Week 9 -- Saggy Pants

Young people and clothes

For this week’s assignment we reflected on the “cultural meaning” of clothing and fashion. We read another entry from the People’s History (note to self: not so great quality – content spotty, bad grammar, misspellings, etc.) and watched a mashup video made from a JC Penney’s catalog. YouTube, always so helpful, suggested another video of a Montgomery Wards catalog that I watched as well. This one has great disco music and far less editorializing that the other – it also shows a broader range of 1970s clothing. In all, I had a better experience with this video since it wasn’t entirely mocking what was actually a period of time I experienced. And of course, wore all those bad clothes.

Memory

The Monkey Wards video is from 1976, which was a very memorable year for me as I spent the summer in NY where my father was working at the Democratic Convention. I was 12 years old.  It was the Bicentennial, we were celebrating the country’s 200^th birthday. Everything was red, white and blue. The leisure suit was everywhere, as were loud plaid pants on men. Pop-ish, modern styles with a commercial edge were in.

I remember all of those clothes, all of those styles. I was raised on those high waist-ed pants and struggle with today’s much, much lower waist-ed fashions. You can see the past – conservative and traditional, fighting with the present – dancing away from the hippy as counter-cultural fashion icon, to the very imminent future of full blown disco. Three’s Company, Dallas, the Six Million Dollar Man, Charlie’s Angels, Starsky and Hutch. It all seems so mild now, but it was a huge shift from the mainstream 60s styles -- highly fitted, conservative, conventional (except for the pop, mod stuff).

Relevance

Besides the trip down memory lane, this week’s investigation cues up an issue near and dear to my heart: how adults’ perceptions of young people are so quickly triggered by clothes and fashion. 

One of my standard training “take home points” is that adults misinterpret young people’s appearance (largely clothing and fashion choices) as disrespectful, when instead they are simply doing what they are supposed to be doing – figuring out who they are, who they want to be and what they think is good, appropriate and right for themselves. Who am I? The search for identity.

But for adults, it becomes yet another instance of moral panic. Bra straps that show! Bare mid-riffs! Piercings! Sagging pats!

A PR nightmare – coming from my background, this is my primary concern. And so the scope of my work (and that of my colleagues) is to educate others about adolescent development, encourage the viewing of young people through a developmental lens. But we consistently run into this challenge and it goes well beyond negative stereotypes, tsk-tsks and eye rolls.

Adults continue to legislate appropriate adolescent dress and behavior in ways that directly interferes with adolescent development. But we do it for the best of reasons! Right?

Back in the day

It was about long hair on boys. Certainly our history celebrates many men with long hair – from our distant past. But the hippies pushed it, the production of Hair celebrated and the gay community sustains it. These days, were more likely to see young men with extremely short hair or no hair. Fear of long hair on boys isn’t dead though – as evidenced in this news story from just last year about a young man – great student – who is threatened with suspension and termination of after school activities – if he doesn’t cut his hair. The rationale: it’s in the dress code. And the rationale for the dress code? Long hair inhibits learning? Disruption of social norms? Interference with the goal of conformity? I was touched to read a single comment about this article, and the lone perspective of (usually the chief villain) a parent:

Posted by simpleman | 10 months ago

i have the same issue with my 10 year old son. the wills point school has continued to punish him with detentions and ridicule for having hair so long as 2inches in the back. as his father i am against long hair (i shave mine), however he wants his to be what i call scruffy just like the teen role models the we see on tv and in music bands. he is a staight "A" student and one awsome kid. when the school told hime they would punish him for not looking like what THEY wanted him to look like i gave him the choice to either stand up for what he believed in or do what they wanted him to. he decided to stand up for himself with my total support. treating someone different because of the way they look is discrimination. research martin luther king and you'll figure it out. none us us have any right to tell anyone you have to look a certain way and punish them if they don't. that's criminal.

this wills point school has even went so far as to have my son write about this as part of his punishment and complied to the point when they told him he had to write a written apology for looking the way he does and he DID NOT comply to that order. he said"im not saying im sorry for my hair".

who does anyone in the world think they are to say YOU CAN'T LOOK LIKE THAT?

i am now looking for a way to fight for my sons right to freedom. i thought my father, uncles and grandfather had already fought this fight for me.

Saggy Pants

From the inordinate amount of attention it warrants, one would think that the real threat to student achievement is the wearing of saggy pants by young men. This is a fashion choice largely made by young African-american men (but far from exclusively) which means that race enters the discussion in a big way. Adding to already suspect attitudes toward young people are the always present notes of racism – making this a volatile debate.

This topic is in the news a lot, and recently some coworkers were discussing the ways our local schools are coping (which I gathered wasn’t very well). My cursory investigation for this assignment pointed me towards Florida, where lawmakers are, once again, trying to legislate solutions to adolescent development.

Saggy Pants and School Suspension

The bill currently circulating in the Florida State Senate would make the wearing of baggy pants, worn at a level that reveals underwear, forbidden in public schools or while students are on any part of school property, this would include buildings and playgrounds.

Elsewhere, laws are considered that go beyond the school yard – making it illegal to wear baggy pants anywhere!

American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, News Release

February 8, 2005

Legislation Dictating Clothing Style Goes Too Far

Bill banning baggy pants interferes with personal liberties, targets hip-hop culture

The ACLU of Virginia is asking state senators to vote down a bill banning pants worn too low. The bill, introduced by Delegate Algie Howell imposes a $50.00 fine on anyone who “intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner.” It passed the House of Delegates earlier this week by a vote of 60-34.

Sure, this is an older article, but Google can point to lots of these stories all the way to today. Interestingly, both the ACLU and the NAACP have entered this fight. Common cause, as it were.

Siplin's Low-Riding Pants Bill Gets Beat-Up

posted by John Kennedy on Mar 21, 2008 4:35:19 PM

The Florida NAACP and allied organizations Friday opposed Orlando Sen. Gary Siplin's bill to ban schoolkids from wearing their pants too low, saying it could lead to more legal trouble for black male students.

"In essence, it will criminalize the wearing of saggy pants and thereby provide a new avenue of interaction between young people and the criminal justice system," Nweze said.

Siplin's bill (SB302) was approved 28-11 last week by the Florida Senate. Although it calls for no criminal sanctions, it would prohibit students from wearing pants low so that they expose undergarments that, in turn, expose sexual organs -- covered or uncovered.

Violators would receive a warning for a first offense and suspensions from school for each subsequent infraction, under the legislation…

But the NAACP, ACLU and Advancement Project, a Washington, D.C., social advocacy organization, said the proposal is directed primarily and black males and could lead to arrests. Jim Freeman, an attorney with the Advancement Project…called the legislation "a huge overreach," and is part of a growing number of harsh disciplinary penalties aimed at youngsters for generally minor offenses.

"The penalties for normal adolescent behavior have been ratcheted up," Freeman said.

Before reading this article, I had not even considered the “profiling” possibilities created by laws like this. But I’ve run into the equivalent. One of the communities my organization worked with passed law that made it a crime for more than four teenagers to gather together in a public place – to address gang activity, you know. In actuality the youth serving and social justice folks recognized that it was simply a way for police to target largely adolescent Latino boys. As a result, the community made it illegal for kids to play at a playground or play a game of soccer. "Penalties for normal adolescent behavior" indeed.

There are reasons to consider laws differently for youth and adults. They do need greater protections in many cases. But the double standards in this area are shocking. Again, a point my coworkers are fond of making. When asked: why are girls so violent? They would answer:  Why are adults so violent? Why are we at war? Why do we have a death penalty? Isn’t is a sociological fact that we apply different standards to “others” than we do for ourselves? 

A commenter from the NAACP article make the case humorously:

If you can get arrested for sagging pants, does that mean that tourists can get arrested for going around in their skimpy shorts, no shirts, etc? Can people get arrested for being on the beaches in skimpy bathing bikinis?? Where would this stop?

Posted by: winsurTsa | September 29, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Even President Obama (as candidate Obama) had (more reasoned thoughts) on the issue:

Nov 3 2008 1:45 PM EST

Barack Obama Weighs In On Sagging-Pants Ordinances: 'Brothers Should Pull Up Their Pants'

By Chris Harris, with reporting by Sway Calloway

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama may not necessarily support lifestyle legislation — including state bans on low-slung, sagging trousers — but that doesn't mean he thinks dudes should be showing off their skivvies.

What a tight-rope he must walk! But I appreciate the reporter’s (MTV!) phrase “lifestyle legislation” – I wonder what else belongs in that category. Interestingly, this quote was from a interview MTV conducted with then candidate Obama as part of their own youth action/advocacy campaign: Think MTV

But interestingly, even Mr. Obama perceives the baggy pants style as disrespectful:

There are some issues that we face that you don't have to pass a law [against], but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people. And, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I'm one of them.

Debate it

Frankly, I don’t want to see people’s underpants either. I’m even more horrified by seeing a young girl’s thong peeking out of her low-rise jeans.

But I don’t mind the pink bra strap sitting next to the tank top strap sitting next to another tank top strap. And those male models with the pants sitting just a little too low with just a hint of underwear? Who am I to object?

Yes, I consider it a distraction at times. And I’ve had to instruct young people on what was and wasn’t appropriate “professional” attire, what was expected of them in a given situation, etc. And maybe it was because of my own struggles with “conformity” I was always careful to frame my comments in terms of other people’s perceptions. That while how they dressed was their choice, they frequently had no control of how other people would perceive them based on those choices. So – being aware of those perceptions and being intentional with how one dealt with them – was a key ingredient for success (and survival).

Ultimately, this is the debate I wish we were having – how best to support young people’s development. There are challenging things they’ll be exploring which require us to restrain our own moralistic judgment – instead using a developmental standard to guide our actions. It’s not that I think young people should be encouraged to dress in ways that could ultimately harm or limit their success. I think that as adults, we need to appreciate that it is their right to do it – to defy our standards with their own -- and their responsibility to work out – successfully – a place for themselves in the world. In the process of finding that place they’ll learn and experience – with our help and because of our not always kind judgment -- what it takes to fit and succeed in the world: the standards, dress codes and expected behaviors of their community. At the same time, their ideas, perceptions, fashion choices, will slowly re-shape and evolve the community they join.

What world are we offering them? What does the “world” or “community” look like to them? Do they see possibility? Potential? Hope? Every time we think to judge their early identity-related decisions (like how to dress) I want us to see it as a reflection of the options we make available to them. We own that part of the puzzle, so what are we doing to change it?

Week 8, Barbie™ Beauty

This week’s assignment focuses on toys and their cultural meaning.

We were provided with a brief history of toys – at the people’s history web site. Great site/resource and now a new bookmark in my brower’s “tools” folder.

Quite the trip down memory lane! Frightened by the fact that many of the toys I remember enjoying as a kid came from the 30s, 40s and 50s was a bit of a shock. Sure, I’d believe Monopoly was that old, but Clue? The history dates it to the 40s!

And that I was born the year GI Joe was introduced! Confession: I did rent the terrible GI Joe movie. Sad. Chalk one up to the power of branding and efficacy of cross merchandising. The readings, and most of the criticism focuses on how marketers use the powerful relationship between kids and toys to sell stuff. But how about using that same relationship to target the “grown up” kids like myself. Nostalgia marketing. I’m a sucker for it. Note to self: look into the connection between GI Joe and the Vietnam war.

Interesting coincidence that the 40th Anniversary of Sesame Street has been all over the media the last few weeks. This cultural icon came up in another class once, where I read about just how they considered and tested every single thing they did. Made big contributions to communications research, etc. Did it ever bridge into mainstream education, I wonder? One of the points the creators discussed was that they never allowed any of their characters to be used in merchandising commercial products to kids. But isn’t Big Bird in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade? Sure, he’s not selling Big Macs, but …

The other provocative reading for this week was 10 of “the most racist toys ever made.” Just when you think you’ve seen the worst, you come across something like the examples shown here. The comments were possibly more horrifying. What happened to our “post-racial” society? The list reminded me of the Halloween costume conversations on the feminist blog about how offensive it is to dress up like people of a different race. Not to mention the high level of sexualization in costumes for young girls.

A week later there is Jon Stewart doing a segment on “black face” where his “Senior Black Correspondent” reports that there is absolutely no circumstance where black face is appropriate (unless you “have a black face”), until confronted with images from America’s Next Top Model where Tyra’s model contestants were challenged to represent bi-racial women.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Is Blackface Ever OK?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

From black face to blue eyes

It makes a good subhead, but it is also where the question of the week leads me.

I liked dolls. Lots of girls do. I owned several Barbie™ Dolls, Skipper and Ken. My brother’s GI Joe was frequently appropriated for double dating. I coveted the Barbie townhouse (but alternately was appalled when we discovered one, still in active use, in the closet of a seventh grade girl friend).

In college, one of the few non-“old dead white guy” course in the English Literature major was “Women in Literature” and our professor assigned Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye (published 1970, I read it in ’83?). Blew my mind. It so richly, horribly and beautifully depicts the insidious ways racism is perpetuated by our culture, celebrated in our icons and artifacts. In the book, the protagonist Pecola Breedlove wants more than anything to have blue eyes. They will make her beautiful because only the blue eyes of white girls are beautiful – that’s what the world tells her and that’s what she believes. And she’ll never have blue eyes, she’ll never be beautiful and she’ll always despise herself. I remember thinking how bizarre it was that these girls only had white dolls to play with, white movie stars to admire or white girls as role models of beauty.

But it’s only a toy

Pecola’s experience is not unique. In fact, the link to critical real-world, life-changing events is a direct one.

Brown vs. the Board of Education is one of the most significant pieces of legislation intended to address the problem of racism – or perhaps, intended to address our country’s legacy of slavery, or perhaps intended to address the human instinct to create the “other.” It failed in the state, but the Supreme Court agreed that “separate but equal” wasn’t really possible, in the context of our constitutionally dictated “right to equal protection under the law.”

Key to their case was research (go academics!) by education psychologists conducted with – you guessed it – dolls. They presented African American children with a white baby doll and a black baby doll, asking which they liked better, which was “good,” “bad,” and most like them. Suffice to say, the kids reflected popular cultural attitudes – preferring the white babies, describing black babies as bad -- and the court believed that segregation was contributing to this harmful and limiting self perception. These African American children were not receiving equal treatment. Thus de-segregation.

A few years ago, I ran into a video by 17-year-old film student Kiri Davis. Through her after school video program, she produced a short documentary film that explored African-American attitudes toward their skin color. She also reproduced the “doll test” from 1954.

Her results were consistent. And her documentary captures on film the painful conflict etched on the eyes of these children who believe that babies who like them are “bad.” 

The documentary is personal, her bios and news articles described her own struggles with her “color,” dominant attitudes about beauty, her parents’ struggles to find positive representations of girls of color – where are the black princesses? The adolescent girls she interviews talk about “good hair” that naturally looks like white hair, the importance and advantage of being “light skinned.”

Barbie™, 2009

I’d like to blame Barbie™, but for me, she’s more of a symptom than a cause. I’m confident that the toy makers at Mattel™ are aware that Barbie™ has had a PR problem and a visit to their web site confirmed that they are making some effort to broaden their presentation of beauty and femininity; their definition of the role of girls and women. That’s the nice way to say it. It’s probably equally important that they have actual markets for non-blonde, more than a princess Barbie™.

I must respect the Barbie™ brand though. I go to the site and wait for their fancy graphics to load and instead of a boring “loading” bar, I get a tube of Barbie Pink lipstick slowly reveal to track my download. Never mind all the sexual connotations, I’m a perverted adult. It was cute! And gross. Gotta have some lipstick to be a girl, you know.

I can’t help but notice that Barbie™ is a Musketeer. Yes, it appears that she always aspired to be one, then ran into three other gals (one of whom appears to be a girl of color, although I find no specific labeling as such) who share her dream. Actual copy from the video:

Can this dare to dream team use their girl power to save the prince?

OK, they still look like princesses. They still have 14” waists. I’m sure there’s much tittering and giggling. But this is a pretty substantial fairy tale role reversal!

Another line that made me laugh was, “Don’t mess with the dress!” – which later I realize is actually promoting a feature – the hem of her long dress is detachable and converts into a cape. “Includes a matching sword accessory.” I’m only a little deflated that Barbie’s bold retreat from gender stereotypes ends up featuring violence.

I also check out the “I can be” Barbie™ line. Girls can chose to be a Pre School Teacher, New Born Baby Doctor Babysitter, SeaWorld ® Trainer (cross merchandising!), Dentist, Pet Vet, Bride, Gymnastics coach, Kid Doctor, Race car driver, Rockstar, Ballerina. I don’t think these examples come close to balancing out the 23 “fashion doll products”  or 40 “Disney Princess doll products.”

In this line, the New Born Baby Doctor (love how they keep the occupation titles age-appropriate) is offered as a White and an African American doll. A few other lines included African American and White doll options. I found no “Latina” or “Asian” dolls.

There is an entire section (with it’s own navigational call-out) of African American Barbie Dolls – the “So In Style™” line. Of these some are a character and her little sister (and there is a white equivalent). Three of the “SIS” dolls are featured as being about hair styling – and apparently have a special type of “style-able” hair. Of course, none of them have natural African American hair. None of them are particularly dark, but there are a few different skin tones. 

I didn’t have to work too hard to find these examples. That said the Barbie web site’s home page is pure pink, blonde and white. There is no escaping what image “Barbie” conjures up. It will never change entirely, although it may evolve. Barbie beauty is forever blond, blue-eyed and light skinned.

Mattress Ticking

I was raised by caring, generous, enlightened and creative parents. They made me all sorts of amazing toys, including a hand-made “doll house” where the dolls were tiny animal couples, all dressed up. It had a very impressive ballroom with a wall of mirrors and a grand piano. And I wanted a Barbie townhouse?

My mother also made hand sewn dolls and stuffed animals. One still sits in my bedroom – ok, the closet – I am 45 years old and must show some restraint. 

This doll came with a number of dresses, again, all hand sewn. I remember loving changing her dresses. I still have two of them.

The unusual thing about this doll was that her main fabric is mattress-ticking – a rugged, light canvas texture, eggshell-ish color with denim blue stripes running through it.

I can remember as a kid being kinda conflicted about her “skin.” It didn’t look like me, or like anyone. Was she “pretty?”

Like most girls, I struggled with comparing myself to the Barbie™. But as I explored this topic, I can't help but wonder if  my love of her – and her unusual looks – diminished the impact of Barbie™ defined-beauty? Or more importantly, the role my parents played -- making this doll, modeling a different beauty standard, encouraging me in sports, learning, expressing my opinions.

Sadly, girls like Pecola -- and so many others -- may never have those powerfully counter-balancing influences and supports. So Barbie™ wins, again.

 

Week 7, Food Glorious Food

Titled Popular Culture and the Dark Side of Food, this week's reading from "Tooning In" (White and Walker) offered an excellent overview of some ugly truths about how media and popular culture have twisted our relationship to food.

I was particularly struck by how the authors present the entanglement of female identity and food. That the creation of processed, packaged foods, fashion trends, war, economic forces and feminism seemed to form a perfect storm that served to both empower women and ruin their relationship with a powerful part of our identity: food.

Naturally, this discussion, like many of those presented in this class (feminist salute to Prof!) is personal and political because of my own participation and perceptions – as a woman, as a feminist foodie who shares most American women’s weight issues, as a marketing communications professional turned adolescent health advocate.

During election madness my favorite blogs just weren’t cutting it for me and I started reading female and race oriented blogs.

Feminste
Feministing
Racialicious

My fascination with reading comments has been well-served in these places! But more importantly I appreciate the different lens through which they view the media and popular culture. As such, the feminist blogs inevitably draw attention to media coverage perceived to be “fat-hating” or “fat shaming.” Examples include a recent PETA ad and, more recently and topically: Media criticism over the body size of Dr. Regina Benjamin for the US Surgeon General position.

Here’s a short bio of the woman being discussed in the video below.

Regina M. Benjamin, M.D., M.B.A., is founder and CEO of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic in Bayou La Batre, Ala. She is the immediate past-chair of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, and previously served as associate dean for Rural Health at the University of South Alabama College of Medicine. In 2002, she became president of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama, making her the first African American woman to be president of a state medical society in the United States.
(Reuters, 10/30/09)

Not surprisingly, this was from FOX news (My path to this video: feministing, picked up by TPM, then pamshouseblend, who seemed to have found it at TPM (Talking Points Memo).) (To the world: this crappy commercial in front of the video—this is where we are going. it’s the only way they can pay for this stuff unless they start charging us.)



But – wow! I really couldn’t even watch the entire thing, so I offer it as an illustration of the authors’ point that for women “education and ability are less important that physical appearance (p. 134, referencing Manton).

In fact one of the “comments” flame wars was very hot and heavy about the poster’s similar assertion, except that she stated it that women pretty much exclusively get judged on appearance (case in point: Dr. Benjamin) and men never. This overstatement was deemed inappropriate (and sexist, I’d add for myself.) But then the criticiz-er was challenged for inserting a “it happens to us menz, too” (I discovered this was now a name for the phenomena), back and forth, largely over tone and ettiquette and, frankly, stubbornness.

But what a unique example! Not only in reference to gender, but race, as well. The authors discuss a finding often included in public health discussions about girls and body image – that many women of color have healthier body images and are therefore less prone to eating disorders. Culture can be protective, it is argued. I had not heard the finding that increases in eating disorders tracks to the increase of women of color competing in the professional job market (p. 137). Scary.

I was surprised that the authors focused mostly on the not-eating side of the equation because “Healthy Weight (previously: obesity)” is hot, hot, hot in the public health world, adolescent health particularly. In fact, right here at the University of Minnesota are some of the foremost researchers on adolescents (largely girls) and food. Project Eat includes a lot of researchers, Mary Story and Dianne Neumark-Sztainer are frequently cited in the news. They’ve looked at family meals, eating breakfast, weight teasing, body image connection to unhealthy behaviors and lots of quantifying the problem.
http://www.epi.umn.edu/research/eat/index.shtm

There’s a lot of interest in the school system’s role in addressing this problem. More and more schools are giving up their Coke machines, at the same time tax payers are less and less willing to fund them adequately. Public health systems continue to discourage the vending machines and a la carte offerings, but never seem to realize they are fighting a battle that can’t be won. Food to be desired is as portrayed in popular culture through the media – snack foods, processed foods, fast foods and soda.

Given my own background, food marketing’s role in the problem fascinates me. My formative “assignment” at the advertising agency was on a packaged-goods account – the Blue Diamond Almond Growers. I had gotten some insight on this world from even earlier days (as a secretary at Y&R) from multiple Clorox account: Hidden Valley Ranch Salad Dressing, KC Masterpiece Barbeque Sauce and Fresh Step Kitty Litter (nice combo, huh!).

Packaged goods marketers have it down to a science. Talk about evaluation – with the way their distribution venues (grocery stores) track data, these folks know exactly what kind of media weight it will take to increase sales in a given market. They know exactly when to start working on brand or line extensions, new flavors, new market segments.

They will never change their product or their marketing practices – until their customers demand it. Today’s “green” trend makes the point. The 2003 Dove "Real Beauty" campaign is another. (Teachers, check it out -- great teaching materials.)

So for me, the question of the week is: how do you turn the ship? What does it take to shift popular culture’s perspectives? Priorities? Sure, marketing can play a role, but when promoting pro-social interests, we’ve got to consider the competition. We’ll never compete, on TV, with Coke.

For tobacco prevention, the law suits, regulations and policies turned the tide. Arguably, alcohol prevention has attempted the same strategies, but with less success. But when it comes to food marketing, and its relationship to obesity, folks are having a harder time finding high-impact policy solutions. Getting coke machines out of schools is one thing. But mandating alternatives to bad fats? (San Francisco does it) Requiring a per unit calorie labeling on fast food products? (DC does it) Labeling attentive for high fructose corn syrup? Or, taken further, withdrawing subsidies that with ultimate limit its production? Again, the corn syrup people have lots and lots of resources (but so did the tobacco companies) -- I’ve already seen broadcast ads from their trade association advocating against these new policies.

There was also an ill-fated attempt to sue McDonalds for obesity/health related issues by two teen girls in Bronx. The case focused on “whether McDonald's is responsible for their obesity because it did not provide the necessary information about the health risks associated with its meals.” According to the NYT: “ If their lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, makes it to trial with the suit, he hopes to turn it into a class action on behalf of all New York children under age 18 who claim health problems they say resulted from eating at McDonald's.”

Does this defense sound familiar?

''Every responsible person understands what is in products such as hamburgers and fries, as well as the consequences to one's waistline, and potentially to one's health, of excessively eating those foods over a prolonged period of time,'' the lawyers wrote in their motion to have the case dismissed.

And of course, what web ad was placed next to this article? Again, compliments of the new advertising environment on-line and more evidence to support our authors' observations.

While big picture, I think it comes down to social change – demonstrated through our policies, regulation and funding, for young people, the answer is fairly straightforward. As this entire course (and “Tooning In”) proposes, young people need developmental support – whether that’s through “social efficacy” or “social and emotional learning” or any of the other buzz words -- we need to make meeting these needs a priority.

To develop their cognitive skills, cope with body changes, process their sexual feelings and awareness, try out and form their own identity adolescents must be able to critically evaluate popular culture and the media. At the same, time, we should empower them to participate in and create it – in new, positive and productive ways.