elpais.com
Inadequate Support for Vulnerable Adults Facing Controlling Families
Isabella Valero Boigues from Barcelona recounts her struggle against controlling family and ineffective social services, highlighting the systemic failure to protect vulnerable adults, especially within the LGBTQ+ community.
- What are the long-term societal impacts of failing to protect vulnerable adults from coercive control within their families, and what preventative measures can be implemented?
- The long-term consequences of this systemic failure include increased mental health issues, societal isolation, and the perpetuation of abusive family dynamics. Addressing this requires improved support systems, specialized training for social workers, and broader societal awareness of coercive control.
- How can social services be reformed to better understand and address the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals and other vulnerable groups experiencing family-based control?
- The lack of effective intervention by social services reveals a broader societal issue: the inadequate protection of vulnerable adults facing controlling family environments. This failure disproportionately affects marginalized groups such as the LGBTQ+ community, demonstrating a need for systemic reform.
- What systemic changes are needed to ensure vulnerable adults, particularly those from marginalized groups, receive adequate protection from controlling family environments and effective support to exercise their autonomy?
- Isabella Valero Boigues describes the insufficient support she received from social services after a suicide attempt, highlighting the systemic failure to protect vulnerable adults like LGBTQ+ individuals from controlling families. Many adults lack the resources and support networks to escape such situations independently.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
Both articles frame their narratives to evoke strong emotional responses. The first article uses emotionally charged language like "silenciosa," "fría," and "indiferente" to describe the experiences of the author and other vulnerable individuals, emphasizing the negativity of their situations. The second article uses strong language such as "camino peligroso," "cruel e inhumana," and "autoritaria" to characterize Trump's actions, thereby creating a negative and alarming impression. The headlines also contribute to the framing. The choice of "Un camino peligroso" is immediately alarming, while "Menos X, más calle" is less clear and could be interpreted differently.
Language Bias
In the first article, terms like "fría," "burocrática," and "poco efectiva" carry negative connotations when describing social services, shaping reader perception negatively. Neutral alternatives might include "inefficient," "under-resourced," or describing specific shortcomings. In the second article, words like "agresiva," "cruel," and "autoritaria" are used to describe Trump's policies, potentially swaying the reader toward a negative view. More neutral alternatives could include "assertive," "unconventional," and "strong." The third article uses inflammatory terms such as "intolerancia" and "machista" when referring to those with anti-Islam sentiments, potentially creating an us-versus-them narrative.
Bias by Omission
The articles lack data on the effectiveness of social services in supporting vulnerable groups like the LGBTQ+ community. There is no mention of success stories or alternative support systems that might exist. The omission of this information leaves the reader with a potentially incomplete and pessimistic view of available resources. Additionally, the second article omits discussion of any potential positive aspects of Trump's policies or counterarguments to the author's claims. The lack of alternative perspectives prevents a balanced understanding.
False Dichotomy
The first article presents a false dichotomy between the societal expectation for self-reliance and the need for institutional support for vulnerable individuals. It implies that individuals must either solve their problems alone or rely on ineffective institutions, neglecting the possibility of alternative support networks or improved institutional responses. The second article presents a false dichotomy between criticizing Trump's policies and being against all of his policies. There is no discussion of potential compromise or nuanced viewpoints.
Gender Bias
The first article centers on the experiences of a transgender woman, but doesn't explicitly analyze how gender identity intersects with the issues of family control and lack of institutional support. While the author's gender identity is relevant, a deeper analysis of gendered power dynamics would enhance the piece. The second and third articles do not exhibit significant gender bias.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the struggles of a transgender woman facing discrimination and lack of support from social services and her family, illustrating the ongoing challenges in achieving gender equality and protecting vulnerable individuals from discrimination. The lack of effective support systems perpetuates inequality and reinforces harmful societal norms.