--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States
>
>
>
> > You don't know me, or my friends, my experiences, or obviously my
> sympathies
> > to those who have endured this type of crulty and evil.
>
> Its not that I suspected that you don't have sympathy for victims. Its
> that your apparent attitude that there are just a few criminal types from
> the wrong side of the track who perpetrate this that feeds the shame of
> victims. People tend to hide problems in the family due to shame. If it
> is generally accepted that this happens even in good families, and the fact
> that the victims have no responsibility, and that there is no family shame
> associated with it, then victims are more likely to speak about the
> problem.
I see what you mean. That would be unfortunate if I contributed to this.
> But, if it is evidence that the victim comes from the wrong type of family,
> then the victim feels shame for being part of a bad family. (Shame is
> different from guilt, BTW. Speaking roughly, shame is feeling bad about
> who you are; while guilt is feeling bad about what you've done.)
I have little shame, and little need for it. I often forget that shame does
exist. And that it can be a contributing factor. My additude regaurding this
was in error.
> > I seem to have struck an emotional chord with you and I appologize if
> that
> > has made you angry at me, or hurt.
>
> I appreciate your apology, but the problem is not so much that you struck
> an emotional cord as that you repeated dangerous myths that I've seen
> damage families for 20+ years. Unfortunately, after dealing with sexual
> abuse, one develops a radar for it. I'll give one example. A young friend
> of my daughter was sexually abused by an uncle. She would sit on his lap
> and he'd rub against her. It was subtle enough so he could do it in front
> of people and only the two of them would know.
>
> We have a feeling that something was amiss, but didn't say anything.
> Finally, when Teri was discussing unacceptable behavior...her job with
> Parents Annomous dealt with that kind of stuff and my roll as a Brownie
> leader gave us "permission" to talk about safety issures for kids, the girl
> said "well, execpt if its a family member, then its OK."
>
> We got her premission to talk to her parents, who were very uptight about
> it. They didn't get help, because of the shame they all felt about this
> type of thing happening in their family. We lost contact when we moved,
> but when we regained contact, we found out that the now teenage girl was
> "boy crazy" and out of control.
Not all sex crazed teage females are victems of abuse either. Your morals do
not neccisarily dictate what is right for everyone. In just the same light
please do not suggest that females who are "boy crazy" are "out of control"
and therefore have a problem.
> Its well known that eating disorders, sexual disfunction, etc. are tied to
> abuse.
>
> > I do realize that there are many who are abused and attacked. I am not
> > suggesting otherwise. I am, however, suggesting that the stats are scued
> to
> > make the situation (as far as male perpitrators) seem more widespread
> than it
> > is.
>
> I understand that. Unfortunately, this belief helps perpetuate the
> problem. I went to the web to look up sites, and in the hit or miss
> fashion of the web, I found more information of studies of abuse of males.
> Its at
>
> www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/pdfs/invisib.pdf
>
>
> The surveys are pretty straightforward in theory, but not necessarily in
> practice. Phone surveys tend to have the lowest number of reported cases,
> annonomous surveys that people just fill in have the medium, and interviews
> have the most.
>
> One of the difficulties is that one needs to make reporting abuse safe for
> the victim. Given that, its easy to see why phone interviews are the
> lowest. Face to face interviews may tend to have a biased sample. But, as
> you see here, there are samplings that appear to be fairly random...like
> college students.
The other explination is that it is just not as prevelent as some think it
is. I disagree that this attitude makes the problem worse. The search for
truth should never make the problem worse should it?
> > Not that it is not a problem mind you.
> >
> > There is also a distinct lack of data in these numbers about what part of
> > society the perpitrators come from.
>
> One of the myths is that the perps. come from a distinct criminal element
> or from poor families.
I wasn't saying that and I wasn't refering to family on family perps.
> Reported cases to CPS of abuse are biased towards
> lower income groups, mostly because they have fewer resources to hide the
> problem. Yet, when surveys are done for past histories, the same bias
> towards lower income groups is not found.
What about professions? Home invaders? Violent Rapeists?
> I'd argue that its akin to the fact that illegal drug use cuts across all
> ecconomic, race, and social boundaries, but people serving sentences tend
> to be black and Hispanic and tend to be lower income. I know that drug use
> is rampant among the kids in the upper middle class community I live in,
> but their families can keep them out of jail if they do get caught.
It also has to do with which drugs they are using, what actions they take
while on the drugs, and what actions they take to get the drugs. Who they
have to deal with to get the drugs. I am not making a racist statment here,
nither am I condoning drug use. So don't flip this statment that way.
>
> As an interesting aside, even when one logically expects ecconomic status
> to play a major role in decision making, the evidence for that does not
> exist. My wife did her master's thesis on the relationship between
> ecconomic status and battered wives returning to their abuser. She had a
> fair sample size, 190, and fully expected to see a relationship. She
> didn't.
>
> > Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible
> > victems to carry a leathal weapon?
>
> The problem is that it would usually require a 5 year old or a 10 year old
> or a 15 year old to shoot to kill a family member or family friend. Since
> they are ashamed to even speak out immediately, suggesting that they kill
> their uncle, their father, etc. doesn't really seem like a good idea.
Of course. I was refering to violent attacks and home invasion.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
