 |
No one is suggesting that false mermoy accusations don't often turn out to be denials of real abuse. (Why is everyone assuming that? All I have to do is mention the phrase false mermoy and people stop listening.) No one is suggesting that recovered memories don't often turn out to be legitimate. Yes, it makes good solid sense that someone who abused a child, when confronted with accusations of that abuse many years later, after solid evidence is likely long gone, will deny it. No one is suggesting that that exact thing doesn't happen regularly. Furthermore, no one is suggesting the false mermoy syndrome is actually, you know, a real syndrome. Well, no one but the FMSF I guess. All I'm suggesting is that recovered memories DO sometimes turn out to be false (actually, that's not a suggestion, that's a fact) and that approaching traumatic, dissociative mermoy with the attitude that if-you-suspect-it-happened-it-probably-did as Ellen Bass and Laura Davis recommend is reckless, uninformed, and a really good way to create false memories of abuse. There’s a tendency in America to try and believe both sides have something of value to listen to and deserve an “equal hearingâ€.No, there isn't. Our criminal justice system makes a pretense of it, but that's about it. And when it comes to hot topics like recovered memories, most people simply decide what they believe and then go about seeking evidence that proves them right.But at some point in some issues it becomes clear that one side is not being truthful or straightforward.Neither side of this issue is being truthful or straightforward. Both are relying on slanted, incomplete research and ad hominem arguments to force their point. The false mermoy camp offers some valid research, but research that only addresses portions of the issue. And they routinely dismiss dissenters as liars, attention-seekers, and/or unfortunate victims of therapeutic manipulation. The recovered mermoy camp offers some valid research, but research that only addresses portions of the issue. And they routinely dismiss dissenters as abusers and abuse enablers. Which is precisely what you did, by the way. You offered incomplete research:The number of those falsely accused of child abuse and rape is not zero – but it is very, very low.and the stereotypical ad hominem argument:The problem is though, that abusers ARE known to flock to the FMS side . The focus of my work is humanizing and demystifying Dissociative Identity Disorder. That's all I'm trying to do help clear up the misconceptions and dismantle the mythology that gets in the way of diagnosis, treatment, and support. And right now, as CG mentioned, there's a link between the recovered memories debate and the diagnosis of DID that shouldn't exist at all. But that link does exist. And both sides of the recovered memories debate are contributing to the misconceptions and myths about DID. I've made it my business, therefore, to address those misconceptions and myths that each side is perpetuating as directly and honestly as I know how. One such misconception is that mermoy is a thoroughly reliable recording of everything we've ever experienced precisely as it happened. The Courage to Heal has done a helluva lot to spread and solidify that misconception. So I wrote about that not whether recovered memories are real, not whether false memories are the fictitious cries of abuse deniers, and not whether the false mermoy syndrome is a genuine syndrome. Simply and only that mermoy is malleable and we should therefore approach it with more caution than Bass and Davis suggest. Is that really so controversial? http://pitxnedq.com [url=http://kikvfpnunwe.com]kikvfpnunwe[/url] [link=http://vxltus.com]vxltus[/link]
Rating:  [2 of 5 Stars!] |
|
|
