> Predictions will outrstrip China

There has been no such predictions in the last 15 years. The most bullish predictions have India catching up to Japan in the next 10-15 years ( in terms of gross GDP). In most social aspects, India is close to where China was in 2007-2008, so we are 15 years behind.

It is true that China has shown signs of economic weakness due to their 0 COVID policy, but most economic agents still have them growing at 4-5% per year and surpassing them in the short-mid term is a pipe dream

The hope is to close the gap and to compete with them more fiercely.

> Low base

Preposterous statement. India and all non European/NAFTA/Australia and NZ started from the almost same low base. It is the 4th country that most grew in this time period

Take LATAM as an example, no country was able to maintain India's rate of growth this consistently except for China. To deny the active role of the governments and the people is not based on reality

Besides, if a 900% growth in GDP is not a boom for you, I don't know what would be

> I don't hate India

I might have let the tone of other comments in this thread make me biased. If so, my apologies

Mothers are just caught more often

Someone tried to justify his transphobia to me as he was just protecting the safety of his young daughters... "What if a trans person tried to use the women's bathroom to be a alone with one of them and sexually assault one!?" The argument doesn't make any sense... I sent him the stats from RAAIN and that sobered him up a bit.

It's sad, it's easier to focus on the boogieman than the monsters hiding in plain sight.

The title was very confusing, thought there were excerpts of the articles but no its just size of the longest articles in bytes lol

That’s a very odd way of plotting this data. Obviously, you must have tried geom_boxplot, geom_violin or even geom_histogram first. What kind of exotic problems did you discover while trying all the sensible options?

Agreed. You could label this chart “who is a child with most frequently “ and the results would be about the same with the exception of childcare workers.

https://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/who-abuses-children

Thanks for caring about facts enough to check the data. Keep it coming!

Can you point to credible data for that, please? Doesn't matter what country as long as the sample size is over 200.

Not at all anecdotal. Quantitatively evident. It's gov't data from the US. You can examine the data and the methodology and even the data to have a go at it for your own peace of mind.

​

**Definitely hard facts here. No cultural wishy-washy perceptions or anecdotes - just gov't processing data. **

The US family courts heavily favor awarding majority custody to the person the child is most familiar with. In the United States, it's very common that after birth, a wife will stop working and stay home to raise the child. So when you have a kid that see's one parent every waking hour and the other only a few hours a day, the child will obviously have a stronger bond to the stay at home parent, which is usually the mother. So of course, that's who the court will award custody to because it's who the child has the strongest bond with. The court doesn't care that the mom is unemployed, that's why there is alimony and child support. In the few instances of the father being the stay at home parent, it's almost 100% that the dad is awarded majority custody. People only look at the outcomes of family court and never consider the other factors leading up to the final judgement.

Yup she was trying to make excuses to explain why the majority of abusers are women. Its very close to being r/everydaymisandry.

“Well its mens fault women are the majority of abusers because men force women to stay home they also skip out on their families” - thats my paraphrase.

And my statement is that the disparity could be explained by single mother households only if single mother households comprised a large enough portion of all family units, one large enough to be able to cover disparity.

It's as if people were unwilling to accept that women can be even more violent than they think men are.

Yes, I am bringing up dual parent homes, because they are the majority of all family units.

Single mother homes are still a minority of family units.

Uh, no. There are plenty of homes in which there is one primary abuser. And often it is the mother.

Have you even read the link?

It does not mention anything whatsoever about what type of family unit the abuse takes place in. In fact, one of the categories is "both parents".

So the data actually includes all types of families, and abuse by either, or even both of the parents. Is that clear to you?

Yeah I don't think that's better, I think your version probably has more grain than you'd want at first glance.

The statement wasn’t that single mother households outnumber both parent households. It was that the disproportionate number of mothers might be also due to more single mother households.

All cases of child abuse do not happen in co-parenting households. They mostly occur there, but why is there a difference between single parent households? Specifically, why do more single mothers abuse kids? Those are the questions, damn.

From your first link:

"Living With Both Parents: 50,609,000 Living With Mother Only: 15,607,000"

It may be the case that 80% of single family units are mothers. But it is NOT the case that single parent households are the majority. And it is definitely not the case for single mothers.

Why is is so hard to understand?

IF higher numbers of abuse perpetrated by mothers could be explained by women's primary custody, the number of single mother households would have to be proportional to the difference between abuse perpetrated by women vs men.

The only person bringing up dual family homes is you, it's well known that a two parent home is statistically a far more stable environment for a kid. Plus it's harder for one parent in a two parent home to get away with abuse without the other finding out.

We're talking about single mother and single father homes, because those are more directly comparable. There are a lot of single mother homes, and relatively few single father homes. The stats above therefore make it difficult to make any assumptions about who is more likely to abuse kids.

Clear?

Just show the damn chart by percent of data sets as well - the classic say to be disengenious with data...

Thank you, captain obvious.

And I am saying that OP's explanation is only valid, if the number of single mothers whose children only have contact with the mother, would be almost as big as the number of dual family homes.

That's not reaching, it's following logical conclusions.

It's as if people assume that the 'mothers' category does not include mothers in a dual parent home where the mother is the only abuser...

They did not

[removed]

[removed]

Solomon’s law. /s

When NASA wanted to put a man on the moon, they should have called you up with how far you're reaching here.

He's just saying to make proper sense of these numbers and the relative risk individuals pose you also need to consider how often they have access to the kids, nothing more.