Rosalind Wiseman's Blog, page 42

Rosalind on Today with the Jones Family

On September 1, Rosalind was a guest again on Today.  She joined the Jones family to comment on their situation and the current state of bullying legislation in this country.  One year ago, James Jones stormed onto his daughter's school bus and threatened children who were bullying her. His daughter, Chatari, has cerebral palsy and was teased and tormented by a number of her classmates. Click here to watch the video.

Owning Up for Your Behavior

Recently, I meet the Jones' family on the Today Show. Chatari Jones is the Florida teen who was severely bullied on her school bus. Her father, James Jones, was videotaped entering the bus and threatening the bullies. As a result, he was fined $3,000 and did community service.  But I think any parent can understand his actions, if not agree with them. What's important to highlight is what Mr. Jones says in our interview. While the school clearly failed his child and he feared for her life, he accepts responsibility for his actions.

Today Chatari is much happier. Not only because she's at a different school but because her parents showed their support and role-modeled how to conduct yourself after you yourself have made a mistake.

Rosalind presents at BlogHer '11 with a message on responsible mobile phone use

Rosalind Wiseman teamed up with LG's Text Ed Council and Jane Lynch (Glee) in San Diego for this August's BlogHer '11, the world's largest conference for women in social media.

Lynch and Wiseman offered advice to attendees on everything from sexting and mobile bullying to proper mobile phone etiquette and texting while driving. Through the LG Text Ed website, www.lgtexted.com, parents can educate themselves on the dangers of mobile phone misuse, discover strategies they can employ to help protect their children from a multitude of potential problems and learn how to become positive role models of texting behavior.

Click Here to read full article…

Honest Talk in the Body Acceptance Movement

Jess Weiner

Transformational leaders inspire by challenging what we hold to be true. They demand that we examine our assumptions, question their validity, and encourage discourse.

Especially when doing so makes us uncomfortable.

Jess Weiner, in her recent article, "Loving My Body Almost Killed Me," in the September issue of Glamour, shows that she is this transformational leader. In sum, Weiner argues that overweight women rationalize ignoring their physical health as a response to the thin-obsessed culture we live in. Make no mistake, Weiner clearly understands the profoundly negative consequences for all women chasing the thin body ideal. But she is also drawing attention to a body acceptance movement that convinces women to turn a blind eye to the very real health problems linked to obesity.

It is essential to women's emotional health to love their body in spite of the constant messages we get that we only deserve to do so if we are as thin as we are told to be. But somewhere along the way we lost the overall point: women's emotional and physical health are interconnected and we do ourselves a grave disservice if we don't take care of our physical health because we are so busy defending ourselves from the emotional tyranny of being thin.

Weiner had this epiphany at a moment when self-reflection was probably the last thing she wanted to do. Weiner was challenged by a woman in a public forum about her right to speak on woman's health because she herself was overweight. This woman forced Weiner to look at a very uncomfortable truth. Superficial leaders would have responded with a quick dismissive comeback; never having the courage to recognize any of the truth in the speaker's question. True leaders take these difficult moments and face them head on. That is exactly what Weiner did. As she writes in the Glamour article:

I'd written books and magazine columns, appeared countless times on Oprah and other TV shows, and given hundreds of speeches telling women to love themselves no matter what their size. But now it was time to consider not just my self-esteem but also my wellbeing… I couldn't remember the last time I'd been to the doctor. My body wasn't anyone else's business, but had I done everything I could to make it my business?

Weiner's call to action is not limited to herself. It is also a call to action for other women. But some may not see it that way. Instead, Weiner's argument may be labeled by some as disloyal to overweight women. It is not. When we require ideological purity in our discourse, we by definition stop the authenticity of that discourse.

I know something of this experience. When I first started writing about the mean things girls do to each other, some of my colleagues believed I was wrong to bring it up. I was accused of being disloyal, unfairly blaming girls, or creating conflict within the girls' self-esteem movement. What I believed, and continue to believe to this day, is that girls and women are only able to reach their true potential and have authentic relationships if they are honest and self-reflective. It's just too easy to accept the easy answers and silence the difficult ones.

It doesn't matter if the issue is women's weight or girls' cruelty. Women, individually and collectively, must challenge themselves. They must see that loyalty is speaking the truth precisely in those moments when you know something is wrong; when you fear rejection and backlash from your community but you speak out anyway. As a leader in the body acceptance movement, it is critical that Weiner's article fosters dialogue among women. By doing so she's not only taking care of her emotional and physical health but also role-modeling what it means to be an empowered courageous leader.

Family Circle: Ask Rosalind, September 2011

ADULT ED
When to butt in, when to butt out—that's the dilemma when dealing with your kid's teachers and coaches. Do the homework now and you'll be ready to ace every interaction.

It goes without saying that you're the most important person in your child's life. But it's also true that there are lots of other adults who matter—like principals, teachers, coaches and scout leaders. Seriously, aren't you grateful that your daughter gets a "No" from her guidance counselor when she begs to switch classes to hang with her questionable new friends? And when your son tunes out your good-sportsmanship advice, is there a better cure for his throwing a bat than the coach benching him? As kids get older and more reluctant to confide in parents, they'll often turn to other trusted grown-ups. We need these people. They maintain our sanity and help us raise good kids. Unfortunately, not all of the adults in our children's lives are so wonderful, and it's tempting to wind up in mama-bear mode when trouble hits. Please don't. Tracking down the offender to "get to the bottom of this" or sending e-mails in all capital letters isn't effective and could actually make things worse.

Instead, be prepared.

1 DECIDE ON YOUR ROLE.

Your first move is choosing whether to be directly involved or to help your tween or teen advocate for himself. If the issue is something about the work or activity—your child can never understand a teacher's assignments, the coach gives him zero play time or the scout leader doesn't work on the promised badge—that's a conversation your child should have with the adult. As a behind-the-scenes guide, your job is to help him write down what he'd like to see changed and what resolution he can live with, and to think through the best time to approach the person (i.e., not right before class, after a losing game or if the pack is running wild). On the other hand, if the concern has to do with dignity and respect—the teacher or coach humiliates or makes fun of your child, or any of the kids, or is otherwise inappropriate—you must intervene directly. This is especially true when it comes to comments about appearance because tweens and teens are horribly self-conscious about their bodies, and adults often forget how hurtful small, seemingly harmless remarks can be. No matter how angry or frustrated the adult is, no one ever has the right to say things like, "How can you be so stupid?" or "You fat, selfish oaf." (I am not making this up. A mom just e-mailed me that her 14-year-old son's coach said this to him when the boy was out at second base.)

2 KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH.

Most parents don't realize that there's going to be a hidden power dynamic between grown-ups. If you're sensitive to this, you'll be able to focus less on how mad you are and more on finding answers. In my experience, I've seen three types of adults who work with kids:

The Partner. These men and women know how to listen respectfully and work with you as allies. Of course they will be your favorites. Even when they make mistakes and conflicts arise, you'll be able to arrive at some type of reasonable agreement without too much drama.

The Pushover. There are plenty of teachers and coaches who come across as clueless or uncaring. But the point is, it's probably not true that they're against you or your kid. You might be dealing with someone who's been yelled at or threatened by other parents, who hasn't yet developed the right social skills or is so stressed-out that giving up seems like the only option. For example, say the teacher isn't seeing that your kid is being bullied in one of his classes. The truth could be that the bully's parents have some kind of power in the school and the teacher is too scared or inexperienced to know what to do.

The Tyrant. You know who these people are. They're the ones who react to questioning, disagreement or difference of opinion as a challenge that must be squashed immediately. They often get away with terrible behavior because parents are too intimidated to speak up or mistakenly believe that disrupting, say, a winning team, isn't worth the trouble.

3 CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF YOUR FACTS.

If you actually saw the incident in question (meaning you aren't taking anyone else's word for it), you've got your evidence. On the other hand, when your child reports the behavior (meaning you didn't see it firsthand) be aware—and I'm not saying your kid is lying—that there might be another side to the story. Keep an open mind and think about how you can approach the situation as an information gatherer. Imagine saying to the teacher, "I want to talk with you about something Emily said. I know kids can be really sensitive, but she told me that when she asked to use the school printer, you thought she was lying about ours being broken. Can you tell me why she may have given you that impression?"

4 SET UP THE MEETING.

E-mail the offender and arrange a time and place where you can calmly but firmly tell the person what concerns you and why. As in, "Coach, I value having my son on this team, but when you scolded the guys for 'throwing like a bunch of third grade girls,' I was really upset. Correcting the boys that way teaches them it's okay to disrespect females and I know you don't want to do that." Or, "I realize you have a lot of kids to think about, but I believe it makes it harder for my daughter to learn if she feels accused of something she didn't do."

If you're dealing with the Partner, your job will be easy because he'll want to make things right. Usually the Pushover will settle down once you've communicated with your tone, body language and words that you're not going to cry, yell or call your lawyer, and you can move right into brainstorming solutions together.

The Tyrant is a tougher case, though, and you may have to head off some fireworks. You might hear something like, "Girls are so dramatic! No offense, but your daughter has always been a little too sensitive. It's time to let go a bit, don't you think?" Most people at this point are tempted to go on the attack, or are so upset and shocked that they say nothing. Instead, give yourself a few moments to reflect on this question: If your child were in the same situation, how would you want her to behave so you'd be proud of how she was raised? Now use this vision as motivation to face the situation with courage and dignity. In other words, take a deep breath, skip the impulsive reaction and go straight to, "How can we resolve this?"

 

ROLE REVERSAL
If you're the one teaching, coaching or leading, remember to:

1. Deal with your child exactly as you would the rest of the kids, and expect her to treat you like any other leader.

2. Accept that you'll still cringe extra hard if your kid is the one who blows a play or mouths off.

3. Be aware that you're everyone's role model for how to behave toward children with differing abilities and parents who are pushy.

4. Enjoy developing relationships with you child's peer group.

Rosalind's Inbox: Rude Boy

Rosalind answers a question from 13-year old Jillian who is being harassed by a boy about her chest size. She wants to solve the problem, but is justly worried that her parents will call the school and the whole thing will blow up in her face. What can she do?

The Smackdown on Common Sense: How the Anti-Bullying Movement is Hurting Itself

In my recent article, "The NEA and WWE's New Anti-Bullying Campaign," I questioned the National Education Association and the Creative Coalition for partnering with WWE to create the Be A Star anti-bullying program. Many people, specifically fans of the WWE and Ms. Robin Bronk, Executive Director of the Creative Coalition, disagree with my assessment that the WWE is not a credible partner because its programming is contradictory to any bullying prevention program.

My key point is that because bullying has become the popular social problem for corporations and celebrities to support, advocacy organizations like the National Education Association and the Creative Coalition must be extremely mindful about who they associate with as they develop programs on this issue. Otherwise, they will not only undermine their position and lose their overall credibility but the opportunity for systemic change will be lost in a sea of mixed messages that young people will dismiss.

That is the real issue. But reaction from the article has almost exclusively been on defending the WWE.

That in itself is important. The premises behind the criticisms I received demand close examination because they reflect a misunderstanding of how cultural values are transferred through the media and how media is currently distributed to our children. Ms. Bronk recently posted a rebuttal to my article and since her complaints encapsulate the others, I'm going to use what she wrote to address the issues.

Premise #1. The WWE's brand of entertainment is harmless because it is fake.

"WWE is scripted entertainment — just like Hollywood movies or television shows — yet Wiseman's article doesn't hold entertainment companies who produce violent movies, television programs, or reality programming to the same standard. Nor does it suggest athletes from sports like football, MMA, or hockey should be disqualified from promoting anti-bullying messages."

Ms. Bronk is correct: WWE is scripted entertainment. But this means that WWE, unlike professional sports, has complete control over what it does. So even in its current "PG version" the narrative of the WWE fight script includes ridicule before the bell rings and the "winner" is declared. In the words of Lyn Mikel Brown, Professor of Education at Colby College and author of Packaging Boyhood, "This mockery is typically in the service of shame and humiliation about not being tough enough, strong enough, masculine enough–messages that motivate much of the homophobia and bullying found in schools these days. It's going to be very hard for the WWE to give up this script and retain its loyal fans–as evidenced by the recent homophobic tweets by a WWE commentator only a week after the agreement with GLADD was announced." (GLAAD is one of the principal collaborators in this partnership)

Compare this to professional sports. The purpose and script of a football game is to get the ball into the end zone; the goal of a hockey game is to get the puck into the net. While a football or hockey game may include fights or even individuals spontaneously humiliating someone, that dynamic is not intrinsic to the game as it is in WWE. Using the same logic, I don't suggest individuals from sports like hockey, football and MMA should be disqualified from promoting anti-bullying messages; if I did, that wouldn't make sense.

I said in my article that the people at WWE are extremely media savvy about this interplay between fake and real. I take it back. They are geniuses. The most important example of this is how WWE's blurs the line between its real life and fictionalized owner: Mr. McMahon. The overarching fictional narrative of the WWE is that McMahon is in a position of power and as such controls everyone around him. Look at any of the shows with him playing his fictional/real-life characters and you will see a story of a person with authority and control publicly flaunting and abusing his power. He is the leader and sets an example that the rest of the characters emulate. Does that fall into acceptable PG ratings? Absolutely. It is also the foundation of bullying.

Premise #2. The videos I showed are old and therefore of no consequence.

"In criticizing WWE, the article invokes some videos from WWE's bygone TV-14 era, suggesting the company actually contributes to bullying. If anyone is offended by that content, it should be known that several years ago, WWE took the initiative to make its programming more family friendly.

This may be somewhat true about their current broadcast programming, but unfortunately that fact is irrelevant. We live in a post-broadcast world. The majority of young people don't sit down and watch a TV show at its scheduled time anymore. As I said in my article, WWE cites an average online viewership of 8.9 million video streams per month. Children and tweens know they can see anything WWE has ever broadcast on YouTube; through the WWE channel or in clips posted by individuals. WWE knows this and as a business strategy it makes perfect sense; i.e. look harmless while keeping the more degrading programming away from people who don't understand how viewers find the content. At any rate, you may not agree with WWE's and Ms. Bronk's definition of "family friendly" after you watch this compilation from their 2010 Smackdown Bikini Contest:

Throughout the years, these bikini contests have always been one of WWE's most common scripts. They follow the same plot, the same script and the same lesson imparted: women are judged by a group of men, one is chosen as the most sexy, and another woman attacks her. This script role-models not only proven negative female stereotyped images and behavior but specifically shows an expectation that women should turn against each other as they fight for mens' validation. Unfortunately, in terms of this article, one of the Creative Coalition's members, Girl Scouts USA, is one of the principal leaders of the recently launched Healthy Commission for Positive Images of Women and Girls. As a result, Girl Scouts is now connected with the video above; which is obviously contradictory to everything they work so hard for and damages their credibility.

Back to the accusation that the videos I showed in the last article were old and therefore inconsequential. Actually the dates of the videos are irrelevant because everything that WWE has ever created is always available for viewing.

Imagine this: You are a 12-year old boy who knows that WWE has gotten cleaned up. You know that WWE used to be way more intense: You've heard that WWE used to have people pee on each other, hit each over the head with chairs, and girl wrestlers kissed each other. You are a 12 year-old boy, so what are you going to do? You go to YouTube and type in the search "WWE girls kissing." Is this something educational organizations should be partnering with?

Or if you did a search on the popular wrestler, Eddie Guerrero, who died in 2005, you'd get this:

So that there are no misunderstandings of what WWE is teaching here with this fictional, "meaningless" script, I'm going to break it down. A man has a nurse bending over him in a scenario typical of many pornographic films. Without him knowing, she's replaced with a hyper-masculine, oiled-up, nearly naked male wrestler. For a second there is a moment of sexual attraction, which is quickly replaced with revulsion, demonstrating their heterosexuality. Lastly a "stereotypical" gay, lustful doctor arrives, eager to sexually assault Guerrero during the examination. What the script is telling the viewer is that 1. women should service men, 2. if there is sexual attraction between men, that is shameful and must be ridiculed and 3. openly gay men (i.e. the doctor) are sexual predators who will sexually assault a heterosexual man if given the opportunity.

Will watching this clip make the 12-year-old viewer a homophobic exploiter of women? Probably not. But what research has proven over and over again is that scripts like these profoundly influence people's attitudes about what is normalized acceptable social behavior.

What I don't understand is that some of the research and public policy positions against this form of media entertainment come from the very advocacy organizations that are members of the Creative Coalition and The National Education Association itself. In its own 2010-2011 Resolutions Document, the NEA stated, "children are an especially vulnerable and easily exploited audience who must be protected from exposure to violence, prejudice, sexual content, and stereotyping by mass media, the Internet, and products that are accessible to children."

Now if the WWE was really serious about ending its programming that includes humiliation, homophobia, and the degradation of women it would be easy for them to do. Remove that programming from their on-line content and report the individuals to YouTube who upload clips over which they have property rights. With very little effort WWE could do its part to stop the dissemination of this content. But that would mean putting its stated values of and contribution to the Be A Star program over its profits.

Premise #3: I am being unfair to WWE.

"[Wiseman] unfairly suggests that because of WWE's brand of entertainment, the company has no moral authority to promote non-violence and tolerance among kids."

The definition of fair is to be "just or appropriate in the circumstances." Given the circumstances, I think my assessment is a fair one.

Ms. Bronk states in her closing remarks that "The bottom line is that the NEA, The Creative Coalition and GLAAD are harnessing the power of the WWE brand to promote tolerance and raise public awareness about bullying."

I think the real bottom line is that while WWE has the right to do whatever it wants as does the people who watch it, the Be A Star message will be lost in the much more powerful imagery and messages in WWE's normal programming.

In the wise words of 10 year old Dylan and 12-year old Max,

"It makes no sense for the WWE to get involved with bullying prevention, because they fight & they influence kids to become bullies."

"It does not make any sense because these guys in the WWE are fighting all the time until their opponent gets knocked out and i dont think a 12 year old would be allowed to watch WWE anyway. (what were they thinking?)"

If anyone in the NEA or the Creative Coalition would like to continue the debate about this partnership, I am more than willing to do so. What isn't debatable is that the WWE has already won the fight; an association of well-respected social justice non-profits is leaping to their defense.

I am telling you these WWE people are smart.

Devil's Advocacy: The NEA and WWE's New Anti-Bullying Campaign

What if I told you that World Wrestling Entertainment had partnered with the National Education Association to do an anti-bullying campaign?

Would you think it was a bad joke?

It's no joke.

The WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, recently announced the "Be A Star" bullying prevention program in partnership with the National Education Association's (NEA) Health Information Network (HIN) and the Creative Coalition; an association of well-respected advocacy organizations who focus on youth, racism, homophobia, education, and violence prevention. According to their joint press release, "Be a STAR will promote positive methods of social interaction and encourage people to treat others as equals and with respect because everyone is a star in their own right."

This is how the WWE role-models positive social interaction:

CEO of The Creative Coalition, Robin Bronk was clear in her support. "We're proud to be an architect with WWE of "Be A STAR." Ms. Bronk must be confused about WWE. According to Jackson Katz Ph.D, author of The Macho Paradox and creator of the video Tough Guise, "WWE is one of the most culturally destructive and blatantly misogynistic businesses in the history of popular entertainment."

When I asked Nora Howley, manager of NEA's HIN programs why they decided to work with WWE, her response was, "WWE wrestling is silly, scripted matches. And there's no body of evidence that proves wrestling causes violence." Ms. Howley is right; you can't prove wrestling causes violence. Unfortunately, that fact entirely misses the point ( as it does for violence in any TV program, video game or movie).

It's precisely these "silly" scripts that are the problem. Story telling teaches us the values, attitudes, and beliefs of our culture. This concept is fundamental to effective education and media literacy and has been amply described in this very context in works such as "Packaging Boyhood." The late George Gerbner, professor of communications and Dean Emeritus of the Annenberg School of Communication defined the impact of this kind of violence, not on behavior but on attitudes. Here's a partial list of the effects he describes:

It desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering; they lose the ability to understand the consequence of violence, to empathize, to resist, and to protest
It's swift, it's thrilling, it's cool, it's effective, it's painless, and it always leads to a happy ending because you have to deliver the audience to the next commercial in a receptive mood
One comes to believe that the violence portrayed in media is normal and it's a good way of solving problems
All of this leads to a pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability

That the NEA and Creative Coalition appear not to know this is deeply troubling. Not only are they influential leaders in education and public policy and as such have the responsibility to make informed decisions, but their ignorance makes them vulnerable to being manipulated by people who are more media savvy. Make no mistake, WWE is media savvy.

As I have written on other occasions, bullying is stripping a person of their dignity based on a characteristic such as race, religion, gender and or sexual orientation. Watch how WWE does exactly this:

Depiction of Women:

Homophobia:

As explained in this video clip, explicit homophobia is a cornerstone of the model of masculinity portrayed by WWE. Ironically, or perhaps appropriately, there are countless YouTube clips of WWE viewers either gay bashing or making fun of the homoerotic undertones going on between the wrestlers.

So why did the NEA and Creative Coalition agree to do this?

Members of the Creative Coalition include the American Library Association, the Girl Scouts, National Black Justice Coalition, National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, and the Mathew Sheppard Foundation among many others. I count many of them as colleagues and respect their work immensely, and I don't believe for one second that these people support the mission of WWE.

Here's what I think may have happened.

The people at the NEA and the Creative Coalition haven't watched a WWE event or visualize the cartoonish Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant from the 1980′s.

The people at all these organizations took WWE on face value when they said, "We are committed to this issue and we are taking it seriously," even though WWE states in its own communication materials: "[WWE] does not represent socially responsible methods for resolving conflict."

They got stars in their eyes when they thought about reaching WWE's large fan base. According to WWE's own statistics, they have average online viewership of 8.9 million video streams per month. These organizations believe that WWE will enable the "Be A Star" program to be seen by many more people than if they didn't work with WWE. This is true and makes sense, as long as the messenger and the environment where the message is delivered are credible to the target audience.

Here's what I do know:

The WWE paid for an anti-bullying movie; "That's What I Am" starring Ed Harris, Chase Ellison, WWE Superstar Randy Orton® and Amy Madigan. It comes with curricula and will be made available to teachers throughout the country. I saw the movie and I'm having a hard time understanding why the NEA likes it so much. Plus, the DVD begins with an ad for a WWE video game.

 

The question is, can one movie, even if it was the best anti-bullying movie ever made, counteract everything else WWE puts out? Can Stephanie McMahon's "Be a Star" PSA be credible when so young people have seen her humiliated and mock beaten by her real life husband Triple H on the WWE mat? Ms. Howley believes it can, "The video and accompanying materials are an amazing opportunity to speak to children and families. Our staff gave it great thought and we believe the video can live independently from wrestling." Sut Jhally, Professor of Communications at the University of Massachusetts disagrees, "We know that individual messages don't work on their own. They only work in a context and the WWE's general context is opposite of an anti-bullying message. It's like the pornography industry making a video about abstinence."

And beyond the movie's and campaign's merits, are they worth it when they help to protect WWE from scrutiny?

Fact: GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is also working with WWE. Aaron McQuade, deputy director of GLAAD's News and Field Media explained how it came about. "A few months ago we got a wave of complaints from LGBTQ people who attended a WWE event because of a gay bashing incident. WWE didn't seem to know how offensive and hurtful it was to their LGBTQ viewers. So they asked us to consult with them and we have been doing that. We have worked with their writing teams and talent management and we are running PSA's during their Monday night programming."

I don't believe WWE's claim that they didn't know how homophobic their fights are. Beyond their own common sense, there's a documentary by Media Education Foundation called "Wrestling with Manhood" that clearly lays all of this out. But I understand GLAAD's motivation; they were acting in response to their constituents. GLAAD is an incredible organization. I just don't know how they, or anyone, can hold their own against the WWE.

In situations like this I always check my judgement by seeking the opinions of young people. After all, this program is targeted at them. So I asked boys what they thought about this partnership and this is what they told me:

Q: Based on what WWE does, Does it make sense for the WWE to get involved with bullying prevention? Why or why not?

It does not make any sense because these guys in the WWE are fighting all the time until their opponent gets knocked out. Max, 12

I don't think it makes a lot of sense because of what WWE does. I have watched the show a couple of times and the entire match is beating the other person up, and violence and hurting people is a part of bullying. If I saw a WWE wrestler talk about the bad things of bullying I would be a bit confused. First I see him knock someone out and then next moment I see him talking about how bad bullying is. Nate, 12

The NEA probably finds it a good publicity stunt for their purpose to have an organization that both has popular recognition and influential content to help promote a serious issue, one that may even connect to material in WWE itself. At first thought it seems like a good idea, but then the logical response to that alliance would be "Isn't kind of backwards to have a fighting organization disapprove." Marcus, 15

Why would WWE want to work with the NEA and the Creative Coalition?

Companies always want to look good to the public, and benefiting from the association of these organizations is an incredibly smart way to do it. But there's more. WWE is losing money. WWE stocks, attendance and profits are all down. As a result it's re-branding itself to be more family friendly and "Disneyfied."

Why is it in financial trouble? Ironically, it's being out-manned by a more masculine competitor: Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the mixed martial arts promotions company that has grown since 2001 into a billion dollar corporation, is sapping precisely the audience advertisers and WWE depend on: men between 18-34.

It's important to highlight the difference between WWE and UFC and why people are moving over to UFC. While WWE's scripted fights rely on scenarios like wrestlers having to literally kiss WWE CEO Mr. McMahon's butt to have the honor of joining his "ass kissing club," the UFC has come in and delivered the real thing. Unscripted, no costume, brutal fighting conducted with a few strict rules. No stories except the fighter's backgrounds. No plot except who is going to survive in the fighting cage.

In fact, the UFC would have been a very interesting partner for an anti-bullying program because they have so much credibility with kids and teens. If the NEA and Creative Coalition had partnered with them, I'd be writing a very different article. And I'm not alone in this idea.

When I was in elementary school WWE was the hot topic all around. Not so much now. If NEA still finds it imperative to have a fighting-oriented supporter have a production such as UFC, which is way more times appropriate. It'd be a better move. Marcus, 15

Another possible motivation for WWE's participation is the political agenda of its owners. Linda McMahon ran for Connecticut senate in 2010. She lost, but if she has future political aspirations speaking out about bullying has become an easy way to be a family friendly politician.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Of course working with corporations is complicated. There are countless partnerships between corporations with questionable products and/or business practices and advocacy organizations who still manage to do something for the greater good. MTV is the creator of Jersey Shore and Bully Beat Down but they also have public awareness campaigns about teen depression, voter registration, and safe sex to name a few.

What we seem to be missing are articulated standards to help us make better decisions about these partnerships.

Here are a few questions to begin the conversation:

1. What is the mission of the company? Not what it says in their marketing materials but what it looks like in public?

2. Are the people responsible for the program honest with themselves about their knowledge of popular culture? If they aren't, what is their strategy to become more informed?

3. Will the partnership come across to the target audience as hypocritical? Who did you talk to come up with your answer?

4. A public awareness campaign is always going to be second tier to the company's regular programming. Will the day to day activities of that company overshadow or counteract the campaign?

5. How will the corporation use the advocates' brand in their own marketing strategy and have the advocates thoroughly thought through the pros and cons of how the partner brand will come across?

In the near future, conferences are being held around the country on how for-profits and non-profits can work together on this issue in effective ways. I urge all of us to reflect on the choices we make and the assumptions that underlie those choices. Please hear me on this. Kids aren't taking us seriously. If they don't take us seriously we are useless to them. We have an opportunity to do it right–let's seize the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

Rosalind in Houston Chronicle on Texting Safety

With the World Health Organization's recently released study once more raising  questions of the tenuous link between cell phones and brain cancer,  the Houston Chronicle turned to Rosalind for information on cell phone dangers of a more common kind.  Read the article here…

I Do Not Have Short-Term Memory Loss

[image error]If you have raised children in the last fifteen years, one of your family's favorite books may have been Mo Willems' hilarious book, Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus. For those of you who have not had the pleasure, the plot revolves around a pigeon who relentlessly badgers the reader to give him permission to drive a bus. The entire thing is absurd – except that parents and children alike instantly recognize the dialogue because the pigeon employs exactly the same tactics as children when they want something from their parents.

I haven't read this book in a while but the following conversation with my 10-year -old son, Elijah, brought it all back today when he asked if he could take a piece of pottery he made in art class and throw it out a third story window. The pattern was so similar that I felt like I was having déjà vu when in fact my brain was having a book flashback.  Here's a transcript of the actual dialogue:

 

 

Elijah: Mom, can I throw this pottery out the window?

Me: What?!

Elijah: You said I could throw this pottery out the window. Tied to a parachute guy. You said I could.

Me: I never said that.

Elijah: Yes you did. Don't you remember? You said I could if there wasn't anyone else around. Doesn't that sounds like you? You have to admit that sounds like something you would say.

Me: No, that doesn't sound like something I would say. And I never said you could throw pottery out the window.

Elijah: That's because you have short-term memory loss.

Me: I would never have said that and I don't have short-term memory loss.

Elijah: Yes you did say it. It was three weeks ago.

Me: When you showed me a plastic bag tied to a green soldier guy? You're trying to confuse me or make me think I'm crazy.

Elijah: Mom, you said I could. So…can I throw it out the window? I promise I won't bother you anymore for the rest of the day.

Me: Stare at him with increasing irritation.

Elijah: This is getting boring. Just tell me yes or no.

Me: No, you can't throw the pottery out of the window.

Elijah: Why?????? Give me five reasons.

Me: I'm not giving you any reasons.

Elijah: Then I'm going to do it because you have to give me five reasons. It's God's law.

Me: Sigh and fight desire to close eyes, put head on desk or get a drink.

Elijah: So can I throw it out the window tomorrow?

Me: No.

Elijah: How about Wednesday?

Me: No.

Elijah: Wait, I have the perfect idea. How about I throw it out the window on Friday? That's my last day of school. That would be good don't you think? Like a celebration.

Me: Still no.

Elijah: Why do you have to be such a mother! Why do you have to be like that all the time? Ok, we can talk about it later.

He walks out of the room.

I put my head on my desk.

It's moments like these that I strive to consider the larger picture.

It's moments like these – when I believe my children are purposely trying to a) drive me to the point of insanity, irritation, and exhaustion and thereby b) beat me down so I will relent to whatever else they want to do – that I strive to consider the larger picture.

This is what I have come up with about situations like this (i.e. rationalized so I can maintain the strength and sense of purpose to keep doing this mothering thing):

Cons:

Makes me drained and distracted
Confuses me because I take a moment to actually consider the accuracy of my children's statement; Then I start to doubt myself; They smell the doubt and move in for the kill
Leaves me vulnerable to capitulating to the next request; especially if it isn't as absurd as throwing a pottery out of a window.

 

But it's not all negative and that fact is always critical to remember:

Pros:

He's asking my permission. That means somewhere in his head he respects me and my rules enough that he is compelled to let me know what he's thinking of doing before he acts instead of after. Think about it; he could have chosen to do the deed and then apologize later.
He is learning perseverance; an essential skill for any future success. I'd just appreciate if he directed his campaigns away from me.
He isn't asking to play video games or watch TV.

 

So when your child does the same to you, stay in the moment, don't give up. Remember all the parents out there who are struggling with these never ending campaigns just like you are, and hold fast. You are not crazy. You don't have short-term memory loss.

 

And even if, by the way, your child is right.  That somehow he got you to agree to something as crazy as throwing a heavy weighted object out the window because he probably asked you when you were doing a million other things and thought you were saying yes to something else, look at the situation at hand and make the best decision—because it's not hypocritical to change your mind when you realize what's actually going on.