UK to regulate gender stereotyping in advertisements

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Blacktie.

Big brother and the nanny state strike again.

Allinall

Along with the no more
"Ladies and gentlemen" on the tube, this is just another ridiculous pc move to pander to the snowflakes.

Snowflakes- the word should be banned.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't say that I am massively thrilled to be honest. Such stereotypes have their roots in people's mindsets so getting rid of it advertising is unlikely to accomplish much I think. That said, it is nice to see the hapless male trope getting parity with that of the housewife.

kunst nugget

Allinall wrote: »

Snowflakes- the word should be banned.

I don't know if you're being purposefully ironic…

kunst nugget

Is the court of public opinion not enough - if you're ad is tone deaf or offensive, the public backlash will be enough to have a negative effect on the brand - without having to create more useless regulation which is really just censorship in another guise?

testaccount123

kunst nugget wrote: »

Is the court of public opinion not enough - if you're ad is tone deaf or offensive, the public backlash will be enough to have a negative effect on the brand - without having to create more useless regulation which is really just censorship in another guise?

Trouble with that is any time anyone expresses any objection to the likes of the 'idiot man' trope they are shouted down and labelled some kind of Male Rights Advocate freak and told "sure women have had to put up with worse for years". So people have learned to stay quiet about it.

The ASA exists to regulate paid advertising (which is an annoyance at the best of times), I'd be happy enough for them to be allowed do their jobs.

Pelvis

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't say that I am massively thrilled to be honest. Such stereotypes have their roots in people's mindsets so getting rid of it advertising is unlikely to accomplish much I think. That said, it is nice to see the hapless male trope getting parity with that of the housewife.

I think you underestimate the power of advertising. I think removing silly stereotypes from advertising will have a huge affect over a long time period.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Is the court of public opinion not enough - if you're ad is tone deaf or offensive, the public backlash will be enough to have a negative effect on the brand - without having to create more useless regulation which is really just censorship in another guise?

These regulations are as a result of the public backlash, and are intended to stop adds from offending. Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Previously accepted social 'norms' no longer the 'norm', people voice their opposition and rules are put in place to stop the propagation of such stereotypical nonsense.

Sounds like progress to me.

kunst nugget

Pelvis wrote: »

These regulations are as a result of the public backlash, and are intended to stop adds from offending. Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Previously accepted social 'norms' no longer the 'norm', people voice their opposition and rules are put in place to stop the propagation of such stereotypical nonsense.

Sounds like progress to me.

So you won't be able to show a girl dressed as a ballerina or a boy playing with a digger for fear of gender stereotyping? Ads that portray men as dullards around the house or incapable of minding their own kids get on my wick but I simply don't buy those products if their advertising annoys me.

testaccount123

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ads that portray men as dullards around the house or incapable of minding their own kids get on my wick but I simply don't buy those products if their advertising annoys me.

And yet Glaxo Smith Kline are still in business and these ads with some mental defective unable to use a washing machine are still on TV 30 years later. Im not sure your campaign is working

seamus

kunst nugget wrote: »

So you won't be able to show a girl dressed as a ballerina or a boy playing with a digger for fear of gender stereotyping? Ads that portray men as dullards around the house or incapable of minding their own kids get on my wick but I simply don't buy those products if their advertising annoys me.

It's not about that at the individual level though. By having it there in the first place, the stereotypes are perpetuated.

Advertising isn't just "people trying to sell you stuff". It's the background noise of society. Whether or not you would ever buy the product, the message is still there and being listened to.

The ASA doesn't really care whether you're offended on an individual level. It recognises the power of advertising to create and propagate mistruths through society. So even though you might ignore the ad and be aware of how ignorant it is, there are ten people around you who aren't aware, and will treat you differently because of what the message in the ad has told them about your character.

kunst nugget

testaccount123 wrote: »

And yet Glaxo Smith Kline are still in business and these ads are still on TV 30 years later. Im not sure your campaign is working

Did I say I was running a campaign to bring down Glaxo Smith Kline?

Sleepy

I haven't read the legislation but it sounds like something I'd be generally in favour of: the hapless dad being so overused a meme in broadcast media is a major bugbear of mine.

That said, I really wouldn't take issue with the Aptamil ad: people can be different while being equal. What harm if more little girls dream of being ballerinas while more little boys dream of being engineers? Once neither is prevented from pursuing either dream, they're equal. Sure, the boy may have a more realistic dream in this scenario and maybe there's a value in encouraging children (particularly girls) to have more realistic career goals (and that's a conversation worth having imho) but it seems a bit of a stretch to put this on a par with advertising that belittles either gender,

Pelvis

kunst nugget wrote: »

So you won't be able to show a girl dressed as a ballerina or a boy playing with a digger for fear of gender stereotyping? Ads that portray men as dullards around the house or incapable of minding their own kids get on my wick but I simply don't buy those products if their advertising annoys me.

No I don't think the aim is stop girls from being dressed as a ballerina or a boy playing with a digger. It's to stop only girls being shown dressed as a ballerina and only boys playing with a digger.

Manach

The usual narrative of advertisements seems to be mirror reality or attempt to engage the consumer into an aspiration model. Either way, the aim is to sell some form of product. These attempts by the State to impose its version of what it would like reality to be undercut these effects. This is rather akin to book, Engineers of the Soul, where the Soviet State doctrine was superior to that of all other considerations in media. That this now looks to be part of modern Western practice is troubling.

kunst nugget

Pelvis wrote: »

No I don't think the aim is stop girls from being dressed as a ballerina or a boy playing with a digger. It's to stop only girls being shown dressed as a ballerina and only boys playing with a digger.

I think that they should be decked out in gender neutral clothing and gender neutral colours performing gender neutral tasks to make sure that they don't cause offence or warp fragile minds.

Pelvis

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think that they should be decked out in gender neutral clothing and gender neutral colours performing gender neutral tasks to make sure that they don't cause offence or warp fragile minds.

Cool.

who_me

I'd have a few concerns about this.

- I think it smacks a bit too much of social engineering. Adverts which insult or demean should be regulated (IMO). Adverts which don't promote social/career paths exactly how each viewer would like... that's well beyond what should be regulated.

- I'd worry it'll lead just to reverse stereotyping. Does this mean only girls can be shown progressing to Engineering or only boys can be shown aspiring to be ballerinas, without falling foul of these regulations? How is that, in any way, better?

- Doesn't this (unintentionally) create a stigma around the activities/roles that are being regulated against? No one should be forced into any profession / role, but they shouldn't be stigmatised either. How can it be offensive for girls to be portrayed as ballerinas, without such a stigma?

newport2

Manach wrote: »

The usual narrative of advertisements seems to be mirror reality or attempt to engage the consumer into an aspiration model.

I would agree, except I would say it is targeted and biased. So it's a skewed view of reality. eg. Men are hapless idiots to show women in a good light because they are doing the shopping. That's not reality, just a distorted reality supposed to appeal to the target customer. Even if there is a small element of truth to it.

I don't necessarily think the new regulation is a bad thing once they don't go overboard on it. I think the most damaging aspect of ads such as idiot Dads is that they are constantly fed to children from a young age. Bound to have an effect on their perception. Not particularly helpful overall in a society that isn't exactly great at recognising fathers rights.

silverharp

I'd prefer if this had happened because of consumer backlash but I guess it at least "the establishment" was able to see an issue with the dad/husband tropes so that's a positive. Could be a cranks charter though where complaints roll in because boys are seen playing football and the rest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's the nature of the beast, though and it's become ubiquitous now. There are idiots and narcissists across various spectra who are only too keen to spout all sorts of nonsense while not so much playing the victimhood card as smacking everyone in the face with it.

In the case of University students, they're being charged obscene amounts of money now for a product which hasn't increased in quality by anywhere near a commensurate measure. University now seems to marketed as an "Experience" while more and more Universities, especially those in the US use platforms such as Udacity to offer their content to a wider consumer base. The net result is that those paying a premium for this "Experience" don't want it marred by anyone who holds different opinions.

Eric Cartman

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think that they should be decked out in gender neutral clothing and gender neutral colours performing gender neutral tasks to make sure that they don't cause offence or warp fragile minds.

knowing the way the world is going, we'll have some ad with a 6 year old boy in a dress and makeup being walked hand in hand with his butch lesbian mother to the quorn section in a supermarket, advertising execs will clap their hands in the name of 'progress' and most people will just sit there saying 'the f*ck was that'

The Black Oil

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Irish Times Women's podcast had 3 men on a few weeks ago, to discuss feminism. iirc, it's only about the fourth time men have been on in the 120+ episodes of the show. Twitter of course went nuts once the episode was posted, well, because, men.

In relation to the outrage machine in general, I've noticed a certain cohort of the Twitterati inclined to throw around the word 'platform'. There was a fair bit of this around the time of the Kevin Myers article and due to recent stuff about Nazis (even before Charlottesville). Expect to get rounded upon if you mention free speech.

Middle Man

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The above sounds perfectly reasonable to me - mono-gender careers have largely become a thing of the past while ridding the 'hapless male' stereotype should be openly welcomed by every male!

Idbatterim

To me, this takes away a lot of the humor that makes advertising work. The funniest stereotypes amuse us because we recognize that there's some truth in what's being portrayed.

you know what even if the "funny stereotypes" were 60/40% etc I wouldnt have an issue with it. This 100% media advertisement, featuring only the male "idiot" is pathetic..

Middle Man

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know what even if the "funny stereotypes" were 60/40% etc I wouldnt have an issue with it. This 100% media advertisement, featuring only the male "idiot" is pathetic..

+1
...and can't you imagine if roles were suddenly reversed and that it was always the woman that was the hapless idiot. Well I guess there would be product boycotts galore and subsequent forced withdrawal of such adverts. So, why is it good enough for men???

Middle Man

Blacktie. wrote: »

Big brother and the nanny state strike again.

Well big brother policy that applies to everyone is better than such that effectively applies only to men. I don't think 'big brother' is a good thing in general, but at least make it gender neutral.

Blacktie.

Middle Man wrote: »

Well big brother policy that applies to everyone is better than such that effectively applies only to men. I don't think 'big brother' is a good thing in general, but at least make it gender neutral.

Why? It's such a ridiculously minor issue. I don't think every little thing a company does needs to be government regulated which seems to be the way things are going.

Annasopra

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't say that I am massively thrilled to be honest. Such stereotypes have their roots in people's mindsets so getting rid of it advertising is unlikely to accomplish much I think. That said, it is nice to see the hapless male trope getting parity with that of the housewife.

Do you think advertising has no influence on mindsets?

Annasopra

Pelvis wrote: »

No I don't think the aim is stop girls from being dressed as a ballerina or a boy playing with a digger. It's to stop only girls being shown dressed as a ballerina and only boys playing with a digger.

And also why shouldnt be boys be encouraged to be ballet dancers and girls truck drivers

ancapailldorcha

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you think advertising has no influence on mindsets?

Advertising is only one facet of popular culture. I think the state censoring it could be the beginning of a dangerous precedent.

Obvious Otter

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And also why shouldnt be boys be encouraged to be ballet dancers and girls truck drivers

Who's saying they aren't?

Getting offended by traditional stereotypes shows an incredible level of personal insecurity. Pandering to the easily offended will only serve to damage society in the long term.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Middle Man

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Regarding regulation, do you think racist or homophobic adverts should be allowed? I think not! Neither should adverts of a misandristic or misogynistic nature - that includes stereotypes ('the hapless male') or exclusionary material ('man size') - people can argue about humour, but where does one draw the line? At the moment, the media is sending out far too much misandristic poison and this is causing deep division between the genders.

P.S. For those confused about the use of the word 'inclusive' in the poll regarding feminism, the above is a clear example of men's rights material that is inclusive of women - in the poll, the term's meaning is obviously vice versa in the context of gender.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Middle Man

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, just ban content that clearly has no purpose other than to glorify hatred/disregard/ridicule against any group of people based on gender, sexual orientation, race (including the colour of skin/hair), ethnicity, socio-economic class or disability etc. Yes, openly depise the actions of people and even their institutions - for example, property speculators, but not personal characteristics that individuals have no control over.