So now we have it the fourth Government review of 'Sexualisation' this time it’s of 'childhood'.
I am glad that this issue is still on the agenda and that the work of previous reviews was acknowledged and 'built on', but my constant feeling while reading through the review was that we are somehow completely missing the mark.
The review states that the "Government wanted the Review to assess how children in this country are being pressured to grow up too quickly, and to make recommendations on how to address public concern about this."
But is it that children are 'growing up' to quickly? Are many people not also raising concerns that young people are not taking responsibility for themselves and are too dependent on the state? We can't have it both ways.
Perhaps young people in their "growing up" are holding a mirror up to the rest of society and saying look this is what you’re teaching us to be. If we don't like it the answer is not to stop children growing up but to offer an alternative direction in which to grow.
The report does not define "commercialisation and premature sexualisation" as they "considered the work already done". It would have been helpful however for them to have stated what definition they would use. Because how you define sexualisation determines what you think the problem is and how you tackle it.
What exactly do they mean by "premature sexualisation"? This is a phrase they use repeatedly. My main problem with it is that it implies that if exactly the same processes where happening a few years later then there would be no problem. At what age does the report believe young people should become sexualised? Or are they meant to leap from childhood to adulthood and arrive at a mature sexuality overnight?
Let us define sexualisation for the moment as the process by which people develop their sexual identity and sexuality. This process is one that begins in the womb and probably continues all our life's but its rate of change and development is probably most pronounced around adolescents.
If that is the case then what is the problem with young people becoming sexualised? We come back to young people as mirrors.The problem is that the sexuality presented to young people, the ways of 'being sexual' and the ways of doing gender are very very narrow indeed, and one could argue, at the risk of being called all sorts of names (puritan, feminist, out of touch etc.), not particularly healthy.
The report states that "Many parents feel that this culture is often inappropriate for their children and they want more power to say ‘no’." So do I. I find the culture inappropriate for me and I want more power to say no. To be fair the report does admit that "This background affects adults as well as children and is everywhere in society." But it does not elaborate on this.
It is patronising to children and young people to have policies directed purely at 'protecting' them (though this is important) and not addressing the cultures that are endangering them. If we see something as clearly damaging to children are we sure it is not damaging us?
The review states that "We are all living in an increasingly sexual and sexualised culture, although it is far from clear how we arrived at this point." Really? I don't think it’s at all unclear, it may have come as a surprise but I don't think it’s too hard to trace its origins. There are many a campaign group who have been shouting about these issues for a long time.
The review refers to gender-stereotyped clothes and toys but doesn't explore these serotypes adequately for my liking. In-fact the whole issue of gender stereotypes and the adverse effects these have on people’s perception of self, particularly children and young people is rather dismissed as ”this is contested territory".
I find this so depressingly tiring. Any territory is contested, you will find people on either side of any argument but on this issue while the popular press and many pop psychology books are on the side of gender differences being innate the vast majority of the research world, the neurobiologists, psychologists, behavioural scientists etc. are not and are routinely ignored by the press, they should not be ignored by Government reviews.
As the review admits there has not been enough time to gather evidence that sexualisation causes any long term harm "but we should not wait for this before acting: insufficient evidence to prove conclusively there is harm to children does not mean that no harm exists."
But it is OK to dismiss the possible negative consequences of gender stereotyping due to lack of conclusive evidence?
These issues are fundamentally connected. The review and any action will miss the mark if it doesn't recognise that it is not the fact that young people are developing their sense of self, their relationships with others and their sexuality, but the environment in which they have to do it that is the problem. While there is only one hegemonic masculinity on offer and one femininity that is designed for it we are all losing sexual freedom.
Young people want and deserve good quality sex education, an accurate representation of the diversity of people and their sexuality and the skills to critique media messages.The review starts to suggest some of these things but policies will be ineffective unless they address the wider issues. This is a problem that affects us all.
If you want to read a thoroughly good review of the problem read Living Dolls by Natasha Walter and then if you want to do something about it - pass it on!
