http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo_sqxq43hA (the sifted one is dead)

I have a 19month old daughter and I read that article last week along with my wife. We are both very, very concerned about the sexualisation of women in the media (Killing us softly gives great pause). We'll be doing our damndest to make a tomboy out of our daughter (not that difficult I don't think, she has 3 older brothers )

It's interesting that the article mentions Katy Perry and California Girls; There's a family we're friends with who's daughter just started school (so 5yrs old) and last time we were over at their house she was singing and dancing on the table to California Girls. That song and video clip (and Katy Fricken Perry) are exactly the sort of shit that girls should NOT be watching. It purely paints women as things to be looked at and to fuss over their looks and shoot whipped cream out of their breasts... wait, what?

That girl has been raised in EXACTLY the way that is enforcing the consumerist, image focused bullshit that we hate as parents.

When it comes to TV shows I'd like her to watch things like Kim Possible (although still with bloody cheerleading etc.) because she's a ridiculously capable secret agent, rather than tripe like Hanna Montanna or iCarli.

At the moment about the only thing she watches (in small doses) is Austalia's own Wiggles, which she loves and 'sings' and dances to. Actually, this morning when I dressed her I purposely picked out an outfit that had NO pink in it We originally were going to have a 'no pink' rule completely, but then it'd be very hard to actually buy ANY clothes for her.

So, yeah. My opinion is that for all of women's lib it seems to have been swinging way into the realms of getting girls to think about dating and sex and being sexy earlier and earlier and earlier... and it's quite sick.


It's going to be a challenge indeed to raise a girl with a healthy self esteem, no hang ups on her looks, a belief in her abilities AND still not have her be a prude or have any hang up about sex etc. when she's older.

*sigh*... kids, aren't they great?

Did I mention how much I hate Katy Perry? Just want to make it clear how much SHE is an embodiment of so much that is currently wrong with women in the media today, she whores herself out, dresses like she does, acts like she does just for the attention and focus it brings to her.

And it works.

And women/girls look UP to this shit?

So sad

I started to notice this very issue back in the 90's. When the Spice Girls became popular.

*quality

Issy and I are probably going have a kid within the next couple of years. We need to start thinking of these kinds of things.

You seem like a super together mom. I'd love to hear more from you about raising kids.

Awarding peggedbea with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

I've always been of the mindset that you encourage whatever it is your child wants to do, whether that be sports, video games or girlie pageantry. But that's me.

Hey, I had to play with "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". How do you think THAT affected my self-image?

I'm not a big fan of people meddling in people's lives on any level whether that be children or adults. My nephew has some specific problems that affect his social cues and he seems to find solace in video games. My brother (his father) wants to push him sometimes to play more sports thinking it will help him interact with other children, but it's just not his way.

>> ^blankfist:

I've always been of the mindset that you encourage whatever it is your child wants to do, whether that be sports, video games or girlie pageantry. But that's me.


Oh, you encourage them to be sure, but the problem is that WHAT they want to do can be SO informed by external influences. If they are constantly bombarded with images of women (and girls now... *sigh*) dressing 'sexy' and being flirtatious, then it's going to rub off eventually. And really, it's not appropriate.

Also, if they want to be tottering around in high heels at the age of 5, sorry, but I'm just going to have to say 'no' to that. When they're older, go nuts, but when you're a kid, be a damn kid, there is no need to grow up so fast.

Also, as much as I'm all about encouraging them, there's a level of restraint that should probably be brought to bare when they are really little, and a bit of making them try lots of things so they can get a good feel for life in general.

But hey... that's me.

@spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.

I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

@blankfist Ahh, but see, you're going the other extreme and suggesting that not letting them wear heels (based on it damaging their legs, over sexualizing them at an early age etc.) leads to no form of self expression.

If they really want something that we don't agree with it'd be up to them to explain to us why. And if it's purely 'because everyone else is doing it' then we're going to say no.

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with imposing your beliefs on your children anyway. It's not like you can avoid it, of course you do, every parent does. In fact, it's your job to imbue them with a sense of right and wrong and give them the tools to get through life.

That's not to say you should raise a child who dare not disagree with you, in fact I relish a good constructive argument, but the point is that I'd rather them at least have our morals and life outlook as a starting point rather than leaving them be a blank canvas to absorb commercialized culture without any critical thinking.

@spoco2, no, I agree that putting your foot down to them wearing heels is reasonable. I thought I made that clear. I was saying that's where the rhetoric always ends up, though: in the extreme. It's always, "You don't expect me to let them wear thongs do you?" Of course not!

But buying a Bratz doll isn't the same thing as them wearing heels.

You wrote: "And if it's purely 'because everyone else is doing it' then we're going to say no."

>> ^blankfist:

So what if everyone else is doing it? Don't you think that's you pushing your own politics onto him or her?
Yup, and I have no issue with that, that's what a parent does, passes on their beliefs and world view to their child. The child will take as much or as little of that as they eventually want to, but you do what you can.

It's not as if a child of 5 has any concept that they are being sexualized anyway, but they are.

Look, there's a girl in one my son's classes, grade one, we're talking 6 year olds here. 3 days into this term and she has been suspended from school for a few days. Why? Because she is completely uncontrollable within class. While the rest of the class is sitting and listening to the teacher, she goes and lies under the teacher's table and just repeatedly kicks it, and other such wonderfully disruptive behaviour. And why is this? Because her parents believe she is a 'free spirit' and so impose no boundaries on her.

If you think that your politics and morals etc. are right (and why wouldn't you, they're yours), why wouldn't you want to pass these on to your child. I know you're all about libertarianism and individual rights etc. etc. But right down at the base of it all, a parent's job is to teach a child right and wrong, how to treat people, how to be a good person, and you CAN'T do these things without passing on your beliefs.

To each their own. Statist.

Its really hard to point a finger. I find it hard to believe a homosexual is born a homosexual if I must believe a promiscuous no ambition female is not born a promiscuous no ambition female. I really lean towards predetermined personalities with little society influence that becomes an individual rather than a clean slate robot that is programed to be who they become from birth. I really feel you can try and influence your children all you want but in the end there is no way to tell what your influence did or didnt do to create your well rounded progeny.

i don't feel like there has to be a difference in the rhetoric and the reality. and find that statement kind of cynical.

my kids are allowed all kinds of crazy freedoms with their hair and dress and expression and creativity and language and their interests are almost always highly encouraged by me and my tribe.

princesses weren't a non existant part of playtime when my daughter was younger, at that point i thought it was an archetype and all little girls go through that phase. and i still kind of think that. but i think it can be overly nurtured in ways that are obnoxious. anyway, princess phase was short lived and generally took a back seat to her desire to be a fairy or a piano playing shark. i could think of million reasons to hate barbies, but i decided not to, she has barbies ... she just isnt real interested in them. bratz dolls are actually just amazingly whorey and negative and are just way overboard, so.. fuck no. she's too old for them now anyway.

my biggest issue is over commercialization, so we simply have no television. they watch movies and what not. and actually i feel like limiting the television and commercialization has helped them development loads of creativity. which is actively encouraged around here. it's totally possible to imbue your kids with your values without forcing your political agenda down their throats.

i'm extremely interested in how much of my kids personalities and social skills are due to their lack of exposure to what's "trendy" and how much of it is just inherent. . my niece is the same age as my daughter, she's been hooked on the disney channel since birth. "fitting in" and keeping up with trends and being "like" her peers is extremely important to her. my kid couldn't care less. but that was also the difference between her mom (my sister) and i when we were kids.

i used to worry more about my son being able to fit in with more mainstreamed peers. seeing as we have no television, he knows 0 about spiderman or transformers or sports, he has 0 male role model to emulate and has been raised entirely by a bunch of women. but he's having no trouble "fitting in" with other boys. my daughter on the other hand is having loads of issues with socialization. she has no interest in what other 8 year old girls seem to be interested in. honestly, at this point, if hannah montana would help her make friends, i'd consider getting cable. but she just thinks it's stupid.

i'm interested to know if that's her just being a mature, heavily artistic, tomboy, with a dose of shyness or if the persona's of little girls are just so entirely shaped by television and trends that she's finding it impossible to relate them without it. i suspect its probably a bit of both. and i find the latter extremely sad.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kids.videosift.com/member/spoco2" title="member since August 21st, 2006" class="profilelink">spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.
I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

furthermore, the oversexualization and base degradation of women is seen all over the media and culture at large. a lot of it can be passed off as an archetype. a lot of it seems innocuous and goes largely unnoticed. but we are incultrated from birth with a sense of our sexual identity. infants are dressed in pink or blue in case people have a hard time knowing which gender to treat them as in the first years of life. on the surface, i have no problem with pink or blue. my kids wear pink and blue. my daughters walls are pink. it's just a color.

but saying that identity is almost entirely genetic and not imposed by society is certainly naive.

there is a distinct lack of pro-social female role models for little girls in the media. girls are bombarded with images, with what to emulate as grown ups, what to pretend during playtime, how they should be. and those images are largely of the sexpot or the saint. there's very little female archetypes that embodies the middle ground. there are very few females represented by the media and marketing that are neither whores nor saints. that are just women, comfortable with their sexuality and their bodies, but not consumed by it either. women in movies rarely talk to other women in movies and those conversations are very rarely about anything other than men.

i'm reading the golden compass to my daughter right now. and it's a rocking book for little girls. phil pulman is an atheist novelist who noticed there were no kickass female protagonists in kid stories. and that the only action/adventure/fantasy novels were judeo/christian in nature, see narnia. so he wrote a book for his daughter.

the protagonist is a badass little girl. she goes on an epic battle against the oppressive church, fights the forces that want to control the masses with imposed morality and sexual repression. at the end of the series, she finds and kills god. everyone should read this shit to their kids. it's amazing.

@spoco2 i highly recommend reading it to your little girl when shes older.

it's also helped initiate an age appropriate "what is sex" talk with my daughter. in the beginning of the first book they use the word "sex" as like, the biological sex, male vs female. and my daughter stopped me and asked "which kind of sex are they talking about" ... so i realized she's picked up on the existence of the act of sex and has probably been formulating her own ideas about it.. so we've been slowly having the "talk". it's terrifying and awesome.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Its really hard to point a finger. I find it hard to believe a homosexual is born a homosexual if I must believe a promiscuous no ambition female is not born a promiscuous no ambition female.


Wah? You're comparing two things that have no baring on each other.

Which sex(es) you are attracted to is in built. You have no more say over it than the colour of your eyes. How you conduct yourself and act out on your sexual urges is an entirely different thing. Don't try to suggest that homosexuality is a 'choice' in the same way that being promiscuous is, that's utterly inane.

@peggedbea I now plan on reading those books to all my kids (the three boys and the girl), they sound great... much better than the film anyway

^Actually I don't believe either one is a choice I was not explaining my thoughts very well. Even if things in your environment influence you subconsciously in one direction or another do you really have a choice? Once your personality is set its set and its hard to determine what event or events set your ideas on the subject. You can try and guide your children in one direction or another but they will develop their own self regardless. It's almost kind of frugal to even try. A preachers children can and will sometimes be wild, a hardened criminal may have kids who are as straight laced as they can be. I just don't know if its a brats doll that might shape a young girls mind or society itself. What influenced the Romans to be the way they were? I really think its a mixture of both biological and experience but how could you pinpoint one or the other that was more influential on yourself. While I agree I can't stand the way women are treated in society I can't say its television or commercialization or even mens influence to blame as much as it just could be part of the genetic code thats been passed to a majority of society, and what we see as objectification is a result of that code influencing society.

Anyway Im horrible at trying to explain my thoughts so maybe thats better unfortunately I was not born with great communication skills.