Sometimes when we clearly help people, we can also do them subtle harm.
Here’s a relatively noncontroversial example, since no one was hurt (nor helped): it was just a simulation, very serious make-believe.
A group of us from the Butler County (Ohio) chapter of the National Organization for Women were doing a supervised simulation of trying to help a woman who’d just been raped.
The women took the lead here, since it was probable that other women could be of more help to a woman raped by a man than men could — so we two guys mostly kept our mouths shut.
At least I kept quiet until I heard the fourth or fifth repetition of “It’s not your fault” — an important point and one to be repeated — followed by assertions that there was nothing the victim could have done, that any woman can be raped, any time, and that there was nothing this young woman could have done to deserve a rape or to prevent it.
At which point I made the “time-out” signal and asked that we listen to ourselves more carefully here.
“You’re telling her she was and remains pretty much powerless. That she’s guiltless in the rape, which she is, but also helpless to prevent another rape: anywhere, any time, from any man.”
And here the professional counselor intervened and said that, indeed, we should tell a woman it’s not her fault and that we are there for her — and mostly let it go at that; later she should learn that she can have some control, that solidarity and political action are possible — that women are not powerless. With initial helping, however, she, the pro, advised us to concentrate on listening.
Similarly with talking about molested children.
These kids probably did have no control, and there’s a good chance that they’ve been “scarred for life.”
Still — a scar can cover a wound that’s healed, and it does kids no favor to tell them they’ll never get over what’s happened to them, that they’ll never heal.
Tell the perpetrators that they’ve scarred the kids for life — fine; ethically considered, the perpetrators’ guilt doesn’t depend much on the outcome but what was at risk.
(If you throw a bomb into an abortion clinic or a day-care center intending to kill everyone there, and the bomb doesn’t go off — well, you damn well better feel guilty of murder, however the criminal charges read.)
There’s much to be said for the AA idea that alcoholics are “recovering” but never recovered; there’s a whole lot less to be said for telling victims of violence they’ll never get over it.
A rehabilitation therapist told my father to do his exercises or risk becoming an invalid: He would never recover all he'd lost from his stroke, she said, but added: “Invalidism is a separate disease.” With extreme exceptions like death-camp inmates and children subjected to long-term abuse, people can be hurt without being victimized: i.e., not becoming victims, with the injuries never healing, with the trauma becoming the center of their lives.
There are also problems in telling kids and parents and old people that “Stranger Danger” and predators surround them — that no one is to be trusted. And there is danger in implying to teenagers that what they have a right to do they should do, however imprudent.
Taking a wide view, society depends upon trust, and a liberal republic requires a lot of faith in the basic decency of its citizens. In broad terms and over the long haul, killing trust coarsens society and undermines hopes for democracy.
More narrowly and immediately, children who are lost or otherwise in trouble need to get help from grownups, and that means asking help from strangers. If kids are going to get abused, in the various senses of the term, chances are they’ll be abused by someone they know and probably know well —e.g., family members or coaches; asked to help, random strangers probably won’t hurt kids, and kids should be told to ask for help.
(And large, healthy graduate assistants who see evil done to a child and fail to intervene to stop it should themselves be scarred for life by a guilt they can never assuage.)
Kids should also be told to be prudent.
They shouldn’t get into cars with strangers who invite them in — but they shouldn’t bleed to death on the street rather than accept a ride to an emergency room.
And girls should believe that they have a right to walk wherever they want and whenever they want, as drunk as they choose, wearing whatever they want to wear. And the men in those girls’ lives should back them up — while their solid-feminist mothers should tell all their children to stay the hell out of screamingly dangerous situations.
Women and girls are raped more often than men and boys, but men and boys get mugged and shot more often. All should avoid situations where we’re likely to be hurt unless there are damn good reasons for placing oneself in harm’s way. Kids, old people, and everyone else should avoid provoking attacks, unless there is damn good reason for offering the provocation.


Salon.com
Comments
As far as kids go, most are harmed or abused by family members or someone they know, not by strangers. "Stranger danger" is rare. So telling a kid to be prudent doesn't really work and besides, children don't have the capacity to reason or assess a situation like adults do. Studies show teenagers don't either - that's why they're such huge risk-takers.
Rich E. responds: And they should be told "It's not your fault," but unjustified guilt sometimes rests on a desire to claim *some* control. Helping people free themselves from unjustified feelings of guilt should be done carefully, so you don't make them feel even more powerless.
And on teens and risk-taking: Probably, but be very careful with generalizing about US teens (we have a nasty tradition of teen-bashing). Michael Males has demonstrated that in many areas of social pathology older US teens are a normal US adult population — or doing better than their elders. US teens may often be stupid, inconsiderate, reckless twerps — and remain comfortably within the normal range.