BS: Corporate child abuse

Subject: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:01 AM

The current moral panic over sexual abuse of children obscures the fact that we allow children to be abused in many other ways, that can be just as destructive. One of the most insidious forms is to destroy a child's slef respect and confidence by foisting an image of how they "ought" to look on them. In this example, a Nintendo game led to a healthy child believing that she was overweight. Nintendo said, "The resulting figures may not be entirely accurate for younger age groups due to varying levels of development." That's despite the "game" having asked for her age.

Am I being too cynical in thinking this is a deliberate ploy? It's easier to sell people stuff when they are unhappy with themselves. But even if it's accidental, it's abusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Zen
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:16 AM

I quite agree Paul. This whole BMI thing (itself a very crude and misused and misleading calculation) and media-fuelled peer pressure about appearance, image and "size" pushed my own daughter into severe anorexia and related problems which she is still recovering from, which itself resulted in other serious family pressures. It is insidious and, unfortunately, still pervasive and it is a form of corporate abuse for profit.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Leadfingers
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:37 AM

As far as I can see , BMI takes NO notice of things like Bone Structure or physical build , just height and weight which makes it a complete load of B******s unless you are spot on the Average !

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Zen
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:47 AM

That is correct Leadfingers>

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:17 AM

There are some good points made in the following article, Media Stereotyping: Beauty and Image in the Media, including that it is economically based...women who are insecure about their bodies do buy more products, etc.

IMO, it is also despicable and has been going on so long I don't know how we will ever change it.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:28 PM

I think some of those clothes they sell for little, or teenaged, girls are obscene and a form of sexual harassement for girls, whose parents are dumb enough or duped enough or worn down enough by endless demands to go along with it. I don't know if you should legislate what can be sold, but I think you should legislate what can be worn on public transportation, what can be worn to school, etc. What can be worn to what taxpayers are paying for, which should not be for dirty old whoevers to leer at young girls, who often are participants in the process. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:38 PM

Do that and we are no better than the places which require women to wear burkas, etc., imo.

I agree, the clothes are obscene, but I don't think that is the way to combat it.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: gnomad
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:52 PM

Agree it is an abuse. As for the fashion aspect maybe we should be looking for the imposition of some new form of sumptuary laws?

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:18 PM

I'm not sure if kids with parents [who]are dumb enough or duped enough or worn down enough by endless demands to go along with it is the core problem. After all, these are kids who are the second or third generation (since a number of our peers are certainly included) to get their taste and sense of style directly from television - they're lucky if it is only Disney and Nickelodeon! The parents don't know any better! From whom are they going to learn different? Their teachers, who are afraid of being fired for sexual harassment, or worse, if they try to tell Little Suzie that her bare midriff and navel jewelery is inappropriate for a sixth grade classroom? One of their peers, who is dressed the same or worse? A member of the clergy? Forgetaboutit!!

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:36 PM

Someone has to get the word out to girls, and their idiot parents, (sometimes they are overworked, worn down parents who just can't endure the girls' obstinacy)that they are displaying their charms not just to the cute boys in 8th grade they are trying to impress, but every pervert, every mentally disabled person, every male who through lack of either self control or lack of mental ability (and there are plenty of them roaming the streets) is one step away from sexually abusing someone else. I do not buy for one minute the lament that girls and women should be able to dress however they want any place any time and bear no responsibility for anything. Unless they are infants or mentally incompetent, they do bear responsibility, as do adults who let them roam around undressed or dressed in a provocative manner. I am embarassed to look at some of them..how would it be for a young man? Or an older man trying to maintain his marriage vows? Or someone with no impulse control who receives one jolt of stimulation too much?

Quit raising girls to be stupid and coy about this. Don't say I said it was OK for them to be raped or abused if they dress irresponsibly. I didn't say that. It is never OK. I will say that everyone bears some responsibility for keeping impulses down to a reasonable level. Males in how they behave and females in how they display themselves. COuld be vise versa too but probably not as much.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:52 PM

(Re: 'sumptuary laws' site. I'm unable to take any writing seriously after the fifth exclamation point!)

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:52 PM

I agree with you, mg. There does have to be some responsibility. I remember when my oldest daughter was a mid-teen and liked to sit out on our front porch where a lot of young Navy guys would drive-by every day. I had the devil of a time getting her to understand she could not sit out there in scanty tank tops and shorts. Her clothes did cover her, they were nothing like today's fashion, but she was tall, long-legged, blond and beautiful, had done some modelling and without meaning to/knowing she was exuding a sexuality that the boys naturally responded to. Thankfully, after a few tears and some arguments, she understood and was more careful.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:53 PM

Paents? Schools? Television? "The media"? What matters to children isn't that stuff, what matters is what their peer group thinks and does.

No doubt there's a relationship between that and what happens in the media, but it's not a simple one, because most of the time the relevant media is chasing round in circles trying to take its lead from what the kids are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:09 PM

Not more shit about how women should not provike men and how men cannot control themselves, please. Not on the mudcat. Will you repressionists and boiler-suit libbers please go back to the stone age? Or maybe Salem. Shit, we'll have Andrea Dworkin reading us the bible next. MG, you have a head problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:14 PM

PS - I entirely agree that capitalism is not a responsible system and will exploit anyone, any time, if there is a possible profit to be made, but that should not give the proponents of sexual unenlightenment a platform. Get your free Burka (with foil hat included, equally applicable to all religions) here. Free clitorectomies. Stop depravity. Join our book-burnings. Pray, good simpletons, pray!

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:34 PM

That IS over the top for a reaction, Richard. Would you prefer that girls go out with bikini strips on and TRUST every man not to react in some fashion. Kind of hard to control hormones at times, ya know, esp. when society is telling you you'll get a woman/girl if you wear just the right aftershave, etc. You and mg seem to be at the extreme ends of the issue. Everyone needs to take some responsibility. My daughter was sending the wrong message, an inviting message, without realising it. It was my responsibility to teach her otherwise. The young men may have been taught to be careful, too, but I had no way of knowing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:53 AM

Kat, I find I agree with many things, but you are sending the same message as MG (albeit in a less extreme form) namely that a woman must take care to avoid exciting men unless she intends to, and that if she does excite a man the consequence is her fault. Not acceptable. I don't admire a prick-teaser anymore than I necessarily admire a male slut, but nobody "asks for it" (unless they expressly do so).

MG, it seems, also from her other posts on other threads, is from planet Zog's interplanetary missionaries spreading the message "Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche".

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:48 AM

I think some of you are getting it wrong, because you're looking at this as though everyone was acting in isolation. I know, it's very ingrained into American (and European Moral) society to think that Eceryone Is Responsible, and that all that's needed is for Everyone To Be Good.

It's not like that. People, and especially young people, are bombarded by conflicting messages about what they need to do to fit in as a normal part of society. The loudest messages come through the ubiquitous direct and indirect advertising. this isn't just the TV commercials, the billboards, etc- it's also TV programs, pop and sports stars, "celebrities" etc. Product placement, sponsorships, product endorsement- and they all exist for one reason- to sell more to consumers.

The message is, buy the right stuff, do the roight diet, think the right things, and you'll be attractive to the partner you'd like, you'll look successful and acceptable (how many companies have "dress codes"?), hell, you could even become a seleb yourself. Don't conform, and you're sad, out of the loop, weird. This message is reinforced by massive peer pressure. Adults are by no means immune, but young people are pathetically vulnerable.

Kat's daughter's reaction is totally understandable- every adolescent is nervous about their attractiveness and acceptability, and the reaction of the sailors would have provided a welcome boost to her self- esteem.

I don't know the solution, except that it should involve educating yourself and any young people you are responsible for in the ways of our commercial consumer society, it's imperative to sell you things you neither need nor, really, want. Richard is right on this, even if his style is offputting to some of you. The flaw is in the fundamentals of a society that encourages irresponsible marketing, that sets out to reshape society for short term gain, while leaving others to pay the costs later.

It is far more dangerous child abuse than the old sod waving his willy at the kids in the playground.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,LTS pretending to work
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:09 AM

I'm just very glad that my daughter (rapidly approaching teenagerdom) is happy being 'weird, out of the loop and considered strange'... she has a good circle of friends who like her for who she is not what she looks like. If I thought she'd be happier in scanty clothes, I'd buy them for her. As it is, I am content that she is happy in baggy black things. She's already commented that she's "skinny" but not overly worried that she's fat. She knows, given the family she was born into, that she's likely to always be on the podgy side and she's OK with it.

That's one good thing about the 'folkie' world, where beer bellies are the norm - she's not pressurised into being a stick.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: akenaton
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:30 AM

I've posted thi on another thread .....might be applicable here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:21 AM

Interesting example of how insideously Capitalism works, on today's BBC news.
Playboy, One of the worlds biggest producers of pornography, is marketing a range of stationary and clothing for schoolchildren.
This stuff,bearing the Playboy logo is being presented in shops and catalogues beside well known childrens brands like Disney.

This practice is known as "normalising" the brand, making it more acceptable.

The marketing of women as sex objects is one Is now a multi billion pound industry. Perhaps it is just a coincidencebut apparently the new "free" Capitalist countries of Eastern Europe are top contributers to this industry...isn't progress wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:49 AM

I agree entirely, Paul. I think it is a deliberate ploy, just as built in obselescence and peer pressure are. I don't know if I would have gone as far as to say it was corporate child abuse as yet but I can see exactly what you mean.

What about the pressure on parents as well? I know someone not to far above the breadline who will not send her son to school unless he is wearing the latest £120 trainers and has the latest Prada mobile phone. This is a 12 year old lad we are talking about. The family are struggling to make ends meet yet they will sacrifice basics for the sake of fasion. There is something wrong.

Are these corporations all in league? Make the kids feel bad. They get depressed. the parents buy them things to make them feel better. The credit card and loan companies rub their hands...

It's sick. I am lucky. rather like LTS our brood would go naked rather than wear a designer label!

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,LTS pretending to work
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:17 AM

If Limpit "required" the latest trainers at £120, she'd get a short, two word answer that rhymes with 'Duck Cough'.

Although I'm not sure she'd rather go naked anywhere... she's outgrown the days when she would present her bum to the world in general, thank the Deities.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:30 PM

Richard, you are reading me wrong. I have been raped and I have been a rape crisis counsellor. I have NEVER EVER believed nor purported that ANY woman was "asking for it!"

All I am saying is each person is responsible for how they present themselves. If a girl dresses like a hooker she may get the attention a hooker might get. I don't happen to think any responsible parent would want their children dressing that way. Would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:22 PM

If I walk around in the street with my wallet sticking out of my hip pocket, or leave my car with the door unlocked and the keys in the dashboard that doesn't in any way reduce the criminality of the person who steals the wallet or the car.

But I wouldn't blame anyone who told me I was a fool to do it, because they'd be right. Even if they said I was asking for trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:48 PM

Somebody here hates Hef!

National Geographic was a bigger purveyor of pornography over the years than Playboy. No more indigenous naked people to photograph however.

The Playboy clothing line is made for older teens (people above the age of consent)and at least in the mall I work at (part time) is only sold in Spencers next to the marijuana leaf stuff, the drinking stuff, and other far worse "sexual" objects. It is nowhere near any Disney merchandise.

I believe the merchandise from many other stores has indeed made young children (5 to 15) more sexual. I'd like to know who at Abercrombie and Fitch decided to have suggestive things written across the butts of their young girls shorts (in my day they were called hot-pants)or worse the pair of cherries decorating the crotch of the undergarments! What happened to little girls being little girls?

Worst of all though is the parents who will buy the stuff, let them out of the house in it, or take them places while they're wearing it!
It may be cool, it may be "what everyone else is wearing", but it isn't going to be on my daughter!

In the case submitted in the first post I don't think four pounds is outrageous. The medical community and the insurance community have gotten out of hand lately. Even though it's been proven that people who are slightly over their recommended weight (which is actually 20 to 30 pounds over their ideal weight)get sick less and recover faster from illness than people at their recommended weight!

I was told my "Ideal" weight was 175 pounds even though I'm 5'11", with a 17.5 inch neck, 7.75 inch wrist and a 50 inch chest!

I asked the doctor if that included the weight of the coffin I'd be in!

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Emma B
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:26 PM

Not so in the UK Chief

'I heard a discussion on the radio today regarding a protest over merchandise carrying the Playboy bunny logo being displayed next to similar Disney-branded products - ie clearly aimed at young children'

'On the radio, Playboy provided a comment that it did not condone its products being displayed alongside material targeting young children.
But the company cannot claim ignorance on the issue as the Guardian ran a comment piece last October and reported a similar protest by schoolchildren in 2005. It was also discussed on BBC Radio 4 in 2006'

qoted from this
web page

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:35 PM

But where are the parents? They are the ones with the cash! I let a clerk at a target know that I didn't think the tobacco products should be displayed on the same rack/aisle as the baseball cards and comic books. They moved the cards and comic books!

Unless there's something in contractual in writing from Playboy insisting that their garments be put next to the Disney stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 May 08 - 07:07 PM

If you are a parent you also can say who wears what in your car and who you will give a ride to the mall to. You can say who wears what in your house. One mother had some large plain t shirts she gave to her daughter's friends to wear if they dressed suggestively. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,Juan
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 08:36 AM

Today a dangerous and hair-brained scheme has been launched in two areas of the UK. Parents will be able to ask police if someone close to their family is a sex offender.

Under the measures, police will be able to tell families if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been "previously suspected" of abuse.

But some charities have warned the schemes could lead to vigilante attacks. With more than half of the UK's single mums living off the backs of the tax payers,it's another half baked idea to help this section of the community, ignoring the risk they bring into the home as a lot of their kids wake up to a "new uncle" every other morning.

This scheme hasn't been thought out noe has a full risk-assessment been carried out.

Police will run two types of checks on the individual - a priority check within 24 hours and a full risk-assessment within 10 working days.

They came up with some crap saying Parents could face court action if they pass on information about an offender to others in their community, a move designed to prevent vigilantism.

   
Even a Child protection charity, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation said it was concerned publicity around the pilot projects could drive sex offenders underground, and called for careful monitoring of their impact.

And crime reduction charity Nacro chief executive Paul Cavadino agreed the risk of attacks could prove to be counter-productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 09:04 AM

The sex offenders database is being opened up to public scrutiny, with the citizens of four counties being given access to the system in order to check up on named individuals working and living in the regions who have UNSUPERVISED contact with children.

'"You have to be a parent, carer or a guardian and you would go to the police or the authorities and say you have concern about somebody who had unsupervised direct access to your children," Home Office minister Vernon Coaker told BBC radio.

The trial does not extend to pro-actively identifying registered sex offenders living locally in the same way as the US 'Megan's Law' practice in the US.'

'It is a relief that the US approach has been rejected. We have seen the consequences when public hysteria about local paedophiles is whipped up by sections of the media, and it is not pretty.
It would have been grossly irresponsible for the Government to have done anything to facilitate mob violence.
The likelihood is that making the names and addresses of child sex offenders publicly available would have achieved precisely that.

So the remaining question is whether this British scheme has anything to recommend it?

It seems reasonable and proportionate that mothers with new partners, about whose pasts they are unsure, should be able to request basic background checks.

It is a sound principle that parents should have a right to any information that can help them directly protect their children'

- A more rational critical analysis from todays Independent


Det Supt John Raine, of Cambridgeshire police, said that the pilot scheme builds on existing Multi Agency Public Protection (MAPP) arrangements, under which information is disclosed to an individual or group where it is felt necessary.

Under current legilation, head teachers, doctors, youth leaders, sports club managers and others are notified on a confidential basis of the existence of a local sex offender.

Gary Swain, a former Cambridgeshire police officer working on the pilot, said the MAPP scheme had shown that parents behave responsibly when information is disclosed.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:03 PM

I don't necesarily like sex offenders, but I know that some people "suspected of" or "reported for" sex-abuse offenses are guilty of nothing more than urinating in public, or of having consentual relations, as an 18-year-old, with a girlfriend only a few months younger. I'm sure that they are many such cases among the "suspected," because there are documented cases of American men ~ especially young African-Americans ~ being convicted and serving long sentences for just such "offenses."

More to the point regarding the topic at hand, I really hate "fashion" and the slavish devotion that so many people, young and old, maintain for the corporate names they are conned into displaying on their bodies. The fact that so many of these overpriced garments are sexually suggestive and age-inappropriate only makes a bad phenomenon that much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 08:07 AM

I can't believe and mother and father could do this to their daughter. It is sick.

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/parents-fury-at-10-year-old-supermodel.html

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 09:32 AM

You ever hear of JonBenét Ramsey?

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 02:04 PM

Abuse of our casual dress policy at work has led to the inevitable - a dress code. How can an intelligent young woman in her late 20s think that it is appropriate to show up for work braless in a midi top with extremely short shorts (her cheeks were hanging out) and in flip flops?
Then, despite warnings, a young man repeatedly showed up in plaid shorts and a t shirt with flip flops - both looked as if he had slept in them. His defense? THese cost a fortune.
So now all sandals for men are banned as are flip flops generally. No T shirts, no jeans, no too short skirts or midi tops.
Women must wear a skirt of appropriate length with a blouse or knit top, shoes or sandals. Men must wear khakis or slacks, shirts, shoes.
And we all have to invest in new clothes.

My point - they don't grow out of it. And don't expect parents to guide them. The parents are hopelessly dense about appropriate dress.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: gnu
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 02:13 PM

SINS... "Women must wear a skirt..." UNREAL!!!!!

THAT is disgusting. I would march right in and tell the boss that is NOT acceptable. If the boss is male, I'd tell him HE had to wear a skirt or... ooooohhhh my blood boils!

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 11 - 01:20 PM

Well, since corporations are people now, maybe we can abuse some of THEM!

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: olddude
Date: 07 Aug 11 - 04:53 PM

There is no solution, like porn it is out there, people with buy it or ignore it. Some people raise their kids with self esteem to not buy into that. Yet they will make their own choices. As long as there is a market the corporations will take full advantage of it ...

I don't want big brother to say what books I can read nor do I want them to dictate body image standards .. nothing ever good becomes of it and it always turns into a cluster F

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate child abuse
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Aug 11 - 06:17 PM

Please, the rich and the corporations need our help, not our criticism.
They are feeling terribly nervous and uncertain nowadays.

The only way we can comfort them is to pay thier taxes for them, bail them out and lend a helping hand with loopholes.

Only a Republican president and COngress can finally remove the obstacles and chains from our job creators by eliminating SS, MEdicaid, Obamacare, EPA,FDA,FAA,Dept of Education and all the rest of the nanny state black holes for our tax dollars.

Sure our Corporations may have given us a black eye or two but we surely deserved it. Whatever we did to make them yell at us and the kids was justified. We wanted our promised Social security and penstions that we paid for, but times change after a lifetime as a working couple. If corporations berat our kids, it is a lesson they needed to learn.

The frustrating uncertainty for Corporation America is the result of Obama's lack of leadership and hiding in the White House for two years to quote "lead from behind".

Please, please stop upsetting the job creators and American cororations who have offshore Post Office Boxes as thier headquarters.

It is up to us to compete with the wages they pay the Chinese to entice our job creators to come back to us. We have to make ourselves more attractive to lure back our job creators from the sexy Chinese mistress who accepts $25 a week.

Shame on us for letting ourselves go for so long.