Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Help object to sexist advertisements

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 07:30 AM PDT

wecams, Object, CHIPS test, sexist advetisements, FEMMJoin the major new campaigners.

In November the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned an advertisement for The Sun newspaper’s Dream Team fantasy football competition for offering the “sexist and offensive” prize of a date with a page three girl.

And now the Daily Star’s website ad, headed “Win a date with a Daily Star Page 3 babe! It’s a cold miserable winter out there – but as ever your fun-loving Daily Star knows just how to brighten up your lives”, has been banned for being sexist, offensive and socially irresponsible.

The Advertising Standards Authority received 31 complaints, including one from the UK-based campaign group Object, that the prize was sexist and objectified women, and therefore offensive and socially irresponsible.

Object has now joined forces with Italian campaigners Donne in Quota, and Les Chiennes de Gardes in France, two other organisations which have long specialised in the fight against sexist advertising, to form  the Women's European Coalition Against Sexism Media – or WECAMS.

They are pooling their energies to fight at European level against gender stereotypes in advertising.

They have set up a petition which will be delivered to the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) asking its members to insist that its resolutions are no longer be flouted by companies and those companies' advertising agencies.

The CHIPS Test, devised by Caroline Heldman in the USA, is one way of looking at media sexism. Here's how it could be applied to sexist ads targeted at a European market.

The following advertisements all come from the UK and have come to the attention of WECAMS partner, Object.

1) Commodity: Does the image show a sexualised person as a commodity, for example, as something that can be bought and sold?

One example of this is the 'Become an escort' advertisement in an issue of Zoo magazine, a lads' mag which you can buy in many mainstream retailers.

2) Harmed: Does the image show a sexualised person being harmed, for example, being violated or unable to give consent?

One billboard advertisement was withdrawn by the venue itself, during the summer of 2014 after complaints, including from the Fawcett Society and Object. It showed a cartoon version of supermodel Kate Moss with a cartoon version of photographer Terry Richards inserting a gun between her buttocks. Several models have publicly alleged Terry Richards has sexually assaulted them.

3) Interchangeable: Does the image show a sexualised person as interchangeable, for example, a collection of similar bodies?

In March 2015, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint, by Object and members of the public, in the Daily Star which offered 'a date with a page 3′ as a prize. Presenting the women as 'interchangeable' was one element of the ruling.

4) Parts: Does the image show a sexualised person as body parts, for example, a human reduced to breasts or buttocks?

Sadly, the ASA did not uphold Object's complaint about a World Cup Pot Noodle promotion in 2014, parts of which focused on the bottoms of women on Brazilian beaches.

5) Stand-In: Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object, for example, a human body used as a chair or a table?

Spearmint Rhino on Tottenham Court Road in London, for example, a lap dancing club which offers diners the chance to eat from a woman's naked body as if it were a table.

And there may be a need for CHIPS PLUS: Do we need to look at additional issues of dehumanisation and discrimination?

The CHIPS categories focus on sexual objectification and are a useful starting point. But often other examples of prejudice and dehumanising stereotypes are part of the images too. For example, Object criticised the 'Brazilian' Pot Noodle promotion for linking in with sexualised racist stereotypes about people from Latin America.

You can help with this campaign.

You could set up a small discussion group to discuss this in your own community, and talk about the advertisements shown here; ask what other examples are there of ads that meet the CHIPS test criteria and if there are other discriminatory elements.

You could also think about, or discuss with a group, what you could do about this.

You could send complaints direct to the promoter which was successful at 2 above, or to the Advertising Standards Authority (click here) which was successful at 3 but not at 4 – although had more people written to complain they might have realised how offensive it was.

Can you help WECAM to promote the petition?