Dawn, maybe the Oregon State Police can get the ISP info on the blogger and use that to pinpoint her. A child is being sexually abused if what this woman blogs is true. Is there a task force in the state that addresses this?
Christina | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 4:30 am | #

Rudy Giuliani's money goes a long way.
BillyHW | 01.19.08 - 5:20 am | #

Did this PP worker ever go through a mandated reporter training?

12 year olds are simply INCAPABLE of giving consent, legally speaking. It doesn't matter if she "does not believe that such young girls are able to give consent." They legally can't.

Also, what's with this hiding behind ignorance? She very heavily implied that she saw this girl's birth certificate (after all, her oh-so-loving companion acquired it for her). She KNOWS how old this girl is.
Andy | 01.19.08 - 9:35 am | #

Wait -- did she do a pelvic exam? Was the girl sexually active, or did she just intend to be sexually active? This is probably an important legal disctinction -- and for the record, I was a virgin the first time I went to PP. Also, they asked me how old my teenage partner was, and many questions about my situation.

Now, I have no problem at all with minors obtaining contraceptives without parental permission. The part that bugs me is this:

I could not get it out of my head that she didn't exactly give consent, though I had no reason to believe she didn't.

I wonder why the woman didn't trust her gut, and ask more questions, and I wish she had.
L. | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 9:50 am | #

This is so sick. What a bleak commentary on the vacuous abyss that is morality today:

"This part of me undoubtedly borders on patronizing. I don't really know what this girl's situation was, nor do I know what her role in it was. It is presumptive in the highest to assume that she was somehow victimized. But I still feel like she was too young. Clearly, that's my issue, not hers."

Have we become so paralyzed by fear of giving offense or appearing intolerant that common moral decency has been extinguished?
Jenny | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 11:12 am | #

Thank you for bringing this to light Dawn.
Kristina | 01.19.08 - 11:21 am | #

I'm pretty much with L on this one.

As an aside commentary - being relieved that obnoxious people don't reproduce and thinking your own children would be beneficial (genetically and socially speaking) is favoring eugenics? Seriously? Because there's a ton of people out there I'd be entirely thrilled to see not reproduce - I just don't do anything particular about it - and neither does this lady as far as I can tell.
Tapetum | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 12:40 pm | #

I have a major problem with my daughters, who are minors, obtaining contraception without my permission. I had to sign a permission form to get my youngest daughter's ears pierced, for Pete's sake! If they attended a public or private school, they wouldn't be able to take any medications at school, period. These are *my* children, and as long as their father and I are legally (and morally) responsible for them, I have a right to do know what they are taking and what they are doing.
Barb the Evil Genius | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 2:13 pm | #

These are *my* children, and as long as their father and I are legally (and morally) responsible for them, I have a right to do know what they are taking and what they are doing.

I do not feel I have ANY such right, as a parent, and I certainly did not feel that my own parents had any such right, either -- anymore than they had the right to prevent me from having sex. Short of kidnapping me and locking me up, there was nothing they could have done.

I now have an 11-year old daughter, and I admit I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of her, or someone as young as she is, being sexually active. The vast majority of people this age are NOT mature enough for sexual relations, which is why the majority of them are not engaged in it.

But I am also very uncomfortable with the application of statuatory rape laws when both partners are young. What if the girl's partner is only 12 or 13? Is he, too, guilty of "child rape?" Or in a case like that, would the parents of the young couple be guilty of negligence?
L. | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 3:02 pm | #

L,

Do you "feel" like you have the right to stop your children from taking drugs? Smoking? Partaking in other dangerous behavior? Why does your custodial responsibility stop with sex?

The worker has no responsibility to worry about whether the child was raped or any other action taken thereafter. As a healthcare worker, she is LEGALLY obligated to report any inkling of inappropriate sexual behavior; the proper authorities will then sort it out.
Andy | 01.19.08 - 3:21 pm | #

Do you "feel" like you have the right to stop your children from taking drugs? Smoking? Partaking in other dangerous behavior? Why does your custodial responsibility stop with sex?

Quite honestly, Andy, no, I do not believe I have any such "right." I have only the right -- and the responsibility -- of teaching my children about the health risks and legal consequences of drugs, smoking and sex. But I realize at a certain point, I will have no control over what they do outside my home, anymore than my parents had control over me.

Barb used the example above of having to sign a permission form to get her youngest daughter's ears pierced. Well, when I was a teenager, my parents refused to allow me to double-pierce one of my ears, and I couldn't get it done without their permission. So I did myself, in the bathroom with a sewing needle. They viewed this as a wanton act of self-destruction, whereas I just liked the way it looked (and still wear two earrings in that ear to this day).

Sexual decisions are among the most personal that an individual will ever make, and many children and young adults will choose to reject their parents' values. Hey, who knows -- maybe my own daughter will decide someday that her mother is a slut, and reject mine. Heh.
L. | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 4:44 pm | #

...the proper authorities will then sort it out.


Some of us live in fear that the "proper authorities" will be tasked with sorting out our lives someday! :)
L. | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 4:45 pm | #

The whole point of being a child, and legally a minor, is that there are some things that you are considered too young to do, like vote, work a 40 hour week, work a dangerous job, etc. Currently, by law, I am responsible for my children, and part of this responsibility involves making decisions as to their care and upbringing. Other parents will make different decisions from me, and that's fine. Just leave me the final right to make decisions regarding my own offspring. This is reminding me of Germany where parents who wish to homeschool their children are fined and even jailed. They have lost part of their rights as parents to make what they consider to be the best decision regarding their own children's education.
Barb the Evil Genius | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 6:42 pm | #

Um, we're all here debating. Does anybody know if law enforcment has been contacted about this girl?

And the presumption that the older woman was an aunt or somebody else motivated by concern for the girl is foolish. Tamiia Russell was brought in for her fatal abortion by the sister of her 24-year-old abuser. The older woman bringing in this 12-year-old might well be a confederate of an abuser as well, not just a family member who noticed that the girl had an age-mate "boyfriend" and believes that contraception cures all the world's evils.
Christina | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 7:26 pm | #

Between a 12-year-old child, the State, and the parents, I happen to think that the parents are the best people to make a decision regarding the child in almost every situation.

The child can't vote, drive a car, drink alcohol, or do a lot of other things. Furthermore, the parents are legally liable for her torts. We don't believe that she is adult enough to vote, so how is she adult enough to have sex - and potentially create another human life and be a mom herself?

The State doesn't know the kid and exists to keep harmony and peace - for the purposes of the people. We do not exist for the government.

So, yeah, I think the parents are the best party to make any decision. If you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to talk to a judge and get emancipated from your parents.
theobromophile | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 7:38 pm | #

Just leave me the final right to make decisions regarding my own offspring.

You certainly have the right to make such decisions. And your daughters, as they grow into independently-thinking people, have the right to either embrace your decisions or reject them.

I think all of us here would agree that children in the single-digit age range deserve protection. But after that, there is a big gray zone between childhood and legal adulthood. Though 12 is certainly pushing the edge on the side of childhood, parents' "rights" become even more nebulous when it comes to older teenagers.

We don't believe that she is adult enough to vote, so how is she adult enough to have sex - and potentially create another human life and be a mom herself?

I've always thought the voting right age was pretty arbitrary. There are plenty of U.S. soldiers putting their lives on the line for their country in Iraq who can vote but cannot legally consume alcohol. Using the voting age as a cutoff for sexual maturity makes even less sense.
L. | Homepage | 01.19.08 - 9:00 pm | #

I was on a jury a couple of months ago which convicted for sodomy on a minor involving a kid two years older than this one. (This was NOT a minor-and-minor thing, incidentally - this was incestuous rape by an older family member). I don't like the idea of prosecuting a male 13-year-old for sleeping with a female 12-year-old, though they both need some serious common sense talked to them, but if this is true she needed to go a hell of a lot farther in finding out what was happening.
Sonetka | 01.20.08 - 12:08 am | #

A few stats from California:

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births [sic] among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

The Kaiser Family Foundation/-
Seventeen Magazine survey found that more than six in ten girls who
had sex wished they had waited. Nearly four in ten of the sexually active girls specifically wished they had waited until they were older.

When you couple stories like this with the number of "child love" advocacy sites a disturbing picture of our society begins to form. This "counselor" should be charged with no less than aiding and abetting.
J Rob | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 1:55 pm | #

I don't think that 18-year-olds are old enough to have sex.

I think it all depends on the 18-year old! Surely some aren't, but I believe many are.

I fell in love with the man who became my husband when I was only 19, so I'm always very skeptical when people say that teenagers aren't ready to make mature emotional decisions.
L. | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 2:37 pm | #

I contacted the Oregon Department of Justice at doj.info@state.or.us and linked to the blogspot.

Barb: My parents were from the same school of thought as you vis-a-vis raising children, and I am eternally grateful that they were. Your children are blessed to have such thoughtful, responsible parents.

God bless -
Joanne | 01.20.08 - 5:12 pm | #

Thanks for doing that, Joanne -- great idea.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 5:15 pm | #

If the legal age of consent in Oregon is 15, then anyone distributing contraception to someone under that age should be legally held responsible for aiding a crime. Period, end of story.
Crimson Wife | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 6:09 pm | #

Whether or not the Oregon DOJ is inclined to pressure PP to figure out which office this happened in (call me cynical, but unfortunately I'm betting they won't be), I want them to be aware that the public is not entirely in the dark that this stuff is happening.

Take care, all!
Joanne | 01.20.08 - 7:58 pm | #

Depo Provera freaks me out, but sometimes I am relieved when a particularly stupid or offensive woman chooses it as her birth control method. ...


I have to admit, I feel the same way. I have an IUD and whenever I hear through the grapevine about women on their 3 or 4 fourth unplanned pregnancy and their second abortion I just want to pull my hair out and scream "What the f is wrong with these women? Why can't they just get it together?"

I think for women that have a history of repeatedly "accidently" getting knocked up, depo provera and IUD's are their best option. Surely their actions show that their self-control is fleeting and they need help.

And then of course I feel bad for thinking this about other women because my own bland pregnancy history is partly due to luck and because I think I might be avoiding the plank in my own eye.
Jamila | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 8:19 pm | #

I fell in love with the man who became my husband when I was only 19, so I'm always very skeptical when people say that teenagers aren't ready to make mature emotional decisions.

Well, I know a couple who met and fell in love in the fifth grade. Perhaps we ought to allow middle schoolers to wed?

L., you're in the minority. 60% of couples who get married between the ages of 20 and 25 get divorced. The rate is much, much higher for teenagers. (Consider that the 20-year-old who marries is a fundamentally different creature than the 25-year-old who marries; one is barely out of high school, the other is three years out of college and self-sufficient for several years.)

I'm not trying to be mean, just pointing out that your experience is just that - your own experience. The plural of anecdote is not data, as they say, and the same goes for the singular of anecdote.

By the way, my dad & stepmum met in nursery school. They didn't get married for another 30 years. ;)
theobromophile | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 11:29 pm | #

Someone who is not able to support herself/himself is not "old" enough to have sex, whatever his/her numerical age may be. I think that's the simplest way of looking at it. To be ready to engage in sex, you ought to be able to earn a living (even a bad one), in order to support whatever offspring you might conceive.

But even leaving out the possibility of conceiving children, young people who are still supported by their parents, and above all those who have nowhere to engage in sex but in their parental homes, should not be having sex. It is unfair to expect parents to accept the whims of teenage sexual fancy when they are still legally obliged to support their child. What if your daughter takes up with a neo-Nazi, or your son with a teenage drug addict? Must you welcome these "lovers" into your home? The idea that parents have no choice but to grin and bear it when their children engage in early/unsuitable/dangerous sexual behaviour seems wrongheaded to me.

When children are living independently or semi-independently (in college but still supported by their parents, for example) is early enough to allow them to make their own decisions in such matters.

Of course they may try to defy you. Some children may try to defy anything that is good for them. But would you allow your twelve-year-old to give up trying to do well in school, or stop eating vegetables, or become anorexic, without a fight, on the grounds that it is her right to do as she pleases with her life?
alias clio | 01.21.08 - 12:13 am | #

But would you allow your twelve-year-old to give up trying to do well in school, or stop eating vegetables, or become anorexic, without a fight, on the grounds that it is her right to do as she pleases with her life?

Except for the anorexic part -- I have indeed.

She is living her life, not mine.

It is unfair to expect parents to accept the whims of teenage sexual fancy when they are still legally obliged to support their child.

Yeah -- but since when was life fair? :)

Theobromophile, I realize I am "beating the odds" in more ways than one (70% of marriages between Japanese men and non-Japanese women end in divorce, and perhaps mine will someday, too). I know I speak only for myself, but I can say with certainty that not all teenagers are incapable of mature reasoning when it comes to sexual and emotional matters.
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 1:31 am | #

Well, L., I know that in the end you can't force a child to do anything. But it seems to me that parents have a right, and indeed a duty, to fight with and for their children to persuade them of what is right. To do less is to abdicate the responsibilities of parenthood.

To re-frame the example I used above, if your child were to become involved with a neo-Nazi thug, would you smile blandly and say, "It's your life, my dear"?
alias clio | 01.21.08 - 10:36 am | #

That "narcissistic" comment is the second time I've run across that in the past 30 days. The other one was an oral comment about people who have children. Two comments a trend do not make, but I'm suspicious that there's some PP type of propaganda to that effect, it's such an odd comment.

Man, if ever there was anything that destroys narcissism, it's being a parent. That knocks you down to size, and out of your own self interest, quick. Or at least it usually does. Garrison Keiller may have said it best in one of his monologs, commenting on a New York survey of performance artist who thought culture was ending. In his (fictional) neck of the woods, most folks were parents, and everyone was too darned busy to know if culture was starting, ending, or somewhere in the middle.
Yeoman | 01.21.08 - 11:39 am | #

To re-frame the example I used above, if your child were to become involved with a neo-Nazi thug, would you smile blandly and say, "It's your life, my dear"?

Certainly.

To do less is to abdicate the responsibilities of parenthood.

One cannot abdicate responsibilities that one has never accepted in the first place. I obviously have a very different idea of what my "responsibilities" are, as a parent, than other people in this comment thread.

Man, if ever there was anything that destroys narcissism, it's being a parent. That knocks you down to size, and out of your own self interest, quick.

Agreed! Parenthood: it's not about YOU.
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 11:58 am | #

A child pushes, a parent pushes back. Equilibrium. The child complains, but knows the boundaries are safe and that the parent cares that he's alive.

A child pushes, the parent gives way. The child pushes further, the parent gives way. The child, panicky now, keeps trying to find _some_ boundary somewhere -- but never does. The child is pretty sure the parent doesn't care and wants him dead. Often, he obliges.
Maureen | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 1:07 pm | #

L -
You wouldn't want to know if your daughter was taking some sort of hormonal medication that could affect her health - raise her blood pressure cause weight gain, make her depressed? You wouldn't need to know in case other medical issues (say she needed antibiotics) reacted unfavorably with it (or rendered it useless)? None of that is your concern, she can just handle it?

I don't get laissez faire parenting, obviously. It's an oxymoron to me.
BeeBee | 01.21.08 - 2:41 pm | #

None of that is your concern, she can just handle it?

Yes. If she's old enough to procure it, she's old enough to "handle" it. I was a minor when I obtained hormonal birth control, and my parents did not need to know -- it was none of their business, and my daughter's sexual choices are none of mine. I am certainly giving her much more information on the subject than my parents gave me.

(And ironically, my kids don't think I'm a "laissez faire" parent at all -- in fact, they call me "The Mama Monster." There's a bit more to parenting than access to contraception!)

Speaking of hormonal medication -- has anyone else read the latest post on the PP worker's blog, and does anyone else find it ironic that she shuns hormonal birth control herself?
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 3:05 pm | #

"Yes. If she's old enough to procure it, she's old enough to "handle" it. I was a minor when I obtained hormonal birth control, and my parents did not need to know -- it was none of their business, and my daughter's sexual choices are none of mine."

I could have acquired cocaine when I was 14. Seriously. By your reasoning, would my parents have had any right to intervene if I had done so?
Andy | 01.21.08 - 3:29 pm | #

Cocaine is illegal, Andy. Hormonal birth control is not.

I cannot control whether or not my children acquire cocaine someday. I can only do everything in my power to educate them about the possible health and legal consequences.
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 3:36 pm | #

Hey, who knows -- maybe my own daughter will decide someday that her mother is a slut, and reject mine. Heh.

Actually, I know a gal who was raised in exactly the manner you are describing, L. Her mother worked (and still does) for PP. She went off to college, converted to Catholicism, married young, and now has a houseful of kids that she happily homeschools. Life is funny... And she is most decidedly not raising her kids the way her parents raised her.
Margaret | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 4:35 pm | #

"Yes. If she's old enough to procure it, she's old enough to "handle" it."

It'd be a mistake to associate legality with the ability of any one person to handle something.

The law is a one size fits all type of deal, and reflects more of what was imposed up legislatures by the pressure of their constituents and the dictates of the courts than by what any one person can, and cannot, handle. There are likely 15 year olds who can handle important decisions better than their 45 year old parents. Likewise, there are some individuals who can never handle adult decisions of any kind.

That's sort of a sidebar to this conversation, but as a lawyer, I'm frequently amazed by the concept that legality equates with "okay". Hardly. And there's no earthy way that anyone should assume that because a legislature has chosen not to act, or cannot act, that this means real people can or cannot handle the consequences of an act.
Yeoman | 01.21.08 - 5:22 pm | #

It'd be a mistake to associate legality with the ability of any one person to handle something.

I agree -- which is why the cocaine/hormonal contraception example wasn't a good comparison. Plenty of people can "handle" cocaine, but that doesn't make it "okay." Engaging in any illegal activity has its own set of possible consequences, and kids need to know about them as well.

I'm frequently amazed by the concept that legality equates with "okay."

Me, too. I think adultery and prostitution should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think they are "okay." Or abortion, for that matter.

And I also agree with you 100% that there are some individuals who can never handle adult decisions of any kind.

But birth control pills are not OTC at drugstores in the U.S. They are only available from medical professionals, like "Hormone Peddling Wench," meaning a young woman has to be mature enough to find a clinic, make an appointment, and find a way to get herself to it.

If my daughter decides not to be sexually active, then contraception will be a non-issue.

If, however, she decides to become sexually active despite my telling her about all the risks that such activity entails, and if she decides she doesn't want to tell me about this decision, then what could I possibly do? In that case, I would much rather she used some form of contraception than nothing at all.
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 6:08 pm | #

She went off to college, converted to Catholicism, married young, and now has a houseful of kids that she happily homeschools.

Good for her. Sounds wonderful.
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 6:10 pm | #

While this debate that L. is engaged in is interesting, it seems beyond the point. A 12 year old is incapable of giving consent to sex, period. If the 12 year old involved is engaged in sex, it's rape. Believe it or not, if the 12 year old is also having sex with another 12 year old, they're both committing rape.

In addition to failure to mandatory report, the Planned Parenthood blogger could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting rape. In fact, given the seriousness of the crime, I think that such a charge would definitely stick. Other charges that might apply include conspiracy to commit a crime, child endangerment/sexual assault, aiding and abetting child endangerment/sexual assault, and conspiracy to commit child endangerment/sexual assault.

The police need to identify this woman and lock her up pronto. Without a doubt, she has committed serious crimes.
Sydney Carton | 01.21.08 - 6:31 pm | #

Hi L.

You do say some strange things!

Cocaine is illegal, Andy. Hormonal birth control is not.

Hormonal birth control may be "legal," although the wisdom of legalizing hormonal birth control to teen-agers -- without parental consent! -- is certainly questionable.

As a parent, I will not abdicate my parental responsibilities just because the state government has decided to legalize a particular vice.

The question is not whether cocaine or tobacco or contraceptives are "illegal." As a parent, I am only concerned with how such things might harm my child! Hopefully, the state laws will help me... but I will not conform my parenting to the state laws. I will adapt around them, if I have to...

Family rules supersede the state rules. To listen to some of these moderns talk, you'd think that the State knows how to raise kids better than their parents do!
Del | 01.21.08 - 7:30 pm | #

Family rules supersede the state rules.

So, if parents decide that their definition of "discipline" is what the state calls "abuse," the state should allow the parents to do as they see fit, because "parents know best?" Or if parents find out that their teenage daughter is sexually active and confine her to her room 24 hours a day to prevent her from meeting her boyfriend, the state should allow the parents to do as they see fit, because "parents know best?"

You do say some strange things, too, Del! :)
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 7:37 pm | #

Hopefully, the state laws will help me... but I will not conform my parenting to the state laws.

Hey, I can relate -- I live in a state that tried to make spanking illegal.

But why should anyone be above the law just because they think they are acting in the child's best interest, whether it's the child's parents or a PP worker?

HPW may well have used the same words above -- "Hopefully, the state laws will help me... but I will not conform my (dispensation of contraception to a very young minor) to the state laws."
L. | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 8:12 pm | #

Del, I think you're closer to L.'s point of view than you may think:

Hopefully, the state laws will help me... but I will not conform my parenting to the state laws. I will adapt around them, if I have to...

I don't have kids, but I know that if I did, I'd be deathly afraid of the government imposing views like some of the ones found in abstinence-only curricula. And I'm sure there are things in your kids' schooling you don't like, either.

Well, that sure makes a great jumping-off point for an important discussion with one's kids, doesn't it?

I don't think anyone here is actually arguing for parents not to have the right to teach their children as they see fit (provided there's no abuse). Some of us are arguing, however, for the government to stay out of it and leave it to the parents.

A strong secular society that is inclusive and allows all parents to do this is very desirable in my book.
Terezia | 01.21.08 - 8:24 pm | #

I could have acquired cocaine when I was 14. Seriously. By your reasoning, would my parents have had any right to intervene if I had done so?>>

My parents never distinctly told me about drugs or sex, but instilled a sense of morality that I've never even tried pot. Parenthood doesn't have to be heavy handed; my parents weren't overbearing but I know right or wrong and I know how to question things I don't agree with.
Neil C | 01.22.08 - 1:17 am | #

"Hormonal birth control may be "legal," although the wisdom of legalizing hormonal birth control to teen-agers -- without parental consent! -- is certainly questionable."

Indeed medically, as well as philosophically.

One of the interesting things about this line of medication is that, if it were being introduced now for the very first time, rather than back where it was, it might be pretty iffy if it ever pasted FDA muster, at least without some sort of an age limit to it. Setting aside questions of morality entirely, it's darned iffy if it doesn't have a nasty long term impact to those who use it young.
Yeoman | 01.22.08 - 11:39 am | #

Has anyone else contacted law enforcement in Oregon about this incident? The more this girl posts details about herself and her job, the less inclined I am to think it's a hoax.
Joanne | 01.22.08 - 6:13 pm | #

Why were half the posts taken down from this one?
Neil C | 01.23.08 - 12:22 am | #

Never mind...they reappeared.
Neil C | 01.23.08 - 12:22 am | #

L - your kid will wind up dead like Heath Ledger
farzikhan | 01.23.08 - 1:20 pm | #

L - your kid will wind up dead like Heath Ledger.

I'm going to reply to you quickly before Dawn deletes your comment.

What possible good could come of what you just said? What would make a person say something like that? Please think carefully about this. If you were really concerned about a child's welfare, and wanted to get through to the parents about something you think they are doing wrong, I advise you to stop using threats.
L. | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 7:22 pm | #

L, judging by the comments to which farzikhan is responding, I don't think he or she is making a threat, but rather an observation.

It was you who brought up your personal parenting decisions and beliefs. A reasonable person could conclude that a child parented the way you claim to parent yours would indeed wind up like Heath Ledger.

That said, if you have reason to believe farzikhan is indeed threatening you, please let me know.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 8:28 pm | #

A reasonable person could conclude that a child parented the way you claim to parent yours would indeed wind up like Heath Ledger.

Dawn, I am hereby through reading your blog.

I wish you well.
L. | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 8:35 pm | #

Dawn,
Your response to L. was unwarranted and taking the side of a troll. It was a very cruel thing to say.
Neil C. | 01.23.08 - 8:52 pm | #

L., I am sorry that you feel that way.

You volunteered a great deal of information about your parenting choices. You wrote:

"If [my daughter] is old enough to procure it [contraception], she's old enough to "handle" it [sex]. I was a minor when I obtained hormonal birth control, and my parents did not need to know -- it was none of their business, and my daughter's sexual choices are none of mine."

In response to a question, "But would you allow your twelve-year-old to give up trying to do well in school, or stop eating vegetables, or become anorexic, without a fight, on the grounds that it is her right to do as she pleases with her life?" you wrote:

"Except for the anorexic part -- I have indeed."

In other words, you have stated that you have allowed your daughter to give up things that are extremely important for personal health and growth -- doing well in school and eating vegetables -- "without a fight."

Another commenter wrote to you, "But it seems to me that parents have a right, and indeed a duty, to fight with and for their children to persuade them of what is right. To do less is to abdicate the responsibilities of parenthood."

To which you responded:

"One cannot abdicate responsibilities that one has never accepted in the first place. I obviously have a very different idea of what my 'responsibilities' are, as a parent, than other people in this comment thread."

Again, a reasonable person could conclude that the child of a mother who admits having given up on her own child's health and well-being "without a fight" would indeed wind up like Heath Ledger.

You yourself introduced the topic of your own laissez-faire parenting in an effort to defend it. The onus is on you to explain why the life of a daughter whose own mother gives up on her well-being without a fight would not end in tragedy.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 9:04 pm | #

"Again, a reasonable person could conclude that the child of a mother who admits having given up on her own child's health and well-being "without a fight" would indeed wind up like Heath Ledger."

Dawn,
I disagree very strongly.

Reasonable people should know better than amping up a disagreement about parenting attitudes with a pointlessly cruel reference to the lonely death of a celebrated young actor in (to date) ambiguous circumstances.

And reasonable people don't use refusing to a police a 12-year-old's
aversion to vegetables as evidence of a mother's lethal indifference to her child's future.
Jody Tresidder | 01.23.08 - 10:26 pm | #

It's not just vegetables, Jody, but the whole idea of denying that parents "have a right, and indeed a duty, to fight with and for their children to persuade them of what is right." And I do believe that, to use the other specific example, doing well in school is something extremely important to children's well-being. A parent who refuses to counter a child who is giving up on school is likely to end up with a troubled child. There are plenty of statistics to back this up.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 10:33 pm | #

Again, a reasonable person could conclude that the child of a mother who admits having given up on her own child's health and well-being "without a fight" would indeed wind up like Heath Ledger.

Wow.

But think about what "giving up" entails when it comes to kids, who are eternally changing their minds. Do you honestly think L. would allow her children to stop eating vegetables (or keeping up in school) if it got to the point where it was having a real impact on their health or mental well-being without seeking professional help? Didn't her anorexia answer show that? Step back for a second and consider human nature, not ideology.

So many debates here come down to how much control the government (neighbours?) should have over our lives. And it seems that nobody actually wants others to have the final say in how to conduct their family lives. So why shouldn't everyone be allowed to make their own parental decisions, as long as they're not genuinely abusive?

I really fear for how ugly this US election year will be. And I'm living in Canada.

Dawn, I've really respected your policy (and enforcement) of not allowing personal attacks on posters here. I can understand losing one's temper, but I am really disappointed by your attack on L., who seems to show you every courtesy here and whose only offence is in having opinions you don't like.
Terezia | 01.23.08 - 11:27 pm | #

"The onus is on you to explain why the life of a daughter whose own mother gives up on her well-being without a fight would not end in tragedy.:

I truly feel bad if L was offended, but I agree with Dawn's sentiment, and don't feel that there was anything cruel or unfair in the way in which she cast it.
Joanne | 01.23.08 - 11:39 pm | #

Terezia, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

L. has gone out of her way to give personal information about her parenting techniques and characterize herself as a "laissez-faire" parent. Now that a person has accused her of advocating a style of parenting that leads to tragedy, she is acting offended.

To my mind, of course when parents admit to "giving up" on their children rather than attempting to prevent them from making harmful life choices, their children will be more likely to suffer depression, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, suicide, etc. That is a given.

This is a very personal issue to me. My mother gave up on me, condoning and even encouraging my sexual promiscuity, and I got so depressed and traumatized by my unhealthy lifestyle that I nearly killed myself. My father, while not condoning my dangerous behavior, also neglected to assert himself when he could have given me a strong message against having sex outside of marriage. It is only by the grace of God that I am alive, let alone free from sexually transmitted disease and without an abortion or an out-of-wedlock child.

If L. does not agree with this assessment, she is free to argue why her child will beat the odds of other children whose parents do not attempt to prevent them from making unhealthy life choices.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 11:45 pm | #

"If L. does not agree with this assessment, she is free to argue why her child will beat the odds of other children whose parents do not attempt to prevent them from making unhealthy life choices."

With the greatest respect, Dawn, there is no parent who can plausibly promise the world that no harm will ever befall their child.

And there is a nasty threat implicit in using the headline example of Heath Ledger as a warning to a mother on this blog that she's practically asking for the same ghastly, lonely death for her own kid.

L. has argued consistently from a thoughtful (& loving) personal position about the limits of parental rights over their children's decisions.

That doesn't remotely oblige her to make empty boasts about how this is a guarantee of their future wellbeing!
Jody Tresidder | 01.24.08 - 8:27 am | #

Dawn, I can understand how personal issues colour one's view, and I'm sorry if your upbringing was not a happy one.

But unless your parents are now raising L.'s children, you have a complete and intimate knowledge of the context in which L. parents, or you own a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing how L.'s children will turn out, and to make unqualified attacks like that doesn't do much for your case (or your credibility the next time you tell a nasty poster not to attack others).

I sincerely hope you're able to work through your parental issues in a way that brings you peace and allows you to see others' situations with a clearer eye. Projecting your disappointments in an unwarranted, nasty way on others who have been courteous to you really won't help that process.

Good luck to you.
Terezia | 01.24.08 - 10:07 am | #

Dawn, I am coming back one final time, to humbly ask you to apologize.

I do not expect you to apologize for condemning my values, and my belief that teenage sex isn't inherently evil. Nor do I expect you to apologize for calling some of my parenting choices "unhealthy" in your view, and I understand why you think they are.

Contrary to what you stated, I did not "go out of my way to characterize" myself as a "'laissez-faire' parent" -- another commenter characterized me as such. I responded that my kids don't think I'm a "laissez faire" parent at all -- in fact, they call me "The Mama Monster." And you know my nearly two years of commenting on your blog that I send all three of them to Catholic school, against the wishes of my anti-Christian husband. I don't think any Catholic school can be characterized as a "laissez-faire" environment.

Nor do I think I can be fairly characterized as "a mother who admits having given up on her own child's health and well-being," simply because I happen to view my parental responsibilities in a very different light than you and some of your commenters do. In fact, this is exactly the kind of topic on which I have had many a spirited, civil, debate on your blog, which is why I kept coming back to it.

I ask only that you apologize for agreeing with the commenter who told me, "your kid will end up dead."

If you see nothing threatening in that -- if you think it is nothing more than a "reasonable" conclusion rather than a vicious proclamation that harm is due to befall me, then truly, you are not the person I thought you were.
L. | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 11:19 am | #

FWIW, I've been lurking on this thread, and I do not see the comment in question as a threat. It's the end of an if-then statement: Based on what you've said about your child-rearing concerns, if I understand them accurately, I predict your kid is going to end up dead.

subtext, unhappily and early death, caused by bad habits not corrected by a concerned mother (or father, I suppose).

That's what I took from the comment. I do not see a personal threat to you, and have trouble making it into one.

One comment about Monster Mama put up against a whole lot of "that's none of my business what my child does" sort of postings - the many out weigh the few.

umm... This next bit is only about how you presented yourself in this discussion, ok?

What I took from your writing is that *You don't care what your child does*. You aren't interested in training her to think or be herself, or consider healthy choices, or maturity, or the simple fact that simply because one can do something, it's not always a good idea to actually do it.


I have no idea if that is what your life and child-rearing is *really*
like. But that's what I got from what you wrote on this thread.

(FWIW, again, I've been on the receiving end of 'you're a bad parent' messages. Our kid turned out to be mentally ill, which in a way was a relief - the rages and fire-setting and all wasn't all our fault. We're struggling with limits and independence and choices now ourselves as she gets older - but her judgment is still sometimes worse than dreadful because of her illness.)

P.S.

and, judging by what I hear of the local Catholic High Schools, yes they can be characterized as "laisse-faire".
Elaine | 01.24.08 - 4:50 pm | #

L, What if an even younger girl, say eight or nine years old, went to a PL facility and requested birth control paraphernalia....What if they were your daughters? Would that make you reconsider your views?
I recall watching a Dateline NBC show where kids in Cambodia as young as five were engaging in sex with foreign pedophiles....What if it were a nine year old having sex with a 12 or 13 year old....It happens in this country, too....Whether one is 12 or 13, 8 or 9 years old (and younger), the same moral, ethical, and legal rules apply in this situation.....Ultimately, those who support PP's values put themselves on a collision course with common sense.....
NYC | 01.24.08 - 5:24 pm | #

Elaine,

You wrote of L's comments here: "What I took from your writing is that *You don't care what your child does*. You aren't interested in training her to think or be herself, or consider healthy choices...."

Here are three statements - excluding the "Monster Mama" description L's kids apply to her AND L's caveat that she would certainly take action over signs of anorexia - that L. made in this thread that do not support your reading.

Can you read these statements - and perhaps think again whether they are evidence L. doesn't "care" ?


1." I have only the right -- and the responsibility -- of teaching my children about the health risks and legal consequences of drugs, smoking and sex. But I realize at a certain point, I will have no control over what they do outside my home, anymore than my parents had control over me."

2."I now have an 11-year old daughter, and I admit I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of her, or someone as young as she is, being sexually active. The vast majority of people this age are NOT mature enough for sexual relations, which is why the majority of them are not engaged in it."

3."I am certainly giving her much more information on the subject [of sex] than my parents gave me."
Jody Tresidder | 01.24.08 - 6:32 pm | #

Jody, I read them as you posted and I read them originally.

I stand by my original assessment - in context, reading through the thread, L gave me (and apparently some others) the overwhelming impression she would not attempt to stop her child from doing anything whatsoever. That she didn't care to do so.
Elaine | 01.24.08 - 8:17 pm | #

And you know my nearly two years of commenting on your blog that I send all three of them to Catholic school, against the wishes of my anti-Christian husband. I don't think any Catholic school can be characterized as a "laissez-faire" environment.

L, I know this statement wasn't directed towards me, but by your own admission you don't send your kids to a Catholic school to get Catholic values, you send them for other reasons. You have also said that you are a Catholic, but only technically so because you seem to disagree with virtually all Catholic doctrine, or atleast unwilling to encourage your own children to adopt those doctrines. So sending your kids to a Catholic school and being "technically" a Catholic says nothing about the values and morals that you are imparting to your children after they leave their Catholic school. And I think most people would agree that what we learn at home from our parents is atleast as, if not more, imporantant than what they get taught at school.

(I bring this up because I get so tired of folks, "folks" meaning that this isn't directed only specifically at you, only bringing up the fact that they are Catholic in an attempt to lend support to their anti-Catholic views. And we all know the type--"yeah, I've had 10 abortions, I can't stand the Pope, the Bible is a complete work of fiction, I don't care about going to hell....but I'm STILL a Catholic!!)
Jamila | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 10:40 pm | #

Hi, there, Dawn. I'm still waiting for an apology. I'm not holding my breath, but I was hoping you would surprise me.

As I said on my own blog about this whole debacle, I plan to beat this dead horse until its bones are dust, until this comment thread is cold. After that, you will hear no more from me, nor will I be reading any of your new posts. I was going to save your book and give it to my daughter when she's older, but I'm now thinking that perhaps it had better go into the library donation bin.

Elaine -- I care very much about my children. I'm sorry that didn't come across in this comment thread. I am preparing them to avoid what I think are unhealthy choices, but I fully realize that I have limited control over their choices. (Plus, I don't happen to think teenage sex is necessarily an unhealthy choice, because it certainly wasn't for me.)

Jamila -- I'm Catholic. I am not "technically" a Catholic -- I AM Catholic. I am not a devout Catholic, nor have I ever represented myself as such. I send my kids to Catholic school for many reasons, including the values taught there, not all of which I dissent from.

..."yeah, I've had 10 abortions, I can't stand the Pope, the Bible is a complete work of fiction, I don't care about going to hell....but I'm STILL a Catholic!!

You know, what you said sarcastically can can be true. Anyone baptized Catholic is still Catholic -- even excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

My faith is very personal. I never bring it up to lend credence to anti-Catholic views. In fact, I rarely talk about it all. This blog was one of the few places I discussed it openly, which is why I will miss it very much.
L. | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 11:22 pm | #

"...I don't care about going to hell....but I'm STILL a Catholic!!"

Maybe they obtain some private comfort in proclaiming a connection to their faith, no matter how imperfect it appears to you, Jamila?
Jody Tresidder | 01.24.08 - 11:25 pm | #

L. sounds to me like the best kind of mother, one who gives guidance for her kids and would support them when they fall but isn't a helicopter parent and allows them to think for themselves. Sounds like a good mom to me.
Neil C. | 01.24.08 - 11:28 pm | #

To my mind, of course when parents admit to "giving up" on their children rather than attempting to prevent them from making harmful life choices, their children will be more likely to suffer depression, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, suicide, etc. That is a given.>>>

There is a big difference between 'giving up' and allowing a person to make their own decisions. I guess my upbringing was too mundane to understand how someone can be 'given up' on.
Neil C. | 01.24.08 - 11:33 pm | #

I kept going back to HPW's blog and reading it again and again....Very very disturbing. As I said before, how young is too young? Instead, what if the child were a twelve year old boy in the company of an adult male and they were requesting condoms. What if it were a nine or ten year old and HPW suspects that the adult male could be a pedophile molesting that boy. I honestly don't know how HPW can live with herself. I guess some people have really lost touch with their conscience....
NYC | 01.25.08 - 12:25 am | #

This thread has, I admit, shaken me.

I understood this keenly when I found myself reading a totally unconnected newspaper feature this morning and one blunt description of a person involved in the story leaped out as pertinent to the hostility shown to L. here. The person was said to have-

"an unerring ability to see the worst motives in people she disapproved of..."

I think some "folk" here are recognizable in that description.

Disapproval of L.'s moral outlook seems to be behind the highly subjective assumption of the terrible sort of mother she therefore must be.

It seems to gall some here that L. has outed herself as a fully functional adult woman of faith and a long married mother of three despite a comparatively relaxed moral philosophy.

Because there is no evidence that L. is writing her comments from the gutter, retribution - it seems to follow - must surely take the shape of a tragic final chapter - like Heath Ledger's - for one of her children.

I get a sense that any concern expressed here for L's apparently doomed offspring is entirely spurious. I don't even begin to understand how Elaine can assume L'.s peculiar motives towards her children based on anything substantial written in this thread.

I also base this on the way this "concern" has been expressed - as if to demean, diminish and offend L - and not to offer any practical observations with a genuinely kind intent.

It's been a deeply uncharitable thread.
Jody Tresidder | 01.25.08 - 9:36 am | #

You aren't interested in training her to think or be herself, or consider healthy choices, or maturity, or the simple fact that simply because one can do something, it's not always a good idea to actually do it.

I'm reading through the thread again, since this is my "Swan Song" here, and Elaine's comment is still resonating with me.

You know, it's really funny, but this is exactly what I am indeed interested in teaching my children. The "simple fact" at the end pretty much sums up my entire parenting philosophy.

What I vehemently disagreed with, earlier in this thread, is this comment:

But it seems to me that parents have a right, and indeed a duty, to fight with and for their children to persuade them of what is right. To do less is to abdicate the responsibilities of parenthood.

It was the words "duty...to fight with..their children" that made me say, oh NO, that's not how I view my role at all.
L. | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 10:58 am | #

[Banned for ad hominem - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
Tom | 01.25.08 - 11:02 am | #

Thanks, Tom. That's what I thought, too. If Dawn is a parent herself someday, I would have wanted to watch to see how she puts her ideals into practice -- especially if she has a daughter just like me! :)

Perhaps because Dawn is not a parent herself, she didn't realize the full chilling impact of the words, "L - your kid will wind up dead like Heath Ledger" -- with no punctuation at the end, indicating the writer was dashing it off as trolls so often do.

Not all threats are of the "I-shall-harm-you!" variety -- some are of the "Harm-shall-be-fall-you!" type, and that is how I took it. I will say that Dawn's defense of it as a "reasonable" conclusion caught me completely off guard, after nearly two years of her being very civil to me on this blog -- once banning a pro-life commenter who personally attacked me, and reminding others to be nice, even if the found my opinions to be repugnant as she did.

So I can only conclude from her comments (and subsequent silence) that Dawn's spiritual journey has taken her to the point where she no longer wants anything to do with self-proclaimed "half-a**ed" Catholics like me? I hope her surgery and job transition go well, and who knows, maybe someday, I will be visiting Washington DC and find myself sitting next to her at mass. But obviously, her blog is no place for me anymore.

Indeed, perhaps it never was.
L. | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 12:10 pm | #

I ask only that you apologize for agreeing with the commenter who told me, "your kid will end up dead."

L., I do not see the commenter's statement as a threat, only as a reasonable assumption based on the information you have given. If you believe it to be a threat, please write to me and I will send you the IP address of the commenter, which you may give to the proper authorities.

I apologize if I gave the impression of assuming your child will wind up prematurely dead. The style of parenting you have described is prone to causing premature death, but not in all cases.
Dawn Eden | 01.25.08 - 1:37 pm | #

..."yeah, I've had 10 abortions, I can't stand the Pope, the Bible is a complete work of fiction, I don't care about going to hell....but I'm STILL a Catholic!!

You know, what you said sarcastically can can be true. Anyone baptized Catholic is still Catholic -- even excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

This is not true. The Catholic church cannot force anyone to stay a Catholic. Just because you are baptised into the Catholic church does not mean that you cannot later repudiate Catholicism and stop being a Catholic anytime that you want to or be excommunicated by the church. The Catholic church cannot stop you from being a Christian if you have been baptised, but you can definitely be stopped from being considered a Catholic Christian in full communion with the church.

My faith is very personal. I never bring it up to lend credence to anti-Catholic views.

Of course you do. I've read Dawn's blog and your comments enough to have noticed several instances in which during disagreements with other Catholics here on abortion or other topics in which the Church takes a stance contrary to your own, you have said "but I'm still a Catholic".

In fact, I rarely talk about it all. This blog was one of the few places I discussed it openly, which is why I will miss it very much.
L.

L, I hope this whole brouhaha gets settled quickly because I think some other posters here would miss you too. For the record, I agree with you and think that saying your kid will end up like Heath Ledger was hurtful and I think that if someone said that about my kid I'd be pretty distressed over it too.

So I hope that between you, and Dawn, and the poster that originally made the statement some sort of resolution is reached.
Jamila | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 2:08 pm | #

As I explained, Dawn, not all threats are overt intentions of physical harm -- some are declarations that harm is due to come. (e.g., per Merriam-Webster, "an indication of something impending" ). It did not take it to be the former, so I do care about knowing the commenter's IP address, but I believe it was definitely the former. As I said to the commenter, if one truly wants to get through to parents about something one thinks they are doing wrong, one should not resort to threats -- of either kind.

The style of parenting you have described is prone to causing premature death...

This made me smile, and wonder if you or anyone else listened to anything I have ever said on this blog, apart from my opinions on teen sexuality.

Dawn, "I don't know how to quit you!"

But this thread has convinced me that I should.

I repeat, I wish you well.
L. | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 2:09 pm | #

"...I don't care about going to hell....but I'm STILL a Catholic!!"

Maybe they obtain some private comfort in proclaiming a connection to their faith, no matter how imperfect it appears to you, Jamila?
Jody Tresidder

There has to be some private comfort obtained but that doesn't mean that their thoughts and actions automatically get a pass from public scrutiny.
Jamila | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 2:12 pm | #

....during disagreements with other Catholics here on abortion or other topics in which the Church takes a stance contrary to your own, you have said "but I'm still a Catholic".

And indeed I am! What I never said was that I am a good Catholic, a devout Catholic, or anything but a dissenting Catholic. I have never said that I think it's possible to support abortion rights and be a good Catholic, because it isn't! It is, however, possible to still be Catholic.

And you're wrong about the excommunication part --- I don't have time to Google Canon law for you, so you'll have to do it yourself if you're interested, but an excommunicated Catholic is still Catholic, even if he/she is no longer in communion with the Church.
L. | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 2:16 pm | #

"There has to be some private comfort obtained but that doesn't mean that their thoughts and actions automatically get a pass from public scrutiny."

I trust you really mean that their "words," and not their "thoughts," are fair game for public scrutiny, Jamila?

Private thoughts, like perhaps many other aspects of a person's faith, can be kept unexamined by outsiders, surely?
Jody Tresidder | 01.25.08 - 2:20 pm | #

"The style of parenting you have described is prone to causing premature death, but not in all cases."

Dawn,
Why are you drifting away from your normal courtesy?

L. has unambiguously attempted to correct the ghastly impression formed by a few here of her parenting style.

She wrote (today)that she helps her children to understand: "that simply because one can do something, it's not always a good idea to actually do it."

This is not, by any stretch, a recipe for potential premature death, is it?
Jody Tresidder | 01.25.08 - 2:29 pm | #

And you're wrong about the excommunication part --- I don't have time to Google Canon law for you, so you'll have to do it yourself if you're interested, but an excommunicated Catholic is still Catholic, even if he/she is no longer in communion with the Church.
L.

I googled some info on canon law before I made the last post which is why I specifically said " ....you can definitely be stopped from being considered a Catholic Christian in full communion with the church." And I would also like to add again that the Catholic church can indeed kick people out of the church and no longer consider them Catholic. I believe that this has to be done by a ceremony the Pope performs--I'm not sure if other church officials can actually formally separate someone from the church.
Jamila | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 3:54 pm | #

"There has to be some private comfort obtained but that doesn't mean that their thoughts and actions automatically get a pass from public scrutiny."

I trust you really mean that their "words," and not their "thoughts," are fair game for public scrutiny, Jamila?

Well, I actually mean't "thoughts" in the sense of "things people say" or "words". But I think I should add that any "thought" in the sense of meaning "ideas that float around your head" become fair game once you say them. Afterall you can't really scrutinize someones thoughts unless you have a way to know what they are thinking, thus implying that thoughts have to be said first.

Private thoughts, like perhaps many other aspects of a person's faith, can be kept unexamined by outsiders, surely?--Jody Tresidder

No, I don't think anyone gets a pass on their private feelings. If I think to myself "all Jews want to take over the world" or "all blacks are drugs addicts and welfare queens" I don't the right to not have my feelings challenged by someone that disagrees with me. I could say that I don't care what others think but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to call me a racist, or misinformed, or critique my stereotypes.

I understand that feelings can be irrational but that doesn't give them any special exemption from criticism.
Jamila | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 4:01 pm | #

Jamila,

I think I see what you mean!

"Afterall you can't really scrutinize someones thoughts unless you have a way to know what they are thinking, thus implying that thoughts have to be said first."

True enough.

As long as we give "folks" a fair hearing, and don't make assumptions about what we imagine they really mean.
Jody Tresidder | 01.25.08 - 5:35 pm | #

L., I am sorry that I hurt you. I will think about why it is wrong to say that your daughter will wind up dead if you give up on her without a fight.

Maureen's comment describes why I am having trouble disavowing the commenter who made the hurtful statement:

A child pushes, a parent pushes back. Equilibrium. The child complains, but knows the boundaries are safe and that the parent cares that he's alive.

A child pushes, the parent gives way. The child pushes further, the parent gives way. The child, panicky now, keeps trying to find _some_ boundary somewhere -- but never does. The child is pretty sure the parent doesn't care and wants him dead. Often, he obliges.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 6:12 pm | #

Dawn, I accept your apology for hurting me.

I will think about why it is wrong to say that your daughter will wind up dead if you give up on her without a fight.

It is not wrong to say so, if you really believe it is true. What I think it wrong is to attribute reasonable intentions to a comment that appeared to do nothing more than hurl wrathful judgemental. That is what hurt.

Unlike the on-line, punctuationless commenter, Maureen made her point eloquently, in a way that I did not take take personally (though she doubtless intended it for the kind of parent she perceived me to be).

I think the problem is that I do not believe my role as a parent is to fight -- or to use a better word, to intervene -- about every matter I think is right or wrong, and that picking my battles and interventions carefully, and often standing aside to let the kids learn from the consequences of their actions, in no way constitutes "giving up" on my children. People disagree -- some more politely than others.

The homework and vegetables examples are good ones. I don't nag my kids to do their homework. I'm not homeschooling -- their homework is assigned to them by their teachers, not me. My kids learned that if they didn't hand it in, they got a detention, and if they handed it in late, they got marks taken off the grade. Consequently, their overall grades at first were lower than those of their peers whose parents keep at them to do their homework, but I think the lesson they learned the hard way was valuable and worth it. Now, if getting lower grades didn't bother them at all, I would likely have switched tactics (but in fact, it bothered them very much).

And vegetables? I put them in sauces and soups, and my kids take vitamins every day. So I don't force them to eat things they don't like, when there are so many healthy things they do like, and their tastes are gradually broadening as they get older. I respect the point of view of parents who make their kids eat their allotted portions of whatever is served, but that's not the way we do it in our house.

Anorexia? No, I don't want my kid to learn her lesson by starving to death, so I'd take her to a doctor.

And the neo-Nazi thug boyfriend example? My friends with older kids tell me that it's often a rite of passage: how a parent deals with the first boyfriend/girlfriend they despise. As long as he's not physically or emotionally abusing my daughter, or involved in anything illegal, as I said above, I wouldn't intervene.

And sex? Sometimes it is a tough call, and it depends very much on the situation. Sometimes, sex can fall under the heading of physical abuse. I do imagine there are cases in which even I would intervene. But since I don't believe that all sex involving minors is abusive or unhealthy, there are cases in which I would not intervene, when other parents might.

Jamila, for the record, no Pope nor other Church official has formally separated me from the Church. So I think I'm still in, to the best of my knowlege (and I don't receive communion, so I'm definitely not in good standing).
L. | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 7:53 pm | #

L., I am sorry that I hurt you. I will think about why it is wrong to say that your daughter will wind up dead if you give up on her without a fight.>>>

Where does L. say she would give up without a fight? I think you're using your own personal experiences to misinterpret L.'s words.
Neil C. | 01.25.08 - 7:55 pm | #

L., thanks for explaining. I agree that I should not have sided with a commenter whose intention was only to hurt, and I am sorry for doing so.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 9:56 pm | #

I agree that I should not have sided with a commenter whose intention was only to hurt, and I am sorry for doing so.

Thank you. That is all I wanted to hear you say.

Believe me, I wasn't expecting you to praise all of my parenting choices. :)
L. | Homepage | 01.26.08 - 4:15 pm | #

If a 12 year old is not old enough to consent to sex, then why are 12 year old muderers convicted as adults in the US?

Doesn't seem to make sense...
Jake | 03.03.08 - 3:58 pm | #

Is there any update on Hormone Peddling Wench? I see her blog has been taken down.
grimreader | 03.08.08 - 1:12 pm | #