Discrimination against men
Complaints concerning discrimination or vilification against men commonly refer to the level of acceptability the advertisement would have if roles were reversed and women were in the spotlight . The Board ’ s role is to consider each advertisement on its own merit and as such , addressing hypothetical alternatives is not a helpful way to assess compliance with the Code .
In 2016 the Board found one advertisement to breach the Code on the basis of discrimination against men . The Board was of the view that :
• Advertising which suggests all husbands are pests is degrading and vilifying of husbands .
--
A radio advertisement in which a woman asks a pest removal company if they ‘ do husbands ’ ( Allpest WA – 0510 / 16 ).
In other advertisements where concerns about discrimination against men had been received , the Board was of the view that :
• Advertising which highlights facts about gender equality and makes statements about affirmative actions taken to help females , is not in itself discriminatory towards men .
--
A television advertisement which highlighted financial inequality between men and women and affirmative action being taken by the advertiser for their female employees ( ANZ Banking Group Ltd – 0118 / 16 ).
• Advertising which highlights the causes of violence against women , does not suggest that all men are violent towards women or that men cannot be victims of domestic violence .
--
A television advertisement which shows a man encouraging his son to kick a ball at his wife ’ s head ( Department of Premier and Cabinet ( Victoria ) – 0581 / 16 ).
• References to masculine stereotypes are not considered to be discriminating or vilifying of men , where the references are light-hearted and humorous .
--
A radio advertisement which features a woman telling her husband to have a ‘ real look ’ not a ‘ man look ’ ( Michael Roach Financial Services – 0265 / 16 ).
• Concerns about the depiction of men as incompetent in one advertisement does not suggest that this same situation applies to all men , or that it is specific to men .
--
A television advertisement where a man has trouble setting up his smart TV , before having it pointed out to him that he has not switched it on . His wife makes a comment that at least the TV is smart ( Freeview Australia Limited – 0383 / 16 ).
Discrimination against women
Complaints concerning discrimination against women generally attract high complaint numbers . Imagery of women presented in a sexualised manner can also be considered under Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Code depending on the content of the advertisement and nature of the complaint .
The Board has upheld a number of complaints about advertisements for discrimination or vilification of women , and is of the view that :
• Advertising which shows women as ridiculous and unable to recognise a dangerous situation incites ridicule towards their behaviour and women in general .
--
A television advertisement which features two women in a car that breaks down on a train crossing ( Ultra Tune Australia – 0020 / 16 ).
In 2016 the Board upheld a number of transport advertisements from the one company for discriminating against women . The Board upheld these ads for :
• Reducing women to sexual objects for men ’ s pleasure ( Wicked Campers – 0154 / 16 ).
• Using the term ‘ bitch ’ ( Wicked Campers – 0116 / 16 ).
• Suggesting that women will take men ’ s belongings at the end of a relationship ( Wicked Campers – 0027 / 16 ).
• Suggesting women cannot make independent decisions ( Wicked Campers – 0026 / 16 ).
The Board is of the view that a number of advertisements did not constitute discrimination or vilification of women , determining :
• Advertising which makes a comment about one woman is not usually seen as a comment which would apply to all women ( Lif3 Global – 0314 / 16 ).
• Advertising which uses descriptions of women but does not clearly identify any group of women does not vilify or discriminate against women ( Petersham Inn – 0334 / 16 ).
• It is not unreasonable for an advertiser to use their registered name in their advertising material . The Board noted that it has no jurisdiction over registered business names , and while some people may considerer certain names to be discriminatory or vilifying , where there is no associated imagery or suggestion of discrimination in the advertisement it will not breach the Code ( Schnitz n Tits – 0276 / 16 ).
• Advertising which trivialises the intimate act of childbirth is not in itself considered discrimination on account of gender ( Burger Urge – 0170 / 16 ).
• The amount or type of clothing a woman is wearing in an advertisement often causes concern in the community , however when that clothing is related to the product being sold this depiction does not amount to discrimination or vilification so long as the women are not depicted in a demeaning manner .
--
Advertisements for underwear or fashion which depict models in the clothes being sold include : Bras N Things ( 0576 / 16 ), Honey Birdette ( 0505 / 16 , 0381 / 16 and 0338 / 16 ), The Iconic ( 0055 / 16 ), General Pants Group ( 0155 / 16 and 0161 / 16 ), 99 Bikes ( 0059 / 16 ) and Advertising Advantage ( 0253 / 16 ).
• Advertisers are free to use whomever they choose in an advertisement , and that choosing to use attractive women is not discriminatory towards women ( All Tools NT – 0010 / 16 and AAMI – 0134 / 16 ).
32 Advertising Standards Bureau