quote: I am very leery of any suggestion that someone should consider someone else's feelings over their own safety or the safety of their children.
Those remarks, I believe, were made to counter arguments similar to Rabbits':
quote: I see parents who justify hurtful, spiteful and genuinely selfish behavior on behalf of their children. I can't see that it is any more justifiable to hurt someone to benefit your child than to hurt someone to benefit yourself. If you are hurting other people, particularly other children, to protect your child then you need to seriously rethink your behavior.
and
quote:I find the "I have to protect my child and to heck with everybody else" attitude to be extraordinarily selfish and am astonished that people who would never justify that sort of selfishness on their own behalf, will justify it on behalf of their children.
and
quote: What you teach your children when you do this is not simply that you love them, but that it is good for them to place their own needs and wants above the needs and desires of others.
posted
Many remarks have been made, and continue to be made, that I find distorting. And in the absence of a clear target, my natural presumption is they apply to all of those whom the writer is arguing with. *shrug* It sounds like you don't agree with my complaint, or you do feel that the same mischaracterization of you has occurred.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think the way that you were treated as a child was terrible. You should not have been blamed or punished. You should have been protected from the offender.
Scott, thank you for saying so. The really sad part is that it took me 30 years to figure that out.
This is why I am so sensitive to the remarks and attitudes towards the boy. Not because he is beyond blame or punishment, but because these kinds of things can and do affect people for lifetimes. Away from the situtation, with an *empathic* description of it, we have people showing prejudices against him. Belle has flatly stated that she assumes there is more damning behavior that hasn't been revealed yet. Your own remark was flip and retracted, but the underlying attitude behind it is there in the population at large and I would bet large amounts of dollars to donuts that the boy is feeling it, if not hearing it, outright.
Any hint of sexual predation or even "deviancy" in our society is greeted with horror and, often, violence. I firmly believe that has a lot to do with why it remains such a hidden and secretive crime and why victims often feel stigmatized as well.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's possible that some of the "barrier" to understanding here is exactly what kmboots is addressing: families are different. I can't conceive of not being part of my nephew's life. I even breastfed him. My sister's kids, they are like mine — at a slight remove. At camp this summer with all of our kids, my sister and I had some really really difficult conversations about how to make vacation work for our two 15 year olds, both with bipolar. My beloved nephew sometimes scares me. Males with bipolar seem dangerous — ARE dangerous — when they are raging. So we had some hard conversations about making everyone feel safe and BE safe, conversations where we were both teary and refusing to look at each other.
But … this boy is of me and mine. I don't remember who said they had the right to keep their tribe safe. Some of us self-identify a larger tribe than others. That's not to say we are right or you are right; it's just a barrier to understanding that I don't think people are seeing.
When I think of my tribe, my nephew is PART of it. Does that make sense?
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any hint of sexual predation or even "deviancy" in our society is greeted with horror and, often, violence. I firmly believe that has a lot to do with why it remains such a hidden and secretive crime and why victims often feel stigmatized as well.
You may be right.
I don't really see myself as capable of being able to mentor someone who abused my child. I may be able to forgive-- hopefully I'll never face this situation-- but for now, I think assisting the abuser is beyond my capacity.
I recognize that NA's situation may not be one of outright, definite sexual abuse. I don't think I'd react as her brother has done, given the same circumstances of family closeness and habit.
EDIT: for clarity's sake, by "assisting the abuser," I mean to say, "helping the abuser/offender become normal, happy, and stop the abusive behavior." I was not implying that mentoring the abuser is equal to assisting him in abusing more children.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Sharpie. That is what I was trying to say. I wish all the best for your "tribe" in what must be difficult circumstances.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a lot better to err on the side of caution, and let your instinct be informed later.
Better for whom? Once again I find this to be a very self centered attitude. Children who are very close to me, who I feel a responsibility to protect, have been deeply hurt by self righteous parents who just wanted to protect their children
As a Christian, I am certain that the commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves must include loving our neighbors children as we love our own children. While I understand that ones stewardship for ones own children is unique, when parent instincts justify hurting others to protect their children then those instincts are immoral, particularly when the parent refuses to consider alternatives that are less hurtful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Better for whom? Once again I find this to be a very self centered attitude. Children who are very close to me, who I feel a responsibility to protect, have been deeply hurt by self righteous parents who just wanted to protect their children
Did those parents let their instincts become better informed later? You seem to be assuming that Scott's maxim can't be done without hurting others or being self-righteous. I think that's an untenable assumption.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't feel that a parent has as much obligation to a nephew as they do to their own child. There is certainly some obligation, but nothing close to the obligation they have to their own child. If any way their own child is put in danger by being around another kid, even if the kid is the nephew, then I think it is the parent's responsibility to protect their own kid.
Even if it makes the nephew feel bad.
No shunning the whole family, no shouting the reasons, no taking it out on the grandparents, but I reject the idea that the girls' parents are remiss for staying away if they feel their own children would be in danger otherwise.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To address Scott R's question to me from the previous page... Me:
quote:I think what is being advocated is that they should consider 1)the saftey of their children *and* 2)the feelings of other family members.
Neglecting #2, in this case, appears to work to the detriment of goal #1.
ScottR:
quote: How?
I believe that open communication and discussion of the issues between the *adults* involved will lead to better protection for *all* of the children involved in this situation. However that open discussion cannot take place without consideration for the feelings of all family members.
quote:No shunning the whole family, no shouting the reasons, no taking it out on the grandparents, but I reject the idea that the girls' parents are remiss for staying away if they feel their own children would be in danger otherwise.
I agree. Would you then agree that the girl's parents are being remiss, not as parents, but as family members and human beings for the bolded bit above?
quote: BannaOj - this is what hurts the most I think. That the relationship that I thought we all had is not. I used to think we had this really great family, we loved each other, supported each other etc. But I'm starting to wonder if it was really all I thought.
posted
Just to throw this out, and I am not trying to shut down conversation, but it seems like people are repeating themselves. Perhaps it would just be easiest and most practical to agree to disagree and move on?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't really see myself as capable of being able to mentor someone who abused my child. I may be able to forgive-- hopefully I'll never face this situation-- but for now, I think assisting the abuser is beyond my capacity.
That's certainly understandable.
quote: Even if it makes the nephew feel bad.
Kat, do you honestly not see the difference between making a little boy feel bad and making a little boy feel like someone so horribly broken that his whole family is tainted by him?
quote:it seems like people are repeating themselves
I feel like I've been repeating myself a lot... but I also feel like the things I am repeating are worth repeating.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:do you honestly not see the difference between making a little boy feel bad and making a little boy feel like someone so horribly broken that his whole family is tainted by him?
I think what we're arguing now is the extreme choices. I think that kat's saying that if such an extreme choice MUST be made, a parent should always choose to protect their own child, no matter how horrible it's going to make someone feel.
The extreme has not happened in NA's case, as far as we know.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott is right - I'm arguing that if there MUST be a choice, then the parent is beholden to choose their own child. To do otherwise is to betray that trust and obligation. The obligations of a parent DO outweigh the obligations of an aunt, an uncle, or a neighbor. And, if the occasion calls for it and this one does not, a spouse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes sense, Kat, but it's an artifical construct at this point.... as Scott's last line indicates.
If you had said "even if it causes the nephew psychological damage" or in any similar manner addressed the point I've been harping on since declaring caring for the girls and caring for the boy an obviously false opposition, I wouldn't have nearly as much problem with your post. It's been your steady refusal, evidenced by your word choice, to acknowledge that there is a danger to both the children involved in this incident which has me continuing to reiterate that you should not minimize the potential damage of the actions here. In fact, if you're going to take the attitude of "I will protect my own regardless of the consequences to yours", it behooves you to achieve and demonstrate an understanding of those consequences.
The bottom line is this: It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious. Why even set up the opposition in the first place? Why argue that point?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the adults may and apparently do view the danger and the steps needed to protect their children differently.
If the girls' parents view it differently, then I will not condemn them for staying away from the nephew, even if it is hurtful to the nephew.
There have been other Hatrackers who have posted about abuse and how their extended families wanted them to come to family parties and pretend like nothing had happened, in order to get along. It felt like a minimization of their hurt. Maybe not in this case, but there certainly can be cases where a child can feel betrayed by their parents because their parents want to act like it never happened in order to keep the peace.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, if you're going to take the attitude of "I will protect my own regardless of the consequences to yours", it behooves you to achieve and demonstrate an understanding of those consequences.
I don't think kat has actually taken this attitude for this not-extreme case.
quote:Why argue that point?
Certain people have seemed to insist that the girls' parents should put the boys' feelings/safety on the same level of importance as the girls' safety.
quote:It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious.
See, when reading a statement like this, my initial reaction is to open my eyes in disbelief and say, "Whence These Flowers?! You're off your chum!"
Then I realize that I don't actually know what you mean by this phrase:
quote:It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious.
At first glance, it makes it seem like you're arguing that even if the boy's action was worse (worse as far as the actual action, and worse in terms of the boy's understanding of his own actions) than what it was, the girls' parents have a responsibility to make sure he's not going to be traumatized for his own actions.
I don't concede that they do.
(And I don't think it's "easy," by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's valuable, and good-hearted, but not easy)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Because the adults may and apparently do view the danger and the steps needed to protect their children differently.
Which is precisely why I am being critical of them. Protecting their daughter in this instance is actually advanced by considering the emotional impact on, and interests of, their nephew. Again, opposing those interests is needless and destructive.
quote:If the girls' parents view it differently, then I will not condemn them for staying away from the nephew, even if it is hurtful to the nephew.
There have been many assertions that the girls' parents are protecting their children. AJ has specifically delineated where the parents have crossed even your far less stringent line of "how far is too far". When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
quote:There have been other Hatrackers who have posted about abuse and how their extended families wanted them to come to family parties and pretend like nothing had happened, in order to get along. It felt like a minimization of their hurt. Maybe not in this case, but there certainly can be cases where a child can feel betrayed by their parents because their parents want to act like it never happened in order to keep the peace.
That *is* a minimization of their hurt and a betrayal. It's also irrelevant to this discussion. I believe this is the 7th time, now, that it has been clearly stated that NO ONE has suggested that ANYONE should pretend like nothing happened. For you to continue to argue that point is not only bad faith, but has been clearly labeled as offensive by Icarus. Continuing to cast people in something that they have already clearly repudiated is not only pretty bad form, but in this case downright insulting and been called so by at least three of us, now. Do you plan to stop?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
Well, until I know the full story, I don't plan on ever condemning them.
I don't think that you (or AJ, or anyone) can say in this specific instance that the parents are definitely hurting their children by hurting the nephew-- you just don't have the information that you need in order to make that judgement.
I think it's well within your right to assert that in general, X applies, and Y makes things better, and if you want Apples, you should give Oranges. But you seem to be asking kat (and others) to find fault with specific human beings without allowing that such a judgement cannot be made fairly because of the lack of information.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Then I realize that I don't actually know what you mean by this phrase:
quote:It is not only possible, but easy and profitable to everyone involved for the adults in the situation to be concerned with BOTH children, even if the action was more egregious.
At first glance, it makes it seem like you're arguing that even if the boy's action was worse (worse as far as the actual action, and worse in terms of the boy's understanding of his own actions) than what it was, the girls' parents have a responsibility to make sure he's not going to be traumatized for his own actions.
I don't concede that they do.
What I mean is, even if the boy's actions were worse, as far as the actual action, the girls' parents help their cause of protecting the girls by making sure their nephew is not completely cut off from their family.
What I mean is, that caring for someone, especially a family member, does not mean turning a blind eye to their problems.
What I mean is that it is absolutely inescapable that the aunt and uncle will have an influence of some sort on the nephew and that it is better for the girls if they make that influence a constructive and helpful one.
They don't have to ignore what he did. In fact, it would probably be good for him to see that they are angered and upset by it as long as they make it clear that they are still pulling for him to do better. Tell him that he has done wrong and they are, as a consequence, going to restrict his access to their family and that he has lost some of their trust.
Avoiding his mom at church and telling him that they'll come visit soon and not doing so are *not* constructive methods of dealing with this in any way, shape or form. They don't restrict the boy's access to the girls. They don't express anger or punishment for the action in a manner that allows for apology, contrition and hope of a continued or eventually renewed relationship. They are destructive actions... and thus ultimately not in their daughters' best interest. the only thing these actions do is send the message "you are a dirty little boy and we don't want to be around you."
For those of you that keep harping on protecting your own child at all costs and who can't seem to get your heads around how helping a child aggressor is good for the victim as well, what advice would you have for NA were it her own 4 yr old daughter who was kissed by her 11 yr old son?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: But you seem to be asking kat (and others) to find fault with specific human actions because such a judgement can be made fairly with the information we have.
is how I would say it...
Specifically, what I am further asking Kat to do is quit making unsubstantiated implications that anyone on this thread is arguing that the situation should be ignored (and it would be nice if she would apologize for so doing) and to acknowledge in her further arguments that we are talking about more than "hurt feelings" here with regard to the 11 year old.
Edit: also I should allow that Kat *has* publically found fault with at least two of the actions in question, herself.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:They don't restrict the boy's access to the girls. They don't express anger or punishment for the action in a manner that allows for apology, contrition and hope of a continued or eventually renewed relationship. They are destructive actions... and thus ultimately not in their daughters' best interest. the only thing these actions do is send the message "you are a dirty little boy and we don't want to be around you."
I don't grant this premise: "They are destructive actions... and thus ultimately not in their daughters' best interest."
quote:For those of you that keep harping on protecting your own child at all costs and who can't seem to get your heads around how helping a child aggressor is good for the victim as well
Speaking generally:
I think we need to define the limits of 'helping.' Supporting the offender in couseling? Yes. Helping the offender by being open with him and his parents about our concerns? Yes. Gradually letting the offender back into our home? Maybe, depending on the circumstances of the offense, and the feelings we have about the offender now.
quote:what advice would you have for NA were it her own 4 yr old daughter who was kissed by her 11 yr old son?
I'd make sure the two were seperated, that they were never alone together. I'd show my son that I still loved him and I'd express confidence in him that he could choose to do what's right.
But there are a lot more relationships in NA's situation than in your theorhetical one. Four adults, (at least) three kids vs 2 adults and two kids. Those relationships throw other things into the mix that muddy the waters.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
If you don't mean the case specific to NA, do you think you could use more general terms?
quote:When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
That way I won't assume you're asking me to condemn real people who I don't know over a real situation whose limits I can't determine.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that you (or AJ, or anyone) can say in this specific instance that the parents are definitely hurting their children by hurting the nephew-- you just don't have the information that you need in order to make that judgement.
Because you said:
quote:I believe that open communication and discussion of the issues between the *adults* involved will lead to better protection for *all* of the children involved in this situation. However that open discussion cannot take place without consideration for the feelings of all family members.
My mistake. I *think* this is generally true. I shouldn't have invoked you.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To further clarify, while I think the general statement I wrote is more universally true (and I'm glad you (ScottR) agree with it)...
I guess I had more in mind showing consideration of each others feelings at the parent-aunt-uncle generational level than the feelings of the kids themselves. If respect for feelings at that level can't be communicated, the kids are somewhat screwed anyway, cause they've got crappy role models as parents.
If you don't mean the case specific to NA, do you think you could use more general terms?
quote:When *will* you condemn them for hurting the nephew, again, to the detriment of their own daughters.
That way I won't assume you're asking me to condemn real people who I don't know over a real situation whose limits I can't determine.
I *do* mean the case specific to NA, but I do not mean to generally condemn the aunt and uncle as bad people. What I *do* mean to do is say that their specific actions, while understandable and human, are wrong. What I should have said to Kat, to be more clear, was: "why, when you have already said these things are wrong in general, are you having a problem with saying that someone is in the wrong in doing them?"
You, as far as I know, Scott, have not yet conceded that avoiding the family at church, placing the parents in the middle of the conflict, or failing to visit the nephew after saying they would, constitutes needless or harmful behavior towards the nephew or that harming the nephew, in this case, is detrimental to the safety of the daughters. The latter is an assertion I haven't supported very well, because, frankly, I have no hope of making the relatively esoteric case for that when I can't even make the (IMO fairly obvious) case that the actions above listed in no way protect the daughters and are harmful to the nephew.
Now, you haven't disagreed with me that they might harm the nephew... so the nesxt step in the conversation is where I ask, "how does avoiding the family at church, placing the mother in the middle of the fight, or breaking promises to the 11 year old protect the daughter in any way?"
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No shunning the whole family, no shouting the reasons, no taking it out on the grandparents, but I reject the idea that the girls' parents are remiss for staying away if they feel their own children would be in danger otherwise.
I agree. Would you then agree that the girl's parents are being remiss, not as parents, but as family members and human beings for the bolded bit above?
AJ
I referenced you making this post. I'm not sure if that's where your name first came in, but it's the only place I have mentioned you, I believe.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "how does avoiding the family at church, placing the mother in the middle of the fight, or breaking promises to the 11 year old protect the daughter in any way?"
I don't know. I allow that the brother may have his reasons though, and that they may be good ones.
I don't understand why condemning them, specifically, is so important to you. I still assert that no judgement can be made until we know why they did what they did.
"Placing the mother in the middle of the fight..." For a minute, I thought you meant NA. I think you mean NA's mother-- the grandmother, correct?
In any case-- with a family as involved with eachother as this one seems to be, aren't they ALL kind of in the middle of it?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: "how does avoiding the family at church, placing the mother in the middle of the fight, or breaking promises to the 11 year old protect the daughter in any way?"
I don't know. I allow that the brother may have his reasons though, and that they may be good ones.
I don't see how it can possibly keep their daughters safer. I do see how it can be damaging to their nephew. Until someone shows me how it does the former effectively enough to be worth the later, I will maintain that they are wrong actions.
quote:I don't understand why condemning them, specifically, is so important to you. I still assert that no judgement can be made until we know why they did what they did.
Because unless there is a remarkable circumstance which no one has been able to describe, the actions are causing harm without accomplishing what their defenders are saying they are accomplsihing. I want these actions condemned for the same reason the nephews actiona *are* being condemned-- because they are wrong.
quote:"Placing the mother in the middle of the fight..." For a minute, I thought you meant NA. I think you mean NA's mother-- the grandmother, correct?
yes.
quote:In any case-- with a family as involved with eachother as this one seems to be, aren't they ALL kind of in the middle of it?
Which, I believe is the point that Kate and Sharpie have been trying to make... that they shoul;d be working through it together. From NA's description, the Broither is asking the mother to choose sides in this-- the antithesis of being in it all together.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I see parents who justify hurtful, spiteful and genuinely selfish behavior on behalf of their children. I can't see that it is any more justifiable to hurt someone to benefit your child than to hurt someone to benefit yourself.
And no one on this board has been arguing in favor of hurting one child to benefit another. Why do you address this point? It's completely disconnected from the thread.
Strangely, I thought this is exactly what you and others on this board were supporting. In the case that spawned this thread, the parents in question were doing things like refusing to sit with this family in church, adults were refusing to play games with the boy, parents were refusing to let a different child attend a concert with him where 4 family adults would be supervising. Those actions offer no protection for any child in question, they are simply hurtful and spiteful to the nephew. Perhaps if you can explain to me how it protects a child for her father to refuse to play with the offending child, then I might understand your point. As it is, what I see is parents justifying hurting an 11 year old boy needlessly.
quote:I've had occasion to think on my behavior. I come to the same conclusion: that the "hurt" that their child receives from being disassociated with my child (or family) is not nearly as great as the "hurt" my child receives by being introduced to sexual behavior before they are ready to understand it.
If you reverse the roles and make the son who did the kissing yours, would you choose to disassociate him from his cousin to protect her from being exposed to sexual behavior she wasn't ready to understand or would you choose some appropriate middle ground. That is the crux of this discussion. If the boy were your son, how would you respond?
quote:Specifically, the attitude of 'to heck with everybody else' has never been expressed here. 'To heck with the child that put my child in X situation,' has been, mildly, by me.
I don't find the attitude selfish at all. Before I dump on your opinion, I want to understand it a little better: do you mean to say that parents have the obligation to consider other children's FEELINGS as equal to their own children's PROTECTON?
I thought I'd addressed most of this in my first post. When I said
"That doesn't mean I think parents should expose their children to unneccesary risks to avoid hurting someone's feelings."
Let me further state that I don't think it is in the best interest of either child to put a young child in a situation where they are likely to be hurt in any way by an older child.
I think it is in the best interest of the 11 year ofld boy who was involved in the incident to learn that his actions were unacceptable and why. I think it is in his best interest to learn that there are consequences to doing things like this. But that lesson won't be learned if teh consequences far exceed the severity of his act. When that happens, all children learn is that they can't expect to be treated justly by the adults who love them and that isn't a lesson any child should be taught.
I don't know whether this boy’s act was just naive experimentation or an indication of a more serious problem. I think his parents should be trying to find out what's really going on so that an appropriate response can be found. I think they deserve the support of their extended family in doing this. Reacting as though the boy is a sexual predator and ostracizing him, which is what this extended family is doing, is disproportionately harsh and is likely to result, at a minimum, in unhealthy attitudes toward kissing for all the children involved. I can understand parents taking reasonable precautions to protect both children so that no similar events occur, but I can see no reason why allowing the children to react under supervision does not satisfy this. Since all the additional measures which have been described exceed what is needed to protect the children, I can only see them as hurtful and spiteful.
It disturbs me greatly to see otherwise rational people defend such hurtful behavior with the argument "I have to protect my own children" because what this family is doing far exceeds the needs of protection.
My point was that the adults involved in this incident should ideally be considering what is best for all the children involved and not just their own children. The attitude that you must take care of your childs needs before you can care about the welfare presents a false dicotomy. The cases where there is not solution that will be beneficial to all the children, or at even one that minimizes the harm done to any child are truly rare. If parents are looking for solutions rather than ways to justify their instincts, they can usually find a way to handle such situation that doesn't require hurting other people. In the long wrong, I think parents who do this do a better job parenting their own children than those who instinctively protect their own child first before thinking of others.
[ November 09, 2006, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand why condemning them, specifically, is so important to you. I still assert that no judgement can be made until we know why they did what they did.
No one here is fighting to specifically condemn this family since we don't even know who they are. What people here are arguing is that the action which has been described to us is objectionable.
Many of us are of the opinion that unless there is some important extenuating circumstance that we don't know and haven't been able to imagine, this boy's uncle and extended family are being excessively cruel.
What you seem to be arguing, is that the parents instinctive desire to protect their child is for you sufficient to justify their hurtful behavior to their nephew and his family. You trust parents instincts to protect their children to be a good guide for ethical behavior and so you are willing to give these parents the benefit of the doubt even though all the evidence suggests that they are hurting a child and their sister without need.
My problem is that I have personally seen far too many cases where parents use the excuse of protecting their children to justify truly attrocious treatment of others. Given my experience, I am unwilling to grant that parents "instincts to protect their children" should be trusted at all to result in ethical behavior.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't desire and try to protect their children. What I'm saying is that those desires don't necessarily equal ethical behavior. In fact, those desires very frequently lead to unethical behavior which is why parents in such situations need to step back and consider their response from a larger perspective than "I have to take care of my child first".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've had occasion to think on my behavior. I come to the same conclusion: that the "hurt" that their child receives from being disassociated with my child (or family) is not nearly as great as the "hurt" my child receives by being introduced to sexual behavior before they are ready to understand it.
But if you believe the golden rule, then you must also ask yourself if you were the parents of the boy, what would you want done. If I were his parents I would be concerned that he might be developing ways of interacting with other people. I would be trying to find out if this was an aberation or a pattern. If I felt this might be a developing pattern, I would want to find ways to reinforce more healthy resonsible behavior. I would also think that he needed opportunities for healthy interactions with other children in order to develop better responses. I would be concerned that he needed love and support from those around him so that he didn't fall into a pattern of secrecy and shameful behavior. Wouldn't you want those things if he was your son?
And if you consider those things, don't you think that you can find some way to help this child while still providing reasonable protection for your own?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Hmm... I just don't think we're going to get any farther in this discussion. You are more or less correct: I DO give the parents the benefit of the doubt, while it appears you do not.
The right of parents to act immediately on their instincts is important enough to me that I won't cede it in any but the most extreme cases-- and I don't think this case is extreme by any measure.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The right of parents to act immediately on their instincts is important enough to me that I won't cede it in any but the most extreme cases-- and I don't think this case is extreme by any measure.
To *have* the right to do something is not the same as to *be* right in doing it.
Also, now is probably a good time to remind you that I entered this discussion saying I was with you up to the point where you wrote the 11 yr old off. I don't feel that we are that far apart... and perhaps you are right, this is as close as we will get.
I do hope I have been clear that I am not saying the aunt and uncle are bad people, but that some of their actions are, as Rabbit put it, objectionable. I hope I have also been clear that I'm not feeling any animosity from you, Scott, nor do I hold any towards you.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
The following is a long excerpt from a story I wrote for the Writer's of the Future workshop. It addresses some of the issues that we've been talking about here-- trust, protection, loving care.
To set the scene: Tara and Mike Sharp are the parents of Scotty (~16), Jack (~10), and Zandy (~2). Jack has been having a rough time of late-- he's been defacing property in the home, and returned home this afternoon with a black eye and bloody nose. He told his parents he'd gotten in a fight with his best friend, but refused to explain what the fight was about.
His parents, after arguing privately about what should be done about his recalcitrance, agree to let the discussion go.
quote: Tara dreamed that her boys were yelling at each other, and woke up and found it was true. In the grogginess between full alertness and half-sleep, she realized that at this rate, they’d wake up Zandy, and maybe even Mike, they were being so loud. Quickly, she stepped out of bed, shushing them from all the way down the hall.
Scotty was laying on top of his younger brother, glaring at him—a long scratch ran down the side of his head. And something else, too—she couldn’t quite see it from the door to Scotty’s room, but. . .
“Get off!” Jack yelled, and the room rang with his tenor voice.
“Prescott, get off your brother right now!” It scared her a little, this woman-mother voice she’d somehow learned in the sixteen years since Scotty’d been born. This naming-of-full-names voice, the voice of the queen-mother-goddess. Scared her and thrilled her a bit. “Jonathan Lorenzo, what are you doing in your brother’s room?”
Scotty answered for him, “This, Mom, look!” He turned his face and pointed. A line of red was drawn along his skin, from the neck of his t-shirt, passing over his cheekbone, angling back to his temple, and then disappearing into a thicket of blonde hair. “He drew all over me! All over me!”
Scotty pulled up his shirt to show the red line along his ribs, over his stomach., and his voice was harsh, “He was trying to pull down my shorts when I woke up.”
Tara swallowed, watching both her boys. She came close to them, wondering, wondering what she should do, what could she say to this. She saw tears in Scotty’s eyes, and now he wouldn’t look at her, saw him biting his lip, clutching at the blankets to his bed. And Jack, still and quiet, those wide hazel eyes looking at his brother, at her—there was fear and wonder in those eyes, too. And a red Sharpie in his hand. The cap was by his foot. Tara started to say something, but her woman-mother voice wouldn’t work. The goddess within failed her, went scrambling back to. . . someplace sane, she supposed.
“Let me see,” she said, and turned Scotty’s face toward her. The line was not a solid line, as it had appeared from the door. Tiny markings—symbols, delicately drawn.
“Jack, what is this?”
“I don’t know,” he said. Too quickly, she thought. He had been expecting the question.
“Awful quiet in here,” Mike said, coming in the door. “What’s—“
Tara saw his eyes take in them all. Saw them widen, saw them harden, saw them stare at the marker, and move back. Back to her, as if to say, ‘I told you, I told you.’ But he didn’t say anything, and the hard look was gone from his eyes. Or hidden. “What’s going on, boys.”
They both tried to answer at once, but Tara wasn’t watching them any longer. She’d heard something at the door to Scotty’s room, a little sigh, the fall of a little footstep, and her head was turning to see Zandy standing there.
Standing there naked, her little body covered in those red symbols, in Jack’s symbols, so they crossed her like ropes or veins, standing there naked and rubbing her eyes with one hand, and sucking on her other hand’s fingers.
What would you do in this situation?
In the story (at the time, I needed a plot device to get Jack out of the home-- I realize now this probably WOULD NOT HAPPEN, and everything having to do with the psych. hospital will have to be re-written before being at all plausible), Jack is sent to a psychiatric hospital for three weeks for evaluation.
quote: “He cannot baby-sit ever again,” the man said. Tara thought he was a psychologist, but she wasn’t sure, and her eyes couldn’t focus on his badge. She couldn’t even think of his name, though Dr. Loew had told her that this man would come in his place today. “Not Alexandra, not any child. Do you understand, Mr. and Mrs. Sharp? Jonathan is to have absolutely no time alone with children younger or smaller than himself.”
Jack. You should call him Jack, Tara thought, because Jonathan is our name for him, our private name to call him and make him recognize us. Mike shifted next to her, clearing his throat.
“He didn’t do anything,” Mike said, but the words were dull. They seemed weak, somehow. He’d said them so often the last three weeks.
The man looked at Mike. Tara remembered his name now—Brendholm. Igor Brendholm, a terrible, monster movie name. Like Boris Karloff, very Old World, very…creepy. Igor Brendholm said, “He undressed your young daughter while she was sleeping, and painted her. He attempted to do the same with Prescott. That’s not nothing. Dr. Loew has recommended that Jonathan come home, but you need to face the facts: we may be dealing with a child predator. If you want to protect your children, and the rest of the neighborhood. . . well, you need to take a look at this honestly.”
And what could they say to that? Nothing. And so Tara sat there, and wished that Mike would hold her hand, but he sat still and staring at this Dr. Igor Brendholm, his hands folded underneath his armpits like he was cold. So she moved her hands. Slid her left hand between his lower back and the bench, and felt his muscles trembling there, felt her husband as he breathed. He did not move away from her hand. That was something, then. Something they could build on.
And Mike’s voice was stronger when he spoke again, “We’ll be honest about this—but you be honest, too. I don’t know what is wrong with Jack.” He emphasized ‘Jack,’ as if to make it clear that was what this stranger, this outsider, this interloper, was to call their son. We are still the ones who name him for others, Tara thought. Until he can name himself, we name him. “And you don’t know what’s wrong with Jack. You don’t know why he did what he did. . . you aren’t even sure how he did what he did. If you knew he was a predator, if Dr. Loew even suspected that Jack was a danger, you’d keep him here. I’d tell you myself to keep him here.”
“We may not know, Mr. Sharp, but there are warning signs.”
“Which, after three weeks, we’re as aware of as you.” Tara moved her hand from Mike’s back, to his knee. And she felt him put his rough hand over hers there. “We will watch out for them. We will be safe with Jack.”
Dr. Brendholm seemed to ready to say something further, reconsidered, and then stood up. “I’ll go get him.”
She didn’t breathe until he had left. Three weeks. The police, the psychologists, the social workers, it was like a mire of people and questions and probings. . . They’d taken Zandy and Scotty away for a week, put them up at foster homes while every sort of question and test was run on Mike, and then on Tara. The house had been so . . . silent. It was hell, being in a home that was habituated to the sound of children, and yet thrust into silence. No child to breathe in the air, no child to snore softly, or sing, or squeal, or whine, or beg, or complain. She even missed their complaining.
And then, suddenly, the doors Igor Brendholm had disappeared through swung open, and Jack was there with them. She had scooped him up before she even realized she had moved. It was so good to put her arms around Jack, to feel the weight of him in her arms, the softness of his belly under his shirt against her and the strength of his arms around her neck, and the smell of the shampoo in his hair, the smoothness of his cheek against her cheek. To feel Mike there as well, holding Jack as she held Jack, holding her too, and they, all of them together. . . It was the opposite of the silence in their house.
“You smell like burritos,” Mike said, laughing and swallowing a tremor in his voice.
“Yeah, that’s what I had for lunch. Look what Khalid made for me as a going home present!” He pulled a wooden flute from his pocket and gave it a whistle. “Give it a try, Dad!”
And so they walked to the car, and Mike held Jack’s clothes while Tara held Jack’s hand.
But Tara saw how Jack touched the baby seat next to him when he got in. Kind of. . . hesitating. Like he was asking permission from something inside himself. So when they were all buckled in she said, “She doesn’t remember, Jack. She doesn’t remember anything.”
Mike threw her a look.
Jack took a breath, and looked outside. He rubbed his eyes, wiped his hands on his pants. “Does Scotty hate me?”
“We’re a family, Jonathan Lorenzo. Families don’t hate each other.” Mike started the car.
“Yes, they do.” Jack’s voice was barely a whisper. “Two boys I met—they said they used to hear their dad beat their mom with his belt. And so they hated him so much, they stuck a screwdriver in his gut, but that didn’t stop their dad from taking his belt and beating them, so that now one of them talks funny, and the other one can’t move his left hand.”
Tara felt fear crawling up her spine. What other things had her boy learned about these last weeks? She said, “Jack, it’s true. Sometimes, people in families do terrible things to each other. Sometimes, you’re right, they don’t love each other. Sometimes they hate each other.
“But that’s not us, honey. Your dad and I love you so much, we would never do those things to you. We would never hurt you, or abandon you, or. . . any of those things. That’s what our family is about. We love you.”
Silence for a moment, then, “I love you, too.”
It didn’t make things easy, or better, those four words. But it got them home. It got them through that first night. It got Scotty and Jack talking again, and teasing each other, a little.
And when Tara and Mike sat down with Scotty and asked him if he would consider allowing Jack to move into a bunk bed into his room, those four words, and a little coaxing from Dr. Loew, got him to say yes.
Mike and Tara's actions are about how I would react to this situation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
