SJWs Pressure Advertising Watchdog to Censor “Idealised” Images Of Pretty Women

[Deleted]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-pretty-women/



Advertising Watchdog Moves To Ban “Idealised” Images Of Pretty Women

The UK’s advertising watchdog is investigating the “objectification and sexualisation of women in ads” because of an “increasing political and public debate” driven by “offended” feminists on social media.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has already started banning ads featuring attractive women, that supposedly cause “offence, or harm”. Such censorship may now become routine, as the ASA claims it is “alive to changing attitudes and behaviours”.

“Presenting an idealised or unrealistic body image, the mocking of women and men in non-stereotypical roles, the reinforcement of stereotyped views of gender roles, and gender-specific marketing to children are all issues that have gained considerable public interest,” the ASA claims.

The development follows the controversy surrounding Protein World last year — a fitness company that put up billboards in London (pictured above) showing a woman in a bikini beside the words: “Are you beach body ready?”

Feminist and so-called social justice warriors started an aggressive online campaign against the ads, which was picked up by the liberal media and more than 70,000 people signed a petition against them.

However, only a handful turned out to protest in person, and the when the ASA investigated it concluded the ad was “unlikely” to cause “serious offence”.

Nevertheless, following further pressure from feminist activists, just six months later the ASA banned a Gucci fashion ad for featuring what they labeled an “unhealthily thin” model.

The regulator now appears ready to officially change their stance on the matter, and depending on the conclusion of their investigation all attractive women on ads could soon be deemed to cause “offence” and “harm” and be censored.

“The project will report on whether we’re getting it right on gender stereotyping in ads. If the evidence suggests a change in regulation is merited we will set out the best way to achieve it”, they explain.

They promise to be “open-minded” and appeal for “stakeholders”, activists and people who might be offended to send them evidence, adding:

“As a proactive regulator, we want to find out more about these issues. Consequently, we will be doing three things: examining evidence on gender stereotyping in ads, seeking views from a range of stakeholders, and commissioning our own research into public opinion”.

Chief Executive of the ASA, Guy Parker, said: “We’re serious about making sure we’re alive to changing attitudes and behaviours.

“That’s why we’ve already been taking action to ban ads that we believe reinforce gender stereotypes and that are likely to cause serious and widespread offence, or harm....

----

So presumably no more of these:



But this is "healthy":

[starlord]

its no secret that many or most fashion models have some sort of eating disorder. and that's besides the rampant photoshop employed by magazines to make them even thinner.

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2...rstie-clements

That article details about how people are encouraged to become unhealthily thin for the fashion industry.

and its also well known the effects that media has on people's body image.
http://www.healthline.com/health-new...sorders-041415

so, perhaps your image of what is "beautiful and perfect" has been distorted because of seeing all of these underweight people.
maybe you should save your faux outrage for things that don't cause harmful mental disorders.

[GennGreymane]

Isnt this an old story? If so did we reach our SJW circle jerk quota?

[Michaelmc454]

Isnt this an old story? If so did we reach our SJW circle jerk quota?

That quota can never be filled!

[Pangean]

Isnt this an old story? If so did we reach our SJW circle jerk quota?

They need a Megathread for this.

[Sierra85]

the problem is people are so stupid that they believe they have to look like the photoshopped people on magazines.

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

So to summarize:
A handful of people complained about a billboard and the watchdog laughed at them.
Then a long time after that an ad was banned because a model had an unhealthy weight.

Sigh.. Linking the shit Breitbard writes should become a bannable offense.

PS. Gender role-discussions? I thought they weren't allowed here..

So what you're saying is

Even though this is about censorship in advertising, you don't like this discussion, so you want this thread censored, here, now

Way to go proving SJWs are pro-censorship

Note that you will probably get your wish

[alexw]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-pretty-women/



Advertising Watchdog Moves To Ban “Idealised” Images Of Pretty Women

The UK’s advertising watchdog is investigating the “objectification and sexualisation of women in ads” because of an “increasing political and public debate” driven by “offended” feminists on social media.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has already started banning ads featuring attractive women, that supposedly cause “offence, or harm”. Such censorship may now become routine, as the ASA claims it is “alive to changing attitudes and behaviours”.

“Presenting an idealised or unrealistic body image, the mocking of women and men in non-stereotypical roles, the reinforcement of stereotyped views of gender roles, and gender-specific marketing to children are all issues that have gained considerable public interest,” the ASA claims.

The development follows the controversy surrounding Protein World last year — a fitness company that put up billboards in London (pictured above) showing a woman in a bikini beside the words: “Are you beach body ready?”

Feminist and so-called social justice warriors started an aggressive online campaign against the ads, which was picked up by the liberal media and more than 70,000 people signed a petition against them.

However, only a handful turned out to protest in person, and the when the ASA investigated it concluded the ad was “unlikely” to cause “serious offence”.

Nevertheless, following further pressure from feminist activists, just six months later the ASA banned a Gucci fashion ad for featuring what they labeled an “unhealthily thin” model.

The regulator now appears ready to officially change their stance on the matter, and depending on the conclusion of their investigation all attractive women on ads could soon be deemed to cause “offence” and “harm” and be censored.

“The project will report on whether we’re getting it right on gender stereotyping in ads. If the evidence suggests a change in regulation is merited we will set out the best way to achieve it”, they explain.

They promise to be “open-minded” and appeal for “stakeholders”, activists and people who might be offended to send them evidence, adding:

“As a proactive regulator, we want to find out more about these issues. Consequently, we will be doing three things: examining evidence on gender stereotyping in ads, seeking views from a range of stakeholders, and commissioning our own research into public opinion”.

Chief Executive of the ASA, Guy Parker, said: “We’re serious about making sure we’re alive to changing attitudes and behaviours.

“That’s why we’ve already been taking action to ban ads that we believe reinforce gender stereotypes and that are likely to cause serious and widespread offence, or harm....

----

So presumably no more of these:



But this is "healthy":

Good. There is way too much pressure on young women to try to fit these stereotype images. We need to move from a hyper-sexualized and idealized idea of what a women should look like. It is well documented to be causing significant emotional issues, self-harm, and eating disorders to young women who are trying to fit an image they can never reach -

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...omen-and-girls

But I guess you don't think that's a bad thing.

[Aeula]

Soon enough women will require at least three chins to apply for a job in advertising.

Meanwhile half naked muscular males in yoghurt adverts are completely fine!

[Pangean]

while he is a SJW i don't think the mods put topics like this on the do not post list because of "feelings"

they were just sick of all the drama SJW's cause and don't want to put up with it anymore

"they were just sick of all the drama SJW's and anti-SJW's cause and don't want to put up with it anymore"

Fixed it for you.

[GennGreymane]

Well this thread spiraled down the drain fast.

[Deleted]

No, what I am saying is that you're a biased right-wing poster that wants to bash on anything he disagrees with and does so by linking heavily biased, and mostly nonsense, stories from websites that are as much clickbait as his own threads are.

There is nothing wrong with censorship, and this is about having regulation in the type of advertisements you can create and publish.

Everyone is pro censorship


Pretty sure they were sick and tired of the personal attacks and flaming you people were doing.
Like what you are doing right now..

So, the Great Firewall of China isn't a problem then, eh? We should employ similar policies in the rest of the world?

[GennGreymane]

Abandon thread!
*jet packs away*

[Deleted]

No, what I am saying is that you're a biased right-wing poster that wants to bash on anything he disagrees with and does so by linking heavily biased, and mostly nonsense, stories from websites that are as much clickbait as his own threads are.

There is nothing wrong with censorship, and this is about having regulation in the type of advertisements you can create and publish.

Everyone is pro censorship

No, not everyone; that's you projecting your biases, that you consider "normal" - and thinking everyone shares them

Also, I'm not that right wing (atheist, minority, pro-abortion, etc)

Note that I agree Breitbart is definitely biased; but so is every site these days, from CNN to fox news to the guardian, it's all clickbait now

[Wells]

No, not everyone; that's you projecting your biases, that you consider "normal" - and thinking everyone shares them

Also, I'm not that right wing (atheist, minority, pro-abortion, etc)

Yes, everyone. Unless you're ok with divulging troop movements in war time and disclosing nuclear codes.

[Koji2k11]

maybe just ban ad's altogether ? so nobody complains anymore ? i dont even know what im doing here >_<

[Deleted]

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Every time you are suppressed in communication or sharing information it's censorship.
And most of the time that is perfectly fine because most things aren't allowed for a good reason.
So while technically it's called "censorship" it really isn't, it are just regulations on advertisement.

This is censorship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...bsites_blocked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...in_South_Korea

Totally fine, right? Censorship is totes okay, right?

[GennGreymane]

maybe just ban ad's altogether ? so nobody complains anymore ? i dont even know what im doing here >_<

*jets back in with more jet packs*

*hands koji a jet pack*

*flies away*

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The Beach Body ready image is a bit uber skinny but the rest(Minus the woman who's bloated) seem fine to me. No idea what the fuss is about.