ASA - "Gender stereotypes have the potential to cause harm"

I think it seems sensible on the face of it, but I am uncomfortable with corporates (and this is directly linked) meddling. For example, see other post about apple investing in pushing the idea of gender neutral bathrooms.
I think we’re largely being ruled by large corporate interests as it is, and I think we need less not more of it.
Also as one poster said the key word is “harmful” which is a reassuring, but then how you define harmful- some might say that a stereotype is that “only women have periods” is harmful to them. Not there yet but can see how things
might progress.
On the bbc it said some adverts like baby Annabelle doll, might come under fire- which I think is taking it a bit far to be honest.
These companies have never objected to using stereotypes in the past to promote their own products. I’m suspicious of the motivation.
Il see how it goes anyway because the agreement between p&g, unilever, Unstereotype Alliance etc doesn’t just aim at advertising and hopes to bring significant change by 2020.

Yes, reading round some more this, I've changed my mind. I'm always resistant to censorship on a general level, but this looks like a sensible adjustment and that word 'harmful' does make enough of a difference to me. Fair play.

If they have more solid guidelines it makes it easier for them to act when an ad is obviously out of order / attracts complaints.

TV ads are v high profile but they also cover billboard ads etc which only local people might see and so they go on complaints a lot of the time and then they have the power to say no take it down but they have to have a reason ie goes against our standards. This has put the standards around sex stereotypes / objectificaiton into clearer / more detailed language making it easier for advertisers to understand where the lines are + them to act if they step over them.

I think it's good news.

Fair enough, the guidelines seem rational and measured. Was it not possible to complain about adverts before for any of those reasons? Given that you've stated there that it will be one of the benefits. I know I've read about loads of advert controversies around some of these issues before - is this more of a streamlining of guidelines to make that more straightforward?

Key word is "harmful":

www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ads-to-be-banned.html

"The evidence does not show that the use of gender stereotypes is always problematic and the new rule does not seek to ban gender stereotypes outright, but to identify specific harms that should be prevented.

CAP has published guidance to help advertisers stick to the new rule by providing examples of scenarios likely to be problematic in ads. For example:

An ad that depicts a man with his feet up and family members creating mess around a home while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess.
An ad that depicts a man or a woman failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g. a man’s inability to change nappies; a woman’s inability to park a car.
Where an ad features a person with a physique that does not match an ideal stereotypically associated with their gender, the ad should not imply that their physique is a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic or social lives.
An ad that seeks to emphasise the contrast between a boy’s stereotypical personality (e.g. daring) with a girl’s stereotypical personality (e.g. caring) needs to be handled with care.
An ad aimed at new mums which suggests that looking attractive or keeping a home pristine is a priority over other factors such as their emotional wellbeing.
An ad that belittles a man for carrying out stereotypically ‘female’ roles or tasks.
The rule and guidance does not intend to prevent ads from featuring:

Glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles;
One gender only, including in ads for products developed for and aimed at one gender;
Gender stereotypes as a means to challenge their negative effects."

There won't be no mums shown doing xmas.

What there will be is more opportunity for complaints to be acted on, when ads are more flagrantly sexist.

It means that they have a code they can apply if / when they get lots of complaints, and that the advertisers can read for guidance.

Yes, I can see the ways in which they can be used badly, certainly. I'm just not at all convinced this sort of measure does much to eliminate it in this arena, because what exactly are we talking about in terms of stereotypes.

Ads for Bisto at Christmas that show mothers as the driving force behind a family Christmas? It's a reflection of many women's reality, which is one of the reasons it's a stereotype in the first place.

So, there are no more mums shown as that driving force in 30 second adverts. I'm not really clear what it achieves. Ok, no more women doing the cleaning, and men doing the car repairs.

I don't know, just seems to make the fictional world of adverts even more of an artifice to me. I'm willing to readdress this one, but I'm just not there right now.

Things are changing > over the years on my commute the number of advs featuring parts of women's bodies / no head, and women in their pants has reduced massively.

Rustlers fucking microwave burgers where the womans clothes all fall off.

Hated that ad.

Just looked it up - 2007! Where does the time go lol

Advertisers on cheaper formats / non TV formats still often use attractive women with not many clothes on as a sales tactic.

The idea that we are past sexualising women for profit is > nope. Sexualision is a thing they have said is not allowed - am v happy:

"Sexualisation
Whilst depicting people in a sexual way is not always offensive or problematic, Sexualisation and gratuitous nudity in ads can often cause serious or widespread harm and offence.

Advertisers should avoid using sexualised imagery if this is irrelevant to the product, as this is likely to be considered offensive. In 2016 the ASA investigated an ad for a fast food company which featured two images of a woman wearing only underwear, a jacket and trainers. One image featured the woman sitting on the edge of the sofa with her cleavage emphasised, her hands between her legs and her mouth open in what appeared to be a sexual pose. As this sexualised image of a woman bore no relevance to the advertised product, the ASA considered that the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious offence. (Harlequin Fast Food, 12 October 2016)."

I also like the one where the man (actor) has invented a hoover and he mansplains to the woman how much easier her life will be with all the clever things he's done

I don't see it as negative at all. I don't want adverts which reinforce unhelpful / offensive stereotypes about any groups of people - old people, people with disabilities, people from Asia, and the list includes women / men.

Not negative at all.

I honestly don't buy this. Pun intended.

Stereotypes in the context of fiction are a very different animal to stereotypes in things we are taught in school as authoritative, for example.

Obviously, coming from a teacher in authority for example, certain statements present stereotypes in a very unhelpful context. If a sexist view is presented as the way, then yes, I can see the great potential for harm.

But advertising is stupidly sophisticated now, and has evolved far beyond didactic statements which most people absorb without question. There's a reason the adverts of the forties and fifties really jar with us today.

Advertising is a form of fiction with a very specific persuasive purpose, and you're much more likely to see stereotypes set up and then subverted for a punchline nowadays. That's how a 30 second story will function.

Stereotypes presented as the way reality should be, guiding public policy and law making? Complete shit. Stereotypes as part of creative story telling? Just a building block, and banning them is actually quite a negative step, imo.

i think the use of 'gender' is ominous, and we'll just have 'mums' with full beards, tampon ads for 'menstruators' and 'bleeders', all references to heterosexual life or standard nuclear families banned.

This is going to be the erasure of women I'll bet. Women have fought for this for years but the ASA didn't give a shit.

Do you think there is not some motivation for corporations to be backing this.

Have you considered what other causes they are supporting.

www.pgnewsroom.co.uk/press-release/uk-news-releases/pg-joins-stonewall-launch-trans-equality-initiative

How much control would you like to give to corporations to say what can appear on the tv.

True that things were a lot less sterotyped in 1984, this was my era, it was all primary colours and lego was for everyone etc.

Do you think that asking advertisers not to propagate racist stereotypes, is also Orwellian? Just out of interest.

No ASA hasn’t been taken over by feminists.
UN has partnered with proctor and gamble, along with other corporates, unstereotype alliance to influence advertising standards.
I’m not sure I think it’s a good idea that Corporate interests are able to control what I can watch on the tv and dictate to businesses how they can market their products in a free country .
No doubt they won’t stop at advertising. They hope to make significant changes (social engineering) by 2020.
Unstereotype alliance sounds like something straight out of 1984 to me, but there ya go.

I heard some of this on R4 this morning and what jumped out at me was (excuse my paraphrasing, it was early!) "Presenting something repeatedly which deems it to be only for one gender, or all that a particular gender can aspire to" was something they wanted to stop. So eg always plugging football for boys/cleaning toys for girls. Definitely thought that was an interesting take as its how I've always talked about pink clothing to my girls - I don't mind them choosing it if it's a free choice from many options, but if its the only option because you're a girl, then I get cross.

Oh I assumed NothingOnTellyAgain was on the money.

Anyone on the ball enough to produce this report will also understand that notice doesn't get taken unless something impacts negatively on men. So they're very deliberately pointing out the impact on men.

Didn't see/hear the BBC broadcasts, but in the Guardian piece, Ella Smillie from the ASA "highlighted the real-world harms that resulted from gender inequality, such as the gender pay gap, low rates of women seeking careers in science and the large number of men struggling with mental health issues."

So a bit of both.

Given that most problems are caused by toxic masculinity, maybe they have a point. Maybe male gender stereotypes cause more problems as they often involve imposing male will upon others.

You have a point there.

Some female gender stereotypes are only harmful in that they reinforce the notion that only women should do/ be certain things.

There's nothing wrong with cooking, cleaning and caring for children. Everyone should do those things.

And even reinforcing stereotypes like "women should wear high heels and makeup" only harm women.

Whereas reinforcing male stereotypes usually harms men a bit and women a lot.

Given that most problems are caused by toxic masculinity, maybe they have a point. Maybe male gender stereotypes cause more problems as they often involve imposing male will upon others.

"every example"

That's a bit off...

I think people find sexism about women and girls very dull and whiny.

Men are much more important and interesting.

FFS

I am still hopeful that it's in order that there arent' loads of phone ins and stuff saying "ASA says sexism against women is bad. Is this because they are feminist bastards who can't take a joke? Call in and tell us"...

Yes, men are DEFINITELY the only ones affected by sexism