Though you may love sharing pictures of food or décor on Instagram, the social media site has a darker side in which some girls as young as 12 and 13 are indulging. Beauty contests. According to an article in the The Washington Post, the trend is much as it sounds: girls upload ‘selfies’ and then await public ratings in terms of their beauty.
As the article says, the contests essentially pit middle-schoolers against each other in the usual who is prettier hashtag.
Not surprisingly, parents are concerned about the ramifications of such virtual pageants—not least of which because any of Instagram’s 30 million users can vote and declare a girl ‘U.G.L.Y.’ which culminates in a big red X or the word ‘OUT’ scrawled across the girl’s face.
Imagine the blow to a young girl’s self-esteem in the thralls of puberty, a time when girls are particularly vulnerable and sensitive about body image and appearance.
Then there is the added safety fear of online adult predators on technology that is difficult to supervise and monitor.
“What started out as just a photo-sharing site has become something really pernicious for young girls,” said youth advocate and author of “Odd Girl Out,” Rachel Simmons. “What happened was, like most social media experiences, girls co-opted it and imposed their social life on it to compete for attention and in a very exaggerated way.”
Through a keyword search, The Washington Post uncovered 8,757 posts under the tag #beautycontest, and 27,593 under the heading #rateme—figures experts claim may be modest. Similar contests have also spread to other social media sites, such as Tumblr and Snapchat.
Though it is Facebook’s (which now owns Instagram) policy not to allow users under the age of 13, minors have obviously found ways around the rule and are highly active users. They also rarely concealed private information that could be used to identify them.
A worrying trend for parents struggling to contain the Pandora’s box of social media.
Though by rights old enough to be a grandfather, Tom Arnold (best known as ex-hubby to Roseanne) became a dad for the first time with wife Ashley Groussman.
According to an article in Huffington Post, after fertility treatments, Arnold is now the proud daddy of a boy named Jax Copeland.
“We are still in a bit of shock,” the celebrity couple told People Magazine. “It has been a long journey and the healthy birth of our son is a miracle.”
But Arnold still has his sense of humour firmly intact, as he joked about his age:
“Game Changer,” he tweeted over the weekend. “Jax Copeland Arnold. 8lbs 12oz. Looking forward to being a 70 year old Little League Coach.”
After ongoing fertility issues, Arnold admitted he didn’t think fatherhood was “in the cards” and has deemed the conception a “miracle.”
Groussman is the fourth wife for the funny man. A happy ending for a couple that apparently underwent several rounds of in vitro fertilization in order to conceive.
Grandfather dads are nothing new, especially when it comes to celebrities. But the question begs: is it cool to bring children into the world knowing there is no chance that you will live to see them grow up?
And in yet more evidence that flying in the modern age has become a ridiculous experience, a United Airlines flight was diverted to Chicago after parents objected to the in-flight movie. Schedule to land in Baltimore, the flight from Denver re-routed and dropped off a family of four after the parents complained about the showing of Alex Cross.
According to an article in Mommyish, the movie was rated PG-13 but because it played on communal screens, the family wasn’t able to shield their two kids, aged four and eight, from watching some “horrific scenes.”
“We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response,” the family said in an article in the Atlantic. “Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made.”
To the family’s surprised, the flight was asked to disembark in Chicago, where they were met and questioned by “law enforcement officials,” apparently under the guise of a security threat.
One overreaction (from the family) doesn’t justify another overreaction (by the airline staff), or does it?
“Complain, take your business elsewhere,” writes Maria Guido, “but don’t be so self-involved and cause a disturbance to all the passengers around you. Everybody hates flying. You’re making it worse. It’s not like they were showing Debbie Does Dallas or Evil Dead.”
Did the parents made a mountain out of a molehill, or was the airline wrong to take such drastic action to inconvenience them (and all the other passengers)?
Printer-friendly version