‘How dare the elite media and privileged individuals who think themselves superior to the average mother, deride mothers and imply they’re not eligible for a view on how society should be improved?’Caroline Norma
The articles last week in New Matilda (Trixie Wellington), Crikey (Helen Razer) and ABC Unleashed (Lauren Rosewarne) were so nasty and hurtful to mothers who are legitimately doing their best to make sure their daughters don’t come to any harm from men.
What about mothers who are survivors who might feel like they worry too much about child sexualisation stuff? (which I don’t think is possible). It’s just feeding into their self-doubt, and disempowering them from taking proper action to try and protect their kids better than they were protected.
I think there’s an implicit message in Wellington’s article that mothers are looking at their daughters sexually, which she should be called out on. This is an outrageous claim – Australian courts are currently chock full of, not women, but men who have decided to extend their violent pornography consumption to children. The statistics are huge and getting worse by the year.
Of course we would all love men to come to their senses and begin to lead decent lives like women have managed to for hundreds of years, but at this point in history there’s no indication they’re collectively deciding to do that. So, in the meantime, we have to let mothers feel as empowered as possible to protect their kids, without feeling like they’re weird or being told, (with no evidence) their agenda is puritanical: to ‘shame’ girls and put them in burqas?
How dare the elite media and privileged individuals who think themselves superior to the average mother, deride mothers and imply they’re not eligible for a view on how society should be improved? It smacks of classism. Why are mothers not eligible to speak on behalf of other women? Why can’t they lead the women’s movement (however that’s defined)?
Why can’t we have a women’s movement that’s influenced by our concern for children? Do we have to hide the fact we’re mothers if we want to speak out? And what’s with ‘feminists’ siding with corporations over an individual mother? How could that happen?
More than ever, we need to stand together across the class divide to protect children against trends like sexualisation. Disparaging and belittling mothers, who are most qualified to speak on behalf of children, is just a good way to let the corporations win.
The pornification of culture occurs because not enough of us have children’s rights foremost in our minds. On a daily basis mothers are going about their lives with children’s wellbeing and welfare as their top priority, so we could learn from their example.
Dr Caroline Norma is a lecturer in the School of Global Urban and, Social Studies at RMIT University and a contributor to Big Porn Inc: exposing the harms of the global pornography industry.
See also: Mum who targeted Target part of larger backlash against corporate sexploitation, MTR, August 11, 2012
See also: Suzy Freeman-Greene ‘Tweens’ and our sexed-up culture
Listen to the discussion. here
You can also listen via the ABC Local Radio website here.
17 Responses
I read some of those articles and was absolutely stunned. A woman speaks one word out of line and she’s hauled over the coals? Do these people treat their friends and family this way too? Thanks for writing this Caroline.
Men have always used women to promote their women-hating views and this latest example is no exception. Men always seek to keep focus on women because it ensures male accountability is never publicly raised.
As Caroline Norma adroitly states it is not women who are the ones being brought before Australian courts on charges of subjecting girls to male sexual exploitation but men.
It is not ‘children’ who are the ones men and malestream media are constantly portraying as ‘mens’ disposable sexual service stations’ but girls. Children is gender neutral language and Male Supremacist System constantly seeks to hide which sex is doing what to which sex. I do not see boys portrayed as ‘sexualised objects whose sole reason for existence is to sexually service/sexually titilate men, rather it is girls and now even female babies are being portrayed as men’s disposable sexual service stations.
Those ‘feminists’ who side with the male pornographers and male libertarians are not ‘feminists’ rather they are men’s female handmaidens and so we must not be fooled by malestream manipulation.
It is men who are the ones who have the power to portray women and girls as men’s dehumanised sexual service stations and it is men who are the ones busily engaged in trying to divide women who are mothers and women who are not mothers.
Men rightly believe, that by claiming ‘mothers are the ones viewing their female children as sexualised commodities’ ensures the real perpetrators – namely men are once again invisibilised and as always women are held accountable for men’s sexual violence against women and girls.
Well put Jennifer and thanks for such a concise article Caroline. Yes the motherblaming continues across generations and it’s really especially annoying to see women (who call themselves feminists) doing it. A strong women’s movement needs all women!
Brilliant article. Thanks.
Excellent article Caroline.
I also find it disturbing that an issue so important is percieved as ‘over the top’ by some mothers. We are now looking at a generation already impacted by sexualisation who are now passing these messages (unintentially & often sub-consciously) on to their children. The fact that many parents are unaware and uninterested in this issue is disturbing. There needs to a consensus, a collective approach to protecting young girls from sexualisation…but the parents need to get on board not throw their hands up in the air and say, “Well, this is just the way it is” or make the ludicrous suggestion that protecting a child’s dignity and respect is somehow ‘shaming’ them.
Well said Caroline.
Sadly, in the absence of reasoned debate, the only option seems to be to denigrate an opponent’s character… the method of choice for the proponents of stolen sexuality.
But I don’t get it! Who could seriously criticize the love and concern of a mother? Are these people so ensconced within their ideological little world of twisted sexuality that they’ve forgotten their own mother’s care.
Maybe they’ll “get it” when they have their own children… I mean, they couldn’t have kids… could they?
Great article Caroline.
We need to protect our children at any cost!!
Go for it mamma’s!!
It feels like women just can’t win on this one. Speak out against child sexualisation, and you’re not a mother? ‘Oh you don’t have kids, what could you know, why do you care?’ Speak out when you are a mother, and suddenly you’re Helen Lovejoy in the throes of moral panic.
You know what? Stuff ’em. I’m a postgraduate-educated woman who is currently not in paid employment because I’ve made the choice to look after my kids. And watch out, corporations and condescending authors alike, because I’m not half as dumb as you seem to think I am and I’ve got your number.
I’ve just updated the Collective Shout website with the ABC Radio podcast ‘Sexualisation of Childhood.’ You can listen to it here: http://collectiveshout.org/2012/08/sexualising-childhood-abc-radio-podcast/
Guests included Melinda Tankard Reist, Dr Joe Tucci of the Australian Childhood Foundation, Professor Elizabeth Handsley from the Australian Council on Children and the Media and author Maggie Hamilton.
Absolutely fantastic article!! it still shocks me that half our battle is against other women! I can’t believe the amount of women and girls I come across that give you more slack about speaking out against this rubbish than what men do. Awesome job Caroline! Well spoken!
While everybody has their right to contribute to societal views it is important to evaluate statements based on corroborating evidence they may or may not provide, while it is deplorable to belittle the people voicing their concerns, it is important to critique any argument based on the information that is provided.
In your piece you labelled mothers as “the most qualified to speak on the behalf of children” that is an incredibly broad unqualified statement, a huge proportion of this world are mothers, they come in many shapes sizes and viewpoints, becoming a mother does not instantly “qualify” one to do anything. it is statements like these that are detracting from this important social discourse, while most sensible educated people, mothers or not, would agree that the sexualization of our youth has to be curtailed. However, the argument here remains, what is sexualization? There are many who would argue that children should be allowed to dress however they like and it is therefore upon society to remove the obsession with visual sexual cues. there are others who believe it is on mothers and fathers to cover up children.
It is worthwhile looking into what clothes exactly are target selling? Do they immediately invoke sexual imagery? If not, then it is not on target to change what is clearly a more sinister underlying issue of sexual attraction to children.
If we spend all of our efforts trying to cover children up it will not solve the problem of deviants who are attracted to juveniles, instead it will only change department store clothing ranges.
It is important that all concerned citizens, fathers, mothers, siblings, academics and politicians have the right to express their opinions, critique and be critiqued fairly and constructively, that is the only way to build up our society rather than arguing amongst ourselves and allowing actual criminals to get away with exploitation, subjugation and rape…
Thank you, Professor Bandarage, and everyone else who kindly read my piece, for all your good and interesting comments. I think the role of mothers in the women’s movement, and in championing children’s rights, should be a discussion we keep having.
I understand the argument that an individual’s motherhood doesn’t automatically qualify them as a child advocate–there’s plenty of childless women (like myself) who think, read, and research about these issues as well. And I understand not all mothers do the right thing by children. However, if we see social knowledge and insight as forged authentically through ‘doing’, as well as ‘thinking’, I reckon we could say that, more than anyone else on the planet, mothers are the population who–in terms of time and energy–dedicate themselves to children and their development. They do this on a daily basis through all the things (both mundane and special) they do and say on behalf of children. Sure, some of these things my be misguided (thinking that ‘smacking’ children isn’t violence, for example), and mothers like everyone else are open to having their opinions scrutinised.
But, the current public discourse mostly disallows mothers a right to speak out on the basis they are somehow small-minded or self-serving (even sexually!) in their views. This situation is outrageous, given that fathers, politicians, academics, and others aren’t the ones who are (generally) looking after children on a daily basis, and having most contact with them. Why is the population who does have the most contact with children derided in the media as not sophisticated enough to speak about broad social issues?
It is mothers who are most acutely aware that it isn’t a few ‘deviants’ who have a sexual interest in children. Unfortunately the corporate media and retail world expresses the same interest, and it would be interesting to know whether pedophilia or profit-seeking is most behind this trend. Questions like ‘what is sexualisation’ have already been worked out by mothers, who see evidence of it every day, and notice the effects it has on their children. We might see the belittling of mothers (who have done the most to bring child sexualisation to our attention) as a strategy to take the issue off the public radar, which might suit powerful money and sexual interests in some parts of society.
There’s a lot of people–in academia and the liberal media–who continue to scoff at the idea of ‘child sexualisation’, and at the mothers who raise the issue. I think it’s important we build a case against this type of elitism, which just serves the interest of people who don’t care about the rights of women and children.
The anti-male sexism in this post is quite alarming, in particular the following: ‘Of course we would all love men to come to their senses and begin to lead decent lives like women have managed to for hundreds of years’. This implies that women as a group are decent, and men are not. It would be accurate if it referred only to individuals who commit or endorse sex crime, but the implication here is that essentially all men can be described as such. I could expound here on the fact that many caring and decent men are themselves concerned about child exploitation and sexualisation etc. but to do so would be frankly condescending; I would have thought that was obvious.
Coming from an academic especially, I am amazed that such sloppy and derogatory language has gone unchallenged. It stops me from engaging with the author’s argument in any depth.
On the contrary, I think motherhood does immediately qualify me to speak on women and children’s issues, including the sexualisation of children. As someone who has no academic qualifications, but is well read on these issues, I refuse to be silenced by an academic who holds tightly to their rarified world of knowledge, rather than the day to day acts of love that women who are mothers perform daily. I believe that the trivialisation of mothers’ opinions on these matters is yet another symptom of the capitalist society we live in, whereby unless you are an economic unit, you dont have any merit in our society. Women who care for children, who stimulate and nourish them because they love, deserve better. I have seen a parliamentarian describe an issue as a “motherhood issue”, as if that means it doesn’t matter. Surely what matters most is the future of our children, that they are loved and protected from predatory behaviour.
When reading this article, I am amazed an the emotional and unscientific argument that DR Caroline makes. Simply giving birth to a child does not autmatical make you “the expert” on children’s issues and trying to explain your own anxiety/fears with a pseudo-philosophical argument is ridiculous and embarassing for RMIT and women writers everwhere. Its ok to FEEL however you FEEL but please dont pretend its rational because there is no scientific evidence supporting your argument.
What is amazing to me is that in addressing an issue that involves blatant descrimination to a large, experienced and concerned group of the population – mothers – who are speaking out to address crimes against children, the “anti-male” and “sloppy” comments by the author are considered grounds to discontinue the conversation by one of the commenters.
Because this topic is so important, it would seem to warrant continued conversation.
I don’t see any man-hating, even in the comment quoted by Sarah B. I see an opion.
Alarming would seem to befit the actual message of the article rather than its delivery.
It clearly demonstrates the need for articles like this (due to the emphasis on reversing the blame).
I’m grateful to have my attention brought to this article and the media disparagement of mothers.
The thoughtful comments and attention to these important matters is needed.
It is the lack of respect – to women, mothers, any children, men who don’t adhere to narrow stereotypes – that is at the root of this broader problem that affects every aspect of our daily lives.
Thank you.
Encouraging the discussion will help us empower each other in finding solutions to protect children and the right to be heard for each person.
Having worked in prisons, I can’t tell you the number of times I have heard the statement (from staff), “It was not until I had children that I stopped being able to work with sex offenders”.
I guess it is surprising that it often takes being a parent to increase a person’s empathy for children, especially since we have all been children ourselves and surely know what a wonderous but vulnerable stage of life it is. It does seem that the role of parenthood further increases people’s sensitivity and anxiety about any sources of potential harm to children and also galvanises them to go that extra step to try to prevent harm.
With raised anxiety comes restriction of exploration. Getting the balance right between protecting children vs allowing experimentation and healthy risk taking constitutes the day-to-day challenge of parenting and there will be a diversity of view-points.
In any debate, I do think it is important to know the vested interest of any parties contributing to the debate to understand how that might be influencing what they say. My guess is that parents have a bit more invested in this issue than others due to their motivation of wanting a good life for their children.