Virgin Suicides

[fistfullofsteel]

Who saw this movie besides me? I have a question.

 

[§äñît¥ Pôí§ðñ]

i watched that movie at a really really bad time
so i blocked most of my memory of it

 

[Baoh]

It's been years, but I'll try.

 

[louden_swain]

I thought it was weird!

 

[fistfullofsteel]

since all five daughters wind up killing themselves mostly because of the Nazi mother, can the parents or should the parents be charged with neglect and thrown in jail?

 

[fistfullofsteel]

I thought it was weird!

how so? it was kinda painful for me to watch it because it was very sad.

 

[Baoh]

since all five daughters wind up killing themselves mostly because of the Nazi mother, can the parents or should the parents be charged with neglect and thrown in jail?

Can? Probably.

Should? I would say no.

Why can't I remember the mother being like that? I thought it was the father.

 

[§äñît¥ Pôí§ðñ]

from what i remember, it was fuckved up, but i don't think the parents should be jaailed

 

[fistfullofsteel]

The Nazi mom was locking them up inside the house and wouldn't let them go out and pulled them out of school and made them stay home. She also made them burn their records because she thought it was bad influence. She jailed the poor kids and treated them like prisoners. Is this not neglect? In terms of giving them some freedom?

 

[Baoh]

The Nazi mom was locking them up inside the house and wouldn't let them go out and pulled them out of school and made them stay home. She also made them burn their records because she thought it was bad influence. She jailed the poor kids and treated them like prisoners. Is this not neglect? In terms of giving them some freedom?

Hmmm. Possibly not. Neglect, it isn't. Deprivation, yes. It's difficult for me to judge outright. While I do not agree with the method, I can see why a parent would do it, and no, not because the parent is crazy.

 

[fistfullofsteel]

to give little attention or respect to : DISREGARD


synonyms NEGLECT, DISREGARD, IGNORE, OVERLOOK, SLIGHT, FORGET mean to pass over without giving due attention. NEGLECT implies giving insufficient attention to something that has a claim to one's attention

they needed their freedom attended to and she did the opposite and took more away. the father didn't help much by speaking up.

 

[Baoh]

Using a synonym to qualify as a definition for a term can be considered a variant of circular logic. Unwise in practice, honestly. If you consider them to be the same, so be it, but I do not. As I said, I would consider more an issue of deprivation than that of neglect. That's me, though, and, as I also said, I do not agree with the method.

 

[fistfullofsteel]

Using a synonym to qualify as a definition for a term can be considered a variant of circular logic. Unwise in practice, honestly. If you consider them to be the same, so be it, but I do not. As I said, I would consider more an issue of deprivation than that of neglect. That's me, though, and, as I also said, I do not agree with the method.

trying to clear up my definition of neglect and how I understand it.


neglect. 1. to ignore or pay no attention to. 2. to fail to care for or give proper attention to.

the mom did ignore their right to freedom because they did want to go out and they did express it and she blew them off and in fact she made it worse.

 

[Baoh]

No problem there.

A question on your assertion that their mother "ignored their right to freedom"- How far does a child's right to freedom extend? Another couple questions- How do you provide a meterstick by which to judge this freedom? If it is relative, then what is it relative to?

 

[fistfullofsteel]

to what is considered the norm at the time and what is generally accepted as being very common. in which case the neighbors themselves and the principal of the school deemed it as being incorrect, cruel or just plain good old not cool. maybe in puritan times it was acceptable and very common to do this to your children but it is a different time and the girls knew the other girls are not treated in such a fashion which made it worse for them.

 

[Baoh]

So, then, one should be no more strict than the next person? Do we need to collectively extend this freedom when one reaches another level of freedom? And why? Fear of ostracism?

Could this relate to a lack of self?

 

[fistfullofsteel]

So, then, one should be no more strict than the next person? Do we need to collectively extend this freedom when one reaches another level of freedom? And why? Fear of ostracism?

Could this relate to a lack of self?

one can be strict but to a certain point. when a society at large excepts a certain freedom as norm and to be common or very common and then yes it should be extended. more freedom is good as long as it doesn't harm anybody.

now you might not think that forcing your kids to always stay home and not even let them go to school and by doing so even robbing them of an education is not so bad. but let's say if they locked them up in a room and didn't let them leave except for bathroom or to eat dinner. ok, let's take it one more step, let's say they locked them up in a closet and didn't let them leave unless for food or bathroom. would you consider those a form of neglect? obviously you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Baoh]

one can be strict but to a certain point. when a society at large excepts a certain freedom as norm and to be common or very common and then yes it should be extended. more freedom is good as long as it doesn't harm anybody.

now you might not think that forcing your kids to always stay home and not even let them go to school and by doing so even robbing them of an education is not so bad. but let's say if they locked them up in a room and didn't let them leave except for bathroom or to eat dinner. ok, let's take it one more step, let's say they locked them up in a closet and didn't let them leave unless for food or bathroom. would you consider those a form of neglect? obviously you have to draw the line somewhere.

First Paragrph-

Because society accepts something as a norm does not mean that that particular freedom should be embraced for that sake alone, common, very common, or otherwise. Numbers do not justify the alteration of one's code of conduct. Your last sentence of the first paragraph, though, has more relevance. However, what constitutes harm? Physical harm? Emotional harm? Also, there's also the perception of harm to values. That's an issue which I think you may have failed to consider. Also, this is the reason why I cannot condemn the actions of the parents immediately. They are preserving, or trying to preserve, their traditional values and pass them on to their children. In effect, they are actually attempting to help or "save" their daughters. I will add this, though: Much as Holden Caufield realized, we must allow children to reach for their respective brass rings. If we were to succeed in keeping them 100% safe and sheltered, we'd be preventing them from maturing; from living. Even still, I can't simply knock out the parents, as I realize what they were trying to do- the right thing. Yes, they failed, and I know intentions supposedly mean jack shit if failure is absolute, but I must recognize that they still tried their best.

Second paragraph-

Let me state that the course the parents took is not the same one that I'd take, as I don't want to be perceived as if I actually believe in the method of action utilized by the parents. That said, what you have just described is definitely neglect, as well as abuse, and that is in both physical and mental realms. However, you've deviated somewhat. We were discussing the issues of freedoms, and you just ran the discussion in the opposite direction, making the conditions even worse than the parents instituted. That's an entirely new argument, and cannot be used to judge the actions of the parents upon. Even though I agree with how you feel, I had to mention that, by making the treament hypothetically worse than how it actually occured, you are not providing any more credibility to your stance, as it was simply not involved to that degree in the situation we've been dealing with.

 

[Baoh]

I want to preemptively apologize for any errors or redundancy in the above post. It's been a few days since I have slept.

 

[fistfullofsteel]

I could argue on and on about what is norm and are societies mores and if it should apply to everybody and how it should be applied to everybody.

Here is a better definition of neglect in terms of child neglect:


The role of the family in American society is important in our nation's history and tradition. Society presumes that parents want to and do act in their children's best interest. Based on that assumption, parents have a right to rear their children if they are willing and able to protect them. However, the Supreme Court provided that this presumption can be overcome and cited the incidence of child abuse and neglect as grounds for rebutting parents rights. Therefore, when parents cannot meet their children's needs and protect their children from harm, society has a responsibility to intervene to protect the health and welfare of children.

Child Neglect: A condition in which a caretaker responsible for the child, either deliberately or by extraordinary inattentiveness, permits the child to experience avoidable present suffering and/or fails to provide one or more of the ingredients generally deemed essential for developing a person's physical, intellectual, and emotional capacities.



A study commissioned by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect determined that 64% of the cases of child maltreatment involved child neglect. The study reported 996,600 children had been the victims of neglect during the year analyzed. Breaking the neglect down by types:

Physical neglect is the most frequently occurring type. It accounts for 51% of the neglect cases and involved 507,000 children in 1988.

Educational neglect is the second most frequent type occuring in 29% of the cases involving 285,900 children.

Emotional neglect is the least frequent type with 203,000 children or 20% of the neglect cases.

Freedom is not concrete as providing a child food or water or shelter but it is still a need that needs to be met.


Those girls need to be in school for an education and need to socialize for proper development. I'm not a pyschologist or a socialogist but I'm sure they will give you good reasons why teenagers need to socialize for proper developement.

 

[Nathan]

I think the parents made mistakes, and big ones at that. But I don't think jail is a suitable answer. I enjoyed that movie. I think everything started going to shit before the parents got over-protective when the first little girl offed herself, which wasn't really their fault. They were just afraid for their children and so became over protective.

 

[fistfullofsteel]

I think the parents made mistakes, and big ones at that. But I don't think jail is a suitable answer. I enjoyed that movie. I think everything started going to shit before the parents got over-protective when the first little girl offed herself, which wasn't really their fault. They were just afraid for their children and so became over protective.

I think it was there before hand because remember the psychologist played by Danny DeVito said in his professional opinion that the girl tried to kill herself because she had a certain need to socialize with the people of her own age and teenage boys too. That's why had a party for her, but the damage was done with her and it was too late. To me it seemed like the mother was some super religious nut who just basically over did it and she got worse and worse.