> the minister's approach to seeing and
> dealing with child abuse is certainly the most sane and
> effective approach.
Interesting. The minister's approach struck me as condescending and
"Sane"? Well, it's certainly a matter of opinion, and calling another
approach "insane" doesn't say much for one's desire to communicate in a
"Effective"? Maybe you could relate your experiences where the "Isn't
parenting tough? How can I help you?" approach proved effective for
> when we try to stop child abuse by
> embarrassing and shaming a parent it is harmful
While I'm quite certain that either Dawn's or the minister's approach
would cause an abuser to feel shame and embarrassment, I find myself
unconcerned with any emotional harm resulting from the embarrassment an
abuser feels when they discover their behavior is considered fringe.
> and perhaps
> just an indication of our hidden personal anger.
Doesn't kids and women getting beat up make us all angry? I think it
should. I get angry at the video of women getting the piss knocked out
of them by thugs in Afghanistan. I'd like to think we all do; it
saddens me to think there are those that don't.
> shame is child abuse
Are you saying that when an abuser feels ashamed that they are children
and are being abused? I guess I don't quite understand what you are
> , it is only another component of the cycle.
> nothing good for the parent or the child can come from shame
> or bullying.
If you are referring to direct confrontation of abusers, I strongly
disagree, Leslie. Friendly but firm (and non-passive-aggressive!)
confrontation of the public abusers of women and children sends a clear
message that it is simply unacceptable behavior in most parts of society
today. Sympathetic reactions to a violent scene sends the message that
the use of violence is unsurprising and simply part of the "tough job of
parenting, and can I help you?" ("Sure you can! Hold him while I get a
Sadly, I think we would all agree that *wholly* preventing abuse is
another prospect entirely.
> it only can contribute to the cycle.
Interesting; please support this.
> it's a
> sad state of affairs when the political becomes more
> important than the personal.
Is it sad that the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness is more important than the comfort of those who would deprive
you of it?
Was it sad when emancipation (all-too-gradually) became more important
than the personal comfort of slave owners and their personal
relationships with their "willing" slaves?
Do you find it sad when, in a large business, the political impact of
equal opportunity law becomes more important than the comfort and
familiarity of the good 'ol boy network?
I can understand disagreement regarding the tactics of dealing with the
public abusers of children or other adults (I believe Dawn's original
post extolled two somewhat diverse approaches).
And I can even understand if someone is not willing enough to "rock the
boat" in a given situation to intercede on behalf of an abused
But I find the idea that it is "sad" when individuals or societies or
governments place premier importance on the rights of minorities to be
wholly consistent with and enforcing of the world view of those who
consider the only valuable rights to be their own.
BTW, sorry to hear you find the list boring. :)
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
firstname.lastname@example.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@example.com" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST