In Which I Share With You a Treasure...AND a Major Case of the Heebie-Jeebies
One of the many personal "treasures" I've discovered through blogging, and particularly through the eclectic, unusual, tribal, and supportive community of bloggers who are usually called, whether they like it or not (and MANY do NOT--trust me), the "mommybloggers," is Lindsay Ferrier. Lindsay's "home" blog is "Suburban Turmoil," where she previously blogged under the pseudonym "Lucinda," and it is an absolute scream. From her site there, you can link to any one of her several other blogging efforts, which include a fabulous food/menu/recipe blog, a celebrity-watching blog, and many more. And the setting in which I have seen her just SHINE in recent weeks has been her column at The Nashville Scene Online, and their blog, "Pith in the Wind." (Now, if that's not a great name for a blog with a journalistic bent, I don't know what is.)
Lindsay is tough to pigeonhole, the way we like to label people, because she "is" lots of things. She's an ex-television anchor, an Emmy-winning journalist, absolutely hilarious, quite a looker, a great cook, and (grumble, grumble) younger than me. What's that? Why, no, I do not have a complex. Not at all. *cough* But most importantly, as she'd be the first to tell you, she's a wife and a mom and stepmom, and even has "one more on the way," as we like to euphemize down South. (To put it in Lindsay's own terms, she's "knocked up.") Even so, we have a lot in common, as so many of us "mommybloggers" do, even down to sharing the same fabulous Canadian blog designer.
SO: Why am I trumpeting the virtues of a writer for a Tennessee newspaper's blog here, on the blog of an Arkansas newspaper? Well, because I'm just generous like that, and she's too good to keep to myself, and also because, you know how when you get a really bad, annoying song, or a very distasteful image, joke, or story, stuck in your head, just STUCK, and the only way to get rid of it is to infect someone else? Well, consider this post my way of sneezing my metaphorical blog-germs all over you, in an effort to exorcise myself of this extremely bad juju that's infected my brain. Lindsay's recent feature for the Scene was a powerful one, which turned out to have some strong Arkansas connections. Told in her unique voice, it comes across as simultaneously funny, shocking, and for me, as the mother of a not-quite-four-year-old girl, more than a little sad. It's a story of baby/preschooler/child "glitz" pageants, and the alternate dimension in which the denizens of that world reside.
Lindsay is tough to pigeonhole, the way we like to label people, because she "is" lots of things. She's an ex-television anchor, an Emmy-winning journalist, absolutely hilarious, quite a looker, a great cook, and (grumble, grumble) younger than me. What's that? Why, no, I do not have a complex. Not at all. *cough* But most importantly, as she'd be the first to tell you, she's a wife and a mom and stepmom, and even has "one more on the way," as we like to euphemize down South. (To put it in Lindsay's own terms, she's "knocked up.") Even so, we have a lot in common, as so many of us "mommybloggers" do, even down to sharing the same fabulous Canadian blog designer.
SO: Why am I trumpeting the virtues of a writer for a Tennessee newspaper's blog here, on the blog of an Arkansas newspaper? Well, because I'm just generous like that, and she's too good to keep to myself, and also because, you know how when you get a really bad, annoying song, or a very distasteful image, joke, or story, stuck in your head, just STUCK, and the only way to get rid of it is to infect someone else? Well, consider this post my way of sneezing my metaphorical blog-germs all over you, in an effort to exorcise myself of this extremely bad juju that's infected my brain. Lindsay's recent feature for the Scene was a powerful one, which turned out to have some strong Arkansas connections. Told in her unique voice, it comes across as simultaneously funny, shocking, and for me, as the mother of a not-quite-four-year-old girl, more than a little sad. It's a story of baby/preschooler/child "glitz" pageants, and the alternate dimension in which the denizens of that world reside.
To get properly immersed in the subject-matter at hand, you'll need to start with Lindsay's piece over at the Nashville Scene, in which she relates the experiences of herself and her two-year-old daughter while attending (as much as she could stomach of) one of these children's "glitz" pageants. (Interesting to note is that the pageant was not publicized on-site at all, not even on the host hotel's lobby marquis, and the large conference-room where the festivities were held just bore a low-key sign out front reading "private party." You'd almost think something might be going on that would prove distasteful to the general public, if you were the cynical type.) So go ahead, click on over and check out the story; I'll wait here.
Back already? OK. You as squicked-out as I was when I read it? Yeah, something about a tiny girl in a sequined top and a diaper, for the love of Pete's sake, having her satin "hot pants" tugged on when it was her turn to go on stage and drop it like it's hot for the judges...not exactly warming the cockles of this mother's heart. By the time I got to Lindsay's recounting of the lyrics of one of the most popular contestant-chosen dance-routine songs of the day, "Barbie Girl," I was mentally fleeing that hotel conference room with as many litte false-toothed, spray-tanned, bewigged and diapered toddlers as I could carry: "You can brush my hair; undress me everywhere...Kiss me here, touch me there, hanky-panky...Make me walk, make me talk, do whatever you please; I can act like a star, get down on my knees..." UGH. I don't know what Mental-Me was planning on doing with these tiny, sequinned kidnap victims--Mental-Me wasn't thinking that far ahead. She just wanted to gather up those kids and bring them home to play in the sandbox, ride a pony or a bicycle, read a book, build with blocks, maybe even--*GASP*-- skin a knee, all while somehow getting across the message, "You are worth more than your (fake) appearance and your ability to shake your tiny, innocent little 'money-makers'!"
Now, let me just clarify: I'm not out to crush the inner "princess" from little girls. That has been, and so far remains, my own daughter's fondest fantasy/pretend persona, and she loves nothing more than glamming it up in the unbelievable homemade "princess gowns" that my talented mother-in-law sewed for her, complete with tiara, and usually magic wand, because in her version, the princess is ALSO the fairy godmother. Don't ask me; she has the symantics all worked out to her own satisfaction, and that's good enough for me. Last Halloween, we went all out for her, with one of her Grandmommy gowns and LOTS of accessories:
Which was dandy while it lasted, but by the time we were ready for the actual trick-or-treating, we'd somehow had a very un-princesslike display of impatience, and the former princess set out adorned in a too-large, borrowed-from-older-boy-cousin Pooh-suit:
Darth was not exactly pleased at the appearance of his companion, either, as apparently, having to stand next to Pooh-bear brings your Sith Lord toughness quotient right down a notch or two.
Anyway, the point I guess I'm making is that, for our daughter, it's pretend for the SAKE of pretending. It's done because it's fun, it is, above all, her idea, and when it stops being fun, as evidenced in photographic form here, well...to quote from the finest horror/suspense film of my teendom, "Game over, man! Game over!"
I wonder how many of those little "glitz" pageant girls get to call it quits when they're hungry, tired, cranky, or just plain bored? If you've ever seen the 2001 HBO documentary, "Living Dolls" (and if you haven't, DO watch for replays), then you know that it doesn't seem like very many have that option, or many options at all, and you have to wonder just what they're being groomed for, beyond childhood. What are the unintended consequences of this lifestyle? How will these little "dolls" expect to be treated by men? By other women? By the academic and/or professional worlds? And that nagging question that is at the back of everyone's mind: In the still-too-fresh presence of the specter of Jon-Benet Ramsey, how is it that this industry of small-child "glitz" pageantry still thrives?
The discussion continued back over at Suburban Turmoil, in the next day's post, "The Problem With Pageants," and that's where things got really lively, as that post garnered over 100 very emotional comments within its first 24 hours, many of which provided additional fodder for discussion, such as this 2000 Harvard University Gazette article, which reported on a sociological study being conducted on the child-pageant culture. I would have to agree with commenter Amanda, (whose blog I checked out, and who also uses the same blog designer as both Lindsey and I--what are the odds?) who linked the Harvard article, on her choice of "best" quote from an interviewee: "I know people who have spent so much on pageants, they lost their trailers."
But the real "OH MY GOSH WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS SOME MORE" moment, especially for the parents reading, came with Lindsay's closing link, which takes you to a page of "winners" on a website called "Total Knockout." The fact that a majority of the "total knockouts" (who, as far as I can tell, have won photo competitions sponsored by this site, though I'm not sure about the details) featured on this page were age 5 and under caught my attention first, as then did the realization of how very many of the children were from Arkansas. With full disclosure that the experience could leave you feeling...anywhere from vaguely creepy to downright skeeved out, have a look. I'm not going to post any of the photos here, for obvious reasons, but it was these images, images of what are obviously, if only it could be shown, naturally beautiful little girls, which made me want to weep at the oh-so-early sexualization of our innocent babies. And SO MANY of them are from Arkansas, yet I don't know one single parent who participates in these "glitz" pageants. Dance/gymnastic/etc. recitals? Oh, yeah, sure. "Cute kid" photo contests? You betcha. But tarted up like Vegas showgirls, performing to sexually suggestive song lyrics? Are little girls' childhoods not short enough? Really? I certainly remember being yanked rudely out of my own by cruel biology once and for all at the age of 11, and being none too happy about it.
If we're piercing the ears and plucking the eyebrows of, applying makeup, wigs, false teeth and fake tans to, teaching pouty, "come hither" expressions to, dressing in suggestive costumes for suggestive talent/modeling routines, and performing extreme digital enhancements upon photographs of, girls that aren't yet old enough to use the potty, walk, talk, etc., what I have to wonder is, what is going to be left for these girls once they do reach an age of actual, physical sexual maturity? I can't even speculate about where their emotional maturity level will be, because my brain is dangerously close to exploding and oozing right out my ears. And please understand, it's not the very concept of "beauty pageants" that is causing me such angst: It is the adult, sexualized nature of these "glitz" competitions, in direct juxtaposition with the ages of the contestants. And I'm not an uptight prude desperate to shield my child from so much as the idea of (SHHHHH) "s-e-x," It's more about a sort of feminine pride, for me.
And then, when we examine these photographs, it appears there's this whole Brave New World of digital photo enhancement for the purposes of promoting the little beauty queens--some of the photography being an end unto itself, when entered in online photo "beauty contests," where, ironically, the rules usually state that retouching is to be kept "at a minimum." Another blogging friend of mine, Dave Simmer, on his site, "Blogography," first brought this phenomenon to my attention in a post of his last summer, titled "Barbie." As stated, he found mention of this then growing "trend" via a post on BoingBoing, which featured this work by one particular photographer. At least, on this site, there are what appear to be some adult women. (I have to wonder about those, too, though, with the staring, glassy, doll-eyes and airbrushed features; is that photo on some Hubby's desk at work, or in his billfold, somewhere? "Um, yeah, that's my wife. Her skin is made entirely of a space-age polymer, and she's slightly psychotic!")
And HERE (because, you know, you were DYING to hear more of my opinions on this Topic That Never Ends) is what is nagging away at my cerebral cortex (and don't any of you sciencey types tell me that my cerebral cortex is not where I do my pondering--I don't care) about this new "style" of photography, and the standard of beauty it endorses: WHY does this "standard of beauty," besides being so narrow and limited and race-specific, seem to come DIRECTLY from the pornography industry? What is wrong with us, as women (well, assuming that we haven't been BORN into this life, as some of these "glitz" girls apparently are), that we are willing, ANY of us, to accept this standard of beauty and sexuality, that has obviously sprung, wholly formed, from the minds of men? And worse than that, that we would allow it to be foisted upon our daughters?
Am I way out of line, here? Am I ranting? Well, OK, yeah, I'm ranting. But don't I have reason, as the mother of a daughter who will be reaching her teen years within the next decade, to be concerned? Can we, as her parents, do enough to counteract the constant bombardment of values--and I'm not even talking morals or ethics here, I'm talking VALUES-- gone crazy, in a world in which the most popular line of toys for girls is the "BRATZ" line of Lil' Hooker (or whatever they're called) dolls?
I really would like to meet the developers of this line of toys, and discuss whether or not they have children, what sort of attitudes and values they believe that these dolls are encouraging in children, and whether or not they feel any personal responsibility whatsoever for these abominations. And then, I might, just a little, like to punch them in the necks. You know, whatever the mood seems to indicate.
I realize that this has been a lot of ranting, and a LOT of linking, and if you're still with me, thank you. I appreciate it. All I really want is for my sweet little girl to be able to BE a little girl, to maintain that innocence that is the right of every young child, for as long as possible, and at least as long as she WANTS to be one, without having any of this foolishness thrust upon her. And at the same time, I want her to be able to enjoy, revel in, and be PROUD of--to celebrate--being a girl! Feeling "girly?" Great! Let's wear boas and Mommy's high heels and have a tea party! Wanna play pirate, knocking the heads off hydrangeas with your "sword,"or just go catch bugs? Build wooden block castles to the sky? Fantastic. Don't ever be afraid to get your hands dirty, Kiddo. Get in there and take hold of the life you want, and LIVE it. Just make sure it's YOURS.
Oh, and whenever you get to be a flower-girl at a wedding, and you go bug-nuts at the mere sight of the divine "princess" dress you get to wear, and the slippers, and the flowers in your basket, and the whole experience? We are SO (including your sucker Grandmommy) going right along with you on that. With no makeup, no fake tan, no eyebrow plucking, and no false teeth. And when you finally get tired and cranky right in the middle of the ceremony (because you decide it is "time for dancing and twirling") and have to be removed to the vestibule? You can totally sit and pout in your princess dress. Wrinkle away, Darling. And then, during the reception? BE YOURSELF--and may that never stop being a totally superfluous instruction to you.
Belinda also blogs from her "home base" on the internet, NINJA POODLES! Expect chaos.
Comments
What a great continuation of this topic! I agreed with Lindsey's point that we *need* to talk more about this, be as loudly vocal about these pageants as we can be...they need to be stopped. Kids are growing up too fast nowadays without dressing them up like hookers.
Posted by: amanda | September 20, 2006 07:43 AM
Wow! Thanks for all the nice words, Belinda, but your post on this subject was AWESOME. You brought up so many good points. I'm going to link to this on my blog- I just posted about it again today, coincidentally. :)
Posted by: Lindsay | September 20, 2006 09:09 AM
Alright Belinda- I'm back from helping Aunt Lulu birth her baby and I can't wait to check out all the hoopla!
Posted by: Anne Glamore | September 20, 2006 09:46 AM
Amanda--I REALLY got a lot out of the study that you brought into the discussion. This one one of those cases where I was GLAD I had slogged through all those comments!
Anne--Only you could write about "helping Aunt Lulu birth her baby," and leave me with NO DOUBT that you are telling the absolute truth. (Other readers, Anne's "Tiny Kingdom" is another blog in the "mommyblogging" universe that you OWE it to yourself to check out. Click on her name and start with her "best of" posts. This is what Southern humor is all about.
Lindsay--so glad you could stop by! And you are SO right about this topic: It spawns one NEW topic after another...it's like, did you ever read the encyclopedia when you were little, and one entry would send you looking up something else? That is what happened in my head the more I thought about this, and as unbelievable as it seems, I could have gone ON AND ON, evolving from one line of thought to the next...it's a real can of worms, isn't it? And how do you like those COMPLETE "Barbie Girl" lyrics? NICE, eh? I'm sure you have Baby dyrating away to that song all day long by now...HA!
Posted by: Belinda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ninjapoodles/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 20, 2006 10:05 AM
Hey, I've never been to your house over here. Nice place!
Posted by: Busy Mom | September 20, 2006 10:09 AM
Ugh.. this whole topic gets my tits in a knot!
Does this stuff happen in Canada? I've looked, but can't find any info.. I sure hope it doesn't happen close to home!
Posted by: CeCe | September 20, 2006 11:28 AM
As creeped out as I was by the TKO pictures (they made me want to vomit) I am even more creeped out by the thought of all the pedophiles who must love that site, and are probably doing something other than vomitting.
Don't those mothers see the beast they are feeding? What kind of mother needs this activity to make her life feel right? Cuz those girls are way too young to come toddling to Mommy, saying "Please make me look like a hooker!"
I see little baby Tammy Fayes, but without as much taste.
Excellent post, Belinda.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2006 11:35 AM
Great post, on a issue near and dear to my heart. Thanks for expressing it so well. From a mommy-blogger-who-actually-doesn't-mind-being-called-a-mommy-blogger (and also a former Arkansas girl)--
Shannon
Posted by: Shannon @ Rocks in my Dryer | September 20, 2006 02:12 PM
Shannon, I don't mind the title "mommyblogger," either. Fits what I do, pretty well, even if I also blog about anything else that rolls across my mind...but there's not really a handy term for "pukes feelings out onto the keyboard in a random and haphazard fashion blogger." ;-)
What I do mind, that I've really personally only seen lately (although the mommyblogging pioneers will attest that it's been around from the beginning), is the derogatory way I've seen the term used, as if, because we blog about our life including our kids, we can't possibly have anything relevant or meaningful to say.
We know better, though, so I don't let it get to me TOO much!
And I keep hoping that someone with some insight into this "glitz" pageant system might enlighten us as to the parental motivation behind this particular line of pageants...because there ARE "natural" pageants as an alternative to these "shake it for all you're worth" showdowns.
Posted by: Belinda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ninjapoodles/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 20, 2006 02:59 PM
Belinda, when I first read Lindsey's posts on this topic I felt physically ill. I clicked to that horrid site with the plastic faced, glassy eyed tiny little girls and felt like calling DSS and reporting this as child porn. It's disgusting, and I cannot even fathom why any mom in their right mind would participate in this nonsense. As if beauty pagents aren't bizarre enough for adults, the whole princess world of pagents should be illegal imo.
Posted by: margalit | September 20, 2006 08:31 PM
margalit: It SEEMS that any activity designed for public consumption which sexualizes minor (and often toddler and infant) children would at least be *suspect.* I don't get it, honestly.
But, the description of the pageant Lindsay attended being held "on the down-low" does speak volumes to me.
Posted by: Belinda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ninjapoodles/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 20, 2006 09:21 PM
Belinda, happy to have found you via Lindsay! You've both done such a great job on this topic it seems there is very little left to say about these horror parents other than "Read them their rights" .
I'm certainly feeling ill for those little ones, and would happily help you house any that you manage to scoop up (so they can come and be grubby 'normal' princesses with my girls and their superhero brother!)
Posted by: bec | September 20, 2006 11:06 PM
Thanks for the link love on the design front Belinda!
Lindsay has started up quite a conversation on this topic and I already commented at length on her blog. Those contests should be outlawed. I'm not out to squash the inner princess either, but these things are so damamging to little girls. It just is not right to sexualize a child. Especially in this day and age, where pedophila is (in Oprah's words) an "epidemic."
Great follow up Belinda. Together, us Mommybloggers can change things like this.
Karen
Posted by: Karen Rani | September 21, 2006 06:41 AM
Fantastic essay Belinda. "what I have to wonder is, what is going to be left for these girls once they do reach an age of actual, physical sexual maturity? "
Just perfectly put. I am worried that these girls' self-esteem will forever hinge on what men think of them sexually. They'll be the types who despite their "talents" get into the right southern university, join the right sorority, all to find the right husband so that upon graduation, they can start spawning themselves and raising the next generation of messed-up girls.
It wouldn't bother me quite so much if my own daughter didn't have to share a planet with them.
Posted by: Mom101 | September 21, 2006 07:11 PM
Personally, I'm betting that MOST of them will be OK. But I'd guess you're right in that some won't.
I really, desperately wish we'd get some "counterpoint" comments here, because I am trying HARD to understand. I KNOW that there have been "glitz" parents viewing this post, because at least one has complained to the editor (This is why, although Max told me that, as I already knew, there was no problem with linking to a public website--you can't "copyright" a URL, after all--I removed links I had up to INDIVIDUAL girls' pictures. But you know, you can choose your OWN "most-disturbing" image from the "Total Knockout" site, whose link is still up in the above post.).
I'd give anything if that parent would, even anonymously (which is totally possible on this blog) give us some of the "WHY" of this practice, since so many of us are obviously having a hard time understanding it.
Posted by: Belinda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ninjapoodles/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 21, 2006 08:24 PM
Oh, and just to make it PERFECTLY clear: I did not remove the individual photo links to the "Total Knockouts" page due to ANY sort of pressure, editorial or otherwise. Max (who absolutely supported the post as it was originally) merely passed on a parent's concern about her daughter's picture being linked to. I wasn't clear whether it was her child in one of those links that went directly to an individual photo, but JUST IN CASE it was, I removed them all, out of respect for her wishes, simply because she IS a parent, with legitimate concerns, and so am I, and in that, we are the same, no matter our other differences.
Granted, if you are concerned about this sort of exposure, then perhaps entering your toddler or young child in "Little Miss Hot-Pants" competitions is not the proper sort of activity for you to be pursuing. And that was the other reason I took the individual links down--because I am certain that quite ENOUGH pedophiles and stalkers find the frighteningly sexualized photos of these little, little girls on their own...and on the off chance that the parent's concern was along those lines, I just couldn't contribute to drawing attention to a *particular* child.
But I do firmly believe that a light needs to be shone on this "glitz" pageant system, and the bizarre glamourized/sexed-up digitally mutated photo contests. Because...that just ain't right, folks. Little girls and boys are PLENTY beautiful in their own natural glory, aren't they? Why take that away and make them little adults?
I know that there are alternative, "natural" pageants...why not take part in those, if you're really doing it "because the child enjoys it," or "to build confidence/self-esteem?"
I am dying for some diversity in this one-sided discussion. Because I TRULY want to hear another side of it. I DO. And I promise to keep things civil, if anyone who does the "glitz" thing with your very little girl wants to chime in on just WHY you do it. I will remove any comment that is openly hostile or becomes a personal attack, because I want CIVIL DISCUSSION.
Please, Disgruntled Mom from Thursday, or any others...speak up!
Posted by: Belinda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ninjapoodles/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 22, 2006 12:57 AM
What the U.N thinks is that iran will play by the rules and not attempt to make a nuke but we all know that they will at the end and it will be the end for a lot of us...look out for generic viagra its really good http://ipoo.org/2svj generic viagra
Posted by: generic viagra | October 13, 2006 08:37 AM