Amanda Rishworth moves Notice of Motion in House of Representatives

Earlier this month Federal Member for Kingston (S.A), Amanda Rishworth, moved a Private Members Motion acknowledging the findings of the UK Government’s review Letting the Children be Children on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

It is heartening for those of us involved in this issue to see MPs like Rishworth take the lead on speaking out in Parliament and recognising the harm of sexualizing children. Rishworth urged governments, industries, regulators and the wider community to act.

Supporting Rishworth’s motion were: Jill Hall, Shortland NSW; Kirsten Livermore, Capricornia Qld; Sophie Mirabella, Indi Vic, Lib; Kelly O’Dwyer, Higgins Vic, Lib; Laura Smyth, Latrobe Vic; Luke Simpkins, Cowan, WA, Lib; Deborah O’Neill, Robertson, NSW, ALP; Jane Prentice, Ryan, Qld Lib.

Here’s what Rishworth said

I am pleased to rise to move this motion, because the increasing sexualisation of our children is a trend that concerns me greatly, as it does you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke.

I have raised this issue publicly before, both in national debates and in this House, and I have received extensive support from people in the Australian community who share my deep concern about this important issue. One mother from Brisbane, Bridgette, was among many parents and teachers who contacted me to express their
support for action on this matter. In expressing her concern about driving past inappropriate billboard advertising with her children in the car, Bridgette said, ‘I feel powerless to control these kinds of images.’ It was a common theme in the correspondence I received on this matter. While many parents want to be the ones who control their children’s exposure to adult content, they feel it is almost impossible to do so. While I understand that this is a complex and difficult issue to address, I believe it is high time that we as a society start to take stock of these significant concerns and work together as a group to ensure that our children can grow and develop in a positive and healthy way.

The motion before us today acknowledges the findings of the Letting  children be      children: the  report of an independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood commissioned by the government of the United Kingdom and released in June last year. This review draws on evidence collected from the survey of a sample group of 1,198 parents as part of a wider evidence-gathering process. It revealed significant public concern about the sexualisation of young girls and boys through the media and the commercial world.

The American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls defines the process of sexualisation as one where a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal to the exclusion of all other characteristics; a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy; a person is sexually objectified or sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person. The Letting children be children review found that children are growing up against the backdrop of a culture that is increasingly commercialised and sexualised.
The evidence pointed to widespread public concern in the United Kingdom about children’s almost constant exposure to sexualised imagery through billboards, magazines, pre-watershed television programs containing adult themes, music videos depicting sexually explicit dance routines or provocative lyrics, and adult material available on demand through the internet and through the commercial world in the form of advertising and marketing. Images of this kind convey to children a clear message that suggests that women and girls are nothing more than sexual objects.

The report found that many parents felt that these images were becoming increasingly sexualised and gendered and they expressed concern about the influence from exposure to these images on the development and attitudes of their children. As this motion states, the review also found that parents are very concerned about the clothing, services and products being specifically marketed to children, which often reinforce gender stereotypes and portray children as being more sexually mature than their age would suggest. Parents were particularly concerned about the sexualisation of clothes designed for young girls, listing items like padded bras, bikini swimwear, clothing made from fabrics like animal prints and black lace, high-heeled shoes and clothing incorporating suggestive slogans.

Lastly, the review noted that parents often feel their concerns are not taken into account and that little effort is made to assist parents to control what their children are exposed to, despite the fact that they feel they are in the best position to say what is or is not appropriate for their child. As I stated earlier, many parents want to take charge and limit their children’s exposure to what they see as adult content but feel powerless to do so.

As stated in the motion, I believe, along with many Australian parents, that the sexualisation of children is a growing issue not just in the United Kingdom but also here, in Australia. A number of reports into this issue conducted by both the Australia Institute and the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications and the Arts found a high level of public concern about the premature advancement of the sexuality of children caused by their frequent exposure to highly sexualised images of adults as well as pressure to consume products designed to directly sexualise them.

The motion recognises that the sexualisation of children and, in particular, of girls has been associated with a wide range of negative consequences, including body image issues, eating disorders, low self-esteem and mental illness. We all know that viewing images that depict an unrealistic standard of beauty can make us all feel bad. I often feel bad when I open up a magazine and see unrealistic images of women. However, the important point is this: unlike adults, children have not yet developed the cognitive ability to objectively analyse these kinds of images, and so they are particularly vulnerable to this kind of content. While adults are able to determine whether something has been airbrushed or is unrealistic or a person has had their body altered, children are unable to do this.

The report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls presents a summary of the significant body of evidence linking exposure to highly sexualised content with a process of selfobjectification, whereby young girls internalise the sexualising images of the culture in which they are developing and start to criticise their own physical selves for failing to conform—which is often impossible—with what is a narrow concept of attractiveness. The report notes that constant attention to one’s physical appearance caused by self-objectification can often have a disruptive effect on performance in a range of areas, including schooling, because less time and energy is available for these other tasks. I saw some reports that showed that young girls were unable to attend to their school work because they were obsessing about their bodies.

The report highlights studies showing that young girls exposed to sexualised and gender stereotyped content in magazines and through television can experience low self-esteem and become extremely dissatisfied with and anxious about their bodies. These feelings of inadequacy can then lead to serious health concerns, such as disordered eating.

In addition, research shows that the sexualisation and objectification of girls in society can have significant adverse effects on the attitudes that boys have and on the ways that they perceive and interact with females throughout their lives. Not only can this lead to men struggling to maintain intimate relationships because they have unrealistic expectations of women but it can also teach young boys negative messages about how it is appropriate to treat and interact with girls. Worst of all, it can cause young boys treat women purely as sexual objects. There is little doubt that the frequent exposure of young children to sexualised content leads to a whole
range of negative consequences.

The motion before us today urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of this report. But it is also time for action. I believe that as a community, we in Australia, including industry and government, need to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood in Australia. We are living in an increasingly sexualised and commercial world. While adults have developed the skills to navigate this—not always successfully, but a lot of the time we are able to navigate, analyse and critically evaluate this material—children can be extremely vulnerable to these influences. As a result, these influences can affect how they develop and determine what kinds of adults they grow up to be. I do not think that it is any one group’s responsibility, and that has been the trouble—one group of people has
not been responsible, because it is complex issue. But I believe that we need to raise awareness of this issue.

We need to work together. Industry, government, parents and the community need to work together to ensure that as a society we deal effectively with this important issue so that future generations of Australian boys and girls can grow and develop in an environment that promotes positive and healthy messages. Unfortunately, I feel
that we are going the other way. I strongly believe that we need to prevent the increased sexualisation and commercialisation of our children.

That is why I am moving this important motion. I notice that there are quite a few speakers on the list. I hope for their support on this motion. I commend the motion to the House. 

Deb O’Neill, Member for Robertson (NSW), also recognised the importance of corporate social responsibility, making these comments:

I really do want to speak about the importance of the industry coming to some sort of understanding of their responsibility as important corporate and social citizens. Businesses do not exist outside and beyond the ethical practices; businesses sit within communities and they rely on communities to succeed. We need an ethical response to what we can see is an increase in eating disorders, an increase in challenges to a sense of body image, increases in students’ and young people’s sense of identity, at a particular time they are growing in their understanding of sexualisation. These are pressures that should not be brought to bear on young people unnecessarily. Some businesses are very much responsible for pushing the envelope way too far.

Still waiting

Of course, we are still waiting for the review of the Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment, which was meant to have happened by December 2009. It seems to have disappeared.

Dr Emma Rush summed up the issues in an earlier piece I published here, titled ‘The market is eating our children’.   It’s a must read for anyone interested in understanding and advancing this issue. Dr Rush writes:

But what can government do?

• It could start by conducting the now overdue December 2009 review of industry’s response to the Senate Inquiry recommendations, which would put clearly on the public record the failure of industry self-regulation to promote children’s interests.

• It needs to recognise that what is happening today is sexualisation ‘by a thousand cuts’. One sexualised billboard, one television show or advertisement, one internet site, one toy, one child’s magazine: none of these alone cause the problem of child sexualisation. It is the combination of many sexualised billboards, television shows, advertisements, internet sites, toys, magazines, and so on that cause child sexualisation.

The ‘case-by-case’ approach to regulation which is currently used by both government regulation and industry self-regulation will not work for this issue. We need an integrated regulatory approach covering all relevant industries, with the expertise of child health and welfare professionals structured into the regulation process, and regulation enforceable by law. Read full article here

See also: ‘UK takes action to address sexualisation of children – what is Australia doing?’, MTR blog

“Pussy is great by itself, but you know sharing with friends, it’s nice to experiment and I would recommend sharing pussy with friends…”

Where did I find these quotes? Comments posted on a porn site? Men discussing their sexual preferences perhaps?

No, they’re found in this promotion for an energy drink called Pussy. These words were uttered through the dazzling teeth of Sam Branson and filmed at the Kensington Roof Gardens owned by daddy Sir Richard Branson.

The video’s opening frame states the company’s mission is for “Global Pussyfication.”

It appears they are succeeding.

Three thousand retailers in the UK alone can’t get enough of it. It’s even in Tesco. And Selfridges. And on Virgin trains (maybe the planes are next – surely Richard Branson will see the cross-promotional opportunities in combining the company names?). 

The beverage is now in 18 countries worldwide, including Australia where it can be found in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

The energy drink was created by Johnnie Shearer. The title came to him in his bedroom (no surprises there) and now he has reached such dizzying heights of success as to be described as: “The new king of pussy”.

Shearer has a photo of porn mogul Hugh Hefner drinking Pussy at his 80th birthday. Shearer has now joined entrepreneurs Sam Branson and sister Holly in their corporate sexualisation mission.

While smothered in porno references and online pics of women naked from the waist down and in sexual acts illustrating the brand, Pussy’s marketers tell us: “The drink is pure. It’s your mind that’s the problem”.

The Australian distributor also thinks we are idiots, parroting the line in the Courier Mail on the weekend.

Their drink “challenges the consensus” and is “spontaneous, entertaining, optimistic and fun. It’s a starting point. A moment when something happens and when things begin – Pussy starts conversations. It believes in having a good time as often as possible”.

At the expense of women. Because this drink contributes to the second class status of women and girls. How is it that appropriating porn industry terminology is seen as cool bourgeois sophistication? It’s happening every day, as I’ve documented so many times (including here recently).

The product is so mainsteam that an online vocational training institute has established a new distribution business for the energy drink in Australia, in a move described by the CEO of the Dymond Institute of Business, Russell Dymond, as a “giant leap forward”. The brand, says the cool and sophisticated Dymond, is “exciting and progressive.”

“This is a golden opportunity for Dymond Institute’s Business and Marketing students to apply their learning, knowledge and skills, to a real life business, as opposed to simulated business scenarios,” Dymond says proudly.

“The Pussy Drinks option…will enable our students… to develop product, pricing, promotional and distribution tactics, as well as strategic direction.”

So even our educational institutions are getting in on the act. Female students will be expected to market and promote a symbol of their own objectification.

Marketing Sexploitation 101: enroll now at the Dymond Institute of Business.

Thanks to the Pussy wunderkinds, boys are encouraged to crack sexist jokes and harass girls. If Pussy is in the fridge at their local milkbar next to the milk, what’s the harm in using the term in interaction with each other and with girls?

The drink and the advertising that goes with it entice boys and men to jest about ‘drinking pussy’ or ‘needing pussy’ or ‘getting pussy’ (you can enquire about the drink through an email whose address begins ‘Get Pussy’). Fuelled by the porn-inspired references, they will ask their mates if they ‘would like some pussy’ or tell them it’s ‘BYO Pussy’.

The porn-inspired name encourages boys and men to dissect women and see them only in terms of their sexual body parts. “Pussy is great by itself,” as Branson Junior informs us, as though it is an inanimate object not connected to a real flesh and blood woman. All women are collapsed as pussy, to be shared and consumed by men.

This product is part of the widespread sexploitation of women and girls. The mainstreaming of the drink treats women and girls as objects and is part of the sexual harassment of women and girls, especially given plans to saturate Queensland with the product.

The young woman serving behind the counter is asked by a male where he can find some “pussy”. It’s not hard to imagine what she could be subjected to while going about her work. Pussy has provided yet another tool for multiple harassment scenarios.

Of course many girls will joke and laugh along. Certainly, that is what they are expected to do. Girls are taught to put up with sexist crap from the earliest of ages, even to embrace it as liberating. And if they are upset, or distressed, or uncomfortable, well that’s too bad, they just need to lighten up. And don’t they know that even Holly Branson thinks Pussy is great and has one every morning?

The Pussy energy drink is just another example of the mainstreaming of porn-inspired themes. It pretends to be cool but really it’s just Big Sexism in a can. And that doesn’t “move us forward” as the drink’s masterminds claim. It sets us back. Again.

Invest in a resource to help stop the global trade in body dissatisfaction

Filmmaker Elena Rossini has written asking my support for a fundraising effort for a new film about the marketing of unrealistic and unattainable beauty ideals to women. She asked me to let you know about the plans for the film and seek donations to make this project a reality. I’m more than happy to do so – a film like this is more than overdue and so necessary to help address the global epidemic of body hatred and expose an industry that both creates this self-loathing then trades on it for profit. Filmmaker Elena writes:

THE ILLUSIONISTS is a feature-length documentary about the commodification of the body and the marketing of unattainable beauty around the world. The film will explore the influence that corporations have on our perceptions of ourselves, showing how mass media, advertising, and several industries manipulate people’s insecurities about their bodies for profit.

The ultimate goal of THE ILLUSIONISTS is to make viewers more empowered consumers of media, ideally enabling them to think about their bodies differently, and to appreciate them for what they can experience instead of how they look.

There are amazing experts already lined up for the interviews, including author & filmmaker Jean Kilbourne (best known for her iconic film series “Killing Us Softly”), psychotherapist Susie Orbach (best known for her books “Fat is a Feminist Issue” and “Bodies”), and Jenn Pozner (author of “Reality Bites Back”; she was recently featured in the New Yorker and on NPR). I’m also planning to interview some prominent authors, magazine editors, psychologists and photographers for a total of 30 experts in 7 different countries.

I hope you can help me spread the word about the campaign. Kickstarter is an amazing fundraising platform but they have a catch: their method is “all or nothing”. If I am even a dollar short of the funding goal by August 5th, I will lose all the pledges (credit card payments are charged only if a campaign is successful). On Kickstarter, we are offering people pre-sales of the film and various other gifts as rewards for donations. Through the generous donations of friends and fans we have already reached 50 percent of our goal in two weeks. But the road ahead is still really long….

Take a look at the trailer for the film and you’ll see how important this project is. I hope you’ll see the worth of investing in this project.

Tighter scrutiny and accountability recommended

A parliamentary report tabled today has recommended a tightening up of the outdoor advertising industry through a more rigorous system of self-regulation. Outdoor advertising is one of the least regulated forms of advertising yet the hardest to avoid – billboards have a captive audience and cannot be turned off.

In Collective Shout’s submission to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising, we wrote:

Collective Shout is critical of the self‐regulatory system and believes the advertising industry has used self‐regulation to its commercial advantage, to the detriment of the community, and women and girls in particular. The self‐regulation model enables the advertising industry to be seen to be responsible and to avoid real scrutiny of its long history of irresponsible and profit‐driven behaviour.

We have identified a range of inadequacies in the current system, including a weak code of ethics, the voluntary nature of the code, lack of pre-vetting, the Advertising Standards Board’s lack of power to order removal of advertisements, inadequate monitoring, de-sensitisation of panel members, little to no consultation with child development experts, and no meaningful penalties to provide any real incentive for advertisers to change their behavior.

The Committee’s 19 recommendations go some way to addressing our concerns. We are particularly supportive of recommendations 4 and 8, which relate to issues of objectification of women Of course as forms of discriminatory practice. It is extraordinary that in the Advertising Standard Board’s view, as cited in the report, objectification of women is not seen as contrary to the prohibitions on discrimination and vilification.

Recommendation 4—Australian Government

The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department investigate, through its anti-discrimination legislation consolidation project, how to include the unrestricted display of racist or sexualised images in the public space under the scope of discriminatory practice.

Recommendation 8— Australian Association of National Advertisers

The Committee recommends that the Australian Association of National Advertisers amend its Advertising Code of Ethics to proscribe sexual objectification of men, women and children.

We also welcome Recommendation 1: that industry bodies report to the Attorney-General’s Department by 30 December 2011 detailing their responses and how the relevant recommendations will be implemented and that that they provide a comprehensive report to the AG’s Department by 30 December 2012 detailing how the recommendations have been implemented and 2: If the self-regulatory system is found lacking, the Committee recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department impose a self-funded co-regulatory system on advertising with government input into advertising codes of practice.

We also welcome the exposure of recalcitrant advertisers outlined in Recommendation 18: that the Advertising Standards Bureau address instances of advertiser non-compliance by establishing a dedicated webpage that names advertisers, and their products, who have breached advertising standards or refused to comply with Board determinations.

If the industry wants to keep self-regulation, it has to show it is worthy of it.

See also: Crackdown on racy billboards, Sky News

Collective Shout’s concerns about objectification of women taken up by Senate committee

How the advertising industry and classification system fail women

Collective Shout supporters have alerted us to Supre’s latest advertising campaign. First, a topless girl advertising ‘jeggings’ on the back of a bus, followed by a highly sexualised television commercial. 

Collective Shout supporter and admin Kate wrote about the jeggings ad on our site here.

Julie Gale of Kids Free 2B kids has written to Supre.

To the CEO,

Given that your target market is young to mid teen girls surely it’s time that you paid attention to the research and concerns expressed by leading child psychologists.

The current advertisement on TV might look like a bit of fun to your marketing team – but it is contributing to the continuing onslaught of harmful messages being sent to young girls.

ie: Their value comes from how ‘thin, hot and sexy’ they are.

Teenage girls alerted me to the ad shown on afternoon television and they were upset at the what message it was sending them and the younger girls watching.

Teenagers are currently experiencing unprecedented levels of anxiety, body image issue and eating disorders – and to this you are contributing.

The recent ad on trams featuring a topless model wearing jeggings is more of the same.

As were the slogans on your t-shirts last year which read – ‘Santa’s Bitch’, Pussy Power’ & ‘North Pole Dancer.’

Kids Free 2B Kids urges you to care more about your target audience and treat them with the respect and care they deserve.

Proactive action would be a responsible move.

I await your response.

Julie Gale

As well as Supre’s history of selling sexualised shirts to little girls, Supre recently promoted and sponsored an underage dance party featuring singer Wynter Gordon, known for her song ‘Dirty Talk’ which includes the lyrics:

“I want to do some dirty things to you tonight, I want to fight all through the night, night, night”, and “love machine, by myself, climax, hot wax/S&M on the floor/ I like it hard core”.

This latest ad campaign is a continuation of Supre’s irresponsible marketing. Clearly they have learned nothing from consumer complaints, have defied common sense and have ignored the research surrounding the sexualisation of children.

Further, while the federal police go to great efforts to educate young people about ‘sexting’ Supre thinks it is ok to use a topless young woman to sell their products to a ‘tweenage’ market.

Complaints to the ad standards board about Supre’s jeggings print ad have already been dismissed. (no surprises there) Contact Supre and let them know what you think. Tell them why you won’t shop there and why you’re telling everyone you know that you’re boycotting Supre.

Take Action

See the ad here.

Send your complaint to Supre here.

Complain to the Advertising Standards Board about the television commercial here.

UK Glamour Magazine has included Suri Cruise in its annual list of the world’s “Best Dressed Women”

Up there with Samantha Cameron and Alexa Chung, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes’ daughter is rated number 21 – ahead of Lady Gaga and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Suri Cruise is 5 years old. This little ‘fashion icon’ still needs help dressing herself and uses a dummy. She is not a woman and Glamour UK shouldn’t have included her in the list. Doing so contributes to the unremitting adultification of celebrity children (and non-celebrity children). It invites us to see Suri Cruise as much older than she really is, which is dangerous to her.

Here’s what I had to say about it on Channel 7’s Morning Show last week. Journalist Melissa Hoyer and parenting commentator Yvette Vignando felt the same way.

Botox injections for 8 year old pageant girl

In the latest installment of ‘horrors inflicted on small girls in the name of child beauty pageants’ comes this story, about an 8 year old in the US who undergoes Botox to keep up with the other girls in the tough world of pageants.

Kerry Campbell has admitted that she regularly injects daughter Britney with Botox. Apparently Britney had complained about the wrinkles on her face – after they were pointed out by other pageant children- so her mum thought it a good idea to administer Botox. “Kids are harsh and being confident is something she has to be with them,” Campbell said.

You can watch her interview with Good Morning America here:

In my view mother and daughter are both victims of beauty culture, and especially of child beauty pageant culture, which reeks with over the top beauty and grooming practices, sexualised dance routines and expensive glitzy costumes. Five year old child beauty pageant ‘star’ Eden Wood is being touted for interviews with Australian media with a price tag of up to $20,000. Oh, and she’ll be doing her Las Vegas Showgirl routine when she gets here in July.

How many more reasons do we need to keep child beauty pageants out of Australia? Please join the campaign. Sign the petition, join the Austrailan’s Against Child Beauty Pageants facebook and attend the protests country-wide May 24.

See also: Petition launched to stop US child beauty pageants in Australia

Child beauty pageants: equating girls worth with appearance dangerous and destructive

Sexualisation, violence, commercialisation, commodification: Right to Childhood conference hears evidence of harm to children

The Right to Childhood conference last Friday at Sydney’s Wesley Centre was a wake-up call to a society hell bent on forcing children to be exposed to imagery and messages which wreak havoc on their physical and mental health. Initiated by Dr Ramesh Manocha of HealthEd and co-sponsored by Collective Shout, close to 400 people heard expert evidence on just how bad things are for children and young people: and how all the indicators on health and wellbeing are set to worsen if not addressed as a matter of urgency.

Here’s a sample of some of the media coverage, and some related media treatment this week of issues impacting children.

Channel 10 News Segment: Right 2 Childhood Seminar

Advertisers blamed for increasing sexualisation: The World Today

Advertisers using ‘same tricks as sexual predators’

…Ms Hamilton says her research indicates modern advertising is becoming increasingly exploitative, especially towards children…

“I have done a paper recently which looks at how the corporations do market products, whether it is clothing or cosmetics or whatever – toys – to kids, and interestingly they use exactly the same tools as sexual predators do to groom children,” she said…

Another speaker at the conference, writer and social researcher Melinda Tankard Reist, says she is sickened by deliberate marketing – often with sexual undertones – to children as young as six months.

“They are very callous. I mean this is one of the reasons we use the term corporate paedophilia, because corporations are in a sense abusing children,” she said.

“They are driving childhood out of children and we see this as a systemic assault on childhood…” Read full story here

Advertisers should own up to harmful images says Australian Childhood Foundation

ADVERTISERS would have to publish “impact statements” detailing how their ads could harm youngsters, under a plan being pushed by a children’s lobby group.

Australian Childhood Foundation chief Joe Tucci said children as young as six were showing inappropriate sexual behaviour, which he blamed on saturation levels of violent and sexually explicit images in advertising, music videos, and computer games…

His call for companies using sexual or violent images to produce the impact statements comes amid growing concerns over the sexualisation of children.

Dr Tucci told a Sydney conference yesterday that 200 children showing inappropriate sexual behaviour were referred to his group a year, compared with 10 children a year a decade ago.

“There are children displaying aberrant sexual behaviour who can’t even tie their shoelaces yet,” he said.

“We ask children in counselling where they get these kind of ideas,” he said. “They pick out magazines, they pick out pictures and videos…” Read full story here 

 Advertising Standards Bureau chief executive Fiona Jolly “denied there needed to be tougher restrictions on advertisers”.

We disagree and believe the industry has had its way too long. See Collective Shout’s submissions here and here  which argue that self-regulation has failed.

Kids too afraid to eat

CHILDREN as young as four are being hospitalised for eating disorders after refusing to eat and going on dangerous diets in their quest to be thin.

The largest eating disorders clinic in NSW, based at The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, has reported a 270 per cent spike in the number of children being admitted to hospital over the past decade.

Even more alarming is the rise in the number of children being treated as outpatients at the hospital – it has increased more than 10-fold, up from 298 in 2003 to 3157 in 2009.

Clinic co-director Dr Michael Kohn said patients are getting younger.

“The average age for presentation is decreasing and the reason is the stress on young people has increased, so that those people vulnerable to develop eating disorders are doing so at a younger age,” Dr Kohn said.

On Thursday alone, Dr Kohn saw 12 new patients including a five-year-old. Read full story here

Princesses of the pageant prepare for protests

…Melinda Tankard Reist, of lobby group Collective Shout, which is organising the petition to ban child beauty pageants, said presenting children in such a way was tantamount to child abuse. ”I think any Australian who cares about the welfare of little girls doesn’t want to see them dressing up like Tammy Faye Bakker or Joan Collins,” she said.

Collective Shout’s petition, which has more than 1200 signatures, will be sent to federal Minister for Early Childhood Peter Garrett and Victorian Minister for Children Wendy Lovell…Read full story here. And great to see 95% of voters in an SMH poll are also opposed to child beauty pageants in Australia.

See also:

Child Beauty Pageants: the misconceptions

“Being a little Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair has to be a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortions in terms of body image.” Read full blog article by Collett Smart here.

 Say no to child sexualisation pageants

Add your name! Stop child beauty pageants in Australia

Sign up to Australian’s against child beauty pageants

A case study in sexist advertising

So you thought slap and tickle carry-on flicks were a thing of the past?

Think again.

 A Gold Coast property dealer has breathed new life into old-fashioned sexism with this one and a half minute clip flogging a property on the Gold Coast. The clip has already gone viral so I’m posting it as a case study in sexist advertising in the year 2011.

The video is full of nudge nudge wink wink innuendos and double entendres such as “Property isn’t the only thing going off!!” and “No ifs or buts!! (butts, get it?). A model is shown in various states of undress while agents Ian Adams and Adrian Jenkins (that’s them,  left) talk about the property listed by NEO. This sterile, soulless strip pad is pitched as a family home.

Adams said it was “unashamedly sexy and fun” and all done “tongue-in-cheek.” . They wanted to cut through the competition and “get noticed” by “going that extra mile”.

What better way to do that than have a woman take off her clothes? Adams seems to think he’s some kind of out-there genius. Since when was this approach clever and innovative?

“My kids can get up and watch far worse on Video Hits every weekend. This is about selling a product,” says Adams.  Oh, well that makes it alright then. You can objectify women as long as it’s for a worthy cause – like making people like him rich.

Tell Adrian Jenkins what you think he should do with his property. Ph: 0412080290.

‘Surrounded by a culture in which girls are all body and only body’

Glee star Lea Michele features on the March cover of Cosmopolitan. We’re seeing more of this sexification of popular schoolgirl characters. Of course it’s not just sexing up female actresses from the high school TV show genre – this is just another example of the sexual scripts young women celebrities are expected to follow. You’re famous? Show us your flesh.

I’ve written before about the creepy photo shoot by Terry Richardson for November’s GQ, featuring Glee’s lead characters in poses suggesting schoolgirls are seductive temptresses and promoting the schoolgirl porn fantasy/barely-legal genre.

The objectification of women confronts us everywhere. It’s not about being personally ‘offended’ at seeing Lea Michele pulling back her clothing to reveal a significant amount of breast. It’s not that this cover is worse than others. It’s the cumulative impact of so many like it. It’s what it says and represents and the message it sends about women’s worth and value – on the front of a magazine read by thousands of young women. This is where your power lies: in your ability to attract sexual attention. Natasha Walter in Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, expresses it well:

Through the glamour-modelling culture, through the mainstreaming of pornography and the new acceptability of the sex industry, through the modishness of lap and pole-dancing, through the sexualisation of young girls, many young women are being surrounded by a culture in which they are all body and only body. In the hypersexual culture the woman who has won is the woman who foregrounds her physical perfection and silences any discomfort she may feel.

MTR on The Morning Show: why is it all up to parents?

I commented on the Cosmo cover and broader implications for women and girls on Channel 7’s Morning Show today with parenting expert Yvette Vignando who has also written on the issue here.

Here’s an email I received after the show. It takes up a point I got a bit passionate about as Kylie and David were trying to wrap up the show – why is it parents who are expected to clean up the mess created by a pornified culture? The onus is always on parents, rather than cultural change.

Thank you once again Melinda for speaking on The Morning Show (unfortunately for us all, you seem to be invited to that programme along with Dr Carr-Gregg time and time again yet nothing seems to change). I agree with everything you speak about in regards to the skank culture that my generation are forced to raise our children in…I can safely say that on many an occasion I feel so frustrated and angry that I have been known to say…‘Oh I give up… why don’t you marketers and money makers just take my kids from me and raise them yourself!’ As you said today, it’s ludicrous to expect parents to fight the over sexualized society we live in, at every turn, get blamed for the damaged children produced from it and witness NO ACCOUNTABILITY from the media and culture perpetuating the damage. I have three daughters of teenage years and very often I wish I didn’t…I fear for them and the damaged boys/men they may well encounter in the near future…Maybe the tides will turn and my future grandchildren will have a better start in their cultural life than this current young generation have been forced to endure.

Kind regards

Suzanne Jones

The Morning Show had another show earlier in the week about growing parental concern about sexualisation of children. Yes, I know, I’ve said the same things many times. Until things change, expect me to keep going on about it.

See also: ‘Equality hampered by sexualisation of young girls’, originally posted at The Vibe. Marcus Cleaver argues: “Despite legislation and the feminist movements of the 1960s and 70s, we still live in a society where girls are conditioned from a young age to see themselves as sexualised objects”. It’s worth reading the full article.

Cross ‘em off your Christmas list

Jingle bells, Christmas is here. Well, it was here around October according to most retailers! But that’s another blog entirely. So it’s time for you to fill the Christmas stocking, Christmas hamper or car boot with goodies again.

Throughout the past year, Collective Shout has taken action to create a world free of sexploitation. Now it’s your turn to create a shopping bag free of sexploitation this Christmas.

Below is a list of products, brands, people and companies who have been ‘naughty’ and not nice this year. Actually they’ve been exploitative, degrading and disturbing.

Here is a list of corporate offenders we have crossed off our shopping list this year. We encourage you all to do the same.

Roger David

Thousands of people spoke out against Roger David shirts featuring objectifying images of gagged and half naked women.  Roger David have never addressed concerns about these shirts and continue to stock them.  Shop somewhere else for men’s clothing this Christmas.

City Beach

Degrading images usually reserved for the centre pages of fhm or Ralph magazine, have now found their way onto t-shirts marketed primarily towards teenagers, via the T.I.T.S brand stocked by City Beach. If you don’t see these items in City Beach, you will see them wherever a person chooses to wear them. City Beach is contributing to the pornification of culture! Don’t buy from City Beach this holiday season.

Amazon.com

Amazon came under fire recently for selling a book titled The pedophile’s guide to love and pleasure: a code of conduct for child lovers. Since then more disturbing material has been found such as Understanding loved boys and boy lovers. Did Amazon act swiftly to remove these child abuse manuals when challenged? No, it defended it’s right to sell the child abuse instruction guide as free speech until they could no longer ignore the threat of global boycott.  A company that supports child abuse does not deserve your money. Don’t shop at Amazon.com

Supre

‘High Beams’… ‘Pussy Power’ … ‘Santa’s Bitch’ … ‘North Pole Dancer’ … All slogans on t-shirts at Supre, a retailer hugely popular with 11 and 12 year old girls. After loads of complaints sparked by an article on Melinda Tankard Reist’s blog in December 2009, Supre said they would remove the shirts. They lied, the shirts were seen on the clearance rack selling for $5. Don’t shop at a store that treats little girls this way.

Lynx

Where to begin with Lynx?  The Lynx Lodge dubbed a ‘virtual brothel’ by the media. The ‘pop up spa’ in Sydney’s Martin Place, providing passers by with the sexual titillation usually reserved for a strip club. Lynx have been combining deodorant with porn themes and marketing them to a teenage audience for years. They call this the Lynx Effect. The Lynx Effect is that men treat women as objects of sexual recreation. Do not support them this holiday season. Put their stinky, over-priced gift packs back on the shelf, because Lynx Stynx! Lynx have defended their campaign saying it is designed to give men ‘confidence.’ Having looked at Lynx’s facebook page, many men are now quite confident in treating women like pieces of meat.

Unilever

To add insult to injury, Lynx is owned by Unilever. Do you know what else Unilever owns? Dove. You know, the campaign for real beauty, where women are encouraged to be themselves, to love who they are, no matter what size, colour or age? Contrast the ‘campaign for real beauty’ with Lynx’s advertising and you will see why many are keen to ditch Unilever altogether. It’s easy to do, just look for the ‘U’ logo on the back of the label, then put it back on the shelf! Check out the full list of Unilever brands here.

Lovable

Lovable are using their affiliation with a leading Eating Disorders charity to further their reputation and profits, while undermining their work in every way. You cannot use a former ‘Miss Universe,’ a woman known for her ‘flawless’ physical attributes in a pornified campaign and claim to be helping to promote positive body image. Eating Disorders are serious mental health issues affecting a growing number of girls and women each year. Not something to be taken advantage of to increase your profits.  Lovable? As one commentator has put it, their behaviour is ‘hatable.’

Calvin Klein

Calvin Klein has a long record of pornified, degrading advertising. Recently we alerted our supporters to this billboard dubbed the ‘gang rape’ billboard. The Ad Standards Board received a large volume of complaints about this ad, sparked by articles  on Collective Shout and Melinda Tankard Reist’s blog. An Ad Standards Board representative even wrote to us asking us to advise supporters to use the online facility instead of fax or post – apparently the number of complaints was impacting their workload and online is easier for them to process. The Ad Standards Board upheld the complaints and the billboards were taken down. Read the outcome here. If you see the Calvin Klein logo on jeans, underwear or perfume, put it back on the shelf. This company does not deserve your money.

Diesel

Diesel has a history of sexualised and degrading ad campaigns. ‘Be stupid’ is one of these campaigns with the accompanying slogan: ‘smart may have the brains but stupid has the balls.’  Melinda Tankard Reist has written about that campaign here.

Diesel came to our attention again this year when images of their ‘sex sells’ campaign were plastered on the front of shop windows. This resulted in a flood of complaints from our supporters with at least one retail store agreeing to remove the posters.

Diesel again hit the media just recently. A US law school rented out their Library to Diesel for what they were told would be a tasteful photo shoot for jeans. The resulting images of models in their underwear crawling over the facilities and each other, were an embarrassment for the law school who said they were duped into allowing Diesel to use their facilities.