USA Gymnastics: Larry Nassar sexual abuse charges mount

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, a child "speaking up" is pretty much incompatible with first time obedience.

Exactly. The point of first time obedience is that the children learn to not speak up but to obey.  First time obedience is mindless obedience and mindless obedience is never, ever good. 

[Flyinthesoup]

7 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, a child "speaking up" is pretty much incompatible with first time obedience.

The descriptions of first time obedience I've read, including  that of the infamous Pearls, indicate that the parent expects a child to obey, without question or discussion, the *instant* they are given a request or command. In many fundie homes, a child is trained to to this end.

This Ezzo leghumper's description of the goals of first time obedience is pretty typical:

Re: bolded. How is this healthy? How does this NOT set such a child up for being the target of a predatory adult?

It strikes me as being a sick, sick goal with a high potential of risk for such a child, should s/he cross paths with a predator.

 

Thank you for the dialogue.  I have such mixed thoughts on all this.  Going over the links you provided, I see very little scripture in any of them, just the first one, mostly, and they were all focused on training, within the home. It makes me question on 'what authority they make these rules'. It also makes me wonder if the parents hold themselves to that same thinking that is used for "first time obedience" in their own lives. I can see where a jump might come with respect to people/authority outside the home, but it looks like that's not covered in these links and perhaps an assumption that is made by those reading the material. 

I see your point, and I agree, that could be that application used outside the home, from parents not thinking of the consequences.  From the little reading I have done from Rachael's book, and her own description of that event when she was 7 years old, I do not get the sense that's how her parents structured their home and I would not jump to that assumption.  She wanted to be a lawyer from very early on and would argue with her parents, so that does not fit that model. 

***Having said all that*****  I admit, after writing what I did, I kept pondering your words and my own (FJ has a way of doing that).  I was reminded of an incident where your words were exactly what was being demonstrated and the horror I felt at that moment in time.  My husband and I were invited to a local IBLP event one evening, about 22 years ago.  At the end of it, they paraded the children out onto a stage to demonstrate their 'obedience' with the group of children that were being taught downstairs at the same time parents were watching a video.  The children came out quietly with some little sounds going on.  When they were all on the stage, (large group of children and a very full stage) the leader demonstrated how they got the children's attention and what they expected from them at the moment a pin was dropped...... complete silence!!!!  I think I covered my mouth and said, "lambs to the slaughter"!  I was horrified at what I witnessed and told my friend who invited us, later the next day.  I explained how that was setting up those children for abuse.  Years later, she phoned me and said "how did you know?"  So yes, I agree with you first time obedience can be used to set children up for abuse.  I do not agree with first time obedience. 

[hoipolloi]

@Flyinthesoup - can't imagine how horrifying that exhibition of "obedient" children must have been. Your & your friend's responses are exactly what I was trying to say. 

The thing with pedophiles is that they go where the prey are, and when they are fundies, that means insinuating their way into church youth groups, or offering to help with childcare or babysitting for fellow church members, or similar situations. The fact that the potential prey are *trained* to shut up and obey adults instantly is clearly a bonus for these evildoers.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by hoipolloi

[Flyinthesoup]

16 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

@Flyinthesoup - can't imagine how horrifying that exhibition of "obedient" children must have been. Your & your friend's responses are exactly what I was trying to say. 

The thing with pedophiles is that they go where the prey are, and when they are fundies, that means insinuating their way into church youth groups, or offering to help with childcare or babysitting for fellow church members, or similar situations. The fact that the potential prey are *trained* to shut up and obey adults instantly is clearly a bonus for these evildoers.

 

 

Unfortunately, my friend at the time of the 'obedience' demonstration, wasn't on the same page as me.  It was many years later she asked me the question of "how did you know?".  She had moved a way during that time, though we often kept contact. We had differences of opinions on many things, but that's what was great about the relationship.  The challenging of each other and our reasoning for what we believed.  Much like FJ, I greatly appreciate the challenge to look at things and see things from a different perspective.  She phoned me when she was discovering information regarding the uncovering of abuses within the IBLP organization.  

I do agree with your assessment of 'shutting up and obeying adults instantly' is a clear path to abuse for children.  

In Rachael's situation, I don't think she would have gotten away with drafting a contract and having her mother sign it, because her mother was spending too much time on the phone and not enough time helping her with her math! ?That tells me her parents were very much in a position to hear reason and arguments presented. In this situation, Rachael had no idea what had happened to her, she knew it was wrong, but did not have the vocabulary/understanding to say what it was until she was older.  Then she told her mother and in turn, the community they were in, which turned their back on them.  That is an unfortunate situation that could happen to any of us, I think. 

[Nolongeroppressed8.4]

On 11/3/2019 at 3:09 PM, hoipolloi said:

Another Oakbrook Law alumnus and would-be licensed attorney is none other than Nathaniel Darnell.

He's tried & failed to pass the CA bar at least twice that I know of -- not sure if that's a reflection on him or on Oakbrook or both.

While I'm glad that her family supported her at that time, one wonders if the parents were practitioners of the wretched "first time obedience" shite so beloved of many fundies. IMO, this sort of child training abuse literally sets kids up to be victims, especially of adults whom they know, such as family or church members.

I heard Natty had gone at least 5 times to take the bar and given his incessant use of credentials despite lacking the actually important ones, he must not have passed it. Apparently This is why he sells insurance. LOL I heard from a mutual acquaintance he tried to get a job  with ADF and it wasn’t until a second or third interview they learned through their own research he didn’t actually pass the bar. ??‍♀️ I think Oakbrook pushes taking the bar in CA because it’s the hardest? Seems he could have just tried in the state he lived in, no? Weird. 

On 11/2/2019 at 7:11 PM, Kelsey said:

I recently finished reading What is a Girl Worth? by Rachel Denhollander. Rachel was the first person to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. I debated where to put this thread because there's a lot to unpack here.

1. Rachel is a graduate of Oak Brook College of Law. By her account, she was 1 of 4 women admitted to the program her year (along with approximately 46 males). I find this interesting because females tend to represent 50% or more of students admitted in many colleges. She didn't specifically say so, but it sounded like she was the sole female graduate from her admission class. To be fair, it sounded like not many of the admitted students finished through graduation but a specific number wasn't given. Oak Brook is a FUNDY college and had roughly an (abysmal) 8% rate of female students admitted!

2. Rachel experienced sexual abuse at her first church at the age of 7. Her family was pushed out for trying to protect her. At her adult church, she and her husband were counseled and disciplined for questioning the elders of her church when they decided tomerge with SGM- an organization with known sexual abuse issues. Rachel opines that sexual predators/offenders seel out churches like these because they provide cover for the perps. I thought that was an interesting statement from a fundy female.

3. It appears that Rachel and her now-husband had a courtship. She does refer to being alone in places like a public park or walking in the city and never discusses chaperones. However, when the BF was deciding about taking an internship near Rachel's home (before they had met in person), he consulted her FATHER, not her to discuss it first.

4. Rachel released her story to the IndyStar which was the catalyst for 140+ young women and girls realizing that they had been sexually abused and ultimately coming forward to put Larry Nassar in prison. Prior to reading Rachel's account many of the victims had thought or assumed that it was a legitimate medical procedure. Athletes that had come forward previously were quieted. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting to see a fundy woman and graduate of a fundy law college (that we've discussed multiple times) be the person to spearhead this case. Any thoughts?

Also, if there's a more appropriate place for this discussion- please move it there.

She also references Two things that really resonated with me given my past. One - at a church youth group event (which was mixed so obviously the church was not as fundy as I come from), the case of Bathsheba and David was discussed and a boy got agreement from the leader that yes indeed, Bathsheba should have just said no and she’d have been Uriah’s wife til the day he died a natural death......Thusly Not just saying if a girl just says no bad stuff won’t happen and on a completely different level is forgetting the freaking lineage of Jesus comes from Bathsheba’s progeny with DAVID.

Two - being in a Church situation with her would-be-husband where the group watched Return of the Daughters and she has the sense to see through crap and walks out. Glory hallelujah. For those who never had the delight to watch RotD, a statement is literally made (and further subtly taught) that if you’re a good Christian girl and stay at home with daddy til hubby wubby takes over your ownership, then you won’t have any bad stuff happen to you. 

On 11/2/2019 at 9:30 PM, AliceInFundyland said:

That's so sad. I knew she spearheaded it and I have followed some of the Nasser doings. I watched the HBO documentary about the case. His eventual trial and reading out by the judge and victims was excellent, if way overdue.

I did not know that Rachel had been previously assaulted. ? What a strong young woman. Systemic abuse is in too many damn systems.

 

They mention her mother had been too. So sad. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Nolongeroppressed8.4

[Nolongeroppressed8.4]

I can tell simply from Rachel’s descriptions of her parents and home life that if they were even remotely close to “fundy weird” they were not OF it completely. She is way too free thinking and brain smart and the fact that gymnastics was allowed.... I almost suspect her husband may have come from the more conservative background.   But he seems to a gem. She is, to me, a “such a time as this” to be just close enough to all the crazy weird crap to be able to speak to people who are in it so they can see the light. If she was some ultra normal public school unchurched girl who had lost her virginity at 15 willingly the whole church world would have used that against her. As it is they’re being forced to get uncomfortably close to the whole fact that she was molested in a church and by a doctor all while being a good Christian girl, raised right, at home, with her Mom in the room, she was “under her parents umbrella of protection not being Rebellious” Omg the words are gagging me. Repress! Repress! 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Nolongeroppressed8.4

[Howl]

On 11/4/2019 at 1:36 PM, Flyinthesoup said:

I do agree with your assessment of 'shutting up and obeying adults instantly' is a clear path to abuse for children.  

It also creates an ultra obedient adult, one who won't dare question any authority figure in their life, like a minister or elder or fellow parishioner, who then has cover to abuse  -- physically, emotionally, spiritually.  Touch Not Mine Annointed! 

[Themanda Duggar]

9 hours ago, Nolongeroppressed8.4 said:

 I think Oakbrook pushes taking the bar in CA because it’s the hardest? Seems he could have just tried in the state he lived in, no? Weird. 

  Every other state requires you to actually attend classes at an accredited law school, and to graduate from it.  California is the only state that does not require a law degree to become a lawyer, you just have to pass the test.  Oak brook is not a real law school, and it’s graduates can only practice law in CA, if they can pass the bar.  They are not qualified, meaning an oakbrook diploma is not a recognized credential, to take the bar exam in any other state.

[Leftitinmysnood]

9 hours ago, Nolongeroppressed8.4 said:

I heard Natty had gone at least 5 times to take the bar and given his incessant use of credentials despite lacking the actually important ones, he must not have passed it. Apparently This is why he sells insurance. LOL I heard from a mutual acquaintance he tried to get a job  with ADF and it wasn’t until a second or third interview they learned through their own research he didn’t actually pass the bar. ??‍♀️ I think Oakbrook pushes taking the bar in CA because it’s the hardest? Seems he could have just tried in the state he lived in, no? Weird. 

 

OBCL is registered as a school in CA, so students have to take the bar in California. CA has looser rules about who can take the bar than many states.  There is limited reciprocity for other state bars if you attended a non ABA school like Oak Brook.

The rumor I heard was that Darnell couldn't pass the professional responsibility exam. 

[nausicaa]

Just now, Themanda Duggar said:

  Every other state requires you to actually attend classes at an accredited law school, and to graduate from it.  California is the only state that does not require a law degree to become a lawyer, you just have to pass the test.  

I believe there's four states that allow this: CA, VT, VA, and WA. I only know this because I'm from Virginia and it blew my mind when I learned there's a loophole from back in the day where you can apprentice without pay for three years with an attorney. 

It also looks like ME, WY, and NY allow you to become a lawyer if you pass the bar after only a year or two of law school. 

It looks like only 28% of the already tiny number of these types pass the bar.

[Themanda Duggar]

17 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I believe there's four states that allow this: CA, VT, VA, and WA. I only know this because I'm from Virginia and it blew my mind when I learned there's a loophole from back in the day where you can apprentice without pay for three years with an attorney. 

It also looks like ME, WY, and NY allow you to become a lawyer if you pass the bar after only a year or two of law school. 

It looks like only 28% of the already tiny number of these types pass the bar.

Interesting.  This is from the legal disclosures on the Oakbrook website-

Study at, or graduation from, this school may not qualify a student to take the bar examination or to satisfy the requirements for admission to practice in jurisdictions other than California. 

[nausicaa]

Just now, Themanda Duggar said:

Interesting.  This is from the legal disclosures on the Oakbrook website-

Study at, or graduation from, this school may not qualify a student to take the bar examination or to satisfy the requirements for admission to practice in jurisdictions other than California. 

Yeah, I don't know how reciprocity laws work (is it even called reciprocity when discussing licensed professions? Requisite IANAL disclaimer here.) It looks like each of these loophole states have their own respective apprenticeship requirements. In Virginia the lawyer you are apprenticing must have been practicing for at least ten years and you cannot be paid during your apprenticeship; however Vermont and California don't have such requirements. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-become-an-attorney-without-law-school-2014-7

[Flyinthesoup]

10 hours ago, Howl said:

It also creates an ultra obedient adult, one who won't dare question any authority figure in their life, like a minister or elder or fellow parishioner, who then has cover to abuse  -- physically, emotionally, spiritually.  Touch Not Mine Annointed! 

I am assuming you mean that a child, raised under that abuse/way of thinking, will grow into an adult believing that, do I have that correct?  I would agree that could happen. Or, are you saying adults who are trained with that mindset?  When children get older and start seeing more of the world, there are many who would turn their back on that type of thinking.  Perhaps some adults would embrace that type of thinking, but for how long?  Perhaps I am a rebel at heart.  I question everything and will not pass the test of 'obedience without question'.  I hope I have demonstrated that for my children.  

[snarkopolis]

14 hours ago, Nolongeroppressed8.4 said:

I heard Natty had gone at least 5 times to take the bar and given his incessant use of credentials despite lacking the actually important ones, he must not have passed it. Apparently This is why he sells insurance. LOL I heard from a mutual acquaintance he tried to get a job  with ADF and it wasn’t until a second or third interview they learned through their own research he didn’t actually pass the bar. ??‍♀️ I think Oakbrook pushes taking the bar in CA because it’s the hardest? Seems he could have just tried in the state he lived in, no? Weird. 

She also references Two things that really resonated with me given my past. One - at a church youth group event (which was mixed so obviously the church was not as fundy as I come from), the case of Bathsheba and David was discussed and a boy got agreement from the leader that yes indeed, Bathsheba should have just said no and she’d have been Uriah’s wife til the day he died a natural death......Thusly Not just saying if a girl just says no bad stuff won’t happen and on a completely different level is forgetting the freaking lineage of Jesus comes from Bathsheba’s progeny with DAVID.

Two - being in a Church situation with her would-be-husband where the group watched Return of the Daughters and she has the sense to see through crap and walks out. Glory hallelujah. For those who never had the delight to watch RotD, a statement is literally made (and further subtly taught) that if you’re a good Christian girl and stay at home with daddy til hubby wubby takes over your ownership, then you won’t have any bad stuff happen to you. 

They mention her mother had been too. So sad. 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by snarkopolis
They push the California Bar because it allows you to sit even if you graduated from an unaccreditated school. Other states will not let you take it.

[clueliss]

We have a coach accused now

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/12/us/terry-gray-las-vegas-arrest/index.html

[kpmom]

Just chiming in to say for anyone who has Netflix there is a documentary about this called Athlete A.

I don't think it's as good or in depth as some of their other docs, though.

[RosyDaisy]

I watched it.  It's basically Maggie Nichols' story.  She was a member of the gold medal winning gymnastics team in 2015 and won a bronze medal in the floor exercise.  She was the first one to report Nassar, but remained anonymous (Rachael Denhollender was the first to go public).  After watching Athlete A, I am convinced that Maggie was denied a spot on the 2016 Olympic team because she reported Nassar, not because of an injury.  She retired from elite gymnastics and went on to compete for the University of Oklahoma and had a phenomenal career there.  Many other victims also had outstanding college gymnastics careers.  So, fuck USA Gymnastics and the Karolyis.  They all knew what was going on and didn't care.  They cared about medals, never the athletes.  There's a special place in Hell waiting for them and Nassar.

[haroldtheyrefundies]

Simone Biles recently did an interview with Vogue and she talked in detail about her experience with Nassar. It took her a really long time to realize that she was one of his victims because in her opinion, she didn't have it as bad as some of the other girls. It wasn't until Maggie shared her story to the public that Simone realized she was one of her victims because what Maggie went through is a lot of the same stuff that Simone went through. It was a really interesting and heartbreaking read. She mentioned that it's hard for her to go to doctor's offices alone now but she went to one alone recently and was really proud of herself for doing that.