Rosalind Wiseman

AC360 Reveals How Penn State Fails Victims Again

2011-11-17T17:31:08-05:00

After watching AC360's extraordinary report on the inhumane treatment of Sandusky's alleged victims and the cover up that is now occurring, I have a suggestion for the chief of police who hid in his office rather than talk to the reporter. Instead of cowering, he should get himself in front of that camera and say,

"Even though there is an on-going investigation, for all those children who have come forward I am sorry. We don't know what the conclusion will be but as the police chief in this community, it is my sacred responsibility to protect our most vulnerable. I will work hard to do so in any way I can now and in the future."

This is what an honorable leader does who prioritizes the emotional and physical safety of the people in his community.

He does not hide.

It's bad enough that a pedophile creates a structure where he can systematically sexual assault children year after year. But now it seems clear that not only did other adults allowed it to happen, but they contributed to the abuse by ostracizing and dehumanizing the victims. All I can think of is how incapable adults seem to be to do the right thing.

To be clear, here is how the extended network of enablers made the sexual assault of children even worse:

When a victim tried to get help from an adult, the message was that Sandusky's stature in the community and the pedestal football was placed upon within the Penn State Community was more important than the child.

Adults dismissed or silenced the victims by saying that they shouldn't stain Sandusky's reputation, and he had "a heart of gold" (which school officials told the mother of a victim) are not just ignorant bystanders. Make no mistake they contributed to the silencing of a child and parent who were desperately trying to get help. On top of the usual shame victims feel about abuse, imagine how frightening it was for these kids and their parents to go to authority figures in their community for help. They knew they were challenging one of the most powerful people in their community. In that moment, the response from people they went to for help was either making them feel that they were making it up or it just wasn't possible.
Mothers who came forward were belittled and dismissed. It is becoming clear that the power of these men silenced the mothers. If the mothers did come forward they were dismissed and ridiculed. The whole thing was built to silence the victims and the mothers who didn't have the power to have their voice heard.

We are now faced with an incredible question: Was the power of Penn State's football legacy so overwhelming that many people, however tangentially connected to it, became moral degenerates? In my previous article on this issue, I described my experiences with other institutions in somewhat similar circumstances and how to understand the seemingly incomprehensible decision to protect the abusers over the abused.

If you are ever in a position where someone comes to you for help in a similar situation, the only thing you should say is, "Thank you so much for telling me. I am sure that was really hard to tell me. Let me find out what I need to do to start the process where you can feel safe." You never say anything about what you think about the alleged perpetrator's guilt or innocence. You never say, "I can't believe what you are telling me. That's not possible," even if you are having a hard time believing it. Instead you go through the process of verifying the claim and go from there.

If you are a child or parent who goes to an authority figure and they dismiss what you are saying, your response is, "I don't want to discuss if you think he is innocent. I am asking you to help me (or my child) feel safe and go through the process to verify my claim." If they don't do that, than ask to speak to someone else because that person is less than worthless to you.

We all need to do some hard looking at ourselves and what we stand for because Penn State is not the only community who has had this ugly exploitation and betrayal of its most vulnerable. As I have said before, the moment you think this can't occur in your community, is the moment you become more vulnerable to it.

I talk to teens everyday about topics that are often extraordinarily uncomfortable. I am getting to the place where I have nothing else to say but this:

"Adults in positions of power often will abuse it. Many adults, especially those who cultivate the image of honor will betray the values they say they hold dear. Others adults will either back up the bullies or be incapable of stopping them. Your best bet is to become aware of this as fast as possible, figure out which adults in your life can watch your back and don't trust anyone else."

Yes, it's cynical. But what's the alternative? In twelve hours I will be working with 150 high school student leaders. I, for one, am not going to pretend that adults are anything less than a disappointment.

Talking to Teens About Paterno, Penn State, and the High Price of Bystanding

2011-11-14T11:34:05-05:00

If there is anything to be learned from last week's revelations regarding Penn State, it is which institutions are most likely to abdicate their fundamental responsibilities and what are the dynamics that stop people from following what so obviously looks like the only moral course of action.

This is a problem I know too well and it's an important one to discuss with young people. Over the last 15 years that I have worked with schools, I have witnessed many tragedies in which students, teachers, or coaches have abused the most vulnerable members of their communities. From freshmen boys being sexually assaulted in hazing rituals, girls being severely sexually harassed, to teachers having sexual relationships with students. It happens. And while I have worked with many administrators who take action immediately, I have too often also seen people in leadership positions look the other way, isolate and discredit the victim, do the minimum, and justify keeping it "in-house." Make no mistake, all of those reactions condone the abuse in the eyes of the victim, the bystanders, and the abusers and empower the perpetrator to continue the abuse.

The consequence of all this is not only on the people directly involved. It profoundly impacts the way all young people perceive adults as credible role models and trusted figures. So if any of us really want to contribute to stopping these kind of tragedies from occurring, we must be clear about how it happened and willing to have honest discussions with the teens in our lives.

So how did it happen?

The more an institution links masculinity with being loyal to the group and their superiors, the more likely its members will say little or nothing when they experience or witness abuse. In this type of culture, speaking out is being disloyal.

When you add the discomfort of revealing homosexual sexual interaction in what is supposed to be an absolutely heterosexual environment, the victims and bystanders can be so ashamed and/or shocked that they describe the abuse in general terms. As in, "something bad happened in the shower."

It is in this moment, when a victim or witness comes forward to a leader that the leader's character is truly revealed. Will he protect the victim and immediately take measures to keep him safe? Will he support the witness, recognizing how hard it is to break the code of silence? Or, will he act in such a way that communicates to all under him that he protects the bully?

This is the essence of ethical leadership. You have three choices: support the victim's right to be safe, stay "neutral," -- which in reality is siding with the abuser -- or overtly back up the abuser. The more unquestioned public power the leader has, the more likely the leader will back up the abuser and sacrifice the vulnerable to maintain the institution's appearance of greatness. Consider also that while school traditions and "institutions" can be a positive force on campus, if there isn't a constant examination of how people in positions of power within those traditions can abuse it, it's only a matter of time before an abusive leader exploits the willing blindness of those around him.

We see such blindness in those Penn State students who chose to demonstrate -- or riot -- in support of the coach last Wednesday night. This reminded me of a common high school reaction when a high social-status student is expelled for hazing or harassment. It is common for his peers to dismiss or rationalize the student's behavior and do whatever they can to undermine the administrators who are holding the expelled student accountable. They can vandalize the school, wear black arms bands, get their easily-manipulated parents to back them -- all to punish the school for "overreacting" and tarnishing the punished student's reputation.

We know the protestors loved "JoePa" and think the punishment is too harsh. We know they are furious that his legacy will be forever tarnished. This is just like those high school protestors. By holding Paterno and others like him accountable you acknowledge the reality that in the moment when it really mattered, the leaders you feel so much pride in and even tie your self-identity to acted in ways that were entirely hypocritical to everything they purported to stand for. Instead, it's much easier to lash out and refuse to admit what actually occurred. But really, although it is sad that someone who worked for almost 50 years coaching football will not end his career with the dignity of being in attendance for his last home game, that is nothing compared to the victims whose dignity was literally stripped from them as they were sexually assaulted.

One of the most extraordinary aspects of the Penn State tragedy is that for many of us it is the first time we've seen leader who did the bare minimum pay the price for his inaction. Joe Paterno has paid that price at the highest, most public level. Let us hope others will learn from this example.

But how? How do we make a difference out of this horrible thing?

Sit down with your teens and ask them what they think about these adults betraying kids. Ask them what they think about the issues I have raised above. Our kids needs relationships with adults that they can depend on. They need to know with 100% certainty that there is at least one adult in their lives who they know is ethically and morally sound. And while it may be uncomfortable to have these discussion with them, it is actually the very act of reaching out and showing that you are willing to talk about this betrayal that makes the biggest difference in the lives of the young people you care about.

This post has been modified since its original publication.

New Research Reveals the True Face of Bullying

2011-10-13T14:48:19-04:00

This Friday, October 14th at 8 p.m. ET, CNN's Anderson Cooper's special report"Bullying: It Stops Here," features groundbreaking research that truly depicts bullying at its core. The results challenge much of the conventional wisdom that has done little to effectively address the problem. CNN commissioned University of California sociologists Dr. Robert Faris and Dr. Diane Felmlee to conduct the study, which examined the dynamics and root causes of bullying. The result is one of the most important and nuanced studies ever conducted on bullying and aggression. I urge every parent, educator and administrator to read their full report.

Drs. Faris and Felmlee's findings are important because they refute the way our culture typically understands what aggressors and victims look like, and where we commonly lay blame. Bullies don't have to be emotionally disturbed or come from bad families whose parents don't care about them. They look like any normal kid, which makes it so much harder for their parents and educators to see or acknowledge the behavior.

But make no mistake. The way kids go after each other is the same. They are often humiliating someone based on race, class, perceived sexual orientation, gender conformity and appearance. The consequence is also the same: social isolation, anxiety and low self-esteem.

Even in the best of circumstances, the study makes it easier to understand why targets and bystanders are so reluctant to ask parents for help. For the target, exposing the bullying concurrently means admitting your vulnerability, that your friends either don't like you or you made poor choices in friends. Worse, if parents respond by saying, "Just get new friends," the target feel that his parents don't understand him and are even more likely to never ask for help again.

For bystanders, things are just as tricky. When they see someone in their group being turned on, the most common reaction is keeping your mouth shut or even joining in because you don't want to be associated with the target and risk being humiliated or shut out as well.

Some may see this and say we can't or shouldn't micromanage children's behavior -- we should just let the kids work it out. But working it out never happens in a power vacuum. The child who has more social power always "works it out" to their advantage. As adults, it is our responsibility to guide them through the process of working it out where each person in the conflict is treated with dignity.

In the case of homophobic bullying, some argue that the beliefs and values of certain groups which abhor homosexuality preclude using any language that could be construed to endorse homosexuality; thus giving the bullies free reign to use hurtful language like "fag," "gay" or "lesbian" as weapons to degrade, isolate, and shame children. Again, those attitudes specifically reinforce children's belief that adults are useless to help them or even endorse the bullies' behavior. And regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, if you work with children, your one overriding belief must be your dedication to the emotional and physical safety of the children in your care. Anything less is an abdication of the adult's primary responsibility.

I want to highlight an adult who is getting it right. This study was largely done at the Wheatley School, located in an affluent Long Island suburb. I deeply respect Principal Sean Feeney for allowing the evaluation to take place in his school. His willingness to be open and honest is the kind of attitude that will ultimately get us to truly improve the culture at every school. Any adult who reads this and thinks this can't happen in their community with their kids is fooling themselves. No school or community is immune. The only way we have a chance of addressing bullying effectively is if we are willing to ask the tough questions and work hard for the best solutions.

Some may see this and say, "That's the way the world is," "Things will never change." "We are raising a nation of wimps." When adults send this message to our kids they contribute to the problem because it justifies their own inaction and tells children they are powerless to stop it -- unless they become the bullies themselves. Think of it this way. From a high school social group to a political dictatorship, the dynamics are the same. The risk of speaking out against injustice is always there. The responsibility of people with any authority is to uphold the rights of all people to speak freely, live in dignity and challenge those who seek to destroy civil society.

Watch the special Friday night and see people doing just that.

How To Talk To Your Tween About Personal Hygiene

2011-09-27T08:59:40-04:00

As a mom, I deal with a lot of smells. Some are pleasant. Clean laundry and a simmering stew on the stove come to mind. Others are not as pleasant.

A few days ago I walked into my house at the end of a long day and was immediately assaulted by a horrible smell -- a smell that definitely was not present when I left the house that morning.

I looked down and saw the culprits. Scattered around the front door were my children's shoes. I sighed, stepped over them and decided I didn't want to start the evening off by nagging my children. And how could I when I looked into the living room and saw an image that would make any parent happy? One of my boys was reading a book on the couch!

But then I sat down next to him and noticed that the smell was back. Honestly, there's only so much a mother can take without breaking down. So after talking about the book he was reading, I confronted the situation at hand:

Me: So, I think you need to take a shower.
My son: No I don't! I took one yesterday!
Me: If yesterday means five days ago, yes, you took a shower yesterday.
My son: Moooooom! That's not funny! I don't need to take one!
Me: You have played soccer every day after school, have paint in your hair from art class and just got back from karate where you were rolling around on a mat with 15 other children.
My son: Fine! I'll take a shower before dinner! I get one piece of dirt on me and you freak out! Moms are so crazy!

Don't you remember how wonderful your kids smelled as babies? Unfortunately, that time passes and ultimately we have to face reality. Our children smell, and we have to teach them to keep their body odor in check.

Here are my guidelines to having a direct, respectful, and productive conversation about this delicate issue.

1. Respect their privacy. Don't ever say anything around their friends or in any public place. Ever.

2. Know your child. If they are sensitive about the issue, I would suggest a less direct approach than my example above. My children and I have a long history of them getting really dirty and me hosing them down, but if you haven't had that experience, go a little easier. For example: "Hey, honey, it's really common for kids your age to need to take showers a little more often than they did when they were younger. Now that you're older and more mature, it's a good idea for you to take more responsibility for these things. Do you have any questions?" Honestly, no matter what kind of kid you have, this is a good conversation to have with them.

3. Give them a say. Ask them if they want to go the store with you to buy deodorant or other personal hygiene products, or if they want you to do it yourself. If they want you to take care of it, when you return from the store, don't make any announcements about buying deodorant. Quietly put it in a can't-be-missed place in the bathroom like next to their toothbrush.

Remember, although it can be uncomfortable to start this conversation , it's a great opportunity to set the groundwork for good communication. Having these kinds of talks -- about smaller issues -- will make your child feel comfortable coming to you as they go through adolescence. Plus, your house will smell better when you walk through the door.

For more tips and parenting advice on navigating your child's tricky tween years, join me along with other experts and real moms at www.Facebook.com/DontFretTheSweat. The community is a great place to connect with other parents of tweens to share stories -- including how you've dealt with your child's not-so-sweet smells -- and gain valuable parenting insight.

When did you first notice signs of body odor with your child? How did you handle that conversation? How did your parents bring the topic up with you?

New Stop Bullying: Speak Up Campaign Can Change Lives

2011-09-21T18:53:29-04:00

Starting today, you can join a powerful anti-bullying campaign that truly has the potential to change lives and make our children safe from bullying. It's the "Stop Bullying: Speak Up" campaign and pledge.

As someone who has been critical of anti-bullying campaigns in the past, I have gotten behind this campaign and I want to tell you why. In a world where all of us tend to grab onto a story for a moment and then forget about it in the next news cycle, the Stop Bullying, Speak Up Campaign is harnessing the power and reach of Time Warner and Facebook to keep this issue up front and center.

The campaign begins with asking adults and children to sign a pledge that challenges all of us to specifically take responsibility for stopping bullying in our communities. From there, the campaign expands through programming on Cartoon Network, CNN, People magazine, and Facebook. This is a dream come true for me: companies that have the ability to truly make a difference on this issue working collaboratively with experts in the field to truly encourage the country to address bullying in substantive, wide-spread ways.

Last year, you may have seen me on the Town Hall meeting Anderson Cooper 360 hosted. It was a great show. Children, teens, parents, educators, and experts came together to show the true face and impact of bullying. But as soon as the show was over, the Anderson Cooper producers told me they wanted to do more.

They were true to their word. October 2011 will be filled with programming on this issue across many Time Warner shows. On October 9th and 14th, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 in partnership with Facebook and Time Warner, will broadcast the second town hall meeting from Rutgers University. In preparation, Anderson Cooper's team has worked with Robert Faris, the Research Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, who will unveil a major new study. In addition, more children will be involved; including several from Anoka Hennepin, Minn. who are suing their school district for its "neutrality" policy that forbids teachers from talking about bullying prevention efforts in regards to gay students.

Check your local listings for channels.

October 9th and 14th 8PM EST.

If you are someone who cares about the safety of all children, I hope you will take a few minutes to read and sign this pledge.

Honest Talk in the Body Acceptance Movement

2011-08-11T12:27:01-04:00

Transformational leaders inspire by challenging what we hold to be true. They demand that we examine our assumptions, question their validity, and encourage discourse.

Especially when doing so makes us uncomfortable.

Jess Weiner, in her recent article, "Loving My Body Almost Killed Me," in the September issue of Glamour, shows that she is this transformational leader. In sum, Weiner argues that overweight women rationalize ignoring their physical health as a response to the thin-obsessed culture we live in. Make no mistake, Weiner clearly understands the profoundly negative consequences for all women chasing the thin body ideal. But she is also drawing attention to a body acceptance movement that convinces women to turn a blind eye to the very real health problems linked to obesity.

It is essential to women's emotional health to love their body in spite of the constant messages we get that we only deserve to do so if we are as thin as we are told to be. But somewhere along the way we lost the overall point: women's emotional and physical health are interconnected and we do ourselves a grave disservice if we don't take care of our physical health because we are so busy defending ourselves from the emotional tyranny of being thin.

Weiner had this epiphany at a moment when self-reflection was probably the last thing she wanted to do. Weiner was challenged by a woman in a public forum about her right to speak on woman's health because she herself was overweight. This woman forced Weiner to look at a very uncomfortable truth. Superficial leaders would have responded with a quick dismissive comeback; never having the courage to recognize any of the truth in the speaker's question. True leaders take these difficult moments and face them head on. That is exactly what Weiner did. As she writes in the Glamour article:

I'd written books and magazine columns, appeared countless times on Oprah and other TV shows, and given hundreds of speeches telling women to love themselves no matter what their size. But now it was time to consider not just my self-esteem but also my wellbeing... I couldn't remember the last time I'd been to the doctor. My body wasn't anyone else's business, but had I done everything I could to make it my business?

Weiner's call to action is not limited to herself. It is also a call to action for other women. But some may not see it that way. Instead, Weiner's argument may be labeled by some as disloyal to overweight women. It is not. When we require ideological purity in our discourse, we by definition stop the authenticity of that discourse.

I know something of this experience. When I first started writing about the mean things girls do to each other, some of my colleagues believed I was wrong to bring it up. I was accused of being disloyal, unfairly blaming girls, or creating conflict within the girls' self-esteem movement. What I believed, and continue to believe to this day, is that girls and women are only able to reach their true potential and have authentic relationships if they are honest and self-reflective. It's just too easy to accept the easy answers and silence the difficult ones.

It doesn't matter if the issue is women's weight or girls' cruelty. Women, individually and collectively, must challenge themselves. They must see that loyalty is speaking the truth precisely in those moments when you know something is wrong; when you fear rejection and backlash from your community but you speak out anyway. As a leader in the body acceptance movement, it is critical that Weiner's article fosters dialogue among women. By doing so she's not only taking care of her emotional and physical health but also role-modeling what it means to be an empowered courageous leader.

The Smackdown on Common Sense: How the Anti-Bullying Movement Is Hurting Itself

2011-06-24T17:11:13-04:00

In my recent article, "The NEA and WWE's New Anti-Bullying Campaign," I questioned the National Education Association and the Creative Coalition for partnering with WWE to create the Be A Star anti-bullying program. Many people, specifically fans of the WWE and Ms. Robin Bronk, Executive Director of the Creative Coalition, disagree with my assessment that the WWE is not a credible partner because its programming is contradictory to any bullying prevention program.

My key point is that because bullying has become the popular social problem for corporations and celebrities to support, advocacy organizations like the National Education Association and the Creative Coalition must be extremely mindful about who they associate with as they develop programs on this issue. Otherwise, they will not only undermine their position and lose their overall credibility but the opportunity for systemic change will be lost in a sea of mixed messages that young people will dismiss.

That is the real issue. But reaction from the article has almost exclusively been on defending the WWE.

That in itself is important. The premises behind the criticisms I received demand close examination because they reflect a misunderstanding of how cultural values are transferred through the media and how media is currently distributed to our children. Ms. Bronk recently posted a rebuttal to my article and since her complaints encapsulate the others, I'm going to use what she wrote to address the issues.

Premise #1. The WWE's brand of entertainment is harmless because it is fake.

"WWE is scripted entertainment -- just like Hollywood movies or television shows -- yet Wiseman's article doesn't hold entertainment companies who produce violent movies, television programs, or reality programming to the same standard. Nor does it suggest athletes from sports like football, MMA, or hockey should be disqualified from promoting anti-bullying messages."

Ms. Bronk is correct: WWE is scripted entertainment. But this means that WWE, unlike professional sports, has complete control over what it does. So even in its current "PG version" the narrative of the WWE fight script includes ridicule before the bell rings and the "winner" is declared. In the words of Lyn Mikel Brown, Professor of Education at Colby College and author of Packaging Boyhood, "This mockery is typically in the service of shame and humiliation about not being tough enough, strong enough, masculine enough--messages that motivate much of the homophobia and bullying found in schools these days. It's going to be very hard for the WWE to give up this script and retain its loyal fans--as evidenced by the recent homophobic tweets by a WWE commentator only a week after the agreement with GLADD was announced." (GLAAD is one of the principal collaborators in this partnership)

Compare this to professional sports. The purpose and script of a football game is to get the ball into the end zone; the goal of a hockey game is to get the puck into the net. While a football or hockey game may include fights or even individuals spontaneously humiliating someone, that dynamic is not intrinsic to the game as it is in WWE. Using the same logic, I don't suggest individuals from sports like hockey, football and MMA should be disqualified from promoting anti-bullying messages; if I did, that wouldn't make sense.

I said in my article that the people at WWE are extremely media savvy about this interplay between fake and real. I take it back. They are geniuses. The most important example of this is how WWE's blurs the line between its real life and fictionalized owner: Mr. McMahon. The overarching fictional narrative of the WWE is that McMahon is in a position of power and as such controls everyone around him. Look at any of the shows with him playing his fictional/real-life characters and you will see a story of a person with authority and control publicly flaunting and abusing his power. He is the leader and sets an example that the rest of the characters emulate. Does that fall into acceptable PG ratings? Absolutely. It is also the foundation of bullying.

Premise #2. The videos I showed are old and therefore of no consequence.

"In criticizing WWE, the article invokes some videos from WWE's bygone TV-14 era, suggesting the company actually contributes to bullying. If anyone is offended by that content, it should be known that several years ago, WWE took the initiative to make its programming more family friendly.

This may be somewhat true about their current broadcast programming, but unfortunately that fact is irrelevant. We live in a post-broadcast world. The majority of young people don't sit down and watch a TV show at its scheduled time anymore. As I said in my article, WWE cites an average online viewership of 8.9 million video streams per month. Children and tweens know they can see anything WWE has ever broadcast on YouTube; through the WWE channel or in clips posted by individuals. WWE knows this and as a business strategy it makes perfect sense; i.e. look harmless while keeping the more degrading programming away from people who don't understand how viewers find the content. At any rate, you may not agree with WWE's and Ms. Bronk's definition of "family friendly" after you watch this compilation from their 2010 Smackdown Bikini Contest:

Throughout the years, these bikini contests have always been one of WWE's most common scripts. They follow the same plot, the same script and the same lesson imparted: women are judged by a group of men, one is chosen as the most sexy, and another woman attacks her. This script role-models not only proven negative female stereotyped images and behavior but specifically shows an expectation that women should turn against each other as they fight for mens' validation. Unfortunately, in terms of this article, "be a STAR" Advisory Council member Girl Scouts USA, is one of the principal leaders of the recently launched Healthy Commission for Positive Images of Women and Girls. As a result, Girl Scouts is now connected with the video above; which is obviously contradictory to everything they work so hard for and damages their credibility.

Back to the accusation that the videos I showed in the last article were old and therefore inconsequential. Actually the dates of the videos are irrelevant because everything that WWE has ever created is always available for viewing.

Imagine this: You are a 12-year old boy who knows that WWE has gotten cleaned up. You know that WWE used to be way more intense: You've heard that WWE used to have people pee on each other, hit each over the head with chairs, and girl wrestlers kissed each other. You are a 12 year-old boy, so what are you going to do? You go to YouTube and type in the search "WWE girls kissing." Is this something educational organizations should be partnering with?

Or if you did a search on the popular wrestler, Eddie Guerrero, who died in 2005, you'd get this:

So that there are no misunderstandings of what WWE is teaching here with this fictional, "meaningless" script, I'm going to break it down. A man has a nurse bending over him in a scenario typical of many pornographic films. Without him knowing, she's replaced with a hyper-masculine, oiled-up, nearly naked male wrestler. For a second there is a moment of sexual attraction, which is quickly replaced with revulsion, demonstrating their heterosexuality. Lastly a "stereotypical" gay, lustful doctor arrives, eager to sexually assault Guerrero during the examination. What the script is telling the viewer is that 1. women should service men, 2. if there is sexual attraction between men, that is shameful and must be ridiculed and 3. openly gay men (i.e. the doctor) are sexual predators who will sexually assault a heterosexual man if given the opportunity.

Will watching this clip make the 12-year-old viewer a homophobic exploiter of women? Probably not. But what research has proven over and over again is that scripts like these profoundly influence people's attitudes about what is normalized acceptable social behavior.

What I don't understand is that some of the research and public policy positions against this form of media entertainment come from the very advocacy organizations that are members of the Creative Coalition and The National Education Association itself. In its own 2010-2011 Resolutions Document, the NEA stated, "children are an especially vulnerable and easily exploited audience who must be protected from exposure to violence, prejudice, sexual content, and stereotyping by mass media, the Internet, and products that are accessible to children."

Now if the WWE was really serious about ending its programming that includes humiliation, homophobia, and the degradation of women it would be easy for them to do. Remove that programming from their on-line content and report the individuals to YouTube who upload clips over which they have property rights. With very little effort WWE could do its part to stop the dissemination of this content. But that would mean putting its stated values of and contribution to the Be A Star program over its profits.

Premise #3: I am being unfair to WWE.

"[Wiseman] unfairly suggests that because of WWE's brand of entertainment, the company has no moral authority to promote non-violence and tolerance among kids."

The definition of fair is to be "just or appropriate in the circumstances." Given the circumstances, I think my assessment is a fair one.

Ms. Bronk states in her closing remarks that "The bottom line is that the NEA, The Creative Coalition and GLAAD are harnessing the power of the WWE brand to promote tolerance and raise public awareness about bullying."

I think the real bottom line is that while WWE has the right to do whatever it wants as does the people who watch it, the Be A Star message will be lost in the much more powerful imagery and messages in WWE's normal programming.

In the wise words of 10 year old Dylan and 12-year old Max,

"It makes no sense for the WWE to get involved with bullying prevention, because they fight & they influence kids to become bullies."

"It does not make any sense because these guys in the WWE are fighting all the time until their opponent gets knocked out and i dont think a 12 year old would be allowed to watch WWE anyway. (what were they thinking?)"

If anyone in the NEA or the Creative Coalition would like to continue the debate about this partnership, I am more than willing to do so. What isn't debatable is that the WWE has already won the fight; an association of well-respected social justice non-profits is leaping to their defense.

I am telling you these WWE people are smart.

The NEA and WWE's New Anti-Bullying Campaign

2011-06-16T20:19:14-04:00

What if I told you that World Wrestling Entertainment had partnered with the National Education Association to do an anti-bullying campaign?

Would you think it was a bad joke?

It's no joke.

The WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, recently announced the "Be A Star" bullying prevention program in partnership with the National Education Association's (NEA) Health Information Network (HIN) and the Creative Coalition; an association of well-respected advocacy organizations who focus on youth, racism, homophobia, education, and violence prevention. According to their joint press release, "Be a STAR will promote positive methods of social interaction and encourage people to treat others as equals and with respect because everyone is a star in their own right."

This is how the WWE role-models positive social interaction:

CEO of The Creative Coalition, Robin Bronk was clear in her support. "We're proud to be an architect with WWE of "Be A STAR."

Ms. Bronk must be confused about WWE. According to Jackson Katz Ph.D, author of The Macho Paradox and creator of the video Tough Guise, "WWE is one of the most culturally destructive and blatantly misogynistic businesses in the history of popular entertainment."

When I asked Nora Howley, manager of NEA's HIN programs why they decided to work with WWE, her response was, "WWE wrestling is silly, scripted matches. And there's no body of evidence that proves wrestling causes violence."

Ms. Howley is right; you can't prove wrestling causes violence. Unfortunately, that fact entirely misses the point ( as it does for violence in any TV program, video game or movie).

It's precisely these "silly" scripts that are the problem. Storytelling teaches us the values, attitudes, and beliefs of our culture. This concept is fundamental to effective education and media literacy and has been amply described in this very context in works such as "Packaging Boyhood." The late George Gerbner, professor of communications and Dean Emeritus of the Annenberg School of Communication defined the impact of this kind of violence, not on behavior but on attitudes. Here's a partial list of the effects he describes:

It desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering; they lose the ability to understand the consequence of violence, to empathize, to resist, and to protest

It's swift, it's thrilling, it's cool, it's effective, it's painless, and it always leads to a happy ending because you have to deliver the audience to the next commercial in a receptive mood

One comes to believe that the violence portrayed in media is normal and it's a good way of solving problems

All of this leads to a pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability

That the NEA and Creative Coalition appear not to know this is deeply troubling. Not only are they influential leaders in education and public policy and as such have the responsibility to make informed decisions, but their ignorance makes them vulnerable to being manipulated by people who are more media savvy. Make no mistake, WWE is media savvy.

As I have written on other occasions, bullying is stripping a person of their dignity based on a characteristic such as race, religion, gender and or sexual orientation. Watch how WWE does exactly this:

Depiction of Women:

Homophobia:

As explained in this video clip, explicit homophobia is a cornerstone of the model of masculinity portrayed by WWE. Ironically, or perhaps appropriately, there are countless YouTube clips of WWE viewers either gay bashing or making fun of the homoerotic undertones going on between the wrestlers.

So why did the NEA and Creative Coalition agree to do this?

Members of the Creative Coalition include the American Library Association, the Girl Scouts, National Black Justice Coalition, National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, and the Mathew Sheppard Foundation among many others. I count many of them as colleagues and respect their work immensely, and I don't believe for one second that these people support the mission of WWE.

Here's what I think may have happened.

The people at the NEA and the Creative Coalition haven't watched a WWE event or visualize the cartoonish Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant from the 1980s.

The people at all these organizations took WWE on face value when they said, "We are committed to this issue and we are taking it seriously," even though WWE states in its own communication materials: "[WWE] does not represent socially responsible methods for resolving conflict."

They got stars in their eyes when they thought about reaching WWE's large fan base. According to WWE's own statistics, they have average online viewership of 8.9 million video streams per month. These organizations believe that WWE will enable the "Be A Star" program to be seen by many more people than if they didn't work with WWE. This is true and makes sense, as long as the messenger and the environment where the message is delivered are credible to the target audience.

Here's what I do know:

The WWE paid for an anti-bullying movie; "That's What I Am" starring Ed Harris, Chase Ellison, WWE Superstar Randy Orton® and Amy Madigan. It comes with curricula and will be made available to teachers throughout the country. I saw the movie and I'm having a hard time understanding why the NEA likes it so much. Plus, the DVD begins with an ad for a WWE video game.

The question is, can one movie, even if it was the best anti-bullying movie ever made, counteract everything else WWE puts out? Can Stephanie McMahon's "Be a Star" PSA be credible when so young people have seen her humiliated and mock beaten by her real life husband Triple H on the WWE mat?

Ms. Howley believes it can: "The video and accompanying materials are an amazing opportunity to speak to children and families. Our staff gave it great thought and we believe the video can live independently from wrestling." Sut Jhally, Professor of Communications at the University of Massachusetts disagrees, "We know that individual messages don't work on their own. They only work in a context and the WWE's general context is opposite of an anti-bullying message. It's like the pornography industry making a video about abstinence."

And beyond the movie's and campaign's merits, are they worth it when they help to protect WWE from scrutiny?

Fact: GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is also working with WWE. Aaron McQuade, deputy director of GLAAD's News and Field Media explained how it came about. "A few months ago we got a wave of complaints from LGBTQ people who attended a WWE event because of a gay bashing incident. WWE didn't seem to know how offensive and hurtful it was to their LGBTQ viewers. So they asked us to consult with them and we have been doing that. We have worked with their writing teams and talent management and we are running PSA's during their Monday night programming."

I don't believe WWE's claim that they didn't know how homophobic their fights are. Beyond their own common sense, there's a documentary by Media Education Foundation called "Wrestling with Manhood" that clearly lays all of this out. But I understand GLAAD's motivation; they were acting in response to their constituents. GLAAD is an incredible organization. I just don't know how they, or anyone, can hold their own against the WWE.

In situations like this I always check my judgment by seeking the opinions of young people. After all, this program is targeted at them. So I asked boys what they thought about this partnership and this is what they told me:

Q: Based on what WWE does, Does it make sense for the WWE to get involved with bullying prevention? Why or why not?

It does not make any sense because these guys in the WWE are fighting all the time until their opponent gets knocked out. Max, 12

I don't think it makes a lot of sense because of what WWE does. I have watched the show a couple of times and the entire match is beating the other person up, and violence and hurting people is a part of bullying. If I saw a WWE wrestler talk about the bad things of bullying I would be a bit confused. First I see him knock someone out and then next moment I see him talking about how bad bullying is. Nate, 12

The NEA probably finds it a good publicity stunt for their purpose to have an organization that both has popular recognition and influential content to help promote a serious issue, one that may even connect to material in WWE itself. At first thought it seems like a good idea, but then the logical response to that alliance would be, "Isn't kind of backwards to have a fighting organization disapprove?" Marcus, 15

Why would WWE want to work with the NEA and the Creative Coalition?

Companies always want to look good to the public, and benefiting from the association of these organizations is an incredibly smart way to do it. But there's more. WWE is losing money. WWE stocks, attendance and profits are all down. As a result it's re-branding itself to be more family friendly and "Disneyfied".

Why is it in financial trouble? Ironically, it's being out-manned by a more masculine competitor: Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the mixed martial arts promotions company that has grown since 2001 into a billion dollar corporation, is sapping precisely the audience advertisers and WWE depend on: men between 18-34.

It's important to highlight the difference between WWE and UFC and why people are moving over to UFC. While WWE's scripted fights rely on scenarios like wrestlers having to literally kiss WWE CEO Mr. McMahon's butt to have the honor of joining his "ass kissing club," the UFC has come in and delivered the real thing. Unscripted, no costume, brutal fighting conducted with a few strict rules. No stories except the fighter's backgrounds. No plot except who is going to survive in the fighting cage.

In fact, the UFC would have been a very interesting partner for an anti-bullying program because they have so much credibility with kids and teens. If the NEA and Creative Coalition had partnered with them, I'd be writing a very different article. And I'm not alone in this idea.

When I was in elementary school WWE was the hot topic all around. Not so much now. If NEA still finds it imperative to have a fighting-oriented supporter have a production such as UFC, which is way more times appropriate. It'd be a better move. Marcus, 15

Another possible motivation for WWE's participation is the political agenda of its owners. Linda McMahon ran for Connecticut senate in 2010. She lost, but if she has future political aspirations speaking out about bullying has become an easy way to be a family friendly politician.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Of course working with corporations is complicated. There are countless partnerships between corporations with questionable products and/or business practices and advocacy organizations who still manage to do something for the greater good. MTV is the creator of Jersey Shore and Bully Beat Down but they also have public awareness campaigns about teen depression, voter registration, and safe sex to name a few.

What we seem to be missing are articulated standards to help us make better decisions about these partnerships.

Here are a few questions to begin the conversation:

1. What is the mission of the company? Not what it says in their marketing materials but what it looks like in public?

2. Are the people responsible for the program honest with themselves about their knowledge of popular culture? If they aren't, what is their strategy to become more informed?

3. Will the partnership come across to the target audience as hypocritical? Who did you talk to come up with your answer?

4. A public awareness campaign is always going to be second tier to the company's regular programming. Will the day to day activities of that company overshadow or counteract the campaign?

5. How will the corporation use the advocates' brand in their own marketing strategy and have the advocates thoroughly thought through the pros and cons of how the partner brand will come across?

In the near future, conferences are being held around the country on how for-profits and non-profits can work together on this issue in effective ways. I urge all of us to reflect on the choices we make and the assumptions that underlie those choices. Please hear me on this. Kids aren't taking us seriously. If they don't take us seriously we are useless to them. We have an opportunity to do it right -- let's seize the moment.

Doing Good Is Complicated: Kind Campaign's Partnership With Mattel

2011-05-30T12:55:16-04:00

The Kind Campaign's recently announced partnership with Mattel is an opportunity for any of us who advocate for children or any social cause to think about a very difficult question; how do we collaborate with larger, more powerful organizations and corporations to get our message across?

I know about the Kind Campaign because two years ago, its founders, Lauren Parsekian and Molly Stroud, asked to interview me for the documentary they were making. A few weeks later, two beautiful young women who had not yet graduated from college, arrived at my house, schlepping all their gear into my living room. As they quickly set up lights and cameras, they immediately gained my respect. That feeling grew as they asked thoughtful questions (substantially better than many journalists who interview me) and they cleaned up after themselves. When they left, I wished them the best and hoped for their success.

I knew the road to their success wasn't going to be easy. They were young, had little professional experience, and no connection to an established organization to give them credibility. Exactly the same position I was in when I first began my work seventeen years ago. I knew what they were up against: convincing people to take a chance on you, raising money, forgoing salary, and depending on family and friends for support, driven by the need to get the message out.

Two years later, Mattel announced that their Monster High Doll line was partnering with the Kind Campaign. My understanding of the campaign is that Lauren and Molly will act as KIND characters within the Monster High webisodes. As I read people's reactions to this, and Amy Jussel's comments, it caused some amount of personal pain. It's not that I'm against corporate partnerships. How could I be? I'm a spokesperson for Unilever's "Don't Fret the Sweat" Campaign and LG's Text-Ed Council and I'm proud of the work I have done with both of them. I have worked on and off with Liz Claiborne for years. I sold the rights to my book, Queen Bees and Wannabes to Paramount so Tina Fey could turn it into Mean Girls.

For better and for worse, I believe that working within institutions is worth the effort.

Yes, the power dynamic can be unequal as you feel insecure compared to their money or influence. Yes, as an advocate you may be hesitant to say what you really think and progress can be slow. Yes, if you aren't careful you can be co-opted by the system and/or perceived to have compromised yourself and your mission by people on the outside. But overall I believe the majority of people employed at these companies are decent people who want to do good work and it's better to work within systems than be on the outside where you have less chance of having your voice heard. And the fact is that corporations are the best at getting messages to the cultural marketplace. We need to be at the table when those messages are being crafted.

I really get why Kind Campaign did it. By agreeing to work with Mattel they could reach the girls Mattel reaches. That's huge.

But here's my problem: The Monster High doll line continues the skinny and sexy/super cute cultural ideal that is so toxic for girls and women.

One of the primary ways girls can be incredibly unkind to each other is by degrading a girl who doesn't fit into this ideal. I worry that the girls will see the mixed message within this program and the more visual message (i.e. of the skinny/sexy/supercute girl) will dominate. In addition, while Mattel says Monster High is targeted at tweens and teens, I have a hard time believing that is the case. Dolls and the marketing campaigns created around them are targeted at girls between 5-10; not tweens and teens. And my review of some, albeit not all, Monster High webisodes makes me extremely uneasy because the "Monsters" story line comes across to me as the characters being "cooler" than everyone else.

Emily Bartek, marketing and brand strategy consultant for Scout Strategies looks at it differently, "A partnership with Mattel reflects on some level their [Kind's] intuitive understanding that looking the part of cool is a vehicle for delivering a message. No one looks at two attractive girls and assumes they've been bullied -- no one looks at sexy dolls and assumes they will sneak in messaging about friendship and equality. Regardless of whether or not the dolls create a whole layer of problems in addition to those they intend to solve, it's easy to see how both KIND and Mattel could stand by the assertion that young girls love these toys and how they look and that they're getting positive messaging into something girls and their parents would buy anyhow."

My counter to Bartek's argument is two fold: I believe that companies that sell products to children not only have a responsibility to their shareholders but a higher obligation to consider their products' impact on children's well-being. The bottom line is, you can still make the dolls cute without having them wear tiny mini-skirts and high heels. And parents, of course, must be educated and empowered to not buy things that are reinforcing of these images.

But there's more at stake here than this one campaign. How we discuss this topic is critical because so often the substance of the problem is lost in the dynamics going on between the people on the opposing sides.

Here's what I am worried about:

In a world where a particular look takes up more space in our often culturally vapid landscape, we have to face our own anxiety and reactions to it. And it's certainly not new that attractive women doing good work are received skeptically at best. We owe it to each other to raise the level of dialogue whenever we can and we can start by admitting when we ourselves are caught in this mix; possibly blind to a more nuanced understanding of a situation.

That means that this can't devolve into another case of older women criticizing younger women for being naive. Not only is it patronizing, but it will come across to the general public as women sniping at each other. That is an old, tired script that needs to be put through the shredder. It doesn't give any of us, or the substance of our work, the respect we and it deserve.

From a women's leadership standpoint, if we are to walk the walk we have to stand for allowing girls and young women to reach for big goals, put themselves out there, do things we may not agree with and still let them know they are valuable, thoughtful, and are making meaningful contributions. The message to come out of this cannot be "you partnered with Mattel and no real expert with any integrity would have done so."

So the questions to the Kind Campaign's founders are: Will they use their voice as advocates to speak out to Mattel? Will they advise them on how to change the dolls look so that, while still making something girls want to buy, aren't sexualized? Will they point out the mixed messages? Can they talk to Mattel about the impact of growing up as a young woman in today's culture and the part that Mattel plays within it?

It comes down to this: their success and credibility demands that they expand the definition and application of being kind and the unkindness of "girl on girl crime" from the girls themselves to the corporations they partner with who target girls. Because it's wonderful to change a girl's life when she realizes the worth of being kind to others but it's transformational to the culture if institutions like Mattel can similarly own up to "girl on girl" crime and become more KIND, and truly support girls in the process.

What Makes a Good Bullying PSA?

2011-04-23T11:12:17-04:00

When you work in bullying prevention like I do, you are repeatedly asked if there is a bullying epidemic. Sometimes it's said as a statement of fact. An epidemic is a sudden, widespread occurrence of a particular undesirable phenomenon. Since conflict and abuse of power are inevitable between people and bullying is the abuse of power in a conflict, we have always had it. There is no epidemic. But the fact that bullying has existed forever doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it less painful when someone you love is experiencing it.

What we are experiencing is an epidemic of ineffective bullying prevention educational programs and public service announcements (PSA's).

In the wake of the media's recent focus on a handful of high-profile bullying cases that ended in a victim's suicide, many organizations responded with multi-media anti bullying campaigns. Unfortunately these programs are often unrealistic and many ultimately give kids greater cause to dismiss adults as clueless and unable to help them solve the problem. While it's important to formally evaluate these programs, those studies can take years and our children can't wait.

We all need to agree on common sense criteria to differentiate messages that are laughable and easily dismissed, irresponsible or inaccurate, or realistic, relatable, and inspirational.

With the goal of starting the conversation, here's what I think.

A bad bullying prevention program or PSA:

1. Relies on gimmicks, like anti-bullying T-shirts, useless slogans like, "Bullying isn't cool. Don't do it," bracelets, pledges, and celebrity appearances as the principle educational strategy.
2. Depicts stereotyped situations.
3. Shows all white people at the center of the plot, or has token racial diversity. For example, the Queen Bee white girl with her backup Black and Asian friends.
4. Presents suicide as a natural consequence of being bullied and as a revenge fantasy against the bullies. Kids don't have to have suicide thrown in their face to take bullying seriously. Emphasizing suicide will make children think that any feelings less than that aren't worth reporting.
5. Portrays no realistic and comforting adult presence.
6. Provides no skills or strategies to stop bullying beyond, "Tell an adult" and doesn't acknowledge that telling an adult often doesn't help at all.
7. Assumes that bullying is always one-way.
8. Gives the primary motivations to not bully as that you will be punished or feel guilty.
9. Emphasizes blame.
10. Ignores the fact that most bullies think they're defending themselves or are at least justified; e.g. the victim deserves it. This is one of the primary reasons why a bully won't see themselves in these types of campaigns.

Some Examples:

A particularly poignant example of an ineffective and irresponsible PSA is the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section's cyberbulling video. Like many, I have been extremely critical of this PSA. In response to criticisms of their original video, the ABA re-edited it to the version below, which is no longer irresponsible but still ridiculous.

I am highlighting this PSA because Mr. Allan Van Fleet, the Chair of the Antitrust Law Section, defends their actions by saying that the video was "a rough cut that [sic we] never intended be released to the public" (Quoted from his comments on this Slate article). The ABA posted something online that they never intended other people to see? Somehow they don't realize the irony of this response given the subject matter. It's what teens say after they've posted something inappropriate online and can't believe it went public. More unbelievably, in researching for this article I found that Mr. Van Fleet, who as the chair, must have some supervision over this project, has no privacy settings on his Facebook page. That means I was able to see all of the personal information he posted online. From his personal postings, it is clear that Mr. Van Fleet is a decent person who means the best.

But good intentions are not enough; you actually have to know what you're doing. And what is the first thing you tell children when they begin to use social networking? Set your privacy settings so only people you know and trust can see your information.

I understand that the next video the ABA is doing is about sexting. Seriously. And they were asked to do it by the United States Department of Education. I am not joking about this.

The National Crime Prevention Council's cyberbullying PSAs were done in conjunction with the National Ad Council and US Department of Justice. Entitled, "In the Kitchen with Megan" and "Rant with McGruff," both use the classic outdated advice of, "Just delete the bad messages you get" and "If you wouldn't say it in person, don't send it online." If you work in schools you know there are plenty of kids who will say it and send it.

The NCPC's radio PSAs, click the titles to listen:

In the Kitchen With Megan

Rant With McGruff

A Good Bullying Prevention PSA and Campaign:

1. Depicts realistic scenarios, knowing that if presented realistically the topic will hold the viewer's attention. (T-shirts, bracelets and celebrities are unnecessary.)
2. Incorporates the power, negative or positive, of the by-stander.
3. Clarifies, age appropriately, the difference between snitching and reporting.
4. Reflects young people's understanding and experience of race dynamics. i.e. while racism can be a weapon to bully, children have a nuanced perspective on race.
5. Understands how homophobia is tied to bullying.
6. Has an adult (maybe a parent) comforting a child.
7. Doesn't patronize the viewer.
8. Provides skills and inspiration in equal proportion to depicting the problem.
9. Is willing to acknowledge that adults can be part of the problem as well as help solve or improve the situation.
10. Inspires people to take the risk to publicly support victims and responsibly confront bullies.

Examples:

Adina's Deck: Adina's Deck is a new Internet Safety DVD series designed for the classroom. In each episode, savvy characters solve contemporary problems including: cyber bullying, online predators, and plagiarism.

"Abuse of Technology" by Imbee. Imbee is a social networking 'mega-platform' for kids between the ages of 8-14. The video moves fast, is age appropriate for tweens, and doesn't preach while managing to get key messages across.

For teens:
"Words Do Hurt."

Lots of people have seen this one. Alye (the girl) and her parents have created a Facebook page where people can share their experiences and information:

For parents:

Good is good -- even when it's hard to admit. I usually disagree with Focus on the Family and have heatedly debated its representatives about including homophobia in bullying prevention curricula. (I am for; they are against). But they have some good parenting advice. Here's an example from their website.

For everybody:

AMHIR's music video of Perfect (it's a P!nk cover). These guys and the company that produced the video, HL Films, need to sit down with all the so-called experts and tell them how it's done. All of the filming was done by a seventeen-year-old and many of the students in the video have been bullied. I would take any of the people associated with this film to any high school in the country. Check it out!

The Worst Bullying PSA Ever

2011-04-08T14:24:49-04:00

Thanks to Emily Bazelon's excellent article in Slate, "How Not To Prevent Cyberbullying," I just watched "Cyber-bullying" a PSA video presented by the American Bar Association, with the endorsement of Microsoft, Time Warner Inc., and the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, among others. It's amazing. In four minutes, it manages to not only be laughably stereotypical, but send the message that suicide is the best revenge against bullies.

Here are the top 10 reasons I hate this video and why it makes my job as a bullying prevention educator more difficult:

It comes across like an after-school special from 1985 -- stilted and condescending to the viewer's intelligence. It opens with a teen actor earnestly telling us, "Bullying is not right, it's not cool." It reminds me of the "just say no" drug prevention campaign (again 1980s) and we all know how successful that was.

The acting is horrible. But you can forgive the actors because of the ridiculous dialogue they were given.

Case in point: the bullies use bad words gratuitously. "Fat, pig, slut" is their favorite phrase, which by the way I have never heard girls use in combination because frankly it's not smart enough.

The way in which the "mean girls" cyber-bully is unrealistic and outdated, such as creating a website to bully their victim. Ask any teen, kids stopped creating websites like this in about 2004.

The mean girls and everyone else in the school find out about the victim committing suicide because the principal announces it over the intercom. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous, and puts in to question the producer's and advisers' (Did people from the Department of Education really review this?) knowledge of schools.

Immediately after this announcement, the "authorities," aka, men in suits representing some kind of government agency, walk into the classroom and take the "mean girls" away.

The message of the video is not, "don't bully". Instead it is suicide as a revenge fantasy. When people bully you, if you commit suicide then everyone who tormented you will either feel guilty or be taken away by men in dark suits. To where? Mean Girls Prison?

It doesn't show kids how to stop bullying.There are no strategies and no skills presented except tell an adult. It only shows that you shouldn't bully or else you will get in trouble.

This PSA fails to grasp the complexity of teen society by showing the entire student body joining in with the "mean girls." While certainly some would join them, other kids would hate what was happening, but be too afraid to say anything, and some would try to defend her.

But the top reason I hate this video? This is a collaboration by a consortium of some of the most powerful and influential corporations and government agencies in the world. They have the ability to do a tremendous amount of good on this topic. Instead, they have produced one of the most counter-productive bullying measures I have seen.

And we wonder why teens blow us off when we talk about bullying? We are surprised when they won't come forward and report bullying? Would you trust us (adults) if you were them and this was the advice you were getting?

We need to do better. I want to see the adults who are responsible for this, hold themselves accountable, and try again. Give kids the tools and guidance they deserve. But don't take my word for it. Watch the video, decide for yourself, and contact the American Bar Association and tell them what you think: service@americanbar.org or call (202) 662-1000.

School Bullying: Empowering Bystanders

2011-03-24T22:57:42-04:00

Recently I've taken a hard look at the advice we give to kids who are being bullied and challenged all of us who work on this issue to do better. Now I want to question the common advice we give bystanders. This is critical for two reasons; we rarely admit the complex role bystanders play in bullying and I've never seen us publicly acknowledge that often the reason bystanders don't come forward is because they don't have confidence in the adults to do what's right.

Being a bystander:

It's not like any of us look forward to the opportunity of confronting a bully, as we saw in the recent Dateline special. Ironically, it can often be harder to confront a bully we're close to than someone we don't know or don't like. And no matter how you feel about the bully or the target, it can be easy to stay silent because you don't want the abuse directed at you.

But here are three inescapable facts:

Almost all of us will be in a situation at some point of our lives where we see someone bully someone else.

Bystanders often decide to get involved based on their feelings toward the bully and/or the target. If you like the bully then you are more likely to excuse the behavior. If you think the target is annoying, then you'll more easily believe the target was asking for it. But a bystander's decision to get involved should be based on the merits of the problem, not on their relationship to the people.

In that moment, we will have three choices. 1. Reinforce the abuse of power by supporting the bully; 2. Stay neutral -- which looks like you're either intimidated by the bully yourself or you support their actions; 3. Act in some way that confronts the bully's abuse of power.

In the face of seeing someone bullied, here are some common reactions:

Deny it's going on.

Distract yourself so it looks like you don't know what's going on. And if you don't know then you have no obligation to do stop it.

Remove yourself from the situation.

Laugh to try to convince yourself that what's going on isn't serious.

Join in the bullying, because it's safer to be on the side of the person with the most power.

Ignore it in the hope that it will go away.

What do you do if you are a bystander?

Even if you aren't proud of how you handled the bullying when it occurred, it's important to recognize how hard it is to know what to do in the moment. But that fact doesn't mean it's too late now to speak out. Especially if you are friends with the bully, reaching out to them is actually the ultimate sign of your friendship.

Supporting someone who's been bullied.

Say, "I'm sorry that happened to you, do you want to tell me about it?"

Don't tell them what they should have done or what you would have done. Listen and help them think through how to address the problem effectively. And if they ask you to back them up the next time it happens, ask them what that looks like to them. If it means upholding their right to be treated with dignity and not getting revenge on the bully, then do it.

Supporting someone who is being the bully.

In your own words say something like, "This is uncomfortable to talk about but yesterday when you sent that picture of Dave you know that really embarrassed him. And I know I laughed and I know he can be annoying but it's still wrong. If you do it again I'm not going to back you up."

Yes the bully is going to push back, make you uncomfortable, try to get you on their side but remember what happened and why you feel like the bully's actions were wrong.

Why are bystanders so reluctant to come forward?

Let's move away from the bystanders and focus on the adults. The prevailing explanation of why kids won't come forward is because there's a code of silence that forbids them. No one wants to be a snitch. While there's some truth in that -- I think just as powerful a reason for kids' silence is because the adults haven't created an environment where kids think reporting will make the problem better instead of worse. Yet, the most common advice we give to bystanders is to is tell an adult. Like it or not, the truth is it's not good enough to tell kids to tell an adult.

Telling an adult won't magically solve the problem. What far too many kids know and experience on a daily basis but we deny is that far too many adults are ill-equipped to respond effectively and often only cause the child to give up on adults entirely. Furthermore, the very way a lot of adults treat young people -- in a condescending or dominant (i.e. "bullying") manner -- makes it impossible for children to have any confidence in our ability to be effective advocates.

While there are many effective counselors, even the suggestion to "talk to your counselor" may not be realistic. The child may have no idea who the counselor is -- let alone a strong enough relationship with them to take this leap of faith. Recent budget cuts have led many school districts to cut back on their counselors or eliminate them completely. And it has always been the case that kids tend to form strong relationships with their teachers and coaches. It's these people who bystanders will more likely tell what's going on. Especially for a bystander that could easily think that since the bullying isn't technically happening to them, reporting to a counselor is too extreme.

That's why teachers need to know what to do. Instead of, "That person just needs to get a tougher skin", "It can't be that bad, can it?" they need to respond with "I'm really sorry this is happening. Thanks for telling me. I know it can be hard to come forward about things like this and I really respect the fact that you did. Let's think about what we can do about it."

Let's be clear: beyond the peer pressure not to snitch and adolescent cynicism, adults matter. If our kids see us treat people with dignity, if we are outspoken about our respect for people who come forward, if we are honest with how scary reporting can be but assure them that we will be with them throughout the process, I guarantee our kids will find the courage to speak out.

School Bullying: What You Haven't Heard

2011-03-20T10:11:47-04:00

During the recent White House Bullying Summit, the president challenged the people who work in bullying prevention to look at their current work and see where we could improve. His request came at a time when I'd actually been thinking about the same thing. Why? Because about a month ago I was asked to review a commonly used bullying prevention guideline often given to parents and children. As I read it, I realized that I had never taken the time to read these guidelines and I should have because they weren't as good as they need to be.

Among the advice I thought was most counterproductive?

"Ignore the bully." By the time a child reaches out to an adult, the vast majority of kids have been dealing with the bullying and trying to ignore it for a long time. The only thing that happens when you tell a kid to ignore the bully, is that they no longer think you care or are capable of helping them.

"Explain to your child that bullies are weak and insecure." Who cares? Even if that were true, the bullies themselves don't believe it, and that fact doesn't help the target respond effectively to the problem.

"To avoid being bullied develop friendships and remember there is safety in numbers." This is an example of a tip that is simply not reflective of the reality of people's lives. Sometimes bullies are your friends and very rarely do bullying prevention tips acknowledge this fact or what to do about it. Equally unhelpful and inadequate is "safety in numbers" because you can't depend on that being the case. In truth there's sometimes danger in numbers because people are often encouraged by the group to fight or at the least not back down from a situation.

This information is regularly given out at schools all over the country and specifically when people are in great distress. In such a situation, advice has to be good. As educators on this issue, we owe it to the families we work with to give them our best. We have to look at our standard protocols and advice and ask ourselves a very simple question: Do we give people effective information?

So I've done a little revising to these tips. I don't have all the answers and it's likely I overlooked something so I encourage you to make suggestions to what you see here. I will start off here with guidelines for the target. I'll follow later with guidelines for the bystander and the bully. I look forward to seeing what you think.

If you are being bullied:
Many kids who are bullied feel helpless. Sometimes, they think the only thing they can do is hope the problem will go away. But there are things you can do to get some control in the situation and it starts with developing a strategy and a support system.

The moment it's happening:
• Breathe. Observe who is around. Breathe again.
• Ask yourself what the bully is doing that you want stopped and what you want them to do instead.
• If you can, find the courage to say those feelings. For example, "Stop pushing me into the lockers, I want to walk down the hallway in peace. I know you can do whatever you want, but I want you to stop." Or, "Stop sending texts to everyone in the grade that no one should talk to me."
• If you can walk away, think about walking towards safety not away from the bully. For example, walk towards a classroom where you can see a teacher you trust. If you are in a park, walk towards a group of adults or a coach.
• Don't retaliate or threaten to retaliate. This often leads to an escalation of the bullying.

If you are being bullied online:
Any time someone is bullied through social networking, a cell phone, or any type of social media, it can be really hard not to want to defend yourself by retaliating or finding out why this person is attacking you. Sleeping with your phone in your bedroom is never a good idea, but it's even worse when you're bullied online because it's too tempting to stay up all night trying to "fix" the situation -- which isn't possible anyway. Same thing goes with a computer. Sleep is hard anyway when you know people are saying mean things about you, but it's impossible if you're checking Facebook, Twitter, and your texts all night.

After the bullying has occurred:
Remember that reporting a bully is not snitching. People snitch when all they want to do is get the person in trouble. People report when they have a problem that is too big for them to solve on their own. People who report bullying are doing the right thing. And the reality is adults can't address the problem if they don't know about it.

Report the bullying to an ally: An ally is an adult that you trust to help you think through your problems. An ally can be a parent or guardian, a teacher or counselor. Avoid describing the bullying in generalities like, "He is being mean." Be specific about the bullying behavior, where you are when it occurs, and what you need to feel safe.

If you are scared to go to school, show up for practice, or any other activity, tell your ally or the adult who is in charge. It is not your fault that you are being bullied, and you have the right to be in school and participate in after-school activities, just like everyone else.

What do you do if the bully is a friend?
It's always important to have strong friendships that you can depend on, but sometimes the bully can be a friend. If that happens ask yourself the following questions about your friendship.

• What are the three most important things I need in a friendship? (Most people say, trust, respect, and honesty)
• Are my friends treating me according to what I need in a friendship?
• If my friends aren't treating me according to my standards, why am I in this friendship? Is it worth it?
• If my friends were nice to me tomorrow, do I believe the bullying will stop or am I hoping for the best and putting all the power in their hands?

If you're the adult who is helping the child or teen think through these questions, it's OK for them to think about their answers. They need to come up with the answers for themselves so they can internalize the realization that the cost is too high to maintain these relationships.

I look forward to seeing what you think! Tomorrow, I'll post tips for bystanders.

From Gamma Girls to Queen Bees: The Illusion of a Label

2011-02-23T18:36:41-05:00

Having just read Laura Sessions Stepp's latest article, on the end of "Mean Girls" and the increase of "Gamma Girls" in adult women, I'm compelled to respond for several reasons.

As the author of Queen Bees and Wannabes, it may be surprising that I'm the one who is questioning the very notion of labeling girls and women's behavior.

But I am for several reasons: One, I developed terms like "Queen Bees" and "Wannabes" as a starting place for naming behavior so we could understanding people's actions -- not as a way to box people in. Two, while I have no problem challenging the ever-present "Mean Girls" stereotype, we shouldn't challenge the seriousness of the issue or its larger consequences. Three, by superficially labeling girl's and women's actions, Sessions Stepp misses the larger implications and trivializes women's behavior and relationships. Four, the article's premise goes too far as a logically sound way to characterize people's behavior.

Finally, judging from women's response to the article, women who continue to struggle with these issues as adults feel dismissed and mothers now wonder about the magic answer they need to develop Gamma Girl daughters.

So what is this Gamma Girl? The article defines the Gamma Girl as having a self-perception based on "passions and priorities [instead] of an Alpha who is driven by external social hierarchies or other indicators of status or popularity." Let's take a step back. Who is going to admit to themselves, let alone on a survey, that they are driven by social status and willingly treat people like dirt? And you don't know if you'll act according to those Gamma aspirations until you are challenged -- as in someone wants to deny you opportunities. It is in that moment, when you're angry, that reasonable people can lash out and act in very Alpha ways. But because they feel justified, they'd never characterize their behavior as being "mean."

So let's take away the Gamma and Mean Girl Label and look more deeply at some truths I think we can all agree on.

1. Conflict is inevitable between people.

2. Bullying is about someone abusing power in a conflict. Unfortunately, it is also inevitable. If you strip away the term "bullying" or "mean girls" the actions of the abuser comes in several forms but generally comes down to degrading someone based on money, gender, class, race, ethnicity and homophobia. That's what bullying is and that is exactly what Mean Girl behavior is.

3. Although it's uncommon for any of us to be one way all the time (as in Alpha Girl, Gamma Girl, or Queen Bee), it's common to the human experience that when faced with someone who is cruel we often say nothing, hoping it will just go away, or we lash out.

4. What the target defines as "Mean Girl" behavior is often defined by the initiator as justified or at the least not that bad. That doesn't mean the initiator is in the right, but it does mean that often they are the least credible person to define the impact of their behavior on others. So Ms. Session Stepp's reliance on people defining their own actions can't be taken as a thorough assessment. And ironically, one of the hallmarks of Alpha behavior is only allowing your perception to define your behavior.

5. When we are young we learn cultural expectations of what is expected of us. This experience carries with us into adulthood. Adolescent "Mean Girl" lashing out is often about girls breaking these cultural rules and being socially punished for it. By the time we get to adulthood we often have learned those lessons so well so that we conform without thinking. Based on Sessions Stepp's argument, Gamma Girls and women have moved beyond these cultural pressures. If she's right, why is it that so many relatively mature women still have trouble trusting each other's apologies, are reluctant to declare they excel at something, and obsess about their weight?

Here are the messages I find most problematic:

1. If you can't blow off "Mean Girls" then you are weak and immature. In my experience with kids and adults alike, those people who can get beyond it the way Sessions Stepp wants, almost always have at least one person who is their bedrock of support. If you don't have this kind of support, you usually continue to struggle.

2. Confirming a "friend" on Facebook with a woman who made you miserable in school is proof that your relationship has moved beyond the Mean Girl phase. In a word, no. Let's be honest, for most of us in that situation, we click accept because we want to see what the person looks like and what's happened in their lives. At best, confirming that woman as a friend through social media gives you the opportunity to start a real dialogue.

3. "Mean Girls" only happen to middle class white women. I took the greatest offense to the article's comments about race and class. In a few sentences it trivializes middle class white women's experience and reinforces the strong black women stereotype that stops so many women of color from admitting emotional pain. Based on this article, Sessions Stepp comes across as being ignorant to the fact that black girls or other non-white women aren't capable of degrading each other based on race and class. Has she seriously never heard of people being put down because they have "Payless" shoes? When I was first teaching many years ago at a public high school in Washington DC, I remember a black student saying to me, "Ms. Wiseman, we don't have those eating issues like all the white girls do. We aren't putting pressure on each other to starve ourselves." I remember vividly my response: "OK, but let's talk about your hair and skin tone. Do girls put each other down if their braids aren't tight or their skin is dark?" After that, we could get down to the truth.

4. The Washington Post is not a blog or a press release. Ms. Sessions Stepp acknowledges that a marketing company conducted a study on Gamma Girls from a previous article she wrote for the Washington Post in 2002. Not surprisingly she agrees with the report's findings. I find this disturbing. At best, it's convenient to invoke research to support an agenda.

For girls to develop into Gammas, they have to learn and internalize two things: competence when you're in conflict with someone else and treating yourself and others with dignity when you are jealous, angry, intimidated.

So the next time you get angry at someone and you mull over exactly what you want to say to them and then in real life you can't seem to find the courage to speak, or your words get twisted around or your end up apologizing for making a big deal of out nothing, think about all of this "Mean Girl" controversy, and then forget about it. Instead, get down to the business of taking control of your life and speak your truth with dignity. No matter how old you (or your daughter) are, that's when you're really leaving the legacy of "Mean Girls" behind you.

The Messy Reality of High School Hazing

2009-09-23T17:59:48-04:00

When I tell people I work to stop hazing in high schools I am almost always met with shocked expressions. "High school? Really? I thought that was something that only arrogant frat guys do in college." But it's true -- as long as I have worked on preventing bullying in high schools, I have worked to prevent hazing.

This week the New York Times reported on a defamatory rite of passage that's occurred for years at a high school in Millburn, New Jersey. Each year the senior girls create a freshman "slut list", complete with vulgar descriptions of the girls' alleged sexual exploits. This year's list became public when parents complained about it at a school board meeting. Check out my recent interview on Good Morning America about the incident.

Hazing incidents like this are always a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's horrible to be a freshman in your first few weeks of high school and already be branded with a reputation that you may or may not have earned. In the Millburn High School case the girls on the list in the past have apparently been subjected to additional torment, like having whistles blown at them in the hallway, and sticky notes with derogatory phrases stuck on their backpacks and lockers. But on the flip side, making the "slut list" means that the senior girls with the highest social status know who you are and actually think you're worth going after. For a lot of girls the initial negative stigma really isn't one at all -- it gets them noticed, albeit for the wrong reasons, by the right people.

Why do we take as a given that membership in a group should depend on being broken, demeaned and humiliated? The students at Millburn -- just like many of the students I've worked with -- dismiss the problem because it's "something we've always done, so why are people getting upset about it now?" And with that, the conversation breaks down between people who want it stopped against the people who dismiss the complainers for being weak. But what's missing is a simple fact. Just because it's happened before doesn't make it right. So when students (and even some parents) push back at me and say that the hazing process is all in good fun and bonds people together, I ask them the following questions:

What are the traditions of the school/team/sorority/fraternity that you are proud of? Why?

What are the traditions of the school that you think need to be challenged?

I am all for the importance of belonging to a group. But membership should come through merit not humiliation.

Of course it's not as if the second that I start this discussion that light bulbs go on in everyone's heads and they say, "You're so right! Hazing is terrible! What were we thinking?" The conversation that ensues is usually extremely heated as some kids passionately defend their actions in the name of time-honored school tradition, while some kids -- just as passionately -- advocate for change. But as difficult as it can be, it finally brings these things out into the open and gives the kids the opportunity to civilly confront each other.

At the end of the day, the real question is what is the cost of hazing. Some people think that it's harmless. But beyond the individuals that are actually hurt or humiliated in the process, it affects everyone involved. Because whatever an individual's experience, the worst thing about hazing is that it dumbs you down. The hazing experience and then the subsequent participation in the group forces its members to maintain the status quo and traditions at all costs. It demands mindlessness and unquestioned loyalty, resulting in boring people who have little ability to think for themselves or have an opposing viewpoint from those who have the most social power.