Conference quark::mennotes

    
>    I do not pretend to understand the pain, anguish, guilt or frustration
>    they must have. 
 
    Obviously. If you understood, you would not have written this note.
    
       

	I should imagine that the individuals concerned are trying to
	project their sense of guilt onto the true offenders and break
	the child abused becomes a child abuser syndrome.

    .2  I agree with that statement, but I believe the answer goes much
    further than the opinion expressed in .2.
    
    (I am probably going to get jumped on for the following statement,
    but I believe its true in many cases so I am going to say it anyway).
    
    I think there is a large element of revenge involved.  When one gets
    hurt, often one just wants to get back at the hurter and I believe that
    the reasons expressed in .2 are legitimate but don't show you the
    hidden reasons people don't want to express such as revenge.
    
    Watch some of the trials and the pure hate eminating from some of the
    victims is quite apparent.
    
    Jeff
    

    re .1 I don't have a good handle on hate or racism either.  But, I do
    question motive.  
    
    Many of these cases are coming out of therapy or hypnosis or what ever,
    20 - 30 years later.  Is it so justified that the additional sacrifice
    is worth it in terms of family and friends?
    
    It amazes me the number of self help books targeted at self-image and
    the 'mother-guilt' concepts.  A controlling factor or an abuse factor?
    
    Is the motivation revenge, notoriety, money, justified or some emotional
    deviation?  
    
    I also wonder if the legal system is the proper place to solve this
    issue.  Who gets rich but the lawyers?
    
    Or is it media hype?  
    
    Not insensitive, I just question what the media tells me. 
    
    Bill

    
    
    As a victim of abuse (not by my parents but by another adult - a
    teacher) I can really relate to the need to make the abuser stand up
    and admit their abuse.  I don't think the legal system is equipped to
    handle this situation, however.  
    
    For me, I rejoiced the day I heard that my abuser had died. 
    Unfortunately, there's a slighty empty/unresolved feeling, however,
    whenever I think that I never did face him as an adult and confront him
    with his behavior.  He's rotting in hell, though.  That's some
    consolation.
    
       GJD

86.116>    I at times read in the paper adults 20-40 years old that are dragging 
>    their parents (sometimes age 70 +) into court accusing them of abuse, 
>    sexual misconduct, whatever.  Why, after all those years?  What
>    satisfaction are they looking for?  

This is not a problem I have (thank God!), but I can understand a little of 
where these adult children are coming from.

One part of it is the anger and pain that any victim of abuse feels.  They 
want some way of dealing with all that pain.  I can sympathize fully with 
their desire.  Remember that in many cases, these adult children have 
repressed these memories for many years.  The shock of discovery must have
a serious effect on their sense of identify and self-worth.

Another part is the way our culture regards the legal system as a means
validating our selves.  TV and movies are full of stories of people who 
"won their case," and the victory is almost always presented as having
resolved the whole thing.  I am not surprised that these adult children 
turn to the legal system to resolve their feelings.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with this use of the legal system.  There
is good reason to believe that some of these recovered memories are false, 
and the abuse never happened.  This means that we face all the problems of
false accusations that have been discussed in this and other topics.  The
long elapsed time also means that corroborating evidence is very unlikely
to be available, to either the prosecutor or defence.  So the trial is
likely to end inconclusively, leaving reputations ruined and all the 
feelings still unresolved.

.3>    I think there is a large element of revenge involved.  When one gets
>    hurt, often one just wants to get back at the hurter and I believe that
>    the reasons expressed in .2 are legitimate but don't show you the
>    hidden reasons people don't want to express such as revenge.
>    
>    Watch some of the trials and the pure hate eminating from some of the
>    victims is quite apparent.

Of course, I can't get into anybody else's head, but I have talked to some
accusers and listened to or read about others.  My impression is not one of 
hatred and revenge, but of a desire for closure and validation.  A common 
attitude towards the accused is

	If you will just admit that you did these terrible things and
	apologize for them, then I can put all this behind me.

.4>    I also wonder if the legal system is the proper place to solve this
>    issue.  Who gets rich but the lawyers?
 
The people who write the self-help books, run the workshops, do the therapy 
and produce the talk shows.

Child abuse is a real and serious problem, but some of our social response
is making things worse.

    Ok Wally, maybe my perception of the hatred I (here we go again) see
    is distorted by the media.
    
    Jeff
    

   >	I should imagine that the individuals concerned are trying to
   >	project their sense of guilt onto the true offenders and break
   >   "the child abused becomes a child abuser syndrome."

    This is a dangerous and unfair preconception. The vast majority of the
    prople who abuse never become abusers.
    
    
    

    Re: .10
    
    Huh?  Perhaps you meant "people have been abused"?
    
    			Steve

Re.10
>    This is a dangerous and unfair preconception. The vast majority of the
>    people who are abused never become abusers.
    
	It was neither unfair or dangerous and although I'm no expert
	on the subject, hence the use of 'I would imagine' rather than
	'it is a fact', I was expressing more than a preconception; can
	you substantiate your use of 'vast majority' ?

	It seems more likely (to me anyway) that an abused child will, as a 
	parent, become a child abuser because a child learns the meaning of 
	love, as it learns most of it's values, through it's parents; and 
	there are no gaurantees, for any of us, that the source is pure or 
	true.

 	- Paul.

    If you were an abused child, the best and most important thing you
    can do is to make sure _you_ don't abuse _your_ children.  However,
    _abuse_ seems to be a relative term these days.  It seems to a 
    _lot_ of teenagers "abuse" is not letting them do exactly what they
    want to when they want to.  
    
    fred(); Whose daughter starts college today.

10>    This is a dangerous and unfair preconception. The vast majority of the
>    people who are abused never become abusers.
    
.12>	It was neither unfair or dangerous and although I'm no expert

I'll agree with .10 on this one.  It is unfair because it allows us to judge
individuals as a group, all those who were abused.  It is dangerous because
it may create a self-fulfilling prophesy in the mind of an abuser: I was abused
as a kid so of course I am going to abuse my children.

.12>	It seems more likely (to me anyway) that an abused child will, as a 
>	parent, become a child abuser because a child learns the meaning of 

May be true, but what exactly does "more likely" mean here?  It could mean 
that 12% of the abused will abuse their children, but 11% of the non-abused 
will abuse their children.

There is one frequently quoted statistic, that most abusers can report abuse
in their own childhood, but this statistic is suspect on several grounds.

First, it is a typical backward-looking statistic, which are notoriously
misleading as indicators of cause and effect.  Most Americans die in a 
hospital, but this does not mean that hospitals are particularly dangerous
places.  A better way of looking for cause and effect is to take a random
sample and classify by presumed cause (childhood abuse), control for other
variables (geography, income, education and so forth) and and then tabulate
presumed effect (abuse of children).  I expect that this has been done, but 
I have never seen the results in the news.

Second, the definition of abuse is not clear, and has not been stable over time.
I was physically punished (spanked) as a child around 1950.  This was not
considered abuse back then, and most children I knew were spanked.  Forty
years later, this is generally considered abuse.  We should not be surprised 
that any sample in 1990 can report abuse back in 1950.

Third, abusers can play the system as well as anyone.  An abuser would have to 
be pretty dense not to see which of the following statements will get them
a more lenient treatment

	I was terribly abused as a child, and was just repeating what
	I had learned.  But now, thanks to you, I see the light, and
	will never never do it again.

	Actually, I had a happy childhood in a loving supportive family.
	I abuse my kids because I am a dirty rotten scoundrel.

    I agree with the immediately prior entry.
    
    To expand, one could say that a parent who was abused as a child is 
    LESS likely to abuse their own children because they can see the
    consequences in their own life.  Unless of course they are a dirty
    rotten scroundrel and enjoy it for its own sake.
    
    Jeff

    re .15

>    To expand, one could say that a parent who was abused as a child is 
>    LESS likely to abuse their own children because they can see the
>    consequences in their own life.  Unless of course they are a dirty
>    rotten scroundrel and enjoy it for its own sake.

    I think it comes under the heading of "that's the only way they know".
    I've seen this happen where a child follows in the parent's footsteps
    because they just don't know any different.  I've seen children/parents
    go overboard in the other direction (little or no discipline at all),
    and worse, flip flop back and forth.  As the saying goes, "Kids don't
    come with an instruction manual".  Most parents just try to do the
    best they can with what they have to work with.  Then someone comes
    along and changes the rules after the fact.

    fred();

    I've noticed that about 99% of the people who think spanking a child
    is "abuse" either 1) don't have kids of their own or 2) have kids that
    you can't tolerate being within 100 ft of for any length of time over
    2 min.

    fred();

    Maybe thats the answer.  All the great child psychologists, legal
    minds, 'how to raise kids' book authors and childrens aid workers of
    today don't have to take their work home with them - cause they ain't 
    got any kids.

    My experience was that my parents used spanking as a severe punishment,
    usually after lecture/interrogation and while angry.  This imparted fear 
    and loathing of arbitrary authority but precious little respect for it.
    
    I use spanking as an instant attention getter when the little one is
    misbehaving and out of control.  Usually (um, maybe three times in the
    last 4 years?) a single smack to surprise/shock them into realising
    that they've pushed past the boundaries of acceptable behavior and now
    I'll not tolerate it any longer.
    
    Since my sweetie and I have worked our entire course of child-raising
    on the grounds of making those acceptable boundaries of behavior very
    clear, and 99+% of the time the child easily respects those boundaries,
    I think this use of spanking is appropriate, useful, and justified.  I
    haven't had to do it in over a year; Erik is a very well mannered 5.
    
    DougO

    I have raised one child completely(she is 19) and am in the process of 
    raising two more non-violently.  I don't have demon-children.  They
    have/are being raised with consistant boundaries and consequences for
    crossing those boundaries.  
    
    I was raised basically without being spanked, except for the
    occaissional tap on the but for doing something that endangered myself
    or others.  Since I was listened to and respected, I developed a
    respect for those people in authority, rather than fear.  (That was,
    until I ran into people in authority who had no respect for me or
    others)  The discipline was also consistant
    
    Frank was raised in a household that emphasized physical punishment for
    any infractions or sometimes just because the parental units were in a
    bad mood.  He learned that he might as well act however he wanted to,
    as he might be beatne anyway.  He prefers non-violent and respectful
    discipline in raising our children as well.
    
    Meg  

> or sometimes just because the parental units were in a bad mood.

 Given such conditions, it is hardly surprising that it didn't work.

 Or put another way, how effective do you think that your "non-violent approach"
would work if it were applied inconsistently, you took out bad moods on your 
child by grounding her, etc?

    Marc,
    
    I am a firm believer in consistancy.  I use it with my kids, cats, and
    will use it when we get a new dog.  Beating a dog you want to field
    train is conter-productive, as is inconsistant discipline.  I see no
    difference with raising children.
    
    Meg

 Exactly. Perhaps hubby's parents would have been more successful incorporating
physical punishment into their discipline had they been consistent and
measured in its application.

    doctah,
    
    I might agree to a point, but since it usually isn't necessary to
    clobber a kid, why hit them in the first place?
    
    Meg

    I thought this note was about sexual abuse and parents being reported
    later in life. Sexual abuse of a child in this society is
    unquestionably evil. I don't spank my kids. I try to teach them that
    people are not for hitting. But if I gave them a small tape on the buns
    now and then I don't think that's in the same ballpark as sexual
    abuse!?!
    
    Boy, this topic has really taken a tangent. I think I'll go back to
    WOMANNOTES where I can at least attempt to follow a subject.
    
    
    

.25> I thought this note was about sexual abuse and parents being reported

Actually, the base note spoke of 

.0> abuse or sexual misconduct

so we have not wandered that far afield.

.25> But if I gave them a small tape on the buns
>    now and then I don't think that's in the same ballpark as sexual
>    abuse!?!

I agree, but our opinion is not universal.  I see a lot of stuff in print
where sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and various kinds of
neglect are all lumped together, as if they are in the same ballpark.  And
there are people who consider any physical punishment to be abuse.  I'll
agree that all the above are Bad Things, but lumping them together just 
confuses us and makes it hard to solve the real problems.

>    Boy, this topic has really taken a tangent. I think I'll go back to
>    WOMANNOTES where I can at least attempt to follow a subject.

I can't speak for WOMANNOTES, since I don't read it, but I'll agree that 
this conference, like most, is no place to expect replies which stick to 
the subject.

    .26
    
    You should see 86.

    Accusing parents or other adults of sexual abuse in the past has come
    under a lot of discussion recently because of the "retrieved memory"
    while in therapy practice. Basically, the discussion is that therapists
    ask a fictional idea/possibility (such as "Do you think your
    father/mother. etc. could have ever done such and such?"). Over the
    course of several counselling sessions in which other possibilities are
    explored, the person ponders that fictional idea to the point where it
    crosses over from fiction into reality.  And then the accusation is
    made. 
    
    A second case, shown on 20/20 last year, was of Rhode Island
    grandparents who had been accused by their grandson of sexual abuse.
    The program went on to show how children can quickly change a hint or 
    suggestions of abuse into reality.  They videotaped an adult telling
    children at the beginning of the school day an outlandish story about
    dragons. When interviewed at the end of the day, all of the children
    swore up and down they had seen the dragon, and describing him.  Could
    the same thing be going on with children and sexual
    therapists/investigators/counsellors/
    
    So the controversy rages on: are "retrieved memories" or child
    accusations credible given the above considerations? In the RI
    grandparent's case (persons in their 70's), they are under "house
    arrest", and affirm that no abuse ever happened.  How would you like
    to have your "golden years" end like this?
    
    On another note-remember the case a few years back of the woman (Donna
    LaLonde) who hide her kid because of an alleged father's sexual abuse?
    How did it end?  I noticed on one of the back pages of the Globe the
    judge's ruling that from the medical records/opinions there was no
    evidence of abuse. Yet, the Globe and others jumped to the immediate
    sympathy with a wonderfully protective mother willing to risk jail to
    save her daugher from her bestial husband. Justice is blind!  

    
    kids - who needs em?