MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why I walked away from my family law practice 7 years ago. People like him. A never-ending stream of them, whether they were on Legal Aid or millionaires, and I didn't want to have to deal with them any more.
mischief, difference of opinion is not discouraged here as far as I am aware. Being an arsehole is, of course, but they are not the same thing, although some people struggle to tell the difference.
I am interested in your opinion re context and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(By the way, that comment wasn't meant to discourage the expression of a different of opinion. But you didn't actually offer an opinion. You instead opted to let us try to infer your opinion from a single word: "Context." Which doesn't help matters, really.)
It sounds like he's having a tantrum and i've heard worse, but it's not like Alec Baldwin had some sparkling non tantrum throwing reputation before this.
i love him on 30 Rock but i wouldn't wanna deal with his "well known anger issues."
what kind of context makes it okay for a father to call his 11- or 12-year-old daughter (or son) a "stupid little pig."
Well, it is possible that the child is a stupid little pig, given the parentage.
No, I know, still not OK.
mischief, saying there is no context is not an opinion, it's an observation. Tell us what you think - that's an opinion.
I was that age a mere seven years ago. I can totally imagine circumstances that would cause my dad to flip out on me like that.
Remember: Kids aren't angels. They can be pretty rude, crude, and abrasive. Especially as tweens/teenagers. If she was purposely missing his phone calls for whatever reason (random teenage "i'm rebelling by not talking to you", for example), I can imagine his frustration at being unable to do much about it and flipping out via voice mail. So what if she's twelve? I was a particularly contentious 14 year old. Probably pretty bad at 12 too.
During a pretty volatile time for my father and I, I remember he told me never to ask him for anything again, because I had "gone behind his back" and dealt with my mother, "undermining" his authority. I don't remember the specifics but it was something ridiculous, like telling me I couldn't go on a long awaited school fieldtrip because I "talked back" or something (we had already spent quite a bit of money on it so there was no chance my mom was going to let me miss it), but I have no doubt I exacerbated the situation by... being myself as a younger kid. He's made some pretty rude comments about me, and I've done the same to him. Not often, no, but once in a great while it happened.
The thing is, my dads a great guy. We get along just fine now. It was just a bad time, with very stressful things going on for all parties involved.
Parents are people too. So are kids. Sometimes they can be mean to eachother. Sometimes both of them say things in the heat of the moment that they regret later. Sometimes kids deserve to be yelled at for something they've done intentionally to piss the parent off. Than again, sometimes the parent is completely overreacting to a minor situation. Like mischief was getting at (I believe), we have absolutely no context, so I really don't think it would be fair to judge him. We don't know the circumstances that led up to this.
He is foolish in the extreme to leave a voicemail like that considering the legal difficulties he is experiencing. Yeah, I know kids yank yer chain but under the circumstances that was incredibly stupid.
I have an audio clip on my computer of a similar recording made by the father of my daughter's exfiance. He left it for his son, it is extremely hostile, the f-bomb was dropped repeatedly,and when I heard it (it was emailed to us, long story) I wanted to rip the man's lungs out for being such an incredibly crappy parent. (That, plus we were laughing hysterically at the stupidity of it, after we got over the shock.)
Since when does parenting = abusive language and threats of violence?
Depends on the context. :P
Whatever. I'm not a parent. I'm a kid. All I'm saying is we don't know the context of this specific situation, and because of that I will refrain from judging him. Were he not a celebrity, this wouldn't be "headline" news, it'd be a private family issue, and that also causes me to refrain from judging.
On preview, I will agree with bunnyfire that it was a dumb move given his situation. That's about as far as I'll go, though.
All I'm saying is we don't know the context of this specific situation, and because of that I will refrain from judging him. Were he not a celebrity, this wouldn't be "headline" news
It wouldn't be news, but it would be just as bad. There is no context where that message is appropriate.
There is no context where that message is appropriate.
Not when it comes from a parent, no. One of the worst things about being a parent is having to sometimes hold back on voicing things to your kids, because you are largely responsible for their mental welfare. Calling your child stupid is bad, bad bad no matter how pissed off you are. Calling anyone you care about stupid is wrong, in my opinion.
My brother was a big enough asshole at about that age that tensions in our household had risen to a degree that Mr. Baldwin's message wouldn't have been out of the ordinary. My mother and brother would get into fights loud enough to be heard clearly from the street outside our suburban home -- and our house wasn't that close to the street. And trust me, my mom was the more vicious (she had the benefit of the larger vocabulary, of course).
It's certainly not how I'd treat anyone without some serious provocation, and I don't condone it, but I've witnessed normally calm and collected people get to this level of upset.
This has already been touched on by other people conversant with family law, or who have been parties to divorces, but I think it bears repeating: custody and visitation cases suck. They have the effect of taking all the routine dysfunction in most families and magnifying them exponentially. Once you're litigating your family dynamics in front of a judge, EVERYTHING becomes an issue: who the child lives with most of the time (where does the kid go to school, which parent has more resources and a stable home), when does visitation happen (every alternate weekend, Christmas to one parent, Easter to the other, Father's Day to the dad, Mother's Day to mom, kid's birthday split between the two) where does it happen (noncustodial parent picks up child, parents meet at the local Wendys, or, my favorite, parents meet at the police precinct to accomplish the handoff), who can be present during visitation (must there be a child protective specialist present, can mom's new boyfriend be around, how about dad's new slutty girlfriend, can dad take the kids to his parents' barbeque on the Fourth of July, or is his pedo brother going to be there), parental alienation of the child's affections (did mom leak dad's extremely ill-advised phone message to the press just to score some points), ad nauseam.
Not two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of watching two lawyers duke it out over exactly the same issue that Baldwin and Basinger are dealing with: phone privileges. Dad didn't want Mom calling his home to talk to the kids. Court told him to suck it up. Dad said he didn't let the kids answer the phone unless the caller ID clearly identified who the caller was. Mom said she didn't have a regular landline. Court told mom to get a cellphone, mom said she couldn't afford one. Court told dad to let mom call from a payphone. Dad objected to Court telling him how to run his life. It went on for HOURS. I believe the final agreement nailed down a ten minute window of opportunity every night when mom could call and dad would let the kids pick up the phone.
Exacerbating the problem is the fact that, when kids reach a certain age, the Court declines to tell them what to do. So, for example, an 11-year old might be beyond being ordered to answer her cellphone when her noncustodial parent calls her. It's frustrating for parents who believe that they should be allowed to call the shots, and would probably be able to if the child still lived with them.
As I tell every single one of my clients, if your family life sucks, going to Family Court is only going to make it worse, much, much worse.
The story with Jan Maxwell was legit- it was in all the NY papers (including the NY Times).
I sadly could not find links to the stories I really wanted to post- reports that he tried to charge his way through the scene when Eric Liddle's plane crashed, pulling that I'm So Important Don't You Know Who I Am I Have To Get Somewhere stuff, and that once while driving, a pedestrian (or bicyclist?) cut him off, and he stopped his car, got out, and punched the guy in the face. Those were stories I think I heard on Gawker or from some other man on the street source, so who can tell (I think the latter story is pretty funny, actually).
Lassie, you're right: These cases suck. I'm doing a lot of work with child welfare departments right now. Some of the stuff you hear is jaw-dropping.
But still, even in sucky situations, grownups should act like grownups.
Even after reading all the comments here and on Metafilter, I can't stomach the apolgies for his behavior. Is it a sticky situation? Yes. Should the voicemail become fodder for internet debate by unaffected parties? Of course not. Are the ex-wife and her lawyer are capitalizing? Totally.
But shit, that's no excuse for a father to say things like that to his kid. Ever. He's the fucking adult, regardless of what he gets paid for, and she's a fucking kid, regardless of what shitty parents she has. No child should be put in that situation, publicly or privately.
On preview: No! The kid didn't have it coming! Pre-teens do dumb things! All of us did! That does not legitimate verbal abuse! Corrective action, sure, but not verbal abuse! (And by what measure is "you stupid little pig" NOT abuse?) GAH!
Interesting info, Lassie. I had no idea it could get so complicated in so many ways.
Calling your child stupid is bad, bad bad no matter how pissed off you are.
Definitely. It's tough because sometimes they will simply not respond until you, well, treat them rudely. I feel uncomfortable acting the bossman, but it is needed sometime just to get them to do basic stuff, like getting their damn t-shirt and sweat pants on without 20 minutes of putzing around, ferchrissakes.
It's tough to get the balance, but that is definitely way over the line.
Nothing I said earlier should be construed in any way as my condoning parents who involve their kids in their own drama. Hurtful words should be avoided, not just because of the fear that the other parent will use them against you, but also because of the effect they have on the kids who didn't really ask to be put in the middle of this nuclear war in the first place. (I use the term "nuclear war" intentionally -- a lot of the disputes I see have a certain scorched-earth feel to them, kind of like "if I can't be a part of/salvage this family, I will destroy every last vestige of happiness and normalcy we used to have together.")
In fact, in the fora in which I practice, most judges are very sensitive to this kind of badmouthing of the other parent -- as I noted briefly, it's called parental alienation and it's not viewed kindly by the court. There's at least some recognition by the judicial system that, while the whole ball of wax sucks terribly for everybody involved, there's no reason to force kids to take sides in these kinds of disputes (any more than they already do).
All I'm saying is the kid's father is a millionaire. I doubt she has any material needs that aren't more than satisfied. But I won't go as far as to impugn the character of a random child I will never meet.
Yes, abuse in any form is bad and adults who abuse their children should be ashamed.
From what I've seen of children aged 10-12, and also of the children of wealthy parents, I don't have to work hard at all to imagine the kinds of things that could be said or what events could transpire to make Alec so pissed off, not to mention the tension and distance of the relationship.
I can understand getting that angry, I really can. I've been that angry and more. However, that doesn't excuse verbally abusing a child. Shit like that festers in a psyche.
Mr. Baldwin should spend tomorrow apologising to his daughter for his outrageous behaviour.
"or what events could transpire to make Alec so pissed off"
Sure kids can piss you off to the point of screaming like a freak, but NOTHING can ever justify calling your child names and NOTHING can ever justify badmouthing your ex in front of the children.
And yes I am a judgmental prick as I have said before. Alex is not just a 3'rd rate actor. He is a self centered prick. Mom may be too, but dad definitely is.
kyleg, with due respect, I don't think that net worth makes up for the desolation I sense in people who go through these kinds of conflicts.
In some ways, I think of family court proceedings (among others) as the great leveler -- about two months ago, I watched John Ventimiglia (he plays Arte Bucco on The Sopranos) as he negotiated the terms of his divorce in Brooklyn Supreme Court. Believe me, three quarters of the people in that court room paid him no special attention, nor did he seem to think he deserved any. And this was in Brooklyn, where people definitely knew who he was. I think the prevailing mood in the room was one of "My life sucks right now, so why shouldn't yours?"
I guess I'm saying that, when your family life is going to shit, having a lot of money in your bank account or being famous is cold comfort, even if (or perhaps particularly if) you are only eleven years old. I don't deny that having money can make some things better, but I don't know that it can compensate you for having to watch your parents go through a miserable divorce proceeding.
"but I don't know that it can compensate you for having to watch your parents go through a miserable divorce proceeding"
No child should see their parents slag each other. No matter what has passed down the river if you gave birth to them you need to raise them together as a caring couple. If you can't do that then don't be upset if some folks think less of you.
No child should be called names by a parent. If you call your child names you should be looked down on by others as you are less than human.
If I were the judge in the custody dispute I would definitely make sure he never sees the child alone (at the very least - as an ordinary person, I think this guy may not deserve to see his kid at all) because what's most frightening about the message is the almost total loss of control that it represents - far greater loss of control than an ordinary parent temporarily losing it with his or her kid, given the specifics of this situation (ie: the custody dispute, his fame, his reputation for anger issues, the certainty that his ex would be eager to have this kind of evidence to use against him). He was so uncontrollably angry that even the possible very serious consequences of leaving a recorded message threatening and verbally abusing his child weren't enough to throttle his behavior; what might he be capable of doing physically in an equally, or even more, outraged state?
No parent should be judged on the hasty words of a isolated incident, and most ordinary, good, parents have at times said things in anger that they wish they hadn't, and that are uncharacteristic of their relationship with their child, but if this is at all representative of how he deals with child rearing difficulties, he's a danger to his kid psychologically and even, possibly, physically.
I agree with you, Taz. Listening to that message, I was struck by the stridency, the raw anger in his voice, and the threat that was so clear in his words and his tone. I found myself wondering what the scene would look like when he saw his kid on the 20th - would he yell at her, would he call her names, would he hit her, would he shake her, what would he do?
What I find so sad about this whole situation (as seen through the ensuing dialogue here and on Metafilter) is how people have responded to it so differently, based largely on their own experience with potentially violent domestic situations. For those of us who grew up with these kinds of threats, what Baldwin said sounds drearily familiar to what our own parents said to us when were younger. For those of us who didn't, his anger is shocking and we fear for the welfare of his child. I don't mean to separate the world in such a binary way. Even those of us who grew up with these kinds of threats probably reacted to that message -- I think it's just a different kind of reaction, less parents who talk like this are uncommonly evil, more parents who talk like this are commonly evil, if that makes any sense at all.
I think that this is precisely why a lot of societies have attempted to bar these kinds of interactions with children -- because there's a recognition that children internalize and normalize adult behavior. If they're surrounded with violent behavior, they are less shocked by it as they grow older. If they're not, they retain their capacity to be shocked. I guess it would be nice if we were all able to retain our ability to be shocked.
He was so uncontrollably angry that even the possible very serious consequences of leaving a recorded message threatening and verbally abusing his child weren't enough to throttle his behavior
I was thinking about that last night- in his statement responding to this, he shifts the blame onto the horrible few years he's said. And with the Jan Maxwell thing, it was becaue the rehearsal room was so hot, or something. I almost feel bad for a grown man, a successful rich man, who doesn't get that HE and he alone is in charge of his actions. He either really believes that other people can "make" him get angry, or he knows deep down that he's in charge, and he just blames other people because he's immature. Either way, it's pretty sad.
My thoughts exactly, Lassie. People who have endured abuse do need to reconcile it in some way so as to make peace with their upbringing, and often they do so by normalizing it or even defending it in themselves or others. That doesn't make it healthy or commendable, though.
I've done a lot of work with children over my lifetime, and they can indeed make you feel crazy. But adults need to recognize their differential status and power as adults. When you're losing it with a kid, you need to take yourself out of the situation. No matter what happens, no matter what buttons get pushed, you're the adult. Children, minors, can simply not be blamed for the behavior of adults. They are children. They have not had the benefit of a lifetime to learn to master their emotional reactions and moderate their interactions with other people in a respectful way. It's the responsibility of adults to be adults and to understand the vast intellectual and emotional differences between adults and children (especially ones as young as eleven, not even in the abstract reasoning stage yet!). Nothing anyone said about context or history would render this type of interaction widely acceptable or commendable. I'm sorry to hear from the family caseworkers and lawyers how often it happens, but regardless of the fact that it may happen, I can't ever see it as worthy of defense.
It goes back to the discussion about the VT killings and whether people 'just snap.' This -- a family history of verbal abuse -- is one of those risk factors. I'm not saying that everyone whose father interacts with them as though he is also an 11-year old is going to commit acts of violence, but it's amazing how often people who do become abusive, whether to strangers or intimates or in repeating this abuse with their own families in the next generation, have this kind of interaction in their family history. Family strife poses costs to society that go well beyond the family's internal problems.
When my daughter was a baby, I'd take her shopping and she'd sit in the front of the cart pleading, "Momma, hug! Momma, hug!" with her arms raised and her sweet face staring up at me. I'd reply, exasperated, "NO! No more hugs!" And people would look at me like I was the world's most heartless bitch. What they didn't realize was that she wanted me to hug her so that she could get a deathgrip on my neck (or worse yet, hair) and pull herself out of the cart. I'd try to distract her or deflect the request, but when she persisted, I just had to say no.
This call certainly makes Baldwin look like a heartless asshole--but I have no idea what made him lose it bad enough to resort to name-calling. It's hard to think of a situation where this kind of reaction would be called for. Then again, it would be hard to imagine why an otherwise loving mother would deny her child's request for affection. It just seems a bit unfair to me to judge someone's parenting based on a one-minute snippet of their lowest moment.
It's sad that children (11 year olds hardly have the capacity for abstract thought!) get dragged into situations that have such potential for emotional abuse. It's terrible that such a private moment was dragged into the public sphere. I don't think this situation makes either Baldwin or Basinger look like "the good guy." I am always amazed when adults start acting in such a vindictive and immature manner.
photo by splunge
photo by TheophileEscargot
photo by Kronos_to_Earth
photo by ethylene
