Watch this one minute ad.
December 7, 2012
Question #118: Thoughts? Do you agree there’s an urgent problem?
If your answer is no – we’re screwed.
Feminist Shout Out #5. Please watch this, guys.
December 5, 2012
I haven’t got time – I’m about to go to our School’s presentation evening.
BUT…I have to share this with you.
This video is made by a young man who has used his voice – and it’s wonderful.
Spot on.
Question #116: What can we, men and women, do to change things around?
Boys/guys/men: stop pushing your adult sexual urges and fantasies onto our kids (surely it can be interpreted that doing nothing is giving consent to it). Have some decency.
Toddlers in tiaras/sluts/crazy nut-jobs:
WAKE UP!
Look at how you’re being represented.
Question for women #117: Why are we even in the ads/shows/movies/music videos etc. etc. etc. to start with? Perpetuating it?
Women (as a gender) are helping – in a BIG way – to sell ourselves short. We are CONFIRMING everything that’s portrayed about us.
So that’s why we think it’s reality – but it’s not.
I’m not like that!
I find it gobsmacking that I’ve already had a sex talk with my 9 year old daughter – a while ago, actually – because that ‘slut’ representation is everywhere. Some queried whether she was too young for that chat and I thought, “Too young? My talk as a mother to her daughter, answering her questions, is more scrutinised than what we’re allowing them to see, like wallpaper?”
Our lives should have the tag-line: Parental Guidance Recommended.
Come on…what can we do to have a happier, mental world? To help our girls AND boys.
I have to go.
Deep Breath
x
Go and put the kettle on…
November 10, 2012
Are you comfortable?
Because it’s time to have a chat – especially with the Aussie parents out there – about a magazine that’s tapping into the seedy and degrading underbelly of our boys and men’s minds and it’s using a firm and taloned grip.
I should warn you that there are images, with text, in this post that may offend some readers (I was offended…putting it mildly) and if they don’t – I encourage you to step away from your personal perspective and think of the fact that the rest of us (including {and especially} kids, whose minds are absorbing like sponges) can’t avoid them.
They’re everywhere. Shaping.
This Australian magazine’s simple existence, (along with its horrible brethren versions around the planet) – and the manner in which it has evolved and spread over the years – leaves me gobsmacked.
Well, no, I suppose it doesn’t. Once you dangle the proverbial carrot in front of a weak society, anything goes nowadays. Point in case? This magazine.
What does perplex me, however, is the desensitised indifference that society as a whole seems to have towards magazines like this.
Or is it that most people – especially parents – simply don’t know the dangerous and misogynistic reach these types of magazines have?
This magazine is cheap – only a few dollars – with no age restrictions for purchase at your local newsagency and it predominantly exploits women.
Finally, it calls itself Zoo. Are we animals?
In a recent post, Melinda Tankard Reist discusses Zoo Magazine and says:
28000 – That’s the number of boys aged 14-17 estimated to read Zoo magazine each week. Despite its pornographic nature Zoo magazine is classified as ‘men’s lifestyle’ and therefore unrestricted – anyone can buy it. Zoo is conveniently positioned and priced for young readers to purchase in convenience stores, service stations and Coles and Woolworths.
It also states that:
“More Australian men buy and read ZOO than any other magazine in the country – that’s a fact.” – ACP Magazines, Zoo Magazine distributor
28000 a week – of teen boys.
Any alarm bells set off yet?
Many years ago, I had my first experience with Zoo – around the time of its inception in 2007. A copy was confiscated from a 12 year old boy at school. I looked through it and was a little stunned – for so many reasons. Amongst its variety of ‘sections’ (including a baby-seal clubbing article with pictures), the standouts in this particular issue were:
1. A multi-paged ‘article’ with photography of raunchy video-clip stills – predominantly breasts and women bending over, mouths open in erotic ecstasy etc.
2. A section where regular, everyday girls (mostly teens) have sent a ‘selfie’ of themselves in underwear or bikini in ‘sexy’ poses, to be ranked by the readers.
3. An advice section, where it’s two women answering the queries in each issue and are photographed with only underpants on, topless but turned to the side.
A 12 year old had it.
So now I’m going to ask you to have a look at Zoo Magazine’s Home Page.
How are those alarm bells going now?
Now envisage the amount of young boys going to this site.
This is the downside of the Internet, I suppose – furthered by the unyielding force that is Facebook.
Zoo Magazine has a Facebook page.
{Of course it does; it’s good business, right? And that’s what’s ultimately respected, after all – making money}
This is the place where parents can see the ease of infiltration, as well as the predatory domination that is occurring. Remember that legally, a person needs to be 13 years old to open an account on Facebook – but we all know parents who open up accounts for their children, as young as their first years of Primary School.
Recently, Zoo put up the following post (question) for its readers on its Facebook page:
“Left or right? But you’ve got to tell us how you came to that decision.”
For those who can’t read the print, the first comment that appears in this image says: “Left…You have the mouth and the tits to fuck.”
Here are some more responses:
Women being discussed as ‘holes’, ‘it’ or the lovely, ‘either end there’s shit coming out’.
Misogyny. Pure misogyny.
And this platform sees them all clapping each other on the back and giving each other high-fives. Aaahh, the Brotherhood is certainly strong in these circles.
It’s grooming our boys and they’re multiplying. How can they not be?
If the way boys and men think about women is ever-changing for the worse (as evidenced by magazines like Zoo, the post above, Facebook pages on 12 year old sluts etc) then:
Question #110: Are we happy to stand back and let these businesses sabotage our youth by only perpetuating sex as disconnected, dirty and now violently dominating?
Some boys will never know the joy of what a loving relationship entails – where a woman’s wants are equal to his. How sad, but it won’t be entirely their fault because Internet porn and businesses like Zoo Magazine, taught them differently.
And learn they do; they’re KIDS.
I can see older men shaking their head as they’re reading this, thinking how you grew up with ‘Playboys stashed underneath your bed’ and that you turned out ‘alright’. Well, your experience and attitude is a cog (and continues to be) in the terrible state of affairs today.
The comments above are hateful. Nothing good comes from hate.
One may have entertained thoughts or ‘jokes’ similar to the ones posted on the Facebook page above but I probably would have never known; now it’s posted online and it’s permanent. Then it feeds, thanks to the unprecedented way sites like Facebook spread information.
Spreading hate.
How can that NOT be damaging our kids?
A task: Want to take some action? You can join us and let the battle begin against the visible stocking of lads’ mags like ZOO.
Next time you fill up at the petrol station or shop at Woolies or Coles, have a look and see where these sorts of magazines are positioned.
Knowing the damage it can do, just from its sexist cover – should it be there?
A friend confronted a petrol station owner who had all these types of magazines above the lollies that kids make a beeline for.
After that, it’s simple. If they listen and change, continue giving them your business. If not, take your business elsewhere and tell them why you’re doing so.
Remember that money talks. It’s the only way.
Deep Breath and go get ‘em!
On a positive note…
November 7, 2012
Recently, I posted this image of Malala Yousafzai on my Questions for Women Facebook page, celebrating her magnificence. Indulge me, if you will, to revisit this extraordinary girl – and pose a quick question.
This magazine cover shows a radiant, awe-inspiring and heroic girl. A girl who has already made a tremendous global impact – evidenced by the vigils that were held worldwide, praying for her recovery. A girl who made the cover of Newsweek…
…and it has NOTHING to do with the way she looks. Nothing.
Fantastic.
Her qualities as a person – that’s what has been recognised and revered.
Not the size of her breasts, what outfit she was wearing or whether she’s ‘hot’ – unlike most of the magazine covers, sporting images of women, that we see today.
Question #109: Don’t we want our daughters’ developing brains to subliminally see more covers like this?
Instead of this?
In my next post, we’re going to have to get comfy, with a cup of tea and a Tim Tam – and have a serious ‘chat’ about Zoo Magazine.
As parents, there’s little we can do about the reach and saturation of porn on the Internet (except put blocks on the computer to protect our children).
But why bother? – when young boys can just walk into a Newsagency and purchase Zoo Magazine without their parents’ knowledge.
We can do something about a magazine like this – a magazine that is being alarmingly consumed by young boys and men, like addicts on crack.
It’s cheap, easily available and misogynistic.
Deep Breath
x
I’m feeling despondent.
October 28, 2012
Again, it seems I’ve hit another moment where it all feels a smidge overwhelming.
I’m a bit low about it all.
I keep seeing – hearing – absorbing – feeling – more and more examples of horrible behaviour, greedy behaviour, hateful behaviour…
…and I just don’t understand.
I don’t understand why intelligent men and women sit back with a desensitised indifference or, worse still, defend certain elements of our society – making us tip out of balance. I feel like we’re sitting on the side of the balance that’s just started its descent…and it’s going to reach the bottom at an accelerated and unstoppable pace…
Or have we reached that ‘point of no return’ already?
I’d like to think not. I’d LOVE to think not. But am I being naive to think we can put on the brakes?
Because I’m starting to doubt that it’s possible because there seems to be a lot who defend the need for cesspools in different pockets of our existence.
It’s depressing to entertain this thought. It is.
For me, this is the crux of it:
The world is going down a slippery chute – because of money and power.
And it doesn’t matter how you look at it – proven statistically – whatever the culture around the globe, whatever the economic status…
…the true victims of any society, are women.
And the ones who wield the power and dominate, are men.
Not ALL men – but most of those who are in positions of power, are – however they came to be there. They’re the ones ruling this planet. Fact.
But I’m wondering, if there are so many of you out there – and I know in my heart you are out there (regardless of gender) – who feel like a lot of the things being brought to light are wrong:
Question #105: Where are you?
I see women like Melinda Tankard Reist and the phenomenal team at Collective Shout, who are doing wonderful, extraordinary work. They have won so many battles against things that seem inconceivable, to have been allowed to be put in our society in the first place. Inconceivable. They have little money and are flying by the skin of their teeth. But they keep going because it simply has to be done.
Where’s the equivalent loud male voice – a face – who also thinks things are very, very wrong?
Where are the voices of ALL of us, regardless of gender?
In a previous post Feeling a bit ineffectual I listed how women are the victims of this world.
Women are raped by the thousands in places like Africa – used as a weapon of war – DAILY. Women infected with diseases from it.
Women / baby girls around the planet – who are raped, molested, sexually assaulted, trafficked – DAILY
Countless countries forbidding girls from being educated. Shooting a targeted girl, point blank, in the head for wanting one. These are the countries that like war. They have their women – who could stop them if they were in decision-making positions along side them – submissively kept at home.
The poverty, the pain…
And here? In the capitalist world? Here we only reward one thing;
Making money – at whatever cost.
Most of us do it the right and honourable way – with our ethics and morals intact – but the thing I don’t understand is why we actually stand back and let the soulless monster loose in big business – to OUR detriment. OURS.
We are creating a MINDLESS culture by allowing men – yes men – the ones in power who hold 97% of clout positions in Advertising, Publishing, Tele-communications and Entertainment – to feed on all our weakest and most vulnerable points..to make money. To make a LIVING.
With their fellow men it’s done through sex and with women it’s done through vanity.
Except for the men it’s a dominant weakness and for women it’s a submissive one.
Men are happy with their vice – by indulging in the world of hyper-sexuality and porn…but women never are! Which woman actually believes they’re beautiful enough? Good enough?
What the hell’s THAT about ladies? Seriously!
We’re allowing companies to target and condition our youth to become MINDLESS.
Our silence and indifference gives them permission.
WHY are we doing this? Because it’s good business? The more we say that, the more we pave the way for another to push the ethical frontiers. I’m beginning to wonder if there are any left.
Seems like a free-for-all.
The infuriating part is that we could ALL sell-out and make a quid the fast way.
We ALL have the capacity to steal. We ALL have the capacity to cheat. We can be unkind, selfish, greedy, hateful – but for the majority of people – we’re decent.
Question #106: So, why are we letting the men in power dictate how they will feed off ALL of us – men, women and children – in this detrimental way?
All’s fair in love, war…and capitalism, it seems.
I wonder, with a heavy heart, if the line above does encompass the general attitude amongst the masses…
Again, I hope not.
This is a worthy cause, isn’t it?
Deep Breath.
Pass it on. Speak up. Anything to help create change.
Ad I’ve noticed – #1
October 21, 2012
Before I start waging my war on the ads we’re seeing, I’d like to do a bit of research – with you. I’m going to quickly discuss ads I’m seeing now – airing across the country, into family homes – and then (hopefully) gain some insight from you – see if there’s a reoccurring pattern in what our media outlets are unveiling to us and what messages they’re circulating.
I’d like to use you as a gauge. I – like everyone else – am not immune to seeing things a little less-of-centre at times and willingly admit this. It is all about perspective, after all, and I am deeply curious to learn whether we’re on the same page about this issue, that is deeply concerning to me.
Before I start, I want to explain that I don’t have cable TV, just free-to-air. I don’t turn on the telly until the evening, but really (especially in this ‘down season’) – I don’t watch much. This isn’t to say that the TV is switched off. It’s generally left on, in case we stumble upon something engaging to watch.
This means that as I’m cooking or writing, I do, on occasion, notice the ads. Obviously, when we think about ads, we automatically think of product selling, but there are also the ads for the TV shows themselves…and it’s the content in these ads that are also of great concern.
I’ve written previously about how TV is dumbing us down and how – as a capitalist, obsessed society – we’re possibly heading down a path towards The Seven Deadly Sins.
Well…isn’t it possible? If the answer is, “Yes” then what do we need to do?
I think the ads we’re being exposed to (children and teens especially) – together with a WHOLE smorgasbord of other factors and contributors – are changing the neural pathways of our brains. Conditioning us. More urgently, conditioning the way our youth perceive reality.
Ad #1. TV show – Glee.
Now, I’m not a fan of this show – ever since it started to drip in the hyper-sexualised behaviour of the girls; on top of knowing that their main fan base are young girls. I wrote a post about another ad for Glee a while back (with the clip attached). They are not promoting healthy messages, which is a shame considering the reach they have.
The new season is apparently about to start and we are, of course, getting bombarded by the promotional tsunami that seems to come with the start of new television show seasons.
I wasn’t able to find the clip of the ad that’s being aired in Australia, so I’ll just describe the simple, yet dangerous, messages I think the ad is delivering to young girls and women.
Two things.
One: Kate Hudson plays a new character in the series as a dance instructor at what appears to be a high end place in New York (NY Ballet?), that the main girl Rachel now attends. Kate’s character appears fearless, bellowing how the majority of them are going to fail etc. etc.
She walks up to one of the new students and says:
“Hi. What’s your name? Muffin Top?” (when some fat sits over the top of your pants)
“No, my name is-”
“No. You’re name is Muffin Top. From now on it’s rice crackers and ipecac (a drink that makes you vomit). Cut off a butt-cheek. You have to lose a few pounds.”
And the girl is slim. Plus it really bothers me that it’s a fellow woman being so callous.
Message: If you look at that girl and they’re saying she’s fat (which she’s not) – what am I?
Subliminal message received. Neural pathways are now shifting, due to negative self thoughts about weight and self esteem. Check.
Many will argue that that’s the way it is in these sorts of high pressure dancing institutions and the show is representing realism. Oh, now they’re calling the realism card? That’s a tiny morsel of ‘realism’ compared the heightened misrepresentation that oozes from other issues within shows such as this.
Two: In the grand old tradition of building a female star (whether it be an actress or a singer) as an innocent, wide-eyed virginal type of girl – there comes the time when she must toss all that aside, along with its innocent followers and admirers, and become ‘nasty’.
Rachel now has to be taken ‘seriously’ and must shed her chaste appearance and prove she’s someone to be reckoned with. So we hear Rachel singing, not once but twice during the ad, the following line of the song she will perform on the show (once with a visual showing a tough and sexy Rachel):
“I’m not that innocent”
A line from a Britney Spears song. How apt – a fellow innocent-turned-nasty girl…along with Christina Aquilera, Miley Cyrus…and the list goes on.
Message: Noone will take me seriously unless I sexualise myself to gain attention.
Subliminal message received. Neural pathways are now shifting, due to negative thoughts about not looking sexy and hot enough to gain attention and recognition – the only way to get it. Check.
Why do they do this to one famous, female young star after another? To add to the fan base.
In the documentary, Missrepresentation, we were informed that the main people who watch TV are women…so it doesn’t matter what you show them, as it seems they lap up everything that’s presented to them – especially the younger ones.
However, the ones who watch the least TV, are males between the ages of 18-mid/late twenties? Something like that. So shows are predominantly motivated to getting their full attention – and how else can you get a young, hormone ridden boy/teen/male to watch your show?
Sexualise the girls.
So the bottom line is that they don’t care who watches, just as long as they are.
Anything for a buck, right?
Question #104: Do these examples set off alarm bells, no matter how small, as to what’s being subliminally taught?
Here is a lovely image of the actress who plays Rachel (Michele Lea), contributing her efforts to collecting that new fan base for the network and share holders, by posing for GQ magazine.
We have a long way to go, ladies. Can’t have a picture like this without the woman’s consent.
And consent they do.
Deep Breath.
x
That’s not misogyny. THIS is misogyny.
October 18, 2012
The following is one of many issues that has me livid – more at the apathetic attitudes of society, than anything else.
There is true misogyny in our culture – and it is malevolent. It has always existed towards women of all ages, but as it steadily moves down the ranks, it just makes me wonder at what point we’re all going to kick-start our protesting voices and do something about it. Misogyny is now targeting our Tweens or, as my high school students inform me, ‘Twelvies’.
Last week the disgusting Facebook Page, 12 yr old Slut Memes – a site that used photos of ‘Twelvies’ already on the net (or sent in by others), to then make degrading and sexist comments – was finally closed by the two 19 year old Queenslander men/boys/creators, studying at QUT.
But not by Facebook – they defended it to stay live and still do. The end truly came for these guys, when reports the Federal Police would investigate were heard. So they pulled the plug (although they vow to be back) – but Facebook still thinks sites like these are just fine and dandy.
This is evidenced by the fact that many copycat pages have sprung up in its place and are not only staying, but spreading – like venom – by supporters and perpetuators of this way of thinking.
It pains me and fills me with despair to see this type of behaviour unfold – with permission. Doesn’t it stir the same indignation in you?
Melinda Tankard Reist wrote this great post covering this atrocious state of affairs. Its title is a quote from the men “As long as there are sluts we will put them in their place“.
Sluts. That’s misogyny.
Now, last week I heard outrage and FURIOUS anger over the Speaker of the House, Peter Slipper having sent lewd text messages to another bloke. The pitchforks have well and truly been pulled out by our purer-than-driven-snow, holier-than-thou, fellow Australians and they are being kept handy by the front door – but only when it’s connected with politics, it seems.
Question #103: Are you willing to put those pitchforks to good use and stop pages like 12 Yr old Slut Memes, that do SO much more damage than text messages that were sent by one man to one other?
There is a virtual library of photos out there (taken by an obsessed younger generation) – pictures of young girls looking hyper-sexualised – that these men are exploiting because it’s just. so. funny.
But all those girls are someone’s daughter…and more often than not, come from good parents; parents who are fighting a battle against a media campaign that is breeding boys who become men like these 19 year olds…
…and girls, of course, who participate in their own exploitation. This look is the fashion, after all.
How do we do what’s right?
1. We channel our outrage where it’s needed, by stopping misogynistic sites – whatever and wherever they are – that have Internet reach and;
2. Teach our girls that their worth has NOTHING to do with their fervour to look a certain way to gratify boys’ sexual preferences (based more and more on porn), possibly gain their approval and therefore attain some sort of validation.
In terms of the text messages sent by Slipper (which were filth, by the way), I’m pretty sure that if you checked the mobile phones – hell, even just the Facebook Pages and statuses – of maaaany men, you would find much, much worse.
How about fighting them? This Facebook page had over 200,000 ‘likes’ (followers). Surely that’s more damaging and alarming than the texts between two men.
Ironically, last week’s incensed reaction from the public, turned a searing spotlight on those text messages – that were also leaked and given a massive amount of importance, fuelled by the media – messages with content that, should it be heard coming from a band of guys at the pub, would not have made anyone bat an eyelid.
The definition of misogyny is: a hatred of women.
But yesterday, the Macquarie Dictionary added a definition to the word:
– a deep prejudice against women.
This article from the Financial Review, Macquarie misogyny definition change reignites gender debate discusses the change.
I believe most men fall somewhere on the sexism spectrum and only men know where they themselves sit on that particular fence.
Wherever it is you sit – guys – will determine whether you think sites like the 12 Yr old Slut Memes deserves your action or whether you think it’s funny.
Do you think it’s funny?
How about channelling some indignation towards helping liberate our world of the endless and ATTAINABLE hatred of females infecting our world – especially on women and young girls like these. It is the sphere in which our kids and teens are developing and it’s an emergency.
Do you think you could rise up against that?
Start writing emails – start taking your business elsewhere – anything.
It worked against Alan Jones…keep going.
Deep Breath.
x
No respect.
October 9, 2012
I just got back from my chaperoning days in Japan on Thursday and I’ve fallen in love. What an amazing and fascinating country. Love, love, love.
The people. The culture. The respect.
Everywhere we went, even at the local 7-Eleven, we received kindness and courtesy – always bowing. It was so lovely and endearing.
Wi-Fi connection was missing from most of the hotels we stayed at (in our rooms), so I actually enjoyed the luxury of not knowing about what was going on in the world. I took a ‘time-out’ and immersed myself in actual quiet, ‘me’ time – as I rested my weary bones.
It was wonderful.
Then I came home. Back to reality with a swift slap. I learned about Alan Jones and his comment about our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I’ve written about Alan Jones before, speaking about our women leaders ‘destroying the joint’. To inform all you overseas readers, this time Alan Jones said that our Prime Minister’s father (who had died a few weeks earlier) “died of shame” due to her lies.
I was gobsmacked.
I simply could not fathom the cruelty of such a comment.
And to be honest, I can’t understand the venom that is generally felt towards Ms Gillard by everyday Australians. I look around and see a nation that is pretty comfortable in its rich lifestyle – ie food, shelter, beds, clothes (at the very least) – compared to many around the world…most of the world, actually.
And yet our media subjects us to a bombardment of whingers. It seems to have become Australia’s mantra, to complain about having to pay more for the necessities – necessities that mean more digging of our planet; use of water from dams, but not recycled water (god forbid) – but who don’t think twice about forking out hundreds on iPhones, computers, the latest label anything, air-conditioners…
Seems absurd – when most of the world is battling in EVERY way – to survive.
But I digress.
What I’m seeing is Australia’s media machine being given permission to treat our Prime Minister with misogynistic contempt.
I CLEARLY remember John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister, telling his people that there would not be a GST (Goods and Services Tax) under his government. Not only did HE lie, we ended up paying – and still do – TEN percent on everything we buy.
Everything. Regardless of income. That’s massive and yet…
Where was the lynch mob then?
If you ever thought our Prime Minister was a liar and fed off the teat of the spin campaign, read this article: Her Rights at Work (R-rated version). Anne Summers AO Ph.D, gives a frank lecture predominantly about Ms Gillard’s treatment since becoming the leader of Australia, due to her gender.
“But what is NOT normal is the way in which the prime minister is attacked, vilified or demeaned in ways that are specifically related to her sex (or, if you like, her gender). Calling her a “liar” might not be gender-specific, although as I have pointed out, it was not a term used against back-flipping male prime ministers.
There are countless examples, however, where the prime minister is attacked, vilified or demeaned in ways that do specifically relate to her sex and I propose to devote the rest of this lecture to describing, categorizing and exploring the implications of them.”
This is a photo of our Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, in front of signs about Julia Gillard. He’s good mates with Alan Jones, too.
All of this reeks of the scene I saw in the documentary, Miss Representation, when Hilary Clinton was running against Barak Obama for the Democrats Leadership. Men were shouting, “IRON MY SHIRT! IRON MY SHIRT!” whilst holding placards with the same slogan, as she tried to speak.
*Shaking head*
But today – today there’s a new buzz in the air.
Alan Jones is being held accountable for his blatant misogynistic attitude towards our Prime Minister and it’s wonderful. The funny thing is that he seems to be the type of man who can dish it out, but can’t seem to take it.
What a fine specimen he is.
In the article Decent Australia says enough is enough, we are lapping up the giddy feeling of rising up and having a collective voice.
Question #101: Doesn’t this make you feel empowered? Like you can take a stand and say “Enough” at all the wrongs of the world?
I do.
But it has to be done with calm. ‘When emotion goes up; Intelligence goes down’. No insults. No threats. Just hit ’em where it hurts.
Money.
Deep Breath.
x
Question #100
September 24, 2012
It’s time to practise what I preach. I am always telling you to sign, to stand up, to voice objection – well, I’m about to do just that.
I have something that’s been slowly stewing inside me. I’ve written about this before – but now it’s time for the next step.
Preamble: The pull that the television has on my girls, is strong – however, I want them to have as much of an ‘old school’ childhood (like I had), as possible.
Outside – drawing – playing.
Yes, TV was a part of my life growing up, but it was minimal – only 4 channels and transmission ended at around midnight. TV shows included, Play School and Sesame Street (Channel 2 – no ads) and then Romper Room, Humfrey B Bear and Fat Cat all on the commercial channels. In that time the ads were classified as well – all toy ads (pretty much).
Today: Not only are the classifications of shows going down the toilet – things that are PG now, would have been M when we were younger – or worse still – R…a rating that seems to have all but vanished nowadays.
I have a big problem with the ads television stations are airing. More specifically, I have a problem with the television shows that are being coupled with such ads.
A big problem.
The common, knee-jerk response to a comment like this, would be that I don’t have to watch television. I can just turn it off. Well, yes I can – but why should I?
We don’t have Cable TV here at home and we don’t have a DVD shop nearby. So when a good kids’ movie comes on, I think it’s nice for the girls to be able to watch it. Then the dread sets in because I know that I’ll have to be vigilant about the ads the station will air, while my 5 and 9 yr old watch. Sometimes I flatly turn off the TV during ad breaks and other times, we record the show and the girls watch it later.
But I repeat – WHY should I have to do all this??
It’s starting to really get under my skin. So much so, that I’m going to take action. I hope I can get people to take a stand with me.
The most disconcerting factor for me is that, for the most part, it’s not even what they’re saying that has me in this agitated state – it’s what we (and our children) see.
My level of indignation is growing daily because there are times when I turn to see my girls watching something like the following ad on Channel 7, promoting the show GCB – which translates to: Good Christian Bitches…yes, bitches:
Now I had to say to my eldest to stop watching, while I frantically looked for the remote, but it was too late. She saw a jealous woman (suspicious of her husband participating in some adultery) by giving him all he wants, by sticking some fried chicken between her breasts.
Please.
There were also the images of the protagonist working in a Hooters-type place (coming down a pole, no less); not to mention the way the women look and behave – plastic, overly made-up and jealous, catty and bitchy.
Fantastic role models.
And ALL this information from the ad above.
We therefore, DON”T have a choice – except to turn it off.
I wrote, in an earlier post, Ready, Fire, Aim!, about how an ad for the lead up to The Shire appeared as my girls and I watched The Sound of Music. How much more ‘G’ can a film be?
The ad for the following movie was everywhere – it has a teddy bear dry humping a super market scanner. This one was hard to avoid – it has a teddy bear in it!
A few days ago an ad for Puberty Blues appeared through an airing of Monsters v Aliens – on Channel 10. It also had a Thomas the Tank Engine ad – WHY BOTHER? They just witnessed a man about to cheat on his wife in the ad.
What about, Snog, Marry, Avoid? My daughter told me about this show – so it was on through the kids’ shows time.
OK, you get the drift. Hopefully you agree that it’s something we need to address…and actually make these VERY rich marketers take responsibility for what they show our kids.
These ads are not only promoting a show, they’re promoting a way of life. A mono-style of life where the pursuits are the same – vanity, greed, envy…sound familiar?
Question #100: Should ads have classifications, just like shows? Should we demand new restrictions?
I’m going to delve into a bit of research.
Then I’m setting up a petition.
Stay tuned. I need your help.
Deep Breath
x
PS I’m off to Japan in a few hours, as a chaperone to 19 students with the Japanese teacher. AAaarrrhh!! What an experience it’s going to be! I doubt I’ll have time to post anything…but we’ll see! I always get a bit twitchy when I don’t write for a wee while…
Question #92: What do you think?
September 13, 2012
I saw the following segment when I was flicking channels. The sports part of the news came on and…well, you understand. Ellen was on and I saw Reece Witherspoon was coming up…and I like her and so I thought I’d stick around.
But it wasn’t an interview with Ellen, she was having ‘Tea with Sophia Grace and Rosie’.
I thought, on one level, it’s ‘cutish’ BUT for the most part I thought – This is sort of imagery and behaviour that is making our problem worse.
It’s cute, but ALL the compliments, from both the girls and (mainly) Reece, are about what they’re wearing and their attractiveness.
There is a moment where one of the girls breaks into singing a few lines of Adele’s song (Rolling in the Deep, I think it was)…and it’s wonderful. She’s amazing, actually.
So why the circus show?
Question #93: Why can’t we showcase every girl’s wonderfulness, without those narrow, fickle images where girls can only talk about how pretty they are?
I’d love you to watch it and tell me what you think…
Questions for Us 
