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?

What then, do you see as the reason behind them not telling her, if they tell the other 1st world parents?

Because they have no power over her. Because they don't have time to get power over her, because they need Buffy slaying, stat, and they can't accept denied permission.

Of course, I'm suddenly wondering about not telling Joyce. Do we have an indication that it was a Council mandate? Giles's order? Or did it just turn out that way?

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?

How are we defining corruption, then? Corruption I see as a process -- if it's been a policy since year dot, it may make them evil, but there's been no change in morals. Corruption is degradation, to me, rotting, spoiling.

Can't spoil what's never been fresh.

Because they have no power over her. Because they don't have time to get power over her, because they need Buffy slaying, stat, and they can't accept denied permission.

Okay, that makes sense.

Of course, I'm suddenly wondering about not telling Joyce. Do we have an indication that it was a Council mandate? Giles's order? Or did it just turn out that way?

In general, Giles didn't want Buffy to tell anyone. Xander and Willow found out by accident, as did Oz, and Cordy. Angel already knew. I seem to remember quite a few mentions of keeping slayer identity secret (albeit not specifically from parents). Why they didn't tell Joyce in Passion, got sort of talked around, though. Xander joked that it would cheapen it for the rest of them.

How are we defining corruption, then? Corruption I see as a process -- if it's been a policy since year dot, it may make them evil, but there's been no change in morals. Corruption is degradation, to me, rotting, spoiling.

Can't spoil what's never been fresh.

I agree it was never fresh, but it spread, don't you think? I think the Shadow Men are more guilty of thinking inside the box (if you'll pardon the expression), than of knowingly oppressing slayers (any more than women were probably already oppressed during their time).

They needed someone to fight the monsters. They found a way to get that someone. They did things that were acceptable in their time and place, to get that someone. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption (although it's unproveable, the resolution of the series seems to indicate) to think they didn't want to have to control a lot of wicked strong women, so they just made one.

Then (I see it, as) over the centuries, the CoW and their power grew. If the secrecy (parents included or not, as you prefer) has always been a policy, I can still see their practices in general, as being more evil today, than they were in the past, simply because the worth of woman has changed since then, but the policies never changed to reflect that.

Because of the movie, I've always figured slayer power came with the onset of menses, or after. In many times and places, the woman would have been considered an adult by then. That's no longer so.

Let's say you grew up in a time and place where you were allowed to keep Orlando Bloom against his will, just because you could. When you keep him against his will, I won't necessarily see you as morally deficient, even if I think the fact that it's acceptable is morally deficient. You'd be operating within the moral framework you'd been taught.

If I grew up in Boston, in the 70s and 80s, and had the power to keep Orlando Bloom against his will, it would make me more morally murky (sympathetic? sure, but I digress...).

Keeping him against his will is an evil act, but I'm knowingly chosing to do evil. You're doing what you were taught was acceptable, even right.

Until a century ago or less, not too many people would have thought anything of marrying off a young woman to an older man. She would have had no say in the matter. For much of history, Watchers were operating in that sort of moral framework. Theys wouldn't have thought they were doing anything wrong. Women were chattel. The girls may actually have been married off to Watchers, for all we know.

As women were recognized as individuals with rights, some of the practices of the CoW would have started to be seen as immoral. But the CoW didn't adapt their practices. That indicates a process of rot, to me, and they allowed themselves to rot, because they didn't want to lose the power that the old ways had given them.

In 1800? Sure, take the 14 year old girl. Her father says it is okay. In 2000? If her father says it's okay, you'll have his company when you're up on kidnapping charges.

I'm not defending their choices, just the word "corrupt". If I do as I've been doing for 1000 years, and morals change around me, how am I corrupt? Evil, heartless, self-serving, but since I haven't changed, degraded ... I can't be corrupt.

It's a frame of reference thing.

If I do as I've been doing for 1000 years, and morals change around me, how am I corrupt? Evil, heartless, self-serving, but since I haven't changed, degraded ... I can't be corrupt.

Yes, but the CoW isn't populated with the same people it was 1000 years ago. The institution and power it brought, corrupted modern watchers far more than it corrupted ancient watchers.

An argument can be made that instituion of slayerhood (as it was run) was (in our eyes) probably always corrupt, because it ignored the needs and wants of the slayer. But for must of history, it ignored her needs and wants, in a time where the needs and wants of women in general were ignored.

There comes a point in time when the Watchers themselves should have recognized that some of the policies of their institution were making them do things that were (finally) considered morally reprehensible. Those watchers chose to continue in that vein, rather than adapting to the cultural mores.

It's like slavery. I can accept that throughout world history, otherwise good, moral people owned slaves. They were ignorant that they were doing something evil. Slavery was still evil, but it didn't follow that someone was choosing to participate in something he knew was corrupt, just because he owned slaves.

As times changed, people became aware of the evils of it. This is one of the big criticisms of Thomas Jefferson. He knew slavery was evil, but had slaves. When the evil practices are finally recognized as evil, that's when there's a choice. Change your ways, and get rid of the evil practices, or allow the institutional corruption to bleed over, and corrupt the individual. The individual, even though he realizes (or should realize) he is doing something wrong, keeps doing it, because he wants/needs/enjoys the power. He rationalizes it by saying, "This is how it's always been. If I change this, I lose that."

The institution and power it brought, corrupted modern watchers far more than it corrupted ancient watchers.

Yeah, it's semantics. The people, by my definition might be corrupt (unless they work with the Council because they're that way anyway). The institution? NSM.