On Monday morning ABC Radio Australia’s Phil Kafcaloudes hosted a discussion on the ‘selfie’ phenomena with Olympia Nelson, Naziah Ali from Fiji, and me.
HI Laura, I haven’t had time to listen to it – if you don’t hear me near the end, I say that I think Olympia’s idea of risk assessment is good and that facts can help inform that risk assessment. I mention that when I speak in schools girls seem to appreciate the facts, including information about where their images can end up, based on research by the Internet Watch Foundation. Olympia disagrees with me saying that if she heard that she wouldn’t be thankful, she would be scared (yes, some facts can be scary – and can help us see potential outcomes we may not have considered). I also suggest that we need to address the broader pornified environment our girls are growing up in, which contributes to them thinking they must put themselves on display to be acceptable, ie we can’t look at ‘selfies’ (at least the sexualised variety) in isolation. I suggest girls should, when asked to send a picture of their breasts, send photos of their brains instead (a scan perhaps?) to illustrate that girls are only valued for their bodies, not their minds. Olympia is given the final say, where she re-iterates the points she has previously made. She does get cut off a little as time has run out.
The reality is that the facts are scary. It’s quite right that teen/pre-teens are scared by them. This is why adults need to have input – to help young people hear the facts and process them in the right way. But the idea of kids doing a risk assessment, without all the facts and without adult input is very dangerous.
I also was surprised at Olympia’s response to the fact that some girls have committed suicide over the way their images have been used. Her question was ‘how often does that really happen’. I’d like to know how frequently it would have to happen for it to be considered serious enough to share that info with with teen girls? Surely even once is enough for us to take that seriously in the risk assessment process.
I think hearing from teenagers is really important. Young people can provide a lot of insight into how they are experiencing these important issues. Having said that, I find it really alarming that a teenagers views on such a serious issue and how parents and the community should respond might be seen as authoritative or advisory in anyway whatsoever.
While advocating complete lack of any adult intervention with regards to “the dark side of selfies” (child exploitation material, sexting etc.) we’re also told young people don’t want to hear all the “facts” because these facts are “scaring” them. These facts include that they might “end up in jail” they will “get accused of possession of child pornography” and job prospects will be ruined.
These are all true, but according to Olympia, young people don’t want to hear them because they are scary. Is Olympia – or whoever is advising Olympia – advocating censorship of the facts? If so, how are young people to make a risk assessment if the facts (which are indeed scary) are not known?
I definitely agree that campaigns should not be “shame based” but if campaigns presenting the facts are considered to be “fear based” by young people, those caring for them need to ask them the question “why does this scare you?” Fear can be a helpful tool for decision making. Living in denial of the facts and running away from an unpleasant feeling like “fear” is not going to aid young people to make the “risk assessment” advocated by Olympia. (which is a great idea, but useless on its own)
Adult intervention is unavoidable. It either comes in the form of a loving, caring parent or guardian who supervises the use of technology and intervenes if and when necessary. It comes via police knocking on your door to search your devices for child exploitation images. Or it comes via sexual predators in the form of paedophiles and pornographers. We have a choice.
Melinda I applaud your gentleness with Olympia in this interview and I wonder if she is feeling some heat of peer backlash after her wonderful Selfie article. I feel a little saddened by her blind rebuttal of founded statistics; however, this articulate teenager’s stance demonstrates powerfully (albeit unintentionally) the wilful ignorance at times typical of her generation. Her point regarding self assessments is extremely valid but Critical Thinking is a preferred educational (and familial) outcome already…and what use is Critical Thinking without founded facts, a desire to be informed and an embracing of statistics in the face of fear. In her article, Olympia bravely flagged some very perceptive points about the competitive nature of selfies and social media, and in this ABC interview it is clear that she supports her generation’s interest in this medium, but at this point I have become confused by her argument, not convinced. I look forward to her next instalment in the hope that she can continue to build that bridge of understanding across to my (all-too readily terrified) generation. In the meantime Melinda, please do keep rapping out those scary stats – they are far too important to an informed discussion to be ignored.
5 Responses
Hi Melinda,
The closing of the interview was missed, seems to be cut short, could you briefly describe the outcome of the discussion?
Thanks!
HI Laura, I haven’t had time to listen to it – if you don’t hear me near the end, I say that I think Olympia’s idea of risk assessment is good and that facts can help inform that risk assessment. I mention that when I speak in schools girls seem to appreciate the facts, including information about where their images can end up, based on research by the Internet Watch Foundation. Olympia disagrees with me saying that if she heard that she wouldn’t be thankful, she would be scared (yes, some facts can be scary – and can help us see potential outcomes we may not have considered). I also suggest that we need to address the broader pornified environment our girls are growing up in, which contributes to them thinking they must put themselves on display to be acceptable, ie we can’t look at ‘selfies’ (at least the sexualised variety) in isolation. I suggest girls should, when asked to send a picture of their breasts, send photos of their brains instead (a scan perhaps?) to illustrate that girls are only valued for their bodies, not their minds. Olympia is given the final say, where she re-iterates the points she has previously made. She does get cut off a little as time has run out.
The reality is that the facts are scary. It’s quite right that teen/pre-teens are scared by them. This is why adults need to have input – to help young people hear the facts and process them in the right way. But the idea of kids doing a risk assessment, without all the facts and without adult input is very dangerous.
I also was surprised at Olympia’s response to the fact that some girls have committed suicide over the way their images have been used. Her question was ‘how often does that really happen’. I’d like to know how frequently it would have to happen for it to be considered serious enough to share that info with with teen girls? Surely even once is enough for us to take that seriously in the risk assessment process.
I think hearing from teenagers is really important. Young people can provide a lot of insight into how they are experiencing these important issues. Having said that, I find it really alarming that a teenagers views on such a serious issue and how parents and the community should respond might be seen as authoritative or advisory in anyway whatsoever.
While advocating complete lack of any adult intervention with regards to “the dark side of selfies” (child exploitation material, sexting etc.) we’re also told young people don’t want to hear all the “facts” because these facts are “scaring” them. These facts include that they might “end up in jail” they will “get accused of possession of child pornography” and job prospects will be ruined.
These are all true, but according to Olympia, young people don’t want to hear them because they are scary. Is Olympia – or whoever is advising Olympia – advocating censorship of the facts? If so, how are young people to make a risk assessment if the facts (which are indeed scary) are not known?
I definitely agree that campaigns should not be “shame based” but if campaigns presenting the facts are considered to be “fear based” by young people, those caring for them need to ask them the question “why does this scare you?” Fear can be a helpful tool for decision making. Living in denial of the facts and running away from an unpleasant feeling like “fear” is not going to aid young people to make the “risk assessment” advocated by Olympia. (which is a great idea, but useless on its own)
Adult intervention is unavoidable. It either comes in the form of a loving, caring parent or guardian who supervises the use of technology and intervenes if and when necessary. It comes via police knocking on your door to search your devices for child exploitation images. Or it comes via sexual predators in the form of paedophiles and pornographers. We have a choice.
Melinda I applaud your gentleness with Olympia in this interview and I wonder if she is feeling some heat of peer backlash after her wonderful Selfie article. I feel a little saddened by her blind rebuttal of founded statistics; however, this articulate teenager’s stance demonstrates powerfully (albeit unintentionally) the wilful ignorance at times typical of her generation. Her point regarding self assessments is extremely valid but Critical Thinking is a preferred educational (and familial) outcome already…and what use is Critical Thinking without founded facts, a desire to be informed and an embracing of statistics in the face of fear. In her article, Olympia bravely flagged some very perceptive points about the competitive nature of selfies and social media, and in this ABC interview it is clear that she supports her generation’s interest in this medium, but at this point I have become confused by her argument, not convinced. I look forward to her next instalment in the hope that she can continue to build that bridge of understanding across to my (all-too readily terrified) generation. In the meantime Melinda, please do keep rapping out those scary stats – they are far too important to an informed discussion to be ignored.