Bumbling, hapless dads who have apparently never encountered a washing machine in real life, routinely mortify their kids in fast food joints, and live in the hope that if they use the right brand of razor, someone will mistake them for Roger Federer.
Enslaved housewives who are too busy worrying about which kind of yoghurt will ease their constipation, or the temperature at which laundry detergent removes even the toughest stains, to remember to get themselves “beach body ready”. Girls fed on Aptamil and dressed in Gap clothes, who dream of growing up to be a ballerina or a social butterfly, while their brothers get to be rock climbers, mathematicians and scholars.
It’s fair to say that advertising makes idiots of us all. The industry has always played into sexist stereotypes: mums at the kitchen sink or getting hot flushes over low-fat yoghurt; dads wrestling ineffectually with the dishwasher or making idiots of themselves in KFC.
Advertisers might – and routinely do – argue that invoking stereotypes can be a useful way of making a relatable point in a short space of time; that it’s all a bit of fun; that nobody really believes that a man needs a woman’s help to figure out how to open a packet of Huggies wipes. But the insistence on funnelling us into narrow gender stereotypes perpetuates an insidious message about society.
"The 'female' stereotype tends to be less valued by society and the 'male' stereotypes are generally considered aspirational, but the consequences can be harmful for all… Stereotypes that imply men should be physically strong, unemotional and capable of being the main breadwinner in a family are linked to outcomes such as depression and suicide, and potentially limit men from playing a full and active role in family life," says a new report by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The ASA has had enough. This week, it recommended a tougher stance on retrograde gender stereotypes in ads. Together with its sister body, the Committee of Advertising Practice, it already regulates ads on the grounds of objectification, inappropriate sexualisation and for suggesting it is desirable for young women to be unhealthily thin. Now it has also sexism in its sights.
In its report on gender stereotypes in advertising, entitled Depictions, Perceptions and Harm, the ASA said: "Evidence [suggests] that harmful stereotypes can restrict the choices, aspirations and opportunities of children, young people and adults. These stereotypes can be reinforced by some advertising, which plays a part in unequal gender outcomes, with costs for individuals, the economy and society."
Here, the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI)’s voluntary code of practice for the industry already has a provision which states that “marketing communications should respect the principle of equality of men and women. They should avoid gender stereotyping and any exploitation or demeaning of men or women.”
In a recent interview with The Irish Times, the ASAI's Orla Twomey cited a 1991 ad for Budget Travel which showed the bum of a bikini-clad woman and the line "get your seat to the sun" – it generated about 50 complaints at the time. Today, the same ad would be unlikely to elicit many complaints, but if a bikini-sporting woman was used to decorate bonnet of a car for no good reason whatsoever, "which used to happen", it wouldn't be deemed compliant with the code, she said.
Last year, an online campaign by the soft drink Sprite entitled #brutallyrefreshing that included such eye-wateringly sexist lines as “you’re not popular... you’re easy” and “she’s seen more ceilings... than Michelangelo” was found by the ASAI to have caused grave offence because it was “exploitative of sexuality” and “used coarse and undesirable innuendo”.
The new rules being considered in Britain seem poised to regulate ads on much lesser grounds. “It would be inappropriate and unrealistic to prevent ads from, for instance, depicting a woman cleaning,” the report states.
However, “an ad which depicts family members creating mess while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up” might be sanctioned, or an ad “that suggests a specific activity is inappropriate for boys because it is stereotypically associated with girls, or vice-versa”.
Also under the kosh are ads that feature “a man trying and failing to undertake simple parental or household tasks”.
So that’s pretty much all ads ever, then.
If the advertising industry is a reflection of society, then women in the 1980s were permanently hunched over a chopping board, beatifically slicing vegetables, while family chaos bore down all around – much like the shelf that Dad refused to fix in one of the classic Bisto “Never In A Month of Sundays” series of ads.
But today’s crop of ads are often just as bad. Last year’s #FlashDog ad, which portrays a woman dancing around the kitchen like a deranged Eurovision contestant, high on the fumes of her beloved bottle of Flash, is one of several that insists cleaning is not only firmly the domain of women, it’s our second favourite thing to do. (First is obviously issuing verbal abuse to our adorably idiotic menfolk.)
When brands attempt to subvert the stereotype, the results can be so hamfisted as to make you long for the simpler days of Bisto gravy. Take this year's attempt at humour by Vauxhall, in the shape of #PyjamaMamas car ad, which features women taking their kids to school in pyjamas.
“They tried to ban them from the supermarkets. They tried to ban them from the school gates. Nothing can stop them taking care of their families,” the voiceover intones, over images of models strutting around unashamed in designer pyjamas. That’s right, ladies, what the suffragettes fought for was your right not to get dressed before you take your kids to school.
“It speaks to how our modern mums wanted to feel and be – great at raising their children, while still also maintaining the sense of style and swagger they had before becoming a mum,” Katie McKay of advertising agency Mother London said in a recent interview, apparently with her tongue nowhere near the vicinity of her cheek.
Not that it’s any comfort, but men don’t come out much better in their adventures in adland today. A 2012 Huggies “Dad Test” ad campaign in the US (which was based on the premise that Huggies nappies and wipes can withstand anything, even – gasp! – Dads) was withdrawn in the face of a barrage of complaints, while food store Iceland was ridiculed for its suggestion that “Dads don’t go to Iceland” or, presumably, do the shopping anywhere else either. Then there are the countless ads that suggest to men they’ll get the girl if they buy the right car/razor/deodorant brand/bag of crisps.
The real harm happens when advertisers direct these stereotypes at children – who do tend to take what they see on television literally, and shape their ambitions and perceptions of society accordingly. An ad for Aptamil provoked an outcry last year when it showed boys dreaming of being a rock climber and a mathematician and a girl as a future ballerina.
A similar Gap campaign labelling boys “little scholars” and girls “social butterflies” was voluntarily withdrawn after a flurry of complaints on social media.
"While advertising is only one of many factors that contribute to unequal gender outcomes, tougher advertising standards can play an important role in tackling inequalities and improving outcomes for individuals, the economy and society as a whole," Guy Parker, ceo of ASA said.
We should stop arguing about who comes out worse out of sexist ads: the women depicted as ambition-free, pyjama-clad, detergent obsessives, or the men portrayed as incompetent fools who can’t change their baby’s nappy – and would probably sell the baby for a flash of pert bum. The fact is that this ridiculous trope is damaging to us all.
