[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

Mary Higgins rufquad at comcast.net
Sat May 14 12:56:43 UTC 2011


All -

There are two separate issues here.  First, the manner in which this
discussion was started.  Second, the discussion itself.  I wish to speak to
both issues.

The first issue:
1) Sarcasm rarely comes across well in e-mail.

2) If it is your (generic "your" here) intent to get people
thinking/talking/acting, there are perhaps better ways to do it than to vent
frustration in a sarcastic manner and hope that people will see your real
intent.  Why not simply state your concerns in a rational tone and ask for
discussion?  Otherwise it can and will likely be interpreted as simply
ranting with no constructive purpose - something for which I, for one, have
little patience.  I fully support constructive discussion and completely
support everyone's right to express their opinions.  What I do not respond
well to or have much tolerance for is unconstructive, or worse, destructive
tirades with no apparent purpose other than stirring the pot to see what
happens.

3) Virtually every system out there, mundane and SCA, has channels for
making change.  Using those channels, while it may be frustrating at times,
is often the best approach.

The second issue:
1) As the parents of a school age boy my hubby and I sign a lot of waivers.
Waivers for photos, waivers for participation, etc. from the school,
daycare, boy scouts, and virtually any other activity in which we wish our
son to participate.  Do the waivers inherently provide protection for our
son?  Of course not.  What they do is provide me with information and the
opportunity to request that my child's image, name, work, whatever not be
published.  We know that many waivers are intended to protect the entity
providing the product or service.  I wish it were different and that more
waivers actually did more than provide butt coverage.

2) As a parent and as someone who knows many of the key people (including
Ben and many of the families) and the circumstances involved in the events
that occurred in the EK which have lead to many of the new requirements
associated with children's activities in the SCA, I have strong opinions
about many of these policies.  I have also been directly associated with
other families of minor children that have been molested in the SCA - long
before these relatively recent events.  Would the policies in place today
have prevented those particular situations?  Probably not.  In one case in
another kingdom a girl under the age of 6 was molested by one of her
supposed champions - a gentle who actually fought for the right to serve in
this capacity who was well known and liked by her parents then took
advantage of the access and trust that his position afforded him.  The first
tier of protection for our kids is being involved parents.  Knowing what
they are doing, who they are doing it with, etc.  Unfortunately in today's
world that is often not enough.  What many of the policies do is to provide
an additional safety net for our kids that is modeled after what is
considered standard in our modern society today.  I don't like that we have
to do this - I would rather feel confident that I can trust the people that
I chose to include in my son's life.  However, I don't have that option
today because there are bad/sick people out there, both in the SCA and in
the modern world.

3) So, what to do about a situation that I don't particularly like?  I can
figure out exactly what it is that I find unreasonable or unacceptable and
work through appropriate channels to try to effect change.  In this
particular case there is little that I find particularly unreasonable, given
the world that we live in and my experience with how other institutions
handle youth activities.  If I could change the world, I would, but life is
short and I have better things to do.  Like spending time being the best
parent I can be, enjoying spending time with my son and his friends, and
enjoying the SCA, warts and all.

Margarete




More information about the Barony mailing list