FA+
Shop
Why I don't trust Ask Papabear
2 years ago
General
So, a name came into my awareness that I'd not heard in some time today. And while the context of why that happened is beyond the scope of what I'm writing here, it did make me decide to go and check out the website and take a look. It didn't take me long before I found a piece of content that I actually found positively disturbing in its implications. It is poor advice, dangerous, even.
It highlights a total lack of awareness of child safeguarding, lack of knowledge of psychology, lack of ethical consideration for the advice given, and lack of consideration for the real-world consequences someone might experience from following the advice.
It is this: https://www.askpapabear.com/letters.....ts-in-mistrust
Before I do that, I should mention that I have work history (many moons ago now) in youth support services, including talking therapies with (mostly) adolescents who came to the awareness of youth-related charities and social services in the area, primarily as a means of triage for priority and onward referral to more specialised services. This will inform my view of what I discuss below.
The writer discusses that they are a furry artist, and drawing on their computer. They have realised their father has been snooping behind their back on what they are doing on the computer, to ensure they aren't playing games, etc. etc. The writer further discusses that they are fearful that their father may disown (or at least punish) them if the father discovers they are a furry. Reading between the lines, it isn't difficult to see that they may, in fact, be communicating that they are fearful their father may disown/punish them for being queer. The writer then discusses that they are worried that if they try to assert a boundary and ask their father to not look through their art, that it might make their father suspicious.
The writer finishes by disclosing that they are 14 years old.
The analysis
Now, I won't do a comprehensive breakdown of Papabear's response. It is available in the link above. My point in doing the above summary of the writer's letter was to catch your eye with the potential sensitivity of the situation, with regards to the writer. I will, however, analyse and criticise several aspects of Papabear's response below.
Total lack of emphasis on writer's safety
So, to start off with, a bit of personal background. I grew up in a household where it was not safe to be gay, or any kind of queer for that matter, or furry, or whatever. The living situation I was in with my family was precarious with regards to safety to say the least. I had my parents snooping on my computer at times. They didn't catch the stuff I was up to on it, because I was smarter than them. The fear of my computer/internet activity being discovered was always a fear, though. The consequences of being discovered could have been grave.
The writer in this letter communicates this to be a fear. This is outright and offhand dismissed by Papabear who essentially just says "That'd be stupid". I hate to break it to you all, but parents can be incredibly stupid. And abusive. If you are soliciting this kind of communication, where people - including minors, many of whom will be queer - are seeking your advice and shrug off the fear of disownment by just saying "Well that'd be stupid", you are being reckless, and irresponsible. There is little more I can say about it than that, other than it is a total neglect of the duty of care you take upon yourself when you choose to solicit these kinds of communications and respond to them with advice.
Emphasis on open communication
Papabear spends much of the time in the response - indeed the title - emphasising open communication. This is all well and good in a relationship that is conducive to it. The letter indicates the writer is fearful of punishment or even disownment. The letter indicates a parent snooping on their adolescent's computer use in a way I'd perceive as a boundary issue (I'll get onto that in more detail below). These are indicators of an emotionally fearful parental relationship, potentially even abusive. Again there is a clear lack of background in psychology exhibited in the response and comes across as frankly tone-bloody-deaf to make this the point of emphasis in the response. It totally fails to address the reality of the power dynamic of the parental relationship where the adolescent is fearful of reprisal from the parent. It totally fails to acknowledge that it is natural for an adolescent to start to develop a need for privacy in some areas of their life. Which brings me on to the next point...
Papabear has a total lack of understanding that adolescents are entitled to privacy and boundaries
Papabear writes:
"Now, your dad has a perfect right to monitor your computer behavior, but he did so by sneaking behind your back to do it. At the same time, you were hiding what you were drawing regarding furry stuff."
Now this might shock some people to suggest, but an adolescent is not parental chattel. It is natural for an adolescent to start to need increasing boundaries and privacy, and frankly they are entitled to it. It is essential for an adolescent's individuation process for them to be able to do so. Going behind the writer's back to snoop on computer use activity is a breach of trust on part of the parent, and a breach of boundaries. This should, really, probably be the main thrust of the response, alongside the safety issue discussed above.
A parent who is creating a fearful environment for their adolescent child to the point they fear disownment, and not understanding that an adolescent has an increasing need (and entitlement) to privacy, is not one toward whom the advice should simply be that you should be open with. It is, at best, not conducive to the development and learning of healthy and reasonable boundaries in adulthood.
Papabear writes:
"Remember, your dad loves you and wants to protect you. If he didn't, he wouldn't care what you did on the computer."
Or it can be indicative of an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship where the development of normal and reasonable boundaries in an adolescent is not permitted.
The unknowns
I've made reference to things above at multiple points to what we don't really know. We don't really know if the adolescent is really coding that they're afraid of being disowned for being queer. We don't really know if there's an abusive and controlling parental relationship going on here. We don't really know if the writer's fears of being disowned or punished are warranted. And from a single paragraph letter there's no way we can know - though we can certainly read certain things as suspect between the lines. It is impossible to properly understand the context of the writer's situation, their needs, and so on from a letter like this.
This, frankly, is precisely what makes it irresponsible to give this kind of response to a letter like this. It may be well intentioned, but we know the saying about where those lead to. It is fundamentally at the core of why agony aunt (or uncle?) type columns and writing are a litany of bad advice - sometimes even dangerous. The amount of context and information needed to properly understand what's going on here and the advice - or even action/intervention needed - is something that can only be understood from possibly several hours of counselling by someone trained and qualified to do so, and that includes child safeguarding training.
But there is one thing I know and can tell you now. When a child or adolescent states they fear disownment, it should always be taken very seriously on face value.
It highlights a total lack of awareness of child safeguarding, lack of knowledge of psychology, lack of ethical consideration for the advice given, and lack of consideration for the real-world consequences someone might experience from following the advice.
It is this: https://www.askpapabear.com/letters.....ts-in-mistrust
Before I do that, I should mention that I have work history (many moons ago now) in youth support services, including talking therapies with (mostly) adolescents who came to the awareness of youth-related charities and social services in the area, primarily as a means of triage for priority and onward referral to more specialised services. This will inform my view of what I discuss below.
The writer discusses that they are a furry artist, and drawing on their computer. They have realised their father has been snooping behind their back on what they are doing on the computer, to ensure they aren't playing games, etc. etc. The writer further discusses that they are fearful that their father may disown (or at least punish) them if the father discovers they are a furry. Reading between the lines, it isn't difficult to see that they may, in fact, be communicating that they are fearful their father may disown/punish them for being queer. The writer then discusses that they are worried that if they try to assert a boundary and ask their father to not look through their art, that it might make their father suspicious.
The writer finishes by disclosing that they are 14 years old.
The analysis
Now, I won't do a comprehensive breakdown of Papabear's response. It is available in the link above. My point in doing the above summary of the writer's letter was to catch your eye with the potential sensitivity of the situation, with regards to the writer. I will, however, analyse and criticise several aspects of Papabear's response below.
Total lack of emphasis on writer's safety
So, to start off with, a bit of personal background. I grew up in a household where it was not safe to be gay, or any kind of queer for that matter, or furry, or whatever. The living situation I was in with my family was precarious with regards to safety to say the least. I had my parents snooping on my computer at times. They didn't catch the stuff I was up to on it, because I was smarter than them. The fear of my computer/internet activity being discovered was always a fear, though. The consequences of being discovered could have been grave.
The writer in this letter communicates this to be a fear. This is outright and offhand dismissed by Papabear who essentially just says "That'd be stupid". I hate to break it to you all, but parents can be incredibly stupid. And abusive. If you are soliciting this kind of communication, where people - including minors, many of whom will be queer - are seeking your advice and shrug off the fear of disownment by just saying "Well that'd be stupid", you are being reckless, and irresponsible. There is little more I can say about it than that, other than it is a total neglect of the duty of care you take upon yourself when you choose to solicit these kinds of communications and respond to them with advice.
Emphasis on open communication
Papabear spends much of the time in the response - indeed the title - emphasising open communication. This is all well and good in a relationship that is conducive to it. The letter indicates the writer is fearful of punishment or even disownment. The letter indicates a parent snooping on their adolescent's computer use in a way I'd perceive as a boundary issue (I'll get onto that in more detail below). These are indicators of an emotionally fearful parental relationship, potentially even abusive. Again there is a clear lack of background in psychology exhibited in the response and comes across as frankly tone-bloody-deaf to make this the point of emphasis in the response. It totally fails to address the reality of the power dynamic of the parental relationship where the adolescent is fearful of reprisal from the parent. It totally fails to acknowledge that it is natural for an adolescent to start to develop a need for privacy in some areas of their life. Which brings me on to the next point...
Papabear has a total lack of understanding that adolescents are entitled to privacy and boundaries
Papabear writes:
"Now, your dad has a perfect right to monitor your computer behavior, but he did so by sneaking behind your back to do it. At the same time, you were hiding what you were drawing regarding furry stuff."
Now this might shock some people to suggest, but an adolescent is not parental chattel. It is natural for an adolescent to start to need increasing boundaries and privacy, and frankly they are entitled to it. It is essential for an adolescent's individuation process for them to be able to do so. Going behind the writer's back to snoop on computer use activity is a breach of trust on part of the parent, and a breach of boundaries. This should, really, probably be the main thrust of the response, alongside the safety issue discussed above.
A parent who is creating a fearful environment for their adolescent child to the point they fear disownment, and not understanding that an adolescent has an increasing need (and entitlement) to privacy, is not one toward whom the advice should simply be that you should be open with. It is, at best, not conducive to the development and learning of healthy and reasonable boundaries in adulthood.
Papabear writes:
"Remember, your dad loves you and wants to protect you. If he didn't, he wouldn't care what you did on the computer."
Or it can be indicative of an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship where the development of normal and reasonable boundaries in an adolescent is not permitted.
The unknowns
I've made reference to things above at multiple points to what we don't really know. We don't really know if the adolescent is really coding that they're afraid of being disowned for being queer. We don't really know if there's an abusive and controlling parental relationship going on here. We don't really know if the writer's fears of being disowned or punished are warranted. And from a single paragraph letter there's no way we can know - though we can certainly read certain things as suspect between the lines. It is impossible to properly understand the context of the writer's situation, their needs, and so on from a letter like this.
This, frankly, is precisely what makes it irresponsible to give this kind of response to a letter like this. It may be well intentioned, but we know the saying about where those lead to. It is fundamentally at the core of why agony aunt (or uncle?) type columns and writing are a litany of bad advice - sometimes even dangerous. The amount of context and information needed to properly understand what's going on here and the advice - or even action/intervention needed - is something that can only be understood from possibly several hours of counselling by someone trained and qualified to do so, and that includes child safeguarding training.
But there is one thing I know and can tell you now. When a child or adolescent states they fear disownment, it should always be taken very seriously on face value.
I agree with you on most parts. The parent in the story already doesnt trust their kid and the kid has picked up on it. This is a problem. The kid CANT trust the parent or trust on a positive response, hence the fear. Kids that age SHOULD have some privacy. I was 'raised' far more strict than this and thus I have some experience in this field. That kid simply wont FEEL as though they CAN talk with their parent. Its like coming out in a family where you know everyone if very religious and you are likely to be excommunicated if you show your real self.
I get that people need help and some confidence and support, but in this post papabear knows too little of the situation to give this advice. Its coming from a well intentioned place but your analysis of the situation does lead me to think papabear is a little too fast in saying: 'it will all be okay just be open and honest' while knowing little to nothing about what may be going on behind the scenes.