Australia lagging behind while sexualisation gets worse
A six-month independent review into the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, in the UK published Monday, called on retailers, media and regulatory bodies to take action in the best interest of children.
The inquiry report, Letting Children Be Children, is the product of surveys and interviews with hundreds of parents, along with input from children and young people, focus groups and submissions from interested parties.
Commissioned by PM David Cameron, the inquiry was headed by Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of Mothers’ Union, who found parents felt undermined by a sexualised culture in their efforts to raise healthy children. “Society has become increasingly full of sexualised imagery. This has created a wallpaper to children’s lives. Parents feel there is no escape and no clear space where children can be children,” he said.
The recommendations include:
• Providing parents with one single website to make it easier to complain about any program, ad, product or service.
• Putting age restrictions on music videos to prevent children buying sexually explicit videos and screening guides for broadcasters
• Making it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material from the internet
• Retailers offering age-appropriate clothes for children – the retail industry
should sign up to the British Retail Consortium’s new guidelines which checks and challenges the design, buying, display and marketing of clothes, products and services for children.
• Restricting outdoor ads containing sexualised imagery where large numbers of children are likely to see them
• Banning the employment of children under 16 as brand ambassadors and in peer-to-peer marketing, and improving parents’ awareness of advertising and marketing techniques aimed at children.
• ‘Lads’ magazines to be moved to the top shelf in shops or sold in covers.
In an encouraging sign, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) has acted by publishing good practice guidelines on children’s wear. Nine major companies had already signed up.
The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) also came out in support of the review’s recommendations. “The protection of children from harmful or inappropriate advertising is one of the Advertising Standards Authority’s top priorities and to do this we know we need to reflect the views of parents and young people in our work,” Chief Executive Guy Parker said. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England also welcomed the report.
Bailey has recommend Government monitoring of implementation of the recommendations and a stock-take in 18 months. The Prime Minister and Children’s Minister will invite businesses and regulators into Downing Street in October and ask them to report on steps they have taken to address the issues.
Wouldn’t that be nice.
Child development authorities, child psychologists, and children’s advocacy groups have been waiting since 2008 for action following the Senate committee inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment.
The report made a number of recommendations which seem to have sunk without a trace and industry has shown almost no willingness to be pro-active. Profits before children seem to be the motto despite a growing body of evidence of harm to the physical and mental health of children. As Emma Rush, lead author of the Australia Institute’s Corporate Paedophilia report summarises:
There is substantial evidence that sexualisation harms children: it promotes body image concerns, eating disorders, and gender stereotyping. Premature sexualisation also erases the line between who is and is not sexually mature, and as such, may increase the risk of child sexual abuse by undermining the important social norm that children are sexually unavailable.
The Senate Inquiry recommended a review of the recommendations – supposed to take place in December 2009 – to assess the response of industry to the recommendations. A year and a half later, and we’re still waiting.
Meanwhile, ‘self-regulation’ continues to mean the industry gets to do what it wants and get away with it.
If Britain’s regulatory bodies, retailers and children’s commissioner can get behind the Bailey recommendations, why can’t the equivalent bodies in Australia get on board?
Here’s what I said about the issue on Channel 7’s Sunrise. Was good to see Kochie realise that we also had an inquiry and a report which was now wasting away on a shelf.
4 Responses
It is absolutely tragic that a set of guidelines like that could be needed, but such a breath of fresh air to see them in writing -not to mention the companies already committed to it. Would LOVE to see Aussie retailers having the integrity to do the same!
Great news. Go David Cameron (if only here), go Kochie and thank you Melinda.
I love this line: “This has created a wallpaper to children’s lives.” So very true.
I want to say that I can’t believe the Senate committee enquiry report has disappeared without a trace, but actually I can believe it only too well. It seems like there are more and more people every day becoming aware of (and appalled by) the increasingly sexualised environment into which young children are being thrust, and that’s great… but WHAT is it going to take for industry and government to get on board?
The report by Reg Bailey who is apparently a ‘mother’ despite his biological maleness because he is Chief Executive of a religious based women only organisation Mothers Union is in fact window dressing.
Firstly the report claims it focuses on sexualisation of children – utter nonsense because it is not not ‘children’ it is girls and even female babies who are being targetted by multi-national corporations and malestream media. It is girls and female babies who are being depicted as males’ disposable sexual service stations. I continue to wait with baited breath evidence of little boys and pre-teen boys being shown in sexually submissive poses or shown as ‘adult men in boys’ bodies. I’ve yet to seen sexualised clothing on sale to boys wherein skimpy barely coverable knickers emphasise boys’ sexual organs. But the onslaught by malestream media and multi-national companies in promoting as empowering/sexy/hot is endlessly directed at little girls, pre-teen girls and of course girls and adult women. All are submerged in the misogynistic male supremacist claim ‘girls (sic) your vale and worth is solely dependant on your being accorded male sexual approval because you are seen as ‘sexually hot and sexually available to males.
David Cameron leader of the UK government knew the report could not focus on holding multi-national male dominant and male led corporations responsible or accountable so what happened? Why a website will be set up to enable individual parents which completely ignores fact it is primarily women who are the ones responsible for childcare and are the ones who have to try and tell their female children why buying a g string is not appropriate or watching a music video showing naked women gyrating around fully dressed males is not empowering.
This website will make no difference whatsoever because individual parents (sic) do not hold structural/socio-economic power and neither can individual parents force powerful multi-national corporations to cease sexually exploiting girl children.
The UK’s Advertising Standards Agency has been asked to ensure that certain advertising does not sexually exploit ‘children’ (sic). Wonderful – or rather not because the ASA is not independent – it is owned and funded by the Advertising Industry and ASA for decades has no understanding or even implementation of a gendered analysis of how advertising deliberately promotes the misogynistic lie that women are sexualised commodities. Now ASA are supposedly the experts!! What a joke – ASA only bans advertisements after they have been circulated and slaps the wrist of advertisers/retailers. The only advertisements which are banned are those which supposedly sexually insult men!
Outdoor advertising is to be restricted when it is sited near schools. Wonderful – children do not just walk in public spaces close to their school they do in fact view misogynistic sexualised images of women as men’s disposable sexual service stations in other public places such as supermarkets; high street advertising; music videos; television shows; porn magazines such as Nuts; Zoo; FHM; Maxim. Girls are bombarded with messages they are ‘males’ sexualised commodities and oh isn’t it so empowering for girls to learn that becoming a porn star or a lap dancer is the most effective way of achieving ’empowerment’ whatever that means.
No Cameron and his male multi-national corporate cronies who have donated funds to the Conservative Party and constantly lobbied for no legislation concerning how malestream media portrays women and girls as dehumanised sexual service stations, are terrified of upsetting the status quo.
There will be no focus whatsoever on how and why so many males are committing sexual violence against women and girls. Why boys are growing up believing they are all entitled if they choose (apt word choose it is similar to “choice”) to have sexual access to any female and she has no right to deny him his sexual rights.
How our male supremacist system operates is not the business of Cameron and his neo-conservative government. No instead it is all voluntary agreements which cannot be enforced and will be swiftly ignored. It is the claim a website will give ’empowerment to individual mothers;’ it is the claim ASA will curtail advertising which dehumanises ‘children (sic) because we mustn’ t state the obvious which is that boys are not being reduced to dehumanised sexualised beings.
So it will continue to be business as usual with Cameron and his cronies claiming ‘well we acted on Reg’s report and if it isn’t working that is because mothers (of course – blame women) are not taking action. No mention will be made of multi-corporations/malestream media/retailers’ accountability in sexually exploiting and dehumanising women and girls. No because business is neutral – it does not engage in profit for the sake of profit – it is responsible and ethical – that is why legislation is not needed. Neither for that matter must the state interfere in free market enterprises.