Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Same Job Yet DIfferent

By the by, why does the child who dances on the streets for coins gets classified under 'child labour' and 'beggary' yet a child who dances in television and cinema screens for currency notes is not classified thus yet only gets glamourized more? And why does the team that makes these children perform on the streets get booked under the "prevention of child labour act" yet the people who employ these children in the entertainment business on screen get away? So does big bucks change the whole scenario here too???

13 comments:

sumukh bansal said...

though provoking...

subhorup dasgupta said...

I think pressurizing children to perform on stage, in reality shows and on screen is a form of child abuse. We get away with it because we feel the child is enjoying it, loves to dance, or whatever. What we do not see is that we are robbing them of their natural learning experience of childhood and forcing them to process adult issues instead, such as fame, image, glamour, vanity, and money.

VST said...

@sumukh: ok...
@subhorup: why do parents have to take all the blame of pressurizing? what if a child wants to compete? what bothers is what are they competing for? is it the money at the end of the stick or is it something too innocent beyond that money that corrupts us and has ruined most of the elders who take them to stage???

Harish said...

In the case of children performing on street, most of us hand out money as an emotional act. We feel pity for the kid, but at the same time the money that we give never serve the purpose. The kid never gets a chance to come up. In reality shows, stage competitions and movies, the child displays its talent and compete. But I feel when someone, parents or the kid itself uses the platform as just a means to earn money and not as a launch pad to a good future it can be morally said to be child labor. And also if the organisers uses the kids to emotionally manipulate the viewers and raise the viewership, I feel it stand in same ground as begging.

VST said...

@Harish: Don't think I could have put it better than you have. Nice reflection, well thought before penning. I have always wondered why early entry into the glamour world makes children look so old...

Shreya said...

Nice title.. thought provoking post. :)

Rupertt Wind said...

That's Certainly Double Standards.

VST said...

@Shreya: o.k...
@Rupert: Alright...

monica.malik said...

when a child dances in television and cinema The program's immediate success lies in the children's improved social interaction, family involvement, and responsiveness.
on the other hand when he dances on the street...with the poor wage that he gets..not only he is deprived of education but also leaves him/her permanently trapped in the poverty cycle..

VST said...

@monica: Are you really sure that the child dancing in the t.v screen was not sent by parents eyeing for the money?!

monica.malik said...

@VST:
well its a very intense topic...and the views vary from parents to parent..some want their children to perform 'coz they believe that it will bring positive changes in their life...where else others just think of money and nothing else
BUT kids who dance on the streets dont even get money...their wage is highly low...
m nt against kids working..but THEY SHOULD GET ENOUGH CREDIT FOR WHAT THEY DO..whether they dance on stage or in streets is different thing

monica.malik said...

@VST
more over...the children who dance on the stage..do get to study..they do get enough credit..apart from money they get known..they get to socialize..they become more matured as they get more exposure..

VST said...

@monica: I am against children who "have" to work though I would (from a very personal point of view) not go against children who "want" to work. Still legally, a child (as per the UNCRC that we have signed) as defined as any human being below the age of 18, cannot be made to work no matter what the justification given. Hence there is no space for credit when there is no space for work, whatsoever.