I've been retired for several years so nine year old girls are an even bigger mystery to me than they used to be.
I have a straightforward question. The dance routines, etc. were suggestive rather than explicit. Would they have meant the same to the girls as they did to you? Did the girls understand what was being symbolically portrayed? Did they understand the dances in the way that you understood them?
Using somewhat old-fashioned language -- if the girls were innocent would the dancing have harmed their innocence?
My concern is not so much that they will be harmed per se but more that the acceptance that this sort of depiction of women singers and dancers is the norm and that those who find it uncomfortable in a show where young girls in particular are part of the audience are portrayed as prudes and old fashioned in some way.
If young people are continually bombarded with these images of women they are influenced by that. I used to have that concern when my children were younger and watched MTV which seemed to have a preponderance of videos by male singers with sexualised imagery and extremely provocative female dancers in the background.
I didn't stop them watching but we had some quite lively discussions about the way women (and men) can be used as sexual objects in the media and often they disagreed with me but sometimes they saw my point of view. At least they are able to question things and not just accept that because it is what they see all around them it makes it right.
My concern is not so much that they will be harmed per se but more that the acceptance that this sort of depiction of women singers and dancers is the norm and that those who find it uncomfortable in a show where young girls in particular are part of the audience are portrayed as prudes and old fashioned in some way.
If young people are continually bombarded with these images of women they are influenced by that. I used to have that concern when my children were younger and watched MTV which seemed to have a preponderance of videos by male singers with sexualised imagery and extremely provocative female dancers in the background.
I didn't stop them watching but we had some quite lively discussions about the way women (and men) can be used as sexual objects in the media and often they disagreed with me but sometimes they saw my point of view. At least they are able to question things and not just accept that because it is what they see all around them it makes it right.
The sexual objectification of women has always gone on and probably always will. It's human nature.
I wonder...if it had been male dancers in states of undress would people have had a problem with it? Would they fear their sons would feel they had to be overly sexual and wear skimpy clothing to succeed in life?
The sexual objectification of women has always gone on and probably always will. It's human nature.
I do agree it has always gone on but the unquestioning acceptance of it in a family entertainment programme is perhaps a sign that we should be asking whether this is how we want our children to view women.
I wonder...if it had been male dancers in states of undress would people have had a problem with it? Would they fear their sons would feel they had to be overly sexual and wear skimpy clothing to succeed in life?
I wouldn't like that either. However there is a very long history of women being portrayed as purely sexual objects, not exclusively but often in a media industry dominated by men, that there isn't to the same extent with men which has to be taken into account as well.
Personally watched with my 10 year old niece, her mum & granma & no one even flinched, though I do remember doing a mental eyeroll, thinking 'they will get loads of complaints about this'.
Feel a bit sorry for Rhianna getting a lot of heat which is really being directed at Christina's dancers.
Being raised on a TV diet that included Hot Gossip & Benny Hill (too late to call social services for me, worriers!), I'm a bit bemused by all the hooha to be honest. I don't fret about my niece being corrupted or being led to believe that running around in your skimpies is the only way to go if you want to succeed in life; I credit her with some intelligence & my family & her teachers the skills to make her a rounded human being!
Young children are absorbing all these images constantly and the fact that they are accepted as the norm means they can't help but be influenced by them. They may not necessarily think they can't get succeed unless they dress like hookers but I think it does affect the way they think of themselves generally.
Is this an acceptable way for an entertainer who a lot of young girls look up to, to advertise trainers?
Your nine year old daughter could also access this forum at any time of day.
One assumes you don't want her and her gaggle of chums going round yelling what you've written. Where's the consistency in your behaviour as a parent?
No wonder kids grow up confused. :rolleyes:
No. My daughter could not access this forum at any time of the day. She rarely uses the Internet, and when she does, she's restricted to two websites and I'm in the room. That's where the consistency is in my parenting.
Now. I do hope she grows up to have a sense of humour and would be delighted for her to debate as raucously as she wants when she's old enough to do so.
I've been retired for several years so nine year old girls are an even bigger mystery to me than they used to be.
I have a straightforward question. The dance routines, etc. were suggestive rather than explicit. Would they have meant the same to the girls as they did to you? Did the girls understand what was being symbolically portrayed? Did they understand the dances in the way that you understood them?
Using somewhat old-fashioned language -- if the girls were innocent would the dancing have harmed their innocence?
They don't understand the dances the way I do, and - I hope - don't understand what was being symbolically portrayed. The difficulty, as I outlined in an earlier post, is that young girls are being told, quite overtly, that women who are admired are objectified. They don't understand the concept entirely, but I guarantee you this preponderance of sluttishness in pop music leads to girls dressing entirely inappropriately and to a normalisation of the objectification of women. It's a drawn out and insidious process, but it's astonishing how parents who comment on it - and that's all I did, I didn't complain to anyone officially, I just joined in a thread - are jumped all over, called prudes, hypocrites and whatever you're having yourself.
Why? Why do people find parents wanting to protect their children's innocence so offensive? I'm not addressing you, because your post was a pertinent series of question. But some of the others.........:(
Others on here have questioned why women don't complain when men are objectified in this way. Firstly, I've never seen men objectified on the X Factor - the family show - to the same extent. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a link between sexual violence and the normalisation of the sexual objectification of women. Now there are some incidents of men suffering sexual violence, but for the very most part, this issue is very gender specific. I know some are going to start jumping up and down now saying that I'm over egging the thing entirely, but I feel very strongly about this.
As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they want after the watershed. But when I'm told that certain material won't be shown in a programme my children like I would love to be able to believe in that commitment.
They don't understand the dances the way I do, and - I hope - don't understand what was being symbolically portrayed. The difficulty, as I outlined in an earlier post, is that young girls are being told, quite overtly, that women who are admired are objectified. They don't understand the concept entirely, but I guarantee you this preponderance of sluttishness in pop music leads to girls dressing entirely inappropriately and to a normalisation of the objectification of women. It's a drawn out and insidious process, but it's astonishing how parents who comment on it - and that's all I did, I didn't complain to anyone officially, I just joined in a thread - are jumped all over, called prudes, hypocrites and whatever you're having yourself.
Why? Why do people find parents wanting to protect their children's innocence so offensive? I'm not addressing you, because your post was a pertinent series of question. But some of the others.........:(
Others on here have questioned why women don't complain when men are objectified in this way. Firstly, I've never seen men objectified on the X Factor - the family show - to the same extent. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a link between sexual violence and the normalisation of the sexual objectification of women. Now there are some incidents of men suffering sexual violence, but for the very most part, this issue is very gender specific. I know some are going to start jumping up and down now saying that I'm over egging the thing entirely, but I feel very strongly about this.
As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they want after the watershed. But when I'm told that certain material won't be shown in a programme my children like I would love to be able to believe in that commitment.
Great post, unfortunately a lot of the posters on here do not understand what it is like to be a parent in this modern society or they have no idea about their duties as a parent.
The laws on TV programming are in place wether they like it or not and it is the toothless watchdog Ofcoms duty to enforce the rules or Laws or whatever it is they want to call it.
Standards have slipped in the quality of our terrestial programs quite dramatically in recent years, the TV is full of 3rd rate chancers who are passed off as celebrities, loads of quiz shows and other shows that used to have members of the public on them are now a vehicle to put some reforming drug addict or worse back on our screens as role models for our children.
The final straw is more and more boundaries are being pushed to see what the TV programmers can get away with.
From 9pm the TV watershed helps parents protect children from unsuitable material. In all but exceptional circumstances, programmes before 9pm are suitable for general audiences including children. From 9pm they are progressively suitable only for adults.
Because children's sensibilities vary as widely as those of adults, parents are expected to share responsibility in judging whether children should watch after 9pm.
Terrestial TV can be received in every household, but two-thirds of them have no children. TVs public obligation is to provide services for all licence fee payers, as well as those with children. These are the Rules, It is up to Ofcom to enforce them, if people dont complain then TV companies will get away with it as money talks and no one wants to rock the boat.
I don't think it is really.
The performance was hardly porn!
I also heard people complained about Rhianna taking her gown off - big deal. I didnt hear any complaints from the Mail about some of Wagner's dancing girls or the male dancers that backed Take That during the Royal Variety.
The 3,000 or so complaints are from viewers not the Mail, the Mail is just reporting on them.
Really? I didnt realise that. I just think its a bit OTT when it was just 1 performance in the whole show (and it was quite late in the show), Wagner had scanty clothed dancers and so did other acts yet I don't think many complained about them.
Ruth's great performances of Summertime and ILRAR from 2008 were a great example of how to do sexy without nudity
I don't think it is really.
The performance was hardly porn! I also heard people complained about Rhianna taking her gown off - big deal. I didnt hear any complaints from the Mail about some of Wagner's dancing girls or the male dancers that backed Take That during the Royal Variety.
Really?thats beyond pathetic...it was pretty obvious she was going to disrobe when she came on and as soon as the guy came up behind her it was obvious..
I bet these saddos are such fun at parties...:yawn::sleep:
It was simply because the show went out before 9pm watershed, young kids are watching the show so the people who complained are absolutely within their rights and correct to do so.
but the same music videos featuring xtina and rihanna are shown during the daytime on music tv stations
It was simply because the show went out before 9pm watershed, young kids are watching the show so the people who complained are absolutely within their rights and correct to do so.
These people had a right to complain about what exactly?
Comments
My concern is not so much that they will be harmed per se but more that the acceptance that this sort of depiction of women singers and dancers is the norm and that those who find it uncomfortable in a show where young girls in particular are part of the audience are portrayed as prudes and old fashioned in some way.
If young people are continually bombarded with these images of women they are influenced by that. I used to have that concern when my children were younger and watched MTV which seemed to have a preponderance of videos by male singers with sexualised imagery and extremely provocative female dancers in the background.
I didn't stop them watching but we had some quite lively discussions about the way women (and men) can be used as sexual objects in the media and often they disagreed with me but sometimes they saw my point of view. At least they are able to question things and not just accept that because it is what they see all around them it makes it right.
One assumes you don't want her and her gaggle of chums going round yelling what you've written. Where's the consistency in your behaviour as a parent?
No wonder kids grow up confused. :rolleyes:
The sexual objectification of women has always gone on and probably always will. It's human nature.
I do agree it has always gone on but the unquestioning acceptance of it in a family entertainment programme is perhaps a sign that we should be asking whether this is how we want our children to view women.
I wouldn't like that either. However there is a very long history of women being portrayed as purely sexual objects, not exclusively but often in a media industry dominated by men, that there isn't to the same extent with men which has to be taken into account as well.
Feel a bit sorry for Rhianna getting a lot of heat which is really being directed at Christina's dancers.
Being raised on a TV diet that included Hot Gossip & Benny Hill (too late to call social services for me, worriers!), I'm a bit bemused by all the hooha to be honest. I don't fret about my niece being corrupted or being led to believe that running around in your skimpies is the only way to go if you want to succeed in life; I credit her with some intelligence & my family & her teachers the skills to make her a rounded human being!
Is this an acceptable way for an entertainer who a lot of young girls look up to, to advertise trainers?
http://vrobbins.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/skechers_christina_aguilera_nurse_preview.jpg
No. My daughter could not access this forum at any time of the day. She rarely uses the Internet, and when she does, she's restricted to two websites and I'm in the room. That's where the consistency is in my parenting.
Now. I do hope she grows up to have a sense of humour and would be delighted for her to debate as raucously as she wants when she's old enough to do so.
They don't understand the dances the way I do, and - I hope - don't understand what was being symbolically portrayed. The difficulty, as I outlined in an earlier post, is that young girls are being told, quite overtly, that women who are admired are objectified. They don't understand the concept entirely, but I guarantee you this preponderance of sluttishness in pop music leads to girls dressing entirely inappropriately and to a normalisation of the objectification of women. It's a drawn out and insidious process, but it's astonishing how parents who comment on it - and that's all I did, I didn't complain to anyone officially, I just joined in a thread - are jumped all over, called prudes, hypocrites and whatever you're having yourself.
Why? Why do people find parents wanting to protect their children's innocence so offensive? I'm not addressing you, because your post was a pertinent series of question. But some of the others.........:(
Others on here have questioned why women don't complain when men are objectified in this way. Firstly, I've never seen men objectified on the X Factor - the family show - to the same extent. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a link between sexual violence and the normalisation of the sexual objectification of women. Now there are some incidents of men suffering sexual violence, but for the very most part, this issue is very gender specific. I know some are going to start jumping up and down now saying that I'm over egging the thing entirely, but I feel very strongly about this.
As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they want after the watershed. But when I'm told that certain material won't be shown in a programme my children like I would love to be able to believe in that commitment.
Great post, unfortunately a lot of the posters on here do not understand what it is like to be a parent in this modern society or they have no idea about their duties as a parent.
The laws on TV programming are in place wether they like it or not and it is the toothless watchdog Ofcoms duty to enforce the rules or Laws or whatever it is they want to call it.
Standards have slipped in the quality of our terrestial programs quite dramatically in recent years, the TV is full of 3rd rate chancers who are passed off as celebrities, loads of quiz shows and other shows that used to have members of the public on them are now a vehicle to put some reforming drug addict or worse back on our screens as role models for our children.
The final straw is more and more boundaries are being pushed to see what the TV programmers can get away with.
From 9pm the TV watershed helps parents protect children from unsuitable material. In all but exceptional circumstances, programmes before 9pm are suitable for general audiences including children. From 9pm they are progressively suitable only for adults.
Because children's sensibilities vary as widely as those of adults, parents are expected to share responsibility in judging whether children should watch after 9pm.
Terrestial TV can be received in every household, but two-thirds of them have no children. TVs public obligation is to provide services for all licence fee payers, as well as those with children.
These are the Rules, It is up to Ofcom to enforce them, if people dont complain then TV companies will get away with it as money talks and no one wants to rock the boat.
The 3,000 or so complaints are from viewers not the Mail, the Mail is just reporting on them.
Nah 3000 complains for something is quite serious ....
they say 1 complaint = the thinking of 200 people
I saw that somewhere !!
Ruth's great performances of Summertime and ILRAR from 2008 were a great example of how to do sexy without nudity
LOL Nice one!
Really?thats beyond pathetic...it was pretty obvious she was going to disrobe when she came on and as soon as the guy came up behind her it was obvious..
I bet these saddos are such fun at parties...:yawn::sleep:
but the same music videos featuring xtina and rihanna are shown during the daytime on music tv stations
These people had a right to complain about what exactly?
Of course it is, it's a kids show.
Its not a kids show.
Its on primetime on Saturday. Thats aimed at old people, adults, teens and kids .... Light entertainment for every1.
Its not exactly the kind of show that goes on Cbebbies !
Because most of the public is dumb and stupid !