Campaign to stop retailers selling products that prematurely sexualise children - let us know what you think...

[JustineMumsnet]

So quite a few folk on the MN campaigns thread mentioned that an issue they'd like to see MN get involved in is the premature sexualisation of children.

So we've put together an outline for a potential campaign, along the lines of Let girls be girls, summarising the issues and some of the research. The aim is to encourage retailers to make a simple, public pledge that commits them to selling only products which do not sexualise children.

Please do have a read and let us know your thoughts, ideas, suggestions.

Thanks.
MNHQ

Well, I'm definitely with you on the porn, FLF

how about "let girls be children"?

am wholeheartedly in support of campaign

True enough, everyone.

Having lived in a place where summers tend to be very hot, I don't really think it's worth making much of a fuss about girls' tops -- slogans are a different matter though. Btw, I would tend to associate high heels for little girls with the US hispanic community, where ultra frou frou styles are very popular for girls in the barrios, and gender roles tend to be quite rigid, for recent arrivals to the US anyway. I personally think if children weren't exposed to slutty styles of dress and deportment on tv they probably wouldn't come up with ideas of their own about wearing the kind of clothing being discussed here.

Could somebody please post a link or two to the products we are talking about, from main stream, High St stores.

I need to be totally clear, and now feel like I'm being a bit thick.

There are links in the outline Justine linked to, Lynette. And the Playboy stuff is everywhere, marketed in children's departments

I would sign up to a campaign like this - and I would also put in a plea for people to take care about the gender of kids and not just assume that all "non-pinked out" kids must be boys! My little girl is always being taken for a boy and I am worried for her.

Agree, MOTR - a woman in a shop only just stopped short of putting me right when I insisted DD2 (in brown trousers) was a girl ...

I would sign up. Totally agree. And I think it should extend to boys too. Let kids be kids.

It's a good general slogan which could be used to highlight different issues over time.

MOTR -- my DS1 was mistaken for a girl when dressed all in blue, wearing a hat with a football motif on it! So I don't think clothing colour is always entirely to blame...

On the high heels for girls issue- it's not a new phenomenon. I have a CD with copies of old catalogues on it. Don't ask me why!

There is a "copy" of the 1974 John Noble catalogue on it, and many of the girls shoe styles have a heel. Some of which I would consider to be quite high.

The fashion that many people seem to be claiming was more unisex? Highly gender specific. The first trousers in the girls' section doesn't show up until the 7th page after pages of very short dresses, many in pink, or floral patterns or if they weren't either, had a lace trim to them.

In the girls nightwear section there is a very short babydoll nightie and pants set. The nightie is joined at the bust area by a single ribbon tie and the girl wearing it is holding one side so you can see the pants underneath- how much more sexualised can that be? But was it seen as such in the 70's?

I'd definitely put my name to this.
It is appalling and I would also say it's not just for the girls as we need to educate our boys too.

Totaly agree with this campaign. Also have Dd 6 and Ds 3 so would also love toys to be less gender segregated.

Come the warmer weather, watch girl's frocks (and other clothes).

Toddlers are dressed in long, retro dresses - totally impractical for crawling. As they get older, the dresses and skirts get shorter.

Teen clothes - well, fair enough, it's the age of experimentation, rebellion, and growing sexual awareness.

And then, as the women develop a better sense of self, clothes get longer again, and there is more choice whether and how to display oneself.

But at primary school age the clothes are often a parody of adult 'on display' clothes - particularly party clothes and summer wear. Strappy floaty tops, the sort a woman might wear to enhance her breasts without actually exposing them, and skirts so short that they can't run and climb without exposing their underwear. Before they're in their teens the shortness of T-shirts encourages them to expose their tummies.

And, come to think of it, it's not just girls' stuff. Boys' stuff suffers from something similar, but in the opposite direction - violence.

9yo ds1 needs new pjs, the soft jersey sort. Can I find any without aggressive images or frightening pictures? Certainly not in any of the cheaper places, such as supermarkets. Eventually I found some in John Lewis, at about twice the price of the pjs in Tesco. He would love to wear Thomas or Mr Men pjs, but they're not considered appropriate any more at his age! OK, fair enough, market forces etc, but what about plain? Even finding him plain shirts and sweaters, without jagged graphics, or ugly faces, or violent film links has been hard work.

I am currently reading DD the "Famous Five", the old reproductions of the original illustration.

You only have to look at these pictures or even the old Ladybird "Peter and Jane" from the 70's to see how far boy and girl clothes have veered into stark gender division in these supposedly enlightened times.
Girls and boys wearing trousers and tops, all colours, not just pink and blue...
Yes, can we have a baby clothes campaign that is "not just pink and blue"?

Can you imagine the Famous Five now "I can't climb down that secret tunnel Julian, I'll get diry and my high heels won't do. Also, George, you really need to straighten your hair"
Of course Julian won't answer as he's listening to his iPod and Dick is on his DS.

But the descriptions of the children's clothes "jeans and jerseys" "macs and wellingtons". "only need a couple of shirts"...

The famous five is slagged off for gender stereoptypes but compared to today's children and their "looks" obsession, they seem to have a whale of a time.

I would sign up too - great idea. My DD is only 19 mo and I am looking forward with dread to dealing with these issues when she gets to around school age. Already I've noticed that most of the little girls at her nursery come dressed in top to toe pink every day. SO not practical for getting dirty, experimenting with stuff, climbing, being physical etc. It's depressing and I think it can have the effect of limitng their expectations and horizons at a very young age.

I do think it's relevant to boys too though - the clothes for boys seem to feature a worrying amount of camoflage - as if we need to encourage young men to be more aggressive and warlike! I also think it is important for both genders to think about how they perceive the other. If little boys see little girls being sexualised from such a young age, is it any wonder that they then go on to be young men who treat them as sexual objects and not as human beings?

Beta have offered MNers a poster site for free, to say 'sorry' for all the slagging off working mothers stuff. Anyone want to think of a slogan for this campaign? Apparently we've got until 5pm...

I still think let Kids be kids is good.
Or maybe something about enjoying childhood - it's too precious to miss?
Surely MN has some good ad people?

So do we have details of when this campaign will surface?

Can we chain ourselves to stores who refuse to sign up?

Can I be the first to handcuff myself naked? Can I? Can I?

I shall ironically call for the desexualisation of our children by handcuffing myself in the buff, tits out an' all. Very post-modern.

I have always wanted to do this though, not to the point where it's become a sexual fantasy though, obviously. Just one of those things like chaining myself to the Houses of Parliament and having to be freed by the firemen.

Actually there is a bondage thing going on there isn't there?

How inappropriate for this thread. Very sorry. Will get my coat now.

Miggsie, I think I'd rather have my kids playing on their DS than rowing boats to condemned buildings in order to apprehend criminals!

brilliant campaign hurrah.have been banging on about sexualization of our irls for bloomin ages - see www.object for more info - I reguarly turn the sport over and object to play boy stuff in toy shops.It's a joke.

I have 3 DDs aged 9 yrs,7yrs and 15months. For christmas my youngest got the usual baby/toddler clthes which are great. My 9 yr old got a very short skirt,a pair of leggings and a tight fitting top. she now says ''mum don't u think i look like lady gaga?'' !! Really not the kinda person i want my 9yr old to aspire to be. Still,its gotta be better than Jordan!

Too many young girls are being made to look older and i hate that. its cute that girls want to look like their mums or fave celebs,but there is a line that needs not be crossed.
and i absolutely hate the play-boy items!!

whilst i agree with Swedes i would add that whilst people continue to buy this stuff -it will continue to be produced

we may have to force the issue in order to educate the ignorant

i am IN

As a mother of a much loved daughter, I would like to add my support. I think that today there is too much pressure for girls to grow up too quickly. Let them grow up at their own pace. There is time enough for sex at a later time. I just want my daughter to think in terms of innocent princesses as long as possible.

Great idea, well done MN Towers. Also as the mother of a young boy I am deeply concerned about the messages that my son will pick up about girls and women and what our society regards as normal and acceptable images of what it is to be female. Although it is girls that are being sexualised by these, tacky, horrible products, it is an issue that affects all children.

Children in our society are exposed to an excess of information about sexuality at an age where they simply do not have the cognitive, emotional, hormonal or experiential faculties to process it effectively. The fact that some people will pay money for these products (and therefore there is seen to be a business model in them) is not sufficient justification for manufacturing and selling them. We do not have to operate by the lowest common denominator, which says that making money rules all our thinking. Sexualising children is not a normal or acceptable way for a society to function, and we are damaging our children in the process.