Sexism alive and well in karcher

Whether you think it's reasonable or not comes down to whether you think advertising is a patriarchal industry or not, ie. mostly run by men who allocate budgets, sign off adverts, choose how things are portrayed and regulate the industry.

Some would say this guidance doesn't go far enough.

I suspect it reflects the views of the mainstream though.

Also it's fairly vague about how you strike the balance between freedom of speech, reflecting society and not causing offence.

That's not exactly an easy balance to define admittedly. And the ASA seems to work on a case by case basis as a workaround to this.

No offense taken about my situation. We would continue this way indefinitely I think if DP didn't earn 3 times as much as me. He'd prefer to stay at home for sure.

Hi Ashesgirl, thanks for the answer regarding your personal situation; I want to say that I think that's great (although i am a little cautious about saying anything that might be deemed patronising at the moment!)

Thanks also for copying the info; that seems reasonable doesn't it?

I think I understand how direct suggestions of 'women's work' is v.bad and reinforcement of the idea is not good. I still don't think that the example from the OP can really be described as sexist though can it? Sure, it doesn't challenge the notion and - as OP says - it wouldn't have been too difficult to have made it a bit more neutral...

I've been thinking about whether advertisers should take more of a lead. This is what the European Advertising Standards Alliance has to say about portrayal of women in ads:

"The primary purpose of commercial advertising is to promote goods and services, not to bring about changes in society - what is often called 'social engineering'.

Advertising therefore 'holds up a mirror to society', portraying it in ways which are sometimes idealised or simplified, but essentially a form which consumers can immediately recognise and with which they can readily
identify. To safeguard advertisers? right of free speech and freedom to select their audience, this need has to be respected.

However, it has also to be balanced with the need to avoid stereotypical portrayals likely to be widely perceived as projecting an offensive or demeaning image of women, either as individuals or as members of society.

Differences in national culture notwithstanding, it is no longer generally regarded as acceptable for advertisements to exploit women as 'sex objects' to attract male attention, or to feature them as mere adjuncts to the sale of goods. It is unrealistic to expect advertisements to avoid showing
women in traditional roles, e.g. carrying out household tasks or caring for children, but care is needed to avoid any suggestion that such activity is 'women's work', or has little value, or that those who do it are unintelligent or interested only in domestic trivia.

The last two decades have seen significant changes in the way that women are portrayed in advertisements, reflecting advertisers? alertness to changing public sensitivities and recognition that a positive image of women as individuals and members of society is likely to evoke a better response, as well as avoiding complaints."

Don't waste your money, they are shit

What ashesgirl said - and this is part of a much wider issue that includes the colour pink, the princess-ification of girls today and the prevading view in society about housework being "womens work".

If young girls grow up being bombarded with images of women doing housework etc, they can grow up thinking that domestic/childcare roles are all women are good for, and that it is expected of them, as opposed to being anything they want to be. Boys can grow up thinking that it's 'not their job' and expect their girlfriends and wives to do all of that, 'because that's just how it is', not seeing her as an equal and contributing to her not making the most of herself in life, like she would be able to do if it was an equal partnerhip, or an equal society.

It's a vicious circle, because then these girls become women, who continue the theme of reflecting what society has told them they should be, and raise their daughters not to question it either. It's BAD, in other words.

The advertisers also have these pre-conceptions in their heads, as Doctrine said, and if we don't challenge these stereotype and pigeon-hole gender roles on every level, including the pictures on a pressure washer/window vac box, and teach girls and women (and boys and men!) why they're wrong then we're feeding into it remaining in our culture, rather than helping society to move on and eradicate casual sexism.

Don't forget that the people making the adverts also have a bunch of pre-conceptions about roles in their heads - they aren't created in a vacuum, though various creatives might be tested with focus groups.

Yes I do expect advertisers to realise they are part of the cycle and to take some responsibility for influencing society as well as for "reflecting" it.

I see yr point about whether advertisers should take the lead. By the same token, i dont like that my daughter grows up bombarded with images of women assigned to a domestic role. Which is why it matters and why we challenge this stuff, point it out etc.

I tend to agree there will be a swing in portrayal over time. As long as keep questioning this stuff.

Bdd, yes absolutely. I currently work and my partner stays at home/does the childcare.

I can't remember the statistic, but women are v influential in the family decision which car to buy.

You wouldn't know that by watching car ads.

Thank you for explaining that TDOS; that final point about age gaps particularly I can see being a major factor in any decision about who makes what choice.

None of that suggests what you feel the advertisers should be doing though. What seems most important is that the choice exists. As some of your friends prove, it does. This - as more women reach higher levels of employment, delay childbirth, use daycare etc - will in time become apparent in society's reflections, which is what I would say advertising is. Do we really expect them to lead the issue?

Thank you Doctrine. You clearly have more patience than me tonight.

All choices are made in the context of society. A UK restaurant would never have horse meat on the menu, I have seen it in restaurants overseas. Horse meat is no more or less nutritious here than there, just in uk society we don't eat it and probably consider it odd or unusual (or plain unthinkable)

By the same token, If a person's mum, aunt, cousin, best friend's mum etc etc were SAHMs or had part time jobs growing up, then all the people you know having children around the same time as you follow a similar pattern, that person might consider another pattern to be odd, unusual or just plain unthinkable.

On top of this perhaps the person and his partner have the average age gap of two years. given that women on average are in lower paid roles than men on average and that women have historically had more maternity rights and therefore typically had more time off in the early months which then perhaps becomes a habit - do you think the "women choose child care, men choose breadwinner" statement is really a statement about a free choice?

Abigail, you have a rather odd habit of slightly reframing what I say. I didn't say anything about 'not liking'. I asked why you were telling me what I should and shouldn't ask; you didn't answer.

I'm interested to know what "there's a shocker" means exactly.

"Not looking at the whole picture" isn't really an answer either is it? Accusing me of a shocking lack of thought is quite a strong statement and I would have thought that you could back it up and say what was fundamentally incorrect about my thought that advertisers merely addressed their customer.

Hi TDOS,

I get that - there's obviously a circular relationship there; but we don't all do what we're told by advertisers do we?! :) What do we expect, though? Are we asking them to take social responsibility over proven marketing doctrine? I can't see how we could sell that idea in a market-driven environment. What the OP is essentially suggesting is that despite women being the primary purchasers of their products (presumably) they should not have a women using the product. That just seems a bit... well, silly.

It's not looking at the whole picture bad, as Doctrine explained.

You don't like be told what you should ask? There's a shocker.

NB Critical thinking: logical thinking that draws conclusions from facts and evidence.

The people who make the decisions at the point of sale for most domestic cleaning items are women; therefore advertisers target their products at women.

This is pretty logical and is backed up by evidence confirming that women make the majority of purchasing decisions. I'm not sure what's so shocking?!

Bdd there is a relationship between what adverts portray because "that's how society is" and how society actually is. If only women are portrayed vacuuming in ads, soaps, whatever, it reinforces the norm.

DH and I both have careers and both take on some childcare - on days we are both at work the kids are in school/nursery. I do know two couples where the woman is the WOHP and the man the SAHP.

How does it show that Abigail?

I'm not asking that question of the posters I've been talking with because they aren't men. Why are you telling me which questions I'm allowed to ask and which ones I'm not? I actually think it's the same question; are men prepared to consider taking primary responsibility for childcare and are women prepared to consider being the breadwinner. This question is one for each individual couple to consider and I'm asking the individuals I'm talking with.

That last post shows a shocking lack of political awareness and critical thinking. And the question you should be asking is why more men aren't happy to do be doing the childcare?

So, if women are all doing the shopping then the advertisers of the products will aim their products at women. What I'm suggesting is that the adverts only reflect reality and do not determine it. The reality, it seems to me, is that for the most part women choose to be the primary carer for their child, which leads to a primary responsibility for household issues, which leads to primary responsibility in choosing which brand of detergent to purchase.

Which takes me back to my question as to whether women are happy to be the breadwinner and have a househusband! :)

Whoever does the shopping obviously.

As to who stays home - that depends on the jobs and earning potential of the couple surely.

Hello MmeLindor :)

In your opinion, who makes the decisions about which brand of washing powder is purchased (say)? I would say that that is central to how advertisers pitch their adverts. In my household Mrs BDD makes that decision and I think I'd get told to bugger off if I tried to interfere! (I'll ask her later and let you know!!)

I don't know about that; for me one of the most standard portrayals of western family life over the past decade or so has been that of The Simpsons; stupid fat father and child prodigy daughter (don't get me wrong, I love The Simpsons).

For all the couples I know, the mother has chosen to stay at home or go part time. I don't think any of them offered the father the option of taking on the childcare role. In each case, it is obvious to me that the father will therefore see his career develop beyond that of his wife.

How about you Ashegirl (is it ok to ask?), would you push on with your career whilst your husband stayed at home to look after your children?

It does matter because it is being suggested - via just about every blooming advert - that housework is women's work.

And it is the message that we pass to our kids, at least those kids who don't have feminist parents pointing out the sexist ads.

It doesn't surprise me though cause Kärcher is a German country and the casual sexism here is pretty rife. Particularly in advertising.