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.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/

OMG what sort of mother would but a t-shirt with nipple tassels on them? The social services should take her children away immediately and have her sterilized. Really, you can buy t-shirts with tassels on? Thank god I have decided not to have kids, I don't think I am going to change my mind,

thank you for that link MrManager

Now are you going to help us change the law so that 50% or 60% of parliamentry seats are held by women in order that we can effect real change and clamp down on businesses with real penalties, so we don't have to put up with relying on "awareness" campaigns

Sakura no I won't. There's no need for an artificial balance of genders, especially one that tips the balance in either direction. Did you vote for a woman?

Why should we have a law that says 50 or 60% of parliamentary seats should be held my women does that not fly in the face of democracy and how would you do it with the electoral system.

80% of parliamentary seats are held by men. That flies in the face of democracy. Over 50% of the population is female.
In order for a government to be legitimate it must represent its people; our current government does not pass that criteria: it is not legitimate, the system is not democratic.

Where is all the hand-wringing about the lack of democracy in our current system?

Nowhere to be found.

And talent (or integrity) are not a prerequisite to becoming an MP, so there is no argument that those 80% are there because they're the best candidates for the job.

The only qualification you need are to be (to quote another MNer) stale , male and male. [apart from the odd token]

All-women shortlists are the END of everything we stand for

I don't know what you're looking so complacent about

Who's going to want to be an MP for 64,000 a year?

Minister for Equality

Struggling to spend it?

Undemocratic

Sakura are you being deliberately obtuse? 'Representative' means MPs have to represent their constituents views and interests, not their gender.

There's no evidence that you will be a better MP simply by virtue of being born with a vagina.

And yet we have reams and reams of evidence that, despite men having penises( hence the reason they managed to become MPs in the first place) they are rubbish at their jobs.

Given men's track record (including the current government) I don'T think we have any choice but to make at least 50% of MPs women.

A stale pale male cannot represent my interests, because he has no idea what my views and interests are. he only understands the views and interests of people like him which is why it is illegitimate

We also have reams of evidence that women MPs are just as rubbish at their job. The expenses claims didn't just touch men you know - Jackie Smith and her sister's flat?

Men's track record is generally pretty good. Remember, an all-male Parliament gave women the vote. [patronisingface]

BUt yes, more women need to run for election, eithout a doubt. The choice of women are sparse, that is a problem that needs to be seriously addressed

Sakura: "A stale pale male cannot represent my interests, because he has no idea what my views and interests are."

You do know you're allowed to contact your MP and talk to him/her?

no, I meant that the collective power of MPs can be used to make societal changes
If you've only got the odd woman there, women's interests are not going to be represented
I also think that some women do well in politics because, for the most part, they do not endanger the status quo, and get where they do because they "think like men" (Thatcher, for example).
These one-offs, do not represent women-as-a-group. YOu can't tick the "woman" box; women are not a homogenous mass, just like men are not. Their views cannot be fully represented in parliament when 80% of the seats are held by men.
I hope, that when at least 50% of our MPs are women, then women's voices will finally to come to the forefront.
It really is a mark of an evolved society for a government to be legitimately represented.

having one gender hold 80% of the seats is so arbitrary. As arbitrary as if it was 80% women there, or 80% Mormons. It's nonsense.

"Given men's track record (including the current government) I don'T think we have any choice but to make at least 50% of MPs women."

Would you care to give a moments thought as to how you actually might achieve that sound bite?

Imagine the following scenario, Parliament achieves your 50:50 balance, there are two bi-elections, each has a mix of male and female candidates. However the winners are two females. That would tip the balance wouldn't it. So what happens? Are the people of one area told "yes I know you voted for Miss X but Gubbins-On-The-Hill down the road have voted for Miss Y and you've drawn the short straw. Parliament has got to be 50:50, so you're going to get your second choice of Mr X as your MP even though hardly anyone voted for him".

Quite ridiculous, yet the only option if you have a legally binding 50:50 split in Parliament.

And any system that basically says "the only way we're going to get more women into Parliament is to enact laws that demand sex bias" is just a bit demeaning, I'm with Anne Widdicombe on that one.

And then isn't there something very rotten with the concept that "we're going to fight repression and bias by legally enforcing repression and bias".

"BUt yes, more women need to run for election, eithout a doubt."

There I do agree with you.

But there's a difference between encouragement and fiddling with the very basis and make up of our democratically elected Parliament.

"Plenty of countries have implemented quota"

I know only of India and Rwanda, and they haven't gone for full 50:50 quotas.

"with no ill effects"

Well that's debatable...

A full 50:50 quota system would, in effect, tell certain voters that no matter what they wanted they could not have a certain candidate because their selection would tip the gender balance in a "bad" way.

And that to me isn't good for democracy.

How can it be right to bluntly tell a man or a woman that they cannot stand in a seat just because of their sex, isn't that what people have spent years fighting against?

And who decides which seats will be women's seats and which seats will be men's? Which will mean that a man or woman no matter how good will not be able to represent certain areas.

In the end I can't believe I agree with Anne Widdicombe but she's right on this, this really isn't the way to go.

"It's all possible"

Well yes it is possible.

But telling voters in certain areas that no matter who they might want to vote for they cannot have them because they are either a man or a woman seems to me ridiculous and undemocratic.

Also telling a man or a woman that they cannot stand as an MP in a certain seat because they are the wrong sex is rolling back years of advances in equal opportunities.

It's no good hand waving and saying "the details could be worked on", how would it work? Who would decide which seats are for men and which seats are for women? Our would you have a male and a female MP for every area thus doubling the size, and expense, of the House?

When those in favour of a quota system are unable to answer the critics while those opposed to it are able to clearly describe the huge holes in such a system it's never going to happen.

"I would set up a team to look to those countries who have done this"

I don't think that anyone has done a 50:50 system.

India's system reserves a third of seats for women. The seats that are reserved are drawn in random lots and no seat can be reserved for more than three consecutive elections.

"I won't change my mind and you won't yours."

Well perhaps if some of the objections could be answered I might.

In Spain women have 36% of parliamentary seats, thanks to quotas. They're far more advanced than us.

The status quo might work very well for men, BadgersPaws but it is certainly not working for women. Women have next to no power in society, as we know this because Mumsnet , a website is one of the loudest voices that women as a group have.

"The status quo might work very well for men, BadgersPaws but it is certainly not working for women."

And I'm not in favour of the Status Quo, there is quite clearly a problem when only 22% of our MPs are women.

However that doesn't mean that I'm in favour of a system that denies people access to jobs or political representation based upon their sex.