Pin-up children

When the Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the media was announced, those of us who had worked hard to point out that it wasn’t in the best interests of children to be treated as mini adults and sexual selling aids, welcomed it.

At last, we thought, our elected representatives think this issue warrants serious attention.

Child development experts, educators and women and girls’ advocacy groups, presented solid evidence on the damage done by encroaching on childhood with sexualised messaging in toys, clothing, music, games, magazines and billboards.

Psychologists and psychiatrists provided documentary evidence in their case notes and hospital statistics of worrying trends in child and adolescent health and child abuse.

They provided long lists of negative impacts including eating disorders, depression, anxiety, body image dissatisfaction, self-harm, low self esteem and children acting out sexually which they linked to the too-soon sexualisation of children.

The Australian Childhood Foundation told the committee that sexualising material: “… serves to normalise adult sexual themes to children. It provides no educational value and is compounded by other imagery and messages to which children are exposed … a contributing factor to the genesis of problem sexual behaviour is the increasing volume of sexualised imagery and themes available in popular culture and accessible to children.”

The Hon Alastair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court, said the onus was on those engaging in this type of advertising and marketing to show it did no harm.

“The sort of values which this type of advertising encourages is hardly likely to advance the future welfare and development of children. It should therefore be strictly regulated as self regulation has obviously failed”, he told the committee.

It was hoped something would be done to rein in the behaviour of advertisers and marketers who see children as a gold mine to be plundered.

But the committee didn’t seem to think so. While proposing a couple of positive recommendations in its report, the committee seemed to forget that it was the poor behaviour of industry bodies that brought about the inquiry in the first place.

The committee recommended that the Advertising Standards Board (ASB) consider establishing a new “media and advertising complaints clearing house”. This is the same body criticised for not reflecting community standards, for its weak code of ethics, for being unrepresentative and for looking after its own interests.

The ASB has demonstrated that it’s not all that fond of complainants.

It dismisses most of them and labels those who dare complain as wowsers. At least we’re giving them a laugh. An ASB member once wrote in an ASB publication, “Keep your letters coming. This is democracy in action and also very amusing.”

But it’s really not that funny because the ASB is actually allowing the spread of sexist attitudes. Pin-ups which would be an offence if displayed in a workplace, are routinely plastered all over the public space in giant billboards and the ASB’s most common response is “complaint dismissed”.

Dr Lauren Rosewarne, in her book, Sex in Public: Women, outdoor advertising and public policy, writes, “… the ASB’s routine dismissal of complaints does mould community standards. The increasing number of sexist advertisements shown, compounded with the small number ever withdrawn, works to give the impression that sexist advertising is tolerable.”

The committee recommend pre-vetting of advertisements for advertisers unsure if their ad might go too far. Those poor, confused, “stronger-longer-donga” people and the creators of Nandos pole dancing G-stringed mother didn’t know what they were doing?

How many advertisers, in an industry pushing boundaries to attract controversy, will take this one up? About none. Even when a complaint against them is upheld, their campaign has often run its course anyway.

Also in the realm of “you can’t be serious”, was the committee’s citing of Dolly’s publishers who said, “[In general the] … limited number of complaints [received] indicates that the vast majority of consumers have no concerns around their current ability to choose age-appropriate publications”.

No it doesn’t. All it tells us is that tween girls mostly don’t write letters to magazine publishers to complain about inappropriate content - they probably don’t write letters of complaint to anyone really. It’s like, not really what girls this age do.

Speaking of inappropriate content, a recent issue of Dolly contained a section entitled “OMG my boyfriend wants me to …”, followed by three sexual acts - “Give him ‘head’”; “Have anal sex” and “Give him a hand job”.

Does Dolly tell dear reader that she can refuse such demands? No. Does it suggest this could be a crime? No. Does Dolly propose a new boyfriend who respects her wishes if she doesn’t want to give head, anal or wristies? Again, no.

They just give a clinical description of each, with no advice at all apart from using “protection”. What about protection from boys or men who want to use her?

The committee recommends that publishers consider providing reader advice on covers, indicating content that may be inappropriate for certain ages. It will interesting to see if they take that up. Regardless, content that throws girls to the wolves, still needs to change.

The committee has not given proper expression to massive community concern.

Social responsibility has to mean more than this. The inquiry report had an opportunity to shape a better society. It failed.