Up Front: Fringe of Darkness
202 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
I guess, I just don’t find him very interesting.
Well herein lie a problem. "Interesting" - think what you mean by that.
-
chris, in reply to
I guess I believe that the in-built/natural nurturing and protectiveness qualities of the female of our species exists in every woman/mother
I appreciate that you and others have the best intentions Katharine, but incessant genderising leaves me feeling unwell. I understand that not everyone has yet adopted a world view that includes other genders. I've felt on the outer over a number of conversations, just sitting, afraid to contribute, waiting for someone to represent a view I identify with as the thread meanders down the well-hewn generic male vs female dichotomy track and is then closed.
A couple of opinions, void of evidence; with regard to sex crimes, I feel the continued genderisation of society may be an exacerbating factor, genderisation is arguably the foundation upon which MRA etc are founded.
In my opinion, it is women and mothers who are ultimately responsible for saving children from this fate
It is ultimately only the children themselves who can save themselves from this fate, and that requires more honest education and more profound empowerment. I enjoyed that Elizabeth Warren lecture you posted the other day, but she does go to lengths to stress that this is the age of the two income household and an age in which children are being institutionalised much younger, so it's more difficult for anyone to keep tabs. Which is not to say that I don't think we need to better understand the reasons why these mothers failed to recognise/act/etc. to protect their child/children, It's that I think we need to understand the reasons why people failed to recognise/act/etc. to protect child/children.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Well herein lie a problem. “Interesting” – think what you mean by that.
Katharine, I've listened to first-hand accounts by the victims. I'm tired of people insinuating that I'm siding with their abusers. If you want to accuse me of something, please come right out and do so.
I grew up in an abusive household, as most people here know. When you make these airy statements about mothers, that's MY MOTHER you're talking about. And I've sat at my desk weeping in impotent despair at these stories. My "interest" in causes is an "interest" in how we can stop these things happening again, how we stop being a society that allows them to happen.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I imagine any number of individuals who were illegally sexualised by this organisation who are still alive today feel, not only un-traumatised, but more sexually fulfilled in later life as a result.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck? You think people get good sex techniques from being sexually abused? What?
I don’t disagree that those wanting to be heard should give voice their sorrows, hurts, anguish, anger, trauma etc.if they feel that might assist their own healing. I think there are many venues to do this already
Public Address has been a safe place, at least at times, for survivors to share their stories, for people with professional or personal experience to share their insights, and for the rest of us to listen respectfully.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
I agree with everything you've said. I don't mean to imply all (or even most) of the responsibility for raising, nurturing and/or protection of children lies with females. I was raised by a female solo parent and when my children were 2 and less than 1 year respectively, I went back to work and their Dad 'raised' them for all intents and purposes. Sure I was around sometimes, but certainly not more than not. Who they are is largely a reflection of the habits and like and dislikes and values he gave them. And I will never begin to be able to thank him enough for that. His work was far harder than mine in respect of the family.
So yes, everyone in society - all people - have to play their part in the protection of children - and this is why I (kind of) qualified that statement above by saying "ultimately" - and that reflects my own anecdotal experiences, by no means a quantitative (or even qualitative) premise. Just, as I said, an opinion.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
I’m sorry, but what the fuck? You think people get good sex techniques from being sexually abused?
This is what someone above (I think Emma) might have thought of John Potter. He quite likely was exposed to illegal sexual contact (that is sexual contact as a minor with adults) that he thinks benefited him sexually. Technically (in terms of the law) he was abused, but he may not think so.
What I'm saying is his point of view (his perspective on "the story") to those who feel/felt traumatised by similar contact aren't likely to find solace/healng in his perspective.
Hope that clarifies - as I in no way want to say things that upset. I am in every sense of the word horrified and outraged by the proliferation of child abuse (both sexual and physical) in our society.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
We share the same interest - to stop this shit happening.
But no, I'm not talking about your mother - and that's part of my point - an overview, a book about Centrepoint for wider media consumption has the potential (in my opinion) to perhaps do more harm than good for many individuals affected by it. If it was written, I might read it for "interest" too - but I'd rather I (and a wider audience) read the Massey-type of study - as we might learn something far more valuable, as opposed to fulfill an "interest", or satisfy a curiosity. And even if I'm wrong, why would we want to do any more harm to anyone negatively affected anyway for the sake of the public interest?
Yes, we (society) need to understand far more about this wider problem. I just think our knowledge needs to be framed for the purposes of understanding, as opposed to interest. As I said earlier, we needed to listen to that guy who said,
“In the end,” he says, gripping his coffee mug hard, “guys will just be wanking over your stories.”
And ensure that we frame things and choose a venue for understanding such that it has no value in that regard.
-
If I may quote Emma's original post:
I was transcribing hours of interviews with people from Centrepoint: victims, abusers, people who’d been deeply scarred, people who’d been to prison, people who were just around. Anke was trying to get a broader picture of what had happened, a more nuanced one;
The next day, about half an hour of interview later, I was sitting at my keyboard with tears running down my face listening to the same woman cry as she talked about some of the other victims, as she expressed genuine remorse, as she said, I had no right to do that. As she talked about wanting to see those girls again, to apologise. The woman I had hated the day before was breaking my heart. She cried again, talking about her parents visiting her in prison.
What I went through was simply brushing up against the edges of what Anke was living for years. She has shown extraordinary courage in writing not just about what she learned, but about the profound effect it had on her as a human being who was also a journalist. We send writers and journalists into these fraught situations, to come out with the story, and expect them to be unscathed. To bear witness, and be unaffected, neutral observers.
It is abundantly clear that what Anke was doing, examining the wider picture through face-to-face interviews with a wide variety of people directly involved, is tremendously valuable. Without interviews like this we can't possibly understand what went on at Centrepoint. It's a loss for all of us that her work has been halted.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
for people with professional or personal experience to share their insights, and for the rest of us to listen respectfully.
What makes you think I have no professional or personal experience?
For avoidance of doubt, I do, and its personal, not professional experience. Look back to the book I linked to earlier - one of those case studies is part of my extended families' history.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Yes, we (society) need to understand far more about this wider problem. I just think our knowledge needs to be framed for the purposes of understanding, as opposed to interest.
This is what Anke and Emma have been doing. In the face of a mass of difficulties, including people bizarrely attacking them as if they were exploiters, or had no empathy or understanding.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
examining the wider picture through face-to-face interviews with a wide variety of people directly involved, is tremendously valuable.
It is, I agree. Which is why I suggested wider collaboration, with experts in the field.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
This is what someone above (I think Emma) might have thought of John Potter.
No. Please restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth. I am not going to engage with you any further.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
As I said earlier, we needed to listen to that guy who said,
“In the end,” he says, gripping his coffee mug hard, “guys will just be wanking over your stories.”
Having read that in context in Anke's article I'm frankly puzzled as to why you'd single out a statement which, perhaps more than any other single quote from any of the unreconstructed Potter alumni, encapsulates the breathtaking lack of insight from those who'd happily outsource their moral compass to a charlatan.
There are other "male voices" I find it vastly more worthwhile to recall. For example, the old acquaintance who, back before Potter's unmasking, mentioned that he'd attended one of the then-ratcatcher's pre-centrepoint seminars.
So how did he find that?
"A randy old man talking bullshit". -
Katharine Moody, in reply to
including people bizarrely attacking them as if they were exploiters
Of for goodness sake.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
I’m frankly puzzled as to why you’d single out a statement
I singled it out because he still walks and stalks among us;
On the night before I’m to meet my next Centrepoint informant, I mention this man’s name without further context to a couple who live in his Titirangi neighbourhood. The husband erupts in anger, shouting at me. An irrational fear creeps over me. After days of gruelling and volatile encounters, my overloaded brain can’t handle another CP drama. I lose it. It turns out the man in question has been stalking this couple’s daughter.
Should we be interviewing him for a book - or sending the police around?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Should we be interviewing him for a book - or sending the police around?
The last few paragraphs of Anke Richter's article make it plain why, according to her own judgement and the expertise of those she credits, she took the course she did. As it's now in the public domain, presumably you can do what you wish with the information she's supplied.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
No I can't, he's not named.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
No I can't, he's not named.
If it were simply a matter of "sending the police around" that shouldn't be a major problem. After all, they have their methods once they're motivated. As it seems plain that they're not for whatever reasons, I don't believe that it was in Anke Richter's immediate power to put a stop to the alleged "walking and stalking".
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
At your recommendation I looked up Judith Harman.
She gets it.
The main work of stage two involves:
Reviewing and/or discussing memories to lessen their emotional intensity, to revise their meanings for one’s life and identity, etc.
Working through grief about unwanted or abusive experiences and their negative effects on one’s life.
Mourning or working through grief about good experiences that one did not have, but that all children deserve.
Thank you Steven...I've bookmaked that.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Thanks steven - and I've got no problem with being disagreed with - at all. How could any of us purport to know 'truth' - and I say this in the pure scientific sense as well. I believe it's healthy to believe without proof.
Bad academia employs Dr Goodyear-smith.
Yes, makes me sick to my stomach.
And yes, treatment is in its infancy, but perhaps even more my personal bug bear, is the utter disdain we as a wider society seem to be prepared to devote in dollar terms to that treatment, and to prevention. And I guess my own personal view is that good research and science in academia would get us somewhere better. Just think if we had devoted as much to research in this area, as we have to research into climate change. Not that I'm a climate change denier, but what more knowledge do we need in order to take effective action? Contrast this with how little we know about how to take effective action in respect of child abuse, violence - and suicide prevention for all that matters;
We don't even have a Crown Research Institute devoted to social science. Yet where really are most of our societal ills grounded?
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
This might not seem like a big deal.
PS It is a big deal - and it should be remedied/addressed. Which is what my above post was meaning to address.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
The Canadians are good at researching this area.
Good. We need a local context however, given we seem to be leading the international stats in this - and many related - problems. It irks me to think we lead the world in research associated with making cow farts less environmentally damaging - whilst this (and mental health in general) is such a wide spread problem requiring urgent attention.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Bad academia employs Dr Goodyear-smith.
Yes, makes me sick to my stomach.
It also employs David Round and Greg Clydesdale.
-
linger, in reply to
If you've got a world-leading research group in an area relevant to NZ exports, would you really defund or disband it in order to fund mental health research? Research funding in NZ shouldn't ever be cast as a competition for scarce resources, because that scarcity is artificial, driven by shortsighted government costcutting and industry neglect. There should be more funding of research, period. And industry should do its share of the funding.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
If you’ve got a world-leading research group in an area relevant to NZ exports, would you really defund or disband it in order to fund mental health research?
Well yes, I would. But for a very simple and unscientific reason - there is an easy solution to the problem we are trying to solve: we have too many cows on the scarce resource that is fertile land. Regardless of the composition of their farts - they are still going to pee.
Technology will not 'save' us we have to go back to the underlying message of sustainability - that being we have to change our consumptive behaviours given the limits nature imposes on us.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.