 |
| Part of the famous 'bikini girls' mosaic found in the ancient Roman villa unearthed near Piazza Armerina, Sicily |
A friend has linked me a post on the feminist blog, Jezebel. I don't follow it myself. She's a fashion designer, and one that I admire, which is saying something. I'm really not a fan of most fashions, for various reasons, and frankly this is one of them. When you get people all striving to look pretty, to stand out in ways that carefully remain within the acceptable parameters of their culture (or subculture), you get more and more extreme stuff. With adult fashion that's not necessarily a problem, though it can be both amusing and annoying - actually, some adult fashion I really like - but we're not talking adult fashion here.
What are we talking about? Padded bikinis for eight year olds.
Yeah. That wasn't a typo and this isn't a joke. The article is here.
 |
| Abercrombie & Fitch: Kids - Ashley range |
Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch: Kids have decided that with the summer season approaching in America the next greatest fashion item is a fetching padded bikini top for little girls as young as eight. It's part of a two-piece range called Ashley and you can find it by doing a web search for 'Abercrombie Fitch Ashley bikini'. I'm not going to link their store from here; this matter disgusts me that much. The attached picture will have to do.
Okay, let's start with the basics.
Why, in the first instance, does a child that young need a bikini at all? The bikini is designed to emphasise a woman's curves, providing bands of striking colour around the two most prominent areas - the breasts and hips - while both exposing and contrasting the waist and midriff. An eight year old doesn't have womanly curves and shouldn't, because an eight year old girl is not a woman. Bikinis enhance sexual attractiveness. It's what they do; it's what they're supposed to do. Why is a two-piece swimming costume getting anywhere near a little kid?
Even if we push past that glaring issue, and as responsible adults we most definitely shouldn't, what kind of sick and morally defunct person thought, 'Oh hey, you know what this bikini top, which in no way sexualises the children that parents would be putting these on, really needs? Well, the bikini itself is pretty wasted as little girls generally don't have much/any breast tissue at eight - generally - so what we need to do is pad it! yeah! I'm not messed up at all!'
 |
© Raimond Spekking / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 & GFDL A bikini worn by a human female actually old enough to wear it |
And why - this really hurts my brain to contemplate - why on this good green Earth are parents actually surprised at how young children are exploring sex? Developmental psychology is all well and good but there's a big difference between being curious and being compelled to try it out. And now there's some morally devoid company producing what are, let's be blunt, fake breasts for pre-teens!
In that article a child psychologist, Dr Michael Bradley, is quoted as saying:
"One, we're shaping their beliefs. We're actually teaching them that this is their primary value in this culture, that's what they're all about. Second, we're shaping their behavior. We find that kids that get into this stuff do get into high risk early-onset sexual behavior. Third, we whack their body image. We tell them "You're not okay as you are. You have to use this kinda stuff". Finally, we're taking their childhoods away from them. At age eight we throw them into this pressurized, high anxiety world they're not ready to handle and we think it's part of why we see so much depression and anxiety in kids."No offence to Dr Bradley, and I do agree with him, but isn't all of this just (un)common sense? If you raise a child brutally they'll likely be brutal to others in turn (this is known as the cycle of abuse, and these recurring patterns don't only hold true with violence). If you teach a child to hunt he'll likely grow up a hunter. If you put a bit of clothing on someone that emphasises what they don't have (but others do) they'll likely wish they had it, and feel bad for not. If we push them towards intrinsically adult behaviours their natural urge to be children suffers. I mean, why do they need to get a child psychologist to point this stuff out? Why don't people understand this already?
He goes on to say, when asked 'if the onus should be placed on the parents of these kids':
"Yeah, but not to do the thing we wanna do. Don't yell and scream, no way. Ask your kid what they think about the stuff. You have to shape their beliefs. Engage your enemy on the battlefield of beliefs. Ask her why she does it, what she gets out of it, what the payoff is, where this is gonna to go."I hate the continual use and misuse of the word 'onus'. All respect to the writer of that article at Jezebel, and no disrespect meant to Dr Bradley, but 'onus' is the wrong word to use there. Why? Because it implies individual and sole responsibility.
This is not one issue. There is no one 'onus'. This isn't a matter of only parents being responsible, though they certainly should feel responsible for some of this. This matter is, as Dr Bradley points out, cultural as much as individual.
Yes, the 'onus' is indeed on parents to talk to their kids, to communicate and to take a proactive hand in shaping their beliefs and values. I think his exact approach, as stated above, is not going to work for all kids and parents need to take an individualised approach to the little individuals they're raising, but the premise is sound.
 |
| Two girls, picture © the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation |
I'm not even a parent and I understand this.
However, having said that, the 'onus' is most definitely on Abercrombie & Fitch: Kids to admit fault, be held responsible, and taken to task, for letting this disgusting little piece of child-whoring* trash past concept stage. The responsibility lies with the sick person who designed it, the sick person who agreed it was a good idea, the sick people who agreed to produce it and the utterly sick people who decide to sell it in their stores - not to mention the parents who actually buy this rubbish.
The onus is on designers of fashion, which the friend who showed me this article is, to ask themselves seriously if their designs are appropriate. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. That's the difference between 'capability' and 'morality', folks. it's not good enough to say, 'Oh well. We're just selling clothing, it's not our responsibility if someone actually buys it.' Yes, it is your responsibility. You caused it. That's called 'closing a sale'. It's what this thing called 'marketing' is for.
And the same duty and responsibility is on everyone at every step of the way from paper to product, from designer's brain to shopper's bag, to ask the same simple, basic question: 'Is this appropriate?'
No. It is not.
* = Please note: I have no issue with legal prostitution as long as it's consensual, clean, adult and extremely well-monitored. But children should not be whored out under any circumstances and that's precisely what these bikinis do. They take a culture of sexualisation normally reserved for legal consenting adults and apply it to kids, the basis of which is money (on the company and store's behalf) and attention (on the parent's - 'Oh, what a lovely little daughter you have! And her pre-teen breasts are so perky!'). This is wrong, people!
No comments:
Post a Comment