Playing around with Books and TV Shows

I've been writing elsewhere lately about various different interests-- my kids, playing, pageants, figure skating, books, TV shows, and child geniuses. You can check out these three different pieces by clicking on the titles:

1) Play, Outsourced- Written as part of the blog series, 28 Days of Play, about what impacts and at times impedes playing with our children. This focuses on the somewhat surprising reason (to me) I enroll my kids in classes like Gymboree, music, dance, etc. (Spoiler alert: the repetitive play of infancy and toddlerhood often bores me.)

2) Two Insider Takes on Beauty Pageants and Figure Skating: The New Memoirs of Dick Button and Kate Shindle- This book review essay about two activities I have long loved- figure skating and pageantry/Miss America- appeared on Huffington Post Books.

3) Not Just High Achievers: What Child Genius says about American achievement culture- My thoughts at Psychology Today on the finale of the Lifetime series Child Genius, following up on my previous blog post about the interesting show.

I wonder if outsourcing my sons' play at times means they will be more or less likely to be on Child Genius someday, or compete in a figure skating competition (actually, my educated opinion is that the answer to that is yes), but they likely won't be competing in beauty pageants... Time will tell!

America's new child genius

I loved the cover story of the January 24th issue of The Economist so much I even took notes. "America's new aristocracy: Education and the inheritance of privilege" is spot on in so many ways. As the leader says, "Today's rich increasingly pass on to their children an asset that cannot be frittered away in a few nights at a casino. It is more useful than wealth, and invulnerable to inheritance tax. It is brains." My children are certainly the beneficiaries (well, I hope) of this assortative mating. But I appreciated that the article also explains that it's not just that these children of the wealthier are resting on their laurels: "Compared to those of days past it is by and large more talented, better schooled, harder working (and more fabulously renumerated) and more diligent in its parental duties. It is not a place where one easily gets by on birth or connections alone. At the same time it is widely seen as increasingly hard to get into." Kids work hard to deserve their inherited status in the meritoracy, but that doesn't make it any easier to get into. Of course, as I know from my PLAYING TO WIN research, it's not not schooling but also after-schooling that matters. And these days it's not just a meritocracy but also a testocracy.

Enter another American spin on a British import: Child Genius. This new Lifetime competitive reality show features 15 kids and their families as they compete to win $100,000 and the title of "child genius." The show manages to combine pint-sized stars with big brains and often big personalities with some compelling (and appalling) parents, along with some smart expert commentary. The two factual competitions each week (which mainly rely on a child's ability to memorize in categories like American presidents, zoology, vocabulary, etc. but also math and logic & reasoning) are inherently edge-of-your-seat watching. The good editing adds another dimension, as does the unabashed goal of winning that often outstrips any concern about cameras.

Obviously most of these kids are the progeny of smart parents; one girl, eliminated in the first week, reveals her IQ is higher than her father's already high number. The show is a rainbow ethnically and racially, and not surprisingly many of the kids are children of immigrants to the US (research on immigration in the US has shown that immigrants who make it here were already at the top in their birth countries so this is not surprising at all). But there is one big exception, Graham, whose family is a bit in awe of the intellect they produced in their small Midwestern town. Intensely religious Graham feels compelled to state he doesn't believe in the Big Bang before dominating the astronomy round (you could see the former NASA astronaut moderator shudder a bit). Graham is one of the reasons reality TV shows continue to thrive, as are Ryan and his domineering parents... especially his mom who hisses all the time she isn't a Tiger mom.

It is so clear that the more social kids who seem to have something more like a "normal" life-- regular school, peers their age, siblings-- are the happiest and most well-adjusted. The family dynamic is so significant here it is hard to overstate. You can see how some parents enjoy their kids (even when one girl reveals she got her brains from her dad, and then proceeds to correct her parents when they say she "self-taught herself" because what they said was redundant), support them, and try to raise them up as good human beings, while others see them as instruments to success. The goal is winning no matter the goal or cost. I can only imagine how crazy it is making some of them that Graham is excelling with so little practice and devotion (speaking of, I wonder if Graham has ever done, or will do, memory contests reciting Bible verses as it seems right up his alley).

In addition to my other interests I am fascinated that so many of these kids rely on a luck trope to explain their success in a phase of the competition, declaring they "got lucky" when they got first in a round or got a perfect score. Only once, thus far, has a negative luck trope been used when one boy got eliminated and his mom felt it was unfair (it wasn't, he gave the wrong answer, for the record, her name is SANDRA Day O'Connor). Of course luck does have to do with it for these kids, as they got lucky to be born into the families they did, per The Economist, but they also work unbelievably hard, studying every day and working to learn more almost every minute of every day. I'm curious to see how this ends and what becomes of these kids in the future. I suspect I will see more than a few in the Spelling or Geography Bees in the next few years (one contestant I recognized from lats year's Bee!), and then who knows...

But I'm sure even they would ask, as I did, why The Economist chose to feature Yale and not one of my alma maters, Princeton or Harvard?! ;)

The Similar Worlds of Mutton Busting and AAU Basketball

In addition to reading a lot of books, I read a lot of magazines. Sometimes it takes me awhile to get through the stack on my nightstand, but I always do. I recently read two articles in my "regulars" (New Yorker and Sports Illustrated) that spoke to one another in important ways-- even if no one else sees it but me! The first is "The Ride of Their Lives: Children prepare for the world's most dangerous organized sport" by Burkhard Bilger in last month's New Yorker and the second is "Out of Power" by Pete Thamel in the August 25th issue of SI about Curtis Malone, a convicted drug dealer who ran one of the most influential AAU basketball programs in the country. I've written a bit about mutton busting before, and the circuit has only intensified since I last wrote (kids with stage names, customized clothes, bling, etc.). Here are the ways in which these article reveal these two very different youth sports are similar to one another, and the constellation of other competitive youth activities. These are both worlds where kids get nicknames (see also the recent NYT piece on girls in a boys' basketball league, which is full of stereotypes), can earn gear and swag, and potential earn money (a lot of it in fact).

The line that resonated most with my Playing to Win research, and my beauty pageant research, from the Bilger article is, "Around here, the notion of childhood as a safe, protected place—a benign bubble—seemed like poor training for life." Bilger is a gorgeous writer-- his prose is evocative, the details truly evocative and illustrative. But this sentence captures the hardscrabble hopes so many parents have for their children, and the ways in which activities outside of school can lead to other opportunities. IN both Oklahoma and Texas and DC, basketball and rodeo offer real benefits, despite the risks (whether they be injuries or drugs).

In both activities the authors discuss the intensification over the past decades-- more people, more money, more business opportunities. As the stakes get higher in childhood in general, we see what I refer to as cottage industries spring up that enable adults, who may be helping children at first (and some continue to, but not all), make more and more money. As Thamel writes, "Malone quickly grasped that in the essentially unregulated youth basketball world, the key is to acquire talent." Thamel finds that the same skills that make someone successful as a drug dealer work when it comes to youth basketball: charisma, street savvy, discretion, and organization. I can assure you that this is also true when it comes to kids' chess, dance, soccer, beauty pageants, afterschool math classes, etc. So long as the realms remain unregulated, this will remain true.

One of my favorite lines from the Bilger piece was a line uttered by a parent about his son trying to stay on a calf for 8 seconds. His son fell off but the dad remarked, "He hit the ground trying." This is both a great lesson kids can gain from participating in activities like these, but it also suggests the potential pitfalls for so many adults, including parents, involved. If the focus stays more on the kids' learning, and less on profit, hopefully this can be true for all kids...

Catching Up on TV, Part 2: The Summer of Dance

Last week I looked at stage moms on TV this summer, this week it's specifically the DANCE stage moms, some of the worst offenders on TV no doubt. It was interesting to look back over the past two summers and see what's changed and what is the same in the world of dance on TV. Sadly Bunheads and Breaking Pointe are gone and Dance Kids ATL didn't return. With SIX dance shows airing during the Summer of 2014 though, dance seems more popular than ever, especially over the summer.

1) The mainstay is of course So You Think You Can Dance, aka SYTYCD, or simply "So You Think." Back on June 29th I tweeted that Ricky Ubeda would win Season 11 and I was right. I mean...

Despite the foregone conclusion I enjoyed this season. I like the two hours per week because it makes it all seem like less of a commitment. I also enjoyed all the guest judges this season (especially Misty Copeland, and even Tara Lipinski who for the rest of my life I will never forgive for Nagano and Michelle Kwan!). Am curious for how many more seasons they can last though. If you notice almost all the top contenders are 18 or 19-years-old. They seem to have exhausted the crop of "older" dancers. It's really freaky to hear that people like Ricky have been dreaming of competing on the show since they were EIGHT. Time sure flies when you are older.

I found it interesting that the show has come so full circle that one of Ricky's teachers, Victor, was on SYTYCD as a contestant. I loved his line that Ricky was sent to them from the dance gods. Of course, Victor's studio was the subject of the unsuccessful Dance Moms Miami spin-off. Further proof how incestuous these worlds are...

2) Dance Moms- Oh, wait, I have more proof! Lucas Triana who was on Dance Moms Miami is part of the Candy Apples Team, where his mom still causes trouble. I find the show, which finishes up tonight, so disturbing at this point I'm not sure what else I can say. I will add that the new DwTS link (Abby appearing in the spring and Maddie last month with Allison Holker from STYYCD) is even more proof of the small world of dance on TV. Allison put Maddie to shame during Chandelier, but I was disturbed by Allison's weight.

3) Abby's Studio Rescue- On that note, I simply can't BELIEVE Abby got not one, but TWO spin-offs. Is she really that popular? Like Dance Moms this is highly scripted. Only a few episodes aired over the summer, then the show appeared to be canceled, now a few more aired. The best thing I can say is that the show portrays her in a slightly more positive light. Abby does know to teach her students terminology and I like that she gives them exams. It also exposes the wide range of studios in the US, that ANYONE (dance mom, "teacher," former dancer) can open one, and should make the case for more regulation. Needless to say, product placement awkward.

4) Raising Asia- If you can believe it, yet another spin-off of a spin-off from Dance Moms. Asia Monet Ray was on the first season of Abby's Ultimate Dance Competition. She then appeared on Dance Moms, then she got her own show on Lifetime. I found this to be the most interesting dance show because it captures and lays bare so many of the issues with these shows. It shows the sacrifice, the homeschooling, the deprivation the children cry about (friends, family time, even food). Kristie, the mom, seems to think she can tell the cameras when to stop rolling and that she can try to walk off set EVERY episode. It's just not true, as her husband tries to explain to her. The producers must have LOVED it every time she did it. Kristie gets mad at her daughters (the dynamic with the youngest is so, so sad), the producers, her husband, her sister, her mom-- she would get mad at her friends to I am sure if she had any time to see them. And that raises the question: What is the end game here? Raising Asia shows that dancing might help get you attention, but it likely won't make you FAMOUS. You will always be in the back. If you only want to do dance then you must choreograph (like Anthony Burrell who has now done Dance Moms, Abby's Ultimate, AND Raising Asia) or join a professional company or show. Asia's parents want her to be a pop star, a mini-Beyonce, so singing must come. But Beyonce likely wouldn't have done a reality show. The money and exposure aren't worth it if you are a hack later because of it. Nick or Disney could come, but who knows. This raises the question of the end goal for someone like Maddie on Dance Moms who doesn't go to school and gets dance jobs, but not a PROJECT. She'll never join Cedar Lake-- what is her end game? So much time and money invested and education missed in ways you can't even say for many sports, which can lead to college opportunities. I guess it is all the fame game? In any case, Asia and her parents come off as brats. Someone please rescue Bella Blu.

5) Bring It!- I've written before about how much I like the message of this show. But, oh, the "technique" or lack thereof. Dianna is now calling this "majorette dance," and says it is growing. It is, but it shouldn't at the expense of kids' bodies. Whenever I see the bare feet on gym or concrete floors, I cringe! One of the coaches from another team even admitted he has absolutely no dance background. Ugh! And, yet, I like this show. It's a different demographic, it's warm (I loved when Dianna let Sunjai go to her prom and didn't give her an awful time about it). They are "sexing" it up a bit with the Baby Dancing Dolls and Momma Dancing Dolls routines for TV, but that's ok. Even with poor technique I'd rather a tough and loving teacher for my kids than a tyrant Abby.

6) Hit the Floor- The only officially scripted show of the bunch. It's a total soap, there is lots of sex, but there is also lots of good dancing. Of course the stars aren't the best dancers on the team (though Ahsha is ok, her acting isn't great so I can't quite figure out how such a wooden actress got the lead, whereas Jelena's face and body explain it all), and in more incestuousness, Allison Holker also appears here (along with Courtney Galliano, another SYTYCD alum).

Overall Asia, Allison, and Anthony tie for three dance shows apiece-- but I give the win to Holker for doing a scripted show as well.

I wonder what dance shows will return next summer, and what new ones will come along in the meantime!

Catching Up on TV, Part 1: The Summer of the Stage Parents

Yes, it's October, I know. But between reading, writing, and childcare I'm still working my way through my DVR from August (DVR may be this mom's favorite technological innovation, behind the iPad which helps me AND Carston). In previous summers I have done a wrap-up of stage moms and dance shows, but this year there were so many shows (either a good thing, or a scary thing, I can't decide), I'm breaking up the post into two parts. So, look for my thoughts on dance next week.

In the meantime, I'm talking about three shows I've previously written about:

1) Bet on Your Baby- I was actually surprised when ABC brought this show back for a second season. Not only did I find it pretty abhorrent, but I didn't think it got great ratings. Then again no Saturday night show is expected to draw a lot of eyes and this was probably pretty cheap for them to produce (you can tell from the hostess' wardrobe that they tape many in a single day). Actually this season had even more sponsors ("Walmart With Every Little Step Babydome" and "Luvs Baby Bio"), but there was also more diversity in the contestants this season. For instance, there was a grandma and a mom and not just male/female couples. It also seemed like there was fewer psychology games/experiments and more "fun" games. Still, when a parent bet AGAINST their child it was pretty painful, especially when the child pulled through. In one case it ended ok because the family won fun college tuition at the end, but I still worry the little girl will think her dad doesn't believe in her. One of the lines on the show seems especially true: "Where the stakes are huge and the competitors are miniature." I still find the show in bad taste, though less so than before, and hope it isn't back for season 3.

2) (Jon and) Kate Plus 8- This show came back for many more than three seasons and over the summer a one-off special ran updating people on the family's progress. What was most talked about though occurred on the media tour for the special when Kate had a very awkward live appearance with her eldest twins on The Today Show. In this case the show may have helped protect the kids somewhat by having other adults around, and at least they are getting some more income. But the Kate popularity train has basically left the station completely and it's all train wreck from here on out. Some day, one of them will write some tell-all. Nonetheless, I expect some sort of holiday special...

3) Kim of Queens- This show is still on, airing episodes from its second season, so I'm not completely tardy. And I actually like the show even more this season. The main reason why is that Kim Gravel remains the anti-Abby Lee Miller. In fact, she's so anti-Abby she asks one of her paying clients to leave because she can't deal with her mom, Angie. Angie and Marah still have appearances on the show (likely contractual), but even after Kim's sister tries coaching Marah it's clear Angie's style just doesn't gel with The Pageant Place. Good for them for standing their ground, and still being compassionate to Marah, while not worrying about the dollar and drama. I also love that Kim is aware it's not about winning any one specific pageant, but about the process to eventually win a big pageant, like Miss Georgia or Miss America. I especially loved when one mom realized she likes her tomboy daughter better, and Kim agrees that for two girls pageants aren't helping them. She knows they aren't a panacea, however you look, and she comes across as caring-- and funny. Someday I want to watch Miss America or Miss USA with HER!

Not all extreme parents shown on TV are stage parents, but believe me, quite a few are... Stay tuned for dance moms and dads next week for proof.