|
Response to Taylor:
The full picture of the sexualisation of children debate
Emma Rush
Charles Sturt University
IN HER REVIEW AND REFRAMING of ‘the Australian public media debate over the sexualisation of children in the media’, Affrica Taylor claims that ‘loss of innocence is the fundamental concern’, and portrays the debate as simply a ‘moral panic’ characteristic of the history of introductions of new media to children (2010, p. 48, p. 52, p. 49). While Taylor is correct to identify and critique concerns about ‘loss of innocence’ as part of the public media debate, the debate can only be reduced to such concerns by misrepresenting or leaving aside logically independent sources of concern. Hence, Taylor provides an inadequate view of the debate to early childhood professionals who are aware of and concerned about the sexualisation of children but not necessarily familiar with the full depth of discussion on the topic. I introduce the public policy debate over the sexualisation of children, which is based on both research evidence and expert opinion from those working in the areas of children’s health and welfare. This debate exists both beyond and entwined with the media debate. Attention to the policy-relevant literature reveals that Taylor’s reframing significantly distorts the full range of issues raised by the corporate-led sexualisation of children along three major axes. First, while post-structuralist attention to micropolitics is important, it does not render appropriate attention to macropolitics redundant. Second, stereotypical, rather than age-inappropriate, sexuality is the primary focus in the debate over the sexualisation of children. Third, child health, wellbeing and safety are the driving concerns for professionals and policy-makers.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood – Volume 36 No 4 December 2011
Don't forget, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood is tax deductible for early childhood professionals
You can purchase this issue of the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood now.
|
