Democritus

"People have been complaining of the sexualisation of their daughters for generations."

I'm sure they have. I know it's nothing new. You might be able to shrug off today's situation as being part and parcel of the usual generational gap, but I consider the very young age at which girls are being targeted now as something new and concerning.

"While not entirely happy with the world, I would prefer not to allow the well meaning moral majority to erode the freedoms that have taken so long to establish."

I'm not about imposing moral codes or advocating censorship. I too value the long fought freedoms we enjoy. I am concerned though at the unprecedented power of profit-driven corporations to erode these freedoms and to manipulate young and susceptible minds.

In an ideal world, I'd probably prefer to counter this through awareness raising and a subsequent mobilising of consumer power. When I see intelligent people like yourself though, denying we even have a problem, I really do despair at the soft option ever having any real impact.

Bronwyn>"I too value the long fought freedoms we enjoy. I am concerned though at the unprecedented power of profit-driven corporations to erode these freedoms and to manipulate young and susceptible minds."

You can PROFESS to value freedoms all you want, but feminists like yourself are part of the cause for their dramatic REDUCTION.

Stop blaming "profit-driven corporations"* and start blaming yourself and other feminists, the religious and socialist/fascists who are to blame for the loss of our rights and freedoms...and the continuation of such as we can see happening right now in our political processes.

*This was simply unbelievable as it is so random and baseless. But it yet proves that the agenda behind this censorship is very real and very deceitfully so.

Steel

'Stop blaming "profit-driven corporations"* and start blaming yourself and other feminists, the religious and socialist/fascists who are to blame for the loss of our rights and freedoms...and the continuation of such as we can see happening right now in our political processes.'

This is the kind of 'freedom-of-expression' discourse that makes the pro-Henson/Olympia camp shoot itself well and truly in the foot.

According to such discourse, 'freedom of expression' is a fundamental right - except for religious people, feminists, socialists and fascists. Also, respect for 'freedom of expression' is a fundamental responsibility - but not respect for the views of religious people, feminists, socialists and fascists.

And 'freedom of expression' means having the right to conflate and confuse debates by lumping vastly contrasting dichotomies together - like socialism and fascism, religion and feminism.

As for the other pro-Henson/Olympia posters here - those who have actually written intelligent, thoughtful posts - I suggest you ditch this guy like you would a bad date. He's not doing your case much good at all.

Steel

"This was simply unbelievable as it is so random and baseless. But it yet proves that the agenda behind this censorship is very real and very deceitfully so."

If you'd calm down long enough to read the preceding debate carefully, Steel, you'd soon realise that my reference to 'profit-driven corporations' is not at all random, but is in fact an integral part of the issue of premature sexualization and exploitation of young girls, which in turn is all part of the underage nude girl photography debate.

I know it irks purists like you to have anyone dare question the sacred cow of free market capitalism, but the more reasonable among us recognize that while it has of course brought us great comfort, that comfort has and is increasingly obviously coming at a very considerable social and environmental cost.

Part of that cost, as it relates to this particular debate, is the damaging effect on young girls of the relentless and insidious marketing that is telling them they should be dressing in a certain way and that they need a certain body shape and look, to the point that we now have young girls in pre-school unhappy with the way they look. And however much people like you try to ignore it, Steel, this marketing is done solely in the pursuit of profit.

If you're going to butt in which you're perfectly entitled to do, engage with my argument and stop trying to discredit me by throwing around lazy and completely unfounded claims of feminism, socialism, facism and whatever other ism you can come up with. I have no agenda. There is no agenda. Get over it.

SJF>"And 'freedom of expression' means having the right to conflate and confuse debates by lumping vastly contrasting dichotomies together - like socialism and fascism, religion and feminism."

They are not contrasting in the slightest. They share many agendas, censorship is the primary one. To believe otherwise is is a simply a denial of reality. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's unfortunate that so many people have succumbed so easily to propaganda and old ideologies.

Bronwyn, I appreciate your patience and self-belief, but you are simply incorrect on this and for a 'moderate feminist' surprisingly sexist (this need for sexism probably emerges from your feminist 'teachings'). Parents are responsible for raising their children. The real problem is that parents are are replacing parenting with feeding off of television. Your constant attacks on 'society' do children no justice, because parents are given a free pass by hordes of activists like you. This thinking is a giant disease in our society.

Pressures to conform has ALWAYS existed in society. That is part of life. In light of the Henson debate this is as I've said many times, disgusting...you have shown that the agenda has nothing to do with Henson, and more to do with feminism and socialism (while Hetty, the media and religious who caused this were more like fascists).

SJF: << As for the other pro-Henson/Olympia posters here - those who have actually written intelligent, thoughtful posts - I suggest you ditch this guy like you would a bad date. He's not doing your case much good at all. >>

Yes, this is an issue which makes for strange bedfellows indeed. While I happen to agree with Steel on the essence of this issue, I certainly don't share his views about feminist/socialist conspiracies or whatever it is that floats his boat in other areas. I've noticed that he's not the only one, either - for example, Col Rouge made a very eloquent post on one of the other threads about this subject, with which I agreed competely.

That sort of apparent contradiction is one of the things I like about OLO, actually.

Mind you, it works both ways - you'd have to agree that nasty little wingnuts like Paul.L or religious nutters like runner don't exactly enhance the arguments advanced by the more reasonable and intelligent opponents of artworks that feature images of nude children.