If standard practice is to take the child away, the parents would know something.

I see both removing the child, and swearing the child to secrecy as tools of control. In Kendra's Caribe Leprachaun culture, they were able to exert obvious control over her. In Buffy's Mall Culture, the control was behind the scenes. In both cases, neither girl was truly under the watchful care of her own family. The council had all the knowledge and made the decisions about one of the elements of her life that was likely to have the most impact, up to and including her death.

In both cases, neither girl was truly under the watchful care of her own family.

True, but in one scenario the parents had willingly given the child up. I don't see Council protocol on a secrecy issue here.

Buffy started out outside policy.

True, but in one scenario the parents had willingly given the child up. I don't see Council protocol on a secrecy issue here.

But both tacticts, removing the child, and swearing her to secrecy, accomplish the same goals. The child's family is less likely to be used against her, and are less likely to interfer, and aren't around to protect her. Kendra didn't even really know/remember her parents. Secrecy wasn't necessary, because the CoW could get (more of) what they wanted, more directly.

There's nothing that leads me to believe that Kendra is any more a typical case than is Buffy. Buffy started late, but we never heard Faith's family knew, or Nikki's family knew, and we never got any of that sort of background on the SiTs either. My guess is that in some cultures, the family surrendered the child to community elders (who either were part of the CoW, or agents of) and in other cultures, the child was approached without parental knowledge. It didn't look to me like any of the SiTs had been in training since their toddler years.

It didn't look to me like any of the SiTs had been in training since their toddler years.

No, but more than one of them already had a watcher. They were easily detectable, and there was no indication that there was any trouble getting them to run away to Sunnydale.

Kendra was set up as the uber-typical slayer, I thought. An example of how the Council would exactly like it to go. Which was a failing of hers, as stark counterpoint to Buffy's.

But, my main point stands -- I see no evidence at all for a Council policy of secrecy. That's what I was questioning. Control? Absolutely. Secrecy? Engineered to be unnecessary.

I thnk secrecy can work as a method of control. Just as Wossname Harris Yulin tried to muscle in on Buffy in Checkpoint, by withholding knowledge from her, keeping secrets among watchers, slayers and kin is probably a routine way to enforce power.

Certainly, I can think of two categories of the above who wouldn't allow the 18-year test, if they knew about it in advance. And part of keeping that secret is, the slayers who survive it? They apparently never tell anyone. (Or anyone empowered to tell the next generation.) Similarly, Wossname didn't tell Giles the test was also a test of him, till after he'd failed it.

I think I agree with ita, that Kendra was the Council-Ideal Slayer. (Way to implicitly undermine the council, that their slayer was so helpless on key decision-making.) Faith, we got mentions of her mom being a drunk, so there's a built-in separation for her, from her family. Faith's slain watcher was probably introduced to her as a substitute parent (which would be why she was so overwhelmed when her watcher was killed). Whereas Giles was parent-like to Buffy, but he never superceded Joyce, or competed with her, even when he could be more informationally intimate with Buffy.

Okay, this is just an argument about how Giles is Da Man and I love him, and merely tangential to the discussion.

No, but more than one of them already had a watcher. They were easily detectable, and there was no indication that there was any trouble getting them to run away to Sunnydale.

The were identified by the CoW, and the FE could identify them. To me, that doesn't rise to the level of "easily detectable".

There's nothing to indicate their families knew anything about slaying. (Granted, there's nothing to indicate the families didn't know.) I can't see many parents from the first world surrendering a child to the CoW, to fight monsters whose existence they're in deep denial about. I mean, that's part and parcel of the whole story, isn't it? The world is generally ignorant of the real reason behind snakes in cafeterias, and neck ruptures and declining home prices in Sunnydale, Cleaveland and the like. The world, in general, doesn't acknowledge the existence of monsters, slayers, hellmouths, or CoW.

But, my main point stands -- I see no evidence at all for a Council policy of secrecy. That's what I was questioning. Control? Absolutely. Secrecy? Engineered to be unnecessary.

You don't? Then why keep Buffy's slayage a secret from Joyce, just because Buffy is a late find? Where's the sense in that? I would think in Buffy's case, it would be more believable that child=superhero, because she actually had superhero strength to demonstrate. Were we ever told that Buffy's slayer status was to be kept secret because she was a late find?

Why remove Kendra from her parents, at all, then? Granted, it's not a secret to Kendra's parents that they gave their child up to her watcher for some great honor. By removing her, the details of her mission are, in effect, still kept secret from them. I think Kendra even mentions something about having to keep slayer identity secret, for security's sake.

I'm not saying slayage is always kept secret from parents in every case except Kendra's. It is presented throughout the early years of the series though, as if there is always an element of secrecy--which is a tool of control (even when parents do know, because the child is removed from them). If you told every parent, or even most, of most slayers, it wouldn't take long for the world to know about slayers, monsters and the CoW. In the Buffyverse, it's treated as if only a select few know the real deal.

Secrecy was usually mentioned as part of a reminder that it was necessary to protect both slayer, and her loved ones, and was presented (to me, at least) as though it was usually kept secret. I took Kendra's experience to be the odd case.

Cindy, if Buffy's remaining with her family *is* an exception to the rule, I have no need to think that the Council's dealings with her are policy.

That's all I'm saying. I don't think she's indicative of policy -- the reason she got her show is precisely that.

As for Kendra and secrecy? I submit this:

I don't remember them, actually. I've seen pictures . . . But that's how seriously the calling is taken by my people. My mother and father gave me to my watcher because they believed that they were doing the right thing for me - and for the world. You see?

Sure, they might not have known details, but they knew they were sending their baby off to save the world.

I still maintain, that since she represents the ideal case, the Council's main issue with controlling the Slayer function is ... control. Secrecy is secondary to that -- if you have enough power, you don't need to keep secrets.

Is this 100%? I don't posit that. My point which seems to have been lost is that I don't think there was a general policy of keeping a Slayer's role secret from her parents. We know one where they did, two when they didn't, and many unknowns. And I still think that Kendra is the model case, not Buffy.

Cindy, if Buffy's remaining with her family *is* an exception to the rule, I have no need to think that the Council's dealings with her are policy.

I think we're talking in circles, a little. This started, because I said that the secrecy policy was a nice, subtle, clue as to the corruption of the CoW. Granted, I was talking specifically about Buffy and Joyce, because the conversation had been about Joyce's ultimatum to Buffy, in Becoming. However, I think secrecy, in general, is a tool of the CoW (whether or not most slayer parents are kept in the dark).

You asked:

Is secrecy council policy, or a side effect of them finding her so late?

I think secrecy is CoW policy. Now, neither of us have any evidence as to whether most parents are included on the need-to-know list, so that point can fall by the wayside. But in general, slayage is still kept secret, and I think that's a nice power play by the CoW.

Kendra knows slayage is generally kept secret. I submit this (from WML II):

GILES

Kendra. There are a few people,

civilians if you will, who know

Buffy's identity. Willow is one of

them. And they also spend time

together. Socially.

Kendra takes this in. Understanding, but still puzzled-

KENDRA

And you allow this, sir?

GILES

Well, you see . . .

KENDRA

But, the slayer must work in secret.

For security-

GILES

Of course. With Buffy, however,

it's . . . Some flexibility is required-

So if anything, more people knew about Buffy's slayer status than Kendra's. Kendra's parents were in on the secret, but a secret it still was.

We are definitely talking in circles then. I'm only saying that Joyce wasn't kept out of it as part of a policy of secrecy. That the Council exercised enough power over parents, that it probably didn't have to lie to them.

However, I don't think lying to parents *is* indicative of corruption.

I'm only saying that Joyce wasn't kept out of it as part of a policy of secrecy. That the Council exercised enough power over parents, that it probably didn't have to lie to them.

I still think she was, but I think there's no definitive evidence of that. What then, do you see as the reason behind them not telling her, if they tell the other 1st world parents?

Why would they not tell her, just because Buffy was a late find? I don't see sense in that. My guess (and it's just that) is that it depended on the girl, the family, and the culture (how accepting of authority her family was, probably) as to whether/when parents were let in on the secret. It seems to me that if they were used to telling parents, Joyce would have been told, and there would have been a show-and-tell demonstration, with Buffy slaying a vamp in front of her. It certainly would have made slaying easier for her (and thus made her a more effective slayer), if she didn't have to explain why her homework wasn't done, why her grades were dropping, and if she hadn't had to sneak out of her house.

However, I don't think lying to parents *is* indicative of corruption.

Why not? Some organization of strangers drafts a minor for a mission that is likely to leave her dead by age 25, and you don't see their lies, and encouraging the child to lie (even if it only happened in Buffy's case) to be indicative of corruption? What is it indicative of, then?