Killer Heels and Cancel Culture

I am a feminist. I always have been, and I always will be. But time and time again we have poisoned the term and allowed it to transmogrify into one which is subject to ridicule and mockery. I have a named culprit : radicalized political correctness.

Over the past couple of years, political correctness ie. the avoidance of expressions or actions to insult groups of people has evolved into its own 'cancel culture'. And to be sure, this 'cancel culture' can serve a noble purpose. For example, the Chinese Detergent advertisement of 2016 which displayed a Chinese woman "whitewashing" a black man, caused widespread outrage and was rightfully lambasted online. However, it seems we live in a society of increasing hypersensitivity, where many different media are heavily criticized for works that do not imply any sort of discrimination. It seems as though today, our minds are constantly finding new ways of extracting hyperbolic conclusions. With that in mind, I pose the question: how do we distinguish between what is politically incorrect from what is created with comedic intent?

In December 2018, The U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority(ASA) stated that they would ban gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence. The law’s effect took place in June 2019 after companies were given six months to adjust to the new changes. The United Kingdom’s ‘advertising watchdog’ initiated this ban because they determined that some portrayals could play a part in “limiting people’s potential”.

The world hung its head in shame as the Philadelphia advertisement was the first to be banned with the UK law in action. But as we start to question the reasons behind this removal we realize that they are completely overblown. The Philadelphia advert showcased two fathers in a restaurant with their children. Upon tasting the glorified cheese, the fathers, in such awe of its flavor, leave their children on the conveyor belt. To be sure, the latent message behind this advert was that the aforementioned product was indeed so luscious that the fathers were abstracted from the events taking place in the real world, a technique used commonly by advertising companies. The ASA however, immediately called out the advert for implying that fathers are incapable of looking after children. This assumption is indeed spurious - the advert is designed for comedic purposes. In no way whatsoever is it discriminatory against fathers, and for the ASA to characterize it as such is an utterly fallacious stance for them to take.

Moreover, this situation is clearly a zero - sum game. With regards to the Philadelphia advert, people were incandescent about men being shown as incapable of handling children but what if they were women instead? I would argue the public would be even more enraged, so how can Philadelphia market their cheese without people taking offence? When did we trade the ability to laugh for a short temper? Now that political correctness is so deeply ingrained within our society, which as stated previously can be for good, it seems we have also turned comedy into a minefield of potential offence.

Another clear example demonstrating these exaggerated conclusions, is the advertisement for 'Killer Heels', one that depicted a single shoe, with a man impaled on the heel, blood pouring out of his abdomen. The advertisement was pulled once again by the ASA who accused the advert for encouraging violence against men. Furthermore, they said the advertisement caused major and serious offence towards males. However, the marketing agency rightfully defended the advertisement, emphasizing that it was in no way aimed to showcase women as being superior to men, but rather to show the power and confidence gained when wearing said heels and has absolutely no connection to gender superiority.

And whilst yes, in this day and age, we have to be mindful of the harmful and discriminatory advertisements around the world, surely it need not be to the extent where we are purposely creating drama and tension, out of a “problem” that doesn’t exist.

So on what grounds should we base our decisions on banning sexist advertisements on? One efficient way to do so would be to create a panel of ten advertisement specialists. Five male and five female, approving advertisements with an 80% majority where the operating board members are constantly screened for conflicts of interest within the advertising community. A set of guidelines should be formed as a panel as a basis to evaluate the content of an allegedly gender stereotyped advertisement. With these guidelines, we can rightfully ban what is sexist but also rightfully air what is comedic.

Comedians and writers "need to offend a tiny bit to work out what's funny", the distinguished British comedian Dawn French, appropriately claims. With people too anxious of 'offending' others through well - intended jokes, we are losing our creativity and sense of humor. If this continues, I fear we will live in a world where every word is taken seriously and the ability to laugh will be a long forgotten memory.