We just saw some of the footage with Steve Irwin and the baby, and Kathleen’s observation was that, crocs aside, she wasn’t thrilled with the way Irwin was holding the infant since he was apparently making no effort to support the baby’s head, which is–y’know–Rule One.
But now I’m thinking about the fact that Irwin is indeed in the entertainment business, and one wonders–presuming that the authorities told him never to do this again–just when it *is* both safe and permissible for an entertainer to start bringing his children into the “act.” Let us take as a given, just for the sake of argument, that one month old is just too ridiculously young for the child to be around crocs.
When *is* the child old enough? When *can* Steve Irwin bring his kid into the croc hunting fold and have it be “okay?” When the child’s a year? Five years? Ten? Or should it be mandated that no parent can expose his child to hazardous performing conditions (and that’s what this was: a performance. When you’re doing stunts and entertaining crowds, that’s a performance) if the child is under the age of consent?
Well, now you’ve got a really interesting situation, because there goes circus families. High wire acts, trapeze acts, teeter boards, knife throwing. We were just watching Cirque du Soleil on TV the other night and there were three Chinese kids whipping these incredible bolos around with remarkable dexterity…but what if one of them misjudges for a microsecond and concusses himself or one of the other kids? Yes, kids in trapeze and high-wire acts are in harnesses and there are nets…but harnesses and break, and if you land on the net wrong, you can still snap your neck.
Here there’s a whole movement to try and eliminate animal acts from circuses because it’s allegedly cruel to the animals, and I don’t recall any sort of movement to eliminate children from acts because it’s potential child endangerment.
With the authorities cracking down on the Croc Hunter…I wonder where the line is drawn. I personally am not at all sure.
PAD
• 
Bad comparisons, Peter. Those kids you talk about are trained before they’re allowed in a dangerous environ.
Irwin says he’s training his child, but what in the bloody blue hëll can you teach an infant?
High-wire and trapeze acts are really no different from regular gymnastics when it comes to kids (or even adults): they are trained. The training starts slow (and low) and each skill is build upon the previous one. Taking a kid from the audience, putting them in a leotard and swinging them out over the crowd would be an entirely different matter.
If Steve Irwin was training his kids at an early age to respect animals and teaching them the proper way to handle them, that would be one thing. Starting off when they are three or four with small, non-poisonous snakes wouldn’t raise my eyebrows at all; anything to get them used to the look and feel of animal life. However, taking a baby around a grown crocodile, for any reason, is just plain dumb, especially considering that he’s occasionally not walked away unscathed himself.
Michael Jackson is one of those people to whom reality is a foreign concept. He doesn’t seem to understand the reaction/consequence stage of the acts he performs. He’s like the crazy kid who grabs your girlfriend’s behind then, when he’s being yelled at, says, “What? What did I do?”
It irritates me that he gets away with the things he does, but then again, it irritates me when anyone in a position of power gets away with doing dumb or illegal things. It doesn’t matter if that power comes from money, fame, political position or whatever.
Justice may be blind but she can certainly hear the money jingling in the change purse.
To get back to my original point, I don’t think there is a magic number that should be placed on when children should be able to perform dangerous stunts provided that the proper training is taught beforehand. However, if we’re going to come up with one, let’s make sure it covers tree-climbing, skateboarding and youth sports as well.
I agree with Scott and Jason. It’s not so much a matter of what age is the right age when you can bring the kid into the cage, it’s more a matter of gradually teaching the child in baby steps, with the teacher/parent judging the level of expertise and responsibility that the kid is developing, slowly giving the kid greater responsibility on an experimental basis, weighing his skill with the risks invovled. It’s not a one-line, simple answer.
Well, I’ve made it clear that I’m not convinced the kid was extremely unsafe in Steve’s arms (though Kathleen’s observations don’t lend credence to my theory) — having made the point that a kitchen can be even more dangerous because the person holding the child might not be fully aware of his or her surroundings as a trained animal handler would be when plying his craft would — I do question the motive behind it. Terri went on record as saying the kid enjoyed the experience and both Irwins used the term “croc-savvy” to describe the lifestyle they want their children raised in — fully cognizant of the risks involved with varying types of wildlife, as opposed to blithely unaware — an admirable goal, but how much could the kid really have gleaned from the experience.
Now, I have more respect for Irwin than you clearly do, PAD, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that was a family affair for him. I won’t cede him the notion that it wasn’t more for himself than for the kid, though.
As for kids in show business, I think the best example I can point to is the Olsen twins. Sure, I’m not a big fan of their work, but their careers were handled by their family with the girls’ best interests in mind, and the two of them both have enough money in their own names that they could leave show business right this second fully solvent, and with enough business experience to get a job at any major firm in New York.
Until CGI can completely replace actors, child actors will always be necessary, and without them, we will lose our Kirsten Dunsts and Haley-Joel Osments (not that we got much value from him; after 6th Sense he did a handful of sappy feel-good pictures and then hopped on contract doing voice work for Disney, which is such a magnificent waste of his talents I can’t think of the words to express it. Sure, he probably wants to do the voice work, but his strength is visible emotion and convincing behavior quirks. Aah, crap. I digress).
As for other fields of work, there are just some crafts you have to learn when you’re little; stunt work, for example, or gymnastics. The martial arts are another; people who started when they were under 5 are among the best in the world if they keep it up into their mid-twenties. I keep thinking of Bruce Lee (who was every bit as good in real life as he was on screen) and Ernie Reyes, Jr., who at the age of 10 was easily besting men twice and three times his age and size in Karate tournaments.
Awwww… but it’s so cute when we incorprate shildren into everything we do. If what I just wrote made your stomach turn then join the club. It’s that very same line of thinking that helped get JonBennet Ramsey killed. In fact, I’m suprised no one brought that up in other Jackson/Irwin threads (I haven’t read them all yet, so I could very well be wrong.)
We see it all the time: Stage-mothers, fathers who shove their kids into sports, and anyone with a “Proud Parent of a…” bumper sticker. I’m all for supporting your kids with what they are into *if it’s the kids decision.* Obviously Irwin’s and Jacksons’s kids had no deciding vote in either situation. Don’t subject them to it as a publicity stunt. If a celebrity parent needs the publicity why don’t they just go out and try to murder the ref who made a valid call against their kid who sucks at soccer because it’s an activity the *parent* wanted the kid in? Then after ‘Inside Edition’ gives them their extra five minutes they can go home, get drunk, violently attack their spouse and get a guest spot on COPS for an additional three-and-a-half minutes.
Yes, I know I’ve made a couple of leeps here. I’m just trying to illustrate that it seems to boil down to selfishnes. I believe that it’s selfishness, plain and simple, that motivates people to make spectacles out of their kids for their own ends.
Salutations,
Mitch
But if it weren’t for child circus performers, where would superhero’s teen wonder sidekicks come from?
If kids are doing trapeeze work about a net, that’s one thing. If kids are in actual danger of having their heads being bitten off by a twelve foot alligator, that is something else entirely
Does this mean I’ll never get to see a one-year-old child performing on a trapeeze over a crocodile? Ðámņ.
You’re right, PAD….there’s no easy answer on that. I think that child actors and performers are able to communicate to their parents if they are happy and if they are enjoying the experience. Good parents would listen carefully and insure that the kids are healthy and well-adjusted.
I suspect that in the entertainment business, this is not the norm.
nekouken: Well, I’ve made it clear that I’m not convinced the kid was extremely unsafe in Steve’s arms (though Kathleen’s observations don’t lend credence to my theory) — having made the point that a kitchen can be even more dangerous because the person holding the child might not be fully aware of his or her surroundings as a trained animal handler would be when plying his craft would…
Luigi Novi: Why would someone in their kitchen not be aware of their surroundings?
nekouken: Terri went on record as saying the kid enjoyed the experience…
Luigi Novi: An interesting assertion, given that kid himself is not truly aware of his surroundings, nor able to appreciate the level of danger, high or low, that he was in.
Mitch: Awwww… but it’s so cute when we incorprate shildren into everything we do. If what I just wrote made your stomach turn then join the club. It’s that very same line of thinking that helped get JonBennet Ramsey killed.
Luigi Novi: Having read about the details of that crime, there is no evidence that her participation in child beauty pageants bore any culpability in her murder, regardless of how distasteful you and I find it, Mitch.
Jeff: But if it weren’t for child circus performers, where would superhero’s teen wonder sidekicks come from?
Luigi Novi: Who cares? Superheroes and their sidekicks are fictional.
“Luigi Novi: Why would someone in their kitchen not be aware of their surroundings?”
I said “fully aware.” Yeah, the guy would know he’s in the kitchen, but are his senses wide open the way they would be if he knew he might be facing mortal peril? No. We’re discussing this over on the other thread, Weege. No need to add extra inches to this one, too. It’s an unnecessary risk.
“Luigi Novi: An interesting assertion, given that kid himself is not truly aware of his surroundings, nor able to appreciate the level of danger, high or low, that he was in.”
Well, how can you be certain of that? Do you really know what’s going through that infant’s head? Or are you just calling Terri Irwin a liar?
“Luigi Novi: Who cares? Superheroes and their sidekicks are fictional.”
They don’t have to be.
This is easy:
1) Animal acts? I’m agin’ em. All kinds, any kinds. When I’m King, there won’t be any, Full Stop. It’s not so much about cruelty (which is rare in any outright sense) as it is about philosophies on stewardship and exploitation.
2) Kid acts? Use the prevailing standards for dangerous workplaces. When I was 14, I was allowed to do some kinds of work on nearby farms, but not all kinds, due to the machinery and/or labor involved. When I turned 16, I was allowed to do more, and more, again, at 18. I don’t see any reason to make circuses and the like exempt from these kinds of rules: child performers could be allowed to assume (or, actually, have their parents assume for them) certain levels of risk according to their age. The child’s ability to give informed consent to the risk danger grows along with the child, and that’s part of what labor laws in other areas recognize.
Having said that, I’m only mildly less appalled by parents who send their kids into the beauty/talent performance circuits than I am by those who dangle them over balconies or near crocodiles.
2) Kid acts? Use the prevailing standards for dangerous workplaces. When I was 14, I was allowed to do some kinds of work on nearby farms, but not all kinds, due to the machinery and/or labor involved. When I turned 16, I was allowed to do more, and more, again, at 18. I don’t see any reason to make circuses and the like exempt from these kinds of rules: child performers could be allowed to assume (or, actually, have their parents assume for them) certain levels of risk according to their age. The child’s ability to give informed consent to the risk danger grows along with the child, and that’s part of what labor laws in other areas recognize.
Not sure about circus performers but in the film and TV industry there are already laws in place along the line you talk about, not only that but there’s additional laws about how many hours a day, (and between what times), children under certain ages can work, (this is why when a script calls for really young children producers often cast twins allowing them to alternate the children, get twice as much shooting time and still be within the law).
nekouken: We’re discussing this over on the other thread, Weege. No need to add extra inches to this one, too.
Luigi Novi: Check the time of my post, Neko. I made the post on this board before the one on the other one.
nekouken: Well, how can you be certain of that? Do you really know what’s going through that infant’s head?
Luigi Novi: No, and neither does Terri. I don’t buy the idea that that kid is able to understand what’s going on, or form a lasting memory of the event.
nekouken: Or are you just calling Terri Irwin a liar?
Luigi Novi: No, I’m calling her a mentally retarded, irresponsible parent.
Luigi Novi: Who cares? Superheroes and their sidekicks are fictional.”
nekouken: They don’t have to be.
Luigi Novi: Meaning?
“Luigi Novi: No, and neither does Terri. I don’t buy the idea that that kid is able to understand what’s going on, or form a lasting memory of the event.
Luigi Novi: No, I’m calling her a mentally retarded, irresponsible parent.”
Well, in all honesty, that’s not really your call. She’s bonded with that baby; she has a better idea of its communicative abilities and deductive capacity than you do. They say infants are constantly processing information and learning about their surroundings — which explains why they eventually grow into people, rather than just big babies — and you can’t prove that baby learned nothing, just as you can’t prove that Terri’s wrong.
“nekouken: They don’t have to be.
Luigi Novi: Meaning?”
You have no sense of humor, Weege. Jeff was clearly kidding, and I was just playing off it. I know superheroes are fictional, as are their sidekicks — then again, that never stopped anybody from levelling child molestation charges at Batman.
I’m on your wife’s side, he’s carrying that kid like it’s a sack of potatoes. If he was to move suddenly that kids head would snap back and you’d have a candidate for shaken baby syndrom.
Other than that, anyone that would carry a baby around while feeding a croc fresh meat doesn’t desearve to be a parent.
nekouken: Well, in all honesty, that’s not really your call.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. It is entirely my call to make, because it’s my opinion that I’m forming. The idea that some baby drools and laughs when his dad feeds a croc must mean that he enjoyed the event and will “cherish” the memory ignores the fact that babies sometimes laugh for no reason at all, sometimes suddenly stopping and alternating with crying.
nekouken: You have no sense of humor, Weege.
Luigi Novi: Sometimes humor doesn’t come across as easily on a text-only medium without smileys.
On a side note I have to admit that my wife also found the way he was holding his child a big no-no.
“Luigi Novi: Having read about the details of that crime, there is no evidence that her participation in child beauty pageants bore any culpability in her murder, regardless of how distasteful you and I find it, Mitch.”
I’ll concede to your greater knowledge of the case, Luigi. Her participation itself probably had nothing to do with her murder. In that case, however, I have to wonder about psychological ramifications. Specifically to her parents. Having taken a harder look at that case I wonder if you can provide some info. Can you discern from your research if it’s possible that her parents saw a talent that could lead to a bright future that they could profit from before she’s old enough to handle her own finances? I guess that’s the point I’m really trying to make: That some parents use their kids for their own ends. For example the case of Gary Coleman wherein his parents blew all the money he earned. I wonder if, in certain circumstances, parents will display a tendancy to objectify their kids and, if so, can it lead to various levels of abuse. All I know for certain is that someone objectified Jonbennet Ramsey to the point where her right to live and die in peace was no longer relevant. I believe that it’s possible that her role in pageants was a factor in someone objectifying her and could have led to her demise. Granted my theories on this case are loaded with “if’s” and in some ways over-complicated, but I don’t think it’s wholey without merrit (again, my admitted ignorance of the case may be showing).
Salutations,
Mitch
Tom Dakers: “If he was to move suddenly that kids head would snap back and you’d have a candidate for shaken baby syndrom.”
Shouldn’t this be called “Emotionally Impatient Parent Syndrome?”
I mean, why put all the blame on the baby?
😉
Salutations,
Mitch
I still say they need to pull the plug onthese dangling baby stunts. People will start getting the idea thats its safe and ok to do cause they see someone on TV do it. If they dont step in some day, someone will lose a baby to one of these stupid stunts and then everyone will be in a up roar except, maybe the few on here who seem to think its ok to dangle a baby in front of a croc and feed it. Personally, he copied what Jackson did and topped it thats all.
Topped Michael Jackson…..well that would be some feat to accomplish but you are takeing Steve’s action out of context. I believe it was stated in the last thread that he was not doing a stunt in front of adoring fans like THE DEMENTED ONE.
There ate numerous things that endanger children but like Steve Irwin we believe they are safe acts example, taking the baby in the car sure the driver believes wholeheartedly that they are in control but that does not take in in accound all the hundreds of other drivers people encounter.
I believe this whole thing with Steve Irwin has been blown way out of proportion.
Topped Michael Jackson…..well that would be some feat to accomplish but you are takeing Steve’s action out of context. I believe it was stated in the last thread that he was not doing a stunt in front of adoring fans like THE DEMENTED ONE.
This has been said but the videotape on the news sure looks like it was a show of some kind. There were people behind him sitting in bleachers applauding on so forth. It certainly looked like a show for fans, if it wasn’t what exactly was the context of this tape.
There ate numerous things that endanger children but like Steve Irwin we believe they are safe acts example, taking the baby in the car sure the driver believes wholeheartedly that they are in control but that does not take in in accound all the hundreds of other drivers people encounter.
Yes a driver cannot account for everything on the road which is why children are put in child safty seats, securly fastened by restraints, TO MINIMIZE THE RISK . If we are going to keep using the car analogy lets use it properly, what the croc hunter did in no way compares with putting Jr in the back of the chevy to go to grandma’s, it is more like holding Jr in your arms while driving at top speed in the INDY 500. (And why is it that I can just hear people defending that if it happened, “Hey, the kid was in no danger, that guy an expert car racer, no one knows more about racing cars then he does, he’s been doing this all his life” )
**You’re right, PAD….there’s no easy answer on that. I think that child actors and performers are able to communicate to their parents if they are happy and if they are enjoying the experience. Good parents would listen carefully and insure that the kids are healthy and well-adjusted.
I suspect that in the entertainment business, this is not the norm.**
Given how screwed up most former child stars (Wacko Jacko included) are as adults, I’d say you’re probably right.
I love to read about all this stuff about how Irwin is an irresponsible parent.
But I wonder why nobody brings such comments against the parents of the kids who keep going to Michael Jackson’s Neverland.
Talk about child endangerment… 🙂
Actually, Craig, Salon.com had an article about parents who let their kids go to Neverland, which said exactly that.
But I wonder why nobody brings such comments against the parents of the kids who keep going to Michael Jackson’s Neverland.
Obviously you didn’t hear them but there have been serveral people who have made comments against the parents.
Yes..I believe the Croc hunter is the best there is, and I would never say take away his kid…BUT, would you let him do that with your kid? If not why? The main thing I find “interesting” is that its his celeberty status that keeps things from going south for him! As for the circus performers…I believe the kids that ARE used, are a little more coherent and practice for the situation. We still live in a society where a popular celeberty can get away with more than an average person can. tsk tsk.
Mitch, I’m in full agreement that child beuty pageants are disgusting, turn parents in monsters, may psychologically hurt the kids, and that some contain acts derived from very adult burlesque striptease acts that only pedophiles would think appropriate, but this is an opinion I formed by actually watching some of these acts, and from listening to people like Cindy Crawford condemn such pageants (yeah, believe it or not, I actually formed an opinion on something in part by listening to a supermodel, sue me) by pointing out that adult models can be catty when it comes to things like sharing makeup and stuff, and that instilling that mindset in a 6-year old is just awful.
My knowledge of the criminal case, on the other hand, comes from sources like former FBI profiler-turned true crime author John Douglas (who was the basis for the Jack Crawford character in the Hannibal Lecter stories), in his book The Cases That Haunt Us, and a story done on the case by Brill’s Content, a media watchdog magazine that examined the accuracy of media stories. Neither of those sources focused on the moral implications of JonBenet’s participation in the pageants.
Salutations. 🙂
Luigi Novi
Obviously you didn’t hear them but there have been serveral people who have made comments against the parents.
Probably not. I’ve brought the issue up myself since Day 1 of this new fiasco, but I’ve not heard anything directly on the news or read anything on the net.
Haven’t seen the pictures, don’t care to, really, but my first response was: So what? It’s not an alligator, it’s a crocodile.
Unless they were underwater, the croc couldn’t see the baby if Cricky-man was holding it close to his body; it would have perceived the baby as part of the hazy mass of Cricky-man. It CAN see a dangling chicken, but it couldn’t tell you if it was a chicken a duck or a — well, baby if dangled by a leg…
A gator has better land-eyesite, but if the chicken is offered, he isn’t going to go for the baby. Crocs and gators are lazy critters, just like us. They will do whatever is easiest.
Now, if Cricky-man dropped the baby and it was closer to the croc than the chicken, then baby-go-bye-bye, but presumably Cricky-man would rush the croc or the baby, and croc isn’t going anywhere near it unless their in water… in which case, he may go after Cricky-man instead for the bigger boodle.
No, I wouldn’t let him take my kid in with him, but that kid isn’t my kid, it’s his kid and the kid wasn’t in the danger everyone makes it out to be.
Dear Stevo,
We think it is a great thing you are doing with your kids teaching them about the animals in their own backyard. Young baby Bob was NEVER in any danger, you are a trained professional ever since you were a little kid. Michael Jackson is a nutcase, but you aren’t.
The difference between Michael and Steve is that Steve didn’t think that he was doing anything dangerous with his child (Michael did, but thought putting his kid in danger was funny.) I agree with Rob that the Steve’s baby was in little danger of becoming a snack.
I have seen footage in the past of Steve feeding his crocs at his animal park with his daughter in his arms too. He doesn’t perceive any real danger.
While I do, I also am appalled at the recent pictures I’ve seen (post-christmas) of proud dad or granddad taking the little ones for a ride on the new 4-wheeler. I’m a physician and all of our ICUs here are filed with victims of 4-wheeler wrecks, but most people think I’m crazy … “we were in control”…”we were going slowly on flat ground.”
Well, Steve was feeding one of his regular crocs that he’s fed dozens of times before, in his own zoo and while wild animals are not always predictable, I bet he can read it’s body language.
‘Nuff said. My child ain’t going in a croc pen, OR riding on a 4-wheeler, but I wish that this fuss would just go away. People are acting like he had dangled the baby over the croc.