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

[GrungeBlobPrimpants]

I'm right with you but agree it's much more than merchandise. It's about portrayal of girls and women in media too.

It's everywhere - Cheryl cruddin' Cole as a living and admired Bratz doll, Disney Channel and Hannah frickin' Montana, boob jobs being an acceptable birdthday present for 18 yo's.

[squeaver]

MNHQ - I'm sure you're aware of object. But, just in case you're not, you should let them know what you're doing - they do great lobbying work.

Great idea for a campaign btw. Remember when Woolies (was it?) was doing the Playboy duvet covers?

[OtterInaSkoda]

Actually the more I read and think about this, the dafter it seems. Seriously.

I'm with Sue Scott (quoted in This Article which is linked to from the MN Let Girls be Girls campaign page).

Of the examples in that article, the only one that worries me as being possibly sexualising is the Playboy range, simply because imo it normalizes porn. It pissed me off to see a colleague wearing a Playboy top, too.

I suspect it's just me, Earthstar and Swedington who aren't overly enamoured with this campaign though

[wukter]

Fully behind this campaign.

[sfxmum]

actually the page 3 issue is very disturbing to I really hate, for example, being on the train across from someone holding one of those papers open, it is worst than a straight up porn mag as it normalizes and trivialises those images
yuck yuck yuck

[Swedington]

I think it's important that Mumsnet campaigns carry the signatures of those who are behind them; otherwise people are going to begin to feel pissed off.

Mrs Baldwin on the thread about the outdoor advertising is utterly brilliant.

[UnrequitedSkink]

I'd definitely support this campaign.

[SparrowFflamau]

surely the issue is stupid parents who buy the clothes?

[2shoes]

so out of all the suggestions is this the one and only thing that will be campainged about??

[OtterInaSkoda]

Please somebody else must share my misgivings! This reminds me of those FB groups people sign up to, called things like "Stop Poking Kittens With Sticks". Of course sexualising little girls is wrong, but where's the evidence that it's actually happening?

FWIW I think the biggest danger to young women's/girl's (and of course men's and boy's) psychological wellbeing sexually is the ease of access these days to porn on the net, and the ridiculous ideas kids have as to what a "normal" woman looks like. Bratz branded shoes have nothing on that.

[sykes]

I agree with Sparrow - don't buy the tat or let your children read the rubbish "girls'" magazines or watch blatantly inappropriate tv programmes.

[MojoLost]

I think it is a fantastic idea and would fully support this campaign. Where do I sign?

I agree that unfortunately the media has a lot to answer for this problem, but we've got to start somewhere.

[moondog]

All very noble (although am a bit at your assertion that Deirdre form the Sun and Archbish Rowan are authorities on the subject) but here's another idea.

Howzabout we say enough already with the legislation and voluntary codes and bans and campaigns and actually suggest that the people who buy this crap (ie the families of these kids) grow a backbone and stop buying this crap?

Or is that too old fashioned?

[Swedington]

Yes, what happened to all the other suggestions on the Campaigns thread? Was this the sexiest?

Agree. Daft people who buy this rubbish are responsible. This is Mumsnet joining Labour's nanny state.

[moondog]

Indeed Swede.
Did you see Mandelson's latest pamphelt on how to ease kids who overstay thier welcome out of the family home?

Hilarious article in Torygraph in which they matched up Labour finger wagging and handy hints and tips with column of same name in Viz.Scarcely any difference.

[RudolfThreadNosedReindeer]

I largely agree with Swedington. Although I think this is a great thing to campaign about, and (if properly framed) one that few MNers are likely to actively disagree with, it does seem problematic to me that Mumsnet will run the campaign in the name of its 'members' even if only a few dozen or a few score or a few hundred comment on it on the board.

It is much more reminiscent of the editorially led "readers' campaigns" that you sometimes see in the newspapers than of the genuinely uncentralised twitterstorm-style campaigns that we associate with new media.

Not that there is anything particularly bad about that so long as it is properly presented. But I don't like the idea of something being inaccurately presented as the 'voice' of 1 million MN site visitors, or 270 registered users, or even 5000 or 10 000 regular posters. As 2shoes implies, there is no procedure for authoritatively determining a campaign that is the voice of MN.

[moondog]

Here's my take on all this stuff.

Too fat?
Move more, eat less. Stop buying into faddy diets

Feel depressed?
Switch off the tv and take a walk.

In debt?
Spend less

Failing educationally?
Turn the tv off

Besieged by advertising?
Turn the tv off

Unruly kids?
Show them who's in charge (and turn the tv off)

Can I run the country now please?

[EightiesChick]

Have noticed your tendency to have six-word answers for every problem, moondog. Don't care for it myself. I'm happy to admit things are more complex. But if it works for you..

I like this campaign idea, and while I do agree that porn could be seen as a bigger problem, I think this is an issue where there is more chance of getting something done. I can understand the problem with it appearing to represent all of MN as a homogenous mass, but that is always going to be a problem.

[MegBusset]

I'm with Otter and Moondog, sorry. I think it's a pretty daft idea for a campaign (though sure to generate some press, which I'm guessing is the point). Ultimately it is for parents to decide what to dress their kids in, nobody is forcing them at gunpoint to buy this crap.

[SparrowFflamau]

with you on all bar depression Moondog (have tried everything over the years - drugs is all that fixes me )

[moondog]

Fair enough but I'm sure you'd agree that a walk and less tv help.

[BitOfFun]

It depends what the campaign is aiming to do though- if it's to raise awareness with parents who unthinkingly buy the crap, and make retailers reconsider what designs they put out, then great.

If it's to encourage Government to draft legislation, then that is the wrong approach, imo.

But if you wait for every MNer to agree then we'll never campaign on anything.

[ShinyAndNew]

What EarthStar said. But I'm not sure how you would change the role models in the media?

Dd1 has just turned 6 and has a picture of Cheryl Cole and the rest of the Girls Aloud crew on her wall, that came out of a magazine called 'princess' I believe, aimed at v young girls not teenagers.

In the poster they are all barely dressed. Dd1 tells me she has this picture so she can 'see what she wants to be like when she is older' to remind herself of what to aim for apparently

She wouldn't eat her xmas dinner because she was worried about getting fat