Land of make-believe can help give children serious guidance in coping with modern life

T HE ISPCC ‘Headbomz’ campaign is great; it’s funny, it’s powerful and it gets the message across in a compelling way. The message is that we should speak to others about our problems because if we don’t, then our heads will explode. This is a metaphor – our heads won’t really explode – but apparently (according to Twitter anyway) children are disturbed by this campaign because they believe their heads will actually explode if they don’t talk about their feelings. It is for this reason that a few belligerently sensitive people have grouped together to start a campaign on Twitter to get the campaign banned.

These children apparently cannot make the mental leap between make-believe and reality with the Stella O’Malley ISPCC cartoon. Of course certain children might find it difficult to process the difference between reality and make-believe, but that doesn’t mean that all the other children should be prevented from benefiting from the wellestablished, centuries-old and widely endorsed method of using make-believe to teach our children serious lessons in an ageappropriate way.

The ISPCC has already withdrawn Headbomz from cinemas as a result of the #stopheadbomz campaign because apparently the cinema environment doesn’t give parents the opportunity to talk about the campaign in a safe way. But arguing that a cartoon with a metaphor about an exploding head is too disturbing for children is ignoring the fact that children from infancy upwards differentiate every single day between make-believe and reality with fairy tales, cartoons and video games.

The phrase ‘I find that offensive’ has become the new way to shut people up. The great premise of social media was that the voiceless people suddenly had a voice. The keyboard warriors have been corrupted by power, and now that the people have a powerful voice, they often act like the East German Stasi: ever-vigilant and ready to torture and persecute anyone who does anything that could perhaps, if you looked hard enough, be construed as inappropriate.

The Headbomz campaign is powerful and compelling and it gets the message across with a cartoon and a quirky tune that appeals to the eight to 10-year-olds to whom it is directed. The naysayers argue that Headbomz is disturbing but perhaps they are confusing ‘disturbing’ with ‘powerful’? The sad truth is that there are some really terrible things happening across the towns and villages of Ireland. Suicide, anxiety and depression are truly disturbing and it doesn’t help to pretend to children that they needn’t concern themselves with difficult feelings.

An interesting dichotomy has arisen in recent years where the younger generation is shown to lack basic coping skills but has higher levels of assertiveness and confidence than previous generations. And so youngsters complain loudly and often that their feelings are hurt but they haven’t developed the tools to process these hurt feelings in a healthy way. Children need to learn coping mechanisms to learn how to deal with their powerful feelings because if they don’t then they could easily succumb to mental health issues in the future. The Headbomz campaign attempts to

help children to do just that, but ironically it is being hamstrung by ultra-sensitive, thin-skinned complainers who fear for their children’s emotional well-being when they watch this cartoon.

Children need to learn about life’s difficulties in the shallow water so that they will be able to cope in the deeper waters of adulthood. There is still a huge stigma about mental health and a campaign that shows children that ‘talking makes us stronger’ should be supported. The Headbomz ad wasn’t created on a whim; it was created with forethought and consideration. It is already a success and has resulted in a marked increase in calls to Childline.

The idea that ‘if even one child’ says they are disturbed by the campaign means that it should be banned is fatuous. It’s not appropriate to ban an initiative that has been endorsed by teachers, principals, psychologists and more than 150 children who were all consulted during the creation of the campaign just because one child is disturbed by it.

Should we try to create a bland world, where everything that could be deemed worrying and upsetting is banned and where nothing powerful or moving is allowed?

Or should we try to teach our children that upsetting and offensive things happen every day but that doesn’t mean their whole life will fall apart as a result?

We could pretend to children that disturbing feelings don’t happen, but then how will our children react when they are confronted with life’s difficulties?