A Canadian couple have two young sons who like to wear pink, and wear their hair long and in plaits. Their third child’s gender, however, remains a global mystery in a bid to prevent ‘gender specific ideology’ being inflicted on the child. Whatever your view on this personal choice, it gets you thinking. Meanwhile, over on this side of the pond, a child close to ThinkBase, whose parents are also keen to avoid gender stereotyping, turned two. Shopping for her was certainly an eye-opener for all those attending her birthday party. Almost everything in the girls’ section of every retail outlet was pink, sparkly, making references to diva behaviour or designed for a grown woman but manufactured in ‘mini’ format. This proves the Canadians’ point. Parents who want their children to enjoy childhood without the pressures of adulthood, including the gender stereotypes, would definitely struggle in any urban or consumer setting.

All this coincides with the publication of a UK report, Letting Children be Children, by Reg Bailey. This was a ‘Report of an Independent Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood’, commissioned by the Minister of State for Children and Families. It has seen the likes of Asda, Next and other retailers vow to change the way they market and sell to children, eliminating the number of scandals previously sold items have caused. Push-up bras with ‘Little Miss Naughty’ on them, for example, were considered unacceptable in 2003, and you will not have been able to find a pole-dancing kit in Tesco’s online toy section since 2006. These may be extreme, but similar products continue to be sold to and for minors. Moral lines are not as obvious, however, as one might initially believe. Parents often buy the latest gadgets and labels for their children, fuelling the industries that are now under fire, and of course parental values differ from household to household. The power of the tantrum must also be taking into account. UK plc depends as much on young children as the older, more affluent members of society and, as such, targets them in marketing campaigns. Too much regulation could suffocate industry. This report suggests that some voluntary compliance to an ethical code of conduct might be significantly more effective and sustainable than any legislative changes.

Reg Bailey, by his own admission, is no academic but an interested party. He is Chief Executive of the Mothers’ Union, a parent and a grandparent. It should also be flagged up that the Mothers’ Union is an international Christian charity, which strives to support families internationally in a world where ‘God’s love is shown through loving, respectful and flourishing relationships’. With a membership of four million, it lobbies local and national governments on ‘issues affecting family life’. Whilst these values do not appear to be overtly reflected in Bailey’s report, it could be misleading not to highlight them, as it threatens to add bias.

The report layout is unhelpful, with repetitive information and unclear headings. It lacks structure and flow. Each of its four themes is summarised at the start of the report and then, in its own chapter, given a bullet pointed overview which could either be a summary of the chapter or a collection of the author’s own views.‘What we would like to see’ follows the overview, appearing to be what the recommendations should seek to achieve. This could also be, however, the author’s and contributors’ wish list. Who knows. The recommendations are somewhat clearer and each numbered point identifies the body responsible for any required action points, such as Government, the Advertising Standards Authority, the British Retail Consortium, Ofcom, etc. Terminology which weakens the entire report is consistently used, including, ‘We welcome’, ‘We think’, ‘We are heartened’ and ‘We know’. It is these phrases that suggest either a bias or an inexperienced research author. Both would be entirely inappropriate for such a serious investigation and the recommendation that ‘for children to be children, parents need to be parents’ with no clarity on what ‘being a parent’ entails exactly, suggests that bias and personal opinion is playing a role in this paper.

Some interesting previous research is quoted in the report. Of all children who have viewed online sexual images, for example, 41% of parents believe that their child has not been exposed to such images, 30% recognise that it’s a possibility and 29% aren’t sure either way. Less interesting findings from the report’s own research includes the fact that ‘the vast majority of parents want their children to grow up happy, healthy and safe’. It would be interesting to know how the questions were presented to these parents and whether they were  multiple choice boxes or freely worded answers. ‘Parents are happy to take responsibility for their children’s upbringing, but they expect and want businesses and others to support them and to deal fairly and responsibly with children.’ Again, if this were a box ticking questionnaire, this answer would be utterly expected and the question therefore rendered useless.

Hopes are raised halfway through the report as it briefly outlines the advertising regulations of Norway, Canada and Australia. Detailing the impacts of these regulations would have provided evidence on which to base any regulatory decisions in the UK. Rihanna music videos, sexual slogans on children’s t-shirts and, most importantly, the internet are surely available in these countries and therefore subjecting parents to the same fears. This report’s ‘thoughts’ and ‘recommendations’ are based on the author’s own, one might suspect given his rambling foreword, as well as the feedback from parents, young people and children, organisations and businesses, experts and individuals, and members of the public who appear to have offered their uninvited thoughts directly to the author. Furthermore, it refers reverently and regularly to research that has already, and indeed recently, been conducted on exactly the same issues. Its key recommendation is that the Government takes stock again in 18 months. For what? To see if the 15 year olds wearing ‘Too many boys, not enough time’ T-shirts are pregnant before their sixteenth birthdays and can therefore give quantitative evidence of a need for change? Or if this report has itself done enough to encourage industry to take its own action to protect the young from premature adulthood?

The report is weak and really quite dull, but I would proclaim it a resounding and absolute success. Not one person I have talked to this week has read this report or would know where to find it. Everybody I have talked to, however, is aware of it and the impact it has already had on retailers. Spokespeople from every high street brand are scrambling to get onto Radio 4’s sofas and talk about their social responsibility. This is a gift for them and it is they who have turned this report into a hot, national topic. Somebody find me who did the PR on this and, please, Ms Teather, when in 18 months you are none the wiser, you know who to call, don’t you? Welfare and wellbeing. Policy and regulation. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability. It’s got the Research Base’s name on it.

Sara Fakhro is the voice of ThinkBase.