Sign of The Cultural Apocalypse #2: My Super Sweet Sixteen
Let's play a game of word association! What comes to mind when I say the following words: Red carpet, stringent door policy, divas, crying, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and expensive cars?
If you said Hollywood Awards show, close, but no cigar. These are all things that I have recently seen on one of MTV's most nauseating new offerings, a diamond encrusted turd entitled My Super Sweet Sixteen. And to get it out of the way, yes, the show is every bit as horrible as it sounds.
Warning: May Induce Projectile Vomiting
The premise is rather self-explanatory: take one self-important brat who has apparently never heard the word "no" in their entire life, cut between interview segments with these modest little sweethearts and all of the chaos surrounding the planning of an ostentatious gathering which costs more than most normal weddings to celebrate the child's sixteenth birthday.
The result is a disgusting diary of excess and self indulgent quasi-documentary film making. As one watches the show, it is clear that there is a fairly blurry line between whether the show is portraying these girls(and some guys) as role models to aspire to or as the butt of some rather large elaborate joke. In general, each show is a slight variation on a bankable formula:
Fig. 1: My Super Sweet Flowchart(Click For Better View)
As you can see from figure one above, it is pretty easy to plug in this interchangeable batch of callous, oblivious morons into a stock set of situations and presto-change-o! Instant hit!
Some of the quotes are enough to make one long to have a bucket next to the couch as they watch the show. Such gems as:
"I was adopted...this was the life I was always supposed to have."-Jazmin
"I'm a male diva...I'm a divo."-Bjorn
I think those two had possibly the most sickening of all of the episodes of My Super Sweet Sixteen.
First off, take Jazmin. Here's a girl who grew up first in abject poverty, then a foster home after that. Sad story, right? I would agree. But in this Annie-esque story, the sun did come out tomorrow, but instead of staying humble after being rescued by her own personal Daddy Warbucks, all it took was one Tiffany bracelet to turn her from orphan to evil wench. Throughout her episode, she took great pleasure in the systematic destruction of one of her best friendships, making it a personal mission to completely crush someone's feelings because she felt that person was stealing her thunder. She was then quoted as saying, "I don't associate with losers."
Well, sweetheart, take a long ass look in the mirror. I don't care if you have so much money you shit twenties like a broken ATM, you're still a snippy little ice princess who sucks at life. The only difference between you and a thousand other little girls that came from your situation is that you got lucky. Karma's a bitch, and one of these days I have a feeling that your inflated sense of self will collapse like a Macy's Day balloon when you are finally forced to confront a real world with real people who aren't going to insulate you in the manner to which you've been accustomed. Then again, with society's luck, nothing of the sort will ever happen and you'll be the same sniveling, ungrateful little shit you are now and you'll get away with it until they day you die. Lucky us.
Then there's the story of Bjorn. First of all, I am all for gender equality, but at what point did guys start having sweet sixteen parties? This strikes me as a little odd. When I was sixteen, I got a rugby game for my Sega Genesis and a chocolate birthday cake. This kind of thing would never do for Bjorn, the "divo", who throws a fashion show/party at the mall, replete with red carpet. From the get go, one can immediately tell that this kid is a fucking toolbox. Between the pink CBGB t-shirts worn with a collared shirt underneath and the Chanel purse he carries around everywhere, one can't help but want to give the little bastard a kick in his pampered ass. One of the funniest moments in Bjorn's episode was when he was doing a mock GQ cover for his invitation. Unfortunately for Bjorn, there is not a direct relationship between vanity and how photogenic one is, and the results were less GQ and more P.U. In over half the poses, his mouth was wide open as though someone had shoved a Bull Buster cattle prod into his privates every time the flashbulb went off. Even his own mother was not afraid to tell him that 99 percent of his takes looked cheesy, which caused our young Divo to turn bitter.
The other line that had me attempting to stifle guffaws was when some of his friends were fighting over wearing several ugly ass corsets in his little runway show, to which he said(and I paraphrase), "There's only room for one diva at this party, and these bitches had better remember that." Oh no he didn't!
It wouldn't have been so bad overall, except that the clothes in the runway show looked absolutely re-cock-ulous. It was less pret-a-porter and more like pret-a poor taste. And for a fashonista(fashionisto?), I would have thought the young man could have worn something a little more classy than a blazer with his name emblazoned on the back in silver glitter. It looked like a preschooler had done an art project on his jacket. Christ, I half expected him to rock a macaroni necklace with his outfit.
But this brings me to the most important point. As deplorable and unlikeable as these horrible children are, it leads me to wonder about the parents' level of culpability in all of this. Obviously these brats didn't reach this "gimme, gimme, gimme" mentality on their own. It had to be fostered and nutured by someone. If nothing else, this show should act as a frightening cautionary tale illustrating the dangers of mindlessly indulging one's children, just because one can. It is unreasonable to believe that these vacuous little monsters are created in a vacuum.
As far as its function as a cultural barometer goes, My Super Sweet Sixteen is a strange and scary show which signals a disturbing saturation point where money and appeasement are mistakenly passed off as parenting and leaves us as an audience and a society unsure as to whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity that it has wrought.
19 Listened!:
Wow...didn't know we lived in a society that was run by you and your values/morals/ideas of what's right. If you don't like it - shut it off.
First off, thanks for the argumentative tone. Your snappy, witless one liner really showed me, by God.
Secondly, the point really isn't the show, actually. The point I'm stressing is that there seems to be a certain point at which throwing money around without any boundaries contributes to a society of young people whose vampiric sense of entitlement will eventually become a nuisance.
Let's put it a different way. If you were raising a child, do you think it appropriate to let them essentially learn that it's ok to do nothing but take without contributing in even the smallest way? If so, then I suppose there is a gap in our value structures that is irreconcilible.
Obviously, as a person who writes a column called The Crotchety Bastard for a blog that only gets a hundred odd page views a week, it would be asinine for anyone to believe that I think I am the arbiter of society's values. However, the point of having a blog and a column such as this is to voice an opinion. These kinds of articles are called editorials. Let me help you with the concept.
ed·i·to·ri·al
Function: noun
1: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article
Wow...didn't realize we lived in a society where a person cannot make a series of comments from their perspective without it being assumed that I am somehow trying to force other to mold themselves to my personal views.
On its face, your comment is laughable, because not once did I ever suggest that I think people should boycott the show, or the network showing it, nor did I say that parents should not have the right to throw exorbitant parties. If you paid any attention I said that watching the show is actually educational in a cautionary sense, so that one can witness the poor attitudes of children who are given anything they want. If you'd like to see some evidence of people who believe that their value really should dictate how everyone else lives, you should see my many articles about the AFA, and their underhanded tactics in which they actually bully companies and local affiliates until their particularly narrow world view is met. Then we can talk about whether I am a megalomaniac who wants to make the world conform to my standards and values.
If you think the world is better off with a new generation of greedy, whiny, self absorbed little whelps, keep that in mind when they are the ones making decisions about things such as social security when you and I get to an age where this will affect us.
I would like to conclude by requesting the following: if you, Anon, are going to swoop in and make smug categorical comments about what I apparently think and believe, I would appreciate it if you brought some evidence to prove it. Otherwise, go back to MySpace and leave the grown-ups alone.
Kern, Never forget that much of the Western Civilization whose passing you lament was created by whiny rich kids. Lest we forget in our pursuit of mediocrity that it is the rich who fund the arts, and build the mansions, and buy the high style clothes, and order the custom made cars, and build the parks, and found the cities. Going back to the beggining of culture it has always been the task of the idle wealthy to come up with new things for the workers of this world to creat. In the past these people were of royal blood, and were special, now that has changed and royalty of this world is no longer born, but created. Their roles in society have not changed from what they were 10,000 years ago. They still exist so that we have something to aspire to. It has only been the last 100+ years that the world, lead by those meritocritous puritans in America, has begun to create new royalty not built on blood, but wealth. In the Industrial Age they were called the Bougiousie and they were the heads of large companies, today they are everywhere. This has brought the concept of enlitlment to many many more people than ever before. You have kids in rich suberbs thinking they too are as entitled as Prince William to the excesses of royalty. So rather than seeing this as a new thing, think of this as expansion of a concept that has been around for as long as man has built cities with houses of different sizes.
But for as long as royalty has existed, there has also existed a sizable portion of the populace who lampoon the royals for their exesses.
That portion of society has also increased as we become more meritocitous, and the commoner does not think of the "New Royals" as being inherently better than us. This has not stopped the rich from thinking they are better, it just mean we do not accept their domminion over us.
So Kern, you have not noticed a new and growing trend, you are merely one in a long line of social critics who have stood up to the current royalty to push them down. Be glad that we now live in a society that does not lock you up for the words you have written here today.
Hey, there are GROWN UPS on MySpace, too, you know....
Deit-You are correct in that lampooning the rich is nothing new. I hope no one got the impression that I thought that this was new territory.
However, in my defense, I would like to argue, that to some degree there is something slightly odd about the current state of affluence. The heirs and heiresses of today are more likely to act in a manner which is to put it politely, not very noble.
It is as you said a different period these days, and though I know the rich harbor secrets that are potentially far more scandalous than those of the common man, one thing that many the moneyed families of old had that we do not see today is a sense of discretion.
How this figures into the Super Sweet Sixteen article is that it's not as though we get the impression that these kids are going to grow up with a sense of social responsibility. I don't think a kid like Bjorn is going to grow up and use his trust fund to build libraries, concert halls, or museums.
I do see your point, to be sure. My only quibble is that I think that the general level of nobility which has been ascribed to the wealthy of years past has dropped significantly, which means that while the middle and lower classes still want to be like the wealthy, in many ways the differences are now almost purely monetary in nature, since socialites such as Paris Hilton and Fabian Basabe have kind of thrown the concept that class and money are necessarily related right out their mansion window.
Essentially, if the new rich as represented by My Super Sweet Sixteen is the new standard for whatever social strata I am a part of to aspire to, I'm fine with where I am at.
And so you and the romantics of the 18th century would have been very good friends. Dare I remind you of any of the exesses of Louis XIV???
The rich of that century were not any more noble, they just had more control. If you wrote that Lord Buckingham had a twit of a son who did nothing but drink ale and cavort with women and men in 1587, you were likley to have your thumbs cut off at best. If on the other hand you said that the very noble and honest son of the current Lord Buckingham was a gracious and kind gentleman who thought often of the care of the men and women beneath him, well then you might find yourself set up in a masion writing about all the fabulous exploits of little Lord Buckingham.
Today we just get away with so much more as a critic, that's why it seems so much worse.
Let's even go back 100 years, the rich men of this country controled the media and all of the publishing houses. If you wrote about the exesses of that twit Canegie, well you may find yourself never published in New York again.
And let's also not forget that the rich patrons of art are the older generation of any generation. The young want fast cars and loose women, the old want a legacy. Very few of the young people of today -- rich or poor think of their legacy. They think of themselves. This show only goes to show the universality of elitism. It only takes money to make a man or woman think he or she is better than those without.
But you know, I wonder if the exesses of Kern Returns, if filmed, edited, and broadcast, would look exsessive to those struggling to survive in Sub-Saharan Africa?? Wealth is relative, as is exessive behavior. What we deem as unreasonable is only unreasonable because we don't use it. Is this party wrong at it's face, or is it only wrong for us?
In other words, do you feel that poorer kids do not have these parties because they and their parents are more moral, or is it that they just couldn't afford it. Is this representative of a trend that all children around the world would universally like to partake in if they could afford it, or is this truly an expirience that only the rich would ever want to do.
I say that our meritocritous society has taught us that everyone is equally ill mannered if given enough money and lack of consequences. We all are right there with Bjorn, judging him for his queenly little flights of fancy while denying that we would do the exact same thing if given the chance he is.
In fact, I challange you Kern to get heaps and heaps of money and see if you do not become exactly like the people you lampoon today. I at least admit to my baser nature and acknowledge that if I were given enough money, I too would put it in a giant vat and burn it just to see the pretty flames just like these vacuous youth on MTV.
Deit-Again I agree with a lot of the things you've written here.
You are absolutely correct when you draw a line from moral relativism to that of affluence. Obviously, you are correct in saying that a level of excess will always exist among the far flung social strata.
In terms of The Kern Returns, yes I assume that to Sub-Saharan Africans it might appear that we would be immersing ourselves in ill mannered hedonism of the first order. Would it be fair to say, however, that spiritual and social aims are slightly different in that country?
In certain respects, the persons who would most likely see the egregious gap in wasted resources would be fellow Westerners, as we have the knowledge or means to determine what seems excessive. To that end, would an African in a tribe comprehend what our alcohol swilling and party clothes meant and would they care?
I honestly don't know.
It's not the case that I am trying to say that large parties are even bad. What is bad, however, is the attitude of the children receiving the party. They are churlish and obnoxious, only displaying any sense of appreciation for what they have when someone throws large amounts of money at them in the form of a party or a car.
Would money change me? In some ways it would have to. Does it mean that I would have to be a jackass about it? I would hope not.
I would like to clear something up, however. Despite the fact that I cannot fathom spending the kind of money that these parents spend on a Sweet Sixteen party, I am not saying that it is wrong, and I am not begrudging successful people the right to spend their disposable income as they see fit. My main concern is the attitude of ungrateful children who grow up believing that the world owes them something. It would be a sweeping generalization to assume that all children of wealth behave in that manner, so in a way it casts a poor light on those people who happen to come from money but may be down to earth people.
Ultimately, the problem with discussions like these is that they lead to a certain paradox. If one says that they don't think they would change, people assume that they are either lying or delusional. If you say that money would make you like the people in question, then it makes you sound greedy.
Obviously, I am not the guy with the answers. I am just a bitter, snarky son of a bitch who enjoys picking apart nuggets of popular culture and that's all I can claim to be.
Hmmmmm....
I find you appraisal of the denizens of Sub-Saharan Africa to be a bit condecending my dear Kern. I think their ability to appraise exess is just as developed as our own. My point was rather that we all are capable of exess -- the rich even more so.
My call really is to ask you not to attack these parties because they are exessive or the kids lack a sense of responsability, because this typifies kids of all social/economic strata. The point of your critique and that show is to really make fun of these kids for daring to be kids with lots of money. We cry that Paris Hilton is useless as a steel welder, but that misses the point. Paris Hilton's contribution to the world is not to build something awesome or help the needy, the reason why she exists is to while that she wants a better portrait of her dogs and higher 18 different artists to sit in residence and paint her dogs at her whim. Her point for existing is to make some other rich guy fall so in love with her that he builds a palace using an architect that breaks previous rules of arcitecure to make this the best palace ever built. She exists to waste the hard earned money of herself and other in wasteful and useless endevors and thus provide a platform for the world's artists to thrive. If all of the people of the world only spend money on sensible items, we would lack the art and high culture that makes us a civilzation!
What we miss in this show is the fact the Bjorn, while stupid and rude, wastes money on items that he will later build a museum to house. This is the way of our world. The government does not create art or even fund it very well, stupid rich people do. Trust me, I do fundraising, stupid rich people are the foundation for most of the movements of artistic signifigance today, yesterday, and tomorrow!
Deit-If my appraisal of the Sub-Saharan contingent seemed a little harsh, that was not my intent. My statement was more to illustrate that the Western world probably wrings their hands publicly about these things all the time while being equally guilty of the excesses they decry, whereas the social and spiritual aims of the tribal people of the region you are describing may acknowledge and understand the excesses, but on a more literal level which is not propped up by posturing, etc. Which I admit to being fully guilty of myself.
To a certain degree I don't understand the difference between a critique of this kind of lifestyle as fodder for humor and that of yesterday's Blue Collar Comedy rant. My approach to both was in a way to illustrate that a Crotchety Bastard has equal contempt for everyone. It could be that it's less about the excess or any of that, and more about finding teenagers annoying in general.
I see where you're going with your chain of logic, but I don't know that I can fully subscribe to it.
Is it truly the case that no one will do art if there aren't people to buy it?
I don't know, honestly. I've never sold a painting other than the one for charity so I am not qualified to answer that question.
To conclude this thread, I would like to say that it's been an enjoyable debate which has forced me to think about things in an interesting and unconventional way.
My aim was for laughs, and essentially it appears that I have failed at my goal miserably today. Oh well, you win some, you lose some, I suppose.
AH!!!! Kern!!!! I was just playing!! Don't become disheartened. I had fun and was very entertained. So that means you entertained at least 20% of your target audience had a good time reading and responding to your post!!
In all honesty, I think teenagers should all be taken to an island and dropped off to be picked up again when they are 23 or so. The entire MTV demographic is stupid and needs to be throttled by a crotchety old bastard.
I was just jazzed up on the juice yesterday and wanted to poke the bear so to speak.
So don't lose heart you bastard -- I still got ya back .. my hommie!! (fatal attempt to use street language by a very white guy)
Keep writing and making us all laugh at or maybe with you!!!!
Kern. I laughed. Don't feel down=) I share your disgust for this group of teenagers that is so ungrateful, disrespectful, and oblivious to how truly fortunate they are. Their sense of entitlement is a SHAM because they have done nothing to earn what they have been given, and yet there is not a speck of gratitude or thankfulness to their parents for lavishing them with truly generous gifts. I agree that the rich should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. I really don't think you were trying to say otherwise. But for these CHILDREN to not be taught general MANNERS is a disgrace. It doesn't matter if we are in Africa or Iowa, the general principles are the same. And the truth is, these twits probably will have doors open to them their entire lives, and some poor shmuck is going to have to answer to them, and that's just the way it is. Always has been. But that doesn't mean we can't complain about it. Oh and that adopted girl? Wanted to knock the shit out of her.
Deit-It's cool. I was ending with a fatalistic flourish for effect. Aaaaaand scene!
But seriously, I found the discussion yesterday very interesting and the more I thought about it afterwards I realized that it really was less to do with the class issue and more to do with the age issue. I think my crotchety-ness was just slightly misplaced, but without all of your excellent commentary, I never would have realized it!
I think that this is what I enjoy so much about writing these pieces, is that I have an intelligent readership who is always willing to challenge me and make me think outside the box.
You guys are the best readership a quasi-published writer could hope for!
Adriel-Thanks for the kind words. I think it really sunk in last night that it was really the arrogance of youth in general I don't like, rather than the monetary issue. See, there was another show on E! which was like a ghetto fabulous version of My Super Sweet Sixteen, but with normal middle class parents and kids trying to spend out of their means. And now that I think about it, the kids were as obnoxious, or perhaps even WORSE!!!
And what's funny about that, is the idea that if a certain amount of entitlement comes from wealth, where did these regular suburban kids get their attitude from? Where did their sense of grand entitlement come from?
I would have incorporated that show into this commentary which might have better illustrated my subconscious loathing for insipid brats of all cultures and the parents who refuse to teach them any better, but I have only seen one episode, and I think it's not on the air anymore. Wow, that would have made the article REALLY good.
You do bring up a good point. There has been a steady decline of manners as the class system has broken down. I wonder if from an anthropological standpoint if these two are related or if they are just byproducts of something else. Why is it seen as a chore to wear slacks to work? There was a time when a suit was customary work attire, now companies seek to promote a "business casual" or "casual" workplace.
Let me take this discussion back to an earlier post you made on the movie "V for Vendetta." What level of power should the indivual hold, how should he use it, and who can enforce those rules. We are quickly slipping into a society where some would like to scrap all the rules, and others would like to turn back the clock and enforce more rules. How does this play into our level of rudeness, and how we treat our children.
There is a rule of economics that says all catastorphies are planned. The mere act of planning for a catastrophy can prevent it from happening or ensure it does. Telling people that there is an active volcano next to their town may mean the city takes action to stop lava from errupting -- thus preventing the volcano from being active. Or you could tell people that the economy is in the tanks and thus people will spend less and the economy will tank.
Does this apply to manners? If I tell ten people that everyone at this office is rude, will they act rudely when they meet each other and thus prove the point??
Does a bad kid come from bad parents or are these children really just expressing their freedom from the rules of their parents? Are they perhaps responding to hype about bad kids and saying, "hey, everyone else is spoiled, I guess I should act the same." How many of those brats were brats because they lack morals and manners and how many just tried to act a part they thought was expected of them?
This is a powerful lesson for our society. Do we become oppressed because the government opresses us, or do we allow ourselves to become oppressed because everyone says we are?
Kern, I think you should watch "V for Vendetta" again with this idea. I think it doesn't spoil anything to say that this movie puts out a certain view of society. How much of that is honestly driven there, and how much is reaction to the perception that it should be that way. In other words, we create our own reality personally, but also we can create our own real-life fantacy by acting as if fantacy is reality and refusing to acknowledge the truth.
That was an excellent post, Deit! I have been meaning to go back and watch V again, but I must say its nice to have a new angle to approach the film from.
Bravo, my friend!
You pin head commie bastard. How could you say those things about Larry. He is a true entertainment giant. He is picking 100's out of his shirt pocket while you are picking lint out of your navel. Sarah of the Met.
My father, ladies and gentlemen.
Let's give him a warm round of piss off!
Also, in regard to Larry The Cable Guy, my father seems to be slightly missing the point.
I will concede that Larry The Cable Guy is an obvious draw for hundreds of thousands of toothless, unkempt mouth breathers whose lives' philosophies can be summed up by whatever clever phrase adorns their rubber "beer coozie", which would account for his monetary success. This is not the first instance of untalented numbskulls bilking a target audience who are so devoid of taste that they cannot realize what a brainless hack they are worshipping. One only needs to look at another smashing success story from the sticks, Britney Spears. Does she probably swaddle her helpless charge in underpants made of hundred dollar bills?
Perhaps, but what kind of underwear girds Kevin Federline's loins is unimportant in this discussion. The point is that here is another individual from a very similar socio-economic background as Larry The Cable Guy, both of whom have large, devoted fan bases, and both of whom sell records of dubious quality which have made them lots of money. But as we can see, money does not buy class or taste. Just as Brit-Brit and K-Fed arse around gobbling Ho-Ho's and smoking Pall Malls while letting their baby drive, Larry The Cable Guy spouts unfunny nonsensical catch phrases. And rather than getting through life on a shoeshine and a smile, this downhome dimwit is making his bones on flatulence and an exposed asscrack.
The point of this diatribe is to illustrate that money gained through being an obnoxious, classless jester may make him wealthy, but I for one would rather live by fiscally modest means rather than whoring myself out to be the richest degenerate in the land.
Of course, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that my dad is The Man, and this discourse is totally indicative of the type of good natured verbal fencing he and I partake in on a regular basis.
Post a Comment