news.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#193

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #161

willchang wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a man, is there anything I can do or avoid doing in the workplace to make it easier for coworkers like you? Let's assume I don't know and don't suspect anything specific about my coworkers. I just want to know if there's anything that would be pretty easy to implement, that would make a difference.

Ensure that there is more than one woman around in your company. Ensure your workplace policies are friendly and flexible for people who need mental health days, address family time, get pregnant, need sanitary equipment, parent children or other dependents, etc. Ensure all the women at your company have opportunities to work with and have women co workers, or women friendly gatherings like lunches, and be open to fe…

> consistently remind that if they have a boundary they are free to enforce and you will respect that.

The clearest and most effective way of doing this is to proactively establish and propose safe boundaries for the other person's benefit. This is the underlying dynamic behind many rules-of-thumb of ordinary courtesy and politeness (often wrongly dismissed as some sort of useless, obsolete 'traditionalism'). Not everyone is so assertive and comfortable with themselves that they should be expected to verbalize their boundaries to you, or even to understand them proactively.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#194

Post by tremon » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #76

zozbot234 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chilling but also a little reassuring. If you are a victim, knowing that a large percentage of the population has also been abused can help recovery. "Misery loves company" is indeed a common attitude, but I'm not sure it's especially healthy.

"Misery loves company" is the antithesis of The Golden Rule, a formulation of which is "do not believe that it is so that you will find happiness in the misery of others," (I believe Seneca may have said this, but can't find the citation). I believe it is not the sadist notion, "misery loves company," that eases victims' pain, but instead "being in good company." I think "misery loves company" is a cynical twist of "…

The Dutch equivalent of "misery loves company" is "gedeelde smart is halve smart", which roughly translates to "a burden shared is a burden halved". I've never before interpreted that phrase in any other way than an acknowledgement that personal problems are easier to bear if you have someone to confide in. I certainly wouldn't interpret it as a cynical comment on codependency.

But maybe I've always misinterpreted the English phrase. Is there a different English saying that's closer to the Dutch meaning?

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#195

Post by Mezzie » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #183

Mezzie wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developmentally caused PTSD and shell-shock/war/later event PTSD have some differences. For instance, those of us with developmentally-caused trauma often view every person as a threat, because we were abused by our caregivers. (In my case, my mother.) This is because we need our abusers to survive, so we're used to abuse being a necessary part of life and something that can happen at any time/during mundane interact…

> Trying to get me to recognize you as safe isn't going to work, because nobody is safe to me. This makes plenty of sense, but then I'm not sure why you're expecting others to be physically friendly with you. Having a "friendly" interaction with someone generally presupposes some degree of physical quasi-intimacy that would seem to be quite incompatible with "not feeling like anyone is safe" to be around. This doesn'…

This is very interesting to me because this might be a huge sex socialization difference: I'm friendly, including physically, with people I would rather not be at least occasionally.

There's a couple of reasons for this:

1.) If you're a young, small, female, people will be in your space whether you want them there or not. Keeping it "friendly" makes sure that it doesn't turn violent. (Note: This isn't just from men: My go to example of a person disrespecting my space was a woman in undergrad who, upon meeting me for the first time, picked me up because I was so small and 'cute' to her.) Luckily, I'm over 30 and an old hag now! 10/10 do recommend. V. helpful!

2.) As a female, I'm expected/allowed to offer comfort to people, and that includes physically, so I'll do things like hug my friends when they're sad if they like hugs because I still want to support them even if I have PTSD. Or I hug and take care of my little sister because I know touch is important for her mental health and I value that. I also occasionally offer childcare/ have nieces and nephews or am in gatherings with children, and they touch.

I generally let people, and people know that I/Aunt Mezzie needs some quiet sometimes.

I also have MS and malfunctioning nerves; I view them similarly. "Wow, my brain has a lesion and now I can't feel my feet what." and "Wow, I'm traumatized and now I can't relax around people I like what."

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#196

Post by resoluteteeth » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

onphonenow wrote: post #186

s1artibartfast wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a similar social issue waiting to blow up regarding genetic screening. Estimates are that 10-15% of children are from infidelity

Parental testing should be mandatory at birth perhaps for these issues. Or at least if someone is going to go claim child support.

If it was going to be mandatory it would be much better to do it before birth using amniotic fluid. Waiting for the child to be born and then suddenly telling one parent that it's not their biological child isn't a great idea.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#197

Post by throwaway2331 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:54 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #143

sandworm101 wrote: post #28

I find this to be the most telling stat: "In a few cases (N So roughly 5% (<5 of 84) of the control group were discovered to have themselves been abused and needed to be dropped from the study. I was once in a law lecture on medical ethics. We were discussing genetic testing of newborns and how this could detect incest/abuse. A medical doctor in the class was dead against such testing. In his experience, amongst preg…

> In his experience, amongst pregnant teenagers (17 and younger) about 10% were pregnant by their own fathers/brothers. I refuse to believe that. I mean, yeah, the man had direct contact with such cases and probably had been in the field for tens of years while I'm just a computer programmer but I still refuse to believe it.

That's because you've been sheltered from most of it; and most of the time it's "kept within the family," never made public, and simply swept under the rug -- so as to not "break apart the family" (at the cost of one victim).

People will allow all sorts of horrendous things to happen, if it serves their interests.

Father rapes his daughter? The mother refuses to believe it: thinks her daughter is only doing it for attention; doesn't want her "perfect" family image to get shattered (plus, daddy dearest pays the bills and funds her lifestyle). Same goes for extended family.

"It couldn't happen in our family." "You know how teenage girls are." "He would never do something like that. I've known him for decades."

Cognitively checking-out, because it's not their "problem." And other forms of dissonance.

Those are only the stats for pregnancy, though. I'm sure the incidence of sexual abuse without pregnancy is higher.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#198

Post by bcrosby95 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #123

woodruffw wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impartiality in a jury trial context doesn't refer to the absence of biases (we all have them and truly getting rid of them is an impossible task), but a conscious effect by the jurors to discharge their office without prejudice , i.e., without allowing their biases to manifest as judgments independent of the evidence presented in court. Put another way: there wouldn't be a point in deliberation if we didn't have bia…

And to put it another way, the job of a juror is to convict or exonerate the person on trial, not to convict or exonerate their own abusers by proxy. Vulcans might not have a problem with this, but humans so obviously do that pretending otherwise is impractical.

I've served on a few juries. From my experience, the average person thinks its much easier to get out of it due to biases than it actually is.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#199

Post by tremon » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #150

deanCommie wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shocking that this is getting upvotes. The only way to treat this as gospel is to never be present with another woman alone. That the tech industry is so inept with opposite gender interactions that they have adopted tactics from religious zealot evangelicals is APALLING. Treat people as humans. Regardless of gender or sexuality.

The whole premise of the workplace is to not treat people as humans, but as coworkers. Sex is one of the most essentially human things. "Professional" behaviour excludes sex. So "treat people as humans" is decisively not clear advice for cases like this.

That's a very dehumanizing statement to me. I would never want to work at a place that doesn't treat its employees as humans. That doesn't mean I condone sex at the workplace, but I would not accept to be treated as less than a full human being.

Humans are not automata, and I don't aspire to be one, not even for "just" 8 hours a day.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#200

Post by vkou » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #184

sandworm101 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Both sides don't want anyone who was a cop Except for cops. Cops certainly like to have fellow cops on their juries. There is an old joke about removing Manhattan jury cases to Staten Island. All the NYPD cops seem to retire there. So if the case involves potential police wrongdoing or even just police testimony, one side wants a Staten Island jury as many jurors will have at least some familial connection to the…

The same thing happens with national security cases being tried in Virginia. This is one of the main reasons Snowden is unwilling to return to the US - the jury would be massively rigged against him.

Is it any more 'rigged' than many of jury trials that do go through?