Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some perspective on McQuery

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:20 PM
Original message
Some perspective on McQuery
An interview with Joan Tabachnick, author of the National Sexual Violence Resource guide, "Engaging Bystanders in Sexual Violence Prevention."


Why Didn't McQuery Call the Police
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/why_didnt_mcqueary_call_the_police/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. "the reality is that 90 percent of child sexual abuse is never reported"
"When I did some interviews with offenders in prison, I remember one minister saying that even when he was sexually abusing a child, he asked the child, Is this good touch or bad touch? and the child said, Because its you and youre a good man, it must be good touch."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. That was one of the scarier bits in the article.
I was also interested in this:

"What we talked about is that because we have moved more and more toward monsterizing the offender, its actually limiting our ability to prevent child sexual abuse. The more we make sex offenders into monsters, the less likely we are able to see behaviors in people we love that give us concern."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. This should not be surprising
The abusers aren't likely to report it, and many of the children are too young to know what's happening to them. If they're old enough to know, they're usually coerced or threatened or bullied, and once it happens, they're generally burdened with shame and guilt as well. Blaming themselves is not uncommon, and often their abusers blame the victims as well. And often when the victims try to tell someone, they're not believed. So they give up trying.

Most child sexual abuse is discovered by third parties, either a teacher or doctor or other caregiver or the coroner. I believe in the case of the victim in the Penn State case, it was a teacher who alerted the mother to the boy's behavior, but I could be wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. And you believed that guy? It sounds to me that is how he justifies his own
actions. I wouldn't believe anything a pedo says. I very much doubt a child would engage in that sort of sophisticated causitry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The author is someone who has made a study of abuse, abusers and victims..
She picked the quote as an example of the sort of attitudes that victims, molesters and bystanders tend to have.

In an attempt to make better sense of his response, I went to Joan Tabachnick, author of the National Sexual Violence Resource Centers guide, Engaging Bystanders in Sexual Violence Prevention, and a board member of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

I know Republicans have a real distaste for expertise, I'm coming to find that some Democrats share that distaste.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I might conclude that you have a distaste for clear communication,
as it appeared that you were the one doing the interview since you did not cite who you were quoting. Furthermore that quote indicates that the interviewer accepted at face value the claim by the pedo that the victim said since he was a good man, what he was doing must be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The link was in the OP..
I was providing quotes from that link you neglected to click on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I've interviewed people in jail, too, so may I offer some clarification?
I think -- though I could be wrong -- Tabachnik was quoting one of the people she had interviewed not because his response justified his actions but as an example of how pedophiles (attempt to) rationalize their own behavior. The abuser may never have actually said any such thing, nor the child ever have responded that way, but often that is how people in positions of authority are able to get away with the abuse that they do. Children are told to trust the priest because he is a priest and they have no context in which to challenge that belief. Any person who is in a position of power/authority -- priest, teacher, coach, therapist, doctor, lawyer, boss -- is able to use that position.

There's a case in Delaware that has recently been concluded against a pediatrician, Dr. Earl Bradley, who was convicted in June of raping/abusing more than 80 children. How does an infant report abuse? How does a parent even think to begin suspecting? Most children don't like to go to the doctor, they don't like to get shots or get poked at, so it's difficult to determine if their reluctance is "normal" or because they've been abused. And if the child has been bribed with toys or gifts or candy or computers or whatever, that can make the abuser look like a "good" person in their eyes.

Children don't have fully developed senses of right and wrong, and while they may experience physical pain from the assault, they are also vulnerable to the rationalizations put forth by the abuser, rationalizations that are of course in the abuser's best interest, and certainly not the child's.

I don't believe Tabachnik's quote was intended to exonerate the abuser in any way or to put any of the blame on the victim. Instead, it was intended to illustrate how the abuser is able to rationalize his actions and still function as a normal human being, because he doesn't believe he's a monster**.


**However, looking at the photos of Earl Bradley, it's not difficult to imagine him as a monster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/22/national/main6232428.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Wow, way to alienate someone who's on your side.
Starting to see how mob mentality works?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Wow starting to understand kneejerk reactions. Did you bother to read
what I was responding to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I'm the one who posted the OP
so yes. Yes I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I wasn't replying to the the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Oh, I read that, too.
I also read the article I posted, and I've read other posts by the DUer you "called out." Maybe you should read everything before you post, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Spare me. He is the one who made the snide remark about how he has
discovered that some DUers are like Republicans. Welcome to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm still not buying it
McQueary had been a quarterback at Penn State in the late 90s, when Sandusky was still on the staff. McQueary left college and pursued a pro football career for a couple years, during which time Sandusky was accused of "improprieties" and removed from the coaching staff, a.k.a. "retired."

McQueary would have been deeply involved in the football culture at Penn State, with Paterno and Sandusky and all the rest, and when he returned in 2000 as a graduate student hired to assist in the football program, he should have been curious why Sandusky was gone.

He could not have thought that someone else would intervene -- a reference to the Genevese case -- because there was no one else there. Sandusky had seen and recognized him as well.

That he continued to associate with Sandusky and/or Sandusky's foundation afterward doesn't square with his claim to the grand jury that he was distraught.

McQueary knew nothing happened to Sandusky as a result of the incident. He knew Sandusky was capable of a heinous crime, and he never followed up on it. He could have done so in dozens of ways that would not have impacted his personal career, but he did nothing. Not at the time, not in the period immediately following, and not for almost 10 more years, until the mother of a child who had become Sandusky's victim in 2005 stepped forward.

McQueary could have stopped the rape in 2002 and he could have prevented untold other tragedies. He had 10 years of opportunities to do something and he never has. No sympathy at all.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I don't pretend to know the truth @ McQueary but MOST abused children continue to associate
with their abusers since most people who abuse children are those they know. Family members, neighbors, coaches, scout leaders ministers or priests....

In fact, its far the MOST common thing that people continue their association despite the counter intuitiveness of it all, even despite the FACT that they KNOW that their abuser is abusing others, they persist in staying silent.

Our society has a hideous stigma attached to rape. Especially combined with our homophobic "ick" factor, then add in a macho sport, and I have no problem believing McQueary may have been molested and kept silent about it, even Sandusky as the perp.

The McQueary and Sandusky families were neighbors, the kids went to the same schools. One of the Sandusky boys was a friend of McQueary. Remember Sandusky is 32 years older than McQueary. As a rising young football star, you really don't think Sandusky may not have paid 'special attention to McQueary??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Most abused children don't have any options
If the abuser is a family member, children generally aren't at liberty to leave. If the abuser is a doctor their parents are taking them to, or the priest at the church, and so on -- the child has no options.

McQueary may not have had options as a child, but at the age of 28 he knew what he'd seen was wrong. He knew it enough that he told his father and the next day he told Paterno. And then he kept silent for almost 10 years.

No excuses. None.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. But it still doesn't explain how after reporting such a crime...
... and seeing that the institution swept it under the rug, he still goes on to take a really nice job on the staff of the same institution. That's what I just can't get my head around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Me neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Because IF McQueary were raped as a boy, he's already learned to sweep it under the rug
as painful as it is. Some survivors NEVER acknowledge what happened to them, or confront their abuser. Some continue to live with their abuser for years and yes, even work closely with them. Look at Jaycee Lee Dugard as just one of countless examples of how a person can absolutely (twistedly, and certainly demonstrating badly impaired critical thinking) justify continuing on despite the obvious problems with it all.

I have absolutely no idea if any of this applies to McQueary but I have no problem explaining it or believing it. In fact, it makes the MOST sense since that is FAR more common than reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Jaycee Dugard was a prisoner
She didn't have any choice.

Mike McQueary has and had LOTS of choices.

What's commonly called "Stockholm syndrome" generally applies only to those victims who are psychologically coping with a current situation of abuse, such as Jaycee Dugard's. Dugard had to cope with an on-going situation, including her two children.

McQueary's situation is very different. Even if he had been abused as a child, even if witnessing the rape triggered some kind of reaction, he still failed to stop it, and he failed to follow up on his notification to Paterno FOR TEN YEARS.

There's a part of me that feels sorry for the guy. He made a terrible mistake, maybe has regretted it ever since, but nothing exonerates his nearly decade-long silence. Nothing.


Absolutely nothing.



TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. FWIW, I'm not exonerating him. I brought up JLD because she's a child abuse survivor
Edited on Sat Nov-12-11 07:57 PM by riderinthestorm
who grew up and could have 1. reported her abuser and/or 2. left. She chose neither, even as her own kids were endangered by him.

Stockholm syndrome yes but its the same with many child sexual abuse survivors grow up and desperately try to leave that behind even if it means their abuser walks free, even if it means they associate with that abuser every day.

She's probably a bad example. I should and could have brought up others, she just came to mind first. My point is that it's very, very common for child survivors to NOT report, to NOT interfere, even when they reach adulthood, even if they know their abuser is continuing with others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. What a load of bullshit
First they try and compare it to a myth... fucked up. Then they try to wedge it into 90% is never reported. Fuck that shit. Tell us what the percentage is un-reported that gets witnessed by a third party and we have a valid comparison. Dropping what he did into the 90% is a bullshit excuse for that piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. I actually find his not interfering with the rape worse
He did eventually report it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. You find it worse
*because* he eventually reported it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I find the not interfering worse than not telling at all would have been
and certainly worse than telling but later is. Had he stopped the rape and remained silent that would have been perferable morally, in my mind to what he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. If he had stopped that one rape
and not told anyone, he would have been just as morally culpable for all the future rapes Sandusky committed. What was McQueary gonna do--follow Sandusky around 24/7 to make sure he didn't rape anymore? The reporting is the key component of getting the pedophile in prison.

And by the way, don't do too much demonizing of McQueary. McQueary is a major component of the state's case against Sandusky. If McQueary dies or stops talking, their case might suffer. Don't condone what McQueary did back then if you want--I certainly think he was wrong--but don't smack him down now for finally doing what's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txwhitedove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Agree. Since he relayed it to his father and to Paterno as "rape", then
he should have stopped it immediately.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 27th 2024, 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC