Breaking it down

I'm not reposting this for you to respond to Jo because you did already below but I'm reposting it for the information of any readers who may have missed reading it or not given it the attention it deserves. Specifically, I appreciate the fact that Jules took the time to outline the several points of agreement here & feel this should be explored further. I'm not sure that I'm even in disagreement with all of Jules' points that she feels all FGs disagree with. - Reposter.

-------------------------------------------------

Jo, I am not speaking for all SGs. There are over 1000 on MovingOn that are very capable of speaking for themselves. Others may or may not agree with me. I am speaking for myself.

To break it down.

Here’s where we agree:

* FGA’s who joined in the early days had no idea what they were getting into.
* Many had altruistic motives and genuinely wanted to help others.
* Many, especially women, were brutally and sadistically dominated and had their self-esteem shattered.
* People’s access to information, money and control over their own bodies was taken away.
* A level of detachment and denial became necessary just to survive.
* Some people in the Family engaged in sexual abuse of children and other acts that they would never have engaged in if it were not for the intense pressure and abusive climate of the Family.
* Some people in the Family were not just caught up in the whole thing but were sadistic, abusive and actually evil.
* Not everyone who was in the Family specifically participated in the abuse of children.
* It was extremely difficult for many (also especially women, and especially mothers) to leave the Family.
* Those who did so often left under extreme circumstances and it took a great deal of courage, commitment and sheer desperation to get out with their children, and to rebuild their lives.

Here’s where we disagree:

* Someone who expresses guilt for their actions is not a “perp” by nature, but is someone who abused because of the group’s climate.
(I don’t believe it’s that simple, or that it is that easy to tell.)

* Someone who committed abuse against children because of the group’s climate is not responsible for their act or acts, unlike someone who did these things solely because they wanted to.
(Again, I don’t know how you would make that distinction. I do not believe that the motivation makes any difference. When people abuse children, they must be held accountable for those actions.)

* Those who did not participate in sexual abuse, but knew about it, or saw it first hand in the Family’s publications or in their own home, do not share collective responsibility for what went on.
(I disagree and have said why many times before.)

Jo, rather than saying that it is misdirected of me to consider FGs collectively responsible, perhaps something to consider is that you personally may be the exception, rather than the rule. The younger women among the first generation had it particularly hard, and wherever I was, we “kids” saw these young “aunties” more on our side than on the side of the “adults”.

In any regards, I really think we should agree to disagree. I really did not want to get into all of this.