• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Soldiers more likely to have experienced childhood abuse: study

Gunner98

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
2
Points
380
Most people born in 1960s and 70s were spanked as children (corporal punishment was a predominant form of discipline).  Using a percentage of soldiers does not equal a cross section of the Canadian population, but only those 18-60 years old in a to be clarified/defined socio-economic demographic.

All soldiers who entered as untrained privates/recruits would have experienced "Corporal" punishment. ;D
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
Uh huh....why are we paying attention to crap 101?  ::)
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,474
Points
1,060
Shamrock said:
Alternately...

"Soldiers more likely to disclose trauma"

Or even;
Soldiers more likely to be the lab rat du jour for social meddlers and academis.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,455
Points
1,110
Kat Stevens said:
Or even;
Soldiers more likely to be the lab rat du jour for social meddlers and academis.

It's been like that since I joined in 1974. And what makes it truly sad is many of our own like to experiment with us.
 

expwor

Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I wasn't spanked a lot as a kid, but there wasn't one spanking I got that I didn't deserve
It seems in this day and age there is more focus on time outs and other things like that for discipline.
If a parent now spanked their kid now, is that considered abuse?

Tom
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
961
Points
1,060
expwor said:
I wasn't spanked a lot as a kid, but there wasn't one spanking I got that I didn't deserve
It seems in this day and age there is more focus on time outs and other things like that for discipline.
If a parent now spanked their kid now, is that considered abuse?

Tom

If some busybody, or the child themselves, report it, the parent will likely be charged with some sort of misdemeanor child abuse.

 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I remember walking around the mall in Pembroke and I swatted my misbehaving kid on the arse. Then getting the evil eye from all the kind and gentle souls around me, lol.

Good thing I evil eyed them right back so I didn't get reported to the authorities, lol.
 

Pieman

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
Although the data is still being studied, preliminary results suggest 39 per cent of military members had been slapped or spanked more than three times as children; comparable research on the general population indicates some 22 per cent of civilians had the same experience as kids.

So these are preliminary results. Being slapped/spanked more than three times qualifies as abuse?

Witnesses to domestic abuse is broad. Verbal abuse? physical abuse? Have you heard your parents yell at each other more than three times?  Does that qualify?

So what are they trying to correlate here. People who get spanked are more likely to join the army, and therefore are attracted to violence? Or, people who grew up in violent environments become violent themselves?
 

Pieman

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
"These findings suggest that evaluation of childhood trauma is important in the clinical assessment and treatment of depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation among military personnel and veterans," said the report by Dr. Nagy Youssef.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/soldiers-more-likely-to-have-experienced-childhood-abuse-study-1.2237375#ixzz3RsJjeIsm

Okay, the above statement worries me a lot. Let's say a soldier shows up with PTSD, is treated for it. Treatment is only so effective and said soldier needs help longer than they anticipated. (VAC was complaining about this recently -- soldiers not leaving the programs)  Then the argument can be conveniently switched to "Well it must be due to childhood trauma and not military related so you can get out of the program now."

 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
The trouble with this type of research is that it tends to treat the armed forces as being representative of society.  They simply are not.  A proper cross-section of society (against which we're being compared) would include every identifiable group, including  those groups who would never join the military, regardless of the circumstances.  These groups skew the data when compared against the military population, which only includes members of groups that would join the military.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,160
More likely children that grew up to be responsible joined the military because their parents cared enough to discipline them when they did things they knew they were not supposed to. Meanwhile studies show that kids who had hippy parents have a high rate of drug abuse, inability to succeed, higher welfare rates and failed marriages.
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Colin P said:
More likely children that grew up to be responsible joined the military because their parents cared enough to discipline them when they did things they knew they were not supposed to. Meanwhile studies show that kids who had hippy parents have a high rate of drug abuse, inability to succeed, higher welfare rates and failed marriages.

Good luck ever getting the Lame Stream Media reporting on studies of this nature.  :)
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,474
Points
1,060
Tin hat ON;
I can't help but think this is an attempt to further absolve the government of responsibility for soldiers who go wonky somewhere down the track. "His PTSD and associated mental conditions are not caused by combat, he had a pre existing condition which he lied about on enrollment. No benefits, and possible charges for falsifying enrollment documents".

Tin hat OFF
 

Pieman

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
530
These groups skew the data when compared against the military population, which only includes members of groups that would join the military.

A comparison has to be made in some manner, otherwise you can't build any meaningful statistics. Trick is to find a comparison that really means something. Comparing number of abused in general population to number of abused in military is reasonable but too broad to make any detailed conclusions.

Perhaps a more useful stat would be the number of abused from the general population end up joining the military, compared to the number non-abused from the general population?
Likely, they don't have that kind of data tho.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
The "methodology" , including absurdly broad definitions of "abuse" and lack of meaningful samples or controls suggests that this is just another academic hit job where the conclusion was preordained and the data massaged to fit.

We see similar things with the "one in five" women on campus being sexually assaulted (their definition of "assault" was equally broad and ultimately meaningless, and the sample was absurdly small and self selected), or "poverty" statistics which somehow include people who own houses, cars and have internet access. I have a new rule which puts studies like that on "ignore" unless the methodology is discussed front and centre, so the reader can understand what is going on and manipulation like that can be easily exposed.
 
Top