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 can't vote where I live; I'm not a citizen

There are poor men too, poverty is not a uniquely female interest.

Tony Blair/New Labour made the times of government much more family friendly, including building a creche in Parliament. But an MPs first duty should be to their constituents - if their private life is affecting their public role, they should give up one.

More democratic processes and transparency would result in a more gender-balanced Parliament, women don't need to be patronised by being led by the hand into a seat.

Men are not 'freed up' to do work, there is a social expectation that they will have to work in a job while the mother remains at home.

Men have a lot to gain by a mother remaining at home, not least social status.
Men are freed up to work by default of the fact that women bear the burden of unpaid care work.

Poverty is feminized, it's called "the feminization of poverty"
What this means is, that while you do get poor men, females are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of the poor, and men are over-represented in the ranks of the rich and super-rich

(I would personally also like to see more men of low and orking class backgrounds in parliament. Tony Blair was a joke)

Men have less to gain with a SAHW, financially (and I'm not convinced that it would be seen as a status symbol).

Men are bound to do the money-bringing work because of society's expectation; this talk about them gaining from unpaid child care is just a desperate justification for the continuation of a gender role.

Men are over-represented in the rich precisely because their wives feel they must stay at home, just as their husbands feel they must do well at work.

If we lived in an equal society, I would be against quotas. BUt we don't, and that inequality must be addressed in the most efficient way possible.
Equality will be reached in 400 years at the current rate of change.
There is no reason why we can't have the Spanish system.
With a time-frame, for quotas an shortlists to be removed at a certain date (2030) for example, when (hopefully) they will no longer be needed.

It is impossible for me to believe that 80% of the men are there because they were the best person for the job. THey're there because of gender discrimination. Men do not need to be patronized in this way either. They need to know that the only reason they got their job is because of elitism.

Men are over-represented in the rich because men are paid more for doing the same work as women, because there is a glass ceiling, because for every single mother there is a man out there doing fuck all in terms of childcare.

One think I agree with you on is that "breadwinner" can be a burden.

BUt, please men are the ruling class, the dominant class. It's not women, and it's certainly not feminism that wants to keep the status quo; it's men. If men wanted change the current system wouldn't last half a day.

I believe in fair, democratic legislation, so quotas would be inexcusable. Targets/quotas never end well.

There were a number of factors in the Spain situation, not least an entirely different voting mechanism. It was not as simple as a 30% quota.

It is impossible for me to believe that an arbitrarily selected 30% of women would be better at the job, unless the vagina secretes some sort of common-sense chemical as yet unknown to medical science?

"Men do not need to be patronized in this way either. They need to know that the only reason they got their job is because of elitism." And the only reason the women MPs got their job is because of discrimination, being parachuted in by Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman?

I agree with you, there is a problem, but quota legislation is not the appropriate way to fix it.

if you believe in fair, democratic legislation then you would agree that men can no longer be patronized into believing they got where they did through merit and talent. They got where they did because they have a penis.

It's only fair to men to level the playing field. They must be always questioning deep down whether they really deserve their place, knowing that they are members of a dominant class, and that the elitist environment has supported their ascent.

I'm not surprised they're worried about quotas.

Good morning,

Have followed this thread with interest, and one thing that suddenly struck me was this :

Given that we have achieved a point in society where it is now (I hope) accepted that a child benefits by having both a Father and a Mother in a stable relationship, why could we not extend that model to government, in that two people, a man and a woman have to be elected as MPs for each area?

"Being an MP" and representing the interests of thousands of people in an area of both sexes is a formidable task, and I sometimes wonder if it is sensible to put all that on one set of shoulders, especially when that position may be being sought primarily as a route to career advancement, rather than genuine altruism towrds the community.

If you had to elect a "couple" who would work as a team would that solve any of the issues being debated here?

Possibly I'm very naive and there are shedloads of reasons why this is a non-starter, but the one that really sticks out in my mind is simple egotism, and if we as a species can't get past that for the good of "Big Society" (Actually typing that makes my teeth itch....)then it's a great shame....

Oh and can I just add that I have no prejudice against single parents of either sex who have a hellishly tough time, nor do I disrespect those who choose to be single parents etc etc, I was just using that analogy because of all the "studies" and research we keep hearing that suggests that two happy loving non-violent parents equally sharing the roles and responsibilities of child nurturing are an advantage.....I should have put "apparently" as opposed to "I hope", but it's v. early in the morning and I so wish there was an edit button here.....

I think your proposition is a very good idea in the sense that it's impossible, nay ridiculous, to expect one person to be able to represent both sexes.

I'm not sure about the parent analogy, although I think that was a good stab at showing how men and women can complement each other for the greater good of society.

Women are the sleeping tiger at the moment; they are under-represented in an illegitimate system

Thank you Sakura,I was having virtual kittens as i though I sounded judgemental when that truly wasn't my intention...

One of the things that baffles me is the competition element between the sexes - I just don't get the suggestion that one bunch of humans is superior to another on the basis of gender (or anything much else for that matter.)

Firstly,we are all human beings with a set of similar basic needs, which is what democratic government is supposed to address without prejudice. If the first basic difference is that we have a male and a female then both sides should be equally represented regardless of politics.

I suppose the trouble comes because of the suggestion that women are an oppressed minority, so many other "different" groups would want there views equally enshrined. However I feel that while women suffer from cultural disadvantages it is dangerous to say we are a "minority" of some sort - no, we represent the 50 - 50 split in the human race, so should be equally represented.

I get very confused by how complicated all this has become. Women and men are different biologically because they fulfill different roles in procreation, not because one is fundamentally better than the other - that is a cultural / societal construct that is patently outdated and should be eradicated.

Why can't / shouldn't all human beings have equal consideration? On the one hand we claim that our society strives for this, however, one group or another claims to be marginalised at every turn.

As to the issue of the sexualisation of children, I too wonder how we as a society have got to this position where we simultaneously complain about it, yet demand the right to express ourselves sexually in an open and frank manner? What about the fact that sex is now a commercial commodity that apparently puts pressure on us all one way or another?

Unfortunately, patriarchy (that is men-as-a-group exploiting women's labour and hogging power and resources for themselves) does not happen by accident. It is easily traced back through history as being systematic , and planned. It's no accident, and it certainly ain't natural.

It's a shame men do this, but hey, we have to accept that they do and move onward towards solutions to this.

Sex is a commercial commodity thanks to patriarchy PLUS capitalism. Those two systems of power feed off each other to the benefit of men, and the detriment of women (and children)

That all makes sense Sakura, but I'm always surprised at how much some women collude with "the system".

Even my Mother does it - she will complain about things that men do but simultaneously excuse it because they are men and "know no better".

How can we be so blind to people as individuals?

I catch myself doing it sometimes because it is what "we" as a society do, but I don't like it and I try to change. However I get castigated for it by some people who believe I am naive or trying to be superior myself - or, heaven forbid, politically correct, another concept that makes my teeth itch because it is also an artificial construct that overlooks individuality while at the same time claiming to champion it!

Gah, my head hurts!

Seeing as people are bringing up how they want their children to view sex and also making negative remarks about abstinence, just thought I would mention something I don't think many people know..

The government doesn't promote 'safe-sex' anymore; the campaign is about 'safer-sex' that is because you are only guaranteed to be having safe-sex if you are with someone who has only ever been with you and vice versa.

This is because using contraception is not guaranteed to protect you 100% and in the case of HPV a condom can't always protect you as it's spread by skin to skin contact. The vaccine only immunises against some of the HPV strains that cause cervical cancer..

There is no test to determine whether a man has HPV or not, the only way you could guarantee he doesn't is if he is a virgin.

So, just a quick Google:

"How can I prevent or lower my chances of getting HPV or genital warts?
The safest way to prevent getting other types of HPV is to NOT have sexual contact." (www.youngwomenshealth.org/hpv.html)

"How do I protect myself from HPV?
HPV infection can infect male and female genital areas that are covered by a condom, as well as areas not covered by the condom. Using condoms may reduce the risk of getting genital warts and cervical cancer. But condoms may not completely protect you. The best way to protect yourself from HPV is to not have sex, or to only have sex with one uninfected partner who also only has sex with you. "
(www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/genitalwarts.html)

I think it's fair to say that anyone promoting abstinence cares about your children a lot more than you think...

I still don't see how you could have a quota of women using FPTP or AV as the electoral system.

"I think it's fair to say that anyone promoting abstinence cares about your children a lot more than you think..."

Promoting abstinence can run side by side with proper sex education. That so many of the groups who promote it don't want that and instead want to promote one approach to safety amid a general atmosphere of silence, darkness, fear and ignorance says an awful lot about their priorities compared to the safety of our children.

I agree with your first comment BadgerPaws but not entirely with the ones that follow. I don't know which groups you are referring to but as a Traditional Catholic - as extreme as they come, I guess - who actually knows what Catholics believe rather than what the media says we believe, I can tell you that the Church's teachings on sex education etc have NOTHING to do with silence, darkness, fear etc..

It is more to do with actually respecting a child's natural innocence and respecting that they are not all ready for the facts at the same time and believe it or not, a huge amount of them would prefer to hear it from their parents, in their own time, in the privacy of their own homes. The Catholic Church has never said that parents shouldn't speak to their children about sex, what we really object to is the coarse way children are presented with the topic; it's completely unnatural..and lo and behold the statics show it is ineffective..in fact it has made the situation worse.

Anyway, bit of a digression..

looklauren but the Catholic church doesn't to give them the facts when they are ready, they flat out don't want to give them the facts. Condoms?

And the less said about the paedophile priests the better. Obviously it's not endorsed, but they're certainly slow to punish it when they find it. A consequence of a very odd attitude towards sex - if it's not discussed, it's not real.

This is a serious issue. In fact if there was a mind set to do so, parents could get together and take the stores that stock these products to court on the charge of grooming young girls for porn. It is nothing less than this.
I am sick to death of this blatant trading on the sexualisation of young girls,where paedeophilia is openly encouraged, and what is the use of policing men who do this,when these products are legally on sale. I fear what I happening right under our noses, and still no legal action is taken, indeed ignored. If I saw stuff like this on sale I would do so.

"I can tell you that the Church's teachings on sex education etc have NOTHING to do with silence, darkness, fear etc.."

Let's cut to the point, does the Catholic Church believe that Sex Education should be taught in schools?

It certainly appears that that is what it believes, and your comments about in children's own homes certainly seems to support that.

In particular we're seeing at the moment a big struggle in the Philippines where the Catholic Church is fighting against the introduction of proper sex education in schools (e.g. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10552591).

So to me that is "silence", they want information to be withheld.

If the Church were able to extinguish the flame of knowledge in this country to a similar degree that they have achieved in Africa then we'll see more statements from Bishops claiming that AIDS can permeate through a condom or that condoms are deliberately infected with AIDS. There's your "darkness" and "fear" for you.

And how can parents who weren't educated about sex teach their children about it? It's the blind leading the blind.

And it's not just to children, the Catholic Church also want to deny adults information about contraception and even contraception itself.

I have no problem with children being taught about abstinence.

However those that favour abstinence seem to have clear problems with children being taught about other aspects of sex, contraception and health.

"behold the statics show it is ineffective..in fact it has made the situation worse."

No they don't.

Europe has a far more open attitude to sex and it's education than we do and has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than we do.

It's quite clearly not about the sex education alone.

But let's not stop that getting in the way of the spread of knowledge and information that will help save the lives of our children.

MrManager, BadgersPaws.. I am not expecting to change your opinions but I would like to give you a different side to the argument.

MrManager, totally irrelevant but just quickly, regarding the paedophile priests - 0.4% of priests in England and Wales have been accused since 1970 and less have been found guilty; a child is safer in the Catholic Church than a nursery or school.

Re condoms, if you look at my post above on HPV you will see why the church could never promote them.. Aside from the 'no contraception' teaching, the usage of them is just giving people who want to use them for safety a false sense of security. Since contraception has become readily available, promiscuity, unfaithfulness and sexual diseases have become common place... In Africa they are used to cover up the immorality that is rife there.. I won't go into details but the point is that you don't address the real issue if you hand out condoms. Consider how often condoms fail, consider how much smaller the HIV virus is compared to a sperm cell and then think about whether you would take the risk - I wouldn't.

BadgerPaws, I agree it's not just about the sex education alone, it's also about the original sexualisation of children issue but surely what the situation needs is a different approach to the education??

By all means spread 'the knowledge' but are they getting the full knowledge? How many girls know the facts about HPV and that condoms and jabs don't fully protect them??

We are never going to agree on the contraception issue so I'll leave it there but I will say that I think the peace of mind of being with one person, who has only been with you for life, is priceless.

looklauren
so you're happy looking at the statistics for paedophile priests, but not condoms?
Don't give us that rubbish about the HIV virus being small enough to slip through the molecular structure of the condom. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

"Since contraception has become readily available, promiscuity, unfaithfulness and sexual diseases have become common place..."
Yeah, that never existed before condoms...
I think you need to read your Chaucer...

Read what I wrote, never said anything of the sort..