posted February 09, 2007 12:42 PM              

Authored by Kathleen Deveeny and Raina Kelley
Newsweek

Headliner:

quote:

---

Girls Gone Bad
Paris, Britney, Lindsay & Nicole: They seem to be everywhere and they may not be wearing underwear. Tweens adore them and teens envy them. But are we raising a generation of 'prosti-tots'?

---

Page 1:

quote:

---

Feb. 12, 2007 issue - My 6-year-old daughter loves Lindsay Lohan. Loves, loves, loves her. She loves Lindsay's hair; she loves Lindsay's freckles. She's seen "The Parent Trap" at least 10 times. I sometimes catch her humming the movie's theme song, Nat King Cole's "Love." She likes "Herbie Fully Loaded" and now we're cycling through "Freaky Friday." So when my daughter spotted a photo of Lindsay in the New York Post at the breakfast table not long ago, she was psyched. "That's Lindsay Lohan," she said proudly. "What's she doing?"

I couldn't tell her, of course. I didn't want to explain that Lindsay, who, like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, sometimes parties pantyless, was taking pole-dancing lessons to prepare for a movie role. Or that her two hours of research left her bruised "everywhere." Then again, Lindsay's professional trials are easy to explain compared with Nicole Richie's recent decision to stop her car in the car-pool lane of an L.A. freeway. Or Britney Spears's "collapse" during a New Year's Eve party in Las Vegas. Or the more recent report that Lindsay had checked into rehab after passing out in a hotel hallway, an item that ran on the Post's Page Six opposite a photo of Kate Moss falling down a stairway while dressed in little more than a fur jacket and a pack of cigarettes.

Something's in the air, and I wouldn't call it love. Like never before, our kids are being bombarded by images of oversexed, underdressed celebrities who can't seem to step out of a car without displaying their well-waxed private parts to photographers. Videos like "Girls Gone Wild on Campus Uncensored" bring in an estimated $40 million a year. And if US magazine, which changed the rules of mainstream celebrity journalism, is too slow with the latest dish on "Brit's New Man," kids can catch up 24/7 with hugely popular gossip blogs like perezhilton.com, tmz.com or defamer.com.

Allow us to confirm what every parent knows: kids, born in the new-media petri dish, are well aware of celebrity antics. But while boys are willing to take a peek at anyone showing skin, they're baffled by the feuds, the fashions and faux pas of the Brit Pack. Girls, on the other hand, are their biggest fans. A recent NEWSWEEK Poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that Britney, Paris and Lindsay have too much influence on young girls. Hardly a day passes when one of them isn't making news. Paris Hilton "was always somewhere, doing something," says Melissa Monaco, an 18-year-old senior at Oldfield's boarding school for girls in Maryland, who describes herself as a recovered Paris Hilton addict. "I loved everything from her outfits to her attitude," she says. And it's not just teenagers. Julie Seborowski, a first-grade teacher at Kumeyaay Elementary School in San Diego, says she sees it in her 7-year-old students: girls using words like "sexy," singing pop songs with suggestive lyrics and flirting with boys.

---

Page 2:

quote:

---

That's enough to make any parent cringe. But are there really harmful long-term effects of overexposure to Paris Hilton? Are we raising a generation of what one L.A. mom calls "prosti-tots," young girls who dress like tarts, live for Dolce & Gabbana purses and can neither spell nor define such words as "adequate"? Or does the rise of the bad girl signal something more profound, a coarsening of the culture and a devaluation of sex, love and lasting commitment? We're certainly not the first generation of parents to worry about such things, nor will we be the last. Many conservative thinkers view our sex-drenched culture as dangerous; liberals are more prone to wave off fears about the chastity of our daughters as reactionary. One thing is not in doubt: a lot of parents are wondering about the effect our racy popular culture may have on their kids and the women they would like their girls to become. The answers are likely to lie in yet another question: where do our children learn values?

Here's a radical idea—at home, where they always have. Experts say attentive parents, strong teachers and nice friends are an excellent counterbalance to our increasingly sleazy culture. Statistical evidence indicates that our girls are actually doing pretty well, in spite of Paris Hilton and those like her: teen pregnancy, drinking and drug use are all down, and there is no evidence that girls are having intercourse at a younger age. And in many ways it's a great time to be a girl: women are excelling in sports, academics and the job market. It's just that the struggle to impart the right values to our kids is a 24/7 proposition. It can be done, but an ancient rule of warfare applies: first, know thy enemy.

"It takes a very strong adolescent to know what's right and what's wrong and not get sucked into all this stuff," says Emily Waring, 40, a paralegal from San Diego and mother of two girls, ages 9 and 2. Waring says her "mom radar" is always on because she believes negative influences, including entertainers like Britney Spears, are everywhere. "Kids can so easily stray," she says.

Nobody wants her bright, innocent girls to grow up believing "hard-partying heiress" is a job title to which they can aspire. But does dressing like Paris or slavishly following the details of Britney's love life make kids more likely to stray? Educators say they don't believe most girls in middle school wear short skirts or midriff shirts to attract the attention of older men, or even boys. (High school is, granted, a different story.) Sixth graders dress to fit in with other girls and for acceptance in social groups. "They dress that way because that's what they see in the media," says Nancy T. Mugele, who works in communications at Roland Park Country School in Baltimore. "They don't want to be different."

---

Page 3:

quote:

---

Which is not to say that hearing about Lindsay Lohan's, um, "fire crotch" doesn't affect the way kids think about sex. A study published last year in the journal Pediatrics concluded that for white teens, repeated exposure to sexual content in television, movies and music increases the likelihood of becoming sexually active at an earlier age. (Black teens appear less influenced by media, and more by their parents' expectations and their friends' sexual behavior; those who had the least exposure to sexual content were also less likely to have intercourse.) Specifically, the study found that 55 percent of teens who were exposed to a lot of sexual material had intercourse by 16, compared with only 6 percent of teens who rarely saw sexual imagery in the media. That jibes with what many Americans fear: 84 percent of adults in the NEWSWEEK Poll said sex plays a bigger role in popular culture than it did 20 or 30 years ago, and 70 percent said that was a bad influence on young people.

Many factors affect kids' sexual behavior, and it may be that kids who are already considering sex are more likely to seek out sexy shows and music. But researchers say one of the strongest predictors of early intercourse is the impression—real or imagined—that everybody else is doing it. For some teens, especially those who aren't getting strong messages about abstinence from their parents, the media can become a sort of "sexual superpeer," according to Jane D. Brown, a journalism professor at UNC Chapel Hill, and an author of the Pediatrics study. The message, says Brown, is that "you can walk around with no clothes on, you can have sex with whoever shows up, you can have a baby and not be married."

Some observers think the real effect of the Brit Pack on our culture is more subtle, but no less negative. Rather than instantly inspiring kids to rush and have sex, out-of-control celebs create a sense of normalcy about behavior—drinking, smoking, casual sex—that is dangerous for teens. Britney, Paris and Lindsay have no shortage of "boyfriends" but seem to have few real relationships. "It creates a general sense that life is about being crazy, being kooky, having fun and not carrying on serious relationships," says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at Notre Dame. But the really insidious consequence is that teenagers often consider themselves immune to these influences. "They don't have enough perspective on how they are being formed by the world around them—and when they don't realize it, it can be more powerful," he says.

Still, this seems like a lot to place on the slender shoulders of Nicole Richie and her frenemies. That some girls dress like Paris/Britney/Lindsay is empirically true. But it's difficult to draw a straight line between the behavior of celebrities and the behavior of real girls. "We certainly don't see our girls clamoring to get to downtown Chicago to the clubs," says Mark Kuzniewski, principal of Aptakisic Junior High in Buffalo Grove, Ill. And while girls may admire Britney's clothes and dance moves, her students "can't understand why Britney would wear no underwear," says Michelle Freitag, fifth-grade teacher in suburban Chicago. Their verdict: Britney is a "hootch," which is a polite way of saying "**** ."

---

Page 4:

quote:

---

Our anxiety about girls and sex is growing just as the statistics seem to be telling as different story. Sex surveys are notoriously unreliable, but the best available data show that the average age of first sexual intercourse for girls is 17, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and hasn't changed by more than a few months in 20 years. The overall teenage pregnancy rate in 2002, the most recent available, was down 35 percent from 1990, according to the Centers for Disease Control. And while celebrity idols stumble in and out of rehab, the rates of drinking, smoking and overall drug use among teenage girls have declined in recent years, says the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

Girls born after 1990 live in a world where they have ready access to organized sports, safe contraception and Ivy League colleges. Yale didn't admit women until 1969; its freshman class is currently half female. In the 2004-2005 school year, women earned 57 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded and 59 percent of master's degrees. The Congress now has 90 female members—the highest in history—with 16 in the Senate and 74 in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Hillary Clinton, our first viable female presidential candidate, has thrown her hat into the ring.

Dan Kindlon, a professor of child psychology at Harvard and author of "Alpha Girls," calls these girls the daughters of the revolution, the first generation that is reaping the full benefit of the women's movement. "Sure, there are plenty of girls with big problems out there," he says. "Like the 'Girls Gone Wild' videos. But what percentage of the college population is that?" There is still plenty of pressure to be beautiful and thin, he adds, but now there are more options. Girls can define themselves as athletes or good students. For better or for worse, it may also be that they now feel entitled to dress as crassly as they choose, date unwisely and fall down drunk, the way men have since the dawn of time.

That's at least how long parents have worried about how their children would turn out. The text on a Sumerian tablet from the village of Ur (located in modern-day Iraq) says: "If the unheard-of actions of today's youth are allowed to continue, then we are doomed." Certainly, queens and noblewomen have long gotten away with behaving badly: in the early 16th century, Anne Boleyn not only had an affair with the King of England, Henry VIII, but helped persuade him to throw the Roman Catholic Church out of the country (although we all know how that ended). Their daughter, Elizabeth I, was the "virgin queen" who slept around.

But for most of history, average women who had sex outside the vows of marriage were subject to banishment, beating or death. When Jesus said, "If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," he was protecting a woman caught in adultery. In her book "Promiscuities," Naomi Wolf recalls a searing image she came across in her research: a photo of the mummified remains of a 14-year-old German girl from the first century A.D.: "Her right arm still clutched the garrote that had been used to twist the rope around her neck. Her lips were open in an 'O' of surprise or pain ... " Historians had concluded that the girl had been blindfolded, strangled and drowned, most likely as retribution for "adultery," or what we would now call premarital sex.

---

Page 5:

quote:

---

Until after the Civil War, women didn't have enough freedom to create much of a public scandal. By the turn of the century, however, the Industrial Revolution had transformed the lives of adolescent daughters of working-class families. Once confined to home, young white women could now work in offices, stores and factories, where they enjoyed unprecedented social freedoms—much to the chagrin of their parents and social critics. Young African-American women didn't have the same economic opportunities, but did gain new autonomy as they fled farms in the South to live and work in Northern cities.

Meanwhile, improved literacy along with technological advances like the wireless telegraph and radio gave rise to a national media. By 1900, there were more than 16,000 newspapers in the United States; circulation numbers at the biggest topped 1 million. Keeping a dirty little secret had become much, much harder. By the time the 1920s rolled around, bad girls could grow up to become not just the destroyers of men (in the tradition of Salome and Delilah), but also to be rich and famous.

Mae West, best remembered for one-liners like "If you don't like my peaches, why do you shake my tree," may have been the original bad girl of the 20th century. Born in Brooklyn in 1893, she wrote and starred in bawdy theatrical productions, delighting and scandalizing audiences. She went too far, however, when she wrote a play called "Sex," about waterfront hookers and pimps, which became a national hit. In 1927, the New York production was raided and she was arrested, convicted of a performance that "tended to corrupt the morals of youth and others," and sentenced to 10 days in jail, according to The New York Times. Seven years later she was featured on the cover of NEWSWEEK for a story titled "The Churches Protest," which called her the "personification of Hollywood's sins."

Gypsy Rose Lee, born in 1914, followed closely on Mae West's spike heels. A burlesque superstar, Lee's shows at Minsky's Winter Garden in New York in the 1930s were a sensation. Before a congressional committee in 1937, Herbert Minsky, who co-owned the theater, called Lee "one of the most highly publicized stars in the country." According to a Washington Post account, "A momentary hush fell on the hearings ... The name of Gypsy Rose Lee had been mentioned." Despite her fame—and $2,000-a-week salary—Lee was arrested numerous times by the NYPD for public indecency, once allegedly protesting, "I wasn't naked. I was completely covered by a blue spotlight."

By the '50s, both Hollywood and the public took a harsh view of female stars' off-screen indiscretions. In 1950, Ingrid Bergman was America's sweetheart, having starred in "The Bells of St. Mary's" and "Notorious." But when Bergman, then married, had an affair with director Roberto Rossellini, who was also married, and gave birth to their child, she was shunned by Hollywood and called "a powerful influence for evil" on the floor of the Senate. (Hollywood "forgave" Bergman a few years later by giving her an Oscar for "Anastasia.") After news broke that Marilyn Monroe would be featured in a nude calendar, Hollywood proclaimed her career DOA. (She was on the cover of Life magazine a month later, and went on to the biggest roles of her career.)

---

Page 6:

quote:

---

America was scandalized in 1962 when Elizabeth Taylor cheated on Eddie Fisher with Richard Burton during the filming of "Cleopatra." The Vatican denounced her as "a woman of loose morals." When "Dickenliz," as they were known, checked into a Toronto hotel, protesters marched outside with signs that read DRINK NOT THE WINE OF ADULTERY, according to a 1964 NEWSWEEK article. But soon America's priorities shifted. The Vietnam War was on television; the civil-rights movement was in the streets, and the national mood had been sobered by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. The '60s also brought reliable contraception in the form of the birth-control pill and ushered in the sexual revolution. We no longer needed to look to Hollywood for bad influences; the girl next door, the one with birth-control pills and a couple of joints tucked into her fringed purse, became the new object of our anxiety.

America had become harder to shock—until 1984, that is, when Madonna showed up in a wedding dress at the first MTV Video Music Awards and sang "Like a Virgin" while writhing on the floor. When her "Virgin" tour opened a year later, parents fretted over the hordes of Madonna wannabes who thronged her concerts dressed in tatty lace, spandex and armfuls of black rubber bracelets. The Material Girl went on to outrage both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church in 1986 with her single "Papa Don't Preach," about a pregnant teenager. The 1992 coffee-table book called "Sex," which glorified nearly every sexual fetish you can think of, cemented her title as the Queen of Bad Girls. Eleven years later she passed on her crown to Britney with a lingering French kiss on the stage of yet another MTV Video Music Awards ceremony.

And Brit, as we know, has run with it. One-day marriages aside, why wouldn't girls be fascinated by her and her celebrity pals? These 21st-century "bad influences" are young, beautiful and rich, unencumbered by school, curfews or parents. "They've got great clothes and boyfriends. They seem to have a lot of fun," explains Emma Boyce, a 17-year-old junior at Louise S. McGehee School in New Orleans. But fascination and admiration are two very different things. As they get arrested for driving drunk and feuding with their former BFFs, the Brit Pack makes it easy for young women like Boyce, a top student and accomplished equestrian, to feel superior to them. "My friends and I look at them to laugh at them," adds Boyce. "Our lives seem pretty good by comparison. We're not going to rehab like Lindsay."

Boyce says she and her friends have simply outgrown their devotion to celebrities. Twelve- to 14-year-olds are probably the most vulnerable to stars' influence. "Clearly it is at this age for girls that they are trying to find an identity to associate with," says Kuzniewski, the junior-high principal from Buffalo Grove, Ill. "It seems desirable to be Lindsay Lohan." Now that's a legitimate cause for parental concern. But it may very well be fleeting. After all, have you read your junior-high journals lately? Like us, you were probably obsessed with trivial things that had little bearing on the person you became at 24 or 34. Even if your daughter does dress like Paris or behave like Lindsay, that doesn't mean she's doomed to a life on the pole. Plenty of high-school bad girls (us, for instance!) grow up to be successful professionals with happy home lives.

And as much as we hate to admit it, we grown-ups are complicit. We're uncomfortable when kids worship these girls, yet we also love US magazine; we can't get enough of YouTube videos or "E! True Hollywood Stories." So rather than wring our hands over an increase in 17-year-olds getting breast implants, what if we just said no? They're minors, right? And while we worry that middle-schoolers are dressing like hookers, there are very few 11-year-olds with enough disposable income to keep Forever 21 afloat. The greatest threat posed by these celebrity bad girls may be that they're advertising avatars, dressed by stylists and designers, who seem to live only to consume: clothes, cell phones, dogs and men. But there's good news: that problem is largely under the control of we who hold the purse strings.

And even if our adolescents pick up a few tricks from the Brit Pack, we have a big head start on them. We begin to teach our kids values while they're still in diapers. "Kids learn good morals and values by copying role models who are close to them," says Michele Borba, author of "Teaching Moral Intelligence." Experts say that even the most withdrawn teens scrutinize their parents for cues on how to act. So watch your behavior; don't gossip with your friends in front of the kids and downplay popularity as a lifetime goal. Parents need to understand and talk about the things that interest their kids—even if it's what Paris is wearing—without being judgmental. That makes it easier for kids to open up. "The really subtle thing you have to do is hear where they are coming from, and gently direct them into thinking about it," says Borba. That means these celebrities gone wild and all their tabloid antics can be teachable moments. Lesson No. 1: wear underwear.

---

(comments and thoughts would be lovely and much appreciated on this buzzing topic)

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted February 09, 2007 03:08 PM              

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted February 09, 2007 03:22 PM            

And, what role do you assign to parents in this endeavor? Primary, little, none?

posted February 09, 2007 05:13 PM              

quote:

---

Really?
And, what role do you assign to parents in this endeavor? Primary, little, none?

I only ask because you didn't specify. Apparently, they are supposed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps

---

well i didn't specify because i personally; usually warm up to something before i dish out all the details. Yes parents are important, but the fact of the matter is, the parents influence upon the childs perception of what is right and what is wrong, has to be a direct result of the parents relationship to child, depending upon the relationship, the circumstance and condition of the relationship will determine the influence the parent has on the childs societal views.

so theres no definitive 'primary, little, none'. Its what they make it to be.

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted February 09, 2007 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Tweens adore them and teens envy them. But are we raising a generation of 'prosti-tots'?

---

Yes we really are...i was working in a day camp a few years back (about 4) and these young girls of 8 were running around trying to be sexy and dance sexy and kiss boys and all that. In skimpy clothing it was just gross.

Now my kid would admire Angelina Jolie if i ever had one I personally despise Brit, Paris and Lindsey.

quote:

---

young girls who dress like tarts, live for Dolce & Gabbana purses and can neither spell nor define such words as "adequate"?

---

I am sorry I find them a worthless disgrace...because in the REAL world guys just use and throw out chicks like that. A real woman must be confident, smart and have hobbies that dont include matching her shoes with her purse...The joke is Paris Hilton is not confident one bit and it shows. No trully confident, self respecting woman would seek approval so much...

quote:

---

young girls who dress like tarts, live for Dolce & Gabbana purses and can neither spell nor define such words as "adequate"?

---

Im sorry but I thoroughly disagree. It all depends on the environment the kid is raised in and what they are familiar with. Its okay to like a movie and a celebrity but we do not give our kids enough credit. Many of them would prefer to like people who actually accomplished something other than fame.
How ironic is it that the word fame comes from the latin root that means "rumors".

quote:

---

any conservative thinkers view our sex-drenched culture as dangerous; liberals are more prone to wave off fears about the chastity of our daughters as reactionary.

---

Hey how about the good old middle...I would prefer people to be able to express themselves freely in whatever way they like.

quote:

---

Here's a radical idea—at home, where they always have.

---

Yea seriously...values are not learned on MTV

My solution to this problem is --- teach them at home what values are. Don't tell them sex is bad or wrong, explain in full scientific detail what it is and what its about when they hit puberty. Tell them they should feel comfortable with themselves and never be pressured and STOP freaking out about pop culture...i know what i say sounds mean but if a kid is THAT easily influenced by a person they saw on TV imagine what happens when their classmate offers them pot...now tell ur kid to grow a freaking spine...I would also want my child to take up martial arts or some kind of dacing/music talent, stuff like that disciplines kids nicely.

quote:

---

Yes parents are important, but the fact of the matter is, the parents influence upon the childs perception of what is right and what is wrong, has to be a direct result of the parents relationship to child, depending upon the relationship, the circumstance and condition of the relationship will determine the influence the parent has on the childs societal views.

---

Excactly...so censoring sl*ts on tv isnt going to make this situation any better. Women should take parenting classes as soon as they are pregnant with their first kid or at least read up on parenting strategy. Child psychology should be a college requirement. Parents are supposed to have open communication with their kids. So their kid isnt afraid to tell them "hey mom/dad Im having sex at 14". There is less chance they will make a mistake that way.

posted February 10, 2007 07:18 AM            

Seriously, do that many parents really allow their children to watch that much tv and uncensored at that? Why?
It is a parent's responsibility to "shelter" their children. That's a big part of the job. And yet I hear it all the time ... watching tv isn't so bad, it's not that big an influence, yada yada. Same with the radio or magazines, etc. Modern media has become the free babysitter and it's because parents have let it.
I've seen parents "supervising" their kids (grade school) in their front lawns ... parents are drinking beer (or another poison of their choice) and/or smoking and the kids are dancing and singing along to whatever is playing on the radio. It's like they don't realize or don't care about (1) the example they're setting and (2) the fact that their kids are singing and dancing along to sexually suggestive and/or violent lyrics.
And then how they WHINE about their kids not doing their homework or their chores ... their kids spend too much time with their friends ... their kids never want to do anything that even remotely involves nature or exercise and only want to watch tv or play on the computer, etc.
Then it's "society's" fault and the environment at school is not right and other people's children are bad influences.
When did children lose the right to just be children? Are parents so "busy" that they forget that their children, starting at birth really, need to be provided with a safe, calm, gentle and soothing environment that encourages their imagination? You know ... real play ... imagining things out of other things ... a basket can be a cradle or a bath tub for a simple homemade doll ... tree branches and bits of wood can become tables, houses, cars ... a blue blanket can be an ocean, etc. Instead we have children so brain fried from constant overstimulation from their parents' televisions (unabashadly worshipped as the focus point of so many living or family rooms), radios, computers, electronic toys, plastic ready made "entertainment" toys, toys that are meant to be operated or admired but not actually and creatively played with ...
Then try telling that to one of those parents.

You mean I have to play with my kids?
I don't have time for that ... they'll figure it out for themselves.

I have to set a good example for them because they learn by imitation?
But that's unfair, I should be able to do what I want, when I want. I'm the adult.

I should manage our household to provide a safe, quiet environment and many opportunities for creative play for our children?
That's just too much effort ... tv's not that bad, really. At least they're quiet when they watch tv.

I need to stick to some kind of routine that my kids find comfort in and that promotes their healthy, natural development like regular feeding, nap, bath and bed times?
That's just too much work, you're asking too much. I don't want to "baby" my children, they'll be spoiled.

We should spend time in nature together, exploring and playing?
I'm just too busy for that. They're fine being shuffled endlessly from one regimented "fun" activity/group to another.

And, of course, anything as "old fashioned" as observing holidays and seasonal cycles, making homemade toys and crafts, making taking care of our home a fun task to enlist the children in, eating meals together with the tv off, etc. on a regular basis is out of the question. That's why we have technology, duh.

Sorry for the rant but it's exactly what I've been around since our son was born and it's aggravating. Everyone wants you to listen to them complain but nobody actually wants to do anything to change their routines or activities. No parent I've talked to admits that the gigantic weight of responsibility for their bratty or lazy or rude or overweight or completely devoid of imagination child lays on themselves as parents. It's always someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility. As though the children are someone else's, too.
When did people get "too busy" for their own kids and home life? And if you are "too busy", why did you have kids in the first place?

I'll shut my rant off now. I didn't mean to go on so long. Sorry. It's just one of those things. Maybe if enough of us raise our kids differently then a trickle effect will take place involving their kids and their grandkids and on and on. Then one day most kids will have their parents and teachers as their role models instead of tabloid queens and the like. Just imagine, children playing outdoors again ... kickball or frisbee, tag or statues. Romping through the "woods" in your yard searching for faeries and building castles or forts from trees or snow. Children with their own little gardens with sunflower fences and runner bean teepees. Children that not only know how to but enjoy crafting, like knitting or wood working.
Ok, really, I'm stopping now.

posted February 10, 2007 10:41 AM              

What really ticks me off is the theory that the danger of endless amounts of media exposure can somehow be mitigated by the parents. No, no, no. I won't get into wild speculations about plans to eliminate the middle class and basic family structure, to create a mindless, sheep-like populace eager to be spoonfeed whatever big business and big government see fit to shove down their throats rather than *gasp* think for themselves and possibly go against in the grain ... so forth and so on because I know conspiracies make ole' Jwhop nervous but at the very least the media is designed to unduly influence your child. Children are the markets easiest entry point into the household and the parent's wallet.

posted February 10, 2007 11:20 AM              

On May 7-11, marketers from all over the world will gather at the Disney Yacht Club in Orlando at the 13th annual Kid Power Conference and Awards. Kid Power, of course, means purchasing power—it is estimated that children under twelve spend more than $30 billion on purchases and influence more than $500 billion in purchases per year. Given these staggering figures, it's not surprising that Disney, Nickelodeon, Scholastic, and other major marketers to children are gathering for a week of networking and presentations on the latest market research.

For those of us, however, who are not in the business of selling to children, there is something profoundly disturbing about Kid Power and other conferences devoted to helping people market to children. When CCFC's co-founder Dr. Susan Linn attended the Advertising and Promoting to Kids conference in 2002, she was struck by the fact that it was the only conference about children she'd ever been to where no one was talking about what was best for them.

Among themselves, marketers don't have to pay lip service to concerns that child-directed marketing undermines parents, efforts to raise healthy children and contributes to childhood obesity, youth violence, precocious and irresponsible sexuality, and children's diminished capacity to play creatively. Instead, they can focus all their energy on how to exploit children for profit.

Take Firefly Mobile, for instance. Firefly has marketed its phone for preteens as an essential safety device and a way for parents to keep tabs on their children. But it's not the safety features that Firefly will be talking about at Kid Power. Fred Bullock, Firefly's Chief Marketing Officer will discuss the "unique characteristics of wireless communications for kids" and the implications for "marketers and content developers." Cell phones, it seems, are a pretty good way for marketers to stay in constant contact with your kids too.

Bullock will also be part of panel that asks, "Are Kids Getting Older Younger?" In another context, such a panel might entail a serious look at how the various academic and social pressures facing children today are affecting children's well-being. For marketers, however, the oft-repeated mantra "Kids are getting older younger" is a simply an excuse to market sex and violence to younger children.

At "Untapping Kid-fluence", marketers will learn how "kids wield increasing power in families' choice of traditional consumer packaged goods to more non-traditional choices like the family car or vacation destination." But you can bet that no one will be asking if this increased power is a good thing, whether kids should be involved in car purchases, or whether families are well-served by having their children lobby for vacation destinations they've seen advertised on Nickelodeon. Instead, marketers will learn to leverage "the best ways to tap into and use kids' negotiation power." In other words, they'll learn how to get to kids to nag more effectively for their brands.

In fact, just about everything objectionable about child-directed marketing will be on display at Kid Power. Concerned about the growing corporate presence in schools? At "Eyes Up Front Please. Getting Your Message to Kids in the Classroom" marketers will learn how to create "materials that align with National Standards so that the programs are a ‘need' to teach and not a ‘want to teach'". Appalled by the gendered messages that marketers sell to children? At Kid Power, marketers will learn how to create a "lifestyle brand" from Disney Princess. Horrified by children's nonprofits that sell out children and families by collaborating with exploitative corporations? At Kid Power, marketers will learn about "Partnering with Organizations and Building Alliances" from US Youth Soccer Director of Marketing Chris Branscome. It was under Branscome's watch that US Youth Soccer partnered with the lawn care company ChemLawn and sent mailings that were designed to get young soccer players to nag their parents for ChemLawn's potentially toxic products.

And then there are the awards. At Kid Power, marketers will actually celebrate and honor their peers for manipulating young children (only ads aimed at children twelve and under are eligible). According to the Kid Power website, campaigns are evaluated based on the following criteria:

Objective: the goal of the campaign
Strategy: how unique, compelling and insightful
Creativity: strategy and originality
Implementation: quality of campaign execution
Effectiveness

Notice anything missing? Campaigns are not judged on whether they positively or negatively influence children. There is no evaluation of the message – whether it implies that children need a product to be happy or popular; whether it propagates gender or racial stereotypes - or even whether the product being advertised is good for children. That's why, in the midst of growing concerns about the role junk food marketing plays in the childhood obesity epidemic, last year's winner of the Best Campaign in Food and Beverage category was Burger King.

As disturbing as the Kid Power Conference and Awards are, they offer an important lesson: If we are serious about protecting children from exploitative marketing, we cannot look to the marketing industry to take the lead or expect self-regulation to work. It is clear from the way the child marketers talk to each other and evaluate their peers, that the well-being of children is simply not a priority. It is up to those of us who value children for more than what they can buy to advocate for policies that will limit corporate marketers' access to children. If we really want to empower our kids, we'll allow them to grow up without being undermined by commercial interests.

posted February 10, 2007 12:04 PM            

quote:

---

I personally know possibly ... possibly ... 10 or so adults that I wouldn't consider impressionable

---

posted February 10, 2007 01:25 PM              

I don't necessarily feel fascination equals respect, mind you. My point isn't so much Why do we all love Paris Hilton? I realize we'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does - or is willing to adimit it. My point is Why the constant media barrage of Paris Hilton? And why do we allow our children to be subjected to that barrage of all things Hilton? Or Elmo for that matter. I don't discriminate.

posted February 10, 2007 01:45 PM              

quote:

---

I mean, I don't know, have you turned on the television lately? Or looked at a magazine? It ain't pretty. Even walking through the bestseller section at Borders makes me quesy. I don't find many adults who are immune to the onslaught. To expect a child to be is absurd.

---

very true about the adult expression of celebrity obsession. there are so many things on television and in magazines, (people's magazine (like you've mentioned), cosmopolitan, and also all the money that tabloids make annually, from a lot of the time, adult readers.

the thing that truly made me start this thread, and what scares me is that these girls and adults are idolizing and envying (or think they're envying) 'celebrities' for the wrong reasons. how about idolize someone whos done something to contribute to the betterment of society?

and fashion is not a reason to idolize someone, its not, everyone is supposed to have their own personal sense of taste, you can't borrow someone elses, especially those who have no regard for persons who aren't as fortune as themselves (like paris hilton, etc)

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted February 10, 2007 02:00 PM            

quote:

---

Although we could do a search for People magazine's yearly subsciption count and possibly change our minds about the average adults fascination with mindless Hollywood muck. I hate to use that insulting "the dumbing down of America" cliche, but if the shoe fits ...

---

Nahh, I see what you mean. There are some aspects about this culture that make me go like wtf? (the Pop aspect for one)

quote:

---

My point is Why the constant media barrage of Paris Hilton? And why do we allow our children to be subjected to that barrage of all things Hilton? Or Elmo for that matter. I don't discriminate.

---

That's a good question. Why give her (and the other bimbos) so much media attention? It really annoys me when I think about it....but I guess the answer is that people love watching walking-talking-train-wrecks.

quote:

---

mean, I don't know, have you turned on the television lately? Or looked at a magazine? It ain't pretty. Even walking through the bestseller section at Borders makes me quesy. I don't find many adults who are immune to the onslaught. To expect a child to be is absurd.

---

posted February 10, 2007 05:03 PM            

quote:

---

Seriously, do that many parents really allow their children to watch that much tv and uncensored at that? Why?

---

I kind of disagree. While its important to censor some things the little girl knows Lindsey from the movies she plays and those movies (like Herbie) are harmless. I also dont believe pretending it doesnt exist will make the problem go away. I think getting them familiar with the situation and explaining WHY it is wrong is far more effective than changing the channal. Plus while I am a big fan of exercise and going out and doing things, I never understand why parents are so against TV (minus the whole inactivity/hurts eyes). I learned a WHOLE lot of things on TV and not just from watching the science channals.

quote:

---

And yet I hear it all the time ... watching tv isn't so bad, it's not that big an influence, yada yada. Same with the radio or magazines, etc. Modern media has become the free babysitter and it's because parents have let it.

---

I am sorry I do not see why that is such a big problem. They may not watch the ***** on TV but there always will be influence from other kids in school. One cannot live in a limbo. I am not saying allow the kids to watch the Playboy channal but freaking out over everything on TV is rediculous. Its up to the parent to teach their children wrong from right, I do not believe in turning the TV off and hoping for the best. And if one does in fact instill good values then the TV is no threat. Like i said if they are THAT influenced by someone on TV, imagine what happens when someone offers them a joint...

quote:

---

I've seen parents "supervising" their kids (grade school) in their front lawns ... parents are drinking beer (or another poison of their choice) and/or smoking and the kids are dancing and singing along to whatever is playing on the radio. It's like they don't realize or don't care about (1) the example they're setting and (2) the fact that their kids are singing and dancing along to sexually suggestive and/or violent lyrics.

---

So they are singing to sexually suggestive and violent lyrics. Its like when people freak out and blame hard rock for violent crimes, and Marilyn Manson for example...seriously if a kid cannot distinguish reality from fiction then tough luck...My mom used to read the Iliad to me when I was little...its about war and killing and rape and all that good stuff...and yet I am a perfectly able citizen in a society that doesn't participate in any of those things. Discipline is everything. Turning off the radio doesn't end the parent's responsibility to instill good morals and values in the kids.

Its like the people who claim abstinence should be taught in schools. Get real...If they want to have sex they will, you are far better off telling them how to do it properly than dealing with their pregnancies and STDs.

quote:

---

And then how they WHINE about their kids not doing their homework or their chores ... their kids spend too much time with their friends ... their kids never want to do anything that even remotely involves nature or exercise and only want to watch tv or play on the computer, etc.

---

Thats a result of bad parenting not bad TV/viodeo games/music...If one sets boundries and says hey do your homework FIRST and then you can listen and do whatever you want and play all the better. In fact if there is a show they are looking forward to at a certain time you better believe they will do their homework quickly and properly.

I am sorry but TV engages immagination just as much as anything else. All these violent shows and dramas like Law and Order and all that stuff teaches kids a whole lot about law, biology, and things in general. The directors try to make the dramas as realistic as possible, meanwhile the kids can familiarize themselves with law. How do you think most of teenagers know their rights when they are arrested? You think parents sit them down for a chat or teachers make them memorize Miranda...and if so you think they would BOTHER to remember? Nope all TV...what about that show NUMBERS? Its about police works, murder and dead bodies...and also about a large quantity of mathematical principles and "fun" ways to apply them in the real world to solve what seems like unsolveable crimes...when a kid has to sit through calculus wouldnt it be SO MUCH BETTER that he thinks "hey the guy on TV looked cool I think I want to be like him and learn some math". There is NOTHING wrong with TV...the issue is telling kids hey do you want to be like Lindsey or like the crime fighter? Trust me very few kids say they want to grow up to be a stripper or a hooker...and you know what most will tell you their dreams of being firefighters or doctors and very few reply with "famous"...

quote:

---

You know ... real play ... imagining things out of other things ... a basket can be a cradle or a bath tub for a simple homemade doll ... tree branches and bits of wood can become tables, houses, cars ... a blue blanket can be an ocean, etc.

---

posted February 10, 2007 05:27 PM            

quote:

---

nstead we have children so brain fried from constant overstimulation from their parents' televisions (unabashadly worshipped as the focus point of so many living or family rooms), radios, computers, electronic toys, plastic ready made "entertainment" toys, toys that are meant to be operated or admired but not actually and creatively played with ...

---

I am sorry but how would you know its not creatively played with? We aren't kids anymore and therefore we aren't in their heads. Many kids still go out and engage their environment and make things out of nothing and create stuff. You may give a girl a Barbie (I am actually very pro these dolls) but that doesnt mean they aren;t going to create an entire story line from that. By the way whats the difference between reading them a bed time story and showing them a movie? I think variety is good. Spend time with your kids. I mean sure just leaving them to watch TV is bad btu if you spend time with them and have a family drama or something that you all watch and then discuss, its still open communication and thats how they learn values.

quote:

---

That's just too much effort ... tv's not that bad, really. At least they're quiet when they watch tv.

---

TV isnt bad...at all...

quote:

---

We should spend time in nature together, exploring and playing?

---

Thats very important and all parents should do that often, but that has nothing to do with TV being bad for them. Like i said blaming TV for bad parenting isnt a good idea.

quote:

---

veryone wants you to listen to them complain but nobody actually wants to do anything to change their routines or activities.

---

I understand your frustration but why does it bother you what others do. You are an excellent parent, which is quite visible by how much you care about the situation. Their way of doing things may be right for them, maybe wrong but you really cant change people in the long run...

quote:

---

so forth and so on because I know conspiracies make ole' Jwhop nervous but at the very least the media is designed to unduly influence your child. Children are the markets easiest entry point into the household and the parent's wallet.

---

Yes indeed...so wouldn't it help if the parents were better than the media at doing it? So yea they are interested in the new cool toy because TV said so, no one says you have to buy it. Discipline your kid, if he/she throws a tantrum in a toy store that is YOUR fault and buying them the damn thing wont make the problem go away. But nothing wrong with getting them something new and cool for their birthday.

quote:

---

A pox on the boob tube!!

---

Pshhht...I am sorry but it infuriates me when parents point fingers at the TV and not their bad parenting...if one's kid is a sl*t its not Lindsey's fault...and you know what the TV didn't make Lindsey a sl*t either...the fact that she and her father are suing each other all the time might have...

quote:

---

Really, because most people around me think that Paris, Lindsay , and Britney are a joke. Same story back when I was in highschool.

---

Amen...seriously...I dont know of a single person my age or younger who thinks any of these people are great. And BTW when I was 12 I though Britney's music was awesome and I think Christina Aguilera is great but you know what I was not out being a sl*t because of it. Music is by taste, you cannot make your kids listen to Bach all the time because that is what REALLY restricts their imagination. So if they like gangsta rap LET THEM, doesn't mean they will join a gang or they think that gangs are cool. If they are that easy to sell out then you yourself failed the job...

quote:

---

. Of course there are always gonna be a select few bimbos who idolize these airheads but they're in the minority....or maybe I've just been hanging around the right people..LOL.

---

EXACTLY!!!! THAN YOU DULCE!!!

quote:

---

My point is Why the constant media barrage of Paris Hilton? And why do we allow our children to be subjected to that barrage of all things Hilton? Or Elmo for that matter. I don't discriminate

---

Why not? Hilton is like any rich kid in any century. Everyone always observes the rich because it is entertaining. Court scandals were fascinating in Middle Age Europe...so what?

quote:

---

the thing that truly made me start this thread, and what scares me is that these girls and adults are idolizing and envying (or think they're envying) 'celebrities' for the wrong reasons. how about idolize someone whos done something to contribute to the betterment of society?

---

I am sorry but since when is pushing your own values onto someone else (not you Neptune but in general) considered promoting their imagination. You all are complaining kids aren't being imaginative and yet saying "you can like whoever you want but this person". I have liked villains in practically every movie/fairy tale/show i have EVER seen as a kid...if I said that to any of you when I was little i betcha id be pegged as a future serial killer...How about the fact that I liked bad guys because they are usually 1) smarter 2) have better planning 3) arent holier than thou (u know those knights in shining armor killing bad guys for kidnapping the princess? Well the bad guy is guilty of kidnapping, the knight of murder...whats worse? Come to think of it all these fairy tales teach us to pass judgement on others and take the law in our own hands...maybe we should ban those). Get real seriously...

quote:

---

Why give her (and the other bimbos) so much media attention? It

---

Because its funny to see what stupid thing she will do next...

posted February 10, 2007 05:31 PM              

quote:

---

I am sorry but since when is pushing your own values onto someone else (not you Neptune but in general) considered promoting their imagination. You all are complaining kids aren't being imaginative and yet saying "you can like whoever you want but this person".

---

posted February 10, 2007 06:36 PM              

I come from a family of three kids and we're all REALLY different. I was an infant when we went to Kashmir and I grew up with really 'middle eastern' values. I like to read Farsi, Urdu and Arabic poetry--I love literature of any kind and Im a nerd at heart. Wherever I went to school I stayed alone (Im really an introvert) or managed to find nerd friends like mine. Or I made friends a few classes up because they were more mature. I 'formed' most my morals from the reading I do (I read a lot of philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology and make a lot of those decisions on my own...)

My sister is a deeply religious but extremely westernized chick (if that combo is possible with Islam lol), shes also one of the most nice and charitable people but shes got a deeply vengeful personality sometimes (too much Scorp in her chart, the Virgo balances it out though). Shes tried some drugs etc but never gotten seriously involved in anything (shes too religious and has found her own set of morals in conservative religion).

My bro is a crazed druggie with little to no morals about any boundaries in sex, drugs or any other things in his lifestyle. When we were kids, I was the 'uncontrollable one', and my sis and bro were the obedient ones. Now everything is different.

We all watched the same amount of TV. We all had the same exposure to things inside the house. The same training from our parents.

But as we became teenagers and matured we developed our own morals and decided to follow the systems we chose.

Unfortunately a time comes when everyone moves away from (or toward) their parents morals, but with their own decisions only. Until we were teenagers me and my siblings had very similar moral attitudes; as we started spending more time out rather than in the house; everything changed drastically.

I think in the end it depends on individual vulnerability to media messages and friends' moral convictions. Obviously people who are more dependent on having friends and being social butterflies in the first place are going to be a little more susceptible. Like many other people said, most people who are extremely extroverted are more self concious and have low self esteem.

It is a hole that someone is looking to fulfill through others or any other outlet. I just dont believe that things shape people. People use things to choose to become bad or good.

When a person is a child, yes the parents censorship and morals, active monitoring of who their friends are, what media they see, etc. is majorly majorly important. But as soon as your child becomes a teenager, regardless of what culture you are in, you start losing control. Even in the Middle east which is a majorly family culture area, people stay 'bound to their families for their entire lives'; it is the individuals who choose to do so or to break away (and there are a significant number of people who do break away too).

TV, media, anything else; these are only tools. Humans are responsible for their own moral state (and adults for those of their very small children, only till a particular age though). They use tools to hurt themselves. Other humans cant affect one unless you allow them too.