Senate inquiry into sexualisation of children
I wrote a post back in 2006 about some of the concerns surrounding what is perceived to be the growing sexualisation in the portrayal of children in advertising and elsewhere in the media. The issue has now been sent to the Senate’s Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee for an inquiry, which is due to report by 23 June, 2008. I’m Deputy Chair of this Committee, but I’m also involved in separate Committees inquiring into housing affordability and compensation proposals for the Stolen Generations, all of which are due to report in June, which will make it hard for me to participate fully in all of them.
Submissions to the inquiry on sexualisation of children close on 18th April. The terms of reference are as follows:
The sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment, including radio and television, children’s magazines, other print and advertising material and the Internet.
In undertaking the inquiry, the committee is to in particular:a. examine the sources and beneficiaries of premature sexualisation of children in the media;
b. review the evidence on the short- and long-term effects of viewing or buying sexualising and objectifying images and products and their influence on cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, attitudes and beliefs; and
c. examine strategies to prevent and/or reduce the sexualisation of children in the media and the effectiveness of different approaches in ameliorating its effects, including the role of school-based sexuality and reproductive health education and change in media and advertising regulation such as the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice.
59 Comments, Comment or Ping
ken
Given thsi has ben around for while, why did it get a gong now?
Who moved for it to be referred?
Mar 17th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Ken – it was a joint reference from the Democrats and the Liberals Michael Ronaldson. I presume it got up this time because the Libs are now in Opposition and have a new found recognition of the potential value of Senate inquiries.
Mar 17th, 2008
Lorikeet
Most people complain about The Family Planning Association coming into the schools.
Firstly, they teach no morality.
Secondly, they discuss embarrassing topics with boys and girls in the same classroom. This mitigates against anyone asking the questions they might ask in a single sex environment.
Thirdly, they show the kids the world’s most enormous condom, making the girls feel afraid, and the boys feel of inferior size.
Parents get to know very little about what is taught (and how), even if they attend the parent evening.
About 3 years ago, I asked a Year 7 teacher if he thought any of his 12 year old students were sexually active. He answered: “Well, they’ve done their family planning, haven’t they?”
I cannot say I’ve ever met a teacher in his/her 40s or 50s who would not like the Family Planning Association thrown out of our schools.
Children are also placed at risk of sexualisation in a society that doesn’t teach them respect for adults, or offer any real discipline. Very young children are taught to make all of their own decisions, without adult input.
In today’s nine msn poll, 80% of respondents voted “yes” to the fact that our classrooms are out of control.
Some unsuitable programs are shown during children’s viewing time. At 7.00 pm on weeknights, we have “Two and a Half Men” which portrays a child involved in age-inappropriate sexually orientated discussions.
Surely one of the beneficiaries must be underwear manufacturers – not to mention paedophiles, who should be kept behind bars.
Mar 17th, 2008
James
Lorikeet: Abstinence-Only Driver’s Ed.
Mar 17th, 2008
GZG
Lorikeet: You’ve gone here, there and everywhere with that response, but I’ll mostly follow in support.
Wouldn’t want to impose one’s morals on innocent children would we …. makes me glad I could send my girls to a private school, but sad to think of those unable (or unwilling) to pay to avoid humanistic brainwashing.
Girls afraid, and the boys inferior? Interesting conjecture but unlikely to be based on commonsense let alone evidence.
The Year 7 teacher to whom you referred was presumably onside with you, with his answer merely an acerbic comment.
Undie makers behind bars? Could be popular with the inmates.
James: a rather witty analogy-laden piece at that link. I hope it wasn’t meant to support one side or the other.
Mar 17th, 2008
Nathan Jones
+ Lorikeet:
Most people complain about the FPA, or only most people who dispute the importance of education on sex, health and relationships in schools?
Ignoring the non-stats, you have made some points worthy of comment:
There is value in instilling respect for adults and discipline, but that doesn’t negate the value of sex education.
Being taught decision-making skills does not mean they are being taught to ignore adult input: it’s just helping them deal with situations they may encounter when adult input is lacking.
As nice as it might be to keep paedophiles behind bars, what they really need are the resources to prevent them from becoming child molestors. I really wish we (society) could shift focus from hysteria to protecting our children.
+ Andrew:
The tasks in the terms of reference sound promising and I look forward to seeing what comes out of it. The bit that caught my attention was: “…ameliorating its effects, including the role of school-based sexuality and reproductive health education…”
It would be nice to see education strengthened beyond basic sexuality and reproduction: to arm kids with awareness body image issues and the marketing tactics that exacerbate them; to foster self confidence; and to help them better deal with relationships and emotional ups and downs. Also worthwhile is education for parents to help them understand their role in building their children’s self-confidence and awareness.
+ James:
Thanks for the link. That’s awesome.
Mar 17th, 2008
Lorikeet
GZG:
I said the paedophiles should be kept behind bars.
Plenty of humanistic brainwashing goes on in private schools also – along with the condescension lessons and disrespect for adults.
Ask any bus driver. He/she will tell you where the most obnoxious young people are educated.
My post didn’t go to all of the places I would have liked to visit – here and there, but not anywhere near everywhere. Maybe next time.
James:
The first funeral I attended was of a 17-year-old boy, whom I was supposed to meet for our first date at the skating rink.
When I got there, the manager took me out the back and told me he had died in the early hours of the morning, when he wrapped his car around a telegraph pole.
Yes, I think wives act as moderators of some idiots’ driving – possibly the reverse also.
If your link was meant to annoy or discredit – I can assure you it bounced off my cast iron feathers.
Mar 17th, 2008
ken
Not sure of that Andrew – maybe start of the softening up of family first?
Mar 17th, 2008
GZG
Lorikeet: Re: “paedophiles should be kept behind bars”, granted, a given, already noted and was never really confused.
Re: “humanistic brainwashing in private schools” – conceded, but freedom of choice and intelligent discussion with (the youngest at least) offspring helps. I do note that all is not well in the private school “camp” at large, but disrespect for adults is noticeable by it’s absence in the “tent” of the school of our choice.
No intention to discourage you from going here or there in your next post – hope I did not ruffle those cast iron feathers :)
Nathan Jones:
… keep paedophiles behind bars
… prevent them from becoming child molesters
… shift focus from hysteria to protecting our children.
Hysteria may be a by-product of our desire to protect our children.
If you had children and contemplated a paedophile outside bars molesting your own child, you may yourself be afflicted with said hysteria.
Of course, this does not mean that reason should not prevail, but I’m uneasy as to how much I’d like to cough up to aid them. Having said that, I’m all for compassion and helping others to help themselves …… but don’t harm my girls!!!!
Hope I’ve not contradicted myself within the one post.
Mar 18th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
I’ve been very concerned at the sexualisation of children by the media, particularly to promote certain products. The practice of making up little girls faces and have them pose in a sexy manner is abhorrent to all thinking people. As a grandmother of 3 girls(one a young woman now,almost 15)I was appalled by the introduction of ‘bras’ for 8-9 year olds. I rang the store that was promoting these and voiced my anger and concern,and am pleased to know that my 2 under 10’s are not wearing these-sensible parents and relatives.
As a girl who was brought up in a strict catholic family and catholic schools, with none or little sex education,no contraception education at all,except the ban on using them,I’ve always been a firm believer in sex education from ?age.I was very open with my 3 boys and always emphasized their role and responsibility re fertility, non-violence and non-sexist attitudes to women and girls.No topic was taboo and I encouraged an inquiring mind.I emphasized the trauma of unplanned pregnancy and to not assume that their partner was protected.Sadly,when the question of teenage pregnancy or abortion is discussed,there’s a lack of emphasis on the male responsibility.As I told my boys,irresponsible men can always walk away,the woman has a difficult decision to make,that will affect her life and maybe the child’s for all time.Of course,the question of AIDS and other STD’s is more topical now.I can’t comment on FPA education in schools,but I do owe my life to their free pap screening for cervical cancer on 2 occasions.The first was OK after another test,the second showed pre-cancerous cells.They were prompt,caring,thorough and supportive,recommending a gynecologist.I like their feminist approach,and the outcome after treatment was successful.I support more of these centres around the country.Many parents seem to want schools/teachers to teach their kids lots of (extra)things these days.Why is this?Apathy,too busy?
Mar 18th, 2008
Nathan Jones
+ GZG:
I realise that it takes effort to make reason prevail – it’s human intuition to give priority to what we fear over what we’re told. My comment about hysteria and protecting children stems from my concern that many parents think of child molestors as predatory strangers, when in fact abuse if more likely to come from family and friends than from convicted offenders. Let’s all be relaxed (risk is low), but vigilant when it comes to our children’s safety.
+ Naomi:
It would be nice to have more parents like you who understand that raising kids with morals and providing education are not mutually exclusive.
Mar 18th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
Nathan “many parents think of child molestors as predatory strangers, when in fact abuse if more likely to come from family and friends than from convicted offenders.” This is true,but sadly the risk is not that low.It’s estimated that 1 in 4 girls will be sexually abused by aged 18, and 1 in 6 boys.As you say,the majority are abused by family members and/or friends.The recent case of Milton Orkopoulos NSW,recently convicted of almost 30 instances of sexual attacks,drug counts etc of young boys.He was known and admired by the family of at least 1 survivor,and the young man said nothing as he thought he wouldn’t be believed.It is not a rare occurrence at all.I understand that Braveheart,that wonderful support group for survivors has successfully compiled an educational program to empower children to take a stand,and what to do when confronted by a person like this.Apparently,it is very successful and is highly thought of by those who witness the program and the follow up program.
It’s for these reasons we must be vigilant about the ‘dumbing down’ or brainwashing of young people and in many cases their parents,as to the dangers of even remotely allowing kids to think that being ’sexualized’ is fun,or just a part of life.It’s not-it CAN pave the way for that child to be groomed by an abuser.I’d go as far as to question the need for girls to be heavily made up for competitions,dancing,gymnastics.I don’t think it’s necessary for girls to be made to look like women?The story we hear constantly,is how abusers smoothly ingratiate themselves with the parents first.In fact,I’ve read of men who deliberately target sole female parents of young girls or boys?Past experiences of priest,ministers and other ‘respected’ people in the community?Sickening but true!How frequently are kids abused by ’stepfathers’?Childhood lasts for little more than a ‘blink’ of the eye.Let’s demand that kids are allowed to enjoy being a child, and feel safe!
Mar 18th, 2008
Lorikeet
Nathan Jones:
Most paedophiles cannot be reformed, believing “child love” to be their sexual orientation.
There’s a difference between hysteria and a normal sense of caution.
Parents and teachers are not disputing whether sex education should take place in our schools. It’s the methods and content that are unpopular.
We educated our 2 older boys on these matters ourselves. Our third son did the Family Planning Association program.
The fact is that today’s children DO IGNORE adult input. They come home from school and tell their parents that all of the choices are theirs (taught by schools) and that they are not interested in anyone else’s input.
They find it their duty to stick their noses into adult business.
Instead of doing as they’re told, even small children argue with and abuse parents and teachers, and tell adults what to do. This is also taught by American television.
When I went to see the movie: “Definitely, Maybe”, a girl about 10 was arguing with and abusing her father – while sticking her nose into his past sexual exploits.
Instead of telling her to be quiet and go to her room, he let her have her own way. No wonder there were only 2 people in the cinema – and it was Cheap Tuesday!
I think the Life Education Program exacerbates health problems, eating disorders and food phobias. Their unqualified people also give out inaccurate medical advice.
Five year old girls don’t need to be told to remove the skin from their chicken, for fear of becoming fat.
They don’t need to go home and start worrying about cigarettes killing their mother and father.
My 5-year-old came home from the session saying he wasn’t going to eat the chips I had put on his plate (fat and salt content).
Skinny little children ought not to be indoctrinated with anorexia. They’re too young for this stuff.
GZG:
I guess your children must go to the Nirvana School for the Perfect – or you have forgotten to take off the rose-coloured glasses
Mar 18th, 2008
muzzmonster
In response to a few commentators, since when did we lock people up in case they commit a crime?
Mar 18th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
Lorikeet#13 I never had a problem being honest with my kids.If for example,I uttered a swear word I had to put my 20c in the money box(probably damn or bloody)but I was guilty and they were quite correct.I recently owned up to my grand kids that I used to smoke cigs,and we discussed the dangers to health,and how stupid I was to even start.I explained that there wasn’t the education re the dangers,particularly during pregnancy,otherwise I would’ve stopped when I was carrying their dad.It’s true,I’m human,make mistakes but learn by new education etc.Same applies to salt and fats etc.They don’t have added salts or sugars in their diet,eat good food and little rubbish.I don’t think parents have to pretend to be perfect-I used to tell mine I wasn’t.They might as well learn that from me,as they’d find out for themselves a little later.I think what my Mum used to say about 3 essentials while raising kids, “a strong constitution, a firm hand and a good sense of humour” and then she’d add,”and not necessarily in that order” is pretty apt.She would’ve known,she had 9 kids!I also apologized if I was wrong.I know many parents who don’t believe in doing that.How do kids learn if we don’t teach them,not by the do as I say method,but do as I do!
There’s a big difference between discussions with kids and abuse-and that applies both ways.I didn’t tolerate any abusive behaviour,the same as I emphasized they weren’t going to school to learn manners-they learnt that at home.Being rude to teachers was not an option either.I never wanted to hear about that-they would not like the result?If they were wrongly accused etc,they should politely state their case-never rudeness!It’s hard to impress values with kids without letting them challenge us at times.Isn’t this teaching them how to problem solve and handle human relationships?I emphasized most people love kids and care about them,some don’t.I’d always believe them if they were concerned.Thankfully,never happened!(I hope!)
Mar 19th, 2008
Lorikeet
Naomi:
You would be horrified if you saw what a large number of kids get away with now. These days the kids think they are here to apply the “firm hand” to adults, in ways I know you would not appreciate.
I received an email from my teenage son this morning. He said everyone in his Year 11 Maths class failed the exam, except for one boy with Asperger’s Syndrome (very clever type). Students can’t learn very much with undisciplined disrupters in every classroom.
Last year, when a male teacher told his Maths class he was keeping them in detention, all of the spoilt kids from “Snobville” bailed out of the windows.
Students can no longer stick up for the underdogs (smaller students being bashed) without being criticised or condemned. I guess Education Queensland prefers to find dead students left lying on the concrete.
I agree that discipline begins in the home, but it should continue wherever children go. Young children spend about half of their waking lives at school.
Muzz:
We were talking about convicted paedophiles. Some of them have harmed hundreds of victims before they are caught. I don’t think anyone said the paedophiles had done nothing – but once caught, we don’t want them doing it again even once, let alone hundreds of times.
Do you want these sickoes attacking your little girl?
Naomi is also correct that there are LOTS of paedophiles around. You will find them wherever there are children – in schools, youth groups, churches, sporting associations – but your children are far more likely to be interfered with by a neighbour, relative or friend – maybe even your own brother.
It’s a sad day when you have to watch out for Santa as well!
Mar 19th, 2008
Lorikeet
The politicians who are in favour of reducing the voting age to 16 ought to give more consideration to the likely effects on our children.
It could result in even more problems with young people not listening to adults at younger and younger ages.
Judges have already given the “green light” to middle-aged men having sex with underage minors, by their failure to put them behind bars.
If that isn’t sexualising children, what is?
Children can leave home at the tender age of 12 and go almost anywhere – and be sexually active – with the police being unable to do anything at all about the adult who organised it.
Parents are powerless. It’s long gone time to put an end to the disempowerment of parents, teachers and the police.
It’s also time to end the empowerment of children – which places them at enormous risk.
Mar 22nd, 2008
Marilyn
Strange though how all those new found bleeding hearts in the liberal party didn’t mind voting to lock up innocent children in Woomera and other places and demonised them when they wanted to get out.
Stranger still that they all voted to murder Iraqi kids without ever acknowledging they even existed.
And still don’t.
Mar 22nd, 2008
muzzmonster
I’m not certain you did mention that they were convicted at all, Lorikeet. But if that’s the case, it does set an awfully dangerous precedent, keeping someone in jail beyond their allotted prison sentence.
Anyway, this issue is getting a bit beyond the topic of the post – as is Marilyn’s response.
I do feel that your perspective on sex and relationship education seems rather exaggerated.
I have seen no evidence that condoms came in enormous sizes – nor that sex education actually encourages sexual activity – despite a great many surveys. What it does seem to do is ensure that teenages who choose to be sexually active are far more likely to use protection than not.
Mar 22nd, 2008
Lorikeet
Marilyn:
Liberal hearts only bleed when they’ve been kicked out of office.
On the National Press Club address last week, Brendan Nelson was trying to buy his way into our hearts with claims of a deprived childhood, and still having a mortgage.
His proclaimed interest in Health and Education might have been heart rendering, if one was not already reaching for a bucket.
I guess he must be buying the equivalent of Buckingham Palace.
Muzz:
I can only conclude that you aren’t raising any children, have no experience of the modern education system, or have ever had to deal with paedophiles or their victims.
Mar 23rd, 2008
Sam Clifford
The original post could’ve been a great launch pad for a discussion of how to fix up advertising standards and clean up music video clips but instead we’ve got Lorikeet whinging about how kids these days have no respect and that it’s somehow the fault of Family Planning and Education Queensland.
Sex education doesn’t lead to sexualisation of children; it’s the mass media which we are fed in which manufactured pop starlets are dressed up in school girl outfits with bare tummies or tight rubber/latex tracksuits a la Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears. Are these the kind of role models we want for our young girls? School-girl sexual imagery ought to be cracked down on if we’re to fight both the normalisation of pedophilia and the problem of sex between minors (which can lead to teen pregnancy and STDs if they don’t have the right information).
Mar 24th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Thanks Sam
I broadly agree with your concerns, but the question remains about how best to deal with it.
The fact that many people, including me, feel uneasy about this stuff isn’t enough reason in itself to bring in more stringent controls.
I think we do need to see some evidence that (a) it is harmful and (b) whatever controls are brought in would work.
It seems almost self-evident to me that it is harmful, but that really isn’t strong enough evidence. In any case, the bigger issue is what to do about it.
Bringing in tighter controls may make us feel better, but could do more harm than good – particularly if we all then think ‘problem solved’ and let the problem continue. I am instincively apprehensive about censorship, as I think the principle of it is too easy applied. Everybody tends to like the idea of censorship of things they disapprove of, but that’s often not where its applied. That’s why I think there needs to be strong evidence that it is justified and effective in each particular incidence where it is applied.
One other question is how do you actually define things like ’school-girl sexual imagery’? The blatant cases are fine, butthe difficulty with ‘cracking down’ on this stuff is not identifying the blatant cases, its where you draw the line (and how you define it).
I’m not against acting on this issue – just conscious of the difficulties and the pitfalls (hence I welcome your effort to engage in a reasoned discussion about how to do it)
Mar 24th, 2008
GZG
Lorikeet # 13: Re: Nirvana School for the Perfect & forgotten rose-coloured glasses …. Rose coloured glasses are neither on my nose nor within reach, but I am proud of the management and principles promoted by the private school my children attend/attended. Consider the possibility of the existence of good private schools before being impulsively sarcastic.
Sam Clifford: Relax, all is not lost given your valiant attempt to put the (not yet derailed) train back on the track.
You’ve unfairly dismissed Lorikeet’s comments by labelling them as mere whinging about the FPA; could be time to re-read them thoroughly.
Whilst I do agree that the mass media has a lot to answer for, I think that you should have referred to the “normalisation of paedophilia and the problem and normalisation of sex between minors” and in this respect, Lorikeet’s comments @ #3 regarding the FPA would seem apt. Or do you consider it “normal”?
Mar 24th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
GZG: The ‘normalness’ of sex between minors would be another thing where it would be helpful to get some solid evidence on. Data on this sort of stuff is not iron-clad in its accuracy, but better to have some idea than to be going totally off gut-instinct.
The sort of evidence which would be useful on this question is (a) has sex between minors increased in recent decades (both how much and in what ways and ages), and (b) if so, how much of it can be put down to advertising and media imagery.
There is a never-ending debate about how much the media just reflects the society it is part of and how much it shapes it. Inevitably it is somewhere in between these two absolutes, but the question still remains as to where in between.
Much as it grates on me, targeting advertising and music videos might be targeting the wrong spot. Perhaps we’re looking at it because its easy to identify and thus to blame, compared to the more nebulous ‘declining community standards’.
And of course there’s always the danger that it could end up becoming another moralising crusade. People are entitled to have their own value systems and to try to teach them to their children, but we always need to be wary about having them imposed too rigorously on everybody else.
Which is why I come back to suggesting that it would be helpful to have evidence (beyond just anecdotal stuff) about the level and nature of harm that is caused. (anecdotal evidence has its place, but it is not sufficient to base public policy and law changes on)
Mar 24th, 2008
muzzmonster
I get the impression that advertisers will find ways of getting to children, no matter what we do. That’s not a reason to do nothing though – we need to be vigilant.
For a start, I find it difficult to believe that the advertising industry still has a voluntary code of practice when it has continually broken the letter and spirit of it. As much as I prefer to avoid regulation, I think this is a prime case for it.
But yes, as Andrew says, it would be good to have some scientific evidence, which would then be hotly debated by all parties as to what was the cause of whatever problems are unearthed – and whether they are problems or not.
And the inherent with being moralistic about it is that young people will always react to moral outrage by trying whatever it is that the adults are trying to stop.
Mar 24th, 2008
Sam Clifford
Senator Bartlett,
You’re definitely right that we need to look at concrete evidence if we’re going to start making decisions that profoundly impact our society.
As a feminist, I see youth-oriented magazines pushing the idea of sexual attraction as the paramount issue facing youths as disgusting. Magazines like “Girlfriend” and “Cosmopolitan” will tell you how to catch his eye but don’t cary anywhere near as many articles on how to defend onself against unwanted attraction. It doesn’t help, either, that our media makes women hate their bodies by pushing some idyllic notion of the pinnacle of beauty being a skinny late-teen in revealing clothes.
I think a lot of elements in our society have a job to in avoiding harmful sexualisation of children and childhood. The media need to not treat kids like sexual objects, parents need to teach their kids about sex (comprehensively) and how to stand up for their sexual rights. The government, advertisers, the music and fashion industries, etc. all have their own unique responsibilities, too.
Mar 24th, 2008
PowerPuff
We currently have a body who rate movies for suitability for different audiences, and while some people may think they do not always get the rating right; it is better than nothing, which is what we currently have for advertising.
And while I do not wish to live in a “police state”, I do not wish to spend the next 10 years standing around wringing my hands and saying “why doesn’t someone do something about this?”
Could parents boycot the stores who use advertising which is sexualise our children? Only if they are strong minded.
Could these stores decide within themselves that they do not want to perpetuate the problem? The mighty Dollar.
Could parents of child models decide they do not want their children being taught to pose in a sexually provocative manner? It makes money for the parents.
Could advertisers develop a conscience and realise they are stealing the innocence of our children for the sake of the mighty dollar? Do they really care about more than money?
All of these things would help but the answer is complex and will need to be approached from multiple levels.
The answer lies in adults behaving like adults (including advertisers and retailers), having the strength of their convictions and the ability to say (yes, I am a mother and a step-mother) “No that is not appropriate for your age”. Yet we are in an age where parents appear unable or unwilling to be parents, they appear to want to be their child’s friend rather than a loving disciplinarian and role model for their own children.
At the same time we need to realise children (particularly girls) are maturing at a younger age; when I was younger most of my friends were in Grades 8 or 9 when they got their menses, today the average is Grade 5. This explains why manufacturers are making bras for 10 year olds, but not for 4 year olds.
One of my questions is why do manufacturers make sexy underwear for children, what mindset started this? If it looks and smells like paedophilia …
Mar 24th, 2008
muzzmonster
I think PowerPuff has got a good solution there – at least if you feel you want to take action. Companies respond to money, or the lack thereof.
Conservative Christian groups have complained to companies that advertise in certain ways or during certain shows they don’t like (Californication comes to mind). You may not agree with their values, but the tactic can work – especially if you can convince them that enough people agree with you.
And there’s the rub; trying to organise enough people to both boycott and complain in letters to the companies.
Mar 24th, 2008
Lorikeet
PowerPuff:
Yes, most parents don’t parent their children any more. They indulge their every whim, which makes life hard for the rest of us, and makes the kids sitting ducks for anyone pushing any form of “paedophilia”, which can be quite sneaky these days.
I don’t think the average age of commencement of menses is 10. I’d still give it 11 or 12 in most cases.
I cannot give stats – since I haven’t done a study. This is the best I can do.
My son attends a very large high school with about 360 students in his year level. He says 25% of 14-year-olds, and 50% of 15-year-olds, are sexually active.
I don’t think a lot of the younger parents have many morals to pass on to their children.
We should also remember that the very revealing nature of modern women’s clothing stirs up people such as the Mufti. I don’t think he is entirely wrong.
Someone from the Roman Catholic church recently increased the Seven Deadly Sins to 14.
People are greedy. They don’t care how money is made, or where their kids even are.
Mar 25th, 2008
togret
Somehow the focus of this thread has moved from sexualisation of children to what a bad job modern parents are doing. I see the sexualisation of children as a pernicious aspect of consumerism, but rather than sit around sniping at modern parents, I’d like some investigation and discussion about how parents can be supported to resist, for example, the notion that little girls should be wearing slinky tops with shoe-string straps and gathering at their non-existent busts instead of the sorts of shirts than anyone in this country should be wearing in summer to protect them from the sun. Community development education would possibly lead to those flimsy tacky tops rotting in the shops as we vote with our money for something else, and with it might go the makeup for 8 year olds. I, too, have wondered why callisthenics participants must be made up like little whores. Instead of attacking the parents, why not support them?
Mar 26th, 2008
Lorikeet
togret:
We have overlap between the two issues because they are interrelated. Parents are part and parcel of the problem.
They have also been intimidated into believing that they may not smack anyone or raise their voices, for fear of the police being called.
The children have the power, and the sleazebuckets are capitalising on it – whether they are underwear manufacturers, child pornographers or supporters of paedophilia.
Our legal system supports paedophilia when nothing is done (by police or courts) about middle-aged men having sex with young girls.
Something similar applies where one child’s parent/s organise a live-in relationship with another child, despite the protests of the other child’s parent/s.
A lot of parents are sexualising children themselves, because they have no values.
It doesn’t matter what the law says on any issue, if it isn’t enforced.
Yes, the sexualisation of children is a pernicious aspect of consumerism, but it goes a lot further than that.
Adults undermine one another, instead of working together as a community for the benefit of our children.
Constant criticism of the police does nothing to support lawful behaviour.
The sexualisation of children is a criminal offence, and ALL perpetrators should be dealt with accordingly.
Mar 26th, 2008
ken
I would have thought tagret the focus has not only moved to discussion about paernts, but to a series of negative untested generalisations of the woes of the world.
I hope the enquiry manages to do a better job of actually addressing the difficult balacne between a totally free society and a socially regualated one, rather than the mangling of metaphors and simplistic moralism we are seeing on most of this hread
Mar 26th, 2008
Sans Blog
“simplistic moralism we are seeing on most of this thread”
A good summation of most of the comments here.
Mar 27th, 2008
PowerPuff
Togret & Ken – Lorikeet is quite right when she says, “most parents don’t parent their children any more”, this is not meant to be an attack on parenting, but a discussion about how the sexualisation of how children has been able to occur. It is only through the knowledge of how this happens that it can be stopped & prevented from happening again. While some may see this as “simplistic moralism”, it needs to be said if you want to fix a problem you need to address the problem, find the source, the contributors and a way to make change happen rather than sticking to the status quo. We need to overcome our human propensity to laziness, narcissism and fear:
Change is difficult, it takes us out of our comfort zone.
Looking at oneself & admitting ones faults hurts.
Fear can paralyse & cripple.
Some may think these are “a series of negative untested generalisations of the woes of the world”, but I am studying social sciences so that I can help people who come asking for help in these areas.
On a personal level, each individual can make a difference. When one of my girls was only a few months old, she was selected to try out for an ad. At the agency they wanted to take my baby, strip her naked and film her without my presence in the room. I said that was not acceptable to me and she did not do that audition, nor did we go back for any others. My decision was to protect my child, that was ten years ago, I think I did the right thing. Was it a simple decision? Yes. Was it a decision I made on morals? You bet! So I can understand why some people may think I am being “morally simplistic”. But life is made up of choices we make everyday, if every parent chooses to protect their children everyday then the sexualisation of our children can be stopped.
What I have written so far only addresses part A above “examine the sources and beneficiaries of premature sexualisation of children in the media” and attempts an ever so brief look at part C.
Mar 27th, 2008
lauredhel
Wow.
Can you present some evidence that children who aren’t hit by their parents are raped more frequently?
Mar 27th, 2008
Lorikeet
lauredhel:
I think you and some others need to think across broader parameters when looking at this issue and many others.
The “woes of the world” cannot be pigeon-holed individually, looked at and divorced from all of the others.
Did I say that children who aren’t hit by their parents are raped more frequently? No, I did not.
But I do think that undisciplined and/or unsupervised kids are more likely to fall victim to sexual predators of various kinds – not to mention life-ruining addictions and behaviours. I’ve met some of them in counselling.
Mar 28th, 2008
GZG
Powerpuff #27: Here’s a link to a study which suggested that there had been “a drop of about 2 months in the average age of menarche for US girls”, putting Grade 8 or 9 as remaining par for the course. Extrapolating from the conclusion of the study might lower the age here a bit given Australia’s ongoing propensity to childhood obesity.
Lorikeet #29: Whilst I continue to see merit in many points you raise (eg @ #36), I must follow the trend of the critical crowd and knock your citation of your son’s definitive (though not peer reviewed) report on the sexual activity of his mates. Need I speculate as to its veracity?
As for the Apostolic Penitentiary’s (!!) new non-abridged “14 Deadly Sins”, the greens and leftist’s may rejoice, but even 40 declared sins won’t make a scrap of difference to the issue at hand.
Tagret’s “community development education” could be effective if we blew half the education budget on it, but (and to generalise without testing), I fear that the problem is rather too insidious to be easily resolved.
Mar 28th, 2008
togret
GZG – I didn’t say, did I, that it would be easy? Nor do I think that community education programs should be funded from the alredy scarce funds allocated to education, though Lorikeet’s (and my) concerns about inadequate parenting education would be better met by beefing up Life Education programs in schools. As well as condom use, empowerment of kids to say “No” to makeup manufacturers, paedophiles both within and without the family and drug-pushing peers, and a realistic understanding of, for example, the stages and importance of child development, are worthy elements of our school curricula. This might, though, Lorikeet, mean that parents can’t impose authority without being able to back it up by means other than spanking – itself a symptom of poor parenting skills.
Mar 30th, 2008
PowerPuff
Togret:
While I agree with a lot of what you have said; if you think the problem is as simple as teaching our kids to say “no” to a paedophile then you are living in a fantasy world. Two year olds can not say “no don’t touch me there, I’m going to tell my mummy on you!” The dangers of paedophilia include the fact paedophiles choose vulnerable children, and the paedophile is often an authority figure and for a child to stand up to an authority figure is very difficult. Of the many victms of paedophilia that I personally know, some have been as young as two months when the abuse has started.
The responsiblity is that of the “adult”.
Mar 30th, 2008
Lorikeet
togret:
I will reiterate that a smack is not a bashing, and can be used successfully as an adjunct to other forms of discipline.
When the smack and the cane were taken away from our schools and homes, it led to the problem of “adult abuse” by children.
Schools have to empower their teachers and principals, instead of the educational policies that are currently being used to empower children.
Parents need to be educated about childraising before their children are born – and not by some of the stupid idiots who are considered experts now.
A man I know who got Father of the Year about a decade ago would certainly NOT give the same award to the person who got it in 2007.
A lot of today’s parents are middle-aged spoilers of 1 or 2 children. They don’t listen to experienced people.
Mar 30th, 2008
Floss
Undoubtedly the Committee will find Lorikeet’s submission to the Inquiry most edifying…
Andrew, thank you for introducing the bill to establish a National Commissioner for Children to the Senate during the last sitting weeks.
The establishment of such an office nationally would go a long way towards ensuring any recommendations made as a result of this inquiry actually have a chance of being acted upon.
Mar 30th, 2008
Jean Louise "Scout" Finch
PowerPuff:
You are much better than my mother was.
I was in commercials and some TV/theatre work when i was younger – until i was about 10-11 i was really tiny and looked _a lot_ younger than i was – a lot of people wanted to exploit that
My mother consented to a lot of things i wish she hadn’t – and i was put in a lot of infantising, embarrassing and humiliating situations, with little regard to my feelings or self esteem – and many times i had to play the “younger sister” to children that were really younger than me
Maybe i should contact the Senator with the full horrors
Mar 31st, 2008
PowerPuff
Jean Louise,
My heart aches for you, you have obviously been a victim of exactly what we are talking about. Your feelings and self-esteem are very important parts of you. I would suggest you are exactly the kind of person who is needed to shake up the powers that be with the truth of what happened to you. I would like to ask you a lot more, but this is not the venue for such things. I would like to suggest, if you feel you still have issues regarding your past, that you get a recommendation from a trusted source (not just anyone out of the phonebook; my own experience of that was horrific) and talk to someone who will be accepting and non-judgmental and who can help you walk through this minefield of emotions.
At the same time I would also urge you to not be too hard on your mum; often parents do not know what is going on in this industry. Education is one of the key issues that needs to be addressed.
We are learning all the time; it is not so long ago that scientists (highly regarded in their day) believed the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth. Hopefully in this day and age we are able to question what does not seem right to us and not have a mentality which says parents are always right. Parents are just human too, and with that they will make mistakes. And if they are not too proud to admit (even to their children) when they have made a mistake they will have the ability to learn from it.
Mar 31st, 2008
Jean Louise "Scout" Finch
PowePuff:
I’m happy to talk with you about it – email scoutfinch@cool.com.au
I will write up something to send to the Senator as well
Apr 1st, 2008
togret
Powderpuff- I was emotionally, psychologically, physically and sexually abused by members of my own family from the age of about 4. I know a bit about this. I am well aware of the many faceted nature of this problem, but part of the answer is empowering kids to say “no” to adults. Not all of it, no, but part of it. I had non-family members innocently colluding with my abusers, becuase it was not thought that kids had the right to say “no”, and any adult was believed over a kid.
Lorikeet- having been bashed at home and caned at school, I know exactly how much the cane and smacking can do to the victim. Caning a 5 year old for not being able to sit still for a 90-minute church service was one of the aspects of my childhood, and being caned for not having the hair ribbons my family wouldn’t buy for me was another. If you were a supervisor at work and someone made a mistake, would you ’smack” them? No, because it is not acceptable to hit adults. Why is it acceptable to hit kids?
And to drag this back to the topic, sexualising kids sends the wrong message to paedophiles, and to kids. Paedophiles don’t need any encoragement, and kids do need to be told that they are not small sex-pots, they are kids and deserve our protection. I didlike it for other reasons, too, but those tow are good enough in my opinion.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Lorikeet
togret:
I am not advocating beating up kids.
It seems to me that most of the people who are fiercely anti-smacking are child abuse victims or (some) social workers who see the worst side of human nature.
I find this skews their view of a society that largely contains ordinary (these days overindulgent) households.
I think you said you were in your 60s.
In the early 1980s, only very ill-behaved little children got a smack from the infant mistress. She used a feather duster. Those kids weren’t victims. They were hurting other kids, and constantly disrupting classrooms.
The modern school in 2008 has “no smack at all” and students abusing adults (not to mention each other!). A lot of teacher-abuse is condoned and sometimes encouraged by parents.
The school rules are marketed as “suggestions”.
That is the reality in 2008, but I do commiserate with your personal experiences.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Jean Louise "Scout" Finch
A really big part of the whole thing is the “children are property not people” mentality that many if not most parents subscribe to.
As well as enabling the worst of what was done to me, this mentality facilitates child molestation and abuse and more.
Most countries have laws restricting what parents can name their children – Australia should too – no boys names on girls or girls names on boys, no children being named “Starchild” or “Princess”.
There is no such thing as “My baby, my choice” for it is not you that will have to carry the name, it is your child – either for the rest of their lives or 18 or 21 very long years until they can legally change it.
Sadly, most mothers cannot see the school aged kid or the grown adult, just the baby.
Laws will have to stop them if society won’t.
Apr 3rd, 2008
PowerPuff
Togret:
I would refer you to the comments I made to Jean Louise (Comment #43); and I send the same message to you. The family members who perpetrated the abuse on you had no right to do what they did. The non-family members who ‘innocently’ colluded with those who abused you, were most likely trusting of family relationships or may have feared intervening if they had any idea. I would encourage you not to use the term ‘my abusers’ as it is taking ownership of the abusers and can in some cases keep the pain of your experience almost ‘alive’ and ‘close’, when I would encourage you, if you have not already, to deal with any issues as my post to Jean Louise.
I agree with empowering children to say ‘No’ to adults, but I also believe some children are being brought up in homes where pornography, nudity, violence, alcohol and drug abuse are considered by the parents to be the norm; and what a child learns in the home at a young age is what they grow to consider to be the norm. And a child will not say ‘no’ to something they consider normal. The answer partly lies in the education of parents, children and other stakeholders.
There are victims who are still in the victim cycle, and who are now victimising their children, friends’ children and in cases where some have never married due to their abuse, they have jobs which places them in close contact with children they can victimise. Yes let’s educate everyone we can, but that will need to include not only those mentioned above but also those who are in advertising, designing, manufacturing. It is a big job, each person needs to do their part.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Lorikeet
PowerPuff:
Above all, the government needs to do its part – like placing a ban on the disgusting rubbish portrayed on television and in the movies – whether it is directed at adults or children.
I don’t think it is always the case that what children learn in the home is what they consider to be the norm.
I have raised children across 2 generations. The “societal norm” is what children learn more than anything. My older children learnt the societal norm, which was generally the same thing we taught at home.
When I had the third child many years later, the “societal norm” had changed markedly.
As children get older and spend more time with other (these days grossly overempowered) children, the “societal norm” comes back to your home, whether you like it or not.
A poor standard of “societal norm” is also taught in the schools, often by default.
Here’s a piece of news from the USA only yesterday. When a teacher tried to send a child to the “time out” table, she was physically attacked by 9 students.
BTW in most cases of sexual abuse, most adults do what is easiest for them – blaming the victim, or nothing.
Apr 4th, 2008
Ken
Here’s another piece of news, in 999 other cases teachers who sent kids to the time out circle were obeyed by the kids – can we try hard to not extrapolate the particualr to the genral on almost every comment we make.
Oh thast right its not understadning the breadth of issues – I forgot.
In many cases of child sexual abuse, as a former Child Porotection worker I’ve actually investigatesd, charged, removed and or orgasnied other services for both children and abusers, not just hypothesised. Many times no one is aware other than the abuser and the child until she dislcoses, then oftne the same dysfucntional family realtionshiups that lead to the abuse force her (its generally the poor female partner) into silence.
Not at all out of indiffernce or collusion but out of the same powerlessness and despair she oftne felt as a child herself.
Apr 4th, 2008
togret
Ken, while I agree with what you say in some cases, I wonder why anyone would remark on the welts on a neighbour kid’s legs (caused by beating with an electrical extension cord) and then do/say nothing? This happened in the golden days of the 1960s, as some see them.
While it’s true that one of the abusers in this case was abused herself, neighbours and other relatives who knew were not.
More generally, I believe in the approach taken by kids at the school supported by Father Chris Riley in Sydeny, for abused and homeless kids. They add on parenting and relationship skills for kids who have not learned them elsewhere.
I advocate such teaching in every school, for kids in the mandated school years. Those kids who also get it at home are not wasting their time – there are always other ways to look at relationship issues, and their acceptance and validisation of what they already know by the kids with less troubled lives will help those who desperately need those skills. You can learn maths and science, language and history at any age, but to get kids while they are still at school and give them a chance to break out of a cycle of despair and powerlessness would be a big boost for kids like I was.
This would have a completely different result from that feared by Lorikeet – such kids would have the skills to deal competently with anger and frustration, but also the understanding of what is wrong with the sort of conduct she and I both deplore.
Apr 4th, 2008
Lorikeet
I suggest that some people who no longer have any children need to get out into the schools to find out what actually goes on there, and what is taught there, in the 21st century.
The Triple P Parenting Program is taught to both teachers and parents in primary schools. I consider that a lot of it is a crock that doesn’t work.
There’s no point telling children anything, if you don’t have the power to enforce what you say.
The parents who turn up to education programs in schools tend to be effective parents already. The people who need to be there don’t come.
Here is something more general for the benefit of Ken. The performance of our schools is getting worse and worse because of the disempowerment of teachers, and poorly disciplined students who disrupt classrooms.
We have gone backwards against all of the OECD countries in recent times.
I would certainly not agree that 99.9% of students obey their teachers. An idea like that must be coming from the Nirvana School for the Perfect.
I think nearly everyone turns a blind eye to sexual abuse. I could quote many instances of people blaming the victim, or doing nothing.
Here is one from my own extended family. A 15-year-old girl was almost raped by her boss in his office. Luckily he had left the intercom switched on. A secretary heard the girl’s screams and came running to unlock the door.
Did this older married man get reprimanded or fired? No. When the girl went home and told her parents, did they phone the big boss and complain? No. Did they go to the police? No. It was far easier for them to blame the girl for “playing up” to him.
togret:
There aren’t many kids who actually care about others any more. Looking out for your friends is programmed out of them at an early age by our “mind your own business” society.
The few kids who do care are told not to stick up for anyone for legal reasons.
Bullies are treated far better than victims or peacemakers.
Apr 5th, 2008
togret
Lorikeet- you really don’t seem to mix with a very nice class of kids. I see primary and high school kids every day – I work with them every day. They do care about and support each other – while I admit that a few live down to the sterotype you are pushing. Of course, the kids I work with are mainly aboriginal kids, though there are mainstream and migrant kids as well. What a shame that you have such a bleak view of the world. I suppose it protects you from making the effort of trying, though.
Apr 6th, 2008
Ken
Lorikeet – Again a couple of points for accuracy.
1.There is no one who has been a parent that no longer has any children – even iof deceased they stilll have children.
2. All my children are still at school, two still in primary, I spend many horus at the school or around kids, and generally agree with tagret
2. Schools don’t perform, children within them either do or don’t. Can you provide any evidence at all (other than msn polls, specious conversations/gossip, family anecdote or unsourced newspaper articles) that substantiates the clima that powerless teacehrs and poorly disciplined children is positively corrlated to educational perofrmance.
3. I agree 99.9% of children dont obey their teachers al of the time, the point was illustrative, however I do belive the majority do.
4. Child sexual assault is vastly different in perpetrator and vicitm and process than the situaltioanl sexual assault you describe. The two are not comparable, apart from being equally repugnant.
Apr 7th, 2008
Goodbye Democrats
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/17/2219446.htm
Apr 17th, 2008
Lorikeet
Goodbye Democrats:
I’d like to know why they’re not applying the ban to all children under 16.
Togret:
I will try to ignore your demeaning comment. I am also not pushing a stereotype.
Ken:
I know lots of teachers. I have been told what school life is like for them.
These days, teachers have to spend a lot of time just getting the children to settle down to their work, which cuts into education time.
Kids who disrupt classes are generally poorly disciplined, and ruin other people’s chances of learning, especially in the high schools.
I suggest you get your hands on the latest OECD figures.
By the end of primary school, a very large number of students are still innumerate and illiterate. The bar just keeps getting lowered to cover it.
Only last week, I was speaking with a friend of mine who is a retired primary school principal. He is now making a lot of money from tutoring high school students in Maths.
We can’t get many good teachers into the high schools any more, because of disciplinary problems.
The comparison I was trying to make (your point 4.) was in relation to people who turn a blind eye.
Apr 18th, 2008