WTF?

I found this an interesting and thought provoking read.

This really caught my eye: “In a sexualised society, women and girls are required to live out a pornographic idea of the female ...”

Are required or choose?

Choose I would think.
Is it the advertising industry (including that disguised as music videos) that provides young girls with this imagery?

If it is then it is the same advertising industry that portrays males (and fathers in particular) as idiots, oafs, fools and objects of scorn and ridicule.

In these uncertain economic times maybe it is the adults that need to push the issue by keeping the plastic in the wallet/purse.

I have seen articles like this pretty much every year since I was a child several decades ago.

All that has changed is the technology, but the sexualization theme has not.

Everyone is programmed with an inbuilt sexual interest and identity, and advertisers have always used it.

Girls are no longer afraid of their "reputation" and feel free to act sexually like boys.

The only real solution is to turn back the clock. Maybe even introduce the Burqa as mandatory?

How disappointing to see the red/green/loony/left, lesbian, femanazi, paedophiles handling such an important matter, in the usual manner. No acknowledgement of their own culpability, typical.

1, "gurrrl power" and "women can do anything", without any consideration of possible consequences, is one cause of this.

2, taking girls away from the proven safety of biological fathers to the proven dangers of deadbeat, single motherhood is another one. Girls growing up without their fathers love, always end up with lower self esteem. BTW, they are "reviewing" the "shared parenting" laws right now. In other words, femanazism has been and still is, trying to continue, grooming girls for abuse.

3, Their shrieking, misandrist, propaganda has been encouraging all men and boys to be more mistrusting and hateful towards women and girls, in return.

Less half truth and you might get somewhere. The most evil tool of the ruling elites, both loony left and raving right, to oppress everybody and create poverty is femanazism.

Men try to create wealth and opportunity, for their own, children. Women try to create wealth and opportunity for "Hardly Normal's" children, with retail therapy. Which brings us back to the "Bratz", a direct consequence of 40 years of femanazism.

Lets lighten the mood with a joke. Q, Whats the difference between a femanazi and a paedophile? A, Well, none really, but at least a paedophile, is willing to do their own dirty work and is only abusing, one child at a time.

SM,
Not one of your better posts. Given it's both factually and ideologically biased/flawed.

I would change some phrases like " advertisers have always used it." to "advertisers have increasingly exploited it"

'Used it' implies it's normal (Status Quo) but there is no comparison between a 1910-1950 add with muted (stereotyped) sexuality ads and the blatant sexuality in today's.

Technology didn't push the boundaries of manipulation. Ads did by exploiting psychological manipulation always trying be more 'noticeable' than the last.

Compare children's toys ads of the bygone era with the overt sexualisation of the 'tweeny demographic market' today non existent 20 years ago they were children. All this to sell hyped up consumer goods and part of the myth to support the magic pudding economic growth.

Even from a genetic perspective there is a difference between a potential and actuality. Much like the fact we all have the potential to kill (other humans) but few of us receive the circumstances to complete the equation.

As for comparing it to the extreme (Burqa) is obfuscation/denial not reasoned comment

Excellent article, Anna. Melinda's latest and collective shout sounds like another timely addition to the growing body of literature sounding the alarm on the hyper-sexualisation of girls. She's obviously garnered contributions from a wide range of well respected writers and it's pleasing to see it selling so well.

I agree especially with the need to join the 'causational dots'. Corporate greed and unregulated advertising are indeed some of the bigger ones. It's a tall ask, but they both need to be brought to heel, so to speak. Only the combined strength of people power and governments acting in people's interests, rather than those of ruthlessly profit-driven corporations, will be effective in curtailing their currently unprecedented freedom to exploit, not only women and girls, but men and boys too.

My only real point of departure here, from both Anna and Melissa, is that of contraception and abortion. I agree totally with their critique on Big Pharma's increasing control over our health and its medicalisation of all aspects of beauty and wellness. But, in light of the urgent need for population control, I do think women need to feel free to use chemical contraception and abort unwanted pregnancies without extra pressure being applied by their well intentioned sisters. Yes, there are health risks, and yes, there is emotional scarring for women to deal with, but these in my view are a necessary price to pay when over-population is one of the major threats facing life on this planet.

But in all other respects I totally support Melissa and the other essayists. I thank them and wish them all power in getting their message out there.

Rule number 1. It's always someone else's fault. We are 'victims' of advertising, of men, of 'societal attitudes', now 'Big Pharma' (Wouldn't the pill be one of the most liberating inventions for women?) blah blah blah.

I'm not religious at all, but I think there was a commandment long ago about vanity. Even one on greed, one on envy. Look to yourself and you have the power to solve all your problems. That's much more 'empowering' and 'liberating' to women than telling them they're victims all the time.

Some of the quotes here are hilarious...

'felt ripped off in their sexual encounters, finding out early that sex has become the primary currency of personal interaction.'
A currency they have in abundance, and that the boys want. Not exactly a rip off when you're setting the price.

“This cheap and nasty experience of sex, if not downright violent and dangerous, does not encourage either the expectation of all the other dimensions of sexual experience that are truly human. Tenderness and intimacy are lost.”

Such outrage at women performing oral sex. 'downright violent and dangerous'?.
I'm sure it would be for any man putting his penis near MTR's mouth.

I wonder if she considers cunnilingus cheap and nasty if not downright violent and dangerous, inhuman and without tenderness or intimacy.

I started reading, my blood boiled so I skimmed the rest.

Don't know what to say. Lost for words.

There was a coppertone ad many years ago, cute as. 99% population thought it was cute. Now 99% think it porn. I blame the 99% of the population for even thinking such a thing. So the article writers seem to appear to be with this 99%. Am I wrong, do I miss something? Who has actually sexualised youth here?

It is the fashion for the current generation of young, incredibly self-assured women to crap on about "I do whatever the hell I choose and the rest of the world can go to hell". The more they say this, the more conformist they actually sound.

Anyone with half a brain knows that all decisions are made in a context and are influenced by a variety of sources. It is high time that people started investigating the rapid changes in the sexual behaviour of young women and what is influencing these choices.

Missus sums up how I felt when I read this long article.
I was somewhat taken aback by the rather 'ranting' pattern of this writer.

If this is feminism standing up for the current lives of young girls, then I want no part of it.

I have a 17 year old daughter and I don't see all this sexualisation happening with gay abandon all around her.

When Elvis Presley and Rock and Roll entered the scene many years ago, there was a great outcry over this 'evil, sex-crazed man and this devil's music.' The sky didn't actually fall in at all.

I remember when I was young and playing with Barbie dolls, my mother told me that feminists did not like these dolls, as they gave young girls bad ideas about how they should look.

The same is happening now with Bratz dolls, and I have no doubt something else will upset the next older generation.

Can't we just let the girls enjoy their youth and do the best we can to bring them (and their brothers) up as good citizens?
I know plenty of young girls and boys who don't seem to be displaying this terrible sexualization the author carries on about.

Sometimes people just see what they want to see. They see young girls acting sexy and deduce from this that they have been sexualised by some demonic other. They do not look beyond the comments of the girls and try and understand what they are really saying when they long to be ‘one hot chick’ or to be ‘wanted by boys’. Eight year old girls will say they just want to be sexy or to be like their gyrating ‘role models’. Those who want to heap scorn on the demon will just accept what they say at face value in ways that they would never do with an otherwise normal eight year old. A child of that age does not even know what sex feels like but these adults who are looking to use the children for their own propaganda purposes accept their statements with all the literalness of a supreme court judge.

These girls do not want to be sexy for its own sake – they want to be sexy because they see from examples that it will make them popular. It is their fragile egos that are being exploited by advertisers, retailers and even many parents. It is the same with wanting to be a celebrity, a singing idol, a sports star. Kids see these things as bringing them popularity and offsetting the pain they feel from not having enough love or self confidence.

Any decent parent looks beyond the literal desires of their kids for the real desire that they have and it usually is much more fundamental than stardom or being ‘hot’. These kids would not be able for exploitation if they had a secure sense of themselves.

If there is anyone to demonise here it is parents who do not listen to the real needs of their children. I suspect that amongst those on the warpath against the perpetrators of ‘sexualisation’ are parents who should be at home trying to listen to what their kids really want. Instead they seem to want their kids to really want what they want them to want.

Oh My! "One would have thought that we had left the Victorian era behind. Ages ago."

Was not Cromwell, part of the puritan movement?

I just guess that history has to repeat itself every so often.

Yep it is a real nightmare, this scare mongering business.

I use to think that the oppressive patriarchs were terrible for not allowing their daughters to get their ears pierced or to wear makeup.

Now I know why.

Loong live the Puritans.(sarcasm)

Examinator et al,

I admit my previous post was a little simplistic, but I don't always have the time for a more detailed commentry.

However, my point is still that the change in the advertising is largely a reflection of the change in society.

In the 50s:

Sex education virtually did not exist,
Open discussion on sex was taboo,
Birth control was crude and ineffective,
Abortions were performed in back street clinics with often lethal consequences,
Gay sex was criminalised,
Women worked in lower positions for lower pay,
Unmarried mothers were stigmatised,
Divorce was scandalous and left the wife financially worse off.

Today, most teens and tweens know about sex, are not afraid to discuss it, and are not restricted by the taboos that burdened us at that age.

The change advertising and sexuality of youngsters is largely an unwanted symptom of how society has changed, and to reverse this would require the reversing of many of the progressive changes of the last decades.

My daughter and her friends are 13, go to a top private girls school, and they are all perfectly aware of their sexuality, boys, and all desire to be "hot". However, while watching next top model, glee etc, but have clear focus on what they want to be later in life and it is generally not defined by sex. (although some are more advanced than others)

My experience is that the worst case scenarios experienced by the author are not the norm, and whilst I worry about my daughter, I far prefer the world as it is for her now than as it was decades ago.

Shadow Minister

<< The change advertising and sexuality of youngsters is largely an unwanted symptom of how society has changed, and to reverse this would require the reversing of many of the progressive changes of the last decades. >>

The change in advertising, and its move towards driving the sexualisation of ever younger girls, is much more than the natural result of progress that you describe. It's a deliberate strategy on the part of advertisers and it's been lead by them all the way. Yes, I know it can be argued that they're only responding to community demand and operating within the parameters set by community consensus, but this is not the reality. It's advertisers that set the trends. They're the ones that cross the boundaries. They're the ones that saturate the market with images that become the new norm.

Your assertion that reversing this "would require the reversing of many of the progressive changes of the last decades" is I suggest a cop out. Guidelines are framed all the time to achieve the best standards in labelling and use of imagery in advertising and marketing. Only a community of non thinking wimps would hand over unfettered power to a bunch of free marketeer advertising executives, and give them free reign to shape the words and images we're all assaulted with on a continual basis. Limiting an advertiser's freedom to exploit is a perfectly legitimate community right and one that can be easily exercised without curtailing freedom more generally.

TBC

Bronwyn,

"Limiting an advertiser's freedom to exploit is a perfectly legitimate community right and one that can be easily exercised without curtailing freedom more generally"

Australia's advertising laws are probably the most puritanical outside the muslim world, and yet the "sexualisation" occurs well within these boundaries. To control this we would have to make up legislation that not only dealt with content but IMPLIED content, and would have to ban most advertising or film material TV shows produced externally. (such as next top model, glee, gossip girl etc)

Advertisers are not trying to set standards, they are trying to sell products. They do this by setting the product in a setting that catches the eye of the target audience and makes it look good. Young girls and boys know what is hot and what is not and for the teen audience older models (than 20) or "normal body shape" (muffin top models' is the term my daughter uses) are going to sell nothing.

Considering that much of what they see or read comes over the internet, the new thought police will do for "made in Australia" what Germany did for Poland.

While I believe your intentions are good, most of the harpies from the vocal "moral" minority, have no clue as to the consequenses of what they ask and are "outraged" again when intelligent politicians ignore them.

SM

I understood your point the first time I just don't believe your political dogma.

It's based unprovable assertions that to control the excesses of Advertising we need to adopt the moral mores of the fifties.
It is akin to claiming that banning full human clones necessitates our return to pre medicine morality.

Neither is it necessarily the fault of advanced knowledge. Just because I know how to stop blood flow doesn't license me to use that knowledge to harm.

Psychology has its positive uses but to then justify it's abuses in advertising to ensure profit is sheer nonsense.

Where is your proof ? Mine is in the the purpose and techniques of marketing/advertising

Around the 50's Ads/marketing stopped informing the public in favour of manipulating them to consume by selling the sizzle not the steak. e.g. emotions rather than substance.

Everything today is expensively advertised, marketed in snazzy packaging designs (which add to the price). To protect the investment inconvenient information is hidden by complicated codes and mis-information i.e. New Xxx with 'Z' power when what they mean is chlorine.
10 profitable products replace 3 non profitable ones that do the job equally well. How does the average shopper know what is true and what is BS?

To ensure a legacy market they target children as consumers.
Everything from lollies at child reach at the the check out.
To working on the 'nag' factor, moving the buying motivation away from parents (rational) to the child's emotions .
To plain ordinary targeting (manipulation) of children.

Bra-lets and sexy clothes (fashions) for *little* girls.
And for the older ones e.g. ad selling young women's panties covered in ants with an echidna (the connotations are subtle but there) brilliantly clever but blatant sexualisation.
Selling cars with booby girls rolling over the product.
Cars aren't means of transport their cool symbols, sex symbols.
Let's not mention unrealistic body shapes, role models.

Ask yourself what is the point of all this manipulation? To sustain a fanciful economics system based on the oxymoron concept of endless growth.
BTW I advocate responsibility, truth not puritanism.

Every time I visit the Smithfield, Cairns campus of James Cook university I am struck by the hypersexualised attire of a substantial proportion of the female students. They are there to gain degrees, to lead on to a professional career, yet choose to dress like Britney Spears. They don't need to grab a man as a breadwinner as their grandmothers' generation did, but despite the legal and economic near-parity of women's status in contemporary society, the asymmetric sexual dynamics between young men and young women persist. Specifically with respect to physical appearance, men are still the desirers, women the desired. Looking back, the 1960s and 1970s, when some men also dressed in sexually provocative ways now looks like a brief aberration. Although the women's provocative attire strikes me as inappropriate and distracting in an institution of higher education, it is just an issue of visual appearance. The underlying power balance between the sexes seems robust and equal in the great majority of cases.

This is off topic.

It is time to be afraid, very afraid.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/boys-face-compulsory-feminism-programs-in-state-schools-across-victoria/story-e6frf7jo-1225803918910

It wouldn't be so bad if it was balanced and dealt with all forms of violence, but gender advocacy will only alienate boys, and I expect the suicide rate will skyrocket for teenage males, with the negative sterotyping of the male gender.

JamesH,

I see your point.
Personally I believe that there is far to much focus on gender in general. To me a crime is a crime and unacceptable,the gender is irrelevant, it is a crime against people.
Last time I checked both genders are people. The law should be uni-sex.

I see little useful purpose in feeding a war between the genders.
Likewise 'sex' per se or 'sex appeal' should not be used to sell products.

NB this doesn't mean the differentiation should be denied just be relevant.

Notwithstanding the crimes are real and should be addressed.

Shadow Minister

You've missed the point I'm trying to make on advertising. I'm not wanting 'puritannical' control. All I'm asking is that advertisers be prevented from targeting young girls with sexualised imagery that is far too old for them and that the images they portray of women are more closely based on realism, nothing puritannical about that. Examinator's post to you has captured my thoughts on advertising perfectly.

I forgot to re-send the following after posting limits had beaten me first time round. :)

<< My experience is that the worst case scenarios experienced by the author are not the norm, and whilst I worry about my daughter, I far prefer the world as it is for her now than as it was decades ago. >>

I guess every father has the right to opine on the kind of world he'd like for his daughter. But when it comes right down to the issue at hand, no matter how close he is to her and how much he loves her, it will never be him that lives through life's most impressionable years with the pressure to conform to a narrowly imposed and largely unattainable stereotype. We need mesages out there, and plenty of them, to let girls know they don't have to look like size six air-brushed models to lead a fulfilling life. We need them to know it's okay to enjoy being young girls without feeling pressured into wearing makeup, heels and bra-tops before they're ready and without being groomed to think their sole role in life is to please men.

Perhaps when your daughters are a little older, a frank discussion with them on these issues might reveal insights that neither you nor they might be fully aware of at this point in time. Many women live lesser lives because they don't feel they measure up to the right look. I know men are increasingly being fed the same line, but it's undoubtedly women who bear the brunt of this pressure, and unless you've lived through it yourself you don't truly appreciate the damage it does.

Examinator,

"It's based unprovable assertions that to control the excesses of Advertising we need to adopt the moral mores of the fifties"

I never claimed that at all. All I was saying is that the advertising in the 50s was based on the social and technological background, and the advertising today is the result of the background today. The social and technical background is unlikely to be influenced by middle aged moral conservatives, and more by youtube, viral videos, and youth culture.

Even supposing you could impose advertising rules on implied content in Aus, it will influence about 20% of what youngsters see and 0% of the social norms.

Next:

"Around the 50's Ads/marketing stopped informing the public in favour of manipulating them to consume by selling the sizzle not the steak. e.g. emotions rather than substance."

Marketing 101:

It was in the late 50s that marketers began to realise that the majority of purchasing decisions were based on emotion, and how the purchase made you feel. What really is the difference between coke and pepsi? Why would you spend $10 000 to put a lump of carbon on your finger?

Its no secret that women dress up more to impress their girl friends than the boys, and that size 0 models appear in fashion mags and not mens mags.

My wife and I learnt very quickly that our daughter even from the age of 7 knew very well what her peers were wearing, and was absolutely not prepared to compromise. From that age we knew that clothes bought without her consent would never be worn.

Advertisers spend a lot of time following trends set by the youth culture, and I think that what many people confuse cause and effect, and advertisers that ignore the trends and follow the "responsible" approach (as determined by the older generation) will soon go out of business.

I shudder to think of the convoluted legislation required to regulate implied content. This thought policing is not possible or even welcome.

"Many women live lesser lives because they don't feel they measure up to the right look."

Many people of either gender don't measure up to the ideal. Men are told to accept what we have and get on with life. Women are told that they absolutely positively must think of themself as beautiful (no matter how unrealistic this may be). Most of them are being set up to fail.

Hey Bronwyn,

How do you feel about the spider man and batman costumes with massive fake bulging muscles on the upper torso? How do you feel about a 3 year old wanting to wear mummy's high heal shoes and wear mummy's make-up? Did she get that from advertising? I think not.

Also, do you think if advertisers started to sell mittens and hair nets and no celebrity or mother or anyone else was wearing them they'd suddenly become fashionable for young girls?

I had a chat with a (young, female, slender) psychologist yesterday about the conspicuously over-sexualised attire of female university students, pointing out that they have equality of career opportunity, and the majority of the Britney lookalikes are in sexual relationships with boyfriends, so why the "look-at-me" attire. She opined that despite their having reached the age of active sexual involvement with young men, much of the over-sexualised posturing was still aimed at other girls, rather than the men. In other words, a lot of it is competitive social ascendancy among female peers.

In most higher primates, males are socially dominant over females, and in association with that, individual males are also competitive with each other, particularly in the sexual arena. Human males, while still dominant relative to females in traditional societies, are less absolutely so than in most other higher primate species, and there is a greater degree of cooperativeness among adult males. We are all well aware that in recent decades there have been dramatic changes in power relations between the sexes with the rise of feminism, so that human males are now even less dominant relative to females than they used to be - and you see scant evidence of competitiveness among today's subdued males around the age of 20.

The other side of the coin is that females have shifted upwards on the passive-to-dominant scale - and that might be the cue for decreased cooperativity and increased competitiveness amongst themselves. It could be that those that moan about the influence of advertisers are barking up the wrong tree; girls, in their current state of empowerment, will use all and any means at their disposal to compete against their peers; I'm suggesting it is an unavoidable corollary of that empowerment.

Rubberneck-Girls in their current state of empowerment will use all and any means at their disposal to compete against their peers.

You are right in your assesment that beauty and sexuality have great power for women and not just in todays society but throughout history. In todays society though where women are allowed to flaunt it more and advertise it in movies and magazines it has even more power for them to earn money and put them at the head of the societal pack.

Magazines hold out the promise to young girls and women that we can show you how to look like this and gain all the accolades and success that having these looks bestow on you.

A woman in a restuarant may be successful in business or professionally but when a beautiful woman with a lot of sex appeal walks into that restuarant, She is the one that is weilding the power in that room, the women are all casting envious glances at her and the men are aware of her with every fibre in their being although pretending not to be for the sake of their wives and girlfriends.

Society sends this message loud and clear to women. If you are beautiful and sexy you can be paid millions to model clothes and appear on the cover of magazines or in the movies.

In every day life you can get the job ahead of the other plainer applicants even if they have the same education and skills.

Beautiful women often married Kings and when the king died they sometimes ruled countries. They acheived great wealth and power solely by looking sexy and desirable.

Notice how Princess Diana was absolutely idolised because she was beautiful whereas the plainer princesses were treated as defective. Dianna was always forgiven because she was the beautiful princess.

We all collectively as a society are responsible for this idolisation of the beautiful, it is something we cannot easily change because we are sexually programmed to be attracted to genetic perfection.

Houellebecq

<< How do you feel about a 3 year old wanting to wear mummy's high heal shoes and wear mummy's make-up? Did she get that from advertising? I think not. >>

What you're describing here is a normal part of childhood. I'm sure most girls at some stage try on their mother's heels or makeup, in much the same way as they play at doctors and nurses or hairdressers or whatever adult roles take their fancy at the time. Such role-play is perfectly natural. It's how kids learn about the world and their place within it.

What I'm talking about is very different. It's not just occasional role-play. It's the damaging conditioning of the mind being imposed on young girls today. And it's not just from advertising. It's from an all-encompassing and inescapable bombardment they're constantly subjected to from a wide ranging plethora of sources. Shops, television, radio, girls' magazines, billboards, music video clips, online content and more - all imposing a narrow and unrealistic consumerist ideal of what's hot, cool or whatever, and all pushing the same mindless message that sex appeal is the ultimate must have item, no matter what age.

As stated by former magazine editor, Mia Freedman, "Yes, little girls will always want to play dress-ups. Most little girls' predominant role model is their mother. It's totally normal and appropriate for little girls to want to clomp around the house in Mummy's high heels or play with Mummy's make-up, even try on Mummy's bra. Who didn't do that? But that is a totally different thing to putting on make-up and high heels and bras that are MADE for kids. That are MARKETED to kids. Little girls playing with Mummy's make-up know that it's Mummy's. It's part of playing pretend. Having make-up of YOUR OWN at age 3 or 6 or 9 is different altogether. That says it's appropriate and normal for little girls to wear make-up. That says it doesn't belong in the realm of fantasy or dress-ups or playing pretend AT HOME but that it's acceptable and even expected in the real world."

http://mamamia.com.au/weblog/2009/10/bras-make-up-and-high-heels-for-3-year-olds-much-wrong-with-that.htm

For all this talk of advertising that sexualises small girls, I cannot recall seeing much of it.

I recall my wife buying a training bra for my daughter far before she needed it, and my daughter wearing it for a week or so (until the novelty wore off), more as symbol of maturity rather than sexuality.

While there are plenty of real issues to worry about for my daughter, I see this "threat" as more as perceived than real.