Government launches inquiry over sexualised marketing to children

[CatherineHMumsnet]

We're pleased to hear today's news about the government launching an independent inquiry into the sexualised marketing of products to children, particularly because of our Let Girls Be Girls campaign. Here's the story.

i am 100% behind this. Like the very nice man (?) from the mothers' union said on radio 4 tonight, it is about the deliberate targeting of advertising campaigns towards an inappropriate age group. It is not about denying sex or sexual desire. It is about big business making money out of misusing our children.

Sex is nice and i hope my kids enjoy it when they are old enough to make an informed choice. Not age 12.

This is great.
It's the one are that the Conservatives and Radical Feminists agree (albeit for different reasons, perhaps! )

Such a straw man argument.

?

Sakura it means that this is attacking a situation that doesn't exist.

No-one is for sexy children. Most, if not all, examples of it are jumped on by MN and other similar campaigns and quickly shut down.

It just seems such a waste of time and money to run an inquiry into this. What will the result be? A conclusion that children shouldn't be sexualised? Well, no shit, Sherlock.

I think children's magazines need a good overhaul. The choice is Cbeebies style pre school stuff, cute animals...boys and fashion and heavy messages about looking good and being "sexy" at magazines clearly aimed at pre-teens.

Make up and clothes manufacturers want to sell as much product as possible, so they need to expand their market, so they market at younger and younger girls. They clearly are very interested in making young girls "sexy", because that's what they sell their product on.

The same way tobacco companies are now heavily promting smoking in emerging nations...because they want to sell their stuff and they will sell to anyone who hasn't worked out what crap they are peddling.

Nothing changes unless it is questioned and examined, people used to send small kids down to work in the mines, that was accepted for years and years and took a lot of effort to abolish. It didn't happen because people said "well, if you don't think putting kids in mines is good, don't send your kid down a mine". Similarly, slavery was not abolished by saying "if you don't agree with slavery don't own a slave" becuase there were enough people who saw no issue with it for the traders to still make a nice profit.

Premature sexualisation is about businesses making profits. Sometimes you have to point out that business makes profits from horrible things.

I'm all for this campaign and bringing pressure to bear on retailers who sell this vile stuff. I do have a niggling question though which is surely they produce it because people want it and buy it. Why are parents buying "wannabe pornstar" t-shirts for their DDs? I honestly just don't get it. There must be a market for this stuff but why? Why do some parents choose to buy playboy bedlinen for their little girls? Will this campaign tackle the demand for it as well as the supply? Or is the idea that if retailers stop selling it, no one will want it? Honest question.

MrManager until it's women running the show in the corporate world, the best we can settle for is a campaign.. to let the marketing men know that this time , by selling push up bras for 7 rd olds, or pole-dancing kits in Toys r Us, or Play-boy bunny paraphenalia in WH. Smith, they've gone too far in the name of prematurely sexualising girls liberalism

there's a market for this stuff because the media rams it down everyone's throats. Some parents have the wherewithall to withstand the flood of images of sexualised girls, who become younger and younger each year, but not all parents realise the effects of objectification on their girls. But why should this be something that any mother has to think about? The shops should not be selling the stuff, full stop.

Sakura things would be no different if 'women were running the show'. And it is only sexualisation if you see it as sexy.

I actually don't find a bunny cartoon head particularly sexy. Do you? Nor do I want to have sex with a little girl just because she wears a bra.

well until we have a scenario when women run the show you're not in a position to assert that things would not be different. I strongly believe they would.

What we have right now, with men running the show, is the formulation, production and marketing of products which prematurely sexualise girls.

It's not about seeing little girls as sexy. It's about allowing them to grow up in an environment that does not objectify them.

It's about the effect it has on girls' emotional development

There isn't an objectifying environment. Like I said, any example of it is quickly jumped on by right-thinking people and these types of campaigns. This is not a widespread, insidious problem.

The gender of the person running the show is arbitrary, because at that level the person only cares about making money for the company. Most people, including men, recognise that one can make money without those types of products, and the fact that they are quite rare shows that.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. If girls are objectified, it's because they are wearing it, not because they saw it on a shop rack.

I think it's pointless, you know why? because it's up to the parents if they want to dress kids up in padded bikini's and mini skirts I think it's up to them.

Capitalist country if it didn't sell they wouldn't sell it.

As previous posters have said these items would soon disappear from the shops if no-one bought them. Perhaps it's the parents that need educating. Unfortunately it's another case of preaching to the converted. Mumsnet, the NCT and mother's union all oppose these things, but not every parent wants to/or is able educate their child about the world's negativities. My DD is 4 and in reception at scool, there are girls of the same age wearing miniskirts and fashion tops (in the school colours). Their Mums wear quite provocative clothes so these girls have a role model at home who wears the very things we're opposing.

If people didn't do things they would stop happening and we wouldn't need to legislate against them, such as:
cock fighting
rape
murder
peadophilia
slavery
bear baiting
child labour
bullying
emotional abuse
physical violence
attending public executions
theft
selling children into brothels
sex trafficking

Lots of these things happen in the world today, some have already been legislated against in this country. People still do them, even if it is criminal becuase they like it

boycott is a weak political tool.
Campaigning is not very strong either

I wish the buggers would leave our children alone in the first place

yes.. I wouldn't say MN is preaching to the converted. This campaign has really made me stop and think before I buy anything for my daughter.

I mean in general (before anyone thinks I'd have bought DD a pole-dancing kit or push up bra for Xmas )
Spreading awareness about marketing, and that companies don't have your kids welfare at heart, is a very good thing

Technically making really young kids look adult would put off pedophiles, as they like kids to look like kids thats the point.

So I fail to see how dressing them up would make them more vulnerable, besides no matter how much you want kids to be kids, they do not want to be, they want to be grown up, they want to wear make up like mum does etc.

'Awareness' is a load of bullshit. Do something or don't, don't just be 'aware' of it.