On Kids, parenting, and dead gorillas

Okay, my facebook page is getting lit up by the whole Harambe gorilla thing in Cincinnati. Some folks are second guessing the zoo staff's decision to put down the endangered animal. Others are stressing that inattentive parenting is the cause of way too many avoidable tragedies. And others still are stating that pointing out inattentive parenting is a form of cyberbullying.

I figured this is pretty controversial and thought folks here would like to chime in.

Paleocon wrote:

Okay, my facebook page is getting lit up by the whole Harambe gorilla thing in Cincinnati. Some folks are second guessing the zoo staff's decision to put down the endangered animal. Others are stressing that inattentive parenting is the cause of way too many avoidable tragedies. And others still are stating that pointing out inattentive parenting is a form of cyberbullying.

I figured this is pretty controversial and thought folks here would like to chime in.

Was wondering if this would hit P&C. It's been non-stop news in Cincinnati. Like news pre-empting daytime TV for the Zoo's press conference non-stop news.

1. I've been to the Cincinnati Zoo on multiple occasions (me and my ex-wife would go at least once a year, if not more often, including the Gorilla exhibit. This kid was determined. He'd have to be to get in there. It's been the way it's been since I was a kid, but I can tell you, this was NOT easy. Rails, barriers of bushes, a "rock" outcropping before the moat to traverse, then the moat.

2. Based on witnesses, I don't know how you couldn't call this inattentive parenting. The kid was saying he wanted to get in and get close to the gorillas and mom was more focused on taking pictures before the incident. Pointing that out being cyber-bullying proooobably depends on the context. I've seen plenty of folks say that this mom was clearly in the wrong. I've also seen folks suggest mom should be shot just like the gorilla was. The latter is definitely cyber-bullying. Do I think she owes the zoo something? Totally. Do I think that will happen? Not likely.

3. I've also seen plenty of folks calling out the zoo personnel for making the on the scene decision to shoot to kill. The stupid part there being "I've watched this video several times and it becomes clear that the child was in danger." Ummm... yeah, the response staff didn't have a time-out and instant replay to figure this sh*t out. "Why didn't they just tranq him?" Umm... because tranqs don't work the way you think they do... just like being sedated in a hospital isn't usually instantaneous... add in getting shot and not being injured in any way, and that gorilla would have gone from "maybe being a danger" to "definitely a danger". I hate that it was necessary, but when you have folks like Jack Hannah stepping up and saying there was no other option in this scenario... a guy who has devoted his life to the preservation of the natural world and his zoo... then armchair quarterbacking it is just stupid.

I think it is likely the zoo staff was aware of what happened four and a half hours away in Pittsburgh three years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

Demosthenes wrote:

...armchair quarterbacking it is just stupid.

That's my take on the whole thing. No matter which involved party is being discussed. It's a thing that happened. Everyone was probably doing the best they could at the time given their own set of circumstances. Sh*t happens. It happens to everybody.

Paleocon wrote:

I think it is likely the zoo staff was aware of what happened four and a half hours away in Pittsburgh three years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

...

Wait, she held the child over the railing? Am I reading this right? Whaaaaaaaat? Why would you ever?

Demosthenes wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think it is likely the zoo staff was aware of what happened four and a half hours away in Pittsburgh three years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

...

Wait, she held the child over the railing? Am I reading this right? Whaaaaaaaat? Why would you ever?

[quote="Demosthenes"]

I've seen people holding toddlers or younger over a moat at our zoo to see the tigers. Slightest slip and the kids would be tiger food. Zoo has since put a screen around so it would be much harder to drop a child in, but some people are just incredibly stupid.

[quote="MathGoddess"]

Demosthenes wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think it is likely the zoo staff was aware of what happened four and a half hours away in Pittsburgh three years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

...

Wait, she held the child over the railing? Am I reading this right? Whaaaaaaaat? Why would you ever?

Demosthenes wrote:

I've seen people holding toddlers or younger over a moat at our zoo to see the tigers. Slightest slip and the kids would be tiger food. Zoo has since put a screen around so it would be much harder to drop a child in, but some people are just incredibly stupid.

I responded to someone saying "why didn't they design it better?" with this:

I think you are losing sight of the fact that the enclosure was designed to keep the animals inside while giving viewers the ability to observe it. NOT to keep determined individuals from entering it.

If you are implying that we should design such exhibits to prevent morons and the otherwise incompetent from entering such things, design compromises must be made that will damage the experience for the rest of us.

This is why we can't have nice things.

And screening that obscures the view and ruins photographs is an excellent example of such.

The screening isn't bad...like a screen on a window. But with the appalling stupidity I've seen at our zoo, I'm far less inclined to be sympathetic to the parent....and I've lost my son in a store when he was a toddler....but not at a zoo!

The gorillas at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle are separated from observers by super-thick floor-to-ceiling windows. The way into the enclosure is through a locked metal door, or by scaling 20' of concrete. It's a pretty good way to design a gorilla exhibit.

As someone who has done some zoo photography getting an unobstructed shot is a huge deal.

I worked out at Yellowstone Park one summer in college.

There was more than one instance, just while I was there, of parents deciding to photograph their children directly in front of bison (as in, touching distance). There was also a case where parents decided to sit their child on the bison for a photo. Not surprisingly, the bison charged - my memory is that the kid was freaked out but unharmed, though dad for a proper goring for his trouble.

Which is really the best outcome in a situation like that.

Sorry that the gorilla was killed, but understand the zoo staff were trying to make the best decision they could on the fly.

Glad that the kid is okay, and sincerely hope that Child Protective Services decides to stop by their house and make sure the kind of negligence the mom displayed at the zoo is not indicative of larger concerns.

Paleocon wrote:

I think it is likely the zoo staff was aware of what happened four and a half hours away in Pittsburgh three years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

Oh my god, that is horrific to read.

A friend of mine (a parent) posted this link on Facebook (the link has gone down, but here's the Google cache):

My Kid Would Never Fall Into a Gorilla Pit Because I’m an Attentive Parent
… and other lies we tell ourselves

(Real Life Parenting, 2016-05-29)

(And this entire conversation reminds me of the discussion recently about the Just World Fallacy. We want to believe it was the parent's fault, because otherwise this could happen to anybody.)

Yup. I've tried bringing that discussion up with some friends & family, and everyone misses the point and latches onto specific examples and how they would never let X happen instead.

It makes my brain hurt.

Hypatian wrote:

A friend of mine (a parent) posted this link on Facebook (the link has gone down, but here's the Google cache):

My Kid Would Never Fall Into a Gorilla Pit Because I’m an Attentive Parent
… and other lies we tell ourselves

(Real Life Parenting, 2016-05-29)

(And this entire conversation reminds me of the discussion recently about the Just World Fallacy. We want to believe it was the parent's fault, because otherwise this could happen to anybody.)

I concur. I've witnessed parents in public losing track of their children because they are being completely negligent, and I've witnessed (and as a child, caused) parents lose track of their children through no fault of their own, because they didn't happen to be looking at a child at the exact second that they did something dumb (often because they had the temerity to be looking at one of their other children instead).

Those of us that didn't witness this event shouldn't jump to conclusions as to which instant this was. Of course, even if it was negligence, there is the question that we've discussed before about when well-meaning and understandable/legitimate criticism of mistakes becomes bullying on a tremendous scale.

A piece of related reading this instance reminds me of is the long, absolutely hearbreaking, but very good Washington Post story on parents that left their children to die in hot cars.

It's about, among other things, how human beings or at least our society doesn't have a good handle on how small mistakes can have enormously tragic and horrifying consequences. If something had a horrifying consequence it HAD to have been a huge and terrible mistake, which provides a nice buffer between the people that suffered the tragedy, and you, a good person that only makes small mistakes and not huge terrible ones.

The mental failing that leads to forgetting to pick up your kid at soccer practice means you get an annoyed phone call from the coach 20 minutes after practice ends. The mental failing that leads to you forgetting that your baby is in your car is functionally nearly identical, but may lead to a dead child. Because of that difference in consequences that second person may go to prison for a long time.

Hypatian wrote:

A friend of mine (a parent) posted this link on Facebook (the link has gone down, but here's the Google cache):

My Kid Would Never Fall Into a Gorilla Pit Because I’m an Attentive Parent
… and other lies we tell ourselves

(Real Life Parenting, 2016-05-29)

(And this entire conversation reminds me of the discussion recently about the Just World Fallacy. We want to believe it was the parent's fault, because otherwise this could happen to anybody.)

I was good with this article up until it told me to shut up because I don't have kids. Seriously sick of that "argument". Why do that? Why alienate any number of people so you can feel like more of an authority because you have kids. Like no one who doesn't have kids hasn't had to watch/care for/help raise kids.

This was a tragic situation all around. Ironically, the person I feel most sorry for is the kid, mostly because he was clearly excited about the natural world then saw an animal shot to death right in front of him... but no one seems to be mentioning him all that much.

I certainly have questions about what the mom was doing, but until that all shakes out with the investigation (CPD confirmed today that that's happening now)... it's hard to suggest fault, especially with the various eyewitness accounts going on that all suggest different things.

Demosthenes wrote:

I was good with this article up until it told me to shut up because I don't have kids. Seriously sick of that "argument". Why do that? Why alienate any number of people so you can feel like more of an authority because you have kids. Like no one who doesn't have kids hasn't had to watch/care for/help raise kids.

I think the point was more that there's a difference between helping to care for children and being the ultimate individual responsible for their welfare 24/7/365/18.

And I think that point is well-made. I don't have any biological children, and I've spent most of my adult life not being in a parental role. That didn't render my opinions without merit when it came to parenting, but one thing it did mean is that I didn't fully grasp the reality of that constant, unrelenting responsibility from which you can never truly "take a break".

Even now, as a step-parent, I still don't have quite that same ultimate and unrelenting responsibility due to our cultural norms, no matter how much I may voluntarily choose to heft that mantle over my shoulders.

I am curious whether we should afford the same "accident" tag to folks who leave their loaded guns in unattended purses.

Paleocon wrote:

I am curious whether we should afford the same "accident" tag to folks who leave their loaded guns in unattended purses.

You're right. Kids should be rendered unconscious and locked up in a gunsafe when they aren't actively being used under complete control of their parents.

Farscry wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

I was good with this article up until it told me to shut up because I don't have kids. Seriously sick of that "argument". Why do that? Why alienate any number of people so you can feel like more of an authority because you have kids. Like no one who doesn't have kids hasn't had to watch/care for/help raise kids.

I think the point was more that there's a difference between helping to care for children and being the ultimate individual responsible for their welfare 24/7/365/18.

And I think that point is well-made. I don't have any biological children, and I've spent most of my adult life not being in a parental role. That didn't render my opinions without merit when it came to parenting, but one thing it did mean is that I didn't fully grasp the reality of that constant, unrelenting responsibility from which you can never truly "take a break".

Even now, as a step-parent, I still don't have quite that same ultimate and unrelenting responsibility due to our cultural norms, no matter how much I may voluntarily choose to heft that mantle over my shoulders.

As someone that had their first kid almost 2 years ago, there is a definite difference between how I thought it was before and the level of responsibility I feel now. That's said, the examples given, and really the mindset being explained, are all things anyone that's ever been responsible for a kid can understand: babysitters, aunts/uncles, people that had to take care of younger siblings, etc.

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am curious whether we should afford the same "accident" tag to folks who leave their loaded guns in unattended purses.

You're right. Kids should be rendered unconscious and locked up in a gunsafe when they aren't actively being used under complete control of their parents.

I'm down with that.

Seriously though, this idea that we should be okay with not figuring out the breakdown or even multiple breakdowns of responsibility that resulted in this avoidable tragedy because to do otherwise is to "victim blame" is pretty wrongheaded and mystifying. If this was a plane crash, there would be a demand for an RCA. But because it was a set of inattentive parents, we are supposed to shrug and say "oh well"?

Not buying it.

Stengah wrote:

That's said, the examples given, and really the mindset being explained, are all things anyone that's ever been responsible for a kid can understand: babysitters, aunts/uncles, people that had to take care of younger siblings, etc.

Yes, but the likelihood of a statistically anomalous incident (i.e. accident) occurring is drastically increased for parents than part-time caregivers.

But anyone could be on duty at the time the incident occurs, yes.

Also, I'm not saying that this absolves parents -- or any other caregivers -- of the responsibility to take all reasonable precautions at all times with children appropriate to their age. Which is why I took so much umbrage to Paleo's choice of analogy. It's missing the point of the linked articles to score a particularly nasty snark point.

Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, this idea that we should be okay with not figuring out the breakdown or even multiple breakdowns of responsibility that resulted in this avoidable tragedy because to do otherwise is to "victim blame" is pretty wrongheaded and mystifying.

Who is actually making that argument?

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, this idea that we should be okay with not figuring out the breakdown or even multiple breakdowns of responsibility that resulted in this avoidable tragedy because to do otherwise is to "victim blame" is pretty wrongheaded and mystifying.

Who is actually making that argument?

When a kid grabs a loaded gun and shoots himself or someone else with it, we naturally ask the question "how the f* did he get his hands on a gun? And where were his parents?".

We should be doing the same thing here and all this "until you are a parent you will never understand" bs is not helping.

Paleocon wrote:

all this "until you are a parent you will never understand" bs is not helping.

This "bs" is not being used -- at least by any of the participants so far in this thread -- as an immunity clause clearing the parents of any possible blame.

Rather, it's in relation to the way that the parents are automatically and immediately portrayed as wantonly reckless monsters -- hell, even when parents are found innocent of wrongdoing (neglect, intentional recklessness, etc) they're usually still treated as guilty because they failed to be more than human.

Your poor analogy between being a parent of sentient children who can and do choose to behave recklessly and being a gun owner who chooses to ignore safety regulations for non-sentient objects is not helping.

Paleocon wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, this idea that we should be okay with not figuring out the breakdown or even multiple breakdowns of responsibility that resulted in this avoidable tragedy because to do otherwise is to "victim blame" is pretty wrongheaded and mystifying.

Who is actually making that argument?

When a kid grabs a loaded gun and shoots himself or someone else with it, we naturally ask the question "how the f* did he get his hands on a gun? And where were his parents?".

We should be doing the same thing here and all this "until you are a parent you will never understand" bs is not helping.

Leaving a loaded gun where a child can get it is certainly neglectful, but your child getting away from you in a zoo isn't automatically neglectful. I do agree that the "only a parent can understand" argument is bs, really anyone that's been solely responsible for watching a young child in a crowded public place can understand. The pitchforks and hyperbole should probably be put away until whatever investigation the incident prompts is over.

Paleocon wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, this idea that we should be okay with not figuring out the breakdown or even multiple breakdowns of responsibility that resulted in this avoidable tragedy because to do otherwise is to "victim blame" is pretty wrongheaded and mystifying.

Who is actually making that argument?

When a kid grabs a loaded gun and shoots himself or someone else with it, we naturally ask the question "how the f* did he get his hands on a gun? And where were his parents?".

We should be doing the same thing here and all this "until you are a parent you will never understand" bs is not helping.

I haven't seen people saying that. What I've seen are versions of:

From the perspective of a parent I understand how this could happen so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not in a position to judge this accurately, and will likely never be informed well enough to do so.

In my opinion you're jumping to judgement, and you haven't presented any special knowledge that informs your opinion. One factor behind this may be that you're not a parent.

There's a distinction to be made there, but that last sentence could just as easily be left off if someone wanted you to understand their point of view.

Edited for clarity.

Meanwhile, a group interested in stopping Animal Exploitation is also swooping in to attack the zoo... including alleging that the Gorilla exhibit has been cited for multiple problems over decades. But they have zero proof of this... seems like something you would want to be able to back up.

That said, the idea of being anti-zoo seems odd to me... but that may just be my pragmatic side. Zoos help raise awareness of the problems humans have inflicted on animals across the world and help raise money for conservation efforts. Yeah, I'd love it if we, as human beings, could have empathy and care for other animals on this planet without that (much like I'd love if folks could understand xenophobia is bad without having to travel the world or recognize misogyny is bad without having to have a wife or daughter)... but that's clearly not the world we live in either.

'Gorilla shot by zoo staff' is a much better headline than 'Gorilla shot by zoo staff after tearing four-year old child apart.'

Reaper81 wrote:

'Gorilla shot by zoo staff' is a much better headline than 'Gorilla shot by zoo staff after tearing four-year old child apart.'

Meanwhile, about half of the controversy in this story for some folks is that they shot the gorilla and didn't just let the child get killed or maimed instead. I'm all for environmental conservationism... but I have a serious problem with the idea of not saving a child. People however who think the child should have been risked in my timeline confuse me though, as they weren't super happy with the idea of someone cheering at a rally when it was asked if someone without health insurance should be left to die without care.

I grew up in Cincinnati. I remember going to see the new Gorilla World exhibit not long after it opened in 1978. My parents took me and my sisters there a least a couple of times a year.

My elementary school, as with practically every other school in the area, would go to the zoo every year for field trips. We're talking yellow school buses as far as your eye can see. Literally thousands of kids stampeding from one exhibit to the next. And there'd be all of a teacher and maybe a parent or two chaperoning a group of a least a couple dozen kids.

None of us ever fell into Gorilla World.

In fact, until last week no one had ever fallen into Gorilla World. Literally millions of parents had millions and millions of their children see the gorilla exhibit over the years without anything bad ever happening.

So when the boy fell it clearly wasn't a fundamental design flaw in how the exhibit was set up. If that were the case many, many more children would have fallen into the exhibit.

So that leaves the child and his parents. And since a four-year-old can't exactly be held responsible for their actions, that really just leaves the parents.