Yes, I am aware of the doctrine and its damages.

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?

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.

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...

It's only a "potential reason" if almost half of all family units were single mothers.

Yes, you very much did suggest so:

"These numbers are raw totals. There are far more mothers with full custody than fathers. So by raw totals mothers would outnumber fathers even if the mothers and fathers were equally likely to be abusers."

This is a direct quote from your original comment.

It would only be a logical conclusion, if the number of single mother households was almost half of all family units, as would be proportional to the abuse numbers.

I will repeat myself. If that was the case, single mother households would have to outnumber dual parent homes, which is not the case.

It's funny you mention "primate brain shit". Look up "Women are wonderful effect". That is some "primate brain shit", which is exactly what people trying to explain higher abuse by women through simple numerical majority are doing.

As if women could not be shitty, abusive and violent human beings, even more than people think men are... But that would shatter their preconceptions about the big bad violent man and the soft beautiful innocent powerless woman.

You suggested it though.

By trying to explain the majority of abusers being women through the fact that women tend to get primary custody.

The data does not distinguish between single or dual parenthood. So if it were the case, that abuse by women is caused by exclusive contact with the child, it would have to follow, that the number of single mothers vs fathers/dual parents is proportional to the abuse being perpetrated.

I doubt it is. Single mothers, or fathers, for that matter, are, thankfully, still a minority.

If abuse is not excusable no matter the perpetrator, why is women's custody brought up as an argument at all?

The exact same thing can be said about fathers too.

Functioning, fulfilled and happy people do not abuse their children.

Are you suggesting that single mothers are the majority of all types of family units, even outnumbering families with both parents?

Even if you are right, it does not make abuse permissible whatsoever, no matter the sex of the perpetrator, or their familial relation to the victim.

The fact is, as the data clearly shows, that mothers abuse their children a lot. And it's an issue that needs attention.

That does not make abuse permissible.

Oh and just an fyi, I had both parents in my life, the worst physical abuse was by my mother.

More like mother danger

Producers and consumers do NOT agree on a price.

Price is much, much more complex than a mere agreement, which implies negotiations, which there are absolutely none taking place during final customer purchase...

You can haggle the price when buying on a large scale, but try going into the supermarket and asking them to sell you food for less than the set price.

A price in and of itself brings zero value to customers...

Using monetary value to judge the production levels is misleading.

No, the monetary value is a representation of how much value the consumers bring to vendors, shipping companies, food processing companies, and farmers.

It is richer in muddling factors too, such as profit increases across all levels of the supply chain, price changes due to crop losses, and all other possible market fluctuations which influence the price.

As such, it is a bad metric of value, quantity, quality or volume of food or agricultural production.

Or anything other than money, really...

Some people, myself included, are claiming that this data representation could also be explained using just that justification, and that therefore, it's not a good one.

Overall yield, either average or median of all grown crops, in tonnes or calories, for example.

To show efficiency, possibly along with water usage needed and normalized per square kilometer.

It's not that people are hellbent on this being untrue

It's that the metric chosen here is not the best way to describe efficiency, or the volume of crops grown and harvested, unlike the data you linked.

It's not good enough.

And it sure as hell does not give a clear picture, as hiking prices would have the exact same effect than production efficiency.

And from this graph, you have no way of distinguishing which reason it actually is.

That's why it is a wrong metric to choose.

I never mentioned inflation, so cool, I guess?

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing data visualizations.

I am saying that this data visualization does not visualize production efficiency, only monetary value.

I don't care whether we are 500% more efficient at growing produce.

What I care about is information being presented honestly, and accurately, so that it is not misrepresented.

Monetary value increase is not automatically equivalent to overall volume increases, or productivity increase...

No one is saying that we're not getting better at producing food.

But this graph does not show food production efficiency, it shows agricultural products' overall monetary value...

As such, saying it is all attributed to efficiency increase in farming from this visualization is pure assumption. There are many more factors which contribute to monetrary value, other than productivity or efficiency.

But we don't know that, because this graph doesn't say anything about the amount of food produced per land area unit.

It only says that the overall monetary value of all food produced has increased, while the land use decreased.

Saying it's because we're farming food more efficiently is an assumption, that cannot be supported by this data.

It also doesn't show whether we actually are being more efficient at feeding people.

It shows production value by its monetary value, which can only be determined by selling it for money, and therefore, often profit.

It may be easy, but it is also misleading.

It does not take into account price changes in either direction, for example.

It also does not necessarily make it clear whether more food is actually produced, only that the profits from food production have been increasing.

Because if you only consider the monetary value of the food that is produced, raising prices alone can cause said monetary value to increase, without any increases to the amount of food that is produced.

In fact, heavily raising prices and decreasing production at the same time can also seem like an increase in the overall monetary value of food that is produced, if we use money as the sole metric of productivity.