Odd ends in the culture wars: Tanning and raising geeks

[alp227]

On my Google Reader, one of my RSS feeds is a Google News search for "Parents Television Council" so that I can keep an eye on what that group is doing lately without actually visiting the group's website (www.parentstv.org) and making my eyes dry up. There, I encountered this Us magazine article, "Jersey Shore's Snooki Slammed for Promoting Tanning". The article reports that PTC advisor and writer Marybeth Hicks criticized Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, contestant on MTV's controversial new reality show Jersey Shore, for stating on Monday night's Jay Leno Show interview that she'd change the world by installing tanning beds in everyone's homes. (And of course, studies link tanning beds and skin cancer.)

The article mentioned that Hicks is the author of the new book Bringing Up Geeks. Curiously I googled that and came upon this site, www.bringingupgeeks.com. Hicks describes "geek" as "an authentic kid enjoying an innocent childhood" and an acronym for "genuine, enthusiastic, empowered kids". Furthermore, her website describes her book,

In her innovative and accessible book, Hicks advises parents to teach children to resist the influences of popular culture and the social pressure to conform to the expectations and behaviors of the “cool” crowd. Parents of geeks remember to keep the focus on raising kids for long-term success -- not for popularity as children.

She http://www.bringingupgeeks.com/Aboutthebook.aspx">elaborates:

Not for a child, according to Hicks. In her groundbreaking parenting book Bringing up Geeks: How to protect your kids’ childhood in a grow-up-too-fast world (Berkley Books,a division of Penguin Group USA, July 1, 2008), Hicks says a geeky child may not be worldly, but he will be wholesome, curious and authentic, even as he matures.

Hicks contends that a geek can be a safer child as well; a youngster who isn’t constantly trying to fit in has a fighting chance when it comes time to resist peer pressure, and consequently may avoid the high-risk behaviors that attract “cooler” kids.

Hicks’ geeks aren’t the stereotypical nerds of days gone by. No horn-rimmed glasses, pocket protectors, short pants or body odor. Geeks aren’t “loners” or “losers;” they’re well-behaved kids who generally enjoy solid friendships and active social lives. But they’re definitely not “cool.” This is a direct result of parenting decisions that promote what Hicks calls the “geek lifestyle:” a family system in which innocence is protected, media is limited, pop culture is regulated, relationships are fostered and spirituality is encouraged.

Uh oh..."may not be worldly"? "spirituality is encouraged"? I grew up in an atheist family yet have a clean discipline record at school and got a 4.0 my first semester in college.

And then I nose onto her biography and notice that she's got plenty of rightward leanings, from being the culture columnist at The Washington Times (which used to be funded by some nutty cult called the Unification Church) and worked at the Reagan White House (she "scribed special correspondence and talking points")

I personally think that Hicks has some good points: pop culture is really screwing around with our children these days. The Bringing Up Geeks homepage even mentions a companion book for middle schoolers, What's Really Cool in Middle School. Thinking back, I was sort of conformist during middle school and then decided to become more independent in my tastes for music/entertainment starting sophomore year of high school. But the consequence of youngsters' obsession with pop culture is that they are more likely to know every minute plot detail in Twilight and the life story of Taylor Lautner but not have a clue of what President Obama has been up to lately. And even worse, a study in 2006 showed that nearly 2/3 of 18-24 year olds couldn't find Iraq on a map!

Another talking point of hers is being cool vs. being good. Citing a Yale University study, she claims that teens who are seen to be cool often lack those beloved morals and family values and even commit petty crimes/traffic violations. Also, based on an anecdote from her daughter about a sexual harassment incident at her school, she bemoans teens' supposed celebration of bad behavior. This gets me thinking, would school days be much less dull with all those "good times" we've had with our friends including all that naughty stuff we did amongst ourselves when adults weren't looking? That's the new "innocence" to me, not being submissive to morality and some "higher being".

Given that people like Laura Schlessinger (someone who comments without qualifications on social issues), Betsy Hart, and Brent Bozell praised that book, I think it's a bit fishy. Also, I notice that people like Bozell and Hicks constantly complain that modern culture is robbing children of innocence, as if it's such a sacred thing. Every time I hear conservatives saying such things, I have a sinking feeling that liberalism killed family values. But then again, what's worse, being overtly ambitious or introverted and submissive to familial authority?

Sorry, I accept neither Snooki's nor Marybeth Hicks's ideas on how to change the world. We should all just respect each other for who we are rather than push one social order on all the people.

[LeftyMom]

1. I was a geek. We got up to just as much trouble, we were just too smart to get caught.

Plus I think in some ways we got away with more because nobody expected us to misbehave. I used to skip class all the time because I was bored, and none of my teachers cared because come testing day I'd outdo the people who showed up faithfully.

That said, I was a teenager in the 90's, and because of that disaffected air we were all expected to put on to be cool back then, the greatest thing about being a geek was that we could be unashamedly enthused about things, which meant we got to have fun without pretending to be bored. It was very freeing.

[Quantess]

2. It's dime store psychology if you ask me.

Sounds like a fascinating read, but I wouldn't put much stock in it.