MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse

by silentlambs 129 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Dungbeetle:

  When you write things like,
  

  "It looks like to me that you aren't going to let the suffering of all the JW's like me and others in thsi whole world stand between you and the BIGGER FISH IN THE LITTLER POND that you hope to be some day."

  
  it seems you believe I am striving to rise in the ranks of the WTS' hierarchical system. If this is what you believe then you must have read the conclusion into my composition titled Remaining in Association with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or, maybe you read it into something else I penned. The reasons I know you could not have drawn such a conclusion logically are 1) because I have never expressed any desire to rise in the ranks of the JW hierarchy since many years ago realizing the utter hypocrisy of WTS leaders and 2) just the opposite is true in my life.

  If you believe what I think you do about me, then for no good reason both of us are missing out on what probably could have been mutually beneficial association and instead we find ourselves at loggerheads, which is a shame.

  But one thing is for sure, like Bill, when asked precise questions on practical matters you too refuse to give precise answers. This is what you just did with your last response to me here. This smacks of the same nonsensical tactics used by WTS leadership. I cannot tolerate it, and I don't know a single thinking person that could.
• 

  silentlambs

  I "think" it is obvious to the "thinking" ones that any answer given will not meet the "Marvin" criteria resulting in insults from everything to morality to intelligence as well as threats. You expose yourself as being unreasonable and unwilling to put forth any balanced effort to come to a conclusion that requires you to actually do anything to stop WT Policy from hurting children. It seems you have "thought" yourself into a box where you can justify doing nothing but bickering about details. It is a sad waste but perhaps a subconcious justification for not accomplishing meaningful actions.
• 

  morrisamb

  And on a lighter note...

  Mr. Shilmer, are you in media?

  You wrote: when asked precise questions on practical matters you too refuse to give precise answers

  I work in the media and have been interviewed countless times as well.
  I am always amazed at my interviewees who answer every question with precise answers. I never do. I answer the way I want to and sometimes with all the graciousness of Mary Poppins, I state, "You know, that's a very good question, but I'd like to talk about this...."

  It's amazing two or more pages on this threat are about not answering questions. Perhaps some really good points are getting lost in the crossing the T's and the dotting of the i's?!
• 

  dungbeetle

  Does anybody ever sleep around here?

  I will state again---when things REALLY get better for rape/molestation survivors in the Watchtower book publishing company,there isn't going to be any doubt about it, and there won't be much room for argument. It will be plainly obvious.

  I just know that isn't the case right now. I hope it changes soon.
• 

  ThatSucks

  Right on morrisamb!

  It would be nice to see people's egos go beyond trying to come out on top on a silly debate and actually address real issues.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, morrisamb

  I am not in the media.

  Giving general or editorial answers to specific questions is part of everyday speech; we all do it. But when someone is trying to understand another person's thinking or position in specific areas then answers must be precise in order to clarify with a measure of specificity equal to the question.

  The example of this thread is poignant because the one who started it did so expressly for the purpose of undoing misconceptions and straightening out supposed uncontextual alleged contradiction. He wrote,

  It appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse. Some have taken statements I have made out of context to make it appear there is a contradiction in how silentlambs views the issue of reporting child molestation. Whether this is being done out of ignorance or intentionally remains to be seen. The point is that in all fifty States it is MANDATORY to report child molestation. What does MANDATORY mean? Webster’s defines it as….

  All I've wanted to know on this thread is specifically what Bill would have people practice as mandatory reporting. To gain this understanding I posed specific questions dealing with victims who seek help but refuse to accept it from anyone who would report the incident regardless of the victim's feelings. I thought I had a pretty good idea of his thinking when he wrote,

  I have talked to many victims who have never reported their abuse, I simply encourage them to talk about it to counselors, close friends, or report the matter on the sl website. The more they learn they can speak out the more likely they are to report the crime.

  To me this statement had to do with adult victims and it seemed pretty clear (in fact, explicit) that Bill did not practice a brand of mandatory reporting that would override feelings of adults who were victimized in childhood (a position I agree with). Other statements by Bill led me to believe he would report knowledge of child abuse to a minor whether the minor agreed with the reporting or not (another position I agree with). But then Bill exclaimed that I was somehow defending WTS policy (a policy I have denounced in explicit terms) and that I had twisted his words. This can mean only one thing: Bill was saying my conclusions of his thinking and practices was wrong, which put me back to square one trying to understand his recommendations. Therefore I again presented precise questions for the sake of understanding, not to simply hear him editorialize. I've already heard his general editorials and they do not answer questions of meaning in important specific areas. This is especially the case since Bill has said explicit written statements of his do not mean what they say. Again, mine was an exercise toward understanding, but it failed despite every effort to gain it. As things stand now the only conclusion I can draw is that Bill does not want to be understood, or maybe that he does not comprehend the request for understanding. I lean toward the former conclusion because my efforts have been so precise that I would think any competent adult could discern the intent to understand.

  A person who claims they want to be understood precisely cannot be trusted when they refuse to give precise answers to precise questions. It's an inexplicable dichotomy to act that way. That anyone would hold to such an approach in view of the seriousness and realness of the topic makes it all the more difficult to fathom why they would do it.
• 

  ThatSucks

  Marvin,

  When you ask people the following type of question:

  "are you going to take option #1, or option #2?"

  and they reply:

  "NEITHER"

  Then they ARE answering your question, whether you like it or not. What it means is that the limiting scope of your questions do not fit the subject of the one answering. He said, in all precision... NEITHER. Your knit-pickeyness is making you appear to have a vandetta (sp!) again SL, rather you intend for it to or not.
• 

  waiting

  Quote from Bill:

  Question 1:

  If presented with a situation where a minor comes to you and says they had been abused but persisted that they would not talk about their experience to anyone who would automatically report the matter to authorities, would you offer them help on the condition of leaving the prerogative of reporting to them or would you turn them away?

  Neither, I would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and I would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. That is what mature adults do when they wish to help children. (end quote)

  "Neither" is close......but if I understand Bill correctly, he would change (help) the child's thinking until the child agreed to report, then he would help the child report. Which, in essence, means that Bill would not "offer them help on the condition of leaving the prerogative of reporting to them." He would "help" them until they changed their minds and reported.

  Of course, as Bill's pointed out to me several times, I could be misunderstanding him.

  I really don't think there's a cut & dry yes/no way to answer - as one kid may have a teacher touching in an "inappropriate" way, and another child may be absolutely terrified of even going home if the abuser even sniffs the suspicion that the child's told - the pain threatened or previously experienced is a mighty deterent to speaking to anyone. Why do you think it's so semi-common to brutally kill a child's pet in front of them - instill fear of speaking. "If you tell, this is what'll happen to you." Works.

  So, if you've got a kid who finally works up the courage to speak (perhaps you caught an "odd phrase" or two) - and then you say, "Well, you know if you are being abused, I'll have to call the authorities (POLICE to a kid) - and the kid's been told that if this happens, he or someone he loves will be killed, just like his pet. And he's got the bruises to prove it to his way of thinking.

  What will the kid most likely do?

  Even though I think Bill's answer was vague to the question asked, I think it's the appropriate answer - open a dialogue with the kid first, privately. Then, within a fast time period, encourage kid to talk to professional. If the kid won't, report. If upon initial talking, you think the kid's in danger - call anyway.

  I don't see any other way to approach this particular aspect. Of course, for this particular one......there are a thousand other scenarios. Fear reigns supreme - it's a very effective tool.

  waiting
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, ThatSucks

  As a point of logic, when a person is presented with a legitimate bifurcation then answering with "Neither" is saying "I will not answer the question." This is why my conclusion that Bill does not want to make his position clear.

  The questions I posed to Bill are legitimate because they represent real life happenings. For a fact there are victims (children and adults) of child abuse who want help but will not accept it from anyone who would automatically report the incident without explicit permission from them, the victim. My question calls for a "black or white" answer because in real life the victim has presented a "black or white" request: either you will help me without reporting or you will report regardless of my feelings--which is it?

  Understanding requires logical analysis together with asking and answering specific questions of concern.

  Bill's response was no more than a reply. It was not an answer.
• 

  LoneWolf

  silentlambs and dungbeetle ---

  Do us all a favor and can it. You're doing more harm to your cause than good.

  Bill, I wholeheartedly agree that the WTBTS is wrong in its approach and something needs to be done. However, your emotional approach and uncalled for name calling, even if successful, will lead to a solution that may even be worse than than the current status quo.

  As morrisamb has been trying to point out to you, these are extremely complicated situations and each one of them have unique features that have to be considered if there is to be a successful resolution. There is no "one size fits all".

  You both come on like self-righteous do-gooders who care little who gets hurt worse, just as long as you get to vent your frustration. How you personally feel --- outraged, or any other way --- is immaterial. How the victims feel is what's important. By our overruling their feelings and flying ahead in a crusading manner, we simply rape them all over again.

  Once again, and even clearer: Nobody gives a damn how you feel. We all give a damn how the victims feel. Get down out of your ivory towers. We don't need any "the operation was a success, but the patient died" attitudes mixed up in these matters.

  I'd like to help. But as long as this self-righteous attitude is demonstrated on your part, forget it. The victims are in just as much danger from you as they are from the pedophiles. It's just a different form of danger.

  I don't expect you to understand the above paragraph, so I'm posting something that should clarify it under a separate thread. I'll call it "The 'Boomer's' Crusades."

  Let me emphasize something here. There are a great many people who have learned the hard way that the government and the popular "counseling services" available and recommended to everyone these days are every bit as suspect as anyone else. The reason is obvious. They are made up of imperfect humans, just as all other organizations are made of. Anyone who looks to them as a panacea is bound to be disappointed.

  waiting --- I appreciated your post. It's very accurate.

  LoneWolf