“At-Risk” Girl”, a chapter written from the book entitled Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century by Harris (2004) compared, explored and discussed the facets within society that allegedly focus on the development and growth of women which apparently contribute to the characteristics, features, and behavior between two sets of teen-aged girls: those who belong to the “can-do” category, and those who were labelled as “at-risk”.
The relevant issues that were raised by Eckersley (2008) emphasize the societal features that apparently lead to the youths’ feelings of isolation and ambiguity as to what the future holds for them. As such, it was noted that these characteristics of modern Western society were contributory to problems that were manifested through the failure of providing a sense of meaning to life; their lack of personal identity, worth, as well as security; and the appropriate moral values framework that is needed to provide youths with a clear direction and guide for conduct and behavior (Eckersley, 2008). As a result, evident negative outcomes were enumerated; such as a disclosed display of cynicism, impatience, social passivity, lack of idealism, predominantly materialism,have very short span of perspectives, pessimism, and being primarily concerned on issues that are only pertinent to their personal concerns. On the other hand, Harris (2004) raised issues the compare the “can-do” girl with that of the “at-risk” girl through describing their respective sets of characteristics, traits, goals in life; as well as the factors that were contributory to their being pegged or considered as part of these classifications. For the ‘can-do’ girls, for instance, Harris (2004) illumined the readers’ understanding of this type of teen-aged youths through delving into girl power, the goal to attain success at work, the concept of consumption, and the decision to delay motherhood. On the other hand, ‘at-risk’ girls were