Govt review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood - get your views heard?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

We were asked to go and meet with Reg Bailey, who's heading up the govts' review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, to talk about our Let Girls Be Girls Campaign.

Reg is the Chief Exec of the Christian organisation the Mother's Union, but the review he's been appointed to lead is independent, and not religiously-aligned. He was appointed on the basis of his experience with their campaign Buy, Bye Childhood.

The enquiry has now put out a 'call for evidence' - a chance for any of us, whether individuals or organisations, to get our views heard. If you'd like to tell them what you think, there's more info and a downloadable questionnaire on the DfE Consultations website.

Or, if you're pressed for time(!), do feel free to post here, and we'll feed your views through.

Thanks.

I like the fact that the Buy Bye Childhood campaign places the sexualisation of children within a wider context of loudly criticising the commercialisation of childhood. It does seem that offering a range of sexualised products is primarily just a way of offering more -- of offering more product lines to maximise the total sell. For example one potential t-shirt sale can be mutiplied to 10 if each shirt has a different slogan; and a child who 'needs' lipstick can be suckered one more time than a child who doesn't.

Largely, though not entirely, sexualisation is a function of consumerisation. In that respect perhaps the Mothers' Union is much better placed than MN to campaign, since MN depends on advertising, and LGBG works by accrediting clothes retailers, who will participate only insofar as they see it as a way of promoting sales. The closeness between LGBG and MN's unavoidable interest in appealing to advertisers is worrying.

But you can't get away from the fact that Buy Bye childhood concerns itself with opposing "values that Jesus taught against". So there is a need for noisy participation from outsiders, to dilute the religious bias that might make the Mothers' Union commission marginal.

Done it

Done it.

Interesting points, Eleison. Completely agree that sexualisation is a function of the consumerisation of children.

Global Capitalism® drives culture to a large degree, and culture feeds capitalism, in a great big loop. Retailers don't sell sexualised products to children because they're evil. They sell sexualised products to children because the culture they influence and feed upon sexualises women, and why wouldn't they want to expand their reach to a broader demographic, being as how they're evil .

I disagree, though, about MN or any other commercial org's capacity to campaign on this. I don't often buy the 'change from within' arg, but in this instance I think that the general perception, accurate or not, that MN represents an important cohort of consumers makes it more likely that they will listen.

It's pragmatism. Do we want them to stop because they really get it or do we want them just to stop? The former is preferable, but unlikely. The latter is possible, if we speak their language.

Done it, btw.

Perhaps you are right, Lindsay. I just feel spooked by the whole business of "regulatory capture" (the institutionalisation of business self-regulation in place of govt regulation)that we see now -- govt food regulation committees stuffed with food retailers; alcohol regulation stuffed with alcohol retailers; corporate tax policy steered by committees peopled by Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco, banks. The latest govt effort to define the Big Society emphasises the removal of red tape that prevents 'localities and communities' from achieving self-direction: I think this is just operating as the socially acceptable face of state surrender of authority to capital, and I feel apprehensive always of giving it credence. When the voice of protest is itself within the industry I worry that we are losing the space for a genuinely external stand.

Anyway, have done the survey. The questions seemed quite good and complehensive to me

done

ok, done.

Have done. I'm involved in the Buy Bye Childhood campaign so good to see how the two are complementing each other here.

Ooh I'd not heard of this campaign. These issues are very important to me and DH so I'll have a look tomorrow.

Eleison

Thank you for an interesting an insightful posting!

I think you're absolutely right that the sexualisation of children is a symptom of the commercialisation/commodification of everything.

Something makes me uneasy about the notion that the solution is to use consumer power to get companies to adopt good practices in relation to cultural standards and make them responsible for ensuring these standards hold sway. If you were being cynical, you could call it the commercialisation/commodification of values. After all, who better to be the custodians of such things than the professionals?

I think we need to grow up. I hope our children will understand better than their parents did about behaviour and its wider consequences.

I agree with Andre, the commercialisation of values is very dependent on consumers bieng well-educated and having "good" values (and who decides what good is?) The problem with these clothes being widely available, is that there are arseholes out there who actually buy and dress their children in them.

Done.

I don't understand 'sexualisation' - I've never seen a 'sexualised' product range for children outside the made-up ones in tabloid press. I've mainly focused on commercialisation and regulating advertising and marketing messages.

Tondelayo, there have been various examples of sexualised products posted on MN (I can't bear to google them) - "Pole Dancer In Training" t-shirts being one.

A shop in my town had a "WAG In Training" one recently - a mum at the school was complaining about it.

I just complained to a retailer about a make-up kit in the "gift for 5-10 year olds" section.

They are not all invented by the tabloids.

I haven't seen them and whenever I have researched anything (e.g. the poledancing kit for kids on the Tesco website) it has proved either to be not true (it was an adults kit) or such an obscure minority product it was barely worth thinking about or it was a bizarre case of extrapolation and over-sensitivity / over-thinking e.g. the 'Lolita' bed range.

I have never seen the t-shirts you are talking about. I'm not saying they don't exist. And I'm not saying that gender stereotyping in clothing and toys is not an issue. I just think that it is wildly exaggerated and obscures some genuine concerns that there are about marketing to children and sexism in children's products.

I wouldn't be bothered by a make-up kit for 5-10 year olds from a 'sexualisation' point of view any more than I would be bothered by a toy car or a toy dinosaur.

I'm not googling them Tondelayo, presumably if I posted a link you'd then say "I haven't clicked on it, so I've never seen it." I've no interest in making this stuff up. Next time one comes to my attention I'll post it.

I've just spent ten minutes googling wag in training and pole dancer in training trying to find these t-shirts

This is the only one I found.

Utterly vile yes, but hardly a mainstream concern or a retail epidemic.

This is the Wag in Training one - it's a woman's t-shirt

Most of what Google returned was forum discussions about the existence of these t-shirts.

I'm not trying to be pedantic but I really think it's a side issue and colours other concerns. I am far more worried about commercial brands going into partnerships with schools, about the accessibility of distressing news stories in the media to young children and about gender stereotypes. I wish the review was just called Commercialisation of Childhood.

Sorry I don't mean to get in an argument with you StickyProblem It's just a bee I have in my bonnet about this and my general worry about the fact that a Christian Group is in charge of the review.

I've seen them Tondelayo. In my local Sainsbury's. I've also seen the weird padded bras for little girls. And "shag bands". Don't know if there have been any threads on those.

I'm interested in what you think the issues are with a Christian org leading this review? I'm not disagreeing and I'm asking as an atheist who also has reservations about this. Just interested in your POV.

I was thinking about that some more, Rosa. I don't know what take the MU has on 'sexual morality' but I think the mere fact of being Christian doesn't imply adherence to a 'traditional sexual morality' - one that inhibits young people's sexual exploration, or involves any remotely anti-feminist or homophobic attitude for example (even if lots of individual Christians might adhere to it). The image that the Buy Bye Childhood campaign sparks in my mind is of Jesus the good lefty, or Jesus chucking the bankers out of the temple.

So I do trust Reg Bailey's non-religiously aligned inquiry, I think. What I don't trust is the commitment of govt or anyone much else to act on it -- and I think that the religious provenance of its organiser will be used as a means of marginalising it. I suspect that the mere fact of yet another inquiry is in itself a strategy of marginalisation of the concerns.

But I do in any case feel very very glad of its emphasis on the wider issue of commercialisation, not just on sexualisation. Commercialisation is a kind of objectification -- the reduction of children to the status of means to others' gratification. And it is objectification (whether sexual or commercuial), not sexuality itself, that is the wrongdoing; so seeing sexual objectification in its commercial context helps us to define the wrongdoing more vividly.

@Rosa - I just think qualified relevant parties e.g. child psychologists who specialise and have experience in the pressures children are under and in assessing evidence would be more appropriate.

I also note he is going to work closely with the commercial sector on this review.

And I agree with what Eleison said - mostly here:
"I think that the religious provenance of its organiser will be used as a means of marginalising it. I suspect that the mere fact of yet another inquiry is in itself a strategy of marginalisation of the concerns."

Done

Tondelayo - it may be that you shop in the many places that don't sell inapproprate items (Pumpkin Patch, Boden, most of M&S, Mothercare) but there is a fine line between fashion and the Lolita effect. I happily bought my 7 year old a check shirt, leggings, low boots and a belt outfit that is almost identical to that which my 17 year old would wear. But in the same shop (Primark) there were sparkly crop tops and high heeled boots in the same sizes. They have also sold t-shirts saying, "Future WAG" and I think they had one which was withdrawn along the lines of future Playboy bunny or similar.

WH Smiths withdrew a stationery range with the Playboy logo - you could argue it's not for children, but unless it's on the top shelf what young girl wouldn't want a cute pink pencil case with a bunny?

I shop in Primark, H&M, Sainsbo's, Asda and charity shops. I certainly cannot afford to buy clothes at the places you mention.

Maybe it's because I have a boy. I don't know.

Done [SMILE]

That is a BIG BTW