Former Football players to hold press conference tomorrow about sexual assault allegations.
Tweet via David Jesse.
https://twitter.com/reporterdavidj/status/1404778587132211205?s=21
These are survivors of the assaults, just to clarify.
https://twitter.com/reporterdavidj/status/1404787891893641220?s=20
I don't understand why they called survivors and not victims. People who walk away from a plane crash are survivors. Was anyone who walked into Anderson's office ever in danger of not "surviving" ?
Not everyone who is abused survives in the long run. Some commit suicide, others lose who they are/were after the abuse happens, which itself is a form of death.
I get what you're saying but semantics can only become a distraction at this point and are not a top priority at this point
It's common terminology when discussing people who have experienced sexual assault / abuse. I first heard it during my volunteer training at SAPAC 20 years ago. RAINN has a "key terms and phrases" page that offers one distinction between the two terms, though I have heard various rationale over the years for preferring "survivor" over "victim."
I would assume that "victim" is a bad term because of the amount of victim blaming that people do and that would include the survivors themselves. It's very easy to get caught up thinking of what you could have done differently when the fault should lie with the person committing the assault/rape.
Well that, but also the term "victim" implies weakness or passiveness. Something "happened" to make you a victim. "Survivor" is stronger. It implies something happened and you overcame it. It's a mental frame of mind.
"Survivor" does not have to mean life/death. It can mean conquering your inner demons from life experiences. It's a way of showing solidarity with the people who have been sexually abused.
This is pretty close to what I remember SAPAC's explanation being. "Victim" as a concept tends to strip individuals of their autonomy, whereas "survivor" is intended to empower individuals. This is seen as particularly important in recovering from assaults, dealing with trauma, and (if the individual so chooses) navigating what tends to be a very hostile criminal justice system.
Prosecutors, who you would expect to be sympathetic, prefer labeling them as victims. So while not synonymous, it's largely a matter of context and perception.
Prosecutors frame reality in very specific ways to get guilty verdicts. They do not use terms/logic that is empathetic, empowering, or even "healthy". I'm not convinced we should label/treat people the way prosecutors frame them in a day to day setting.
Source: I have one cousin who is a criminal defense attorney (former prosecutor) and another cousin who is a director in a Sexual Assault center.
I completely agree. Just saying that the language used depends on context.
Absolutely. And I've heard some advocates actually say that they prefer the term "victim" to "survivor," or at the very least giving individuals the right to choose their own terms.
It does sound odd, and I agree it should be called victims...but one thing about being sexually assaulted, or any bad memory... some people can bury and manage it well, but its always there... others unfortunately cannot, and it can be debilitating.... that is one thing unfortunate about the human mind, the subconscious can run it on repeat cycle and it sucks. Evidenced in some homeless people... some of them were unloved and have a terrible memory of a family member and cannot shake it, and unfortunately cannot deal with it. And careful if you think its due to being weak... we have that luxury of not experiencing it.
Given the abnormally high rate of suicide and self-harm among those that have experienced sexual assault, yes survivors will do just fine
To your point, there is a significant amount of evidence that past traumatic events can lead to other, often severe, physically debillitating health issues, in addition to, the mental well-being of those survivors.
This is a topic that comes up often for me, as my wife spent years working with veterans and PTSD impacts, and her doctoral dissertation was focused on social workers and the lack of self-care & burnout.
One of the key issues for many individuals in social/mental health services is that they themselves have experienced their own past trauma event(s) (physical/sexual abuse/PTSD, dependency issues) and then have these types of images/feelings resurface with client interactions which can easily create resurfacing of their own memories.
This concept of "tough" or "strong" more often incorrectly gets associated to individuals who have a support network, career and/or other resources that allow them to better cope with those past issues.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/past-trauma-may-haunt-your-future-health
A rocky childhood. A violent assault. A car accident. If these are in your past, they could be affecting your present health.
These are all examples of traumatic events — which, in psychological terms, are incidents that make you believe you are in danger of being seriously injured or losing your life, says Andrea Roberts, a research scientist with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Research shows that these events can trigger emotional and even physical reactions that can make you more prone to a number of different health conditions, including heart attack, stroke, obesity, diabetes, and cancer.
https://medium.com/@biobeats/how-unprocessed-trauma-is-stored-in-the-body-10222a76cbad
The truth is that trauma is not just “in your head”. It leaves a real, physical imprint on your body, jarring your memory storage processes and changing your brain.
The risk of developing mental and physical health problems increases with the number of traumatic events you’ve experienced. “For example, your risk for problems is much higher if you’ve had three or more negative experiences, called adverse childhood experiences (ACEs),” says Harvard research scientist Andrea Roberts.
The three parts of the brain responsible for processing stress can change when people suffer from PTSD:
· The hippocampus shrinks — this is the centre for emotion and memory
· The amygdala function increases — the centre for creativity and rumination
· The prefrontal/ anterior cingulate function decreases — the centre for more complex functions like planning and self-development
Like a virus in our encoding system, unprocessed traumatic memories can become sticking points that cause our mental and physical processes to malfunction. Early evidence of cellular memory shows that it’s not just our brain, but our body’s cells that could hold an imprint of past traumatic events.
Had never considered the turnaround impact of social workers' own traumas in their work. Thanks for this.
Just to clarify (while trying to avoid the arguments of the correct wording), this is from other victims of sexual assault of Anderson? Are these folks also clients of the lawyers from the Matt Schembechler group? I'm assuming no, but idk.
So, what's your question or point?
Is Grewal trying to cash in on an easy payday?
Not sure what your issue here is as he is a lawyer who's trying to represent people who've been sexually assaulted. So he does need to get compensated for his time and effort just like every other lawyer for every other case. Did you have any issues with him when he was going after Nasser and MSU, probably not.
Would you be happier if it was 1-800-Call-Sam instead?
The administration has made it clear that they are eager to settle. I saw it noted on here someone who said he or she was a lawyer said that this case needs to be settled and move on from the matter.
I posited the question as a reply to the post of whether or not Grewal is representing those who are speaking tomorrow as he was the other survivors from last Thursday.
It's ok to be skeptical of the intentions of an attorney where the institution who employed the accused is eager to write a check to settle the matter. Especially when that attorney is representing someone who unabashedly admitted that he dislikes Bo Schembechler and has a history of bad blood with him.
Alleged.
Good clarification. Taken another way, the headline could have been about former football players responding to allegations that they committed sexual assault. Given the lack of any such news, I assumed it was in reference to Anderson until I checked the link itself.
Another man is going to come forward publicly and say he told both Bo and Don Canham he was assaulted by Anderson and nothing was done.
I'm guessing Putin likes his popcorn extra salty. Am I right?
pro tip: if putin offers you food, DON'T TAKE IT.
I believe the players.
Yup. There’s waaaay too much smoke for there not to be a forest fire.
I do too. My only question is that a bunch of them are in their 40s, 50s... Why not come forward 10-15 years ago or after JoePa or Nasser (when they were in their 30s)?
Also, why would Bo want this guy around if his son told him? Was he that much of a piece of shit?
If I were also one of those abused, and I saw how people immediately tried to discredit the abused in the PSU/MSU cases and go after their character, I would probably hesitate even more to come forward. Sports fanatics shoulder some of the blame for why this stuff may not have come out sooner.
Do you have any links to evidence where journalists or others tried to discredit the abused in the Jerry Sandusky case?
"Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship sought to discredit the inquiry and its recommendations ..." "Some even deny that Sandusky raped boys from his charity."
https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/09/penn_state_alumni_group_releas.html
Thanks- the link didn't work for me but that was pretty awful (your quote from it). Read quite a bit about the case at the time and had never seen that reference before.
Most people are afraid to come forward. They're afraid of being stigmatized, and I'm sure they're afraid of the response they would've gotten from the Michigan community after making these allegations against a once beloved university icon like Bo was. So it makes sense that they all waited until the ball got rolling to come forward because now it's already out there.
As to your second question, we will never know. Why did MSU have to keep Nasser around? Why did OSU have to keep Strauss around? Why these team doctors have been so protected is a question that we will never know the answer to.
To add to this, a lot of people--especially men, I think--don't want to tell anyone that they were sexually abused, much less say so on television.
In Nasser's case, he did have a world-class reputation as a physician. My wife is a former gymnast, and in that community he was revered as a deity for his skills and treatments. You don't become a national team doctor for USAG without being the absolute best in your field.
As far as Anderson is concerned, I don't get it at all. Surely any old schlub could administer sports team physicals.
I get that he had a reputation as being the best. But was that really a recruiting pitch or selling point for MSU gymnastics? Forget about the coach making you a better gymnast or winning titles, come here so you can be treated by the best team doctor in the game? I just can't see that being such a big benefit that it'd be worth keeping him around at all costs.
“But was that really a recruiting pitch or selling point for MSU gymnastics?”
Yes it really was a selling point. Recruiting emails that the MSU gymnastics coach sent became public. The emails had 4 or 5 bullet-points selling them potential recruits on why they should choose MSU (facilities, team success, that kind of stuff) and the last bullet point was something like:
“ * We have Dr. Nasser!”
Do you kompromat, Pootie?
Every chance I get.
Yes, it appears that he was.
As to your first question, numerous people "came forward" when they were in their 20s. Anderson was fired, but then reinstated. Additionally, Dr. Anderson's assaults were widely known and even joked about among the coaching staff according to witness testimony. I imagine that given that environment, the players probably didn't think that "coming forward" would change anything. Additionally, I suspect that survivors don't particularly want to dredge up traumatic experiences from the past. Once a few people come forward, I suspect that there's some comfort in the fact that there are others in the same situation and that it increases the likelihood that (1) they will be believed and (2) something will be done, which changes the risk/benefit analysis.
As to your second question, I have no earthly idea whey anyone would have let this person continue to abuse young men, let alone family members.
I mean, imagine publicly announcing and detailing the worst experience you’ve ever had. To your neighbors, your in laws, your coworkers/. Then add that thousands of people are going to claim you made it up or question why you let it happen or why you’re only talking about it now.
You're going up against the reputation and legacy of a beloved figure in the Michigan community. The man who for decades embodied Michigan and all it meant. And you're just some guy who played for him once. I can see why people would be terrified to speak out.
1) How many people just straight up won't believe you, and will assume you're just an opportunist looking for hush money?
2) How many people will issue death threats to you or your family for dragging Bo through the mud?
3) The kind of media scrutiny you're going to face for making these allegations is going to be enormous, not just for you, but for your family. That by itself is enough to keep some away from coming forward because they don't want to inadvertently cause problems for their spouse and/or kids.
Because of comments like this?
because people like you would not believe them
This should only be worth so much, but I'll say this: I've talked to people as part of my job whom I had very good reason to believe were survivors of sexual and physical abuse. And Johnson and Kwiatkowski reminded me of those people.
I do as well. The list will likely continue to grow.
And, every time someone pushes back it will grow more. Harbaugh's statement made it grow, and Brandy's repeated statements have made it grow. Now, there's some sort of online petition from "footballers" supporting Bo and saying they weren't abused (link). That will not advance their cause.