National virtue and the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse in Australia

Abstract

Most studies of the media sexualisation of children debate focus on its significance in terms of discourses of sexuality and gender. This article makes observations about public meetings called to express concern about media sexualisation held in several Australian capital cities 2009–2010 to argue that media sexualisation is also meaningful in relation to discourses of nation. Drawing on the claim made by Valerie Walkerdine that concern with the eroticisation of girls is a defence against acknowledgement of difficult sexual desires and Gayle Rubin’s observation that concerns with children’s sexuality often carry other political agendas, this article argues that the concern with media sexualisation of children in the Australian context carries meaning about national identity and national virtue. It places the emergence of the discourse in the recent history of revelations about the systemic abuse of children by the state and the Christian churches throughout the 20th century and into this century, and argues that the media sexualisation discourse constitutes subjects who, via their investment in innocence, are exonerated from any culpability in this compromising national history.

Keywords

Australia children innocence media sexualisation national identity national virtue

The early years of the 21st century have seen the growing prominence in Australia, as in some other western countries, of a discourse of concern about, and opposition to, ‘the media sexualisation of children’. The media sexualisation of children discourse takes as its object increasingly sexually explicit popular culture representations of, and address to, children. In the Australian context (and elsewhere, e.g. APA, 2007) it is most often, and sometimes explicitly, girls and young women who are at the heart of concern. Increasingly sexually explicit popular culture is linked to a range of problematised sexualised behaviours by girls and young women, body-image disorders and low self-esteem in girls and young women and the sexual abuse of girls and women. Those who promote the discourse urge greater parental control of children’s use of media and more state regulation of media and of children’s access to it (Biddulph, 2009: 168–169). In Australia this included, for example, the Australian government’s proposal for mandated filtering of internet content.¹

The release in October 2006 of the report entitled Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of Children in Australia (Rush and LaNauze, 2006a; see also Rush and LaNauze, 2006b) by the Australia Institute, an independent left-wing think tank, is widely regarded as formally initiating debate about media sexualisation in Australia. Several other texts for the popular reading market have followed (Hamilton, 2008; Maguire, 2008; Tankard Reist, 2009a). The discourse has achieved considerable prominence in the mainstream media and motivated an inquiry by the Australian Senate (Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee, 2008). In the state parliament of South Australian it underpinned the introduction of legislation to classify magazines marketed to girls and young women (Lensink, 2011).

In her elaboration of the Finnish context regarding pornography Susanna Paasonen (2009: 586) observes that ‘local histories are under studied’. Arguably, the same holds for media sexualisation discourses. While the Australian discourse on media sexualisation of children shares many features with similar discourses produced elsewhere this article sets out to identify some of the specificity of the Australian discourse and, as Paasonen notes of pornography (2009: 586), to make evident ‘the diversity of the values and associations’ that adhere to it. The American Psychological Association’s report on the sexualisation of girls (APA, 2007), for example, is referred to widely in Australia but, following Paasonen (2009: 598), this does not mean that ‘the political investments are the same’.

The local and national specificity of the discourse in Australia is evident not only in the published texts, media debate and parliamentary engagement but also in public meetings to protest the media sexualisation of children that have been held in at least three state capital cities around the country. While the proponents of the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse in Australia (e.g. Tankard Reist, 2009b: 33) and those who challenge them (e.g. Lumby and Albury, 2010: 145–146) disagree about the size and significance of public concern about sexualisation these well-attended public meetings suggest that, if not a movement, there is certainly a popular (and socially well-connected) constituency available to be mobilised. These meetings are a current phenomenon at the time of writing but it is the three public meetings that I attended in the city of Adelaide, South Australia, held between October 2009 and May 2010, that are the beginning point of my analysis here of the media sexualisation discourse as it manifests in Australia.

Those who contest the ‘sexualisation of children’ discourse claim that it is based in the values of white, middle-class, heteronormative and patriarchal approaches to sexuality, gender and childhood. Danielle Egan and Gail Hawkes (2008b: 306) argue that it belies ‘anxiety about the infiltration of … what dominant culture conceptualizes as working class sexuality’. Those who challenge and critique the discourse stress the constructed and historically contingent nature of ‘childhood’ and in particular the idea of childhood innocence, arguing that the media sexualisation discourse depends on this notion (Faulkner, 2010). They implicitly or explicitly offer a critique of the epistemological and political assumptions of developmental psychology on which the media sexualisation discourse rests.² While not claiming psychological expertise Egan and Hawkes (2008b: 296), for example, argue that the concept of ‘sexualization as it is theorised in the literature … is beset by over generalization and ambiguity’. They argue for a move away from ‘universalizing arguments’ and away from innocence as the criteria against which girls’ sexuality gets measured and towards ‘a more historic and interdisciplinary approach’ (2008b: 308). Those who challenge the media sexualisation discourse argue that there is already adequate legislation which defines harm to children and provides measures to police it (McKee, 2010). They argue, in general, for the sexual agency of children and tend to see that knowledge of, rather than protection from, adult sexual culture and its power relations equips children best to ‘negotiate risk’ (Faulkner, 2010: 116; see also Burman, 2008: 90).

While my article takes this critique of the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse as its background it assumes that the performance of the discourse does not only produce sexualised effects (Taylor, 2010). The article is mostly concerned with identifying the dimension of the work that it performs in contemporary Australian culture that is related to national virtue. In her recent reflection on the last 25 years of the politics of sexuality US sexuality theorist Gayle Rubin has written that

one of the distinguishing features of this period … [has been] the extent to which legitimate concerns for the sexual welfare of the young have been vehicles for political mobilizations and policies with consequences well beyond their explicit aims, some quite damaging to the young people they are supposed to help. (Rubin, 2011: 37)

Writing specifically of ‘the eroticisation of little girls’ critical psychologist Valerie Walkerdine (2001) has already argued for understanding the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse more broadly than through its own declared concerns. She rejects the thesis that links sexy media images of little girls directly to their abuse (2001: 25) and, drawing from psychoanalytic theory, argues instead that the idea of childhood innocence and the desire for its return ‘becomes not the guarantor of the safety of children from the perversity of adult desires for them but a huge defense against the acknowledgement of dangerous desires on the part of adults’ (2001: 29, emphasis added). It is ‘questions of adult male sexuality and the place of that desire’ that is at issue, she argues (2001: 32). I wish to extend this idea of defence against to difficult acknowledgments which are not just sexual. In particular I wish to introduce white Australian national identity and national virtue as key cultural possessions at stake in the media sexualisation of children discourse.

Before elaborating that argument, however, I sketch some of the features of the public meetings that I attended in Adelaide. My aim here is to provide a sense of the local flavour of the discourse in action as a precursor to offering analysis of the national context in Australia. I hope this analysis will contribute to an understanding of the constitutive historical circumstances in which this discourse plays out.

The public meetings

The after-work meeting organised by the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA, 2013) in October 2009 was attended by about 70 people, mostly women, of a range of ages, who collectively appeared to be middle class. The YWCA provides services and programmes for young women and describes itself as ‘the leading voice for young women in South Australia’. The members see themselves as part of a global feminist movement. The main guest speaker, Melinda Tankard Reist, shared the platform with local psychologist Rita Princi and Anne Bunning, the CEO of the YWCA. The Anglican Archbishop and a state senator were in attendance. Tankard Reist is an author and commentator who came to national prominence in 2000 with a widely distributed book about (against) abortion (Tankard Reist, 2000). She has been widely associated with the similarly anti-abortion women’s organisation Women’s Forum Australia (WFA, 2011) and has strong links with ‘conservative Christian networks in Australia’ (Baxter, 2007). The talk at the YWCA coincided with the launch of Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls (Tankard Reist, 2009a), her collection of articles by some of the leading Australian contributors to the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse. Tankard Reist based her talk around a powerpoint presentation showing scores of popular culture images illustrating her argument.³ Each image was, so she said, worse than the one before, and the combination of her visual and verbal presentation drew audible gasps and exclamations of shock from the audience throughout. As she presented images of, or addressed to, girls and young women that she claimed were unacceptable she asked, more than once, ‘Why isn’t this illegal? Who said this was ok?’ She presented the example of an article titled ‘Oh My God My Boyfriend Wants Me To …’ from Dolly, a market-leading magazine aimed at teenage girls, which contained descriptions of oral and anal sex and ‘handjobs’. Tankard Reist proffered an alternative response to the clinical information in Dolly for 11-, 12- and 13-year-olds who are confronted with their boyfriend’s requests: ‘Hello, call the police; hello, tell your parents; get the guy arrested; find another boy to hang out with’.

The other two public meetings I attended, variations of the same event titled ‘Bratz, Britney and Bralettes’, were promoted jointly by the long-standing Australian Council on Children and the Media (ACCM) and the recently formed Kids Free to Be Kids (KF2BK, 2011). The event had previously been staged at Melbourne Girls Grammar, a prestigious private school, in August 2009 and shortly after the Adelaide meeting, it was put on twice in Perth, in collaboration there with the Western Australian government’s Department for Communities (ACCM, 2011). The audiences of about 300 people who attended each of the Adelaide evening meetings were, I presumed, made up predominantly, but not exclusively, of parents, mostly women, from the two private schools where the events were held. The first ACCM/KF2BK event was chaired by Matt Abrahams, a local ABC radio personality who brought both fatherly gravitas and (often comedic) media style. It featured Julie Gale, a 40-something mother and stand-up comedian and founder and driving force behind KF2BK who gave a humorous performance about her campaigns to keep the public environment child-friendly by keeping it free of sexually explicit material (see Gale, 2009). Legal academic and now President of ACCM Elizabeth Handsley also spoke, giving an overview of legislative possibilities for better regulation of advertising and media. The final, and best-known, speaker at the first ACCM/KF2BK event was Steve Biddulph, psychologist and well-known best-selling author of books about boys and men (see Biddulph, 2010, 1997). Biddulph is a master performer who tells stories, both moving and funny, in order to convey his message. He drew from his clinical practice to criticise media sexualisation and offer insights into the sexual worlds of teenage girls and the consequent dilemmas faced by their parents. The second Adelaide event, held six months later, featured Abrahams, Gale and Handsley again. The Adelaide Anglican Archbishop, Jeffrey Driver, and Rita Princi, also spoke. On this occasion another nationally well-known psychologist, Michael Carr-Gregg, a specialist in adolescent health and regular media commentator, was the most prominent speaker (see Carr-Gregg, 2005, 2006). He was pacey and funny and peppered his psychological analyses with anecdotes from his own parenting as well as observations from his private practice.

The combination of Abrahams’s light-hearted approach and Gale and Biddulph or Carr-Gregg gave both the ACCM/KF2BK events a humorous and uplifting tone. Biddulph’s and Carr-Gregg’s humour relied on accounts of the foibles of adolescents and the everyday flaws, mishaps and ironies of (middle-class) parenting and family life, often self-deprecatory. As elsewhere in Australian political discourse (Rolfe, 2010) the speakers’ humour both relied on and reinforced audience views, which coincided with their own, and enhanced the speakers’ credibility. The message delivered was an affirmation of the authority of (middle-class) parents over (sexualised) media and the new digital world of communication technologies and, indeed, over adolescents. Arguably it also relied on and delivered a nostalgia posited against a present time where young people negotiate sexual relationships in an ‘increasingly fluid and uncertain environment’ (Powell, 2010: 1) and indeed, where all manner of identities and boundaries are fluid and uncertain (see Brown, 2006: 699). In his contribution to Getting Real Biddulph (2009: 167), for example, laments the loss of a time of ‘nuanced relationships, which girls used to devour in books and poetry’, before ‘Aunties, grandmas, older women friends, even mothers themselves, became much less available to nurture and reassure, challenge and inform adolescent girls’ and when ‘fathers, uncles and grandfathers … ideally provided male affirmation and thoughtful conversation free of sexual pressure’. Biddulph’s appeal to this imagined past for girls echoes the close relationship to nostalgia that is widely observed of constructions of the innocent child. As Patricia Holland (1992: 15) has argued of visual images of children ‘In the constant renewal of childhood the lost harmonious past can remain forever present and promise a future in which innocence is regained’.

This tone was in stark contrast to the shock and outrage delivered by Melinda Tankard Reist’s presentation at the YWCA meeting. The shock value of the images she showed was emphasised by the cumulative effect of speedy presentation of images one after another.⁴ In her introduction to Getting Real she writes (Tankard Reist, 2009b, 33, 7) that ‘there’s a lot of dark material in this book’ and ‘some readers might take offence at what appears in this book and wish they hadn’t picked it up’. The necessity of facing up to unpleasant and disturbing material also underpinned her talk. This daring to deliver a necessary confrontation with offensive material resembles the literary production of ‘shock’ as observed by cultural historian Nicole Moore (Moore, 1997: 189). In order for taboos to be broken, Moore writes, ‘a reader’s acceptance of these taboos is presumed’. So, in order to produce shock in response to sexualised representations of children, the representations must be presented as outside the audience’s world. That is, the audience’s innocence in relation to sexualised images of girls is affirmed, as is the assumed virtue of this innocence. At the same time it is assumed that the audience will know what these images mean. The point here is that presenting images as shocking rules out consideration of other possible interpretations or inquiry into, for example, what the girls and young women (or boys or young men) who read the magazines or watch the MTV programmes or access adult porn might make of these texts.⁵

The YWCA and the ACCM/KF2BK events did not only deploy different affective registers. Tankard Reist’s talk focused on the degradation of girls as subjects in their own right and in this sense drew on a nascent feminism (without explicitly using the term). Further it is arguable that her talk constituted ‘women’ as the subject of the ‘media sexualisation of girls’ discourse. The ACCM/KF2BK events also drew on a simplistic ex-nominated feminist analysis of media representation (see Egan and Hawkes, 2008b: 297–298). But the concern at their events was for girls and young women as subjects of psychological development (Tankard Reist was less reliant on psychology to make her argument) and as part of the family unit. The subjects of the discourse as it was deployed at the ACCM/KF2BK events were ‘parents’.

Antipathy to corporate consumer culture was a central feature in the discourse of ‘media sexualisation of children’ at all three public meetings. It is important to note that as well as drawing on contemporary political opposition to the effects of global capitalism this opposition (in the epistemological sense) was essential to the origins of the European idea of the pure and innocent child in 18th–19th-century Romanticism. Joanne Faulkner (2010: 109–110) shows how at this moment of the co-evolution of capitalism and ‘the relegation of children and sex to the private sphere’ the innocent child represented, by definition, the other of the tarnished world of ‘society and the sphere of production’.

Recuperating national virtue

Introducing ‘national virtue’ into an account of the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse in Australia is not to argue that the discourse is not about children’s, especially girls’, sexuality. And it is not to diminish Walkerdine’s analysis (2001) that the discourse is a defence against the acknowledgement of dangerous adult, especially male, sexual desires. As Egan and Hawkes (2008a: 311) argue in their historical analysis the discourse mirrors and revives ‘earlier patriarchal discourses on the pathological nature of women’s sexuality’. But the politics of sexuality are often caught up in the politics of national identity: the 19th- and early 20th-century discourses to which Egan and Hawkes refer constructed ‘the precocious child’ as ‘capable of contaminating not only the future life of the adult but also the sanctity of the race and nation’ (2008a: 310, emphasis added). Arguing that the media sexualisation discourse is part of a shoring up of white Australian national virtue draws on a rich history of the interrelation between ideas about the child and dominant conceptions of western society, national health and colonial rule (Burman, 2010: 17–20; Stoler, 1995: 137–164). As Burman notes ‘the widespread slogan that “children are our future” highlights the links between individual children, notions of social progress and national welfare’ (Burman, 2010: 1).

In this context I want to suggest an alternative genealogy for the ‘media sexualisation of children’ debate in Australia. What if, instead of the usual reference to the 2006 Corporate Paedophilia report as the origins of the debate, we started with Bringing Them Home (National Inquiry, 1997)? This was the 1997 report of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) inquiry into the generations of Indigenous children removed from their families during the 20th century as part of deliberate government policies of assimilation and, as some have described it, ‘cultural genocide’. This would locate the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse in a widespread national discussion about the nature of the national past, and present, in relation to the treatment of children. In this genealogy Corporate Paedophilia is but the latest in a series of (contested) national inquiries and reports into the lives of children in Australia called for by various groups within the Australian body politic.

It is hard to overestimate the significance of Bringing Them Home to the Australian national imaginary. The political contestation that followed its release, a re-energisation of ‘the history wars’ begun in contest over Australia’s past during the nation’s 1988 bicentenary (Macintyre and Clark, 2003), has had far flung implications. The report’s recommendation that the federal government apologise to the stolen generations, and the then conservative Prime Minister John Howard’s refusal to do so through his four terms in government, made the issue of ‘the apology’ one of the key political issues of the Howard era. When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd took office after the 2007 election one of his government’s first major political acts was his apology to the stolen generations in February 2008. Opinion varies on the significance of that apology. Some have argued (e.g. Marren, 2010: 8) that it represented a coming to terms with ‘the cult of denial’ in relation to Indigenous peoples that has characterised white Australia national memory. Others, including many Indigenous commentators, see it as (Foley, 2008: 3) just the latest ‘in the long line of historically fraudulent acts and dishonest gestures that typify the Indigenous experience of all governments in Australian history’.

A history of recent Australian nationwide concern about the treatment of children does not just include the debates about the treatment of Indigenous children. In the wake of Bringing Them Home there have also been federal Senate reports on child migrants brought to Australia during and after the Second World War (Lost Innocents [Senate Community Affairs, 2001]) and on non-Indigenous Australians taken into care during the 20th century (Forgotten Australians [Senate Community Affairs, 2004], and numerous state and territory government inquiries into the care of children by the state, past and present.⁶ The reports create a growing documentation, if not collective awareness, of the widespread and systematic state-endorsed abuse of children, including their sexual abuse, throughout the 20th century in Australia. Indeed, in 2009 Prime Minister Rudd delivered another national apology – to the ‘Forgotten Australians’. Notwithstanding the two subsequent national apologies many of the recommendations of both federal and state reports remain outstanding. A recent history would also include the continual media stories of underfunding, crisis, and systemic breakdown in government departments charged with the protection of children at risk of abuse and neglect.⁷ As well as the revelations about the abuse of children in state care there have been constant revelations of the abuse of children within the Christian churches during the same period (see Porter, 2003). (The Anglican Archbishop made reference to this matter at the 2010 public meeting I referred to earlier). The abuse of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in state and church care has also been the subject of a number of feature films, most notably Rabbit Proof Fence (dir. Noyce, 2001), which concerns the removal of Indigenous children from their families, and most recently Oranges and Sunshine (dir. Loach, 2011) about child migrants to Australia in the mid-20th century. The implication of church and state coincided in an extraordinary political event in 2003 when the then Governor-General (the head of state), Peter Hollingworth, resigned over his poor handling of allegations of child sexual abuse while in his previous position as Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Brisbane (Baird, 2009). As I write the federal government's Royal Commission into institutional responses to the sexual abuse of children, motivated by sensational revelations about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, has commenced (Cullen, 2012).

The Australian national public has been confronted with the fact that children in great numbers have been systematically abused while in the care of the state and the churches. The viability of ‘innocence’ as an account of the state of childhood and of the nation and its historical past has been sorely strained. According to Indigenous scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson (Moreton-Robinson, 2004: 225–226) it was ‘the virtue of the white nation’ that fuelled ‘the history wars’. More specifically, she argues, it is ‘the virtue of white heterosexual men’ which is at stake, because it is they who ‘should be venerated and represented, for as agents of history they embody the true character of the nation’. At this point Moreton-Robinson’s observation brings the issue of national virtue and national accountability in response to the Indigenous stolen generations (and other children) to a coincidence with Walkerdine’s analysis of the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse. Both point to the virtue of (white) heterosexual men as a key cultural possession at stake in the respective debates on which they comment. The coincidence of their arguments allows a reading of the media sexualisation discourse as not only a defence against acknowledgement of dangerous adult sexual desires but also a defence against national (white, middle-class, patriarchal) culpability for the abuse of children, Indigenous children in particular.

By blaming ‘the media’ for all manner of sins against children the media sexualisation discourse homogenises and gives all power to an aggregated body of texts and reading practices which are imagined as outside the various social and cultural formations through which they are made meaningful (Giroux, 2000: 15–16). As US cultural studies and education writer Henry Giroux argues, the image of the paedophile, like the media (he specifies the sexual dangers of the Internet), ‘becomes a convenient excuse for ignoring the role that middle-class values and (other) institutional forms actually play in threatening the health and welfare of all children’ (2000: 16). Giroux identifies values such as ‘conspicuous consumption, conformity, snobbery and ostracism’ as well as reductions in welfare programmes and the undermining of public education (2000: 17) as forces that reproduce ‘racial, class and gender exclusions’. But the public meetings about the media sexualisation of children come to the defence of ‘girls’ not by naming and opposing middle-class values and the institutions and strategies of the neo-liberal state but by protecting their innocence against the imagined dangers of sexually explicit popular culture.

What about the girls?

I am not without sympathy for those who attended the meetings I observed who were looking for solutions to problems that beset them or their daughters or their students or clients (some members of the audiences identified themselves as health workers or teachers). It is important to acknowledge that the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse refers to some undeniably serious concerns for young women. But the conservative framing of the problems facing girls and young women and so the solutions offered by the sexualisation discourse are not the only ones available. Taking a significantly different slant, British media and cultural theorist Angela McRobbie describes the ‘thin tightrope’ (2009: 84) of an increasingly planned, managed and surveilled pathway for girls and young women. They are offered certain resources and freedoms while simultaneously being expected to become (2009: 15) the paradigmatically independent and self-managing individualised subjects of neo-liberal discourse. This increasingly narrow but intensely promoted space is one where feminism is, McRobbie argues, ‘fiercely repudiated, indeed almost hated’ (2009: 12) despite the fact that gender inequality and ‘old-fashioned’ sexist hostility persist (2009: 85; see also Baker, 2008). Anastasia Powell’s Australian research notes similar silencing particularly with respect to ‘young women’s continued experiences of sexual pressure, coercion and violence’ (Powell, 2010: 78, emphasis added). McRobbie sees the rising numbers of disordered young women as an effect of their loss of any publicly allowable language to register their protests (2009: 95). Not all feminist writers agree with McRobbie. With respect to sexualisation in particular Feona Attwood (2009: xxii) argues that ‘we need to move beyond the simple assumption that sexualisation is in the interests of boys and men’ and instead attend more to the experiences of young women. She argues (2009: xxiii) that ‘self-governance of sexual matters should not simply be taken as a slide into neo-liberalism’ but an opportunity for the development of an informed sexual citizenship’.

The 21st century requires a feminist politics that situates its critique of gender relations in a critique of neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the global economy as much as in a critique of girls’ magazines, the fashion industry and the fraught conditions of the new sexual freedoms that young women take up (McRobbie, 2009). Such a politics needs to accommodate ‘the challenging paradoxes of a commercialized cultural environment re-made by feminism’ (McNair, 2009: 71). Rebecca Munford (2009:196), for example, argues for an embrace of new opportunities for female sexual pleasure and power but always ‘in conjunction with a relentless critique of and intervention in the still pervasive forms of – frequently girl-powered – “ruthless sexism” in mainstream culture’. The Australian media sexualisation of children discourse as evident at the public meetings I attended constructs ‘women’ and ‘parent’ subjects whose desire is for either a nostalgic world for children centred in the family, cordoned off from ‘adult sexuality’, where the main strategy for safety is the reinstatement of an imagined boundary between public and private, or, in a different emotional register, censorship and prohibition and the law as a form of protection. The discourse does not allow young women a voice to express protest except through a call for their protection from not only sexual media but also ‘inappropriate’ sexual knowledge, and a nostalgia for an imagined time located before they were born. Whether through a politics of nostalgia or outrage the discourse is ‘centred in fixing and enforcing meanings, conserving certain ways of life, and repressing and regulating desire’ and openly affirms ‘moralized state power’, hallmark features of neo-conservatism in the USA as identified by Wendy Brown (Brown, 2006: 692). That it is a hybrid political rationality, bearing traces of feminism and left-wing anti-corporatism as well as key signs of neo-conservatism is not unique (Brown, 2006: 696). The relative absence of a more expansive feminism which would deliver (Powell, 2010: 78) ‘alternative models for an active, desiring female sexuality’ is, similarly if depressingly, nothing new.

But the ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse does not only engage discourses of gender and sexuality. It offers a response to a sense of national crisis, also a function of the neo-conservatism that Brown identifies in the USA (Brown, 2006: 699). I have argued that in Australia this is a crisis in national virtue brought about (in this context) by constant allegations of the sexual (and other) abuse of children inside mainstream institutions, past and present, and, in particular, revelations about the cruelty of various governments throughout the 20th century to Indigenous children and their families. The ‘media sexualisation of children’ discourse exonerates those who are constituted through it from complicity in these problems. It (re-)establishes boundaries that are imagined to have existed in some time prior to this cultural confusion – boundaries between public and private and those categories that are underpinned by this binary: men and women, adult and child, media and family, sex and love. It also (re)establishes boundaries between middle class and working class and, I have argued, between good nations that care for their children and bad nations that do not.

The emotional registers created at the meetings I attended enable the audiences who are drawn to the media sexualisation of children discourse to distance themselves from their inevitable and often privileged location as citizens of a nation still wedded to its colonial past (as well as their implication in complex constructions of desire). In reinventing the family and the state as the proper authorities in the sphere of sexuality the discourse avoids acknowledging the centrality of these institutions as past and present sites of (sexual) danger for children. Reinvesting in innocence, whether pertaining to childhood or to the nation, restates long-standing foundations of colonial modernity that impede rather than facilitate historical accountability, including to children treated so badly in the past. It also impedes progress in gender equality and the sexual welfare of children in the present.

Footnotes

Notes

Barbara Baird works in the Women’s Studies program at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Her research interests focus around historical and contemporary cultural politics of gender and sexuality in Australian contexts and their imbrications with discourses of race and nation. She recognises that she lives and works on the land of the Kaurna people, the traditional Indigenous owners who have never ceded their sovereignty over this country.

References

ABC (2010) Dangerous Territory. Four Corners, ABC 8 November 2010. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s3060325.htm (accessed 24 January 2011).

ACCM – Australian Council on Children and Media (2011) About Us. Available at: http://www.youngmedia.org.au/aboutus/about_yma.htm (accessed 31 January 2011).

APA – American Psychological Association (2007) Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx (accessed 27 January 2012).

Attwood

(2009) Introduction: The sexualization of culture. In: Attwood

(eds) Mainstreaming Sex: The Sexualization of Western Culture, London: IB Tauris, pp. xiii–xxiv.

Baird

(2009) The resignation of the Governor-General: Family drama and national reproduction. Cultural Studies Review 15(1): 65–87.

Baker

(2008) The ideology of choice. Overstating progress and hiding injustice in the lives of young women: Findings from a study in North Queensland, Australia. Women’s Studies International Forum 31(1): 53–64.

Baxter B (2007) ‘Pro-life feminists’: Melinda Tankard Reist. Unbelief.org. Exposing the Religious Right in Australia. Available at: http://unbelief.org/articles/melinda-tankard-reist/ (accessed 14 January 2011).

Biddulph

(1997) Raising Boys: Why Boys are Different, and How to Help Them Become Happy and Well-Balanced Men, Sydney: Finch Publishing.

Biddulph

(2009) How girlhood was trashed and what we can do to get it back: A father’s view. In: Tankard Reist

(eds) Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, North Melbourne: Spinifex, pp. 163–169.

10.

Biddulph

(2010) The New Manhood: The Handbook for a New Kind of Man, 4th edn. Warriewood, NSW: Finch Publishing.

11.

Brown

(2006) American nightmare: Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-democratization. Political Theory 34(6): 690–714.

12.

Burman

(2008) Deconstructing Developmental Psychology, 2nd edn. Hove: Routledge.

13.

Burman

(2010) Developments. Child, Image, Nation, London: Routledge.

14.

Carr-Gregg

(2005) Surviving Adolescents: The Must-Have Manual for All Parents, Camberwell, Vic: Penguin.

15.

Carr-Gregg

(2006) The Princess Bitchface Syndrome: Surviving Adolescent Girls, Camberwell, Vic: Penguin.

16.

Coorey P (2012) Conroy backs away from internet filter. Sydney Morning Herald 9 November. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroy-backs-away-from-internet-filter–20121108–290ym.html (accessed 27 December 2012).

17.

Cullen S (2012) Gillard launches royal commission into child abuse. ABC News Monday 12 November. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/gillard-launches-royal-commission-into-child-abuse/4367364 (accessed 12 April 2013).

18.

Egan

Hawkes

(2008a) Girls, sexuality and the strange carnalities of advertisements: Deconstructing the discourse of corporate paedophilia. Australian Feminist Studies 23(57): 307–322.

19.

Egan

Hawkes

(2008b) Endangered girls and incendiary objects: Unpacking the discourse on sexualisation. Sexuality and Culture 12(4): 291–311.

20.

Faulkner

(2010) The innocence fetish: The commodification and sexualisation of children in the media and popular culture. Media International Australia 135: 106–117.

21.

Foley

(2008) Duplicity and deceit: Gary Foley’s take on Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations. Melbourne Historical Journal 36: 1–6.

22.

Gale

(2009) One woman’s activism: Refusing to be silent. In: Tankard Reist

(eds) Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, North Melbourne: Spinifex, pp. 163–170.

23.

Giroux

(2000) Stealing Innocence. Youth, Corporate Power, and the Politics of Culture, New York: Palgrave.

24.

Hamilton

(2008) What’s happening to our girls?, Camberwell, Vic: Viking.

25.

Holland

(1992) What is a Child? Popular Images of Childhood, London: Virago Press.

26.

Kids Free to Be Kids (2011) Available at: http://www.kf2bk.com/ (accessed 14 January 2011).

27.

Lensink M (2011) Labor fails to protect our teenagers. Media release 10 March 2011. Available at: http://www.michellelensink.com/news/137/labor-fails-to-protect-our-teenagers (accessed 12 April 2013).

28.

Lumby

Albury

(2010) Too much? Too young? The sexualisation of children debate in Australia. Media International Australia 135: 141–152.

29.

Maguire

(2008) Princesses and Pornstars: Sex, Power and Identity, Melbourne: Text.

30.

Macintyre

Clark

(2003) The History Wars, Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press.

31.

Marren S (2010) ‘In history’s page, let every stage’: Australia’s post-apology landscape. Outskirts: Feminisms Along the Edge 23. Available at: http://www.chloe.uwa.edu.au/outskirts/archive/volume23/marren (accessed 14 January 2011).

32.

McKee

(2010) Everything is child abuse. Media International Australia 135: 131–140.

33.

McNair

(2009) From porn chic to porn fear: The return of the repressed? In: Attwood

(eds) Mainstreaming Sex: The Sexualization of Western Culture, London: IB Tauris, pp. 55–76.

34.

McRobbie

(2009) The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change, London: SAGE.

35.

Moore N (1997) Covert operations: Abortion in Australian women’s fiction 1920s–1950, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland.

36.

Moreton-Robinson

(2004) Indigenous history wars and the virtue of the White Nation. In: Carter

(eds) The Ideas Market: An Alternative Take on Australia’s Intellectual Life, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, pp. 219–235.

37.

Munford

(2009) BUST-ing the third wave: Barbies, blowjobs and girlie feminism. In: Attwood

(eds) Mainstreaming Sex: The Sexualization of Western Culture, London: IB Tauris, pp. 183–198.

38.

National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families (Australia) / [Commissioner: Ronald Wilson] (1997) Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

39.

Paasonen

(2009) Healthy sex and pop porn: Pornography, feminism and the Finnish context. Sexualities 12(5): 586–604.

40.

Porter

(2003) Sex, Power and the Clergy, South Yarra, Vic: Hardie Grant Books.

41.

Powell

(2010) Sex, Power and Consent: Youth Culture and the Unwritten Rules, Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Rolfe

(2010) The pleasures of political humour in Australian democracy. Journal of Australian Studies 34(3): 363–376.

43.

Rubin

(2011) Blood under the bridge: Reflections on ‘Thinking Sex’. GLQ 17(1): 15–48.

44.

Rush

La Nauze

(2006a) Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of Children in Australia, Canberra: Australia InstituteDiscussion Paper 90.

45.

Rush

La Nauze

(2006b) Letting Children Be Children: Stopping the Sexualisation of Children in Australia, Canberra: Australia InstituteDiscussion Paper 93.

46.

Senate Community Affairs References Committee (Rosemary Crowley) (2001) Lost Innocents: Righting the Record: Report on Child Migration, Canberra: Senate Community Affairs References Committee Secretariat.

47.

Senate Community Affairs References Committee (Stephen Hutchins and Jan McLucas) (2004) Forgotten Australians : A Report on Australians who Experienced Institutional or Out-of-Home Care as Children, Canberra: Senate Community Affairs References Committee.

48.

Senate Community Affairs References Committee [Jan McLucas and Gavin Marshall] (2005) Protecting Vulnerable Children – A National Challenge: Second Report on the Inquiry into Children in Institutional or Out-of-Home Care. Canberra: Community Affairs References Committee.

49.

Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee (2008) Inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment. Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/report/index.htm (accessed 13 January 2011).

50.

Stoler

(1995) Race and the Education of Desire, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

51.

Tankard Reist

(2000) Giving Sorrow Words: Women’s Stories of Grief after Abortion, Sydney: Duffy and Snellgrove.

52.

Tankard Reist

(2009a) Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, North Melbourne: Spinifex.

53.

Tankard Reist

(2009b) The pornification of girlhood: We haven’t come a long way baby. In: Tankard Reist

(eds) Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, North Melbourne: Spinifex, pp. 5–40.

54.

Taylor

(2009) Troubling childhood innocence: Reframing the debate over the media sexualisation of children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 35(1): 48–57.

55.

Walkerdine

(2001) Safety and danger: Childhood, sexuality and space at the end of the millennium. In: Hultqvist

Dahlberg

(eds) Governing the Child in the New Millennium, New York: Routledge Farmer, pp. 15–34.

56.

WFA – Women’s Forum Australia (2013) Home Page. Available at: http://www.womensforumaustralia.org/index (accessed 21 April 2013).

57.

YWCA (2009–2013) Available at: http://www.ywca.com.au/campaigns/current/#SOG (accessed 12 January 2011).