Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Mumsnet campaigns

For more information on Mumsnet Campaigns, check our our Campaigns hub.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

782 replies

JustineMumsnet · 05/01/2010 12:58

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

OP posts:
SilverStuddedBlue · 01/02/2010 18:38

I wonder if maybe people are buying these clothes as a bit of fun perhaps - at their childs expense?

Or else they themselves would look ghastly in such clothes so they vicariously live the WAG look thro' their daughters?

Does the pester power develop because the girls like these clothes? Or do they think that they ought to like these clothes as worn by teenagers and popstars etc? Are they bullied if they don't?

I'm less bothered by the gender/colour thing. Buying everything 2nd hand meant that I could afford some really good brand name clothes. Without logos; some do have spaghetti straps, empire line, cross-over etc, but if it's a beautiful design by Noa Noa or Monsoon then it's a beautiful garment, not 'sexy'

Nearly all girls I know passed through the pre-school phase adoring pink (which was actually a young boys colour in Victorian times - think of that!).

What I hate is the fashion, described by honeybunmum which targets these fashions, including EMO/Goth, to an age group that doesn't understand what they're choosing or being given to wear.

Wereworm · 02/02/2010 12:19

I was prob. wrongto say below that the retailers who sell inappropriate products are all outside the MN demographic/MN influence. The ones who sell the most clearly offensive stuff probably are. But high street retailers who want to perceive themselves as responsible on this issue do sell mainstream products that some MNers, but not others, believe to be wrong.

The difficulty wd be adjudicating accreditation in the case of these arguably offensive products. How wd that work? Obv MNHQ wouldn't want to or be able to scrutinise entireproduct ranges. It would come down to the talkboard picking up on dodgy products and raising discussion. Would MNHQ then step in at a certain point and say 'lots of you seem not to like this product so we are telling X to remove it from their range or lose accreditation? In pracitce it might be unlikely that a strong enough consensus would emerge for that kind of action, and inappropriate for MNHQ to pronounce decisively on the conversation.

It's esp problematic when you consider that retailers will expect to see some sort of well-defined 'due process' before they are subjected to a decision that might be financially damaging for them (perhaps that would even be a legally enforeable expectation on the part of signatories??)

Would it be better not to present the pledge as an accreditation scheme? If there is no realistic sanction, no very real threat of being kicked off the list, Mumsnet-accredited status will just be a costless new advertising resource for retailers. The 'Pledge' might be better conceived (and still v useful)just as a way of stimulating discussion on MN and drawing retailers' continuing attention to the discussion. It wd still give leverage to posters' future discussions of offensive products.

Wereworm · 02/02/2010 12:48

All I mean by Mumsnet-accredited status, btw, is having a list of retailers (published on MN, in press releases, and in in-store leaflets) who are signatories to a code of practice and whose continuing presence on the list carries the implication that they are continuing to abide by the code.

If we don't have a watertight procedure for kicking people off such a list, it is just a freebie for them.

franch · 02/02/2010 16:03

I started off very keen on this campaign but am very much persuaded that soft porn in newspapers is a much more fundamental - and of course strongly connected - issue.

[[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/887948-2010-and-we-still-have-Page-3-rubbish-innit I'd much prefer MN to put its weight behind this.]

Ewe · 03/02/2010 21:14

Horrid new clothing line launch - hope this line doesn't hit the UK, I think it is clear to say that if anyone needs a definition of age inappropriate clothing then the bottom picture is probably it.

franch · 04/02/2010 06:34

Sorry duff link.

I'd much prefer MN to put its weight behind this.

onebatmother · 04/02/2010 13:56

PSSST! Morningpaper - over here!

paulaplumpbottom · 04/02/2010 15:24

That's disturbing

Elena67 · 07/02/2010 17:31

I love the proposed letter and think that such a campaign might just help to start a backlash against the sexualisation and 'passification' of our girls as well as the pigeonholing of our boys as little toughs. Go for it.

Toddlershambles · 09/02/2010 01:25

This is such an important issue.

Sorry this is so long and if this repeats other suggestions - haven't yet read back through thread.

There's an election coming and Mumsnetters are clearly regarded as a target group. So get all the party leaders signed up - no such thing as a free biscuit. Better still, get them all to do it jointly - for hey look we can rise above petty difference brownie points.

Get the organisation's attention at the highest level. Get the Chief Execs of M&S, Asda, Tesco in for a webchat. If they have daughters or granddaughters don't be afraid to ask them where they drew/draw the line. If they exist, have a few examples from their empire to hand. "Chief Exec of X says high heels OK for 3 year olds" is not a headline they want. And if they do say it, make the sort of fuss which will get picked up more widely.

Contact the british retailers association, if that's the name, and ask them for a response.

Do collect as many hard examples as you can - pictures at minimum - of what the problem is, with as much specific detail as possible of where it was on sale and when. Put out a call on Mumsnet - give us a job, you have an army of photographers. No pix of other people's children, obviously.

I'd guess from what I see that quite a lot of the most inappropriate stuff is not bought by parents but by other adults (troubling thought that some know exactly what they are doing ) and gets worn just because it's in the house and the parent is too stressed, distracted, short of clothes to do anything about it. Or because the child gets their hands on it before parent has a chance and the fight to get it off after that them is too much. So an important target audience here is friends and relatives, especially maybe who buy things on an impulse because they think it's a bit of a laugh or a bit cute. Any publicity you can get somehow needs to attract their attention too, in a way they won't find snobby/prim - starting from the assumption they care about the child as a person..

Somewhere in here's a basic message about respecting children as people, not vehicles for a joke.

Hate to say it, but worth speaking to organisations that work with sex offenders and with vulnerable children to check whether they are picking up any indications that this sort of clothing is being added to the list of excuses for abusing children. If not, well that's one good thing. If so, though you might not want to wave that around, it would be worth putting to retailers and politicians privately. I doubt it's ever the real reason, and is no more than another excuse - but in any case we should ask why would anyone want to help create a climate where people who want to harm our children see their attitudes apparently affirmed and normalised in mainstream life?

ClaireAnneJames · 09/02/2010 13:09

Why not give awards NOW with lots of press coverage, to retailers who are currently selling age appropriate clothing for girls. A couple of people have mentioned Boden, they are probably the obvious one and do great girls clothes up to age 13-14 (although even they have too much 'little soldier' khaki boyswear). Of course Mr. Johnnie Boden has daughters, and a conscience.

Other retailers who might qualify could be Pumpkin Patch (although their teen range have rather short skirts...) Gymboree (online US but deliver internationally, go up to age 12) maybe also GAP? (interesting these are all US).

Then companies like Next, BHS, Primark, etc who are failing dismally could start to strive for the award, and improve their ranges.

I think it would be much easier to reward shops who are getting it right, than try to explain what is wrong with high heels, miniskirts and slogan T shirts in black and silver, to those shops who don't seem to get it.

Anguis · 09/02/2010 13:34

Isn't that exactly what Mn would want to avoid? mightn't it undermine the impact of MN as a new campaigning entity if it started out by just giving accolades (for doing what they would do anyway) to those clothes retailers like Boden who are either its actual advertising customers, or potential customers in virtue of their close fit with the kinds of clothes advertised on MN? It might seem a bit too comfortable.

Better to reach out beyond that sphere?

ClaireAnneJames · 09/02/2010 14:42

OK can you think of any retailers currently getting it right 'beyond that sphere'? I'm struggling....

scase · 10/02/2010 13:25

I'm a new member of mumsnet and am really encouraged by what I think is an incredibly important campaign. I'm part of an international coalition against sexual exploition and have posted a link about the campaign on our facebook page, here:
www.facebook.com/pages/Scottish-Coalition-Against-Sexual-Exploitation/175173580913
If any of you are facebook users do feel free to connect with us. I'll post updates of the campaign there - or if anyone else joins up you could post updates too. We'd love for people to share any info they find on this issue and/or contribute your thoughts to the facebook page or our blog.

JustineMumsnet · 11/02/2010 15:23

Just to keep you posted we'll be looking to contacting retailers in the week of the 22nd so we'll let you know what they say.

If anyone spots any particular examples of creepy, sexy children's wear before then do let us know on this thread.

Thanks.

OP posts:
mistydancer · 15/02/2010 15:45

Just seen this discussion Topic.

This weekend we had a prime exanple of this in the papers with pictures of Katie Price's little girl Princess.

Jordan has yet again shown that she thinks sex is the best way to sell anything in her life, including dressing her 2 year old up as a mini me of her and then publishing her pictures on the internet for all and sundry to see, and we all know what i mean by that.

I used to work in a high street retail store with a childrens department.The underewear we had coming in appalled me, little girls should be wearing vests and knickers for little girls, not cammy tops, bras and even thongs (not in the store i worked). You can even get False eyelashes and false nails for kids these days. false nails are ok because they look like dressing up gear and come ready glued that can be peeled off like stickers, but false eyelashes are wrong. You have to glue them on, its hard enough putting them on yourself yet alone trying to put them on a wriggly toddler.

I think its time children went back to being children. when we were kids if we asked for a phone (landline its called these days) we were told when you can pay the bill you can have a phone. now we have pay as you go phones with internet access! when did kids stop buying sweets, toys and CD's with pocket money and start buying phone credit and the like.

BirdyBedtime · 16/02/2010 09:06

I've only just come across this campaign through the link on the front page and agree with it 100%. Well done MN for raising an important issue yet again. My DD is almost 5 and is tall so is already out of the younger range in Next, M&Co etc. I was looking for some clothes for her at the weekend and was soooo unimpressed by the styles of clothes available for her - I could see very little that I'd want her to wear. I don't want her to look like a teenager, I want her to look like the little girl she is. I am going to have to resort to online US and European brands (which cost a lot more) just to not have her look like a miniature street-walker. There is an issue of 'pester-power' as she picked up several inappropriate (in my view) outfits saying 'this is nice'. Getting retailers to understand this is going to be hard work but is so important in this day and age.

InmyheadIminParis · 17/02/2010 12:57

Just wanted to add my support and my thanks for getting this campaign up and running. Good luck with the retailers next week.

topiarygal · 17/02/2010 15:36

I think it's a great idea - and wherever the grey areas lie in this discussion it is worth the effort.
I like positive action - giving a stamp to products that are non-sexual - e.g. The anti princess reading list from the american website mommytracked.com (www.mommytracked.com/bookshelf/amazon)
Maybe giving awards for 'empowering' (is that the right word) toys/ clothes ... more PR for the cause ...

Great idea!

cosysocks · 20/02/2010 23:45

MNHQ make sure you send letters out to the retailers that advertise on the site as well. Fat face have currently got written on their price tags a logo 'bouys are for life not just for the weekend' on girls clothes aged from 5!

Charly123 · 25/02/2010 17:52

I have 2 early teen girls and my big issue is with magazines aimed at my girls e.g. Sugar magazine being crammed full of singers who also grace the covers (in varying states of undress) of the Lad's magazines and newspapers like the News of the World. They should be made to target one audience or the other and not change as and when it suits them. I have also seen these "singers", the group The Saturdays springs to mind, on Blue Peter which I again think is highly inappropriate. A friend of mine was outraged when she heard her daughter's school was to be visited by one of these "artistes". I don't think we should let our daughters' think that in order to have a successful career as a singer/actress they will have to be prepared to get their clothes off.
This would be easy to stop - if you're in a lad's mag or some raunchy pose in a newspaper you cannot then feature in any magazines or TV shows aimed solely at children.
I am 100% behind this campaign and wish you all the very best of luck.

GrumpyOldHorsewoman · 26/02/2010 11:51

I am also firmly behind you in this. I trawl the internet to buy clothes for my DDs because the High Street Stores just provide so much tackiness with heeled, jewelled sandals (fine for playing dress-up, but as daywear?) and off-the shoulder nonsense in black, palest pink and/or glitter. Why should it be so hard to find children's clothes that just look like children's clothes without having to buy them from France, Scandinavia or the USA as I do?
Also, a Kiwi relative bought my DDs magazine subscriptions for christmas with my 6 year old youngest receiving the innocuous sounding 'Animals and Me'. This magazine is clearly for girls of my DD's age, but still has bits of it that talk about 'cringe-making things that have happened to you' and 'crushes'. At that age, boys were a disgusting other-species to me, not something I cringed or crushed over! And why is this necessary in a magazine that is supposed to be about animals? All the magazines for girls seem to be full of silly fripperies with so little of real interest (with the exception of the excellent BBC publications). As though anything educational must surely be boooooooorrrrriing and only boys and shopping are fun.

meltedchocolate · 26/02/2010 12:00

Just want to show my support. I hate seeing girls walking around in small skirts, high heels, sporting playboy symbols. It is wrong, it is unecessary and it needs to stop!!

philmassive · 26/02/2010 12:17

Yes, please, I'm in. 2ds's, so would appreciate 'kids be kids' or an alternative. Boys might not be sold mini skirts, and lip gloss in their shoes but they are targetted by images of violence, and by the images that suggest that girls are 'fair game'. This is a great campaign.

sheeplikessleep · 26/02/2010 12:55

www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/psychologist%E2%80%99s-report-puts-forward-proposals-to-curb-childhood- sexualisation/3010490.article

is this the same campaign? ...