Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
You know, I was thinking... the righteous indignation about children I see today, either didn't exist or was at least much less apparent years ago. I mean on a community/national level. These days you can't look at a kid sideways without a lynch mob forming. Whereas years ago, if the kid wasn't physically injured, people not immediately involved would be more like, tsk tsk, that's a shame, what's for supper? The emotional well being of other peoples kids, and sometimes their own, was not a big concern. Maybe that's why the Catholic Church was so successful at covering up these incidents.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx
"Righteous indignation" and "lynch mob" both sound very negative, while "these incidents" not so much.
That jumps right out at me.
|
I don't think Bruce is supportive of that view, and I do think it's an accurate description of values previously held.
I personally knew two girls abused as children. One was called back in her late teens or twenties to give evidence about a school caretaker (janitor) who exposed himself to her and was on trial for more serious abuses with other young girls. She reported the incident in the '70s and the reaction was very much, "There, there, no harm done." The report was filed, which is why she was tracked down later.
The second was physically abused and again, she reported it. Not to the police in her case - she was in care and reported it to the people higher up in the facility. No-one believed her. It was only a family member who heard gossip years later that made any of her family take it seriously. She was simply seen as being "disturbed" because of her background and the reasons she was in care in the first place. She had nothing like a criminal trial or conviction to give her closure, but at least in the end her family accepted what had happened. This was in the late '60s.