When I first read this post, I thought that you meant that the woman in the Catwoman outfit was Quentin's daughter. But she is Judi Smith-Phelps, presumably Scott Phelps' wife, and 35 at the time of the picture.
Then I noted that you blurred out a name and face, and the exposure that you were referring to was the reporter publishing Quentin's daughter's name and face (partially concealed by a mask).
Why do you consider this to be inappropriate? My name and face was in the paper a few times when I was a minor and would accomplish things like winning awards or scholarships. I never had any weirdos call me and ask me to factor a polynomial in a huffy voice over the phone.
Do you think teenagers shouldn't be allowed to have political opinions? Because I would disagree with that. This young lady has the maturity and the natural right to determine her future at this point, and my understanding is that the court has obstructed her in doing that. I think that this sort of peaceful protest is a healthy and empowering thing for a teenage young woman to do.
If his daughter chooses to become politically active on her own without her father there "holding her hand" then that is one thing. But reading the court dockets, there are abuse allegations and while not proven or not being able to determine if the allegations were proven, this really has a stench to it.
Again if the child chooses to be politically active ALONE that is one thing. I know mothers who are active in the issue of dv and have published pictures of their child, and have been ordered under threat of jail to remove all mentions of the children's names, pictures and likenesses. Why are mothers being forced to remove this information and not fathers?
Could it be because dads are given more leeway with their child? Have we not moved beyond the notion that women and chidlren are chattel? This is HIS daughter and if he wants to dress her up then so be it?
And so it is very clear, I still have the orginal phot. Her face was not entirely covered by the mask. Only her eyes. I guess this means since my chidlren are sick of the abuse being perpetrated by their father, it would be completely acceptable for me to dress up as Supergirl and dress my children up as well and bring them to demonstrations? A child needs to be a child. Meaning when they are teens, they should be spending time with their friends, learning on their own about the world - not being spoonfed the views of their parents.
I have and always will allow my chidlren (and my nieces and nephews) the ability to learn and ask my views on things and in the end their opinion is their own, not being forced on them.
3 comments:
When I first read this post, I thought that you meant that the woman in the Catwoman outfit was Quentin's daughter. But she is Judi Smith-Phelps, presumably Scott Phelps' wife, and 35 at the time of the picture.
Then I noted that you blurred out a name and face, and the exposure that you were referring to was the reporter publishing Quentin's daughter's name and face (partially concealed by a mask).
Why do you consider this to be inappropriate? My name and face was in the paper a few times when I was a minor and would accomplish things like winning awards or scholarships. I never had any weirdos call me and ask me to factor a polynomial in a huffy voice over the phone.
Do you think teenagers shouldn't be allowed to have political opinions? Because I would disagree with that. This young lady has the maturity and the natural right to determine her future at this point, and my understanding is that the court has obstructed her in doing that. I think that this sort of peaceful protest is a healthy and empowering thing for a teenage young woman to do.
If his daughter chooses to become politically active on her own without her father there "holding her hand" then that is one thing. But reading the court dockets, there are abuse allegations and while not proven or not being able to determine if the allegations were proven, this really has a stench to it.
Again if the child chooses to be politically active ALONE that is one thing. I know mothers who are active in the issue of dv and have published pictures of their child, and have been ordered under threat of jail to remove all mentions of the children's names, pictures and likenesses. Why are mothers being forced to remove this information and not fathers?
Could it be because dads are given more leeway with their child? Have we not moved beyond the notion that women and chidlren are chattel? This is HIS daughter and if he wants to dress her up then so be it?
And so it is very clear, I still have the orginal phot. Her face was not entirely covered by the mask. Only her eyes. I guess this means since my chidlren are sick of the abuse being perpetrated by their father, it would be completely acceptable for me to dress up as Supergirl and dress my children up as well and bring them to demonstrations? A child needs to be a child. Meaning when they are teens, they should be spending time with their friends, learning on their own about the world - not being spoonfed the views of their parents.
I have and always will allow my chidlren (and my nieces and nephews) the ability to learn and ask my views on things and in the end their opinion is their own, not being forced on them.
Post a Comment