Rebel Heart's wife has her say

[letsgetsailing3]

The article is a bit manipulative in the way the question is framed. While modern American parents do tend to be risk-adverse, it is still possible to assume too much risk as a parent. Parental decisions are more nuanced than "risk averse" vs "high risk". Any situation has to be assessed on it's own.

With two people on your crew, having one of the crew tied up at all times with kids that age would seem to add a fair amount of risk. If the crew aren't experienced in doing that kind of crossing, the risk is even higher. If the boat has issues, even higher. A 13 month-old is vulnerable and precious cargo, so failure is not an option.

It's been a while, but I seem to remember thinking at the time that they didn't really encounter any unexpected situation other than their child being sick, and even the child being sick was a continuation of a prior-known illness.

I think what I object to in the story is the "Anyone in the cruising community woulda done the same thing!" aspect of it. I don't think this is a case of the cruising community vs society-at-large, or brave parents vs helicopter parents. The situation is more nuanced. If anything, I think their story is why people may be unwise do crossings with small infants. More importantly, it's a case-by-case decision.

I think raising a child on a boat is fine. But any given passage has to be viewed from a risk-reward perspective. This wasn't their third world navigation on this boat. It wasn't really in the middle of an adventure. It was more like a shake down cruise and a first-time crossing at the beginning of a trip.

The decision to cruise is a risk/reward calculation. But that calculation has to be done on every passage, and in every situation. The captain and crew's level of knowledge and experience, the condition of the boat, and the vulnerability of the passengers are all factors that need to be considered when the captain makes the go/no go calculation. While I don't blame the parents for hitting the "come save me" button, as that's what it's for, the trip shouldn't be planned as if that's a viable option - it should be planned as if that option doesn't exist. If it's planned as an escape clause, it's going to come up as an option a lot quicker.

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well stated..

They've been hammering this "we did nothing wrong" narrative very hard since the incident. I really hope there's a bit more reflection/introspection going on out of the public eye.

[zeehag]

their entire poorly prepared departure was a mess. why a second round of this. he knew his wife didnot sail without seasick and he knew his baby was ill when they left. why rehash this entire mayhem. cleansing a memory only makes it look worse. i had more respect for her before she opened her memories to be rehashed

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by zeehag

their entire poorly prepared departure was a mess. why a second round of this. he knew his wife didnot sail without seasick and he knew his baby was ill when they left. why rehash this entire mayhem. cleansing a memory only makes it look worse. i had more respect for her before she opened her memories to be rehashed

The other half of the equation is Charlotte's unwavering need for the limelight, negative or not. Like, wasn't round one bad enough? Why bring it up again?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Well Gord, I guess you have now posted your bias?

I’m not certain how a “fact check” (which more or less confirmed your supposition) reveals my (admitted) bias. Facts are (or should be) facts; irrespective of opinions.

Originally Posted by Tellie

Rated by whom?

By pretty much every organization* which does that sort of thing.

The Huffington Post identifies itself as an overtly liberal news and information site.

The Huffington Post is a news aggregation and blog system. The content published on The Huffington Post includes articles by bloggers, celebrities and simply those with an opinion to share. The core problem with The Huffington Post is the vast spectrum on which its contributions lie. Some articles on the website are random blog contributions that have not been fact checked at all, while others are Pulitzer Prize winning articles by professional correspondents.

* Ie:
HuffPost scored negatively with both Democrats (-9 bias rating) and Republicans (-61 bias rating).
☞ https://www.businessinsider.com/most...-huffpost-32-4

☞ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/

☞ https://www.allsides.com/news-source...ost-media-bias

☞ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-ch...re-we-reading/

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

The other half of the equation is Charlotte's unwavering need for the limelight, negative or not. Like, wasn't round one bad enough? Why bring it up again?

Absolutely. Most people want no press, no limelight (except in the case of a random good deed or invention or something). To a select few any press is good press...any attention is good attention.

The first half of the equation is a 13 month old deathly ill child in the middle of the ocean, the second half of the equation is a parent whose personal narrative is integrally related to drama and/or the story of the deathly ill child. Per routine, the parent is quite adept at instigating drama that distracts from the basic equation. As this thread shows, people are distractable to lose sight of the basic child in danger point, instead falling for the narratives devolving into politics, sociology, parenting philosophies, etc, etc, and even nitnoid definitions of terms related to the story, and nitnoid definitions of terms related to all the diversionary points*. Meanwhile the parent is literally profiting off the deal (financially, or just a reason to lift the head off the pillow in the morning). Like it or not, this entire saga has all the trimmings of serious problem in the household beyond the diarrheal illness of a child--I mean a textbook example of such a problem.

*The subject child was 13 months at the time of the incident, making it a toddler. It's quite pointless to the main discussion to get into defining the finer points of red herring anatomy and morphology, though authors of ~opinion pieces can rely on a select few people in the audience who like to split hairs to further distract the audience from what should be the main point(s) of analysis.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Singularity

... *The subject child was 13 months at the time of the incident, making it a toddler. It's quite pointless to the main discussion to get into defining the finer points of red herring anatomy and morphology, though authors of ~opinion pieces can rely on a select few people in the audience who like to split hairs to further distract the audience from what should be the main point(s) of analysis.

Point taken.
I misremembered the child as slightly younger.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by GordMay

FWIW:
HuffPost has been rated Left-Biased, due to story selection that favors the left, and factually High due to proper sourcing of information.
Whereas:
Fox News has been rated strongly Right-Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the right, and Mixed factually based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared.

My take on it as well. Fox "News" is almost an oxymoron as from what I can see they only have a couple of real journalists on staff, the rest falling under the "entertainment" category, and no I'm not a liberal.

[Stu Jackson]

I "get" the helicopter parenting concept and agree it is troubling. I, too, grew up being able to tool around on my own, all the time. In NYC no less!!! I think I survived.


But helicopter parenting when applied to a 13 month old seems to me to be completely off point. Why? Because a 13 month old NEEDS continuing and ongoing 24/7 parental presence merely to survive, healthy or not. Period. One would appear to have nothing to do with the other.


If she wanted to point out the disappointing results of helicopter parenting, using her own experience on that boat seems to be the very worst example she could have chosen.

[ttex]

This thread had me going down a rabbit hole. I just read through all the posts from Rebel Heart, the after incident thread with 53 pages (I read them all, I read a lot), and now this one.

Wow.

At least the deck on my Baba 35 isn't plywood over beams. Geez. I love her a bit more now if that was even possible.

My wife and I are in our 30s. I think I learned some lessons from it all if that matters to anyone.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

My take on it as well. Fox "News" is almost an oxymoron as from what I can see they only have a couple of real journalists on staff, the rest falling under the "entertainment" category, and no I'm not a liberal.

I (and some others) think that Fox News might be rated separately for it’s:
“Opinion” content (farther right),
and it’s
“News” content (right leaning, & mixed accuracy)
Fox News has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
☞ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/



Are we even aware of our biases anymore?
If you look at this chart and are convinced your “extreme” source belongs in the middle, you just might be part of the problem plaguing America the World today.
☞ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I (and some others) think that Fox News might be rated separately for it’s:
“Opinion” content (farther right),
and it’s
“News” content (right leaning, & mixed accuracy)
Fox News has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
☞ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/



Are we even aware of our biases anymore?
If you look at this chart and are convinced your “extreme” source belongs in the middle, you just might be part of the problem plaguing America the World today.
☞ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28

What..!!! No RT or Al Jezera..???

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I (and some others) think that Fox News might be rated separately for it’s:
“Opinion” content (farther right),
and it’s
“News” content (right leaning, & mixed accuracy)
Fox News has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
☞ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/



Are we even aware of our biases anymore?
If you look at this chart and are convinced your “extreme” source belongs in the middle, you just might be part of the problem plaguing America the World today.
☞ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28

As has already been asked, according to who? I keep hearing that Fox News tops the cable news ratings amongst US viewers. If true, does this mean its popularity puts them squarely in the neutral category? Then again, are you also "part of the problem plaguing America the World today" if you are convinced that some of the "neutral" sources in your chart belong in the more extreme categories?

Maybe the problem is less about people being unaware of their own biased opinions, and more about people being disrespectful & intolerant of other peoples' biased opinions. Not unlike the ability to distinguish between fact & opinion (whether presented in the form of a chart, graph or "expert" analysis), failing to understand that political bias is a moving target and inherently subjective seems to be a big part of the problem.

But I thought this thread was about what Rebel Heart's wife recently had to say?? Why are you bringing up your thinly veiled partisan politics again?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Exile

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why are you bringing up your thinly veiled partisan politics again?

Might it be because someone commented on the "medium" in which her article was posted?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Might it be because someone commented on the "medium" in which her article was posted?

Sure, but whatever one's opinion about the merits/demerits of the article may be, the political bias of the publication it happens to appear in hardly seems relevant. Unless "helicopter-parenting" has been politicized too.

The best way I've found to deal with all the media bias these days is to broaden my reading, not simply avoid news outlets that don't align with my own opinions. I like to try and get better insight on what motivates contrary opinions to, if nothing else, serve as a counter-weight or cross-check to my own. But that doesn't mean I have any illusions about which way those news outlets happen to lean.