7 Year Old Girls Performing Beyonce's Single Ladies?

Marguerite

Active Member
I liked that last statement in the Washington Post article - "Soon enough, these girls, like girls everywhere, will have to navigate tricky adolescent waters, learning to dodge what's unsafe and unwise, and finding out what true power, self-respect and individuality look like.

This performance gives them a big shove in the wrong direction."

Janet, the clip you showed is not in the same league. I admit I do find the sexier ballroom dancing a bit uncomfortable when it involves kids, but I also recognise that when learning ballroom dancing, certain dances have certain steps and moves. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with too much bare flesh (or semblance of bare flesh) in costumes for younger children. It is possible to have a rumba costume that IS a rumba costume still, but covers more of the body. But that is nothing, compared to the 7 year olds copying Beyoncé's video clip.

Another strong point here - when that Beyoncé clip first came out, a lot of people screamed, "It's a bad influence on children, especially young girls; it is one more example of the early sexualisation of girls."
Other people defended this, said it was not a problem, said that she's a grown-up and dancing like this is her right and her choice. And so it is... but this clip of little girls copying her style is clear evidence that yes, it IS promoting the early sexualisation of little girls.

There is a huge difference between a formal rumba, and 7 year olds pelvic thrusting rapidly while wearing skimpy lingerie.

A very strong point here also - where is the originality? Why couldn't the dance teacher invent something new and more appropriate for the 7 year olds to do to Beyoncé's music? The song itself could be such a celebration of female independence, but the moves are screaming, "I'm a woman! Jump my bones, it's all I'm good for!"

And that message from 7 year old girls, is very discomforting.

Marg
 

Shari

IsItFridayYet?
We just got back from nephew's going away party. easy child 1 and his girlfriend were there. We discussed this video and everyone watched.

easy child 1's and his girlfriend were there. girlfriend was a cheerleader in both high school and at college and said that many of the moves they did in their dance routines she was uncomfortable with and was nothing like this video - she couldn't imagine, even at 22, being asked to perform like that.
 

susiestar

Roll With It
While the kids in Janet's clip were cute, and they were learning the basic steps to the rhumba (which my childhood bff's mom and gma taught us, along with the Hustle and many other dances) which is not a problem for me. But what is up with the costumes?

I noticed in Dancing With the Stars that the female costumes try to have no back and as much of the sides cut out at possible. Not on every dress, but on many of them. Some of the female professionals dress as though having anything that covers more of their torso than a bikini is going to eliminate them from the competition.

What is up with the little one's in Janet's clip having just bra backs or halter backs and even the sides of the dress cut so that from the front you see their sides exposed? Is the world really so advanced that seeing kids in costumes like that is OK? Do they have to dress like that to compete? I don't mind the ballroom dancing. Not the way the kids were doing it, esp the little girl. But WHY can the costumes not be so skimpy and sexualized? WHY make the little girls dress that way?

Childhood is short enough. Leave the kids' clothes on and let them cover themselves. Why teach them that to be pretty and dance they have to be almost naked? Those dresses only had material in the front. Not in the back or even on the sides. For adult women the side exposure is to make you look sexier and give at least the impression of a flash of breast. Little girls should NOT be dressed that way.

Makes me want to imitate Ray Stevens and scream for the kids to put their clothes on ("Ethel, Put yer clothes on!" from the song called "The streak")
 

graceupongrace

New Member
OK, this is creepy. Really creepy.

I was in dance for years as a kid, and the teachers and parents were very careful to ensure modesty. If we wore light-colored leotards, we wore undershirts/camis underneath. And there wasn't one thing sexual about the dance moves.

I have to wonder if turning dance into a competitive thing contributes to this -- people feel the need to take everything up a notch to stand out from the other groups. I know some will disagree, but it seems like 7-year-olds should dance for the joy of it, and not to win a prize. (by the way, I don't mean to imply that all competitions sink to this level.)

I hope someone takes the World of Dance organization to task for this. And I hope the sponsors withdraw. Ugh.
 
I think that my response won't be very popular, but it's from the heart.

I'm a 70's feminist to the bone; and I believe that our culture objectifies women in all the wrong ways. The worst part? Many of us willingly participate in objectification. Here's the kicker, children model what they see. I haven't looked at the clip, and honestly, I don't want to look at it. It's all too depressing. Women are so much more than the way we look. Yes, adults may have "pushed" the costumes or the dance moves - but the truth is these images are all around us for all to see. Even, and especially, young children.

All you have to do is watch music videos - especially rap videos - to see what ends women will go to for some attention and/or money. They have so much more to offer than that!

Honestly, do you think you would see a man (other than a cross dresser or transgendered person) tottering around in 7 inch high heels? I don't think so!!!

Ok... off my soap box...

Valerie
 

Marguerite

Active Member
Valerie, the problem here is exactly what you describe - these little girls re dancing a copy of perhaps one of the most public, sexually provocative film clips of recent time - Beyoncé's "Single Ladies" track. If only the teacher had tried to choreograph something original; if only Beyoncé had used a dance routine that wasn't so graphic. If only her clip hadn't won some major "clip of the year' or something award. and so on. If only we didn't accept that this sort of thing is OK...

I mean - why didn't they dance to Pink's "Stupid Girls"? It sends a much more appropriate message.

Marg
 

Lothlorien

Active Member
I was watching and interview with two of the parents and their whole rebuttal to it was that "it was a competition" and "that's what all the girls wear"
Huh??? Anyone ever say the age old expression, if your friends were jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it too? I'm not sorry to say that these two parents (one of which was a man, no less) are out of their minds.

These girls are super talented, but their parents should have spoken up and refused to allow those girls to be dressed like street walkers. So, instead of everyone talking about how beautifully talented they are, they are all talking about how stupid the parents are for allowing the costumes to make their daughters look trampy. How sad.

I think some of the moves were way too provocative for 8 & 9 year olds, but I wonder if they were doing it in less trashy costumes, would it have made the news like it has?
 

timer lady

Queen of Hearts
I read this thread with some trepidation ~ once again witnessed the early sexualization of children & have to wonder what the heck adults are thinking & who made it "okay" for children to dress, dance, etc.

This is tame when it comes to child porn but you know there are pedophiles out there watching this very very closely...

The parents can explain this away all they want.......sounds like they want the success they didn't achieve as children. Living through their children.
 

Marguerite

Active Member
Shari, the perfect answer to those (undoubtedly the parents trying to justify their choices) who say the critics are being judgmental or perhaps even jealous that our kids aren't so talented - this objection is coming not just from other parents in the US, whose kids perhaps might have missed out on qualifying for the competition and hence the 'sour grapes' tag could be applied - no, the objections are coming from the rest of the world.

We have dance competitions in Australia. We even have the beginning stirrings of the sort of child modelling competitions that have made the US infamous. But what we do have comes nowhere near this level of sexualisation. Yes, some of what we have is over the top by my standards. Parents often remove their kids form such dance schools. Unfortunately, only some parents remove their kids.

No, the horrified reactions are coming from other countries where we can stand back a bit further and say, "Wow! Who allowed this to happen? Who allows this to continue? Who are these people to have not taken action?"

We do have the ghastly stage parents here, too. I remember a dance school competition my girls were in, when easy child was in high school. There was a dance team at easy child's school and easy child was often excluded because her dance school was "off the radar" and another girl always got into the dance team, because the dance teacher was good friends with tat girl's dance school teacher. easy child would come home complaining about the unfairness of it all; I actually spoke to the teacher who said that easy child would do better, when she began dance lessons. I told the teacher that easy child had been learning dance form the age of 3 and was TEACHING at her dance school!

Anyway, I was there for the dance schools competition/combined concert. Each dance school was assigned a difference dressing room. I was there to do make-up on the girls, since I've had training in theatrical make-up. I did all the make-up then loaded my belt bag with the basics - eyeliner, lipstick, hair pins, gel, drinking straws (because once your face is made up, you drink with a straw and do NOT swig from a drink can!) and set myself up near the back door where the kids would congregate before going on.
But to my shock and disgust, one particular dance school (yes, the same one that easy child's classmate attended) had set up their entire make-up station about ten feet behind that door, out in the foyer. They insisted the doors be kept open and the entrance clear of people, so those on the make-up table (ie the mothers) could get a clear view of what was going on. All other dance schools workers/parents had to move out of their way. It was awkward and also meant the doors being open really made it difficult for the lighting guys to get it right.

So I also had to stay away from the doorway, in order to stay out of the way. Of course, being in the foyer was better for make-up because you had better light there, although I didn't need much light in order to touch-up.

I found some space behind this dance school make-up table. So I was well placed to listen to them - they were watching each group as they came on stage and commenting on them. One woman, actually the mother of easy child's classmate, was the most talkative. I took detailed mental notes because I finally realised that everything easy child had been telling me added to a really horrible picture, with what I was hearing.

Comments like, "Now, she has a nice little body." (details of exactly why)
Then "She is too fat, she should be put on a diet, look at that pudge rolling everywhere. What must tat teacher be thinking? She should be thrown out of the dance school, or made to dance in the back row."

And the lines that really had my hackles going up, with what easy child had told me - "Look at that panty line. You can see that she is wearing knickers under her leotard. Why haven't they put that girl in a g-string under her leotard? I bought my girl a g-string - of course, she's only allowed to wear it for dance performances and classes, my girl is not a tart. But she has a nice body and knows her stage craft. My girl is a professional, she is going places. And she always wears a g-string for dance, but never anywhere else."

I just nodded and smiled, but remembered easy child telling me how this girl would ALWAYS wear just a g-string under her too-short school uniform skirt, and then bend over in front of the boys and male teachers. Tart. With a big problem - her mother.

Oh yes - easy child and this girl would have been about 14 at the time. Some of the girls whose bodies were drawing comment, were under 10 years old.

I reported this to easy child's dance teacher. They never competed again with that loudmouth mother's dance school.

Marg
 

Star*

call 911........call 911
I watched the Single Ladies video and I watched their Boyfriends Back video with just three girls. The Singles Ladies song? Way too fast for their bodies to take full control of ALL the dance moves they were trying to do. True, there was a couple of the girls in the troup that have a few good moves that make the rest of them look very good, and to get that many 7 year olds together in unison to do most anything is a feat in itself. However - if you have a dancing background and really slow the video down and watch the girls as a whole in rythm with the music for the prescribed dance moves? They are not that fantastic. IF THEY WERE? The teacher would not have to accentuate with the type of costumes she did to draw attention like she did.

The moves would have been more age-appropriate and cute, not adult. There is a fine line between sexy and sleazy. So my vote isn't just for the costumes being inappropriate as a person with a dance background - but the moves themselves are not all that fantastic really. You have one girl that can do the spins with her leg held close to her head and pivot (she's essentially doing that in every video you see of this team) and probably has a gymnastics background as well. Several times she's off balance trying to keep up with the music. That's not good. Trying to keep in time with the music if you really watch them? Even at 7 the teacher could have come up with a routine that was fast, fun and high spirited with a rythm that allowed the girls time for their age abilites to get into place and show talent. Not that they don't have any for their age....they surely do, but this routine was in my opinion a waste of what could have been a phenominal showcase of true talent.

All this did was hopefully wake up the parents - in as much as there are trolls out there now that want yummy 7 year olds. And now they know what the rest of the world thinks of dancing giggly little girls in skimpy outifts. Quite a waste I'd fire the teacher and put the girls onto a task that used all that energy for something exciting and within their reach.
 

Marguerite

Active Member
Hear hear, Star.

I didn't take the time to slow down the video - we'd seen it on TV and that was enough for me, especially since watching YouTube is really expensive for us.

But yes - coming up with an original routine would have been more appropriate and also showcased their abilities more effectively.

Marg
 

DammitJanet

Well-Known Member
You know...after hearing all the comments not just hear but everywhere...online, national media, etc...I have come to a somewhat different conclusion about this dance. Yeah it was a bit out there but really the costumes werent any more skimpy than most two piece bathing suits these days. Only real difference is bathing suits dont have tassels.

Also, I have a feeling that most people are saying publicly that they are against this now but if no one had asked them, they wouldnt have thought a thing about it. If it was on America's Got Talent, they would have thought they were great. Its the fact that suddenly someone is asking them to decide what their morals are and they want to be on the easy child side.

Obviously these arent the only kids in America doing this sort of dancing but you would think they are according to national polls.

People are up in arms now about kids acting in violent home youtube movies or dancing this way or being in pageants. Ok, but why arent they up in arms about the professional kid actors who are in movies who get made up to work in violent movies or other types of movies? I guess its okay if they get paid?
 

Shari

IsItFridayYet?
I'm still not cozy with the moves these kids did.

I was at a ballgame not long ago, watching the halftime dance by the pom squad. They did a few similar moves and I very much recall thinking about it then...and this was high school aged cheerleaders dressed in typical cheerleading attire (midriffs covered) doing a tiny sampling of the moves these little girls were doing. I didn't raise a ruckus, but I very much pondered the approproateness of it at the time.

I see your point, tho, Janet. The bandwagon theory.
 

Marguerite

Active Member
People are up in arms now about kids acting in violent home youtube movies or dancing this way or being in pageants. Ok, but why arent they up in arms about the professional kid actors who are in movies who get made up to work in violent movies or other types of movies? I guess its okay if they get paid?

Janet, bandwagon theory doesn't apply to us here. We've been through this with the local dance school, only what they were doing was nowhere near as extreme as this (costume-wise as well as dance move-wise).

I take your point about the costumes alone not being that bad - true, if they weren't up on stage on display AND doing those very obviously sexually provocative moves. The combination is the problem. And the choice of song, plus the use of the same moves as Beyoncé, didn't help. Purely by association (and over here, we don't much like Beyoncé's moves in that clip either) that choice draws attention. But honestly - whenever we've seen moves like that here in any dance competition, especially a public one (and we have big ones, mostly school-based, every year) they get slammed for it and generally get absolutely nowhere in the ranking.

The dance competitions we have that are BIG here in Australia are generally organised by public schools. Private dance tuition undoubtedly gets involved - I know when our kids have been in these things, generally all the kids were in the private dance school, the teacher just translated a dance school routine to the government school her students attend and, with the blessing of the school, they enter the competition. But anything sexually provocative, and the Dept of Ed is all over the school for allowing it. There are various stages of entry, and at a very early stage, the 'wrong' stuff just gets edited out. They tone it down, or they're out.
A classic example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Eisteddfod_Challenge

Janet, there is nothing wrong with children dancing. It is natural. Children love to dance. They can even be taught more formal dance moves. But dance need not be sexually provocative. There is plenty of dance that is not. A child should not, under any circumstances, be taught to be sexually provocative way beyond his/her years.

Now to the movies - some movies in the past have drawn HUGE criticism for the things they asked their performers to do. Certainly when you see the film, you have to assume that the child was exposed to things they should not have been. But the film-making process is very complex and especially these days, is governed by strict rules. At least it is in Australia. And we know, because we've done it. I've had two of my kids actively involved in film at a professional level. difficult child 1 got hooked in also. So we went into the rules. Yes, there is the risk of exploitation, because child agencies are often exploiting the children. But the film-makers are not, as a rule. Our labour laws are not only strict, they are under scrutiny.

Let's say a scene is being filmed for a TV murder mystery; the child is about to be abducted and raped. What will be filmed - the child will be filmed with the camera inside the car so the child's face is seen approaching. Then an external shot of the child getting into the car. Maybe the SOUND of a child screaming. Not filmed in sequence, the sound recorded either in a studio or in a different location. None of this is in context for the child. The child's parent/guardian is present, as are some officials to determine the child is not in danger in any way. That includes emotionally.

A great deal of the filming is done out of sequence or out of context. A lot is implied by the later-spliced-in sequencing.

I remember the furore over "Pretty Baby" with Brooke Shields. I went to see that film, I read all the interviews. I was appalled but also fascinated - it was a brilliant film, but disturbing. I doubt it could be made like that these days. But even then - the juvenile Brooke Shields wore a body stocking, was never actually filmed or photographed nude. Hard to believe... although according to IMdB, she was wearing just a G-string at one point. Another explanation from IMdB states that nudity at any age is not illegal as long as no sex act is being depicted. I'd like to check that one out.

The thing is, that film probably would not get made these days. Not in that way. But the whole premise of the film, the message of the film, was deeply disturbing. However, you could see that the experience of filming it (in terms of exactly how the scenes would have been set up; the scenes with Brooke) would not have been anything like what we eventually saw.
The scene in that film that said the most to me, was the very innocent one (from the actress's point of view) of Violet (Brooke Shields) waking up in the morning (in the photographer's bed) and finding a glass of milk and something to eat left for her. A cat is lapping out of the glass, so she reaches for the glass, drinks it down far enough so the cat cant' get to it, then goes back to eating the food. She then drinks the milk more at her leisure - that said so much to me, of the life the CHARACTER was accustomed to.

But to film that scene, the child was clothed. It was a child waking up. She probably did not actually drink form a glass that had been lapped at by a cat. But it also showed me that even as a child, she either took direction brilliantly, or really understood what the director was trying to say. From what we know of Brooke Shields these days - probably both.

Scenes with violence - these have to be set up so carefully, when a child is involved. If there is active violence with significant risk, the scene is not played by a child at all. So not matter what you actually see - the reality of the film from the actor's point of view is very different.

When "Black Balloon" was filmed, the kids (all teens or older; most autistic) were carefully prepared for the actor throwing a tantrum and rushing off. They were introduced to the actor, told what was going to happen, told to ignore it as much as they could. difficult child 3, however, was told he had to react to it with annoyance and concern. He was carefully prepared for this over weeks and weeks of rehearsal.

Professional movies are made with strict controls and safeguards. So it's not "it's OK because they get paid", it's because when it's professional, we know they've been checked out by the child welfare people as well as meeting regulations of child labour. Again, getting back to "Black Balloon" - there were two kids in that scene who were under 14 years old. difficult child 3 was one of them. and because they had begun to work (when the camera begins to roll) at 10 am, they had to stop working by 3 pm (I can't remember the exact times). Now, the scene had been filmed by that point. But the cameras now needed to film the audience reaction to the scene. They had to dismantle a lot of the set-up and move it to beside the stage, and aim the cameras back into the crowd. They came to the kids who were in the scene and said, "You two need to sit this out, you've now worked your maximum allowed. Thank you for doing a wonderful job. Now for this next scene - the rest of you can sit it out too it's OK. We will roll tape and play the sound, we we'll still have difficult child 3's voice-over, even though he has to sit out. But if the rest of you are happy to go on and perform, this time not for the cameras but just for the audience so they can be filmed reacting to you, that would be great. So what do you kids want to do?"

The kids were all on a high, they wanted to go back and do it again, even though technically their job was done. Even difficult child 3 and the girl who had to sit out with him wanted to go back on stage. But they were told no, it's not permitted.

When we saw the film we saw that they had filmed the tantrum sequence separately, it was even more graphic than our kids were exposed to, and was spliced in. The whole sequence in the film is only about 30 seconds but it took weekly rehearsals for two months plus a full day to film.

Janet, I hate exploitation of kids in any form. I hate premature sexualisation of kids in any form. I agree, YouTube is overloaded with some really dangerous stuff which is NOT filmed with any child safety considerations in mind whatsoever, and I think someone at YouTube is going to have to take a stand over what they accept. Some nasty stuff gets posted and anything that has been filmed at someone else's expense should be banned. The trouble is, more begets more. Like begets like. It's not the professional stuff that is the concern. It's the amateur, who doesn't understand how the professionals do it, nor do they follow the rules, the safeguards, the checks, the balances.

There are cultural differences between us here, I know it. In Australia we watch US-based video clips and wonder what they mean by this, or that. Why the apparent emphasis on shaking someone's rear end at the camera? Here, that doesn't make sense to us and video clips that over-use it tend to bomb over here. In Australia, the rear end, especially when being obviously thrust into view or exaggerated in any way, is more a joke than a sexually inviting part of the anatomy.

But Beyoncé's film clip for that song - it just doesn't make sense to us. It's as if she was filmed "pleasuring herself" publicly, rather than doing anything meaningful. To us Down Under it's aggressive, it seems pointless because she's just standing there moving like that - for why? It's like she's advertising, "I can move like this, so I would be so good at sex that you wouldn't have to move at all, I could do all the work for you," while at the same time her words are saying, "Get lost, you've missed your chance." If she is saying this, then her moves belie her motives. Her moves imply she really is angry at the betrayal and is flaunting her sexual capability at the person who failed to follow through with her. So she (her character in the clip) is clearly NOT over him, she is sending out very mixed messages.

So while the words would seem to be empowering to women, the moves definitely are not. No way, no how.

And to teach those same moves to little girls - I'm beyond appalled. And my opinion has not been influenced by anybody.

But as I said, I do recognise that this definitely has a cultural component.

We're not strait-laced here in Australia. No way. We have stuff on our TV shows that have often taken US performers here by surprise. I remember we were billetting some people from the US at our place and one bloke was appalled when our kids told him that their favourite TV show was called "Full Frontal". He was disgusted that we let our kids watch it, but it was a comedy show with no nudity at all. The name was referring to a no-holds-barred humour, nothing sacred.

However, even in professional circles, things sometimes go wrong. A current controversy in Australia is a TV sitcom which was a big hit in the 80s. "Hey, Dad!" has now been the focus for allegations that the lead actor was a sexual predator of the children in his cast.

http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/celebrityheadlines/1026162/hey-dad-sex-scandal

Because these allegations have been made so publicly, it is unlikely that charges will be brought. But we all did wonder when the lead actor left the show (and the country) abruptly at the height of its success. They had even hired a chaperone for the kids, but the abuse continued despite the kids reporting their experiences to the show's producer. So in this situation, the safeguards in place had failed to protect.

But the thing is - at least there were safeguards in place. And we all know how pedophiles are able to get around safeguards. The failure of the system to protect, does not mean the system is bad. It just means it was not good enough here. At least it is there, where so many amateur films and video footage is being made with zero safeguards.

If we say about this kiddie clip that OK, other people do it, so we have to let it slide - then we are saying, "This is OK to continue."

And I don't think it is.

The parents don't see anything wrong. But they are not the villains. The teacher taught the kids (not very original) but she is only giving people what she feels they want. She is not the villain either. Beyoncé put her film clip together and has made a motza. She gave people what they wanted and won an award for it. Is she the villain?

No, the problem lies with US for what we accept. At some point we have to say, "OK, stop!" If rules have to be brought in, then so be it. Sometimes that is what it takes to get the message through, that some things are not as OK as we might have thought.

Marg
 

witzend

Well-Known Member
They're in another video from last year at another competition. They're wearing what is essentially two piece swim suits with thigh high fish nets and bumping and grinding to "My Boyfriend's Back." They were only 6 years old.

Janet, I get it that it would be great if Keyana had that kind of talent. The costumes are wrong, wrong, wrong! There are so many cute skirts that they could have worn and still shown off the moves.
Mods, feel free to delete this (not even a) link (just an address) if it is too offensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cI2...37C765C42&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
 

DaisyFace

Love me...Love me not
I think the key here, though is that these parents are actively seeking the comparisons to Beyonce or Janet Jackson or Britney Spears...

Why?

Because they want their child to be perceived as "The NEXT Beyonce" or "the NEXT Hannah Montana".

They are viewing these dance competitions and viral videos and media attention as the chance to get their child into the spotlight--a chance to make their child famous--a "Star".
 
Top