Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?)

[slgazit]

No: HPFGUIDX 123132


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Harry is not medically starving.  He's small for his age in PS/SS, 
[deleted]
> Of course, food is used as a punishment, either by taking it away, or 
> giving more to Dudley, and Harry is rarely full, which I agree is 
> wrong, but I don't remember Harry ever being described as faint and 
> dizzy from lack of food.  (I could be wrong of course - please point 
> me to canon!)

In CoS when he was locked in his room after the pudding incident he
was described as such. We don't know how long the Dursleys would have
kept on with it if the Weasleys did not show up with the flying car.

> The cupboard and the locked and barred room is another story.  
> There's a fire hazard issue with at least the locked room, and I 
> *know* the judges in my area would have a problem with Harry living 
> in a cupboard.  However, I don't think they'd remove Harry from the 
> Dursley's.  Rather, they'd insist that he's given an actual room.

He was also forbidden to be anywhere else but school or his cupboard -
or Mrs. Figg. I don't have the book here, but it's explicitely
mentioned in the SS book.

> His clothes are hand-me-downs, but they're clean, and he's clean.

They are also extremely ill fitting, causing ridicule by other kids.
This is not abuse per se, agreed, but part of a pattern of emotional
neglect and abuse.

> to me, comparing what those kids have gone 
> through with what Harry endures at the Dursleys is almost 
> disrespectful.  Harry is badly treated, yes.  And I think it may be 
> fear of the neighbors that keeps the Dursleys from sliding into more 
> reprehensible behavior, which says something about their character.  
> But, I think we should be careful about throwing the word "abuse" 
> around.  Of course, this is only my opinion.

The Dursleys don't engage in criminal activities (which is the type of
abuse you were discussing). What they do is not abuse in the legal
sense but emotional neglect and mistreatment. They are raising a child
in their home without giving him love or care for his emotional needs.
It all flows from the fact that they dislike everything about Harry.
They are not abusive people by nature - ignorant and coarse yes, but
not abusive. But they let Harry know in no uncertain terms from day
one that he is a worthless human being. I view this as a type of
emotional abuse, which can sometimes be worse than physical abuse
(which at least shows the person cares enough to hit - no I am not in
any way justifying it - but the fact that neglected kids tend to act
out because they think negative attention is better than no attention
- is a well documented fact).
Incidentally, Dudley is certainly not fairing much better. Both boys
suffer from the two sides of the same malaise - the Dursleys' total
lack of parental skills. The difference is that Harry is unloved and
uncared for by anyone (to his knowledge) during most of his formative
years. There are plenty of studies documenting the damage to
children's development due to lack of care and love even when all
their physical needs are fulfilled.

> >And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the 
> only way.<

I thought that Petunia's decision to take the risk and keep Harry in
OoP may be a turning point in her relationship with him. It is the
first time ever that she shows him - and perhaps discovers herself -
that she cares for him. I guess we'll find out if this is really the
case in about 6 months time...

Salit