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 am for any campaign that at least raises the issues due to with premature sexualising of girls or boys

Gets my vote

Quite Ronshar.

Agree with others who have said this campaign has a whiff of DM moral panic about it.

The whole premise of 'Let Girls be Girls' and avoid the premature sexualisation of children suggests that the sexualisation of older girls and women is just fine.

Ronshar, yes she did get the blu tack and stick up there herself. I have no idea who bought her the magazine, my mum I expect.

I could take it down and bin it, but she still knows who Girls Aloud are. She stills them on the tv all the time. Her friends still talk about them and pretend to be them. She is Cheryl Cole obviously.

She has no Playboy clothes, inappropriate clothing or high heels. She has 'play' make up that she can wear in the house, but it is not applied daily or in adult way.

She was bought a Bratz doll by a family member, but doesn't play with it. She doesn't play with any dolls.

I cannot ban all tv and contact with friends can I?

Excellent campaign. Thank you!

Well I'd take it down. My girls have pictures of dogs, kittens and ponies. My younger one, I'm sure, would happily go down the route of pop stars and inappropriate clothing but she won't because I won't let her. Equally, I wouldn't let my children watch soap operas or the equivalent children's TV.
You don't have to be middle class to avoid buying or watching tat. That's a ludicrous and incredibly patronising assumption.

Tossing my hat into the ring here, I'm in the camp that believes the intent behind this campaign is admirable, but the focus is confused and the goal unclear.

As has been mentioned before, you don't see this crap in the middle class retail stores; I suspect they wouldn't sell. I remember receiving an apology from Johnny himself a few years back for including a boys shirt with a gun image in a spring catalog.

And yes, one can to a very large degree shield dc from the rampant sex/violence imagery, signals, mixed messages by not buying the crap, tossing out the tv, and controlling what comes into your home. This goes against the flow, which may not be easy for some people, but if you aren't going to parent your children, who is?

A more useful focus for this campaign, perhaps, would be tackling the deluge of exposure to sex and violence that children get in the print and media. Didn't it used to be that anything slightly racy would only be aired after dc were supposed to be in bed?

I'm still floored by the naked girls in mainstream media. When I was growing up, it used to be the Sears underwear ads that got people all hot and bothered.

I think the world of communication has simply changed drastically, and therefore some drastic action needs to be taken to protect children.

Though I support such a campaign, I feel it is unfair to target retailers specifically when they seem to be a reflection of their target markets.

For many, perhaps less well read or questioning, female sexuality is an important part of securing one's future as early as possible by attracting a man to provide for you. To such a person, early signs of sexuality is quite possibly a bonus. Don't the Asda's of our consumer market simply cater for this?

We need to change our sense of equality through schools education and workplace changes and childcare reforms so that it actually means something, otherwise grabbing a man by looking quite sexy at age 14 is a legitimate and sensible move for many.

I know I'veworded this post a bit crappily but hope you get what I mean, the children are off school and YELLING!

i have to say, in defense of shoezone, that they were practically the only place my daughter could get shoes with little or no heel as she has large feet.

i think the premis tackling 'babe' as a logo on the arse of tracksuit bottoms for 8 year olds 0 or something similar - is great.

i agree with hobbgoblins statement regarding education/lack of opportunity - this education has to come from the parents - who themselves in turn need educating - yes indeedy - we are back to the old parenting classes.

back to the old 'change the culture of society' through educating the parents.

however i think part of that culture is to make a stance against this mass consumerism that makes it ok to sexualise young girls.

as is with anything - it needs to start somewhere - and good for MNHQ for starting it somewhere.

as is with the change in smoking culture - and the change in breastfeeding culture - for the working classes/underclass - whilst i think that we would all agree that education, education, education, is the key - anything that makes a start on saying "look society this is just wrong" is a good thing.

better to do something and start somewhere than to bitch about how it should be done better by someone else ( ie. govt) which is unlikley to happen in the medium term. so yes i fully support this start on an issue that needs addressing by someone.

I feel as though dh and I have been waging this battle in our house since dd1 was born. There have been many gifts (from inappropriate clothing to make-up) offered to both of our dds that we have not allowed them to have.

(We have also refused to allow the dss to have toys or clothing that we deem inappropriate. I won't tolerate weapons that exist only to kill humans any more than I will tolerate items that sexualise girls.)

We don't open birthday gifts in front of the party guests on the off chance that it might cause embarrassment but we talk as a family about how or why certain gifts might not be appropriate and we don't keep them in our house.

I am the kind of parent that would take down a poster of Girls Aloud from my daughter's room... I'm the mum; it's my job.

Dh and I have opted not to have cable television and to set limits on the dvds that our children watch.

I have only recently come to realise that we are not considered to be mainstream parents because our children don't own Nintendo DSs, sexy clothing, fancy mobile phones... They are encouraged to behave in a manner in which they can take pride. As a result, they can have articulate and interesting conversations about things beyond the latest television programs and which celebrity is sleeping with which rock star. Incidentally, they are not considered outcasts among their peers; they are outrageously popular and their friends' parents gush about how lovely it is to have them 'round.

I have gone off topic but in an attempt to illustrate that I think this comes down to parenting.

I agree that something needs to change if we don't want to live in a country where girls are only valued for their bodies and boys stab each other when they cannot get along. A campaign is a fabulous idea but I would question the logic of targeting retailers and manufacturers whose only purpose is to make a profit. These products exist and continue to sell because there is a market for them.

Maybe it is time to start talking to parents about the impact that their choices have on how their children will develop into adults. Parenting is about making choices on a daily basis that will affect your children's lives. My 'campaign' would target parents of infants (who are still caught up in nappies and lack of sleep) and ask them to make simple pledge that commits them to buying only products which do not sexualise children.

Xed posts with zazizoma, hobbgoblin, and Custardo...

It took me ages to type with with four dcs running round my ankles in and out of snow-gear.

excellent campaign imho.

'They are encouraged to behave in a manner in which they can take pride. As a result, they can have articulate and interesting conversations about things beyond the latest television programs and which celebrity is sleeping with which rock star.' - erm so is my child . I don't believe she knows much about sex let alone who is sleeping with who actually.

I have also set limits on the dvds she is to watch. She watches nothing overtly sexual or violent. Just the usual children's stuff. I could ban Girls Aloud. I could stop her watching anything about them on tv. But while her friends are still looking upto them it is not going to make the slightest bit of difference. Dd1 thought that Camp Rock was the best film ever, in the whole world, before she had seen it, because her friends told her it was.

So if her friends told that Cheryl Cole was the coolest girl, and she was skinny with long 'princess' hair and pretty, sparkly clothes, dd1 would attempt to emulate her without even seeing her.

The best popular role model I can think of for young children would Miley Cyrus, and she is hardly great is she? That's my point. Until we stop sexualising women in general and have more strong, positive, female role models in the media and less fluffy pink pop stars the attitudes and goals of growing girls are not going to change.

The merchandise they are sold is merely a symptom of the major problem.

Count me in - I frequently moan about the lack of age-appropriate clothes for my toddler girl. I'm dreading when she is old enough for Bratz and Barbie etc, hoping she bypasses that one.

I also think the early sexualisation of girls does affect the boys too and that they are encouraged to grow up too fast. It is easier to find appropriate clothes without slogans for boys but only because mine are keen on nintendo characters and such.

They grow up too fast as it is without premature sexualisation too - my 9 year old announced the other day he is "getting too old for toys" ! Wrong...

I'm in. I only have boys and sometimes think I would worry far far too much with girls because of this stuff - it makes me feel ill and very very angry.

There is also a lot of "labelling" on boys which many mumsnetters have brought up - cheeky/monster/messy/bad attitude type of stuff on t-shirts etc (Next were particualrly bad for this..)

Cadmum, while I largely agree with what you said, especially about parents not buying the stuff, the job of marketers is to create a "need" and then exploit it.

As a parent if you dont approve of something you disallow it. Especially for a 6 year old who knows no different.
I actually do ban the TV. The DC are only allowed it at the weekend and even then I know what they are watching and if I disapprove I turn it off. Any bad behaviour and the TV is the first thing lost.
My DDs are 10 & 5.

As a parent YOU are the only thing avaliable to your pre schooler as an example of how to behave. You are in charge. Your house your rules.
It is when they get older you then learn to compromise and discuss the rules. Until then, you make them stand.

Shiny, I interpreted Cadmum's comments to be addressing critics who claim that dc will be ostracised socially if they are directly plugged into popular culture, rather than digs at other people's dc.

I don't think children are ostracised if they are ignorant of popular culture, but if they are somewhat familiar with current trends in music, games, tv it makes it easier for them to find cultural references with their peers.

What's with all this poster ripping down? I'm no great fan of 'La Cole' but surely you could use this as an opportunity to to open dialogue with your children about loads of issues.

"What do you like about Cheryl?" is a great place to start if you really want to talk about women's roles in society, what success means, what talent is, whether her looks are achievable etc. etc.

This thread is depressingly black and white in terms of what's good or bad. There is some amazing scholarly work on television, video games, pop, fashion etc. whatever your opinion on it.

Popular culture IS important as both a reflection of society and a catalyst. Being able to discuss it critically or to be 'media savvy' is really advantageous and teaches us a lot about our society, its politics and how marketing works. But this requires at least a passing exposure to it.

I'm always saddened by the 'no screens' snobbery. My kids have learned loads through the internet and through video games from collaborative skills to obscure bits of Japanese culture. We talk about tv, pop stars etc. and take a little time to reflect on these phenomenons. Why not?

Carmen, I think what you've said is very important with regards to having conversations. My children aren't old enough for critical discussion so we are putting the whole thing off till we get to that point. And I have a hard time finding value in even a passing exposure to Peppa Pig.

I think this is a terrific campaign.. Sign me up

So will there be an official list of disaproved items?

With this campaign targeted against sex-oriented clothing and merchandising for children, wouldn't we saying either of the following:

1. We find the stores are so full of this crap that we can't find clothing for our children.
2. We think the parents that find this sort of stuff okay and even cute don't know better and need to be saved from themselves.

How does this approach not invite an argument around "we know better than you?" And as someone pointed in a marvelous post earlier, who is to decide what is appropriate and what is not?

What about this pre-mature sexualisation in our pop culture actually affects us? What could we be asking for ourselves, rather than for the people for whom we know better?