Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children, which his writers called “Freddish”. There were nine steps for translating into Freddish:
“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.
“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.
“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.
“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.
“Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
Rogers brought this level of care and attention not just to granular
details and phrasings, but the bigger messages his show would send.
Hedda Sharapan, one of the staff members at Fred Rogers’s production
company, Family Communications, Inc., recalls Rogers once halted taping
of a show when a cast member told the puppet Henrietta Pussycat not to
cry; he interrupted shooting to make it clear that his show would never
suggest to children that they not cry.
In working on the show,
Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R.
Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who
worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to
Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions
about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that
it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support
from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of
Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production
carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse
children in that way.
In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of
child development is actually derived from some of the leading
20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well
known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate
degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there
recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret
McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the
theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik
Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards
in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for
almost half a century.
This is one of the reasons Rogers was so
particular about the writing on his show. “I spent hours talking with
Fred and taking notes,” says Greenwald, “then hours talking with
Margaret McFarland before I went off and wrote the scripts. Then Fred
made them better.” As simple as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood looked and sounded, every detail in it was the product of a tremendously careful, academically-informed process.
That idea is REALLY worth learning to talk to the kiddos. Mr. Rogers still has a lot to teach us–especially for our own kids.
Interesting, to comprehend how the minds of children work.
just once I want to see a good post critiquing makeup culture that doesn’t turn out to be made by some janky radfem blog
oh hey!! I’m not a janky radfem I can do it myself!
makeup culture is wack and normalizes a ludicrously high bar as the bare minimum women can do. I saw a “lazy"makeup tutorial the other day that listed 22 separate goddamn products. you’re supposed to buy and know how to use 22 different things on your face just for the privilege of being considered lazy and that’s uuuuuuh what’s the word? bullshit.
Really, five products could work, even 3. Just frame the face, eyes, lips, and you’re done.
0 products also works great
because I’m gonna be real here, the idea that 22 products is a minimum sucks but it’s really upsetting that any amount of makeup is the bare minimum at all
I would really just suggest some powder foundation, concealer, mascara and lipgloss/lipstick, or tbh just mascara works too, but that’s up to you
I’m sorry if I didn’t express this clearly enough in the original post but I’m not really looking for more concise makeup regiments. my intention was to point out how it’s Bad that makeup is considered a bare minimum at all, regardless of individual feelings on the matter
“But makeup makes some women feel better / more empowered!”
Consider why they felt bad about or disempowered by their appearance in the first place. Consider why the thought of leaving the house without even those five products on makes you uncomfortable enough that you recommend it to random women you encounter because you genuinely want to help them avoid feeling how *you* feel without makeup on in public.
There are things about makeup that are ABSOLUTELY AWESOME, but what makeup *culture* normalizes is (as said in the post above) that there’s a “bare minimum” a woman should be doing in the first place. That no woman’s face is fine to show to others just how it looks because their natural appearance is inherently flawed and in need of correction.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to feel pretty. It’s the fact that women are socialized to not feel pretty unless they have makeup on that we ought to be examining.
(And yes, it’s entirely possible to maintain the point of view that this is A Bad Thing while also appreciating amazing makeup jobs as the works of art that they are.)
Endorsed, but also: I personally would feel pretty differently about makeup if the “minimal” set of products was something intended to look obviously like a work of art, colorful and unmistakably deliberate. Instead the goal of most “minimal makeup” is to look like you aren’t wearing makeup, to look “normal”, as if your regular face is somehow not normal. So you have this arms race of people working to make themselves look nicer, and if they’re doing it right then nobody will consciously notice their hard work. Basically, stop normalizing loads of cosmetic effort as the bare minimum that nobody should even acknowledge, and start normalizing brightly colored eyeliner and sticking rhinestones to your face.
“That no woman’s face is fine to show to others just how it looks because their natural appearance is inherently flawed and in need of correction.”
STEM students when confronted with liberal arts students knowledgeable about something they are unfamiliar with: impressive considering your career choice will make you poor. Did I mention I will profit and am therefore superior?
beto being elected would be huge for texas. as someone from there, lemme tell you, he’s someone the state sorely needs. texas is in desperate need of a democrat and Beto is our best bet. in recent polls, cruz was shown to be ahead, but not by much. cruz. cannot. win.
there are ways you can help! if you live in Texas, you can sign up to volunteer. you can volunteer to do things such as send texts, emails, knock on doors. typical campaign stuff.
if you don’t live in Texas, you can donate. you don’t have to live in the state to donate. donating is one of the best ways you can support him because it funds his campaign! as mentioned above, he doesn’t take PAC money. he is 100% grassroots campaign, funded by people, for people.
i’m going to reiterate this. any us citizen* can donate. any. doesn’t matter where you live in the united states. so, I urge. if you don’t live in texas, donate. the average donation amount is $35, but any amount will help.
*if you don’t live in the united states/aren’t a citizen, legally you cannot donate. i don’t make the rules guys.
if you can’t donate, please reblog this so others can see it. people can’t vote in midterms if they don’t know who their nominees are.
this midterm election is crucial. getting Beto into the senate is crucial. reblog or donate!
Every time I reread the Hunger Games trilogy I become more furious about the movie representation.
These books were about an indigenous woman (with a brain injury in book 3) living in poverty overthrowing a corrupt white government.
She was demisexual, had stomach hair, was not even remotely romantically driven (and canonically didn’t even find romance until after she had finished a revolution.)
And Peeta was disabled and physically abused as a child and they both suffered from mental health problems and the parallel between the Capitol and the ruling rich was so very transparent.
And I’m seeing fun coloured makeup in stores labeled “Capitol colours from the Hunger Games”!
These books were about the revolution of the most oppressed taking over the extravagance and elitism and decadence of the ruling class while citizens starved.
These books were a parallel to our current social dynamics, they were a call to arms. They were a battle cry for the impeding ruin of the rich white ruling class.
And the movies portrayed them as a fantasy, a romance story, a cute little tale. When the real story in the books was one of strength and upheaval and shifting paradigms and revolutions.
And like…… the death of a young Black child sparked the rebellion.
When Katniss thinks about running away in the second book it is the memory of Rue that makes her decide to stay and “cause all kinds of trouble.”
That is an indigenous woman deciding that the death of a Black child is so horrific and unacceptable that she needs to start an entire uprising about it. That is WOC solidarity.
Then again, when Katniss is talking with Peeta about not leaving he literally, canonically and verbally SAYS it’s because of Rue.
The movies did not lend enough weight to the injustice and violence that Black women face; they didn’t waste any time in deciding the rebellion came from their White Katniss’s determination to overthrow the Capitol.
The movies purposely and aggressively erased all of the racial oppression and power and dynamics that were so apparent in the books.
They made Katniss white, they made Gale white, they erased Peeta’s amputation, they seriously diminished the PTSD both of them faced (which was actually one of the more accuract accounts of PTSD I had ever read in the books), they drastically lessened the weight and importance of Rue’s death.
Anyway, fuck the movies. The books are miraculous. Right down to the respect of survival sex workers. Right down to the power imbalances of society being set in the hands of a violent old white man who has surgery to appear younger.
The author said these books was based on her interpretation of kids’ experiences in war torn Vietnam and Iraq. None of these kids were supposed to be white.
I’m SO glad I read these comments, because the movies discoureged me from reading the books. Fuck the movies, I’m so going to read the books now and see the real deal, and not find just another “white teenage romatic novel”
rip tumblr 