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

I think that the more general issue of gender sterotyping is closely connected to this.
As a society we teach our girls from a very early age that a) your appearance is the most important thing about you and b) success in this area is achieved through buying things. The obvious presence of sex in this message is getting earlier and earlier and that is frightening. Another example of inappropriate sexualisation is the seeming horror at the idea of images of naked children, photos taken on the beach or at bathtime or whatever. But then that's got nothing to do with retailers so yeah, probabaly a bit off topic.

This website got a fair bit of press before Christmas and it may be of interest to some folk. They targeted a campaign against the Early Learning Centre for gender stereotyping their products.
www.pinkstinks.co.uk/

Just read this. Only read orignal mumsnet post, but yes, absolutely agree & support this campaign.

I used to work in an after school club. One of my charges who was about 11 at the time told me 'oh yeh, my mums done my room in everything playboy how i wanted' I was horrified! After this statement some of the younger kids were asking her 'yeh but whats the secret meaning of the bunny logo?' she whispered in their ears and I have no idea what she said. That disturbed me a bit too since actually the meaning of the playboy symbol isn't that overt unless you are an adlut and familiar with the history/brand. I wonder/worry what young girls interpret it as?

I agree with other poster though that the problem starts way earlier in girl's lives. I am a bit anti the gender divide in baby gear and when i was pregnant with dd i looked for gender neutral stuff obsessivley. not that easy to find is it? some stores have a neutral range - H&M v good, pumpkin patch and mcare so so but others (M&S big offenders!) seem to have absolutelty strict girls wear pink and boys wear blue policies.

But i digress...the worst offnder imo of girl segregation is the disney fecking princess range. its everywhere!! i'd like to burn it all!

Hello again,
So we've had a crack at addressing some of the points that have been raised on this thread. We've defined our terms more and addressed the issue of parental choice. Have a look at this page and let us know your thoughts.
We've also had a crack at drafting a letter to retailers.
Please do let us know further thoughts.

Think the MU might back/support/give voice to you-they are very pro/supportive of family life. fab campaign. thank you.

Count me in. But boys have to be included!
I have recently struggled to find a nice t-shirt for DS, tall 5 year-old. They all have aggresive images or skulls, there was one with Bart Simpsom writing "A burp is not an answer", seen yesterday at Asda.

i agree with this campaign mn, for years i have had a huge problem with dd's dad and his family not seeing anything wrong in buying clothes for dd that i wouldn't even like to see a teenager wearing, his brother bought my dd a purple cardigan for xmas(nothing wrong there) but then i looked closer at the design and it said 'wild' and had a leopard-type print inside she's only 4

Hmm I'm still not entirely sure what we are asking

How we will know if the campaign has been successful?

What items on the high street do people consider inappropriate at the moment?

MP I do understand your point.

Problem is that there CAN be no concrete demand, beyond what we are suggesting in the 'definition of terms' section.

There are a multiplicity of inappropriate products for young girls, and we can't possibly specify them all.

I agree that - like so many of the things that many of us feel strongly about in RL - this issue is a bit of a 'Down With Bad Things' one.

But.. does the difficulty of specifying terms mean no-one should try and draw attention to this issue?

Personally I'd say not - I think that simply raising awareness is a valid campaign aim, and we will know that the campaign has been successful if retailers sign up to it. If they don't, it hasn't .

But very interested in what others think.

Damn in fact meant 'there is a multiplicity of possible inappropriate products for young girls'

Like that makes it any clearer

what kind of thing is inappropriate?

serious question, mainly because I don't tend to buy new clothes for my girls and rely on bags of hand-me-downs so haven't been clothes shopping for my dds for a shamefully long time

this issue seems to have gone over my head TBH

come on show my stuff to make me ANGRY, you know I like a bit of rage

I do want that one of course

I just suppose that the point I made below... about the girlie pop group (ermm am not v with it) that appeared on CBBC being trussed in straps of leather on the next day's newspaper just made me think... there is no escaping this shit, the issue is just enormous and ... insidious, we hold these people up as innocent children's icons but they would have been classified as porn stars 20 years ago...

Don't have an answer TBH, just that the prohibitionist approach to some high street clothing items seems a bit pointless when even Blue Peter is effectively teaching our 6 year olds to emulate porn stars...

Also I suppose I do live in town with only a Debenham's to shop in

So I might be a bit sheltered from the reality

It is a really important area to make a noise about, and perhaps any initiative that encourages people to post on this topic is a good thing because it is a way of raising awareness and debate.

But is there a danger that precisely those retailers who don't sell stuff like this will sign up to the accreditation scheme as a way of consolidating the perception of their brand,and adding value to their advertising on MN or on/in other, similarly positioned, platforms? Whereas retailers who do sell stuff like this will ignore it because MN isn't their demographic in any case.

"pre-puberty, children should not be presented as sexual or encouraged to believe that attracting the opposite sex is something they need to consider"

I don't think you should use the term "pre-puberty" since that kind of implies it's ok for 11 year olds if they've gone through puberty. Maybe just "children"?

I think this is a good campaign in general. I'm wondering if the mumsnet brand is a big enough incentive for the retailers to sign up, but I'm sure it's worth a try!

As a stepmother and Mother of 2 girls am horrified by the grown up and tarty clothes on sale. They grow up quickly enough as it is.

Count me IN
The products which we are discussing here would have been considered totally unacceptable and taboo when we were kids (not THAT long ago). By having them on the shelves they become somehow acceptable, when they should not be. Let's not allow our daughters to be coerced into seeing them selves in terms of their desirability at the very time when they are forming their opinions about themselves and how the world works - this is not the post-feminist dream I had in mind for my daughter.

The campaign would be successful when dressing your daughter in provocative slogans and styles is as socially unacceptable as offering your child alcohol. This is not difficult to achieve - the social acceptability of smoking has been radically altered within the space of a few short years by judicious use of campaigning and law, and by getting the timing right. The timing is now right for this important issue. Let's get stuck in.

Count me in to this campaign, but think carefully and tightly draw the 'boundaries' of what constitutes unacceptable, concentrating on the worst examples. I question the motives of people who buy things so their children look like little porn stars or hitmen? Are they getting their laughs etc at the innuendo, a joke at the child's expense? They're not funny, they're sinister.

I will not buy the 'sexy' or skull-motif clothing for children, because I find it physically repugnant. Padded bras for pre-pubescents are too far. Ditto slogans that it takes a grown up to understand. Bratz dolls - I dread dd receiving one at her birthday party. They strut their stuff right in your face.

Age inappropriate stuff's been around for ages, as have 'mini-me' children. There were cheap 'high heeled' platform shoes for children in the 70s. Hotpants too! Remember Action Girl, a brunette with the same vital statistics as Barbie and Sindy, fully articulated limbs and a realistic dark bay horse - they had adventures. Now even toy horses come wearing eyeliner and mascara, and sparkly hair extensions. (Note: girls can actually by these things for their ponies in RL www.robinsons-uk.com/products/search.asp?keyword=twinkle&x=25&y=9 but that's a big digression!)

The question is whether it has now become too sexualised, and should this be acceptable? Is it just a reference to what adults are wearing, and the more blatant emphasis on sex in our society? So this campaign does need to happen to isolate children from this trend or this blip.

yes iagree with this campaign on the whole. I do think we have to remember the dressing up issue; children love dressing up don't they?
I think all children are different and probably aren't as affected as we think they are. I'm thinking of a little boy who was a brother of one of my ds's friends who insisted on wearing long 'hair' which was a tshirt on his head and girls' clothes he was not conditioned in any way by what is deemed "appropriate" for a boy.

I was in John Lewis today and there are bras for girls aged 8. I know some girls develop early but these looked like completely flat ie- with no supportive function. I was a bit shocked - what do you think?

Personally I'm not bothered by little girls running around pretending to wear bras like mummy - they are just dressing up like grown-ups aren't they? I used to tie my vests up in a knot so I could pretend to wear a bra...

I can't see bras as a BAD SEXUAL THING but I suppose that a lot of this is very subjective

What do you think?

I like the letter.

Absolutely support this campaign, on behalf of our daughters but also our sons, who will be impacted by the insecurities and weaknesses of these girl children who grow up subtly - and not so subtly - indoctrinated that their value is primarily sexual, and to "fail" to maximise this aspect of their being, is to drop down the pecking order at the age of, I don't know, somewhere between playing with hamsters and getting their first period?

Don't get me started - and do please rally to this cause.

THANK YOU

I popped into tescos with my dd today after school and right there as you walk in you are confronted with all of those magazines with women in the nude in suggestive and graphic poses. One of them had two women gripping eachother. It's so inappropriate!

One of the shops I find sells inappropriate clothes for girls is next. They offer the same design for lots of different ages meaning that you can dress your 2yr old in the same slutty club-ware as their older sister! They do some nice baby stuff but as the children get older they become prosti-tots. It makes me sick!
I do however believe that as parents we buy the clothes so it is up to us to be educated as to the implications of our actions.
I would never buy clothes that sexualize my children in the same way that they don't have their ears pierced or wear make-up. I would not accept a gift for them if I felt it inappropriate. People who claim pester power leads them to buy these things need to brush up on their parenting skills and remember they have a duty to protect their children.
I think the campaign is a good idea but I think a better campaign would be to educate the people who dress their kids in these clothes.