"Please stop the world, I'd like to get off!"

I am about to have a huge whinge about the Advertising Standards Board (again). If you are tired of hearing these long-winded rants, please walk away now. (Dave, this includes you.)

Have you ever wanted to clench your fists and cry out, "GAHHHHH!" because the whole world has gone crazy (except for, of course, you)?

I cannot fathom the thinking or the motivation of the ASB. By now, it has become clear that the current system of self-regulation is absolutely useless, you would think if anything that now they would want to give the impression of functioning effectively and actually uphold some legitimate complaints. Nope, not at all. In fact, despite occasionally reaching the correct answer, when the Advertiser doesn't like the answer- that their ad campaign was a violation- the ASB reviews their decision and decides despite the fact that they originally agreed the ad was inappropriate, that it's actually okay now.

This particular case is of Rivers catalogue, with the heading "10 Deadly Deals", with a picture of a woman's legs coming out from under the couch. She is wearing fishnet stockings and stiletto heels. The highlight of the ASB report where they reversed their original decision was where they actually suggested the woman under the couch might be "searching for a lost wedding ring". Maybe the campaign should have been named something other than "10 Deadly Deals" if we weren't supposed to interpret the woman as dead...and being that Rivers sell clothing, and not couches and not women....what exactly was the correct interpretation here?

Another recent case, for Supre 'jeggings' (now there's a crime right there). These ads are of a topless young model wearing jeggings. Her hair is covering her breasts. Of course, these ads are displayed in the appropriate venue you would expect- the backs of buses. The ASB dismissed complaints for this ad, saying that a topless woman draws more attention to the jeans that are for sale. Funny, I thought when there was a topless woman around, attention was elsewhere.

Supre's response was that this ad was aimed at girls aged 18 plus. Because we all know only over 18's go outside without blindfolds on.

So you can see, my levels of grumpiness to those who are failing to properly regulate advertising in the public arena are slightly elevated.

Then, on top of that, THIS.

Sexpo.

I personally have no interest in Sexpo. I know there are adults who do. And if they are adults, then that is their call and nothing to do with me. Sexpo is R rated, for adults over 18 only. However, their advertising is once again, aimed at the general public.

I am aware of at least one Sexpo billboard that is up in North Perth, including a picture of a famous porn star, whose accomplishments include four awards for anal sex, I have since learned. I, along with others, have lodged a complaint with the ASB about this billboard, for all to see, not just the adults over 18 who might be interested in attending.

Of course, I can be sure that the ASB will take their sweet time responding to complaints, and they will get around to it sometime after Sexpo has come and gone. Maybe they will even say it needs to come down. But the advertiser will be ready to take it down anyway by then, the event is over. And the moral of the story is: Advertisers, do whatever you want, and put up whatever you want- because there are no repercussions at all, and the more offensive, the more everyone will take notice.

But my issue with Sexpo in the public sphere goes way past billboards.

Sexpo is planning a public demonstration to take place in the City, in the middle of the day, where they will see how many people they can fit in a bed with this accomplished porn star I previously mentioned, as well as various Penthouse Pets and pole dancers. In the workplace, displaying pornographic images or pin-ups is sexual harassment. But for all the office workers in Perth, once they have stepped out of the office for lunch- no protection anymore!

Can someone tell me how there are sexual harassment laws in the workplace, but not outside the office door? Why at work, a woman can strive for equality, to be taken seriously as someone who has something to contribute- but outside, be put back in her place, where it is now appropriate for others to ogle and make suggestive comments?

Or perhaps someone can explain how it is that Facebook deleted pictures of 'porn t-shirts' because they contained pornographic content, thus violating the terms of use, when facebook users must be at least thirteen- when anyone, even my small children, can walk down the street and see someone wearing the identical shirt?

Anyone?

Advertising + sexual imagery + children = FAIL.

A bit of a hot topic at the moment (for me, at least!) is about Outdoor Advertising in Australia, and whether or not the current system of self-regulation is effective. Child experts have referred to research, demonstrating that exposure to sexual material and advertising is harmful to children.

I could go on and on about the failure that is the Advertising Standards Bureau. Really, I could. And I thought about it. But then I remembered a youtube video I saw of Julie Gale, director of Kids Free 2B Kids. Not only does she make all the points I could potentially make, but she is hilarious!

Check it out here. (There are two parts).

Nasty religious folk discriminating against the poor Sex industry

Regular visitors of my blog will know that I made a submission to the Inquiry into Billboards and Outdoor Advertising, and how the Advertising Standards Bureau is doing their job of regulating billboards and advertising on bus stops, shop fronts, etc. (Short answer? Really really badly.) I was reading through some of the submissions, by various organizations and citizens and I came across this- a submission by Fiona Patten, from the Eros foundation and Australian Sex Party. I had no idea just how infuriating it would be...

First of all, she starts with the premise that the poor adult industry is so discriminated against, and they wish they could use outdoor advertising and billboards more, but they can't because the content of their advertisements draws too many complaints. She then describes the "enormous levels of frustration" experienced by the sex industry because of the "discriminatory attitudes" or anyone who dare complain. Blah blah blah big long paragraph about punishments for discrimination etc.

Then she proceeds to give the committee instructions on how to be fair, and if they are religious to put their beliefs aside. (Isn't that kind of a given, that the committee has to try to be neutral and put their personal feelings aside?) She then quotes statistics from the last national census, saying that 92.5% of Australians do not hold strong religious beliefs. Did she get that statistic based on the religions people had ascribed to in the census? No she did not. She personally determined "religious" based on the frequency of which people attend church. So if you don't go to church every week, your religious beliefs no longer count.

Fiona believes the remaining 7.5% "punch well above their weight" in terms of making complaints. That's an interesting assumption Fiona, but any evidence to support that theory, or is that based entirely on a hunch? Oh, also, you 7.5%, you use "shrill and righteous rhetoric" and lack the ability to think logically. Because anyone with a belief in God is an idiot.

Miss Patten also calls religious people to disclose their religious beliefs when making a complaint to the ASB, in case our religious beliefs have influenced our complaint. Should the sex party anti-censorship bunch also be asked whether their opinions are based on their beliefs too, and if so, should they be excluded too?

Apparently religion reflects "cultish behaviour" and attracts "unhinged" people. Oh, and then she shares one random anecdote about a moral campaigner tricking lots of people into doing something silly, and her conclusion: "These people are alive and well and complaining about billboards".

At some point, I have to wonder with discrimination, you know, that thing that Fiona Patten went on and on about and then listed the penalties for... Does discrimination only apply to the sex industry? Because from what I can tell, the leader of an Australian Political Party just lumped every person who has religious beliefs in together, as "cultish", "unhinged" and illogical, and hinted really obviously that religious people are noisy and should pipe down?

Back to Fiona and discrimination. Apparently against the adult industry, it's unfair. It's "an opportunity for people to get on their high horse". But don't worry, only unhinged people.

She then gives several examples of billboards that have been removed unfairly, and mocks the complainants. When a woman complained about a billboard for sexpo (featuring several barely clothed women in sexualised poses) on a school bus route, Fiona's response was that this woman demonstrated "inability and awkwardness" and "clearly needs help relating to her children", and then referred to "HER SHORTCOMINGS AS A PARENT" that made her defame Sexpo. Because the only reason anyone would make a complaint to the ASB is because they are too embarrassed to talk about sex with their kids. Yeah that's it.

Fiona suggests that if the ASB receives complaints regarding the same advertisement too close together, they should be viewed as collaborating and excluded. So what if people do collaborate? If a friend and I discuss an offensive billboard and both make complaints, are our opinions less valid? According to Fiona, complainants are "unreasonably biased".

Another sex industry billboard which was removed (probably the only two EVER) was defended by Fiona as she said the amount of breast shown was "no more than...on any of the Gold Coast Beaches that day". To provide a benchmark of what is reasonable according to community standards, she held as an example a magazine cover with a topless Paris Hilton on it. See? If a magazine in the porno section of the newsagency can get away with it, why can't a billboard that an estimated 250, 000 people see?

OH more on religious weirdos. Fiona reckons that Medical Experts say 10% of the community have some kind of mental disorder (could be perfectly accurate). But- wait for it- those who complain to the ASB COME FROM THIS TEN PER CENT. Because if you have a problem with women as sex-toys, or the general exploitation of women, or sexual themes and nudity in full view of children, you have a mental disorder.

Unsurprisingly, Fiona is against the instituting of another regulatory body in advertising, as the industry is already over-regulated as it is. Really, Fiona? A self- regulating industry with no actual authority to do anything but make suggestions is "over-regulating"?

I read a great article here by Caroline Norma from CATWA, who wrote about the Sex Industry furthering their own interests, with little regard for the women who work for them. While the industry wants to open more brothels, they have not made even one exit program for prostitutes who want to get out of the business. Interesting fact- Research shows overwhelmingly that people in prostitution suffer rates of post-traumatic stress disorder equal to that of war veterans.

So while I would love to feel sorry for the hard-done by Sex Industry who like to get rich by exploiting the less fortunate, I will refrain. I may go make some shrill and righteous complaints though, and pray my children don't ever ask about sex because darn it, my cheeks get so pink when someone mentions the s-word!

Oh and here's a little bonus- Fiona Patten getting wooped in an intellectual conversation about a how- to guide for paedophiles being sold on Amazon. (Fiona was for the book.) Scroll down to the bottom for the video.

My submission to the Inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising (whew!)

Last week I made a (late) submission into the Inquiry into the regulation of billboards and outdoor advertising. Outdoor advertising includes bus stops, billboards, shop fronts etc. And in case you haven't noticed, some of it is stupidly inappropriate! So here's what I had to say about the Advertising Standards Bureau and its complete uselessness.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/spla/outdoor%20advertising/subs/Sub%2045.pdf

What went down when I called Nena and Pasadena....

So, let's get up to speed. Nena and Pasadena clothing has released several offensive t-shirts with semi naked women in provocative poses, including topless. (Refer to my previous post for more information.) Several people that I know have have made complaints, either directly to Nena and Pasadena, to the Advertising Standards Bureau, or to the stores that choose to stock this clothing. My sister in law Kylie received the following response from Nena and Pasadena.

Thanks for your comments and views but we feel we know what young people want to wear so we choose to continue our design concepts in full. I have three teenage boys of my own and have discussed your email with them, they were humored by your thoughts and added that the 6 o'clock news contained far more adult contact than a tshirt!! If you feel that we degrade women or promote violence against women please further your emails to the editor of the herald sun.

Kind Regards

Tim Arandt.

This response was unsatisfying to me, as it didn't actually address anything we mentioned in our letters. Tim also left a mobile phone number, so today I called it and had a chat to him. We had a pleasant enough conversation, well, debate. I will summarize what his argument was.

• There are plenty of other companies making similar soft porn t-shirts.
• There is a market for the shirts- teenagers want to buy them.
• They do not believe in censorship of any kind.
• They are acting within the bounds of the law.
• They actually already removed some of the worst offending shirts, including those with drug references, suicidal references, and some kind of machine gun shirt.
• Kids already see porn everywhere.
• The shirts are not aimed at children (as consumers).
• It should be up to parents to decide what they will allow their kids to wear- and he also thinks the shirts are distasteful and would not let his teenage sons wear them.

Some fair points. I also shared some additional ideas.

While there may be other companies doing it, and regardless if there are teenagers who will pay for them, these images are distasteful and offensive, and as a corporation they should act responsibly- and pornographic, sexist images and slogans are not that.

As for the freedom of speech/censorship issue (which always comes up)- he said "I don't believe in censorship." I agreed education and discussion is important, especially for young people who need to learn to think critically for themselves. And I don't think teenagers are stupid, but I do think they are bombarded by a hyper-sexualised culture and become desensitised.

I asked him if he did not believe in censorship, would he think it was appropriate to put racist slogans on a t-shirt. He said if someone chooses to wear a shirt with the word 'Nigger' across it, he should be free to. (Question: Then am I free to smack said person?) While I agreed that people should be free to wear what they choose, I pointed out that by designing and manufacturing these shirts, they are not just allowing people to choose to wear offensive clothing, but providing the offensive clothing for those stupid enough to wear them. There is a difference there.

I quote Melinda Tankard Reist, author and activist for women's issues, "Free speech shouldn't mean hate speech. Free speech should be fair speech."

I agree that kids do see soft porn all the time. The public sphere is covered in it. This is damaging to their natural development. Children when faced with adult, sexual material do not have the emotional maturity to process it and make accurate judgments about it as an adult might. It gives them false ideas about what it means to be a man, or a woman and qualities that are considered the most valuable i.e. being hot, thin and sexy. They should be free not to have this material imposed on them, as should I, and anyone else who chooses not to participate in viewing pornography.

AND- the fact that kids are already exposed to pornography doesn't make it okay to manufacture pornographic t-shirts too. I can choose not to allow my children to watch video hits, and control their internet use (as they become older) but a t-shirt is a walking billboard. Regardless of the age group these shirts are intended for, they are t-shirts! I have seen many of them as I am out and about, just as children will as young men wear them out in public. I can not choose to not see them, my choice has been taken away.

I agreed with him that to a large extent parents are responsible for what they allow their children to wear/watch etc, and I do prevent my children from watching or seeing certain inappropriate material. But I'm not that naive, when my kids are teenagers, who are they going to want to listen to? Their friends, or their Mummy? Especially when a lot of things (like stylish clothing) is specifically marketed to them as desirable, cool, and necessary to show off their identity? Plus, once again...they are t-shirts! If I want to keep them from seeing a t-shirt someone is wearing, I will have to lock them away in a tower or something. (Yes, I just watched Tangled.) And what about the kids whose parents aren't so vigilant?

The fact that he acknowledges the t-shirts are distasteful and he would not let his own children wear them indicates pretty clearly to me that the shirts are offensive, but the fact that they would still defend their right to sell products like this also clearly indicates they are profitable!

What's the big deal? I'll tell you!

First of all, for those of who you are thinking, what's the big deal? It's just a shirt, and there is far worse out there.

The t-shirts reduce women down to a collection of body parts, or even just one body part, e.g. o naked lower body from the back only (see here), exposed breasts only (see here) etc. Or here or here. Often the women pictured does not have a head, or her head is deliberately covered up. This is completely objectifying women. The pictures are not women anymore, they are just bare breasts, a naked bottom, bare legs. When women become merely objects for men to use to satisfy their lusts, they become dehumanised. They are viewed as less than human, a piece of meat, having less rights, being just a thing.

Certain pictures depict women being silenced. The one with a woman's exposed breasts actually has a head attached (progress!) but it is completely covered by a scarf. Another, with a topless woman covering her breast with her hand, reads "Angel of silence". Silencing women and displaying their body parts as entertainment is very disturbing to me. Even more so to see these images represented as fashion, and seeing it on a man's t-shirt.

I am not saying that all men who buy a t-shirt like this view women as objects and will go on to rape and assault them. But I do believe that when women are depicted as sexual playthings for men, on music videos, magazines, advertisements etc that is becomes more normal and more acceptable to view them as such. Particularly as they are typically portrayed as available for sex and eager to be used, some men feel a sense of entitlement to them. There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that similar attitudes towards women are problematic, as increasingly more often we read in the newspaper about the latest AFL scandal, or a gang rape scenario, likely with high school aged students, and possibly filmed and uploaded online. Our culture is one that can be dangerous for women, and each of the media I listed before, including these t-shirts, contributes to this culture.

A common argument is "If you don't like it, don't look" or something close to it. Let's ignore the fact that many times, if you leave your house, you can no longer not look. As a woman, regardless of whether I buy or wear one of these shirts, I am affected. As more young people grow up surrounded by a buttload of advertising and degrading material to women (yes, a buttload), feeling that this is completely normal, the more acceptable this will be.

Nena and Pasadena....uncool.

Some of you may have come across the clothing brand “Nena and Pasadena”, stocked at City Beach, edge, Globalize and Live clothing stores. It is a major contributor to the pornographic t-shirt trend. To see what kind of images are on their t-shirts, check out the following link.

http://NENAANDPASADENA.COM/instore.html

There are images of women from the back, naked from the waist down. There is one with a topless women, with her breast and nipple uncovered and exposed-with a scarf covering her entire head. Another has a topless woman covering her breast with her hand along with the slogan “Angel of silence”. And there are plenty more.

Having pornographic images on t-shirts is both confronting and offensive to women. They are made worse with sexist slogans and depictions designed to silence women, e.g. “angel of silence”, and the topless woman who has a scarf around her head so she cannot talk.

Nena and Pasadena have a billboard on Queen Street in Busselton, WA, featuring a two pictures- on the right, a woman wearing a dress, and on the left, and man wearing a white t-shirt with the words “Angel of the City” underneath and the image of a woman’s naked lower half from the bottom down. This is just another example of images of women reducing them to specific body parts, as she has no face, just a naked back side. (This picture is also the profile picture for Nena and Pasadena’s facebook page, found below.) http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=137234516291548

You can help by making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Bureau about this billboard. You can do that here.

http://www.adstandards.com.au/

To make a complaint to Nena and Pasadena, contact them here.

http://NENAANDPASADENA.COM

To make a complaint to the stores that stock this brand, you can contact them here.

City Beach

http://www.citybeach.com.au/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContactView?storeId=10551&langId=-1&catalogId=13700

edge

http://www.edgeclothing.com.au/contact.html

Globalize

shop@globalize.com.au

Live

http://www.liveclothing.com.au/go/live-stores&contactLive

Lynx Stynx!!

Here is one example. Lynx deodorant (aka Axe in the US) perpetuates the idea that a woman's worth is completely based on her sex appeal (yeah I know, that's no different from a lot of advertising) and that a woman's function is purely to satisfy men's sexual cravings. This is an idea that is used a lot in advertising, but I think here it clearly crosses the line. Check out their air stewardesses ad here, one of their shower gel ads here, the 'girls look hot wet' one here. There are HEAPS of these, I have just selected a few.

Not to mention their website. Ugh. As you enter the site, you select your own girl in a bikini, possibly covered in mud, or possibly even two together. If you think this is objectifying women, it goes a step further. The girls have no heads. All that we see of these girls are their torsos. They have been broken down only to particular body parts- sexual ones, reinforcing that the most important features a woman can possess are her breasts, her butt, you get the idea.

Now a new development, recently Lynx has made a getaway accommodation just for men called the Lynx Lodge, basically a brothel where guys can go be serviced by sexy women.

You get the point that I am not a fan of Lynx.

So here is where it gets tricky. Lynx is owned by the company Unilever. They have many other brands, including Dove (remember the campaign for real beauty? Hypocritical much?), Continental (as in soup), OMO, Surf, Flora, Sunsilk,and many more.

If I want to stop giving my money to a company that is getting rich from sexist and degrading attitudes towards women, then I don't buy any of their products.

HOWEVER... A few weeks ago I was doing the grocery shopping, and having decided not to buy Lynx deodorant anymore, I looked around for what I could buy for my husband. Rexona is also a unilever product, so that was out. (As well as Dove and Impulse, but I wasn't considering them for my husband.) Brut is also out (read Melinda Tankard Reist's article about Brut here). What about Mitchum? Check out this interesting website. Cross Mitchum off the list.

So here is a list of deodorants I have on my boycott list: Lynx, Rexona, Dove, Impulse, Brut, Mitchum. And this is JUST deodorant.

Now what the hell is left!?

Do I be stubborn, and refuse to fund messages I strongly disagree with? Do I forget about boycotting all together? Do I write letters to the companies in question? Or do I make a compromise?

I don't have all the answers yet, I am leaning towards a combination of all of the above. I will note buy Lynx, because Lynx in particular disgusts me. I intend to write to Unilever about this. But I also think I may have to make some kind of compromise so I don't make my life ridiculously hard...but I haven't figured out how I can do that yet. In the mean time, wish me luck doing my weekly grocery shop as I stand in front of the deodorant section for about ten minutes.

Battle of the boycott!

Hello there!

Sorry, it's been awhile. It's been one of those months with little sleep. However, my baby does have three teeth now, so, worth it? I'm sure you have all been frantically checking for new posts and getting very disappointed...all three of you followers, haha.

Well, writing this blog is kind of therapeutic for me, so never mind. Here's something that has been on my mind this week.

There are some things that I feel very strongly about, I suppose they would fall under the category of 'Women's issues'. Anyone who has seen my facebook page or even read this blog before is probably well aware of that. One of the biggest issues for me has been described as the 'pornification' of our culture. I think the word pornification is pretty self explanatory, but to explain it further I would say it is about the mainstreaming of pornography, or porn culture, or perpetuating an ideology where women are purely objects to be used by men. That is a basic definition of what I'm referring to, and if I go any more into it right now I will start getting really angry and typing really fast while clenching my jaw...whew.

I believe that I can make a difference to this problem, as we all can. Maybe just a small difference, but at least stir up some change. I can do this (and have several times) by speaking out where appropriate, writing letters to those who promote these ideals or those who are responsible for regulating particular industries, and boycotting certain companies and refusing to buy their products.

No, I don't believe that a huge corporation will be severely stung by my withholding my money. I do believe that maybe if many people do the same thing, or the companies are concerned that others will do the same, they may be pressured to reassess their advertising strategy (or whatever is the problem). I know many companies make products supposedly to meet customer demand, therefore if I don't purchase products made by sleazy companies, I am not proving them right. They can't turn around and say, See? Our product is selling really well, so obviously there is a demand for it, or obviously nobody is offended by our style of advertising.

More than these small things, this is a matter of integrity for me. I feel uneasy about giving my money to corporations who glamourise or promote ideas that are just wrong. Think about it, if I buy products from one of those companies, I am directly helping them grow and prosper. This does not sit well with me.

I might have to give some examples of dodgy companies/promotions, but I think that will make this post way too long so maybe next time...

So here is where things become blurry for me. Do I boycott everything that I deem to be offensive? How much trouble should I go to to boycott these products? Can or should I be more sensible while still being able to be comfortable with myself?