A few weeks ago,
Mothers Union launched a campaign called Bye Buy Childhood. A special
event was hosted at the Senedd, sponsored by Janice Gregory AM (Lab,
Ogmore).
The campaign involves sending postcards to the UK's television regulator, Ofcom, to complain about bad language, sexualisation of children and poor regulation of the watershed. Comparisons have been drawn with Mary Whitehouse - the Western Mail describing Mothers Union as her "spiritual heir".
Exploring the issue
Giving children and teenagers - especially girls - unrealistic expectations for their bodies or personal lives is unhealthy. Positioning their lives and personalities as something that's only skin deep is quite depressing.
Marketing companies need to get the message that sexualising young girls is unacceptable. The only way they'll learn that is through the wallet. Let's see how many parents really care about what their children are exposed to when they're told they shouldn't buy stuff from Topshop.
Performers sometimes need to go the extra mile to stand out – it's their job. Skimpy costumes have always been part of dancing, and there's nothing wrong about dancing suggestively, as long as it's representative of the music. I agree they sometimes go too far, but you can't blame the regulators, unless they fail to respond to an obvious breach.
Regulators have a duty to ensure broadcasts are suitable for time slots and audiences. I imagine most X-Factor, or Strictly Come Dancing viewers - shows usually picked up on this – will be young women or families.
It's also the regulator's job to put these things in a context.
Violence, for example, sometimes has a context. That's why violent news reports are rarely frowned upon. Swearing has a context too – to express anger, or to build a character – as long as it's within reason. Context has to be the key consideration in policing the media, not whether something is a black-and-white "right or wrong".
You can't blame children for seeking out something popular amongst their peers. I'd rather a ten year old listens to/watches something technical or accomplished - regardless of subject matter - but only if they understood it. Once again, it's about context.
Expressing sexuality is normal and natural. Children need to be told, in school or by parents, why X/Y/Z is objectionable. That explanation being that judging people by what they look like, or how willing they are to put out, cheapens us all. That's better than a flat "see no evil, hear no evil".
But they're sometimes prevented from doing this because social conservatives don't like the idea of 7 year olds being told what a penis is.
If educators can't put "grown up issues" in context, the impressionable aren't going to understand what they're watching or listening too. They might even become more likely to copy it as it becomes a forbidden fruit.
So the issue, in my opinion, is about the speed "grown up issues" are introduced to children, and how that's policed - not content itself.
And the only people with the moral authority to police their children are parents or legal guardians - nobody else - and especially not the Mothers Union.
Ban this sick filth!
The Mothers Union are another self-righteous, self-appointed group of moral guardians. I'm reminded not only of Mary Whitehouse, but the Parents Music Resource Centre (PMRC) from the 1980s – another collection of bored housewives and clergy with nothing better to do than tell everyone else how to live.
They demanded measures that included cancelling recording contracts of artists who performed "violently or sexually", and pressuring TV stations to ban explicit songs and music videos. What Frank Zappa described as "curing dandruff by decapitation."
They were successful in getting "Parental Advisory" stickers on albums - warning against excessive sex, violence, bad language or suggestive behaviour like drugs or alcohol.
That was 20+ years ago. Social conservatives didn't just lose the culture war – it was a rout. All that's left are walking wounded and zombies.
You also have those - like all-round upstanding citizen Keith Vaz MP - who say computer games turn people into sociopaths.
Now I've played a lot of Football Manager in my time, and Grand Theft Auto before I was 18. I'm not a UEFA A-Licence holder with a death-wish, am I? Computer games make you fat and probably hurt your eyes and thumbs - that's the issue there – along with 18-certificate games/DVDs being sold to, or bought for, children in the first place.
People value freedom to choose what they do with their own time and their own bodies – and tween/teenagers with no concept of adult limitations even more so. Properly enforcing the watershed is perfectly reasonable, but the only way to clamp down on these "immoral influences" is by banning it completely.
I hate to use the slippery slope fallacy, but that's ultimately what these groups want : curb artistic expression, create narrow lists of "morally acceptable subjects", and in some cases allow sky wizards and Bronze Age shepherds to dictate what flesh, blood and free-minds can do in the present.
Most religious texts - Bible included - are amongst the most violent, hateful, misogynistic pieces of literature in human history. But because they have that religious context, they're accepted, even embraced. As they're part of our culture and worldview, that's where they belong. Just like death metal, suggestive pop music and foul-mouthed goons have their place.
In contrast, the Bible has a loving God summoning bears to eat youths because they made fun of a bald prophet (2 Kings 2:23-25). Guess they learned their lesson, but it could also be straight out of any violent metal album.
Setting reasonable boundaries is key, but let's face it, Strictly Come Dancing is hardly Strictly Cumfarting.
If Mothers Union think the X-Factor is the height of offensive media, they need to get out more. There's much, much worse – no need for examples.
Regulators don't need to be spammed with postcards. They have to be allowed police the media as a detached body – which includes upholding the right to freedom of expression, you could go as far as to include a woman's right to self-ownership too. They shouldn't bow to pressure based on one group's interpretation of what's acceptable or not. Ofcom, in my opinion, do an excellent job in that regard.
The "watershed" concept is becoming outdated as technology gives parents more control over what their children watch – Sky's PIN for example. Mothers Union also have to remember that there's no watershed on the internet. Even if there were, there's no watershed on playgrounds either.
Art and the media should reflect who we are. Keep people's bellies full, keep them entertained and make them feel secure – they'll be fine. Take any of that away, and it's not a great leap to smashed skulls, burglary or rape. No book, and no narrow moralistic worldview, can cover up that cold hard fact of life.
We need to be constantly exposed to it - including children - to remind us that we're not perfect sunbeams. We're immensely flawed. We need to accept that all those dark things are a part of us - and natural - but we also need to be told the reasons why they're taboo.
By all means, hide the truth from kids. Let them find out for themselves without any context – but it'll be parents that pay the price.
The campaign involves sending postcards to the UK's television regulator, Ofcom, to complain about bad language, sexualisation of children and poor regulation of the watershed. Comparisons have been drawn with Mary Whitehouse - the Western Mail describing Mothers Union as her "spiritual heir".
Exploring the issue
Giving children and teenagers - especially girls - unrealistic expectations for their bodies or personal lives is unhealthy. Positioning their lives and personalities as something that's only skin deep is quite depressing.
Marketing companies need to get the message that sexualising young girls is unacceptable. The only way they'll learn that is through the wallet. Let's see how many parents really care about what their children are exposed to when they're told they shouldn't buy stuff from Topshop.
Performers sometimes need to go the extra mile to stand out – it's their job. Skimpy costumes have always been part of dancing, and there's nothing wrong about dancing suggestively, as long as it's representative of the music. I agree they sometimes go too far, but you can't blame the regulators, unless they fail to respond to an obvious breach.
 |
| Harmless titillation? Women having fun? Or threat to prevailing moral standards? (Pic : Hello Magazine) |
Regulators have a duty to ensure broadcasts are suitable for time slots and audiences. I imagine most X-Factor, or Strictly Come Dancing viewers - shows usually picked up on this – will be young women or families.
It's also the regulator's job to put these things in a context.
Violence, for example, sometimes has a context. That's why violent news reports are rarely frowned upon. Swearing has a context too – to express anger, or to build a character – as long as it's within reason. Context has to be the key consideration in policing the media, not whether something is a black-and-white "right or wrong".
You can't blame children for seeking out something popular amongst their peers. I'd rather a ten year old listens to/watches something technical or accomplished - regardless of subject matter - but only if they understood it. Once again, it's about context.
Expressing sexuality is normal and natural. Children need to be told, in school or by parents, why X/Y/Z is objectionable. That explanation being that judging people by what they look like, or how willing they are to put out, cheapens us all. That's better than a flat "see no evil, hear no evil".
But they're sometimes prevented from doing this because social conservatives don't like the idea of 7 year olds being told what a penis is.
If educators can't put "grown up issues" in context, the impressionable aren't going to understand what they're watching or listening too. They might even become more likely to copy it as it becomes a forbidden fruit.
So the issue, in my opinion, is about the speed "grown up issues" are introduced to children, and how that's policed - not content itself.
And the only people with the moral authority to police their children are parents or legal guardians - nobody else - and especially not the Mothers Union.
Ban this sick filth!
The Mothers Union are another self-righteous, self-appointed group of moral guardians. I'm reminded not only of Mary Whitehouse, but the Parents Music Resource Centre (PMRC) from the 1980s – another collection of bored housewives and clergy with nothing better to do than tell everyone else how to live.
They demanded measures that included cancelling recording contracts of artists who performed "violently or sexually", and pressuring TV stations to ban explicit songs and music videos. What Frank Zappa described as "curing dandruff by decapitation."
 |
| Dee Snider was one of many artists who ripped apart the arguments of moral guardians in the 1980s. (Pic : Wikipedia) |
They were successful in getting "Parental Advisory" stickers on albums - warning against excessive sex, violence, bad language or suggestive behaviour like drugs or alcohol.
That was 20+ years ago. Social conservatives didn't just lose the culture war – it was a rout. All that's left are walking wounded and zombies.
You also have those - like all-round upstanding citizen Keith Vaz MP - who say computer games turn people into sociopaths.
Now I've played a lot of Football Manager in my time, and Grand Theft Auto before I was 18. I'm not a UEFA A-Licence holder with a death-wish, am I? Computer games make you fat and probably hurt your eyes and thumbs - that's the issue there – along with 18-certificate games/DVDs being sold to, or bought for, children in the first place.
People value freedom to choose what they do with their own time and their own bodies – and tween/teenagers with no concept of adult limitations even more so. Properly enforcing the watershed is perfectly reasonable, but the only way to clamp down on these "immoral influences" is by banning it completely.
I hate to use the slippery slope fallacy, but that's ultimately what these groups want : curb artistic expression, create narrow lists of "morally acceptable subjects", and in some cases allow sky wizards and Bronze Age shepherds to dictate what flesh, blood and free-minds can do in the present.
Most religious texts - Bible included - are amongst the most violent, hateful, misogynistic pieces of literature in human history. But because they have that religious context, they're accepted, even embraced. As they're part of our culture and worldview, that's where they belong. Just like death metal, suggestive pop music and foul-mouthed goons have their place.
In contrast, the Bible has a loving God summoning bears to eat youths because they made fun of a bald prophet (2 Kings 2:23-25). Guess they learned their lesson, but it could also be straight out of any violent metal album.
 |
| This is in The Bible. It's not the cover of the latest demeaning, wretched, immoral Slayer album. (Pic : escapistmagazine.com) |
Setting reasonable boundaries is key, but let's face it, Strictly Come Dancing is hardly Strictly Cumfarting.
If Mothers Union think the X-Factor is the height of offensive media, they need to get out more. There's much, much worse – no need for examples.
Regulators don't need to be spammed with postcards. They have to be allowed police the media as a detached body – which includes upholding the right to freedom of expression, you could go as far as to include a woman's right to self-ownership too. They shouldn't bow to pressure based on one group's interpretation of what's acceptable or not. Ofcom, in my opinion, do an excellent job in that regard.
The "watershed" concept is becoming outdated as technology gives parents more control over what their children watch – Sky's PIN for example. Mothers Union also have to remember that there's no watershed on the internet. Even if there were, there's no watershed on playgrounds either.
Art and the media should reflect who we are. Keep people's bellies full, keep them entertained and make them feel secure – they'll be fine. Take any of that away, and it's not a great leap to smashed skulls, burglary or rape. No book, and no narrow moralistic worldview, can cover up that cold hard fact of life.
We need to be constantly exposed to it - including children - to remind us that we're not perfect sunbeams. We're immensely flawed. We need to accept that all those dark things are a part of us - and natural - but we also need to be told the reasons why they're taboo.
By all means, hide the truth from kids. Let them find out for themselves without any context – but it'll be parents that pay the price.
I once read a book by a sex educator called "The ostrich position" - which sums up exactly how the world views sex education.
ReplyDeleteYou are right context is everything.
Not sure about that, Cibwr. Some nations have a more progressive attitude - the Netherlands is an obvious example. I think our problem in Wales is that sex education (and wider PSE) is very hit and miss, and perhaps not treated as seriously as it should be.
ReplyDeleteThere are exceptions, the Netherlands and Scandinavia spring to mind. But for large parts of the World and especially the USA/UK the Ostrich Position prevails...
ReplyDelete