Getting Real
Page 6
* * *
Self-objectification appears to have a negative impact on girls’ performance, both physically and cognitively.
The American Psychological Association Taskforce on the Sexualisation of Girls reported on research in which Anglo and African American girls, aged ten to seventeen years, were asked to throw a softball as hard as they could against a distant gymnasium wall. The researchers found the girls who viewed their bodies as objects and were concerned about their bodies’ appearance performed more poorly on the softball throw (2007, p. 22). From this and other research, the Taskforce (APA TSG, 2007, p. 22) concluded that ‘self-objectification appears to disrupt physical performance,’ and it cautioned that if this leads to girls limiting ‘their physical activities, then girls and women are likely to suffer a wide range of consequences for their overall health and well-being.’
The Taskforce (APA TSG, 2007, p. 22) also reported on an experiment that showed that ‘self-objectification…fragments consciousness:’
While alone in a dressing room, college students were asked to try on and evaluate either a swimsuit or a sweater. While they waited for 10 minutes wearing the garment, they completed a math test. The results revealed that young women in swimsuits performed significantly worse on the math problems than did those wearing sweaters. No differences were found for young men. In other words, thinking about the body and comparing it to sexualized cultural ideals disrupted mental capacity.
Healthy and holistic childhood development lays the foundations for healthy and fulfilling adolescent and adult life. The Taskforce (APA TSG, 2007, p. 22) concluded that ‘chronic attention to physical appearance leaves fewer cognitive resources available for other mental and physical activities.’ This means that the increasing focus on physical appearance in children’s lives could impact negatively on their overall development by diverting cognitive resources from other mental and physical activities.
Disruption to healthy psychological development
Professionals working with children believe that sexualised media can confuse children and even disrupt their normal psychological development.
Amanda Gordon (SCECA, 2008, section 3.24) told the Australian Federal government inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media:
[O]ne of the problems [relating to children’s understanding of sexualised media] is that many children can understand at a cognitive level, but it is very confusing at an emotional level because they are not yet ready to be sexual, to have those sexual messages.
Jennifer Walsh (SCECA, 2008, section 3.23), education officer at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS), agreed with Gordon:
We are seeing with primary school children…increasing pressure to present themselves in a sexual way without the mature understanding that goes with that. [More] and more girls [are] feeling that they have to present themselves in a sexually attractive way, finding themselves in situations that they are not mature enough to handle and failing to develop those other aspects of themselves that childhood should allow them to develop normally.
Contribution to increasing child sexual abuse
The sexualisation of children may:
• contribute to creating teenage or adult sexual interest in children where none previously existed; and/or
• lower an important barrier (strong social norms) to child sexual abuse.
The American Psychological Association Taskforce on the Sexualisation of Girls (APA TSG, 2007, p. 35) pointed out that the sexualisation of children may contribute to creating teenage or adult sexual interest in children where none previously existed:
When girls are dressed to resemble adult women… adults may project adult motives as well as an adult level of responsibility and agency on girls…the sexualisation of girls may also contribute to a market for sex with children through the cultivation of new desires and experiences.
The Taskforce (APA TSG, 2007, p. 35) also argued that sexualised images of girls ‘may serve to normalize abusive practices such as child abuse, child prostitution, and the sexual trafficking of children.’ Bill Glaser, forensic psychiatrist at the University of Melbourne, works rehabilitating convicted sex offenders. Here, he explains how the sexualisation of children undermines his work precisely by normalising the views of child sex offenders:
[Convicted sex offenders] say, here is all this advertising around the place and surely it cannot be wrong, seeing it is on public display. Some offenders would even use these images almost as a recipe for offending in terms of getting the children or their victims to pose in particular ways (Glaser, 2006).
Some people object to the idea that sexualised images of children could increase the risk of child sexual abuse on the basis that ‘stranger danger’ from clinically-described paedophiles accounts for a very small proportion of child sexual abuse. The majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by people known to the children—often family members. Surely sexualised images of children are irrelevant to these cases of sexual abuse.
About this, Glaser (2005) says:
The old fashioned idea is that people who offend within the family probably are doing it for reasons other than sexual ones…[M]y own view, for what it’s worth, is that people who offend inside the family often do so because they do have a deviant sexual interest in children, but they stick to the family because that’s where their ready-made victims are. That wouldn’t of course apply to all offenders inside the family but I suspect that it applies to a great number.
If Glaser is correct, then sexualised images of children, by undermining the strong social norms that prohibit sexual interest in children, may well contribute to the problem of child sexual abuse beyond the small minority of ‘stranger danger’ cases.
In December 2006, twelve national leaders in children’s health, welfare, and media published an open letter in The Australian newspaper calling for action to stop the sexualisation of children. They stated clearly that the sexualisation of children leads to sexual risks for children:
[W]hen commercial forces turn children into sexualised commodities, it corrodes the core of the developing child. These practices set up young children for inappropriate and dangerous roles and behaviours, and make them more vulnerable by far, to sexual danger and harm (Wigg et al., 2006).
Signatories to the letter included senior representatives of: the Australian Childhood Foundation; the Australian Centre for Child Protection (University of South Australia); the Paediatric and Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; the Centre for Community Child Health, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne; the NSW Institute of Psychiatry; and Childwise Australia.
Empirical evidence proving that the sexualisation of children contributes to child sexual abuse may be impossible to obtain. However, many experts are on record arguing that there is a serious risk of the sexualisation of children contributing to child sexual abuse.
We cannot wait for conclusive evidence to act
As just shown, there is a good deal of research evidence and expert opinion that supports the view that premature sexualisation may cause harm to children. In some cases, such as the development of a severe eating disorder or the experience of sexual abuse, premature sexualisation may contribute to irreversible damage to children. For this reason, we cannot wait for conclusive evidence to act. The precautionary principle states that if there is a risk of irreversible harm from an action, that action should not be taken, even if conclusive evidence about the effects of such an action is not available. This principle is often used to argue against environmentally damaging actions, but it can also be used against socially damaging actions.
During the Australian government inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media, the vice president of the Australian Council on Children and the Media, Professor Elizabeth Handsley (SCECA, 2008, Section 3.50) used just such an argument:
[W]e might never know for sure exactly what affects children in what
way. But, at the very least, we can say there is some evidence that it is likely that these sorts of images and messages are harmful to children in the long term.
If we wait until there is absolute 100 per cent proof and nobody can possibly argue anymore that there is no harm to children, the amount of harm that could possibly be done to children in the meantime is immeasurable. So this is a clear example of a situation where a precautionary principle needs to be applied in favour of protecting children from things that are harmful.
3 Responses to critics
People who don’t believe the sexualisation of children is a problem tend to use fairly standard arguments. It’s handy to recognise these, in order to respond quickly and firmly—whether in the media or at a dinner party.
‘There’s nothing new about this, children have faced it before and grown up unscathed.’
Wrong. Children have not faced such strong sexualising pressures in the past (see part 1).
‘It’s simply a matter of taste.’
Wrong. There are risks to children (see part 2). Sometimes discussions can be derailed by differing opinions of precisely where to draw the line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate for children. Disagreement about the precise categorisation of a particular product (whether it is or is not sexualising) may seem like a matter of taste; whether premature sexualisation in general is a problem is not simply a matter of taste—there are risks to children.
‘It’s just little girls dressing up and having fun.’
Wrong. There is little creativity (as implied by ‘dressing up’ in the past) involved, and not necessarily very much fun either, as illustrated by parental reports of eight-year-old girls being teased and ostracised at school for not wearing a bra.
‘There is no evidence that children are harmed by sexualisation.’
Wrong (see part 2).
‘Child sexual abuse is caused by socio-economic stress, not by cultural messages.’
Child sexual abuse may be more prevalent (or reported more often) in lower socio-economic family situations, but that does not mean that cultural messages are irrelevant. Pinpointing the factors leading to sexual abuse of children is a complex area, and experts in this area, as well as organisations that work with sexually abused children, have spoken out strongly in relation to their concerns about the sexualisation of children (see part 2).
‘Parents can prevent premature sexualisation by “just saying no” to their children’s requests for sexualised products.’
Parents are very important. They can provide positive role models for their children and talk about the issues with them. However, there are limits to what parents can do without cutting children off from the broader culture. A parent cannot control what occurs outside the home. What is more, to pit individual sets of parents against a hypersexualised culture is unfair. The commercial interests that promote the premature sexualisation of children must adopt more socially responsible practices so that parents, teachers, and other professionals can focus on children’s positive development, rather than struggling to undo the damage caused by premature sexualisation.
4 Where to next?
Where commercial interests do not of their own accord move towards more socially responsible practices, the only way to force such movement is to apply public pressure, whether economic or political. With respect to the premature sexualisation of children, consumer boycotts may be effective in specific instances, as might direct action, but the widespread occurrence of sexualising practices and products means these strategies are unlikely to be successful alone. Political lobbying is also necessary, with the aims of obtaining stronger regulation and/or ‘shaming’ commercial interests into better conduct. The raising of public awareness to support such lobbying is also essential.
References
APA TSG (2007) Report of the American Psychological Association Taskforce on the Sexualization of Girls. Available from: http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
AMA (2002) Australian Medical Association Position Statement on Body Image and Health, 2002. Available from: http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/SHED-5G4UVU
CEED (2008) Centre of Excellence in Eating Disorders website, ‘Health risks of eating disorders’ http://www.rch.org.au/ceed/disorders.cfm?doc_id=2832
Clark, Levina and Marika Tiggemann (2006) ‘Appearance culture in nine to twelve-year-old girls: Media and peer influences on body dissatisfaction’ Social Development, 15, pp. 628–643.
Dohnt, Hayley K. and Marika Tiggemann (2006) ‘Body image concerns in young girls: The role of peers and media prior to adolescence’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(2), April, pp. 141–151.
Glaser, Bill (2005) Interviewed by Four Corners (ABC TV), May 23, 2005, ‘Interview—Bill Glaser’ (Interviewer: Quentin McDermott). Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1375155.htm
Glaser, Bill (2006) Quoted in The 7.30 Report (ABC TV), October 11, 2006, ‘Institute stands by “Corporate Paedophilia” report’ (Reporter: Matt Peacock). Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1762698.htm
Rush, Emma and Andrea La Nauze (2006) ‘Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of children in Australia.’ Discussion Paper 94. The Australia Institute, Canberra. Available from: http://www.tai.org.au
SCECA (2008) Sexualisation of Children in the Contemporary Media. Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, The Senate. June. Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/index.htm
Wigg, Neil, Joe Tucci, Dorothy Scott, Jane Roberts, Rita Princi, Frank Oberklaid, Louise Newman, Bernadette McMenamin, Patricia Edgar, Freda Briggs, Steve Biddulph, Terry Aulich (2007) Letter, Sunday Age, April 16. Available from: http://www.youngmedia.org.au/whatsnew/archive_2006-7.htm#apr07_02
Wigg, Neil, Joe Tucci, Dorothy Scott, Jane Roberts, Rita Princi, Frank Oberklaid, Louise Newman, Bernadette McMenamin, Patricia Edgar, Freda Briggs, Steve Biddulph, Terry Aulich (2006) Letter, The Australian, December 8. Available from: http://www.youngmedia.org.au/whatsnew/archive_2006-7.htm#dec06_01
The Seduction of Girls: The Human Cost
Maggie Hamilton
In one Queensland primary school a seven-year-old girl is sexually assaulted over two months by a boy her age. Hitting her and threatening to kill her if she spoke out, the boy repeatedly forced this young girl to perform oral sex (Houghton, 2008, The Courier Mail, September 12). In another primary school in New South Wales, teachers struggle to deal with a ‘rash’ of ten-year-old girls photographing themselves topless, then sending these photos to peers.
Assumptions that girls’ lives are the same as those of previous generations leave girls vulnerable—not just teen girls, but tweens and preschoolers. Life has changed radically in a few short years. Young girls are at the cutting edge of these changes. With ready internet access and mobile phones, video and camera-enabled phones, and phones able to download direct from the internet, girls have access to a world of information and experiences. This, along with a steady diet of magazines and sitcoms, movies and music videos, has a huge influence on what girls look and act like, what they aspire to. Most of this material is beyond parental supervision. Some is harmless, much is not.
With these developments has come an explosion in girls’ spending, and the ability of manufacturers to access girls direct. The highly competitive tween and teen market, now worth billions, has sparked a proliferation of sexy images and content on billboards, clothing, product wrappers, on screen, in newspapers and magazines, promising girls they can be everything they long to be—attractive, popular, grown-up.
Marketers use sexy images because sex sells. They know that for many girls the combination of sex and shopping is irresistible. The seductive images and language targeted at girls are all the more potent because major companies use a whole range of experts from cultural anthropologists to child psychologists. They know girls’ lives intimately and which buttons to press.
‘Girls my age wa
nt to go out with boys. They think about what they’d like to wear and about shopping,’ Vanessa, nine (in Hamilton, 2008, pp. 31–21).
The more sexualised the material we see, the more desensitised to sexual images everyone, including parents, become. Now ‘sexy’ can refer to anything from a job or apartment, to a partner or pair of shoes. That’s why few think to question why products such as Barbie, once only for school-age children, are now available for little girls eighteen months up. Or why little girls are bought slutty Bratz dolls, inappropriately skimpy clothes and tops and accessories with questionable images and slogans.
Girls are big business. Three Barbies are now sold every second (Gregory Thomas, 2007, pp. 134–135). Since the launch of Bratz dolls in 2001, their manufacturer has sold millions of dolls worldwide. As young girls have a very limited life experience, they don’t question the sexual imagery and language they see. They naturally assume that’s the way things are meant to be.
Decline in imagination
With increasing numbers of young girls addicted to products, pre-school and kindy teachers report a marked decline in imaginative play, and in growing anxieties in little girls around their weight and clothes. In one study of girls aged five to eight, over a quarter of five-year-olds wished they were thinner. This figure rose to 71 per cent for girls aged seven. Most of these young girls felt they had to be slim to be popular. Just under half wanted to be thinner than they were, and were prepared to diet if they put on weight (Womack, 2005, The Telegraph, March 8).