Posted on 11/28/2003 2:57:06 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Was shopping for school with your teenage daughter a challenge this year? If it was, you're not alone. The skimpy clothing popular among young girls has led some public schools to move to uniforms. Not a bad idea.
What's behind the push to dress provocatively? One fact that clues us in, observes Alissa Quart in her new book BRANDED: THE BUYING AND SELLING OF TEENAGERS, is that "youth is nothing less than a metaphor for change." That is, kids are trying to establish their identities.
Marketers cash in on this search for self by selling "image" to youth -- and increasingly, that image is sexual. We've seen this in Abercrombie and Fitch's thong underwear for 7-year-olds, as well as the company's depictions of bare- chested young males with provocative expressions in its advertising. And now Playboy sells clothing for teenagers.
But it's not just the sexual image that many of these companies push on teens; the idea that they can acquire an identity through brands is the real threat to impressionable youth. Quart quotes Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin, who decries the increase in materialism in bar and bat mitzvahs: "Conspicuous consumption with these events teaches the children that spending and having [are] more important than being." For many young people today, spending and having are synonymous with being. And having brand names, in their minds, is what makes them become "cool."
"Cool is essential in establishing a brand identity," notes Ken Myers of MARS HILL AUDIO, "especially with teenagers, whose purchases tend to be more desperately linked with the establishment of an identity than are those of adults."
"The term brand," says Quart, "suggests both the ubiquity of logos in today's teen dreams and the extreme way these brands define teen identities." It's true -- it's hard to turn your head in public without seeing brand names on posters, billboards, or the sides of buses. And this affects young people profoundly.
"One thing that's so compelling and strange about the uptick in marketing to kids," says Quart, "is how much these practices have taken advantage of organic things that already exist in childhood and adolescence: the desire to communicate [opinions] . . . the sense of lack of identity, changing bodies and burgeoning sexuality, a desire to emulate adult culture."
Manufacturers and advertisers are participating in the phenomenon of "kids getting older younger." And in the process, imagination has been lost. Kids used to play with stuffed animals and other toys; now they take fashion cues from Britney Spears and play brand-name-laden video games. "The kind of imaginary world kids make up with their toys," said Myers, "is a zone in which they're really defining themselves." Now, they're being defined by marketers.
"As Lionel Trilling wrote thirty years ago, authenticity is an even more 'strenuous moral experience' than sincerity. [Brand-name products] aim to harness teens' desire for an ideal . . . world and give them a branded one instead," writes Quart. Our job, of course, is to teach our kids and grandkids to find their identity in themselves as God made them, rather than being swayed by brands and commercialized images -- because in allowing themselves to be "branded," they not only lose money, they lose their true identity.
Don't public schools have dress codes anymore? My elementary school had a strict dress code, my junior high a stricter one, and my high school had an extraordinarily strict dress code, which even I (I dress EXTREMELY modestly) violated a couple of times by wearing a skirt that was an inch over my knees. If you violated the dress code, you got sent home...no ifs, ands, or buts. Has public school changed THAT much in the last ten years?
I mean, gawd...we couldn't even wear HATS in ANY public school I attended. We couldn't even wear sunglasses on our heads.
In fourth grade, the ties were no longer mandatory but you still couldn't wear jeans or sneakers. At this time, they started toning down the Christmas activities and the liberalism began seeping into the cirriculum. For example, textbooks started explaining how the evil white Europeans destroyed the Indians and so forth. Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer books were removed from the classroom because they had what they called "racial epithets" in them.
By seventh grade (1974-75), jeans and sneakers were finally allowed. And if you didn't wear them, you were deemed by your classmates to be "uncool" and you got harrassed. By 1976-77 (high school), just about anything went clothingwise. Boys started showing up with ripped jeans and Aerosmith and Kiss T-shirts, girls started showing their belly buttons and cleavage (even back then).
During my high school years, there was enormous pressure to wear what was called "designer jeans", usually Jordache jeans that were $40 or $50 a pair (outrageous back in those days). Some of the kids (boys) started wearing platform shoes and women-style clothing (like Elton John and David Bowie). My family could never afford them so I was perpetually "uncool" in my department store Levis and button down shirts (that I still wear today).
So I would like to see dress codes reinstituted. Take the pressure off the kids to impress their peers and get them concentrated back on reading and arithmetic.
You left school the spring before I started kindergarten. We weren't required to dress very conservatively; we were small children (five and six years old) so we were allowed to wear short dresses, shorts and t-shirts, sandals, etc. Looking back at the photos, none of us were inappropriately attired for our age. Makeup was completely banned in my elementary school; I remember four girls in my sixth grade class being marched to the girls' bathroom to scrub makeup off their faces. There were NO exceptions to this rule. This occurred in 1987. The principal at my school carried a paddle with him everywhere in K-1, but we got a new principal for 2-4 who didn't. The principal for 5-6 was a bit tougher. Individual teachers still paddled kids in my elementary school as recently as 1987. The vice principal in my junior high paddled kids in 1988 and 1989. I don't think paddling occurred at all in my high school, but since I wasn't a troublemaker, I really couldn't tell you for certain!
As for Christmas parties...we didn't really have them, but probably not for the reasons you think. The area of Dallas where we lived has a substantial Jewish community; my kindergarten class was over 50% Jewish. We had a Christmas/Hannukah party that year, but after that my school switched to having parties for Halloween and Valentine's Day instead of Christmas and Easter, since about 50% of every TAG class was Jewish. (TAG = Talented and Gifted. The TAG class was entirely composed of locals. The kids forcibly bused in were never in the TAG classes, but attended the same Halloween and Valentine's Day parties that we did.) I never saw anything wrong with it and I still don't. In high school the percentage of Jewish kids in my class was watered down by kids from other feeder schools, so even though my H.S. had the nickname "Hebrew High" it was only about 1/6 Jewish. We had a Christmas pageant freshman year and sang Hannukah songs as well as Christmas songs, and had a skit about Hannukah. I thought it was a fair representation of the student body. We didn't have any Christmas parties of any kind after my freshman year, but I think that was probably because it was a major hassle for the teachers and administrators to cram all 1,000 of us into an auditorium designed for 700 people.
In fourth grade, the ties were no longer mandatory but you still couldn't wear jeans or sneakers. At this time, they started toning down the Christmas activities and the liberalism began seeping into the cirriculum. For example, textbooks started explaining how the evil white Europeans destroyed the Indians and so forth. Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer books were removed from the classroom because they had what they called "racial epithets" in them.
By the time I was that age, we were taught that some skirmishes with native Americans were the fault of the whites, some weren't, and that diseases like smallpox (the native Americans had no immunity whatsoever to smallpox) devastated large swathes of native American communities. I think the view we got was fair and balanced. And Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were both required reading at my junior high school, and I don't remember anyone complaining. This was in 1987-1988.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.