This morning I attended a child protection conference. Several issues came up that would be essays in themselves, but the one that most immediately disturbs me is the chair’s attitude towards baby blogging. I post the occasional picture of Andrea over at The Iron-On Line, and I mentioned this as one way that her father kept abreast of her progress without interacting with me directly.
As soon as I mentioned the words “pictures” and “internet”, the chair became very grave. She asked me whether I was aware that paedophiles look for images of children on the internet and manipulate them for their own twisted ends. I was aware of it, but I don’t understand how the existence of manipulated pictures could harm my daughter. I don’t think child pornography – even the faked kind that’s at issue here – is acceptable, but neither do I think giving up baby blogging is an effective way to combat it.
I post pictures of Andrea because I want my friends to see them. My friends are a diverse lot, scattered all across the globe, and if I sent out the pictures in email by request only, some of them would miss out. Even if I posted them on a password-protected website, the act of having to enter a password is enough to deter her father from accessing the pictures, and I don’t want to raise any more barriers between father and daughter than he has already created.
And if I could practically give the pictures only to known friends, that’s no guarantee they wouldn’t end up in the hands of a paedophile anyway. Once they’re out of my hands, they’re out of my control. I may be certain none of my friends are paedophiles (as it happens, I’m not: I trust no-one absolutely), but can I say the same for their friends? Their co-workers? Can I be sure they won’t inadvertently leave a copy of one of the photographs on the bus for anyone to pick up?
So not only is it restrictive, it’s also ineffective. It reminds me of the rape-prevention advice that boils down to “live in constant fear.” Do nothing unless you’ve first assured yourself that it won’t make you (or in this case your family) into a victim. Allow the rapists to set the conditions by which you live your life. That’s one situation in which I find it perfectly reasonable to say, “The terrorists will have won.”
I’m not blind to the dangers of paedophiles. My daughter’s still too young to be out of my sight, but as she gets older and more independant I intend to give her all the sensible advice I can about self-protection, probably combined with natural parental paranoia. But cracking down on child pornography is a task for law enforcement. I shouldn’t have to stop sharing pictures of my beautiful little girl because determined perverts can manipulate them..
Pingback: Raising WEG
Pingback: The Collin Chronicles: Tales of a Tiny Tyrant
Pingback: abyss2hope: A rape survivor's zigzag journey into the open
Pingback: TipsNet.info
Pingback: feminist blogs
Though I’m not attempting to say that the two issues are precisely the same, whilst I was reading your post I couldn’t help thinking of the fact that celebrities don’t refuse to have photos (I’m thinking ‘official’ shots rather than paparazzi shots and the like) of them published because people manipulate their heads onto images of naked men or (more often) women. Largely because celebrities have more of an interest in being visible to the public, but also because, as you’ve said, it’s really rather absurd.
Pedophilia is disgusting, but pedophilia with a manipulated picture doesn’t harm or endanger your daughter.
All this paranoia about Internet pedophiles is the equivalent of the 80s paranoia about Satanic ritual abuse. It’s the 21st century version of the McMartin daycare case.
The truth about pedophile paranoia (not normal protectiveness, but social hysteria) is that it is projection. It protects our psyches from the truth about pedophilia; that it is mostly incestuous. Most of us would much rather be terrified of the Internet or Satanists or daycare centers than admit that the danger is from Daddy or Uncle or Grandpa.
I was thinking… that paranoia is the same as… and I came up with nothing. Then I saw my sister’s comment.
So, pretty much, what Deborah said.
Plus, it’s pretty much a way to blame the victim. An indirect way, but after all, How dare innocent you post innocent pictures of your innocent daughter? You’re pracitcally asking for it.
So, what was this chairperson suggesting, that every single photo containing the image of a child and/or children on the entire Net be taken down “just in case”? Because that’s pretty much what it would take to make *absolutely sure* that no one could use them towards nefarious ends.
Except damn, I said pretty much twice. That is not okay.
As previous posters said, not only is it ineffective and useless, it also diverts our attention to the real dangers of pedophillia, which is that the people we KNOW are much more likely victimize our children than some stranger over the internet. It’s the same as stranger vs. acquaintance rape. When you spend so much time protecting yourself from stranger rape you don’t bother to deal with a large chunk of the actual problem of rape. (Not saying that stranger rape or abduction of children is not real, it’s just so seriously overblown in the media that it obscures the bulk of the problem).
Can we also talk about the ridiculousness of what is considered child pornography? I have pictures of my 16 month old daughter in the bathtub, because well, she’s cute in the tub, and I actually hesitate to send those to people because I’m afraid of people jumping down my throat… there’s a difference between naked baby pics and child porn… The dichotomy of our culture astounds me sometimes. We are simultaneously sex obsessed and prudish and it just blows my mind.
Ohhh, one more thing, how about a baby blogging here to “protest” :) I’d be happy to send Amp links to Maya… we could have one big baby blogging day of all the posters and readers :) What fun that would be :)
So, what was this chairperson suggesting, that every single photo containing the image of a child and/or children on the entire Net be taken down “just in case”?
I’m not sure what she was suggesting, but I didn’t want to make myself look even worse as a parent than I already did by questioning what she clearly considered self-evident. That’s why I brought it here.
but here you’re preaching to the choir. there, perhaps, you could have stopped the spread of stupidity. maybe you can just send that person a link to this post…
There’s a huge difference between posting candid pictures of our kids on our blogs and “pageantry,” IMO. I wish there was more attention paid to the commercialized sexualization of little girls, and the fact that I often have to shop for boys shorts for my toddler in order to find legs long enough to hide her diaper, than on moms (or dads) posting innocent photos online.
Just do a Google image search for Swan Brooner if you want to see some heartbreaking “acceptable” photos of a 5 – or 35 – year old girl.
Okay well let me just say this: I’ve had the impulse more than once to email Amp and gently suggest he not post photos of his babies quite so often. I haven’t followed through on that impulse, however. But I’m an aunt of a beautiful girl and I’ve worked in a one-hour photo lab and have tons of photos of her and the ability to post them online, but I never have and her parents never have. It’s part of … not paranoia, unless having lived as an adult woman instills a certain amount of paranoia in you once you become aware of how much your body is the focus of who you are moving through this world (I swear I think most girls don’t become feminists until they experience this). You can fiercly reclaim your right to look like a woman, dammit, and still be responsible and on guard for the reality (and you can throw your sexualized self in the face of the public like Riot Grrrls (baby dolls & whore in one) did and confuse the public or like Queer Nation did regarding gays and lesbians and just out-and-out scare the public — but in both cases there were feminists who said Riot Grrrls weren’t feminist but dupes and there were gays and lesbians who questioned Queer Nation’s tactics when the emphasis had been on how gays and lesbians “are just like everyone else.”) I’m digressing.
Look, you can look at a photo on the Internet and if there are enough you can sometimes place where that person/child is. This is basic safety. And yes this has occurred to me as I’ve looked at Amp’s beautiful children, shot in a shopping center and outside. Somebody interested in these children conceivably could track them down. Paranoia? Or reality? And as women you can say oh it doesn’t matter what I wear where I go how responsible I am for making these choices but you damn well know better than that if you care about yourself at all, you *don’t* deliberately put yourself at risk, now do you?
Look, you can look at a photo on the Internet and if there are enough you can sometimes place where that person/child is.
And then you’ll know…that there’s a child in a particular place. Which, not to be blunt, was not really a Nobel Prize earning discovery. There are children everywhere.
Sure, someone could decide to stalk Sydney and kidnap her (paging Dr. Frisch) – may God forbid it. And perhaps Amp posting pictures of her might conceivably give an incredibly organized stalker-guy the wherewithal to hunt her down. But, reality check – incredibly organized stalker guy can find her whether Amp posts those pictures at all. Incredibly organized stalker guy knows where Amp works. IOSG knows Amp’s real name, which isn’t hard to find. IOSG will spend about ten minutes finding out where Amp lives, if he isn’t in the book, in which case it will take him 30 seconds. Amp cannot protect Sydney from IOSG by declining to post pictures of her online.
Denial of information is not a viable strategy in protecting children from bad people. The margin of safety gained is trivial to the point of absurdity. Just being aware that there is danger out there (and in here) and that the world isn’t safe – just making that philosophical jump to “protection mode” instead of “complacent dumbass mode” – is about a million times more effective – and you can still have the fun of posting pictures online.
“I shouldn’t have to stop sharing pictures of my beautiful little girl because determined perverts can manipulate them.”
I don’t see how some pervert manipulating a picture of your daughter can harm your daughter, as long as a) your daughter never sees the manipulated picture and b) the manipulated picture is never identified as your daughter.
However, if you post pictures of your daughter on a website and include personal information that could be used by someone to contact your daughter in some fashion, then that’s a different story; I would not do that. I think that this would be dangerous. Yes, I understand your philosophy. You shouldn’t have to do that. But what you shouldn’t have to do and what you do or do not have to do because reality doesn’t match the ideal are sometimes two different things. When I take the Troop out camping, I shouldn’t have to make sure that a kid is never alone with one adult. But, in fact, I do have to do that, to protect kids from any chance of being assaulted (even though I know all of them and can’t imagine them doing such a thing) AND to protect adults against false accusations by a kid who’s mad because that adult made them clean out the spaghetti pot last night instead of going fishing. Reality sucks, sometimes.
Even if I posted them on a password-protected website, the act of having to enter a password is enough to deter her father from accessing the pictures, and I don’t want to raise any more barriers between father and daughter than he has already created.
This I don’t understand. The guy can’t log into a secure page? If he’s creating barriers, he’ll find other excuses not to check out his daughter, anyway, it seems to me (not knowing this guy at all, of course).
Amp cannot protect Sydney from IOSG by declining to post pictures of her online.
Amp cannot keep the wherewithal that IOSG needs by declining such. But he might keep IOSG from being inspired to do such. IIRC, visual stimulation figures greatly in the IOSG thinking/feeling process.
I have never posted pictures of my kids online ID’d as my kids. But I haven’t seen anything that Amp or anyone else here has done that I consider objectionable.
Well Robert, you’re welcome to live that way. I’d say you’re in denial of reality, but that’s my way. Interestingly, grade schools are now asking parents to sign waivers allowing them to post their children’s artwork, writing, and photos. Would you allow this? Of the parents I know, most are allowing the artwork and writing to be posted but … not the photos.
I’m sorry. I’m in the camp that you have to arm yourself and educate yourself and take care of yourself … and then live your life. Sometimes bad things happen even when you’ve educated yourself about the reality out there and taken precautions. I’m in the camp that date-rape victims *do* have responsibility … to an extent. If you are going to be a strong woman you take care of yourself, educate yourself, are not in denial about what’s out there — and then you live your life. You do not deliberately put yourself at unnecessary risk. Posting photos of babies in places that can be identitied is to spark an impulse in me to email you and gently suggest you think twice.
However, if you post pictures of your daughter on a website and include personal information that could be used by someone to contact your daughter in some fashion, then that’s a different story;
I agree, which is why my street address is only available to selected people on a need-to-know basis and why I don’t post my daughter’s full name. (A sufficiently determined human could work it out from information I have posted, but I figure I can at least add some security by keeping robots away.)
This I don’t understand. The guy can’t log into a secure page? If he’s creating barriers, he’ll find other excuses not to check out his daughter, anyway, it seems to me (not knowing this guy at all, of course).
His excuse is that he can only access the internet at work, and logging onto anything would alert his employers that he’s using company resources for non-work-related purposes. And yes, he’s got too many excuses, but I still don’t want to create additional barriers for him (more to the point, I don’t want to put myself in a position where I could be accused of creating additional barriers, but that’s a whole nother essay).
Deborah — good points all the way around. I agree wholeheartedly that the hysteria about pedophile paranoia is really projection. It’s the familiar men in our children’s lives that do most of the sex abuse stuff. We hear about a few really horrible cases in the media (i.e. JonBenet Ramsey) and assume, incorrectly, that if we watch out for these guys and try to beat them at their own game (i.e. not posting pix on the internet) our kids will be OK — when in fact these gruesome cases that attract national media attention are merely droplets in the bucket of child abuse compared to what is going on right in our own backyards.
Laylalola — you are right on. We do have to educate ourselves and our children and then live conscious lives. Not in fear, yet with a ‘heads-up’ sort of attitude.
Karen Duncan’s book “Healing from the Trauma of Childhood Sexual Abuse” (19 years of experience dealing with women and children suffering from sexual abuse) talks about family legacies of sexual abuse and exposing perps. Really eye opening research.
I vote for posting pix on the internet. Giving away details like names, addresses, locations, etc. — well that is a no brainer.
I’m not in denial about what’s out there in the least. But I won’t be a victim before the fact. I think we need to live our lives to the fullest, and let the creeps out there be the ones restricted. The chances of a child being abducted by a stranger is still far lower than the chance of being hit by lightening (the vast majority of abductions are by relatives, typically non-custodial parents). Once I hear thunder I take my kids in the house, but I don’t keep them inside at the mere suggestion that there might be a lightening storm sometime soon. If I see signs of a stalker or persistant troll asking about my kids on-line, then I’ll increase security here. Until then, come on in, the door’s always open!
Nick, I’m sure you know this intuitively, but as a professional in the field I’d be stunned if any company was examining their employee’s Internet utilization to the level of detail that if he did a login, it would be detected. Unless he works for the CIA.
Silent Spring; in looking at accounts of pedophiles who have managed to get involved in the BSA, I’ve seen that at least 50% of the accounts I’ve read involve married men. That’s why the BSA has to have such vigilance with pedophiles; they get access to not only kids but adults who trust them, and they get access to kids in circumstances (sleeping and bathing) that they would not get otherwise.
The BSA requires it’s adult leaders to take “Youth Protection” training and you cannot run an activity without trained leaders present. You must have “Two-Deep” leadership, where there’s always at least 2 adults present at all times. You must never be out of sight of other adults or kids with a child unless you are the parent or legal guardian of that child. You cannot shower or bathe with a child or even be in the shower house when kids are using it, even if there are individual private stalls set up. You must report any instances of suspected abuse to the Council professional staff.
Cases of abuse that occur in the BSA occur because these rules are violated. It’s up to the parents and the leaders and unit committee to monitor what’s going on and keep an eye on the other leaders. The BSA cannot take responsibility for this; they are your kids and National is not on site.
That goes for any other youth activity as well. Sports Illustrated once had an issue with the cover story, “Who’s Coaching Your Kid?” It was about issues of child abuse (emotional and mental as well as physical) in youth sports. They had a wonderful sidebar guide of what to look for that I thought they should publish as a white paper to all parents. Be suspicious if a coach often singles out a given child for praise. Be suspicious if a coach gets involved with kids outside of the sport activities (has them over to the house for videos, etc.). Be suspicious if the coach engages with the kids in activities at their level (e.g., plays video games with them). Be suspicious if the coach gives some kids special gifts. Be suspicious if the coach has favorites. Be suspicious if the coach has the kids engaged in activities that he discourages parents from attending. Introduce yourself to the coach. Show up for a couple of practices or activities unannounced, stick around, and make sure the coach sees you observing closely.
If a coach takes a big interest in your kid and has him and a couple of buddies over a lot to play video games and DVD’s, some parents think they’re wonderful. Uh, uh. That’s NOT a good thing.
I have no particular opinion about the wisdom of posting pictures of children on the web. (I simply don’t know enough about the subject etc.)
But I find it hard to credit the rationale that “the act of having to enter a password is enough to deter her father from accessing the pictures.”
OK, the father can’t access a password-protected site at work. (And has no other email, which is almost unusual in itself these days.) So send him the photos in an email. Or even on paper by snail mail. If there is absolutely no reasonable danger from posting, then that is the argument and the father’s ability to access the photos on-line is pretty unimportant. At least so it seems to me.
The internet photo issue is like the shark attack issue. Assault on children by strangers is scary, but rare. People think it’s more common, because incidents are often broadcast nationwide. But a 2000 study done by the Department of Justice found that only 7% of assaults on juveniles were carried out by strangers (p. 10). For children 5 and under, that number dropped to 3.1%. Yes parents need to be careful, and I would never tell anyone to be less careful with their children. But as a nation, we’ve blown the problem of stranger assault on infants way out of proportion.
Yes, RonF, you are absolutely on target here. Thank you for posting this! I am simply amazed at the number of parents (99%) who drop their kids off night after night at practices and leave them unattended — or with coaches to drive them here or there — etc. My husband and I are one of the few families who have a parent at each and every practice our kids attend. And when they are in private music lessons as well.
In addition to the predator friendly environment that organized sports provides, coaches also use a lot of abusive (shame and blame) language with players. I have seen and heard many, many horrible things over the past several years — which other parents don’t hear because they are not present. Then they wonder why their kids are aggressive, depressed, etc.
I was heavily involved with little league for several years. I had a volunteer position where I had to do background checks of coaches and other volunteers. I saw some pretty disgusting stuff, brought it to the attention of the ‘powers to be’ and was told to just let it go because it was in the past and that coach wouldn’t do that now, yada yada. I quit my position needless to say.
Does anyone have any evidence, even anecdotal, that an infant was ever molested by someone who found the infant’s picture on the internet? I’m not talking about predators talking to teens or preteens in chat rooms and luring them to a meeting, or trading pictures of infants that they have offline access to. I’m talking about tracking down an infant from a picture on the web.
Can anyone document even one instance?
I don’t know Thomas, but for crying out loud people convicted of sex crimes against children have their names and addresses available online for parents in my state to lookup and they are abundant, right across the street, behind the house, one street over, etc. I mean to tell you the truth I’m shocked at some of the blase answers here when it seems clear to me: don’t post photos of your children in places that can be identitified. Why would you take that unnecessary risk?
In some ways I’m reading this and seeing especially some of the men’s responses I’m thinking: Welcome to the world of being a sexualized piece of meat, or, welcome to the world where someone you love is sexualized prey to many men, folks. Again. You can go paranoid or you can arm yourself with knowledge, be responsible to the extent you can for your own safety, don’t take unnecessary risks, and live your life. But it *is* like reading about college women who get plastered at a fraternity despite all the education out there. You take precautions if you are going to survive and be responsible for your own safety, that’s what empowerment is, folks. Sh*t still happens anyway, and anyone can become a victim *even when they are ultra-paranoid and take too many precautions* but for crying out loud at some level, when we are dealing with your body or the body of someone you love being a sexualized target for certain people, you do have to recognize this reality. And either deal with it. Or go into denial. But welcome to the real world in any case.
Silent Spring, my local Park District sponsored a Cub Scout Pack for years. When my son and his Webelos Den came of age, I went to the Park District and asked them to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop. The Board started asking about the risks involved with kids being molested by their leaders. I told them what the BSA policies were to prevent that. I then told them about all the violations of such policies (one coach alone with kids, a coach being alone with the last kid to get picked up after practice, a coach driving a kid not his all by himself home after practice, etc.) I had observed in other youth programs at the Park District. That was the last question I got on the subject, and they approved sponsoring the Troop.
Shame and blame; if a kid is responsible for a mistake, he should be made to realize it and to take responsibility for it, and to do what he can to alleviate it. That’s part of the program. But this can be done in a non-demeaning fashion. What I find is that any other method is not only damaging to the child, it’s also not effective; demeaning a kid does not result in the desired change in behavior. “Praise in public, criticize in private” covers a lot of it.
As you point out, it’s generally not the coaches’ fault. I didn’t attend all my kids’ practices, but I made a few and made sure that I was satisfied that they were being conducted in a safe and effective and non-abusive manner. I also made sure that my kid wasn’t the last one picked up.
I have had issues when someone is late picking up a kid from a Pack or Troop meeting. I usually manage to have another leader stick around. On a few occasions I’ve asked one of the other parents to stick around until the last parent showed up.
Hmmm. I agree with Robert. Oh god, dead sparrows are raining down from the sky!
…but as a professional in the field I’d be stunned if any company was examining their employee’s Internet utilization to the level of detail that if he did a login, it would be detected.
RonF, look up a product called WebSense. It isn’t so much that company’s examine utilization to those levels as that if a company decides to look at a particular employee they will be able to see. And companies do perform spot checks & targeted examinations.
Layla, what you’re suggesting makes just about as much sense to me as saying we should lock our children away from the daylight till they reach the age of consent.
Why on earth would you suppose that someone bent on stalking and abducting a child is going to do so on the Internet and NOT in real-life places and situations? Any weirdo who’s determined to go after a small child only has to step out the freaking door to find prospective victims.
If he can track them via the Net, he can track them via his local park, school, shopping centre, etc. etc. etc. And I’d guess that those options would be a damn sight easier, especially if he’s living in, say, Amsterdam (not to cast any aspersions on the Dutch–it was just the first city to pop into my head) and looking at photos of a child who lives in St. Louis, Missouri.
People’s answers here are not “blase”, they are trying to point out that yet again, people are running round in circles, wringing their hands, screaming in fear, and taking precautions against a bogeyman who very, very rarely is even a true threat, while ignoring the fact that the real danger is much closer at hand. Child sexual assault is very similar to sexual assault against women: it usually is someone who ALREADY FREAKING HAS ACCESS. So barring your windows and hiding under the bed won’t do much good, because the Bad Guy is already in the house.
If you spend your whole life limiting your own actions because of something that “might” happen, while not really giving much thought to those things that actually have a much greater probability of really, truly happening, I’m sorry, that doesn’t make much sense.
Because to avoid that and all similar slight risks would be to not live. Shark attacks happen by the dozens every year, many in Florida. If I go to Florida, should I forgo swimming because it’s an unnecessary risk? No! The marginal chance of a shark attack does not overcome the pleasure of swimming.
But with shark attacks, I can quantify the risk. However rare, I know it has happened. Hell, I know that at least once, a marlin has jumped into a boat and speared someone in the boat. I’m not sure that what you are talking about has ever actually happened. If I had to avoid every risk that I could imagine, but that had never actually happened, I would spend all my waking hours worried about how to avoid bad things happening. I would take sponge-baths instead of showers. I’m not willing to live like that; and I really, really will not suggest that people raise their children that way.
I’m with Crys on this one. I’ll stick to worrying about things that are all too common, not the ones that will be news if they ever occur.
“Why on earth would you suppose that someone bent on stalking and abducting a child is going to do so on the Internet and NOT in real-life places and situations? Any weirdo who’s determined to go after a small child only has to step out the freaking door to find prospective victims.”
I agree that a weirdo who’s determined to go after a small child only needs to step out the door, and doesn’t need to stalk via the Internet. I’d also point out, however, that a weirdo who would be determined to hurt Amp (or any other given individual) might easily use the Internet to target a specific child. Having said that, the only people I think realistically need to worry about that might be celebrities, politicians, etc.
i created a web site for our child’s pictures that requires them to login, the password to which i only give to people i trust. it’s a very thin wall against the pervs, but it’s a wall.
a known pedophile in my family was gleefully photographing my child at the family picnic; he’s supposedly “reformed” or “cured” according to my relatives [of course we all know what bullshit that is], but regardless i am still very unhappy about it. i’m seriously thinking of just heading on over and beating the ever-loving shit out of him, but that wouldn’t be good karma. maybe i should just send the FBI an anonymous tip.
If I had to avoid every risk that I could imagine, but that had never actually happened, I would spend all my waking hours worried about how to avoid bad things happening.
Yup. I’ve got family and friends all over the world. The most convenient, least intrusive way for me to give them all the opportunity to stay connected with what’s going on with my kid is to blog about her and post photos.
If there were an epidemic of pedophiles stalking kids over the internet for the purpose of abducting or assaulting them, maybe I’d reassess the risks. And if, as Aunty suggests, I had any sense that anyone was likely to try to get to me specifically through my kid, I’d be a lot more careful.
But anyone with a digital camera and ears can get a photo of my kid, her name, and a good guess as to the neighborhood we live in by watching me with her at the playground. If I don’t worry about that, why should I worry about some freak in Kalamazoo compiling the same data?
AA, yes point taken. BUT anyone who was dead set on hurting a blogger (I’m really uncomfortable using Amp as an example for this) could go about finding out about that blogger’s personal life and then go through the children, even if their photos WEREN’T ever posted. It might take slightly longer (maybe), but the end result would be the same.
And in any case, I’m betting an adult blogger is out and about in the world more than the children whose photos they post, and would make an easier target.
Well like I said welcome to the world of what it means to finally realize that you or someone you love is little more than a sexualized piece of meat/sexualized prey/sexualized target for many men. I’m not wringing my hands. I had to deal with this already; I’m betting most white feminists became politicized only after they grew into their adult female bodies and had to deal with the noticably different (sexualized) way they were treated. Navigating between your anger over it and wanting to be in-your-face about it to wanting to be in denial about it to educating yourself and arming yourself and empowering yourself to all-out paranoia — it’s a difficult balance and many women, I daresay, find themselves, at different times in their lives, at one or another extreme until they find the place where they can live their lives without obsessing about this reality.
Amp posts photos of his chilren on the Internet; my radar already goes up, just given the number of photos of them he posts. When he posts photos of them in public places that could be identified, I personally think he’s crossed a safety line. Because if I’m noticing this and I’m someone on the side of protecting the children, I think almost certainly someone who is a child predator would take notice of just the number of photos — and if he recognized a public place in those photos, well, yeah, I’d think he’d take note of that too. I don’t know. In some ways it seems to me so ridiculous to me that I’m even having to argue my point that it’s an unnecessary risk to post photos of your children in places that can be identfied. I mean it really really does remind me of mid-teenage girls who dress like mini-prostitutes, wanting to look older and more mature and sexier for the fun of it — but not having a clue yet as to the reality of what they’re walking into when they do that, that they are indeed sexualized targets already. Yes, as a woman you have to learn these things and you go to different extremes until you find the place where you can live your life. But that’s why I say I’m just shocked that I’m even having to point this out in a supposedly pro-feminist forum. I thought all of this already was understood, but apparently not.
Laylalola, I appreciate your perspective, and your concern is well-intended, I am positive.
You say “Because if I’m noticing this and I’m someone on the side of protecting the children, I think almost certainly someone who is a child predator would take notice of just the number of photos — and if he recognized a public place in those photos, well, yeah, I’d think he’d take note of that too.”
OK, so the predator has noticed this. And…? (And I really don’t see where the number of photos factors in.)
“I don’t know. In some ways it seems to me so ridiculous to me that I’m even having to argue my point that it’s an unnecessary risk to post photos of your children in places that can be identfied.”
I think where we disconnect is that I (and a few others of similar viewpoint) don’t see where the “risk” part comes in.
So the creepy stalker knows that a particular child goes to the grocery store. How exactly is this an additional risk? There are kids in every grocery store in the country. Creepy stalker has no shortage of potential victims. Even if creepy stalker is after the particular child, then how exactly is creepy stalker helped out by the pictures? OK, he knows that the kid goes to the grocery store. He knew that before – he just didn’t know which one. So now he knows – but the thing is, if he wanted that information, it’s trivial to find it out without spending hours comparing subtle clues in photos on the Internet. If he’s creepy stalker guy and he already knows that kid X is his target, then he’s followed kid X home, and followed kid X’s parents around, and all the rest of it. It’s not like it’s a big task to figure out where Kim and Matt go to the store.
It’s not that there’s absolutely zero risk, that under no conceivable circumstance could photos ever help a stalker. I can see how the photos could help a stalker a tiny bit under the right set of circumstances. It’s just that the risk is so small that taking positive action to protect against it seems like a serious waste of emotional energy and resources, and, basically, a surrender to fear. I don’t mind a surrender to rational fear now and again – if Sidney toddles into the busy street, Amp should totally surrender to his fear and haul his ass out there and save her, not be cool and murmur about acceptable risk. But this doesn’t seem like a rational fear.
To put it another way: you think Amp shouldn’t put up her pictures, although doing so brings many people much joy. How then can you justify Sidney going out in public at all? She shouldn’t be going to the grocery store; she should be at home in a locked room, with an armed guard. And so on. The logical consequence of following your worldview (where tiny risks should be actively managed) is a life in prison.
Generally speaking, the appropriate response to tiny risks is to be aware that they exist, but otherwise to ignore them. That’s the path to a happy life of reasonable safety, or so it seems from my perspective. (And for the record, I have a toddler the same age as Sidney of whom I am determinedly protective.)
But that’s why I say I’m just shocked that I’m even having to point this out in a supposedly pro-feminist forum.
What is it, specifically, that you’re shocked at having to point out? That women and even young girls are sexualised in our society? I don’t think you had to point it out; I think most people posting here are well aware of it but possibly considered it a parallel fact to the discussion at hand.
And if “supposedly pro-feminist” was an attempt to imply that we’re not really pro-feminist because we don’t subscribe to the exact same risk calculus you do, I’d suggest you take the plank out of your own eye first: comment #16 seems to be endorsing victim-blaming in cases of date rape.
Long time lurker; first time commenter. :)
Statistically speaking, it’s a lot more dangerous to share photos with friends and family than to post them on the Internet, if pedophilia is your main concern. This is an old rant but good food for thought:
http://www.snipeme.com/archive.php?year=2004&rant=strangers
Child predators for the most part have ready access to children they already know; they don’t need to hunt down kids they’ve seen on the Internet. And I think if we try to train our kids to hide themselves and their identities, we are actually training them to keep secrets and to feel ashamed of “bringing attention to themselves” and this actually makes them more vulnerable to the lies and manipulation of real predators. Who, sadly, already live among us.
Pedophiles could do the same thing with any image of any child, including ads and news clips. So why on earth should a picture on a blog be any different?
This sounds a lot like the rape prevention “advice” we hear.
Post away. I love the baby pictures and now have a digital camera to post more on my blog. We have lots of friends and family all over and if they have to wait for me to mail out pictures, they’ll wait forever.
The risk Laylalola fears is so close to zero as to be insignificant.
To put it in perspective, I recommend Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker. He does an excellant job of blowing off the “stranger danger” hype and talking about real safety.
From an older woman, me:
I could, if I wanted to, was a nutso, and had a bit more internet savvy than I have (I think, but maybe not, mabye I have enough) know what community you are posting from, and track you and your children down.
Is it not possible to have a Flikr account, or something like that only accessible to those you’ve given a password, or post pictures of your children that are from when they were younger, or not exactly identifiable, or not liftable? I think it would just make me feel awfully uncomfortable to find out my child’s face or head had been lifted and photo-shopped onto child porn images. It can and has been done.
But, maybe I’m not knowledgeable enough about the internet, and that is colouring my thinking here.
Pony, I don’t see how a password could achieve the two goals of letting readers see the pictures and keeping out pedophiles. And while you could probably make it harder for someone to alter the pictures, as I understand it you can’t possibly rule it out entirely while still letting people view the pictures on their monitors.
Re: #40. I myself am looking forward to the mass confiscations of those Baby Gap and Baby Martha catalogues. :p
My father was a paedophile. He abused my little sister and a lot of childen beetween 4 and 12 years of age.
I first met him when I was 15: then he droged me and raped me.
He spent some years in prison for me and for my baby sister but most of the time he get away whith it.
Its difficult to have a close relative as a father beeeing a peddo since you know he will do it again and again.
I have a blogg in Swedish but I did translate the 2 first letter to my father as I started to whright as a terapy when he died. I plane to translate the whole blogg but its winter hobby. If you want to read it just chose the world IN ENglish or To lose a Child and the English are comming up!
By from Sunny In Stockholm Sweden
Well, Laylalolo, I’m Sydney’s mother and my husband (not Amp) is Sydney’s father. We are perfectly aware of the internet scare and disagree. We don’t feel that it’s a legitimate rational to stop us from sharing our pictures of our children with friends and loved ones on the Internet. Call it what you will, but the fact is, I feel that caring for our daughters and being alert about their safety is much more about how we lead our day-to-day lives. You might wonder how we do that? Well, we bother to make the sex-offender registry known to ourselves, knowing who and where the sex-offenders in our proximity are located. We’ve even driven around to identify more exactly where they live. Only the most trusted of adults are allowed to watch them. They are never in public and unattended (at the park, or in the yard).
This post was included in Carnival Against Sexual Violence #6
I’ve just recently discovered your blog and really enjoy reading it. I found this post particularly interesting and could not agree with your viewpont more. I hope you don’t mind that linked over to you over at my own site.
Most child sexual assaults come from people related to the child, or people within the extended family circle, which I take to include people who may not necessarily be related, but are considered so close to the family; baby sitters (who may be related or known over their lives and whose parents you have known all your life, girl and boy scout leaders, honoured and trusted religious leaders, teachers and doctors. I come from a family that has an identy on the internet who has suffered for that, so I wouldn’t do it to child or adult, without some protective corp backing or something like that–I mean, being on a newspaper website because I wrote a column, for example. And even then, most who do that, that specific example, use an old photo. Not so old as to seem dishonest, but old enough to protect.
More things you’d have to do if “preventing anyone from knowing where my child lives” is the standard of good parenting:
*homeschool (because you’d have to give any school your address upon enrollment–and that goes for any kind of lessons–the YMCA knows where its members live too);
*never order any kid-related products online or from a catalog (who knows who’s fulfilling those toy orders);
*never give your kids a subscription to a magazine they might like (the creeps can see Ranger Rick in your mailbox);
*avoid joining any local parent support groups (the neighborhood MOMS Club has a directory, sometimes with family photos, heaven forbid);
*pack your garbage in opaque, sealed containers, so passing strangers don’t see telltale packaging on your curb;
*you can register to vote, but don’t ever bring your kid to the polls–your address is right in the registrar’s book
or … sigh. And what will all THAT teach your child?
It’s no secret the a kid lives in my house–there are toys in the front yard. And in my neighbor’s yard. And in my other neighbor’s yard…. no internet detective work required.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Protecting children from their depressed, working-class parents
Okay well old blog post but. As a paedophile myself, what with all this talk of “creepy stalkers”, “perverts” I want to lay down and cry.
Yes, I’m disgusted by what (some) other people with my sexuality do. But at the same time, do you people not see what’s going wrong? You try to suppress a sexuality, this is what you’re asking for. Once simply being a paedophile is no longer seen as taboo, once paedophiles can be comfortable with and open about what they are, that is when we will start seeing child protection shift into a more optimum gear.
One thing that is really not helping is the frankly ridiculous notion that a paedophile masturbating to a photo of a child is in some way the same as that person physically abusing that child.
Of course, I do not support abusive, child pornography on ANY level. Unfortuantely, I know that many paedophiles are going to download it. Not because they have no compassion for the children in the images, but because sexuality is, simply, a powerful force. You give a group of people no way outlet for those feelings, it’s going to come out somehow. But as offensive and reprehensible as the material itself is, we still have to be realistic and realise that simply obtaining child porngoraphy (except where supply-and-demand is involved) is one step removed from the abuse itself. I think this is why many paedophiles feel better about obtaining it, because they know that the child themselves is almost certainly not going to be directly affected by their actions.
I do not have a problem with punishing such behaviour. I believe we need to keep child porngoraphy illegal, to prevent a market developing. What I do have a problem with however is when this act becomes so conflated in our mind with actual abuse that somehow we see the two things on a similar level. This cognitive distortion only contributes to the inability for paedophiles to integrate into society, and receive the support they need to diffuse their feelings in the first place.
And this is especially true on the level of non-pornographic images, and even non-erotic, family photos which somehow turn the child into a “victim” if somebody thinks naughty thoughts. In the UK, even erotic cartoons are deemed “indecent images”.
At the moment, society is more interested in punishing paedophiles, than helping them in the first place. This is only making the problem worse, not better. Support, don’t suppress.