"Being inane, however, does not mean ineffective: these slogans compel our assent, and indeed in the case of Mumsnet, emptiness and circularity are fundamental to reaching its audience. The campaign invites us to be part of a ?we? who know true girlhood, against a despicable ?other? who is at best ignorant and at worst bent on destroying it. Attempt to define what girls are or should do, however, and this cosy conspiracy will soon unravel: some associate girls with piano-playing and horse-riding, as if a privileged middle class existence is attainable and desired by all; feminists are unlikely to warm to the virtues of ?pink tea parties and frilly dresses? extolled by others; and those for whom ?playing with dolls? encapsulates innocuous girlishness presumably airbrush Bratz out of the picture."
hmm - what do you think of this from the blog of Onscenity network www.onscenity.org/sexualization/
a network funded through Arts & Human research council funding.
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
onscenity network - what they think of mumsnet campaign
weeonion · 14/06/2011 16:15
the first bit makes more sense with the bit you left out - talking about the title 'let girls be girls'. otherwise it doesn't make sense and sounds a bit, well, inane. 
i hadn't seen the blog before though - so thanks for link.
oh, there's lots more, cat. interesting to see the mumsnet campaign alongside international equivalents (tis not just a uk entity), whether you agree with the cut and paste or not.
if we only read stuff we agreed with, mn would shut down, surely? 
"whether you agree with the cut and paste or not"
wouldn't go that far - I couldn't actually make head nor tail out of it
in my world of style, no 'slogan' 'compels' anything, let alone 'assent'
you have more patience than I do
well, i didn't understand it to start with, because it starts in the middle of the blog post, so i clicked to work out what on earth it was on about. it does make more sense when you read it from the beginning instead of in the middle. leaving off the opening gambit is a sure way of making it sound incomprehensible... but i'm sure it wasn't deliberate...
i should be working though, am now 3 minutes past my mn cut-off point!
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
that's why i was curious, really. they seem to have interacted in a fairly superficial way, which is unusual for a research group... or maybe not.
where's their actual research then? didn't investigate the site properly, but the blog is just a blog, really. where's the real mccoy that they are paid to produce?
it's interesting if they do see themselves as the arbiters (or wannabe arbiters) of this particular arena. i assume mn didn't bother to find out if/ that they existed and approach them, either. don't think they are mentioned by reg bailey, either, are they? (could be wrong. it didn't leap out from his discussion) were they involved with his report?
i'd much rather academic research was actually in the fray, so to speak. maybe they haven't got to that point yet. (or maybe they have, i just haven't noticed it. might have a google around using some of the research group names later.) just read the blog really. there's probably a list of articles on the site somewhere...
v interesting though. thanks again.
MWITA - i was there through my work. 2 seminars of interest to me - well in the titles at least!
One seminar was on "porn consumers' and the other "sex, health and the media." i was really looking foward to hearing research presented but any that was (certainly at the porn consumers session) was neither robust nor could they draw out the claims they did from it.
i felt very uncomfortable at both days and tbh just wanted away from it all. I am sure there were other audience members who were as uneasy as i but it really was not a safe place to be a dissenting voice.
oh - just to pick up on your other points.
they are a network of researchers, academics and activists who have undertaken study within their own fields eg Clarissa smith, Feona Attwood etc. They want to come together to present their research as the evidence base against the moral panic of sexualisation and campaigns (such as MN Let girls be girls).
I dont think they collectively responded to the bailey review but as individuals they did and since its publication - have been quite vocal on all their blogs etc.
They have been around for a while and to my knowledge really came to fruition after a rather tense conference in Leeds a couple of years ago. the original idea was to create a network where differing opinions could come together to find a middle ground for debate and discussion. A good idea possibly but from what i have seen and read - there is little effort to reach out and engage beyond in-jokes and slating.
it was particularly fun to watch the reactions of some of those who had directly criticised my work on the thursday without realising i was there to then have to say hello on the friday.
ha!
i mean, i can see that it would be really very interesting, but the actuality is a bit lame - as you say it looks a bit like in-jokes and slating without any of the actual evidence base that they are supposed to be producing.
is the onscenity blog just a cut and paste of different snippets from their own individual blogs then? that would explain why it's not making an awful lot of sense - presumably each individual blog is a bit more robust, and taken out of context the individual ones seem a bit randomly ranty. someone needs to co-ordinate submissions to the blog...
i would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they realised who you were. i've been in a similar position. always better to let them finish digging the hole before you introduce yourself.
damn. i want it to be worth it. i can see that it would be a worthwhile enterprise done properly. but they need to get it together.
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
it ought to be brilliant. i am cross that it's not.
surprised about the blog though 
i would have thought that it would be a bit more cohesive if it's actually specifically for that. although i suppose depends what the remit is. 'be ranty about moral panic' seems to cut it currently. there's no necessity to be meaty in a blog, but i would have thought that there would be a bit... more.... flesh on the bones...?
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.