What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ?

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 144366

> >>Miles:
> > Snape has been member of Dumbledore's staff for some 14 years.   
> > You really think that he would not interfer for 14 years, if he 
> > would totally disapprove Snape's teaching methods?
> > <snip>

> >>Nora: 
> Canonically, Dumbledore has issues with detachment: he tells Harry 
> (and us) that he's forgotten what it's like to be young, with 
> damaging results.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But Dumbledore *does* have a very strong view on mistreating 
children.  We know, per canon, that corporal punishment was common 
at Hogwarts.  It's at least implied that Dumbledore was the one to 
do away with such methods. (It could have been outright stated, but 
I can't recall where or if such canon exists.)

We've also seen that Dumbledore does not easily anger.  In OotP 
Umbridge, by shaking Marietta, managed to anger Dumbledore.  So I 
find it very hard to believe that Dumbledore would just look the 
other way if Snape was routinely commiting child abuse.

Which means that the implications that Snape must be physically 
abusing children because he's so darn icky (since there's no canon 
out and out showing him physically abusing children) have little to 
no basis in canon.  And that leaves us with emotional child abuse.

Following Miles's advice, I'll start with a definition found via 
Google:
[taken from this site: http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-
Abuse/Emotional-Abuse.html ]
********
Definition of Emotional Abuse:
The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines emotional 
abuse as: "acts or omissions by the parents or other caregivers that 
have caused, or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, 
emotional, or mental disorders. <snip>

The American Medical Association AMA describes Emotional Abuse 
as: "when a child is regularly threatened, yelled at, humiliated, 
ignored, blamed or otherwise emotionally mistreated. For example, 
making fun of a child, calling a child names, and always finding 
fault are forms of emotional abuse."2

Emotional abuse is more than just verbal abuse. It is an attack on a 
child's emotional and social development, and is a basic threat to 
healthy human development.
*******

Betsy Hp:
Interestingly enough, the very definition of emotional child abuse 
includes an effect.  IMO, this means that we cannot merely 
say, "Snape is sarcastic and belittling so he is therefore an 
emotional abuser."  His words must cause real and identifiable 
problems in his victim.

Within the same site there is a list of behaviors that point towards 
a child being a victim of emotional abuse: [ 
http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Emotional-Verbal-
Abuse.html ] :

*********
Child's Behavior:
Appears overly compliant, passive, undemanding; Appears very anxious 
or depressed; Attempts suicide; Avoids doing things with other 
children; Behaves younger than his or her age; Finds it difficult to 
make friends; Is extremely aggressive, demanding or enraged; Lags in 
physical, emotional, and intellectual development; Is very demanding 
or very obedient; Behaves very adult-like; Wets or soils the bed.2,10
**********

Betsy Hp:
Commonly, Neville and Harry are brought up as examples of Snape 
being a child abuser.  But neither boy demonstrates any of the above 
symptoms.  In fact, in Neville's case I think we get a perfect 
example of him going through a huge emotional strain that we can 
measure against his reactions to Snape.  When Fake!Moody 
demonstrates the Crucio Curse Neville has a quiet breakdown.  He 
totally detaches from everything around him, and if IIRC, he goes to 
bed early, avoiding contact with his friends.

Snape, even at his worst, doesn't bring out this sort of reaction in 
Neville.  Even when Neville thought his pet's life was on the line 
he remained engaged, soliciting help from Hermione, and following 
her directions correctly.  Even after the rather gasp worthy public 
put-down he received shortly thereafter, Neville was able to 
successfully face down his boggart.  IOW, Neville's emotional and 
intellectual development were not harmed. (On the contrary, by 
facing down his boggart I'd say we witnessed Neville experiencing a 
moment of healthy emotional development.)

Harry doesn't trust Snape, which I think is a problem (see my last 
post), but Harry certainly isn't failing to develop properly because 
of Snape's actions. 

So, per the above definitions, Snape is not a child abuser.  And 
that's going by the definitions used in our world, our culture.

> >>Shaun Hately:
> <snip>
> I don't think that JKR is intending to make the Potterverse
> much different from ours in a moral sense. *But* I do think there 
> are a lot of people who are seeing the morality of our world much 
> more narrowly than it really is.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  And I don't think JKR means for us to see Snape as 
a child abuser.  He abuses his *power*, yes.  Snape unfairly favors 
the Slytherins, having one set of rules for those in his house and 
another set for all the rest.  Snape has some personal issues with 
Harry that he lets interfere with his job, both as a teacher and a 
Order member.  None of those things make him a child abuser.  At 
least, not by the real world's definitions.

Betsy Hp