No, I haven't been "eaten by a Chanukah monster," as one of you darling devoted readers asked me recently. You will now be saved the indiginity of having to post comments on old blogs (not that there's anything wrong with it), because yes, we are officially back from holiday break.
If you haven't read this great article by Lawrence Downes on "Middle School Girls Gone Wild," read it now. Downes writes that he is no "prig" but nonetheless was made quite uncomfortable while attending a recent "talent show" at his 10-year-old daughter's school. With all the writhing and strutting going on, and "lap dancing without laps," it's not hard to see why.
In case you missed it, here is the key graph:
What surprised me, though, was how completely parents of even younger girls seem to have gotten in step with society’s march toward eroticized adolescence — either willingly or through abject surrender. And if parents give up, what can a school do? A teacher at the middle school later told me she had stopped chaperoning dances because she was put off by the boy-girl pelvic thrusting and had no way to stop it — the children wouldn’t listen to her and she had no authority to send anyone home. She guessed that if the school had tried to ban the sexy talent-show routines, parents would have been the first to complain, having shelled out for costumes and private dance lessons for their Little Miss Sunshines.
Very well put. To me the question is: why are parents "giving up"? I have my thoughts, but as usual, would be very interested to hear yours.
For the most part, the article made me sad. I'm 31, and I still remember how much fun we girls had choreographing routines for our junior-high talent show. It's really too bad that creativity has become such an old-fashioned concept nowadays.
Wendy,
Its not just at the middle school. I have an elementary school aged cousin who is involved in dance and she loves to show us her routines during family gatherings. My husband and I were BEYOND appalled...not only that her teachers thought these moves were appropriate for a 9 year old, but that my husband and I were the only ones that were appalled..her grandmother clapped all filled with pride, her mother bragged about teh trophy she won, and her grandfather took pictures. In my head I thought, "there are so many things wrong with this!!" EVERYONE approves it seems.
Posted by: Jamie | January 01, 2007 at 10:48 AM
It goes even further than that. I used to teach a 5-yr-olds choir class at my church, and one time when we took the kids to the park, two little girls were singing Britney Spears' songs. At 5!!!! Fortunately they hadn't quite figured out dancing yet, but I'm sure that wasn't far behind.
Posted by: Joi | January 01, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Yes, a dance recital I went to recently had 8 year old doing the pelvic thrusts...gross, actually.
Posted by: The Anchoress | January 01, 2007 at 12:17 PM
To quote the Oompa Loompas from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: "You know exactly who's to blame: The Mother and the Father."
Posted by: Sandy | January 01, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Perhaps parents are perceived as "giving up," when the truth is that they never really "gave" in the first place. Many Mothers willingly abandon the home now, in favor of self-gratification in the workplace and, so, settle for less family involvement. In this instance, alone, there is clearly less time to be had for the consistent instilling of decent, moral values in children. Perhaps motivation for such goals wanes after another exhausting day at the office. Keeping the peace during the spare time that they do have with their kids is easier...just "go along..get along."
Perhaps it is easier...the course of least resistance...to take on the "friend" role instead of a "parent" role with the children.
Perhaps parents accept lewd behavior by seeing it as "just" a passing phase, instead of considering it a building-block in their childs character development.
It's hard, precious hard, to go backward to something better...as a society..., once a given behavior is deemed acceptable. That's why "precedents" are so important. ALLOW the precendent for something *wrong* to pass unchallenged and it is hard or virtually impossible to un-do the harm now established (this is even true, in a sense, of government... in legislation, taxes, and laws that are allowed to pass. Give up even an "inconsequencial" nick of your freedom and be sure that it is GONE for good.).
Anyway, there you go. I freely admit that I am *not* a parent. The parenting stuff...these are just some ideas and speculations I'm putting out there.
*A quick aside, now:
I saw yet another "erotic" commerical just the other day, advertising a "male-enhancement" product. The selling point was this: a club scene with over-the-top (or is it considered that, nowadays??) sexual innuendos in the form of dancing, cleavage, immodest dress and "come-hither" bedroom-eyes...in the ladies.
In watching this, I said to my husband, "This is such an UGLY way of life. Really, truly UGLY."
He agreed. It is.
Posted by: ellen | January 01, 2007 at 03:03 PM
When I was in middle school (at a Christian school), we had lots of rules at our dances. Chaperones would even walk around with rulers to indicate the appropriate distance that should be between two kids while slow dancing. They'd say things like "Leave room for the Holy Spirit," more to be funny than anything else. This is a far cry from what I've seen at the elementary schools at which I have mentored--girls as young as 8 years are performing outrageous, explicitly sexual dance moves. And while I hope they're innocent, I'm quite sure the girls understood the sex appeal of the moves, thanks to mimicking older siblings and music videos.
Posted by: Meghan Grizzle | January 01, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Very revealing commentary on the Times article here:
http://whatsgoodforgirls.blogspot.com/2006/12/middle-school-girls-gone-wild.html
Where a conflicted "director of girls' programming" explains why she's conflicted-- because she doesn't want to send the message that sex is bad. This is the root of the misunderstanding in my view: to say sexuality should be private does not mean that it's bad. Another commentator has this to say: "I don't want young girls to not-have sex, I just want them to not-get hurt."
That it's become a terrible thing to even *suggest* "young girls" should not be having sex--well, that really says at all.
Posted by: wendy | January 01, 2007 at 10:24 PM
All I can say is that I'm glad my 7 year old daughter has four older brothers to protect her, and, if your local school is unresponsive to parental complaints (or you have parents, like those mentioned, who approve rather than cringe) move or homeschool!
More grateful than ever that we live in Idaho
(Go BSU Broncos!)
Posted by: spudmomof6 | January 02, 2007 at 11:03 AM
The quote about the woman who doesn't want to send the "sex is bad" message is SO revealing. This shows how UN-liberating this kind of attitude towards sexuality really is. Since any kind of "judgment" on sex is verboten, you can't cry foul when children are acting in a sexualized way.
To me there are two parties to blame. The purveyors of this kind of ideology regarding sex (who are now hamstrung to articulate why it isn't good to have young girls doing lap dances) AND the parents who naively think that if some authority figure seems to be saying it's okay, then it's okay. I see both malice and misjudgement at play here. Very sad, but not surprising.
Posted by: Alexandra Foley | January 02, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I had a fairly disturbing experience at Christmas - my niece (who just turned 6 in November) was given "dress-up" clothes by Grandma: a Britney-esque outfit in silver lame which was off the shoulder, belly revealing and hip hugging, complete with a black biker cap.
My sister (also a modestynik) and I just stared at each other, appalled. And Grandma (our stepmom) is a feminist!
Unbelievable, and so sad.
Happy New Year, Everyone!
Mary
Posted by: Mary | January 02, 2007 at 02:41 PM
I think the inability of parents to protect their young daughters from our over sexualized culture may be the result of something more sinister than mere poor judgement or lack of boundaries. I have been at formal events where teenaged cousins were dressed like the playmate of the month and it seemed to me that the parents enjoyed partaking vicariously in the attention the attire attracted as though having an attractive daughter who commanded such acknowledgement was a compliment due them. And these aren't parents who would be considered "bad parents", but somewhat traditional, religious, and committed spouses. Maybe now that sex appeal seems to be the attribute most in demand many parents are seeking ways to subconsciously use their daughter's appeal for their own selfish purposes. Pretty sad.
Posted by: Kathleen | January 02, 2007 at 06:21 PM
Mary: Yes, beware the hip grannie!
Kathleen, I fear you are right. I know exactly what you're talking about and it's pretty gross. Over-identification with the child, not realizing she's her own person is bad enough, but when combined with over-sexualization, a pretty dangerous brew.
On the other hand, the fact that Joi, the Anchoress, Meghan, Jamie, Sandy & Ellen have all noticed these examples--and that the Times ran this article--it gives me hope.
If people just continue to speak up then we can give the hip grannies a run for their money....
Posted by: wendy | January 02, 2007 at 08:35 PM
Besides not censoring children from adult shows or older sibling behavior, parents are allowing young kids to watch sexualized "children's programming" like the Bratz that are mentioned elsewhere in this blog. But I'm going to talk about "Happy Feet" this time. I was shocked at it! A kid's movie! The peguins sing their "heartsong" which will attract their lifelong mate... but instead of it being about love, it's about sex. The female peguins with noticable breasts sashay around and have the males sing songs such as "I'll make love to you, when you want me to, and I'll hold you tight, baby, all throught the night" or "I just need your body." Yeah, I bet you're raising your eyebrows, too. I was actually uncomfortable watching it with my in-laws! But it's just a song... and words don't matter, right?
Posted by: jillybean | January 02, 2007 at 09:33 PM
What?! Are you joking? It looked like such a cute innocent movie! I've grown used to not-very subtle double entendres in Disney movies, meant to entertain the parents, but this is not even a double entendre...
Posted by: wendy | January 02, 2007 at 10:29 PM
OK, I've checked the movieblog and found these reviews (excerpted below, for those who don't want to pay to watch this movie). I thought it was a fascinating debate, and perhaps a window into why so many middle school girls are going 'wild'? For many adults seem not to want to acknowledge, let alone challenge, these 'hidden' messages--even when they're not at all hidden! Thanks for telling us about this, jillybean.
-------------------------------
This movie is complete and utter political propaganda trash. It hit on everything from, "Let's all be gay!" to "All science should halt and we should revert to the Stone Age!" I'm absolutely sick of actors thinking that we pay them to make political statements. We pay entertainers absurd amounts of money to do only one thing...entertain us. Yet they can't seem to be intelligent enough to do the job for which they are paid. They seem to think that the world pays them all to be politicians for children. I, for one, don't want my six-year-old daughter concerning herself with homosexuality, politics, global-warming, ecological dumping, the United Nations, offshore drilling, religion, or any other issue that has political implications on a global, national, or even local scale. The girl is still struggling to read an analog clock-face for Christ sake! I simply want her to go to a movie, smile and laugh at the cute penguins, maybe learn some interesting facts about penguins, and go home happy. Instead, I get questions during the movie about why the people are stealing the penguin's fish, and why the penguins don't like Mumble.
I took my daughter to this movie for one reason…the movie looked cute and completely innocent from the extraordinarily misleading previews. Obviously, however, I can no longer trust Hollywood to remain out of Washington and must screen everything that I might want to take my child to from now on. Do yourself a favor and just have your kids watch CNN and read the New York Times. It's cheaper than going to the theater. Don't worry, you won't be missing much.
Posted by: Bob Sanchez at November 27, 2006 01:39
All I have to say is I took my 4 year old to see this movie and we had to leave half way through it because he was scared!
Posted by: Carrie at November 29, 2006 18:40
I took my 4 year old daughter to see this movie thinking she would like it. It was supposed to be the smash hit for children this season according to all the hoopla.
I was appalled at the blatant sexual content in this film! Sexual positions displayed as a joke, my 4 year old does not need to be recreating this 'funny' scene with her friends! The message of the 'aliens' stealing the fish I can live with. The killer seal scared the crap out of her, and now she doesn't like seals. I can handle that one also. Both of those issues give her the 'other view', but the sexual message in this film was ridiculous. The way they had the female penguins flaunting around. I thought they 'sang' for their mate, why the swishing and the puffy chests? It was not needed.
I don't recommend this film to anyone's children.
Posted by: Concerned Mother at November 30, 2006 12:41
wow, some of y'all are just obsessed with sex aren't you? and bob sanchez...dude, you were just scared that your daughter is smarter than you and that you're too dumb to answer the tough questions. it's good for kids to ask questions, you realise that don't you? and you obviously also underestimate your daughter's intelligence- she should worry about why some penguins/kids are ostracized so she can learn a bit of understanding. at age 4 i was boycotting products made outside the us because of child labor concerns. give her a little credit. and since when are artists (actors included) supposed to keep their mouths shut? if they don't speak up, no one else will.
Posted by: amy at December 08, 2006 18:53
Yes, the name of this movie should have been Sexy Feet because it was a Penguin version of Dirty Dancing. I was expecting it to have filth in it all entertainment marketed to kids contain filth, What surprises me is that parents are blind to the messages that their kids are exposed to. I had a free pass thus did not waiste a cent on this "$@##%".
1. The music was filthy. among the tunes the penguins sang that your children will be singing are "Shake your bon bon" "I'll make love to you like you want me to" You don't need experience to turn me on, I just need your body baby from dust to dawn"
2) The female penguins were given hourglass figures (must we always be exposed to idealized forms of female beauty in the real animal kingdom the females are usually uglier and bigger than the males.)
3) The mother Penguin was a Marylyn Monroe airhead sexpot I was expecting a June Cleaver type the way all childrens movies usually potray the mother.
4) The dancing was just blatantly sexual position doggy style, missionary even humping I couldn't believe my freakin eyes then again many of you took your youngin's to see Borat!
5)It had a Barry White Penguin witha "Sacred Talisman" that gave him the power to have sex with 5 female penguins at one time he even refered to the casting couch.
..
9)Wierd Gospel music, The movie tries to come off as Gospel but the songs are old disco songs or 90's sex songs and the TEENAGE female penguin shakes her butt and hips very sexually to a gospel tune & feel. I am surprised they did not have them singing George Micheal I want your sex, they had them sing I'll make love to you and I just want your body baby from dusk to dawn, I find that more disturbing than a dangerous seal, children need to know there are dangers in the world but children do not need to know about making love all night and using up a body for sexual gratification and having sex with multiple partners at one time. You parents should be yelling in the streets boycotting theatres!
...
11) The movie has a gay undertone meaning we must accept all forms of behavior because people are born to behave diffrent, the Mexican penguins even turned gay for a while when the Talisman penguin told all the penguins to love on each other while he made love to 5 female penguins.
...
And to all those parents that see nothing wrong with exposing thier young children to this, good luck in the future when your teen son is arrested for gang raping some drunk girl and videotaping it. Or your daughter comes home with a baby or Aids or winds up a porn star or all of the above.
Posted by: SexyFEET at December 17, 2006 05:51
What the hell are you people on about! I don’t know if you still live in the 1950 or if your church leader has told you of a "evil, vile film called HAPPY FEET!”.
First this movie was cute and friendly, the only way you can take such sexual messages from this film says more about you than the people that made it.
Go back to church you nut case's hopefully your children will develop further than you and ask questions about over fishing and religious intolerance. The person talking of racism you can’t see that the writers of the film are using the other group of penguins to show another point of view, a view that accepts “different penguins”. That is multiculturalism and if your point is about the “gang” of Mexican penguins. Again it says more about you than the writers, what’s wrong with a group of Mexican friends?
Man you people make me angry, it was a great movie with an awesome soundtrack with DANCING penguins. Far out.
Take your kids to see this film, its great.
Posted by: Kain at December 27, 2006 06:44
This movie was so bad my wife re-named it "Stinky Feet." Inappropriate sexual content, the political and sociological agendas- all made this a very unpleasant experience for us and our 4 year old grandaughter-who- by the way- asked to leave about 50 minutes into the film. Boring--stupid and annoying just like many of the morons here who don't seem to understand the damage being done by this type of garbage--
Posted by: Movieguy at December 29, 2006 22:59
i reckon those religious/concerned motherly nuts have no ground to stand on.
anyone who thinks this movie will harm your children, seriously, you should have your children taken away from you.
children do not see or hear, let alone care about 99.99% of the messages in kids films. it is the parents who over analysis the movies too much and end up hurting their children by sheltering them, so that when they do actually see something bad it is the end of the world for them.
it is a fact most people who abuse women and children, or end up f@#$ed up in life are generally the ones who were sheltered by religous or overprotective parents. because they never see anything bad, when they do see something scary/awful it is an overload to their senses and they end up commiting murder or raping someone etc...you get my point.
and really what 4 year old wouldn't be scared of a giant seal,
IT"S A $ YEAR OLD FFS!!!. get a clue. it's any child under the age of 10 can be scared at anything.
this is a harmless kids movie, with whackos around here looking too much into things, when in actual fact it is a fairly innocent movie.
and a great movie at that. my nephew (6) got over the scary seal part rather quick, and he cried when mumble got captured. but some simple parenting with a pat on his back and a hug and he was ok. after the experience was over he loved it and wanted to buy the toys straight away.
in the end i did not see the movie just to please a child, we saw it as a family movie.
the sexual references are so minor (the penguins eat, sleep and produce more penguins, this is life get over it) you dont point out the sexual references, no child under the age of 13 would even question it.
seriously children dont see what we see. and that's why i liked this movie, because it can appeal to both old and young. it wasnt just some boring kids movie with colourful characters and an empty plot.
see this movie for yourself or as a family, dont just see this because your kid wants to see it. but hey, if your kid wants to see it, good excuse to see a good movie if you ask me.
Posted by: noob at December 30, 2006 01:31
I seen the movie and I hated it!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with all the mothers that don't wont their children to see this movie!!!! Mothers rock and they know what they are talking about!! This world has to many teenagers that think everything is good and I am sure their children will grow up to be rapist or strippers!!! the movie was stuipd and to scary for kids. And I don't like the way they used this kids movie to put a hidden message in it.
I rate the movie STUPID!!!!
Posted by: Destinee at December 31, 2006 04:33
Posted by: wendy | January 02, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Wendy,
I wrote a post in which I try to formulate the basics of an answer to your question.
You can see it here:
http://deanabbott.typepad.com/notes_and_meditations/2007/01/wendy_shalit_bl.html
Posted by: Dean | January 03, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Ohh Happy Feet got TERRIBLE reviews!! Michael Medved (whose opinion on movies I value more than any other reviewer)totalllllllllly trashed it. Not only the usual Disney style sexual innuendo, but that it has a total liberal philosophy undertone to the whole movie.
*snort* totally gross!
Posted by: Jamie | January 03, 2007 at 01:22 PM
I haven't seen Happy Feet, so I can't comment on its quality. However, I do think this discussion is a little unfair to Disney movies. Certainly, there are a lot of Disney movies that have sexual innuendo or bathroom humor, but there are also many that are completely family friendly. I think High School Musical is a good example. Furthermore, Happy Feet is not a Disney movie. It is produced by Warner Brothers.
Posted by: EPC | January 03, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I didn't mean to imply that Happy Feet was a Disney production, so thank you for making that clear.
My point was simply that at least when sexual overtones in Disney productions do surface, they tend to be more subtle than the direct references in Happy Feet. And that at least is something!
Posted by: wendy | January 04, 2007 at 09:44 AM
Okay, now I have GOTTA see this movie, cos you all have to be exaggerating, surely. I would have believed someone telling me it was a LAME movie, but those reviews people posted, the sheer number or them, makes me think something is up.
W/R/T the other article... I feel really sorry for young girls today. When/if I have kids, I can't imagine just allowing my daughters to wear such clothes. I'm so heading toward being a Mean Mommy and I'll be seeking our other parents with similar views to develop support networks so we can help our daughters resist this type of conformity pressure. It's a lot easier to enforce 'dress codes' on your kids if you have the support of other parents. I'd have NO PROBLEM approaching a school about it either, but I'm pretty mouthy and I can see how a lot of people would find it difficult to stand up to.
Wendy, I'm wondering, are there any excerpts of your new book anywhere online I can read?
Posted by: emily | January 05, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I'm amused--not only that liberal concepts are now "gross," but at those movie reviews themselves. I simply can't take a site seriously where people use more than five exclamation points to finish a sentence, and call each other morons. Maybe that's why this is one of the few blogs I comment on (and read the comments!)
Posted by: L.B. | January 05, 2007 at 01:28 AM
L.B., I know what you mean about the comments on that site--I just thought that the back-and-forth was revealing. People can look at the same movie and come away with such different impressions, I find it so fascinating. I guess that's what makes life interesting. (Btw how is your hamster Cupcake doing, you never posted an update on your blog and you have us all worried!)
Emily, we need more moms like you so I really hope you do become a parent someday. Seriously, even Mary Pipher admits that the happiest girls are the ones with the most "restrictive" parents. (And this contradicts her assumptions, so I thought this was particularly intellectually honest of her to admit this.)
Thanks for your interest in my book. The book itself won't come out or be serialized until June, but I will definitely keep you all posted if anything changes.
Posted by: wendy | January 06, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Ellen says, "Many Mothers willingly abandon the home now, in favor of self-gratification in the workplace and, so, settle for less family involvement."
"Self-gratification in the workplace"? Oh, THE HORROR. Can you believe that men have been self-gratifying themselves in the work place for centuries??? Clearly, we should all just stay home and spend every minute with our children.
I get the point that parents need to parent, but a mother teaching her child the valuable lessons of self-respect, hard work, and individuality is something wonderful. I know I would have learned a valuable lesson much earlier if my mother had asserted some self-value instead of teaching me that she existed for me. Mothers like this eventually begin to wonder why their children treat them like they have no needs of their own and don't see them as individuals to be respected.
In this day and age, parents with careers hopefully work *together* to raise their children. I think it's insulting to use the term "self-gratification" in terms of mothers in the workplace. Unless you have equal scorn for fathers "self-gratifying" themselves the exact same way.
Posted by: lizriz | January 10, 2007 at 01:04 PM
I saw yet another "erotic" commerical just the other day, advertising a "male-enhancement" product. The selling point was this: a club scene with over-the-top (or is it considered that, nowadays??) sexual innuendos in the form of dancing, cleavage, immodest dress and "come-hither" bedroom-eyes...in the ladies.
I don't know about you, Ellen, but every time I hear the phrase "natural male enhancement" I think of "Bob the Tetanus Boy" with his rictus sardonicus expression. As in "I DON'T CARE IF IT GIVES ME TETANUS...!"
I had a fairly disturbing experience at Christmas - my niece (who just turned 6 in November) was given "dress-up" clothes by Grandma: a Britney-esque outfit in silver lame which was off the shoulder, belly revealing and hip hugging, complete with a black biker cap.
My sister (also a modestynik) and I just stared at each other, appalled. And Grandma (our stepmom) is a feminist!
Mary, this reminds me of the family dynamic in MTV's Daria. (I can even hear the show's mocking horn theme as I write this.) In the show, Daria's Mom claimed to be a feminist. She had two daughters, both in high school; Daria (the plain and cynical genius) and Quinn (the brain-dead mattress-back blonde who's tag line was a squeal of "OOOOOO! POP-ULAR!")
Guess which daughter was the obvious favorite of Ms Feminist Mom? "OOOOO! POP-ULAR!" (Obviously living through Quinn.)
Posted by: Ken | January 15, 2007 at 06:42 PM
yikes, first off, how dare you say that some other parent are raising their son to be a gang raper, you people clearly are heartless monsters. Also, these same parents who're steeping their sons in rape encouraging movies like Happy Feet probably allowed their daughters to learn how to use birth control and therefore are less likely to end up a grandma of an out of wedlock child. Why not worry about if your child will grow up a strong minded person who'll better his/her world rather then passing judgment over the little girl next door who *gasp* is showing her belly button? The amount of unthinking going on here is unbelievable. Picking on movies and middle school fashion is one thing, but saying that working parents are the root of all rape and strippers is appalling. Clinging to god (with a small "g," yes) won't save you from a impregnated teen, only she can make those choices. You people make me sick
Posted by: Sane | May 23, 2008 at 01:41 AM
THIS IS A GOOD AND BAD SHOW AT THE SAME TIME .I'M AM NOT HAPPY OF WAT YA'LL BE DOIN ON WEBSIGHTS LIKE THIS IT IS VERY UN CHILDES YOU SHOULD BE A SHAME OF YA'LLS SELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THERE I SAID IT AND IM GLAD! TOODLES.
Posted by: ASHLYNN | July 14, 2008 at 02:07 AM
I, being only a year out of middle school myself, can attest to the somewhat sickening sexuality displayed by the younger students there, before they are even ready to honestly date.
Posted by: Lydia | April 14, 2009 at 11:09 PM
If you're in a not good position and have got no cash to move out from that, you will have to take the home loans. Just because that will aid you emphatically. I get small business loan every time I need and feel myself great just because of this.
Posted by: KIDD28Lynnette | August 08, 2010 at 08:47 AM