This post started out as a response to a post on Cry Havoc! I realized, after reading it back to myself, that it worked much better as a post than a comment because it actually meets the criteria of our assigned "THING". Rather than write it twice, I decided to just post it here.
The same motivation behind the cynical adult critiquing children's artwork (which is hilarious, by the way) is the same motivation behind the Walmart thing: a good laugh at the expense of someone else. I agree with Cry Havoc! that writing/blogging allow us to criticize in safety that
which we think is stupid (I did read that somewhere, I just don't remember which of your posts it was in). However, when we blog (no matter how noble the intentions), we are then guilty of the very thing we have just criticized in others. The very purpose of blogging, to share personal beliefs and opinions, opens the blogger up to the criticism of all those blog readers who may or may not agree with us. Do we disallow the speaking of opinions (regardless of venue) just because it might hurt feelings? Again, I agree; Kanye West is an utter Jackass, but, sadly, he is only guilty of bad manners and a chronic case of arrogance.
If we want to spout our opinions on the WORLD WIDE web, we need to be prepared to accept the backlash; If we want to put random, anonymous pictures on the WORLD WIDE web, we need to be prepared for the lawsuits that may come. With this in mind . . . I probably wouldn't put my child's picture on the internet, but who am I to say someone else can't; and what if I was one of those that wanted to put Cindy-loo's picture on YouTube? Am I a bad parent? Some argue yes; but still others would understand the desire to share with the world how perfect their kid is (never mind that all parents think "their kid" is the greatest kid EVER!). Should adults respond with vulgarity to a video of a kid? Of course not. Can it be done? Absolutely. It's tacky for sure, but the kid's not going to read it. The only person who could possibly be hurt by said tacky responses is the very parents who posted it in the first place (please see the the first two sentences of this paragraph). My advice: if you're gonna put your kid out there for the world to criticize, DON'T read the responses.
By the way, I agree with most of what Cry Havoc! says, and, I've probably said most of those exact same things myself (with a disgusting number of explatives peppered throughout). As Americans, we have the right, no matter how abused it may be, to vocalize (or blog) our ideas regardless of what others think. It's only when we choose to put said ideas out for the public's consumption that we must be willing to accept consequences even before we put it out there. In the opening to "Thing 4" it states: "Blogging is more than writing. Blogging is reading, reflecting, questioning, researching, synthesizing, linking, conversing, teaching, sharing and expressing ideas."Bottom line, we need to think about what we're saying, writing, or thinking. With that said, "Let's get it on!"
The same motivation behind the cynical adult critiquing children's artwork (which is hilarious, by the way) is the same motivation behind the Walmart thing: a good laugh at the expense of someone else. I agree with Cry Havoc! that writing/blogging allow us to criticize in safety that
which we think is stupid (I did read that somewhere, I just don't remember which of your posts it was in). However, when we blog (no matter how noble the intentions), we are then guilty of the very thing we have just criticized in others. The very purpose of blogging, to share personal beliefs and opinions, opens the blogger up to the criticism of all those blog readers who may or may not agree with us. Do we disallow the speaking of opinions (regardless of venue) just because it might hurt feelings? Again, I agree; Kanye West is an utter Jackass, but, sadly, he is only guilty of bad manners and a chronic case of arrogance.
If we want to spout our opinions on the WORLD WIDE web, we need to be prepared to accept the backlash; If we want to put random, anonymous pictures on the WORLD WIDE web, we need to be prepared for the lawsuits that may come. With this in mind . . . I probably wouldn't put my child's picture on the internet, but who am I to say someone else can't; and what if I was one of those that wanted to put Cindy-loo's picture on YouTube? Am I a bad parent? Some argue yes; but still others would understand the desire to share with the world how perfect their kid is (never mind that all parents think "their kid" is the greatest kid EVER!). Should adults respond with vulgarity to a video of a kid? Of course not. Can it be done? Absolutely. It's tacky for sure, but the kid's not going to read it. The only person who could possibly be hurt by said tacky responses is the very parents who posted it in the first place (please see the the first two sentences of this paragraph). My advice: if you're gonna put your kid out there for the world to criticize, DON'T read the responses.
By the way, I agree with most of what Cry Havoc! says, and, I've probably said most of those exact same things myself (with a disgusting number of explatives peppered throughout). As Americans, we have the right, no matter how abused it may be, to vocalize (or blog) our ideas regardless of what others think. It's only when we choose to put said ideas out for the public's consumption that we must be willing to accept consequences even before we put it out there. In the opening to "Thing 4" it states: "Blogging is more than writing. Blogging is reading, reflecting, questioning, researching, synthesizing, linking, conversing, teaching, sharing and expressing ideas."Bottom line, we need to think about what we're saying, writing, or thinking. With that said, "Let's get it on!"
Let me add that in the YouTube lady's blog, she mentions something about showing the responses to her daughter. Do we filter them, if we are parents, or do we just let Cindy-Lou read the angry, and oft times perverted responses? As a parent, would you sit with her while she read through them? I ask only because I don't honestly know. Maybe it does go back to the the "if you can't take it, don't dish it" idea that you bring up. kids.
ReplyDeleteI think this goes back to the perenial debate over the responsibility of the media or media outlet versus the responsibility of the parent. As teachers, we often bemoan the fact that parents are so quick to place blame on the education system or the educator. Is this not the same situation? Cindy-Lou's mom is essentially engaged in a self-massaging act by posting the pictures in the first place-the pictures are essentially a record of personal achievement (ie. the ability to bear children, the health/attractiveness/success of said children), and so I would argue that it's Mom's responsibility to censor, edit, or delete any provocative or offensive response. After all, in my constructed world, the pictures were not posted for the benefit of Cindy-Lou in the first place. Mom's naivete and shock is reflective of her ridiculous lack of awareness of both the medium on which she posted, and I boldy offer, human nature. If you don't like the show, change the channel.
ReplyDeleteFirst, like many of us who act before we think (GUILTY), the mother should have thought about the reprocussions of putting her nine year old daughter out for the whole world to see BEFORE she did it instead of after the fact. Maybe I've just been a teacher so long that this seems like a "duh" moment to me.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I questioning why this child has open access to her mother's computer. When you want something to stay secret (at least until you decide what to do with it), you need to be hypervigilant. That's what THEY make passwords for.
Also, the mother's outlook is black/white: filter everything/filter nothing. I like shades of gray, myself. I say ditch the profane, filthy, vulgar, and angry responses, those of adults not truly interested in rhetorical argument. The video was made in that sense, therefore, it should remain such. I also believe it is valuable for even a girl of nine to understand the rhetorical flaws of her arguement. Those comments critiquing the flaws in her argument are both academically educational but also chock full of life lessons. It's okay for kids to know that people don't always agree, are passionate about certain topics, and can critique without it being a personal attack. Personally, the sticky-sweet responses would make me gag and I would consider filtering those for my own sake, but it's equally important for the child to recieve encouragement (especially when also being criticized).
Parents (and even teachers) filter for the sake of protection (and law suits) all the time. It's part of our job as grown ups and why our government sets a minimum age for adulthood.
I have to say that although I love my kids, I don't think they are the end all of all kids (I hope this doesn't make me sound like a bad parent). I guess I'm too much of a realist. Of course, they are intelligent, handsome, creative, kind, etc., but part of my job as a parent is not only to keep them secure but to keep them humble. Granny can build up their egos as much as she wants, and she does. Mom and dad have to make sure that they face the realities of their limitations. I would never expose them to cruelty or insults; I'd never expose any child to cruelty or insults. In fact, I'd never expose anyone to cruelty or insults. Words have power. Forget "sticks and stones..." I wouldn't want my words or someone else's haunting my child whenever he attempts to express himself. I wouldn't want one experience to put my child into a prison of self-doubt and insecurity.
ReplyDeleteIt's okay to be honest with a child, "Cindy Lou, I'm so proud of you for expressing your feelings about Obama's speech, but are you sure you have all of your facts straight, Baby? Maybe, we should double check." At the same time, we have to remember, she's a child.
Like Ninja Monkey says, exposing Cindy to the "rhetorical flaws in her argument" is "academically educational and full of life lessons." We have to be willing to listen to others and to learn from them -- the point of creating, sharing, and growing; however, we cross the line when we attack a person's character or intentionally try to shame someone.
Blakester, I have got to compliment you on your anthropological view--I hadn't really tied the video to the mother's need for spotlight. Maybe YouTube is the new outlet for Pagent Moms? That's a scary thought, and the winners are the pedophiles.
ReplyDeletePutting one's self in the spotlight is not without question a bad thing. Many of our literary, movie, and musical heroes thrive for the attention the spotlight provides. I think it's human nature for a parent to be proud of his or her child and natural to want to share that. Choosing YouTube was not the best place to brag, but this mother may not be too different from the rest of us who assume the entire world is as safe as our own individual worlds. Just about everyone one I know (and every single one of my students) has at some point checked out YouTube, spending hours looking at the goofs of others (If you haven't seen Chad Vader, you're missing out on a classic); this does not make them preditors. It makes them human. Enjoying an afternoon people watching, while voyeristic, does not make us perverts anymore than watching YouTube does. With that said, it is the perfect hunting ground for the creepy and care should be taken when putting personal info out there.
ReplyDelete