Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?"

[Janet Anderson]

No: HPFGUIDX 124665

"Elizabeth G" <Bazile2OO3 at hotmail.com> suggests:

>And according to my mother the social
>worker who used to work Child Protective Service, she would have removed
>both Harry and Dudley from the home if this had been an actual situation.

See, this is why I think people have no sympathy for various posters' 
incessant cries of "abuse" -- the fact that apparently it can mean whatever 
anyone wants it to mean.  There is some justification for claiming abuse in 
Harry's case, but DUDLEY?

*snips extensive description of abuse*

Yes, he was spoiled.  But he certainly was nither physically or emotionally 
abused.  His parents gave him every luxury, took him to London for medical 
needs (remember the pig's tail?), and, when the school nurse finally got 
their attention, they reluctantly took steps to correct his weight problem 
(and succeeded).  And heaven knows, they do love him; they appreciate him; 
they give him emotional support and they definitely take an interest in his 
needs.

I think there is a considerable difference between bad parenting (which the 
Dursleys definitely do) and abuse.  By the sweeping descriptions we've been 
reading, almost every adult character in the books is abusive in some way -- 
Hagrid exposes his students to dangerous wildlife, Molly yells at her 
children, makes them do chores and wear second-hand clothes, McGonagall 
tells off Neville for irresponsible behavior.  Madam Hooch lets them fly on 
brooms! Professor Sprout makes them pot mandrakes and squeeze bubotubers!  
Lockhart makes Harry stay up past his bedtime! ... Sheesh.


Janet Anderson