help deciphering the advocate scene

[Anonymous]

I was wondering if you wanted to help me out? You do!? That's great.

Basically what I am doing is trying to get an idea of where people think the well known advocates stand. Who is legitimate, who isn't. I'm having a hard time finding a resource that helps explain the large, but sometimes unnoticeable differences between the different types of "advocates" in this teen help arena. It would be great to come up with categories, or a rating system, or even a simple legit or non-legit stamp.

If you knows what I means and want to help me create this, post what you think here and let's get started.

[Nihilanthic]

I define a program as a place that denies a child happiness, normal social development and life experiences from a important and essential part of their life, does not provide education and the crux of what they do centers around domination and inflicted suffering and hardship for the sake of doing so, usually with some sort of "emotional growth" element that is basically forced disclosure and regurgitation of loaded language, for a long period of time (months to over a year) with no clear cut need or any justification at all ever being defined.

Furthermore, they can not measure what is wrong with the kids, define what is wrong, or measure or define how they fix what is wrong.

And, finally, when the kid turns 18, the argument turns into "they should love/appreciate you if they don't work the program kick them out" and turns into the "Exit plan".

TL;DR:

waste of time ran by qucaks that hurts people, does not help anything, totally ludicrious, useless, hurtful, harmful, and rejected by mainstream society and mainstream treatment, only a tiny population of kids end up in programs, and I think how people decide how to treat their kids with their checkbooks speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

I define a program as a place that denies a child happiness, normal social development and life experiences from a important and essential part of their life, does not provide education and the crux of what they do centers around domination and inflicted suffering and hardship for the sake of doing so, usually with some sort of "emotional growth" element that is basically forced disclosure and regurgitation of loaded language, for a long period of time (months to over a year) with no clear cut need or any justification at all ever being defined.

Furthermore, they can not measure what is wrong with the kids, define what is wrong, or measure or define how they fix what is wrong.

And, finally, when the kid turns 18, the argument turns into "they should love/appreciate you if they don't work the program kick them out" and turns into the "Exit plan".

TL;DR:

waste of time ran by qucaks that hurts people, does not help anything, totally ludicrious, useless, hurtful, harmful, and rejected by mainstream society and mainstream treatment, only a tiny population of kids end up in programs, and I think how people decide how to treat their kids with their checkbooks speaks volumes.

so well spoken, and a fan of teen hunger force

[Oz girl]

In this context I would define things as follows
Any boarding school or camp/ Wilderness adventure which claims one of the following
-To have a therapeutic or emotional growth component
-Which exists primarily to cure mental health, behavioural, & or drug addiction issues in young people (excluding actual drug rehabs or legitimately run psych hospitals)
-Which puts discipline or behavioural management before education
-Which makes its own brand of therapy or emotional growth compulsory for the "students"

placed which meet this criteria may or may not do the following

-tell a student who they may contact
-monitor phone calls and mail
-Make students earn the right to eat the same meals as their peers
-Have students make public confessions to their class mates
-have levels which the student must progress through in order to graduate which have nothing to do with academic achievement
-accuse students of telling lies in order to come home
-send misbevhaving students into the woods or into isolation chambers
-have students take responsibility for the maintenance and care of the property
-use physical discipline or corporal punishment

A program is not
-a summer camp or outward bound adventure
-A non therapeudic boarding school which is strict about uniforms etc
-a private or religious day school
(this does not mean that abuse is impossible at such places it just means that in and of themselves they are not abusive)

[nimdA]

Not much to add.

though beware of advocates who don't seem to have the sense of a fucking babboon in who they choose to ally themselves with.

TAUSA with Barbe Stampe.. Good efforts and honest woman.

ISAC with Shelby Earnshaw.. Hard worker, honest, and I trust her.

My all time favorite is HEAL with Angela who doesn't take shit from anyone.

I'd be very wary of the following groups:

Cafety.. not sure what the hell is up with them and their crap. I'm keeping a wary eye on them for the time being. I'll report back later and the situation unfolds.

PURE.. I'd rather be sodomized by a goat than work with Sue Scheff. She sells kids down the river.

CAICA.. nasty bag of ass that woman is. Will help send a kid down the river faster than you can say, "WHOA! Where is my Codpiece?"

Antiwwasp.com .. An entire forum headed by a sell out who sells kids down the river and referrs to Magnolia where kids are paddled.

NYRA, national youth rights association.. they support CAICA.. so by default they suck.



Big thing to remember here about being an advocate. Its a lonely job and it probably more than likely won't get you laid. Don't do it because you want to be famous, like glory, or just like the sound of your own voice. Do it because you won't compromise your principles, and you care about helping kids.


Now I'm gonna go fuck off. Yall have fun.

[psy]

Legitimate advocate or not?

I could answer this with one word: money

For example: Educational consultants...  I would ignore their opinion because for many of them, their financial wellbeing relies on promoting programs.  Same with NATSAP, etc etc etc...

[Antigen]

The Gook's on top of it, I think. Notice another line of distinction; formal organization. Angela, Barb and Shelby often have trouble staying in the game cause they can't be bought. So they wind up working largely alone most of the time.

Them others? Well, very often  the group dynamic overwhelms common sense and personal volition. Among people with much exposure to LGAT/Synanon type psych parlor tricks I think that goes double or triple. It's just soooo easy to slip back into the mob mentality, complete with sacred science, higher calling, martyrdom complex and all that. Wherever two or three are gathered for any particular purpose, it's wise to carry a big stick in case you're the unlucky fourth.

[Rusty Goat]

Guest says: "Basically what I am doing is trying to get an idea of where people think the well known advocates stand. Who is legitimate, who isn't. I'm having a hard time finding a resource that helps explain the large, but sometimes unnoticeable differences between the different types of "advocates" in this teen help arena. It would be great to come up with categories, or a rating system, or even a simple legit or non-legit stamp."

Rusty Goat says: Check the "REFERRAL FREE ZONE" sites. That is a "stamp" of sorts. Please explain the "large, but sometimes unnoticeable differences".

RG

[Anonymous]

Pretending to be an "advocate" is the new angle for marketing Programs in the 21st century.

I like TSW's list -- a tiny handful of lone individuals who do what they do because it's righteous. But I'm very leery of organizations that claim to be advocates. Organizations usually have funding...and where money is involved, corruption usually follows.

[Anonymous]

Yep,
And when a self-proclaimed "ADVOCATE" like Isabelle Zehnder makes Sue Scheff /Pure CAICA's "Advocate of the Month" that is just throwing the word A-D-V-O-C-A-T-E around just too, too much.

Then both these women--Zehnder and Scheff--- start filling up the internet with BLOGS praising the defunct, abusive Whitmore Academy; and priasing the two owners:  Mark Sudweeks, a convicted FELON; and Cheryl Sudweeks who "copped a plea" in the Whitmore criminal abuse trial....it puts a sour taste in that word "advocate" when applied to these two women; who want to blame some "mysterious, evil, mean, un-named parent," as they fill up their BLOGS with a half-page "DISCLAIMER."
Advocates?  Don't think so.