Random Thoughts Anew

[mamselle]

A. It gives the institution standing in any suits brought against them, or any insurance inquiries. They can shown to have pointed out the rules and expected behaviors and so have deniability of guilt.

B. It surfaces issues, if only briefly, that are otherwise never discussed and become harder to address because the administrator has no starting oint for discussion, i.e., creates a values base. As a Faith Ed. director, I once had cause to be glad of this.

C. Those of us who have dealt with abuse in our own lives find it at least a tiny bit of affirmation against what can be horrible moments of self-doubt: "Yes, this os wrong and people who engage in such actions are behaving against the law " Because gsslighting happens.

The churches and schools in my state can't get insurance without those films. That became necessary in the late 1970s/early 80s, when domestic abuse, pedophilia, and crimes against minors and aliens began to be addressed.

A church in our diocese was sued, and the requirements unrolled from there.

M.

[downer]

That all makes sense Mamselle and makes an argument for the instrumental usefulness of the trainings. But I'd prefer it if colleges could find a way of doing the same that wasn't based on such a questionable premise. There is a worry that if a college promotes trainings that are apparently only instrumentally useful, and don't have any real training value, then they may foster disrespect for the message they are trying to promote.

[mamselle]

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

Approaching a topic and offering solutions for problems must have some effect in life, in general, or we wouldn't be teachers, would we?

The degree to which it makes a behavioral change or effects an awakened understanding of a maladaptive process is the stuff of ed. psych. research, which is not my field.

It's at least one of many options for getting people towards the treatment they need and getting their victims towards an avenue for redress, and that appears to be a standard for many pathologies, so going on the offensive, or trying to put those who find it useful on the defensive isn't really the point.

It's required, so you do it, because it might help others, even if you're perfect, don't need it, and would never be an abuser.

Consider paying attention to such films a type of community service. If nothing else, it might give you the language needed to deal with a distraught student who's just been raped by a professor (a conversation I just had with someone an hour ago, in fact).

M.

[mahagonny]

Aren't all eggs 'poached?'

[apl68]

Aren't all eggs 'poached?'

From the hen's point of view, I suppose so.

[aside]

Is there the slightest evidence that making people take training courses to educate them not to abuse students or staff has any effect on people's behavior?

Ah, but that's not what's it's all about.  It's about covering one's institutional hind end.

[downer]

Is there the slightest evidence that making people take training courses to educate them not to abuse students or staff has any effect on people's behavior?

Ah, but that's not what's it's all about.  It's about covering one's institutional hind end.

Actually I think it is a state requirement. So it is about politicians enacting policies that waste people's time so they can say they did something. Fortunately I spent very little time on it, since the tests we are required to do to pass the requirement don't require any real thought or understanding.

[mamselle]

My underlying concern is that such issues need to be in the conversational stream in whatever means possible.

Since many try to trivialize them, the requirements at least make it possible to keep them from dissolving into invisibility.

Being dismissive of the requirements, or proclaiming that they're not effective or unnecessary (translated, "beneath your notice") is just another veiled way of saying, "This narrative really doesn't matter."

To which stance, I'll again place in rebuttal the sobbing student I spoke with yesterday who was raped by a prof one year ago at Thanksgiving time, and is now dealing with nightmares and flashbacks.

It didn't help that the school counselor she was sent to mocked her concerns about the suicidal side effects she was getting from the too-high Prozac dosage he'd put her on. After that experience, she became wary of counselors of all kinds...she's really had to work to find someone to trust.

She was finally able to see her way clear to a self-monitored taper on the Prozac when the pharmacist filling the order took one look at her and said, "I have no standing to be telling you this, but if this elevated dose is doing to you what it looks like it's doing, I would taper it and get off of it now. But I didn't tell you that, right?"

She did, and she's better. But still in a lot of pain.

So, these are not trivial issues.

M.

[marshwiggle]

My underlying concern is that such issues need to be in the conversational stream in whatever means possible.

Since many try to trivialize them, the requirements at least make it possible to keep them from dissolving into invisibility.

Being dismissive of the requirements, or proclaiming that they're not effective or unnecessary (translated, "beneath your notice") is just another veiled way of saying, "This narrative really doesn't matter."

It's not trivializing an issue to point out that someone is mostly preaching to the choir. The vast majority of people will agree that abuse is wrong, and will not engage in it or condone it. Talking to them as though they are under suspicion does not buld their trust or engage their support.

To which stance, I'll again place in rebuttal the sobbing student I spoke with yesterday who was raped by a prof one year ago at Thanksgiving time, and is now dealing with nightmares and flashbacks.

How many people do you really think won't be upset by this?

It didn't help that the school counselor she was sent to mocked her concerns about the suicidal side effects she was getting from the too-high Prozac dosage he'd put her on. After that experience, she became wary of counselors of all kinds...she's really had to work to find someone to trust.

She was finally able to see her way clear to a self-monitored taper on the Prozac when the pharmacist filling the order took one look at her and said, "I have no standing to be telling you this, but if this elevated dose is doing to you what it looks like it's doing, I would taper it and get off of it now. But I didn't tell you that, right?"

She did, and she's better. But still in a lot of pain.

So, these are not trivial issues.

M.

The infuriating thing about the woke busybodies is that they think they invented basic human decency. What people have been taught for decades, at least, as normal civil behaviour is presented by the wokerati as some sort of revelation.

(How many peoples' parents taught them not to make fun of people, and not to treat people differently because of things like their appearance?  Yes, just because that is the ideal doesn't mean people have always or will ever completely live up to it, but that doesn't change the fact that the standard is well understood.)

[mahagonny]

To which stance, I'll again place in rebuttal the sobbing student I spoke with yesterday who was raped by a prof one year ago at Thanksgiving time, and is now dealing with nightmares and flashbacks.

That's most likely a problem with the tenure system. There was a guy in my school who went drinking with a student; they got naked and passed out. She reported it and he was gone within a week or two, desk empty, setting foot on campus is now a criminal trespass. Easy as pie. Because...no tenure track. But we still have to take training in how not to act like like fool. As if most of us want to.

[FishProf]

Aren't all eggs 'poached?'

No.  They aren't alive. (Not in the ag sphere, anyway).

They are pilfered, however.

[mahagonny]

Aren't all eggs 'poached?'

No.  They aren't alive. (Not in the ag sphere, anyway).

They are pilfered, however.

Thank you.

If I said 'thank you' to a forumite for redirecting the 'random thoughts' thread back to its intended purpose, would that qualify  as a random thought?

[little bongo]

My underlying concern is that such issues need to be in the conversational stream in whatever means possible.

Since many try to trivialize them, the requirements at least make it possible to keep them from dissolving into invisibility.

Being dismissive of the requirements, or proclaiming that they're not effective or unnecessary (translated, "beneath your notice") is just another veiled way of saying, "This narrative really doesn't matter."

It's not trivializing an issue to point out that someone is mostly preaching to the choir. The vast majority of people will agree that abuse is wrong, and will not engage in it or condone it. Talking to them as though they are under suspicion does not buld their trust or engage their support.

To which stance, I'll again place in rebuttal the sobbing student I spoke with yesterday who was raped by a prof one year ago at Thanksgiving time, and is now dealing with nightmares and flashbacks.

How many people do you really think won't be upset by this?

It didn't help that the school counselor she was sent to mocked her concerns about the suicidal side effects she was getting from the too-high Prozac dosage he'd put her on. After that experience, she became wary of counselors of all kinds...she's really had to work to find someone to trust.

She was finally able to see her way clear to a self-monitored taper on the Prozac when the pharmacist filling the order took one look at her and said, "I have no standing to be telling you this, but if this elevated dose is doing to you what it looks like it's doing, I would taper it and get off of it now. But I didn't tell you that, right?"

She did, and she's better. But still in a lot of pain.

So, these are not trivial issues.

M.

The infuriating thing about the woke busybodies is that they think they invented basic human decency. What people have been taught for decades, at least, as normal civil behaviour is presented by the wokerati as some sort of revelation.

(How many peoples' parents taught them not to make fun of people, and not to treat people differently because of things like their appearance?  Yes, just because that is the ideal doesn't mean people have always or will ever completely live up to it, but that doesn't change the fact that the standard is well understood.)

No. It's not understood. Bullies, thugs, trolls, and rudesbies might understand the concept in the abstract--they don't understand, or don't care to try to understand, about putting the concept into practice. That might be unsolvable. But sometimes, maybe one or two times in a hundred, if you can show Joe or Jane Bully, Thug, Troll, or Rudesby that they've actually hurt a real human being--occasionally that sticks.

I'll always side with the ones who try to be decent, and who try to help others be decent, no matter how infuriating they might be. I've dealt with well-meaning "wokesters" and taken some training here and there. And I've dealt with the bullies, thugs, trolls, and rudesbies. Three guess which group I find preferable, and the first two guesses don't count.

[marshwiggle]

Bullies, thugs, trolls, and rudesbies might understand the concept in the abstract--they don't understand, or don't care to try to understand, about putting the concept into practice. That might be unsolvable. But sometimes, maybe one or two times in a hundred, if you can show Joe or Jane Bully, Thug, Troll, or Rudesby that they've actually hurt a real human being--occasionally that sticks.

So subjecting everyone to the infantilizing, scolding, and finger-wagging for the sake of the one or two times in a hundred that it might stick with the right person is a good use of resources?

[mamselle]

Yep.

M.