Another crass and sexist ad

[Lunaballoon]

Anyone else seen this new Pot Noodles ad? I'm really sick of this kind of crass, sexist crap. I'm thinking of putting in a complaint to the ASA. Anybody with me?

Have you not got access to google?

Yes, dreadful ads rutters and Louise Don't recall anyone here saying they weren't.

What are you going to do about it (besides derail a thread about a completely different advert )?

I'd like sashh to tell me, she already knows.

I used to complain about ads but only ones that women find offensive ever get removed (I think it's women who make the decisions, at least I only ever have correspondence with women)

Basically they say they are just a bit of fun, just like the Pot noodle ad.

Could you reproduce some of that correspondence, rutters?

Fyi for allt: "In 2010, in the UK, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 8 for women and 1 in 868 for men."

Really? Scans of letters received on a public forum?

Do you always ask for proof of poster's correspondence?

Upthread, someone else has posted their response from ASA.

The last time I bothered was over a year ago. I realised that if they were prepared to let men be depicted in those ways it wasn't worth complaining any more.

Didn't see the point of saving the letter..till now.

Movember isn't just for men! It it wasn't for the joys of waxing, I could grow a tache in a month which would terrify most blokes!

I used to complain about ads but only ones that women find offensive ever get removed (I think it's women who make the decisions, at least I only ever have correspondence with women)

Aw it must be hard for you to come across systematic sexism where the people in charge of decisions that are important to you are all made by people of one sex. :( Go on tell me what it's like.

*for the record the people who write the letters are usually secretaries.

Out of interest, rutters, did you ever complain about the depiction of women in any ads?

Not attributing this to you directly but quite often on these threads people come on and post "why are you feminists complaining about that when you should be complaining about this?" when a "wow, that ad is crap -
I've found another bad one, if I complain about yours will you complain about mine?" would seem more likely to get a positive result all round.

How strange. I have contacted the ASA a couple of times about ads which I felt were demeaning to women and I got responses from men saying they didn't see a problem.

How strange.

I must have somehow managed to get the only bloke working at the otherwise all-female feminist activist organisation that is the UK advertising standards authority

Maybe the radical feminists who work at and run the ASA sometimes use men's names in their correspondence to throw people off the scent?

It's absolutely definitely possible.

And I like the responses to the above posts about running:

Posters:

Until very recently women were excluded from many running events for entirely spurious reasons, women campaigned and fought long and hard over decades to be allowed to run certain races.

Response (boils down to): So fucking what. I couldn't give a monkeys. Now what about this cillit bang ad, eh?

In 2012 there were 23 athletics events for women, 24 for men.

How many sports clubs exclude women? Do they ever examine why they do that? Whether that should change? I know quite a few (eg Lords) changed when the national lottery started because they could not discriminate and get lottery finding.

Or did you mean other Olympic events? Canoeing, 11 men's events, 5 women's, and this was due to removing one men's event and replacing it with a woman's race.

Weight lifting, men 8, women 7.

Boxing, men 9, women 5.

Rowing, men 8 women 6.

I think the only event at the moment that is all female is synchronized swimming and a lot more sports have equal men's and women's competitions than they used to.

Sashh, it was the amazing campaign by OxygenThief that got the numbers much closer to parity, didn't you know?

That's why he feels slightly miffed that, even though he has complained about the advert in the OP and complained tirelessly about all the other adverts he listed in his post, we all ignored him when he came on here and asked for help in his campaigns. I mean, that must be what happened, right, or he wouldn't be so cross with us?

Why is GentleMenJ in the plural? Are they a collective, like the Borg?

They're kind of the opposite of Mumsnet, then. GentleMenJ is many posting under one name, whereas MN appears under many names but is actually all the same person. That's why we all agree with each other about everything.

On a side note, I always found the Diet Coke advert irritating anyway, but not enough to be bothered to complain. It always seemed to me that it was not objectifying men so much as objectifying women objectifying men, if that makes sense. For example I don't recall there being any ugly or elderly women rushing to the window - though to be fair it's been a few years since I last saw it (a very good argument, if any were needed, for continuing not to bother to get my tv reception sorted, and I don't care if it is on Youtube).

Following on from sashh's post parity in the Olympics comes in many forms, not just the number or type of events offered for both men and women.

Synchronised swimming and rhythmic gymnastics are offered to women only. This is not because of exclusionary tactics on the part of women.

In canoeing, swimming, cycling, shooting and athletics there are events in which women compete over lesser distances than men. No idea why that would be.

There are also big discrepencies in the maximum number of competitors in certain sports. Football being a big one. So although 18 men/women are allowed per nation, there are less female teams allowed to compete. Cycling, rowing, canoeing, shooting, sailing are others. I probably needn't say that of course men are allowed a greater number of competitors in each event than women.

There are still more medal opportunities for men. And if a nation were to send a full team there would still be more men than women.

Not only that there are more male than female coaches/staff.

Women have to fight for every concession they are given. They have to be "allowed" to compete at the Olympics. Their existence has to be justified. Men don't. So begrudging a women-only space for a running event for charity is churlish in the very least and referring back to my post on Wed 30-Apr-14 16:59:15, you need to think about your boundaries and other people's. Men don't have to be the centre of everything. Really they don't.

I should point out that is able-bodied Olympics. I haven't got all the numbers for the Paralympics but the numbers appear to be more even. There are also more mixed events in the Paralympics.

As we are on the theme of women's sports, the first women's cycling tour starts tomorrow setting off from Oundle in Northants and I understand there is TV coverage.

See www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/ for a list of articles about it.

Incidentally it has lots of male support and enthusiasm including from one Bradley Wiggins. No what about the menz from him! So men with probably a lot more sporting pedigree than our male complainer re Race for Life seem to think it is OK for women to do their own thing!

(Can't remember too many women getting antsy about the Movember campaign for men's health because they couldn't take part - unless of course you are the proud possessor of a female moustache).

Grimbletart

Of course it's OK for Women to do their own thing. In fact I can see it does a lot of good above and beyond the fundraising (I've been more then happy to sponsor when asked). I don't think my suggestion of a second race for the Guys would rock that boat.

I've known a lot of Women do Movember actually, cardboard tashes and the like. Lots of fun. So with a bit of imagination Women (Mosistas) are up there with the Guys .

Like I said a whole bunch of Guys want to celebrate their love ones in a big happy atmosphere. It seems unethical to prevent them from doing so.

No its not unethical. Men can organise themselves I'm sure (they certainly manage to when power and money are involved). What is unethical is men insisting that they have a right to be in female spaces coz their feelings are hurt or summat.

You read what Buffy wrote about RFL and why it is women only. Why are you denying women their experiences? Why aren't you tackling the reasons behind why women feel the way they do?

Thanks Buffy I hadn't seen that one. I hope it gets the support it deserves.

So that's a no then. Much more constructive to whine about RFL not letting the boys play than to take part in something organised for the boys, isn't it? Raises far more money for the causes you and people who share your POV say women should be working for, does it?

I despair.