As I read the Washington Post this morning, I stumbled upon an article discussing the "new baby boom," present in many American cities. I was interested to know what the article was adressing and where this baby boom was taking place, so I clicked on it. The article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/15/AR2010051503637. html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR) discussed the clash between single adults and parents in cities such as New York, Washington, and Boston, which have experienced an increase in families with children moving into city district neighborhoods. The article started with a story of a man who was walking with his child in a park in Capitol Hill when a dog jumped on his child and was not immediately called off by the owner. The two adults argued over the incident, and Linda, the dog owner, commented to the journalist (Annys Shin) that she found it aggravating that parents did not stay in a closed of play area where dogs can not go. She described parents as "tyrants," who feel entitled to the world because they have children. Apparently, parents whose children get in the way of goings on in neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill are facing forms of discrimination. Businesses are asking parents not to bring strollers into stores and single adults are becoming aggravated with the size of strollers and children oriented contraptions present in neighborhoods where families are moving in. One man quoted in the article said, "People should think about how they're going to get their food once they have a child before they have a child. Maybe have your neighbor watch your kid for an hour or two.... Maybe mover closer to a store so you can walk...Maybe don't have kids." The man was responding to parents whose large strollers take up space on buses and public transportation because parents feel they can not both fold their stroller up and carry groceries at the same time.

As I read the article I looked for trends that Faludi adresses in the Terror Dream. I was wondering whether or not this article would be pro-family or would go against the trends and support the single adults. I knew the journalist would not outright take a side but I thought I'd be able to weed out which side was being victimized and which villainized. Quotes such as the one above make parents seem somewhat entitled, but also make single adults in the area seem whiny and childish for complaining about a stroller and going so far as to say people shouldn't have kids if they don't have a plan for going grocery shopping with a stroller. Some bars in areas of cities that are experiencing an increase in families with children are having "Baby happy hours," to the chagrin of some single adults. Apparently, babies are ruining the mood for adults trying to mix and mingle. One of the bartenders quoted in the article argued that these singles should just come after eight oclock if they wish not to be in the presence of children. Eight oclock is not exactly late, and children characteristically go to bed early, so these people whining in the article about children ruining bar atmosphere makes the singles seem nasty and silly.

A lot of the quotes made parents in these neighborhoods seem to be the innocent victims. Not many parents were quoted in ways that made the reader balk at their self-righteousness or sense of entitlement. The statement made by the dog owner that parents should confine children to a playground area was posed as an injustice to the parents. They were trying to enjoy the outdoors and animals were being allowed to attack their children. The overall mood of the article, while well disguised, was that parents who were trying to move into cities were being met with hostility and grouchy middle aged singles. The article made all adults, single or married without children, in the areas of increased family moving ins, seem incredibly self-righteous and naive. It overgeneralized how people feel about children and parents, and left the parents blameless. If someone repeatedly tripped over a parents' stroller on the subway it would be very annoying and potentially dangerous. Yet, the families are the ones being victimized. The whole article left me feeling as if I should be rooting for the parents, and encouraging them to hang in there. It was a pro-family article, balancing traditional family values of parents spending time with their children with modern trends of families with kids moving back into cities. It definitely followed a few of the trends Faludi discussed as appearing in the media in post-911 America, as it placed an emphasis on the family and parents doing traditional things with children, like taking them to the park. All the families discussed in the article seemed loving and kind, and the single adults seemed bitter and cold. The safety risks and inconveniences posed by parents who feel entitled to the world were hardly addressed. I was driving through Boston last weekend and a woman cut across the street with her child in a stroller even though the walk sign was off and it was a green light. Of course, I was going to stop the car, but the fact that she endangered herself, her child, and the motorists was striking. Parents who feel that kids give them the ability to do whatever they want, because kids are so hard to deal with or because children should be the number one priority of every American, is an issue, one that wasn't addressed in the article even though it easily could have been.

What it means to be an American hippie.

What does it mean to be an American hippie? My friends and peers call students on campus "hippies" sometimes, yet I haven't pinpointed what it means to be a hippie in the United States. I feel as though we Andover students use the terminology to cover anyone who cares about the Earth or who feels slightly different about the college process. These are the two applications of the word that I hear most often. The original hippies were the teenage Civil Rights fighters in the 1960s. The hippie culture that extends from those original hippies seems to have changed. The media's portrayal of hippies is especially interesting as they so often have to over-exaggerate the different characteristics in order to portray the hippie message. That's the thing with being a hippie, so many people embody part of the spirit. There are people on campus who care about the environment and who didn't get caught up in the college madness, instead choosing to go to a state school or a "random" school somewhere in the middle of nowhere, who don't get called hippies. The people who get called hippies are the ones that look as if they care about the environment or tell their friends to recycle or look/act like "slackers." It seems some of this typecasting has come from the media's portrayal of hippies, which has permeated many popular teenage-oriented television shows. A lot of people don't use "hippie," as a derogatory term. It's often used on campus as a loving way of acknowledging a person's crunchiness or differences, but I'm still interested in studying why we are so eager to typecast people as hippies and where the stereotypes come from.

Above is a video featuring Che, the half-nudist, guitar-playing hippie who was in the last season of The O.C (he's the one wearing the red, green, and yellow striped hat). Che is eager to save the world, knowledgeable on some issues, and often clueless, but he's completely lovable. Interestingly, most hippies on modern television shows are completely nice. They are always kind and welcoming and never do they show their angry or mean sides. Che's garb is especially important, as it sets him far apart from the preppy and artsy kids that surround him on the O.C.

The new show 90210 has also worked to capitalize on hippie stereotypes. They've developed a character named Richard who acts and looks a lot like Che, but whose picture is apparently non-existent in Google Images. Richard is a really nice guy who one of the main characters on the show, Naomi, uses in order to try to get into college. He never yells at her even though she stomps on his heart in her thousand dollar high heels, and he graciously accepts that she has moved on to his jock roommate within minutes of ending things with him. Ivy (below) is another "hippie," on 90210. She dresses in floaty cotton/linen clothes, an has a mother who dates rock stars, dresses in floor length cloth dresses, and smokes weed constantly. Ivy doesn't "style" her hair like the other girls on the show, she surfs and hangs out on the beach. She isn't a great student, but is super "chill."

Without using stereotypes it could be hard for the creators of television shows such as these to capture the attention of teens and give them characters that they can relate to. The hippie stereotypes shown on television bother me excessively because a key part of the hippie lifestyle is missing from these portrayals. The hippies of the sixties seemed to have actually affected change. They were dirty because they were protesting wrongdoings by our country's people and government, not because they didn't want to shower or hated soap. They weren't a bunch of high school kids whose only mission is to surf and sit around and not care about school. Sure, I bet there were a bunch of people in 60s who capitalized on the acceptance of such practices as not bathing and skipping out on work and school without fighting for a cause or doing much of anything, but in general the real hippies changed the way our lives are lived today. Without protesters many Civil Rights bills would have gone ignored. Teens who flooded to Woodstock opened doors for the independence we teenagers experience today. They literally ran away from home for a music festival, and defied the standard that teens stay in the house until college or marriage and generally don't stray from the home. The real hippies of these times seem so much more noble than the versions of hippies on television and the people we describe with hippie terminology. My friends call me their hippie friend because I try to recycle and take short showers, yet compared to the teens of the sixties I am the most spoiled, preppy, "unchill," and least capable of changing the world, person on the planet. Here I am griping about a time period filled with people I neither experienced nor knew, but it bothers me to see a term that used to describe young activists being thrown around so generously, coupled with stereotypes that are often inaccurate.

A final little tidbit about the "ways to be a hippie," courtesy of Youtube.