Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting Article about Abused kids

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting Article about Abused kids

    Is World War Needed to Protect Our Children?
    by Phyllis Chesler

    Is World War Needed to Protect Our Children? by Phyllis Chesler

  • #2
    The court system does not want to believe that a well-spoken, charismatic man could really be a savage wife-beater or child abuser.

    Not only the court system. There are other organizations such as churches who believe the abusers' lies and persona. Individuals are also easily duped by the abusers' "well-spoken and charismatic" ways.

    Comment


    • #3
      There are also people that claim such things when it is not true.

      What system do you see to avoid this?

      Guilt until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?

      I think Churchill's quote works best here; it is the worst system except all which have been tried before. He was commenting on democracy as a system but I think it applies here too.

      Comment


      • #4
        The worst part about this article is that it assumes all abuse is perpetrated by males.

        It is well known (and proven) that abuse does not discriminate by the abusers gender.

        Comment


        • #5
          I wish I knew how to remedy the situation. In my case, I hid my husbands' beating and stayed inside the house, never going anywhere, until the bruises were healed. I took almost 2 weeks. He beat me on the face.

          About the churches: I don 't mean all the churches protect the abuser. Some actually help the victim. But too often the abuser appears to be a God-fearing, charming man-in most cases. Many people in the church believe the lie that the woman should take whatever the "head of the household" dishes out, including the abuse. Awful.

          Comment


          • #6
            Interesting?

            Maybe if one finds totally biased, hack writing to be interesting. Lol.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by caranna View Post
              I wish I knew how to remedy the situation. In my case, I hid my husbands' beating and stayed inside the house, never going anywhere, until the bruises were healed. I took almost 2 weeks. He beat me on the face.

              About the churches: I don 't mean all the churches protect the abuser. Some actually help the victim. But too often the abuser appears to be a God-fearing, charming man-in most cases. Many people in the church believe the lie that the woman should take whatever the "head of the household" dishes out, including the abuse. Awful.
              You suggest churches should be held to some higher standard but it seems to me that you forget churches are populated with fallible people.

              Are you not fallible? I am. It is vogue to attack religion but religion without people is not fallible.

              I think it is inappropriate to suggest many people in the church believe the lie the woman should take whatever....

              If that is your experience it is time to get a new religion.

              Comment


              • #8
                I do believe the churches should be held to a higher standard. I don't need to "change my religion" as I believe in God who leads me every step of the way. God has given me the peace that passes all understanding. I feel very blessed.

                After all these years of abuse, I am feeling a joy that transcends all the pain I have suffered for decades.

                You have a completely false idea of "religion." Some of the biggest hypocrites are in churches. The church doesn't define my "religion". God does.

                Of course people in churches are fallible. We all are.

                Unfortunately, abuse, especially the violent , physical kind, arouses many bitter and hateful feelings in this forum. Abuse is also something many people would like to see swept under the rug. It's not sexy like adultery or arguing with your ex-spouse. Also "religion" pushes many peoples' buttons too. So I will not be commenting on this thread any further. I have made my point.

                End of story.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I thought that this would be a polarizing article - here.

                  I don't see this article through the lens of my own existence... my particular agenda. It is heinous.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by caranna View Post
                    The court system does not want to believe that a well-spoken, charismatic man could really be a savage wife-beater or child abuser.

                    Not only the court system. There are other organizations such as churches who believe the abusers' lies and persona. Individuals are also easily duped by the abusers' "well-spoken and charismatic" ways.
                    The challenge is that those who allege to be abused often have underlying psychological issues that goes unexplored often.

                    Being "well-spoken and charismatic" does not automatically make someone an "abuser". Cogent and relevant evidence does.

                    A case-on-point example of an abuser, and now convicted and sentenced to deal abuser/murderer Jodi Arias demonstrates quite well how the Lundy Bankcroft and others theory of "domestic violence" fails in many situations of false allegations.

                    Good Luck!
                    Tayken

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dad2bandm View Post
                      Interesting?

                      Maybe if one finds totally biased, hack writing to be interesting. Lol.
                      You have a point though. As we saw in the Jodi Arias case and with the "domestic violence" expert called by defense ("Alyce LaViolette") we can possibly see the underlying motivators why these "hacks" write what they write, say what they say and project all blame on a single gender. They profit quite significantly from their "research" and "work".

                      Jodi Arias Domestic Violence Expert Accused Of Cashing In On Murder By Abuse Victims | Radar Online

                      Originally posted by Article
                      Domestic violence expert Alyce LaViolette, who is reportedly being paid $300 an hour to testify, is using the high-profile case to promote her book, It Could Happen To Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay, which not-so coincidentally is being republished in its third edition on April 23 just in time to profit from the publicity of the trial.
                      The "domestic violence industry" is a very lucrative industry. You can sell books to emotionally distraught people that have "information" that is often void of any supporting research or evidence based medicine and because it is sold on Amazon.ca it must be true.

                      When people then go about applying the "theory" from these books is when it becomes dangerous.

                      I have personally seen affidavits before the court that have cut-and-pasted materials from the poorly researched (often not researched) books and other on-line materials. Total 100% plagiarism sold as "truth" as sworn to an affidavit. They don't even cite the material they just cut and paste it as their own words which is even more concerning.

                      The challenge the courts face is that they have to sort through all this nonsense being sold as "the truth".

                      I have even seen an affidavit where the person copied one of these author's examples from one of their "clients" and used it as "evidence". Suffice to say, when it was identified the justice was not impressed.

                      Scan to PDF, OCR and run it through a plagiarism checker to determine authenticity of the writing... Our universities and colleges do this and expel students... Why are our courts not caught up with this technology and expelling litigants from court rooms for doing this?

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I've had to look into the background of "experts" who publish pages like that, and whom are often called as expert witnesses at trials. If I cite something it must be scholarly and peer reviewed and I have to be able to show that.

                        I can't speak for the author of that article, but clues I look for in the ones I research: They are published by "foundation" that they set up themselves; the foundation pays them a salary to be the head; they are paid as well for their papers; their papers cherry-pick and misrepresent data, don't consider any contridicary evidence, and draw sweeping generalized conclusions from limited examples. The foundations, of course, rely on charitable donations from special interests.

                        I see this pattern over and over, to the point it seems like there must be an instructional guide out there somewhere explaining how to set yourself up as a professional "expert."

                        In saying this, I am not denying that the actual issues exist. Of course there is abuse out there, assault, rape, trafficking, etc. What stands out is that there are people profiting from really bad research, who claim conclusions that can't possibly be supported by their numbers, and who end up cited over and over by other groups with a political objective, or called to the stand as expert witnesses at trial. Sometimes judges see through this, or they are taken apart by a good cross examination, but not often enough.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mess View Post
                          I've had to look into the background of "experts" who publish pages like that, and whom are often called as expert witnesses at trials. If I cite something it must be scholarly and peer reviewed and I have to be able to show that.
                          Excellent advice... But, what do you consider appropriate considerations for defining "peers"? It is easy with a paper published by a registered clinician (psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, ....) as their "peers" are easy to identify. How would one balance the writings of self acclaimed "experts" against their peers. (I know I may be nit-picking on the definition of "peers" but, it does cause complexity when cross examining "experts" at times.)

                          Originally posted by Mess View Post
                          I can't speak for the author of that article, but clues I look for in the ones I research: They are published by "foundation" that they set up themselves; the foundation pays them a salary to be the head; they are paid as well for their papers; their papers cherry-pick and misrepresent data, don't consider any contridicary evidence, and draw sweeping generalized conclusions from limited examples. The foundations, of course, rely on charitable donations from special interests.
                          Really like this perspective. Never put how I review materials into such a formula. I take a similar approach but, fundamentally I apply the concept of "evidence based medicine" to the content of the publication. I consider the scope of the publishing organization but, will be integrating this approach to bring more clarity into my perspectives.

                          Evidence-based medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                          Originally posted by Mess View Post
                          I see this pattern over and over, to the point it seems like there must be an instructional guide out there somewhere explaining how to set yourself up as a professional "expert."
                          Well, we should ask "PAS Expert" I guess. I wonder the same. I think that the pattern does exist and people do exploit it for their own personal gain. It almost feels like they set themselves up as a MLM (Multi Layer Marketing) company at times. If you have enough people who "believe" your "product" is good and "the best" then, it must be true and everyone should buy your product.

                          I have been studying how these "experts" books are being distributed in different channels (e.g. shelters) and provided by other non-clinical "counsellors". There is a concerning trend that these non-clinical support staff are providing this information to people as "factual" and "proven" methodologies... Rather than recommending a referral to a qualified clinician in mental health.

                          Originally posted by Mess View Post
                          In saying this, I am not denying that the actual issues exist. Of course there is abuse out there, assault, rape, trafficking, etc. What stands out is that there are people profiting from really bad research, who claim conclusions that can't possibly be supported by their numbers, and who end up cited over and over by other groups with a political objective, or called to the stand as expert witnesses at trial. Sometimes judges see through this, or they are taken apart by a good cross examination, but not often enough.
                          I agree. This is very much the case of OCL "experts" and custody and access assessment "experts". That is why I appreciate the contributions made in jurisprudence by litigants (especially those that work very hard ) to do this and take that risk. Often, people are "afraid" of experts and to challenge them.

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment

                          Our Divorce Forums
                          Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                          Working...
                          X