I don't get it.

[MightyAardvark]

So I was watching Wimbledon today and this got me thinking about the teen-help industry, as most things do. About thirty five seconds into my bout of obsessive navel gazing I found myself pondering the following issue...

The teen help industry is riddled with abuse cases and neglect etc. These events get given a lot of very emotive coverage and people spend a lot of time asking themselves how these things could possibly be allowed to happen in America. Then we get the calls from various quarters for regulations etc.
All of these children are to be mourned and not forgotten about but I wonder if the amount of attention they get deflects people away from the real issue.
By continually focussing on issues of process and procedure we never get around to examining the root concept of the Teen help industry which is the assumption that it is ethically acceptable or even desirable to take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up.

Discuss...and play nice TSW

[Anonymous]

On 2006-07-06 07:22:00, MightyAardvark wrote:

"So I was watching Wimbledon today and this got me thinking about the teen-help industry, as most things do. About thirty five seconds into my bout of obsessive navel gazing I found myself pondering the following issue...



The teen help industry is riddled with abuse cases and neglect etc. These events get given a lot of very emotive coverage and people spend a lot of time asking themselves how these things could possibly be allowed to happen in America. Then we get the calls from various quarters for regulations etc.

All of these children are to be mourned and not forgotten about but I wonder if the amount of attention they get deflects people away from the real issue.

By continually focussing on issues of process and procedure we never get around to examining the root concept of the Teen help industry which is the assumption that it is ethically acceptable or even desirable to take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up.



Discuss...and play nice TSW"

MA, the most important point you're missing is that most of the abuse and neglect happens at the programs that are already licensed or are run by states. Here's why: Most kids at state-run programs are placed there because their parents are not involved--by choice or by state mandate because of abuse charges at home, or incompetence. Once placed there by social workers, they're pretty much on their own. Low wages and poor hiring practices exacerbate the risk of abuse and neglect at these places.

On the other hand, members of the "industry," --private programs--generally serve families that are closely involved, so there is already a monitoring tool in place. Most of the abuse and neglect allegations at these places peter out because they aren't true, or they're ridiculously exaggerated.

Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.

[Anonymous]

Bullshit, most private programs police themselves.  And have failed miserably.

[Anonymous]

Anon, you say "there is a monitoring tool in place" in private programs. YOU ARE VERY WRONG. When private programs monitor communications between the parents and their child--the parents are not allowed to "monitor" what is actually going on in these programs.
And your statement that any abuse children suffer, and report in these private programs are exaggerated is JUST FALSE.  Your statement insinuates that children LIE about abuse, and that, TOO is a VERY WRONG STATEMENT.
Perhaps your experience with a private program was positive---but you do not speak for anyone except yourself. Child must, and WILL be believed when they report abuse in these programs.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:


Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state.

Not true at all.  That's how these places work.  Be it physically or mentally or both, kids are broken down.  Make no mistake about it.  That's how their miraculous "change" is brought about.  The industry knows this.  That's why they live and work in this insular little world.  That's why they can't take any criticism or dissention.  Everything runs on this thinly veiled lie that all of what they do is necessary, that there is a need at all for them.  Fear, fear and more fear.  Play on the fears of the parents, convince them that you have the key to returning their sweet little girl or boy back to them.  Can't be done unless you 'regress' someone which is essentially what they're doing.  Most of the kids, the VAST majority would grow out of whatever behavior is causing concern for the parents.  The rebellion, moodiness, truancy etc. are normal parts of the process of breaking away from their role as the child in the family.  The programs seem insistent on creating these tantalizing images of the sweet pre-adolescent child.  Tame little Child Creature (Zappa).  Ya know, that whole adolescence/pathology thing.  THAT view of adolescence is what has to change.  Nothing else will until it does.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:



Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.

"

well at my program the mantra was...

"first we need to break youdown before we can build you back up"

go figure

[Anonymous]

MA, the most important point you're missing is that most of the abuse and neglect happens at the programs that are already licensed or are run by states. Here's why: Most kids at state-run programs are placed there because their parents are not involved--by choice or by state mandate because of abuse charges at home, or incompetence. Once placed there by social workers, they're pretty much on their own. Low wages and poor hiring practices exacerbate the risk of abuse and neglect at these places.

On the other hand, members of the "industry," --private programs--generally serve families that are closely involved, so there is already a monitoring tool in place. Most of the abuse and neglect allegations at these places peter out because they aren't true, or they're ridiculously exaggerated.

Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.

This is completely untrue. I spent several years in and out of programs, state and private. In every case the private, non-state regulated programs were much worse. Since a stipulation of the state programs was advocacy of some kind, there was always an out. There was no out in the private programs I was at (provo, wwasp), and no advocate to get in contact with when spending time locked in isolation, for no reason.

Not sure why you are lying about these things, or maybe you just don't know.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-07-06 10:54:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:



Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state.

Not true at all.  That's how these places work.  Be it physically or mentally or both, kids are broken down.  Make no mistake about it.  That's how their miraculous "change" is brought about.  The industry knows this.  That's why they live and work in this insular little world.  That's why they can't take any criticism or dissention.  Everything runs on this thinly veiled lie that all of what they do is necessary, that there is a need at all for them.  Fear, fear and more fear.  Play on the fears of the parents, convince them that you have the key to returning their sweet little girl or boy back to them.  Can't be done unless you 'regress' someone which is essentially what they're doing.  Most of the kids, the VAST majority would grow out of whatever behavior is causing concern for the parents.  The rebellion, moodiness, truancy etc. are normal parts of the process of breaking away from their role as the child in the family.  The programs seem insistent on creating these tantalizing images of the sweet pre-adolescent child.  Tame little Child Creature (Zappa).  Ya know, that whole adolescence/pathology thing.  THAT view of adolescence is what has to change.  Nothing else will until it does."

What you consider scare tactics would never work if the parents weren't scared to begin with. And as a parent (not a program parent) I can tell you, kids can be scary.

It's scary when that lovely child suddenly becomes angry, morose, etc. But the parents who send their kids to programs are beyond that, in my opinion. They're the ones who are able to discern REAL danger as opposed to adolescent angst. They have the courage to swallow their pride and get help. And courage means acting in spite of fear, not because of it.

Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise. Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-07-06 15:53:00, Anonymous wrote:


What you consider scare tactics would never work if the parents weren't scared to begin with.

Yes, parents are scared.  ALL parents are scared.  It's what makes them easy prey.


 

And as a parent (not a program parent) I can tell you, kids can be scary.

Yep, me too.  Been a kid in a program and have two grown kids, one of which still scares me from time to time.  She put me through hell in high school.  Don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's scary when that lovely child suddenly becomes angry, morose, etc.

Scary yes, but fairly normal.

But the parents who send their kids to programs are beyond that, in my opinion. They're the ones who are able to discern REAL danger as opposed to adolescent angst.

Not in the present climate.

Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise.

Please cite your source for this.  I'm just dying to see it.

 

Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm. "

You have no idea how ironic and absurd that statement is.

[Anonymous]

::troll::

[Anonymous]

Lemme guess, it's The Who's tag-team partner??

[MightyAardvark]

On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-07-06 07:22:00, MightyAardvark wrote:


"So I was watching Wimbledon today and this got me thinking about the teen-help industry, as most things do. About thirty five seconds into my bout of obsessive navel gazing I found myself pondering the following issue...





The teen help industry is riddled with abuse cases and neglect etc. These events get given a lot of very emotive coverage and people spend a lot of time asking themselves how these things could possibly be allowed to happen in America. Then we get the calls from various quarters for regulations etc.


All of these children are to be mourned and not forgotten about but I wonder if the amount of attention they get deflects people away from the real issue.


By continually focussing on issues of process and procedure we never get around to examining the root concept of the Teen help industry which is the assumption that it is ethically acceptable or even desirable to take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up.





Discuss...and play nice TSW"

MA, the most important point you're missing is that most of the abuse and neglect happens at the programs that are already licensed or are run by states. Here's why: Most kids at state-run programs are placed there because their parents are not involved--by choice or by state mandate because of abuse charges at home, or incompetence. Once placed there by social workers, they're pretty much on their own. Low wages and poor hiring practices exacerbate the risk of abuse and neglect at these places.



On the other hand, members of the "industry," --private programs--generally serve families that are closely involved, so there is already a monitoring tool in place. Most of the abuse and neglect allegations at these places peter out because they aren't true, or they're ridiculously exaggerated.



Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.

"

Thankyou verymuch for illustrating my point prefectly. You start buy focusing on emotive issue, attack the credibility of some very good people who are very angry about the way they were treated and then gently gloss over the core issue which is the purpose for this thread. I expect this wasn't a deliberate attempt to direct attention away from my point ( I don't credit the you lot with being that well thought out) but for an off the cuff job it's pretty impressive.

What I'm trying to say is that even if you could take a sullen, angry unco-operative teenager and absolutely guarantee that there would be no physical or psychological abuse (putting aside that a skinner model based program could not work without psychological abuse) permitted by a program whose staff were exquisitely trained and selected then reprogramming another human being would still be an inexpressably evil thing to do. It's a fundamental affront to human dignity for one person to think they have the right to stop someone being who they are. It an act not notably different in a moral context from rape**.

I think we need to stop focussing on abuse cases and dead bodies and start trying to show people that the root concept that supports this industry is rotten


(**both processes essentially revolve around treating an individual as if they exist for your personal amusement regardless of the long term emotional damage inevitably inflicted)

[Anonymous]

On 2006-07-06 16:57:00, MightyAardvark wrote:


(**both processes essentially revolve around treating an individual as if they exist for your personal amusement regardless of the long term emotional damage inevitably inflicted)

"

I must respectfully disagree with this last statement.  Not that this doesn't happen, it does.  Often.  But there are also those deluded souls who truly believe this is OK to do.  That the end justifies the means.  They're only trying to help, right?  They're intentions are good and pure, right?  You know what they say about the road to hell, right?

That's why this kind of shit has gone on for as long as it has.  When Martin Anderson died I found an article that really explains the phenomenon of these places.  The NeoCons like the 'get tuff' approach and the LibTards like the 'alternative school' label.  Both sides are sticking their heads in the sand all-the-while patting each other on the back and congradulating themselves on what great humanitarians they are.  Scary part is, a great many of them believe their own bullshit.

[MightyAardvark]

Yeah, I can see that. Good point. It dangerous to treat the opposition as one homogenous mass. There are probably ten different motivations for every dozen people involved. I stand by my correlation of BM=Rape though.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely!  I've experienced both and you're dead on.