|
In Reply to: Re: Warning: just an attempt to adress some very complex stuff posted by excog on January 09, 2005 at 15:15:29:
I don't agree. End of story. I think your perspective is not helpful to anyone. I believe some of your perspective has merit. I have professional friends that work with survivors of incest, etc. They agree. A cult situation is much more comprehensive. Probably most who have ever actually molested children or administered harsh discipline do not even come to this board.
Many FG did avoid, intervene, even to their own detriment when things happened that they did not like but the key here is that in doing so, many felt like inside they were being weak or wrong to question or to defy leadership who ultimately was supposed to be "God". That is probably more of what you would find posting here.
So imo, those of us who did the best we could with what we had or did not have to work with, I believe we deserve our own healing and we don't deserve group condemnation and we are not guilty of not reporting if we felt convinced that as much as it disgusted us we felt that "conscience" was "the devil" and wrong.
BTW, in spite of that I did speak out and stopped some much milder abuse that I observed and was dealt with for it. I was pretty much mush by that time. I got away with all my children and they were very young. I was one of the lucky FG.
Once I got out I readily contacted CAN before it became property of Scientology and confirmed copies of letters like the Sara D. books. But first I had to get some of the embedded screwed up family perception that knocks out conscience out of me. What I realized then is that even though letters were in possession of CAN and CAN was in touch with authorities, authorities could not do anything with it. Why? It was not direct information.
I guess what I am understanding is how for instance Elizabeth Smart or Patty Hearst went along with their captors after being raped and abused. People blame them because they can't understand why they didn't run away and get help when they were "at liberty" to. Well, it's because psychologically they were not "at liberty". What hurts me, as an FG, is that I do have empathy for what occurred with SG and want to be supportive, but as an exer and one who did not molest and who protected her kids and others to the point of being harshly dealt with, and get this, that protection was instinctive because I FELT WRONG bucking the family authority..
Blanket accusations and rantings don't help anyone. I can understand rantings helping to a point, but eventually if they are not targeting the right people or are without understanding the dynamics of what happens to FG (talking about after having the chance to rant and be accepted and apologized to etc.)the anger becomes toxic rather than therapeutic.
Across the boards we could be supportive of each other as exers. Maybe these rants can lead to breakthroughs in trust to people that can be trusted. So maybe just start with one issue to discuss. How about this one:
WHY DID FG NOT REPORT WHAT WE CLEARLY SEE AS ABUSES NOW THAT WE ARE OUT OF THE FAMILY, WHILE WE WERE IN THE FAMILY?
I am hoping different FG will answer this and be really honest about how they are feeling. I have seen stories where some FG were allowed the ability to take their children away from abusive childcare workers. Some seem to have had preferred status in the family. Maybe they had wealthy or influential parents, trustfunds or were f'ing berg and they had that leeway.
