[This article is from www.kidsloveearth.co.uk and research carried out by Robinsons be Natural products. Please contact them for more info if necessary]
"School children know less about nature and more about David Beckham
Research released today has found that British primary school children can list almost four times as many celebrities as they can wildflowers, birds and wild animals. The research, which sought to uncover how much children know about nature, also found that one in four children are not aware that a tadpole develops into a frog in later life.
When asked to identify celebrities, children aged 6-11 years could list on average 8 celebs with pop sensation, Miley Cyrus (aka Hannah Montana) as the number one pick, followed closely by David Beckham, Wayne Rooney and Zach Efron from High School Musical. Other popular picks for girls included Britney Spears and Kylie Minogue, whilst boys reeled off famous faces such as Steven Gerrard, Simon Cowell and Michael Jackson.
Conversely, when asked to turn their focus to the British countryside, children could only name on average 2 wild flowers, 3 wild animals and 4 garden birds. Children were however able to spin off the names of 10 cartoon characters in addition to the 8 celebrities.
Interestingly, almost half of children surveyed (47%) said playing outside was their favourite playtime activity. Yet despite this passion for the outdoors, the research results showed that children know very little about the world around them.
The survey, undertaken by Robinsons be Natural involved more than 1,000 families across the UK. Other key findings from the research are listed below.
- 1/4 of children in the Midlands believe the dolphin is a common wild animal found in the UK
- 14% of children could not list any wild animals in the UK countryside. The figures were highest in Wales with 25% of Welsh children unable to list any wild animals
- 27% of children in Northern Ireland were not aware a caterpillar develops into a butterfly in later life
- Children in London listed the tomato as a common British wild flower, whilst children in the North West named the penguin as a garden bird residing in the UK
Top 5 Celebrities Named:
1. Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana)
2. David Beckham
3. Wayne Rooney
4. Zach Efron
5. Britney Spears
Top 5 Cartoon Characters Named:
1. Spongebob Squarepants
2. Simpsons Characters (Bart/Homer)
3. Tom and Jerry
4. Scooby Doo
5. Mickey Mouse
Top 5 Wild Flowers Named:
1. Daisy
2. Buttercup
3. Dandilion
4. Bluebell
5. Poppy
Top 5 Wild Animals Named:
1. Fox
2. Rabbit
3. Squirrel
4. Deer
5. Badger
Top 5 Garden Birds Named:
1. Robin
2. Blackbird
3. Pigeon
4. Blue Tit
5. Chaffinch
http://www.kidsloveearth.co.uk/downloads/School%20children%20know%20less%20about%20nature%20and%20more%20about%20David%20Beckham.doc "
Readers must bare in mind that this research has been carried out by a corporation (Robinsons be Natural) in pursuit of profit, but nevertheless its research results have been constantly replicated by many other studies and research in this field.
We are witnessing the first generations of children and young adults that understand and experience more from the media than the natural world, and whom are influenced more by celebrity culture than ever before. All at a time when the need for action to counteract climate change is long overdue, and many studies on the topic show what we already know: that the media perpetuates sexist, racist and homophobic influences within society, and therefore within the individual: especially the growing child.
Is this a harmless societal 'progression' (or 'regression') that we must accept? Or are we shamefully failing the next generation of young adults by not addressing these issues?
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Monday, 29 June 2009
New Book Extract: 'Turning Children into Consumers' by Sharon Beder
[This book report is from Media Lens- "Correcting for the Distorted Vision of the Corporate Media" www.medialens.org, please sign up to their emailed 'media alerts' to receive more info about media-related books like this one]
Introduction
Sharon Beder, visiting professor at the University of Wollongong, Australia, is one of our favourite political analysts. Her book ‘Global Spin’ (Green Books, 1997), is a devastating exposé of corporate, including corporate media, manipulation of politics and culture. Like Mark Curtis’s ‘The Ambiguities of Power,’ it is a book that defies attempts to underline the interesting bits - it’s all interesting! The title of Beder’s new book is self-explanatory: ‘This Little Kiddy Went To Market- The Corporate Capture Of Childhood.’ (Pluto Press, 2009)
Once again, this is a must-read analysis explaining how people and planet are being systematically subordinated to profit. We were so impressed by the second chapter, ‘Turning Children Into Consumers,’ that even before finishing the book we wrote to Beder asking if we could use some of it in a guest media alert. She has very kindly agreed. You can order a copy of ‘This Little Kiddy Went To Market’ at a specially discounted price from Pluto Press here: http://www.plutobooks.com/beder/ Sincere thanks to Sharon Beder and Pluto Press for letting us publish this tremendous material.
We invite you to imagine a world in which Beder’s work was “on every school curriculum”, as John Pilger recommends. Imagine if children were provided with tools of intellectual self-defence to counter the relentless campaigns of corporate manipulation. It is simultaneously depressing and heartening to consider how much happier, healthier, more compassionate our society would be as a result.
David Edwards and David Cromwell
Media Lens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TURNING CHILDREN INTO CONSUMERS
Sharon Beder
Extracted from “This Little Kiddy Went to Market: The Corporate Capture of Childhood”, Pluto Press, London, 2009.
Children are naïve about advertising and can easily be manipulated and exploited by marketers to want and demand their products. Corporate marketers believe that overtime they can be shaped into lifelong consumers with brand loyalties and that can be profitable for decades to come. What is more, children influence family spending decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars on household items like furniture, electrical appliances and computers, vacations, and even the family car.
Corporations began targeting their marketing messages directly to children during the 1980s, as affluent adult markets became saturated with consumer goods. Large firms established ‘kids’ departments and smaller firms specialised in marketing to children. A number of advertising industry publications were created such as Selling to Kids and Marketing to Kids Report. The academic literature began to feature studies of children as consumers. In the US the amount corporations spent marketing to children under twelve increased by five times between 1980 and 1990 and ten times more during the 1990s. In 2004 around $15 billion was being spent marketing to children.
Conferences on the best ways to market to children are held all over the world. There are also awards for the best advertisements and marketing campaigns with hundreds of entries. Much marketing to children now consists of sales promotions such as direct coupons, free gifts and samples, contests and sweepstakes, and public relations exercises such as using celebrities and licensed characters to visit shopping centres and schools. These additional forms of marketing have supplemented rather than replaced advertising as the importance of the children’s market has grown. Their aim however is the same as advertising.
The international children’s market is increasingly attractive to transnational corporations who seek to make their brands and products popular in different cultural milieus. The food industry was a pioneer in these efforts. In 1997 Brandweek magazine noted that McDonald’s was the favourite fast food all over the world and Coca-Cola the favourite drink.
To read the rest of this media alert, please go to: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
Introduction
Sharon Beder, visiting professor at the University of Wollongong, Australia, is one of our favourite political analysts. Her book ‘Global Spin’ (Green Books, 1997), is a devastating exposé of corporate, including corporate media, manipulation of politics and culture. Like Mark Curtis’s ‘The Ambiguities of Power,’ it is a book that defies attempts to underline the interesting bits - it’s all interesting! The title of Beder’s new book is self-explanatory: ‘This Little Kiddy Went To Market- The Corporate Capture Of Childhood.’ (Pluto Press, 2009)
Once again, this is a must-read analysis explaining how people and planet are being systematically subordinated to profit. We were so impressed by the second chapter, ‘Turning Children Into Consumers,’ that even before finishing the book we wrote to Beder asking if we could use some of it in a guest media alert. She has very kindly agreed. You can order a copy of ‘This Little Kiddy Went To Market’ at a specially discounted price from Pluto Press here: http://www.plutobooks.com/beder/ Sincere thanks to Sharon Beder and Pluto Press for letting us publish this tremendous material.
We invite you to imagine a world in which Beder’s work was “on every school curriculum”, as John Pilger recommends. Imagine if children were provided with tools of intellectual self-defence to counter the relentless campaigns of corporate manipulation. It is simultaneously depressing and heartening to consider how much happier, healthier, more compassionate our society would be as a result.
David Edwards and David Cromwell
Media Lens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TURNING CHILDREN INTO CONSUMERS
Sharon Beder
Extracted from “This Little Kiddy Went to Market: The Corporate Capture of Childhood”, Pluto Press, London, 2009.
Children are naïve about advertising and can easily be manipulated and exploited by marketers to want and demand their products. Corporate marketers believe that overtime they can be shaped into lifelong consumers with brand loyalties and that can be profitable for decades to come. What is more, children influence family spending decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars on household items like furniture, electrical appliances and computers, vacations, and even the family car.
Corporations began targeting their marketing messages directly to children during the 1980s, as affluent adult markets became saturated with consumer goods. Large firms established ‘kids’ departments and smaller firms specialised in marketing to children. A number of advertising industry publications were created such as Selling to Kids and Marketing to Kids Report. The academic literature began to feature studies of children as consumers. In the US the amount corporations spent marketing to children under twelve increased by five times between 1980 and 1990 and ten times more during the 1990s. In 2004 around $15 billion was being spent marketing to children.
Conferences on the best ways to market to children are held all over the world. There are also awards for the best advertisements and marketing campaigns with hundreds of entries. Much marketing to children now consists of sales promotions such as direct coupons, free gifts and samples, contests and sweepstakes, and public relations exercises such as using celebrities and licensed characters to visit shopping centres and schools. These additional forms of marketing have supplemented rather than replaced advertising as the importance of the children’s market has grown. Their aim however is the same as advertising.
The international children’s market is increasingly attractive to transnational corporations who seek to make their brands and products popular in different cultural milieus. The food industry was a pioneer in these efforts. In 1997 Brandweek magazine noted that McDonald’s was the favourite fast food all over the world and Coca-Cola the favourite drink.
To read the rest of this media alert, please go to: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
Thursday, 25 June 2009
'Fallen Princesses': Anti-Disney Art
Disney.
What images and emotions does this word conjure up for you?
For years now, I've been wanting to create a visual image- a piece of artwork- that sums up how I feel about the sexist, racist, capitalist, (add your own 'ist' here), Nazi-funding empire that is 'Disney'.
Finally the life-long dream was fulfilled when, thanks to a photoshop-savvy friend (view her online news and culture mag here: http://www.labouchemag.com/), the image of TinkeREBEL burning down the pink Disney princess castle appeared within the CRAP! Collective's 'Raise Some Hell!' zine (see PDF in sidebar, or email the Collective for a copy of the zine). The Collective is planning to create a series of these images- probably as more of a cathartic remedy for ourselves, rather than a political statement! (Get in touch with us for collaborative possibilites, or if you know of any great anti-Disney art out there that would satisfy our bloodlust)...
Anyway, when reading the blog 'blue milk' (http://www.bluemilk.wordpress.com/), I saw this series of wickedly stunning photographs entitled 'Fallen Princesses' by Dina Goldstein (See 'Cinderella' photo opposite; more photos from the project here: http://www.jpgmag.com/stories/11918), and they totally hit the spot! Although they're not anti-Disney, and also aren't empowering images of the women, they are certainly thought-provoking, and it's refreshing to see the Disney facade stripped away. As Dina describes them: "These works place Fairy Tale characters in modern day scenarios. In all of the images the Princess is placed in an environment that articulates her conflict. The '...happily ever after' is replaced with a realistic outcome and addresses current issues...such as illness, addiction and self-image issues".
Have you created feminist anti-Disney art? Send us a photo here!
What images and emotions does this word conjure up for you?
For years now, I've been wanting to create a visual image- a piece of artwork- that sums up how I feel about the sexist, racist, capitalist, (add your own 'ist' here), Nazi-funding empire that is 'Disney'.
Finally the life-long dream was fulfilled when, thanks to a photoshop-savvy friend (view her online news and culture mag here: http://www.labouchemag.com/), the image of TinkeREBEL burning down the pink Disney princess castle appeared within the CRAP! Collective's 'Raise Some Hell!' zine (see PDF in sidebar, or email the Collective for a copy of the zine). The Collective is planning to create a series of these images- probably as more of a cathartic remedy for ourselves, rather than a political statement! (Get in touch with us for collaborative possibilites, or if you know of any great anti-Disney art out there that would satisfy our bloodlust)...
Anyway, when reading the blog 'blue milk' (http://www.bluemilk.wordpress.com/), I saw this series of wickedly stunning photographs entitled 'Fallen Princesses' by Dina Goldstein (See 'Cinderella' photo opposite; more photos from the project here: http://www.jpgmag.com/stories/11918), and they totally hit the spot! Although they're not anti-Disney, and also aren't empowering images of the women, they are certainly thought-provoking, and it's refreshing to see the Disney facade stripped away. As Dina describes them: "These works place Fairy Tale characters in modern day scenarios. In all of the images the Princess is placed in an environment that articulates her conflict. The '...happily ever after' is replaced with a realistic outcome and addresses current issues...such as illness, addiction and self-image issues". Have you created feminist anti-Disney art? Send us a photo here!
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Children's Television - Sexist media representing a sexist world.
I’m the first to admit that I am at times a slack mum. What with two children, two jobs, a partner, activism, a social life, a flat and garden and the rest, I wasn’t going to beat myself up for leaving my daughter in front of the telly, sometimes for hours at a time so that I could just get on with it. However it wasn’t something I often admitted to others and I did used to feel guilty. I knew it was bad parenting but the quiet time it gave me was precious and necessary, I thought. Molly loved tv, and could literally watch it for hours, leaving me time to have a cigarette, send some emails, tidy the house, sit and chill for five minutes, whatever!
It did however come as a shock when, surprise surprise, despite all my best efforts at feminist parenting, age four my daughter transformed from a happy-go-lucky confident unselfconscious grubby child into a pristine pink princess with a “passion for fashion”. Her sexist utterances were even more surprising, “girls can’t have short hair”, “boys can’t play fairies” and her refusal to wear anything that wasn’t a dress and pink or sparkly ensured mornings were traumatic for all involved.
Although I tried to deny it for a while, I knew it was my fault, after all mothers are the primary passeroners of patriarchal values. My slackness, my desire for a few quiet moments, had left my daughter vulnerable to the brainwashing. I knew the risks, I knew the danger of the mainstream media, its power to corrupt, and I deliberateraly sat her down in front of it. I thought I could beat it. I couldn’t!
Its sexist, its racist, its homophobic, its classist, it twists reality, it makes us feel insecure, its pushes consumerism down our throats, it promotes violence, competition, vanity, selfishness, and that’s just the children’s programmes, never mind all the rest.
Bob the Builder, Postman Pat, Underground Ernie, Lunar Jim, Gordon the Gnome, Bottletop Bill, Mr. Men Show, Thomas the Tankengine, Roary the Racingcar, eh hello, say no bloody more! Its obvious what the problem is, isn’t it? The whole plotline is based around boys and men, the main character is male. There are sometimes female characters but they’re always the sidekick. Even when the main character is an inanimate object, like a train or car or robot, or an animal, its still blatantly a male character. Even if I had a son I would find these characters deeply sexist, they’re so 2d, strong, clever, they work hard in traditional male roles, they don’t show emotion, etc.
Where are the programmes with girls or women as the stars, where are the female role models? Although few and far between there are programmes where girls and women star such as Peppa Pig, the Little Princess, Bratz, Fifi and the Flowertots. But then these types of programmes are even more disturbing than the overtly sexist ones mentioned above. The female characters in them are kind, caring, passive, spoilt, and immature, they love cooking and ballet and very little more, and they’re all bloody pink!
And it’s not just me with my “warped” feminist mind making problems where there’s none, last year a comprehensive study of children’s television was done and it proved rather conclusively that it is a biased media representing a biased world.
The International Central Institute for Youth Educational Television (better known by its German acronym IZI) released findings on gender representation in 19,664 programmes from 24 countries in what was according to them “the worlds large quantitive media analysis of children’s television so far”. The survey showed very clearly that there IS a gender imbalance in favour of male characters in television programming for children in public and private programmes, domestic and international programmes and in animated and real life formats and that this is the trend all over the world. Surprisingly, to them perhaps, public and state broadcasters have a worse gender balance ratio (31%:69% female to male representation) than their private counterparts who stand at 33%:67%. The reports authors consider this a remarkable result “since public broadcasters – with the public mandate – have the responsibility for representing reality in a balanced way. The reality of human life is 51% female to 49% male (unfortunately the report does not consider those people who are trans, intersex or do not identify as male or female), which could not be found in children’s TV anywhere”.
The researchers found that girls and women account for only 32% of lead characters compared to 68% for boys and men. In some series girls and women are almost absent. Animation programmes have 87% male characters as compared to 13% female and this leads the researchers to conclude that “the reality of children’s television proves. that today gender equality is still a long way off”, but hey we already knew that.
And this is just the gender bias, children’s tv is also racist. 72% of all main characters in children programmers around the world are white. I would also like to know what the figures are in relation to representations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in children’s programming, as well as people with disabilities and I don’t think that I have ever seen any representation of any other family structures other than that of the traditional nuclear family.
Basically this report backs up what many of us have observed, the media, in this case children’s media, as a cultural vehicle only presents an extremely limited, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist view of society where women and girls are portrayed as beautiful, underweight, sexualised, modest, tidy and moral beings who are motivated by a romantic interest and are dependant on males who, in their turn are leaders, heterosexual, able-bodied and white!
What are we saying to our children? In particular what are we saying to our daughters? We’re saying to them that they can’t be builders, or postmen, or astronauts, or whatever they want, that they can merely aim to being feisty yet fashionable. Little girls are presented as only valid as princesses, pretty in pink, secondary to males. Our daughters are not secondary, they are the primary characters in their own lives, and so should be represented as such.
I hate it on so many levels, for what it does to me, my children, women, and the world. I got so fed up of shouting at the telly, of trying to critique the propaganda with my daughter, of seeing little fairy princess dvds, of seeing advertisements aimed at parents through their children, where girls wear pink and play with dolls and boys wear blue and like transformers. I was going to try to write a letter to the heads of broadcasting for children at the various tv channels, but I reckoned we’re too far gone for that. This rubbish has become an institutional part of our life and we just accept it. Even if I did complain, nothing would change.
Then about six months ago sister fate played her hand and provided a solution for my family that was so simple yet so effective. One night, thank the goddesses, our tv died. It choked, it spluttered and before our very eyes, it passed away. I admit at first I was gutted, what would I do without my almost daily dose of Eastenders, and Neighbours, and Home and Away, but then almost immediately I felt better. Molly cried for a while, but she quickly got over it, after all there are so many things for a five year old to do. She still loves pink, and dresses, and glitter and all that, but maybe that’s just what she likes. But instead of sitting in front of the tv, she spends hours drawing, or reading, or just playing. I have no more or no less time than I had before, but we are all a lot happier doing the things we want to do.
For a practical and immediate solution to the nightmare that is the television just throw the bloody thing out, after all the television will not be revolutionised!
The full report can be found at http://www.br-online.de/jugend/izi/english/publication/televizion/21_2008_E/21_2008_E.htm.
Butterflea, 2008
butterflea@riseup.net
Anticopyright
It did however come as a shock when, surprise surprise, despite all my best efforts at feminist parenting, age four my daughter transformed from a happy-go-lucky confident unselfconscious grubby child into a pristine pink princess with a “passion for fashion”. Her sexist utterances were even more surprising, “girls can’t have short hair”, “boys can’t play fairies” and her refusal to wear anything that wasn’t a dress and pink or sparkly ensured mornings were traumatic for all involved.
Although I tried to deny it for a while, I knew it was my fault, after all mothers are the primary passeroners of patriarchal values. My slackness, my desire for a few quiet moments, had left my daughter vulnerable to the brainwashing. I knew the risks, I knew the danger of the mainstream media, its power to corrupt, and I deliberateraly sat her down in front of it. I thought I could beat it. I couldn’t!
Its sexist, its racist, its homophobic, its classist, it twists reality, it makes us feel insecure, its pushes consumerism down our throats, it promotes violence, competition, vanity, selfishness, and that’s just the children’s programmes, never mind all the rest.
Bob the Builder, Postman Pat, Underground Ernie, Lunar Jim, Gordon the Gnome, Bottletop Bill, Mr. Men Show, Thomas the Tankengine, Roary the Racingcar, eh hello, say no bloody more! Its obvious what the problem is, isn’t it? The whole plotline is based around boys and men, the main character is male. There are sometimes female characters but they’re always the sidekick. Even when the main character is an inanimate object, like a train or car or robot, or an animal, its still blatantly a male character. Even if I had a son I would find these characters deeply sexist, they’re so 2d, strong, clever, they work hard in traditional male roles, they don’t show emotion, etc.
Where are the programmes with girls or women as the stars, where are the female role models? Although few and far between there are programmes where girls and women star such as Peppa Pig, the Little Princess, Bratz, Fifi and the Flowertots. But then these types of programmes are even more disturbing than the overtly sexist ones mentioned above. The female characters in them are kind, caring, passive, spoilt, and immature, they love cooking and ballet and very little more, and they’re all bloody pink!
And it’s not just me with my “warped” feminist mind making problems where there’s none, last year a comprehensive study of children’s television was done and it proved rather conclusively that it is a biased media representing a biased world.
The International Central Institute for Youth Educational Television (better known by its German acronym IZI) released findings on gender representation in 19,664 programmes from 24 countries in what was according to them “the worlds large quantitive media analysis of children’s television so far”. The survey showed very clearly that there IS a gender imbalance in favour of male characters in television programming for children in public and private programmes, domestic and international programmes and in animated and real life formats and that this is the trend all over the world. Surprisingly, to them perhaps, public and state broadcasters have a worse gender balance ratio (31%:69% female to male representation) than their private counterparts who stand at 33%:67%. The reports authors consider this a remarkable result “since public broadcasters – with the public mandate – have the responsibility for representing reality in a balanced way. The reality of human life is 51% female to 49% male (unfortunately the report does not consider those people who are trans, intersex or do not identify as male or female), which could not be found in children’s TV anywhere”.
The researchers found that girls and women account for only 32% of lead characters compared to 68% for boys and men. In some series girls and women are almost absent. Animation programmes have 87% male characters as compared to 13% female and this leads the researchers to conclude that “the reality of children’s television proves. that today gender equality is still a long way off”, but hey we already knew that.
And this is just the gender bias, children’s tv is also racist. 72% of all main characters in children programmers around the world are white. I would also like to know what the figures are in relation to representations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in children’s programming, as well as people with disabilities and I don’t think that I have ever seen any representation of any other family structures other than that of the traditional nuclear family.
Basically this report backs up what many of us have observed, the media, in this case children’s media, as a cultural vehicle only presents an extremely limited, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist view of society where women and girls are portrayed as beautiful, underweight, sexualised, modest, tidy and moral beings who are motivated by a romantic interest and are dependant on males who, in their turn are leaders, heterosexual, able-bodied and white!
What are we saying to our children? In particular what are we saying to our daughters? We’re saying to them that they can’t be builders, or postmen, or astronauts, or whatever they want, that they can merely aim to being feisty yet fashionable. Little girls are presented as only valid as princesses, pretty in pink, secondary to males. Our daughters are not secondary, they are the primary characters in their own lives, and so should be represented as such.
I hate it on so many levels, for what it does to me, my children, women, and the world. I got so fed up of shouting at the telly, of trying to critique the propaganda with my daughter, of seeing little fairy princess dvds, of seeing advertisements aimed at parents through their children, where girls wear pink and play with dolls and boys wear blue and like transformers. I was going to try to write a letter to the heads of broadcasting for children at the various tv channels, but I reckoned we’re too far gone for that. This rubbish has become an institutional part of our life and we just accept it. Even if I did complain, nothing would change.
Then about six months ago sister fate played her hand and provided a solution for my family that was so simple yet so effective. One night, thank the goddesses, our tv died. It choked, it spluttered and before our very eyes, it passed away. I admit at first I was gutted, what would I do without my almost daily dose of Eastenders, and Neighbours, and Home and Away, but then almost immediately I felt better. Molly cried for a while, but she quickly got over it, after all there are so many things for a five year old to do. She still loves pink, and dresses, and glitter and all that, but maybe that’s just what she likes. But instead of sitting in front of the tv, she spends hours drawing, or reading, or just playing. I have no more or no less time than I had before, but we are all a lot happier doing the things we want to do.
For a practical and immediate solution to the nightmare that is the television just throw the bloody thing out, after all the television will not be revolutionised!
The full report can be found at http://www.br-online.de/jugend/izi/english/publication/televizion/21_2008_E/21_2008_E.htm.
Butterflea, 2008
butterflea@riseup.net
Anticopyright
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)