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

Rigid gender roles are always demeaning to the individual, whether man or woman.

I was struck by a Simone de Beauvoir quote, related to girls' adolescence, as a very harmful time when 'girls stop being and start seeming' -- this sad transition is being foisted on girls so much earlier by all the pornified clothing and media.

I like Dont't Pimp My Kid as a slogan.

Carmen you talk so much sense and I think I might love you a bit. Are you a sociologist?

zazi "What could we be asking ourselves" - spot on!

math the de Beauvoir quote is so apt and I couldn't agree more with it, but as Lynette asks, will there be an official list of "approved" items? Will there be MN squads patrolling the streets, measuring toddlers' skirts?

at "the middle class retail stores;" Are there bouncers keeping out the great unwashed? What's stopping Zazizoma from shopping in non-middle class shops, whatever those may be?

Nobody is setting themselves up as some sort of arbiter of taste here this issue goes far beyond taste or lack thereof. It's about the coarsening of culture the sheltered DDs whose parents can afford, or who happen to like, clothes that don't advertise them as sex kittens, will be out in the world soon enough, hobnobbing with and working or going to school alongside the DDs and the DSs of parents who can't afford anything else, or who see nothing amiss with such messages about girls being broadcast by their clothing.

Yes, zazizoma, I agree. It could sound very patronising indeed.

I put this in an earlier post, but surely the issue is the sexualisation of girls and women, full stop. By using the term premature sexualisation we are saying that there is a specific age where it all of a sudden becomes acceptable to be sexualised.

I think, well I hope, this campaign will be an important part of a discussion of what is going on wrt regrettable clothing trends, maybe the barrage of sexualisation of girls in general in the media -- why should such discussions just take place at home, with parents and children battling it out on a case by case basis? You win the high heeled shoe debate and up next is the thong for the ten year old... It gets very discouraging for the parents trying to hold the line at home against the never-ending tide. Why not conduct a debate in the public arena too?

I'm going on a limb here and suggesting that people who buy tart clothes for their five-year-olds do so because they like it. How does getting rid of the option to buy tart clothes for children change the attitude that it's okay, and even, as was mentioned earlier, desirable in the great race to catch a man.

Math, I agree with you about the coarsening of culture in general, but confess to not following your train of thought in your first paragraph.

"people who buy tart clothes for their five-year-olds do so because they like it".

But it all comes down to low self-esteem and the value that women place on themselves and their daughters. If a mother feels valued only for her physical or sexual appeal rather than her intelligence, skills or personality she will pass that on to her daughters by dressing them in a way she feels will gain them approval.

FunnyLittleFrog, I so completely agree, just questioning the best approach to opening a dialogue across classes about sex in culture.

I agree with sentiments behind this campaign, even if we are a bit hazy about how exectly to define it. I also object to the sexualisation of all females, not just the premature sexualisation of children.

As to the strapline: in view of a recent successful campaign, what about "Rage Against The Merchandise".

If this leads to the destruction of those evil Bratz dolls, I'm in

Whatever is decided, just please don't call it 'Don't Pimp My Kid'.

I think I was puzzled by the idea that shops have demarcation lines. I know marketing puts us all in niches, though, so maybe there's a point to the idea of certain kinds of merchandise being directed at certain groups.

I believe that 'talking down' to people is better than the 'selling down' which is the result of powers-that-be putting profit above all other considerations. Consciousness-raising is important.

Good idea for a campaign IMO.
I've just been sent a promotional email from Clarks with their snowboots for children advertised in it. Here.
I know that this is not sexualisation of young girls, but if you read the descriptions, all the boots except the pink ones are 'boys' boots. Are girls too busy indoors playing with their cookers/dollshouses/high heels to want to play in the snow? Also, the only 'girls' pair is by far the cheapest and therefore possibly of poorer quality or less robust than the 'boys' versions. And yes, I know that a girl could wear the 'boy' boots (I certainly would have), but many may not want to.

I kind of like the idea however agree with others that these products are merely symptoms of the underlying issues.

There is evidence that sexualisation contributes to impaired
cognitive performance in late teenaged women, and related research suggests that sexually objectification can contribute to body dissatisfaction, eating disorders, low self-esteem,
depressive affect, and even physical health problems in high-school-aged girls and in young women.

Basically, it is about good old fashioned sexism.........so does this effectively reflect an attack on sexism? I am not sure

Totally behind this campaign.

Would throw into the ring early exposure to violent computer games and pornographic images as well, a lot of which is condoned by parents. It's getting really hard to "hold the line" IME

this is the pinkstinks website and it looks fab, just going to click on it to get more detail

Whilst I hate said clothes and will not allow my DDs to wear them I think a more appropriate stance would be to examine the media -

If someone in a music video is parading around in their knickers like a pole dancer then this is not appropriate for daytime TV.

If someone on the cover of a magazine is wearing their underwear and pouting provocatively then it should be on the top shelf.

The TV 9pm watershed should be strengthened (or even just adhered to).

For those who say just turn off the TV. I do but...

We went to a christmas party the other evening and one of the parents put on the X Factor. I was the only mum (of kids ranging from 8 to 1) to bring my girls out of the room. Mine are 3 and 1 and have only ever watched Cbeebies of U cert DVDs. I wouldn't have minded her listening to people sing, but I had no idea what comments would be made or, more importantly, what trailers for other programmes would be shown. They have no idea yet that people even shout at each other and I don't expect a TV show to inform them of this at such early ages.

The press and TV have guidelines to follow. You're not just trying to change people's taste!

Excellent idea- will definitely support both the campaign against overt sexualisation (strappy tops, shoes with heels, playboy-branded stuff aimed at

Thanks Otter. Not a sociologist though, a bit of everything

Could someone tell me what is wrong with children wearing 'strappy' tops? Are shoulders taboo or something?

Great idea, it is part of the reason I'm so glad to have boys - so much of the girls' clothes are so tarty. That sounds old fashioned but hot pants and crop tops with "sexy" written on them, for little ones it should be a no-no!

This has to be the campaign of the year for me. My 12 year old dd has for the last 2 years struggled to dress to fit in with her peers. They have mostly fallen in with the "teen porn" style.

She was wearing girls' clothing until at the age of 10 there was very little for her. Try looking for a normal top/trousers/skirt without any rips, laces, logo or other such gimmicks.

My dd is 12 and she wants clothes for her, not an older teen.

A lot of the reason why toys and clothes are very pink or blue is so that the shops can sell more of them. Because they can't be shared or passed down to siblings or family.

I totally agree with this campaign, but also feel that it is a drop in the ocean against everything that is going on in the media. I have friends who go out to the beautician for manicures with their 6 year old dd's, and make up parties are now normal for 5 year olds upwards. We are teaching girls that this is the way to have fun.

I guess the whole of society is changing - when I was young lots of my friends' mums were very frumpy (crimpolene dresses etc), but now everyone seems to place much more importance on image, and even the school run is a chance to dress up.

But in terms of things that I worry about, I am more worried about children being encouraged to use the internet from a young age - my ds has accidently seen some dodgy stuff on utube, even with a parental filter. And is it me, but why are people injuring themselves, animals shagging etc so popular to look at??

Image has always mattered to women. When I was a little girl, my mum's Crimpelene trouser suit was fashionable. Perms and 'sets' at the hairdresser were an important part of life - they weren't frumpy then, thats our retrospectroscope at work.

What has changed is exactly what the image should consist of.

I have no problem with DD watching animals shagging ... so long as its Autumnwatch or David Attenbrough productions - some sex and violence is entirely natural and appropriate.

I disagree Grimma. Image has always mattered to some women but now it is being thrust down the throat of all_ women. Not everyone had perms and sets back then - my mum and her mates never did.

There is a generational change going on. My mum was born in the 1920s. When she was young she couldn't wait until she was an adult and all Grown Up with a twinset and pearls. Just as she was about to hit her moment of glory, teenagers were invented and she was the wrong age yet again. Ever since then it has been fashionable to look like a teenager and, now, it is fashionable to behave like a teenager too. It is not surprising that pre-teens want to ape teenagers when they see the grown-ups doing it (I know many kidults / Bridget-Jones-alikes). They need better role models.

As well as waging war against merchandise, what about TV which has a huge influence. I'm thinking of programmes like 90210, One Tree Hill, Gossip Girl etc which portray 'teens' (actually actors in their twenties!) as super-glossy, super-supergroomed, bitchy size-zero nymphomaniacs. DD has one of these programmes on ATM - what on earth are they doing broadcasting stuff like this at 10 o'clock in the morning!?

Quite a few issues have been bought up here, apart from the premature sexualising of children.

So, keeping to the procucts that sexualise children...is it just clothing that would be focused on, or would it stretch to other products? And if so, could I have some examples of what products people feel sexualise children.