Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones => Topic started by: shanlea on September 02, 2004, 05:09:00 PM
-
Hello Guys, As you are aware, we all share similar perspectives on CEDU. For awhile, I was unbelievably pissed off about Ottawa's total lack of concern (not to mention condescending attitude)toward our first-hand experiences.
But I still don't understand this most rank vulgarity and abuse directed at them. It still seems to me that if you decry the abuses of CEDU, then you shouldn't emulate it. Be angry and tackle it on rationale; please don't bring perverse sexual and violent acts into it.
Also O2 is just a kid and shouldn't be subjected to this. With all the presumptuous BS we put up with at CEDU where they rewrote our history and issues to their script, we shouldn't possibly make presumptions about the Ottawas except on the basis of their attitude directed toward us and their argument for CEDU.
All they know is that they had a messed up kid who made a "miraculous" recovery at CEDU. To them, the proof is in the pudding.
That is why I asked if it matters HOW the end was procured, and what specific facts they can posit on behalf of CEDU's methodology, and as you can see, they came up with nada so far. (Which I figured.)
Also, for other parents, it may be helpful to understand the long term effects CEDU had on you. I know OD already wrote of it and directly credits CEDU for it. I know SOS and Bryan both said they have very successful lives after going through some tumultuous times. (Which to me proves they didn't need the "school" to begin with.) But still, parents researching these schools should be aware of the long term effects. (Or how someone can be seemingly successful when they graduate but still be traumatized.)
But if we talk about moose cocks and call people ugly losers, and make assinine assumptions, then we deflect from the purpose. Do we really want this site to turn into the Elan board which is all puerile invective that doesn't have anything to do with Elan?
I'm coming from a sincere place. Please don't treat me to an extra special double delight of a rap session.
-
A few years ago, I got together w/ some friends and picketted a Program location on open meeting night. The leader put on a pretty good show by standing stockily in front of the door, arms folded, face straight forward while we shouted various things about child abuse along with encouragement to the kids inside that we were working on getting them out.
My friend, Kim, took the bullhorn and shouted "Loretta! You're closing off! What are you hiding?!" Loretta snapped her arms down to her sides before she could help herself. (in Straight, we were not allowed to cross our arms or legs, as that's body language for not being receptive) It was frelling hysterical!
Sometimes it's tough to resist giving someone a dose of their own medicine. But I agree, this stuff is hard to watch sometimes. What if O2 really is a kid? Would you talk like that to a kid irl? Ardent advocates of prohibition were obsessed by a zeal that bordered on fanaticism. They supported politicians who voted to outlaw liquor, no matter how much of it they privately consumed, and spurned politicians who voted against prohibition, no matter how sober they were personally.
Sen. Sam Ervin, Preserving The Constitution
-
Shanlea: Thank you for trying to stop some the insain rabbleings (sp?) on this site. Trust me my mother will get back to you, but she want to make sure to give you as much detail as possible. She dose not want to leave anything out so it might take some time. Plus her school work and life out side of this site take up quite a lot of her time.
And yes I am just a kid (well technilly Im an Adult now) but trust me some radom guys on a obscure web site are not enough to upset me. (if anything it make me laugh)
:wave:
-
f it
-
Thank you Blownaway! :wave: [ This Message was edited by: Ottawa2 on 2004-09-02 18:04 ]
-
O2, Right now your mother is scrambling to find answers that she doesn't have. She's stalling because she has no fucking clue at this point, how to answer Shanlea's specific questions about the program.
And yes O2, I truly believe that you are a young, naive, BRAIN DEAD, little girl with no life. :wave:
.
-
Dear Prince Serb, read Antigen's post on the Chuck thread---it explains exactly why we should be more civilly disobedient when it comes to the naysayers.
As for O2, she's a kid who did not go through the program and saw her outlaw brother come out smelling like roses. I went through the program and I still resisted viewing CEDU as the unethical, abusive cult that it is. How could I be smart enough to hightail it outta there and still in denial I'll never know. But brain dead is a harsh description for O2, though entirely apt for some of the staff and students after their brainwashing.
I will say it would be fun if her brother showed up on this forum because we know that he knows that we know that he knows what the program was all about even if he chooses to think of it positively. After all, he is not deadinsaneondrugsorinjail.........yet. Hopefully never.
And who knows? For the life of me I can't figure out why some people insisted that it saved them but maybe they never descended to the same space they were in before CEDU after graduating. Maybe to them, the ends did justify the means.
-
Or maybe http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... miamithem' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/040303082X/circlofmiamithem') target='_new'>H. G. Wells
-
Yup... if ottowa's son ever actually saw this website he would probably experience some of the catharsis that I and most all others felt when they were finally allowed to grieve for what was done to them. I don't think Ottowa wants her son even to look at this site, and if her son actually does, he's probably dealing with some mixed up emotional bullshit right now... there's going to be pandemonium in the Ottowa family, I said it first, I said it right here. Karma is not about a cosmic punishment/reward system. That's a westernized caricature of the real thing. Essentially, karma is the life which grows out of your past. Bad seed, bad karma, stormy weather ahead. That's your free psychic reading by a High Magician who's as real as they come, when he's not preoccupied raving like a madman.
-
On 2004-09-03 15:47:00, Oppositional Defiance wrote:
That's a westernized caricature of the real thing. Essentially, karma is the life which grows out of your past. Bad seed, bad karma, stormy weather ahead. That's your free psychic reading by a High Magician who's as real as they come, when he's not preoccupied raving like a madman.
LOL! Yeah, I think it's undeniable. We reap what we sow, or someone else does and then they get even.
I don't know these people, except by way of this forum. And I just don't like to meddle. Both O5 and O2 have chosen to come join this discussion. The son/brother has not.
Now let me show you a little of how dark my heart is and how dark it's not. If things had gone along in Straight, Inc. the way I'd come to expect, my plan was to go along, maybe having to do a stint as staff trainee (it was an offer you couldn't refuse) and then, either upon graduation or coming of age, to book and never darken the doorway again. It was a good plan, I think. It's essentially what all my older brothers and sister had done and it seemed to work out more or less OK for them. I only split because things got more bizarre, beyond the pale. I could no longer believe that we'd all get out one way or another and just shake it off. It became obvious that we were doing permanent harm to some kids and I could neither fight it nor be a part of it.
But if that hadn't happened? I probably would have taken the "free" ride through college (out of town college... waaaaayyyy out of town!) and who knows what might have happened next?
As it was, the best advice I ever got was to just not think about it so much, move on and get my bearing, maybe tackle it later.
Point is, it was a difficult and fragile issue w/ me w/ my tenuous grasp on sanity swinging and twisting in the balance. I wouldn't try to make that decision for someone else. If the dude has no interest in these forums, then he has no interest. He's welcome, of course. But ... no more pressure.
The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.
--William Osler
-
Horse shit. If his experience is going to be used to deny my rightful need to show that in my case the experience that caused his supposedly "positive" metamorphasis indeed halted my natural growth; and this ammunition will be used to deny the claims of many here that no matter what the ends DO NOT justify the means, then I do not agree not to pressure him. Silence = Death.
And as to any claim that because I post here that I feel insecure, that I FEEL incomplete or scared and furthermore- under the general conversation heading of being under the influence of things that were both negative to my future life and detramental to my adolesense, being against my will, that I somehow needed the "program" more- to be honest (and I wouldn't have it any other way since it's my "truth" word) I would rather resent that...
To be sure, let me clarify: Shanlea, I take it to mean that you posted that because I post here what kind of things I am NOW finally noticing in my life that I am lacking...that bit of confidence that truly allows me to be self reliant or any number of the things that 450 abusive raps slammed into my head (that's NOT including all the profeets, workshops, all day random raps, or knowledge workshop or counselor conferences that I took part in) that I somehow needed the program in a way that others did not. And I am not picking at you, but you sided with Ottowa (and I don't mean sided in a way to create division in ALL of our common ranks) on this point too. And I just want to draw attention to something that I think may have slipped your mind: You also did not go through what I went through. You did not complete the brainwashing workshops and do the amount of raps that I did so...Please know that I am revisiting something that I did not know was effecting me the way it was...It ALL came tumbling down. And yeah, I went to college, I've had a little money once, and I even thought the world wasn't such a shitty place (for an admittedly short amount of time) for a while. But now I know what is wrong with why I don't have a happy life YET. YET, Jah, I pray, and that reason is a lack of control over my past. CEDU. Nothing else except the issues that THAT therein contain. so...this is the first time I have ever addressed you, and I have no idea what or who you are (except I remember, a young mother (like Kahil talks of in the one on beauty) and someone interested in changing the system with regards to troubled youth) but I want you to know how very much I disagree with the contention that the program, as it was FOR ME, could be good for anyone.
Now I think I am turning into a ranting Psycho. Sorry. I had a great quote in my brain but...it's gone. ohhhh yeahhhh:
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy". Sun Tzu
Disclaimer: Shanlea is NOT my enemy.
as usual, I am
-blownaway
-
I just re read the post...it was a glitch on my part. Sorry. But I guess It says what you were telling other parents so I'll let it stay as long as you promise to forget the tone from which it came at ya. I just have gotten less and less blocked in the messages to my hands posting here, it was inevitable that I would misread something...typical of me. I wonder why...
-
Hey Idaho, I have posted a lot on the abuses of CEDU. My earlier posts, unfortunately, were anon as I was a bit paranoid, but I wanted a list of reasons for other parents to refer back to so they could think twice.
Also, I ended up getting quite pissy w/O5 as I felt --and still feel--she totally denied our experiences or treated them as isolated.
The only reason I came to the Os defense at all is because I sincerely believe that our more abusive posts are as bad or worse than some of the raps I've been in (except she has free will to leave.) I want us to be angry and passionate but I also want us to be heard. That is why I really wanted to make sure we address either her attitude or her logic but not who sucks moose cock etc. I WANT US TO BE HEARD.
I also am trying to make sense of an experience I will never ever forget and loathed. For years, I have had fantasies of what I would say to these staff members if I ever ran across them. Everyone here at this forum has vindicated what I always thought was an abusive, bizarre system, but never had anyone to talk to about it until now. And there is a strange isolation in that; I will never totally relate to my friends who have never experienced it in the same way people who went through the program and graduated will never totally relate to me.
Also, I want to understand why people are proponents of this program. I realized that Ottawa and another pro-CEDU chick of yahoo never gave specific reasons why it works. They just believe it does. She grilled us for what we did not like about the program and I returned the ball.
Part of who I am as a person is just someone who tries to understand all sides. If I were just an anti-CEDU clone, I might just tell every CEDU ite to go suck moose balls.
But I will never ever ever endorse CEDU because I think it is abusive therapy, bullshit therapy, unethical with students and families, singularly unqualified in most endeavors, and cultists. I really believe that.
I am also a mother of two small children who is doing it alone and I am terrified of any misstep I make as a parent and how it may affect them later. I have a burning need to understand things and not push it under the carpet.
I'm not a hater. To me, there is nothing worse than being consumed by bitterness. I've been there and it hurts me a hell of a lot worse than the object of it. And even though I may be dismissed as some stupid Pollyanna (who has nothing to do with moose cocks), there is more of me that relates to Bryan, Son of Serbia, or Idaho than you would imagine.
Six months of CEDU has affected me for half my life--I couldn't imagine what another 2 years would do.
-
That was me who just posted by the way.
-
Word.
I am happy that you didn't have to stay another two years...it ruined my life.
I'm picking away at it now, though.
-
Hi everyone!
So, I just read all of the posts when something occored to me. With all this talk about answering question I relized that Anti never answered mine! You know, about the two year old with dangrous objects?
Something else also came to mind as I read. Just a little bit ago everyone wanted my mother to leave this site but now they are asking her to post! Kinda weird if you ask me.
Also, several people keep saying my mother denied that abusis happened at these schools. As I recall she never did. In fact I remember her saying she was aware of them. (thats why she want to start her own school so that things like that will not happen) Now if anyone can find a time when she said something like "No, that never happened you are lieing!" Please let me know.
SOS: I guess you must have all the time in the world to spend on this site. My mother however dose not. She will post her reply as soon as she can. You are entiled to you opinion of me I guess but I think that you should listen to Shanlea. She is really on to something. Do you really belive that anyone will listen to someone going "***** YOU! YOU ******* ****!!! YOUR JUST A LITTLE ***** WHO BEEN BRAINED ******!!!"? Cuz really thats what you, OD, and Bryan sound like a lot of the time.
OD: My mother asked my brother to come and look at this site. But he said that he had no interest in it.
PS. Anti please get back to me whenever you can Im just courius (sp?) thats all.
PPS. Havent I said a lot of this before???
:wave:
-
On 2004-09-04 09:14:00, Ottawa2 wrote:
Hi everyone!
So, I just read all of the posts when something occored to me. With all this talk about answering question I relized that Anti never answered mine! You know, about the two year old with dangrous objects?
Sorry, I don't remember the question. If you're trying to compare a 2 year old w/ a sharp object to a young adult who's not following their parents instruction, well, there's no comparison. You can do a whole lot of harm to a young adult, though, by denying their intillect and maturity level and treating them like a two year old.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
--Herbert Spencer
-
On 2004-09-03 18:34:00, blownawaytheidahoway wrote:
but I want you to know how very much I disagree with the contention that the program, as it was FOR ME, could be good for anyone.
If someone gets hit by a bus, they might come out of the experience stronger and with a new and better perspective and set of priorities on life. It's the truth, you can read any number of autobiographies by people who have overcome adversity and gotten a new lease on life.
Forced thought reform is like throwing someone in front of a bus in the hope they will experience that kind of catharsis.
Don't let your dogma run out in front of your karma.
--Anonymous
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
I do feel your mother glossed over the abuses as isolated incidences. OK, so we disagree.
Some people wanted her to leave because this offended them. I'm just a questioning, curious cat who wondered what she liked about the program that made it worth overlooking the other stuff. Also, since she is interested in starting her own school, I want to know what she thinks will benefit kids.
I don't think Antigen would say yipee if her her two year old was running around with scissors; I think she discerns the line between protecting her kid and letting them fall on their ass so they learn authentically.
-
Hey there!
I just wanted to clearify (sp?) a few things.
1. Shanlea, people continue to say my mother "denied" what happened to then I do not care if they are angry with her. But please be angry at her for something that she actually did!
2. Anti, this was the question: According to you theroy a 15 year old can be ready for the real world. If that is true then why not let a two year old play with a dangrous object (not ever siccors, something they might sallow, burn them selfs on ect) would they not "learn" from it? :wave: [ This Message was edited by: Ottawa2 on 2004-09-04 14:16 ]
-
On 2004-09-04 14:15:00, Ottawa2 wrote:
Anti, this was the question: According to you theroy a 15 year old can be ready for the real world. If that is true then why not let a two year old play with a dangrous object (not ever siccors, something they might sallow, burn them selfs on ect) would they not "learn" from it? Cuz, if a 15 year old can face the world then why cant a two year old be ready to play with siccors?
Let me explain something to ya', kid. Plenty of 40 year olds are not ready for the real world. That's why we have religion and Prozac.
But a 15 year old is better able to make sound decisions than a 2 year old, even if their parents disagree.
What's more, a 15 year old who has decided that they're just not going to take direction from their parents is just not going to take direction from their parents, period. You can overpower the two year old safely and take the scisors. And, since they need you to do the simplest things, like acquiring and cooking food, they'll recognize your authority even if they don't like it.
That's just not true of a 15 year old kid. For all intents and purposes, they don't really need parents to survive. Some parents have a harder time w/ this than others.
Now, we all know that one can force a nearly adult kid to comply w/ parental wishes. What you don't seem to understand is the consequences to the kid and the family of breaking them in order to 'improve' their behavior.
Is doing drugs, running away, having underage sex, being in gangs, stealing, lieing ect, being a "mature" and "intelligent"?
In our society? Yes, those are some of our rights of passage. Rebelling against authority, by whatever means, is a natural part of growing up.
Men seldom, or rather never for a length of time, and deliberately, rebel against anything that does not deserve rebelling against.
--Thomas Carlyle
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
So, 40 year olds cant handle the real world and the way to solve that problem is to let kids get hoocked on drugs and have babies at 16? Or, to let them live on the street so they can get raped and murdered? You know lets just play "the-stongest-survive" game with kids.
So all of that is a "right of passage"? So, should we be happy about it?
Sure I know that kids rebaling agaist thier parents is natural but it is also natural that a parent should stop that child where it endangers the childs (or others) life.
I know that most people on this site think that I site here like a lap dog and do whatever my mother tells me to trust me that is not the case. All of my mothers children have rebaled agaist her in some way. My brother was the only who endagrered his life while doing so. So, my parents stop him. Eventually sending him to CEDU after they had tried everthing else.
Look Im just trying to understand you theroy about raising kids. So far it sound like a soon a they reach 13 they can do whatever the hell they want with absolutly no parent intervention of any kind under any circumstanse.
:wave: [ This Message was edited by: Ottawa2 on 2004-09-05 08:17 ][ This Message was edited by: Ottawa2 on 2004-09-05 08:20 ]
-
You're being so obtuse. 40 year olds (and older people) don't always know what's best. So there should be a limit to what they can do to their kids in the name of helping them.
You say, like I've heard so many times before, you know your brother would be dead w/o the Program. And that you know he's better off now. But you don't really know that. As dangerous as you think 'living on the streets' (in Ottowa????) may be, I'm telling you, from experience and from talking w/ others over the years who share the same experience, that Synanon based programs hold dangers of their own.
Ask you mom how frequently she finds herself trying to talk one of her old friends out of suicide. Or, worse, finding out after the fact because they really meant it and didn't leave a lot of clues hanging around. So many of my friends are Program vets, it happens more often than I'd like to think about.
I'm talking about long term, serious emotional and psychological damage for which there is no known effective treatment. You're talking about the transient exuberance of youth which passes, all by itself, you just have to wait a couple of years.
Janis, Jimi, Gery, Timothy... Did you HAVE to get so close to the edge to get a really good view?
-- Anonymous
-
But if a 15 year old is better at making a decision then a 2 year old then would not a 40 year old be better at making a decision then a 15 year old?
And yes my brother would be dead, in jail, or on the streets (but you do not think thats a bad thing do you?) if it were not for CEDU.
I must say it suprises me that there are parent out there that are happy when there kids are druggies, criminals, or anything else that you lable a "phase" that "will pass". Tell me then what happens when it dose not pass?
Funny, you sound a lot like the parents of that kid that died in the car crash we told you about. They used that (as my mother put it) "boys will be boys" theroy and now unfortunatly their child is dead.
As for suicid, no one I know of who has gone throught the program has ever tried anything like that.
Also, who said we live in Ottawa??? :wave:
-
O2, you're an idiot or your being purposely obtuse. Maybe both. Either way, I don't have time for this. I'm done talking to you.
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole
--Malcolm X
-
O2,
Here's some homework for you, if you're up for it.
Find the answers to the following questions. I am not interested in your opinions on these subjects, so much, as the official stats and historic evidence.
How many teens take drugs?
How many are killed by drug use?
How many teens are educated about drugs (not scare tactics, but real education)?
How many teens know the difference between a misdemenor and a felony?
How long have humans been altering their consciousness?
How do babies alter their consciousness?
How do bored housewives and overworked dads alter their consciousness?
What is the situation for teens in other countries where the laws and morals are more lax?
What is the situation for poor and minority children who often sell drugs for money for food?
How has society failed teens?
How many brushes with law enforcement before the age of 18 are considered 'normal'?
How many parents provide their teens with a car, or worse yet, a firearm, when they know they are abusing drugs or alcohol?
How many teens get pregnant?
How many are educated about birth control (condoms, pills, etc- not ZERO tolerance)?
How many parents talk to their kids about drugs or prenancy, and why so few?
Has sex education or zero tolerance been more successful in decreasing teen pregnancies?
Do you think parents/govt/law enforcement/even programs (it has happened) are ever going to stop teens from having sex, smoking or taking drugs, if they so desire?
How many teens in the pubic school system 'excel' and how many are 'left behind'?
Why aren't student less academically inclined allowed to persue trades?
How many kids/teens are taking psychotropic drugs?
How many have died from iatrogenic causes?
What are the real threats to teen safety?
Who is responsible for teens' safety?
Raising kids is not a black or white process. The world if full of temptations and teens who are so inclined can easily be lured to potentially harmful behaviors like jumping off the roof onto a mattress or setting themselves on fire or bungy jumping or doing outrageous stunts on their bikes/skateboards or eating too much fast food or participating in football practice in stiffling hot weather without preparation or driving sober or participating in hazing rituals or ______ (you name it). The world is full of potentially harmful activities- including the potential of death due to medical treatment and legal drugs (iatrogenic), which appears to FAR out number deaths due to illegal drugs- the equivalent of two jets crashing EVERYDAY!!! So should all teens be locked up to 'protect' them from all the various 'evils', INCLUDING THE LEGAL ONES?
Where are all the adults in the neighborhoods? Why has career taken precedent over parenting? Did women's lib help or hinder families? When I was growing up, my mom knew what I did before I got home. Parents had a very effective web of communicating and watched out for all the kids in the neighborhood. Yeh, it was a bitch, but we sure thought before we acted. Woops, I'm giving you some answers to the quiz.
I invite you to prove me wrong on the deaths due to illegal drugs. I have searched for hours and hours. I can not find sufficient stats to prove the arguement that kids are dropping like flies due to drug use, and need a highly restrictive environment, especially for the ocassional pot use. And you can bet your sweet petunia that if it was the big problem some believe it to be, the stats would be readily available. The problem is so small that no one finds it worth their time to track. The hysteria around this issue is grossly over exaggerated. I rarely even hear about a drug overdose on TV. If it was as great a problem as some would like to believe- we'd see more reports on the news and in the papers daily.
You seem to think your brother wasn't in jail. You are very wrong. He was in a thought reform jail. A social engineering jail. It's impossible to know, but a trip to juvie may have caused your otherwise intellegent brother to question if his activities were worth the potential consequences.
-
Question?
Can you find one documented case of marajuana overdose resulting in death?
p.s. You both SHOULD smoke weed. Maybe if you did with your supposed son, you would have a different view of honest communication. Apparently not smoking weed turns you into an obtuse conflict-hungry idiot.
Don't trust your own opinion. So far, you are wrong about almost everything you have written.
-
Anti: That ok. You have the option of not responding to me. However I must say I do not belive that you will keep that up for long. People on this site always say they will ingnore my mother and I yet they always end up responding to one of our posts.
Blownaway: I think you might not understand the diffrence between a fact and a opinion.
deborah: Thats all well and good but what has that got to do with the price of potatoes? (old Irish proverb)
Ok, so kids have a lot of problems, so dose that me we do nothing? Just let them do whatever they want? "Oh you want to have baby with your boyfriend, and he'll support you by selling crack? Well its what you want so I guess its ok!"
You know the more I read about the parenting tactics on this site the more Im gratful for my parents.
:wave:
-
O2: Try not to be judgmental of others; I think you are misreading what Antigen and Deborah are saying. You don't really know how they parent. Why don't you ask them what they believe in terms of involvement and guidance in their child's life. I doubt either one of them think its OK to ignore your kid from birth on! Like I said before, parenting is a fine line between guidance, nurturing, and knowing when to let them learn on their own.
I grew up in an upper middle class environment and went to private schools. I can't tell you how many kids learned to achieve all As, dress and act nicely to adults but were using drugs and having sex etc. Did they get sent to CEDU? No. As long as they looked good on paper they were "angels." Often these kids were very adept at lying etc. I was a kid who had trouble with school and other issues. I definitely had a code of ethics, a sense of personal responsibility, compassion, and always told the truth--but that was not as valued as the straight A kid who looked good on paper but had bad character. So, we shouldn't rush to judgment. The fact is that most of the wild kids I knew were pretty decent people and did okay or great in life.
I'm rambling. But whatever your situation is, other people have had horribly transformational experiences in these schools that was worse in many ways than whatever path they were already on.
Often times, the reason kids really diverge into self destruction is because the parents were either do nothing parents or way too stifling. For kids who were really hurting and didn't get what they needed at a younger age, and don't value themselves, it would be nice if they had a positive mentor or some positive help. I hate the idea of saying "you're screwed up. Oh, well, another one bites the dust." But I don't think coercive behav modification that relies on abuse to tear you down is the answer.
-
Shanlea, I was pretty sure that I answered other people a couple of times already, in terms of what I liked specifically about CEDU.
I checked back into my posts and found two addressing this question:
One is under the topic "How about this theory" and is a response to Antigen on 8/19/04 18:11, entitled "Antigen, do you have no sense of humor at all???". The other, longer, response (because the poster addressing me seemed more sincere) was on the topic "My Intentions" and was addressed to Cypress under the title "To Cypress, what I like about CEDU" on 7/28/04, 22:55:00.
Antigen tried a little while ago to tell me to do something with the URL to bring these two posts up and post them again currently, but I guess I am just not a computer person (there's a surprise for you) because when I attempted to follow her instructions nothing happened. However, it isn't very difficult to just search for these posts if you are at all interested.
In addition, I will try to recapitulate in this post what I liked about CEDU.
1) I liked the fact that a boarding school allows the child to be removed from the negative patterns that are controlling his/her life. By that I mean that some kids get into groups of friends, habits, interactions with parents, etc., that are fulfilling a need for the child. Even though it may be a pretty negative, self-destructive need, the habitual nature of the behaviors make them very hard to break.
It also has to said that if parents had been more attentive to the kid's emotional needs up to that point, maybe something could have been done to stop things from going down-hill--but once that point has been reached where the kid is off and running, removal to a safe environment, isolated from the various cues to the problem behaviors, seems to me to be the best alternative.
Obviously, if you can reason with the kid, and change behavior that way, you would do it--I am talking about kids who are not open to reasonable discussion and who are self-endangering.
The idea of having some kind of dress code or a certain hair-cut or no make-up is all about breaking patterns of behavior. If you are the kind of parent (Antigen, for example) who thinks that it's OK for a kid be dangerously self-destructive, of course, you are going to out-raged that a school and its procedures stood in the way of such "self-expression"--I just don't believe that and I never will.
2)I think that the isolation in Idaho was really important for us. If it had been a city, my son would surely have run away. But it was more than the isolation in geographical terms, it was about being isolated from all the negative things that he was using to hide from his own problems and ours, and to refuse to feel--the clothes, the music (which would have been completely innocuous if he had been thinking in a more self-loving way), generally the distractions from doing what he needed to be doing to face his challenges and go on.
It is true that it would have been preferable to sit down and discuss these things person-to-person, the fact was that he had absolutely no interest in that.
3) Other people reporting here may not have had the same experience, but I loved the parent reps who I dealt with at RMA--they didn't lie to me, and thier predictions about what was going on with my son were pretty much right on target. They were reasonable, flexible and intelligent. It was only after my son had graduated from RMA that I found out that my favorite parent contact person had actually lost her only child to cancer a couple of years previously--yet she could be so giving and up-beat about how my son was doing.
You can say all day long that it was all about money--these were good people doing good work and so what if they got paid, I just wish that they had been paid more. And I will always be grateful to them for their balance, their kindness, and their wisdom.
4)I really enjoyed the parent workshops and seminars. In them, I learned a lot about my son and about myself, in terms of emotion and connection with others. We are having a parent reunion next spring and I really look forward to seeing how any number of people are doing.
I was at the last advanced workshop offered by Mel Wasserman, and although he was a very tough person, he did a wonderful job. Working with him changed me as a parent and as person. I saw others who were also profoundly changed. For example, I saw one woman who had been on medication for depression for years, who was able to get off it after that workshop. I saw a couple who were about to be divorced, who re-thought their decision, and who are happily together today. After that workshop, I could suddenly draw and paint, something that I had not been able to do since I was a young child. The exercises and discussions were central to opening people up to the possibility of change and growth and they worked. But to work it was necessary to get through defenses against change--that is the reason that sometimes confrontation is necessary.
I credit the experiential nature of the workshops with the positive things that I saw and which I wemt through. I also thought that the confrontory style was helpful in the process.
I am sure that someone will point out that our experience as parents was different than the kids' experiences. This is true although at least in my experience, the workshops were a lot more painful than people here seem to think--we were definitely not treated with kid-gloves, and most people were at one time or another at the point of tears or openly crying. But what seemed clear to me was that the sadness and pain was for a purpose, a purpose of growth and future happiness. This seems to parallel what the student program meant to the students I know who are grateful for having been there.
5) My son and others tell me that the Propheets paralleled a lot of what I saw in the workshops. These graduates tell me that they liked the Propheets (several have called them the best part of the program) because they used emotion to get through peoples' defenses against change and growth. It was in one of these Propheets that my son realized that the kids at home that were his drug-using buddies were not real friends, and when he faced that, real change started to happen for him.
Now, again, if the very best thing that you can think of for a 15 year-old to do is to sit around getting high, well, I suppose that you would find a program that pushed an alternative view to be just awful.
6) Based on what my son and others tell me, I liked the work details in the program, the Big Brother aspect so that younger kids have a mentor in the program. I like the structure that allows students to earn or lose privileges.
I also think that the raps are necessary in order to get at the emotional issues behind the behaviors, although I don't know of anyone who really liked them, most people I know think that they are a necessary part of the whole thing.
When I asked one graduate what he would change about the program, he thought for a while and talked about things that he hadn't liked or needed, and then he said that he wouldn't change one thing because you needed to have all the parts to have a coherent whole and because different parts of the program reached different people.
Here is how I see the program. When a kid is out of control, parents can argue and reason forever, and the kid's attitude is not likely to change. Basically, it is impossible at that point to get real sustained attention from the kid, because as part of the path of ignoring his or her pain, the kid is ignoring the parents.
Now, going into a boarding school like RMA does a number of things. First of all, it gets the kid's attention. Secondly, the program does not waste time at the beginning in doing the impossible, that is, changing the kid's attitude.
It focuses on the kid's actions, they have to dress and act a certain way. And the idea behind the program is that, over time and with emotional growth, attitude will follow actions, as the kid starts to see the value of acting a certain way. It's sort of like the Elaboration Likelihood model in social psychology and represents a multi-step, multi-path mechanism of attitude change, that really only lasts permanently when the kid comes to believe in the underlying goals of the emotional growth curriculuum.
Why is the whole program such a failure for some people, like you, for instance? I don't have the full answer to this. It sound to me as if CEDU has sometimes let in kids who have problems that are bigger than the program can deal with. For example, kids with low ego strength might be devestated by the raps. Maybe some kids were sent there who did not belong and they are still angry about it, perhaps some people take things harder than others, perhaps some people have faced a less ideal experience than others.
Also, it sounds to me as if my son's experience with caring staff was not universal. I think that a real relationship with at least one staff member is crucial. If what is reported here is true (and I believe a lot of it is) the staff has not always acted in a balanced, caring, as well as a confrontative way. Even now, when I ask some of the kids who graduated from RMA about their experiences in raps and Propheets, none of them describe the kind of unkindness or extreme remarks that are reported here, suggesting that CEDU education has not always been the same in different schools and at different times.
The way that I look at the program is that it is part behavior modification, but it is the emotional growth/ experiential learning part that brings about lasting change, when the kid comes to see why he or she was doing self-destructive things and decides to have enough love of self to stop and to hope for something better.
If you are really interested in other ideas that I have about the CEDU programs you might look at the other posts that I cited at the beginning of this post.
I don't think it's about these details though, I think that some people who post here really believe that minor children should get to use drugs and be generally self-destructive if they want to. I don't believe that and I never will.
I don't know the reason why some posters feel this way, maybe drugs play a big part in their lives, maybe they are playing out some resentment of authority because of happenings, just or unjust in their own upbringings. What I do know is that I would be a failure as a parent if I let my minor child throw away the future for the sake of various ill-considered whims and vices, without the interest or the ability to consider the consequences.
An early day tomorrow, so that is all for now, as I say, look at the earlier posts if you are interested, there may be other details that I have left out of this one.
-
Well, ottowa, all I can say to that and to you is I hope someday you can experience fully the kindness yourself which was the kindness of your son being given to CEDU.
Bye
-
To Shanlea
about the straight "A" students who were using drugs. Im not sure I like your assumptions about drug use i.e. that it's morally wrong or destructive. Drugs can be lots of fun --- but moderation in all things, dont you think? Have you read Alexander Shulgin's book, PIHKAL?
I think the central assumptions of all these schools is the moralistic self righteousness that sees all drug use as abuse. If people are using drugs such as alcohol and it isn't detrimentally affecting their lives, and they are not getting violent or destroying their liver, do you call them alcoholics? If people are smoking pot and experiencing a greater appreciation for (say) Miles Davies, do you call him a pothead? If someone uses LSD or mushrooms to gain psychic insights do you call them druggies. The key is moderation not condemnation
-
No, don't get me me wrong, I'm not that black and white on drug use. Personally, I see a lot of people hwo benefit from some herb use, and I'd rather deal with someone on herbs than some drunk any day of the week. I personally don't smoke b/c I don't like inhaling smoke. Other drugs do freak me out a little and that is a personal bias on watching things happen that I don't want to get into right now. It's a little prejudicial but it has to do with experiences. And sure, I'd rather not see someone abuse any drug whether alcohol, crystal meth, or prescribed.
What I meant about the straight A student was that I knew many honor students who were not good people (kiss asses and liars) and many not so good students who had character, but guess who were more highly regarded by parents and teachers? And, a straight A student on drugs is less likely to be shipped off than a mediocre student on drugs as long as the person presents a good face. That's what I mean. I grew up in a community that values resumes over character in a big way and it always struck me as BS. I am not saying straight A students who smoke are bad people, not at all.
-
O5, I predict that you'll never be able to put together a synanon that 'works' because you don't understand how it works.
It's not only necessary to convince that kid that the bad influences were bad. How would the staff or "older"* brother/sister know, for example, if a particular old friend was a good and worthwhile friend or not? They don't. So it's necessary for the kid to reject and condemn everything about themselves prior to entry into the cult (oops! I mean school, of course!)
It's not that I think it's good or alright for a kid to do drugs, be permiscuous or to take other foolish risks. It's just that, having been there myself and compared notes w/ a lot of other people who have also been there, I recognize that the self annihilation of forced thought reform can be far more devistating than those other, voluntary adventures.
I'm w/ OD on this one. You won't 'get it' unless you get a good dose of it yourself. The only way I know of for you to get that would be to check yourself into something like Talbot Recovery near Atlanta or Phoenix House.
BTW, OD, an old friend of min put it this way.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The people who ran straight had the best of intentions. I hope they reached their destination."
-James Lloyd
*in reality, it's just as often a younger kid playing the role of older brother/sister. But, in the Program, all of your past sensibilities and meters must be rejected in favor of the Group paradigm.
Come the millennium,
month 12,
in the home of greatest power,
the village idiot will come forth to
be acclaimed the leader.
--Nostradamus
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
O5,
And what would you have done if sending your son to a program had not been an option, whether because they didn't exist or because you didn't have the financial resource?
How have parents and teens survived all these years without them? And not that I condon it, but there was nothing that the program did that you couldn't have done at home if you put your mind and attention to it.
Sounds like you blame his seedy friends. You could've kept him from them with some effort.
Now, that might be a problem, as most program parents would prefer not to have their personal lives/careers disrupted. Their personal needs and wants always come before the needs of their child.
-
On 2004-09-07 12:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
You could've kept him from them with some effort.
No, a parent can't legally go to the lengths to control a kid that they do in programs like CEDU. You can make demands, threaten punishment (like grounding), withdraw allowance, cars, toys or whatever. But a parent, or anyone else for that matter, can't physically throw a kid to the ground and restrain them if they decide to not come home at curfew or to associate w/ people their parents don't like. That would be assault on a minor. You can't deprive them of sleep to make your point, either. That would be child abuse.
It's still child abuse when done inside the Program. But inside the Program, there are no objective wittnesses. All wittnesses are under threat and disabled, do a large degree, by diagnosis.
Don't sweat the
- Petty Things
Don't pet the
- Sweaty Things
Water what you want to grow.
--Curiosity
-
At least the idea that we could have done something about my son's situation if we had just put our minds to it, underestimates both his intentions to violate every limit we set. I mean, we were there, we know what we went through, and with respect, you were not there to have an opinion about it. People who know our story tell us that they have never met parents who tried harder and more ingeniously to stop a kid who was in a down-ward spiral.
We tried everything we could think of, or just about anything reasonable that others suggested, I assure you, he was just thoroughly unwilling at that time to reconsider his life-style. If we cut off his allowance he stole or sold drugs. If we set a consequence he defied it openly or undermined it. He lied constantly and tricked us for the fun of it, and being bright he was very good at it. When we sent him to another state to live with a relative when he wouldn't stay away from the crowd he was in, he found a crowd just like it in about a week.
In short, he was bent on living destructively. Even if we had wanted to use the police to try to enforce our decisions, our state laws at the time that all this happened weren't especially supportive of parents (this has changed somewhat, in part due to our efforts in working with our representative and telling our story to the legislature). We did in fact call the police more than once when things were really out of control and not until he had actually gotten very violent did they even become involved, in a very minor way.
You ask what other parents would do. Some would have let the kid work his way into the criminal justice system, even in a lax state like ours, most kids who are acting the way he was would get there eventually. You might say: why didn't we just wait and then let him be placed in a juvenile prison program. It seemed to me that he would just get in with a more lawless crowd in that kind of program and so we chose to try an emotional growth school.
Of course some kids smarten up instead of digging themselves in deeper, but we had to judge by what we were seeing, and the rapidity of the changes that we were seeing. We chose to act and not throw the dice and see if it all worked out. I am the first to admit, by the way, that we were lucky to be able to afford RMA, even though we had to make sacrifices to do it, and I think that it would be a terrible thing not to have had that option--that is one of the reasons that we still contribute to these programs to help parents keep their kids there when they run out of money,
All I can say, in spite of all the nay-sayers here, is that it was a wonderful gift to find this place he is a better person because of it, and we are better people and better parents because of it.
So believe what you like, I have heard about bad staff and abuses here, these things are terrible and something that must be corrected when they happen. But our experience was good, by and large. Of course I wish that we had had a better bond as he entered his teenaged years, maybe if we had, RMA wouldn't have been necessary. As it was, it was a life-saver.
You might ask how his old friends who didn't get sent away are doing now. Of his crowd, one is dead (a late night collision still involved in the old routines), two or maybe three are (or were) in prison last I heard. Several are reportedly underachieving pot-heads but at least they are working somewhere, so they have calmed down a bit. One is community college and becoming a cook and has just gone through some kind of drug treatment. I only know of one (besides my son) who is at university, she was sort of a hanger-on to the group so I guess she out-grew the whole thing without much damage.
Bottom line: we had a hard choice to make and we are happy with our decision. I don't want anyone to have to go through some of the abusive situations that I've heard described here, but our own experience tells us that there is also a right way to run an emotional growth program. That is what I support.
-
O5, if your son was so defiant, how did they make him stay, let alone make him follow direction, at CEDU? Do you know? Do you understand how that works?
Don't hate the media. Become the media
--Jello Biafra
-
Good, Shanlea.
I'm glad you made that clear. As for straight A students and drugs -- my pot supplier when I was in my 20's got on the 98th percentile on the LSAT and went on to become a leading personal injury lawyer. And I've smoked pot and listened to Miles Davies with a shortlisted Rhodes Scholar who later went on to become the Dean of a prominent Law School. So much for pot's dangers to the intellect.
Aah well.
-
Antigen: You and I have much deeper differences than the specifics of any program.
I've read your responses over the last couple of months, and I don't know exactly what you are going for, or why, but it seems to be some kind of laissez-faire, uninvolved, anarchistic, "nobody is responsible" parenting that I think is really wrong and really dangerous in the kind of a world that most kids grow up in today.
You and your "synanon this" and "cult that", it's like a mantra with you!!! Just desperately foolish and wrong-headed, you just don't even seem to have any awareness that kids, especially dangerously acting out kids need structure and rules and to be required to sit down and consider instead of acting out. Before something worse happens.
It's your whole world view, some kind of a cartoonish, 60's hippie renaissance, it seems to have a lot of naivity to it and most especially to glorify and justify drug use.
I have to tell you, I have a lot of problems with the drug laws in this country and I think they should be changed on a libertarian basis, why criminalize people for having a bad habit, and let's face if, that's what recreational drug use is for many, probably most, people. But you seem to just gloss over the fact that when a kid is, say 14, 15 or 16 and starts using various substances obsessively and without the life experience to see the harm involved, somebody, like the parents for example, has an obligation to step in and say "no".
It would just be silly, these positions you take,if we weren't talking about young inexperienced kids and the idea that they should just be allowed to mess up or even destroy their lives on the basis of some kind of sham idea of freedom that you are peddling. I say it again, looking back over your posts, you seem just obsessed with playing down the harm drugs do and overstating any particular good they bring about (oh boy, if I get high, I'll enjoy Miles Davis more, or some such nonsence).
I'd say "shame on you" but I imagine that you tossed out shame along with a lot of other things when you adopted the point of view you're pushing here.
I just can't have much confidence in your judgment about what a school should or should not be, based on the positions I've seen you take.
-
Antigen-have you seen the place? It is rather isolated. Whereas at home he could defy us by sneaking out a window, running away from school or undermining discipline in a variety of creative ways, it was a little disconcerting for a city boy to suddenly find himself in an isolated forest area and without any drugs to prop up his confidence either.
So, the way he's explained it to me, the setting got his attention, made him slow down a little at least in the short term. And in the process of thinking about what to do to get out of this without causing himself any more trouble than he had, over the first months, he did nothing but do the bare minimum. He never told me about any abusive raps, although he said that some of the older kids asked him when he was going to start contributing. According to his account, he told them, in a rather surly way I'm sure that he would never contribute, that the school was nothing to him. This went on for months.
I think that it was through friendships and connection with certain staff memebers, as well as being in a place where he could slow down and think, something that he couldn't do at home because he was always going, that he eventually considered the possibility of change and came to see why he had been acting destructively.
That didn't happen for more than a year, I remember hearing in his voice on the phone after one of the Propheets, when he came to realize that it didn't have to be the way that it had been.
-
On 2004-09-07 14:29:00, ottawa5 wrote:
an isolated forest area
And do you think you could get away w/ isolating your child like that w/o the fascade of professionalism bestowed by the calling it a TBS?"The Program" and two years will get you a vastly improved kid in *EXACTLY* the same way that "The Program" and four bucks will get you a cup of espresso at Starbucks.
Timoclea
-
On 2004-09-07 14:29:00, ottawa5 wrote:
I think that it was through friendships and connection with certain staff memebers,
Under those conditions, this is what your shrink collegues might call Stokholm Syndrome.When a man you like switches from what he said a year ago, or four years ago, he is a broad-minded person who has courage enough to change his mind with changing conditions. When a man you don't like does it, he is a liar who has broken his promise.
-- FRANKLIN P.ADAMS (1861-1960).
-
On 2004-09-07 14:16:00, ottawa5 wrote:
It's your whole world view, some kind of a cartoonish, 60's hippie renaissance, it seems to have a lot of naivity to it and most especially to glorify and justify drug use.
Ever watch the commercials during 60 Minutes? I'm not the one advocating drug use.He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
--Author: Sir William Drummond
-
Sad, really sad.
What happened with my son involved genuine, human connection with other people who went way beyond their job descriptions to offer him something better. And all you can see is "Stockholm Syndrome".
I met these people, I got to know them to some extent, they were good people who did positive things in terms of using their time, their energy and their own life experiences to help him, as well as others, in overcoming. personal challenges. They helped him, and others, to be better.
Shame on you for not being able to consider that these good, worthwhile people did helpful, kind things that helped him be where he is today.
Try believing in goodness once in a while,why don't you, Antigen (as opposed to, say, believing in drugs, prescribed or, as you seem to prefer, not) Try it, at least when the evidence, as in this case, is that it was really goodness ,and that it lead to something much better for him than what he, or we, had before.
-
I don't see any evidence. If you ask my mom today, she'll tell you just about the same line of shit you're telling me about The Seed and Straignt (both long since closed down under a cloud of criminal and civil complaints)
What I see is a parent who doesn't really want to look a gift horse in the mouth. The kid has outgrown his youthful excesses and you paid big bucks to believe that you were the cause of it. You're a good, good toughloving mother, Ottowa. Now go home and enjoy your rewards. Don't expect to see much of your grandkids, though. Experience tells me that you probably won't.Never let your sense of
morals get in the way of
doing what's right
--Isaac Asimov
-
What in the world do you know about my grandchildren? Or me, or my children, for that matter?
What exactly are you trying to self-justify by imagining things about me that are way out of proportion to anything that you can possibly know about me?
That notwithstanding, since you've been kind (or opinionated) enough to tell me what you see in my story, let me tell you what I see in yours.
I see someone who, fairly late in life, is still fighting the same battles that she was fighting many years ago. This on-going drama with your mother, for instance, that you allude to from time to time.
For some reason, the fact that CEDU has worked out well for people like me and my child is very threatening to you. I don't completely get why that is, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that the choices that you have made have led to less-than-expected results, and it makes you really mad that another approach worked out well for somebody else. It makes you really mad that hard choices, and courage, and discipline have worked for somebody else.
Look, if you made other choices, well, live with them, or change course, don't blame or attack or diminish others who are pretty content with what their choices have achieved.
I've got to say it Ginger, I get the sense of some kind of burr under your saddle, admirably concealed but certainly there. For some one who presents as a person with all the answers, a quotation for every circumstance even , you just don't seem to me like someone who has the kind of generosity and /or insight about others and their experiences that would be expected if you were so all-fired sure that your way is the best. I also notice some lack of a sense of responsibility to know that sometimes, grown-ups have to be grown-ups and make choices for children, and I wonder what is that about.
Well, you will be what you are, I'm sure, as I will. But your most recent remarks make me even less concerned about your opinion of my positive view of CEDU or about my choice in sending my son to RMA.
-
Ginger, Why do you even bother with this pseudo-psychologist who will never pass her dissertation because she hasn't got the slightest comprehension of what you are talking about?
Every criticism she has of you can be turned around by you as a a criticism of herself.
For example: she says:
" the fact that CEDU has worked out well for people like me and my child is very threatening to you. I don't completely get why that is, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that the choices that you have made have led to less-than-expected results, and it makes you really mad that another approach worked out well for somebody else. It makes you really mad that hard choices, and courage, and discipline have worked for somebody else.
Look, if you made other choices, well, live with them, or change course, don't blame or attack or diminish others who are pretty content with what their choices have achieved"
This is pseudo-psychology at its worst. It's a rationalization for her own inadequacy. "hard choices? Courage? Discipline? Come on Ottawa, stop being self-righteous. You're mixing up morality (your morality) with psychology. You were inadequate as a parent. You choose to excuse your inability to empathise with whatever motivated your son (and quite possibly misinterpreted his motivations) and you continue to be racked with guilt.
So stop trying to lay a guilt trip on Ginger because it won't work. And oh, by the way, you were talking about mantra's? Frankly, when my kids were 15, I was more worried about them starting smoking thatn I would have been about them smoking pot (which they did) and I was confident enough in the values that they had developed to know that I couldn't force them to accept anything I might want to impose on them.
So give us a break. You'll not convince anyone of any benefits of these coercive programs because there are none. They are totalitarean and merely encourage double-think in aspiring psychologists like yourself.
Save us from people like you who would save us from ourselves!
-
Something I should be used to by now, you being way,way out in left field, that is.
If Ginger wants to ignore me, I am sure that she knows how to do so, without any chanting from the peanut gallery (that would be you in the current context).
And I won't pass my dissertation because I don't know what Ginger is talking about? What are you on, my dear, this is perilously close to raving, I know you're big on legalized drugs but really, let's stay somewhat concrete in these discussions.
Incidentally the current discussion has nothing to do with the practice of psychology so I don't get why you've got yourself all worked up about my remarks sounding like pseudopsychology. What is your sensitivity there, I wonder, that you would ascribe a psychological or pseudo psychological purpose to a person-to- person discussion that, if anything, has to do with a philosophical difference of opinion about what it means to be a parent.
And speaking of philosophical differences, you seem pretty proud of the fact that your children are habitual drug users and that you encouraged them to become so, you've mentioned it before. Pretty ghastly to my way of thinking.
Perhaps other parents who read about the pride you get from this state of affairs will get a feel for where your type of thinking comes from and where it predictably leads. That may help them to decide whether that's what they want for their kids, you can certainly given them guidance about how to be your kind of parent, if that's what they aspire to.
-
Exactly the sort of response I would have predicted. Rave on Ottawa. You're beginning to sound like Monty Python's argument theme.
You came into this forum declaring yourself to be doing post graduate psychology work and seeking answers and you've done nothing but try to impose your own views on those who would give you them. Ginger, much to her credit has tried, as have the others, and when they do, all you do is try to attribute base motives to them, and malign them as somehow being failures.
You said:
"And speaking of philosophical differences, you seem pretty proud of the fact that your children are habitual drug users"
I did not say they were habitual drug users. Speaking of Philosophical differences, they have adopted the Aristotelean Mean in their lives. Go look that up, because when my son was 15 he was reading Descartes.
You said re their drug use, " and that you encouraged them to become so, you've mentioned it before. Pretty ghastly to my way of thinking."
No, I said I would be more worried about them smoking cigarettes than smoking pot. And at all times their use of drugs has been an informed use. It's your basic assumption, along with that of the Fundamentalist American Hard Christian Right (the FAHCR's), that all drug use is abuse which lies at the root of these schools (and your basic assumption, it seems) and is one of the most frightening things about the people running this coalition of idiots. It's the prohibition that is ghastly and has produced such ghastly results. No, I did not encourage them. Other than to be honest. But what those schools do is cultivate a fundamental intellectual dishonesty, much like yours.
You said:
"Perhaps other parents who read about the pride you get from this state of affairs will get a feel for where your type of thinking comes from and where it predictably leads."
Oh, wise one, where will this predictably lead? The vast majority of people who try drugs do not become addicted. Or is that your prediction that people who are not believed, understood or have self-esteem issues have to be forced into teen help therapy otherwise they will destroy themselves -- that becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prohecy, doesn't it? The DARE program is an excellent example of why the American War on drugs has failed is failing and will continue to fail. I'm an atheist, but I believe that the story of the forbidden fruit is indeed an analogy for what is happening in the drug war. It's almost a self - fulfilling prophecy. Was it your fear of what your son was to become that was driving him into drug abuse? What you have done is what is too ghastly to comprehend.
You said:
"That may help them to decide whether that's what they want for their kids, you can certainly given (sic) them guidance about how to be your kind of parent, if that's what they aspire to."
Do you mean permissive, understanding, kind, empathetic? It's what I would aspire to, but unfortunately, I've failed at that. But it's my children who have (re)taught me these values. Through their experiences they have indeed rekindled those sentiments and motivated me to oppose the types of "help" stemming from Straight-like puritanistic cults. Sometimes they worry me, because they refuse to cross over to the other side of the street when they see someone less fortunate than themselves. But they have given real help to people with real drug problems because they can empathise. On the other hand you, dear Ottawa, don't even know the meaning of the word -- just force them into your mould the good old American Way.
And your attempts to be pejorative in references to my being in left field seems to reveal more about yourself than what it says about me -- as does much of your ranting.
:wave: :eek: [ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-09-08 01:23 ]
-
This is what I ment when I said I was greatful for my parents!
I just cant belive that people actually excisted who would be proud to have druggie children!
Hamiltonf you said that your parenting style was "permissive, understanding, kind, empathetic"
I was think it was more along the lines of "illegal" and "neglectful" but hey as the saying gose "you say tamato I say tamato."
Let me guess you want to be your childs friend?
I belive it was shanlea who said that pareniting is a fine line. I guess what I question about you parenting style then is where do you draw the line beteew being a friend and being a parent???
Cuz it seem to me that you would rather seem "cool" to your kids instead of actual setting boundries and rules.
:wave:
-
On 2004-09-08 01:17:00, Hamiltonf wrote:
And your attempts to be pejorative in references to my being in left field seems to reveal more about yourself than what it says about me -- as does much of your ranting.
It also sort of cast doubt on her stayed belief that the kid would be deadinsaneorinjail w/o the Program. My mother believed, and likely believes to this day, that that pungent smelling empty baggie she found under my matterss was 100%, irrefutable proof of my impending death by overdose. I have to wonder if this kid even had a problem of his own or if O5 is just that paranoid.
The sadist cannot stand the separation of the public and the private; nor can he grant to others the mystery of their personality, the validity of their inner self...in order for him to feel his maximum power, he wants the world to be peopled with concrete manipulatable objects...
-- ERNEST BECKER, The Structure of Evil, 1968.
-
Do you have any idea how stupid you seem?
How come neither of you have taken the time to look over and respond to my postings? I have said plenty, but you seem afraid. I will tell you what I think:
Forget it, you are not worth the time it takes to write.
Tell yo' momma to respond to me. I've been sending her plenty of info to deny happened to me. Hardy har, how would you guys know so much about what I went through?
Oh and ottowa2:
TOMATO, tomahto,
But I guess you are just not clever enough to finger it out.
-blowme
-away
-
If you really have such a problem with my spelling or me then just ingnore my posts. It really not that hard.
Iv already explained the reasons for my poor spelling several times so I do not feel the need to explain again.
Also, I have ablsolutly no control over who my mother respones to or dose not responed to. If you really want to talk to her that badly send her a PM or responed to one of her post and ask her whatever you want.
Again really not that hard.
Interesting though how you say you want to speak with my mother yet we are not worth the time?:-?
Mind explaining that one to me?
:wave:
-
Please read some of my posts and respond about my recently diagnosed PTSD stemming from CEDU education. You (if you ARE honest) will surely see that the program has had a negative impact on my life. Pure and simple. I am learning that it is exactly the things that you say are so detramental to the success of the program that are causing many agony for the rest of their lives. Being removed from a harmful environment as a youth is one thing. Putting me through something else and then calling it something inocuous like removal from negative influences is NOT helpful. I'm not going to let it be the case for me that it lasts a lifetime, and I NEED this site and the support of the people who know FIRSTHAND what I'm talking about. You visiting the program(presumably flying in to stay at a hotel and attend a parent conference or two) tell you nothing about what kids experience in raps, profeets, dorms, work, house-time or SQUAT. WE ARE TELLING YOU WHAT IS REAL. Not what appeared real to the parents PAYING for the program.
I am ready to explain my view patiently to you, but I won't be assailed by your teeny bopper bandwagoning disrespectful "daughter" who should learn how to use spell check if she wants people to take her seriously. Don't you want her to learn to spell better? And what about learning? Don't you guys believe in bettering the lysdexia symptoms and confidence issues?
I have dyslexia so don't gimme any shit about "I can't help it".
P.s. I wouldn't be surprised if the persons posting as Ottowa2&5 are in fact the same individual.
Oh! and very convenient about the "son" not wanting to post. You're family's bordering on appearing sheepish, unaccountable and dishonest.
Are you really interested in remedying that? We'll see.
-Blownawaytheidahoway
-
To Blownaway--Your post contains many threads. According to your way of thinking, I may or may not exist as an independent person, or I may some kind of composite of myself, my daughter, and, I suppose, my son.
I don't know what I can say that is productive in terms of such a strange concept--believe what you want to believe, I guess, if you have specific questions, I will, if possible, answer them.
As far as my family "appearing sheepish, dishonest and unaccountable", again,I don't have any clear idea of why you think my family appears one way or another (only myself and my little daughter have ever posted here), and, at any rate, I don't care that much about appearances, so I will need some kind of specific inquiry to be involved in any meaningful exchange with you on this score either.
More importantly, in terms of your diagnosed PTSD, I don't know the details, but if you were abused and in fear of serious harm to yourself or others in a school setting, then, yes, I believe that a person could become seriously traumatized in those kinds of circumstances. If you say that this happened to you then I have no reason to disbelieve it, and if the people responsible can be found, they should be held accountable.
What I am saying is that this experience of trauma that you describe did not happen to everyone who attended CEDU institutions---I am not just relying on my parent conference experiences, but upon what I have been told by my son and others, several years after leaving RMA, at a point in time when they are doing well in their lives and when they have no interest in or reason for lying about their school experiences.
I am guessing that these programs existed in many different forms over the years, and sometimes, as in your case, people crossed some boundaries and did some harm.
My point is not to say that abuse is good. It is to point out that these kinds of programs, with the help of reasonable, caring staff and clear, well-thought-out person-centered policies, can be run in a way that is still confrontative (as is sometimes needed with oppositional kids)but without the kinds of abuses that you and others testify to.
On another note, I think that you come very close to taking cheap shots at my daughter--surely you are aware that dyslexia comes in a number of forms and that spelling and phonetics are harder for some people with dyslexia than for others. She is really proud of how her brother has done post-RMA and is trying to tell you about how the program was good for him and for others who we know quite well. However, I have told her that if she chooses to involve herself with the bunch at this site, she is on her own, so that is all I will say about that.
So if you are really interested in any more specific discussions, I would be glad to hear from you--if you do address me again and I don't get right back to you, it is not because I am ignoring you, it is just that I can be on-line more sometimes than others.