Steve Irwin - Little Beauty! OR Beast?

[blue eyed girl]

All i have to say about Steve Irwin's act of taking his then month old son into a croc pen is:

His child- his choice. He wears the consequences and responsibilties on his shoulders and conscience.

My very own 4 1/2 week old son. No way. No how. The actual suggestion would be met with a very hard smack to the suggesters head.

 

[doofqueen]

^^ agree. I personally wouldn not let him take my baby in there even though he is a professionl and i think it was his buisness to do so being his child and him knowing his responsibility and him being a professional ( but i don't know him so i don't trust him with MY child...this goes with everyone i don't personally know and trust)

Doesn't he have a croc pit in his backyard? So his kids have a will grow up with this as a normal part of their life? therefore they have and will be taught about the safety aspects of it? one would assume so anyway... I don't know because i really don't pay attention to media and tv and only know what's happened on this situation through discussion in this thread and people i have talked to and snippets of the story elsewhere.

So this was not a publicity stunt as i originally thought? Someone actually taped him with him not knowing about it? So if this is so there are privacy issues here too.

 

[anna!]

It was in front of a live audience at his animal park. There's no violation of privacy issues.

 

[Raz]

Umm....not to change the subject or anything, but I coulda sworn I had another reply in here...it made the highly valid point of how I shouldn't be allowed to drive adults let alone children around in my car. Not that I have a car. Or can drive even... 8)

Seriously though, am I nuts? Has stuff been deleted?

EDIT: Fuck it, I'll just reply again...

Okay, this is what gets me....we so far have two people who've supported him doing what he likes with his child, but who have said they wouldn't trust him to do it with their own child. Please bear in mind this isn't a personal attack, and I'm glad y'all answered the question because it brings up a follow-on question.

Why wouldn't you trust him to do it with your own child?

If you're so confident that he knows what he's doing and you're so confident that there was no real danger, then why wouldn't you want your own child to have this experience?

I honestly think there's some kind of underlying belief here that children are the property of their parents. Because their parents are responsible for their safety, then that means they get to decide their fate. And I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with this. There will always be times when we have to place our children in danger...nobody can live a risk-free life...but I don't understand why someone should be allowed to place their child at risk when the child doesn't gain anything from it.

Anything other than that and I'm just harping on....I really would like to hear responses though, I'm finding this discussion really fascinating.

 

[doofqueen]

^^ because like i said i don't personally know and trust him as a friend

anna..ok sorry wasn't sure because like i said i haven't followed it apart from here , if it was for publicity i don't agree with children being used in the media

 

[Raz]

^^^Fair enough, but then don't you think that still indicates what I was saying about seeing children as property of their parents? The implication is that you don't trust him with your own child because you don't know him well enough but he's free to do what he likes with his own child because its his child. I just think that when we're talking about putting a child at any kind of risk, their safety really needs to come before any kind of parental privelege...

Oh, and you've raised the exploitation thing a couple of times too dq, which I'm glad about. Completely aside from the whole safety issue, there's the fact that he exploited his child for his own self-promotion. I know you said you don't agree to kids being used for this kind of exploitation, but it interests me that nobody else who supported him otherwise has brought this up. What do people think of that side of it, that he used his child to further his own publicity?

 

[doofqueen]

I don't see children as property, far from it. I have said amny times on here that i am my child's GUIDE in life and not his boss. There is a difference in seeing your child as yours as property to with what you wish and raising them the best way that YOU see fit as THEIR parent looking at THEIR interests.

Child exploitation shits me. Because it was a publicity stunt i have less respect for him then i once did. What REALLY shits me is those little girl pagents, they are wrong on sooooooo many levels.

 

[divasuperstar]

Some people here don't object to the fact that baby bob was in the pen, Just the fact that it was a publicity stunt..... But I imagine the same heat would be placed on him if he did this in privacy, no cameras, no public. Would he be flamed for not making this public if pictures did get out? would he be accused of hiding the fact that he exposed his child to crocodiles? Is he in a no win situation?

Steve comes across as a bit of a dickhead yes... has he made a mistake?? maybe yes maybe no. But im sure most people have made mistakes regarding the safety of children at some stage its just that most of us are not in the public eye

I do believe Steve has done fantastic things for the environment and wildlife. I hope his passion continues.

 

[blue eyed girl]

I have to admit that i dont understand raz's most eloquent and well ordered argument that a child is a parents property. Yes a child does "belong" to their parents, but not in a materialistic selfish way. They belong to that family and with that comes the need for the parents to have respect, love and most of all the child's best interest in mind for every single situation, every single second of their young life. In belonging to that family they (hopefully) gain the skills as to go out into the wider world as fully independant well adjusted mature adults.

I can understand how the terms "belong" and "belonging" can be seen by some to mean being the tangible inanimate physical property of another, but it does not mean this in the parenting sense. "Belonging" to a group of (hopefully) loving nurturing individual/s called a family gives guidance, identity and a set of acceptable behaviours from which to model ones life. I personally understand the concept of bluelight to be the idea that like-minded, similarly thinking individuals come together to feel accepted and safe. I do think of the bluelight community as a family in the definition to which i refer above. I love the idea that i "belong" to this safe and amazingly enlightening group.

In regard to his actions being a publicity stunt- i dont think this is the case. I believe he made the best decision for HIS child in HIS and HIS FAMILIES opinion. And i will aslo reiterate in saying i would not allow him to do this with MY BABY, as i find HIS actions to be unacceptable and unsafe for MY baby.

 

[shakra]

just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has had something to say so far! This has turned out to be a very interesting thread!

Keep 'em comin'!