Misandric Advertisements - Revision history

Robert Brockway: /* See Also */

2023-06-05T03:31:29Z

Robert Brockway at 03:30, 5 June 2023

2023-06-05T03:30:37Z

Robert Brockway: /* Complaints */

2020-04-26T08:42:11Z

Complaints

Robert Brockway: /* Comparison */

2020-04-26T08:41:17Z

Comparison

Robert Brockway: /* Windsor Smith */

2020-04-26T08:40:14Z

Windsor Smith

Robert Brockway: Robert Brockway moved page Misandry Advertisements to Misandric Advertisements

2020-04-26T08:31:05Z

Robert Brockway moved page Misandry Advertisements to Misandric Advertisements

Robert Brockway at 08:30, 26 April 2020

2020-04-26T08:30:54Z

Robert Brockway at 08:30, 26 April 2020

2020-04-26T08:30:22Z

Robert Brockway at 08:29, 26 April 2020

2020-04-26T08:29:05Z

Robert Brockway at 08:28, 26 April 2020

2020-04-26T08:28:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 5 June 2023
Line 86:		Line 86:

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
		+
		+	*[[Misandry]]

	{{Advertising}}		{{Advertising}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:30, 5 June 2023
Line 87:		Line 87:
	== See Also ==		== See Also ==

		⚫	{{Advertising}}
⚫	== References ==

		+	{{Featured}}
⚫	~~[[Category:~~Advertising]]
		+
−	[[Category:Featured Articles]]
−	~~[[Category:~~Misandry]]	+	{{Misandry}}
		+
		⚫	== References ==

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 The Board determined that the advertisement didn't breach any section of the Code, and the complaints were dismissed. However, the billboard company stepped in and took the advert down. Note that while the Voodoo Hosiery was not taken down by the Board just like Windsor Smith, the billboard company did leave the Voodoo campaign up.
 # I am offended by the Men being fully clothed, whilst women are only wearing small underwear. I am particularly offended by two separate shots of a woman bent over, in her underwear, and the camera zooming in on her bum and vagina. I am offended by the sexism in this advert, and am also upset that it was played in the morning in front of my young girl. An utterly horrible display of disrespect to women, and a terrible example to my daughter.
 # Women portrayed as sexual objects. Element of acceptable subjugation of women. Clad in underwear while men are fully dressed. Women objectified - faces often obscured. Poor rolemodel. Women portrayed as being useful to men but not empowered.
 # I believe that the advertisement is inappropriate with half naked women bending over and prancing around. Its very offencive and its not appropriate. I dont want my teenage daughter seeing that and thinking its ok to act and dress like that.
 ====Advertiser Response====

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 The Board considered that while some people clearly had different perceptions of the advertisement, it represented a satirical comment on a patriarchal world. It determined that, as such, the content of the advertisement did not contravene the Code in relation to either the portrayal of people or the portrayal of sex, sexuality and/or nudity. With the Board finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any other grounds, the complaint was dismissed.
 ===Windsor Smith===
 ''Displaying this here to show a contrast of what was deemed misogynistic.''

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 The Board considered that while some people clearly had different perceptions of the advertisement, it represented a satirical comment on a patriarchal world. It determined that, as such, the content of the advertisement did not contravene the Code in relation to either the portrayal of people or the portrayal of sex, sexuality and/or nudity. With the Board finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any other grounds, the complaint was dismissed.
 ===Windsor Smith===
@@ Line 56: / Line 58: @@
 ====[https://ms.adstandards.com.au/cases/0331-13.pdf| Complaints]====
 # I am offended by the Men being fully clothed, whilst women are only wearing small underwear. I am particularly offended by two separate shots of a woman bent over, in her underwear, and the camera zooming in on her bum and vagina. I am offended by the sexism in this advert, and am also upset that it was played in the morning in front of my young girl. An utterly horrible display of disrespect to women, and a terrible example to my daughter.
 # Women portrayed as sexual objects. Element of acceptable subjugation of women. Clad in underwear while men are fully dressed. Women objectified - faces often obscured. Poor rolemodel. Women portrayed as being useful to men but not empowered.

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:31, 26 April 2020
(No difference)

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 The Board considered that while some people clearly had different perceptions of the advertisement, it represented a satirical comment on a patriarchal world. It determined that, as such, the content of the advertisement did not contravene the Code in relation to either the portrayal of people or the portrayal of sex, sexuality and/or nudity. With the Board finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any other grounds, the complaint was dismissed.
 ===Windsor Smith===
@@ Line 79: / Line 77: @@
 Complaint #3 Response:
-- The mens shots are full looks of styles suggested to wear with the product
+- The men's shots are full looks of styles suggested to wear with the product
 - No element of this is sexist, the group are having fun together

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 26 April 2020
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Voodoo's "men-on-leash" ad generated about 60 complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau. All were dismissed. The ABS apparently appreciated the humour, reasoning: "This ad clearly intends to depict a tongue-in-cheek view of the well accepted right of a woman to be in control of her choices and her 'accessories'."<ref>https://goat-scape.blogspot.com/2008/09/men-on-leash-reverse-sexism.html</ref>		Voodoo's "men-on-leash" ad generated about 60 complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau. All were dismissed. The ABS apparently appreciated the humour, reasoning: "This ad clearly intends to depict a tongue-in-cheek view of the well accepted right of a woman to be in control of her choices and her 'accessories'."<ref>https://goat-scape.blogspot.com/2008/09/men-on-leash-reverse-sexism.html</ref>

		+	==== Complaints ====
⚫	~~====~~ ~~Complaints~~ ~~====~~<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20190313045755/http://www.womenagainstmen.com/advertising/advertising-standards-board-response-on-voodoo-complaint.htm;</ref>
		+
		⚫	Various complaints have been made against these misandric advertisements.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20190313045755/http://www.womenagainstmen.com/advertising/advertising-standards-board-response-on-voodoo-complaint.htm</ref>

	“I found the image of a woman walking along with two naked men on dog leashes on their hands and knees very offensive …sexist and derogatory …”		“I found the image of a woman walking along with two naked men on dog leashes on their hands and knees very offensive …sexist and derogatory …”

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Voodoo's "men-on-leash" ad generated about 60 complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau. All were dismissed. The ABS apparently appreciated the humour, reasoning: "This ad clearly intends to depict a tongue-in-cheek view of the well accepted right of a woman to be in control of her choices and her 'accessories'."<ref>https://goat-scape.blogspot.com/2008/09/men-on-leash-reverse-sexism.html</ref>
-==== Complaints ====<ref?[https://web.archive.org/web/20190313045755/http://www.womenagainstmen.com/advertising/advertising-standards-board-response-on-voodoo-complaint.htm;</ref>
+==== Complaints ====<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20190313045755/http://www.womenagainstmen.com/advertising/advertising-standards-board-response-on-voodoo-complaint.htm;</ref>
 “I found the image of a woman walking along with two naked men on dog leashes on their hands and knees very offensive …sexist and derogatory …”