Real child abuse/ Snape again

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 145622

> >>Miles:
> > You are talking about emotional abuse - but the prerequisite for 
> > emotional abuse is a emotional connection between abuser and    
> > abused. 
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> I would also disagree about no emotional connection between Snape 
> and Neville and I see that you did not argue that there is no     
> emotional connection between Snape and Harry, so I take we DO     
> agree that there is an emotional connection between them...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think what Miles is referring to is the level of trust that must 
exist between an abuser and the abused for any sort of emotional 
trauma to take place.  For example, if a teacher I didn't like to 
begin with told me I was a worthless idiot, I'd think "screw you, 
buddy" and move on. (Harry's reaction.)  But if it were my parent or 
someone I looked to to help define myself as a person, those words 
would really hit home.  Is there anything in any of the books that 
suggests Harry thinks Snape's view of him is correct?

Neville thinks he's an idiot, but that's not just because of Snape.  
McGonagall, his grandmother, his classmates, all assure Neville that 
he's a bit of a hopeless mess.  I think his grandmother's view, 
being she's his main care-giver would have the most affect on 
Neville.  Which means that Snape's methodology with Neville is not 
the best, but it doesn't make Snape an abuser.

> >>Alla: 
> Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents   
> for many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see 
> and teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway.
> I would argue that teachers have HUGE emotional power over those 
> kids and gross misuse of such power is in fact emotional abuse.

Betsy Hp:
It's an interesting argument, and it would have legs if the books 
showed any support for it whatsoever.  But Snape is not their head 
of house.  He interacts with Neville *only* as a Potions teacher.  
Neville only sees him as a teacher.

*McGonagall* is their in loco parentis and I notice that you never 
argue that *she* emotionally abuses Neville.  Though she shames him, 
in front of his entire house (or family), at least twice.  Both 
times completely undeserved.  So I think it's inconsistent to 
suddenly shove *Snape* into the parental role in order to argue 
abuse.  Especially with Neville.  

Harry, with his role in the fight against Voldemort, does have a 
closer working relationship with Snape.  But Harry has never trusted 
Snape, ever.  That in itself is a problem to my mind.  But it's not 
one of abuse.

> >>Miles:
> > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause 
> > serious behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. 
> > We never saw any student of Snape's classes that suffers from   
> > any of this.

> >>Alla:
> You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's 
> boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course.

Betsy Hp:
That just doesn't make any sense to me.  Neville *defeated* his 
boggart.  Quite successfully.  So how on earth does that suggest an 
inability to mature?  How does it suggest a serious emotional block?

We've *seen* Neville suffering from a huge emotional blow.  He was a 
total mess after Fake!Moody's class and their private little 
meeting.  Neville was *not* a mess after his boggart scene.  In 
fact, I'd say facing down his boggart was a moment of *growth* on 
Neville's end.  And it was fairly easily done, too.  One try and 
Neville was laughing at what you're arguing is a huge emotional 
wound in his life.  Would Harry laugh at his mother's dead body so 
easily? Or Sirius's?

> >>Miles: 
> > We can agree, that Snape is a nasty person and an unfair         
> > teacher, far away from treating his students equally and        
> > respectful. But abuse - no canon support for this, if we do not 
> > use very private definitions of child abuse, but scholastic ones.

> >>Alla:
> Sorry, Miles, but I am not sure what you meant by "private" 
> definition of emotional abuse. I hope you don't mean that I       
> evaluare abuse by definitions "written" by me or something,       
> because then it is simply incorrect. The  definition of emotional 
> abuse I brought up was  actually in response to your post and I    
> was not the author. :-)

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Miles, Alla.  I think you've cherry picked out a 
partial definition of emotional abuse.  Yes, you didn't write the 
definition you used, but you ignored those portions that directly 
contradict your argument.  To my mind you ignore the behavior an 
abused child exhibits.

I'll requote from my old post on this subject:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144366

"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
**********

> >>Alla: 
> <snip>
> Actually at this point I am just arguing against the idea that 
> people who DO see Snape as abuser somehow make "outlandish" 
> arguments. I understand the other interpretation, it is certainly 
> reasonable, but mine is reasonable too IMO.

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, you can pull up example after example of Snape behaving 
badly.  But, as Miles has said, being a scary, badly behaved, unfair 
teacher is not abuse.  And so I *do* see the "Snape is a child 
abuser" arguments as very "outlandish".  Certainly I don't see them 
a reasonable.  That's my opinion, anyway.

Betsy Hp