Miley Cyrus: Beware the smiley siren

CJ Morgan says:

07:34am | 22/06/11

Heh - I was just thinking that the poor thing was doomed genetically from the start…  Mind you, I’m not sure what’s worse for impressionable young minds - cage or line dancing?

Jim says:

01:33pm | 22/06/11

Your right, she was doomed from the start, hte name of the place she comes from says it all!!!

K says:

02:20pm | 22/06/11

For real.  You put some gel in your hair to help keep it in a neat ponytail, then compare that to what kiddies are doing today?  This is your argument? You should change a lotta minds over that one!

KH says:

10:55am | 22/06/11

The point is that she had a lot of children as fans - and that this idea that ‘growing up’ means looking like you are available for sex every minute of the day is probably not a good message to send young kids, as it reinforces what is a really demeaning idea of what a grown up woman should be.  There are plenty of ways to move to adulthood with class.  Example -  Emma Watson - there is a child star who has managed to grow up in front of cameras without resorting to looking like a Z grade porn ‘actor’.

Leah says:

12:00pm | 22/06/11

I think you’re missing the point.

Nobody is objecting to Miley changing her image. How she’s changing it, and what she’s changing it to, are the problems.

Look at actresses like Emma Watson. She has successfully transformed her image to that of an adult without the hotpants, leather corsets, underage drinking and barely-there skirts. Instead she’s classy and I’m sure most movie producers looking for a young woman to fill a role would prefer her over Miley Cyrus. Even Kirsten Stewart, despite her sour demeanour most of the time, has more class and maturity than Miley. Emma and Kirsten are transforming themselves into respectable adult actresses. Miley looks like a teenager desperate for attention and playing adult dress-ups.

Growing up doesn’t mean walking around town looking like a hooker.

Septimus says:

02:57pm | 22/06/11

I see, so she’s required to conform to you standards.

Aaron says:

04:48pm | 22/06/11

Hey Septimus, just for a lot of the people who are going to attack you here… Remember it’s not her fault if you think she’s up for sex everyday, it’s yours, you need to get control on your urges people Septimus is right here.

Realistic Views says:

04:57pm | 22/06/11

Unfortunately, while we still have feminist Nazis like KH (unfortunately) living in this world… There will always be people wanting to control the way other people want to live their lives. Miley has every right to be the person she wants to be… Whether she wants to dress in tarty outfits and dance around on stage like a whore, that’s her own choice… Regardless of whether she has children as fans or not. She doesn’t ask those children to be fans… They just are. You state Emma Watson did the job of growing up “right”... Well, that is who Emma Watson wants to be. Let Miley destroy her own reputation with people who used to respect her… That’s HER CHOICE! Just like Watson made the choice to be someone else. If we didn’t have people in the world like Miley, we’d be a bunch of stuck up boring prudes like KH and Emma Watson. If someone tried to tell me how to live my life, I would give them the big middle finger too.

BK says:

05:31pm | 22/06/11

@Realistic

So, we are supposed to believe that all of these young singers couldn’t care less about the rest of the world and it is just a coincidence that their images are all so similar.

OddCreature says:

06:24pm | 22/06/11

Yes but the key difference between Emma and Miley is that Emma is primarily an actress, and Miley is primarily a singer. They’re totally different ball games.

In the movie world actors need to be dignified to secure roles. Case in point, Ben Affleck had a lot of trouble getting a decent role when he went off the rails with J-Lo. Robert Downey Jr could never get a gig unless he was sober.

But in music, it’s a cliche but sex sells. Well-behaved, conservatively dressed young ladies just don’t sell records anymore. Britney, Christina, Pink, Rihanna, Gaga, they all slut it up on the telly because that’s how you sell albums these days.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it at all. I would much prefer for my daughter to look up to Emma than Miley. The point I’m trying to make is it’s not entirely Miley’s fault, she didn’t set the trend. And it’s not fair to compare her to Emma when they are in such different situations.

Marco says:

09:04pm | 22/06/11

@OddCreature

Ever heard of Taylor Swift?

MDK says:

10:01am | 23/06/11

@Marco who is Taylor Swift?

MDK says:

10:01am | 23/06/11

@Marco who is Taylor Swift?

einstein says:

11:03am | 23/06/11

A trend from the last 300 years. Petroleum exposure probably

shelley says:

02:33pm | 23/06/11

i think the point is that ass you grow up you dont have to resort to ciched images such as corsets and black leather!!! Its tacky as well as cliched….

Tedd says:

08:27am | 22/06/11

If children want to emulate her, you would blame the parents. 

Get real ‘Mntd’.

A very good article by Daniela.  Why does this happen to the USA starlets - firstly professing “christianity” until about 17 then quickly portraying overt raunch?

Septimus says:

08:40am | 22/06/11

@ Tedd

100% you would blame the parents, for failing to bring up a child in a balanced and responsible environment.

Do Christians not have sex?

Tedd says:

10:58am | 22/06/11

Septimus,
There are many influences in a child’s life beyond their parents.

I was not having a dig at christianity or non-christianity; rather, the sudden change away from one to the other ....

bambi says:

10:59am | 22/06/11

Your exactly right. Couldn’t of said it better myself.

Alicia says:

11:32am | 22/06/11

I agree with Tedd, you wouldn’t blame the parents for wanting to emulate her. However, you would blame the parents for buying their 13 year old make-up and raunchy clothes! I didn’t have make-up until I was 16 and could buy it myself.

With children that young, despite the influences they are exposed to, it all comes down to what the parent allows them to wear. Just because Miley is in the public eye doesn’t mean she should have to enter adulthood conservatively, if she wants to do it in a raunchy fashion, good for her. Just switch off the TV and don’t allow your kids access to her material. Simple.

Shifter says:

12:26pm | 22/06/11

Immaculate conception Septimus

Matthew says:

01:12pm | 22/06/11

Beyonce?  I wouldn’t put her in that group with Britney, Miley, Christina and Jessica.  She’s considerably less about being all sexed up and more about actually singing than the others.

Whatever happened to Jessica Simpson anyway?  I haven’t heard much about her in the last 2 years at least.  Of course that’s because I don’t care and therefore don’t actively look for her.

Mileys not the devil says:

01:40pm | 22/06/11

Why not blame the parents Tedd?  It’s the parents job to pick and choose the shows their children watch, it’s the parents that buy the products for the kids, it’s the parents that couldn’t be bothered actually BEING a role model for their kids or supplying a better one for them… Who do you think is to blame?  The star making money - you do realise that’s their job..

K says:

02:33pm | 22/06/11

1.  Yes. I feel fabulous about myself.
2.  It’s not called growing up, but as you are not there yet, it’s not your fault for not knowing this.
3.  Yes, Britney, Beyonce and Jessica did also ‘grow up’ this way.  We bagged them too.  You’re probably too young to remember.  See point 1.
4.  Another right answer.  It is a film clip.  Of course we adults understand it’s not reality.  It’s the kiddies who don’t.  Of course adults realise that little Miley doesn’t walk around in corsets all day everyday.  It’s the kiddies who don’t, as they *read closely* don’t see her in her everyday life - only in media clips, like *gasp* film clips!
5.  So by your reasoning, your mummy and daddy still buy your clothes and make up?  After all, your argument is that it’s not the kids fault. Mum and dad buy it!  Sigh.  Poor kiddies.  Here I was, under the impression that kids start working when they’re 14, and they get to go and spend their money on what they want…
6.  Grow up and reread the article when you’re older.  The point is sexualisation and appropriate target groups.  You’ll understand when you’re older.

Septimus says:

03:01pm | 22/06/11

@ Tedd (KH, Leah)

Yes there are many influences.  The most constant of these, the most over-arching of these should be the parent.  Responsible child rearing is the sole domain of parents.  Parents should react and challenge these influences to meet the best interests of the child.

Mileys not the devil says:

03:44pm | 22/06/11

Nice try K, but you fail on all points of your argument…
1. You didn’t write the article - I don’t give a crap how YOU feel..
2. Implying I’m not grown up? Why exactly, that’s just odd
3. I have no doubt you bagged them too - and without reason, as just another jealous ‘tall poppy’ full of spite who didn’t become a famous princess would
4. If kids don’t understand it’s not reality, then as a parent it’s your job to not let them watch, or to explain it to them - you actually made my point stronger with your ‘argument’
5. I’m not a child so my parents don’t buy my clothes - also if you’re under the impression a 14 year old can ‘buy what they want’ you’re a bigger idiot than your comment makes sound.  By YOUR reasoning a 14 year old can buy cigarettes or porn because it’s ‘their money’
6. I understand the argument - as my comment above shows, I just disagree with blaming the star for growing up - it’s quite pathetic really.  It’s you who doesn’t understand not only the article but much at all really..

lola says:

04:47pm | 22/06/11

people… you keep on forgetting Miley is an entertainer. she express herself that way and she doesn’t sleep around…. she loves short, who doesn’t?// we are in California after all. i’m in my fifties and i wear short 99 % of the time. i feel comfortable layoff people. if you don’t like your kids to watch her change the channel or shut the tv off. don’t blame her.ignoramus!!!

K says:

11:33am | 23/06/11

Oh dear. I appear to have upset you so much, MNTD, you haven’t marked my argument properly!
1.  Your first response indicated you had thought of other people’s happiness levels.  If you didn’t mean me, you shouldn’t have left the floor open for feelings.  Also, if you truly didn’t give a crap – you wouldn’t be responding.
2.  There are several reasons why I believe you to be ‘not a grown up’.  Those will be addressed following, and then you won’t find it so odd.
3.  When I played on the word you originally used, ‘bagged’, it was always in reference to being overtly sexual in such a media driven world (not their looks, talent, etc.).  All those women have fantastic, unbelievable voices, as does Miley.  It’s unfortunate on many levels, for all these talented women to be undressed in such a way, that a) it’s inappropriate for the target ages they are being sold to, and b) takes a little something away from their performances, by popping out an erogenous zone here and there.  Aren’t their pretty little faces and voices enough?
4.  It is far too simplistic to blame parents (see point 2, also).  Wouldn’t parents be arrested for keeping their kids locked in their homes, never allowing them to go out?  In order for your argument of ‘blame the parents’ to work, that’s what you would have to do.  You honestly aren’t THAT naïve that you believe that kids are only exposed to this in their homes?  What about advertising, music stores, and access to their friend’s technology at school… the list is could go on.  How on earth does this make your argument stronger?  What teenage kid listens to their parents anyway?! (“Oh mum said we weren’t allowed to watch that, so we won’t” Yeah right!)
5.  Ooooo – name calling?  Big idiot?  And then you compare a legal activity, such as buying clothes (wait – where do you live?  Buying clothes in Australia is not illegal, so I apologise if it is in your area of the world!) and compare it to illegal activities, such as children buying smokes and alcohol.  That wasn’t my reasoning at all.  My reasoning is that kiddies are allowed to buy clothes.  Not alcohol and smokes (refer to point 2…again).
6.  Your comments actually show that you do not really understanding the argument.  It shows you to be a young-minded person who feels like they are defending someone who they admire.  Nothing wrong with that.  But is the vehemence really necessary?  And still doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s unfortunate that someone as pretty and talented as Miley is letting the PR machine around her lead her this way, then presenting her to age group that isn’t mature enough to handle a lot of the themes of her film clips. Unfortunate, as she does have a lot to offer.  Now stop insulting me, little one!
7.  Calm down and take a breath.  Then smile and enjoy Miley, as while you may still be young, you are obviously old enough to appreciate this and take it for what it is.

Mileys not the devil says:

03:28pm | 23/06/11

Nice try again K, but still failing… The only crap I got from your rebuttal is you think i called you a name.  I didn’t. 

Also, the thing about back peddling on a blog is everyone can see ALL your comments..  First you said ‘Yes, Britney, Beyonce and Jessica did also ‘grow up’ this way.  We bagged them too.’  Then you changed it to ‘All those women have fantastic, unbelievable voices, as does Miley.’  Quite an amusing read K, can’t wait for the next installment.

K says:

07:37pm | 30/06/11

*Sighs dramatically*  Read carefully - the topic is the image they project.  Not their talent. Hows that for an installment!  I know, a revelation that there was no actual back peddling, too!
P.S.  I qoute: “you’re a bigger idiot than your comment makes sound.”  Now I assume you meant, “...your comment makes you sound.”, but point is - that is name calling. 
Calm down there, big fella!  Like she gives two hoots what anyone (but those closest to her) what anyone thinks.  She’s certainly not going to change because some ppl disagree!  Luckily, we live in a country where we can say our opinions.
And not saying you can’t have yours, but your vehemence is unnecessary.  Most of my comments were written ‘tongue-in-cheek’.

Steve says:

11:36am | 22/06/11

Perhaps you should leave the comments about parenting for people who actually know something about it.
It’s hard to keep kids away from sexualised images when saturday morning music video shows broadcast during prime kids viewing hours are showing, what others on this page have accuratly described as soft porn. Watch a few top 40 music videos sometime and see how many you can spot where the singers are wearing anything you’d be comfortable seeing a kid wearing. Or dancing in a way you’d be comfortable seeing a kid dance. Or singing lyrics you’d be comfortable coming from a kid’s mouth. It’s one thing for a more adult oriented radio station like triple J to play music that’s not suitable for kids but most top 40 music is aimed at kids, not adults.
Anyway, the point the article made is the image that’s presented. No parent who has any clue about popular music is going to be ok with their kids watching music videos by madonna or lady gaga (that sad madonna wannabe). But in the case of Miley Cyrus, she’s always been marketed as an entertainer for kids. And despite hew newfound penchant for being a ‘bad girl’ she still is largely marketed for pre-teens. That is still her primary fan base. So there’s a problem when someone who’s music is primarily marketed for kids suddenly decides to start prancing around in next to nothing with topless guys.

Elphaba says:

11:50am | 22/06/11

Oh my god, boo-fricken hoo.

They’re your kids.  They’re your responsibility.  If Miley is marketing herself in a way that you find objectionable, then don’t let your kids watch it.  Turn the TV off.  Throw it out!  And remember that if they do happen to catch a bit of it, it’s not going to break them.  If you think they’re getting too much, then stop using TV as a glorified babysitter.

And perhaps I’ll comment on whatever damn thread I like, you patronising arse.  I’m all for sheltering kids from the really big problems, like chatting undupervised on the web, or bloody, violent movies/video games.  But my rights shouldn’t be infringed.  I’m and adult, and can consume whatever media I like.  I don’t have to curb my viewing habits for your rugrats.  That’s your problem - after all, you had them.

Shifter says:

12:39pm | 22/06/11

@Steve - Don’t let the kids watch music video shows? Pretty simple option, you know what the content is so why allow the kids to watch it if you believe it sends the wrong messages.

As a parent don’t you have a responsibility as a censor and educator for your children?

Music is arguably an aural medium, and thus can still be enjoyed without video the soft porn video clips and bad-girl images of it’s performers.

I’d also go as far to say that most kids don’t understand the meaning of lyrics, rather just enjoying the fact they are words set to a tune. Hell I’m pretty sure I had no idea what the words to Enter Sandman were when I first heard it let along the meaning. Hell, I was only 11.

Elphaba says:

01:00pm | 22/06/11

@Shifter,

Hello, you.

My problem is you start banning one, it becomes incredibly easy to start banning all of them.  Like junk food advertisments.  Yes, they’re aimed at children - but who is buying them the food and giving into their Mt Vesuvius-sized tantrum?

Just don’t buy it.  Sure, their face will turn purple from holding their breath.  But they won’t die…

Kate says:

01:01pm | 22/06/11

I’m with Elphaba. What is so hard about turning the TV off, and telling your kids to go outside and hit balls with bats or something? My parents managed it.

So your kids might complain if they can’t go to a Miley concert that all their friends are going to. Well, kids complain. Get used to it. You’re a parent, not a friend, and it’s your responsibility to make the tough decisions rather than asking TV stations and the government to parent your kids for you.
Your kids will respect you far more as adults if you actually set boundaries and say ‘no’ once in a while.

Elphaba says:

01:39pm | 22/06/11

@Kate, thanks.  Yep, I got sweet FA growing up.  Although, to be fair, my Mum said it was made easier by the fact that saying ‘no’ wasn’t simply an exercise in parental authority, we actually couldn’t afford some of the shiny toys other families could.

For the other stuff, there was no TV on weekends, Dad played music.  There was no TV until homework was done.  There was no TV on hot sunny days when the park was free and we had bikes. There was no Atari/Sega/NES (again, couldn’t afford it). 

I’d do it the same way.  I asked my mum a few months ago, actually, about how I would raise kids when there is so much more technology available.  She said “Easy - don’t invite it in.  Don’t buy them video games, don’t buy them smart phones, watch what they consume, and remember that they will sneak something behind your back from time to time.  They’ll be annoyed with you, but oh well - you’re not supposed to be their friend until much later.”

My mum often wonders if I’m a failed experiement because so many other parents raised their kids in an opposite fashion.  But I still have a healthy amount of fear of my mother - and that’s how it should be.

My future spawn are going to hate me, lol

MntD says:

01:42pm | 22/06/11

Steve, here’s a parenting tip for you - ‘No, you’re not watching Video Hits’

There, use it wisely….

Shifter says:

02:10pm | 22/06/11

Kate, there will be all manner of consequences!

1. Kids will eat more because they will burn more energy

2. The rate of bat and ball related incidents will go up! Windows will shake in fear!

3. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Hang on, that last one may have been Ghostbusters.

My Opinion Counts too says:

02:31pm | 22/06/11

Elphaba your future spawn may end up hating you, but your future spawn’s teachers will LOVE you for giving them a bit of discipline, imagination and not sending them to school with their mobile phone, iPod, iPad, iWhatever….. (spoken like a true ex-teacher )

Elphaba says:

02:53pm | 22/06/11

Ahh, @My Opinion, you raise a vaild point.  I didn’t have a mobile phone until I was 18, and heading off to uni - now, that was 10 years ago, and I did grow up in a small town, where everyone knew everyone etc etc.

I accept that the situation for kids in the city might be different, and that it’s necessary to equip them with a phone, particularly if they’re travelling on public transport.

But can someone explain to me why it must be an iPhone?  My parents would have lost their shit if I suggested that it was the phone I needed.  Even teenagers with $300 iPods, I don’t get that either.  Unless there’s a particular interest in music (eg, they’re taking music at school and they record compositions at home using a computer etc) - why not just buy them a cheap drag and drop mp3 player?

Bullying cannot be the only reason.  Those parents have priorities that are waaaay out of whack…

Kate says:

05:06pm | 22/06/11

@Elphaba, I was the same. No video games, no mobile phone until I actually needed one (and even then it was so cheap and terrible that I was embarrassed to actually use it), monitored Internet usage etc.
Yes, I did occasionally sneak stuff behind my parents’ back (although being a nerd it was less smutty MSN chat to boys and more reading Harry Potter fanfiction with rude words in it). I thought my parents were the world’s biggest tightarses for a few bratty teenage years, but I really appreciate their efforts now.

AJ says:

05:29pm | 22/06/11

Elphaba

I agree with your original post, parents do have control. Some control that is.

I also agree with Steve, although he used maybe not the best example out there. I think he was trying to say that no parent can control what their kids do or see 24/7. IMO, when the inevitable happen, manage it, as the adult/parent, i.e. when you realise so-called teenage music videos = soft porn, that’s the end of it. No TV ever again? Maybe a bit over the top, but each to their own. And as you say, censure is not always the solution.

I also agree with you that you are most welcome to give us your opinion, even on matters you have no inkling of what you’re talking about.

I should stop here, but what the hell, I’ll bite. I actually insist that you should continue with your handy tips on parenting … simply for the pure entertainment value I for one will be getting from it.

Those are the days, my dear, when you don’t have any kids, but have it all figured out. To the extent where you even have ex-teachers applauding imaginary kids. Yes, ex-teacher, your opinion counts too, but really, I would first like to experience Elphaba’s future spawn in person before I get all excited about how bloody marvellous they are. But I digress from my point.

We’ve all been there. How we just looked at parents, and said/thought: What the hell?! I’ll NEVER do THAT, let my kids do THAT, you should/I’m going to do it this and this way, etc. 

I guess I was lucky, I grew up in an era where the ability to showcase your ignorance was very limited. These days you can do it on a much grander scale. But please, don’t let the possibility of global humiliation stop you from posting more wonderful parental advice in the mean time until the reality of practical parenting hits you right between the eyes. And it hits you, usually after mongrel no. 2 arrives, not prior, so don’t get too excited with no. 1 when all seems to be just wonderfully perfect and so easy, like you’ve always imagined it to be.

Or even worse, let it get in the way of your quest to show all us parents out there and to raise your kids in exactly the same way you were raised, with the improvements you surely have added, by now, to your mum’s excellent approach. Individuality/inputs/feedback from children and dads are so totally overrated.

I can go on, but for now, that is where Steve, and other parents I’m sure, is coming from when they ask persons without kids not to comment on parenting. You can, or not, unless it is really that important. Just like you can express your disagreement to said opinion.

ps - a very mature reply to Steve indeed, your mum must be proud

I’m also sure Steve appreciated all the advice in the replies to his post, he seems just like the typical parent who whinges about stuff, but don’t do anything about it and therefore needs everyone’s excellent suggestions. I’m very certain that he is considering all of them seriously, right now, while his kids are watching non-stop Miley and other music videos.

I would also like to explain to you why some kids have iPhones and $300 iPods, or both. I sometimes (not often) wish I had the time Erick, Persephone, et. al. have to add comments on the Punch. Every single day. On every single piece. All the time. Non-stop. But then, that would be like wishing my children away. And I have a life. And I know the whole world is not eagerly awaiting the start of every new day to marvel at my personal opinions. Again,  digress and can go on, but I have to get back to my day-job so that I don’t get the kids too late to start my full-time job.

Shifter says:

05:49pm | 22/06/11

It’s increasingly hard with the amount of features in phones these days to get one that makes calls and only that. No camera, no internet, no music. But my future kids will get one until they afford their own smartphones outright.

They’ll hate me for giving them such a crap phone but it’ll remove the temptation to do certain things, and for that I’ll be much relieved.

OddCreature says:

06:52pm | 22/06/11

Ephalba - time for a little field trip I think.

Go to your nearest Westfield and find me the following:

1. A store selling phones that just make calls and send text.

2. A store selling any music player that is not an iPod, or a cheap imitation of an iPod.

Basic phones and drag-and-drop players just don’t exist anymore. I know because I’ve tried, and failed, to find both these items.

Elphaba says:

07:37pm | 22/06/11

Oh AJ, get over yourself.  So I can’t draw on my experiences as a child?  I can’t draw on the information my parents have given me?  I can’t possibly know the sacrifices you went through blah blah blah….

Yes, you’re soooo special because you procreated.  Want a medal?  When did I ever say that I knew exactly how to raise children and that I’d never make mistakes and my child would never turn out like someone else’s terrors?

Seriously, the arrogance among parents is a class of its own.

My problem is, and always will be, the self-centredness of people like you and Steve who believe perfectly legal material should be curbed and censored for the benefit of your children.  But you, and your children, are not the only people on the planet.  And as such, if it’s legal, if it’s risque, if it’s whatever you might be objecting to - the bottom line is, it is up to you, to have an open dialogue with your children, take the time to shield them, and now and then, let something go under the radar.  It inevitably will.

Of course you can’t watch them 24/7.  Of course you can’t expect that they’ll never see anything that will cause them to ask uncomfortable questions.  Of course, I am confident that you protect your kids as much as humanly possible.  But at the end of the day, compaining that the kids are watching Video Hits in YOUR house, on YOUR TV, and expecting someone else to do something about it is ridiculous.  Turn.  It.  Off.

And how did bringing up Persephone and Erick exactly explain kids and iPhones?  I know it might have made sense to your nappy-addled brain, but you’ll have to excuse me - I don’t suffer that handicap.

No global humiliation here.  But please, recruit your mother’s group to flame me if you find my opinions so objectionable.  It’s an open forum where I’m allowed to comment on what I want, when I want, even if you think I have no idea what I’m talking about.  You don’t like it?  Don’t read it.

Have a great day.

Elphaba says:

08:04pm | 22/06/11

@OddCreature:

drag-and-drop players:
http://dicksmith.com.au/product/A5121/philips-mix-4gb-mp3-player had this brand myself, before an iPod. It’s pretty good.  You might have to go to a few places, but it does exist.

I never said there was no such thing as a phone that just made calls and texts.  I said why did it have to be an iPhone?

But since you asked:
http://www.optus.com.au/store/phone/samsung_e1081t

Now yes, the reviews are crap.  But it does exist.

Although…

http://www.optus.com.au/store/phone/nokia2220_pp

is better.

So - you were saying?

fairsfair says:

08:52pm | 22/06/11

$17.99! Thanks Elphaba, I’ve just found my next phone when the old girl gives out

AJ says:

11:09pm | 22/06/11

Elphaba

I have said and I stand by my point of view that you don’t know what being a parent is by talking to parents or by being a child, but by being a parent.  You are welcome to disagree, which you do, so that’s fine, but you can do so without getting personal, being berating or dramatic.

I never said parenting is a sacrifice, parents are special simply for being parents, or that I want a medal.  Out of interest, what is your excuse for this forthcoming dribble and resentment?  Were you not selected for the high school debate team, and now you’re living the dream?!  At least I can blame a complete lack of sleep and changing too many poo nappies when I miss some good “irony” from the Economist.  Hell yes!  One of your better suggestions!

You have a problem with people who want to curb and censor legal material for their children.  Read my previous post, and for what its worth, Steve’s.  That is not what we are saying.  I’ve clearly stated “censure is not always the solution”, simply put, I agree with you on that point.  And then you give me my own advice “when the inevitable happen, manage it, as the adult/parent”, in different words?!  That is about as much “agreeing” I can do for one day.

Do you see the irony in your last words “You don’t like it? Don’t read it.” directly after you’ve just spent 5 minutes rambling on about just how open and free this forum is? 

If I don’t like it, I could simply not read it (oh wait, yet again, I agree with you …),

or I can read it and not comment (highly recommended when the subject matter is about something you know little of)

or I can read it and comment (especially when I have a bit of time for a change – that’s where my not explaining kids and iPods or whatever and Erick or whoever comes in, where do you get all the time for this crap?). 

So can you!

So which is it, all free to comment, or only when they agree with you?  On that, you shouldn’t take it too personally when people disagree with you or take note of your ignorance on the subject matter.  It really isn’t that important. Really. It. Is. Not.

And thank you for wishing me a lovely day, I’ll do too.

Rose says:

10:03am | 23/06/11

Elphaba, a parent has every right to expect that ‘risque’ music videos etc are played in an appropriate timeslot. In the glory days when your mother was raising you I can be almost sure that more adult themed videos were played later in the evenings (Rage) than during timeslots normally reserved for children. I know that in the years that I have been a parent, the content of videos put on for kids to see has changed quite dramatically. Sex sells, but they really shouldn’t continue trying to sell it to kids!
While it is unlikely that we can ever go back to the use of appropriate timeslots for TV, how about a compromise? There are now several digital TV channels so one or two could be reserved solely for kids (even if that means opening up more channels). On these channels parents would be able to trust that all content was G Rated, or possibly PG. This way parents could allow their kids to be’normal’ and watch music videos without needing to hover around them to protect them from inappropriate ones.

Sheridan says:

11:27am | 22/06/11

Abelard and Heloise.. She was 17 and he was 20+ years older than her..

fairsfair says:

11:32am | 22/06/11

Good comment and I think you perfectly describe the real reason women mid to late 20s and older are aghast at the rise of the sexualised older teen with “You could ignore an obviously beautiful young girl when her target audience is your children.. but now she’s aiming at your man. And if he’s straight, he’s appreciating it. She’s hot, end of story.”

If she was dressing like this at age 12 - yep, I’d have an issue but my god - the kid has to grow up at some point. This article is a bit harsh on poor Miley. I’m not a fan of her music but she is a young woman now and has the right to become an adult and experiement with her image.

Leah says:

12:05pm | 22/06/11

fairsfair - For starters, no men I know would look at Miley Cyrus twice because they all think she’s a desperate vampy starlet. They’d rather look at women like Jessica Alba. You know, actual women.

Yes, she has to grow up at some point. Growing up does not = walking around town dressing like a hooker and making sex-themed video clips at 17 or 18. Legally she’s an adult. Mentally, she’s not. And she still has a target audience of tweens. Not sure Marilyn Monroe and Scarlett Johansson ever did.

fairsfair says:

01:18pm | 22/06/11

Leah, your name suggests you are of the female variety and I think your comment completely proves Obvious’. Whether they verbalise it or not, a significant proprotion of men find youthful women attractive.

Like this story http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/lost-actor-doug-hutchison-51-marries-16-year-old-in-vegas/story-e6frfmqi-1226079141647 I know few men who would say she is a moose. She is barely 16.

I have a weird attraction to Mr Bates from Downton Abbey, but when I sit down in a group of friends (both men and women) do you think I will put my hand up and say hold up eveyone - I think that kinda chubby, greying dude with the dickey leg that is old enought to be my father is hot stuff. No, I’ll keep that to myself because my male friends will judge me as my female friends would judge them if they said they had a thing for Dakota Fanning.

What do you mean mentally she is not an adult? Society advises her that she is and if parents don’t want their kids continuing to look at the “new Miley” well, they should keep their kids away from that. Look at Evan Rachel Wood. She has changed her image something big and nobody is picking on her.

The tweens that were tweens when Miley was a tween are now grown up too. Shouldn’t the new breed of tweens be into iCarly or whoever the hell the Disney machine is now pumping out?

I say leave the poor girl alone.

Obvious says:

02:48pm | 22/06/11

Some further considerations..

I just ran a pop quiz with my mates, all of us over 30, 3 of us with kids.
Miley Cyrus:
A. Hot
B. Not.
C. Trying too hard.
D. Cute but young so its weird..

Everyone including the gay one said A… one of them said “a and d” - but he’s just covering for the fact that his first response is A…

Smidgeling says:

04:28pm | 22/06/11

Obvious- I’m going to go with A, C and D.

Leah- if we had our choice of all the gorgeous women in movies/tv/music, yes- most of us would not choose Miley Cyrus above all others. She’s young, therefore probably isn’t long-trm relationship material.

HOWEVER, if you ask us “is she attractive?”....well was at a BBQ a few weeks ago and the only person who said “no” was an insecure woman. What is wrong with a woman exploring her sexuality in a manner of her choosing?

ps I would go for Rhianna or gaga if I’m picking a pop star.

insane in the brain says:

11:28am | 22/06/11

@Sally-

The Amish…..lol

Slothy says:

01:06pm | 22/06/11

Not only that, but what do they mean by ‘using beauty products’? Because there is a big difference between a 13 year old ( or 12 or 11 year old) wanting to play dress up for an important event, and a 13 year old who is too scared to leave the house without a full face of makeup (which is problematic even in adults).

It also depends a lot on the reason they are using beauty products. Are they wearing it because they are scared and ashamed of what they look like without it (problematic) or are they wearing it because bright green eyeshadow and glittery nails is a perfectly age-appropriate way for a teenager to express her individuality?

The commodification and sexualisation of teen starlets has some problematic implications, but an across the board demonisation of beauty products is not an appropriate response (and I say this as someone who didn’t touch the stuff between the ages of 17 and 24) and some of those UK inquiry recommendations are pretty hinky.

St. Michael says:

11:43am | 22/06/11

Easy to say, not quite so easy to do.

If you do take all of these preventative actions, you’re not taking on your child.  You’re taking on your child, all of her peers who do this sort of stuff, and their weak-willed parents who do succumb to the pop culture. 

I mean, come on: for all the “you’re an individual, you don’t have to get your hair straightened” aesops, think back to your own time at school: how were kids that didn’t go with what everyone else was doing get treated? Did any of you really, honestly, routinely hang out with the kid who didn’t have the cool clothes on or wasn’t listening to rage and Triple J like everyone else?

High school’s a miserable and lonely experience for kids who don’t fit in with their peers and don’t have sufficiently solitary natures to put up with eating alone every lunchtime.

The most grating thing about pop culture is that its power to influence comes not from the images themselves, but how widespread they are and how widely they’re taken up.  By the time it gets to your kid, it’s like trying to fight a flash flood.  If you’re going to raise parental accountability, it has to be across the board.

JNR says:

01:45pm | 22/06/11

No, it’s not easy.  Parenting isn’t supposed to be easy.

“High school’s a miserable and lonely experience for kids who don’t fit in with their peers and don’t have sufficiently solitary natures to put up with eating alone every lunchtime.”  Yep.  My school experience was pretty ordinary as I wasn’t in the ‘in’ crowd.  My parents actually refused to allow me to do a lot of things with the ‘in’ crowd.  You know what?  I’m now a professional with a good job, married to a doctor and most of those kids from the ‘in’ crowd at school really didn’t fare so well.

Unless you want your kids growing up like a lot of the brain dead self-centered morons society seems to be spitting out today, you’ve got to man up, make the hard decisions and realise that although the child can’t see their future further than next week, it’s up to you to make the decisions that will shape them as a adult later in life.  You.  Not the government, not the media, and certainly not Miley Cyrus.

When they’re older and can demonstrate that they can start behaving like a half-functioning adult, that’s when you can start to let them make their own decisions.

St. Michael says:

02:54pm | 22/06/11

“You know what?  I’m now a professional with a good job, married to a doctor and most of those kids from the ‘in’ crowd at school really didn’t fare so well.”

I don’t doubt success is the best revenge.  I would up with a similar school experience myself.  But for a decent proportion of kids it doesn’t work out that way.

For every nerd who got picked on at school because he didn’t fit in but went on to found a software company, there are one or more who are broken, I mean seriously broken, by what was done to them at school for no better reason than them being “different” or not being allowed or able to do the things other kids did.

For every kid who did what his parents wanted, there’s another who rebelled against that strict control and wound up twice as bad *after* he left school because he wasn’t inoculated to the culture at the time.

As for those who do “make it”—that sense of isolation can stay with them for a lifetime.

I’m not trying to abrogate parental responsibility.  Nor am I bleating about how hard it is to be a parent.  I’m just pointing out that dills who just say “Well, just cut ‘em off from popular culture” are massively oversimplifying the challenge.

BK says:

06:24pm | 22/06/11

Kids have always experimented with sexuality. The big change has been the self-esteem movement. No-one tells young girls that people don’t really respect women like that, because it might hurt their self-esteem. Apparently, it is kinder to let them find this out themselves when it is too late.

RM says:

11:43am | 23/06/11

St Michael - I’m guessing I’m the ‘dill’ you refer to.  I would like to point out however that at not time did I advocate “Well, just cut ‘em off from popular culture”?  I provided alternatives which *gasp* involved parental supervision.

St. Michael says:

01:05pm | 22/06/11

It wasn’t so long ago they used to give people 7 years’ transportation for stealing a loaf of bread, how times have changed…

Rose says:

10:11am | 23/06/11

Because Miley is representative of the whole pop culture world. She is stand out example of the sexualization of kids.

bella starkey says:

12:49pm | 22/06/11

How should girls feel about themselves?

bella starkey says:

01:25pm | 22/06/11

It’s just that horrible moment in a parent’s life when they realise that thier children no longer like disney or nickelodeon and are growing into yucky, sex mad teenagers. If Miley is 18 now her original fans (she started on Disney when she was 12 or something) are teenagers and they aren’t entertained by wholesome virginal pop anymore.

Also is this survey on cosmetics and preteens including stuff like lip smackers, impluse and glitter hair gel? If so I was totally down with that in primary school, perhaps it ruined me for life.

papachango says:

01:27pm | 22/06/11

I wrote the above before I looked at the above clip, with the sound down as i can’t stand her music. Still don’t see what the fuss is about she’s not that scantily clad, though she appears to be chanelling lady gaga.

Hayley says:

03:27pm | 22/06/11

She owes nothing to children she isn’t their parents believe it or not my 9 year old doesn’t know what Miley is up to these days and didn’t really like Hannah Montana any way.  As a parent I manage to say NO to make, NO to short skirts, NO to hair straighteners and the like as that is MY JOB not someone else’s. 

If you can’t say NO to your child that is your fault Not Miley’s.

Kate says:

05:02pm | 22/06/11

Well said Hayley!

Lorelle says:

05:23pm | 22/06/11

I agree, she isn’t their parents. But she is a role model nonetheless and does have an influence over her followers, which comes with some responsibility. Needless to say, what she has/is doing isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be condemned as one.

Your 9 y/o is lucky to have such a caring parent as yourself, who is strong enough to set boundaries with this sort of thing.

Rose says:

10:16am | 23/06/11

Hayley, doing well so far BUT your daughter is still only 9. Wait till she 13/14 and develops a real voice. It will not be as easy as it is now.

St. Michael says:

02:55pm | 22/06/11

Have you been eagerly awaiting her passing the age of consent or something? This is about as creepy a post as I’ve read.

Rose says:

10:26am | 23/06/11

And this is the problem. Miley is a commodity, she is a multi-million dollar industry in her own right. What this means is that every part of her life is stage managed to gain maximum exposure, and to create maximum demand for more. There are no doubt teams of people checking the market, identifying potential new trends and trying to make sure Miley is out front. In the current entertainment market we have seen just about everything, so in order to get an edge they keep pushing boundaries, keep looking for something new. The result is that standards are continually lowered, behaviour that was once taboo is now supposedly OK because we all have rights to do whatever the hell we like.
So long as Miley continues to be marketed to kids and teenagers you would have hoped that “brand Cyrus” would show a little bit of respect for the welfare of their audience!

K says:

12:20pm | 23/06/11

Read the original comment I replied to, and you should see why I had condescending remarks.  By the way, how does insulting you make you any more right or better than what I did? At least I stuck to the topic. But yay you on putting me in place!  My children will all probably lemmings now.  Sigh.

Rose says:

10:36am | 23/06/11

If they go to school they do know about music channels. If they are younger than 10, relax, your time will come. This whole my kids don’t do this, don’t know about that is crap. Trust me, the correct sentence could only ever be My children do not even know music channels exist YET!!
If your children are even close to normal, your battles are at best delayed. It’s like the mother of a girl in my daughter’s class. She was never permitted soft drinks and lollies, now at 14 she couldn’t give a rats about what her parents dictate. At home she eats healthy food, when she’s at school or with her friends she eats the same stuff as everyone else. I don’t know if her parents know this, but it was always inevitable!
All I’m saying is don’t pat yourself on the back too early, your time will come

William says:

10:22pm | 22/06/11

However the power holders of the music business hierarchy chose not to question the effect of the product on society for the sake of profit. Of course, it’s too late to turn around.

Not that I blame it purely on the said, since it’s a simple ‘meeting the demand’ system and no one knows who started the first move into sexualization, but if I was to look for anyone to undo the over sexualization of the modern music industry, it would be the said, those power holders.

I’m sorry it’s a terrible excuse to disperse blame