Have we discussed the James Rhodes case?

[Preminstreltension]

here

It's probably not in the right place in Feminism chat as I can't immediately see a feminist angle but you are all clever so the right people to discuss this with. I absolutely cannot get my head around this case or why it was allowed to go so far through the courts. What was his wife thinking? What could possibly have been the basis for this case as it strikes me as outrageous that she should even have tried. Am I missing something?

[megletthesecond]

No idea. I think he was right to publish and speak about what had happened to him as a little boy.

[RomiiRoo]

I think there must have been an awful break down in communication between him and his ex-wife and there is probably a lot more to it than his memoirs. The fact that he disputes medical diagnosis makes me think they have different views about the child's wellbeing.

I think of course Rhodes has the right to speak about his own experience, but I can also see the view that the person who is primary carer for a child with special needs would see her child as her main concern. My DS does not have Aspergers but ADHD and it is a constant balancing act to keep life manageable for him. There was probably a conversation to be had about what Rhodes' child might need in the way of support and how best to handle this situation - but if Rhodes refutes the diagnosis, that seems unlikely to have happened.

I don't know; H (we are separated) has always tried to ask what would work for DS, since things calmed down anyway after the split.

[OneMoreCasualty]

It is right that what has happened to him was described as serious sexual violence by the newspaper.

I can see where his ex is coming from - a couple that was together would presumably discuss and agree how to go through something like this with their child, the right age for it etc. It's unclear what the child already knows but this would certainly not be the way to find out.

The court has made the correct legal decision but I don't think her motivation was suppression of freedom of speech, which seems to be the narrative.

[Preminstreltension]

Yes I can see that she wanted what's best for the child - but I can't see what grounds there would ever have been in law for this. He was telling his own story - pre wife, pre child, and presumably not intending to force the child to read the harrowing details.

I found out things about my parents when I was a child which weren't necessarily in my interests to know at the time - I'm sure we all did. But this information being available (via a gossipy relative, a phonecall overheard, whatever) wasn't against the law. If the child has special needs there might be extra sensitivities but I just can't see where the law comes into it.

[RomiiRoo]

The law comes into it, I assume, because all other forms of communication have broken down, but that is just a guess.

[Preminstreltension]

so do you think this was, in effect, a family law case? That would make a sort of sense but really sad.

[LassWiTheWeelStockitFarm]

There is no feminist angle to this at all. It's a little insulting to the many members of MN who never or only infrequently on FWR to post it here because the posters on here are all so clever.

I can't see any reason for agreeing to his wife's request not to publish.

[RomiiRoo]

I don't know; I would post here if I wanted a certain (I.e feminist) perspective, where people mostly were on the same wavelength as me. And the 'you are clever' as 'whereas I don't understand', rather than the rest of MN is stupid.

I think the only way I can understand this case from the mother's perspective is that it stems from family law issues (how can it not when you look at all the details) but because it concerns the impact on the son, against the right to publish (held by the father), it is a freedom of speech case.

I think upholding the right to publish is the right thing to do undoubtedly; and the judge has tried to keep the boy's welfare in mind by the secrecy surrounding the case and who the boy is.

I am also presuming that alongside concern because the son has various special needs (which will fairly well consume her life to support him) the Ruritania name implies a community where everyone knows everyone. But the father is in a different country, has enough time to write this book (not disputing it is a worthwhile book or the father's suffering), and disputes some of his son's diagnosis. None of that negates the man's experiences at all; or the fact that he has not had justice for the crimes against him; or that his achievement in becoming a concert pianist is worth telling - but there will be another story about the impact on his marriage; the wellbeing of his son - and the fact that this even came to court.

I don't know, H and I spent two years in litigation before tensions thawed and you do end up with different perspectives about cause and effect, and if you end up in court, I can only imagine this gets worse.

[OneMoreCasualty]

Unnecessarily nasty post, Lass.

[LassWiTheWeelStockitFarm]

There is no reason why this thread could not have gone in Chat, AIBU or In The News. OP however states " I can't immediately see a feminist angle but you are all clever so the right people to discuss this with." There are clever women and men on all the boards.

[Preminstreltension]

There are indeed lots of clever people on MN. That's why I like to be here - but I don't go on Chat much as it seems either for more frivolous topics (which I enjoy but which this is not) or for very sensitive topics that the poster would like to disappear. And FC is a good place for people to discuss news items with a personal or family policy element to it in a sensible and low key way. I didn't think it was a feminist issue but I like the tenor of discussion on this board rather than, for example, AIBU. That's why I put it here .

I genuinely didn't understand this case so thought I would ask some people whose opinion I value and who might be able to shed a new light on it for me. I might go further and ask the people on this board what they think about the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, just for the hell of it

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

I see you're spreading your nastiness a bit thinner now. Tell you what Lass, if you're that bothered, go and post it on chat, or aibu or wherever you like.

It's a really horrible case, truly awful, that poor man, and all you have to say on the matter is.... there's clever people everywhere? Well played!

[LassWiTheWeelStockitFarm]

That would be TAAT which as you very well know is frowned upon.

I see you are putting your own spin on what I said. I said I can't see the slightest reason for agreeing to the mother's request.

I'm failing however to see what is so special about the opinion of the posters who post here as opposed to say long standing and sensible posters like Maryz or Worra who don't post here.

As for Chat being for less serious subjects there are plenty of serious topics.

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

My most deep, heartfelt and humble apologies for not mentioning the line you wrote about the case.

I shall immediately go and self flagellate.

And, it's only a TAAT if you do the "Look at this thread in FWR, those meanies in FWR are saying that they're clever, but we know they're not, right kids?"

Having a similar thread in a different part of the forum to get a mixture of views on the subject isn't the same thing at all.

But you know that, because you often comment on threads about the same subject on different parts of the forum...

[LassWiTheWeelStockitFarm]

Playswell
Look at this thread in FWR, those meanies in FWR are saying that they're clever, but we know they're not, right kids
Actually I have never done that. Nor can I recall ever seeing such a thread. I have however seen threads / comments on FWR with eye-rolling comments about how subjects are being discussed on AIBU or Chat.

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

Sorry... still flagellating, you'll have to excuse me.

And if you haven't seen the threads you've commented on you might want to go and see an optician.... fast.

[OneMoreCasualty]

Lass

In a relatively recent post, you jumped onto FWR berating its regular posters (of which you are one, though you don't like to admit it) for not discussing a specific awful case of child rape, which resulted in pregnancy.

Now you are berating an OP for starting a thread about an awful case of child rape in FWR.

Inconsistency, thy name is Lass.

Obviously the most important point of both those posts is that you get the chance to get in your little digs on FWR. Far more meaningful than simply drawing attention to or discussing the awful cases.

Well done, full marks. Medal in the post.

[LassWiTheWeelStockitFarm]

I mentioned the case about the child rape because at the time the thread about it was getting very little traffic despite the obvious feminist interest in a girl child being refused an abortion.

These cases are not the same.

[CheekyMaleekey]

James Rhodes' book has made we want to discuss the sexual abuse I suffered as a child with my DC. In order to help protect them. They need to know they'll be BELIEVED.

It's a very moving and important document, from which I would've thought his DS could only benefit in the long run, whether the information on his dad's traumatic childhood or about subsequent mental health problems - it would all be useful explanatory information.

He utterly gushes about his love for the child too.

[CheekyMaleekey]

He also says nothing negative about his ex-wife in the book.

[OneMoreCasualty]

And yet the "you're all doing it wrong except me" style from you is the same. Almost as if that's your main concern.

If you think a thread should exist in a given topic, start it. If you think a thread would be better in another topic, start your own in that topic or suggest to the OP that the thread is moved.

Simple, with no need for nastiness about other posters. Why not give it a try?