Photo: children’s size underwear with ‘eye candy’ and ‘wink wink’ written on the front (credit to Journal Sentinel Online for the image). It was a toss up between this and the bralettes for 6 year olds for an image to lead this post. Such a lovely world we live in. NOT.
Bloody hell! Reading this UK article, Girl wants to be next Jordan by Rebecca Ley I am suspicious that it might be an almighty prank being pulled on us, could a mother really be so blatantly innappropriate in the sexualising of her own child? This, together with all the fat phobia and misogyny you could possibly imagine in a mother. The article is about Jayne, a mother sharing all the ‘fun stuff’ with her 11 year old daughter, Sasha who’s a great big (no wait, tiny little) fan of topless model, Jordan.
Jayne encourages Sasha to dress like her and says: “We’ll go out dressed the same, in mini skirts and furry boots. She likes to wear what’s in fashion and now she’s a size six can buy clothes from grown-up shops.
“I don’t see anything wrong with her showing her midriff — it’s just skin.”
But it isn’t just the latest hotpants or cropped dresses from Primark — Sasha loves wearing clothes with the Playboy brand that her mum orders from America. Her bedroom is also a pink shrine to Playboy, with a Playboy door curtain, satin duvet set, Playboy pillows and pyjamas.
I know this mother is off the deep end; way way off the deep end, in so many ways, but when we’re done with the finger pointing and the shrieks of child abuse can we discuss what this story really tells us about the sexualisation of children? This article has got me thinking about a presentation I recently saw by feminist academic thinker, Shelley Kulperger.
I hate zee Bratz dolls and the general pornification of our lives that they represent, and the way they are just the tip of the iceberg of the innappropriate sexualisation of and marketing to children, as I’ve said before, oh a couple of times but what to do with this hatred? How to be strategic with it? How to achieve something?
Kulperger argued that the debate around accountability for the sexualisation of children in popular culture has stalled. We’re utterly polarised, particularly here in Australia. You see, the debate got very heated when it turned to talk of the commercial sexualisation of children or ‘corporate paedophilia’ as Philip Adams coined it.
I’m talking about the billions of dollars of marketing aimed at kids whose childhoods are being cynically abbreviated, stolen for profit. I’m talking about the sexualisation of ever younger children through advertising and for what passes for entertainment – so that kids are encouraged to see themselves as sexual beings long, long before puberty. Yes, the age of puberty is decreasing – and it will all but vanish if companies continue to employ their teams of child psychologists and ad agencies to turn ever younger children not simply into consumers, but into mini-adults.
Dr Emma Rush in a research report also called Corporate Paedophilia, which she led with the Australian Institute came out and said a bunch of stuff about the dubious way marketers focus campaigns on young girls-
Children, particularly girls, are under increasing pressure from advertisers and marketers to adopt a “sexy” persona from very young ages. Those who apply the pressure claim they are simply responding to little girls’ interest in looking “pretty”.
However, the forms “prettiness” now takes, which include “bralettes” for girls as young as three, as well as the language used to describe appearance in girls’ magazines directed at readers from five up (“hot, hot, hot”), give the game away. This sexualising pressure places children at risk in a number of ways.
While criticising companies for sexualising children in their advertising campaigns Rush named some names and those names had thin skins (an example advertisement at this link too).
The head of advertising firm Saatchi & Saatchi, Simone Bartley, who handles the David Jones account, said: “We have never, ever eroticised children in any way for any client in any communication. Not only is the idea repugnant to us, we take very seriously the fact that David Jones is a family brand.
And here, more thin skins –
Ms Greig, the mother and photographer of one of the girls in a Frangipani Rose shot deemed offensive, said she felt “vilified”.
Rush said –
… some people would see her report as “another conservative moral panic”.
“We expect them to deny they are doing it,” she said, “but the truth is, they pose children like adults.”
And she was right, moral panic is exactly what they accused critics like her of doing.
ASST PROF CATHERINE LUMBY, SYDNEY UNIV.: Using terms like corporate paedophilia, I think, is very irresponsible. Even metaphorically, to link the sexual assault of children to marketing or advertising is a huge stretch.
What I’m very concerned about here is that we’re in danger of jumping at phantoms. I think we’re in danger of seeing paedophiliac images everybody and suggesting that everybody is at risk of becoming paedophiliac by looking at images. Paedophiles do not get turned on by what children are wearing or not wearing, they are sexual predators.
They brought their husbands too, or as Kulperger likes to describe these commentaries: Father, As Voice of Authority –
Duncan Fine, who is a writer for the kids show, Hi-5 and co-author of Why TV is Good for Kids said: “There’s so many things wrong with the Australia Institute report it’s hard to know where to start.
“If kids want to get dressed up as Kylie – or Paris Hilton for that matter – then let them, because if you find an eight-year-old girl in a bikini a sex object then it’s you who has the problem – not her, not her parents and not the store that sold it to them.
“The Australia Institute and its cheer squad from the Fun Police are heroes of the Left. But the instinct is the same (as the far Right) – it’s to control people, what they think and how they behave. And wasn’t the last group who tried to impose that kind of dress code a fun loving bunch called the Taliban?”
The answer to the problem of sexualising young children in advertising from the “Father, As Voice of Authority” was – parents, be more authoritarian, and everyone else not, because that would make you like the Taliban:
DUNCAN FINE: … children as young as seven and eight, they actually understand what marketing is. They know, they’re very savvy, and I think it’s the role of parents not to be scared off, but to actually embrace marketing and tell their kids about marketing.
DUNCAN FINE: It’s an absolute moral panic and the worst thing about it is diverts our attention from – I assume we are all concerned about child sexual assault, that’s the sharp end of this debate, and we know these images have nothing to do with child sexual assault – these are just advertising images. We’ve got capitalism in Australia. Unless you want to overturn it, our children are growing up in a world of images and marketing. We must educate them. We can’t ban it.
JENNY BROCKIE: But, Duncan, I suspect there’s middle ground between the Taliban and what we are talking about tonight.
From here, the debate has stalled. Emma Rush is described as ‘sick’ and feminist mothers like myself are accused of being the kill-joy moral panic brigade. As Kulperger noted in her presentation, the discussion has moved to focusing on maternal and paternal authority and very little on corporate responsibility (remember, the big corporations’ feelings get hurt very easily). Young girls in this debate are seen as savvy (this is everyone’s favourite term for young girls these days), robust, immune, empowered, strong, liberated in their sexuality, beautiful, perfectly in control, self-aware, and interested in ‘girly’ activities.
“Treated to a mass of information, young girls tend to be better filters than we imagine.” – Janet Albrechtsen.
But is this an accurate view of all young girls? Its not how I would describe 11 year old Sasha, in the article above. I don’t think Sasha is ‘filtering the information’. And what of the girls who don’t fit into this narrow definition of girlhood? The girls who aren’t traditionally beautiful and who don’t like ‘girly’ activities like listening to music, doing each other’s hair and pole-dancing? And why are we collapsing the difference between a woman’s and a girl’s sexuality anyway? Why do we have to see young girls as junior women, up for the same expressions of sexuality?
The argument that everything will be ok as long as parents monitor their children’s TV viewing as pushed by Duncan Fine is one of parental authority, it is centred on a picture of young girls as strong, protected, wealthy, privileged, and under parental control. What happens to the young girls who don’t fit into this picture? What of the young girls who don’t live their lives esconced in a privilleged definition of family home as fortified sanctuary? And how do you fortify this home anyway? Isn’t it all a bit simplistic to suggest that just saying no as a parent is going to do the trick?
Kulperger spoke in her presentation of the challenge for feminist mothers to mobilize concern without being accused of censorship, prudery, and conservatism. In other words, how do I hate Bratz dolls without aligning myself with a ‘family values’ rhetoric? Here are Kulperger’s initial ideas, and I think she’s on to something. Firstly, resist the picture of the home as a haven, its just not – not for many, many children. Seek instead a vision of collective responsibility for the wellbeing of children – a joint approach of corporate, media, government, and personal responsibility. Question the value of female power through sexuality, constantly. Is it really possible or appropriate for children to find their empowerment in the adult world through sexualisation as some are arguing, or are they likely to be exploited by it? Surely children are more likely to be able to negotiate the pitfalls of the adult world if they are allowed to safely develop their “cognitive and emotional capacities” (as Rush says) – in other words, plenty of time for kids to be kids. Finally and importantly, we need to particularise the child and mother – race, education, income etc. Let’s talk about the children in the world outside upper-middle class luxury, the children without the support structures of wealth, opportunity, supervision, and parental authority. The children at risk.
Again I’d like to acknowledge that many of the ideas, particularly the good ones were taken from Shelley Kulperger’s recent presentation at this conference. When she gives me a copy of the presentation, which she’s promised to do I will put it up on this site.
Bravo! The other question I am left with is how all these strong, empowered girls who are supposed to feel so beautiful and strong in their precociously sexualized way are also getting a message that sexy is the stuff you buy. It seems like one of those mirror language things: “female power through sexuality” is a limited power, one that depends on someone else’s reaction to you, not a deep or inherent power, and similarly this power of consuming/shopping is this horrible being consumed with how you are supposed to look/be while being trained as consumers, with very little room for any individual expression of any sort. We lived for a few years in Dallas, Texas, in the USA where there is a mall culture, and all of this cuteness over “born to shop” and mothers in prenatal groups expressing this deep desire for a daughter to shop with — my ‘consolation’ for having boys was “think of the money you’ll save on clothes!” As sinister as the marketing of clothes and beauty to girls and women is, I am just as bothered thinking about the lives of the people paid pittances to work in the factories making the latest fashions. Thank you for your thought-provoking blog!
I’m stunned. I feel completely sheltered now. I had no idea that this kind of insanity was for real. Maybe a vague notion of fluke incidents of beauty pageantry loony bin behavior, but how incredibly discouraging to hear this delusional mom talk about raising her child. She is a child at the end of the day still.
I remember seeing a 4 year old girl on the train with her mom, a young beautiful woman who was lost in her headphones and ignoring her equally stunning daughter. The only time she looked up was when her daughter tried to put on some lip gloss and said, “mommy I’m a rock star, right?” She could have been younger, but I think she was just small for her age.
What a world.
The one positive aspect of Bratz is that the dolls are racially diverse, whereas most fashion dolls are white & blond. Then I saw the poster for the Bratz movie (which I think was mentioned in Revelations somewhere) and the girls they’ve cast have much, much lighter skin and more caucasian features than the dolls do.
I think we learn all we need to know about the mindset of that creep from Abercrombie & Fitch when we read that his name is “Hampton Carney.”
Um, CASE CLOSED!!!
Its harder when they go to school. Far from being ‘very savvy’, they are anxious to fit in. Who wants to be watching bananas in pyjamas when your schoolmates roll their eyes and bring out the bratz at playtime? there is a moment as a mother when you think – what is more important here – my child feeling a part of their peer group – or my 5 year old keeping faith with my values in the playground?
I’d prefer it if this dilemma never got to the playground.. I’d prefer it if we weren’t pretending as a community that 5 year olds are going to be more cynical about advertising ethics than impressed by an invitation to rosie-who-has-30-bratz-dolls’ birthday party. Advertisers are very aware that a large part of their sales come from ‘peer persuasion.’ It’s obscene that they dont want to recognise they arent just selling ‘product’, they are selling a kind of premature adolescence…a look,an attitude, a sexualised definition of what it means to be an older girl. (and little girls do look up to older girls)
Its all very well to say that its up to the parents. But consider – our parenting, the limits and the boundaries we place on our children and their behaviour – is being challenged by large companies who pour money and time into working out exactly how to circumvent our better judgement, and manipulate our children into selling their product to us as a means to belong….
Agreed. With three girls – 6, 8 & 9 – who were brought up this way before ending up with me – I fight it all the time. I also see the effects of kids being treated like this and its deadly.
Mara – Exactly, and well done putting all that so succinctly.
momomax – sometimes these things are so crazy I think we must all be living in a satirical novel about the downfall of civilization. “..and then they made bras for 6 year olds…”
Richie – agreed, that is the one and only positive feature of Bratz dolls – their varying racial characteristics, but their solitary brownie point is wiped out by their baby doll versions in nappies and lingerie with s&m-like bottle hanging on a chain against their exposed baby thigh.
mannabozo – Hahaha I like a straight forward case, good prosecution.
rose – Yep, and this is one reason why the parental authority argument is so flawed. We need a co-operative approach to stop innappropriate marketing to children. Govt, media, corporate and us…
VictoriaE – Great point of view you’ve brought to this. I’m glad you highlighted how damaging this is to the children exposed to the worst of sexualisation. No kid is ‘sassy’ enough to deal with adults directing sexual attention at them and when we create an environment where both adults and children blur the lines of sexuality for children then this is what we are forcing children to confront.
Joanne Harris wrote a story about the subject in her short story collection Jigs and Reels. She was inspired to write it when she couldn’t find anything age-appropriate to buy (basically a lot of the sexy clothing you’re talking about) when she went shopping for her daughter (who was between 8-12yrs, I think). I didn’t think the story was great, it was written form the POV of the designer, but I knew what she was talking about because I get the same sick feeling when I see that sort of thing. I especially get irritated when I see little girls in heels.
my stepdaughter comes to our place with kid-bra’s. She’s 9. I want to toss them when they arrive. I’m glad we have our own clothes for her that stay here. The next day when she asks ‘can I wear my kid bra again’ I say, ‘no, it’s been worn one day. Leave it in your bag to go back to your Mum’s with the other dirty clothes'(trying not to emphasise the word dirty like I want to) It’s scary to see her dance and sing. She loves to perform and often asks us to video it. The lyrics not to mention the moves she makes (unknowingly) are so dangerous. Even the TV shows she’s allowed ot watch in her other home makes me furious. She gives me play-by-play accounts of movies and tvshows and you’d think you’re talking to a 16yo. We have her spend time with younger kids who are still very naiive to play innocently for a change. We read her Enid Blyton and try and feed her a pure imagination of make-believe instead of the drama of Home and Away style epics she lives in her other life.
Phoebe, this is another good example you’ve raised where it is impossible to address this problem through parental supervision alone. Thanks.
Vintagefan – thanks, I’ll have to check that out.
We are so totally kindred spirits on the same page Blue Milk. I’m with you 100%, trying to raise a girl who doesn’t feel a need to be sexy in this culture is beyond challenging.
I too am infuriated at what we’ve reduced our little girls to being sexualized and adulized. We’re basically just selling their souls. Or allowing the marketing people to do it for us. I’ve written on the similar issue of little girl spas commando marketing beauty and spa treatments to the 6-11 group. It stops being playing when there are billion dollar strategies involved.
The most disturbing part of that story is the title was called Girls For Sale and it was being clicked people actually searching for “girls for sale”.
Tracee Sioux
So Sioux Me
Empower Your Self
Empower Your Daughter
http://www.sosiouxme.com
Blog Fabulous
http://www.blogfabulous.com
It’s always the same: when money is being made, morality goes out of the window. Nothing save LAW will stop them, because sure as hell their sense of what is right and what is wrong is useless.
Oh, and one more thing. The “Bratz” dolls are NOT racially diverse. They all have the same FACE shape, lip size, nose size and, of course, body type. And on top of it, the “racially diverse” attempt is not new. Barbie had a group of friends of different races: latina, black and asian.
It just sickens me, and I have to admit before reading this article I didn’t really realise the extent of it. Braletes? A entire ‘Playboy’ makeover for your little girl’s bedroom? Who are the sick people who make money from this kind of exploitation?
This comment was changed into a guest post. See Shelley Kulperger’s guest post here .
[…] maternal authority Guest post: Shelley Kulperger, following on from this post blue milk wrote about the sexualisation of young girls in the commercial world: Playboy Kids, more […]
[…] authority and I’ve talked a lot about the problems with the parental authority model here and here and everywhere so I won’t talk about it again now. Well done to The Situtionist and […]
Hey Dunc, I’m the Parental Authority around here and so is my partner and we think Hi 5 is shite and they’ve never watched it!
So stick that in your pontificating pipe and smoke it, darls.
Needless to say, we are unimpressed by Bratz around here also.
I nominated this post at Hoyden’s contest for feminist blogs: http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1236
The link to the “Jordan’ article is broken, but easy to google – oy. And I noticed the forum topic de jour is “Are working mothers fit parents?” and check out the comments. Again, oy.
Thanks Helen, all fixed.
[…] And we said, hey stop sexualising young girls. […]
[…] corporate paedophilia case ends with a whimper Remember this court case? Dr Emma Rush and the Australian Institute criticised companies for sexualising children in their […]
[…] art, with incredible caution. Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute (the research group that produced the report Corporate Paedophilia) was interviewed on this subject and has raised a number of salient points for me. […]
[…] once again a toy manufacturer has put out a doll that has me siding with “the outraged Christian […]
[…] said a lot about this issue previously, like this and this and this and this, for […]
[…] are those who can see the bleeding obvious and those who haven’t had to shop for clothes for a pre-teen girl lately. Unfortunately, taking this side in the media debate I have found my views are more often than not […]
[…] would have thought sexualising little girls in fashion was getting kinda old (pun intended), but seems French Vogue thought it was worth another go. Nine year olds and […]
[…] is blue milk’s on bratz and the sexualisation of children. there are many on this theme on her blog, but this one is a […]
[…] is voyeuristic and intrusive; it is an art form with boggy ethical terrain. And we’re hardly a culture that empowers teenage girls and respects their bodily autonomy and sexuality. Teenagers are aware […]
[…] deeper themes beneath the sexism or in moving a stalled public conversation forward. This is why I was so very excited when I first heard Shelley Kulperger speak on the topic. Because yes! feminist analysis uncovering […]
I will immediately snatch your rss as I can’t to find your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please permit me recognize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.
[…] Playboy kids, more Bratz hatred and how to stop this thing […]
[…] culture has become a morass for parents of little girls. You have to sidestep sexualised clothing for 6-year-olds and billboards of unusually skinny women in their knickers before you even get to questions of […]