Two weeks ago today...

My husband and I moved into our first home. Very exciting, but moving is such a drag-- and it kept me away from blogging. But I'm back now, with lots to say!

Also two weeks ago today, on May 24th, Australian child beauty pageant opponents, and some supporters, held rallies across the country.  These protests were organized in response to Texas-based Universal Royalty organizing an "American-style" child beauty pageant to be held in Melbourne next month (I've written more about this here).  Although several protests were held in capitol cities, and the press covered the events, my sense is that they were not received as well as organizers had hoped.

The goal of the opposition is to actually get child beauty pageants deemed illegal in Australia.  Or to at least institute a minimum age requirement (like 6-years-old instead of 6-weeks-old). Without an overwhelming turnout at the rallies, and for other legal reasons like the privacy of the family, Australian lawmakers have offered a lukewarm reaction.  It seems unlikely that such legislation will pass, at least at the moment.

Another issue is that the story has somewhat morphed-- if not into a pro-pageants stance, then into a sympathetic angle for some pageant mums. Why? All the opposition and press coverage led to some mothers receiving death threats. For example, this story details the hate mail one mother received.

At the same time, as has happened with child beauty pageants before, all the attention actually helps the business end of the enterprise. Now, not only will pageants be organized in Australia, but now events will also take place in New Zealand. All press is good press, right?  Increased media coverage of the UK pageant circuit also seems to be heating up-- and at least one contestant entered due to all the press interest (I have some thoughts on a journalist mother entering her daughter in a child beauty pageant for research purposes-- none of which are positive).

While the press has eaten the story up, and lawmakers have seemingly ignored it, another group of professionals has weighed in-- the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. On the day of the rallies the professional organization released a statement saying child beauty pageants are detrimental to children's mental health. I don't necessarily disagree with many of their sentiments, but as I've explained before we simply don't have the data to back-up statements like, "The mental health and developmental consequences of this are significant and impact on identity, self esteem, and body perception." To be considered medical research, and worthy of publication in peer-reviewed journals, more work must be done.

That said, comments made by Dr. Phillip Brock, Chair of the Faculty of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in this newspaper article deserve further thought and clarification.  Dr. Brock states his opinion on child beauty pageant headshots, like those I show below: "That is a photograph that can be interpreted as alluring and appealing to the sexual instincts of the observer, and if that observer is an adult then it's voyeuristic."

Pageant photographers use a technique known as "airbrushing" to achieve the glassy, wide-eyed look in the eyes, the perfect lips, and the flawless skin.  You can see a proof before airbrushing, and then the final product, at this website: http://awholelotofnothing.net/this-is-not-ok-baby-beauty-pageants/. 

What is the purpose of airbrushing? Besides trying to create a particular "pageant look," I have to agree with Dr. Brock that these changes are ones that are purely sexual.  When I say sexual I mean that certain biological triggers cue a response that is hardwired into our brains. As I've mentioned before, The Survival of the Prettiest by Dr. Nancy Etcoff has a good explanation of some of these, as do books by historians Lois Banner and Kathy Peiss on the history and development of make-up and beauty culture in the US.

What are these sexual triggers? First, the eyes. Wide eyes, with long lashes, are a sign of sexual arousal, which signals a healthy partner for mating.  Some have called retouched eyes in pageant pictures "spider eyes," which doesn't sound very sexy to me, but they are. Similarly, darkened lips and cheeks are signs of arousal as well-- and the lips and cheeks are always colored in these retouched images.

As a sociologist I don't think all things at child beauty pageants are sexually hardwired (for example, many criticize girls blowing kisses as sexual, and I believe such an action totally needs to be interpreted in its social context-- which is NOT sexual, but rather seen as cute and precocious at child beauty pageants).  However, when it comes to these pictures, it's hard to disagree with the science.

In any case, the child beauty pageants steam ahead in Australia, and in the US, as Toddlers & Tiaras returns to TLC on June 15th. Believe me, my DVR is set. Is yours?

Pageant Princesses and Math Whizzes

Two of the activities I spent a lot of time studying have been receiving a lot of attention of late-- child beauty pageants and Kumon afterschool learning centers.  Last week The New York Times ran an article on Junior Kumon, a program designed to teach preschool-aged kids how to read and do math. "Fast-tracking to Kindergarten?" has generated a lot of discussion in parenting circles. And, between Botox beauty pageant mom and the Australian child beauty pageant kerfuffle, child beauty pageants are as in the news as they were in the days after JonBenét's death.

An academic article I wrote, "Pageant Princesses and Math Whizzes: Understanding children's activities as a form of children's work," which appeared in arguably the top childhood studies journal, Childhood, actually compares child beauty pageant moms and Kumon parents.  These two groups of parents may seem to have little in common. On a basic level, many assume that parents who value beauty are somehow different from parents who value academic achievement. But I show that despite considerable differences in their backgrounds, these parents converge in the reasons they give for enrolling their young children in these activities, and in their focus on their children’s careers and future achievements.

I want to tell you a bit more about Kumon, as it is less well-known, and there are some misconceptions about how it works. Kumon was founded in 1954 in Japan by a high school mathematics teacher to help prepare children for state examinations. The company expanded to North America in 1974, opening a center in New York City. The method began to spread, especially along the East and West Coasts, where there were East Asian immigrants. By 2005, Kumon's enrollment was about 4 million, and remarkably it was the fourth-fastest-growing franchise (behind Subway, for example) in the US.  In 2009 there were over 1300 centers in North America.

Kumon actually demands a fairly high level of parental involvement. Kumon requires parents to make sure that children complete their homework and then the parents must check the homework in a master book they received after paying tuition. It is only after seeing what a child is doing wrong on the worksheets that a paid instructor becomes involved. Essentially, as one mother said to me, Kumon is providing books and worksheets, but not much instruction. On some level, as with pageants, when the child walks into a ‘lesson’ to be evaluated or take a test, it is as much about how the parent has prepared the child to succeed as it is about the child’s own abilities.

It is true that Kumon relies on repetition and rote memorization. The Kumon method is fairly simple. It is based on the premise that by breaking things into manageable units and drilling those units every day through practice, a child will progress. There are two set curricula, one devoted to mathematics and one devoted to reading, and students can choose to do only one or to do both. The other major pedagogical touchstone is that children should start slightly below their level to build their confidence.

But it is the rote memorization and repetition, which may build confidence, that was the attraction for the Kumon parents I met.  I spent one summer hanging out at night at a Kumon center.  At the location where I was I met almost exclusively immigrant parents-- both East Asian and South Asian. Of the thirty parents who I formally interviewed, 93% were born outside of the US (contrast that to the 95% of the 41 pageant moms I met).  They felt that particularly when it comes to mathematics, the US educational system lags behind the way they were taught in their home countries.  Most of these parents are professionals who use mathematics in creative ways in their jobs.  So they do want their children to learn to be creative and innovative. However, they felt this occurs best after a child has mastered the fundamentals so soundly in childhood that they do not need to think about, say, multiplication tables. Only after the foundation is well established can creativity be attained.  This is true not only for many Asian parents, but also reportedly for Russian parents (this was told to me by Kumon instructors).

Here then we can see two important strands then that have come together in modern American life and parenting-- immigrant striving and middle- and upper-middle class insecurity.  Kumon has been transformed from a site almost exclusively of immigrants to white, affluent parents, who are enrolling their kids, at least according to the Times, to help them get ahead in the education arms race that has begun earlier than ever.  Why? In a time of economic and educational uncertainty, many parents (not just those who are innately competitive and perhaps driven by other varied psychological motives) don't want to risk not giving their child every chance to "get ahead."

But what does it say that we criticize what is presented as "extreme" parenting both when it comes to education and when it comes to beauty? Do these criticisms arise from the same source, or are they something else? I think they spring from the same source, and choices of parents are largely dictated by their own social backgrounds. What do you think?

Final note: I'm calling it now. Five-year-old Mabou Loiseau will become the next big parenting story.  Prodded by her immigrant parents (her family is not affluent, as her father works 16 hours a day as a parking attendant to help pay for all of Mabou's private lessons), Mabou is homeschooled and she can now "speak" seven languages and play six instruments. Favorite line in the article from the Daily News? "Her mom recently got rid of the kitchen table to make room for a full-size drum set...'Furniture is not important. Education is.'"

This reminded me of "I Speak Six Languages" from The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. A wonderful musical-- I actually got to see it on Broadway when Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Mitchell on Modern Family) originated Leaf Coneybear.  Never seen it? Here's a taste.

Too Much Botox, Too Much to be Believed: UPDATED

Poor Britney Campbell is back in the news. I wrote about Britney in March after her story appeared in The Sun, detailing her Botox injections and virgin waxes.  Yesterday morning Britney and her mom, Kerry, appeared on Good Morning America to “defend” themselves and talk about wrinkles and waxings.

The somewhat-horrifying interview/video speaks for itself. Click below to watch it.

I have a variety of questions about this story, which part of me still wants to believe isn’t true.

•        The Sun reported Britney’s mother, Kerry is from Birmingham (UK). Why no accent in the television interview?

•        Did Kerry Campbell know that by appearing on GMA she went on a parenting kamikaze mission—opening herself up to investigation by child welfare agencies (she must have known something untoward could happen, given the fact she wouldn’t name her Botox source)? Why do this? [Note: it's being reported that a formal investigation has been opened by the state.]

•         The Sun story focuses much more on pop superstardom and less on child beauty pageants. Why the shift?

•         GMA shows a clip of Britney in a “pageant dress,” but it doesn’t look at all like a high glitz pageant dress. Does anyone in the California pageant scene actually know this family? I stand by my earlier comments that I know some pageant moms wax their daughters (OUCH!), but Botox is a bit hard to believe in girls this young.

•        This observation is going to sound horrible, but if this mom is so concerned about Britney’s appearance, why not invest in orthodontia instead of Botox? I know many eight-year-old girls with braces (sad, but true, and I think it must be a bit young—though definitely not my area of expertise!). Seems like a better, and more permanent, “beauty fix.”

•        Finally, are dimples no longer desirable? It seems like the “wrinkles” they don’t like are Britney’s adorable dimples. My mother tells a wonderful story about taping frozen peas into her cheeks each night before bed as a child because she wanted dimples so badly. I’d still love to have dimples! Is this déclassé now?

Of course, there are many other unanswered questions, but I’ll stop there. Personally, I’d rather have Amy Chua and intense music lessons than Kerry Campbell and Botox injections.  What do you think?

UPDATE I: There already seems to be a "copycat" mom, covered by The Sun. This mother, Sharon Evans (also apparently British), tattooed her daughter, Bree, giving her permanent eyebrows. She also did fillers in her lips (in addition to Botox). Be horrified some more.

UPDATE II/I: Apparently this is not too much to be believed it is real. Poor Britney was taken from her mother and apparently is under custody of CPS. This article on the latest developments reveals another head-scratching fact: Britney's father died four years ago at the age of 83. So her mom was 30, with a four-year-old daughter, when her 83-year-old husband died... I wonder what kind of "research scientist" the father was? And whether or not *he* used Botox?

I have continuously said there is something seriously off with this story. Proof the Botox mom is not who she says she is. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/matierandross/detail?entry_id=89053 

The Evolution of American-Style Child Beauty Pageants

This piece originally appeared on The Huffington Post on May 10, 2011.

The Australian press and public have reacted strongly to plans to hold an "American-style" child beauty pageant in Australia this summer. Since I wrote a summary and a response to the "Australians Against Child Beauty Pageants" situation, the media attention has increased. Last weekend numerous articles appeared about this issue in Australia's newspapers. Now some in Ireland have raised concerns about having an "American-style" Miss Princess Ireland pageant. [Note added: This pageant in Ireland recently took place without a hitch, and reportedly more pageants are being organized for the near future.]

What are the historical roots of these "American-style" child beauty pageants? Having studied these events for over a decade, first as an undergraduate and now as a professional sociologist, I can offer some insights. Somewhat ironically, the first event that would evolve into an "American style" child beauty pageant actually started in a Commonwealth country.

A British art critic and historian named John Ruskin got the idea to hold a springtime festival for young girls, honoring their girlish innocence (Ruskin was actually rumored to be a pedophile...). Ruskin called his events May Queen festivals, since one girl would be selected queen, the "likeablest and loveablest" of all the maidens. The first of these festivals was held in England in 1881 and they quickly spread to North America, where they found a strong reception in the United States.

These competitive festivals soon developed into more systematic baby competitions -- baby parades and better baby contests -- which rewarded children for their looks and their costumes. The historic Asbury Park baby parade was arguably the most famous of the baby parades and contests that started at the turn of the twentieth century. It was the first baby parade ever held on the East Coast and in its heyday, in 1893, it drew 30,000 spectators. It was so popular that Thomas Edison made one of his first movies of the event, on September 12, 1904.

The fame of the Asbury Park Baby Parade set off a string of imitators in Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, Long Island, and, of course, Coney Island. Coney Island started its famous baby parade in 1906. The Coney Island baby parade had 1200 participants in its first year, 600 of whom competed for the title of "most beautiful baby."

Coney Island's parade continued to thrive into the 1920s. The 1923 and 1928 events boasted around 400 entrants who won in a variety of get-ups. A three-year-old girl won in a harem costume, a two-year-old won as a "Vanity Girl," and a six-year-old won dressed like a "Show Girl." Clearly, children dressing up like sexual adults started long before the twenty-first century. And in spite of, or perhaps because of, these little nymphs, audiences turned out in large numbers. The New York Times reported that the 1929 Coney Island Baby Parade had 500,000 spectators.

Click HERE to keep reading!

Brains vs. Beauty: Considering Kids' Participation in Beauty Pageants, Chess, and Football

In response to yesterday's post on child beauty pageants in Australia (or not) I received a variety of thoughtful comments. One of them was from The Family Factor who wrote, 

So what happens to the girls' views of the audience when they realize the[y] did not cut it? The idea that outward appearance is what gives you the edge in life is further entrenched and each time the girls become more self-conscious about what the audience is feeling about them compared to someone 'prettier'. To me this creates further insecurity rather than confidence.

Collett's point is a very important one.  We enroll kids in activities that are meant to be fun, educational, and constructive.  But what happens when the kids just can't cut it and aren't "good enough?"

When I was studying elementary school kids who play scholastic chess I confronted this question directly.  The following exchange is from an interview with a first-grade boy who played in local chess tournaments:

Hilary: Do you want to play at a really big tournament someday, like the Nationals?

Jun: Not really.

Hilary: Why not?

Jun: Well, because, I'm thinking that Nationals are good, right? And smart. So, right now, I'm not smart enough... I just feel it.

I was concerned by Jun's reaction and asked one of the chess coaches if this is a usual response (especially because Jun in fact was a talented chess player and a smart kid).  The coach told me, "Of course when you start losing then you ask yourself questions. Why do I lose? Maybe I am not smart." Because chess is a mental game, when you fail, you worry that you are simply not smart enough to participate and succeed.  

Parents were also aware of this issue. A chess mom told me she worried this notion could really damage her third-grade daughter's self-esteem, and in the process push her away from math and science. She explained, "Unlike soccer or baseball or a team sport, it’s just you [in chess]. You can’t blame it on a teammate...It’s your brain.  I think it could be a very weird thing and potentially devastating to say that my mind wasn’t working well."

Even though we celebrate athletic talent in our society, the brain still reigns supreme. I believe this is part of the reason why concussions have been the focus of so much media attention (which I've discussed before here). An ACL tear can heal, as can a broken bone. But a broken brain? That's something else entirely.  Should we risk long-term damage to the brain for fleeting athletic glory?

This one was one of many great questions raised in last night's Frontline documentary called Football High. The episode focused on Shiloh, a small, private, Christian high school in Arkansas that has rocketed to the top of national high school (American style) football rankings. In telling Shiloh's story the producers  illuminated important questions about the current state of youth sports: the rise of private coaches, the professionalization of high school sports on television, the use of elaborate ranking systems for middle school and high school players, and the recruitment of collegiate players younger than ever. What does all this mean? High school athletes spend more hours in practice than NCAA athletes, with basically no regulation and often under the supervision of adults who aren't properly trained to care for their health. The consequence? More injuries, like heat stroke and concussions.  We hear about the tragic stories of Tyler Davenport, a high school football player who died of heat stroke this past fall following a football practice, and Owen Thomas, a football captain at University of Pennsylvania who had signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in his brain after he committed suicide last spring.  When they were told to push themselves harder, to be "good enough," they did.

Given what I study people often ask me what activities I will enroll my own kids in someday, when I have them. I can say with 95% certainty that if I have a son, I would not let him play football, especially if the game and its safety standards don't change.  It's just too risky to the brain and future development.

Which brings me back to beauty pageants and the question raised by The Family Factor.  The truth is that I am also 95% sure that if I have a daughter I wouldn't let her participate in a beauty pageant (too much family history, given that my mother was Miss America 1970).  However, in terms of damage to the brain (both physical and psychological), I don't see how beauty pageants are much worse than football.

In fact, on the point of sending girls a negative message about not being "pretty enough," I'd like to raise two points essentially in defense of pageants.  First of all it would be nice to think we live in a society where looks and appearances don't matter.  Many people work to change the fact that looks, especially women's looks, are so consequential, and this is definitely a worthy enterprise.  But the fact is, for both men and women, how you look matters-- if you think how much you earn matters or who your partner is matters (I say this in seriousness as some people value different things, like happiness, which is not always related to income or romantic partnerships).  As a sociologist I believe standards of beauty are partly determined by our society; but I also believe that some of this is biological.  For a great discussion of these issues check out Nancy Etcof's Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.  We know from numerous studies by economists and psychologists that taller, and better-looking people are paid more and people are nicer to them. I'm not saying this is right, but it is the way it is.  That parents want to advantage their kids-- in this case mainly their daughters-- by emphasizing how to look their best starting at a young age is then not irrational.  Of course, spending thousands and thousands of dollars to teach that lesson is not so rational-- and girls could learn how to improve their appearance in various ways from other activities that aren't beauty pageants.

In terms of concerns about girls' self-perception, I think this is a serious issue around pageants, as I wrote about yesterday. However, somewhat paradoxically, when it comes to concerns about not being "pretty enough," I worry about this the most when it comes to natural pageants. In natural pageants a girl wears no make-up, doesn't wear super fancy dresses with lots of rhinestones, etc. Often at natural pageants girls walk on stage and model a bit, but the routines are not at all elaborate. At glitz pageants, by contrast, "total package" competitors do best. It doesn't matter if you aren't the most "facially beautiful," using only what you were born with.  Instead, you can work to "enhance" that beauty.  On top of that, and more important here, you can work to become a good model, practicing choreographed routines, and working on specific skills for the routines like triple turns.  In other words, girls can learn the value of practice and hard work from glitz pageants, rather than just coasting on natural good looks like in some natural pageants.

Given that I am a person who lives more of an intellectual life, I likely will teach my children how to play chess. I don't know if they will ever play in a chess tournament because I don't know if they will be any good. Of course, they can always get better through hard work and practice.  But some kids are just better suited to different activities with different skill sets. I'm determined to find out what my children enjoy and what they can be best at by exposing them to various activities (I intend to parent using my "childhood is a buffet" metaphor-- though football and beauty pageants won't be on my child's spread). I believe everyone has something they are good at, where they can "cut it," and it's our job as parents to help them discover their passion and what that might be-- whether it be chess, football, beauty pageants, or any other number of other endeavors like music and art.

What sorts of activities are off limit for your kids and why?