We watched the first segment on 60 minutes on Sunday (yeah, yeah, quality viewing, I know). It was all about the so-called "sexualisation" of children.
All this stuff in the media about this so-called sexualisation - it's complete bullshit. For two reasons. And that's not to say I think children should be exposed to Bratz dolls in uncomfortable outfits or images of women gyrating round poles - far from it. But people are upset for all the wrong reasons.
All this stuff in the media about this so-called sexualisation - it's complete bullshit. For two reasons. And that's not to say I think children should be exposed to Bratz dolls in uncomfortable outfits or images of women gyrating round poles - far from it. But people are upset for all the wrong reasons.
Firstly, adult female sexuality is not about wearing high-heels and short skirts, a la Bratz dolls. The patriarchy might like it to be, but it ain't. I am still a sexual being, even dressed in, well,
leggings under my tracky dacks, three layers of jumper and a blanket (it's very cold in the kitchen). I often feel horny, even when I am not wearing lacy uncomfortable underwear, and six inch stilettos. In fact, I have never felt anything other than pain when wearing high heels. For the record.
What young girls who are exposed to these ridiculous and wrong images are being taught is not sexuality. They are not being sexualised - they are being molded into the shape the patriarchy wants them to be. They are being taught that their bodies are hideous, that they need to lose weight, even at a very young age, and that without hair/makeup/accessories/fashion/etc they are not really girls. THIS is what we should be outraged about.
Secondly, the more I think about it, the more these people who are up in arms about the whole thing (for all the wrong reasons) clearly have no memory of what it's like being a child. Children are already sexual beings, on their own terms, not adult terms, but sexual beings none-the-less.
We don't like to talk about it, it doesn't gel with our images of childhood as a time of 'innocence' (whatever that should turn out to be). But anyone who doesn't remember having the horn as a kid, doesn't remember being a kid. There's no such thing as what Freud called the "latency" phase, we're all just too embarassed to talk about it or acknowledge that kids have sexual feelings. That's not what kids do. They have cute hair cuts, and ride bikes, and frolic with puppies, and sell lemonade from a lemonade stall with adorable badly-spelled signs. They don't masterbate, or have sexy thoughts. Or play naughty games of doctors and nurses...
In grade 5 or 6, I can't remember which, we were all reading Judy Blume books like mad for the sexy bits - just like in this article. My friend Pip's mother found the copy we'd all passed around, and, horrified, called my mother to let her know about the salacious literature we were reading. (My mother, to her credit, didn't care). But we were all totally into it, and anything else we could find that talked about sex, for example Dolly magazine, another favourite, and for some time banned literature in our house (more due to the shallowness of said publication than the "sexualisation"). Other than, clearly, our parents or teachers talking about sex in the context of educating us, which was cringe-worthy, embarassing, just plain wrong, and clearly they didn't do IT anymore at their age, so what would they know anyway?
I don't think little girls should be playing with dolls dressed in mini skirts, boob tubes and high heels. But it's not because it will "sexualise" them, it's because I'm a feminist.
I don't think little girls should be photographed for magazines in grown-up poses, wearing makeup and grown up outfits (and by little girls, I mean pre-teen). But that's because I'm a feminist.
Children are sexual beings. But sexuality generally is not about clothes (unless you have a fetish of some sort). We shouldn't be trying to "shelter" children from knowledge of sexuality and how sexual relationships happen (when you're more grown up) and what happens in them. That's just knowledge about growing up. What we should be trying to "shelter" them from, or at least give them context for, is the constant bombardment of media images that tell them they have to be pretty/thin/fashionable to be lovable. That they can't be girls without wearing ridiculously uncomfortable clothes than men are sensible enough not to subject themselves to. That they're "unfeminine" if they don't rip out their natural body hair, and that their natural odours are offensive and must be covered up at all costs. That if they have their period, and happen to bleed a little on their clothes, they will die of shame, because everyone will know they have their period. That being a woman isn't just something you ARE, it's something you have to aim for, by a constant process of "beautifying" and dieting, and supressing all your "unladylike" emotions, and that it's something you really only get when a man thinks you're good enough and beautiful enough to be his girlfriend or, better still, wife (and yes, we should "shelter" girls from thinking that the happiest day of their life is their wedding day, that their ultimate dream should be to be a bride in a dress that looks like a meringue).
It's not about sexualisation. It's about feminism.
What young girls who are exposed to these ridiculous and wrong images are being taught is not sexuality. They are not being sexualised - they are being molded into the shape the patriarchy wants them to be. They are being taught that their bodies are hideous, that they need to lose weight, even at a very young age, and that without hair/makeup/accessories/fashion/etc they are not really girls. THIS is what we should be outraged about.
Secondly, the more I think about it, the more these people who are up in arms about the whole thing (for all the wrong reasons) clearly have no memory of what it's like being a child. Children are already sexual beings, on their own terms, not adult terms, but sexual beings none-the-less.
We don't like to talk about it, it doesn't gel with our images of childhood as a time of 'innocence' (whatever that should turn out to be). But anyone who doesn't remember having the horn as a kid, doesn't remember being a kid. There's no such thing as what Freud called the "latency" phase, we're all just too embarassed to talk about it or acknowledge that kids have sexual feelings. That's not what kids do. They have cute hair cuts, and ride bikes, and frolic with puppies, and sell lemonade from a lemonade stall with adorable badly-spelled signs. They don't masterbate, or have sexy thoughts. Or play naughty games of doctors and nurses...
In grade 5 or 6, I can't remember which, we were all reading Judy Blume books like mad for the sexy bits - just like in this article. My friend Pip's mother found the copy we'd all passed around, and, horrified, called my mother to let her know about the salacious literature we were reading. (My mother, to her credit, didn't care). But we were all totally into it, and anything else we could find that talked about sex, for example Dolly magazine, another favourite, and for some time banned literature in our house (more due to the shallowness of said publication than the "sexualisation"). Other than, clearly, our parents or teachers talking about sex in the context of educating us, which was cringe-worthy, embarassing, just plain wrong, and clearly they didn't do IT anymore at their age, so what would they know anyway?
I don't think little girls should be playing with dolls dressed in mini skirts, boob tubes and high heels. But it's not because it will "sexualise" them, it's because I'm a feminist.
I don't think little girls should be photographed for magazines in grown-up poses, wearing makeup and grown up outfits (and by little girls, I mean pre-teen). But that's because I'm a feminist.
Children are sexual beings. But sexuality generally is not about clothes (unless you have a fetish of some sort). We shouldn't be trying to "shelter" children from knowledge of sexuality and how sexual relationships happen (when you're more grown up) and what happens in them. That's just knowledge about growing up. What we should be trying to "shelter" them from, or at least give them context for, is the constant bombardment of media images that tell them they have to be pretty/thin/fashionable to be lovable. That they can't be girls without wearing ridiculously uncomfortable clothes than men are sensible enough not to subject themselves to. That they're "unfeminine" if they don't rip out their natural body hair, and that their natural odours are offensive and must be covered up at all costs. That if they have their period, and happen to bleed a little on their clothes, they will die of shame, because everyone will know they have their period. That being a woman isn't just something you ARE, it's something you have to aim for, by a constant process of "beautifying" and dieting, and supressing all your "unladylike" emotions, and that it's something you really only get when a man thinks you're good enough and beautiful enough to be his girlfriend or, better still, wife (and yes, we should "shelter" girls from thinking that the happiest day of their life is their wedding day, that their ultimate dream should be to be a bride in a dress that looks like a meringue).
It's not about sexualisation. It's about feminism.
7 comments:
Ah yes you are right Bek - this is not about sexuality at all but body image. Sex is beautiful. Manipulation of how children are learning how to view their bodies is not.
Damn that was a good post. This stuff makes me so angry, but I can never articulate it!!
Body image - that was the term I was looking for and couldn't think of! Thanks Eilleen!
And thanks Boo.
Very good post, Bek. Pretty much mirrors my thoughts. I'm gonna link to it and save myself the bother of repeating something you've already put so nicely :)
Is a little girl wanting to be a bride some day anti-feminist?
Yes, because little girls are led to believe that being a bride is what they should aspire to, rather than being doctors, or running a business, or being Prime Minister, or being a CEO, or writing books or being a mathematician.
I'm not saying there's something wrong with wanting to be in a relationship, or even get married, if that's what floats your boat, but there's something wrong about little girls fantasising about wearing a white dress and a veil, as though that's all there is for them.
Beautifully well-put post. Thank you!
Post a Comment