The child had rose-petal skin, dark lustrous hair and long eyeswith thick lashes. She was willowy, fine-boned, beautiful. It tookme a moment to identify what was different about her.
"Are you wearing make-up?" I asked. She was, and she was only 11years old.
"You're just behind the times," her clever mother told me when Isaid how shocked I was. Was I? Or was I ahead of them?
The Bailey Review, commissioned by David Cameron and publishedyesterday, calls for guidelines to protect childhood. It aims to,"put the brakes on an unthinking drift towards the ever greatercommercialisation and sexualisation of children".
There could scarcely be a worthier aim. However, critics of thereport warn about a form of McCarthyism. They say the review isfanning the flames of moral outrage where no evidence exists thatchildren are being damaged by their exposure to modern culture. Theysay attempts to reverse the trend will be Canute-like.
So who is right? Do children need rescued or is the Bailey Reporta parent-pleasing vote catcher?
The made-up little girl I met was at a christening. I thought Isaw a new stillness in her; a self-aware poise seemed to havereplaced the unselfconscious child I had known before. I thought shewas growing up far too fast and feared for her. But as the dayprogressed and she reverted to playing children's games, I realisedthat the make-up really was just a slick on her skin. Underneath itshe retained her innocence.
So was my reaction an example of me growing old and out of touch,like those who regarded my generation of adolescent girls asdegenerate because we wore short-skirts and had long-haired boyfriends? Or were there fewer dangers then?
The big difference for me and my friends was that we lived in anera when men seeking sex presumed the answer would be no. Now girlswho are barely out of primary school ape pretty Cheryl Cole (oranother of the under-dressed young women on television). The dangeris the world sees their clothes as a sexualised uniform - andpresumes on their sexual consent.
But, and it's a big but, does this mean the girls themselves havebecome sexualised, to use the current buzzword?
I'm not so sure. What many girls have clearly absorbed by the ageof 11 is that talent alone isn't enough; their looks matter morethan anything else. Well, it would be surprising if they hadn't.After all, that's the obsession of the world around them.
The British Retail Consortium yesterday published new "familyfriendly" guidelines to coincide with the report. Several highstreet names have already signed up: anxious to be seen to be movingwith the zeitgeist. The Advertising Standards Agency and Ofcom alsomade statements of welcome.
It's as if there has been a collective awakening. Last weekpadded bras for pre-teens, this week Brownie points for the retailindustry.
So far the media focus has been on girls. But modern culturereaches boys too. They don't go around dressing in stack heels andthree-button suits like Simon Cowell. But too many of them accessporn on the internet. It has a huge effect on the way they seegirls, the way they treat them.
So what is a proper childhood? Is it still possible to retaininnocence well into the teens? The answer is yes, at least for thosewith responsible parents.
On a walk last weekend, I passed a father and daughter gardeningtogether. The girl was between 10 and 12 years old. She wasengrossed, working with a spade almost as big as herself.
Half a mile further on, I was overtaken by another father with amuch younger daughter, this time on a tandem. The air was filledwith their chatter.
They could have been happy families or divorce-access outings.What mattered was that the children looked involved and happy. Theywere doing something active, not sitting glued to a screen or hookedinto earphones listening to sexually explicit song lyrics like, "Putyour hands on my body, right there. Keep it right there."
The report recommends age restrictions for music videos. It makessuperficial sense but again I'm reminded of middle-aged outrage whenElvis the pelvis wiggled his hips. His squirming caused more damageto parental blood pressure than to the nation's youth.
All of which brings me back to the question, what is harm? Is itharmful for an 11-year-old girl to want to wear full make-up or todress like her role model?
Not necessarily, in my opinion. However, the cult of celebrityhas bred a generation of juvenile wannabes. Ambitious parents buyinto it. They escort their children to model agencies and talentshows where they are examined like auction lots. The lucky onesdon't make the grade.
There's a new film called Jig which demonstrates how the madnesshas reached even Irish dancing. When I was young it was as glamorousas singing at The Mod. Now tiny children wear wigs and falseeyelashes to perform. They still leap like electrocuted gazelles;maybe even higher than we managed, but then they have an addedincentive. Where our mothers sat nodding in amused appreciation,theirs are pictured alert as meerkats, necks stretched, headsbobbing with every move their child makes.
They're willing them to win. You have to wonder - for whosebenefit?
Mr Cameron has both welcomed the report and eschewed any notionof government interference in family life. He praised therecommendation to help parents block the internet and phones. Hesupports the banning of children in brand advertising. In Octoberhe'll be checking up on progress.
Reg Bailey sought the views of 2000 parents. He listened to theiranxieties. The result, his report, is a statement of values whichmight stiffen the resolve of insecure parents who find life at homeeasier if they go with the flow.
It might even allow a new generation to cling on to childhood fora little bit longer, and that's surely worth a try. But let's notfall into the trap of assuming that every young girl who adopts thescanty dress style of an idol has been sexualised.
No comments:
Post a Comment