Your Child, Your Mouthpiece
Camera-Ready Kids Parrot Their Parents’ Propaganda
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
She went off. And then she went viral.
Little Riley Maida of Newburgh, New York, made news recently with a video clip known as Riley’s Rant. In it, the precocious 4-year-old stands in a toy store railing against toy makers for assuming that girls only want to play with pink princesses and boys only want to play with superheroes.
“The companies try to trick the girls into buying the pink stuff instead of the stuff the boys want to buy,” she asserts, smacking a packaged doll for emphasis as her dad asks leading questions from behind the camera.
Starshine Roshell
On YouTube, then Facebook, then in the news media (and, no joke, at the table next to me at a burger joint today) this four-foot feminist’s invective made hundreds of thousands pump their fists and chant “Riley for president!” Diane Sawyer all but declared Riley a sage of the age.
But I had a different reaction to the clip. I thought it was icky. Also icky: the viral video of 8-year-old Elijah Cromer confronting gay-marriage opponent Michele Bachmann last month in South Carolina. The boy waited in line to whisper, “My mommy’s gay, but she doesn’t need fixing,” while said mommy stood behind him, filming it all.
These gotcha moments are supposed to make liberals like me cheer. But honestly, I find them cheap and off-putting.
I happen to agree with both of the kids’ sentiments: I treasured my Star Wars action figures as a girl, my sons are crazy about hot pink, and what really needs “fixing” in this country is the hogwash notion that heterosexual marriages need “defending” from anyone, for any reason.
But I don’t like the way the points were made — by camera-ready kids parroting their parents’ personal propaganda.
Just … ick.
Even if these mouth-of-babes tongue-lashings were not as coached and/or staged as they really, really appear to be, it’s clear the kids were spewing the impassioned viewpoints of their parents. (Have you ever seen a child in a toy store? They tend toward giddy and agog rather than deeply disappointed in the gender bias inherent in juvenile product marketing.)
I don’t actually begrudge Riley’s dad or Elijah’s mom for teaching, or even preaching to, their kids about these issues. Good on them for arming the next generation with a healthy skepticism for the dogma of the day.
Forgive me, though: As long as we’re empowering our progeny to question mainstream ways of thinking … shouldn’t we be teaching them to question ours, too?
It’s not hard to indoctrinate our kids with our beliefs. It’s not hard to get them to echo our ideologies back to us or megaphone them out to the world. In fact, it’s very hard not to.
Here are these sponge-brained humans who take our every utterance for gospel. They’re a delightfully captive audience, sitting beside us year after year as we hone our arguments (“And that is why I believe the pinky toe has become an expendable appendage in the modern age”).
And that’s okay. One of the unspoken reasons people have children is so we can feel like we’re populating the planet with people who think as we do — who will vote as we do, and value what we do, and validate our convictions with their very existence.
But we ought to draw the line at sending our kids into battle for us, at turning them into mouthpieces or promoting them as puppets. It’s lazy. It’s cowardly. Worst of all, it smacks of a weak argument. Think of it this way: If you need an adorable disciple to convince society that you’re right … then you’re probably not.
Related Links
Starshine Roshell is the author of Wife on the Edge.
Comments
I agree with you 100%. It's a trap all-too-easy to fall into, using our kids as our cuter representations to the world. Of course, once this parrot-children reach 16 or so, all bets may be off as to how much they'll continue to follow the parental party line.
P.S. A request: Please eliminate the phrase "good on..." from your personal lexicon. I thought you were a champion in the fight against this sort of debased English based on the column in which you railed against "text-speak" and all those shortcuts associated with it. "Good on," (or the equally annoying and oft-used "haters"): Do we all have to join Generation Hip-Hop or whatever this is supposed to represent. Excuse mini rant.
zappa (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"It’s lazy. It’s cowardly. Worst of all, it smacks of a weak argument. Think of it this way: If you need an adorable disciple to convince society that you’re right … then you’re probably not."
I agree 100%. I would also add (although I digress a bit) that when people talk about "the children" (especially when politicians hide behind "the children") that too is clearly a tact to manipulate emotions. While I'm ranting, I also think it's tacky when people talk about "helping *families*". People are people, and all have the same emotions/needs.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 2:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(or the equally annoying and oft-used "haters")
Better yet the portmanteau of "hating on" someone.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 2:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somewhat of a portmanteau in the context of "on" and "hate".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 2:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@billclausen
I'm not sure that I'm following you--isn't a portmanteau a combining of words, to create a singular word, like "spoon" + "fork" = "spork"?
I think you realized something of this, by using the word "somewhat" in your 2nd post, but if that was an explanation, it didn't help me! :)
Also, @zappa, a little Googsearch (!) yielded "Good on you (ya)" as being Australian in origin, as a substitute for "Good *for* you", and doesn't seem to have any Hip-hop connection. . .although, I feel that I may be over-applying your phrasing. . . .
Back @billclausen
Haven't you heard, Bill? Politicians are now helping corporations, because they're people too!
equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"good on ya" is not text-speak...it's British, Irish Aussie Kiwi-speak.
Onward....
I heartily agree with Starshine on this one; few things are as nauseating as adults who wind up their children, push them onstage, and hide behind them as the children parrot the adult party line. If these people had any courage of conviction and faith in their own arguments, they'd step up and make those arguments themselves instead of hiding behind their children.
And I DO happen to agree with what both these kids said. I just don't believe THEY were saying it unprompted.
Agreed with the garbage about The Children that billclausen describes. Also disgusting behavior.
Kids have no choice in these matters, and I find few things more revolting that seeing children used as weapons or shields in any battle.
Shame on those alleged adults who are guilty of these things. Make your own case for your own viewpoints, and let children be children. Childhood is short enough as it is.
Holly (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK. Mea culpa re "good on" whom/whatever and its origin. I never suggested it was text-speak, but like "haters," and, yes, "hating on," whatever their origin may be, (saw the latter in a headline of a major newspaper recently) examples of the sort of semi-literate phrases that tend to creep into (American)English via the media.
Yes, I'll have to look into that Google thing.
Using one's kids to promote causes, political, well-intentioned or whatever their nature , may come from the same sort of dark impulse that causes
a different mindset to think it's OK to enter toddlers in beauty pageants. Whenever I hear anything about "the children" from a political type, I think of that character in the Simpsons who invariably appears at Springfield events to cry "What about the Children?"
zappa (anonymous profile)
January 6, 2012 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's so icky to tell the youths the truth.
spacey (anonymous profile)
January 6, 2012 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)