Razing Ruth's niece adopted by same sex couple

[Guest Anonymous]

If she wants to be anonymous, fine, it is her blog, but if she has blogged about abuse, then she really needs to report it and stop trying to protect her father.

Have you read Ruth's blog? I agree with what you are saying, but from my reading of the blog, I don't think Ruth has said that the children are being abused (except in the religious ways that some states don't class as abuse)?

[Deleted03]

If her father is sending messages saying that he will hurt her younger siblings if she doesn't do what he says, then she needs to forward those to the local CPS. People in ATI already knows her dad has three rebellious children because not only do you have to put info on all your children (even adults who don't live at home) on the yearly ATI application, one of the first things people ask when ATI families meet is about ALL the children. Since she has been in ATI a long time, she will get asked about. We used to hear info about ATI families that we barely knew who had rebellious children. All as "prayer request" but still gossip travels fast in ATI.

If she wants to be anonymous, fine, it is her blog, but if she has blogged about abuse, then she really needs to report it and stop trying to protect her father.

I doubt it's in his emails though. I don't think she necessarily talks about disciplining them physically as much as sheltering them even more, not being able to go anywhere à la Maxwell... Just being more tough on obeying and all and this does not necessarily warrant enough material for CPS. She does not need to come out to call CPS, but I think there might not be enough to call them either. And then there's the choice of having the kids in the system or having them at home... can't really say which one is better if all that happens is a sheltering that would make the maxwells proud...

[Aeryn406]

IIRC, when Ruth first started blogging, she said she wanted to keep everything anonymous because if she did, she'd be able to speak to her mother, who was pregnant at the time with the latest baby. This, of course, was very important to her and I can completely see why she wouldn't want to rock the boat. I'm thinking it might not be an issue of the father imposing negative punishments onto the family, but witholding positive things that Ruth knows her siblings need to keep up their spirits.

[formergothardite]

Have you read Ruth's blog? I agree with what you are saying, but from my reading of the blog, I don't think Ruth has said that the children are being abused (except in the religious ways that some states don't class as abuse)?

No I haven't but people have acted like her dad is abusive and what she has wrote about him will cause him to sue her for defamation of character and stuff. If he is just a religious jerk then, yeah that doesn't qualify as abuse in the state's eyes. It sounds like she is worried that if she publically comes out that it is her father doing all this that Gothard will be forced to fire him because the stuff he is doing is so abusive. If it is just him being super, duper fundie, Gothard isn't going to fire him for that. Gothard already knows he has three rebellious children, so that coming out isn't going to get him fired either, IMO.

If she just wants to stay in contact with her family, that's fine, stay anonymous. It's her blog, but by doing that she is opening herself up to always being questioned as being real. If she gets tired of that, then she needs to stop blogging.

[Rosa]

Given the situation when Ruth first left, I can't imagine there's any need to tell the authorities about her dad. I mean, that went to the police and the courts.

unfortunately, in this country we have the religious freedom to school/raise our kids basically any way we want, as if they were our possessions and not fellow citizens.

[spragger]

Having been in an abusive relationship and putting off a divorce for way too long because of all these horrible threats that were hanging over my head, I find the idea that she is staying anonymous because he father wants her to. You just can't let somebody have that much control over you. It looks like she is still living in fear of him.

However, the job part I get. Her field of study may be liberal, but it was actual an academic library setting that I worked in where we went with one candidate over another because of things we found on Google.

[mrs]

Regardless if Ruth is real or not, I feel like her father would be a prison warden. IDK why? It’s just this evil controling man I have in my head. I feel like Ruth's father is so controlling and power needy, that he is like a prison warder or would make a good one.

Out of pure SPECULATION, I did a google search of IBLP and prison and came across this -> iblp dot org/iblp/news/2004/04/001/

What a surprise 'Character First' is taught in Arkansas prisons.

[NurseNell]

Having been in an abusive relationship and putting off a divorce for way too long because of all these horrible threats that were hanging over my head, I find the idea that she is staying anonymous because he father wants her to. You just can't let somebody have that much control over you. It looks like she is still living in fear of him.

However, the job part I get. Her field of study may be liberal, but it was actual an academic library setting that I worked in where we went with one candidate over another because of things we found on Google.

But since Razing Ruth isn't her real name how would one connect her real identity with her blog? And even if she were writing under her real name why should someone be punished for who her parents are? I can see where a past that included a candidate drinking and driving, stealing, drug use, prostitution, or things along that line could hurt in getting a job but I don't see how Ruth's blog could be held against her. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Guest Anonymous]

But since Razing Ruth isn't her real name how would one connect her real identity with her blog? And even if she were writing under her real name why should someone be punished for who her parents are? I can see where a past that included a candidate drinking and driving, stealing, drug use, prostitution, or things along that line could hurt in getting a job but I don't see how Ruth's blog could be held against her. Maybe I'm missing something.

Well just think about the multitude of different reactions she has received on FJ and her blog and imagine that people who work in HR and Libraries represent a cross-section of society. Why take the chance of putting all your life details on view if you don't have to? Even if her future employers are unbiased and unbigoted, she would walk into a workplace knowing that her entire family history was available via google. And not just hers, but her siblings too.

If I were her, I think my reasons for retaining my anonymity had grown, not reduced over time. Sure, her daddy can't hurt her any more, but there are plenty of people out in the world who might use the information against her or to undermine her position.

I think she has enough loyal followers and supporters that she could afford to go private on her blog if she wanted, and just write for those close to her. But even then.... we have seen some real tosspots here on Freejinger who pretend to be friends with people on their blogs and facebook accounts (think Lina, Meredith, the Maxwells), and then crap on them over here, under a pseudonym.

[spragger]

Well just think about the multitude of different reactions she has received on FJ and her blog and imagine that people who work in HR and Libraries represent a cross-section of society. Why take the chance of putting all your life details on view if you don't have to? Even if her future employers are unbiased and unbigoted, she would walk into a workplace knowing that her entire family history was available via google. And not just hers, but her siblings too.

If I were her, I think my reasons for retaining my anonymity had grown, not reduced over time. Sure, her daddy can't hurt her any more, but there are plenty of people out in the world who might use the information against her or to undermine her position.

I think she has enough loyal followers and supporters that she could afford to go private on her blog if she wanted, and just write for those close to her. But even then.... we have seen some real tosspots here on Freejinger who pretend to be friends with people on their blogs and facebook accounts (think Lina, Meredith, the Maxwells), and then crap on them over here, under a pseudonym.

Yeah, not under her fake name, but if she starts blogging under her real name. Then it will get connected to the name "Razing Ruth" pretty quickly and soon enough the two will be linked together on Google. It unfortunate, but true. It's also true that it could help her get a job under the right circumstances, but I would think she'd want to reveal her story on a case by case basis, and not just all at once online.

There are a million reasons. If she ever has kids. I live in a suburb now and people talk about EVERYTHING. I'm in the PTA and it's just crazy. I just prefer to keep my private life to myself if I can. I don't want it to affect my daughter's standing at school. (Although good luck going into politicis minispragger, I'm sure they'll track something down.)

She doesn't need to be facing lawsuits that will leave her destitute to have a valid reason to stay anonymous IMO. You never know how big things could get in the press. One girl I know was a nanny and ended up on the front of the SMH and lost her job when she came out against some fundies. IDK what happened to her. I think she started painting some of those dolls that looks like babies and sold them in an Etsy store. Those dolls kind of creep me out.

[Austin]

I don't think she's really being pressured to out herself. It's just a fact, though, that as long as she stays anonymous and none of her claims are verifiable, there will be doubts.

[sassyNoz47]

future employers could look at her blog and decide that she gives out to much info and not hire her based on the fact that she might possibly talk about them to. My employer has checked fb accounts and such because we have had problem in the past with people putting info on fb or blogs that should not be shared. We have fired people over info in blogs and fb because they broke HIPPA or confidentiality laws or something against company policy. Remember when Ruth was a nanny? That info alone even though she didn't use real name could be enough to make a employer take a second look.

[Kitchen Princess]

I checked a FB account on an applicant today and I eliminated him because of his rabid Republican political beliefs. I just can't spend that much time with a person I can't agree with.

[NurseNell]

I checked a FB account on an applicant today and I eliminated him because of his rabid Republican political beliefs. I just can't spend that much time with a person I can't agree with.

So much for no discrimination in hiring practices. What about Catholics? Jews? People with handicaps? Smokers? My own preference is hiring the person best qualified for a job, no matter what their political party, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc.

[NurseNell]

future employers could look at her blog and decide that she gives out to much info and not hire her based on the fact that she might possibly talk about them to. My employer has checked fb accounts and such because we have had problem in the past with people putting info on fb or blogs that should not be shared. We have fired people over info in blogs and fb because they broke HIPPA or confidentiality laws or something against company policy. Remember when Ruth was a nanny? That info alone even though she didn't use real name could be enough to make a employer take a second look.

HIPAA violations should be reason for disciplinary action.

What is wrong with being a nanny? No nannies need apply? My grandmother was greeted with No Irish Need Apply when she came here. I thought those days were behind us.

[Deleted03]

I checked a FB account on an applicant today and I eliminated him because of his rabid Republican political beliefs. I just can't spend that much time with a person I can't agree with.

I can't believe you said that O_o

[NurseNell]

I can't believe you said that O_o

Discrimination in hiring seems to be alive and well.

[kb2]

I know a number of people who look down on blogs, in general, and would think that someone who kept a blog was a silly person and become less likely to hire them over that. There doesn't have to be a self-serving reason to not hire someone, like fear of being featured on the blog or fear that the blog reveals Ruth to be an unreliable employee (which it doesn't). If someone doesn't like the blog, they wouldn't like Ruth and could just not hire her over that.

I keep my political opinions to myself because I know, even though I wouldn't be outright fired, that my superiors (and underlings? and equals) would be less likely to help me out.

[holierthanyou]

Discrimination in hiring seems to be alive and well.

I never cease to be amazed at what people are willing to put in writing.

[Kitchen Princess]

So much for no discrimination in hiring practices. What about Catholics? Jews? People with handicaps? Smokers? My own preference is hiring the person best qualified for a job, no matter what their political party, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc.

Republicans are not a protected class.

[Kitchen Princess]

I never cease to be amazed at what people are willing to put in writing.

Again, Republicans don't have any civil rights standing just because they're Republicans. People don't get hired because they're not "liked" all.the.time. It's not illegal.

If I said it was because he was black (he isn't) or that he was male (he is) or that he was Christian (dunno), it would be wrong. But it is not wrong to hire based on whether you like someone or not. A person has to fit in the culture of the workplace. He won't fit in mine.

There is some serious lack of critical thinking going on here.

[NurseNell]

Republicans are not a protected class.

What about Catholics? Jews? Smokers? If you don't like someone's political party, or the church they attend, or their being an atheist, it's OK to not hire them based on that? What about people who are overweight?

If this person were to read what you posted here I think he might have reason to sue you. You said nothing about his qualifications. From what you wrote it was only his political views that made you decide you wouldn't hire him.

I can work with pretty much anyone as long as they are qualified and work hard.

[The Archivist]

What about Catholics and Jews? I believe religion is a legally protected class. So is race. Disability? Disability is also a protected class. Height and weight discrimination is illegal in at least one state and some cities.

So that leaves smokers and members of political parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[BravaAmica]

So if Ruth is so worried about money, why hasn't she written a tell-all book? I'm sure she's been approached by an agent or editor. The beauty of it is most of the book is already written- she'd just have to flesh out her blog posts.

[Kitchen Princess]

What about Catholics? Jews? Smokers? If you don't like someone's political party, or the church they attend, or their being an atheist, it's OK to not hire them based on that? What about people who are overweight?

If this person were to read what you posted here I think he might have reason to sue you. You said nothing about his qualifications. From what you wrote it was only his political views that made you decide you wouldn't hire him.

I can work with pretty much anyone as long as they are qualified and work hard.

What part of Civil Rights don't you understand? Religion is protected in hiring. Hello?

I can hire only non-smokers if I want. Smoking is not a protected activity. It'd be smart to advertise the job for non-smokers only, so there would be no misunderstandings, and it wouldn't be fair to hire someone and then tell them to quit or they lose their job. But I could still have a non-smoking company if I wanted.

If that man had said to me in the interview what I read in his own words on his Facebook page, I would have told him the interview was over. I have to work very closely with my employees, and I am not going to work with someone I cannot stand.

I live in a right-to-work state, which means I can hire or fire for any reason except for those covered by protected classes. I reserve that right, as every employer should.