Modestly Yours

When Virtue Becomes a Commodity

My fellow blogger, Melissa May, recently wrote about Billy Ray Cyrus' admission of regrets concerning how he allowed his daughter, Miley Cyrus, to grow up. A few days later, my daughter and I were at Barnes and Noble when I saw a magazine with an article on the topic ( I'm not entirely sure, but think it was US Weekly; and while these are not exactly the same photos, you can get the general idea). I opened it up and, while I didn't read the article, the photos said it all.  Considering I was with my ten year-old daughter who has seen Miley Cyrus' show, Hannah Montana, I decided to take advantage of a "teachable moment."

The four or five photos depicted the progression of Miley Cyrus from innocent-looking Disney star to the pop icon she has become.  The first one is of her standing demurely on a Disney set, then each one gets a little more risque until we arrive at the final photo of her on stage singing while being held up spread eagle by two men, her skimpy underwear exposed.  The progression was complete. 

Despite this being an offensive photo, I decided to show the series to my daughter.  My two daughters (unfortunately, the twelve year-old wasn't with us) no longer admire Miley Cyrus because they have already recognized on their own that she has gone down the wrong path. But they are susceptible to being interested in the latest child or preteen star.  I often hear them (and their friends) saying things like, "So and so is actually a really good girl. She even has a purity ring." (This is often followed by the question, "What's a purity ring?") 

When I showed my daughter these photos, I told her to take a good look at these because they showed what will invariably become of nearly every child star.  For the industry can be counted on to make a big deal about a girl's innocence when she first arrives on the scene.  Why? In order to commodify her virtue.  It's as simple as that.  When it comes to making a child a star, every aspect is up for manipulation and utilization.  And if you are smart enough to make a big deal about a girl's virtue (whether or not she has it), then whatever happens to her, romantically speaking, becomes fodder for the press. And as we've all heard, there's no such thing as bad publicity.  So the handlers feed her to the public as a girl of innocence and virtue, but then as her outfits and roles become more and more immodest, the public picks up on this and starts discussing it. And then, when, say, she loses that innocence, it's a jackpot.  Maybe, if they are lucky, it becomes a scandal.  Ideally, the lost innocence will also involve a male child star, like Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake (more on that later). 

Often times, the stories aren't even true, but the handlers know full well that sex, especially the exploits of a young and seemingly innocent girl, sells.  Take, for example, the case of Britney and Justin.  A few years ago Britney's mother came out with a book that included the detail that Britney had lost her virginity when she was fourteen years old to a local football player.  (A deflowered child star, of course, would never make for a good start in Hollywood, so they spread the story that she was a virgin.)  But when it came time for the handlers to move her from innocent girl to sex symbol, they leaked the story that Justin Timberlake was the one who took her virginity. To make your stomach turn even more, the mother of Britney admits that she knew it was false and that she willingly let Justin be deceived (not that I'm crying a river for poor Justin). 

Yes, yes. The parents are to blame for allowing their children's virtue to  become a commodity to be used and abused, bought and sold,  all for the sake of lucre.  But the industry itself is also sick to the core.  (And yes, it has always has been about sex, even way back when, with Sandra Dee.)

How many more girls will we see go through this racket? How many more parents will be duped into thinking that their girl will be different. ("See, her agent wants to promote the fact--or fiction--that she is a virgin! This is going to be different for us.")  And how many of us consumers, young and old, will continue to fall for this sordid gimmick?

Portman and Her Critics

 Natalie Portman may be basking in the glow of her Oscar, but her new honor has occasioned criticism from both the left and the right.  One was a post at Salon.com entitled: Is motherhood Natalie Portman's "greatest role"?  In her acceptance speech, the "Black Swan" star suggests that pregnancy trumps a career. She's wrong. 

The author, feminist Mary Elizabeth Williams, criticizes pregnant Portman for thanking her “love” and father of her baby for giving her what is "the most important role of my life."  Clearly she is saying that being a mother will be an even greater role than the one by which she earned an Oscar.  This admission is obviously a disappointment to Williams who ponders, “But is motherhood really a greater role than being secretary of state or a justice on the Supreme Court? Is reproduction automatically the greatest thing Natalie Portman will do with her life?” Williams’ point was echoed by Politics Daily author and blogger Lizzie Skurnick, who tweeted during the Oscars: “Like my garbage man could give you the greatest role in life, too, lady.”

On the right, we have Mike Huckabee who, as reported on yahoo news was critical of the star for glamorizing being an unwed mother:

"There aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie," Governor Huckabee said. "And I think it gives a distorted image … Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing." Unlike Williams, it should be pointed out, Huckabee did not go out of his way to comment on Natalie Portman but merely responded candidly to a direct question by Michael Medved who was interviewing him at the time.

Now for the media coverage. Of the two stories, which one do you think “slammed,” “dissed,” or “lashed” Portman? Which one contained “hateful comments”? Which one made us all ask if “this is what our country is coming to—slamming actresses”?

All of these statements, it turns out, were reserved for Governor Huckabee, and unfairly, in my opinion, for there is a difference between being critical and being “hateful” or “slamming.” Huckabee is, of course, a bigger target than Mary Elizabeth Williams, and no doubt the media were only too happy to take aim at a likely Republican candidate for president. Still, the relative apathy they showed about Williams’ and Skumick’s criticisms of Portman is telling.

No one, for instance, seemed particularly upset that the Williams-Skurnick brand of feminism is a violation of feminism.  I thought the mantra of feminists everywhere was choice, choice, choice, but for these authors, Portman’s choice to believe that motherhood will be her greatest role is unacceptable. “Wrong” even.  What gives?  To me it seemed like a sweet and humble thing to say when receiving the Academy’s highest honor. I guess that choice is only good when you choose the doctrines of Betty Friedan over those of millions of mothers since time immemorial. Despite the hysteria that ensues anytime a conservative figure is caught violating his principles with shady or lascivious practices, hypocrisy or self-contradiction on the left is permissible when it affirms the “correct” ideology.

Of course, Huckabee got in trouble not for violating his principles but for acting on them. The funny thing is, his principles about the travails of unwed motherhood aren’t that new or radical but have been shared by virtually all civilizations past and present, Judeo-Christian and otherwise. I find it interesting that despite their differences, Portman and Huckabee found themselves in the middle of the same bull’s eye: one for affirming motherhood, the other for affirming marriage. Yes, indeed: what is this country coming to?

 

"Your Mom Hates This": Now a Selling Point

I recently saw a commercial for a video game that made me not like 2011.

It shows clips of older women from what is supposed to be a focus group watching something. They are saying things like, "this is horrible", "this will make kids go insane" and "why would they even make this?"

Bam! Footage of the violent, creepy game and the voice-over guy says "It's revolting, it's violent! It's everything you'll love in a game, and your mom's gonna hate it." The game is called Dead Space2, but the URL is actually "YourMomHatesThis.com."  Needless to say, I did not visit the website.  

I am super bothered by an ad campaign that overtly and blatantly tells kids to disregard and in essence "demonizes" mothers.  Mothers want to protect their sons. This is GOOD!

I know and understand there is a generation gap among parents and children, and that's OK, but to exploit it and say, "Moms are old and uncool so don't listen to them or value their opinions, especially when buying our video game"--I just think it's wrong. 

What won't advertisers stoop to, in order to sell things!?

Billy Ray Cyrus Has Regrets

For the last few weeks I'd been hearing about the GQ interview with Billy Ray Cyrus, father of Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana. In the interview, Cyrus says that the Disney show "Hannah Montana", which starred his teenage daughter Miley as the main character, ruined his family.

I finally had a chance to sit down and read the whole interview last week, and I have to admit that I was pretty surprised by what Mr. Cyrus had to say:

 

"How many interviews did I give and say, 'You know what's important between me and Miley is I try to be a friend to my kids'? I said it a lot. And sometimes I would even read other parents might say, 'You don't need to be a friend, you need to be a parent.' Well, I'm the first guy to say to them right now: You were right. I should have been a better parent. I should have said, 'Enough is enough—it's getting dangerous and somebody's going to get hurt.' I should have, but I didn't. Honestly, I didn't know the ball was out of bounds until it was way up in the stands somewhere."

In other portions of the interview he admits to being manipulated by Miley's handlers to legitimize some of the questionable decisions made by her or on her behalf:

"All those people around, they used me every time. It became so obvious that, man, no matter what happens, they're going to put you up there and let you take the bullet."

When he heard about her upcoming eighteenth-birthday party, he decided he wasn't going to play that role anymore.

"You know why I didn't go? Because they were having it in a bar. It was wrong. It was for 21 years old and up. Once again all them people, they all wanted me to fly out so that then when all the bad press came they could say, 'Daddy endorsed this stuff....' I started realizing I'm being used. If I would have went out there I would have been right in the middle of all this stuff that's going on right now with the bong. (A video of Miley smoking a bong surfaced last December. Her reps say she smoking the legal high salvia.) They'd be hanging it on my ass. I had the common sense... I said, 'This whole thing's falling apart up there and they just want to blame all of this stuff on you again.' I'm staying out of it."

Because you felt you were just expected always to say everything's okay?

"That's right. And it's not okay."

I have to admit that as much as I've found myself disappointed with Cyrus' seeming endorsements of his teen daughter's questionable actions in the past, this interview has inspired a newfound sympathy and respect for the man. What I read came across as sincere and full of remorse. As a parent, I can't help but feel sorry for someone who realizes too late that they've let their child down. And now she's paying the price for his mistakes.

The fact that he can admit to his mistakes and take responsibility for them, and in such a public way, is a humbling feat for any man. Normally, I don't approve of the airing of dirty laundry by celebrities and such, but in this case, considering the publicity surrounding Miley and the family's problems, a public acknowledgement of responsibility is somehow reassuring. And perhaps this will serve as a lesson to other parents who find themselves tempted to let others usurp their authority when it comes to raising and disciplining thier children.

It's simply not worth it.

Yes, Virginia, Child Porn is No Big Deal

I am sitting here in shock. I just finished reading an advice column in Slate magazine called Dear Prudie. I originally began reading the column because of Emily Yoffe (Prudence)'s no-nonsense replies to emotional situations. But when it comes to her take on other dilemmas, I am drawn to the column like drivers stare at a car wreck -- I can't look away, even as it gets more and more disturbing and gruesome. Today, in that column, I found this:

Q. Illegal Porn: While looking for a movie to put on my iPod on the family computer, I saw a really disturbing title. "Wild. Teen (S-E-X)" What should I do? I have a feeling this movie might be illegal, and I am kind of scared to be around my dad right now. I don't want any divorce/court/prison-type things to happen, so I am clueless. I have two 5- and 7-year-old brothers, and I haven't told anyone. HELP!

A: As disturbing as your discovery is, I doubt there is anything for you to be scared about. Yes, the idea is creepy, but men viewing porn is very, very common. Your father would probably be more mortified than you are scared when he discovers you came upon his porn-viewing. Take him over to the computer and show him what you saw and say, "Dad, I found this when I was searching for a movie, and obviously it upset me." Let's hope he's grown up enough to apologize and make sure it doesn't happen again.

That's right. The reader who has written in this question -- whose age is never mentioned, by the way -- s/he could be a well-spoken twelve-year-old -- is being advised that a lot of men look at porn, and there is nothing scary about finding out that your father looks at movies of teenagers having sex. Or at the very least, that his/her father's embarassment at being caught will amount to a greater weight than the child's fear of why the father is viewing teen porn.

In other words, Prudie is advising the child to get over his/her hang-ups and quit being so dramatic, and while they're at it, single-handedly confront the father about his possible use of child porn.

Parents have the responsibility to protect their children from harm. Adults also have a general responsibility to steer children away from harm. Advising a child to confront the father this way is so wrong that I cannot even believe it -- at the very least, the child should be advised to talk to the mother, who by the information in the letter we can assume is present in the home. It seems that Prudie is trying to help Dad keep his secret, because, as we all know, porn is perfectly natural and healthy and doesn't hurt anyone... right?

Of course, I have a personal bias in this example, so I might as well reveal it: when I was sixteen years old, I was stage-managing a musical for a local community theatre group. Everyone in the show and working on the show was older than me, but I was good at keeping things running so they chose me to manage things. I was flattered. I enjoyed it. I was good at it. Halfway through the run, there was a situation between two of the actors -- a boy just a year older than me, who I had gone to school with, and his girlfriend. There were whispers about her being forced into something, she would hide and cry when he came into the room, and she had bruises on her. At worst, it was rape. At best, some out-of-hand play fighting that ended in some real damage, emotional and physical. The response of the entire board of directors? To let me handle it. To instruct me to go find the boy, tell him he needed to leave, and then deal with the fallout if he refused (which he did). Also, I was to not speak about it to anyone. My parents were proud that I was so responsible. The boy's mother came to find me to make sure I would keep my mouth shut. I threw up all my dinner and then did as I was told. Could this have been a pivotal moment in the development of my character? You be the judge.

Testing the waters of adulthood -- stage managing a production full of adults or choosing one's own movies to put on an  iPod and then writing in to a national advice column -- is not the same as being an adult. Parents should protect their children, and adults should know the difference between themselves and children.

Yoffe should recant her advice -- immediately.

Noel Biderman: A Contradiction?

"Monogamy is a failed experiment," declares Noel Biderman, a married father of two, in a recent interview with Bloomsberg Businessweek.

This statement may seem rather contradictory, but be not alarmed: this is all part of his brilliant new business venture, AshleyMadison.com. Mr. Biderman is the CEO of this company dedicated to helping people who've lost that spark in their own marriages. Yes, it's the unoriginal idea of paying to cheat on your spouse.

According to Mr. Biderman, (whose picture in the magazine article features him playfully placing a finger over his lips to signal "Shh!") this Australia-based website supposedly grew out of a concern for equal rights for women and men. Spending a few weeks in Australia, Mr. Biderman observed native women's apparent discontent with only men having outlets to play around. 

"I think women down there have a view of the world that men have all these playgrounds--brothels, strip clubs, massage parlors," he said in his interview. "And they have nothing."

So, out of a concern for these underprivileged females, Ashley Madison was born. Mr. Biderman hit the jackpot early on. When the site was launched in 2010, 40 percent of the users were women.

But I have to ask, what would Mr. Biderman do if his wife started using this site to cheat on him with anonymous men? I do not know Mr. Biderman's personal values, but perhaps he would not find this a problem, since he is after all in this kind of business.

Again, what of his children? Lots of children want to grow up to be like their daddies, or at least enjoy telling their friends what their daddy's job is like. How on earth are the Biderman Jr.'s expected to grow up normally, and look to their father as a role model?

Mr. Biderman seems to be living a contradiction.

What do you think?

(My) Clothes Make the Man?

Perhaps you’re feeling a little blue this time of year with world politics and the weather converging to give you nothing but bad news. So here is a fun little article about retro clothing making a comeback.  I particularly liked this part about a woman who enjoys wearing vintage-looking styles because of the effect they have on those around her:

“Men treat me differently when I wear vintage or something that looks vintage,” she said. “I’ve noticed that they open doors and even apologize when they swear, which is so not the case when I’m wearing regular clothes like pants and a sweater.”

Wow! Notice that men treat her with more respect by opening doors for her, but also apologize for their own bad conduct.  I’ve heard the expression “Clothes make the man” but this makes me wonder if a woman’s clothes make the man.  I certainly have noticed that my husband has a different attitude toward me when I am dressed up.  Naturally, there is more attraction than when I’m in my sweats, but I believe there is an added respect for me and for himself—as if my clothing were a rising tide that lifts all boats, inspiring him to want to be the man that goes with this woman.

Sure, we could say this is sexist or scream, “IT SHOULDN’T MATTER WHAT I WEAR!! JUST TREAT ME WITH RESPECT ALL THE TIME!” but isn’t it nice to know that there are things we can do to increase civility and respect in those around us?

 

What I Learned from The Superbowl

I have to admit it; I am not a football fan. So why am I writing about the game? Well, my personal taste aside, it is the most-watched telecast in the world, and last night, among those watching were at least four young men I call my own.

 I have never enjoyed watching televised sports, and I used to pride myself on wisely marrying a husband that doesn’t watch them either. Since that newlywed era, however, we have filled our house with quite a number of children, many of whom are boys, and most of whom enjoy watching sports on television. Especially for my stepson who does not live in our house, watching sports is a great way to bond with Dad for the time they do have together.

 I wholly approve of some quality time amongst family members enjoying some men messing around with a ball. At the same time, I wince even at the thought of the “trimmings” of the game, and the impact they may have on my young men.

 The commercials, cheerleaders and half-time show have very little to do with football and very much to do with the objectification of women and oversexualization of just about everything.

 Now, this year the two teams competing just happened to not have cheerleaders and I am relieved they were not a part of the “family time” this year.

 Also, the NFL is responsible for the half-time show, and since the famous “wardrobe malfunction” of 2004 they have gone far to try and stay out of trouble. So much so, that they have been criticized in the media and blogosphere for playing things "too safe" and not appealing to the audience they should.  I find it interesting that so many voices out there seem to lament a cleaner, more family-friendly approach to half-time. Rather than a celebration of a family game being available to the family, there is a prevailing attitude of “When will they get over it and get back to real half-time shows?”

 This year’s pick of The Blackeyed Peas left some optimistic that the NFL would finally "get over" the trauma and try to be “cool” again.  Did that mean reverting back to things I don’t want my family to watch?  I'm afraid so.  I like their music, yet I just could not believe that a middle-aged Fergie had to don a leather mini-skirt, expose all of her cleavage and bump and grind in order to put on a good show. What an appalling and embarrassing waste. There was a clear choice to go "edgy" again, at the expense of decency as well as good taste. 

 The raciness and inappropriate content of Super Bowl commercials also gets a lot of attention. Apparently the network that airs the game monitors the commercials to the extent that some ads have been banned; I am not sure who is on the panel deciding what gets through, but I am pretty skeptical that there is a mother of any elementary-aged children amongst them.  

It's too bad, because these 30-second ads costing 3 million dollars are a great example of private industry bringing out human creativity and innovation at its best. There are people who tape the Super Bowl just so that they can watch the ads. A reported 15% of those who watch the game do so only for the commercials.  The advertising reaches so many, and has to be clever and entertaining enough to keep you from using their 30-seconds as your bathroom break.

This year's roster included some really great ads. Volkswagen's mini-Darth Vader was my clear favorite. But I fear it will not be remembered nearly as well as Kim Kardashian's gratuitous and lewd performance for Skechers, or Mini's insistence that we "cram it in the boot". Really? 

The commercials are so frequent and so brief, that seemingly out of nowhere, barely dressed women, inappropriate sexual references and other offensive and unnecessary material appear in the middle of a string of harmless and amusing material.  As parents, it is easy to get wrapped up in the game, and so involved in the entertainment that the revolting stuff just kind of sneaks in there without much notice. I am certain that it doesn’t go unnoticed by the 9-12 year old boys in the room. I am pretty sure they also notice if it goes by us with no reaction.

 I'm not sure if we can expect the networks to filter out more than they already do. The raciness of the commercials is part of why people stay tuned in, and why there is a 3 million price tag for half a minute. 

If we cannot rely on companies to clean up their ads, what is left? 

 Does one have to mute or turn off all of the advertising to avoid exposing one’s children to undesirable material? I am afraid so. If there is a gathering of family and/or friends does Uncle Joe have to bother shutting off the down time of commercials because his little niece is still in the room? Seems annoying, but I think he does.  

We are careful about protecting our kids from other unwanted outside influences. The same media that promotes and celebrates the depravity in television advertising in one minute, tells us that “every little bit counts” and that we can “change the world” by reducing pollution of just one bottle. We can reduce damage to our precious earth by turning off one light, or carrying one reusable item.

 What about pollution of our children? What about the unwanted images and messages that are dumped in their brains and left there to never disintegrate? Can that happen from a 30-second commercial? I think it can. If one little act can clean up the world, then couldn’t one little mute button--or one little OFF button--clean up their minds?

There was a trailer for "Fast and Furious" within the first half hour, with women in bikinis, women making out, and crazy amounts of violence and "adrenaline shots"; then there was an ad for the show "Fringe" that included the word "hell" and disgusting, frightening images for young children. 

 The power to do something lies once again in the hands of us mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, grandparents or friends. It may seem like a small act to bother muting or shutting off the commercials, but small acts can mean a lot. And don’t worry; if you must watch, the lewd half-time show was already up on YouTube before the game had ended. Within a measly half-hour after the game ended, there was already a plethora of "commercial digests" compiled, filed,  ranked--presenting all of the Super Bowl commercials for you, too.

What did you do at your house?  Did you tape and watch the Super Bowl on a delay, fast forwarding through commercials and half time?  Did you attempt to mute, and if you did, was that successful or did your family protest?  Or did you just not watch? 

Anti-Aging Products for 8-Year-Olds

Can't we keep the little ones young for a little longer? That was my thought when I read this   article earlier this week. 

It's no secret that many little girls (including myself at that age) love to dress up and pretend to be grown-up women, and I've got no problem with that. When they're emulating mature women and character traits, this type of role-playing can be both fun and functional. My own two-year-old daughter already enjoys dressing up in my clothes and shoes and she'd love to get at my make-up if I let her.  I remember being a young girl and having hours of fun doing the same thing.

But when fun takes a more serious turn, marketing actual grown-up type products to impressionable young girls, do we have a problem on our hands? These products might be healthful for the skin (jury's still out on the touted benefits of certain antioxidants in skin care products, last I heard), but what about the emotional and mental health of our girls who already bombarded with myriad images and ideals glorifying youth and beauty above all else?

So what's your take on this? Much ado about nothing, or cause for concern?

"Skins", and the Parental Response to Mainstream Pornography

The other day one of my fellow bloggers, Cady Driver, sent me a link to this article regarding the new MTV show "Skins".  "Skins" has recieved a lot of publicity because of it's graphic content and the fact that some of the actors are underage, even inviting accusations of child pornography.

I haven't seen the show myself, but I've seen the clips shown on the news and porn definitely seems a fitting discription, whether "child" or not. 

The article I mentioned, written by Dr. Manny Alvarez, makes some very good points about the liquid nature of porn in our society and incredibly difficult job parents have in shielding thier children. Even when they're diligent, it's just too easy to find other means to access what all the other kids are watching.  Changing the channel isn't enough anymore.

What's a parent to do? Does complaining to the network work? It's cable so you have to subscribe to it. I know most who visit this site will agree that shows like "Skins" are garbage, but when networks keep competing with each other to take it to the next level,  how do concerned individuals respond effectively?