Poor little cub. Stuck with an affliction of a name for the rest of his life. I bet you couldn't name a kid Adolf in Germany.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Stuck with an affliction of a name for the rest of his life.
That's only true if he dies while still a minor.
quote:Do Parents Have the Right to Afflict Any Name on their Child?
For the most part, yes. Bear in mind that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make doing it right.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
They do in the US. In Norway and Sweden, and possibly other European countries, there is a law against giving a child a name that would disadvantage it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That aside, I must say I find the middle child's name curious for other reasons. JoyceLynn, check. Aryan Nation, ok. Adolf Hitler, right. But "Honszlynn Hinler"? Where does that come from? Misspelling of 'Himmler', or 'Hitler'? But they seem to have got 'Hitler' right in the oldest child's name. And 'Honszlynn'? What?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I think the right of parents to name their kids what they want to should be virtually absolute. I say virtually to allow for the possibility that there's some circumstance, which I haven't yet thought of, that would make me change my mind.
We have to allow people to have heroes which may not be our heroes, ideas which may not be our ideas, and values which may not be our values. Some of them will pick names accordingly....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Heath Campbell said he doesn't want to force his views on his children, in part because he had views forced on him. He said he also teaches them nonviolence.
Abusive guardians, Heath Campbell said, used Bible verses to teach him to distrust blacks. If he questioned the guardians, he said, he was hit. He acknowledged he couldn't challenge the guardians' views.
He said Adolf Hitler, Aryan Nation and Hinler would be able to make their own decisions about race.
Slippery slope situation....
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The kids are going to suffer for this no matter what, but it makes me even sadder that they will probably rationalize their suffering by adopting the views that motivated their namings. Their parents will be telling them they are getting teased and shunned because of [insert racist belief about pernicious influence of inferior race].
quote:Heath Campbell said he doesn't want to force his views on his children, in part because he had views forced on him. He said he also teaches them nonviolence.
I suppose for a Nazi Heath sounds like a relatively nice one. <vomit>
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: They do in the US. In Norway and Sweden, and possibly other European countries, there is a law against giving a child a name that would disadvantage it.
How... on... EARTH do they get away with that without the secret police getting carried away with elastic interpretations?
Generic names could be disadvantaged because kids like to tease people with very yester-year ordinary names (at least where I grew up) like "Bob" or "John".
Unique names from obscure begatment passages in the Bible could be considered disadvantaged because nobody thinks they're actual names.
Adolf Hitler is obviously a very bad idea for a baby name. But there should not be laws against "disadvantaged" names because there is absolutely no objective definition for it that would keep a liberal court from attacking my own family's naming conventions.
I continue to be surprised at how the Scandinavian countries continue to ratify increasingly communist policies that any skeptical American would honestly believe would lead to a dystopia. Is it only a matter of time before Sweden and Norway go 1984? Or do these laws somehow work because nobody really enforces them?
I cannot construct a society in my mind that would not turn ugly by such a law that prohibits parents to name their children as they choose.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Poor little cub. Stuck with an affliction of a name for the rest of his life. I bet you couldn't name a kid Adolf in Germany.
I'm sure you couldn't. The German government reserves the right to deny names that parents pick out. Generally their rules are that the name has to be an actual name and indicate the child's gender. Names in Germany My favorite part of the article is the fact that newspapers like to make fun of the people who appeal by saying what they wanted to name their kid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Very simple, we hire actual human beings for bureaucrats instead of the jackbooted fascistoid obstructionists you apparently populate American offices with. Seriously, where do you find these people who would go out of their way to misuse such a clause? Especially since a court would laugh your examples all the way to "Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff's full court costs."
That aside, I was actually mistaken about the wording of the law, or rather out-of-date; the clause I mentioned was recently (2006) liberalised to read "a severe disadvantage". In other words, it is now even more difficult to deny the parents' choice of name. I suspect "Adolf Hitler" would still qualify, though.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
That makes a bit more sense, but it's still subjective.
Is anyone familiar with the song "A Boy Named Sue" or something like that?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
The more important question is "Should parents be allowed to let their little boys hair grow to girly lengths?"
Poor Adolph
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A family in Israel wanted to name their daughter Nekama. It means "vengeance". The Interior Ministry decided to change it to Nechama (comfort) instead.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Yeah, Johnny Cash?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Very simple, we hire actual human beings for bureaucrats instead of the jackbooted fascistoid obstructionists you apparently populate American offices with.
We're afraid, for example, that someone who privately wants to round up theists and put them in camps might get frustrated with his inability to indulge his jackboot tendencies and compensate by going after parents who pick religious names for their kids.
****
Alternative post: So no career as a Norwegian bureaucrat for you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Is anyone familiar with the song "A Boy Named Sue" or something like that?
What about the man they call Jayne?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm familiar with the man they call Jayne. They say he's not afraid of anything.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So far, I've found baby name restrictions in each of the UK, France, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Portugal. I guess that makes the total list so far those plus Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Norway.
Edit to add: Some sociology prof seems to think there is some restriction in the US, but gives no reference
quote: In America, almost anything goes.
"You can't use a four letter word that I wouldn't use in this interview anyway, and other than that you're free to do what you want," said New York University Sociology Department Chairman Dalton Conley.
I had heard that in Germany you're not allowed to make up new names, that your baby's name has to come from their list of "real" names.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I kinda doubt that. I mean, Germany may not be the most cosmopolitan society but surely they have some immigrants from other countries. The task of cataloguing all possible translations of Chinese names would be nearly infinite, let alone other cultures. More likely, they have a list of rejected names.
That said, apparently immigrants to Japan need to change their name to a proper Japanese name to gain full citizenship, according to a Current TV documentary anyways.
So who knows *shrug*
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
The same is true is the Czech Republic, I think... or, there's not a law against it, there's just a cultural list of names that everyone chooses from.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I was always asking my old roommate from Hong Kong what my Chinese name could be, seeing as he had adopted an American name for when he spoke English (both in America and Hong Kong). I thought it was a tad unfair that Chinese people get Anglo names if they want them, but anglophones don't get Chinese names as often. I suppose if more of us learned the language we could. BTW, I think we settled on something like "grey eyes," which is what my name means in Welsh, but I can't remember how to say it in Mandarin.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: The same is true is the Czech Republic, I think... or, there's not a law against it, there's just a cultural list of names that everyone chooses from.
Can't tell you how many Girgis, Vaclavs, Tomashes, and Stepans, and Stepanskas I've met. There are very few names in common use in Czech.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The Wikipedia page on German names said that while there's no longer an official "list" the registrar people have discretion to veto a name they don't think meets the criteria, and it must be a real name used for people and not "made up." It said that immigrants often get someone from their consulate to testify that the name they want is a name for people in their country.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Hah! I am vindicated! (with the Germany thing)
quote:That said, apparently immigrants to Japan need to change their name to a proper Japanese name to gain full citizenship, according to a Current TV documentary anyways.
My brother had to legally take his wife's name in order to be married over there.
So in Japan, he took her name, and in America, she took his name.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Japan also regulates names. They can find some names unsatisfactory, and they also limit the Kanji that can be used to write names, for legibility's sake. Only the Jinmeiyou and Jouyou Kanji can be used.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Vindicated in the past anyways. There is "no longer" a list
Orincoro: The Anglo name thing is kind of ironic. In my parents generation, they were sometimes forced to adopt British names in school because the teachers didn't want to learn Chinese names. *shrug*
That said, I love the way they do naming in movie credits and such now. You get names like Tony Leung Chiu-Wai or Stephen Chow Sing-Chi. This preserves the word order of family name, given name in Chinese and given name, family name in English.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Yes, they have the legal right. They should just be ashamed of themselves.
In eighteen years, their children will most likely either hate Jews and people of other races, or hate their parents.
Or both.
And, sheesh, have them make the cake out to 'Dolph' or something. How stupid are these people?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought I read that Hong Kong has some restrictions on names, but I have no reference on that.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought I read that Hong Kong has some restrictions on names, but I have no reference on that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I thought it was a tad unfair that Chinese people get Anglo names if they want them, but anglophones don't get Chinese names as often.
I haven't had this experience. Many of my Mandarin speaking friends had fun trying to find a good Mandarin name for me and my kids (hubby already has a legitimate one). But they are from Taiwan, so I don't know if that makes a difference.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I thought I read that Hong Kong has some restrictions on names, but I have no reference on that.
Most likely. At least there should be limits on profanity like in the States. I haven't found anything yet though, aside from this awesome tidbit from the past:
quote:When Hong Kong's new British Governor, Sir David Wilson, arrived in the territory last January, people here approved of everything about him - except his name.
In this part of the world, foreigners need to choose a new name because their own cannot be directly translated into Chinese. The Chinese language has no conventional alphabet but is built upon characters that all mean something. Converting a foreign name into Chinese usually means choosing two or three characters (the typical length of a Chinese name) that sound vaguely like the English name.
Earlier in his career, for example, Sir David had chosen three characters that in Mandarin Chinese were pronounced Wei De-wei. Since the first character is the last name, the Wei was supposed to represent Wilson, and De-wei to represent David. One problem, however, was that pronunciation is entirely different in the south and the north of China. And in the Cantonese dialect spoken in Hong Kong, the pronunciation of these characters was Ngai Tak-ngai, which sounded nothing like his English name.
Worse, his Chinese name sounded, in the local Cantonese dialect, like the phrase meaning ''hypocrisy to the extent of dangerousness.'' And worse yet, his Chinese name contained brushstrokes meaning ''1,800 female ghosts.'' That, the fortunetellers said gravely, was a bad sign.
quote: I thought it was a tad unfair that Chinese people get Anglo names if they want them, but anglophones don't get Chinese names as often.
I haven't had this experience. Many of my Mandarin speaking friends had fun trying to find a good Mandarin name for me and my kids (hubby already has a legitimate one). But they are from Taiwan, so I don't know if that makes a difference.
It's not like I've met anyone averse to the idea, but I think having a Chinese name would raise some eyebrows. I'd just be poser though, because I don't speak Chinese.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Is anyone familiar with the song "A Boy Named Sue" or something like that?
Yes, it was written by Shel Silverstein, and demonstrates how damaging a name can be. The boy in question attempts to kill his father in retaliation.
Victim or Volunteer?
quote:Disabilities, the couple says, have left both out of work: Heath Campbell can't landscape or pump gas because he has emphysema, and Deborah can't waitress because she has a bad back. They live on Social Security payments.
The wife is 25, the father looks about the same. Emphysema? Give me a break. If these people are going to live on the dole, they should do it where they belong. In a mental hospital.
As far as the name goes, I don't think much for the first amendment argument in this case. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to speech that causes harm to others. The name alone is child abuse.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It's not like I've met anyone averse to the idea, but I think having a Chinese name would raise some eyebrows. I'd just be poser though, because I don't speak Chinese.
Oh, I assumed we were talking about creating Chinese names for use by people who don't speak English. That's probably less of a problem in Hong Kong.
For me, I taught English to a large group of people from all backgrounds, but most of whom were from Taiwan or China. I don't speak much Mandarin, but it helped them pronounce my very awkward first name.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think the name restriction in Hong Kong was on using extremely rare characters. But it's been over two years since I was looking into baby naming in Hong Kong though.
My mother in law has a Chinese name, as well as my husband and my daughter and none of them speak Chinese. I feel kinda left out. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Naming a child Adolf Hitler isn't necessarily a racist or ideological choice. Maybe the father is just trying to preemptively disarm anyone who may eventually get into an argument with his son on an Internet forum.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Speed, Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Is anyone familiar with the song "A Boy Named Sue" or something like that?
Yes, it was written by Shel Silverstein, and demonstrates how damaging a name can be. The boy in question attempts to kill his father in retaliation.
But then he realizes that having that name wasn't damaging, it was awesoming, and he decides that he's going to do the same thing to his son.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Freedom of speech doesn't extend to speech that causes harm to others. The name alone is child abuse.
I think it's a horrible name to give a child. But I do not think it should be against the law, and it certainly does not rise to the level of child abuse.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But then he realizes that having that name wasn't damaging, it was awesoming,
True...
quote:and he decides that he's going to do the same thing to his son.
Quite the contrary. "And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him... Bill! Or George! Anything but Sue!"
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I think it's a horrible name to give a child. But I do not think it should be against the law, and it certainly does not rise to the level of child abuse.
Completely agreed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Quite the contrary. "And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him... Bill! Or George! Anything but Sue!"
That's right -- I've heard it both ways, and I forgot which was the original.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
We have a law in NZ that prevents people from giving too outlandish names to their kids, but not well enough imo. A year ago there were two clowns who wanted to call their kid '4Real'. They weren't allowed to, so compromised by calling him, wait for it... Superman. What a couple of dopes! That poor kid's going to be in so many fights, and won't even have superpowers to cancel out the stupid name.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Bobby Tables Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wasn't it in Italy where a boy was named after a day of the week, like Tuesday or something, and the local church actually objected and had it changed to some saintly name?
I don't know, naming a kid something truly awful that you know for sure is going to get him teased as a kid really could be detrimental to his or her development. But I have a real issue with the state stepping in to rename your child for you. I don't have an opinion on this one I guess. Neither side really looks favorable.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I wonder if you could name a boy "Adolf Hitler" in Israel.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I had lunch by a family once where the children were given middle names of "Danger", "Trouble", and one other than I can't remember offhand. Just so they could say things like, "Danger is my middle name."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: I wonder if you could name a boy "Adolf Hitler" in Israel.
I'm sure that if Arabs tried to, they'd be allowed to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Freedom of speech doesn't extend to speech that causes harm to others. The name alone is child abuse.
I think it's a horrible name to give a child. But I do not think it should be against the law, and it certainly does not rise to the level of child abuse.
What, the legal definition, or your personal compass of abuse? I think it's abuse to use your child as a vehicle for your own narcissism, which is kind of what the whole naming thing is about. There are unfortunately many perfectly legal ways to abuse your kids, because just doing the normal things, like naming your kids, but with the wrong intentions can be abusive in its way.
It's not required by law that you speak to your children or answer any of their questions, or seek a better life for them, or encourage them in their education, or hug them and kiss them, or save for them, or even buy them health insurance. But not doing these things constitutes abuse in my book.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There was an odd related bit in the second article:
quote: Robert M. Gordon, a clinical psychologist in Allentown, said the names would hurt the children.
"Certainly society is going to be hostile towards those kids, especially when they go to school," Gordon said.
More than that, he said, the children would be harmed by their parents' views.
"By the time they get to school, they will already have been damaged," Gordon said. "Any parent that would impose such horrific names on their children is mentally ill, and they would be affecting their children from the day they were born. Only a crazy person would do that."
The problems the children might encounter in school, he said, "would be icing on the cake."
I don't think he meant "crazy" as a professional opinion. But it does make me wonder if this will end up damaging the children's children just the father's guardian used the Bible to damage him. Sins of the father and all that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I suspect anyone narcissistic enough to use their children's lives to say "Bite Me" to the world was always going to screw up their kids.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That is absolutely horrific. I heard about it on Cakewrecks, actually, which linked to the same article.
Poor babies. Not their fault their parents are mentally ill and sick and twisted. Yet, those two will suffer for it.
*I should have read the first post more carefully, and I would have known I was linking to the same article. *slaps forehead*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
katharina : "children's children"
Whether these particular children will be screwed up isn't really in doubt. What I'm wondering is how long this kind of effect persists across generations.
(not that I'm advocating any legal remedy, I'm just curious about it on a personal level)
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Other extreme behaviors on the part of significant adults are as potentially damaging. A fourth grade boy, that my wive works with, was sobbing uncontrollably two weeks ago because Obama was going to be the president now and was going to outlaw hunting. The kid was never going to be able to go hunting with his father ever again. I'll bet he didn't get that out if his "Weekly Reader".
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
My best friend from high school has assigned a 'production title' for his second child (daughter) to outline her position as the younger sibling:
Avarice Envy M_____
Both he and his wife are using the name so often, I'm wondering if it's going to stick (maybe Avarice as a middle name).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's not required by law that you speak to your children or answer any of their questions, or seek a better life for them, or encourage them in their education, or hug them and kiss them, or save for them, or even buy them health insurance. But not doing these things constitutes abuse in my book.
I disagree with several of those. And the ones I don't would almost certainly be part of a much larger problem. If you never answer a child's questions, never hug them -- most likely there is real neglect going on.
Not buying a kid health insurance is child abuse now? If we're going to include stuff like that, then we dilute the meaning of the word beyond any useful purpose.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Some parents can't afford to save for their kids, some can't afford health insurance, and some ( like us) have insurance but have to think three , four times before we use it because we may not be able to pay our part of the bill. Is that abusive?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not in my universe. I can't speak to Orincoro's. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:How... on... EARTH do they get away with that without the secret police getting carried away with elastic interpretations?
A good number of countries "police" the kind of names children can have without getting carried away. Shockingly, it's not the 'secret police' who get involved. You get a bureaucrat in a grey suit and then a civil court case.
Not all countries think in terms of eroded freedoms and expect that any limits are going to result in a midnight raid by armed masked men. Because they don't.
That said, some countries are quite restrictive on what names are allowed. Mexico and Germany are among them. As far as I know, the secret police is still not involved and there is not elasticity over the rules, they are simply more severe than elsewhere.
I believe the rules in most places are more about unpronounceable names, or names that invite ridicule like "Wzzzskjhdf" and "Butthead". However, these choices are likely made by civil servants and then by a court, not by the secret police.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Technically, if that American sociology professor is correct (and he could be wrong) and American parents cannot in fact name their children four letter swear words, then it is not so much that Americans think that "any limits are going to result in a midnight raid by armed masked men" but simply that they think that "any limits more restrictive than American limits are going to result in a midnight raid by armed masked men")
i.e. its kinda relative rather than absolute
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not buying a kid health insurance is child abuse now? If we're going to include stuff like that, then we dilute the meaning of the word beyond any useful purpose.
Eh, I disagree that the useful purpose of the term is to describe beating a child with a belt, or allowing a child to go hungry. Abuse is a broad term, and our culture has narrowed it, ignoring the elements of abuse that are not as overt as physical violence. This is the same with "Domestic Abuse" which for a long time was synonymous with Wife-beating, and a fair number of our judicial practices as a society have been unfair to men as a result (certainly this is not meant to indicate that our laws are ever totally fair either way, only that imbalances in both directions are not good).
I really do believe it is a form of abuse to have too many children for your resources, to not show love and affection for your children, and yes, to not provide them with the safety net of medical coverage if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket if an emergency arises. I don't believe these things should be legislated, but I think our society should have an understanding that the *requirements* of parenthood are higher than the legal obligations of parenthood. Of course, few will disagree with that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Some parents can't afford to save for their kids, some can't afford health insurance, and some ( like us) have insurance but have to think three , four times before we use it because we may not be able to pay our part of the bill. Is that abusive?
No, not on its face. I'm not claiming all of these things as absolute indicators of any of your parental qualities- you can obviously provide for your children in many ways outside of what I've said. At the same time, I am sure you do more than is legally required, and I think as long as you do the best you can or know how, then of course you are not being abusive- abuse is partly a function of intent.
IF you can't save money, fine- that isn't the end all by a long shot. But acting selfishly when faced with decisions about your children's future would be, to me, abusive. I know you can do that without being able to save money.
quote: Not in my universe. I can't speak to Orincoro's. [Razz]
I see it's patronize Ori day. You have not heard the end of this, my NEMESIS!!! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I really do believe it is a form of abuse to have too many children for your resources
And apparently, to not perfectly predict the future and/or successfully plan for all contingencies.
You know, when you spout off on music or philosophy, I may think you are an arrogant ass, but I don't usually care much. But when you spout off on things like this, you are not only being an arrogant jerk (from your comfortable ivory tower, since I am fairly certain you have no kids), but you are knowingly hurting specific people.
Talk to me in twenty years. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I see it's patronize Ori day.
No, that was last week.
This is just on general principles.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Technically, if that American sociology professor is correct (and he could be wrong) and American parents cannot in fact name their children four letter swear words
AFAIK, there exists no federal law, statute, or agency that has anything to do with birth certificates and the naming of children. Wouldn't that be a state-by-state sort of thing?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Does that mean not talk to you for the intervening twenty?
You know, you could give me an inch of breathing room by taking what I say as an invitation to be corrected. I don't think of what I say as being absolute. So call me arrogant, whatever, I've heard it before, and I keep coming back. If your intention is to hurt my feelings by dismissing my opinions or my posts on a wide range of topics as self-aggrandizing, then you've succeeded. I've never done that to you, so of course it hurts to be verbally smacked by someone I have respect for.
Edit: Btw, you should know I'm capable of hurting people *without* being aware of it. Like in this case, for example, where I honestly wasn't thinking of anyone (here) specifically, because I can't think of anyone who posts here as even approaching what I was talking about. I was thinking about my grandmother, who ended up raising a family of 13 children with a redneck fundamentalist, and discouraging all of her children from leading successful and happy lives. She was abusive without ever lifting a finger to any of them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My intention is to make you think before you post such hurtful things. I believe you are capable of posting more circumspectly; you choose not to do so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Maybe I'm not capable of doing so. Maybe I'm a shallow and empty shell of a person. I think that sometimes. Maybe that's why, even though I love kids, the idea of having children is alien to me. Maybe I was robbed of a nurturing instinct by experiences I don't wish to see repeated. And it isn't like I've lived a terrible life or had bad parents, because I haven't and I don't. So I don't honestly know why I think this way, but I do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Maybe I'm a shallow and empty shell of a person.
Maybe. But I don't get that impression. And regardless, you have the choice to change what and how you post. And speak, for that matter.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't really say that much to people anymore unless I know them quite well. I have an older sister who can't stand to listen to me talk. I mean, she gets angry when I open my mouth to say something, and will always either correct me, or make fun of me- every moment in the same room with her is stressful. It used to just be very petty and unpleasant, but now our parents avoid forcing us to interact at all, and if I never saw her again I wouldn't mind. That's such a terrible thing to think about a family member, but if someone ever calls me arrogant or superior, or says anything about my self worth, I just think, "God, if you only knew my sister." She probably thinks the same thing about me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Technically, if that American sociology professor is correct (and he could be wrong) and American parents cannot in fact name their children four letter swear words
AFAIK, there exists no federal law, statute, or agency that has anything to do with birth certificates and the naming of children. Wouldn't that be a state-by-state sort of thing?
I don't know, hence the "if" and the bracketed qualifier. I thought that was enough qualification Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
One can grow up with a strange name and live a normal life. For example, my parents named me Pernicia Euphemia Scrapple-Jacks <last name> and I bare no lasting scars, I just changed it when I grew up.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Seriously? Scrapple-Jacks? What is a Scrapple-Jack?
Did they ever explain what their motivations were?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Well, you know, my dad thought it would be funny. And actually, I like it better than the first two. Some of my friends still call me Scrap. (Some still call me Pern too...)
Remember the old "Apple Jacks" song? I always sang it "S is for Scrapple, J is for Jacks" you know, cuz it was all about me.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Shoot, and I thought Morris was grim!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Freedom of speech doesn't extend to speech that causes harm to others. The name alone is child abuse.
I think it's a horrible name to give a child. But I do not think it should be against the law, and it certainly does not rise to the level of child abuse.
Child abuse includes verbal abuse, such as yelling, swearing or insulting, and also psychological abuse, such as public humiliation. This name achieves both of those. It may not be at the level where the parents can be arrested for child abuse, but in a divorce court I'd bet it would have an impact on who gets custody. Also, these kinds of abuse may not warrant action by CPS, but they are certainly adequate reasons to open an investigation to see if other forms of abuse are present.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Scrap" is such a great name for you. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "Scrap" is such a great name for you.
Ya think? I mean, I answer to it and don't mind it and all (I DO like my legal name better) but why do you think it's a great name for me?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
'Cause you're scrappy - in an entirely good (and entirely unrelated to the abominable cartoon puppy) way.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think, Orincoro, that I can see where you were coming from. You've seen children neglected and emotionally malnourished and you wouldn't wish that on anyone. Safe ground so far.
I think the problem was in stating that certain behaviors that *might* be part of a pattern of neglect constitute "abuse" of children. No doubt several people reading did not meet all of the standards you mentioned.
Many children of poor parents who are ill equipped to provide for all the material wants of a child are still happy to have been brought into the world, and perhaps to better the family's financial future. Many sick children are still glad to have a mom and dad who comfort them and love them.
In fact, prior to the last few decades, the expectation of living through childhood without experiencing hunger, sickness, and death of people close to you would have been totally unrealistic.
So it takes a pretty fresh perspective to say that children without medical insurance are abused.
(I'm leaving the precise denotation of "abuse" alone, because I think what you mean is the children are not properly cared for.)
Caring for your children and trying to do what is best for them is essential. However, failing in a few dozen ways is inevitable, and doesn't automatically rise to the level of abuse. I see you've already acknowledged this:
quote:I think as long as you do the best you can or know how, then of course you are not being abusive- abuse is partly a function of intent.
IF you can't save money, fine- that isn't the end all by a long shot. But acting selfishly when faced with decisions about your children's future would be, to me, abusive. I know you can do that without being able to save money.
Mostly right, IMO. Still, parenting is a bit trickier than being unselfish. I honestly don't think we can expect that parents put their children ahead of themselves in every respect. We're tricky beings. Sometimes expecting too much from us backfires. Sometimes a parent who might have coped, and been an all-around adequate caretaker, breaks down under pressure. I'm dancing around the point, so here it is: sometimes what looks like selfishness is necessary in order to preserve critical functions.
Just to pull an example out of the air, a parent might have a lucrative job that affords the family a safe home, medical insurance, life insurance, safe travel, and good schooling. Then, the parent might decide that he wants to go back to school for something completely different, and cancel the insurance and move the family into a shack so he can get by working fewer hours at an easier job, so he can spare the cognitive effort for school. And at the end of this, the person will still make too little to afford what the family used to have.
From the outside that might look selfish. It might look irresponsible. Yet it might not be what it seems, and I certainly don't think it would be fair to call it abusive without some deep insight into the situation.
From the inside, the person might have determined that the existing career was creating pressure that was going to break out eventually in some destructive way: nervous breakdown, divorce, unemployment, suicide. Only that person can decide what amount of self-care is necessary to the well being of the family in the long run.
A less extreme example is the parent who takes a vacation every year instead of putting the money away for the kids' college. Wise use of money? Perhaps not - maybe even probably not - but only that parent knows.
Sometimes this kind of thing gets carried to an extreme that IS shamefully selfish or irresponsible. But it's hard to know exactly what a parent needs to do in order to keep parenting unless you're that parent. From the outside society has to be watchful to ensure kids are eating, aren't getting molested or beaten, and even for mental or emotional abuse. But we can only ever see the situation from the outside.
I realize you were never talking about the forms of abuse on which society should intervene. But even a more general concern for the well being of the child should be balanced with the recognition that no one but a parent is in a position to consider not only the child's needs but also the parent's.
Calling subjectively suboptimal parenting decisions abuse just doesn't work. You can't know enough about the nuances in play. That's why it's better to stick to labeling only the less subjective, less subtle forms of maltreatment as abuse.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 'Cause you're scrappy - in an entirely good (and entirely unrelated to the abominable cartoon puppy) way.
"Why I oughta... let me at em! I'll splat em..." and so on?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I don't know, hence the "if" and the bracketed qualifier. I thought that was enough qualification
Sorry, I was commenting on the original claim, and too lazy to go back and look for the first post that made it. Yours was handier. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, I gotta fess up. My parents didn't really name me Pernicia Euphemia Scrapple-Jacks.
I thought it was such a stupid name that someone would call me on it. That, and I can't say it aloud without laughing.
People DO call me "Pern" and "Scrap" though. But that's because Pernicia and Scrapple are the names of two of my WoW characters.
So I'm sorry if my silliness mislead anyone. My name is, and has always been "Megan."
And Dag, Thank you =)
Pix
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Scifi, that was a very thoughtful response- I think you read into what I was getting at and expressed it more aptly than I did- I can agree with your interpretation of abuse.
Being raised is such a subjective experience anyway. I think we probably all get the feeling that our particular case is extraordinary or at least different from others, so objective qualifications for parenting are more or less impossible. I do simultaneously believe that my parents did everything they could for me, and did mostly the right things raising me. At the same time of course, I had an abusive older sibling who terrorized me, and to a lesser extent (I judge mostly from my current relationships with them) I turned and offered the same treatment to my younger siblings (who were very close to me in age). We now have a good relationship, whereas our relationships with the older sister are virtually nonexistent. I can see too, that I have *no possible way* of knowing why she turned out the way she did. I can speculate- I believe she has a narcissistic personality disorder, but I don't know why, and that's of course baffling and frustrating. It's made me very hostile to "traditional" concepts of family that were espoused by my parents- rather I tend to feel that these things simply can't be done right, almost as if raising a child is an abuse unto itself. It's not a state of mind many people talk about, but there it is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ok, I gotta fess up. My parents didn't really name me Pernicia Euphemia Scrapple-Jacks.
To borrow Tom's words: "this has been act of Unmaking." Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ok, I gotta fess up. My parents didn't really name me Pernicia Euphemia Scrapple-Jacks.
I was trying to decide whether to call you on that. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To borrow Tom's words: "this has been act of Unmaking."
Nah, it was an act of Teh Funny.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Scrapple-Jacks is a lot better than Jackel Scraps. I'm just saying.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:To borrow Tom's words: "this has been act of Unmaking."
Nah, it was an act of Teh Funny.
I was Teh Kidding. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, I know. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My name is, and has always been "Megan."
My God. I'm so sorry.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Now that constitutes abuse.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom's just pickin' on me. It's ok =)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Now that constitutes abuse.
Too true.
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
quote: Lisa Bonet's new baby's name is a mouthful Newborn boy's name is Nakoa-Wolf Manakauapo Namakaeha Momoa
*facepalm*
Why facepalm? That's actually short compared to many Hawaiian names I've seen.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What are they going to call him? Koa? If so, why saddle him with Nakoa-Wolf?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Besides Scrap, which I agree is an awesome name for The Pixiest, what are names not on any sort of standard list that would actually enhance how awesome a person is?
I'm thinking about it right now but it's hard!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm glad to hear that Youth and Family Services is doing something about the nazi family. I'd like to hear that their social security claim was in question too.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Besides Scrap, which I agree is an awesome name for The Pixiest, what are names not on any sort of standard list that would actually enhance how awesome a person is?
I'm thinking about it right now but it's hard!
Danger. As a middle name. For a girl. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Isn't Penn Jillette's daughter's middle name "CrimeFighter"?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Not only that, her first name is "Moxie."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Moxie is a good name... Crimefighter isn't... I love Penn, but...
One can have a non-standard name without it being truly awful, but for every "Moon" there's a "Dweezel."
KQ: Danger WOULD be a cool middle name for a girl!
BB and Dag: I'll answer to Scrap but not Scrappy. (Seriously, Scrappy was my granpa. No joke. No, not the damn dog either.)
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I really need to know what the justifications were for taking the little Nazi kids away from their parents. Until then I'm not really okay with this.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trent Destian: the little Nazi kids
You might just have offered yourself the justification... I'm not sure how I'm leaning on this, but those names were way beyond what I consider "strange" names.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
And the N.J. agency that took the kids away only proves that Nazi-ism is alive and well. It didn't take the parents' naming practices to prove that. Jack booted thugs can come in the name of children.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Something like making cute little children cloths with cute little swastikas on them.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
"Strange" or no, I don't think it's illegal to be affiliated with the Nazi party. Unless it is, I admit I haven't researched it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Trent, in many European nations (Particularly Germany) it is illegal. In the United States, it is not. To be a Communist is also not illegal in the United States.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
Its not the employees though, its a business-wide policy
quote: Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the grocer tries to meet customer requests but rejects those deemed inappropriate. "We believe the request to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate," she said.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Friends of my former roommate have a son and daughter... the son's middle name is "Danger" and the daughter's middle name is "Moxie". Which I think is awesome.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Friends of my former roommate have a son and daughter... the son's middle name is "Danger" and the daughter's middle name is "Moxie". Which I think is awesome.
I would do this in an instant with my future children, except that they're going to have Indian first names & probably look pretty white. I figure they should have a more typical American name to fall back on if they want.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would be much more willing to do weird names if I had the middle name to play around with. First name is American name, middle is Chinese name. So, nothing fun or unusual for my kids (unless you count extremely white kids having a Chinese name- I swear, my daughter has no Chinese looks at all).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I doubt they removed him just because of his name. There's probably more complicated things going on.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
We also have naming regulations here in Brazil (but it's a newish law). No names that would "ridicule" the child.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
Interesting. Do you think that applies to other lines of work?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
The decision might have been handed down from higher up in the company than the cake makers.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
I'd like to start off by saying that I, personally, think the racist views of the parents are atrocious, violent, go against everything that is right with the world, and altogether make me sick to my stomach.
However, I'd also like to say that the parents have the right to name their kids whatever they damn-well please.
The parents have beliefs that, while close-minded and anti-progressive, they are entitled by the American Constitution to express in whatever way they so desire, so long as it does not border on criminal.
They probably did pretty much screw up their kids for life with not only their jaded views, but also the humiliation and possible endangerment of growing up with such a name.
However, they were only paying homage to people and icons [albeit ones that the average person, me included, consider atrocious and abominable], and are completely justified in doing so.
It's no different than someone naming their child after a major historical, political, or cultural figure that they respect, admire, etc.
Moreover, the government, who I suspect of taking away the children only because of the personal beliefs of the parents, was absolutely wrong in doing so.
Any views, thoughts, religious, philosophical, or political beliefs someone has are entirely their own business and they should be allowed to practice, and exercise them as they wish.
Now, I absolutely do NOT believe in hate crimes, violence, child abuse, etc., I do believe that they should be allowed to express their beliefs, even if it's reflected onto the children. They are allowed to school their children in whatever views they please, providing that there is no violence indoctrinated.
The government is only as powerful as we allow it to be, as provided by the Constitution deriving its power from the will of the people. While the government has definitely increased in size and influence over the past 200 some-odd years, it is only because of our allowance of this happening.
If the government is allowed to take away people's children because of their beliefs, no matter how extreme they may be, who's to say they can't just as easily take away children for beliefs less extreme?
In another twenty years, whenever the tendency to associate Islam with terrorism has been even further ingrained into the collective American psyche, it wouldn't be too brash to say a child could be taken away for being named Saddam, or Osama.
Those names may seem extreme, but just consider that Mohammed would be next. [Mohammed, of course, being the most common name in the world.]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: The decision might have been handed down from higher up in the company than the cake makers.
Someone posted something up above that implied that this was in fact the case. I'd still be interested to hear Occasional answer outside of the context of this particular case.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: If the government is allowed to take away people's children because of their beliefs...
When I was watching CNN yesterday, the Family Services' statement was very careful to remind folks that they only remove children after they have received a complaint and found an immenent threat. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until it goes to court.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
I understand what you're saying.
I indeed, should give the case the BOD, but I do think that any judgment would be exacerbated in their appraisal of the case because of the people involved.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but as far as I'm concerned there are many unwanted practices in our government.
As for the cake matter, while the cake makers may have decided not to make it for personal reasons, it may also have been purely for business matters. Certainly they had to think how it reflect upon the company to be serving people considered less than pleasant, to put it mildly.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I'm aligning myself behind what Vyrus is saying. It sucks that these kids have these parents, and perhaps I should give the government the benefit of the doubt. But considering the circumstances I'm going to have retain my doubt on child service's motive and handling of this case until some evidence proves otherwise.
I'm vehement about very few things, but nothing sets me off like the issue of free speech. I hold these views strongly and I attempt to apply them to all people and not just the people I agree with. Those are their kids, that is a mother and a father, and if their worse crime is talking about how the hate Jews, blacks, and other various shades, them somebody overstepped by taking away those kids.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trent Destian: But considering the circumstances I'm going to have retain my doubt on child service's motive and handling of this case until some evidence proves otherwise.
Don't hold your breath. Such evidence is almost certainly protected by privacy laws.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Moreover, the government, who I suspect of taking away the children only because of the personal beliefs of the parents, was absolutely wrong in doing so.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure that the kids were not taken away because of the personal beliefs of the parents, but were instead taken away because the parents were figured in an investigation to be in a significant way provably abusive and/or neglectful.
quote:And the N.J. agency that took the kids away only proves that Nazi-ism is alive and well. It didn't take the parents' naming practices to prove that. Jack booted thugs can come in the name of children.
Why do you think taking the kids away proves that 'nazi-ism is alive and well?' Do you think there should be no child protective services, or what?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
quote:Interesting. Do you think that applies to other lines of work?
My statement was ironic. At least your on the right track of my intentions for saying that statement.
quote:Why do you think taking the kids away proves that 'nazi-ism is alive and well?
Have you ever read "The Trial" by Kafka? With an organization that has power to take children away from parents, isn't it a good idea for the public to know why they are doing something beyond "trust me"? That is what a lot of people have been saying for the past five years who all of a sudden seem rather silent on this issue.
quote:Do you think there should be no child protective services, or what?
I think their power should be reduced tremendously. They have little oversight and often act independently of police and other agencies. About the only time they are held up to scrutiny is when they screw up and after the fact. They have their uses, but there methods are dangerously unchecked.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I think their power should be reduced tremendously. They have little oversight and often act independently of police and other agencies. About the only time they are held up to scrutiny is when they screw up and after the fact. They have their uses, but there methods are dangerously unchecked.
That I completely agree with. I just don't think the newspaper is the appropriate place for that scrutiny. These aren't elected officials accountable to the people. These are parents who may or may not harm their kids.
Since in my experience, the parents that do get away with it and the ones who don't are drug through the coals, I'd rather not see that play out publically. The last thing parents need is random strangers in town thinking they beat their kids when they were found innocent.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, if the state does take the kids, can the foster parents (or relatives- whoever they end up with) rename them?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Since in my experience, the parents that do get away with it and the ones who don't are drug through the coals, I'd rather not see that play out publicly. The last thing parents need is random strangers in town thinking they beat their kids when they were found innocent.
So I assume you write letters to your local newspaper informing them that you refuse to buy their services because of their actions? Because that's your recourse.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
It doesn't matter if I buy the paper at that point. Once that kind of info is out there in the public conciousness, you can't just take it back. And if the news is the one spreading the info, you can't expect them to go behind themselves and make sure they told the story fairly. Who'd make sure the papers and cable shows were being responsible there?
I don't just want one check on DCF. I want a series of checks and balances that manages both safety and privacy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, if the state does take the kids, can the foster parents (or relatives- whoever they end up with) rename them?
I don't think foster parents would have that right. Adoptive parents, if it went to that point, I imagine would.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I knew a guy named Warren Warren Warren. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Major Major Major Major
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:They have little oversight and often act independently of police and other agencies.
This is simply not true. While it differs from state to state, DCF is overseen by the courts, assisted by the police and often other agencies as well. While DCF agents do have the power to remove a child who is in imminent danger without a court order, that action is subject to immediate court review, usually within 24 hours.
Perhap Occasional rather than making broad generalizations, you could tell me specifically how DCF is overseen in NJ (or even in your home area), why you find that oversight inadequate and what specific additional forms of oversight and limitation would you like to see?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)