Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 31

rather that the methods and tactics of the oldfashioned salesman are negative.

Discrimination against transgender
The concept of a “Sun Mum” (Queensland Health
– 0050/14) raised concerns about discrimination
and vilification of transgender people. In this
case the Board accepted that the depiction of
the woman could be interpreted as being a
transgender person, but was of the view that
the “Sun Mum” is presented in a manner which
clearly indicates this is a man dressed as a woman.
The Board view was that the advertisement
was not trying to present the “Sun Mum” as a
transgender person and that most members of
the community would agree that the use of the
“Sun Mum” is in the context of a comedic slant to
deliver the important sun safety message.
In one advertisement (Expedia - 0424/14) the
Board noted the overall humorous tone and
considered that the suggestion that the man’s
wife used to be a man is not presented in a
negative manner but rather as a reason to not go
ahead with a honeymoon option but to choose
something else. The Board noted the suggestion
that the man will be able to laugh about the fact
he has married his mate and considered that the
implication is that the man is concerned about
the fact it is his mate he has married rather
than the fact his mate is transsexual . The Board
acknowledged that there are negative stereotypes
surrounding transsexual women, but was of the
view that the advertisement did not suggest
that all transsexual women would want or try
to trick a man in to a relationship and that the
advertisement treats the issue of trans women in a
manner which is not discriminatory or vilifying.

Discrimination against women
Discrimination against women in advertisements
generally attracts high complaint numbers.
Imagery of women presented in a sexualised
manner can be considered under Sections 2.1, 2.2
and 2.4 of the Code depending on the content of
the advertisement and nature of the complaint.
Cases dismissed under Section 2.1 in 2014
include advertisements which: make implications
about women’s intelligence levels (SCA Hygiene

Review of Operations 2014

– 0372/14); use a stereotypical comment about
squealing (Southern Cross Austereo – 0165/14);
make a reference to women as birds (Bayswater
Car Rental – 0124/14); and an inference to a
woman having a shapely body (Edwards Mowers
Repairs – 0308/14). In these cases the Board
viewed the use of the references as light hearted,
humorous and not negative.

The Board considered that while the
advertisement suggests an unpleasant scenario,
it is one which is relevant to the service being
advertised. In the Board’s view, the advertisement
did not suggest that all women will make
the demands suggested and considered that
the scenario presented did not discriminate
against women.

A billboard making reference to women as “the
ball and chain” (Hougoumont Hotel – 0381/14)
was not viewed in a positive light by the Board. In
this case the Board noted that the reference to a
wife or partner as a ball and chain is a colloquial
term that can suggest that the female partner may
drag a man down or hold him back in some way.
The Board considered that although the creative
idea may have a different interpretation, overall
the message to the broad community that is being
delivered in the advertisement is a negative one
and is categorising women as the ball and chain,
not men.

In the Board’s view suggesting that a mother is
responsible for cleaning (S C Johnson & Son Pty
Ltd – 0495/14) is a stereotype which the broad
community would be familiar with, but does not
suggest men wouldn’t or couldn’t clean. The Board
noted that the advertisement does not suggest
that women are of lesser status or value than men
and considered that the suggestion that a son
wants to spend more time with his mother is a
positive message which highlights the importance
of a mother. Although the advertiser had
amended the advertisement to include mention of
the father and that while this inclusion improves
the advertisement, in the Board’s overall view
the original version did not depict women in a
negative or demeaning manner.

In another case referring to female partners
(Sportsbet – 0360/14), the Board were less
concerned about the term used. The Board noted
that the term “wifey” is a term used by some
members of the community and considered
that in the context of the name assigned to
a man’s wife in his mobile phone contacts
list it could be considered affectionate or the
preferred term of the man’s partner. The Board
noted that married men are often described as
“hubbies” and considered that the word “wifey”
as used in the advertisement is being used in its
colloquial manner and is not of itself demeaning
to women. The Board dismissed complaints
about an advertisement featuring a similar scene
(0080/14) where the man also ignores a phone
call from his partner. Consistent with its previous
determination the Board noted in this instance
that the man’s behaviour could be considered
disrespectful to his wife but it is intended to be
light-hearted and not likely to be mimicked.
The way wives are depicted as behaving was
also considered by the Board in 2014. A radio
advertisement (DS Family Law – 0024/14)
includes a scenario in which a man describes some
of the issues arising in his divorce such as claims
being made on his family home by his wife.

The amount or type of clothing which women
wear in advertisements is a cause of concern
for the community. Although scantily clad, the
Board viewed a cinema advertisement (Windsor
– 0297/14) as one which presented the women
as equal participants in a fashion show and that
this style of presentation was not uncommon
in advertising for fashion items. The Board had
previously dismissed the same advertisement
on Pay TV in case 0210/14 and on Free TV in
case 0331/13.
The Board view of a depiction of women
dressed as cowgirls who walk with their legs
apart (Kimberly Clark – 0403/14) was that it
was not discriminatory of women or cowgirls,
but an advertisement aimed at highlighting the

comfort of the advertised product and that it was
reasonable to demonstrate how wearing some
pads may cause discomfort.

Discrimination on the ground of ethnicity,
race or nationality
Discrimination against certain ethnic or racial
groups or nationalities is considered under Section

29