rebuttal- brxttyb

Posted on November 27, 2015 by brxttyb

There are people who believe that our country is being destroyed by political correctness. There have been many studies done on the oversexualizing of girls through the media and clothing companies. Most people would be of common agreement that childhood should be reserved, children are innocent, and are not sexual beings. Some American adults claim that they view children as sexual based on the clothing they are wearing and not the clothing themselves. People do not understand why we are sexualizing children because they happen to be wearing clothing that isn’t as modest as what some people would have their children wear.

Stephanie Papas, a blogger, says that some clothing stores like Gymboree and target tend to manufacture more appropriate clothes for girls which resulted in girls at the top of the age group decline to wear the clothes because they looked juvenile. Sarah Murnen, a social psychologist who was interviewed for the article disputes a claim about sexualized clothing, saying that even though parents might have viewed the clothing as sexual, the children themselves did not  People believe that being politically correct at the expense of profit is not necessary to solve this growing problem when the entire issue comes down to the simple fact that parents have the choice of whether to buy or dress their children in what they feel is age appropriate clothing.

I think clothing for little girls is definitely sexualized. In a study done by time magazine, 30% of clothing that is manufactured and advertised to young girls has “sexualized characteristics”. Sexualized clothing is considered anything revealing that emphasizes a specific body part, has a suggestive saying written on it, or looks like something a mature woman would wear. Women are sexual beings, young girls are not. But the propaganda perpetuated from this new trend could make mature men see these girls in a light they should not be in.

Target, one of the largest retail brands for children, was considered one of the biggest offenders as well as Abercrombie Kids. One blogger called out target saying that their clothing for her young daughter was significantly shorter and smaller than at other retailers. This blog gained attention and support on the internet as many mothers began sharing and weighing in on what is considered a growing problem. Sarah Murnen, a professor of psychology at Kenyon College, along with her team of researchers found that on only 15 online stores in the united states there was a total of 5,666 items of girls clothing that were classified as sexualized. Murnen concluded that wearing the clothing could possibly contribute to the development of self-esteem issues and other psychological problems. In a study, it was reported that psychologists said that when young girls wore this type of sexualized clothing, it would cause them to see themselves as sexual beings as well as other people do.

Works Cited:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1948451

http://m.livescience.com/14249-girls-clothing-sexualized.html

Study: 30% of Young Girls’ Clothing is ‘Sexualized’

This entry was posted in Rebuttal Archives, You Forgot to Categorize!. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to rebuttal- brxttyb

  1. brxttyb says:
    November 27, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    i know this is super late, but if you have a moment . . . 🙂
    Feedback was requested.

    Feedback provided.
    —DSH

    Like

    Reply
  2. davidbdale says:
    November 27, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    P1. Brxty, nothing matters as much in these essays as YOUR opinion. What “some people” say is mostly irrelevant, although I understand that you want to clarify for readers what is common knowledge. Let me see if I can help you get the emphasis right by rephrasing your first paragraph. I hope you don’t mind me modeling some writing for you. I will probably get some things wrong because your last two sentences are so confusing, but I’ll try.

    Girls are being oversexualized by the media and by clothing companies, but we’re too “politically correct” to accuse these companies of pimping our daughters. It is simply not acceptable to soil the youth of our innocent children by turning them into sexual beings. Of course we have a responsibility to our own daughters to choose age-appropriate clothing for them, but we can also object loudly to the trend that encourages younger and younger girls to buy and wear clothes that would be too revealing or too provocative even for much older girls.

    Does that accurately reflect your position?

    P2. That’s interesting. Girls at the “top end of the age range” reject clothes that make them look juvenile. The next claim is just as interesting and crucial to any argument on this topic: the girls don’t consider the sexy clothing to be sexual. I would interpret that to mean that the girls themselves don’t yet have sexual awareness. They don’t understand that they can even be viewed as sexual objects. That of course means it has to be somebody else’s responsibility to make the clothing choices for them.

    That in itself would be problematic, I imagine. Without terrifying a young girl, how can she be made to understand that a certain garment will attract unwanted sexual attention or even seem to invite sexual activity? It’s understandable that frustrated parents might eventually run out of language choices and simply say, “because it makes you look like a slut.”

    This next bit is so awkwardly phrased I really don’t understand your point. Please explain what this means: ” People believe that being politically correct at the expense of profit is not necessary to solve this growing problem.”

    P3. Some bad punctuation here, brxty.

    Time magazine did a study means what? Time looked at clothing ads and declared that 30% had sexualized characteristics?

    P4. What exactly was the “one blogger’s” point, brxty? Did she feel compelled to buy the Target items? Or was she trying to shame Target by pointing out that their girls’ shirts are shorter? When you say “is considered a growing problem,” do you mean the fact that girls are wearing the smaller clothes, or that stores offer them, or that they’re being designed, or that more modest styles are being squeezed out of the market so that there are no other choices? See how many ways there are to identify this “growing problem”?

    I wish you would tell me (or maybe share with me how Murnen describes the problem) how wearing “sexualized clothing” contributes to “self-esteem” issues, brxty. I can imagine the process, and you might think it’s too obvious to mention, but readers, including me, need to hear your explanation.

    I’m pretty sure you told us in your causal essay that young girls whose parents considered clothing sexual didn’t themselves see the clothes as sexualized, and didn’t consider themselves as sexual beings when they wore them. If that’s true, how can you also claim here that wearing “sexualized clothing . . . would cause them to see themselves as sexual beings”?

    I don’t think you can have it both ways. Plus, if we accept this new version, it doesn’t yet explain how considering themselves sexual beings, if they do, contributes to the development of “self esteem issues.”

    Just a few things to clarify, brxty?
    Helpful? Too critical?
    Reply, please.

    Like

    Reply
    • brxttyb says:
      November 28, 2015 at 1:28 pm

      To be honest, this critique overwhelmed me a bit. After reading, and re-reading, I finally understand what you are saying. Again, I appreciate your thorough feedback so much, it really does go a long way. I am very insecure about my writing and slip up at times, but you but your feedback puts me right back on track. I will take your criticism and use it to further explain my claims.Thank you again 🙂

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment