Friday, April 2


How come we never see that headline, huh? No, I'm not just being snarky - this is a legit journalistic quesion. Why is it that when two people who claim to be vegan raise their kids that way and there's some problem with their nutrition, the headline tars all vegan parents, either by using the construction above, or at the very least, making sure the parents' veganism is the main point of the story (usually in the headline and the lede)? But when it's a situation such as yesterday's, where "a couple with 16 children allegedly abused four of them, sometimes keeping them locked in the basement with a urinating dog," where "the children were allowed to eat only mayonnaise or butter sandwiches, while their parents often dined on meals of steak or pork chops, vegetables and potatoes," where "a 13-year-old boy who is a diabetic often had blood sugar levels at dangerously low levels because food was withheld from him," the parents' decision to HAVE 16 FREAKING KIDS is not deemed central enough to the story to merit a mention before the tenth paragraph? Namely, "We love children," [Dad] told the newspaper about why he and his wife have 16. "We are also pro-life."Well, their concept of "love" is obviously off a bit, so we're left with the pro-life thing. "The boys have for years sneaked out of the house at night to steal food from a nearby gas station. Two boys were arrested in 2003 for stealing toiletries." So these good Christians have turned their children into criminals through their insistence on raising them in this cockamamie way? You'd think there would be a little more probing on that.

Yes, yes, I undersand that veganism is relevant in a story where feeding practices may have harmed a child. Got it. But surely having the child in the first place, after you've already had and abused 12 others, is much more relevant. Without the child being born, there's no one there to be harmed. It really makes one wonder how many of the other parents of our 900,000 abused or neglected children are vegan, and how many are pro-"life."

No comments: