• From: City of Angels
  • Registered: 2005-06-25

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Monica,

thanks for sharing your story about what's going on with your son.  It must be maddening and frustrating for you to have to put up with this.

If you don't mind me asking, I would be curious to know how the arrest has affected you personally.  Prior to the arrest of your son, what were your thoughts towards society? Were you "as attentive" to what's going on, or did the arrest change things for you?

I realize these are very personal questions, but I ask becuase I think a lot of parents are extremely busy these days and aren't aware of the tremendous stress and damage that society enacts to young people.  Your son was clearly frustrated with life and his emotional responses are indicative of that frustration.  But if you are willing to humor me, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on your own attitudes about life and how this event affected things.  To learn about your experiences would shed light, perhaps, on the experiences of parents in today's world, and what needs to happen to awaken people. 

All the best,

SS Elephant

Your focus determines your reality -- Qui Gon Jinn

17 Reply by Monica

  • Monica
  • Guest

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Thanks for your reply and questions, SS Elephant. I feel part of the purpose of this experience is indeed to tell the story for parents and children to gleen what they can from it.

I've gotten tired of the news and don't pay much attention to it because it's so full of baloney. I've researched quite a bit on what's "really" going on in our world and just where it comes from (not earth originally). That's in part why I was so shocked about this. I'm not a very public person, I stay away from volatile situations, I walk the ascension path, and felt I had protection from this type of situation.

I also knew my son was having a difficult school year for various reasons. He's the kind of kid who wouldn't hurt anyone but is quite angry at the system, so he's been coming to terms with this as he's grown. He was home the day he was arrested for a mental health day (I'm OK with those) because of an emotional situation at school that he needed to come to terms with (part of what he wrote about). We're a bit unusual that way, as we acknowledge that our son doesn't fit society's norm and allow him to be unconventional instead of trying to make him fit. You could say that backfired, but as always, there's a reason.

Yes, it is frustrating to deal with the situation. I'm not schooled in politics and have never had run-ins with the law myself, so to be shuffled through all this gets my dander up. As with my son, I find if I'm cooperative things usually work out. This time his cooperation has turned into "gee, he doesn't seem concerned about what he's done." Umm, that's because he didn't do anything wrong. He was judged for being calm, a symptom of a psychopath. Sigh.

So I'm not any more or less attentive to what's going on in society than I was before. I'm experiencing what I knew to be the Truth but hadn't had a hands-on situation with to bring it home.

If you have specific questions, I'd be glad to reply.

Peace,
Monica

  • Ayla
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2005-02-11

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Monica wrote:

This topic caught my eye as my family is going through something related. In April my 17-year-old son wrote a "release of emotions" as he has been taught to do. You know ... write, paint, play music, yell, pound pillows, the type of things you do to release pent-up shtuff so you don't act out on dissonant emotions. Unfortunately, his pad and pencil of the moment was his AIM profile. He thought since he clicked "Hide" no one could see his profile, and he typed away. Alas, a schoolmate (13-year-old girl) saw it and got concerned. For various reasons, my son had mentioned "if I killed myself" and "if I shoot up the school." Now, these are not things he would do, but because of tensions in the school system lately, he did what normal teenagers do (I think, anyway). Like, "I'm so pissed I could kill the teacher" or "This school is so bogus I could blow it up." Tension release, not threats.

Alas, the girl turned in the info to the dean of students who proceeded to call the county law enforcement agency. My son has never been in trouble with the law or with schools, has no record of any sort, is friendly, kind, teachers all want more like him in their class, etc., etc. But instead of calling me and finding out what might be going on with him because this was so unlike him, the school called the law.

My son was home that day, and about noon I answered the door to find 2 county detectives waving their badges, entering my home, walking into my son's room, getting him out of bed, forcing him to dress in front of them, sitting him down to talk about this (which he didn't remember writing exactly because once he released it, it was gone), and hauling him down to the hospital for a mental health assessment "for his own safety." All without a warrant. To me it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but I've also learned since that there is a juvenile protection code in which, if a juvenile indicates he might injure himself or another, they can take them without a warrant.

Along with this they took our computer. I mentioned to the dics about getting a warrant before they did, and they said they'd get one later if they needed to search the 'puter. When we got the computer back, the warrant was dated for 5 days after they took it, and their claim was "we always do it this way." Illegal search and seizure.

At the hospital the crisis nurse assessed him as no threat to himself or anybody else and signed off to let him go home. But the county stepped in, hauled him downtown, interrogated him, charged him with making a terroristic threat, and drove him to a juvenile center 65 miles away shackled and handcuffed in the back of a squad car. We were shocked, to say the least, terrorized and violated. I found out later the 3 dics (one had been in the backyard) at my home were utilized by non-3D entities in this crazy armageddon to set a grid of terror around our home ... all in the mentality of "for my son's safety and the safety of the community." Everybody was safe now, from this kid who gets a towel to catch a bat in the house and let it go while everybody else is swinging at it with a broom.

Long story to get to the mental health part. My son had to undergo many psychological tests and discussions with a psychologist to discern his mental health and assess if he was a threat. This for both the legal system and the school system. Bottomline, he's not a threat and is OK except for some minor coping, anxiety, and boundary things ... which, to most people I talk to, aren't abnormal for a 17-year-old boy.

We're in the legal process. After some unprofessional mess-ups by the county, he is going to trial in August. I can't imagine this will go very far, but then I couldn't imagine it happening in the first place, nor how inept and "nazi-like" the whole situation has been. I don't have the words to explain, but living in a police state comes to mind and governing by fear and hysteria. I also read in another post about the elderly man moving back to Germany because of what's happening here, and I highly concur with his assessment.

This is an experience of living in the machine, The Matrix. The woman who called the law is named Steinkamp and is called Steinkampf by the students for her ways. The students don't want anything to do with this dean of students, as she is inept at her job and finds her power by making others look bad. So, in this case, she feeds the fear and hysteria to the school community while looking like a savior; the law enforcement agency feeds these to the greater community while strutting that they've done their jobs; the mental health community feeds itself by deciding this normal kid needs adjusting and sending him to counseling (so he can become what they think he "should" be instead of allowing him to be his unconventional self); and the legal system, which could have dropped the charges based on lack of evidence (no guns, no computer plans, no kids confirming he discusses violence, he didn't intend to make this public, his intent was not to threaten, etc., etc.), instead feeds itself by dragging out the process and sending him to trial. Self-perpetuating madness in the name of keeping the community safe. What's wrong with this picture?

Thanks for listening.

Peace,
Monica

Have you heard of the National Youth Rights Association? They and a bunch of other activist groups fight this type of injustice. We have a whole section on Education discussion on the forum site, and are active in helping other students around the country.

Granted, what your son did was wrong and stupid, but there was a breach of not only his, but your due process rights that need to be addressed immediately. The only way we can win against this is to fight it.

go to www.youthrights.org

19 Reply by Monica

  • Monica
  • Guest

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Thanks, Ayla. Excellent. I'll look into sharing this story with them.

I have to say that I don't think what my son did was wrong per se. Action based on ignorance, yes, but I'm not sure what would be wrong about that. Not that ignorance is bliss or ignorance of the law is innocence, but he typed and deleted it, just not before someone saw it. And he made no threats. Maybe you'd explain what you see as wrong so I understand your view. Thanks!

Peace,
Monica

  • Ayla
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2005-02-11

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

He should've known better than to spout threats like that in the world that we live in. For the most part the internet is great at keeping people anonymous. But when you write subliminal threats to your self and others inside a profile of you, you're just asking for trouble. Was he a danger? No. Would a normal person merely reading his profile be able to make that distinction? No. And how would they be. They only know what his online profile tells them.

It... just seems like he should've had more common sense about it. If you want to threaten or bash other people and institutions, you don't do it in a place where they can find you.

21 Reply by Monica

  • Monica
  • Guest

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Thanks, Ayla. Imo, what one person sees "should" be, another might disagree with for equally valid reasons. My son used the profile to journal and deleted it, but unfortunately not before someone saw it. Naivete? Yes. Ignorance? Yes. Lacking common sense that comes from experience? Yes. Did he threaten anyone or intend to? No. Was he wrong to write where and what he did, as in right vs. wrong? Imo, no, because he is a naive, ignorant, inexperienced child. Could be semantics, though. And he won't be doing it again. Lesson learned, and the price is being paid. But I don't see how something can be wrong if you don't know any better and the intent is innocent.

Peace,
Monica

  • Registered: 2004-04-21

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

He wasn't wrong; the "rules" are wrong.  It's unfortunate that he's now having to learn how to navigate the sick system that generates our domestication programming.  I think this book would be helpful:
http://www.miguelruiz.com/teachings/fouragreements.html

  • Ayla
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2005-02-11

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Monica wrote:

Did he threaten anyone or intend to? No. Was he wrong to write where and what he did, as in right vs. wrong? Imo, no, because he is a naive, ignorant, inexperienced child.

hmmm... I respectfully disagree with that. Your son and I are the same age, and dispite my own adolecent quirks I would never do something like that. Don't sell him that short in calling him an ignorant child. He knows and understands alot more than you percieve he does, especially if you would label him a child.



And he won't be doing it again. Lesson learned, and the price is being paid.

Agreed. And this is where we stand together in both believing that it was an honest mistake, and a crusade against him shouldn't be waged

But I don't see how something can be wrong if you don't know any better and the intent is innocent.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but he should've known better. Thats all I'm getting at. Your son and I go to school in a post columbine era. I remember my elementary school going through code lock drills just months after, and I live on the other side of the country. He had to have known at least to some degree what Columbine was, what those two students did, and how it would effect the way his behavior was treated from then on.

24 Reply by lyra (edited by lyra 2005-06-27 08:08:16)

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Partly I think it's not really worth it to even debate this issue, only because we weren't there, and didn't see what he actually wrote. We're just taking somebody's word for it and hearing about it second hand.  But I can't help but note several issues here, namely:  Everything about the way Monica's story was relayed relies on specific word usage which paints her son, and what he did, in a nonchalant manner, trying to excuse it and play it down.  Here's why:


Monica wrote:

In April my 17-year-old son wrote a "release of emotions" as he has been taught to do.

"As he has been taught to do" takes the blame off of him.    It's not his fault....somebody else *taught him to do that*.   See?


Monica wrote:

but because of tensions in the school system lately, he did what normal teenagers do (I think, anyway). Like, "I'm so pissed I could kill the teacher" or "This school is so bogus I could blow it up."

No actually, this isn't what "normal teenagers do."   Not that there really is such a thing as "normal" anyway, but to say that his behavior is along the lines of everybody else's............ it's not.  Again, it's providing excuses - "He only did what every normal teenager does!"



Monica wrote:

Tension release, not threats.

This has already been covered, but again, in this post-Columbine age, how do you think "they" are going to react to that?

Also, why would someone use a public access AIM profile for "tension release" ???   A personal journal would do the trick, it's what most people would probably do.


Monica wrote:

The woman who called the law is named Steinkamp and is called Steinkampf by the students for her ways. The students don't want anything to do with this dean of students, as she is inept at her job and finds her power by making others look bad. So, in this case, she feeds the fear and hysteria to the school community while looking like a savior.....

But the problem isn't all Frauline Steinkampf. wink   Granted, she sounds like a pill, and I agree with Tom Paine that it seems she's been inserted in to stifle the creative STO atmosphere of the school, but on the other hand, it takes two.  Your son made references on an internet profile to shooting up the school.   This was brought to her attention.  As a dean of students, it's now her responsiblity to look into it. That's her job.    Now, maybe they should have dropped it once it became clear that there was no evidence, and it sounds like her personality leaves little to be desired, but you can't fault a dean of students for doing their job.  So in this situation it's not all her.


Monica wrote:

Of course. This is what he's learned. There was a similar situation as Columbine near us at that time, and "today's climate" was very much in discussion at school and in the community at the time......

So then he was very aware of things, like Ayla mentioned he should be.   Which means he's not the ignorant child you keep referring to him as in several posts.   


Monica wrote:

He had not had first-hand experience with this (not being able to express himself freely), which is how he learns best no matter what I the mom tell him.

But he was aware of Columbine, and you even said there was a "similar situation as Columbine" near you at the time.    So it's called common sense.   There's no excuse then to go and mention shooting / blowing up the school and teachers on the internet when somebody is supposedly very much aware of what our current political climate is.


Monica wrote:

It is his initiation into the Truth of the system. I would never consider slapping him around for youthful folly.

To me this comes across as a shoulder shrugging excuse apology for it all.  And to clarify, I didn't mean slapping in the literal sense.  I figured that was obvious.  wink  I meant it in a figuritive way, to convey sighing and head shaking attitude.

And I want to say that I'm not mentioning all of this as a form of judgment.......the reason I mention it is to turn this back to you so you can see the things you're writing.    I don't think you realize how you're sounding - you probably don't see how you're excusing him and using certain word choices which try to bias the reader and put a spin on things:

"ignorant" "youthful folly" "child""inexperienced" "naivete" "normal behavior", etc.


Monica wrote:

I walk the ascension path, and felt I had protection from this type of situation.

?   I'm wondering why that is.  Why does walking the ascension path mean that one would have protection in the event that their son does something like getting on the internet and saying that he wants to kill his teachers, and blow up the school?   

Again, this isn't judgment;  I'm pointing out things you've said that strike me as unusual.

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

  • From: City of Angels
  • Registered: 2005-06-25

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

lyra wrote:

Partly I think it's not really worth it to even debate this issue, only because we weren't there, and didn't see what he actually wrote. We're just taking somebody's word for it and hearing about it second hand.  But I can't help but note several issues here, namely:  Everything about the way Monica's story was relayed relies on specific word usage which paints her son, and what he did, in a nonchalant manner, trying to excuse it and play it down.

It is worth mentioning that all reality -- yours and mine -- depends intimately on our own point of view. 

No one here knows "what happened"; and even the participants themselves no doubt have their own perspectives on what took place.  As does Monica, who is relaying the story to us.

Unfortunately I don't see much point in trying to label Monica's son, to categorize him into a neat box where we can then feel better that a certain drama has played out in a certain way.  The argument here seems to be that his son is being "excused," that he should have known better.   This is a natural reaction, because by labelling him as such, it absolves us of the reality that oftentimes people simply don't know better; that life is oftentimes random it in its dispensing of good and ill fortune; that sometimes the world just isn't "fair" in our scheme of things. 

What's most useful is to dissect what we can from the experience to aid us in our own lives.  This requires thinking without preconceived categories, otherwise we fall victim to our own judgments and perceptions about things.

anyway, something to think about, and I truly hope the discussion continues!

SS

Your focus determines your reality -- Qui Gon Jinn
  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

SS Elephant wrote:

It is worth mentioning that all reality -- yours and mine -- depends intimately on our own point of view.

I am well aware of that.   I usually use the term "subjective" when I refer to that actually.



SS Elephant wrote:

No one here knows "what happened"; and even the participants themselves no doubt have their own perspectives on what took place.  As does Monica, who is relaying the story to us.

That was exactly my point when I said: 

lyra wrote:

only because we weren't there, and didn't see what he actually wrote. We're just taking somebody's word for it and hearing about it second hand.

So thank you for wording it in a different way.  My way probably wasn't as clear.



SS Elephant wrote:

Unfortunately I don't see much point in trying to label Monica's son, to categorize him into a neat box where we can then feel better that a certain drama has played out in a certain way.

Well, if you read my posts, I refrained from labeling anybody with names.  The only thing I did say, if it could be considered "labeling" or "boxing", was to say that both sides made mistakes.  Both sides could have done something differently. Call it a non-biased 3rd party point of view / opinion, if you will.   wink   

In my first post, my main point was to call to light the times we live in and to tell people that we need to be very careful nowadays with the things we say and do, because unfortunately, things are moving towards a police state.  You don't want to be doing or saying things which make the authorities "jumpy" post-9/11 and post-Columbine.

In my second post  I questioned the way Monica presented things overall;  the word choicing which indicates a slant or bias.  (To me, anyway.)   I also asked a question regarding something she wrote.  But overall, I don't think any of this constitutes "labeling" or "boxing."


SS Elephant wrote:

The argument here seems to be that his son is being "excused," that he should have known better.

Well, not sure about others, but my main arguments are as listed above.


SS Elephant wrote:

This is a natural reaction, because by labelling him as such....

I guess we have different definitions of labeling.  I define labeling as actual name calling, which I refrained from doing, as that's a form of judgment.   And as I stressed in my last post, I don't intend this to be judgmental.  I'm mostly asking questions and pointing out things.   So, being that Monica already mentioned several times that her son was aware of Columbine, it would seem to follow that he wouldn't therefore start saying Colubmine-esque things.   Pointing that out isn't labeling, in my definition. 



SS Elephant wrote:

it absolves us of the reality that oftentimes people simply don't know better; that life is oftentimes random it in its dispensing of good and ill fortune; that sometimes the world just isn't "fair" in our scheme of things.

Well I understand that, but I've already noted that I wasn't lableing, and that I'm also aware of what I call the subjective nature of the way people perceive their life events.



SS Elephant wrote:

What's most useful is to dissect what we can from the experience to aid us in our own lives.

That's exactly what I already said, here in my first post:

lyra wrote:

Again, I don't say this to rub salt in the wound, and these pointers are not directed at you personally, per se, because your situation has already happened.  This is just a general commentary for everybody's future benefit, because you're not the only one who either has, or will, find themselves in a situation like this.   There will be loads more like this, no doubt about it.    So I'm glad you posted your account, as it brings this issue to light.

SS Elephant wrote:

This requires thinking without preconceived categories, otherwise we fall victim to our own judgments and perceptions about things.

Well, I've already covered this now by this point.   If one chooses to walk away after reading my posts feeling that I wrote from a place of "preconceived categories" and judgements, well that's fine.  But if you were referring to Ayla's posts when you said that, then please disregard.   smile

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

27 Reply by Monica

  • Monica
  • Guest

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Thanks, everyone. I'll explain my intent.

What I mean by ignorant is uninformed of the repercussions of writing this because he was uninformed that clicking Hide wouldn't protect him. He didn't think it would be read. And sorry, Ayla, but I'm 54. I don't mean to be an ageist in any way because I know young people can be wiser than their elders because they haven't been exposed to the system yet, but 17 is still a child in many ways.

My intent is not to excuse him nor to play this down nonchalantly, but to share info without being emotionally attached.

Lyra wrote:

"As he has been taught to do" takes the blame off of him.    It's not his fault....somebody else *taught him to do that*.   See?

My intent is not to take the "blame" off him, though I prefer to make it his responsibility rather than blame him. What I mean is that, as a young child, he was taught to channel his anger into creative outlets. So, he was angry and he wrote about it ... in a poor choice of places.

Lyra wrote:

Not that there really is such a thing as "normal" anyway, but to say that his behavior is along the lines of everybody else's............ it's not.  Again, it's providing excuses - "He only did what every normal teenager does!"

Indeed, you're right. What's "normal"?

But hmm, I don't know. I have pondered this a lot because of the enormity of what's going on, and asked a number of people their views on this. Everyone (and that's not a blanket statement but a fact) I have talked to outside the systems involved says this happens and do not see what he said as threatening or abnormal. Do all kids do it? No. I didn't mean to imply that, though did by using the word "every". But I have come to terms with this not being an excuse because, in discussion with parents and non-parents, concensus is that it wasn't a threat.

Lyra wrote:

Also, why would someone use a public access AIM profile for "tension release" ???   A personal journal would do the trick, it's what most people would probably do.

As I mentioned before, journaling is what he usually does. At the time he didn't have pen & pad in hand and needed to write. There was a lot going on for him emotionally and he just typed instead of getting up for the paper. Poor choice.

Lyra wrote:

But the problem isn't all Frauline Steinkampf.    Granted, she sounds like a pill, and I agree with Tom Paine that it seems she's been inserted in to stifle the creative STO atmosphere of the school, but on the other hand, it takes two.  Your son made references on an internet profile to shooting up the school.   This was brought to her attention.  As a dean of students, it's now her responsiblity to look into it. That's her job.    Now, maybe they should have dropped it once it became clear that there was no evidence, and it sounds like her personality leaves little to be desired, but you can't fault a dean of students for doing their job.  So in this situation it's not all her.

Of course it's not all her. I'm telling aspects of what happened. Of course she did her job, and I don't blame anyone. She did what she knew how to do. A main concern of mine and other parents I've talked to is that the parents (of a child who has no record of any sort, no noted concerns by teachers or others, who is known to be kind and friendly) weren't called first and asked what was going on with him. "We have some concerns. Here's what we know. What do you know? Keep him home till we clear this up. We have to call the law." Much could have been cleared up before the law was called, which I accept needed to happen according to current "rules." This story is second-hand from me to you and details are missing, yes, but some parents of the school are concerned that the school is operating this way, that this is the way Steinkamp does her job.

Lyra wrote:

So then he was very aware of things, like Ayla mentioned he should be.   Which means he's not the ignorant child you keep referring to him as in several posts.

He didn't understand that clicking Hide didn't protect him. Did it lack common sense to put this online at all? Of course. But common sense also comes from experiences that push growth out of naivete, and if it didn't occur to him that this would be a problem, it didn't occur.

Lyra wrote:

But he was aware of Columbine, and you even said there was a "similar situation as Columbine" near you at the time.    So it's called common sense.   There's no excuse then to go and mention shooting / blowing up the school and teachers on the internet when somebody is supposedly very much aware of what our current political climate is.

I don't mean to dismiss what you're saying nor that what he did lacked common sense, but again, he thought he was hidden. He was ignorant that clicking Hide didn't really hide him.

Lyra wrote:

To me this comes across as a shoulder shrugging excuse apology for it all.  And to clarify, I didn't mean slapping in the literal sense.  I figured that was obvious.

And I figured a lot of what I said was obvious too. ;-) Shoulder shrugging isn't what I'm doing.

Lyra wrote:

And I want to say that I'm not mentioning all of this as a form of judgment.......the reason I mention it is to turn this back to you so you can see the things you're writing.    I don't think you realize how you're sounding - you probably don't see how you're excusing him and using certain word choices which try to bias the reader and put a spin on things:

"ignorant" "youthful folly" "child""inexperienced" "naivete" "normal behavior", etc.

It's a matter of interpretation. What I write and what you read can be two different things, and reality is in the eye of the receiver. I don't intend to put a spin on things but to convey my view. And I don't excuse him from what he did, but as SS Elephant said, oftentimes people simply don't know better.

Monica wrote:

I walk the ascension path, and felt I had protection from this type of situation.

Lyra wrote:

?  I'm wondering why that is.  Why does walking the ascension path mean that one would have protection in the event that their son does something like getting on the internet and saying that he wants to kill his teachers, and blow up the school?

I don't mean I had protection in the event that my son does something. I mean that I didn't think I would be involved in it in the first place. LOL. Naivete on my part. Btw, he didn't mention he WANTED to kill himself or blow up the school, but pondered what would happen IF he did ... as kids had been discussing at school anyway. No threat was made. And he didn't mention the teachers at all. The psychologist does not see the threat in it either, and he took the message apart line by line with my son.

Thanks for the discussion. It helps me get out of emotional charges and twisted thinking I may have, as well as showing me what's clear.

Peace,
Monica

28 Reply by SS Elephant (edited by SS Elephant 2005-06-27 15:40:51)

  • From: City of Angels
  • Registered: 2005-06-25

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

lyra wrote:
SS Elephant wrote:

Unfortunately I don't see much point in trying to label Monica's son, to categorize him into a neat box where we can then feel better that a certain drama has played out in a certain way.

Well, if you read my posts, I refrained from labeling anybody with names.  The only thing I did say, if it could be considered "labeling" or "boxing", was to say that both sides made mistakes.  Both sides could have done something differently. Call it a non-biased 3rd party point of view / opinion, if you will.   wink   

In my first post, my main point was to call to light the times we live in and to tell people that we need to be very careful nowadays with the things we say and do, because unfortunately, things are moving towards a police state.  You don't want to be doing or saying things which make the authorities "jumpy" post-9/11 and post-Columbine.

In my second post  I questioned the way Monica presented things overall;  the word choicing which indicates a slant or bias.  (To me, anyway.)   I also asked a question regarding something she wrote.  But overall, I don't think any of this constitutes "labeling" or "boxing."

Lyra,

I totally agree that people have to be careful these days about what they say, and I totally agree that both sides could have done things differently.  So in that, I would say we share a lot of common ground so far. 

lyra wrote:

I guess we have different definitions of labeling.  I define labeling as actual name calling, which I refrained from doing, as that's a form of judgment.   And as I stressed in my last post, I don't intend this to be judgmental.  I'm mostly asking questions and pointing out things.   So, being that Monica already mentioned several times that her son was aware of Columbine, it would seem to follow that he wouldn't therefore start saying Colubmine-esque things.   Pointing that out isn't labeling, in my definition.

I guess herein lies the distinction I'm trying to make.  Knowing about Columbine, and then saying stuff that reminds people about Columbine, is likely to produce a very fear filled reaction.  And, reasonable people I would think would want to *avoid* doing that.  I think so far we agree.  I guess the point I was trying to make was that this student *didn't* follow that line of thinking, and did something anyway that most people would avoid doing because of the consequences that attach to that.

What's interesting to me is *why* the student did that.  It's an open and shut discussion to merely say that it was wrong, shouldn't have done it, etc.  So it appears irrational, and I guess I'm curious as to even if after knowing the consequences of an action, someone does it anyway, why they chose to do it. 

Your general point, if I'm reading you right, is that he should have known better with Columbine and what not, and he shouldn't have done it.  I agree. But, what's done is done -- and it's important to figure out what caused that behavior, why someone did something they shouldn't have done, to avoid future instances. 

And I think there's a relationship between the behavior of this child and the social consequences that happened as a result.  Hate begets hate, and the fear and anger that no doubt led him to write out his emotions about looking to violence as the answer to his problems produced a powerful counterreaction in those around him, which in turn leads to more repression, leading to more anger, etc. etc.  To stop the tidal wave of hate accruing in modern life means that at some point, someone, somewhere has to draw the line and say enough hate and judgment is enough.  One of the ways to do that, I think, is through this type of analysis.

Frankly, I don't think we disagree all that much, lol.  Such is the complicated nature of discussing pretty indepth material over a computer.
All the best, 

SS

Your focus determines your reality -- Qui Gon Jinn

29 Reply by Sowelu (edited by Sowelu 2005-06-27 14:29:42)

  • Registered: 2005-06-26

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Rather than look at it from a perspective of "right/wrong", "should/shouldn't", perhaps one could go with the concept that there was an unconscious "need" to bring something to the surface, to make conscious the need to find a new way to address feelings. All there is is lessons, as the well-known saying goes, and he's in one. By discussing it here, we all get to benefit (Thanks, Monica, for bringing it to the forum).

He has been taught to express his feelings honestly, which is important, but then what? For all intents and purposes, they were "what is" for him, and so he said so in a moment of intensity. "Ok, so this is 'what is'"... but perhaps he's now at a point in his life where it's time to figure out the next step; "what do we do about it?"

One of the first things that's revealed is that one can't actually "hide" from their feelings. He already knew, it seems, that he can't hide them from himself, thus the honest expression. But now he's seeing that he can't hide them from anyone else, either. Not really. Thinking we are hiding these feelings of conflict with life, we still end up creating painful experiences revealing our inner conflict. It's as if life took this opportunity to show him that: "Ok, this is 'what is' for you, but you can't hide it. That doesn't work."

And perhaps this experience has revealed to him that in this world at this stage, perhaps the best arena for emotional revelation is a very private one. A sort of symbolic pointer toward "within". That's where the feelings live or originate, that's where they need to be addressed: "Ok, so this is 'what is', but putting it 'out there' brings a whole new set of escalating emotional experience".

His action was a first step in taking responsibility for self. He "owned" the feelings by expressing them honestly. But how and where we do that matters, as this experience clearly shows. Second step is, once these types of feelings are revealed, "something" must be done about them. By choosing to express them "in the world", so to speak, we get one kind of result. Perhaps this unconsciously occurred out of a sense of "need" in him that "something be done" about what he's been feeling.

In our fears around fear, we tend to want to push them off on someone or something else. He's clearly been shown that this won't work to his advantage, either. "Perhaps if I blame my environment for my feelings, something will be done to change them both." But no, what he sees is a revealing truth that "out there" is not really the cause of what's felt "in here". And "out there" has no clue how to fix what we feel "in here". Out there is just triggering us. The real place of difficulty actually and truly is "in here".

What society chooses to do about fear and other feelings in its institutionalized insanity, he is now seeing is not such a satisfying response. It solves nothing, blows things up to proportions of ridiculous, and generally creates more havoc than the original feelings. "Out there" is actually a secondary causal field anyway. Trying to fix something there is bound to compound, rather than resolve, the problem.

This is the world he's currently living in. To get such a vivid display at such a tender age, while frighening, uncomfortable and unsettling, may be just the ticket to shake him awake to the need for a different kind of response to the emotional center in himself. A sort of jolt that says, "take personal, intimate responsibility for yourself". Anything else is just crazy these days (and always was, I'd say. It's just that now it's become impossible to deny).

Best to you, Monica, and your son,
Sowelu

"The most important decision you have to make is whether you live in a hostile or friendly universe."
~ Albert Einstein

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. ~Marcel Proust

The evolution of humanity is an evolution of the heart. The path is through the heart.

30 Reply by Monica

  • Monica
  • Guest

Re: Mental Health Screening Now Mandated In Schools.

Thanks, SS Elephant.

SS Elephant wrote:

Knowing about Columbine, and then saying stuff that reminds people about Columbine, is likely to produce a very fear filled reaction.  And, reasonable people I would think would want to *avoid* doing that.  I think so far we agree.  I guess the point I was trying to make was that this student *didn't* follow that line of thinking, and did something anyway that most people would avoid doing because of the consequences that attach to that.

What's interesting to me is *why* the student did that.  It's an open and shut discussion to merely say that it was wrong, shouldn't have done it, etc.  So it appears irrational, and I guess I'm curious as to even if after knowing the consequences of an action, someone does it anyway, why they chose to do it.

It didn't seem like quite such a big deal to my son because the kids had been talking at school about related issues for 3 weeks after 10 people were killed by a student in Red Lake 120 miles away. In some ways what he wrote was a continuation of the conversation, pondering ifs and whats and whys. Where some his age who later read what he wrote knew what he was referring to, the younger one who read it online took it as a sign of his intention to cause trouble. [Not sure if the ages make a difference, but thought I'd reference those.]

SS Elephant wrote:

Hate begets hate, and the fear and anger that no doubt led him to write out his emotions about looking to violence as the answer to his problems produced a powerful counterreaction in those around him,

But he wasn't looking to violence as the answer. He knew better. His writing was asking questions and releasing emotions about anger and despondency. Emotional release in a creative form, as in, "what would happen if ... " type of questioning. He didn't intend that violence was the answer, but in the mode of the discussions at school he questioned what would happen if ...

But nobody checked with him or us about what was going on, why he wrote it. Assumptions were made without all the facts. C'est l'vie, but that's what happened.



And thanks, Sowelu. ;-)

Sowelu wrote:

perhaps one could go with the concept that there was an unconscious "need" to bring something to the surface, to make conscious the need to find a new way to address feelings.

That's more what was going on ... a cry for assistance to deal with feelings of despondency and rejection, as well as cope with the heavy emotional air following the Red Lake shootings and discussions within his school. Brand new experiences to be learned from.

Sowelu wrote:

But now he's seeing that he can't hide them [his feelings] from anyone else, either.

He had been having a difficult year ... for one, many friends had graduated and he hadn't found a solid niche. He had tried discussing his despondency and rejection with other friends but people weren't hearing him. Now, I don't know how clear he was or if he was misunderstood or what ... he tends to be an "I'm fine" kinda guy, so to be discussing such intense personal emotions was probably difficult and when he was shut down he probably didn't know what to do to re-open the topic because people wouldn't expect these types of things from him. I hadn't looked at this before.

Sowelu wrote:

A sort of symbolic pointer toward "within".

It is always a process to get him to acknowledge what's going on within. He's pretty private, and not all that introspective. As a rule, are 17-year-old boys introspective?

Peace,
Monica