Britain withdraws COVID ad criticized for 1950s sexism

[Stevicus]

Britain withdraws COVID ad criticised for '1950s sexism' | Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government withdrew a coronavirus public awareness advert that depicted women doing domestic chores while a man relaxed on a sofa and which prompted a wave of criticism that it exemplified “1950s sexism”.

The advert showed four households - one in which a woman holds a baby next to what seems to be an ironing board, another with a woman home-schooling two children, and a third with two women who are cleaning.

The only man is seen sitting on a sofa with a woman and child.

“Who made this? And who approved it? Heteronormative. Reinforcing the view that it is a woman’s job to homeschool, clean, do the childcare,” Pragya Agarwal, a behavioural and data scientist, said in a tweet which was liked 7,500 times.

“Are the men out there fighting a war or something?”

Opposition Labour lawmaker Yvette Cooper tweeted: “Turns out 1950s sexism is spreading fast too.”

Not sure how an ad like this could have passed in the first place. I guess somebody didn't have their thinking cap on.

Reminds me of an old game of "Battleship" we used to have.

I guess what baffles me is the process which apparently took place. Someone in an advertising job was assigned to make this ad, and somehow it passed whatever proofreading or approvals it had to through in order to be released to the public. And then it's seen as horribly sexist, at which point the government removes it. What a waste of time and money.

I would be most interested in a detailed, step-by-step description of what actually transpired in the offices of wherever this ad was conceived and approved. What did they say to each other? What did they talk about? Who are the people involved?

 

[epronovost]

I would be most interested in a detailed, step-by-step description of what actually transpired in the offices of wherever this ad was conceived and approved. What did they say to each other? What did they talk about? Who are the people involved?

Sub-contract a very cheap ad agency with a very small team to develop it, probably one that doesn't contain women. They quickly got out the first idea and trope they had in mind and paid the bare minimum for the art being done and it miht have been from free sources too and originaly unrelated to the subject of the ad and voila you have the history of the world's most stupid ad in a nutshell.

 

[Rival]

It didn't bother me.

Oh well.

 

[epronovost]

It didn't bother me.

Oh well.

Considering your religious inclinations and your views of women that's not really a surprise.

 

[Rival]

Considering your religious inclinations and your views of women that's not really a surprise.

It just seemed a bit of a non-issue, honestly. I continuously think, of all the things going on and this is what folks complain about? Depictions of women doing what, let's be honest, most women do. The ad is telling you to stay at home. If the ad had pictured all men at home doing this stuff, someone would complain it featured no women. It's just an odd thing to find grievances with, overall. Women do most of these jobs depicted, so that's what the ad depicts. Who cares.

 

[Orbit]

Britain withdraws COVID ad criticised for '1950s sexism' | Reuters





View attachment 47310

Not sure how an ad like this could have passed in the first place. I guess somebody didn't have their thinking cap on.

Reminds me of an old game of "Battleship" we used to have.

I guess what baffles me is the process which apparently took place. Someone in an advertising job was assigned to make this ad, and somehow it passed whatever proofreading or approvals it had to through in order to be released to the public. And then it's seen as horribly sexist, at which point the government removes it. What a waste of time and money.

I would be most interested in a detailed, step-by-step description of what actually transpired in the offices of wherever this ad was conceived and approved. What did they say to each other? What did they talk about? Who are the people involved?

Back in 2009 I worked for a market research company, and we worked with advertising agencies a lot. I was struck by how many twenty-somethings worked in them. I think this might be a case of the kids running the creative process without any supervision from people who actually remember the 50s.

 

[epronovost]

Women do most of these jobs depicted, so that's what the ad depicts. Who cares.

Mostly women who are sick and tired to be expected to do tose jobs, free of charge, by their society. "Double shifts" are a major pressure on women's mental health and a large source of stress in couples. That's why there is a whole literature on the subject. It's also non insignificant factor in the gender pay gap.

 

[Rival]

Mostly women who are sick and tired to be expected to do tose jobs, free of charge, by their society. "Double shifts" are a major pressure on women's mental health and a large source of stress in couples. That's why there is a whole literature on the subject.

It's an advert, not a college course.

 

[epronovost]

It's an advert, not a college course.

The emotions, political and social realities of women isn't a college course either, only it's study. The same is true for marketing btw. An ad isn't a college course, but studying them, their design and their strategy is. The people who desiggned that ad went to college.

 

[Rival]

The emotions, political and social realities of women isn't a college course either, only it's study. The same is true for marketing btw.

I'm a woman and I just don't care. Political and social realties for me have never been a problem. I don't feel disenfranchised in any way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It didn't bother me.

Oh well.

I dont think it bothers most people.

Only those with social issues I suppose.

 

[epronovost]

I'm a woman and I just don't care. Political and social realties for me have never been a problem. I don't feel disenfranchised in any way.

I know that. Others disagree strongly and they have solid arguments to be opposed to it.

 

[Rival]

Whatever they want, as long as they

 

[Twilight Hue]

Back in 2009 I worked for a market research company, and we worked with advertising agencies a lot. I was struck by how many twenty-somethings worked in them. I think this might be a case of the kids running the creative process without any supervision from people who actually remember the 50s.

In those days men had jobs out of the house that could support the entire family, and women took care of the children and domestic duties.

It was a team endeavor but today, such teamwork seems no longer vouge nor practical.

They would rather vilify something they know nothing about.

 

[Martin]

Sorry, but I can't resist posting this...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In those days men had jobs out of the house that could support the entire family, and women took care of the children and domestic duties.

It was a team endeavor but today, such teamwork seems no longer vouge nor practical.

They would rather vilify something they know nothing about.

It wasn't just that, but it was expected to be that way. Like the homeschooling material I had, which prominently featured these "50s styles stereotypes" and enforced them with Bible verses and little comic strips demonstrating "proper Christian conduct." It didn't didn't just show something that looked like the Battleship box, it explained amd justified and supported that is the proper way and only way it should be. Women are always cooking, cleaning, or taking care of kids. Hobbies, recreation, and many types of work are for men only.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In those days men had jobs out of the house that could support the entire family, and women took care of the children and domestic duties.

It was a team endeavor but today, such teamwork seems no longer vouge nor practical.

They would rather vilify something they know nothing about.

Teamwork is much more practical today because cost of living is high and everyone generally needs to work these days. What's impractical is to force those roles on people based on what's between their legs rather than what they have an affinity or passion for. There were plenty of greviences of the system espoused by women in the 50's if you had cared to read them. But as they were generally given no outlet for it, and had to force their ability to choose, you likely have an overly rose tinted view of it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Teamwork is much more practical today because cost of living is high and everyone generally needs to work these days. What's impractical is to force those roles on people based on what's between their legs rather than what they have an affinity or passion for. There were plenty of greviences of the system espoused by women in the 50's if you had cared to read them. But as they were generally given no outlet for it, and had to force their ability to choose, you likely have an overly rose tinted view of it.

Hardly. I lived during the era. Not the 50s but the 60s.

Its not me having a rose colored view here.

Collective society and family structure was much more stable then and that's a fact.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hardly. I lived during the era. Not the 50s but the 60s.

Its not me having a rose colored view here.

Collective society and family structure was much more stable then and that's a fact.

In fairness, I've added a Norwegian study that put in the pros and cons of our perception of the past.

Was everything better in the past?