I continue to be amazed by what some people will say when they are pushing a social agenda. When David W. Hornbeck, chair of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, envisages the ideal 15 year old having a self-image of competence and strength. This isn’t too shocking for me. What is is his next statement: “This self-image will be based on the fact that the youth will be at least very good at something, because success is critical to a positive self-image.”
Hornbeck’s statement is one of the vilest things I have ever heard. I realize that kids should be given every opportunity to succeed, but success is not all there is to life. Teachers have the task of embedding virtues and values to students, not pushing them to be the best. Hornbeck must have a great self-image since he succeeded in producing one hell of a fallacy.
If Hornbeck’s words had any worth then almost nobody would participate in competition. Why would they? If they don’t think they’re very good, then there’s no use in even trying. If only very good people participate there will be further reduction in participation because only the truly gifted will be successful in such competitions. In terms of their future, Hornbeck is not inspiring teens, he is killing their spirit.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Warped Nation
Today, official and media distortions, particularly about teen sex and violence, are one and the same. Startling is the case of teenage mothers that more than 70% of the time are impregnated by males 20 years or older. It’s a shame that the “hyper sexed teen” image is made public while obscuring the statutory rape portion of the equation. The media has done a good job of leading the public astray, so as not to highlight a large blemish in the American façade. In this land most news consumers are adults, and kids can’t vote.
The teenage time bomb hypothesis is cast aside by Mike Males, but James Alan Fox’s view of teenagers as temporary sociopaths-impulsive and immature isn’t that far off the mark. “If teens have easy access to guns and drugs they can be extremely dangerous.” Though Columbine and other school-site shootings proved that there are killer kids, that wasn’t the entire point Fox was making. The ability of almost anybody to easily acquire guns and drugs makes them extremely dangerous. The proliferation of guns isn’t just a liberal explanation for violence, it makes common sense that if guns are easy to come by and if other serious problems, like poverty or drug addiction, inflict a person they are potential time bombs.
Man, chapter 8 was disturbing. Sure the title, Nymphet Fantasies, gets the creepy ball rolling but I never thought it was going to be some upright about a so-called subculture phenomenon. The article gives monetary figures that prove that child beauty pageants are truly an entire cultural concern. To have corporations sponsoring what a former stage mother was repulsed by is disconcerting. How parents of these kids justify their participation is perhaps the worst since it lends credence that we are a culture that want to be successful at all costs, even exploiting our children.
The teenage time bomb hypothesis is cast aside by Mike Males, but James Alan Fox’s view of teenagers as temporary sociopaths-impulsive and immature isn’t that far off the mark. “If teens have easy access to guns and drugs they can be extremely dangerous.” Though Columbine and other school-site shootings proved that there are killer kids, that wasn’t the entire point Fox was making. The ability of almost anybody to easily acquire guns and drugs makes them extremely dangerous. The proliferation of guns isn’t just a liberal explanation for violence, it makes common sense that if guns are easy to come by and if other serious problems, like poverty or drug addiction, inflict a person they are potential time bombs.
Man, chapter 8 was disturbing. Sure the title, Nymphet Fantasies, gets the creepy ball rolling but I never thought it was going to be some upright about a so-called subculture phenomenon. The article gives monetary figures that prove that child beauty pageants are truly an entire cultural concern. To have corporations sponsoring what a former stage mother was repulsed by is disconcerting. How parents of these kids justify their participation is perhaps the worst since it lends credence that we are a culture that want to be successful at all costs, even exploiting our children.
Friday, February 6, 2009
(P. 27)“Puberty itself is a key developmental challenge for adolescents. They must accommodate to the physical changes in a cultural milieu that, for girls, values the prepubertal over the mature female body.” I don’t know where Brooks-Gunn and O.Reiter got this tidbit but I find it quite upsetting. Just what cultural milieu are they talking about? Are middle school girls really being reproached for growing up from their “cutie pie” old selves? If this is true, I can’t see how all adolescent girls aren’t emotionally crushed after the onset of puberty. Is this the ‘Daddy’s little girl’ factor?
I am glad that the authors state, on p.28, that: “We regret that we are able to say little about the pubertal experience of groups other than middle-class white youth”. It seems that research can’t often go beyond the “norm” to appease the most socially influential class in the United States. Although the rich have more real power, American society aims to please and work towards the embetterment of the white middle-class, since this has historically been the “heart” of our nation.
It’s very interesting that although the main proponent, G. Stanley Hall, of adolescent studies was writing as far back as the early 1900s, it wouldn’t be until the 1980s that the topic came to its own. The authors cite reasons why this is so. These reasons are basically the uncomfortable and ambivalent stance adults take on the subject. Adults therefore wish to think of adolescence as a social construct and not a physiological phase so as to not have reason to do further research on the topic.
I am glad that the authors state, on p.28, that: “We regret that we are able to say little about the pubertal experience of groups other than middle-class white youth”. It seems that research can’t often go beyond the “norm” to appease the most socially influential class in the United States. Although the rich have more real power, American society aims to please and work towards the embetterment of the white middle-class, since this has historically been the “heart” of our nation.
It’s very interesting that although the main proponent, G. Stanley Hall, of adolescent studies was writing as far back as the early 1900s, it wouldn’t be until the 1980s that the topic came to its own. The authors cite reasons why this is so. These reasons are basically the uncomfortable and ambivalent stance adults take on the subject. Adults therefore wish to think of adolescence as a social construct and not a physiological phase so as to not have reason to do further research on the topic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)