Webchat with Reg Bailey, author of the government report on sexualisation of children, Friday 10th June, 11am to 12pm

[KatieMumsnet]

Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers' Union and author of the government?s Let Children be Children, is joining us for a webchat this Friday, 10 June, 11am to 12pm.

Following our Let Girls be Girls campaign , launched early in 2010, we?ve been asking retailers to commit not to sell products which play upon, emphasise or exploit their sexuality.

The government has now responded to our campaign and Reg Bailey?s report, which included these recommendations:

? Retailers to ensure magazines with sexualised images have modesty sleeves.

? Music videos to be sold with age ratings.

? Procedures to make it easier for parents to block adult and age restricted material on internet.

? Code of practice to be issued on child retailing.

? Create a single website for parents to complain to regulators.

? Change rules on nine o'clock television watershed to give priority to views of parents.

Please join us live to ask Reg about the report, or if you can't make it, please post your question here.

Sorry: just noticed the apology at the end. I certainly don't think of you as a bloody man-hating feminist. The sad thing about this convo is that I am someone who is just as likely to get that label thrown at me as you are.

Eek, and I should say sorry , too, for my part in the upset. (I keep posting in haste through breakfast, so a bit fractured).

Apologies too for webchat hijack.

No Catsmilk I didn't make a clear statement that all or most boys are coercing girls into sex and thinking like rapists.

I made a clear statement that we are not teaching our boys not to act and think like this. Remarkably, most boys still emerge unscathed from our shitty attitudes and in fact don't coerce girls into sex and don't think like rapists. But this is in spite of our education of them, not because of it. And I ask you again, if a third of girls are being coerced into unwanted sex, who is doing the coercing?

As for quoting that anti-feminist crap from Doris Lessing at me as if it's some kind of authoritative evidence that a third of girls being coerced into unwanted sex doesn't matter, well, I wouldn't expect you to respond positively to a quote from Germaine Greer or Andrea Dworkin, so I don't know why you expect me to respond positively to DL.

No probs Threadworm, I know you are approaching the discussion in good faith.

Apols also for the hijack, but I think the fact that such a large percentage of girls are being coerced into sex and the education of boys and girls about sex and sexism, is unavoidably bound up with the issue of the sexualisation of young people, girls and boys.

Amen SaF

MNHQ- I think it would have been useful to have a link to the actual report, which try as I might I cannot find with googling. I can only find articles, brief summaries etc of the report.

I find it odd that on your 'let girls be girls' page you list the retailers that have not signed up- Gap and Monsoon being 2, who in fact don't really sell clothing that sexualises children at all- I buy a lot of my DD's clothing there simply because in the main they sell nice, colourful (ie rainbow colours not pink) non-tarty clothing for girls- t-shirts, leggings, blouses, dresses etc. Monsoon sells similar, though a little too focussed on pink frills for my taste.

I take issue with yet again a Christian group being brought in to decide what is morally correct- plenty of non-christians have sound morals (some of them are even women!)

I also think this does not address the issue that is the commercialisation of children- every single aspect of their lives from conception is now commercialised, short of living off-grid it is very difficult to protect our children from this until they are old enough and of strong-enough mind to form their own judgements and opinions.

the baliey review link

www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/CM%208078

SERIOUS QUESTION FOR REG BAILEY
Can you explain how, say, a leopard skin skirt is wrong for a child, but one with flowers on is ok? Sexual slogans are easy to find fault with, but actually impossible to find in the shops, so who is to decide which colours, prints or styles 'sexualize' a child?

thankyou wee onion

I'm just reposting a version of something I said on another thread, to get it into the webchat:

There is a significant concern among many women on MN and elsewhere that the Bailey Report has failed to express the legitimate concerns and objectives about sexualising commercial pressures well enough to prevent these legitimate worries being misrepresented as a moral panic about children's natural and desirable sexual self-exploration.

The distinction between on the one hand valuable authentic explorations and rehearsals of sexuality among children, and on the other hand an ersatz performance shaped by the 'pornification' of sex is an excellent way to pin down a critique of commercial pressures that the report doesn't seem to focus on agressively enough. 'Pornification' is a special case of consumerization -- it is the consumerization of sexuality. Our performed identities across the whole range of our daily lives are increasingly distorted into their ersatz, consumerized, form. We don't 'thank the teacher' we buy a gift that Tesco has branded as a teacher-thanking gift, etc, etc across all activities.

A good version of the Bailey Report would have been one that made crystal clear the distinction between sexualisation on the one hand, and sexual objectification on the other -- with sexual objectification being seen not only as the colonisation of girls' bodies by men's eyes, but also as a special case of our across-the-board objectification by commerce as sources of profit.

So my question is: In the current culture of self-regulation of retail/advertising, which has involved so great a surrender of state regulative authority to industry-dominated round tables ( e.g. in relation to health issues surrounding the sale of junk food and the sale of alcohol), was it ever really a possibility that your report would lead to a radical intervention, one that really makes a cultural shift to prevent children being relentlessly exploited for profit?

I am wondering why the recommendations listed above are mainly from theme 1, whereas the report does look at commercialisation too (so ignore last para of my post ^)

*Prohibiting the employment of children as brand ambassadors and in peer-to-peer
marketing.

*Raising parental awareness of marketing and advertising techniques

Really hard-hitting these recommendations then- I can see why some of these weren't highlighted!

What about a ban on advertising any product to children under 12? (similar to, though not as far-reaching as the scandinavian bans)

*Making it easier for parents to express their views to businesses about goods and
services

It is fairly easy these days to make your views known to a company that you have an issue with, even if you do it via a medium such as twitter or FB, rather than email the company directly.

But why should parents be the only ones with concerns about the ways companies market goods and advertise? As a society we should all as adults be concerned at the way every experience, rite-of-passage, special moment is packaged up and sold back to us by profit-makers. Of course parents need to go that extra step to protect their children from it, but why aren't we as a society more concerned about this?

And as ever-x-post, and threadworm says it better!

ANOTHER QUESTION FOR REG BAILEY
When you included the phrase 'The world is a nasty place' in a supposedly important review for the government, did it not make you suspect, if just for a moment, that you were woefully unqualified for this task?

Reg Bailey is with us and will be getting starting imminently...

Hello, I'm very happy to be here, if I'm a little slow to respond it's because I'm new to this!

What is Mr Bailey's response to parents who are concerned that the review does not go far enough in making links across to hypersexualised behaviour and violence against women. The review does little to address the need for more effective evidence based sexual health, wellbeing and relationship education and is being used already as a means to call for less of this type of effective education, instead of more.

I would like to agree with and ask the same question as Rhoobarb, why did the review whilst good in itself and is tackling the sexualisation of children through their clothes etc, why did it not look at the increasing sexualisation of children in schools, often without parents knowledge.

You can censor tv programmes, tone down music videos and parents have the choice and control not to let their children watch this at home yet as parents we have little control over the extremely explicit videos being shown in some Primary schools to children as young as 7.

What my children may or may not see on a Saturday night (Nicole Sherzinger on last weeks BGT being extremely sexual, and the lyrics of her song also) pales into insignificance against the video of penetration being used in my childs school at age 9.

Why did the review not incorporate looking at this important area and will it at any time be considered?

Hi Reg and all mumsnet members in this discussion
I am very worried because my 7-year old daughter is very drawn towards pictures of scantily clad celebrities in the newspaper - Rhianna, Lady Gaga, etc, and thinks they look cool and is very impressed by them. She has always loved fashion, and particularly pouty, scanty, figure-hugging fashion. I try to respond by saying, "ooh she looks funny/cold/silly etc," but my daughter is always very impressed.

Whenever I open a newspaper (I don't buy women's magazines at all) she jumps on it to see who is wearing what and she really likes anyone who is looking sexy. She is obsessed with make up, clothes, fake nails (she wants them, but knows she can't have them, but gets her aunts to buy kiddy ones from the pound shop and sticks them on with blu tac) and is always trying on my bras and stuffing socks down them. She insisted on buying children's high heels with her own money that she saved up for (50p a week and the shoes were £12!) and she knows she can only wear them in the house for dressing up. She knows how to walk like a model on the catwalk and practices it all the time.

I am mildly fashion-conscious but don't particularly like or have the time to go clothes shopping (typical, 40-something, modestly dressed mom) and that is very disappointing to her - she asked me the other day why I don't wear "one of those bras that pushes your boobies up?" and is constantly asking if she can give me a make-over!

She doesn't watch a lot of TV (maybe one hour every few days) but if she can choose she wants to watch Disney and I am not sure whether to ban it. What do other people think? Lots of the programmes have good messages (working is cool, being honest, loyal to your friends etc), but it seems that the attitude is very overly grown up and argumentative.

As a family we are really into music, so sometimes music videos are on TV, especially as she has a teenage brother. And she has lots of cousins and friends and they all watch music videos, lots of which are very sexy. Even if I don't let her watch them, she will see them at other homes. We can't stop her going to other houses!

What am I to do? Am I overly worried? Is she just being a little girly girl? I would appreciate all advice. Without going and living in a remote commune I just don't know how to control all these inappropriate messages which children just seem to soak up like a sponge.

@swanker

I am wondering why the recommendations listed above are mainly from theme 1, whereas the report does look at commercialisation too (so ignore last para of my post ^)

*Prohibiting the employment of children as brand ambassadors and in peer-to-peer
marketing.

*Raising parental awareness of marketing and advertising techniques

Really hard-hitting these recommendations then- I can see why some of these weren't highlighted!

What about a ban on advertising any product to children under 12? (similar to, though not as far-reaching as the scandinavian bans)

*Making it easier for parents to express their views to businesses about goods and
services

It is fairly easy these days to make your views known to a company that you have an issue with, even if you do it via a medium such as twitter or FB, rather than email the company directly.

But why should parents be the only ones with concerns about the ways companies market goods and advertise? As a society we should all as adults be concerned at the way every experience, rite-of-passage, special moment is packaged up and sold back to us by profit-makers. Of course parents need to go that extra step to protect their children from it, but why aren't we as a society more concerned about this?

I really want people to look at the recommendations in the round because what parents told us was that they wanted to be able to be parents, but there were certain things that stood in the way. There were a broad spectrum of things that they were concerned about, so I've tried to make recommendations across what they said were their primary concerns.

A huge number of parents told us that it wasn't very easy to complain.
There were two reasons for that. Firstly, parents believed that no one would take any notice of them. And secondly, that they'd be deemed to be prudish, and that seems to me that it indicates a lack of parental confidence.

Anything we can do to give confidence to parents to speak up, say by a simple web portal, would be good news.

In the review, I've made it clear that although parents have the primary desire and responsibility to keep their children from harm, every responsible adult also has to think seriously about the sort of society we live in. Can we all work to make it a more family-friendly place?

Reg - good to see you here!

I wondered how you might see the sexualisation of children in the media (as only one avenue) as contravening articles 17 and 34 of the Rights of the Child/ This also underminines ALL of our roles in this culture around child protection which means we have a clear remit to prevent abuse and exploitation in both contact and non contact ways?

@Catmilk

SERIOUS QUESTION FOR REG BAILEY Can you explain how, say, a leopard skin skirt is wrong for a child, but one with flowers on is ok? Sexual slogans are easy to find fault with, but actually impossible to find in the shops, so who is to decide which colours, prints or styles 'sexualize' a child?

One thing I found from talking to parents was that opinions were absolutely polarised about what was acceptable and wasn't acceptable. I don't think I should be the arbiter of ideas of taste and decency. Rather, I wanted to ensure that the voice of parents is regularly heard.

My suggestion to retailers of children's wear is that they connect more closely with parents views across the spectrum. But there are certain themes that universally irritated parents. The BRC (British Retail Consortium) have produced a set of voluntary guidelines that a majority of retailers have signed up to and Mumsnet were involved in the workshops that have led up to that. Most retailers I met did not "park their ethics at the door" when they came in in order to make a quick profit, but made their buying decisions based on their own assumptions about taste and decency and the majority of them were themselves parents. I was struck by how informal those buying processes were, and that's how sometimes products slip through the net and cause problems for parents. A little more systematic evaluation is what is needed, and that's what the guidelines will do.

So Reg, what have you got to say on the subject of the sexualisation of our children and the wider issue of the sexualisation of the whole of society? Without taking porn and over-sexualisation out of the mainstream, how can we take it out of children's lives, because they live in society and are part of it - I've banned the X Factor this year because I got so annoyed with it last year - but it's going to be a regular Saturday night battle in Autumn because reasonably enough, my DD wants to watch what her peers are watching and wants to participate in the culture in which she's growing up. So if the culture she's growing up is pornified, then my choices are either to socially exclude her, or allow her to participate fully in the porn culture. Any thoughts?

On the suggestion of another poster I'm adding my thoughts to this thread - not sure if this is the way to do it.

I was very disappointed with the debate about the Bailey Report on Question Time last night. Germaine Greer and Peter Hitchens were on, along with two very bland coalition representatives, so it was a parody of a debate rather than a genuine debate. I strongly feel that, despite my sympathies for a certain kind of 1970s feminism, of which Greer claims to be a representative, it does exactly the same thing as misogyny by reducing women to their bodies and their sexualities (by denying those bodies and that sexuality in quite a puritanical fashion, and telling women that they must reject that part of themselves). Greer's suggestion that flirtation is necessarily disempowering, 'coy' and' manipulative' is peculiar to me because it is utterly blind to context and circumstances. Flirtation can be disempowering, it can be empowering, and it can be neutral, depending on that context.

What scares me about this whole debate is, as other posters have written, that it depends upon teaching girls that their sexuality and the sexual power they may wield when they are women is an illusion or a sham and that there is a more authentic self to be had. I am horrified by the Barbie girl/Jordan/getting-your-8-year-old Botox culture, and am horrified at the lack of choice in baby shops for young boys and girls (all pink princesses and blue with trains and tractors on it) because it reduces children to parodies of themselves, to very restrictive and reductive notions of their identity and of their possibilities in the world. But I also think that, as an adult, wearing high heels and lipstick and fitted clothing doesn't make you less of a feminist, just as long as that is only part of a much broader, richer identity and as long as that performance of femininity doesn't hinder you - it is awful when women don't do certain jobs because it conflicts with their desire to look a certain way, for instance - and as long as we realise that it really is a performance and that in other contexts and other places we can perform our identities differently. Children don't always have the same self-awareness or ability to see through it all that adults have, but we're doing them a disservice if we don't at least try to teach them to see that.

All I want for my children is that they can grow up thinking that anything is possible, that all women are attractive (and not just those who fit a particular stereotype), and not to define themselves by reductive, restrictive marketing stereotypes. But it's naive to think they won't exist or that our children won't be aware of them. I think in general most parents and most young women achieve a balanced perspective by the time they're grown up - after all, we do have female doctors, astronauts, academics, army officers, writers, politicians, lawyers and so on, and while things are far from perfect we are able to conduct intelligent debates about gender politics. So I think avoiding all the padded-bra tat as much as possible, but also offering our sons and daughters as wide a range as possible of experiences, options and ideas about who they might be and who they might become, is the only way forward. Asking them to deny part of themselves/cover up/be more 'modest' is too simplistic and equally reductive as asking them to think of that part of themselves as all there is to them.

I think the Bailey Report does not do enough to break out of this simplistic and reductive model.