|
|
 |
|
Getting Support : Speaking Out
Dateline NBC – Losing Faith | from Jules - Saturday, July 17, 2004
accessed 3090 times Thanks to everyone for your comments on this show. I thought I would put my own comments on it in a separate article to make it easier to find. To start with, I think overall the portion on the Family was fairly accurate and well done. I was very happy that it focused solely on the second generation. I have done interviews before with first generation former members, and I won’t participate in those again. The issues are different, IMO, and our stories are the ones that have not been told.
It can be quite difficult to do something like this, because you do not have any control over the questions asked, what they use and what they do not. Thankfully some of the more graphic details were edited out and I appreciate that they kept the sensationalism to a minimum.
The main question I asked myself before agreeing to do this was “what would be the point?”. To make myself vulnerable and take these risks for the entertainment of strangers, is not, to me, worth it. I think the points that were made: that abuse was definitely widespread in many NRMs among our generation, that children in groups like these are especially vulnerable to abuse, that the effects of that abuse are long term and can be devastating, that people alone without support are especially vulnerable when they leave, that the patterns of abuse and exploitation are similar in many NRMs, etc. do make what I may be facing on Monday worth it for me. (Just for the record as well, journalists in North America do not pay people for stories.)
While I don’t agree with James Chancellor’s conclusions about The Family now, I think I might have when they interviewed me for this three years ago. At that time, the Charter was still in effect and I didn’t know very much at all about the group’s current workings. I do agree that SG parents still in the group are much more likely to protect their children than the FGs did, but honestly it would be hard to be worse parents than the FGs in some cases. The fact remains that perpetrators are still members and leaders of the group, they have not been turned over to the authorities and many are still allowed access to children. IMO, there are still not sufficient safeguards in place to protect children’s rights and abuse of children is still addressed in practice with a slap on the wrist. While they didn’t specifically say this, there was enough information that I think viewers can work this out for themselves.
There were some inaccuracies in the details they reported, (the “boot camp” in the Philippines was in Manila, not in the jungle, I was there for one year, not years, I officially left the group when I was 20, not 19, most of my siblings are not half-siblings, etc.). While these are minor errors, I know that people who are skeptical or still in the group will latch on to these details and I wish they had been a little more careful with their reporting. On the other hand I understand they needed to simplify the story.
In answer to your question, Haunted: “ many others (both on this site and off) took very different routes [than the sex trade], and I wondered if the Family might use this as a way to discredit your story - I wondered (out of curiosity) if this concerned you at all when you were recording it or has occurred to you since” all I could do was tell my own story. I was not speaking for anyone else but myself and I hope that was clear. From experience, the Family will use anything to try to discredit someone that speaks out, and if I didn’t disclose what I did when I left, I am quite sure they would do it for me. The media always oversimplifies and there’s not much that can be done about that. The fact remains as well that as difficult as it is to talk about the sex trade, if I had not had such a difficult time when I left I would never have gotten back into all this again through this web site and now SPF. I doubt very much I would be willing to talk about the Family at all if the abuse, neglect and lack of preparation for the outside world had not almost destroyed me. It is a part of my own story and therefore a part of what makes me who I am now, though I wish they had not played it up quite so much.
I was also disappointed that they didn’t mention this web site, which has been an important part of my life for the past few years. There are also hundreds of other people on this web site who have told their own stories, which I was hoping that they would give the viewers access to read for themselves.
I also wanted to say thank you to all of you who have been so supportive. After previous interviews, I felt so alone, which was almost the hardest thing, and it means a great deal to me now to have your support. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Jules
Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 18:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just wanted to pass this information along.
I heard from the producer after the show aired. He said: "just so you know, the hour we did with you was the highest rated hour on all of television last Friday night. Dateline does very well in summer, because most competing programs are repeats. And this did especially well."
I thought that was cool.
Also, since a number of people have asked me where they can obtain copies of this, I asked him. Unfortunately NBC cannot sell copies of this since they are not licensed to resell the music they used. However he is sending me some extra copies, which I can send to the first people who request them from me.
If you would like to send your feedback on the show to the producer, his email address is Joe.Ferullo@nbcuni.com
If you would like to send your opinions and thoughts to Jim Chancellor (the academic they interviewed on the Family), his email address is jchancellor@sbts.edu
Here is more information on Jim Chancellor and a couple of interviews he recently did regarding the Family with Cornerstone Magazine.
http://www.sbts.edu/schools-current/missions/faculty/ChancellorJames.php
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?641
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?633
(reply to this comment)
|  From frmrjoyish
Friday, July 23, 2004, 11:02
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I just read the experpt from this man's book. I am so upset I don't even know where to begin. He seems almost awestruck by this perverse cult. I don't understand how this man can hear abuse stories from the mouths of the victims yet still attempt to spin a postive image for the abusers. He claims objectivity yet he states:
"But in hopes of maintaining the focus on the disciples, and in deference to their deep love and dedication to Father David, I choose to minimize, rather than maximize, those aspects of his character and conduct that virtually any outsider might well see as profoundly disturbing, if not evil."
Does he not see that those same "disturbing" aspects to the character of the person, who every adult member of the group dedicated their lives to, had such a deep and profoundly negative impact on the lives of its most innocent members?? The very foundation of this entity is based on such deep and perverted aspects of this man's character.
I've never experienced anything quite like what I just read. It's deeply disturbing to me that a cult that abused me for the first half of my life is being spun into a nothing more than a misunderstood NRM. For the first time on this site I am truly at a loss for words!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From lucidchick
Friday, July 23, 2004, 08:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I got a transcriot from Burrelle's Transcripts for USD 15 total.
http://www.burrellesluce.com/transcripts/tranburr.htm
Their site says to call "1-800-777-8398 from within the United States or Canada or 1-801-374-1022 from outside these countries.
If you prefer to order by mail, please send your order, including the program name, air date, subject matter and payment (in US funds) to Burrelle's Transcripts, Department I, P.O. Box 7, Livingston, NJ 07039-0007. If you prefer e-mail, you may send your request to us at transcripts@burrelles.com."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Christy
Friday, July 23, 2004, 10:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can't speak for Jules, but having spent a couple of hours with Jim C. in a group setting, I can say that he is someone that really puts people at ease. I'm not surprised at all that F. members opened up to him and told him all their deep, dark secrets. He would use F. terminology correctly and it was easy to forget that he wasn't a member. This was at a point when leadership had already seen the transcript of his book and they knew it was pretty revealing. Still, I found that people felt so at ease that they were not at all guarded with what they said in his presence.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from itsxena2u
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 19:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is the first time I've ever watched a program on T.V. about TF being OUT of TF. I've watched the 20/20 show and the Larry King live when I was in. I remember being told we needed to pray really hard to rebuke any doubts or negative influences this programing might have on us. I'm sure TF is coming out with some GN about this recently aired program.
Like many of us, I was told (when living in TF) that our "enemies" make up so many lies and false accusations, blah blah.. But I when I watched the show there was not a single thing I couldn't relate to. There was nothing said that was exagererated or made up. In fact,I was a bit dissapointed that they left out so many other details about life in TF. I think Jules did a very good job in explaining her story. I just wish they would have explained in more detail all the negative things that did go on in TF.
What I thought was pretty interesting was how the Hari Krishas are prosecuting their own members for the crimes they committed. Some of their ex-members are even suing the organization. Their leadership say they never knew what was going on. In TF's case, not only did leadership know what was going on but they were the ones that promoted it, preached it, and encouraged it! And then they turn around and say TF shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of certain individuals. This isn't something that happeened in some secluded area in a certain part of the world. This abuse was going on in hundreds of homes across the globe for years. This is not just a single incident. Where were hundreds of adults getting these sick perverted ideas? From the letters, where else?
(reply to this comment)
| From anyony
Saturday, September 25, 2004, 09:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
At least the Hari krishnas sue their members. TF now asks you to quietly leave the CM status if you feel like to you need to take legal action against another member or such. God forbid our trivial personal problems throw a wrench in the machine cogs of god's work.
I did hear the SG hari krishnas in Dallas won their case against the group. (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Friday, July 23, 2004, 09:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
"In TF's case, not only did leadership know what was going on but they were the ones that promoted it, preached it, and encouraged it!"
Let's say for the sake of argument that the Family is telling the truth--that they were unaware this abuse was going on.
Obviously, they are aware of it now else they wouldn't be defending themselves.
So now that they know about it, what form of action are they taking to turn over the abusers to the authorities? None.
What are they doing to reprimand or excommunicate anyone who has committed such an act of abuse in the past? Nothing.
What protocol have they established to ensure that any member accused of such a crime is properly investigated by a thrid party? None.
What are they doing to ensure that all of their members who are abusive go through rehabilitation? Nothing.
The question begs to be answered: WHY?
The only answers I can come up with are 1) They do not believe that the abuses that occurred where criminal acts or 2) They know that they themselves have committed the same crime and cannot prevent the spot-light from eventually turning on them.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Friday, July 23, 2004, 09:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree, I don't know if there will ever be answers to these questions that will ever make sense. In the links posted above by Jules on a couple of interviews with the Jim Chancellor guy, he ATTEMPTS to make some sort of excuse/reason for this, but it's just pathetic:
"There has been ongoing criticism of the Family for not cooperating in bringing the perpetrators of this sexual abuse to justice. They have not, for several reasons. They believe that they made an honest mistake, and that God has forgiven them. Beyond that, the Family remains a distinctly countercultural, antiestablishment religious community. The believe fully that all those in the “System” particularly the media and government structures, are under the direct control of Satan and will use any and all opportunities or pretexts to destroy “God’s Endtime Army.” They are not quite ready to surrender God’s disciples to Satan’s agents, for any reason."
After I read that, I felt like yelling Timon's reaction from "The Lion King": "And everyone's ALRIGHT with this?! DID I MISS SOMTHING?!!"
I don't see how anyone, especially a supposedly Christian educated man, could accept reasons such as these and see them as justified, reasonable or acceptable in anyway. Just the last statement of how TF doesn't want to "surrender God’s disciples to Satan’s agents, for any reason" should tell you that this guy is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I mean, WTF? Law enforcment are Satan's agents?
If memory serves me right, this is the same dude who said he wished he's met TF back in the FFing days.... Okaaaay...yeah. (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Friday, July 23, 2004, 14:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Unless the Family has changed their views on the media and government drastically within the last couple of years, Jim is right on the money. Still, what kind of pathetic excuse is that?
Since when has abusing a child become an honest mistake? When you are making an honest mistake, you do so without stopping even once to reflect on what you are doing. Is that what happened? Did the thought not even once cross these people's mind that they may be doing something wrong? Did these people have no consciences? If I so much as even toyed with the idea of sexual contact with a child, every nerve in my body would scream in rebellion.
Furthermore, who are they (the leaders of the Family) to decide if a person who had sexual contact with a minor did so as an honest mistake or not? Let the courts decide that.
I know of, and have heard of, many people that have landed in jail, been heavily fined and/or have had to do community service because of 'honest mistakes'. Why? Because it sets a precedent. If those people weren't brought before justice, then every criminal would try to get off the hook by claiming that it was an honest mistake.
It looks to me more like the Family is trying to avoid setting a precedent of taking action against abuse, alleged or not.
What makes the Family's stance on these issues even more infuriating is that they apparently believe they have the right to excuse the perpetrator yet they are not willing to listen to, much less accept, the victim's claims?
Another thing: If they are Christian's, don't they believe that "the powers that be [i.e. the government] are ordained of God"? I must have missed the part where God traded team players with Satan.(reply to this comment) |
| | From lucidchick
Friday, July 23, 2004, 16:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
"What makes the Family's stance on these issues even more infuriating is that they apparently believe they have the right to excuse the perpetrator yet they are not willing to listen to, much less accept, the victim's claims?"
That infuriates me too. Something else that infuriates me is that they pick and choose admissions, with certain people being portrayed positively or even as martyrs when those people have done the same things that others have admitted to, things that even humanity-challenged James calls "terrible." But for the sake of propaganda (I guess) they chose to gloss over that. I am talking about people whose victim in a court case was found credible and quoted by the Judge. Ergo, Peter and Maria know what the perps have done, but nevertheless reward them with plum positions. To me, that reveals their true attitude about the abuse: that it was OK for them to do, and their true attitude toward the abused: we don't count.
James Chancellor brings my opinion of Christians to a new low, which is quite a feat.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Christy
Friday, July 23, 2004, 10:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Definitely not the guy who said he wished he'd met the F. during the FFing days. Chancellor was always know in F. circles (as well as outside) to be extremely religious and critical of TF's sexaul doctrines. I was in the media home for a year and I can say without a doubt that he never pretended to condone any of TF's controvercial doctrines. I forget exactly who it was that made that remark but I think it was David Bromley. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Christy
Friday, July 23, 2004, 10:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Definitely not the guy who said he wished he'd met the F. during the FFing days. Chancellor was always know in F. circles (as well as outside) to be extremely religious and critical of TF's sexaul doctrines. I was in the media home for a year and I can say without a doubt that he never pretended to condone any of TF's controvercial doctrines. I forget exactly who it was that made that remark but I think it was Bill Bromley.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from banal_commentator
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 13:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do you think NBC will show it again. I missed it.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from anovagrrl
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 13:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I bumped into "Losing Faith" on Nightline completely by accident lon Friday night, but was so pleased to finally see what an embodied, living & breathing Jules looks and sounds like--yes, Canadian accent and all. My impressions of Jules to date are based solely on written self-expression, which has given me the sense of someone with a very powerful mind.
From the body language I saw on camera, I felt like this interview had to have taken place several years ago. What was I picking up in Jules' body language, you ask--? Mainly her style of eye contact and the way she held her head slightly down at times when talking about her experiences. The soft-spoken person with downcast eyes and bowed head is not altogether the same Jules who now roars with righteous anger at the child-endangering policies of Family leadership.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I still have to say it: You've come a long way in three years. Be proud of what you've accomplished in bringing people together at this website and the light you've shone in the darkness of what it meant to grow up in The Family during the era that preceded the Charter. Your concerns about the risk of abuse for children currently growing up in TF are well-founded, imo. It may not be as blatant as it once was, but I see no evidence that Family children are at any less risk of abuse than those who grow up in the wider society. Considering the statistics (one in four girls, one in six boys), it was well worth your time & trouble to promote a child advocacy agenda in the media.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 18:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anovagrrl, thanks for your comments. There are a couple of things I wanted to reply to.
I don’t know if anyone is fully aware of how their own body language is perceived and translated by others. I may be completely wrong, but I don’t think I have changed that much in this regards over the past few years. Although I am definitely woman, I’m not really a “roaring” type of person. I believe that what we say is important, but you don't have to shout to make your point. Perhaps one of the things that first drew me to the Internet was the fact that no one can cut you off or speak over you. If you have something to say, you can say it in it’s entirety and you are not going to be dismissed out of hand because you are not being loud or aggressive in your demeanor or perhaps just because you are female. When you can write something and then post it, people actually hear what you say, or at least read what you write.
Why would having a nonaggressive demeanor discount a “powerful mind”? I have only been a feminist for a few years and I understand I am still learning about all of this, but to me that seems a little prejudicial. What you said about your observations gave me a lot of food for thought and there are a lot of probable reasons for why I am who I am and why I react that way, but I really do not want to get into them here and now. Frankly just for once on this web site it would be nice not to be psychoanalyzed and to not have to get into the soul-baring core of who I am and why I do what I do.
The other thing you said is: “ I see no evidence that Family children are at any less risk of abuse than those who grow up in the wider society. Considering the statistics (one in four girls, one in six boys), it was well worth your time & trouble to promote a child advocacy agenda in the media.” Can I ask where those statistics come from? What is specified as abuse? Is it a father walking in on his daughter by accident in the shower is the daughter is ashamed and feels violated by the incident? How are these numbers generated? If one child is abused 50 times, and 99 are abused not at all, are the numbers divided so the statistic reads one out of two children are abused? I have tried to research these numbers myself and didn’t find anything concrete, but I am no expert in this field and I know you have access to studies and information I do not.
Taking what you said, what it sounds like to me is that if sexual abuse is really this widespread in society, then why are we picking on the poor Family? We would have had similar odds growing up in “normal” society. My own experience is certainly just that, my own experience, but I just don’t believe that is the case. I have a few friends and acquaintances that experienced sexual abuse (who grew up “normally”), and I can understand and sympathise, but the prevelance is nothing close to what it was in the Family. I am not promoting child advocacy in general in the media, although I certainly believe in the rights of every child to health, safety and protection. I am passionate about the rights of children in NRMs, because I believe we are at a much greater risk for exploitation, abuse and neglect than most children are. Even the Hare Krishna spokesperson on the show said something to this effect.
You have said this a number of times on here and I would very much like to hear some qualification and more detail on this statistic. (reply to this comment) |
| | from exister
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
So I was on my way out the door to work out last Friday, when all of a sudden there was Jules herself on the tube. So I figured my musculature would have to wait so that I could be on the same page as everyone else.
First, Jules is distinctly Canadian and the camera loves her!
But seriously, I thought the report was very fair and possibly even too generous to the Family. It was actually their loss that they declined to be interviewed. It only makes them look like the guilty recluses that they are.
The portion of the report that I found singularly outrageous was when the "fair" academic happily reported that the Family has banned adult sex with minors. I thought to myself, "Wow, isn't that upstanding of them? What a bunch of great folks. They actually went above and beyond the base urges of incest and pedophilia and took measures to improve their public image."
WHAT THE HOLY FLYING FUCK?!?!?!?
Am I the only one that sees that a group that has to take explicit measures to keep their peers and followers from abusing children is inherently evil to begin with?
Like Jules said any intelligent person should be able to draw these conclusions, but the surrealness of the academic's smiling update drew my ire.
Great job Jules, and if I ever meet you in person dinner and drinks are on me.
(reply to this comment)
| from Nick
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anyone know if there is anything on the internet about this program? I searched MSNBC site and was unable to find anything.
(reply to this comment)
| from katrim4
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 09:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Way to go Jules! I think you did a wonderful job in that Dateline interview. I had a friend over to watch it with me who was not born in TF and she thought it was pretty comprehensive. While it was a little bit on the sensational side (is there a newsprgram on primetime that isn't?), I liked that there were only minor errors and no big misrepresentations. I wonder what Dateline would do if they got bombarded with e-mails from SG's letting them know that this is much bigger than most people realise? It would be nice to see a follow up story now that it's been a few years. One that mentions SPF maybe?
(reply to this comment)
| from Wolf
Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 20:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Way to go Jules! I sincerely hope you don’t suffer for it. TF’s not worth an ounce of further suffering.
(reply to this comment)
| from GoldenMic
Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 18:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Jules, I can only agree with the other comments here, the feature was well done, and your presentation was powerful and poignant. Its amazing that such a low-key version of events is still so shocking to non-cultites, but the lack of sensationalism made the entire presentation more believable and less likely to be dismissed. I was particularly struck by the so-called "scholar" who, like all apologists, tried to define this as a "growing pain" and a "stage" within a New Religion's development. The feature tended to imply that the three groups (TF, Moonies, and the Hare Krishna's) were part of a single era that saw the emergence of cults arising from the "free love" 60's, and suggested that 1) these cults have mellowed, and 2) that the age of new counter-culture cults has come and gone. They appear to truly not know that, with the possible exception of the Hare Krishna's, these and almost all of the cults of the 60's continue to be exploitive, oppressive, and abusive... Further, they continue to emerge all the time! Oh well, its amazing that they were able to so accurately portray the things they did cover. Anyway, your presentation came across as authentic and non-hysterical, and gave all of us Children of Cults a voice. Thanks, Michael M.
(reply to this comment)
| from lucidchick
Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 16:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Julia,
Thank you for having the bravery to tell your story. As others have said, you did a great job. I truly admire your strength and courage.
A friend from law school called me today and I asked if she'd happened to watch Dateline last night because it was about the group I grew up in. At first she said no, then she said "well I saw something about a group, but I didn't watch long since it was upsetting because it was so awful...there was this girl, Julia...don't tell me that was where you grew up??? [exclamation of surprise in French]!" She really felt for you. And I think for me too. What we went through should not happen to any child.
I have to say that my friend's reaction was comforting to me in a strange way. Until now, the only third persons who knew what happened to us were First Generation people ("FGs"). Outsiders would never imagine what it was like (except some academics The Family has dug up who seem to get turned on by it). I must say that often things that First Generation people have said/done reflects that they got used to what happened to us and inured to it. Maybe because many of them are the ones who did it to us or facilitated it. It makes me feel more human when I see a reaction of appropriate outrage at what I endured.
I pointed out to her that there were even some things that went unsaid: Victor Camps were not just extra labor but also silence restriction, food & sleep deprivation, isolation, sensory bombardment. I also said that what Chancellor said -- "as young as 12" -- well, they didn't always wait that long to abuse us sexually. My friend said that that was obvious, because of what happened to you at 11. So I think you're right Jules, thoughtful people will sort things out.
On the subject of the inaccuracies, The Family probably will try to latch on to it, they have done that to me. Journalists get your story but then they don't show you a draft to edit. Since it is not their story, they report based on the impression they take away and sometimes that is not exactly what you said, or what you know because you are the one who lived it. While they are putting together the show, they don't have your memories to consult.
What is more, in a case like the story of childhood in The Family, so alien to the experiences of most people, things are literally lost in translation. I have also found that our actual trajectories tend to be so complex that it takes forever, even when giving somebody just the facts, to explain how we got from point a to point b, and journalists have limited time in which to relay our stories. What the Family really wishes is that the central, damning facts of our stories were false. Since that is, unfortunately for us, not the case and they know it, they try to latch on to what they think they can.
One of the people at work who I told about the show, one of my bosses actually (a very high-powered man of the world), pointed out that 8 p.m. on a weeknight is a prime chunk of air time. And Dateline put your story first. So while they may have taken a while to air the show, which I guess they started working on just before 9/11, they do appreciate that our stories are compelling. I think our stories are not going to go away or be prayed away. Maybe one day the abusers will find that there are consequences to the things they did, so secure in the sense that they would get away with it.
I agree with you about the pivotal importance of there being support on the outside. I was struck by what happened to the young man who grew up in the Hare Krishnas, because it was so similar to me: he went to his grandparents but they soon died. In my case, I left with no siblings on the outside except for a stepbrother who had run away at 13 and whom I looked for without knowing if he was still alive (The Family claimed to not know and didn't seem to care) until I found him more than 2 years after having run away. I had not met any relatives and it took me a year between locating them and managing to get to the U.S. where I was safe from being sent back to The Family. Meanwhile, it was hell on earth and I almost didn't make it.
When I did make it to the U.S., my relatives were a rock for me and I realize how lucky I am to have had them when and while I did. I didn't have to explain much to them about The Family because it had robbed them in a painful way of having their child and grandchildren in their lives. My uncle (lower-case) used to tell me I was the bravest person he knew, and he was fond of noting that he had been in Vietnam. When they died a few years apart, although I had managed to accomplish much in my transition, it was a lot harder on me than I sometimes think it should have been since I was in my 20s. I really missed having the particular feeling of safety that can come from having family in an older generation who care and I had struggles, even years after having left.
I am very proud of you, Jules. I hope your colleagues will be too, but if they are not, shame on them. I do appreciate that you are the one who has to live with it if they are not, and I am grateful to you for having such guts. Some time ago I went back to work after having spoken about the sexual abuse I suffered as a child in The Family and my colleagues/bosses at the time (being human beings with empathy), were extremely supportive and proud of me. They still are -- years later they attended my law school graduation reception, unlike my parents.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Saturday, July 17, 2004, 17:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Lucid, thanks for your comments.
This interview was definitely one of the most difficult things I have done. The interview took place in a suite in a hotel, which was the same hotel in which I had been attacked and raped a few years prior across the hall, in a room that looked identical. The producers did not know this as I think I had blocked it out and only realised where I was when I got there that morning and I was certainly not about to say anything then. Needless to say it was quite stressful to sit there in that room and answer questions (from an all male team of producer, interviewer and camera crew) on the most shameful events in my life.
There was a lot that was edited out, (some of which I am grateful for as I was completely in shock and in dissociation mode and I answered questions I would normally have never answered in such detail) but some of the other things that were edited out were the many other abuses that occurred. My parents beat me black and blue every day of my life from about 7 to 12. I had virtually no education after I was pulled out of school when I was 10. What specifically happened at the "boot camps" (and although I only stayed in the Philippines for a year, I was in and out of similar programs until I turned 16) in many ways has been much harder to recover from than the sexual abuse. It included silence restriction, beatings, constant humiliation, constant indoctrination, deprivation of food, water and sleep, pyschological stress to the point of complete collapse, etc.
It was perhaps somewhat unfortunate that they choose to only focus on the sexual element of my story, but I can understand that there was not much time and they wanted something that would get their viewer's attention. Overall though, it was less sensationalized and less exploitative than interviews I have done before. Obviously there is always an element of exploitation when you tell your story to the media and I did know this going in. As I have sort of said, my main question was, "is it worth it?”
I do believe that we will never truly be heard until we are able to own our own stories fully and not have to depend on others to tell them for us or shape our stories into neat, tidy packages. This is one reason why this web site, fully owned, edited and authored by us, the children of the COG, has had such an impact. I am in awe of Noah Thompson for his tireless work to see his dream of his documentary through. I think this will be another place where we are not exploited but our own stories are told in our own way and on our own terms.
Lucid, you are absolutely one of the most intelligent, kind and decent people I have ever encountered, and to know that you are proud of me makes me think that whatever my colleagues say doesn't really matter. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]