Spring Break
You be the role model
Jason Wallace
Issue date: 2/12/09 Section: Opinion
When I have offspring, I'm going to allow total strangers to teach my children about making the right decisions in life. Whatever this stranger does, I will allow that to affect my child. That stranger will be a celebrity that society has deemed to be a role model.
Different cultures like to boast about those who have accomplished many things, but American culture is keen on making their famous citizens into infallible, beautiful demigods. However, if the celebrity shows human qualities like making mistakes or breaking laws, then all of their work is forgotten and the positive attention turns into bitter resentment. All the while, children are taught that being perfect, like celebrities, is a value to be upheld.
The recent report about Michael Phelps smoking marijuana has really brought the term "role model" a lot of negative light. Why should it?
If I were a swimmer, Phelps' tainted image would not discourage me from becoming a great swimmer. His personal decisions to use drugs don't affect me nor should they have such a great impact on everyone else.
Since the picture surfaced in the news, he has been faced with losing sponsorships and his stance as a role model has been questioned. If it were up to me, I would do away with the term "role model," due to hypocrisies surrounding it.
First of all, it ignores the shortcomings that are a part of human nature. Second, only some famous people are given the title "role model." A role model is usually an entertainer of sorts. Clean-cut actors, musicians and athletes are chosen to be the people that will affect the attitudes of children. However, other famous people, like politicians, are not given the title. We all knew about Bill Clinton's college drug use and George Bush's early alcoholism before we elected them to office. How many major decisions will an actor make that will directly affect a child's world the same way as a president or congressional representative?
Since the term is not going away, can we all just agree that it should refer to a person who influences the masses with the work that he or she has accomplished? As far as finding someone for a child to look up to -- the parent be the major role model.
If anyone is going to teach a child the rules that govern basic society's norms, values and morals it should be the people that the child sees and interacts with most frequently, not someone who they have a relationship with through a television.
Phelps may lose one sponsorship due to one bad decision because the company doesn't want to post his picture on the cereal box in an effort to shield against a pro-drug use image.
If a child is going to learn that drugs are bad, then it's either going to come from some personal experience with drugs or an authoritative adult who knows and cares for the child.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Different cultures like to boast about those who have accomplished many things, but American culture is keen on making their famous citizens into infallible, beautiful demigods. However, if the celebrity shows human qualities like making mistakes or breaking laws, then all of their work is forgotten and the positive attention turns into bitter resentment. All the while, children are taught that being perfect, like celebrities, is a value to be upheld.
The recent report about Michael Phelps smoking marijuana has really brought the term "role model" a lot of negative light. Why should it?
If I were a swimmer, Phelps' tainted image would not discourage me from becoming a great swimmer. His personal decisions to use drugs don't affect me nor should they have such a great impact on everyone else.
Since the picture surfaced in the news, he has been faced with losing sponsorships and his stance as a role model has been questioned. If it were up to me, I would do away with the term "role model," due to hypocrisies surrounding it.
First of all, it ignores the shortcomings that are a part of human nature. Second, only some famous people are given the title "role model." A role model is usually an entertainer of sorts. Clean-cut actors, musicians and athletes are chosen to be the people that will affect the attitudes of children. However, other famous people, like politicians, are not given the title. We all knew about Bill Clinton's college drug use and George Bush's early alcoholism before we elected them to office. How many major decisions will an actor make that will directly affect a child's world the same way as a president or congressional representative?
Since the term is not going away, can we all just agree that it should refer to a person who influences the masses with the work that he or she has accomplished? As far as finding someone for a child to look up to -- the parent be the major role model.
If anyone is going to teach a child the rules that govern basic society's norms, values and morals it should be the people that the child sees and interacts with most frequently, not someone who they have a relationship with through a television.
Phelps may lose one sponsorship due to one bad decision because the company doesn't want to post his picture on the cereal box in an effort to shield against a pro-drug use image.
If a child is going to learn that drugs are bad, then it's either going to come from some personal experience with drugs or an authoritative adult who knows and cares for the child.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Be the first to comment on this story