The Courage to Heal and Memories of Abuse

The following 2-part discussion of _The Courage to Heal_ and memories of 
sexual abuse took place on WMST-L in June 1998.  For additional WMST-L files 
on the Web, see the WMST-L File Collection

PAGE 1 OF 2

 
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Bill Oetjen wrote:
 
>     Can someone suggest a self-help/survival manual that also includes
> feminist critique of rape as an institution?  I know someone else who
> would appreciate a similar text on incest.
 
The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse,
Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, NY: HarperPerennial, 1988.
 
 
Sandra D. Shattuck
shattuck  @  u.arizona.edu

 
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Sandra D Shattuck wrote:

> The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse,
> Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, NY: HarperPerennial, 1988.

Be warned about this book:  it has been instrumental not only in helping
women deal with abuse, but sometimes, in the hands of the wrong
therapists, in leading them to imagine it when it did not occur.  This
book is often cited in works on false memory syndrome.
 
Marc Sacks
msacks  @  world.std.com

 
I don't believe THE COURAGE TO HEAL, a book about incest and child sexual
abuse, has lead to "False Memory Syndrome."  This so claimed syndrome was
coined by the False Memory Foundation, a politically motivated group that
defends men accused of molesting and raping their children.
 
Donna Hughes
dhughes  @  uriacc.uri.edu

>>> >     Can someone suggest a self-help/survival manual that also includes
>>> > feminist critique of rape as an institution?  I know someone else who
>>> > would appreciate a similar text on incest.
 
Rape as an institution:
 
_Transforming a Rape Culture_ .  Emile Buchwald, Pamela Fletcher, and
Martha Ross, eds.  Milkweed editions. 1993.
 
Self-help/Survival:
_Courage to Heal_ as suggested by others.
 
And, a CD/booklet _Free To Fight: An Interactive self defense project_
Available from Candy Ass Records PO Box 42382 Portland, OR 97242  I think
this is the absolute best for introducing young women and college
students to feminist theory and practical self-defense.  The CD features
artists ranging from Team Dresch to Heavens to Betsey, and includes
actual self-defense instruction.  Profits go to teach free self defense
classes at music shows.
     Zine-style booklet includes bell hooks, Jody Bleyle, lots of
activists and just plain folk telling their stories of challenge and
survival.  In my humble opinion, the single most important cultural
product for young women to come out in years.  If I was teaching Women's
Studies, I'd use it as a required text!
 
Hope this helps,
Chelsea
 

Chelsea Starr, ABD       | http://www.no-fi.com/orbit
(Canis meus id comedit)  | cstarr  @  orion.oac.uci.edu
         Social Relations, University of California, Irvine

 
Marc Sacks wrote:
>Be warned about this book:  it has been instrumental not only in helping
>women deal with abuse, but sometimes, in the hands of the wrong
>therapists, in leading them to imagine it when it did not occur.  This
>book is often cited in works on false memory syndrome.
 
How does being cited in works on false memory syndrome legitimise the
assertion that this book causes women to *imagine* things?
 
If "in the wrong hands" this book allegedly leads women to conclusions they
might not otherwise draw, ought not the *warning* be charged against the
therapist, not the book?
 
I object strongly to these sorts of *warnings* being given without more
substantial evidence either from the text itself or other critical
analyses.
 
Sian Bennett
s.bennett  @  carmen.murdoch.edu.au

 
Ellen Bass, one of the authors, has been a feminist for twenty-five years or
so and has worked with sexual abuse as well as having endured it for many
years.  i have difficulty believing that she would be interested in helping
the False Memory group. i have known her as a poet and writer and feminist
for many years.
 
Marge Piercy  hagolem  @  capecod.net

 
I wouldn't myself recomend The Courage To Heal, Although I have read it and
written on it from the position of a survivor of child sexual abuse (CSA).
 
        Bill's original request was for 'self-help books which
contextualise rape (and/or CSA) politically'. I don't think The Courage To
Heal actually does this, although it is often cited uncritically by
supporters of survivors. The recovery process that the book favors is one
which personalises the effects of CSA, positing the self self and social
intergration of the survivor as the aim of recovery.
 
        This holistic and essential view of the figure of the survivor in
recovery is mobalized for less normative purposes in Melba Wilsons (1993)
Crossing the Boundary: Black Women Survive Incest (Virago). She
contextualizes the confrontation, prevention and analysis of CSA firmly
within, and crucial to, a concept of Black community, making the
acknowledgement of CSA intagral to combating sexism and racism.
 
        Books that generally critique the 'recovery industry' for it's
de-politicisation of the subject tend to gloss over the question of
personal recovery. If either of your friends is very anti-therapy, they
might enjoy Louise Armstrongs (1996) Rocking the Cradel of Sexual Politics:
What Happened When Women Said Incest (The Women's Press).
 
Josephine Fraser <jf119  @  york.ac.uk>

 
Laura Davis's book has been controversial because of the loose, ambiguous
ways in which it encourages both therapists and clients to diagnose clients
as survivors of sexual abuse.  There is no differentiation made between
actual memories of things that happened and images that occur in one's
head.  The book SHOULD be held accountable for its part in therapists'
false diagnoses -- haven't we held Freud accountable for his part in the
opposite, in blowing off women who seek held because they have been abused?
 
Are all images of abuse one sees in one's head memories?
 
Personally, I have seen these diagnoses spread like wildfire in the hands
one two or three unskilled, irresponsible therapists using Davis's book.
Therapeutic "feminism" can look like McCarthyism sometimes.
 
Where is the commitment to ethics and rationality?
 
If we emphasize that we need to take care in these diagnoses, are we being
cruel to the women involved?  I think not -- just the opposite.
 
Pamela Kemner
Center for Women's Studies
Cinti, Ohio

I have been interested in/bothered by this subject for a long time.  Though
it may be the psych community that brought sexual abuse into the public,
its disciplinary emphasis on subjectivity and personal healing has made it
difficult to HAVE political discourse about sexual violence.

Here's the quandary, as I see it:

Law, a rationalist discourse, is written from the perspective of men.  That
needs to be changed.

Women's experiences/subjectivities are not represented by the law. Women
are not protected by laws In order to discover how that is so, women need
to explore/express their subjectivities about physicality/sex/violence as
expriences.  Okay (read; personal anecdotes, testimonies, etc.)  But then -
WHAT ANALYTIC LENS do we apply to that subjectivity?  The fact that it's
the psych industry that brought sex abuse into the public discourse means
that people seem to mostly default to the therapeutic analysis -- with its
emphasis on feelings and healings.  Staying only with that analytic lens is
a problem, though, because these subjectivities need to be translated into
LAW, which is a RATIONALIST discourse.  It has do de-emphasize private
experience to work as a public discourse.

But for a lot of women, the moment another analytic lens is applied, they
are afraid they are being blamed, negated, etc for whatever experience
they've brought to the table.  This is a constant issue with students, who
are saturated with pop culture hyper-personalism.  Making the transition
from the personal to the political, public discourse about justice is so
important, though, if we are going to transform laws and the ways in which
the public views women.  I'm even nervous about continuing the
"post-traumatic stress syndrome" way of talking about victims, because it
continues to psychologize/privatize/pathologize women's experiences instead
of dealing with issues of violence as public and political.

I have no answers for this, and tend to just be careful to draw out these
dilemmas with students.

What do you think?

Pamela Kemner
Center for Women's Studies
Cinti, Ohio

              <roboler  @  ACAD.URSINUS.EDU>

 
Pamela Kemner is right.  I believe it is really important for feminists to
acknowledge this.  I have read psychological studies of experiments (on
willing subjects) in which false memories were deliberately induced.  I
don't have references at the tip of my brain, but can probably find them
if anyone insists.  I've met people who perceive themselves to be victims
of accusations (or are close to victims of such accusations) based on
false memories.  False memories are real -- they are *not* the invention of
a group bent on protecting perpetrators at all costs.  I have a relative
who is mentally ill, who at one time during her therapy remembered abuse
by her mother.  I am absolutely certain that no such thing ever occurred.
The psychodynamics of all this are similar to the psychodynamics of witchcraft
accusations at Salem.
 
False memories are real.  However, it is equally true that sexual abuse of
children really does occur.  The challenge at this point is finding the
means to distinguish unambiguously between real memories and false memories.
Treatises that encourage uncritical acceptance of any and all vague evidence
as proof do not help.  Claims need examination that is highly critical.
 
The thing that distresses me most is how many people who identify as
feminists *still*, after tomes and tomes have been written on this subject
from a critical perspective, cling to the idea that all accusations of
child sexual abuse are true -- and that, as one poster said, FMS is an
invention to protect perpetrators.  I was shocked several years back when
my copy of MS. arrived and contained an article "Satanic Abuse is Real --
Believe It!"  This article was a real fantasy tale of incredible things
alleged to have happened to the author at an age when it is doubtful she could
actually have remembered these details -- and the author was not identified
because of fear of retaliation by Satanic forces.  This story was presented
at face value with no critical response, and it read like something from
the National Enquirer.  We've just *got* to get beyond this point to
maintain credibility.
 
  -- Gina Oboler

 
Richard Ofshe and Elizabeth Loftus are two very serious researchers who
have done work with implanting false memories--a rather easy thing to do
with certain individuals, as it turns out.  Loftus's field of expertise is
precisely memory.  Mark Pendergrast's book *Victims of Memory* is a very
thorough investigation of the problem of false memories and false
accusations. And, by the way, the accused are not only men; about 1/3 of
those accused are women, often extending laterally as a story unfolds, so
that sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers, etc., are brought into the act
as perpetrators.
The analogy with witchhunts is not inappropriate, given the climate of
hysterie surrounding many such charges and the absence of due process.
---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

 
At 10:26 AM 6/17/98 EST, Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology, Ursinus
College wrote:
>child sexual abuse are true -- and that, as one poster said, FMS is an
>invention to protect perpetrators.  I was shocked several years back when
>my copy of MS. arrived and contained an article "Satanic Abuse is Real --
>Believe It!"  This article was a real fantasy tale of incredible things
>alleged to have happened to the author at an age when it is doubtful she
could
>actually have remembered these details -- and the author was not identified
>because of fear of retaliation by Satanic forces.  This story was presented
>at face value with no critical response, and it read like something from
>the National Enquirer.  We've just *got* to get beyond this point to
>maintain credibility.
 
I *must* respond to this.  A friend who works as a counsellor at a large
university in Ontario has documented not insignificant numbers of women
students who have wounds on their bodies *in the same places* and who do
not know each other.  They all describe similar events and they are all
associated with satanic abuse.
 
What kind of critical reponse are you hoping for?  Something like "Prove to
me that you didn't physically harm yourself, dear"?
 
More blame the victim.
 
Puleeeeeese.
 
Sasha McInnes
sasha  @  worldchat.com
The first principle of non-violent action is non-participation in
everything humiliating.
Gandhi

 
re: the responses from Pamela Kemner and Gina Oboler
 
The purpose of the original inquiry to the list was to solicit suggestions
regarding self-help/survival manuals that include a feminist critique of
rape/incest.  "The Courage to Heal" was a valid suggestion. Indeed, I have
used it frequently in my work as a support group facilitator.
 
As feminists, we all know that rape and child sexual abuse are incidents
that occur in epidemic proportions.  We also know that ritual abuse/satanic
abuse is an unfortunate reality in the lives of many children, male and
female.
 
Whether "false memories" occur or not is irrelevant to the original inquiry
and no single book or author can be blamed for the perpetuation of "false
memories".  There is substantial evidence on both sides of the "false
memory" debate and I urge you to refer to the "American Psychological
Association Working Group on Investigation of Childhood Abuse - Final
Report" (1996), which can be ordered free of charge from the APA.
 
**********
Erin Connell, Interim Coordinator
Women's Health Office
Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University
(905) 525-9140 ext 22210.
**********

              <roboler  @  ACAD.URSINUS.EDU>

 
In response to Sasha -- The critical response I expect is careful investigation
of such claims.  Has your friend published her findings?  I'd like to know
the details of the events of Satanic abuse, and who specifically was involved.
I'd like to be provided with information that would allow an independent
investigator to check out the claim.  That's science.
 
David Bromley is a very good researcher who made a concerted effort to track
down specific Satanic abuse claims, and proved pretty clearly that some
well-publicized claims were fabricated.  This is documented in his article
in Human Organization 10 or so years ago (maybe not quite that long), and in
books.  I am certainly not saying that the fact that someone proved some such
claims are fabricated demonstrates that all of them are -- but it does call
for critical examination.
 
A particular interest of mine is minority religion.  Claims of Satanic abuse
are often popularized by the Christian Right and function to brand the
practices of religious minorities as heinous.  They inflame mainstream
people's fear of what they know nothing about.  The general public has a
hard time distinguishing between things like neo-paganism, Wicca, and similar
goddess-centered religions and other movements like the Church of Satan
(which according to its adherents does *not* practice any form of "Satanic
abuse") and whatever other non-mainstream and possibly less benign groups
might be out there who might or might not have inflicted wounds on the young
women Sasha describes.  When people believe bad things about the so-called
"Satanists," all pagan groups get tarred with the same brush -- including
many that are strongly feminist.
 
There actually might be some Satanic abuse going on.  The point is to
subject claims of such to critical examination.  And so far, when exposed
to critical scrutiny, such claims have tended to evaporate rapidly.
 
  -- Gina O.

 
>False memories are real.  However, it is equally true that sexual abuse of
>children really does occur.  The challenge at this point is finding the
>means to distinguish unambiguously between real memories and false memories.
 
I think a more "feminist" approach would be to learn to distinguish between
lying perpetrators and non-perpetrators.
 
My father was a respected and popular man. He was startlingly handsome and he
could be very charming in the presence of women. He was a respected officer in
the military, loved by his men, and later when he retired, he was a beguiling
salesman. He was also a pedophile and a rapist. He told me himself that he 
raped the women he dated when he was a teenager and he felt he had a right to 
do that.  He physically and emotionally abused 3 of his 4 wives. And he 
sexually abused me and I suspect several other little girls at his disposal.
 
He, of course, denied this vehemently and because of his popularity and
"respectability" he denied these charges sucessfully until his old age. In his
old age my father admitted he abused me, but made it clear that he felt no 
regret.  Other adult witnesses such as my mother denied the possibility of 
this sexual abuse for years, but now my mother is coming forward and admitting 
that she knew but was too ashamed of her own complicity to admit this earlier.

As I recall, when Ted Bundy was first arrested for the horrible
multiple murders he committed his friends said they could not believe that
he could have done them. They said he was the nicest, kindest, most
charming man they had ever known.

Perpetrators lie, and they lie vehemently. Their freedom is at
stake. Friends and family of perpetrators have a very strong desire to
believe these denials. Most people have a strong desire to believe that
child sexual abusers are different from "normal" people, that they will
stand out somehow, that we can't be fooled by them, that they will appear
to be as desturbed as we think they are. But they don't and they aren't.
They tend to be (or at least appear to be) "normal," likable men, with a
dark side that comes out behind closed doors, and that is scarey. Florence
Rush (1980) "The Best Kept Secret: Sexual Abuse of Children" is an
excellent book, interpreting the cultural and political connections between
gender/masculinity, patriarchy and child sexual abuse.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would want to believe 
that they were sexually abused and face the denials and ostracism
from their families unless the memories were so powerful they could not
deny them. I know that I exhibited a great deal of emotional damage long
before I ever sought therapy. I also know that I had some very clear and
painful memories of sexual abuse before ever seeking therapy. In my
oppinion, it is VERY easy to tell the difference between memories of real
events and "vague images." Real memories come with powerful, painful
emotions attached, images and imaginings do not.

However, it is very difficult and very painful for the survivor to
have to struggle against the massive wall of disbelief and denial she (or
he) inevitably will face from the perpetrator, other family members and
even strangers. This support for the "concept" of false memory syndrome
heeps bricks onto that wall. Even if there is such a thing as false memory
syndrome (which I do not believe there is) by legitimizing and giving
credence to this "concept" we have made it a thousand times more difficult
for survivors of REAL abuse to be heard and believed.

It has been said that it takes the testimony of three women to over
ride the blanket denial of one man in an adult rape change. As we saw with
the military case last year, 6 women could not over ride the denial of one
man. We know that because of the harassement that a woman knows she will
have to face in the legal system that only a fraction of rape cases are
ever reported, and only a fraction of those are ever prosecuted or
punished. Maybe, every once in a long while, a bitter woman will falsely
accuse a man of rape, but should that change our focus from the
overwhelming majority of unprosecuted, real cases and the structural
protections for perpetrators that help to perpetuate these crimes and keep
them unpunished?

In the case of an incest charge it is often the word of one scared
child or adult survivor against the blanket denial of 2 or 3 or 6 adults.
False memory syndrome is clearly a powerful tool used in most if not all
defense cases today. Whether there are cases of "false memory" or not, the
legitimation of the concept has certainly made it that much harder for real
survivors of real abuse to find a modicum of justice, or even peace.
 
[signature removed]

 
Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology wrote:
> In response to Sasha -- The critical response I expect is careful
 investigation
> of such claims.  Has your friend published her findings?  I'd like to know
> the details of the events of Satanic abuse, and who specifically was involved.
> I'd like to be provided with information that would allow an independent
> investigator to check out the claim. That's science.
 
I was particularly interested in the last line of this paragraph,
"That's science." I think for those who had the opportunity to attend
many of the presentations at NWSA on feminist critiques of science &
technology, they would agree that this is contested territory.
"Science" or western versions of science have often been used to
discount and distort women's experiences. Applying mainstream
scientific methods to verify memories of abuse/ritual abuse will not
provide us with *all* the answers we are looking for. This is often
the frustration of survivors of abuse. "Science" is given more
credibility as "knowledge" than the individuals own "knowing"  what
has happened to them. Yet, it is clear that "science" also carries
with it its' own biases, subjectivities and agendas. It's important
to critique abuse/ritual abuse issues, but if we're doing it from a
feminist perspective, we also need to look critically at the
methods we use to "verify" human experience. Using
"science" doesn't ensure a complete or unbiased picture either.
Kim Cordingly
kcording  @  wvu.edu
West Virginia Univ.

 
I am going to have to agree with Gina's response.  I've done a little
reading on this, but not much.  However, I have had *personal*
experiences with the Satanism scare.  I am Wiccan, and my religion is
frequently confused with Satanism (despite our practitioners'
exasperated explanations, which are then interpreted as "delusions").
As a young adolescent, I was involved with a very conservative Christian
church whose youth group really enjoyed the Christian comedy of Mike
Warnke.  Warnke claimed to have been a Satanic High Priest and to have
led a "coven" of several hundred people.  One young woman in the youth
group also claimed to have been in one of these "covens" and she told
stories, similar to Warnke, of various kinds of abuse including sexual,
drug, and emotional abuse.
 
When I learned about Wicca, and began exploring that community, I
realized that Warnke had an inaccurate view of witchcraft as it really
exists.  Then, I read some startling information:  a team of Christian
investigators disproved Warnke's "testimony" by investigating his
college activities and interviewing his old college mates, who claimed
that he spent *all* his time with them.  Warnke denied this, but then
later confessed that he had "embellished" his activities to enhance his
comedy routine and testimony.
 
I don't dis-believe that young woman's story of Satanic abuse, but I do
question it.  I believe that she had traumatic experiences sometime, and
that she was coping in the best way she could.  I don't know if her
story of (Satanic) abuse was the source or the coping mechanism, but I'm
pretty sure she suffered some kind of abuse.  Disbelieving and
questioning are not the same thing.
 
I still struggle with the False Memory thing, to be honest.  I am trying
to find a way to honor the experiences of people who have been abused,
but to still be critical of the way some of these narratives are formed.
 
 
Tanya
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tanya Keenan, M.A. - Sociology
Graduate Student, Dept. of American Studies
Secretary, School of Social Work
University of South Florida
Phone:  813-974-7710
Fax:  813-974-4675
tkeenan  @  chuma1.cas.usf.edu
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/5666

 
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, sasha wrote:
 
> A friend who works as a counsellor at a large
> university in Ontario has documented not insignificant numbers of women
> students who have wounds on their bodies *in the same places* and who do
> not know each other.  They all describe similar events and they are all
> associated with satanic abuse.
 
What "same places" were they?  A lot of depressed women cut themselves,
for a variety of reasons.  A person's body only has so many places to
cut, and a counselor may see a lot of people.  A histogram of where people
cut themselves may be in order before one can infer statistical anomalies.
 
Remember that good old skeptical criterion, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof."  Before we bring in magic, there are lots of ways to
investigate evidence. I'm not talking about blaming victims either.  These
people clearly need help, but invoking the paranormal as if it were real
doesn't genuinely help anybody.  This is why John Mack, for example, can't
be taken seriously as a therapist since he began expounding his
(unproven) belief in alien abductions.
 
Marc Sacks
msacks  @  world.std.com

 
Why is the issue of sexual abuse so emotional and divisive among feminists?
What astonishes me about discussions of child sexual abuse--of which the
current thread is a typical example--are the women who identify as
feminists who argue that the allegations of abused women must be viewed
"objectively" rather than politically. Reading almost any (non-backlash)
feminist text should make apparent the political relations that construct
"objectivity," "science," and "proof" and their influence on the
articulation of and cultural currency assigned to female subjectivity. Yet
women who identify as feminists passionately argue for reason and balance
in determining the veracity of these particular claims--in ways I don't see
if the allegation concerns rape of an adult or sexual harassment.
 
The issue of sexual abuse is not the same as "false memory syndrome"
although the terms have become conflated in debates. "False memory
syndrome" is a political phrase that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation
literature admits was "introduced by the Foundation," not by the scientific
community. The male co-founder of the FMSF, Peter Freyd, explained to a
very friendly Frontline interviewer that the organization was formed
because "You can't sit and wait and have the word get around that you are a
pedophile and expect to continue to hold a job...you're defenseless in a
case like that unless you do someting crazy, like start a foundation and
try to get the word out that a lot of people are making this accusation
without--without being able to back it up" [Journal Graphic Transcript,
#1313, Divided Memories (11 April 1995)].
 
The literature of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, as well as that of
its board members such as Richard Ofshe and Frederick Crews, is saturated
with overtly anti-feminist statements that include the argument that
accusers and their therapists should be discredited because they have been
influenced by feminism. They repeatedly equate feminism with female
irrationality.
 
Feminists have never suggested that critical analysis or multiple points of
view be abandoned. It would seem to me more fruitful for feminists to
become more engaged with the political issues raised by women's allegations
of childhood abuse than to continue to take pot shots at those therapists
who by and large have been the only ones to do so.
 
Lynn Sacco
_________________
Lynn Sacco
sacco  @  scf.usc.edu
213 340-8298

              <roboler  @  ACAD.URSINUS.EDU>

 
I agree with Kim that science is flawed, contains biases, and doesn't
ensure complete understanding.  I was already making such a critique
over 25 years ago!  That doesn't mean that everything has the same ontological
status as everything else.  A favorite metaphor -- I got it from Clifford
Geertz in "Thick Description" but he was quoting someone else:  "To say that
because there is no complete objectivity, any interpretation is as good as any
other interpretation, is like saying that because a completely aseptic
environment is impossible, surgeons might as well operate in sewers."
 
The critique of science does not negate the reasonable responsibility of
a person making a claim to provide the evidence upon which an independent
observer might validate or refute the claim.
 
  -- Gina O.

 
Marc, please don't e-mail me off list with your nonsense about the
"paranormal" and "aliens".  Thanks.
 
In answer to your question, some where they couldn't have reached - they
weren't all cuts - some were burns and some had the same broken bones, in
the same location, which were confirmed by a physician.
 
I've written all I have to say on this subject.
 
Sasha

In keeping with Joan's guidelines for the list (which I know many of us
appreciate), I wonder if some one would like to disentangle and reconstruct
this discussion.  It seems to me that there has been a rapid development of
statements that don't really help one see, for instance, how one might
approach this issue in the classroom or in scholarship.  It would be
reductive to say that some messages seem to be suggesting that the ONLY
"real feminist" response [and parenthetically, it seems to me that we never
get very far trying to define "real feminism" rather than accepting a range
of feminisms]  is to accept without questioning or critique any statement
made by any adult about childhood sexual abuse.   That's not the way I
approach any other issue in my classroom, and it does mean that the
complexity of the political/social/cultural nexus may not be fully explored.
JoAnn Castagna
joann-castagna  @  uiowa.edu

At 01:39 PM 6/17/98 -0500, JoAnn Castagna wrote:
>statements that don't really help one see, for instance, how one might
>approach this issue in the classroom or in scholarship.

Nancy Potter wrote a thoughtful piece on this point:

Nancy Potter, "The Severed Head and Existential Dread: The Classroom as
Epistemic Community and Student Survivors of Incest."  Hypatia 10, no. 2
(Spring 1995): 69.

Lynn
_________________
Lynn Sacco
sacco  @  scf.usc.edu
213 340-8298

 
There is a very interesting web site which examines critically the
research on memory and child abuse including research by Loftus.  You
might want to look at it.  The URL is:
http://www.jimhopper.com/memory
--
Diane Goldsmith, Ph.D.
Director Transition and Women s Programs
Manchester Community Technical College
PO Box 1046
Manchester, CT 06045-1046
860 647-6056 (phone)
860 647-6238 (fax)
MA_goldsmith  @  commnet.edu
http://www.mctc.commnet.edu/staff/goldsmith/home.html

 
I recommend everyone read Janice Haaken's new book (out in July) which
offers a way to think about the issue of childhook sexual abuse, recovered
memory, and fantasy that takes us out of the polarized debate between FMS
foundation attacks on feminist defenders of victims of sex abuse
 and feminists who believe we can't afford to ever acknowledge
that women's memories are ambiguous and may not be literally true.
  It is
called Pillar of Salt: Gender, Memory and the Perils of Looking Back,
from Rutgers University Press.

 
The conversation on the list about the issues of childhood sexual abuse and
ritual sexual abuse of women raised questions for me about what happens in
women's studies classes about these topics.
In the face of competing understandings of what happened, of how we remember
what happened to us, of how we create narratives of what happened to us, etc.,
what do we teach and how do we facilitate conversations about sexual abuse.
If we all agree that some children are sexually abused, how does that affect
our classes.
I have taught women's studies in high school and did so in the awareness that
some of the young women in my classes had been victims of incest and other
forms of childhood rape.  That knowledge affected my pedagogy--what readings
and films I chose;  what support I gave to news accounts of such incidents;
and how I suggested critical appraisals of what survivors might say.  I was
also aware that my students were bombarded with news reports that reinforced
the idea that women and children "lie" about these events--often victimized by
unethical psychologists.  An awareness that most women don't "lie" about their
experiences also affected my conversations with students.  So I am curious and
somewhat anxious to return the list members' conversation to some discussion
about their approaches to these topics in classroom settings.
Thanks,
Mary Rose McCarthy
mrm  @  acsu.buffalo.edu