In a striking example of how language can stir public sentiment, a recent advertising campaign featuring two female estate agents described as “birdies” has sparked outrage. 

This incident has ignited a passionate debate on the portrayal of women in advertising, drawing attention to the fine line between playful language and negative gender stereotyping.

The complaint was lodged by a consumer who expressed her discontent over the term “birdies” being used to refer to the two women depicted on a billboard by Chas Everitt International Property Group. 

In her argument to the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), the consumer said the term implies a derogatory association.

“Not your average birdie” suggests that all women are “birdies”, but some are “above average”. This raises questions about the attributes that render some women superior while others are relegated to a lesser status.

Furthermore, she highlighted that the advertisement failed to establish any professional context linking the women to their work as estate agents, suggesting a disconnect that leads to public misunderstanding and discontent.

In response, the advertiser, represented by attorneys Nochumsohn Pretorius, emphasised that they are not members of the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) and thus do not fall under its jurisdiction. Their detailed rebuttal highlighted that the term “birdie” actually references a golfing score, arguing that it plays off both the golfing term and serves as a light-hearted descriptor for the women in the advertisement.

Moreover, they contended that the word “birdie” does not intrinsically possess a derogatory connotation towards women.

Quoting dictionary definitions, they argued that “birdie” does not imply diminutiveness or a lack of seriousness – a claim countered by the complainant citing widespread disapproval within community discussions, particularly on platforms like WhatsApp.

Despite their defence, the ARB’s Directorate found significant grounds for concern.

They pointed out that referring to women as “birdies” infantalises them and runs the risk of objectifying their professional roles, undermining the dignity and autonomy expected in advertising that portrays women as competent professionals.

The disparity in how similar terms are perceived when applied to men versus women was also addressed, reinforcing the idea that the word “bloke” does not carry the same implications as “bird” does.

Reflecting on the broader implications, the Directorate concluded that the advertisement violates clauses pertaining to unacceptable gender portrayals within the industry’s Code of Advertising Practice, labelling it offensive and consequently instructing members of the board not to accept the advertisement in its current form.

This ruling spotlights an ongoing struggle within advertising and media to balance creative expression with social responsibility. The outcome serves as a reminder that words carry weight and the importance of mindful representation in today’s society.

IOL News 

Source link