Role Models
Friday, 13 February 2009

I read two things online this week. The first delighted me: there is to be an hour-long documentary, on ITV on Valentine's Day, telling the story of Jayne Torvill and Christopher Dean's ice-skating career and focusing upon their tremendous success in Sarajevo 25 years ago, where they performed a routine to Ravel's 'Bolero' and achieved the first-ever perfect score. As I am a big fan of this pair (as is Mother Muir, who is coming to stay for the weekend), I am really looking forward to watching it. The other thing I read was the story of a thirteen-year-old boy who has just become a father, and there has been a national outcry, fuelled predominantly and predictably by the good old Daily Mail. Kept updated throughout the day, with constant additional information being made available, we have learned that young Alfie was encouraged to share a bedroom with his 14-year-old girlfriend Chantelle (the discrepancy in their heights is somewhat bewildering, but that's irrelevent) when staying overnight at her home, and literally didn't know the meaning of the word "financially" or anything about the price of nappies; unflattering photos have been published of various family members, and a lively debate has occured throughout the day over which of the two teenage parents ought to be prosecuted for having sexual intercourse with the other. Many members of the public, encouraged to leave comments and opinions underneath the text of the story, have tossed around words like "disgrace", "NuLabour", "spongers" and "taxpayer", and blamed everyone from Gordon Brown to the teachers who obviously made a poor job of delivering sex education lessons. And it's not even as if it's been a particularly slow day for news!

Every so often, especially during 'Big Brother' season, a flurry of articles appear in the papers bemoaning the abundance of poor role models in this country and especially in the public eye. People like Katie 'Jordan' Price, Ulrika Jonsson, Abi Titmuss, Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears and plenty more besides are upheld as examples of those who are famous either for no good reason or for behaving badly. Incongruously positioned adjacent in supermarkets to the newspapers containing these articles is a vast array of cheap magazines, the majority of which are almost entirely devoted to reporting the antics of the aforementioned "celebs", and which are purchased in droves every week. I don't know the circulation figures, but I expect they are higher than those for, say, 'Woman and Home' or 'BBC Music Magazine'. A film called 'Role Models' has recently been released; I haven't seen it, but I have read a synopsis of the plot on Wikipedia, and it is clear that the word 'poor' should preface the title. This, presumably, is the whole point of the film, whose tagline is "Danny and Wheeler were just sentenced to 150 hours mentoring kids. Worst idea ever." One to miss, perhaps.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that good news does not sell papers, and that by extension people who do not act in a controversial manner do not often make the headlines. This is why there is always more to read on the subject of Charlotte Church (who spent what seemed like several years falling drunkenly out of clubs and engaging in slanging matches with Lily Allen, before settling down and having two children with Gavin Henson) than there is about Katherine Jenkins (equally Welsh and musically talented, but less inclined towards mouthing off and being photographed whilst intoxicated). Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty may (or may not) constitute some of the greatest musical talent of their generation, but they are far more well known for their respective fondnesses for drugs, whereas no-one really knows what Chris Martin has been up to lately apart from presumably being an eco-warrior and eating organic dinners with Gwyneth, Apple and Moses in between composing new Coldplay songs. This increasing trend also means that it is possible to be famous for comparatively little as long as you make a lot of noise about yourself, and also that you can be phenomenally talented and simultaneously invisible. There can't be anyone in Britain today who doesn't know at least a few intimate details about Kerry Katona, but I doubt many people would recognise the 2008 Young Musician of the Year if they met him on the street. Yet I know which one I'd rather my son took more notice of, and regarded as a role model.

When I was a teenager (which was admittedly a fair while ago), 'More' magazine was about as racy as it got, 'Dirty Dancing' was rated '15' and the teenagers on 'Neighbours' were never shown doing much more than holding hands. Fast-forward fifteen years: magazines of the OK! / Heat / Reveal / Closer / Now ilk are to be found in every teenage girl's bedroom, containing helpful tips on French kissing and dressing provocatively. In 1989 the '12' rating was phased in with the film 'Batman', which was a really good idea in theory but in practice meant that films which might hitherto have been a 15 were now rated 12 and therefore legally available to pre-teens. And it is now absolutely obligatory to feature a teenage pregnancy storyline in every single soap opera, with the justification that it reflects "real life". And so exists a bizarre contradiction whereby everyone is fuming about the long-term effects of the terrible role models to whom our children are exposed, but the media are at the same time gleefully feeding said impressionable youngsters with images, concepts and examples which are undoubtedly playing some part in the evolution of what "real life" actually means. Once upon a time, if you believe the statistics (apparently a rather high percentage of such things are made up on the spot, so perhaps I won't aim to quote one here with the hope of it carrying any weight!), 13-year-old fathers didn't consitute "real life", which is why everyone is in such a lather about the birth of Maisie Roxanne Steadman-Patten. If nothing else, that tiny little girl deserves the state benefits they will soon receive, as she didn't ask to be born into her perhaps unenviable circumstances. One could argue that Alfie and Chantelle were always destined for early parenthood through no fault of their own, given their own circumstances and the role models to whom they have been exposed; they need all the help they can get, given how difficult their lives will be for the foreseeable future as they attempt to juggle parenthood and compulsory education. The sad fact is that if benefits are removed, the country will simply nosedive into deeper poverty. So what is the solution to this unfortunate dilemma?

If you listen to the most vociferous opponents of Jordan & co, the answer is to be found at the supermarket checkout, where all those magazines are strategically positioned. Don't buy them! the campaigners cry, reasoning that the only reason these 'celebrities' are famous is because they willingly volunteer, week by week, for 'exclusive' interviews which promise tantalising details but generally fail to deliver much of interest. However, the headlines hook people and entice them to hand over their cash, thus perpetuating the success of the magazines. It matters not if they end up in the doctor's waiting room or the recycling bin; the fact remains that people keep purchasing them, thus encouraging the perpetuation of the industry. I suppose there's a possibility that magazines might be one of the luxuries that we start forgoing during the recession, but it's pretty unlikely; my own subscriptions to 'Country Living' and 'Good Housekeeping' are funded very kindly by my mother, who organised them courtesy of some vouchers she received - not exactly free, but not putting an additional strain upon either of our purses. Perhaps people will start a 'Pass It On' scheme, borrowing Jamie Oliver's phrase but sharing their used magazines instead of healthy recipes. Either way, magazines are hardly likely to reduce significantly in either number or controversial content. And it is perfectly obvious that the more tales told on the subject of teenage pregnancy are presented in a flattering light, the more such pregnancies will come about. When Rachel in 'Friends' became pregnant after a one-night stand with ex-boyfriend Ross, the situation was presented as nothing but glamorous. Rachel kept her fabulous job in the fashion industry; the baby was rarely seen on-screen, and when she did appear the overall picture was one of overwhelming cuteness, and almost never involved hard work, poo or projectile vomiting; and everything turned out well in the end - Rachel and Ross were reconciled moments before the series ended, and disappeared romantically off into the sunset (well, the coffee house, at least) together. Teenage girls all over the Western world copy Rachel's hairstyle, manner of dress and style of speaking, because she is attractive and amusing and girls understandably want to be like her. Why, then, should it be surprising when they also wish to copy her apparently desirable domestic situation, with rather less desirable long-term results in their own lives? Too many of them subsequently discover to their surprise that having a baby actually is quite a lot of hard work, not particularly glamorous a lot of the time, and that there may not be a happy ending with the father of the child. I really enjoy 'Friends' and find it funny, but I also believe it shoulders a small part of the responsibility for the birth of babies to girls who are blatantly not ready for parenthood. I know that for some of them life turns out okayish, and they sit their GCSEs nonethless and develop maturity beyond their years and enjoy the wonderful moments that babies undoubtedly provide. But surely teenage parenthood robs plenty more of their own childhoods and of freedom and of fulfilling their potential and of any number of plans they might have had for the future. And that is entirely irrespective of the ugly debate on the subject of benefits and council houses and the cost to the taxpayer. The bottom line is that teenage pregnancies have increased in tandem with their profile on TV and in the media, as has teenage binge drinking and smoking and swearing and violence and other things that aren't a terribly good idea for teenagers to be indulging in. And the answer to this certainly isn't to hope vainly that TV will suddenly refrain from introducing "gritty" storylines or that magazines will become less Britney-focused and print more interviews with the Jonas Brothers. They are in the business of making pots of money, not encouraging sensible living, and they know exactly what sells and what will make the all-important bucks, with the end justifying the means in every case. A few people who pledge to stop buying trashy magazines or subscribing to cable TV aren't going to make an enormous amount of difference, unfortunately, good though their intentions may be.

I think the only antidote to this is a greater emphasis upon good role models who demonstrate publicly that hard work and good manners and ambitions beyond WAGdom and worthwhile achievements are actually a good thing to which teenagers can be encouraged to aspire. Thankfully, there are plenty of them around. Tom Chambers, a non-dancer, worked his socks off to win 'Strictly Come Dancing' last year. He is good-looking, funny, popular and his reputation has only been enhanced by his appearance on the show. Team GB, fresh from their Olympic success, were rightly lauded in the streets of London upon their return to Britain, and the abundance of young talented medallists, many of whom were still at school, provided inspiration for budding athletes everywhere. David Beckham, after a few youthful misdemeanours, is now by and large a good role model for young footballers, increasingly behaving with decency as well as skill both on the pitch and afterwards in front of the microphone. Cheryl Cole could have easily embraced a life of drugs and crime after a difficult upbringing in Heaton (although I lived there for three years, and it's not quite as bad as she makes out!), but currently enjoys National Sweetheart status, having chosen not to let a conviction for assault blot her copybook for life and becoming a mentor to young singers instead. And if someone would just pin Jamie Oliver down and scrub his mouth out with soap, or alternatively if Channel 4 would only bleep out a few of his profanities, he would serve as a fantastic example to the youth of today as someone who is evangelical on the subject of healthy food, remains tirelessly hardworking and comes across as a very happily married father of two (and nearly three) children.

The press dubbed Torvill and Dean "Borevill and Clean" when they were at the height of their popularity, presumably because we weren't privy to Jayne's bra size or the age at which Chris lost his virginity - in short, because they were dignified and private and didn't feel the need to share every little detail of their lives with the world, but became famous purely on the strength of their phenomenal talent, tremendous success and amazing partnership whilst steering clear of controversy and scandal. And TV is unlikely to stop creating soap characters like Harold Bishop, Dot Cotton and Edna Birch (all Christians, and cursed with the least attractive personalities possible - although Harold improved somewhat in later years), who all manage to convey the impression that morals are only for the terminally unhip and unfashionable - ie. the antithesis of all that young people want to be. So the more emphasis that can be placed upon those who are interested in setting a good example to the next generation whilst retaining a modicum of street cred, the better.

Everyone has it in them to be a good role model, if they are sufficiently interested in becoming one and in setting a good example to the "youth of today", about whom we may otherwise find ourselves complaining as soon as we reach a certain age. So instead of continuing to give airtime to the tiresome and frankly boring shenanigans of the merely fame-hungry, wouldn't it be great if we could at least equal their input with that of the good guys? Of course, there is no easy answer, but instead of complaining about how much money Alfie and Chantelle are receiving courtesy of our taxes, we should be facilitating a good example to our own children and spending the time watching 'Strictly' instead. The kids get to see Tom Chambers and Rachel Stevens reap the benefits of all their hard work by making it to the final two, and the adults are treated to the incomparable sight of John Sergeant dragging his dance partner across the floor like a sack of potatoes. We can't hope to turn the tide, because that is simply not the way the world works. But we can at least make the effort to stem the flow a little - that is the responsibility of every member of society.

posted by My name is Fiona, @ 17:10

1 Comments:

At 15 February 2009 09:57, scarlet said...: Surely it's the State Benefits that cause the mess of Alfie in the first place, a UK-wide dependence culture where no-one need worry, no=one need try -they'll be looked after and, anyway, it's all somebody else's fault.
Work isn't worth it -people won't work extra because they'll be worse off (as I have been told by several single mother employees who I've offered extra hours to)
For Alfie and Chantelle there is oly one solution - give them both ice skating boots and give them a job on Dancing on Ice