Indeed the fox is now guarding the henhouse

I enjoyed Lounsbury and Vars's use of the metaphor of the fox now guarding the henhouse to discuss the ways in which the consolidation of the corporate and political elite means that the corporate elite are setting public policy that will, in the end, help sustain their own interests, not the interests of the average middle school student, and certainly not the interests of poor middle school students.  Related to this is the current emphasis on standardized tests and mandated assessments that claim to provide a better education for all, but instead, really create a pedagogy that contradicts the teaching of critical thinking skills and manufactures a crisis that is used to push for a specific political agenda: for the use of vouchers and for profit management of education.  Consider the following quote "is it too extreme or an exaggeration to suggest that high-stakes testing may be lobotomizing an entire generation of young people?"  Yes, it is a little extreme, but there is also a kernel of truth there.  

I also enjoyed the discussion present in a couple of the articles about the necessity of teaching the middle school student how to become a good citizen.  However, I also thought it was interesting how much what it means to be a good citizen can vary depending on who is doing the defining.  For the Carnegie foundation, a good citizen is one who accepts responsibility, is a "doer not just an observer," who will understand the genesis of the United States and its basic values, and will participate in "appropriate ways" in the government.  Although, on the surface, these all sound like good things, I think what is significant to this is what it does not mention.  What are the values of the United States?  What does it mean to participate in "appropriate ways?"  What is a "positive sense of global citizenship?"  

I don't know where to start.

First, I am disturbed by the trend in our society of sexualizing young people, especially girls.  We talked about this a little in class.  Our body ideal for women is one that is prepubescent.  It is not a surprise, then, that prepubescent girls also become sexualized.  Our toys, clothing, and appearance expectations for girls represent them as miniature adults.  Some of my favorite examples of this is clothing from stores like baby gap and old navy selling miniature versions of adult clothes - down to low rise jeans for toddlers.  Really, nothing is more practical then low rise jeans for kids who are still wearing diapers.  It reminds me of the SNL commercial for thong diapers.  Which brings me to my next example: thongs being sold at abercrombie for kids.  I'm sorry, but I don't think that any 7 year old should be wearing a thong.  There is also the current trend of selling girls' dress shoes (for kids aged 3 and up) with heels.   I think libby lu is also a good example of this weirdness.  I am so glad that they have gone out of business!  

As for the beauty pageant business, as creepy as we all seem to think it is, I would venture that some of us are watching toddlers in tiaras, a new show on TLC, I think, about child beauty pageants.  Why do we watch them?  I think I do because, honestly, it's like watching a sideshow act.  You can't look away.  It's why the film "Little Miss Sunshine" was so funny.  But I recognize my culpability in indirectly supporting beauty pageants by watching this show.  I should probably stop watching it.  By the way, did you know that many child beauty pageants now have swimsuit competitions as part of the pageant?  I don't get it.  Kids on toddler with tiaras get spray tans, bleached hair, more makeup than you can shake a stick at, and these things called "flippers" which are false teeth so that their smiles are perfect during a time when they might be losing their baby teeth.  oy.  The question, to me, is not IF these practices are damaging to young girls, but rather, what can and should we do about them?

On the other hand, the stats from the teen bashing article are confusing.  I agree with other posts that he seems to both critique and support some statistics in order to make his point in ways that seem hypocritical.  I also agree that there have been article written more recently (Barry Glassner has a whole chapter in his book, "CUlture of Fear" that deals with the myth of killer kids.)  that may seem more relevant.  But I think it is important to point out that this doesn't mean we should reject the use of statistics entirely, but rather, make an informed decision about which statistics have the most credibility.  I think a lot of the people in this class grew up in the wake of Columbine, and this has affected our understanding of youth violence.  But, it's important to point out that although school shootings seemed like an epidemic for a while, this is largely because of the media coverage.  School shootings are incredibly statistically insignificant.  As Males points out, youth are exponentially more likely to be killed by an adult family member than they are to kill anyone, themselves.  I think Males' best point is considering WHY the problem is constructed in this way.  The answer is that it benefits groups who make a living based on this idea - the media - who sell papers and commercials based on this premise, government politicians who run campaigns based on these beliefs, and "specialists" who make money treating the "violent kids."  

selling adolescence

Yes, the social construction of adolescence is pretty interesting to think about. Historical context plays a significant role in how we understand so many things. I think we tend to take for granted that if something has any biological basis, that makes it "natural." However, society's understanding of those biological changes is entirely dependent on historical context. I think it is interesting that the article mentions changing economic contexts but doesn't mention the role that marketing has played in the development of adolescence, or youth, and a cultural category. The article does discuss the changing economic context and increased economic security contributed to the development of a new transitional category between childhood and adulthood.  

But, it does not mention that after WWII, the economic boom in the United States led to the development of a new marketing category: the teenager. This wasn't the first time adolescence had been created as a marketing category, but it grew exponentially when marketers realized that teens had a lot of disposable income that had not been there a decade before.  For example, the combination of changing technologies that led to the development of 45's and adolescent disposable income changed to a new youth market in music.  This is what led to the popularization of rock n roll.

 Furthermore, economic conditions can alter the biology of puberty. The article mentions that the increase in access to good nutrition over the last 50-100 years has contributed to earlier menarche.  More recently, the increase in use of hormonal injections in dairy and beef cows is believed to have caused an even more rapid decrease in the age of menarche for girls.  

This, too has had an impact on marketing.  The way the marketing of menstrual products has changed over time reflects changing societal beliefs about menstruation and the age at the onset of menstruation.  Those silly ads that say to "have a happy period" actually have significant cultural meaning.  heh heh.