While I applaud the sentiment, advertising strikes me as one area in which government intervention won't make much of a difference. It's very difficult to legally define what makes an ad sexist, and I can't help but imagine that most attempts to do so would be both stifling and ineffective. The sole purpose of advertising is to entice its audience. When public attitudes have changed such that advertising offends rather than entices, the ads will change. This strikes me as treating the symptom rather than the disease.

The ad may be vintage, but the game is still alive and well. http://snipurl.com/3mp3o [www_amazon_com]

Yuk.

Oh, and what Matt said about the symptom and the disease. If we're going to try a legislative approach, I'd rather see a mandate for education about gender stereotyping in the media so kids can learn to see the assumptions in these ads. I'm not convinced that's a good idea, either, but at least it's directed at the underlying problem.

I find this news exceptionally troubling. To be sure, advertisers need to responsible in their presentations of men and women, but government censorship is NOT the answer. Can't we still say that sexism is wrong, and yet we value freedom of speech, or have we lost our appetite for such nuanced arguments?

I agree. As offensive as sexism in advertising is, nothing is solved by replacing one evil with another, that being government censorship. Governments investing in providing media education courses in schools which give people the means to make their own informed decisions would seem a more progressive approach. Censorship by government allows those in power to decide what is right and proper for their people to view, instead of allowing people to decide for themselves. If this occurs without education as well, nothing is gained as ignorance and inability to detect sterotyping of any form in the media will still exist.

Jay is absolutely correct about this game still being available. What really creeps me out is the age of the girls playing when compared to the age of the young men featured on the cards as mystery dates. A really offensive part of the ad is when the girls express dismay and disappointment at getting "the dud" for their mystery date. A game for little girls is calling a human being a dud!!!!!!!

*Sigh* What I my missing here?

I didn't see anything mentioned about government censorship. This gesture looks more like a nudge to the advertising industry to police itself. The proposal is not even legally binding, according to the article; and gathering information and developing "awareness actions" looks like the opposite of censorship to me.

Folks often make an argument that advertising has no proven effect on reinforcing anything other than the urge to buy a product. And this may very well be true. I'm not really sure how many actual large-scale studies have been done in this area or if there are other cultural differences or other factors that should be taken into account (Joe Camel, anyone?).

But maybe someone does need to be paying a little more attention and asking better questions. Just because we have freedom of expression doesn't mean it's time to sit back and stop looking at things critically.

I am afraid that the bigotry in adverts is by no means limited to anti-women, in fact the sentiments are aimed at both genders and thus twice as bad. Throughout Europe adverts can be found depicting men as useless, ineffectual and worthless. This matter is far more complex than Patriarchy enforcement.

I agree with Spike The Cat.

Everyone claims that they are NOT psychologically affected by advertising, and yet advertising has a PROVEN psychological affect (mostly negative) on people, especially YOUNG CHILDREN. If this is the case, and kids are constantly exposed to degrading and dangerous ideas about women, people of color, etc, then isn't it a GOOD thing if someone steps in to analyze it and say "Well, now that I'm actually thinking about it through other means that profit, this ad might not be such a good idea."??

I don't always think a little bit of government intervention is a bad thing. It's only bad when done incorrectly. So why don't we see how this policy plays out before we start complaining about it? I personally think that some corporations have a bit too much freedom (i.e. owning/controlling EVERYTHING), so I don't mind it so much. At least this proves that someone is finally recognizing the problem!!

Hi Spike,

I wish you were right about this EU report not encouraging censorship. According to this article:

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/843614/MEPs-vote-confront-sexist-advertising/

the report does recommending the introduction of anti-sexist education initiatives
(which I support), but it also calls on EU nations "to monitor ad campaigns and to remove 'stereotyped and degrading' images of women from advertising while introducing regulatory measures to "promote balanced and diverse portrayals of women by the media."

I regard this report as a further step in an increasing (and dangerous) trend among European nations to deploy state censorship as a means of fighting against bigotry. As AliCat points out, this allows government officials to decide what images are "appropriate," and short-circuits the market of ideas which is crucial to any country that hopes to be a democracy long.

If we're talking about freedom and censorship, what about the freedom of women?
Freedom from sexist and demeaning advertising?

If advertising corporations have the freedom to do whatever they want, then we lose our freedoms from opression and sexism.

Hi Joyful,

I think yours is an important question, and it is one I wish would be addressed more openly in the feminist movement: Should feminists advocate censorship to further their cause?

For me, the answer is complicated. I support limited sexual harrassment laws, which allow women to press charges against men (or women) who touch them inappropriately, or address them obscenely at work, or persist in making unwanted romantic overtures at work, or suggest that they will be promoted if they will submit to romantic overtures.

I don't support state censorship of sexist (or otherwise offensive) political debate, speech, or art. As I would argue we are seeing in Canada and Europe right now, state censorship of offensive speech is just too easily exploited, allowing groups to silence the opinions (or art) of people who disagree with them.

That is my opinion. What is yours?

Well, I tried to download the actual language of the EU document but it wouldn't open (my mac is pretty old) but as far as I can see from the European Union's own press release, I don't see where censorship is being advocated.

Here are some snippets from the EU press release.

"MEPs note with extreme concern the advertising of sexual services, which reinforce stereotypes of women as objects, in publications, such as local newspapers, which are readily visible and available to children."

So would removing these ads from local newspapers be considered censorship if the advertisers were free to advertise elsewhere? It's a conversation that that has merit, IMO.

"Parliament calls on advertisers to consider carefully their use of extremely thin women to advertise products."

"The report recommends that broadcasters, magazine publishers and advertisers adopt a more responsible editorial attitude towards the depiction of extremely thin women as role models and portray a more realistic range of body images and calls on advertisers in particular to consider more carefully their use of extremely thin women to advertise products."

and finally this

"MEPs consider that Member States should make official the award of a prize by advertisers to members of their own industry, and a prize awarded by the public, to reward advertising which best breaks with gender stereotypes and presents a positive or status-enhancing image of women, men or relations between them."

So I'm looking at key words, e.g., "considers", "recommends", "calls on", "adopt", "responsible" and "prize." Call me trusting, but if they were using terms like "must", "shall not" and "penalty" my censorship flag would be going up.

Maybe an outright call for censorship is buried in the report. However, it looks like they are being absurdly diplomatic if indeed censorship is the ultimate goal.

I understand that each country/culture approaches things differently so I suspect that some governments like Norway will be more restrictive than others. But then you have countries like Sweden, Denmark and Italy who will have very different ideas of the bounds of free speech.

ps the EU press release can be found with a google search in the news section. It's late in Italy and I'm worried that my posting will get gobbled by the html link monster...

Hi Spike,

Thanks for doing some "primary source" research to put this discussion to rest. :) From what you have described, it definitely sounds like an interesting proposal. Hope all is well for you in Italy!

Yay.
If I see one more ad where mom makes breakfast/ dinner for dad and 2 kids (all white, of course) - EUW.
Oh and "sex sells"? Meaning objectifying women sells? Won't miss that either.

Sometimes legislation is needed to change attitudes. Attitudes aren't gonna change by themselves and the supposed regulation doesn't work (as I know from many complaints that were dismissed).
And the media hugely shapes attitudes in itself, if all you see on TV is suburban mommy and daddy and 2 kiddies, or hawt women, well, you expect that to be the norm.

Yay.
If I see one more ad where mom makes breakfast/ dinner for dad and 2 kids (all white, of course) - EUW.
Oh and "sex sells"? Meaning objectifying women sells? Won't miss that either.

Sometimes legislation is needed to change attitudes. Attitudes aren't gonna change by themselves and the supposed regulation doesn't work (as I know from many complaints that were dismissed).
And the media hugely shapes attitudes in itself, if all you see on TV is suburban mommy and daddy and 2 kiddies, or hawt women, well, you expect that to be the norm.