Let girls be girls campaign is puritanical?

[clemette]

here

I did used to catch tiddlers in jam jars

Also despite my early interest in boys trouser contents, I mainly spent my teenage years running Sunday schools and digging for bottles in victorian rubbish dumps

I don't think it's a sticky wicket really, no. There will be right wing Mary Whitehouse types who might share the campaign's aims for entirely crap different reasons from those espoused by feminists who support the campaign as part of a wider critique of objectification and gender inequality. Laurie Penny has lumped them both together to take a cheap shot in an incoherent, lazy piece of 'journalism'.

I think the difference is that experiencing sexual feelings as you are growing up is different to the adult perception of what is 'sexy'.

The clothes in Primark (padded bras, some heinous black lace legings with thonging up the sides that I saw in there last week etc) that I find objectionable are day to day clothes designed with an adults view of sexiness in mind.

I have a photo of myself when I was 7 wearing my mums denim platform shoes (think Dolly Parton), no knickers, a couple of saucers as a bra and one of those swimming caps made entirely of flowers - completely unsuitable for stickleback catching!

There's a much better piece on the campaign here on the Fertile Feminism blog.

"The sexualisation of children is a problem, yes. But the chicken that laid this rancid egg is not paedophilia or evil retailers bent on making children grow up before their time ? it?s the continuing sexualisation of women and the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Without either of those, padded bras for little girls wouldn?t have even entered a retail executive?s head. At the way our culture stands, can you really blame Primark for simply maintaining the status quo?"

Yes, that is a better piece! I agree that it doesn't necessarily make the girls a target for pedophilia; the real danger lies in teaching them "my body and the provocative display of it are ways to get attention and approval from the world" at an early age.

"I find it really tiresome to be told that, because I object to this kind of objectification of girls and women, I am "anti-sex" or ignorant about children's sexual development."

Spot on, Molesworth. I think this article not only spectacularly misses the point of what the LGBG campaign and the objections to the padded bikini for 7 yr olds are about, but is lazily written (she has obviously never been near Mumsnet and just uses it as a sort of shorthand for a certain sort of women of whom she does not approve) and is actually borderline misogynist in its references to Mumsnet.

If she knew anything about Mumsnet, she'd know we aren't all middleclass (as if it's only working class people who shop at Primark!) and even if we were, why shouldn't we be able to speak up about issues of concern?

On the other hand, the comments below the article are fabulous, and 95% also view the article as rubbish. I particularly enjoyed the comments that the writer was treating the subject "with the sensitivity of a drunken Labrador", and the one referring to the article as an example of "Dagenham reasoning" (i.e. 2 stops past Barking).

Stupid article. I don't mind my dd dressing up as a grown up (although I wish she'd put my clothes back after she wears them!) She can experiment as much as she likes, but I'm not going to buy her mini-hooker clothes, nor do I think it is a good idea for her to be seeing them in shops. She is nine, and only one of her friends is anywhere close to starting to get an adult shape (and sadly that's because she is overweight). I would be sad if she wore much of the crap peddled towards her age group in the UK when is a teenager, let alone now. Luckily we live in somewhat more socially conservative Canada (plus this really isn't a fashionable place). In fact dd is one of very few girls to even wear skirts/dresses.

I was sexually assaulted at the age of 12 or so and I think one of the reasons is because I was very tall and looked much older than I was (of course the guy might have been particularly attracted to little girls, who knows), so I really am very sensitive to her dressing to her age and not her size (she's now wearing 12-14).

But of course I am aware of her growing up, starting to get interested in boys, developing physically etc etc. We have lots of chats about relationships, sex, puberty and whatever else takes her interest, and she is slowly changing from a little girl to a young woman. I think that's something to be celebrated, but not with trailer trash tat.

The hands down her pants thing has little to do with puberty - she's been doing that since she was a toddler (much more than ds in fact).

Or expensive trash for that matter. It's not the brand that bothers me, but the message.

After reading first few comments on here I haven't read the article but

"I agree Lenin. It is not about paedophiles. It is about how our daughters view themselves and the pressure that we put them under to be pretty, sexy girls from too a young age."
Completely agree MmeLindt, the paedophile thing is a red-herring. This is about a girl's right not to grow up being objectified, her right to value her brains and character over her looks or at least on the same level as her looks. Looks take precedence thesedays and it's destroying our girls

Agree with SGM about sexuality too. This tells girls that female sexuality is about looking appealing. It's so far from the truth...

Anything decent is labelled prudish or puritanical by people who are attracted to the current culture of sexualising everything, including young girls.

Lenin, this culture is mostly a british thing, I think - in europe, anyway. Its one of the reasons why I dont want to come back to britain, because I dont want my children (dss or dds) to grow up thinking its normal.
Its not nearly as bad in germany.

I have three girls and am not at all concerned about 'sexualisation,' as they are sexual beings anyway. But I have concerns about what our society is defining sexuality for them.

I am concerned about how sexuality is defined to them by society though. Our culture seems have moved away from the idea that it is a fun thing to do, healthy and life affirming, into a tangled web of looking 'right' doing the 'right' things to please your partner, achieving acceptance and self esteem through having sex with someone.

I think it puts girls under pressure to define sexuality in very narrow terms ie: padded bras = big sexually attractive breasts.

Attitudees in Germany and the Netherlands are far less prudish and fetishised. Why can't sex be something you do with someone you like, well into old age if you want?

The article is willfully not addressing the underlying issues.

well into old age, yes, but not under age, surely?
7 is far too young to start thinking about sex, however fun it may be.

Some points made here about all the hypocrisy surrounding this issue:

pinkstinks.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/outraged-i-was-the-only-one-who-wasn%E2%80%99t- by-lucy-lawrence/

Small children masturbate, it's perfectly normal, so I guess small children 'think about sex,' in their own way- not in an adult way though.

And I think therein lies the problem -

Our culture seems to put so much pressure on girls to behave like sexually mature adults - and look like them.

Yes, that can be quite contentious on a bad day on mn though! Lets keep the distinction clear between sex, adult style, and behaviour of small children.

Well I think it's pretty clear to everyone within yhe context of the discussion.

I am not a Puritan, I do not want to ban Christmas or pray endlessly nor consider myself a sinner all day.

I do, however, not wish my daughter, at age 8 to be wearing an item of clothing with the sub text of "shortly available for shagging, book now to avoid disappointment".

Is there a "training jockstrap" for young boys, or a T-shirt saying "balls about to drop"? And duvets sponsored by Durex?

Well, if you wouldn't do it to your sons, don't do it to your daughters.

Absolutely right Miggsie.

I struggle to find normal clothing for my 6year old. My mother bought a tracksuit for her the other day from Debenhams and was mortified to see how they were cut so low across her bottom, you could see most of her knickers. DD kept yanking them up saying they were uncomfortable - how ridiculous, is that? How on earth can she climb in the park with bottoms like that?

I am not a Puritan, but can't bear the hooker look.