Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/kf2bkco/public_html/sys/cmf.core.data.php on line 3352
International Commission on media violence finds all viewers affected
ACCM MEDIA RELEASE FOR AUGUST 27/8
International Commission on media violence finds all viewers affected
A special Commission set up by the International Society for Research on Aggression has found that ‘every viewer or player is affected in some way’ and that ‘exposure to media violence is one risk factor for increased aggression in both the short and long term’. The Commission’s findings are published in the Sep/ Oct issue of the journal Aggressive Behavior. To access the full report please visit www.israsociety.com .
Australian academic Dr Wayne Warburton, one of the Commission’s 12 international authors, says ‘the members took a fair and balanced look at the existing research. They found that exposure to a range of violent media can act as triggers for aggressive thoughts and feelings already stored in the memory. If these aggressive thoughts and feelings are activated over and over again through repeated exposure to media violence they can become chronically accessible and therefore are more likely to influence behaviour. Other well demonstrated effects include desensitisation to violence, and changes to the way people view the world. Interestingly, the best designed studies found these effects most strongly. The Commission noted that such effects should not be seen as surprising – most people believe that advertising can change our thoughts, feelings and behaviour, and the same sorts of processes are implicated in the influence of media violence’.
Prof Elizabeth Handsley, President of the Australian Council on Children and the Media said, ‘The Commission’s findings are just the kind of evidence on which Australia’s classification system should be based’. She continued, ‘The present system is based on concepts like offence and confusion that have no basis in science. The research tells us which kinds of violence raise the risk of an adverse influence on children at different ages, for example glamorised violence. The criteria should be revised to reflect this knowledge. This would enhance the standing of the classification system as a provider of accurate information about content and impact’.
Professor Handsley said, ‘Parents are finding it harder and harder to monitor their children’s media use. Government needs to act to ensure that parents are well informed about the risks from violent and fear-provoking content, and have easy access to information about content in films and games and the likely influence on thoughts, attitudes and behaviour at different age levels’.
ACCM Vice President and child psychologist Dr C Glenn Cupit said that the Commission’s broad findings were not new but deserved prominence as they came from an international group of scholars all with a track record of research into aggression. Further it was time that the long- perpetuated myth that ‘the jury was still out on the impacts of media violence’ was debunked. He said ‘as long ago as 2000, the Australian Psychological Society reported that media violence increased the risks of the use of aggression to solve conflict and of desensitisation to the use of violence. Action is well overdue’.
ACCM is a unique national community organisation, which strives for a media environment that supports the health, safety and wellbeing of Australian children. It is committed to promoting healthy choices and stronger voices in children’s media. ACCM delivers the free Know Before You Go movie review service for parents and to date has reviewed over 700 movies. The reviews inform parents about movie content and the likely impacts on children at different ages and stages. www.childrenandmedia.org.au
For more information or to arrange an interview, please email email@example.com or call on (08) 8376 2111,
The Age Editorial August 16, 2012 Standing up for rights to childhood
This is a fantastic editorial piece from The Age newspaper. It focuses on the main point raised by a mother concerned about Targets clothing range for young girls - without getting sidetracked into the debate about her chosen word 'trampy'.
The number of people engaged in social media on this issue shows a tipping point occurring and retailers should take notice.
This is also a sure sign that speaking out does make a difference. (Be Bold enough to Bother!)
Meanwhile a reminder to the Government - A review of the 2008 senate inquiry is now 3 years overdue!
The Age Editorial August 16, 2012
Standing up for rights to childhood
TARGET seems an unlikely candidate to provoke outrage by pushing fashion boundaries. Yet all it took was one mother posting a complaint on the company's Facebook page: ''Dear Target, Could you possibly make a range of clothing for girls 7-14 years that doesn't make them look like tramps?'' Target had a social media storm on its hands. Primary school teacher Ana Amini struck a chord for a reason; clothing that sexualises young children raises important issues of social responsibility.
Ms Amini is not alone in despairing at racks of ultra-short dresses and shorts, low-cut and midriff tops, sheer lace and leopard prints for children. Many retailers stock clothes for pre-teens that grown women might hesitate to wear. Some lines mock ''good taste''. Think back a few years to Cotton On's baby-wear slogans - ''I'm living proof my mum is easy'' and ''I'm a tits man''. Those certainly ''crossed the line'' as the company conceded, while arguing that market demand drove its ''intentionally edgy and irreverent'' range. Social media also forced Kmart to rethink children's underwear bearing phrases such as ''Call me'' and ''I love rich boys''.
In such cases, retailers typically apologise for going just a bit too far. Target cited ''huge diversity of opinion'' and said ''everyone has a different perception''. It took ''great care to ensure that our range is both age appropriate and something that our customers' children will love''. A letter to The Age by child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg reminds us why failure on the first point matters so. Premature initiation into a sexualised culture of appearances costs children more than years of innocence: it invites body-image and eating disorders and even abuse ''by undermining the important social norm that children are sexually unavailable''. Clothing is part of popular culture's normalisation of a sexy look before children are ready for adult sexuality. This was the concern of a 2006 Australia Institute report, Corporate Paedophilia.
A 2008 Senate inquiry noted retailers control what goes on shelves and parents guide what their children buy. Why would either blur the lines? Because this is a multibillion-dollar market in a society desensitised to its ''pornification''. Some retailers have ''the ethics of a cash register'', as Dr Carr-Gregg once said, but they can't dictate public demand. As parents and citizens, we can be passive consumers or, as Ms Amini did, we can take stock of what is going on and demand better corporate citizens who do not promote ''trampy'' clothes to children. This is not simple prudery. Individual and social wellbeing depends on protecting childhood.
Sexualisation of Teens vs Teenage Sexuality.
By Julie Gale - Director Kids Free 2B Kids
Ok - seems a comment I made in The Herald Sun regarding the sexualised nature of a few signs held up by young girls screaming for 'One Direction' has got Clementine Ford and a few others a bit hot under the collar.
These people should know that what get's reported is not always an accurate representation of what was said. A journalist phoned and asked my opinion about these signs and yes, 'Point your Erection in my Direction' was one of them. I said that teen obsessions were normal and exciting and fun, (this was not reported) but I stand by the fact that the nature of these signs are 'reflective of the sexualised world kids are part of'.' The examples of signs given in the article did not reflect those the journalist asked me to comment on - nor did the picture. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good slamming!
Clementine Ford said "Channel Seven was forced to apologise for allowing such rampantly offensive behaviour to roam wild in the Serengeti that is the breakfast broadcast. Meanwhile, Julie Gale, founder of the irritatingly text-moderne named Kids Free 2B Kids, declared the signs,‘highly inappropriate and reflective of the sexualised world kids are part of'. In a move sure to please fellow Hand Wringing agents in Pearl Clutching Town, Channel Nine warned attendees of last night's Logies (in which One Direction delivered a special performance) that similar displays of vulgarity would be confiscated, which left almost no one to walk the red carpet".
"Despite Gale's intimation that this behaviour has been thrust upon adolescent girls by recent corrupting forces (as if The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, NKOTB, The Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Justin Bieber, etc etc etc were all simply myths enshrined in legend), the truth is a touch less complicated than that: adolescent girls are interested in sex. They always have been, and they always will be, and no amount of blame placed on a modern made up phenomenon will change that".
First Clementine - Major apologies that the name of the group I established half a decade ago - Kids Free 2B Kids is so irritating to you. Gosh I feel dreadful about that!
Second, - When you say that I intimated "this behaviour has been thrust upon adolescent girls by recent corrupting forces" - well that's just damned confusing. I'm assuming you mean young teenage girls waving sexualised signs, because it would be pretty dumb to suggest that I have a problem with young girls screaming wildly and being thoroughly excited about 'One Direction'...(or any of the other boy bands you mentioned - tho to be honest I didn't scream for any of them - but I do recall a massive screaming crush on David Essex. What a spunk and what divine curls and blue eyes!) I don't recall, however, seeing any young teenage girls waving overtly sexualised signs - but maybe my memory is lagging because I've been too busy handwringing and clutching my pearls.
I must congratulate you on being so brave, edgy, and ultra text- moderne (snap!) to write that 'adolescent girls are interested in sex'. To be honest, I would never have realised. All that obsessive hand wringing had made me completely blind to this. You see, like ALL people who raise awareness about the sexualisation of children and young teens, I am completely anti-sex. That's right. I am a sex- denier. (Well, apparently).
I've just gone over my own notes to remind myself about the difference between burgeoning teen sexuality and sexualisation - and OMG! - there is a difference! They are not the same. Isn't that incredible! Perhaps you've been doing a bit of hand wringing too Clementine because I think you've got a bit confused about this.
"adolescent girls are interested in sex. They always have been, and they always will be,
and no amount of blame placed on a modern made up phenomenon will change that."
This' modern made up phenomenon' of which you write....I am guessing you are talking about Sexualisation?
I suggest you immediately write to The Australian Medical Association, because they have recently called for a new inquiry into the sexualisation of children. Tell them you are fully qualified to declare that this is a non issue - and how dare they voice concerns about what young kids are exposed to. (By fully qualified I mean that you are "a freelance writer, broadcaster and troublemaker based in Melbourne"..that's what your bio says on The Punch website.
And pfft - the President of the AMA, Dr Steve Hambleton - well, what would he know?)
I would also send a copy to every child development professional, educator and parent in Australia, The Australian Psychological Society, The American Psychological Association, The UK Home Office, The Scottish and Irish Parliament, The French Government and The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.
Unbelievably they have all been on a damned roll about this sexualisation issue for some time now.
I mean, for a start, why would anyone have a problem with the fact that no previous generation of children has had to deal with such an onslaught of adult sexualised imagery and messages in the public arena . Many of these images would not be acceptable in the work place because of sexual harassment laws - however those laws do not apply in the public space. ...but hell, whateva!
The average age of first exposure to porn is 11 yrs but who's counting Clementine - the kids are all right hey! They're savvy - they can work it out!
Oh and please send a copy to Dr Joe Tucci and Professor Chris Goddard - because the fools have said this:
"The Australian Childhood Foundation has pioneered therapeutic programs for children as young as seven years old who engage in problem sexual behaviour with other children. Approximately 20% of this population of children have evolved this behaviour without prior experiences to trauma. In these circumstances, a contributing factor to the genesis of problem sexual behaviour is the increasing volume of sexualised imagery and themes available in popular culture and accessible to children. Referrals to our problem sexual behaviour program have increased by ten fold in the last 10 years"
Honestly what's the world coming to when all these people and groups are concerned about some stupid made up modern phenomenon...or was that... modern made up phenomenon? I've forgotten.
Clementine, may you and your colleagues keep up the good work. Thankfully you keep all of us outraged, tsk- tsking sex deniers in line. We are the girl shamers.... the ones who deny teenagers their sexual agency. We are the repressors who damn well need repressing and you go for it.
Show yourselves to be the true believers of young girls . Shout it high and shout it loud. "We are the saviours". You're all just blooming marvellous. You really are. No you are. You are modern thinkers. Moderne even. You are up with the times. You're all just....great.
Clemintine, 'Pearl Clutching Town' is getting out of control. Today the Victorian Principals Association expressed concerns about the early sexualisation of children. Read more here. This is outrageous. Please write to them immediately!
The Australian Medical Association calls for a new inquiry into the sexualisation of children.
This week the Australian Medical Association called for a new Inquiry into the premature sexualisation of children in marketing and advertising. Read more here.
AMA President Dr Steve Hambleton discusses concerns about eating disorders, depression and blurred sexual development on Chanel 9 Today program.
Amanda Rishworth MP calls for ban on sexy kids clothes
The Herald Sun.by Lisa Power. 19/3/12
CLOTHING manufacturers, retailers and publishers could be forced to abide by regulations if their products, music and magazines continue to promote the sexualisation of children, a federal MP has warned.
Amanda Rishworth said parents felt helpless to control the onslaught of inappropriate clothing aimed at children and advertisements featuring provocative images of pre-teen girls.
"I don't think we have broad enough standards and guidelines that encompass the whole area," said Ms Rishworth, who has campaigned against the commercialisation andsexualisation of children.
"Parents are struggling with this. I don't think it is as simple as banning things but industry does
need to take some more responsibility and start responding to parents' concerns.
"I do think there is a role for government regulation."
That is the path for France after much public debate and dismay with advertisers and fashion labels.
Last week, a government report urged the banning of "mini miss" pageants and high heels, padded bras and G-strings for children.
Outcry over the use of 10-year-old Thylane Blondeau in a 2010 Vogue shoot prompted the report.
Psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg said eroticised images had a devastating effect on teen confidence.
"(One study found after) watching those classic Pussycat Doll-type videos, highly sexualised videos, girls walked away feeling really bad about themselves and had really poorself
esteem," he said. "And that was after just 10 minutes."
Ms Rishworth said guidelines may be needed to decide if it is appropriate to display magazines with suggestive covers at the eye level of children, broadcast sexualised music clips during children's viewing hours and display sexy clothing in junior sections of retail stores.
She has been inundated by worried parents calling for change after twice raising the issue in parliament.
"We don't want to get jlinto a situation where we tell parents how they parent (but) parents are
screaming for (help)," she said.
Also reported in todays Daily Telegraph.
Appropriate protocols and regulations will emerge when industry is willing to acknowledge the issue of sexualisation and the harm to children. There has been no proactive responsibility from industry since the 2008 senate inquiry. First step should be the review of the inquiry which was supposed to take place in Dec 2009.
The Australian Government is lagging behind recent action taken by the UK & France on this issue.
Labor policy states:
Chapter 6: Preparing Australia for the health needs of the future:
"Labor will develop strategies to prevent and reduce the damage being
caused by the increased sexualisation of young women in all media"
We have seen no evidence of a commitment by the Government to develop any such strategies. A review of the senate inquiry is an obvious place to start.
Written by KF2BK Director Julie Gale.
In my final year of high school in 1980. I experienced the full brunt of bullying. My best friend lied to her parents about an incident and blamed me. She then co-opted our close friends into her web of deceit. What followed was girl-excluding behaviour at its worst.... and possibly the toughest year of my life. Years later when I had the courage to ask my ex best friend ‘Why?, she could only offer that it was probably due to her immaturity.
Bullying is not new, but social networking sites like Facebook and twitter, and the rise of blogging, have escalated opportunities for nastiness and vitriol. And it's not only 'immature' teenagers who are participating. For all their positive uses, these sites are increasingly places where people who wouldn't generally act this way in public, disparage others and then encourage 'friends' to 'like' and comment on their diatribes. These sites are increasingly home to narcissistic, egocentric, attention- seekers who confuse freedom of speech with license to slander.
A recent report on cyberbullying in 24 countries by the Ipsos Social Research Institute ranked Australia worse for bullying than any of the European countries, the US, Britain or China. Cyber safety expert and former Victorian police member Susan McLean reports that cyberbully-related suicides are increasing. But the harm isn’t just reflected in the taking of one’s life.
Adolescents’ psychologist and founding member of the National Centre against Bullying, Dr Michael Carr Gregg, says, "I think there is a desperate need in this country for young people and their parents to be clear about the definition of bullying and cyberbullying and for those who engage in this behaviour to be held accountable under law."
So where are the adult role models? Difficult to find. The recent and continuing example of online vilification aimed at author, blogger and campaigner for women and girls, Melinda Tankard Reist, highlights the need for some basic rules of engagement for online behaviour.
I became friends with Tankard Reist a few years ago when we were speaking out about the sexualisation of children. We have both copped our share of false accusations and often threatening comments online and via email. To try to retain our sense of humour, we started to compare notes as to who received the most vile abuse. At one point I thought I was ahead, but recently, I conceded defeat. Tankard Reist definitely took the lead. But really, it’s not funny. It’s relentless, harsh, and has a deep impact. And it appears it's the price to be paid for being a woman with strong views in the public arena, as highlighted by Christine Jackman in a feature piece in the Weekend Australian magazine last year.
I have been aware of misinformation about Tankard Reist for some time. I have read cruel and disparaging comments and distortions of truth printed on Facebook and hosted on blogs and websites. However, none of this prepared me for the onslaught of vilification, hate speech and ad hominem attacks that emerged in the aftermath of the profile article about her by Rachael Hills in Sunday Life magazine last month.
Dr Carr Gregg, who also chairs the Cybersafety Committee of the National Centre Against Bullying says, "There is no doubt in my mind that Melinda Tankard Reist is the victim of a concerted campaign by a group of people who intentionally and repeatedly tell lies about her and seek to damage her reputation – that by any definition is bullying."
Engaging with bullies is often pointless and prolonged discussion usually only reinforces their behaviour. "The standard advice to someone being bullied is to tell those in authority. Naming the behaviour for what it is and ensuring that they are held accountable is key." says Carr-Gregg. "The conventional wisdom advises that once the subject of the bullying has said "I don't like that – it is bullying" and it continues – (as is the case with Tankard Reist) there is no point in entering into a prolonged discussion with that person, as you just reinforce their behaviour and offer them further opportunities to harass you. It is axiomatic that you walk away, cease any further contact and seek assistance from the authorities”.
After Tankard Reist sought legal advice a letter was sent to Dr Jennifer Wilson stating that certain claims on Wilson’s blog were 'false and unwarranted, and seriously defamatory.' As is standard in such actions, the letter asked for a retraction of (allegedly) defamatory posts, a formal apology from Dr Wilson, and recovery of legal costs. Wilson then posted details of the letter on her blog which in turn fuelled numerous accusations that Tankard Reist was a bully.
Requesting someone to stop printing (alleged) lies, untruths or misrepresentation is not bullying. Not even when the request comes via a lawyer. People are entitled to respond to criticisms and attacks upon their character and standing. As Othello says, “He that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.” In such circumstances, the bully is not the person who is disparaged and asks to be treated civilly, but the one who does the disparaging.
Bullies gain power in numbers. It's the group bravado mentality. Minds on loudspeaker. No filter. No brakes. No care. We know it happens with teenagers but it also happens with adults who should know better.
For example children's scriptwriter and father of two Duncan Fine retweeted : "So, has anyone found naked pictures of #mtr? She is rootable in that religious feminist way." DazzyD88 tweeted 'Sharon Haywood and Melinda Tankard's could both suck my dick. Fucking bitches."
When Geoff Lemon (who writes for the ABC) tweeted that he was going to watch porn when Tankard Reist was on Q&A, ethicist Leslie Cannold added: "Have an abortion, too. Then she'll really hate u RT @geofflemon: Going to watch porn this week to piss @MelTankardReist off #qanda."
People seem to think it is their right to say whatever they want on the internet, and that they do not have to take responsibility for it, or for its consequences. However, as barrister Wendy Harris SC emphasised in The Age , the same legal rules apply whether you publish a book, tweet, blog or Facebook post. It is incumbent upon writers to check their sources and not believe everything they read online, no matter how many lemmings repeat it.
Commenting on a recent case involving Andrew Bolt, Cannold wrote (published in the SMH ) that "Australia also has defamation laws that demand those exercising free speech rights accept the responsibility of getting their facts right." Yet it appears she is leading the charge against Tankard Reist.
In 1980, I knew who my bullies were. To some degree it was a contained situation and it stopped when high school finished. Cyberbullying, however, spreads like wildfire and is almost impossible to extinguish. Lies, disparaging comments and character assassinations continue like spot fires and there is no shortage of people with questionable motives who want to get in on the ‘action’, eager to add more fuel.
The internet has become the new frontier for brazen somebodies and anonymous nobodies to bask in self glorification behind their computer screens and write whatever they feel like at any moment. Professor of Law, Elizabeth Handsley calls it 'The incivility of the internet'.
I support Melinda Tankard Reist's decision to seek redress to protect her work and reputation.
Whatever happens next legally, I hope this is the beginning of a national debate about what is and is not acceptable online. Bullying needs to be addressed if we are to flourish in a civil and decent society.
I have just read some predictable and amusing (but done to death) assumptions about me, courtesy of comments left on Dr Jennifer Wilsons blog.
In reference to Dr Michael Carr Gregg and myself 'Matthew' writes:
"They're all the fucking same aren't they? They can call you or Leslie Cannold or me or anyone
else a bully, but they're still knee deep in the religious right and no amount of playing the victim is going to change that. They seriously shit me to tears."
"knee deep in the religious right" ...
I, Julie Gale, hereby confess that I did go to church with my grandmother quite a bit before the age of 10. It made her happy. I also attended Sunday school when I was very young and my close friends mother was the teacher...she was lovely. We had fun. I have also attended numerous churches and synagogues for weddings, bar mitzvahs and funerals - not all fun, but there you go.
I confess that, in my adult life, it is possible I have conversed with and even befriended people who may or may not have had personal beliefs that differ from mine - or even worse who may have had religious affiliations that I have not been the slightest bit interested in.
I also confess that my 2004 show at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival was performed at a venue called 'Chapel off Chapel'.
"They seriously shit me to tears".
Matthew pet, save your tears. I forgive you for assuming that I am knee deep in the religious right. (and Dr Jennifer Wilson will be pleased to read this, because apparently she is currently working on a secular exploration of forgiveness) Yes Jennifer, I forgive Matthew and all the others who spend countless hours online making up strong, eloquent, straw man arguments that look so good in print.
If only I'd have realised all those Sundays with Nan would lead to so much trouble!
The Corporate takeover of childhood: who’s paying the price?
Important Conference March 2012. Highly recommended.
The 3rd Australian Conference on Children and the Media
Friday 9 March 2012 9am - 5pm
Telstra 242 Conference Centre
242 Exhibition Street (cnr Lonsdale St)
Our society is overflowing with products targeted at children. But are children healthier, happier and more content?
The evidence shows that this is not the case. Where are the protections for children in predatory commercial environments?
This seminar will explore the issues, review the research and discuss possible remedies.
Prof Stephen Kline (author Globesity) - Fast Food/Sluggish Kids: Researching media - saturated domesticity.
- Jane Caro (the Gruen Planet) - Industry perspectives on advertising and marketing to children
- Prof Rob Moodie - Advertising to death: The promotion of unhealthy behaviours.
- Prof Elizabeth Handsley - How well does the law protect children from commercialism?
- Prof Douglas Gentile - Recent research on video game addiction; what factors make games more addictive?
- Dr Wayne Warburton - What effects do narratives in advertising have on children?
- Prof Sharon Beder (author This little kiddie went to market ) - The corporate capture of childhood
- Dr Wendy Varney - Marketing toys to children
- Dr C Glenn Cupit - How should parents and communities respond?
- Julie Gale (Kf2bK) - Being a child in a commercialised world
Chaired by Prof Alan Hayes, Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies
Early Bird to Jan 16 - $220 (ARACY members $200)
Full registration (Jan 17 to Mar 9) $275 (ARACY members $250)
Student /Concession $130
NOTE: ARACY membership is free.
Phone 02 6248 2400 to become an ARACY member, or if an existing member, to obtain the discount promotion code.
Book online at: www.trybooking.com/BAIY
For more information, contact
or PH 08 8376 2111
HELP SPREAD THE WORD. PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTICE TO YOUR NETWORKS
ACCM - The Australian Council on Children and the Media
ARACY - Australian Research Alliance For Children and Youth
Proudly supported by Telstra
Diva Jewellery Store remains silent but has started to withdraw Playboy range from shelves.
Congratulations to Collective Shout for campaigning against DIva.
Nearly 7,000 people signed the petition in suppport of their call for Diva to stop selling the Playboy range. Diva's target market is 8 - 14 year old girls.
Kids Free 2B Kids hopes that Diva has taken this petition and boycott seriously and withdraws the Playboy range completely - we believe that many stores still have some of the product on the shelves. Not good enough!
Read more from Melinda Tankard Reist - co founder of Collective Shout.
For regular updates and latest news - visit the KF2BK facebook.
Diva jewellery grooming young girls to wear the major brand of the porn industry.
Diva, whose target market is tween to teenage girls, recently added the Playboy brand to its jewellery range.
Sign petition below.Diva is owned by BB Retail who also own Adairs and Bras'n things. These stores have been blatantly advertising Playboy merchandise in major family shopping centres for some time.
It is shameful corporate irresponsibility to introduce the Playboy brand to a store that is frequented by young girls.
There has been much public outcry over this decision - and so far, no comment from the company.
KF2BK Director Julie Gale has left two messages on the Diva Facebook page:
To the management - Promoting Playboy is promoting the porn industry - it's that simple. Increasing research informs us that exposure to adult sexualised concepts is harmful to children & young teens. Kids are constantly bombarded with pornified images and your company is contributing to that harm. You can choose to act on what child development professionals advise - or continue to help desensitise a new generation of kids about what the 'cute' bunny ear brand really stands for. Julie Gale - Director Kids Free 2B Kids.
To the Management - if you are thinking that all this interest is good advertising - think again. When 'Cotton On' sold t-shirts for little kids with adult sexualised humour on them - there was huge public outcry. In fact the call for a boycott spread to New Zealand as well. Eventually the Cotton On CEO acknowledged that his buyers had made the wrong decision and the company withdrew over 40,000... items of clothing Australia wide. It was reactive responsibility - but at least it was responsibility. We congratulate Collective Shout on their call for a boycott and have signed their petition. We call on Diva to take responsible action and stop marketing the major brand of the porn industry to young girls. Julie Gale Director Kids Free 2B Kids.
Kids Free 2B Kids supports the boycott and petition led by Collective Shout.
Read more about Diva and Playboy in this excellent blog post by CEO of Enlighten Education -
Keep up with the latest - join us on Facebook.
KF2BK recommends these upcoming seminars in Adelaide & Perth.
The Australian Council on Children and the Media is proud to present:
STEVE BIDDULPH ON RAISING GIRLS
Monday September 26 at Immanuel College Auditorium, Novar Gardens. Adelaide.
7.15 pm for 7.30 pm start
A seminar for all those concerned about what is happening to girls from babyhood to teens.
All over the world, sexualisation, obsession with looks and anxieties are making girls' lives tough. Steve will talk about what mums, dads, communities and the media need
to do to bring back healthy lives for girls and young women.
Girlhood is meant to be an adventure, full of broad interests and a love of life.
Lets win back girlhood !
Bookings must be made in advance: Book NOW
For more info contact firstname.lastname@example.org or PH 08 8376 2111
We regret that no babies or children can be admitted.
Generation Next Seminar - Perth 23rd September
A public seminar aimed at understanding the unique health and wellbeing
challenges facing generations Y & Z - and how these challenges can be met!
Fabulous line up of speakers!