Sexism and sensibility

16 July 2009

The portrayal of men and women in ads in gender-stereotypical or unflattering roles has the potential to cause offence.  What is pernicious sexism to one person, however, may be light-hearted humour to someone else.  In determining whether such portrayals are likely to cause serious or widespread offence the ASA must consider the content and the context of the ad and be mindful of generally accepted standards in society.

Many ads have been accused of portraying men or women in a sexist way: either conventionally, for example through the portrayal of a woman as a housewife or as an object of sexual desire, or unconventionally, for example through the portrayal of an emasculated or ‘unmanly’ man. The ASA does not determine whether such ads are ‘sexist’, only if the ads are likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

In making those judgments, the ASA does not seek to socially engineer but to consider the merits of each case against the relevant Advertising Code, taking into account the context of the ad and the expectations of the audience given the content in which the ad is placed.  Its decisions on offence may take research into account but they invariably involve a subjective interpretation of the ad.  Two recent cases illuminate the ASA’s consideration of ads that have attracted complaints about sexist portrayals of women and men.  

A recent TV ad campaign for Virgin Atlantic demonstrates how the use of historical context and light humour is a key consideration for the ASA when judging complaints about potentially offensive portrayals of men and women in ads. The ad was designed to mark the 25 year anniversary of the carrier and featured a glamorous group of all-female air hostesses, accompanied by a male captain, walking through an airport in the 1980s. As the hostesses journeyed through the airport they were met with various looks of amazement from wide-eyed men who appeared in thrall of them as well as disapproving looks from women.  

The ASA received 48 complaints about the ad. Complainants objected that the ad used imagery of women in a chauvinistic and sexist manner to promote the airline. They believed the ad presented an outdated and stereotypical view of gender roles.  

Ultimately, the ASA did not consider that there were grounds for an investigation. It considered that most viewers would understand that the ad presented exaggerated stereotypical views of the early 1980s and played upon perceived attitudes of that time in a humorous way. It also considered that the ad was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as derogatory towards women or to cause serious or widespread offence.   

Oven cleaner might not seem a particularly controversial product to advertise but a TV ad for HomePride’s ‘Oven Pride’ became one of the most complained about ads of recent times.  It featured a woman presiding over a man in the kitchen as he began to use oven cleaner with an exaggerated zeal and enthusiasm. A voice-over then stated "so easy, even a man can do it".  Text on screen at the end of the ad stated "Note: no men were harmed during the making of this commercial". The ASA received 673 complaints. The majority of complainants believed the ad implied men were stupid and lazy and was therefore offensive and sexist.  

In assessing the complaints the ASA readily accepted that many people considered the ad to be in poor taste. However, it did not consider the ad portrayed gender in a way that stigmatised, humiliated or undermined men by using harmful stereotypes. The ASA considered the ad was clearly a parody on gender stereotypes and portrayed the man in an over the top way that was likely to be seen by the majority of viewers as light-hearted.  

It is worth noting that the ASA also received complaints from women, that the ad stereotyped them as being the sex most likely to do the housework. It rejected these complaints too.  Read the full HomePride adjudication on the ASA website.  

Be aware, however, before you think the ASA takes a soft line on gender-stereotypical or unflattering portrayals of men or women in ads, it has clamped down on material of this nature that it judges to have gone a step too far.

An advertising technique that has provoked a raft of complaints and one that has engendered feelings of humiliation is the depiction of violence against men. This issue came to the fore when a national newspaper ad by the Newspaper Marketing Agency went a step too far by depicting a man impaled on a giant stiletto heeled shoe next to the strap line “Killer Heels”. It prompted 81 complaints. This stylised image was judged by the ASA as inappropriate and likely to trivialise violence against men.  It ordered that it be withdrawn and not be used again.  

Nor does a humorous approach always prevent an advertiser from being investigated by the ASA and falling foul of the codes. When the photo developer chain Snappy Snaps produced a poster featuring a buxom woman in a black bra alongside the caption "It took all evening to pull the cracker. The photos took one hour" 36 people complained that it portrayed women as sex objects. Snappy Snaps chose an approach that appeared to use the female form gratuitously and, while the pun may have been intended in a light-hearted way, it was an unfortunate choice of imagery and strap line that sat uncomfortably with the product being advertised. The ASA found the ad had breached the taste and decency rules.  

In seeking to ensure that its decisions are in line with generally accepted standards in society, the ASA is bound to disappoint those that seek a harder line on gender-stereotypical or unflattering portrayals of men and women in ads; it may also be perceived as humourless or morally high-handed by those who take little or no offence from such depictions.  These decisions are rarely straightforward but they are made on the merits of each case, on the balance of factors for and against upholding against the Code and, importantly, by women and men who share an equal understanding of and stake in society as you do!