DON’T CALL KIDS ‘”TRAMPY”
Do short shorts = trampy? Does a short skirt = slutty?
The American Psychological Association (APA) defines ‘sexualisation’ as occurring when a person’s value is believed to come only from their sexual appeal; their sexiness is judged according to a narrow ideal of physical attractiveness; or they are sexually objectified (that is, seen simply as an object for others’ sexual use).
This may have a serious impact on a child’s cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and on their sexuality.
As a parent and educator, this has concerned me enough to compel me to act.
Back in 2002, I founded a company, Enlighten Education, which now works with over 20,000 girls a year in schools. We encourage girls to be discerning consumers and critical thinkers and to find their own voice and power in a complex world.
I’ve taken to the streets to protest against child beauty pageants. I’ve backed boycotts of stores that market Playboy-branded merchandise to kids. Back in 2007, when 60 Minutes did a feature story in response to the Senate’s inquiry into this issue, I was presented as the “poster girl” for parents who were concerned that our culture imposes pressures on girls to be too sexy, too soon. Hell, I have even written two books aimed at supporting parents, and girls, to claim their own power.
So why am I not thrilled at the latest online furore over a mother’s Facebook message to clothing store Target that slammed it for encouraging girls to look “trampy”?
After all, over 57,000 people agreed with her. Why too, aren’t I elated by the subsequent media storm this has initiated, which has seen two different pairs of denim shorts held up as shocking examples of sexualised clothing that we should all be morally outraged by?
Because short shorts are not evidence of the sexualisation of our children, nor should children ever be labeled as “trampy.”
The really important discussions we need to be having at the moment around the sexualisation of children seem to be being hijacked by those that would have this issue used as an excuse to shame girls and women based on their clothing choices.
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
43 Responses to this article
-
kym August 15, 2012
Horray – a voice of reason!!
-
FerrelBerryl August 15, 2012
Great piece. I had initially agreed with the woman’s sentiments but then read the Facebook post and all the vile comments underneath. Slut shaming little girls makes you the absolute worst.
-
Maxabella August 22, 2012
I felt the same. I’m not fussed about the hemlines and such, it’s the ‘adult’ nature of the clothing that bothered me. Why do little girls need to be carbon copies of the big girls?
Then I read the comments on the Facebook post and it was disgraceful and ridiculous. x
-
-
Tabitha August 15, 2012
So micro-mini shorts are only sexualising little girls if they have ‘playboy’ or ‘flirt’ written on them? How about g-strings, or padded bras, are they ok as long as they’re slogan-free too?
This mum used the wrong word. She’s not calling for Target to stock burqas or trying to brand a scarlet letter on girls for their dress. She just wants to be able to go to a mainstream retailer to find inexpensive kids clothes which are age-appropriate. Which doesn’t seem like too much to ask, or slut-shaming, to me.
-
Jessica August 15, 2012
I’ve actually found that in terms of hem heights and ‘skimpyness’ the clothes that are around now are not that new. I have some episodes of Sesame Street from the 70′s on DVD that my kids watch and kids in those are wearing miniskirts and short shorts too. I think the difference now is that the look and style of the clothing are worn by children and adults alike. What I’M tired of, more than anything, is seeing an almost 40 year old and her young teenage daughter at the shops wearing almost the same outfit. Who’s the one dressing innapropriately? I’m not even sure anymore, but adults should dress like one.
-
Kathryn August 15, 2012
Love it! Thank you! Short shorts are great – you can run, jump and climb in them, they’re cool when you’re hot and wearing them does not make one trampy or slutty! Playboy for 5 year olds? No way. Shorty shorts a tee and a hat? Sure!
-
JanieJones August 15, 2012
Unfortunately social media has given a voice to this conservative (slightly hysterical) mum, who probably declares other little girls outfits as trampy in front of her daughter – this is exactly where girls learn to judge each other.
-
Dannielle Miller August 15, 2012
Hi Tabitha. I suspect you’re being confrontational as padded bras and gstrings for little girls would clearly be examples of adult notions of sexuality being enforced upon little girls wouldn’t they? I do make it clear I am an anti-sexualisation campaigner too and have spoken out about those very items as it so happens.
Further, my concern is absolutely not just derived from one mother’s ( quite possibly inadvertent) choice of the word “trampy”. Every news article I have read on this has referred to little girls who may dress in clothes like those presented as “trampy, “slutty” or “hooker” like. And, as pointed out above, many of the comments posted on-line on this issue are unequivocally slut-shaming little girls. Question for you- should we ignore this? Gloss over it in our desire to ban shorts?
We need to have conversations around ssexualisation that are not framed in this disgraceful and dangerous way.
Ps am on my iPhone so apologies for any / all typos!
-
kid August 15, 2012
None of this can shock me anymore. Years ago I saw a woman pushing a pram, and the bub was wearing a shirt that said, “I’m too sexy for my nappy”. For me that was a low point in children’s fashion that will never be beaten.
Anyway, everything you say is true. It’s sad that parents are teaching their kids to judge the worth of others by the clothes they wear.
-
16 August 15, 2012
I can’t imagine the impact that this will have on a little girls self esteem. As a teen, when I was that age, I knew that I was judged on my outfit by my peers. Now if young girls know that they are being judged not only by their friends and family but by the wider community, people who they don’t know who think it is ok to pass judgement- the pressure will be huge.
Young girls buy what they are sold. When they sucumb to the pressure of marketers, the community labels them sluts. When they don’t, their friends label them ‘behind’. Whatever they do will be wrong. Everyone needs to back off the judgement and look it them from the girls point of view. -
P Gosper August 15, 2012
Why are people concerned about the sexualisation of young girls? It’s called harm minimisation.
-
Bell August 15, 2012
Oh come on! Not another article that detracts from real and actual societal issues, all in the name of ‘moral panic’. Using terms like ‘ burqa’ are equally as sensational as terms used by the media, such as ‘trashy’, ‘trampy’ etc. Just because parents are struggling, in general, to find age appropriate clothing for their girls, does not mean they want their children to dress like an Amish sect.
This issue with Target represents the culmination of frustration felt by parents on a much larger scale, not in relation to one pair of shorts!
-
The Huntress August 15, 2012
Right on, sister! Shouldn’t we be empowering our girls to make choices that are right for them, rather than accusing them of being ‘trampy’ or ‘slutty’. So what if girls want to wear short skirts or short shorts? To little kids they see a pretty outfit, not an outfit that’s going to make them “sexy”. We, as adults, are looking on them as being sexual, putting our judgements on to what are likely innocent kiddies. So how about putting our dirty minds away and just buying our kids clothes we deem appropriate for them, rather than putting our moral judgements on to others?
-
confused August 15, 2012
Hi Danielle. If the mother had not used the wordy trashy, and used the word sexy instead would your opinion be different?
I ask genuinely confused by this article. On the one hand you support a mother/consumer standing up against a corporation determined to sell merchandise deliberately aimed at making girls appear sexy, and yet you argue against this stance in the same sentence?
I agree we should not be slut-shaming girls or women, but shouldn’t we make a stand against clothes that are designed to make young girls appear as sexual objects?
Since you are an expert in this field, could you describe how we should have “framed” the debate on facebook? From what I understand the facebook comment got 50k likes, that seems like a lot of mums wanting change for their daughters… I guess my question is: How can we (parents)ask for a change in sexualised marketing aimed at girls, without it turning into a shaming exercise for the kids?-
Jane August 17, 2012
I’m with ‘confused’ here. Hearing girls use the word ‘slut’ is awful, and increasingly commonplace, but I hate the trend towards ever-shorter and more revealing everything. It looks awful on 99% of the population and increases the likelihood that girls will feel bad about their bodies. The Hoopla! article on more positive body image among Muslim women makes interesting reading as a comparison.
If a little girl wants to dress as a fairy or run around in a swimsuit on a hot day I have no problem with that but I completely understand this mother’s frustration at Target stocking so much “mini model” dress-up clothing aimed at primary school-aged children instead of normal shorts and jeans and T-shirts and ‘real’ play clothes.
So are you saying her mistake was to use the word tramp?
Splitting hairs. Get kids out exploring their physical prowess at sport and dance or whatever, instead of as coat hangers.
-
-
Dannielle Miller August 15, 2012
16- Well said!
-
VRog August 15, 2012
Well, when I was a tomboyish girl growing up in the late 70s and early 80s, I wore short shorts and singlet tops because I liked climbing trees and playing cricket and riding my bike. Who knows if I was ever sexualised by a paedophile?Maybe I was naive or sheltered (probably) but I was never aware of anything like that until I reached my early teens and started developing. My point is, we are all subject to the gaze of others and we have little control over what images people find sexual or not. It is my understanding that paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children…full stop. Does that attraction exist regardless of what children are wearing? Probably. It seems to me our time would be more profitably spent educating (not scaring) children about the realistic risk of victimisation by paedophiles, rather than shaming them about their bodies and their clothes.
-
Sara August 16, 2012
yes! spot on. I was having this very conversation today, where my friends think there should be length restrictions as part of uniform standards as protection for young girls. It’s not about the clothes people! My mother gave me some excellent advice when I left home. And it wasn’t about wearing short skirts. She said don’t put yourself in positions or in places where you could be in danger. I know this is a little off topic, because we are talking about little girls, like my 4 year old daughter. I have no problem finding age appropriate clothing for her. If I don’t like it, I don’t buy it, and I would suggest no one else does either. If there was no demand, it wouldn’t be made.
-
-
Dannielle Miller August 15, 2012
Hi Confused.
The mother did not refer to the clothes as looking as “trashy” ( which would be placing a low value on the items) but as making those who wear them look “trampy” (implying little girls wearing short shorts look immoral / slutty – that they have low value. An important distinction). But this one comment alone would not be as concerning had it not then triggered a tirade of comments both in the media and on-line judging little girls based on the fact that some do not like the clothes they may be wearing. Headlines in major newspapers have declared girls in shorts are considered “slutty”, that they look like “hookers” etc.
My question to you – is this not deeply problematic? To be frank, adults thinking they have open slather to call little girls sluts, or to imply that children who are assaulted may deserve it / be asking for it should they be scantily clad ( arguments which have also been stated on numerous sites) worries me more than any pair of shorts to be frank.
As to your hypothetical; IF none of this labelling of girls -as -immoral- based -on- clothes language had been used by anyone I would not have a problem at all with any mother or interest group targeting retailers to be far more mindful to ensure they do not sell clothes that clearly do sexualise girls (shorts do not, but we all know there is / has been far worse out there, like the examples I cite). I’d probably sign on too – I have joined many similar campaigns in the past.
To answer your question on how we can seek changes in marketing to kids without shaming them…There are many ways – I don’t have the time to go into them all for you here but as I state in my article, I wrote two books which include this very topic. If you are genuinely interested, read them!
And I’m sorry Confused but I am confused by you saying in a sentence i contradict myself – I can’t see it.
-
Dannielle Miller August 15, 2012
Oh Confused an others reading this – excuse my typos / poor written expression above. I was responding whilst simultaneously sorting out my son’s sore knee. The dangers of multi-skilling! LOL! Best I sign off from commenting any further tonight as the iphone -on-the-hop approach is not really conducive to a coherent debate!
-
Sandra Grey August 15, 2012
Great comment VRog !
-
Jacqui August 15, 2012
Totally agree Danni, when I heard about this I was uncomfortable with the language being used to describe the girls and the implication that the girls are responsible for adults thinking they are wearing sexy clothes. I can only comment on the denim shorts but they are denim shorts!! Kids should be allowed to wear something plain like this without feeling like someone is drooling over them. Should they cover up at the beach as well?
As you say we need to be mindful of our language around our girls as they are so sensitive and smart they take everything in. My toddlers certainly do. I hope by the time they are teens we have things a bit more sorted!!
And Wendy you hit on exactly what I’ve been thinking- 70-80% of child abuse is by A family member. That’s right a family member. And more is by someone they know such as a coach.
As a wife of a hard-working DOCS worker I also say amen to more funding. The load they are expected to take would stun you.
-
Jo August 15, 2012
Thank you for wise words
-
Rhoda August 15, 2012
Think about it. Would you wear those type of clothes down the street and not expect to get looked at. The way you dress projects your image and is a visual signal to the onlooker.
Modesty is one of the functions of wearing any sort of clothing. It is the interpretation and degree of modesty that is in question.
And in today’s world where there is so much focus on fashion what we wear is very much a personal display. Children have picked up on that but lack the consciousness of sexual propriety. And that’s where parenting comes into it.
-
Louisa August 15, 2012
Dear confused. I am confused too by this article. It seems the author wants to promote her view of the world and her business by accusing others of slut shaming little girls and calling them tramps. I have followed the story and that was not how I understood it. To then imply that people like the original poster who comment on the sexualization of children might become rape apologists is beyond belief. A beat up of a beat up I reckon for some free publicity.
-
Dannielle Miller August 16, 2012
Louisa I did not imply the original poster might become a rape apologist! There are, however, plenty out there who are and who now have a platform and we need to be discussing this as it is very dangerous. Surely you agree?
This article is not motivated by wanting free publicity. I gave my biographical details to provide a context for my beliefs and show I too am concerned about sexualisation. Wendy asked me to submit it to The Hoopla.
Is this piece designed to promote my view of the world?
Why yes, that is the aim of an opinion piece.
-
Dirty Pierre August 16, 2012
Careful Dannielle or Melinda Blowhard Reist will sue you
-
Kym August 16, 2012
Maybe asking what the purpose of ‘shorts’ might clarify the issue a little. VRog says she wore shorts as a child to run and play – excellent – just the freedom we want girls to have. The original objection to the Target shorts was that they were made to ride up the backside, that is the cut of the clothes. Watch how those type of shorts ride up. What is the purpose – not freedom for the girls but to draw the very type of look and judgment we don’t want on girls.
-
Catherine August 16, 2012
I have three daughters. I’ve bought most of their clothes from op shops. Others have been given to us as hand-me-downs. This is for a number of reasons but one of the reasons is that garments for children are very gendered – pink and pretty for girls, often with bad attitude slogans (and I don’t call my girls ‘Princesses’, because, you know, they’re not) and action hero/aggressive images in only red, blue or green for boys. I only buy plain basics and underwear from shops such as Target. My girls do wear short shorts – they are great for Summer and my girls wear them with leggings in Winter. It doesn’t sexualise them. Growing up I wore hand-me-downs and home made clothes. I can make clothes, but clothes are so cheap to buy now (which suggests something of value not being factored in – worker’s conditions? environmental responsibility?) and there aren’t a lot of fabric shops around. Many parents buy clothes handmade clothes online to avoid buying into the gendered clothing available for kids in shops. I recommend trying the op shops too – they have plenty of stock.
I’m surprised no-one has picked up on the Target complainant saying she wanted pink and pretty clothes for her girl child – that’s the choice she wants available to her. It would be quite different if she was shopping for a tomboy daughter.
I agree, Danielle, that we need to be careful about the way we talk about children. And the messages we are giving them when we talk about clothes and women. Good work – I support you! -
Katie August 16, 2012
It’s not the kids that are trampy it’s the clothes. Even many baby clothes for females have suggestive or at least sexist slogans on them. No way is it confined to Target. Try buying a t-shirt or similar clothes for a tiny girl in any chain store and you will find out.
-
Dannielle Miller August 16, 2012
Dirty Pierre – just for the record, I wasn’t alluding to Melinda at all…I have never heard MTR make anything like a rape-apologist statement! The statements I am seeing on-line that have frightened me are being made by the general public. Like Ferrel Beryl says above, some of the threads on this have provided a platform for some alarming commentary.
-
Katie August 16, 2012
This issue is getting mangled. The issue is about sexualisation, not “sluttishness”. We do not want to sexualise children, full stop.
The issue is not one of “good” sex vs “bad” sex, whatever that is, but of sexualisation per se! We are at risk of going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the issue. -
Aeron Winters August 16, 2012
Well said Dannielle. I too am against the sexualisation of children, but hate that girls who wear mini skirts or short shorts labelled as tramps who are asking for trouble. When I was a little girl in the early 70s I remember having skirts and dresses so short I couldn’t bend over without showing off my knickers. I also recall that ‘hot pants’ (which is just another name for short shorts) were also a part of my wardrobe. I don’t ever recall anyone telling me I was trampy or looked like a hooker. I looked like every other little girl I went to school with. Perhaps those who see girls in short skirts and t-shirts as trampy are the ones with the real issues. I think they look cute, not sexy….but then again, I’m not a pervert.
-
Been There August 16, 2012
Rhoda: It is misinformed to believe that what one wears brings on sexual assault – which is the impression I get from your comment. Sexual predators carefully select their targets based on their perceived vulnerability, as Dannielle states. If that was not the case, how could we ever spend time at the beach, in bathers? I can tell you from personal experience as rape victim AND a woman and mother in her 40′s, that sexual assault is about power over an individual rather than any ‘available’ message you may think is being sent by clothing. This misconception is something that needs to be talked about much more openly to dispel the myths and eliminate the victim blaming.
-
foolio August 16, 2012
As the mother of a teenage daughter, the type of shorts people are worrying about (at all ages) are not “plain” old denim shorts, or shorts to “run and play” in… they are shorts my daughter herself declines to wear, describing them as “denim underwear” because of their very high cut. I am relieved she has made this choice, of her own volition, because I worry that these sorts of clothes – rightly or wrongly – take us back to the days when women were objectified, and some clothes were designed for the pleasure of men, NOT particularly for the pleasure of women. My daughter and I are desperate for more choice on the clothing racks!
-
kid August 16, 2012
There are two issues here, and the labelling of girls by the clothes they wear is one. I guess the real concern is why are adult clothing designers making children’s clothes which are, from an adult perspective, sexy and provocative. Some of the stuff around (like the denim underwear) is simply smaller sized versions of sexy adult clothing. Why are there people who want to see children dressed like this?
-
Shiralee August 16, 2012
Three years ago I went to a cousins 40th B’day. At the same time we looked up to see someone who looked like a stripper/ prostitute in the room.Another cousin commented how inappropriate it was that someone would hire a stripper for a party that had children present. It was his thirteen year old niece. Whats even worse is her parents proudly allowed her to walkout the door like that. The girl is now getting upset becouse older men are chatting her up.
Its nice to see parents are allowing their children to be children. -
Rhoda August 16, 2012
Been There: I am really sorry to hear you have been a rape victim. I understand the point you’re trying to make and agree wholeheartedly – have always done so. Rape victims do not deserve to be raped and don’t ask for it. It should be on billboards everywhere.
Sexual predators do select their prey. I’m aware of that. The children they prey upon might be in their bed asleep in pyjamas or on their way home from school in a uniform.
What concerns me is the insidious transformation of kid’s clothing into something that sexualizes them. The clothing manufacturers are exploiting their need to be like their idols. It’s all about getting them to copycat celebrities and make money.
There is so much sexual innuendo on the street and in the media and both boys and girls are absorbing sexual messages about acting flirty and provocatively. Everyone wants to be cool. It’s cool to be sexy.
But sexy and children don’t go together.
So no, I’m the last person on earth who would shame a young person by calling her trampy but I would call on her parents to be mindful of the anxiety they might have to deal with if their little girl is forced to negotiate an adult world as a child.
-
ellenni August 17, 2012
clothes which are too tight too short or too brief are trampy on anyone. i have been watching my granddaughter and her former group of friends grow up. i say former because she is not ready for boyfriends, piercings, tatoos, makeup and growing up before her time. she is busy being a student and has joined the group who think study to get to university is more important. now this is child who loves fashion and all things female but she is doing it in an age appropriate way. she has been to europe and new york and shopped til she dropped, but for her age. the designers say they design the clothes we want – no they dont they design stuff to please themselves and are probably having a good laugh at seeing how far they can go.
-
Maxabella August 22, 2012
I totally agree with what you’re saying, but I’m still not putting my children in short, skimpy clothes. I’d be happier conducting the ‘clothing does not equal sexualisation’ experiment with someone over the age of 5. It’s not enough to discuss the semantics of it all when the reality is that to many Neanderthals out on the street, short, skimpy attire = sexualised clothing. x
