abuse victims are 6,000 times more likely to become abusers that those without a history as victims. It made me CRAZY!!!
Does anyone know where to find documentation of something like this
Are we really this backward about this? It sounds like a witch trial.
That's amazing. I've never hear anything like that before in all my reading and assault advocacy training, prevention seminars, etc. That's not defensible.
Furthermore, I'm guessing the point is excluding victims from contact with children is good prevention work. That's bullshit. Show me any study stating that. Look at the Stop It Now and other prevention oriented sites and nobody is saying that. There's no good way to know who's been a victim anyway and a policy like this makes it unlikely people would disclose. Not mention how stigmatizing it is to victims.
You might point out what these sites say ARE good prevention. Signs of abuse in children. Talking to adults about boundaries when you have reason to question them.
This deserves a really thorough answer, but here's something: The 1 in 6 page
I think is pretty good. I would say the people writing this (Jim Hopper wrote a lot of 1 in 6) is very authoritative. (see www.jimhopper.com
He describes some research on this issue here: Factors in the Cycle of Violence
I always wonder when I hear this, why wouldn't this be true for women as well? Why would the psychological processes that transform abuse into abusive-to-others be different for men than for women? There are plenty of female teachers being sexual with students, so, if a woman was abused, doesn't that make her more likely to abuse a student as well? Except, I'm guessing they are ignoring all that? The ACE study found 38% of men who reported CSA had female perpetrators, so if nobody's reading the news, you can't say female teachers aren't a danger.
I don't think studies are what people need. Its more ... are they willing to look at themselves, their attitudes and what they think they "know". It's prejudice and ignorance and blind fear.