Rosie O'Donnell should be ashamed

[House Cat]

This is sooo touchy but here goes....

I have some conflicting beliefs on this subject. While I do believe in a person's right to privacy, I also believe that certain behaviors breed stigma. I believe that IF Barron has Autism, and IF the Trumps aren't being open about his condition, then their behavior is spreading shame and stigma. They had a choice to be in the limelight. Donald had a choice to run for president. When you make that choice to put yourself AND YOUR FAMILY under such public scrutiny, then you must know that every tiny detail of your life and their life will be revealed. Like I said, if Donald and Melania wanted to protect Barron's privacy, they could have made the choice to stay out of the public eye. They didn't.

I know...this is the ugly underbelly of our country. We want to know everything about our public figures and their families. This holds especially true for the president. I don't make these rules, btw. I am just pointing them out.

I would love for Barron to have his privacy. Then again, I would love for Autism to receive a boost. I see both sides.

Rosie O'Donnell is a pile of crap for attacking this child. It hurts my heart that she did this.

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is sooo touchy but here goes....

I have some conflicting beliefs on this subject. While I do believe in a person's right to privacy, I also believe that certain behaviors breed stigma. I believe that IF Barron has Autism, and IF the Trumps aren't being open about his condition, then their behavior is spreading shame and stigma. They had a choice to be in the limelight. Donald had a choice to run for president. When you make that choice to put yourself AND YOUR FAMILY under such public scrutiny, then you must know that every tiny detail of your life and their life will be revealed. Like I said, if Donald and Melania wanted to protect Barron's privacy, they could have made the choice to stay out of the public eye. They didn't.

I know...this is the ugly underbelly of our country. We want to know everything about our public figures and their families. This holds especially true for the president. I don't make these rules, btw. I am just pointing them out.

I would love for Barron to have his privacy. Then again, I would love for Autism to receive a boost. I see both sides.

Rosie O'Donnell is a pile of crap for attacking this child. It hurts my heart that she did this.

I agree it's a fine line for the reasons you noted. I feel POTUS' general health is something we as citizens should have some level of confidence in/awareness of; his family members', not so much unless it somehow impacts POTUS' ability to perform POTUS' responsibilities, and I really don't think this would.

For me, it's a matter of individual decency and respect for others'. We know the media doesn't have any (as evidenced by Rosie's actions); my hope is that as 'non-media everyday citizens', we DO have and can demonstrate that decency and respect. I would never disclose something so personal about someone as their health - even for so-called awareness purposes - without their express consent to do so. And even then, it's not my "story" to tell; it's theirs.

 

[ruby59]

This is sooo touchy but here goes....

I have some conflicting beliefs on this subject. While I do believe in a person's right to privacy, I also believe that certain behaviors breed stigma. I believe that IF Barron has Autism, and IF the Trumps aren't being open about his condition, then their behavior is spreading shame and stigma. They had a choice to be in the limelight. Donald had a choice to run for president. When you make that choice to put yourself AND YOUR FAMILY under such public scrutiny, then you must know that every tiny detail of your life and their life will be revealed. Like I said, if Donald and Melania wanted to protect Barron's privacy, they could have made the choice to stay out of the public eye. They didn't.

I know...this is the ugly underbelly of our country. We want to know everything about our public figures and their families. This holds especially true for the president. I don't make these rules, btw. I am just pointing them out.

I would love for Barron to have his privacy. Then again, I would love for Autism to receive a boost. I see both sides.

Rosie O'Donnell is a pile of crap for attacking this child. It hurts my heart that she did this.

It is a long standing rule with actors and politicians and anyone in the limelight, that minor children are off limits.

Even the paparazzi show respect when it comes to that.

And if the Trumps were so embarrassed about Barron, he would not have been standing right next to Mr. Trump on election day. He would have been down somewhere in the back of the line of supporters, off camera.

 

[monarch64]

I think they both set a shitty example of appropriate online behavior. I do remember their past feuds, and it didn't paint either of them in a good light, just made them look like bickering children showing their ugliest parts. Rosie is an idiot for participating; now Melania will use her as an example in her anti-cyber-bullying campaign, and with good reason. Because no matter how you justify it with autism awareness, there are still going to be folks who don't think what she did is creating awareness in a positive way. I tend to agree with them--she (much like Trump) lacks tact and finesse.

 

[ruby59]

Did Trump ever talk about Rosie's children. And from what I have read about the oldest, there were some problems there, to say the least.

So I would have to give this round to Trump because he never mentioned her.

 

[Tekate]

Did Trump ever talk about Rosie's children. And from what I have read about the oldest, there were some problems there, to say the least.

So I would have to give this round to Trump because he never mentioned her.

Not that I could find, but he made disparaging remarks about her partner. Truly, he's worse.. so terrible.. and to her tweeting about Barron, I think she was trying to out that the kid has austism aspects and she was trying to show the donald won't speak of it.. they both should shut up.

 

[monarch64]

Did Trump ever talk about Rosie's children. And from what I have read about the oldest, there were some problems there, to say the least.

So I would have to give this round to Trump because he never mentioned her.

Not that I could find, but he made disparaging remarks about her partner. Truly, he's worse.. so terrible.. and to her tweeting about Barron, I think she was trying to out that the kid has austism aspects and she was trying to show the donald won't speak of it.. they both should shut up.

I think you're spot on, Tekate. And I agree with the bolded--they both need mommies to smack their hands and take away their Twitter accounts.

 

[House Cat]

Did Trump ever talk about Rosie's children. And from what I have read about the oldest, there were some problems there, to say the least.

So I would have to give this round to Trump because he never mentioned her.

Not that I could find, but he made disparaging remarks about her partner. Truly, he's worse.. so terrible.. and to her tweeting about Barron, I think she was trying to out that the kid has austism aspects and she was trying to show the donald won't speak of it.. they both should shut up.

I think you're spot on, Tekate. And I agree with the bolded--they both need mommies to smack their hands and take away their Twitter accounts.

My dream....

 

[aljdewey]

I think that I'm puzzled by this whole thread Bc I'm seriously wondering why people are using the term "out" in conjunction with autism. Should autism be a deep dark secret that only parents should know about their children? There an entire movement called autism awareness out there precisely to demistify this condition so that those who suffer from autism can be viewed normally. As long as we keep associating autism with a social stigma or some kind of social taboo, this awareness movement will not accomplish its goal. And precisely Bc Rosie is a parent of an autistic child , maybe she is driven to further this cause. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that egotistical parents view autism as a defect that reflects on their genes, and some even live in denial and do not get the child the proper help. That is what this movement is all about. And at least Rosie has gotten the conversation going.

No, that's not the issue. It's not that autism itself should be a secret or something to be ashamed of.

The issue is that no one should be compelled to champion ANY cause (diabetes, cancer, alzheimers or ANY medical condition) unless he (or she) makes a conscious choice to do so. I don't care what that person's role is or how visible he/she is; that does not justify putting him or her into a position of having to confirm (or deny) someone's medical status.

"Outing" doesn't mean a condition/status is something to be ashamed of. "Out" means being forced to disclose private information (regardless of the nature of it) that one hasn't already voluntarily decided to share.

As someone who has likely been the target of having personal life information shared less than voluntarily, she should have known better than to handle it this way. If she really felt he could help and wanted to lobby for that, there are better ways to go about it.

 

[purplesparklies]

I am all for being out there and being a champion for the families dealing with autism. If Rosie's goal was to cast light on autism and bring attention to the cause, she could have done that awhile back by sharing a video highlighting all of the symptoms and quirks that her daughter exhibits. The problem is in choosing to allow your own child to retain peace and privacy while publicizing what she, a non-family member and a non-expert thinks may be indications of autism in a child about whom she really knows nothing.

Having worked with neuro-typical children as well as children who are diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum, none of the behaviors on this video are conclusive indicators of autism. This is a child of only 11 years old (I think) who has been yanked from relative obscurity and forced onto a worldwide stage. 11 year old boys are often a bit awkward. Physically and socially. Much of the footage was shot very late at night or even early the following day when this child had to be exhausted and just wrung out from all the chaos and excitement. It is despicable that anyone chose to share this video and speculate about this poor child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vintagelover229]

No dog in this fight either way but I will note that MANY people were 'outted' back when being 'gay' was taboo. Actors, athletes, etc. It's taken YEARS and MANY people to come out about homosexuality for it to be accepted as normal, nothing wrong/etc (still a ways to go I realize) the same has to do with autism. There isn't anything wrong with people with what is classified as 'special needs'. I truly believe they are unique just like us all, and have a way of communicating/seeing the world/their gifts that we have left unexplored until recently. Many are highly musical in a way that a 'normal' person would take a lifetime to try an attain, and the list goes on and on. I watched this yesterday, such a wonderful man. I wonder what would have happened had this child been born to not such wealthy parents? Someone to take lessons daily, to help bring about his communicating with his music. The trumps like it or not have a very unique platform to help if their son is indeed autistic-not only in terms of having the wealth to buy him the best teachers to help him thrive but also to bring that type of concept to a larger network of people who have had success with access to specialized teachers who have better methods of reaching autistic children and to bring about that to every school, so each child had a chance to actually reach their full potential in life, and bring their light and unique gifts into their worlds and touching the lives of those who encounter them would be a wonderful blessing to many parents who struggle to find a way to reach their children in a way they are able to respond to. The resourses are just not there for many families and they could really change that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak2jxmhCH1M

 

[Jambalaya]

Other celebs/public figures have also attacked minor children and the press have reported it. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog, and she was only 12. Also, in 2012, a tea party PR exec referred to Obama's daughters as classless sluts. They were 13 and 16.

Not saying it's right; I'm saying that I don't think it's true minor children have always been off-limits.

 

[AGBF]

Other celebs/public figures have also attacked minor children and the press have reported it. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog, and she was only 12. Also, in 2012, a tea party PR exec referred to Obama's daughters as classless sluts. They were 13 and 16.

Not saying it's right; I'm saying that I don't think it's true minor children have always been off-limits.

You are absolutely right that minor children have never been off-limits, but they should be. All children.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Other celebs/public figures have also attacked minor children and the press have reported it. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog, and she was only 12. Also, in 2012, a tea party PR exec referred to Obama's daughters as classless sluts. They were 13 and 16.

Not saying it's right; I'm saying that I don't think it's true minor children have always been off-limits.

You are absolutely right that minor children have never been off-limits, but they should be. All children.

I remember how horrible MANY people were to Chelsea. Everyone in the public eye seems to be fair game for press. Again, I think those living in glass houses need to put down their stones. Trump is one of the biggest violator with inappropriate comments.

 

[ruby59]

Other celebs/public figures have also attacked minor children and the press have reported it. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog, and she was only 12. Also, in 2012, a tea party PR exec referred to Obama's daughters as classless sluts. They were 13 and 16.

Not saying it's right; I'm saying that I don't think it's true minor children have always been off-limits.

You are absolutely right that minor children have never been off-limits, but they should be. All children.

I remember how horrible MANY people were to Chelsea. Everyone in the public eye seems to be fair game for press. Again, I think those living in glass houses need to put down their stones. Trump is one of the biggest violator with inappropriate comments.[/quote

This is specifically about minor children, someone Trump has never made an inappropriate comment about.

And what happened to Chelsea is a poor excuse for what was done to Barron. Kind of like Susie was mean to Jack so I can be mean to Amy.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Other celebs/public figures have also attacked minor children and the press have reported it. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog, and she was only 12. Also, in 2012, a tea party PR exec referred to Obama's daughters as classless sluts. They were 13 and 16.

Not saying it's right; I'm saying that I don't think it's true minor children have always been off-limits.

You are absolutely right that minor children have never been off-limits, but they should be. All children.

I remember how horrible MANY people were to Chelsea. Everyone in the public eye seems to be fair game for press. Again, I think those living in glass houses need to put down their stones. Trump is one of the biggest violator with inappropriate comments.[/quote

This is specifically about minor children, someone Trump has never made an inappropriate comment about.

And what happened to Chelsea is a poor excuse for what was done to Barron. Kind of like Susie was mean to Jack so I can be mean to Amy.

I think those of us who commented on Chelsea were pointing out that minor children are NOT off limits. That's the point of this whole thread right?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

It is a long standing rule with actors and politicians and anyone in the limelight, that minor children are off limits.

This is just not true...Maybe you just notice it with people you support.

 

[partgypsy]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/first-daughter-attacks-sasha-malia-chelsea-clinton.html

I definitely remember when I was a kid, people and media making fun of Amy Carter. Not saying it's right, but it's happened before. And I remember Rush Limbaugh making comments about Chelsea Clinton, calling her the white house dog.

 

[ruby59]

Other celebs/public figures have also attacked minor children and the press have reported it. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog, and she was only 12. Also, in 2012, a tea party PR exec referred to Obama's daughters as classless sluts. They were 13 and 16.

Not saying it's right; I'm saying that I don't think it's true minor children have always been off-limits.

You are absolutely right that minor children have never been off-limits, but they should be. All children.

I remember how horrible MANY people were to Chelsea. Everyone in the public eye seems to be fair game for press. Again, I think those living in glass houses need to put down their stones. Trump is one of the biggest violator with inappropriate comments.[/quote

This is specifically about minor children, someone Trump has never made an inappropriate comment about.

And what happened to Chelsea is a poor excuse for what was done to Barron. Kind of like Susie was mean to Jack so I can be mean to Amy.

I think those of us who commented on Chelsea were pointing out that minor children are NOT off limits. That's the point of this whole thread right?

And what I am saying is that using a situation from the past is not a valid excuse.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Ruby, I feel like we are having two different conversations. You said, in a post I quoted, the media/people know kids are off limits. I am not sure how I can make my point clearer. That is NOT REALITY. You put your family in the public eye and anything goes. Not saying it is right, I am saying your memory/logic is wrong.

 

[ruby59]

It is a long standing rule with actors and politicians and anyone in the limelight, that minor children are off limits.

This is just not true...Maybe you just notice it with people you support.

I am not referring to the Kardashians.

I am talking about children whose parents fight to keep them out of the limelight.

Who do you feel is the exception?

And nice try but I did not vote for Trump or Clinton.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby, I feel like we are having two different conversations. You said, in a post I quoted, the media/people know kids are off limits. I am not sure how I can make my point clearer. That is NOT REALITY. You put your family in the public eye and anything goes. Not saying it is right, I am saying your memory/logic is wrong.

Trump is in the public eye. So his is wife.

And even his adult children may be fair game.

But imo a person can be a celebrity and hold a high office and still keep his minor children's lives private.

And again I ask whose children are you referring to?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Ruby, I feel like we are having two different conversations. You said, in a post I quoted, the media/people know kids are off limits. I am not sure how I can make my point clearer. That is NOT REALITY. You put your family in the public eye and anything goes. Not saying it is right, I am saying your memory/logic is wrong.

Trump is in the public eye. So his is wife.

And even his adult children may be fair game.

But imo a person can be a celebrity and hold a high office and still keep his minor children's lives private.

And again I ask whose children are you referring to?

Several posters have posted examples including myself.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby, I feel like we are having two different conversations. You said, in a post I quoted, the media/people know kids are off limits. I am not sure how I can make my point clearer. That is NOT REALITY. You put your family in the public eye and anything goes. Not saying it is right, I am saying your memory/logic is wrong.

Trump is in the public eye. So his is wife.

And even his adult children may be fair game.

But imo a person can be a celebrity and hold a high office and still keep his minor children's lives private.

And again I ask whose children are you referring to?

Several posters have posted examples including myself.

Obviously, I was asking for children other than Chelsea and the Obama girls.

Chelsea was way before I had computer access.

And with the Obama girls people did not post excuses for why it was wrong. It just was.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Ruby, I feel like we are having two different conversations. You said, in a post I quoted, the media/people know kids are off limits. I am not sure how I can make my point clearer. That is NOT REALITY. You put your family in the public eye and anything goes. Not saying it is right, I am saying your memory/logic is wrong.

Trump is in the public eye. So his is wife.

And even his adult children may be fair game.

But imo a person can be a celebrity and hold a high office and still keep his minor children's lives private.

And again I ask whose children are you referring to?

Several posters have posted examples including myself.

Obviously, I was asking for children other than Chelsea and the Obama girls.

Chelsea was way before I had computer access.

And with the Trump girls people did not post excuses for why it was wrong. It just was.

Nothing about your posts are "obvious." Part Gypsy also recalled Amy Carter. Media existed long before the internet. I am confused by which part you are confused by.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby, I feel like we are having two different conversations. You said, in a post I quoted, the media/people know kids are off limits. I am not sure how I can make my point clearer. That is NOT REALITY. You put your family in the public eye and anything goes. Not saying it is right, I am saying your memory/logic is wrong.

Trump is in the public eye. So his is wife.

And even his adult children may be fair game.

But imo a person can be a celebrity and hold a high office and still keep his minor children's lives private.

And again I ask whose children are you referring to?

Several posters have posted examples including myself.

Obviously, I was asking for children other than Chelsea and the Obama girls.

Chelsea was way before I had computer access.

And with the Trump girls people did not post excuses for why it was wrong. It just was.

Nothing about your posts are "obvious." Part Gypsy also recalled Amy Carter. Media existed long before the internet. I am confused by which part you are confused by.

Media sure did exist. But not facebook and twitter and all the things we have now that spreads this cr*p everywhere to pretty much everyone with a smart phone.

We did not have cyber bullying then either.

 

[partgypsy]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/first-daughter-attacks-sasha-malia-chelsea-clinton.html

I definitely remember when I was a kid, people and media making fun of Amy Carter. Not saying it's right, but it's happened before. And I remember Rush Limbaugh making comments about Chelsea Clinton, calling her the white house dog.

I DO agree that there should be an unspoken rule that minor children are off limits (for presidents, vice presidents kids), just living their life. Obviously if they get duis, etc it will probably be reported. However though I feel there should be respect there, unlike what others have maintained there does not seem to be an "understanding" by the media to have these kids off limits. Even before media was so prevalent media figures have made many comments on children of presidents, many mean-spirited and simply un-called for.

I'm not sure of the motives of Rosie Odonnell. The tweet itself sounded concerned rather than mean-spirited, but as Trump and Rosie have a "history" together I wouldn't be surprised there was some ill-intent.

 

[House Cat]

I think that I'm puzzled by this whole thread Bc I'm seriously wondering why people are using the term "out" in conjunction with autism. Should autism be a deep dark secret that only parents should know about their children? There an entire movement called autism awareness out there precisely to demistify this condition so that those who suffer from autism can be viewed normally. As long as we keep associating autism with a social stigma or some kind of social taboo, this awareness movement will not accomplish its goal. And precisely Bc Rosie is a parent of an autistic child , maybe she is driven to further this cause. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that egotistical parents view autism as a defect that reflects on their genes, and some even live in denial and do not get the child the proper help. That is what this movement is all about. And at least Rosie has gotten the conversation going.

No, that's not the issue. It's not that autism itself should be a secret or something to be ashamed of.

The issue is that no one should be compelled to champion ANY cause (diabetes, cancer, alzheimers or ANY medical condition) unless he (or she) makes a conscious choice to do so. I don't care what that person's role is or how visible he/she is; that does not justify putting him or her into a position of having to confirm (or deny) someone's medical status.

"Outing" doesn't mean a condition/status is something to be ashamed of. "Out" means being forced to disclose private information (regardless of the nature of it) that one hasn't already voluntarily decided to share.

As someone who has likely been the target of having personal life information shared less than voluntarily, she should have known better than to handle it this way. If she really felt he could help and wanted to lobby for that, there are better ways to go about it.

There are so many moms out there who are championing for Autism and other various diseases. Their children are far too young to consent to their moms "outing" them. Their children might not ever understand what "outing" even means. Are these moms wrong for going public?

I know many moms who have discussed their children's conditions in a public way because they needed support and information. This is how healing and treatment options can be revealed. I have a hard time believing that they have betrayed their children's privacy.

I am really sorry that you were violated and had your own personal information revealed.

 

[aljdewey]

There are so many moms out there who are championing for Autism and other various diseases. Their children are far too young to consent to their moms "outing" them. Their children might not ever understand what "outing" even means. Are these moms wrong for going public?

I know many moms who have discussed their children's conditions in a public way because they needed support and information. This is how healing and treatment options can be revealed. I have a hard time believing that they have betrayed their children's privacy.

I am really sorry that you were violated and had your own personal information revealed.

Housecat, I think you misread the last part of my post.....I wasn't violated. My comment was related to Rosie O......as someone who's had details of her life shared publicly without her consent, I would have hoped for better from her.

That said, though, I'll answer what you asked regarding moms who champion or go public. There is a HUGE difference between a parent choosing to disclose information about a minor child in the name of supporting a cause that benefits one's own child and *someone else* who isn't vested in that child's best interests raising questions about the kid's medical status.

A parent has the right to make decisions on behalf of his/her minor child, and that includes disclosure of a condition if s/he feels it will be the child's best interests either directly or indirectly. But no one else has that right. Not the next neighbor with no legal status over the child. Not the child's pediatrician. And most certainly not a talk show host whose intentions are dubious at best considering her bitter, public, and mutually antagonistic relationship with the child's father.

The only people who should be making decisions or inferences about Barron's medical status are his parents, and only his parents. Of course, this is only my strong but humble opinion.

 

[Tekate]

There are so many moms out there who are championing for Autism and other various diseases. Their children are far too young to consent to their moms "outing" them. Their children might not ever understand what "outing" even means. Are these moms wrong for going public?

I know many moms who have discussed their children's conditions in a public way because they needed support and information. This is how healing and treatment options can be revealed. I have a hard time believing that they have betrayed their children's privacy.

I am really sorry that you were violated and had your own personal information revealed.

Housecat, I think you misread the last part of my post.....I wasn't violated. My comment was related to Rosie O......as someone who's had details of her life shared publicly without her consent, I would have hoped for better from her.

That said, though, I'll answer what you asked regarding moms who champion or go public. There is a HUGE difference between a parent choosing to disclose information about a minor child in the name of supporting a cause that benefits one's own child and *someone else* who isn't vested in that child's best interests raising questions about the kid's medical status.

A parent has the right to make decisions on behalf of his/her minor child, and that includes disclosure of a condition if s/he feels it will be the child's best interests either directly or indirectly. But no one else has that right. Not the next neighbor with no legal status over the child. Not the child's pediatrician. And most certainly not a talk show host whose intentions are dubious at best considering her bitter, public, and mutually antagonistic relationship with the child's father.

The only people who should be making decisions or inferences about Barron's medical status are his parents, and only his parents. Of course, this is only my strong but humble opinion.

There is a history of being unkind to democratic daughters/sons of presidents, maybe whoever threw the first stone should apologize, but it happens. Calling the Obama daughters 'sluts' wasn't very nice... we can be outraged but we cannot stop unkind people for saying mean things. Here's a bit of Lush Rimbaugh (aka Rush Limbaugh - a man who has not had children)..

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2014/12/02/flashback-video-limbaugh-calls-chelsea-clinton-age-12-white-house-dog/