In UK, Traditional Chivalry Masquerades as Gender Equality
In the UK, it seems there's something called the Advertising Standards Authority with the power to ban advertising it deems to be, well, something that should be banned. What the "standards" are, I can only guess. But if you thought there's a misandric cast to ASA rulings, you'd be right.
As with so much else that we in the U.S. might call affirmative action, in UK ads, it is officially acceptable to denigrate men and unacceptable to do the same to women, as this article describes (Daily Mail, 5/20/09). How can that be possible when the ASA claims to decide gender issues on whether ads "portray either gender in a way that stigmatized, humiliated or undermined them by using harmful stereotypes?" After all, the famous Oven Pride oven cleaner ad that did exactly that to men was passed by the ASA.
On the other hand, an ad for gambling that featured two attractive women and a man was banned because it "associated sexual success with gambling." Of course it did no such thing, but that, I suppose, is beside the point.
(I could write a whole piece on the fact that the only thing "sexual" about the ad is the women's somewhat scanty attire. How is it that the way a woman is dressed becomes a sexual come-on in the minds of ASA's minions? Wouldn't they scream bloody murder if a rape defendant made the same claim in court?)
As is seemingly always the case with governmental censorship, what is and isn't censored says far more about the minds of the censors than anything. And in the UK, censorship of advertising looks suspiciously like an exercise in chivalric protection of delicate feminine virtue. Only a mind that views women as truly fragile beings could conceive of the gambling ad as threatening or demeaning to women. Leaving aside the obvious question "so what if it does?" the UK censors perceive that women need special protection while men, as exemplified by their acceptance of the oven cleaner ad, do not.
In short, while telling themselves and us that they're righting age-old wrongs done to women, they're actually perpetuating those very wrongs. By assuming women need special protection from something as unthreatening as the gambling ad, the ASA promotes gender stereotyping that ultimately redounds to the detriment of women. How are we supposed to give equal respect to people who need such special coddling?
If it were left up to me, I'd dispense with censorship to promote gender equality altogether. I think both sexes can handle a little good-natured needling, and what's sauce for the goose...
But if the ASA wants to censor (and like governmental censors everywhere, it does), it should apply uniform standards equally to both sexes. As it stands, it looks suspiciously like the ASA doesn't know some basic facts. For example,
A study from the Chartered Institute of Marketing in 2001 found two thirds of people believe women are now portrayed in adverts as intelligent, assertive and caring, while men are shown as pathetic and silly.
Or ASA authorities might want to read Spreading Misandry by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, or James McNamara's meticulous work on depictions of men in popular culture. If they did, they'd understand that, for well over twenty years, popular culture, including advertising has been heavily freighted with anti-male messages. And if they understood that, maybe they wouldn't be so ready to assume that still more misandry is acceptable.
But that would require them to abandon their Victorian view of women as passive, innocent and sexless, and men as active, corrupt and sexual.
And we can't have that.
Thanks to Duncan for the heads-up.
|
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
