UK to ban depictions of "traditional" moms in advertising

[renard_ruse]

The real "War on Women"?...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/14/mothers-banned-adverts-war-gender/

 

[dolf]

Oh noes!! The media won't be pushing the line that I'm responsible for all the housework and child rearing? I feel so persecuted

 

[Boxlicker101]

The real "War on Women"?...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/14/mothers-banned-adverts-war-gender/

This sounds pretty ridiculous. After all, I believe women are the ones who choose such things as cleaning products and prepared foods, and commercials showing this being done by "traditional" women work well. Of course, my idea of a "traditional mom" includes women of all races. If that's what they mean, I have no quarrel with the idea.

Even so, I can't help thinking this is one more example of the UK stamping out Freedom of Speech.

 

[Dinosaur1]

Oh dear. That explains why I'm so fucked up. All that trouble mom went through showing me how to cook so I don't starve, how to clean house, do the laundry, help me with my homework, etc. Just terrible.

 

[Hypoxia]

We'll see how well News Corp and the filthy UK tabloids deal with such a ban. Hmmm, why hasn't Fleet Street gone frothing about this? Why isn't it big news in all the UK press? Hint: because it's bogus.

 

[Dinosaur1]

We'll see how well News Corp and the filthy UK tabloids deal with such a ban. Hmmm, why hasn't Fleet Street gone frothing about this? Why isn't it big news in all the UK press? Hint: because it's bogus.

I've often viewed the UK citizens (ordinary everyday people with no axe to grind) and most of Europe as more level headed and sensible than the US the past few decades. Maybe it's one of those tabloid fads that come and go?

 

[ishtat]

Even so, I can't help thinking this is one more example of the UK stamping out Freedom of Speech.

Another of your baseless assumptions Box. The UK media is far more free than that in the USA. The Brits have strong defamation laws certainly, but they lack almost entirely the massive social opprobrium which is imposed on non-conforming opinion in the USA.

 

[about_average]

Weird how the brietbart article links to other articles including other brietbart articles about it but none have links to the actual rules or proposed rules. Or at least none do after several minutes of following links.

 

[Dinosaur1]

Weird how the brietbart article links to other articles including other brietbart articles about it but none have links to the actual rules or proposed rules. Or at least none do after several minutes of following links.

http://www.redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=110247

https://readingontheedge.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/the-negative-effects-of-girl-power/

https://www.boredpanda.com/vintage-ads/

 

[DeYaKen]

The real "War on Women"?...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/14/mothers-banned-adverts-war-gender/

You will always believe what you want to believe won't you? Even when it comes from a website famous for making up the news.
We don't have a Committee of Advertising Practise We do have an Advertising Standards Authority ( see Breitbart couldn't even get the name right).

They quote the Daily Mail but can't link to the article because it doesn't exist. Even the Daily Mail which makes up most of its leaders didn't publish this, but you guys still believe it.

The Beach body ad was pulled but not because it portrayed a pretty girl. The complaint, which was upheld, was that it encouraged girls to think they had to be unrealistically thin. We are very concerned about the number of girls suffering Annorexia Nervosa and the ad was seen as idealising a body shape that most girls could never achieve without starving themselves.

We are so anti motherhood that one of the biggest campaigns here is against companies and organisations which try to prevent women breastfeeding in public.

 

[DeYaKen]

Weird how the brietbart article links to other articles including other brietbart articles about it but none have links to the actual rules or proposed rules. Or at least none do after several minutes of following links.

It's interesting that they made up a committee that doesn't exist and couldn't even get the name of the regulator right. Advertising doesn't work that way here. Any ad is permitted as long as it is "legal, decent, honest and truthful." The Advertising Standards Authority only gets involved if there are complaints.

 

[oggbashan]

Two Cs in a K...

The traditional advertising idea of two women praising a product has become so tired that it only works when it is parodied.

I wrote a story based on that idea:

https://www.literotica.com/s/two-tarts-in-a-kitchen

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority takes a very relaxed view on most advertising. They tend to act only when an advert is making an untrue claim e.g. a furniture company claiming all its products were made of solid wood when some were veneered (and some had plastic components).

Any claim that 90% of women would recommend this product has to be accompanied by the data e.g. 90% of 40 women surveyed by the company said they would. They don't have to say how they selected the 40.

 

[Liar]

http://www.redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=110247

https://readingontheedge.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/the-negative-effects-of-girl-power/

https://www.boredpanda.com/vintage-ads/

A blurb linking to Breitbart, so even further removed from any source, and two irrelevant articles.

You're bad at this.

 

[EternalFantasies]

How far is this from a ban on depictions of women in sexual positions?

 

[Saint Peter]

All positions are sexual positions to the creative soul.

 

[oggbashan]

All positions are sexual positions to the creative soul.

And everything can be a fetish to those inclined to a fetish...

We can turn almost anything into an excuse for thinking about sex.

 

[EternalFantasies]

And everything can be a fetish to those inclined to a fetish...

We can turn almost anything into an excuse for thinking about sex.

So is this Ad ban in the OP true Ogg?

Seems illegal to me.

 

[Rightguide]

This sounds pretty ridiculous. After all, I believe women are the ones who choose such things as cleaning products and prepared foods, and commercials showing this being done by "traditional" women work well. Of course, my idea of a "traditional mom" includes women of all races. If that's what they mean, I have no quarrel with the idea.

Even so, I can't help thinking this is one more example of the UK stamping out Freedom of Speech.

The progressive left, the most destructive force in the world today.

 

[oggbashan]

So is this Ad ban in the OP true Ogg?

Seems illegal to me.

No. It's fake news!

 

[EternalFantasies]

No. It's fake news!

Thank you. Great to know!

 

[oggbashan]

Thank you. Great to know!

The 'news' comes from sensationalizing the advice given by the ASA. The advice is designed to help advertisers avoid getting numerous complaints from the public to the ASA. Almost any advert can offend someone. It is up to the ASA to decide whether there is substance to the complaint and whether the advert has broken the rules. But like most rules, getting close to the edge of what is allowed, and sometimes going too far, is what people will do.

But the ASA rules on what is 'reasonable'. Is the advertisement reasonable for the target audience? Was it put in an inappropriate location? But most of all - are the complaints those that are reasonable person would think are justified?

What is allowed in the UK can be far more explicit than would be permitted in the USA. That is unlikely to change.

This is the official 'advice' from the UK's Advertising Standards Authority. It is a code of good practice written by the Committees of Advertising Practice:

Gender, sex and relationships
Helpful information on the advertising rules for ads that address matters around love, physical intimacy and people’s gender.

When depicted in ads, gender stereotypes, nudity, sexual orientation and other matters relating to sex and relationships can often generate a high number of complaints.

When we are assessing complaints we always take into account the context of the ad and where it was placed. These factors are especially important when the complaints refer to matters around love, physical intimacy and gender. For example ads featuring nudity are generally more acceptable if they have some relevance to the product being advertised – such as lingerie or swimwear. Furthermore an ad that contains adult themes or that is slightly sexually provocative may be acceptable in a targeted magazine but not on a poster that could be seen by children.

We also always try and take into account prevailing social standards when assessing complaints and this can be a big part of our decision making when it comes to matters relating to gender, sex and relationships.

Light-hearted innuendos in ads are likely to be acceptable but being excessively explicit about sexual activity, even in ads for contraceptives, is not considered reasonable. While some people find products such as contraceptives and sex toys offensive, this is not grounds alone for finding an ad to break our rules; these are legal products which can legitimately be advertised. That said advertisers should take care not to trivialise sensitivities and issues surrounding the use of such products, e.g. emergency contraception, unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and unprotected sex.

Another common cause for complaint relates to sexual orientation and references to or depictions of homosexuality in ads. References to homosexuality should always be handled with care in ads but it is in no way prohibited under our advertising rules. The expression of political views on issues such as gay marriage in ads is also not prohibited provided that the content does not offend.

The depiction of gender stereotypes in ads can also raise concerns. Ads which are insulting or demeaning towards or reinforce negative gender stereotypes are likely to be unacceptable and advertisers should be careful not to: mock women or men in non-stereotypical roles; reinforce negative stereotyped views of gender roles; objectify or overtly sexualise men or women to the point of being offensive; depict body image of men or women in a manner that could be irresponsible or harmful.

'concerns' and 'likely to be unacceptable' are statements about whether the public would be likely to be offended and generate numerous complaints. Even if there are numerous complaints e.g. as the result of a social media campaign the ASA will decide on the basis of what a reasonable member of the public (not a violently left or right wing activist) would think is offensive.

The ASA's default is: If we get enough complaints we'll consider the advert. If we don't? It's OK. Even if we get numbers of complaints - are they reasonable complaints?

 

[WaltTheAlt]

I am all for women competing in any arena they choose. It's as right for one woman to want to be the CEO of a global corporation as it is for another to want to raise her children, love her husband, and ensure that all are allowed to thrive in a home environment that she oversees with loving attention.

Are we at the point where we can't allow the second woman her rightful place of respect?

 

[nowisthetime]

While most of your posts don't make sense, this move does annoy me. What is so wrong with being feminine and happy about cooking, taking care of the house, etc?


This move is subconsciously stating that jobs or duties traditionally completed by men are superior to that of women.

You also see this trend with commercials on American television. These ads are constantly depicting men cleaning and cooking, as if it is demeaning to show women in those roles. It is very aggravating and so try hard.

No, I'm not here for emasculating men. Men and women are biologically different thanks to our biochemistry, and scientific studies will back this up. One is not inferior to the other. To work against this nature breeds resentment.

 

[Dinosaur1]

A blurb linking to Breitbart, so even further removed from any source, and two irrelevant articles.

You're bad at this.

Noted. Your post is irrelevant. You're bad at noticing my response was not to you.

 

[Hypoxia]

The real "War on Women"?...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/14/mothers-banned-adverts-war-gender/

An utter bullshit troll, and y'all fed it. Sad.