Actions Speak Louder Than Words How the Reclame Code Commissie Regulates Gender Ideology in Dutch Advertising. Case Study: Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ Advertising Campaign.

Kelly Meijns – 10375651

Supervisor: dr. S.A.E. (Sarah) Bracke

Second reader: S.P. (Sherria) Ayuandini

Master Thesis Sociology – Gender, Sexuality and Society

Amsterdam – July 2017 FOREWORD

Sexist imagery in advertising is considered harmful by the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which requires the Netherlands to pursue an active role in combating harmful gender representations in advertising. The only advertising regulating body in the Netherlands, the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC), has the power to rule on the limits of what is permissible in Dutch advertising. This study examines representations of gender circulating in men’s fashion retailer Suit Supply’s advertising campaign, as well as how these representations are perceived and responded to by The Feminist Club Amsterdam (FCA) and the RCC. Through a visual analysis of nine images from the campaign and a critical discourse analysis of an online discussion about the campaign by The Feminist Club Amsterdam, and of the ruling of the complaint against Suit Supply by the RCC, the discursive practices in relation to the campaign are examined. Analysis reveals that Suit Supply is aware of their use of harmful gender stereotypes, which are perceived as controversial and hurtful by members of the FCA. The RCC, respectively the College van Beroep (CvB), rules in favor of Suit Supply and deems the imagery acceptable, and not sexist. The study concludes that the RCC as an institution is counterproductive in combating harmful gender representations in Dutch advertising.

I would like to thank dr. M.P.C. Janssen for providing an intensely exciting and interesting Master’s program that, above all else, has been inspiring to experience and helped me shape my final thesis. I would like to thank dr. S.A.E. Bracke for the guidance while writing this thesis, for asking me difficult questions and therein pushing me further than I could have imagined. I would like to thank S.P. Ayuandini for providing me with guiding feedback and inspiring me to use critical discourse analysis for this thesis, which has turned out to be most appropriate and fruitful in this study. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and in particular dr. Chris Meijns for proofreading and supporting me in the process of writing this thesis.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 4

2. Theoretical Framework 8

2.1 Gender 8

2.2 Representations 9

2.3 Discourse 12

2.4 Advertising 14

3. Methodology 17

3.1 Research technique 17

3.2 Research Sample 18

3.3 Operationalisation 20

4. The Campaign 24

4.1. Suit Supply 24

4.2. Results Suit Supply 42

5. The Controversy 44

5.1 The Feminist Club Amsterdam 44

5.2. Results The Feminist Club Amsterdam 49

6. The Ruling 50

6.1. The Reclame Code Commissie 50

6.2. Unrealistic 52

6.3. Rape culture 58

6.4. Decency 68

6.5. Results The Reclame Code Commissie 76

7. Conclusion 79

8. Discussion 83

Bibliography 87

Appendix 90

3

1. INTRODUCTION

“The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent, to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence that has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.” - Michel Foucault

In the spring of 2016 the men’s fashion retailer Suit Supply released an advertising campaign named ‘Toy Boys’. The campaign sparked considerable controversy and media attention for its imagery, and received complaints for its presumed sexist content. These complaints have been judged by the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC), the only institution in the Netherlands concerned with the regulation of advertising. Surprising to many, however, was that the RCC ruled in favor of Suit Supply, deeming the advertisements acceptable, and not sexist.

The Reclame Code Commissie is situated within the advertising industry, as parties took it upon themselves to regulate their own industry, instead of an outsider institution or the government doing so. This makes it a self-regulating institution, working independently under its stated purpose: “(...) to ensure that advertising in the Netherlands is accountable.”1 Self-regulation serves, as the term states, for organisations to monitor the participants in their own industry for adherence to the standards of the industry. The main organisation involved in the regulation of Dutch advertising is the Stichting Reclame Code (SRC). The SRC has set up the Nederlandse Reclame Code (NRC), the set of rules that any Dutch advertisement should adhere to. When advertisers receive complaints about their advertisements, the RCC assesses these complaints for compliance with the NRC. In the past the RCC has received multiple complaints about previous Suit Supply campaigns regarding sexist advertising. The RCC has in some cases reprimanded Suit Supply, while in others the complaints have been rejected. By reprimanding, the RCC recommends Suit Supply to no longer advertise in this manner, but connects no actual negative consequences to the company’s actions. Unsurprisingly then, Suit Supply continues to use sexist imagery in their advertisements. This leaves one to wonder how

1 Nederlandse Reclame Code: https://www.reclamecode.nl/nrc/pagina.asp?paginaID=0&deel=2 4 sexist imagery can be addressed in an effective manner that will reduce the degree of sexism in advertising, as the RCC seems to be falling short in this respect.

The need to combat sexism in advertising is prescribed in the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which the Netherlands has ratified in full, together with its Optional Protocol. By ratifying CEDAW, the Netherlands must pursue an active role in eliminating all forms of discrimination on the basis of gender and sex2, which includes harmful gender representations in advertising. Advertising is omnipresent in Western societies, where the average person is exposed to an estimated 3,000-5,000 advertisements on a daily basis.3 It is at the heart of our social existence, and the magnitude of its influence has been compared to that of education or organized religion. Advertisements are central to the political economy of media; they influence – both directly and indirectly – the kinds of programmes that are, and are not made. It has a profound impact on the entire shape and content of contemporary media, where gender ideology is the biggest resource for advertisers.4 In these advertisements a certain Western, idealized beauty standard is upheld, with the attached gender ideology. This ideology reinforces predominately stereotypical gender norms, notably through hypermasculine and hyperfeminine representations of gender. These gender norms are on the one hand institutionalized through advertising and media, and on the other hand sustained on an individual level. As advertising can be seen as a vast structure in society, the frequent exposure to these gender norms adds to a historical ritualization of gender5, as representations of gender in advertising are only effective if they are recognizable and adhere to gender norms. Advertising then, has a considerable amount of influence in the construction of a gender ideology.6

Gender ideology refers to a set of societal norms regarding the types of roles, rights, responsibilities and behaviours that are considered appropriate for women and men.7 A gender ideology that is either directly or indirectly discriminatory to any gender is considered harmful. Direct discrimination on the basis of gender and sex is understood as explicit differential treatment, while indirect discrimination is understood as all laws,

2 Public International Law & Policy Group (2015a). Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. 3 Killbourne, 2000. 4 Gill, 2007. 5 Berger, 2008. 6 Goffman, 1979. 7 http://www.sociologyguide.com/gender/gender-ideology.php 5 policies, practices, or institutions that have a discriminatory effect in practice.8 Regulating advertising that contains harmful gender ideologies should therefore be of feminist concern, as it provides a means of working towards a more equitable media landscape, reducing discrimination on the basis of gender. The gender representations that we are exposed to in advertisements can be seen as a constant reminder of these idealized gender norms; an institutionalized and accepted form of gender stratification in society. The gendering practices that take place in these advertisements are then not fully representations of femininities or masculinities, but simply very specific ones as they are considerably normative.9 Stereotypical representations of gender in advertisements constitute a gender ideology, which is presented as ‘natural’ while legitimizing subordination of women through patriarchy.10 Organizations, such as the advertising industry, engage in gendering practices through their policies and the discourses they put forth.11 As advertisements construct fictional realities, so do their practices, operations and policies that collectively shape the gender ideology we are exposed to. Within these fictional realities, assumptions about women, men and a supposed gender hierarchy get circulated and sustained by individual actors who perceive this as natural.

If gender representations could be regulated in a way that presents a more realistic and inclusive reflection of society through the implementation of policies that contain non- discriminatory regulations, we could see if this would impact Dutch citizens on a individual level. This would reflect the conceptualization of gender as a social structure12; as gender is embedded in the individual, interactional and institutional dimensions of society, any change in one of the dimensions can influence the other dimensions in turn. Just as producers of advertising cannot survive without their customers, they are well aware that a collective resistance as retaliation for sexist advertising is not in their best interest. In a recent case of the website ‘Geen Stijl’, which is known for its discriminatory practices regarding sexism and racism, amongst other things, individuals collectively addressed companies to no longer advertise on the website13. Out of fear of bad publicity, companies listened to this call for a boycott and withdrew their advertisements

8 Public International Law & Policy Group (2015a). Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. 9 Motschenbacher, 2009. 10 Schrok & Schwalbe, 2009. 11 Acker, 1990. 12 Risman, 2004. 13 http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/vrouwen-roepen-grote-bedrijven-op-tot-boycot-geenstijl~a9818337/ 6 from the website. This acknowledges the agency of individual actors for transforming gender norms in advertising, however limited it may be.

In this study, I examine the discursive practices surrounding gender representations in Dutch advertising, with a case study of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign. Here I consider the role of the RCC in regulating representations of gender ideology in Dutch advertising. More specifically, my research questions are:

How is gender represented in Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign?

What kind of debates do these representations incite?

How do power relations play out in the debates surrounding the gender representations in Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign? And who gets to make the final decision on the significance of these gender representations?

On the basis of my analysis and findings I will more generally discuss what I personally believe are beneficial changes regarding gender representations in Dutch advertising. First I discuss and elaborate on the theoretical concepts I use in this study, after which I explain which data collection and research methods I have used, and how I have conducted the research. Following this, I discuss the relevant themes and findings of the visual analysis of the images from the Suit Supply campaign, and the critical discourse analysis of a discussion about the campaign held in the closed online community of the ‘Feminist Club Amsterdam’ (FCA), as well as the ruling of the RCC in the complaint against Suit Supply’s advertising campaign. Concluding I answer this study’s research questions, after which I discuss possible changes to the current regulation of discriminatory practices in Dutch advertising.

7

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, I will theorize the concepts I will be using throughout, namely Gender, Representations, Discourse, and Advertising. As these topics can be used in different ways, I will describe how I will use them in this study. By formulating on concepts around gender representations and gender ideologies in advertising, I can show how I understand the relevant terms in this research, while framing them in the different theoretical perspectives.

2.1 GENDER

Gender can be theorized from different perspectives and dimensions. If we view gender as an ideological structure that divides people into two classes, women and men, then such a division remains based on a hierarchal relation of domination and subordination. A macro-approach to studying gender focuses on the relationships between the social structures, processes and outcomes of inequalities between, and among women and men. As the practices of gender relate to the structures of gender, the conceptualization of gender as a social institution can make the origins and perpetuations of a gender division explicit.14 Conceptualizing gender from a macro perspective is framing its embeddedness in larger structures in society, such as governmental regulations, and explicating how such embedding influences multiple dimensions of everyday life. It can be argued that gender, as an institutionalized system of social practices, constitutes people as two distinctly different categories - women and men - and organizes social relations of inequality on the basis of that assumed difference. Through these social relations of inequality, women and men are led or coerced into different social roles.15 In general, a man is free to pursue a profession in, for example, hairdressing, but his choice to do so might not be free from critique relating to his masculinity and/or sexuality. Through a socially constructed stratification system of gender, these gender norms can become internalized and limit an individual’s autonomy of free choice.

If gender is viewed as a social institution, this brings out an element of historicity and control. This means that gender has expanded and varied over a considerable amount of time, which allows for the internalization of gender norms by individual actors who, in turn, enable and constitute gender as an institution.16 Social structures shape individuals

14 Martin, 2004. 15 Risman, 2004. 16 Martin, 2004. 8 but as the relation of shaping is recursive, individuals can shape the social structure as well.17 Conceptualizing gender as a social structure, allows for a better analysis of the ways in which gender becomes embedded in the individual, interactional and institutional dimensions of society18, and how powerful change can flow through the structure:

“Changes in individual identities and moral accountability may change interactional expectations, but the opposite is possible as well. Change cultural expectations, and individual identities are shaped differently. (...) Once institutional changes occur, they reverberate at the level of cultural expectations and perhaps even on identities. And the cycle of change continues.” (Risman, 2004:p. 435).

The social dimension is where gender is used to shape social order, by making divisions with associated material inequalities. These constraints are context-dependent throughout time and institutional settings, such as ‘law, organizational practices, and formal regulations that distinguish by sex category’ (Risman, 2004:p. 436). Institutional divisions that are upheld by certain structures and programs, could quite possibly be resisted and changed. To identify how this can be done, the seemingly ‘natural’ divisions between genders must be studied for how they might actually be socially constructed. From this perspective, we can situate gender as embedded throughout social life, leading to differentiated opportunities and constraints for individuals based on socially constructed categories. These categories, and the accompanying expectations, often go unnoticed, as they are the assumptions and norms that organizations rely upon in their everyday operations.19 Gender not only influences individuals, but can go beyond them in affecting cultural norms and institutional policies that we come to perceive as natural.20

2.2 REPRESENTATIONS

The representations of gender, and therein of differences between women and men, appear to ground their ‘truth’ in a gender ideology, as naturally so. To ensure recognisability, representations of gender in advertisements often remain limited to stereotypes. Stereotypical portrayals of gender fit into a gender ideology; a set of societal norms about the types of roles, rights, and responsibilities that are considered appropriate for women and men. Here ideology serves as a ‘representation’ of the socially constructed relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.

17 Risman, 2004. 18 Risman, 2004. 19 Acker, 1990. 20 Risman, 2004. 9

Subsequently, gender ideology has a material existence; as it exists in institutions with their associated practices, these practices come into material existence. In the case of representations of gender in advertising, the gender ideology upheld by the RCC can have real material consequences in everyday life. The absence of representation, or misrepresentation of women in media can then be understood as a means of maintaining social inequality, otherwise known as symbolic annihilation: “Representation in the fictional world signifies social existence; absence means symbolic annihilation.”21. We derive particular meanings from advertisements through cues or codes in our representative systems of language such as physical gestures, clothing, or positioning in advertisements. This representation includes the organization and regulation of social practices, and influences conduct by setting out rules, norms, and conventions of social order.22 Over time, these ideologies can fix and naturalize certain relationships, thereby enabling members of a culture to communicate effectively. Representation thus becomes a stable cultural convention that is taught and learned by all functioning members of a society.23

As representation involves the connection between things in the phenomenal world, concepts, and signs24, we use our common access to language to share our thoughts and feelings. In this case, language becomes the representation of our thoughts, feelings and enables us to communicate effectively with others. By exchanging ‘meanings’ with others, it is us who give meaning. How we represent concepts, objects or people – the words we use, the images we produce, the associations we make, how we classify and conceptualize – is how we place value on these concepts, objects or people.25 Coming to a collective meaning and understanding of these concepts, is a collective practice. We depend on this meaning-making process for effective communication; it shapes the rules, norms and conventions that are applicable and understood to be effective. Meaning gets produced and circulated through such processes of meaning-making; meanings are therefore constructed, rather than ‘found’ in nature. Meaning is often only ‘true’ within a specific context, for instance, at a particular time. Not too long ago, women as a group were deemed vulnerable, unintelligent, and unfit to vote. This conception of women was put into practice through means of medicalization, and was regarded as ‘true’ in that

21 Gerbner & Gross, 1976;p. 182. 22 Foucault, 1980. 23 Kates & Shaw-Garlock, 1999. 24 Hall, 1997. 25 Hall, 1997. 10 specific, historical context. Over time, by using different words and through different exchanges of meaning-making, women as a group received a different meaning. This brings out another element of the practices of meaning-making, namely knowledge. Who is allowed to make ‘knowledge’ claims, and which claims are dismissed as ‘untrue’? Claims to knowledge are inseparable from relations of power, as they are implicated in the questions and circumstances under which knowledge is to be applied, or not. As Foucault26 characterized it, knowledge is linked to power, since it is associated with the power of statements to ‘become’ true. There is not necessarily ‘truth’ in knowledge, but there can be a ‘regime of truth’:

“Truth isn’t outside of power (...) Each society has its regimes of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth; that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true, the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned (...) the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.” (Foucault, 1980;p. 131).

Today’s representational practices, have a historical past which they (can) refer to. The accumulation of different meanings is continuous, in the sense that language (textual or visual) needs to refer to a past that signifies meaning in order to be understood. At the same time language can vary if and insofar as the meaning can be altered. Gender stereotypes can be seen as representational practices that reduce women and men to a limited set of characteristics. Using stereotypes, in turn, essentializes and naturalizes gender differences by means of inclusion and exclusion. Such stereotypes can help sustain social order through - what Foucault27 referred to as - a game of power and knowledge. On this line, what gets established as normal contributes to shaping society to a certain world view, value system, and associated ideology. The more gender differences appear as natural and certain, the more they accomplish this representation, and the more they help establish this hegemony.28 Through repeated representations of gender in media and advertising, gender differences have become situated as an instrument of hegemony.

The hegemonic nature of gender ideology lies in its appearance. When a certain gender ideology seems acceptable, most people in a community do not experience it as dominating. This positioning of a gender ideology takes place through discursive means.

26 Foucault, 1980. 27 Foucault, 1980. 28 Hall, 1997. 11

The ideological assumptions are repeated over time, circulated through discourse as natural and acceptable.29 When something appears natural, the knowledge claims are taken for granted and so conceal how power differentials produce inequalities. This cultivates the pervasive nature of tacit androcentrism, the male viewpoint or gaze, in institutional cultures and discourses. As this is the level of knowledge, and therefore power, it is situated at a critical position in the discourse of gender ideology. Attempting to claim any fixed meaning as the ‘truth’ is precisely how power can intervene in discourse. An image has no fixed meaning rather, its meaning lies in the relation between the one who views, and what is viewed. The meaning of an image lies with the viewer’s ability to interpret meaning, and the power of an image to represent meaning. An image can possess a multitude of meanings and, depending on the viewer, can lead to a multitude of interpretations. ‘Viewing’ an image, then, is a cultural practice. The image and its meaning are relative to the interpretation that is brought forth by the viewer.30

2.3 DISCOURSE

Meaning and representation are part of, and result from, social conventions. We learn and internalize the shared maps of meaning as we become functioning members of our culture. Meaning and meaningful practice are therefore constructed within discourse, which produces knowledge. Given this, a discourse can define an object of knowledge by constructing acceptable and intelligible ways of how social practice can relate to such an object. This way, discursive formations define what is, and is not appropriate or acceptable; what knowledge is considered useful, relevant and true in its context; and what sorts of persons or ‘subjects’ embody its characteristics.31 Discursive formations also have their material effects and consequences of representation, namely in the power differentials or politics at play. The knowledge that a discourse can produce connects with power, thereby regulating acceptable conduct, constructing identities and subjectivities. Ultimately, it can define the ways that certain objects of knowledge are represented and discussed. These bodies of knowledge and practice of discourse can equally shape people. They can be highly influential since they are “socially constitutive as well as socially shaped: it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people”32.

29 Gramsci, 1971. 30 Evans & Hall, 1999. 31 Lazar, 2007. 32 Fairclough & Wodak, 1997;p. 258. 12

If we think of language as a reflection of reality, we presume that facts exist in reality ‘out there’. But if we assume an anti-realistic approach, we perceive reality, human activity and language to be deeply intertwined.33 One interprets and constructs actions through language and uses language and conceptual thinking to describe actions and observations of ‘reality’. These interpretations can be similar to others, but they remain shaped by situationality. That is to say, the language is produced in a certain situation which shapes the context. The role of the situation also highlights how things ‘out there’ can have different realities and potential meanings. Therefore, ‘knowledge claims’ cannot be innocent or value free, but rather always reflect a partial standpoint towards reality.34 The ‘knowledge’ in discourse, then, is created and mediated in social processes. In this case study, the RCC translates the language used by the parties involved into legal jargon. In most cases, the RCC is not simply translating, but also has to make decisions of interpretation and translation, which often reflect different conceptions of the same phenomenon. This mediation process can have differing material consequences. How we understand a certain phenomenon affects how we deal with that phenomenon. This again brings in dimensions of power. Identifying what discourses are used to silence and by who, which states of affairs are enabled, and what sorts of (oppressive) relationships are created or reproduced can make power visible as a strategy.

Discourses can construct normalcy. We presume that social norms can regulate conduct and that consequently discourses can have an effect on behaviour. Not that individuals would necessarily or even automatically act out certain imperatives from the discourse. Rather, the discourse can shape our subjectivities, such that we are subjected to normative regulations.35 We follow rules that are taken for granted because they make our social practices intelligible, without necessarily making a conscious decision to follow those rules. We simply do. We are free to deviate from the social norms and rules, but we are not free from critique if we do not follow them. Over time, our actions and decisions may appear as our free choice, while ideology is pushing us in a certain direction. Ideology has the ability to interpellate individuals as subjects.36 If we consider culture as constantly producing meanings of and from our social experience, then these meanings consequently also produce the social identities for those involved. Culture-making then, inherently constitutes a social process. The meanings of self, of social relations, of

33 Niemi- Kiesiläinen, Honkatukia & Ruuskanen, 2007. 34 Niemi- Kiesiläinen, Honkatukia & Ruuskanen, 2007. 35 Evans & Hall, 1999. 36 Evans & Hall, 1999. 13 discourses can only circulate in relation to the social system in place.37 In case of Western societies this concerns white, patriarchal capitalism. This system relies on the cultural system of meanings to hold it in place, making those meanings inherently political. From this perspective, those in power can delay or advance social processes. Language is both a product and productive force in the construction of the social world, including (implicit) classifications of people and their relationship to ideas and values. All of this indicates that narratives and individual acts do not exist in a vacuum, but instead are framed and reciprocally maintained by broader cultural and institutional forces.

2.4 ADVERTISING

More than a mere reflection of a pre-discursive reality, texts and visuals constitute a form of an ongoing collective gendering practice that operates in tandem with individual behavior.38 Discourse circulates the often unrecognized assumptions about gender that organizational actors draw upon in their everyday practical tasks. In advertising, stereotypical representations of gender might be used, because they are easier to communicate than non-stereotypical representations. In a world where social categories of gender, ethnicity, class, and sexuality have become associated with privileges, disadvantages and exclusions, we are simultaneously increasingly saturated by media, information and communication technologies. The field of feminist media studies has been exploring this relationship, but is extraordinarily heterogeneous with a multitude of different approaches and perspectives. As the field has no collective agreement on interpretations of contemporary media culture39, it becomes more difficult to pursue effective change. A diverse spectrum of gender representations in advertisements can serve as an example, validation, or even inspiration, to individuals. By contrast, limited or complete absence of representation, or the misrepresentation of gender through either stereotypical or discriminatory practices can be understood as harmful. The representations of gender in media however, predominately remain limited to identities which conform to normative, Western ideals of beauty. The normative, Western beauty ideal is predominately white, female, young, heterosexual as well as sexual in itself, and able-bodied.40 Depicting women in media as less intelligent than men, or their main value tied to their appearance, can influence the way women are treated in the real world.41

37 Fiske, 2011. 38 Cottingham, 2014. 39 Gill, 2007. 40 Swami, Coles, Wilson, Salem, Wyrozumska & Furnham, 2010. 41 Gill, 2007. 14

Within the heterogeneous field of feminist media studies, there still is no consensus on the depth of these harmful effects. Against this background, I value combining qualitative research with quantitative empirical data, as I will demonstrate here.

The influence of advertising is for the most part subconscious. Still, advertising sells more than mere products. Where children are already receiving the messages, teens have internalized that they should try to live up to an impossible beauty standard.42 It is not surprising, then, that throughout a woman’s life, on average, she will spend more money on beauty products than on her own education. It is surprising though, that studies on the influence of media almost always report the third-person-effect. This means that people believe others are very much influenced by media, but do not think this of themselves.43 This discrepancy in perceived influence could play a part in the ‘naturalizing’ process of advertising, as Berger stated in ‘Ways of Seeing’: “We are now so accustomed to being addressed by these images that we scarcely notice their total impact. (...) We accept the total system of advertising images as we accept an element of climate.”44. According to Goldman45, advertisers have faced many challenges in needing to respond to increasingly vocal feminist critiques. Advertisers are inventing new strategies to catch the consumer’s attention in an overstimulating media landscape, pushing the ethical boundaries. The recognition of the significance of women’s hostility towards sexist advertising, and women’s increasing financial independence, means that advertisers have had to rethink their strategies. One of these responses is ‘commodity feminism’ which consists of using elements of feminism, appearing progressive, while still not being gender equal or neutral.46

“Despite advertisers’ interest in playing with the idea of gender reversals, it is hard to think of examples of adverts in which the potentially subversive implications of this are followed through without some attempt either to reinstate the social order or to punish those who transgress it. A common device for defusing the threat to normative heterosexual gender relations is humor.” (Gill, 2007;p. 104)

Advertisers’ strategies seem to reveal an awareness of discriminatory practices relating to gender. An advertiser may, for example, consciously hinder possible critiques by claiming it was ‘just a joke’. Such a response immediately shapes those who do try to

42 Newsom, 2011. 43 David & Johnson, 1998. 44 Berger, 2008;p. 124. 45 Goldman, 1992. 46 Goldman, 1992. 15 contradict an expression or argue differently as either overreacting or lacking a sense of humor. One of the major shifts has been from the portrayal of women as sex objects, to showing them as active and desiring sexual subjects. What this subconsciously represents, however, is the idea that women can gain control through the commodification of their appearance – that by acquiring a particular product or lifestyle, they can obtain power.47 This way, sexual objectification is presented as the freely chosen wish of an active, female subject. Presentations like these make critique much more difficult, precisely because the objectification is no longer seen as imposed from the outside, but rather as self-chosen.

The continued sexual objectification of women’s bodies teaches women to internalize an outsider’s perspective on themselves, to see themselves as objects to be evaluated by others – a tendency called self-objectification48: “She turns herself into an object – and most particularly an object of vision”49. This (self)objectification is considered harmful as higher levels of self-objectification are linked to higher levels of body shame, appearance anxiety, depression, disordered eating and lower levels of political efficacy (believing one’s voice matters).50 Media contribute to the culture of sexual objectification, and indirectly to self-objectification, making women to prioritize concerns about how they look, over how they are feeling, thinking or acting.51 In relation to this, priming theory allows us to state that the more media temporarily activates self-objectification, the more chronically accessible it becomes. Someone who does not self-objectify but is exposed to sexually objectifying images on a recurring basis can develop a trait of self-objectification over time.52

Now that I have framed the theoretical concepts used in this study, I will use the following chapter to explain which research methods I have used in my data analysis.

47 Gill, 2007. 48 Frederickson & Roberts, 1997. 49 Berger, 1972; 2008;p. 41. 50 Newsom, 2011. 51 Aubrey, Henson, Hopper & Smith, 2009. 52 Aubrey, Gamble & Hahn, 2017. 16

3. METHODOLOGY

“There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.” ― Michel Foucault

3.1 RESEARCH TECHNIQUE

The way gendering practices operate as guidelines for performing gender at the interactional level has received significant scholarly attention. What has received less attention is how organizations themselves engage in gendering practices through policy and discourse.53 To assess these gendering practices in the case of the RCC, I theorize gender as a social institution at a macro-level. Speech and text analyzed as discourse are then significant sites for tracing the construction of social objects54, and with it, the power relations of social actors. Through an empirical examination of the discursive practices in advertising, I will extend the understanding of gender ideology in Dutch advertising and of the actors operating in these systems of power. Such an extension is critical for moving the study of gender representations as a social issue towards tackling it in practice. As advertisements construct multiple realities, so do the legal documents and policies around them, which collectively shape gender ideology in Dutch advertising. Within these texts and images, assumptions about men, women, and an assumed gender hierarchy get circulated.

This study aims to take an in-depth analytical and critical approach to the discursive practices that take place in the operations and rulings of the RCC. Its focus is to understand how the RCC communicates with actors involved, (dis)allowing participation for some but not others, thereby becoming a power elite in shaping the discourse of gender ideology in Dutch advertising. A most suitable method and object for achieving this is a critical discourse analysis of the language used in the RCC’s rulings, the advertisements themselves that are subject of those rulings, and to contrast this with the language used by those belonging to a group perhaps most affected by the advertisements, members of ‘The Feminist Club Amsterdam’ (FCA). Feminist critical

53 Acker, 1990; Cottingham, 2014. 54 Van Dijk, 1993; Jørgensen & Philips, 2002. 17 discourse analysis can be used to expose ideologies, systems of power and normalization55, which is a first step in dismantling existing power structures. This research technique is especially appropriate for the current study, since it allows me to take a political standpoint and motivation in my research; to find semiotic patterns in the data and uncover (contrasting) ideologies used by the parties involved. This approach considers not only what has been said, but also how meaning is attributed to objects of knowledge, who is allowed to partake in the discourse, and which knowledge claims either get dismissed or substantiated.

In this study, discourses are seen as offering important clues to social practices other than pure language use. I will analyse the discourse of gender ideology by addressing how the parties involved use the more or less standardized ways of constituting a certain type of phenomenon. I will discuss the dominating (visual) language use regarding gender ideology of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign, the ruling by the RCC on the complaint regarding the campaign, and focus on social texts made in the closed online community of the FCA.

3.2 RESEARCH SAMPLE

To analyze the gender ideology of the RCC, I reviewed the ruling of the ‘Toy Boys’ campaign by Suit Supply from the beginning of 2016. There are three handlings of the same case: the initial verdict, Suit Supply contesting this verdict, and finally the plaintiffs restating their case and complaint. The ruling is available in the RCC online database.56 I used both critical discourse analysis57 and visual analysis58 to assess how the concept of ‘acceptable’ representations of gender gets framed by the different parties involved. My interest lies with where the RCC seems to have failed to notice, or acted ineffectively with respect to possible discriminatory practices. I also analyzed a discussion in the closed online community of the FCA about the same advertisement campaign (see Appendix). Anonymity is guaranteed for the participants in the discussion, and all have received aliases. Before finalizing the sample I retrieved the advertising material from for use in the computer program Atlas.ti. The final sample includes two texts (one ruling by the RCC, and one discussion in the FCA), and nine campaign images that were discussed in the ruling.

55 Lazar, 2007. 56 https://www.reclamecode.nl/zoekscherm.asp?hID=72 57 Van Dijk, 1993; Jørgensen & Philips, 2002. 58 Gee, 2010; Pauwels, 2010. 18

My analysis process included detailed examination of the images from the Suit Supply campaign and extensive readings of the texts about the campaign, in search of meaningful themes related to gender. Each data set received at least four rounds of analysis, while the RCC’s ruling received five rounds of analysis. The first round was the same for each data set: making preliminary observations and notes. For the images, the second round involved initial coding in Atlas.ti, using the coding schema (as operationalised in the following section); the third round involved making observational comments, and the fourth round was establishing code families and finalizing the coding. For the texts, the second round involved initial coding in Atlas.ti. The third round here involved printing out the texts, highlighting significant language use, and making observational comments. The fourth round for both texts was finalizing coding in Atlas.ti. The ruling by the RCC received a fifth round of analysis by hand, by cutting the text up into valuable quotes to use and sorting them for code patterns. This decision was based on personal preference, for working by hand over working digitally.

Based on my analysis and findings I conclude this research by discussing my findings in light of the Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (2015a) and the Legal Frameworks Regarding Sexism in Advertising: Comparison of National Systems (2015b) by the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILP), to suggest potential changes that could improve the representations of gender in Dutch advertising as a whole. Concerning my personal limitations as a researcher, this research follows the criteria for qualitative research of Tracy59, and is characterized by the goals of rich rigor, self-reflexivity and transparency on researcher bias and goals, and how these could affect the methods of the research. This enables the necessary reflection on my subject position as a researcher. Coming from the field of Communication Science, specializing in Persuasive Communication, and pursuing my Master’s within Sociology, specializing in Gender, Sexuality and Society, I am especially well situated to conduct this research on representations of gender in advertising. My interest in the persuasive, communicative practices of advertising has influenced my orientation toward the current research topic, and allows for some anticipation of findings in the data. However, I intend not to let this restrict my process of analysis and will make sure to meet the criteria for credibility, by

59 Tracy, 2010. 19 giving thick description with in-depth illustration and concrete details. This will enable me to show the complexity of the data, rather than tell my conclusions.

3.3 OPERATIONALISATION

In this study, I remain open to the possibility that advertisements are not merely reflections of the world but possess the quality to create, influence and shape society and social relationships: “In modern industrialized societies the mass media are significant agents of socialization (...) As a socializing agent the visual imagery provided by the media can have a powerful impact on our attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviours. They exert (...) informational and normative social influence.”60 Advertising is a social practice since, in order to be legible, it must be constructed within the shared meanings of a certain culture, and the according social practices.61 One of the most well-known contributions to research on representations of gender in advertisements is Goffman (1979), which I used as a starting point for coding my data. As the work of Goffman is almost forty years old, I have expanded this with the work of Kang (1997) and England, Descartes and Collier-Meek (2011). Throughout the analysis, new codes appeared that combined old as well as modern expressions of feminism and sexism, which made it more difficult to perceive it as harmful. Through my coding and analysis, I have come to the following operationalisation and codes for representations of gender in advertising, as used and applicable in this study.

Relative size – Advertisements can signify social status to their characters by relative size, either width or height. This is based on the assumption that a difference in size correlates with a difference in social status.

 Size difference – Assumes a correlated difference in social status.

Feminine touch – Women, more often than men, are depicted using their hands and/or fingers to cradle or caress an object, another character or themselves. This ‘feminine’ touch is in contrast with the ‘masculine’ touch that grasps and holds objects or other characters firmly.

 Cradling/caressing touch – Women depicted gently cradling objects or others.  Touching self – Women depicted gently touching themselves.

60 Bellknap & Leonard, 1991;p. 104. 61 Hall, 1997. 20

Function-ranking – When women and men are depicted together, the man usually takes on the executing, and thereby superior, role. Women are usually depicted either in service of the superior male, or sometimes physically in a position subordinate to the male.

 Woman lower/behind/under man – Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ (lower/behind/under) to men.  Woman serving other – Women depicted serving someone else’s needs/desires.  Male in superior role – Men depicted in the executing, active role.

Ritualization of subordination – Women, more often than men, are depicted lying or sitting down in contrast to the men who often hold the body erect with their head high, which can signify unashamedness, superiority, and disdain.62 A higher physical position can symbolize a higher social position. Besides the positioning of the characters, women often take on a canting posture – bending parts of the body or face – which can be read as submission and appeasement. One more way to signify a hierarchy is that when men and women are depicted together, the man extends a part of himself (arm, leg) over the woman; this can be seen as an act of ‘marking his social property’.63

 Bashful bend – Women depicted in a canting posture; vulnerable appeasement.  Lying/sitting down – Women depicted as physically lower than men to signify a lower social position.

Licensed withdrawal – Women, more often than men, are depicted as psychologically removed from the situation. This leaves them reliant on the goodwill and/or protection of those who are (or might come to be) present64, as well as feeding into the stereotypes of women as less intelligent (an ‘airhead’). Averting one’s gaze, lowering or covering one’s face can be seen as symbolizing submission. One step further is to depict women without their face visible, therein denying them humanity.

 Head/eye gaze aversion – Psychologically removed from situation, submissive and unintelligent.  Covering mouth/face – Women depicted with their mouth/face covered to signify shame.  Dehumanizing – Women depicted without their face visible, which denies them humanity.

62 Goffman, 1979. 63 Goffman, 1979. 64 Goffman, 1979;p. 57. 21

Sexualization – Women, more often than men, are depicted with differing levels of nudity, displaying their bodies. This furthers the view of women as objects of beauty, or sexuality. Subtle depictions of gender-based violence can be seen as a normalizing or glorifying practice of rape culture.

 Body display – Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity.  Objectification – Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain.  Pornographic reference – Inter-textuality; signs that relate to pornography.  Rape culture – Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender-based sexual violence.  Inessential for product – Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed for product advertised.

Stereotypical Feminine

 Follower – Someone who supports or admires another’s ideas.  Nurturing/helpful – Someone who supports or takes care of another either physically or mentally.  Physically attractive – Someone who is described or handled by another as beautiful/attractive.  Submissive – Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority.

Stereotypical Masculine

 Assertive – Someone who is confidently aggressive or self-assured and takes action.  High status – Someone who is described or handled by another as having a higher status or as being more intelligent.  Independent - Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others.  Unemotional – Someone who does not show empathy for others.  Physically strong – Someone who is depicted doing something that requires strength, such as (re)moving objects.  Proud – Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved.  Hero, brave, inspires fear – Someone who is admired for doing something brave, or feared for doing something dangerous.

22

 Perpetrator – Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful.  Selfish/self-serving – Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals.

There are more codes and traits available from the sources I used. However, here I am limiting this framework by focusing only on the ones I found in the data. In the following chapter I discuss my visual analysis of the nine images from Suit Supply’s advertising campaign, where I will use this operationalisation of gender representations. Each image is described and discussed along with a table of all the codes that are present in the image.

23

4. THE CAMPAIGN

“There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all.” ― Michel Foucault

In this chapter I will discuss the analysis of my research sample, and share the results found. I start by analyzing the images from Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign, and how these images contain codes related to representations of gender. Hereafter, I analyse the meanings members of the Facebook group of The Feminist Club Amsterdam (FCA) attribute to the campaign. Before analyzing the ruling of the complaint against Suit Supply’s advertising campaign, I briefly describe the structure of the advertising monitoring body Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) as a whole and close by describing how discursive formations and power relations play out in the ruling of the complaint.

4.1. SUIT SUPPLY

To analyse Suit Supply’s advertising campaign ‘Toy Boys’, I have conducted a visual analysis of nine of the images from the campaign. These images are chosen because these are referred to in the RCC’s ruling. With the coding schema used in this research, it is important to note that this is a way of qualifying the number of ‘signs’ related to gender ideology present in the concerning image. It is not, however, a binary scoring system such that whenever a code is not found in an image, the exact opposite is true. For instance, if the code ‘Head/eye gaze aversion’ is not found in the image, it does not necessarily mean that the woman is looking into the camera, it might mean that her head is not depicted at all. These codes relate to gender stereotypes that signify either femininity, masculinity, or a presumed relationship between the two. I discuss each image individually, as they are also discussed individually in the ruling by the RCC. What meaning can be derived from these codes will be discussed in the general results of the campaign as a whole, as they relate to the general theme of the campaign.

24

Description image A

Image A shows a woman of colour wearing only a corset that exposes her breasts. She has both hands to her waist and her body slightly bent. Her face is to the side, her eyes closed and she has no clear facial expression. Two small, fully dressed white men wearing sunglasses are sitting on her breasts, in a sliding motion with their hands and feet up. Their body language suggests they are enjoying the sliding motion, not scared of falling, as could have been suggested by the men trying to hold on to her.

Image 1. Image A of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The woman’s ‘power pose’ (arms to the side) does not seem to relate to the males positioned on her breasts. On the one hand this makes the image confusing, while on the other hand it seems to glorify the sexual objectification taking place. The woman’s power pose is incongruent with the men using her breasts as a slide.

Table 1. Codes representing gender in image A. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Feminine Touching self Women depicted gently touching themselves Touch Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man

25

Woman serving Women depicted serving someone else’s other needs/desires Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Ritualization of Bashful bend Women depicted in a canting posture; Subordination vulnerable appeasement Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent Sexualization Body display Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Nurturing/helpful Someone who supports or takes care of another Feminine either physically or mentally Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical Assertive Someone who is confidently aggressive or self- Masculine assured and takes action High status Someone who is described or handled by another as having a higher status or as being more intelligent Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others Unemotional Someone who does not show empathy for others Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

26

Description image B

Image B shows a woman lying on her back, wearing a red bikini top and red lipstick. She has her mouth open and her eyes closed, her curved eyebrow signals emotions possibly related to either fear or sexual pleasure. A small, fully dressed man wearing sunglasses sits on her throat, with his legs on either side of her face. With his hand he is holding on to her chin, while he is leaning back and has his elbow on one of her breasts. His body language suggests intentional positioning.

Image 2. Image B of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The curved eyebrow of the woman can convey signs of fear or helplessness. Paired with the open mouth, presumably held open by the male based on his hand placement, conveys pornographic references of force.

Table 2. Codes representing gender in image B. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Ritualization of Lying/sitting down Women depicted as physically lower than men Subordination to signify a lower social position Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent

27

Sexualization Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Pornographic Inter-textuality; signs that relate to pornography reference Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as Feminine beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical Assertive Someone who is confidently aggressive or self- Masculine assured and takes action Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others Unemotional Someone who does not show empathy for others Physically strong Someone who is depicted doing something that requires strength, such as (re)moving objects Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

28

Description image C

A small, white man is fully dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses while looking at the buttocks of a woman of colour. He is smiling (smirking), while his left hand touches her buttocks and his other hand is raised above his shoulder, seemingly ready to slap her buttocks. This is also suggested by his crossed legs, which convey a twisting motion. The woman’s buttocks are centered in the image, drawing attention to them. A woman’s hand, presumably her own, also rests on her buttocks. However, as this image denies the woman a human aspect by only portraying the buttocks in a sexualized manner, it remains unclear if this hand is placed there by her own or his choice.

Image 3. Image C of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

By centering the woman’s buttocks in the frame, having the man look at them while smirking and initiating an action, this draws the viewer’s attention away from the product advertised and focuses it on the buttocks, therein sexually objectifying the female body.

Table 3. Codes representing gender in image C. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Feminine Touching self Women depicted gently touching themselves Touch Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’

29

Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Woman serving Women depicted serving someone else’s other needs/desires Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Ritualization of Lying/sitting down Women depicted as physically lower than men Subordination to signify a lower social position Licensed Dehumanizing Women depicted without their face visible, withdrawal which denies them humanity Sexualization Body display Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Pornographic Inter-textuality; signs that relate to pornography reference Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as Feminine beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical Assertive Someone who is confidently aggressive or self- Masculine assured and takes action Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others Unemotional Someone who does not show empathy for others Proud Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

30

Description image D

A small, man fully dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses is standing in front of a woman. He has one hand in his pocket, the other one placed on the woman’s body; as his hand is out of view it can either be on her arm or on her buttocks. The man is facing away and is smiling (grinning). The woman is dressed in a red bathing suit which exposes most of her body, and is wearing red lipstick. She has her eyes closed and her mouth slightly open, with one hand loosely resting on her hip. She is lying on her side and has her face turned up and away.

Image 4. Image D of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The image is one of the few that has the product advertised (the suit) centre-stage, while featuring the woman behind him, presumably, as a prop for attention. The woman exudes hyper-femininity, most notably by being sexualized.

Table 4. Codes representing gender in image D. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Feminine Touching self Women depicted gently touching themselves Touch Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’

31

Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Ritualization of Bashful bend Women depicted in a canting posture; Subordination vulnerable appeasement Lying/sitting down Women depicted as physically lower than men to signify a lower social position Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent Sexualization Body display Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as Feminine beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of Masculine help from others Proud Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved

32

Description image E

A woman of colour is portrayed in the lower half of the frame, only her face is visible and only from the side. She has her eyes closed and mouth wide open, a pose suggesting a pornographic reference to fellatio. Her facial expression is unclear. A small, white man dressed in swimming trunks is actively diving into her open mouth. He only remains visible from the chest down as the rest of him is inside her mouth. The tilted angle of the male suggests the active motion of diving.

Image 5. Image E of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The suggestion of fellatio combined with the male’s active diving motion gives the impression of force by the man.

Table 5. Codes representing gender in image E. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Woman serving Women depicted serving someone else’s other needs/desires Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Ritualization of Lying/sitting down Women depicted as physically lower than men

33

Subordination to signify a lower social position Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent Sexualization Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Pornographic Inter-textuality; signs that relate to pornography reference Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Nurturing/helpful Someone who supports or takes care of another Feminine either physically or mentally Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical Assertive Someone who is confidently aggressive or self- Masculine assured and takes action Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

34

Description image F

A woman is holding up a small man, who is fully dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses. He has one hand in his pocket and the other is pointing upwards with this index finger extended up. The woman is cradling the man with one hand, holding him to the side of her face with her eyes closed and mouth slightly open, with her head turned to the side.

Image 6. Image F of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

It is interesting to mention here that this is the only image that has no codes relating to sexualization. By contrast, there are multiple codes related to subordination and power. The composition is quite confusing. Why is she holding him in that manner? Why is he pointing up? Does this suggest a command from him? The woman seems to convey signs of admiration for the male, with a bashful head tilt and an open mouth. The gaze aversion adds to the idea of her submission and lack of intelligence.

Table 6. Codes representing gender in image F. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Feminine Cradling/caressing Women depicted gently cradling objects or Touch touch others Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men

35

man Woman serving Women depicted serving someone else’s other needs/desires Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Ritualization of Bashful bend Women depicted in a canting posture; Subordination vulnerable appeasement Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent Covering Women depicted with their mouth/face covered mouth/face to signify shame Stereotypical Follower Someone who supports or admires another’s Feminine ideas Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical High status Someone who is described or handled by Masculine another as having a higher status or as being more intelligent Proud Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous

36

Description image G

A small man, fully dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses is lying on top of a woman’s chest. The woman is on her back floating in water, with most of her body submerged under water, except for her face (her ears are submerged), breasts, stomach, and part of one hand. She is wearing a yellow bathing suit, red lipstick and red nail polish. Her eyes are closed and her mouth slightly opened. The man is resting his head on top of her right breast with his right hand raised, leaning diagonally in between both breasts. His legs are stretched out under her left breast, while his left hand is placed upon her left breast.

Image 7. Image G of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The man is facing the camera seemingly looking into the camera, even though he is wearing sunglasses. This adds to the idea that he is the one in charge, of importance, and the woman merely a prop for him to lie on.

Table 7. Codes representing gender in image G. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Woman serving Women depicted serving someone else’s other needs/desires Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role

37

Ritualization of Lying/sitting down Women depicted as physically lower than men Subordination to signify a lower social position Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent Sexualization Body display Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Nurturing/helpful Someone who supports or takes care of another Feminine either physically or mentally Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical High status Someone who is described or handled by Masculine another as having a higher status or as being more intelligent Unemotional Someone who does not show empathy for others Proud Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

38

Description image H

A small white man, fully dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses is sitting on a woman’s throat and chest. He is resting his head against her chin, his back leaning against her throat and his legs placed on her chest. His body language and facial expression suggest that he is relaxed. The woman of colour is floating in the water with most of her body submerged under water, except for her breasts, shoulders and face (ears are not submerged under water). She has her eyes closed and her mouth slightly open, seemingly smiling.

Image 8. Image H of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The woman’s smile does not seem to relate to the man sitting on her throat and chest, making the image on the one hand confusing, while on the other hand it normalizes/glorifies rape culture.

Table 8. Codes representing gender in image H. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Woman serving Women depicted serving someone else’s other needs/desires Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role

39

Ritualization of Bashful bend Women depicted in a canting posture; Subordination vulnerable appeasement Lying/sitting down Women depicted as physically lower than men to signify a lower social position Licensed Head/eye gaze Psychologically removed from situation, withdrawal aversion submissive and/or unintelligent Sexualization Body display Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Nurturing/helpful Someone who supports or takes care of another Feminine either physically or mentally Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical High status Someone who is described or handled by Masculine another as having a higher status or as being more intelligent Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others Unemotional Someone who does not show empathy for others Proud Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

40

Description image I

A woman of colour is visible from her upper back down to her knees, standing up while wearing only a white bikini bottom. A small, white man, fully dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses, is pulling the bikini bottom down with one hand while he is hanging from it. This way, the man slightly exposes the woman’s bare buttocks. The man is facing the camera, seemingly looking into the camera even though he is wearing sunglasses. His body language and confident facial expression convey power, and control.

Image 9. Image I of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign.

The woman’s exposed buttocks are centered in the frame, focusing the viewer’s attention on them. By portraying only parts of the woman, her humanity is being denied and her body parts reduced to objects, of which her buttocks are sexualized.

Table 9. Codes representing gender in image I. Relative Size Size difference Assumes a correlated difference in social status Function Woman Women physically positioned as ‘subordinate’ Ranking lower/behind/under (lower/behind/under) to men man Man in superior role Men depicted in the executing, active role Licensed Dehumanizing Women depicted without their face visible, withdrawal which denies them humanity Sexualization Body display Women’s bodies are displayed with differing levels of nudity

41

Objectification Women are depicted as objects of beauty, sexuality, or tools to use for personal gain Rape culture Trivializing, normalizing or glorifying gender- based sexual violence Inessential for Sexualization of women’s bodies is not needed product for product advertised Stereotypical Physically attractive Someone who is described or handled as Feminine beautiful/attractive by another Submissive Someone who serves another’s wishes without questioning their authority Stereotypical Assertive Someone who is confidently aggressive or self- Masculine assured and takes action High status Someone who is described or handled by another as having a higher status or as being more intelligent Independent Someone who is self-sufficient, not in need of help from others Unemotional Someone who does not show empathy for others Physically strong Someone who is depicted doing something that requires strength, such as (re)moving objects Proud Someone who is depicted as satisfied with something which has been achieved Hero, brave, Someone who is admired for doing something inspires fear brave, or feared for doing something dangerous Perpetrator Someone who does something wrong, mean or hurtful Selfish/self-serving Someone who is only interested in furthering their own goals

4.2. RESULTS SUIT SUPPLY

A common theme in the images of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ campaign is how masculinity seems to be framed, almost exclusively, in relation to femininity. The contrast of stereotypical masculinity in opposition to stereotypical femininity depends on portraying both these genders as binary. As Suit Supply’s target audience is men, since they exclusively sell men’s clothing, they have portrayed a stereotypical image of masculinity. This representation heavily relies on portraying masculinity against stereotypical femininity. Moreover, by degrading femininity as submissive or solely valuable as what men can use women’s bodies for, a toxic masculinity is established, normalized and glorified. It is not surprising, then, to see that there are more codes relating to stereotypical masculinity than stereotypical femininity. Where femininity is portrayed very limited – as physically attractive and submissive – masculinity is presented as more

42 diverse, while still remaining highly stereotypical. The remainder of the codes present in the images all portray a supposed hierarchal relation between the genders displayed.

The consistent size difference between the women and men in the images seems to emphasize a message that, no matter how big women may get, men will still be able to do with them whatever they want. If Suit Supply is conscious of the symbolism of the size difference, then it could be a conscious decision to use this in their advertising campaign. It is possible that the size difference was employed so as to have a basis for claiming the imagery cannot be sexist, given a supposed role reversal.

The compositions frequently centre women’s breasts or buttocks in the frame, thereby adding to the objectification and sexualization of women’s bodies. There seems to be an emphasis in the imagery that (the parts of) women’s bodies should be considered most valuable, instead of women as full human beings. Combined with the signifying factor of the women wearing red clothes, red lipstick and red nail polish, this adds to the dehumanization of women as a group. Another remarkable feature is that all the men are portrayed wearing sunglasses, while the women never are. This could quite possibly relate to the stereotypical idea of men as lacking empathy for others. It looks like the imagery constructs a certain, stereotypical masculine ideal which heavily relies on the hierarchal relation to stereotypical femininity; it cannot be portrayed without the other.

In the following section, I analyze a discussion held in ‘The Feminist Club Amsterdam’ about Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign. This discussion portrays the emotional values attributed to the campaign, and a collective contemplation of actions to take in response to its publication.

43

5. THE CONTROVERSY

Suit Supply employed several modes of publication with the launch of the ‘Toy Boys’ campaign, such as online, print and exposure in public space. One of the advertisements in public space prompted one of the members of the Facebook group the Feminist Club Amsterdam (FCA) to start an online discussion in their closed community. As this commonly is a safe space to discuss and question different topics surrounding intersectional feminism, I found the following discussion of value for important insights into the reactions the imagery provoked.

5.1. THE FEMINIST CLUB AMSTERDAM

The online discussion in the Facebook group the FCA concerning the Suit Supply ‘Toy Boys’ campaign started with a post of a photo of Image A in public space:

Image 10. Image A in public space.

The added picture of the advertisement in public space shows the normalization of the image, which for ‘Dylan’ (who started the discussion and posted the picture) was a reason of frustration:

Dylan: “I’d like to once again stress that I hate suit supply. UGH.”

44

Dylan’s initial post quickly opened up the discussion for others to share their experiences:

Mischa: “Advertisements are fucking not emancipated anyway! Tv-commercials about the household, childcare, cooking and drinking tea almost always feature mainly women, and commercials about cars and banking always feature mainly men. Luckily I don’t watch tv, so I can’t be bothered, but holy moly once you start paying attention to it! And same goes for those abri posters... Always these photoshopped too skinny ladies with too much nudity... Fuck off!”65

Logan: “Disgusting”66

Kai: “Yeah I saw them this morning and really wtf [what the fuck]? They also don’t seem to suffer from any historical awareness.”67

With this reference to a lack of awareness Kai appears to be referring to colonialism, which can be thought to shine through in the portrayal of a woman of colour being used as a slide by white men.

As the discussion progresses, members consider possible courses of action, what does (and does not) seem to be working, and which actions seem most effective. The three main players in this quickly become clear: Suit Supply itself, the Amsterdam municipality, and the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC). Regarding Suit Supply, the possibility of filing a complaint is mentioned and taken as well, but at first the most effective course of action towards Suit Supply seemed to be ‘online protest’:

Skylar: “I’ve been sending out tweets. I was confronted by a poster outside Amsterdam central station. Please tweet if you can! Someone shared this that you can copy and tweet or write your own: and the winner of this month’s most #sexist #colonial #advertising is SUITSUPPLY @suitsupply #notinmyname #everydaysexism”

65 Reclames zijn sowieso fucking ongeëmancipeerd! Tv-reclames over huishouden, kinderverzorging, koken en thee drinken hebben vrijwel altijd vrouwen in de hoofdrol en reclames over auto’s en bankieren hebben altijd mannen in de hoofdrol. Ik kijk gelukkig geen tv, dus ik kan me er niet aan ergeren, maar holy moly als je erop gaat letten! En idem met die abri posters… Altijd gephotoshopte te dunne dames met teveel bloot… Fuck off! 66 Gatver 67 Ja ik zag ze vanochtend en echt wtf? Ze lijken ook geen last te hebben van enig historisch besef 45

Interestingly, Skylar clearly states ‘being confronted by it’ in public space, so as to indicate that they were unable to escape its unwanted presence.

Skylar: “Can EVERYONE who commented here PLEASE either tweet or email the company or comment on their Facebook and Instagram pages. Let’s use the people’s power on the Internet to pull these images down!”

A similar attitude is expressed in the following call to action made by Dylan, accompanied by a sentence from an online article from Ireland:

Dylan: “This article shows the other pictures that are part of this campaign, those pictures might even be worse:

“Yo @suitsupply are you selling suits or misogyny this season? Just want to know so I can accessorize accordingly.”

I just filed a complaint with the advert code commission, will now file a complaint with the Amsterdam municipality.”

But protesting online can also have a negative aspect, as mentioned by Noah:

Noah: “I filed complaints as well. On the other hand, I find it problematic, they are probably just waiting to get more attention.”

This statement that online protest might be giving Suit Supply more of the attention they seek, reveals a serious issue for those confronted and needlessly hurt by these images. It also leads members to the conclusion that the options for voicing your opinion seem to be limited. Dylan states the following point:

Dylan: “I agree, it seems to be their entire marketing strategy. Year in year out they generate this huge media storm by making these terrible pictures. It makes me so angry!

And even when the complaints are acknowledged, nothing really happens. I read a previous verdict by the Reclame Code Commissie, and it just says: these pictures go against common/public decency and you are advised to not make pictures like these again.”

Online protest could quite possibly be exactly what Suit Supply had anticipated, and which they seek as at least beneficial for their brand exposure. If this is correct, then

46 starting an online protest campaign would no longer form a viable way of combating the advertisements.

Companies such as Suit Supply can buy advertising space in public space, with the result that citizens are subsequently exposed to these images, most likely on a daily basis. The dimension of public space brings in another key player in the field of advertising: the municipality (in this case that of Amsterdam). Several members mentioned this:

Milan: “Is it also an idea to ask the Amsterdam municipality to remove these offensive and disgusting images from public space?”

Mischa: “I have filed a public space complaint!”68 [referring to the municipality]

However, this course of action turns out not to be a viable option, as demonstrated by Robin’s experience:

Robin: “I just received this from the municipality:

Thank you for contacting us.

We are very sorry that you are shocked by a commercial billboard displayed in Amsterdam. There is a special organisation for this. At their website you can fill in a special form (only in Dutch). [accompanied by the link to the Reclame Code Commissie]

Hoping that this is to your assistance.”

Even though the advertisements are shown in public space in (the municipality of) Amsterdam, the municipality replies by stating that the course of action to take is through the RCC. Other members confirm this experience:

Noah: “The municipality let me know that they won’t do anything about it because they have a permit.”69 [referring to Suit Supply]

Sascha: “In my complaint I explicitly stated that I also filed a complaint with the reclame code commissie but that I would also like for the municipality to take stand as the reactions of the rcc to such campaigns do not appear to stop advertisers such as suit supply.”

68 Ik heb een klacht publieke ruimte ingediend! 69 De gemeente heeft mij laten weten er niets aan te doen omdat ze een vergunning hebben 47

The lack of options available to those who wish not to be confronted with this type of imagery pressed members of the group to try to combat the advertisements on a micro- level. Some suggested reclaiming ‘their’ public space by direct intervention:

Charlie: “I saw this yesterday. Its ridiculous. We should cover those posters with positive femme posters/printouts! Something to show suitsupply that the ladies of Amsterdam aren’t having it.”

Dylan: “I would also like to order 1 billion of these stickers.”

Image 11. Example of micro-level action as suggested by Dylan.

Such micro-level interventions reveal the frustration felt by the members in seeking to combat the images they are confronted with. Still, to the members it did not seem like a solution in the long run, as it is not clear that these actions would lead to any systemic change in advertising. The only option for members to combat these images on a macro- level remains to file a complaint with the third main player involved, namely the RCC:

Billy: “You can also file a complaint with the Stichting Reclame Code”70 [link to their website]”

The accompanying text for that link is the following (suitable) message:

“Stichting Reclame Code: Filing a complaint?

If you believe that an advertisement does not comply with the rules as stated in the Dutch Advertising Code, for example because it would be misleading or unnecessarily hurtful, you may file a complaint about the advertisement in question with the (chair of the) Reclame Code Commissie.”71

70 Je kan ook een klacht indienen bij de Stichting Reclame Code 71 Stichting Reclame Code: Een klacht indienen? Indien u van mening bent dat een reclame-uiting niet voldoet aan de regels zoals opgenomen in de Nederlandse Reclame Code, omdat deze bijvoorbeeld misleidend of 48

This text is encouraging for this specific situation, as many of the members started out by expressing their disgust, anger, and frustration over these images, and indicated being offended by them. Based on their experiences, they could deem the advertisement ‘unnecessarily hurtful’, one of the examples the RCC mentions as a possible ground for filing a complaint. Then Mischa makes another point:

Mischa: “If you look on that website under rulings and type ‘suit supply’, you get complaints deemed valid from previous years. So this is not the first time that suit supply has been summoned to remove advertising.”72

Hence, members come to realize (or are reminded) that this is not the first time that Suit Supply produced an advertising campaign that caused public offence. Moreover, that perhaps the only viable course of action, filing a complaint with the RCC, might not be effective for their goals.

5.2. RESULTS THE FEMINIST CLUB AMSTERDAM

After expressing their offence with the images of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ campaign and discussing several possible strategies, members of the FCA find that the main course of action available to them is filing a complaint with the RCC. However, their discussions also immediately reveal a possible flaw in this strategy, as such complaints have been filed before and have not prevented Suit Supply from making, publishing and promoting sexist imagery with their advertising campaign. This brings us back to the comment made by Dylan at the outset of the discussion in the Facebook group, namely that Suit Supply has been confronted by the RCC on previous campaigns but has never been confronted with any actual, negative consequences of their actions. It should not be surprising, then, that they would continue to use controversial images, especially considering the amount of (free) media attention they evoke. This raises questions about the role of the RCC. How can this institution, which seems to be the only possible recourse for citizens in taking action against sexist advertising, not be effective in responding to sexist imagery in advertising? To understand this, I will take a closer look at the structure of the RCC: How is it situated in the field of advertising, and how does it function within the field?

nodeloos grievend zou zijn, dan kunt u een klacht indienen over de betreffende reclame-uiting bij de voorzitter van de) Reclame Code Commissie 72 Als je op die website kijkt bij uitspraken en suit supply intypt, krijg je gegrond verklaarde klachten van voorgaande jaren. Dit is dus niet de eerste keer dat suit supply gesommeerd wordt om reclame weg te halen. 49

6. THE RULING

Before examining the discursive practices that operate in the ruling of the complaint against Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign, first we need to examine how the Reclame Code Commissie has become responsible for assessing such complaints.

6.1. THE RECLAME CODE COMMISSIE

In the early 1960’s, Dutch consumers, companies and advertisers collectively agreed that there was a need to ensure the quality of advertisements, and thereby for regulating the field of advertising. Collectively, consumer organisations, companies and advertisers agreed upon the Dutch Advertising Code (Nederlandse Reclame Code – NRC), which would be enforced by the Advertising Code Foundation (Stichting Reclame Code – SRC), the main organisation. The Dutch Advertising Code, the set of rules any Dutch advertisement should adhere to, is currently still what is being enforced. When Dutch advertisements receive complaints, the Advertising Code Committee (Reclame Code Commissie – RCC) assesses whether they are in accordance with the NRC. The five chairpeople of the RCC are either judges or lawyers with judicial experience which, in their own words, ensures impartiality and independence. Other RCC members, as well as the members of the SRC, predominantly come from the field of advertising, media and communication consultancy. This is how the RCC has situated itself in the Dutch advertising industry as a self-regulating institution.

The self-regulatory model can be the basis for a legitimate critique. One risk is that a self- regulatory body does not need to abide by, or enforce constitutional laws and legislation, leaving the self-regulating industry free from governmental restrictions or guidance. The self-regulation by the RCC, a complaint-based institution, is focused on the regulation of advertisements that are deemed impermissible based on the Dutch Advertising Code (Nederlandse Reclame Code (NRC)). The RCC assumes a passive role in the regulation of advertising, judging advertisements after they have received complaints. Further, when reviewing those complaints the RCC assesses whether the advertisements are in accordance with the NRC, which is set up by their own foundation, the SRC. This is in contrast to what the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) of the UN has required the Netherlands to do.

50

The ratification of CEDAW by the Dutch government requires the Netherlands to pursue an active role in eliminating all forms of discrimination on the basis of gender.73

Another risk of self-regulation has to do with legal or ethical standards. Funding of the SRC is set up under article 19 of the NRC. This funding model could raise questions concerning possible conflicts of interest. The SRC is funded by advertisers in the industry with a gross media expense of €1 million a year or more, where the contributor’s payment comes to 0,025% of its gross media expense. The SRC annually determines the percentage of the financial contribution, which is capped at €30.000 per company. Advertisers with a gross media expense of less than €1 million a year are exempt from a financial contribution that year, but cannot enjoy the SRC’s benefits either. The SRC sends eligible companies a request to pay, as article 19 of the NRC states:

“An organization or institution that advertises needs, at the request of the chair of the Advertising Code Committee (RCC), to annually submit a valid proof of payment of a financial contribution decided upon by the Advertising Code Committee (RCC).”

While companies do not need to comply, (non-)compliance has consequences. The SRC may blacklist any company that refuses to pay, exposing it within the industry as non- compliant with article 19 of the NRC. Currently, no names are included on the SRC’s Blacklist. According to the SRC, this is because the industry recognises their role in the advertising industry. However, this leaves the exact effects of non-compliance unknown. Payment, however, gives the contributing company a number of benefits: the opportunity to influence and set up rules in the NRC, access to experts who will judge complaints, reduced costs in the complaint procedure, and retaining the ‘freedom’ to advertise. For a small fee, compliant companies can also receive advice on to be published advertisements, costs of legal disputes at the RCC are reduced, and they receive free access to a pan-European network for advice on advertising campaigns outside of the Netherlands. This also means that only those advertisers with a high enough gross media expense budget can have input in the regulation of advertising in the Netherlands.

Even though the original intent of the SRC was not to judge discriminatory practices in advertisements, over time it has assumed this responsibility. In the following section, I discuss the analysis and results of the ruling as such, in order to demonstrate the discursive practices taking place in the case handling. In the ruling of the complaint

73 Public International Law & Policy Group (2015). Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. 51 against Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ campaign, there are three handlings of the same case: (1) the handling of the initial complaint, (2) the handling of Suit Supply’s appeal, and finally (3) the handling of the plaintiffs’ appeal. The RCC handled the first case. The other two cases were handled by the College van Beroep (CvB) associated with the SRC, as they were both appeals to prior rulings. Even though both the RCC and the CvB ultimately represent the same institution, they have quite different views on the cases. For this reason I have explicitly named the different parties that the quotes originate from, to show any changes that happened throughout the handling of the case.

In analyzing the case, three themes emerged from the data: ‘Unrealistic’, ‘Rape culture’ and ‘Decency/Good morals’. All parties involved discussed these themes. For some they came up as argumentation or evidence, for others they were relevant for disputational purposes. In this section I will show how these same concepts were discussed, how they differ in meaning for the parties involved, and what these differences might mean for the functionality of the RCC in relation to the goal(s) of the plaintiffs.

6.2. UNREALISTIC

The ‘Unrealistic’ theme includes the codes ‘Size’, ‘Humor/Absurd’, ‘Emotions’ and ‘Storyline’.

One of the main arguments that Suit Supply uses to respond to the complaint made against its campaign, is that the size difference between the men and women displayed prevents the images from being sexist. Moreover, if there is any gender inequality present at all, it is to the advantage of the women, as they are depicted as much larger than the men:

Suit Supply: “The woman, who is much larger than the little man, is clearly in power.”74

Suit Supply: “Advertisement B shows how a fairly impotent, little man dressed in a suit sits on the throat of a gigantic woman.”75

This reveals how Suit Supply consciously uses an element related to Goffman’s76 representations of gender in advertising. Here a size difference was predominantly to the advantage of men, such that their relatively larger size would equate to their larger social

74 De vrouw, die veel groter is dan het mannetje, is duidelijk aan de macht 75 Uiting B toont hoe een in pak gekleed, tamelijk onmachtig mannetje op de hals zit van een gigantische vrouw 76 Goffman, 1979. 52 status in the real world. In the argument made by Suit Supply, someone’s size is related to the degree of power they can exert; if the men are small relative to the women, then they can do them no harm. However, Suit Supply’s argument is invalid as it relies on the assumption that, no matter what is done or portrayed it cannot be considered sexist or harmful to women as long as the women are portrayed larger than men. This argument does not hold, because the depicted actions and behaviour can still influence whether or not an image can be considered sexist or harmful. Precisely for this reason Suit Supply’s argument was refuted in the initial handling of the complaint by the RCC. The RCC stated that even though the portrayed men and women differ in size, the sizes are not directly related to the alleged inequality portrayed:

RCC: “Although the woman’s body is depicted larger than the man, the image gives the impression of superiority of the man and subordination of the woman.”77

Not only ‘size’ is important for Suit Supply. Another argument they frequently use in relation to the advertisements is humor. As they claim, the size difference is unrealistic, therefore absurd, therefore humorous, therefore it cannot be considered sexist:

Suit Supply: “In the advertisements of the campaign, among which are the advertisements contested by the plaintiff, men are portrayed in a ridiculous manner like childlike little puppets of the women, who are portrayed as giants.”78

Suit Supply: “The advertisement is undeniably absurd-humorous.”79

Suit Supply: “The advertisements don’t portray the men as playboys, but as playthings. The advertisements are obviously humorous and absurd in character. The campaign inverts the stereotype in advertising campaigns targeted at men, by portraying the men in a humorous and ridiculous manner as minuscule, childlike dwarfs who think they are quite something, but who in no way can have any impact on the women portrayed as giants.”80 [my emphasis in bold]

77 Hoewel het lichaam van de vrouw groter is afgebeeld dan de man, geeft de afbeelding de indruk van superioriteit van de man en ondergeschiktheid van de vrouw. 78 In de reclame-uitingen van de campagne, waaronder de door klaagster bestreden uitingen, zijn mannen op ridicule wijze weergegeven als kinderlijke kleine speelpoppen van de als reuzen afgebeeld vrouwen 79 De uiting is onmiskenbaar absurdistisch-humoristisch. 80 De reclame-uitingen zetten de mannen niet neer als playboy, maar als plaything. De uitingen hebben een duidelijk humoristisch en absurdistisch karakter. De campagne draait het stereotype in reclamecampagnes gericht op mannen om, door de mannen op humoristische en ridicule wijze neer te zetten als minuscule 53

This last quote, which is from Suit Supply’s initial defense in the first handling of the case, illuminates Suit Supply’s awareness of the size difference as a stereotype, as well as (negative) stereotyping of men as ‘playboys’. The campaign is called ‘Toy Boys’ and Suit Supply uses the term ‘playboy’, which up to that point had not been mentioned. It is this ‘playboy’ stereotype they claim to ‘turn around’ by supposedly making the men into playthings of the women. However, the images do not actually show the women playing with the men. Instead, they show the men playing with the women‘s bodies: going down a slide (Image A), riding (Image B), spanking (Image C), or swimming/diving (Image E). Also, the claim that the men have no impact on the women is not supported by the images:

RCC: “That advertisement C has an absurd component because the man is portrayed as much smaller than the woman, does not lead to a different verdict. After all, this does not make the displayed behaviour, and consequently the (perception that can be result from the) advertisement, any less undesirable.”81

As the RCC’s reasoning here goes against Suit Supply’s arguments, in the second handling of the case Suit Supply switches to a more dismissive stance. They ignore arguments made by the plaintiffs and the RCC alike. Instead they claim the complaint is lacking in motivation, and simultaneously emphasize the ‘obvious’ truth of their argument that the images are not realistic, and therefore, not harmful:

Suit Supply: “Without further motivation, which is currently lacking, these considerations by the Committee are incomprehensible. How could the woman be subordinate to the man if she could shoot him away with a little flick of her powerful fingers in case anything were to happen that does not suit her? Given the surrealist, absurd proportions, this indeed concerns a ridiculous and humorous image.”82

As the case develops, not only Suit Supply changes argumentative strategies. The case handling as a whole seems to change course as the CvB takes over from the RCC. Where

kinderlijke dwergen die denken dat ze nog wat voorstellen, maar geen enkele impact meer kunnen hebben op de als reuzen geportretteerde vrouwen. 81 Dat uiting C een absurdistische component heeft doordat de man veel kleiner is afgebeeld dan de vrouw, leidt niet tot een ander oordeel. Dit maakt het getoonde gedrag en dientengevolge de (beeldvorming die kan uitgaan van de) uiting immers niet minder ongewenst. 82 Zonder nadere motivering, die ontbreekt, zijn deze overwegingen van de Commissie onbegrijpelijk. Hoe kan de vrouw ondergeschikt zijn aan de man wanneer zij hem met een tikje van haar krachtige vingers weg kan schieten als er iets zou gebeuren wat haar niet zint? Gezien de surrealistische, absurde proporties is wel degelijk sprake van een ridicuul en humoristisch beeld. 54 initially the RCC acknowledged the plaintiffs’ arguments, the CvB seems to agree with Suit Supply, almost literally:

CvB: “In this case, the absurd character of the advertisement blocks the conclusion that there is a realistic situation of abuse of a woman(‘s body).”83

Here the CvB argues that only a realistic depiction of sexism can be considered harmful. In the subsequent third handling of the case, the plaintiffs reply to this line of reasoning by emphasizing that even absurd images can be discriminatory:

Plaintiffs: “Plaintiffs however point out about this that absurdity may be a vehicle for sexism, negative stereotyping and racism, and that in all advertisements on billboards there is a static image which does not immediately make clear what the storyline is.”84

This point relates to the argument made by Goldman (1992) and Gill (2007), as explained in the theoretical framework, namely that humor is commonly used to defuse any threat to the presumed normative, heterosexual gender relations. As the importance of a storyline is brought up, the CvB states the following:

CvB: “In case one explains the advertisement in such a way that the men are sliding down the breasts of the woman, then the subsequent reasoning that the men are doing this purposefully and for their own enjoyment, factually does not find support in the advertisement. After all, the advertisement contains no specific clues to the assumption that the men are using the woman’s body for their own enjoyment and that the woman feels forced to let this happen. However, in so far as one would nevertheless interpret the advertisement as showing that the men indeed enjoy the situation they are in, the College would find this insufficient to rule that the advertisement, in case one would be confronted with it in public space, is in violation with article 2 NRC.”85 [my emphasis in bold]

83 Het absurdistische karakter van de uiting staat in dit geval in de weg aan de gevolgtrekking dat sprake is van een reële situatie van misbruik van een vrouw(enlichaam) 84 Klagers merken hierover op dat absurdisme echter een vehikel kan zijn voor seksisme, negatieve stereotypering en racisme en dat bij alle uitingen op reclameborden sprake is van een statisch beeld waardoor niet direct duidelijk is wat de verhaallijn is. 85 Indien men de uiting zo uitlegt dat de mannen van de borsten van de vrouw afglijden, geldt dat de daarop volgende redenering dat de mannen dit doelbewust en tot hun eigen plezier doen feitelijk geen steun vindt in de uiting. Immers de uiting bevat geen specifieke aanwijzingen voor de aanname dat de mannen tot hun plezier gebruik maken van het lichaam van de vrouw en dat de vrouw zich gedwongen voelt om dit toe te laten. 55

The CvB construes the issue to be about the emotions portrayed, who is experiencing what type of emotion, while admitting that the men are indeed using the woman’s body as an object. Thereby the CvB does not recognize the objectification of women, in itself, as problematic. Some of the reasoning here also brings us back to the theoretical assumption that there is no such thing as one universal meaning, or one ‘truth’ to the meaning that can be subsumed from an image. The argument that the imagery could in no possible way portray the meaning that the plaintiffs subsume from it, cannot go through. Moreover, the claim that there is no apparent, specific storyline present in the images that would convey hurtful imagery is also in tension with what both Suit Supply and the CvB had said before in the handling of the case. Even though both Suit Supply and the CvB at this later stage deny that one can interpret emotions and a storyline from the imagery, earlier on they themselves had done just that:

Suit Supply: “Advertisement A shows a titanwoman and two dwarf-like little men. The woman is depicted as strong: her facial expression is proud, her body language (hands to the side) does not tolerate contradiction. Her muscular arms and shoulders radiate strength. The puny little men slide or fall helplessly from her body.”86

Suit Supply: “The woman’s body language, including the position of the hand on the hip, furthermore clearly shows a self-confident attitude.”87

Suit Supply: “The completely unrealistic scene offers an absurd, comical sight. The advertisement humorously conveys the basic idea of the campaign: the woman dominates the man. This is apparent from the proportions of the depicted figures and is also reflected in the body language of the men, who would not stand a chance against the mighty, giant woman. The image doesn’t show that the woman is subordinate to the man. On the contrary, the men are surrendered to the whims of the woman. They are the woman’s puppets, not only because of their minuscule size relative to the woman, but also because the haughtly body posture and facial

Voor zover men de uiting desondanks zo zou opvatten dat de mannen wel plezier beleven aan de situatie waarin zij zich bevinden, acht het College dit onvoldoende om de bestreden reclame-uiting, indien men in het straatbeeld daarmee wordt geconfronteerd, in strijd met artikel 2 NRC te achten. 86 Uiting A toont een titanenvrouw en twee dwergachtige mannetjes. De vrouw is sterk afgebeeld: haar gezichtsuitdrukking is trots, haar lichaamshouding (handen in de zij) duldt geen tegenspraak. Haar gespierde armen en schouders stralen kracht uit. De nietige mannetjes glijden of vallen onmachtig van haar lichaam af. 87 De lichaamshouding van de vrouw, waaronder de positie van de hand op de heup, toont bovendien een duidelijk zelfverzekerde houding. 56

expression of the woman. She is not vulnerable and not a will-less tool, and does not let anything happen that doesn’t suit her. Suit Supply does not see how this humorous and absurd image crosses the line of what is acceptable.”88

Suit Supply here reveals the main idea behind the campaign: women dominate men. This stereotype reversal however, does not refute the fact that the men are fully dressed while the women are mostly undressed. If we follow the assumption that concepts such as sexism can never be experienced by the ones with the according privilege, in this case there would not be such a thing as ‘reversed sexism’. Moreover, the reversed sexist stereotype (of men dominating women) is trivialized by the unrealistic portrayal of such a hierarchy:

Suit Supply: “To the extent that the advertisement would indicate any inequality between man and woman at the expense of the woman (which Suit Supply emphatically contests), then that presumed message will not be taken seriously by the public. The public is very well able to see that the advertisement is not a realistic depiction of reality, nor intended as such.”89

These statements by Suit Supply make clear that it is possible to identify a narrative in the images, but that the company is only willing to accept its own narrative and does not allow others to have theirs.

RESULTS UNREALISTIC

The ‘Unrealistic’ theme brings together several lines of argument put forth by Suit Supply about why its campaign cannot be considered sexist. The ‘unrealistic’ factor on the one hand gets used as an argument as to why it is humorous, while on the other hand it is also an argument as to why it cannot be hurtful. It seems that the more an argument is

88 De volstrekt onrealistische scene biedt een absurde, komische aanblik. De reclame-uiting geeft op humoristische wijze uiting aan de grondgedachte van de campagne: de vrouw overheerst de man. Dit blijkt uit de proporties van de afgebeelde figuren en is ook terug te zien in de lichaamshouding van de mannen, die geen schijn van kans maken tegen de machtige, reusachtige vrouw. De afbeelding laat niet zien dat de vrouw ondergeschikt is aan de man. Integendeel, de mannen zijn juist overgeleverd aan de grillen van de vrouw. Zij zijn speelpoppen van de vrouw, niet alleen door hun minuscule afmetingen ten opzichte van de vrouw, maar ook door de hautaine lichaamshouding en gezichtsuitdrukking van de vrouw. Zij is niet kwetsbaar en geen willoos werktuig, en laat niets toe wat haar niet zint. Suit Supply ziet niet in hoe deze humoristische en absurdistische afbeelding de grenzen van het maatschappelijk toelaatbare zou overschrijden. 89 Voor zover de uiting zou getuigen van enige ongelijkwaardigheid tussen man en vrouw in het nadeel van de vrouw (hetgeen Suit Supply nadrukkelijk betwist), dan zal die vermeende boodschap niet serieus worden genomen door het publiek. Het publiek is heel goed in staat om in te zien dat de uiting geen realistische weergave van de werkelijkheid is, noch zo is bedoeld. 57 repeated, the more it seems to be valid and taken up as a concrete argument. Would this argument still hold if the size difference was not present or, instead of size differences, the unrealistic factor would be that they were cartoons? As the size differences are unrealistic, the imagery subsequently should be considered as absurd and humorous. As I have mentioned before, it is common to see humor used in sexist advertising where the issue becomes reframed; once something is stated to be humorous, those that are offended are framed as people who cannot appreciate an ‘obvious’ joke. Further, it simultaneously trivializes the harmful gender representations the images portray.

According to Suit Supply, since there is a size difference where the women are portrayed larger than the men, we should subsume the following meaning from the imagery; the women are powerful and the men are powerless. If there was any indication of an inequality between the genders portrayed, this is to the advantage of the women. Moreover, they have shown an awareness of the stereotypical portrayal of genders. The ‘stereotype’ of men as playboys is said to be reversed by portraying the men as small, and as being ‘played with’ by the large women. However, combined with more stereotypical imagery this supposedly ‘obvious’ meaning does not come across. Moreover, there are no visible signs of the women playing with the men. Instead there are more signs of the men playing with the women’s bodies. Such playing also undermines the claim that the men have no impact on the women, and hence invalidates this line of reasoning as to why the imagery cannot be harmful.

Lastly, emotions and a visible storyline are named as important attributes to meaning. While the plaintiffs explain how they arrive at their interpretation, both Suit Supply and the CvB come to very different interpretations. This is also how the position of the RCC as an institution becomes clear: they claim ‘truth’ in their interpretation of emotions and storyline, and do not permit other interpretations to be considered as truthful.

6.3. RAPE CULTURE

The ‘Rape Culture’ theme contains the codes ‘Stereotypes’, ‘Control’, ‘Objectification/Sexualization’, ‘Mental/Physical Health’, and ‘Discrimination’.

Throughout the data certain arguments concerning harm and control keep circulating, what can we consider harmful, how do we view this harm, and what can we do about it? Rape culture can be defined as a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of trivializing, normalizing, or even glorifying gender-based sexual

58 violence. For some, it is more clearly visible than for others, which became clear in this case.

Plaintiffs: “The women in the advertisements are depicted in a passive posture, and it is noticeable that they often have their eyes closed.”90

The plaintiffs’ analysis points to an important aspect of rape culture: submission, visible through the passiveness and dehumanization by the closed eyes. This aspect is recognized by the RCC, while the CvB later on has a different view:

RCC: “(…) advertisement B, in which a man dressed in a suit is sitting on the throat of a woman who is lying down on the ground with her eyes closed and mouth opened. Because of the man’s positioning, with his back leaning against the woman’s breasts, holding her chin with one hand and his legs on placed on either side of the woman’s throat, it appears as though the man is clamping the woman’s throat.”91

CvB: “Clearly this is not a case of choking. Nor can it be said that the advertisement clearly shows that the man is abusing the woman for his own pleasure.”92 [my emphasis in bold].

If awareness of how rape culture is embedded and normalized in society is lacking, any recognition of rape culture can, unsurprisingly, be lacking as well. Where the RCC recognized symbolism of rape culture in the image, the CvB took on a highly literal stance and focused on the language used in the complaint. The credibility of the plaintiffs’ argument is questioned, reframed and dismissed. Such dismissal develops as a common theme, as many of the plaintiffs’ claims are either dismissed as not true, considered subjective, or simply ignored without an attempt at refutation:

Plaintiffs: “The objectified, sexualized, passive women serve the pleasure of the active, autonomous man. By sexualizing and objectifying the woman in this way, she gets ‘presented’ to the man in a subordinate role.”93

90 De vrouwen worden in de uitingen in een passieve houding getoond, waarbij opvalt dat ze vaak de ogen gesloten hebben. 91 (…) uiting B waarin een in pak geklede man op de hals zit van een met gesloten ogen en open mond op de grond liggende vrouw. Door de houding van de man, die met zijn rug tegen de borsten van de vrouw zit, met één hand haar kin vasthoudt en zijn benen aan weerszijden van de hals van de vrouw houdt, lijkt de man de hals van de vrouw te omklemmen. 92 Van een situatie van wurging is evident geen sprake. Evenmin kan worden gezegd dat uit de uiting duidelijk blijkt dat de man de vrouw misbruikt voor zijn eigen plezier 59

Suit Supply: “Suit Supply cannot square this with plaintiffs explanation that the women are portrayed as ‘lust objects’, which is not the case.”94

RCC: “In the advertisement, the woman is being reduced to an object of play. As a result, the advertisement does not appear exclusively to promote men’s clothing, but also proclaims a certain notion of women, considering the overall composition in which men’s clothing is only promoted unnoticeably.”95

Suit Supply: “That the men would be ‘using’ the woman ‘as an object of play’ is a completely subjective interpretation by the Committee which Suit Suppy disputes.”96

With its claims regarding control, they seem to imply that whoever has more physical power over the other, is the one who is in control, and so cannot be subordinated, hurt or forced by the other:

Suit Supply: “What the public sees, are minuscule little men who are surrendered to the whims of the gigantic superior woman.”97

Suit Supply: “Also in this advertisement, the power differentials are very clear: the man is small and puny, the woman is a dominant giant.”98

Suit Supply: “It is completely unclear how one would get the impression that the man is in control. He is, given the proportions, surrendered to her, and not the other way around.”99

93 De geobjectiveerde, geseksualiseerde, passieve vrouwen dienen het plezier van de actieve, autonome man. Door de vrouw op deze manier te seksualiseren en te objectiveren wordt zij in een ondergeschikte rol aan de man ‘tentoongesteld’. 94 Suit Supply kan dit niet rijmen met de toelichting van klaagster dat de vrouwen als ‘lustobject’ worden afgebeeld, daarvan is geen sprake. 95 De vrouw wordt in de uiting gereduceerd tot een speelobject. Hierdoor lijkt de reclame-uiting niet uitsluitend herenkleding aan te prijzen, maar verkondigt deze ook een bepaald denkbeeld over vrouwen, gelet op de totale compositie waarin slechts op een onopvallende wijze herenkleding wordt aangeprezen. 96 Dat de mannen de vrouw ‘als speelobject zouden gebruiken’ is een volledig subjectieve interpretatie van de Commissie die Suit Supply betwist. 97 Wat het publiek ziet, zijn minuscule mannetjes die aan de grillen van de gigantische superieure vrouw zijn overgeleverd. 98 Ook in deze uiting zijn de machtsverhoudingen heel duidelijk: de man klein en nietig, de vrouw een dominante reus. 99 Volstrekt onduidelijk is hoe de indruk zou worden gewekt dat de man de controle heeft. Hij is, gezien de proporties, overgeleverd aan haar, en niet andersom. 60

Suit Supply: “There is in no way any exercise of force or violence, or fear or anger. The facial expression of the woman cannot be interpreted as negative.”100

Plaintiffs, however, contest the direct relation between physical size and power, focusing instead on agency:

Plaintiffs: “The men are the active people; the men undress the women, slap them on their buttocks or use them as a slide or to sit on.”101)

As the plaintiffs state here, size does not directly determine control in terms of activity or passivity. The stereotypical representations of gender relate to a distinction between men as active, and women as passive beings. In the case of Suit Supply’s campaign, it turns out that no matter how large the women are portrayed, they still remain passive and submissive to the active men and their wishes:

Plaintiffs: “It is about what meaning can be derived from that static image and in this case, the reactions in the media revealed that a clear image of objectification/sexism and negative stereotyping of women had emerged.”102

Suit Supply: “Apparently the Committee’s criterion is that advertising should always show pure equality between men and women. Without further justification, which is missing, this very strict criterion is inconsistent with previous decisions by the Committee and the usual practice of advertising. It seems as though the Committee determines that advertisements can no longer play with the relationship between men and women. The rule however, is that there is considerable room to play with this relationship as long as it does not cross the line of what is acceptable.”103

What supposed ‘rule’ Suit Supply refers to here, is unclear. There is no specific rule in the NRC relating to playing with the relationship between men and women. What is clear

100 Er is op geen enkele manier sprake van uitoefening van kracht of geweld, of van angst of woede. De gezichtsuitdrukking van de vrouw is niet negatief te interpreteren. 101 De mannen zijn de actieve persoon; de mannen kleden de vrouwen uit, geven ze een pets op de billen of gebruiken ze als glijbaan of om op te zitten. 102 Het gaat erom welke betekenis ontleend kan worden aan dat statische beeld en in dit geval bleek uit de reacties in de media dat een duidelijk beeld was ontstaan van objectivering/seksisme en negatieve stereotypering van de vrouw. 103 Kennelijk hanteert de Commissie het criterium dat reclame te allen tijde zuivere gelijkwaardigheid tussen man en vrouw zou moeten tonen. Zonder nadere motivering, die ontbreekt, valt dit zeer strenge criterium niet te rijmen met eerdere beslissingen van de Commissie en met de gangbare reclamepraktijk. Het lijkt alsof de Commissie bepaalt dat in reclame niet meer met de man/vrouwverhouding mag worden gespeeld. De regel is echter dat er aanzienlijke ruimte bestaat om met deze verhouding te spelen zolang de grens van het toelaatbare niet wordt overschreden. 61 however, is the line of what is considered acceptable. In this situation, it becomes framed as a matter of opinion where Suit Supply views their gender ideology as acceptable. Suit Supply suggests here that representing masculinity and femininity as equal, is too strict a criterion to uphold for advertisements. But as explained before, the stereotypical portrayal of gender is considered to be harmful. It is safe to say that Suit Supply’s argument of ‘a very strict criterion’ is an exaggeration, as there is no indication that any party in the case has been making such a demand. It is particularly remarkable to insist that it is out of line with previous rulings. If there never was any progress and everything needed to be related to the past, one could never move forward and adapt to changes in society. What is happening in this case is that citizens within a society with certain opinions on gender equality try to hold those that cross certain limits accountable for their actions. This reasoning is apparent in the plaintiffs’ following claim:

Plaintiffs: “The advertisements by the advertiser are part of a structural marketing strategy that is aimed at a brand identity in which modern, masculine power is connected to aforementioned harmful, stereotypical roles for men and women. Such forms of sexism and negative stereotyping promote gender discrimination and are part of a social context that feeds sexual violence.”104

Directly related to the use of stereotypes is the argument of threats to mental health, as described in article 4 of the NRC:

Plaintiffs: “In article 4 of the NRC it is determined that advertising may not be unnecessarily hurtful, nor can it be a threat to mental and/or physical health. In line of article 4 of the NRC, plaintiff points specifically to the image in which it seems as though a woman is being choked (image B) and the image in which a man slaps a woman on her buttocks (image C). According to the plaintiff, these images seem to be an invitation to unsolicited use of women’s bodies for one’s own pleasure.”105

104 De reclame-uitingen van adverteerder zijn onderdeel van een structurele marketing strategie die gericht is op een brand-identiteit waarin moderne, mannelijke kracht verbonden is aan bovenstaande schadelijke stereotype rollen voor man en vrouw. Dergelijke vormen van seksisme en negatieve stereotypering bevorderen discriminatie op grond van geslacht en maken onderdeel van een sociale context welke seksueel geweld voedt. 105 In artikel 4 NRC is bepaald dat reclame niet nodeloos kwetsend mag zijn, noch een bedreiging inhouden voor de geestelijke en/of lichamelijke gezondheid. In het kader van artikel 4 NRC wijst klaagster specifiek op de afbeelding waarop het lijkt of een vrouw wordt gewurgd (uiting B) en op de afbeelding waarbij een man een vrouw op haar billen slaat (uiting C). Deze afbeeldingen lijken klaagster een uitnodiging om vrouwenlichamen ongevraagd voor het eigen plezier te gebruiken. 62

Plaintiffs: “According to the plaintiffs, aforementioned objectification causes harm to the (self)image of girls and women. Treating a woman as an instrument, a thing, an object for the goal of another (a man) denies women their human dignity and autonomy. In a context in which this relationship is a structural part of the public perception, girls’ and women’s ability to autonomously determine their free will is at stake.”106

A crucial factor here is that the RCC translates the plaintiffs’ statements into legal jargon, and that such reformulation ultimately determines how the complaint is referred to throughout the case handling.

CvB: “The College understands the intimated’s wish to remain free from concerned advertisements in public space and on the internet as an appeal to these aspects.”107

Suit Supply: “To the extent that the complaint is to be interpreted that the advertisements according to the plaintiff would pose a threat to the mental and/or physical public health, Suit Supply remarks that according to decisions made by the Committee considering violation of article 4 of the NRC, the advertisement has to contain an incentive or a particular significant threat.”108

Suit Supply: “In any case, in this light the Committee’s finding that Suit Supply would use ‘an image that detracts from the physical integrity of the woman’ is way too far-fetched.”109

Suit Supply’s claim that the complaint is ‘way too far-fetched’ is not further supported, but simply dismissive. Suit Supply often repeats this dismissive stance, and when the case proceeds to appeals, the CvB adopts a similar attitude:

106 Bovengenoemde objectivering veroorzaakt volgens klagers schade aan het (zelf)beeld van meisjes en vrouwen. Het behandelen van een vrouw als instrument, een ding, een object voor het doel van een ander (een man) ontkent de menselijke waardigheid van de vrouw en haar autonomie. In een context waarin deze verhouding structureel onderdeel uitmaakt van de maatschappelijke beeldvorming staat het vermogen van meisjes en vrouwen om autonoom hun vrije wil te bepalen op het spel. 107 Het College begrijpt de wens van geïntimeerde om in het straatbeeld en op internet gevrijwaard te blijven van de onderhavige uitingen als een beroep op deze aspecten. 108 Voor zover de klacht zo moet worden opgevat dat de uitingen volgens klaagster een bedreiging inhouden voor de geestelijke en/of lichamelijke volksgezondheid, merkt Suit Supply op dat volgens beslissingen van de Commissie voor strijdigheid met artikel 4 NRC in de reclame-uiting sprake moet zijn van een aansporend effect of een bepaalde aanzienlijke bedreiging. 109 In ieder geval gaat in dit licht de constatering van de Commissie dat Suit Supply gebruik zou maken van ‘een afbeelding die afbreuk doet aan de lichamelijke integriteit van de vrouw’ veel te ver. 63

CvB: “Neither can it be said that the advertisement proclaims such a negative portrayal of (the position of) women that this would offer sufficient justification to recommend that Suit Supply no longer advertises in this manner.”110

Here, the CvB decides what should be considered as more important, the negative stereotypical representation of genders or recommending Suit Supply no longer to use this type of imagery in their advertisements. While it is the intent of the plaintiffs to combat these types of representations with their complaint, and while such step is a prerequisite for enhancing gender representations in advertising, the CvB puts more value on not reprimanding Suit Supply for their actions. Ultimately, such lack of reprimand can give Suit Supply the impression that the imagery is not harmful, and so is acceptable and repeatable.

While the stereotypical representations in Suit Supply’s campaign can be considered discriminatory on the basis of gender, racism plays a role as well. Considerations about both racism and sexism come up in the case. However, of both those forms of discrimination, racism is surprisingly little discussed. Plaintiffs raise the issue of racism multiple times, but perhaps because the initial framing provided little detail as to why some of the images in the campaign could be considered racist, this concern is quickly dismissed.

I note that in translations, I stay close to the words that were originally used. Here, this means that I have chosen not to rephrase the statement and terms such as ‘models of colour’, where this did not occur in the original text either.

Plaintiffs: “According to the plaintiff, it is mainly about gender discrimination, but also about ethnic origin, because the campaign frequently uses dark models.”111

Here again, the translation by the RCC enables Suit Supply to address the issue of racism and colonialism in a different way than becomes apparent from the images, or was intended by the plaintiffs. For the plaintiffs, the issue is not about using models of colour, but rather of portraying them being used by white men. Suit Supply however, can reframe

110 Evenmin kan gezegd worden dat de uiting een dusdanig negatief beeld verkondigt over (de positie van) de vrouw dat dit voldoende rechtvaardiging kan bieden om Suit Supply aan te bevelen niet meer op onderhavige wijze reclame te maken. 111 Het gaat dan volgens klaagster vooral om discriminatie op grond van geslacht, maar ook om etnische afstamming, omdat in de campagne veel gebruik wordt gemaakt van donkere modellen. 64 the issue in such a way that the credibility of the plaintiff and the complaint again become questioned.

Suit Supply: “Suit Supply does not see how portraying a dark model would be racist or discriminatory. Rather, it would be racist never to depict dark models. Discrimination is about the differential treatment or positioning of people based on origin or ethnicity. There is no form of discrimination (...) By using models of diverse origin, ethnicity and background in the advertising campaign, Suit Supply distances itself from discrimination, racism or any other distinction on this point.”112

Based on this point, unrelated to the issue, claims of racism are quickly dismissed in the first case and not mentioned again in the second case. Hence, in the third case the plaintiffs restated it again. This time the plaintiffs supplied the CvB with studies conducted by the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILP) regarding the international treaty of CEDAW:

Plaintiffs: “In the assessment of advertising images where black women function as instruments for the enjoyment of white men, it moreover is about a racist-sexist advertisement.”113

Plaintiffs: “Based on the aforementioned legal grounds in the UN Treaty for the Rights of Women and the stated social effects, plaintiffs request the Committee to consider the advertisements at issue as illicit and non-compliant with the rules in the Netherlands, including legislation and international treaties, on the grounds of, among other things, sex discrimination and discrimination based on race in light of the UN Treaty for the Rights of Women and in violation with (article 2 of) the NRC.”114

112 Suit Supply ziet niet in hoe het afbeelden van een donker model racistisch of discriminerend zou zijn. Het is eerder racistisch om nooit donkere modellen af te beelden. Discriminatie draait om het anders behandelen of positioneren van personen op grond van afkomst of etniciteit. Van enige vorm van discriminatie is geen sprake. (…) Door in de reclamecampagne modellen van diverse afkomst, etniciteit en achtergrond in te zetten houdt Suit Supply zich juist verre van discriminatie, racisme of enig ander onderscheid op dit punt. 113 Bij de beoordeling van de reclamebeelden waarin zwarte vrouwen fungeren als instrument voor het plezier van witte mannen gaat het bovendien om een racistisch-seksistische uiting. 114 Op basis van de hiervoor genoemde juridische gronden in het VN Vrouwenrechtenverdrag en de beschreven sociaal maatschappelijke effecten, verzoeken klagers de Commissie om de onderhavige reclame-uitingen als onrechtmatig en niet in overeenstemming met de in Nederland geldende regels te beschouwen, waaronder de wetgeving en internationale verdragen, aan te duiden op basis van seksediscriminatie en discriminatie op grond van ras in het licht van onder meer het VN Vrouwenrechtenverdrag en in strijd met (artikel 2 van) de NRC. 65

The CvB replies to the plaintiff’s request with a statement along the lines of ‘what is done, is done’. This is remarkable, as such statements do not portray actions of a well functioning regulatory institution. While certain prior decisions are not to be questioned, it simultaneously overthrows another prior decision, namely the RCC’s initial ruling.

CvB: “From the considerations (...) the Committee found that in the assessment of previous complaints about the same advertisements, the Committee and the College have also assessed whether these advertisements are in violation of the NRC for being sexist, negatively stereotypical for women and/or discriminatory.”115

Plaintiffs: “Instead the question of sexism in the chair’s decision is again treated in light of ‘decency’, a ground of assessment that in itself can be stereotyping. The Women’s Rights Treaty has not been ratified for nothing. It contains important provisions concerning sexism and negative stereotyping that offer more and other norms than the way in which alleged sexism in advertising is being considered now, in light of good morals, taste and decency. If the Committee fully considers the grounds on which the complaint is based and fully assesses whether the advertisements conform to the treaty, there indeed will be reason to presume that the Committee, or the College, in response to the complaint by the plaintiffs will still after all find the previously described advertisements as unacceptable.”116

Here, the plaintiffs suggest that, given the Committee’s framing of the issue in terms of decency or good morals, the RCC might not be educated or qualified enough on its own, or in its current composition, to fully grasp concepts of sexism. If this is the case, this would limit the RCC’s ability to function as an adjudicator concerning filed complaints regarding sexism.

115 (…) de commissie gebleken dat bij de beoordeling van de eerdere klachten over dezelfde uitingen door de Commissie en het College ook is beoordeeld of die uitingen in strijd zijn met de NRC omdat deze seksistisch zijn, op negatieve wijze stereotyperend voor de vrouw en/of discriminerend zijn. 116 In plaats daarvan wordt de vraag van seksisme in de beslissing van de voorzitter wederom behandeld in het licht van ‘goede zeden’, een beoordelingsgrond die op zichzelf ook een stereotypering met zich mee kan brengen. Het Vrouwenrechtenverdrag is niet voor niets geratificeerd. Het bevat belangrijke bepalingen over seksisme en negatieve stereotypering die meer en andere normen bieden dan de manier waarop er nu, aan de hand van de goede zeden, de smaak en het fatsoen, naar vermeend seksisme in de reclame wordt gekeken. Als de Commissie de gronden waarop de klacht berust wel volledig afweegt en daarmee de reclame-uitingen vol toetst aan het verdrag is er wel degelijk aanleiding om te veronderstellen dat de Commissie, respectievelijk het College, naar aanleiding van de klacht van klagers alsnog zal oordelen dat de hiervoor omschreven uitingen ontoelaatbaar zijn. 66

RESULTS RAPE CULTURE

When it comes to expressions of rape culture, awareness and recognition seem to be crucial. These are intertwined in the sense that where one is lacking, the other will be lacking as well. You cannot recognize expressions as rape culture if you are not aware of how this is embedded in society. Likewise, you cannot be(come) aware of rape culture if you fail to recognize it. Where the RCC notices the symbolism in the imagery, the CvB and Suit Supply fail to do so. They took a highly literal reading, focusing on physical power and force in relation to control. As the women are portrayed larger than the men, Suit Supply and the CvB reason that the women have greater physical power than the men, and therefore the women are ‘obviously’ the ones in control. But this reasoning is not supported by the imagery. The women exhibit more signs of submission and passivity (lack of control), whereas the men portray more signs of domination and activity. The images have a highly stereotypical representation of a binary gender ideology, at the expense of femininity.

Suit Supply claims that representing masculinity and femininity as (more) equal is a very harsh criterion, difficult to uphold, and not in line with previous rulings. But this idea that everything needs to conform to the past obstructs social progress. It seems that the plaintiffs and the society they inhabit, have different views on equality between genders than the CvB and Suit Supply, who resist steps towards a more equal representation of gender in advertising. When the CvB decides that recommending Suit Supply to no longer use this type of imagery in their advertising campaigns is too strict a conclusion, they seem to value the Suit Supply brand more than the claims made by the plaintiffs. They are willing to condone imagery that the plaintiffs aim to demonstrate is harmful and hurtful. By doing so, the CvB gives a message to Suit Supply that the imagery is acceptable and therefore repeatable, while giving the message to the plaintiffs (and the general public) that the equal representation of gender is not valuable (enough) to merit such recommendation. This exemplifies how a lack of awareness, and education may make an institution unqualified to rule on sensitive topics such as sexism and racism.

The stereotypical portrayal of genders in advertising is considered harmful as a threat to mental health, as described in article 4 of the NRC: advertising may not be unnecessarily hurtful, nor a threat to mental and/or physical health. In light of the explained theoretical assumption, if advertising is hurtful or a threat to mental and/or physical health, that would qualify as a ground for a complaint. However, in part due to the RCC’s

67 reformulations, the plaintiffs’ complaint is trivialized and ultimately ignored by focusing on article 2 of the NRC: decency, which is the third theme.

6.4. DECENCY

The ‘Decency’ theme contains the codes ‘Dress/nudity’, ‘Subjective’, ‘Norms’, ‘Freedom of Speech’ and ‘The State’.

The theme of decency shows how the case brought against Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ campaign came to be judged solely in light of article 2 of the NRC. ‘Decency’ or ‘good morals’ (goede zeden) refer to actions that are viewed as socially desirable or decent. These actions are mostly determined by traditions, norms and values. From the start, the RCC positions itself as the party framing the complaint, and determines the framework used throughout the case review. This is significant, because the framework of assessment determines what is deemed valuable or important in judging the merit of the complaint:

RCC: “The Committee assumes that the plaintiff first and foremost objects to the advertisements because plaintiff finds these to be in violation of decency/good morals as intended in article 2 NRC.”117

In the first case-handling the complaint gets judged in light of decency and, three of the images (A, B and C) are deemed impermissible in light of article 2 NRC. However, the RCC assumes that given this ruling, it no longer needs to consider any further violation, as shown in the following statement:

RCC: “Given that advertisements A, B and C are already impermissible on grounds of violation of article 2 NRC, it no longer needs to be considered whether they are also in violation of article 4 NRC.”118

It is surprising that the RCC presents this argument, as an advertisement can be ‘wrong’ on multiple levels, and hence violate multiple codes. Article 4 of the NRC states that advertising may not be unnecessarily hurtful, nor pose a threat to mental and/or physical health. By only assessing the complaint in light of article 2 NRC, the entire case is framed in terms of decency and the other codes are left unconsidered. As a result, when Suit

117 De Commissie gaat ervan uit dat klaagster in de eerste plaats bezwaar maakt tegen de uitingen omdat klaagster deze in strijd acht met de goede smaak en/of het fatsoen als bedoeld in artikel 2 NRC. 118 Nu de uitingen A, B, en C reeds op grond van strijd met artikel 2 NRC niet toelaatbaar zijn, kan buiten bespreking blijven of de uitingen tevens in strijd zijn met het bepaalde in artikel 4 NRC. 68

Supply comes back with grievances about the case, they only need to object to the assessment of the advertisement in light of article 2 NRC. This actually makes the case easier for Suit Supply:

Suit Supply: “Suit Supply has appealed insofar as it concerns the Committee’s considerations that are decisive in the ruling that the advertisements that Suit Supply refers to as advertisements A, B and C are in violation of article 2 of the Dutch Advertising Code (NRC).”119

How did the case reach this result? One factor is that when all the images are initially described by the RCC, these descriptions mostly concerned forms of dress or nudity. This way, the issue from the start is framed in terms of how much nudity is displayed in the advertisements, even if this may not be what was important to the plaintiffs. Both for the RCC and Suit Supply, nudity is directly related to issues of sexuality. The female body is framed as sexual in essence - which in itself is a sexist assumption - and the complaint is presented as though primarily being about unwanted confrontation with nudity or sexuality:

CvB: “In no way is there any recognizable, sexual context, despite the fact that the men are portrayed on top of the woman’s bare breasts.”120

Here, the woman’s breasts are assumed to be sexual, and essentialized as such. Suit Supply too assumes that when it comes to decency, this primarily concerns the exposure to nudity or sexuality in public space:

Suit Supply: “Elements that usually play an important role in this, such as sexual positions, the suggestion of sexual conduct or unacceptable nudity, are not featured in the advertisement.”121

Suit Supply: “Both the man and the woman are fully dressed. The advertisement contains no reference whatsoever to eroticism or sexuality.”122

119 Suit Supply heeft beroep ingesteld voor zover het gaat om de overwegingen van de Commissie die dragend zijn voor het oordeel dat de uitingen die door Suit Supply worden aangeduid als uitingen A, B en C in strijd zijn met artikel 2 van de Nederlandse Reclame Code (NRC). 120 Van een herkenbare seksuele context is geen sprake ondanks dat de mannen op de blote borsten van de vrouw zijn afgebeeld. 121 Elementen die hierbij doorgaans een belangrijke rol spelen, zoals seksuele houdingen, de suggestie van seksuele handelingen of ontoelaatbaar naakt, komen in de uiting niet voor. 69

Suit Supply: “The advertisement features no sexual position, nudity or (the suggestion of) sexual conduct. In light of the previous, Suit Supply does not regard this advertisement to be in violation of decency and/or good morals.”123

Once it becomes clear that the RCC frames its judgement around article 2 NRC, Supply remarks that this article is subjective in nature:

Suit Supply: “(…) it is the case that conform to common law, the Committee and the College of Appeals (CvB) remain cautious in considering these articles, given the subjective character of the stated criteria.”124

However, claiming that sexism or harmful gender ideology is subjective and a matter of perspective, only troubles the issue. It makes it a small step for Suit Supply to claim that the plaintiff’s complaint against the advertisements is simply an expression of preference. The following remark makes this clear:

Suit Supply: “The fact that the plaintiff cannot appreciate the advertisements, does not mean that these are in violation of decency and/or good morals.”125

If the issue is framed as a matter of perspective, opinion - in other words, as subjective – then dismissal is a small step away. One opinion can then be framed as a personal matter, while another can be used as in line with what is deemed ‘normal’:

Suit Supply: “The required restraint entails that current social beliefs are absolutely guiding. Not the subjective judgement of the Committee or the College, but that which is deemed appropriate according to current social beliefs is decisive in cases of subjective norms.”126

122 Zowel de man als de vrouw is geheel gekleed. De uiting bevat geen enkele verwijzing naar erotiek of seksualiteit. 123 In de uiting komt geen seksuele houding, naakt of (suggestie van) seksuele handeling voor. Gezien het voorgaande is deze uiting volgens Suit Supply niet in strijd met de goede smaak en/of het fatsoen. 124 (…) geldt dat volgens vaste rechtspraak de Commissie en het College van Beroep (CvB) zich bij toetsing aan deze artikelen terughoudend opstellen, gelet op het subjectieve karakter van de genoemde criteria. 125 Het feit dat klaagster de uitingen niet kan waarderen, betekent niet dat deze in strijd zijn met de goede smaak en/of het fatsoen. 126 De vereiste terughoudendheid brengt met zich mee dat de huidige maatschappelijke opvattingen absoluut leidend zijn. Niet het subjectieve oordeel van de Commissie of het College, maar hetgeen volgens de huidige maatschappelijke opvattingen betamelijk is, geeft bij subjectieve normen de doorslag. 70

Suit Supply portrays the assessments of the plaintiffs, the Committee and the College as personal (private) opinions, and dismisses them as subjective. Framing matters, as this enables Suit Supply to question the ability of the RCC as a whole:

Suit Supply: “The Committee unduly follows a more strict line with regard to male/female relations in advertising. The Committee implicitly seems to assume a change in civil opinion, in the sense that currently in Dutch society there would be stricter views of male/female relations.”127

Suit Supply here seems to contest that in Dutch society men and women are viewed as equal, or at least that the objectification or sexualization of women is deemed unacceptable. It frames the RCC, which does not take on this stance, as subjective and too strict in its judgement.

Another, very different reason submitted by Suit Supply is their right to free speech:

Suit Supply: “It is important that, following the EHRM’s established case law, also advertisements are protected under the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed by article 10 EVRM. (...) Hence the advertiser deems it correct that the Committee and the CvB remain cautious in their interpretation of subjective norms. While in decisions about such norms it is considered that ‘with purely commercial expressions there is more leeway to deem them in violation of decency or good morals without infringing upon the advertiser’s freedom of speech, than is the case with political expressions or expressions that contribute to a debate of public interest’ but Suit Supply stresses that this point does not give the Committee the liberty to, by definition, apply a stricter test to commercial expressions.”128

127 De Commissie volgt ten onrechte een strengere lijn met betrekking tot man/vrouwverhoudingen in reclame. De Commissie lijkt impliciet uit te gaan van een wijziging in de maatschappelijke opvattingen, in die zin dat tegenwoordig in de Nederlandse maatschappij strenger wordt gedacht over man/vrouwverhoudingen. 128 Van belang is dat volgens vaste rechtspraak van het EHRM ook reclame-uitingen onder de bescherming van het door artikel 10 EVRM gewaarborgde grondrecht op vrijheid van meningsuiting vallen. (…) Adverteerder acht het daarom terecht dat de Commissie en het CvB zich terughoudend opstellen bij de invulling van subjectieve normen. In beslissingen over dergelijke normen wordt weliswaar in aanmerking genomen dat ‘bij louter commerciële uitingen een ruimere marge bestaat om een uiting zonder schending van de vrijheid van meningsuiting van de adverteerder niet in overeenstemming te achten met de goede smaak en het fatsoen dan bij politieke uitingen of uitingen die bijdragen aan een debat van publiek belang’ maar Suit Supply benadrukt dat deze uitspraak geen vrijbrief is voor de Commissie om per definitie een strengere toets te hanteren bij commerciële uitingen. 71

The free speech argument seems to be frequently used to dismiss complaints, especially when such criticism comes from marginalized communities.129 In the Netherlands, free speech (or the freedom of expression) is the freedom of citizens to express their opinion or convictions without prior control by the state.130 One weakness in Suit Supply’s plea here is that while the people behind the company of Suit Supply are indeed citizens of the Netherlands, the company itself is not. Since Suit Supply acted as a company when they released the advertising campaign, this means that they cannot call upon a right to free speech. Furthermore, even if and insofar as an individual has a right to freedom of speech, such right is never absolute. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens, EVRM) which Suit Supply refers to, states the instances when freedom of speech might be limited. Among these instances are the protection of (mental or physical) health, decency/good morals, or the rights of others, such as the right to autonomously develop free will. Significantly, these are exactly some of the domains highlighted by the plaintiffs in their complaint against Suit Supply’s campaign. Even if and insofar as any advertisement could fall under protected ‘ideological views’, that does not mean that those who produce the advertisement cannot face social repercussions. One of the potential social repercussions of any act of free speech is receiving complaints from citizens. Suprisingly, however, the CvB honours the validity of Suit Supply’s callings upon an international agreement, the EVRM, and its protection of the right to free speech.

But Suit Supply is not the only party that calls upon an international agreement in this case. The plaintiffs on their part call upon the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), formulated by the UN Commission on the Status of Women:

Plaintiffs: “Based on the UN Treaty for the Rights of Women the State has the duty to actively counteract the representation in media and advertising of women as sexual objects.”131

Plaintiffs: “According to the UN Women’s Rights Committee, the persistent negative stereotyping of women is curbing the development toward equality between men

129 Huffington Post “Stop using free speech as an excuse to be awful”, 2017 130 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrijheid_van_meningsuiting#Art._10_EVRM 131 Het is op grond van het VN Vrouwenrechtenverdrag de verplichting van de Staat om het afbeelden van vrouwen als seksuele objecten, in media en reclames, actief tegen te gaan. 72

and women. In General Comment 19 the UN Women’s Rights Committee has explained that traditional relations, where women are deemed as subordinate, can lead to violence or force. According to plaintiffs, the advertiser’s advertisements in question show a negative stereotype that normalizes and glorifies skewed relations between men and women.”132

Plaintiffs: “In addition, plaintiffs maintain that the College in her ruling in the aforementioned files assumes that there is no sexual context while clearly fully dressed men use partially undressed women, with a large depiction of the women’s buttocks and breasts. The image suggests and implies the negative stereotype of successful men in suits who use half-naked, completely objectified women. The CEDAW Committee states on this that: ‘harmful gender stereotypes that portray women as subordinate to men are one of the root causes of gender based violence against women’ and has concluded multiple times that ‘in general, States Parties under Article 5(a) are obliged to take effective measures to ensure that the media promote respect for women’.”133

Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs argue that if it were impossible to act against advertisements on the basis of sexist stereotyping, this would constitute a formal breach of the treaty.”134

However, when the plaintiffs appeal to CEDAW, the CvB questions the validity of this claim and barely considers it any further. The CvB questions the applicability of this international agreement, as it refers to States under the UN while the RCC is non-

132 Het aanhoudend negatief stereotyperen van vrouwen is, volgens het VN-Vrouwenrechtencomité, een rem op de ontwikkeling naar verdere gelijkheid tussen mannen en vrouwen. In General Comment 19 heeft het VN- Vrouwenrechtencomité uitgelegd dat traditionele verhoudingen, waarbij vrouwen als ondergeschikt worden beschouwd, kunnen leiden tot geweld of dwang. In de onderhavige reclame-uitingen van adverteerder gaat het volgens klagers om een negatief stereotype dat de scheve man-vrouwverhoudingen in de samenleving normaliseert en verheerlijkt. 133 Verder meent het College in haar uitspraak in de hiervoor genoemde dossiers volgens klagers dat geen sprake is van een seksuele context terwijl duidelijk volledig geklede mannen gebruik maken van deels ontklede vrouwen waarbij de billen en borsten van de vrouwen groot in beeld zijn gebracht. Het beeld suggereert en impliceert het negatieve stereotype van geslaagde mannen in pak die gebruik maken van halfnaakte, compleet geobjectiveerde vrouwen. Het CEDAW-comité zegt daarover: ‘harmful gender stereotypes that portray women as subordinate to men are one of the root causes of gender based violence against women’ en heeft meerdere malen geconcludeerd dat ‘in general, States Parties under Article 5(a) are obliged to take effective measures to ensure that the media promote respect for women.’ 134 Klagers stellen dat indien niet mogelijk is om op te treden tegen reclame-uitingen op grond van seksistische stereotypering zulks een formele schending van het verdrag oplevert. 73 governmental, being a self-regulating institution. Moreover, the CvB claims ignorance of the relevance of CEDAW in this case:

CvB: “It hasn’t become clear to the chair what specific provisions of this treaty would have been violated by the advertisements (...). This treaty is addressed to states, not to self-regulating authorities, and the corporate industry has so far not declared the provisions of this treaty to be correspondingly applicable to advertisements in light of the self-regulation of advertisements. (...) This does not mean that the interests protected by the Women’s Treaty do not play a role in the assessment in light of article 2 NRC that is, in assessing whether it is necessary to make a recommendation no longer to advertise in such a manner in relation to (...) the protection of decency and the protection of the rights of others.”135

CvB: “The chair has decided immediately to reject the complaint because complaints about the advertisements at issue have already been assessed by the Committee in case files 2016/00193 A/B/C/E and have been assessed in appeal by the College of Appeals (the College).”136

CvB: “Since there is no reason to assume that the Committee, in response to the complaint, will find advertisements A, B, D up to and including H impermissible after all, the chair believes the complaint must be rejected.”137 [my emphasis in bold]

The plaintiffs respond by noting that even if CEDAW were not directly enforceable, given that it has been ratified by the Dutch State, there needs to be some institution which will, and is able to, take CEDAW into account when assessing advertisements.

135 Het is de voorzitter niet duidelijk geworden welke specifieke bepalingen van dit verdrag door de uitingen zouden zijn geschonden (…) Dit verdrag is gericht tot staten en niet tot zelfreguleringsinstanties en ook het bedrijfsleven heeft tot dusverre de bepalingen uit dit Verdrag niet in het kader van zelfregulering van overeenkomstige toepassing verklaart op reclame-uitingen. (…) Dit neemt niet weg dat bij de toetsing aan artikel 2 NRC de door het Vrouwenverdrag beschermde belangen wel degelijk een rol spelen, namelijk in het kader van de toetsing of een aanbeveling om niet meer op een dergelijke wijze reclame te maken noodzakelijk is in verband met (…) bescherming van de goede zeden en de bescherming van de rechten van anderen. 136 De voorzitter heeft besloten dat klacht direct af te wijzen omdat klachten over de onderhavige uitingen reeds eerder in de dossiers 2016/00193 A/B/CE door de Commissie en in hoger beroep door het College van Beroep (het College) zijn beoordeeld. 137 Omdat er geen aanleiding bestaat om te veronderstellen dat de Commissie naar aanleiding van de klacht alsnog zal oordelen dat de uitingen A, B, D tot en met H ontoelaatbaar zijn, is de voorzitter van oordeel dat de klacht dient te worden afgewezen. 74

Plaintiffs: “On the one hand the chair indicates that it is unclear whether the treaty has a direct application, while on the other hand he indicates that the treaty indeed plays a role in the judgement in response to the complaint. Given that the chair states that the interests protected by the treaty do indeed play a role, it actually does not really matter whether the treaty has any direct application (...) Even if the Women’s Rights Treaty would have no direct application, these norms have still been ratified by the State and it needs to be possible to be judged in this light. If this is impossible with the Committee and the College, then the State needs to provide another institution through which assessment in light of these norms can occur.”138 [my emphasis in bold]

This last observation might be most pressing in the whole case. It implies that the RCC is an obstruction in the process of providing accurate assessment of gender ideology in Dutch advertising. Moreover, it suggests that the State should provide Dutch citizens with an advertising monitoring body that is able to perform such assessment. The RCC assumes its current role as a given, mostly due to their position as a power elite in the discourse. It may not view its lack of awareness or education on such sensitive topics as problematic, never needing to acknowledge the necessity to change.

RESULTS DECENCY

From the start, the RCC frames the case in light of article 2 of the NRC, related to decency, which in itself can be considered stereotyping. It frames and essentializes the female body as in itself sexual, while simultaneously deeming anything sexual as ‘indecent’. The assumption is that nudity is directly related to sexuality, and any exposure of the female body should be considered indecent. Surprisingly, the RCC considers article 4 of the NRC, but does not deem it relevant to address. This framing enables Suit Supply to focus solely on these values in their appeal. The framing of the case around article 2 NRC is in contrast with what the initial complaint intended. The plaintiffs do not consider nudity and sexuality in itself as harmful, but rather the sexualizing and objectifying

138 De voorzitter geeft enerzijds aan dat het onduidelijk is of het verdrag wel rechtstreekse werking heeft, terwijl hij anderzijds aangeeft dat het verdrag wel degelijk een rol speelt bij de oordeelsvorming naar aanleiding van een klacht. Aangezien de voorzitter stelt dat de door het verdrag beschermde belangen wel degelijk een rol spelen, doet het er dus eigenlijk niet toe of het verdrag wel of niet een rechtstreekse werking heeft (…) Ook indien het Vrouwenrechtenverdrag geen rechtstreekse werking zou hebben, zijn deze normen wel door de Staat geratificeerd en dient hieraan getoetst te kunnen worden. Als dit niet mogelijk is bij de Commissie en het College, dient de Staat zorg te dragen voor een andere instantie waarbij toetsing aan deze normen kan plaatsvinden. 75 manner in which they are used. According to the sex-positive movement in feminism, consent is a very important, distinctive element. Sex-positivism considers sexual acts as ‘fundamentally healthy and pleasurable’,139 as long as they are safe and consensual. The plaintiffs did not issue objections to nudity or sexuality in itself. Still, if there were a sexual dimension to the imagery at all, the images do not show that the actions depicted are consensual. By linking nudity and sexuality together with (in)decency, while dismissing dimensions of consent, the case is framed in a problematic, stereotypical and obstructive manner.

Related to this, Suit Supply refers to the subjective nature of decency, as this is tied to social norms. They try to reframe this as a matter of perspective, something subjective. Differences in opinion should not be of any concern, as someone’s opinion is a personal matter. In the end, Suit Supply contests the notion that men and women should be viewed as equal in Dutch society. They hint that objectification and sexualization are in line with social norms, and therefore should be deemed ‘normal’ and acceptable. Ultimately, Suit Supply calls upon an international agreement regarding ‘free speech’ to be exempt from repercussions. In the Netherlands this right is intended for citizens, and does not apply to companies. While Suit Supply’s claim surprisingly remains unquestioned by the CvB, the latter does not honour the plaintiff’s appeal to another international agreement, the CEDAW. This is another example of how the CvB decides who is allowed to reason with certain arguments, and who is not; hence it does not uphold the same standards for all parties involved. This positions the institution as biased and an obstruction in the process of a more equal representation of gender in Dutch advertising.

6.5. RESULTS THE RECLAME CODE COMMISSIE

Analyzing the ruling of the complaint against Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign shows that there are indeed discursive practices at play that constitute unequal power relations.

Suit Supply argues that the size difference used in their advertising campaign are a deliberate expression of a reversed stereotype, where women dominate men (the main idea behind the campaign). This shows that Suit Supply is aware of such a stereotype, and deliberately uses it as a defense against criticism of sexism. Furthermore, the

139 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement 76 unrealistic portrayal of the women and men with different sizes is simultaneously used as an argument that it simply is absurd, therefore ‘obviously’ humorous. Both points aim to trivialize the representations, which plays into the embeddedness of harmful gender representations. It reduces awareness of any harm by limiting viewpoints, and silences differing views and experiences.

Strikingly, the plaintiffs’ and the RCC’s claims regarding rape culture are not recognized by Suit Supply or the CvB. This leads one to think that either there is a lack of awareness, or a deliberate denial of such characteristics. As stated before, there seems to be a recursive relationship between the awareness and recognition of rape culture. These skills - as it is something that comes with practice - are intertwined in the sense that where one is lacking, the other is too. You cannot recognize expressions of rape culture if you are not aware of how this is embedded in society, and conversely, you cannot be aware of rape culture if you fail to recognize it. Neither the CvB nor Suit Supply demonstrated either of them. They claim that because the women are portrayed larger than the men, they must have more physical power, and are ‘obviously’ in control. However, the imagery does not show this. They rather show more signs of submission of the women, and more signs of active control by the men. Ultimately, Suit Supply’s line of reasoning is adopted by the CvB. Through its actions, the CvB assigns less value to sustaining equality between genders, and more to not reprimanding Suit Supply by recommending no longer to advertise this way. Representing an equal gender ideology is not deemed important (enough).

The CvB’s decision not to recommend Suit Supply to no longer use this type of imagery in their advertisements, is important in a number of ways. It suggests that the CvB values Suit Supply’s standing more than it values the plaintiffs’ claims that the imagery is harmful and hurtful. By doing so, the CvB sends a message to Suit Supply that the imagery is acceptable and therefore repeatable, while sending a message to the plaintiffs (and the public) that this type of imagery is nothing to be concerned about. This decision can have several effects. The opinion of those offended by the imagery gets minimized, quite possibly reducing the public’s faith in the fair operations of the RCC. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the notion that the equal representation of genders in advertising is not valuable (enough).

The case as a whole gets framed in a stereotyping manner, as it comes to centre around article 2 NRC, concerning decency. Past rulings with this framework have predominantly

77 focused on the degree of nudity or sexuality present in the imagery. In framing the plaintiff’s complaint around article 2 of the NRC, it is assumed that decency is equal to claims regarding sexism. It deems the female body in itself as sexual, while simultaneously classifying anything sexual as ‘indecent’. It assumes that sexism – which is about a hierarchal relation between genders - must be linked to sexuality, therefore to nudity, so it must be indecent. Using this framework to judge cases of sexist imagery is stereotypical. It moreover feeds the social norms that sexuality should be deemed indecent, something private, and not to be seen in public. Suit Supply downplays this judging framework by arguing that it is subjective, as it is related to social norms. It proceeds by insisting that the imagery is in line with social norms, and so that the objectification and sexualization must be in line with social norms as well, therefore the images should be considered ‘normal’ and acceptable. The CvB’s adoption of this line of reasoning positions the institution as an obstruction in the process of more equal representations of gender in Dutch advertising.

Suit Supply claims that representing masculinity and femininity as (more) equal is a very strict criterion, difficult to uphold, and not in line with previous rulings by the RCC. The plaintiffs have a different view on the importance and achievability of portraying equality between genders in advertising. Besides the fact that the statement that equality is hard is anti-feminist, the idea that everything needs to relate to a past, can be considered an obstruction to social progress. They rely heavily on phrasing such as things being ‘obvious’ and ‘clear’, without referring to actual evidence, or even acknowledging the possibility of different interpretations. This dismissive stance is taken on by the CvB as well, limiting chances for a constructive discussion on this sensitive issue. With its actions the CvB positions itself as a hindrance in the process towards more equal representations of gender in advertising. This is equally how, in the end, the position of the RCC as an institute becomes clear: they claim ‘truth’ in their interpretation, but do not allow other interpretations to be considered truthful.

As I have discussed my research sample with my analysis and findings, I will now conclude by answering the research questions that have guided this study.

78

7. CONCLUSION

“Justice must always question itself, just as society can exist only by means of the work it does on itself and on its institutions.” ― Michel Foucault

Having analysed the data and discussed my findings, I will now relate these results to the aim of this research: How are the power relations surrounding Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign constructed, and how does this shape the discourse surrounding the gender representations in Dutch advertising?

Question 1: How is gender represented in Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign?

In the images of Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign, representations of gender amount to a hierarchal display of gender, in favor of masculinity over femininity. In portraying masculinity, the campaign uses representations of femininity to establish a - by Suit Supply - desired masculinity. The desired masculinity displayed in the images remains close to harmful stereotypes of men being selfish, lacking empathy, and valuing women predominantly for their looks. This way, femininity is represented in a harmful stereotypical manner as well. Representing femininity as submissive, valuable solely in relation to physical attractiveness, and presenting women’s experience of the world as revolving around men. This establishes, trivializes and glorifies a toxic masculinity which should be viewed as harmful.

The consistent use of size differences between the genders portrayed issue a sense that, no matter what size women are men will still be able to do as they please with women’s bodies. By frequently centering women’s breasts or buttocks in the frame, this adds to the objectification and sexualization of women’s bodies. An emphasis in the imagery seems to be that (parts of) women’s bodies should be considered most valuable, instead of women as full human beings. This, combined with the signifying factor of the women wearing red clothes, red lipstick and red nail polish, adds to the dehumanization of women as a group. Another remarkable feature is that all the men, but never the women, are portrayed wearing sunglasses, which could relate to the stereotypical idea of men as lacking empathy for others. It seems that the imagery constructs a certain, stereotypical

79 masculine ideal which heavily relies on the hierarchal relation to stereotypical femininity; the one cannot be portrayed without the other.

As we have learned from the analysis of the ruling, Suit Supply has consciously used the symbolism of size differences, as a claim for why the imagery cannot be viewed as sexist. This makes Suit Supply’s use of stereotypical representations of gender in the imagery a conscious adaptation to feminist critiques, thereby misconstruing it significance.

Question 2: What kind of debates do these representations incite?

The level of awareness and recognition of stereotypical representations of gender, is high among the members of the closed online community of the Facebook group ‘Feminist Club Amsterdam’ (FCA). The discussion reveals a sense of self-evidence that these images are hurtful, as the discussion primarily focuses on how to combat these images in public space. The emotional values attributed to this circumstance are mostly disgust, outrage, frustration and anger, which also inspires action and hope for change. As members discuss several possible courses of action to combat these images, they find that the main option available to them is filing a complaint with the RCC. However, their discussion also reveals a possible flaw in this strategy, as such complaints have been filed before and have not prevented Suit Supply from making, publishing and promoting more sexist imagery with their advertising campaigns. Members of the FCA express frustration as it is revealed that Suit Supply has been confronted by the RCC on previous campaigns, but has never been confronted with any actual, negative consequences of their actions. Furthermore, considering the amount of (free) media attention the controversial images evoke, it should not be surprising that they would continue to use these images. Members discussed the option that Suit Supply could intentionally use sexism - through stereotypical representations of gender - in their advertising campaigns to generate controversial debates. If this were true, the failure of the RCC to notice and combat this type of behaviour should be considered extremely harmful.

Question 3: How do power relations play out in the debates surrounding the gender representations in Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign? And who gets to make the final decision on the significance of these gender representations?

The discussion held in the Feminist Club Amsterdam shows how - those wanting to take action against this type of imagery - are led to one possible course of action: filing a complaint with the Reclame Code Commissie. On a micro-level, the actions of individuals

80 against this type of imagery are limited. Filing a complaint with the Amsterdam municipality is fruitless, as the municipality redirects them to the RCC. Complaining with or, in other cases, protesting Suit Supply itself seems to be fruitless as well, as these actions are not honoured. Moreover, protesting the images seems mostly beneficial to Suit Supply as it generates media attention for the company that cannot be considered harmful to them. This illuminates the power relations that the RCC has obtained in their adjudicating in the discourse of gender representations in advertising.

When looking into the ruling by the RCC, it becomes clear that the power held by this institution allows it to constitute a ‘regime of truth’ that is in accordance with their ideology. Where the complaint refers to certain views on gender, the ruling brings out different gender ideologies held by the parties involved: the plaintiffs, the RCC, Suit Supply, and ultimately the CvB. The gender ideology of the plaintiffs and those expressed in the first case handling by the RCC, appear to be quite similar. The plaintiff points out certain features of the images in the campaign which are, for the most part, honoured by the RCC, while they contrast with the gender ideology upheld by Suit Supply.

As Suit Supply brings the case before the CvB by appealing the RCC’s ruling, the gender ideology upheld by the CvB turns out to be more in line with Suit Supply’s gender ideology. This becomes clear as the plaintiffs come with the same and even additional arguments against the hurtful imagery portrayed with the advertising campaign. The arguments get dismissed as not important to the issue, the validity and applicability of claims are questioned, and in some cases the CvB actively disputes the plaintiff’s arguments without stating evidence for their different interpretation. These types of reactions contrast with how the CvB handles the arguments put forth by Suit Supply. It becomes apparent that the CvB adopts much of Suit Supply’s style, for instance in using the argument of ‘unrealistic’ against the plaintiffs. Throughout the handling of the case, the CvB assigns more power and credibility to Suit Supply, while dismissing arguments made by the plaintiffs.

The asymmetric treatment becomes most clear in the last handling of the case, where the plaintiffs submit data from studies to the CvB. The studies support the plaintiff’s claims as to why this type of imagery should be considered harmful. Moreover, the plaintiffs refer to the international agreement CEDAW, which the Netherlands has ratified. The CvB questions such an argument, appealing to CEDAW, pointing to its status as a non-governmental institution, and ignores the data as well. Suit Supply on the other hand

81 is not faced with such a dismissive stance on the matter. Moreover, Suit Supply’s claims and arguments are honoured and repeated by the CvB. Suit Supply’s main line of reasoning - that the imagery is ‘absurd’ - is repeated by the CvB when it rejects the complaint. In doing so, the CvB decides that restricting the representations of gender in Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign is less important than reprimanding Suit Supply for their actions. This could either be due to a lack of awareness on the part of the CvB on such a sensitive topic as sexism, or it could be a conscious decision to deem the consequences of sexist imagery as not important enough to justify recommendation. Either way, the institution of the RCC has become a power elite in the discourse of gender representations in advertising that currently obstructs the process towards a more equal representation of gender in advertising.

What still remains unclear is how insights into this social justice issue can be put into practice to establish effective change to the regulation of discriminatory practices in Dutch advertising. For this I will discuss the PILP studies (2015a; 2015b) submitted by the plaintiffs to the CvB in the ruling of the complaint, and propose possible changes to the system.

82

8. DISCUSSION

“It is a duty of an international citizenship to always bring the testimony of people's suffering to the eyes and ears of governments, sufferings for which it's untrue that they are not responsible. The suffering of men must never be a mere silent residue of policy. It grounds an absolute right to stand up and speak to those who hold power.” ― Michel Foucault

Based on my findings I will discuss potential changes that could improve representations of gender in Dutch advertising. For this I draw on the two works that were submitted to the RCC by the plaintiffs in the ruling on Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ advertising campaign. These studies have been carried out by the Public International Law and Policy Group (PILP). The Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (2015a) discusses the provisions of CEDAW in relation to states parties. The Legal Frameworks Regarding Sexism in Advertising: Comparison of National Systems (2015b) compares and discusses how several countries have implemented rules and regulations to combat harmful gender stereotypes in media. By ratifying CEDAW, the Netherlands must pursue an active role in the elimination of all forms of discrimination on the basis of gender. The CvB questions the applicability of CEDAW in the case against Suit Supply, since it is not part of Dutch government, and would not need to act on it. However, as an institution the RCC has become a power elite that could play a role in combating harmful gender stereotypes in the discourse of Dutch advertising. In ignoring CEDAW, the RCC assumes a passive, or even counteracting role.

Harmful gender ideology in Dutch advertising is normalizing, normalized and therein becomes normal. Criticizing the ‘norm’ becomes difficult, as there are requirements to do so with limited options available. You can file a complaint with the RCC, but this institution is not guaranteed to possess the knowledge required to adequately assess the validity of your claims. As a power elite, the RCC has to reproduce the conditions under which it can remain in power. In trying to transform institutions we have to consider their use and intended purposes. When the RCC was created its purpose was to regulate advertising. Currently it has equally taken up the role of assessing discriminatory practices in advertising, while not being equipped with the required awareness and education to fulfil this purpose. This is why we must conclude that some form of change

83 is needed. In order to change an institution, one needs to expose the gap between what the institution says it does, and what it actually does.

Sara Ahmed, in her work on diversity policies140, found that when it comes to increasing diversity in institutions, more often than not an institution’s response is to propose a diversity policy. Unfortunately, such policies are non-performative: they are examples of when naming something does not bring anything into effect. A diversity policy can come into existence, without it coming into actual use. Institutions can make diversity statements as a response to resistance or changes, while still continuing to be non- diverse and not advancing diversity. The very system that you are trying to change, can make it hard to complain about that system; if the RCC is shaped by tacit androcentrism (the male viewpoint or gaze) then complaints regarding sexism are less likely to be adequately assessed. The handling of the case against Suit Supply’s ‘Toy Boys’ campaign shows that, in the relationship between society (citizens) and corporate life (companies), there might be space for citizens to regain more power. Naming those companies that aid the perpetuation of the subordination of women (as was the case for the website ‘Geen Stijl’) can create an opportunity to force them to stop hiding behind public statements or diversity policies: to demand action instead of non-performative words.

One of the studies conducted by PILP (2015a) constitutes a framework that analyzed the relevant provisions for and obligations of state parties for addressing sexism in advertising. The CEDAW Committee has identified the media’s role in constructing and reproducing social norms related to social and cultural patterns of conduct based on gender stereotyping. What is considered acceptable, normal and responsible remains related to social norms. If we view gender equality as people’s ability to be free to make personal and professional choices without limitations fixed by either gender stereotypes, roles or prejudices, then there needs to be an environment where people can develop themselves regardless of their gender. The CEDAW Committee has urged state parties to engage media in combating discriminatory portrayals of gender in media, and established state parties’ obligation to ‘ensure that both public authorities and private institutions do not engage in acts or practices that are discriminatory to women’.141 This means that, states are held responsible for both public and private actors that violate such basic human rights. As stated in the PILP (2015a) study:

140 Institutional as usual: Diversity, Utility and the University (2017) 141 Public International Law & Policy Group (2015a). Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (2015a;p. 16) 84

“States parties have to regulate activities of private actors in all areas (...) When states fail to exercise due diligence in regulating the activities of private parties, they can be held liable for the actions of private actors.”142

If the Dutch state fails to exercise due diligence in regulating the activities of private parties, including companies and institutions such as Suit Supply and the RCC, then that leads to the conclusion that the Netherlands is not as progressive in terms of safeguarding human rights as it likes to think. Nor is it as progressive as it should be according to CEDAW. Changes need to be made, the question remains how. The other study conducted by PILP (2015b)143 compares countries such as Norway and Denmark for their anti-discrimination and media laws, and their policies regarding the harmful representation of gender in advertising. An example of the Danish Consumer Ombudsman can help clarify how gender discrimination can concretely be assessed. It considers an advertisement gender discriminatory if it:

 Represents gender in a derogatory manner  Includes nudity in a manner that is derogatory to the relevant gender  Gives the impression that one gender is socially, financially or culturally subordinate to another gender  Gives the impression that one gender is less competent, less intelligent, or less suited to perform certain tasks than another gender  Gives the impression that one gender has certain negative personality traits or characteristics

The Dutch Advertising Code (NRC) of the RCC, by contrast, contains only one brief, general mention of discrimination. Article 2 NRC states that advertising needs to be in line with the law, the truth, and decency. As such, advertising in the Netherlands may not undermine human dignity, nor be discriminatory on the basis of gender, race, ethnic heritage, nationality, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. This brief mention can be understood as non-performative in Ahmed’s sense, as the RCC has thus far repeatedly failed to ensure the enactment of this element of its code – possibly testifying to its lack of awareness of and education on such practices. The words are present, but are not

142 Public International Law & Policy Group (2015a). Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (2015a;p. 19) 143 Public International Law & Policy Group (2015b). Legal Frameworks Regarding Sexism in Advertising: Comparison of National Systems 85 represented in actions. Based on my findings in this study, and the comparison done by PILP, possible solutions for the Netherlands are:

 Establishing a media monitoring body that specifically monitors discriminatory content in media  Establishing a media monitoring body (or ombudsman) that citizens can complain to about discriminatory content in media  Enforcing policies that encourage the elimination of discriminatory portrayals of gender in media  Enforcing policies that discourage discriminatory portrayals of gender in media  Raising awareness and education in the advertising industry  Setting up quota for diversity in decision-making positions in such institutions  Setting up (stricter) guidelines, rules or laws to combat gender discrimination.

Furthermore, to improve the situation around representations of gender in Dutch advertising, it is recommended that regulatory bodies be able to carry out investigations, issue public findings, or impose pecuniary sanctions against advertisers. These changes would amount to more than simply a few words that tick a non-discrimination box in the Dutch Advertising Code. Ultimately, these steps would better enable the Netherlands to guarantee citizens’ right to remain free from harmful imagery in advertising. It would enable change in action, rather than settling for non-performative words.

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158

Aubrey, J. S., Henson, J. R., Hopper, K. M., & Smith, S. E. (2009). A Picture is Worth Twenty Words (About the Self): Testing the Priming Influence of Visual Sexual Objectification on Women's Self-Objectification. Communication Research Reports, 26(4), 271-284.

Aubrey, J. S., Gamble, H., & Hahn, R. (2017). Empowered Sexual Objects? The Priming Influence of Self-Sexualization on Thoughts and Beliefs Related to Gender, Sex, and Power. Western Journal of Communication, 81(3), 362-384.

Ahmed, S. (2017). Institutional as Usual: Diversity, Utility and the University [Lecture]

Belknap, P., & Leonard, W. M., II. (1991). A Conceptual Replication and Extension of Erving Goffman’s study of Gender Advertisements. Sex Roles, 25, 103–118.

Berger, J. (2008). Ways of seeing. London, Penguin Books.

Cottingham, M. D. (2014). Recruiting Men, Constructing Manhood: How Health Care Organizations Mobilize Masculinities as Nursing Recruitment Strategy. Gender & Society, 28(1), 133-156.

David, P., & Johnson, M. A. (1998). The Role of Self in Third‐Person Effects about Body Image. Journal of Communication, 48(4), 37-58.

England, D.E., Descartes, L. & Collier-Meek, M.A. (2011). Gender Role Portrayal and the Disney Princesses. Sex Roles, 64, 555–567.

Evans, J., & Hall, S. (1999). Visual culture: The Reader. Sage.

Fiske, J. (2011). Reading the Popular. Routledge.

Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Brighton, Harvester.

87

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women's Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206.

Gee, J. P. (2010). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge.

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172-194.

Gill, R. (2007). Gender and the Media. United Kingdom, Polity.

Goldman, R. (1992). Reading Ads Socially. Psychology Press.

Goffman, E. (1979). Gender Advertisements. London, Macmillan.

Gramsci, A. (1971). The Philosophy of Praxis. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation & the Media. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Sage.

Kang, M. E. (1997). The Portrayal of Women’s Images in Magazine Advertisements: Goffman’s Gender Analysis Revisited. Sex Roles, 37(11), 979-996.

Kates, S. M., & Shaw-Garlock, G. (1999). The Ever Entangling Web: A study of Ideologies and Discourses in Advertising to Women. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 33-49.

Killbourne, J. (2000). Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way we Think and Feel. New York/London, Touchstone.

Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Articulating a Feminist Discourse Praxis 1. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141-164.

Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as Social institution. Social Forces, 82(4), 1249-1273.

Motschenbacher, H. (2009). Speaking the Gendered Body: The performative construction of commercial femininities and masculinities via body-part vocabulary. Language in Society, 38(1), 1-22.

88

Newsom, J. S. (2011). Miss Representation [Documentary]. New York, NY: Virgil Films/Ro- Co films International/OWN Documentary Club.

Niemi-Kiesiläinen, J., Honkatukia, P., & Ruuskanen, M. (2007). Legal texts as Discourses. Exploiting the Limits of the Law: Swedish Feminism and the Challenge to Pessimism.

Pauwels, L. (2010). Visual Sociology Reframed: An Analytical Synthesis and Discussion of Visual Methods in Social and Cultural Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(4), 545-581.

Public International Law & Policy Group (2015). Legal Frameworks Regarding Sexism in Advertising: Comparison of National Systems. Available at: http://pilpnjcm.nl/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/150609-PILP-sexism-comparative-practice-memo.pdf

Public International Law & Policy Group (2015). Sexism in Advertising: International Framework under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. Available at: http://pilpnjcm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/150623-PILPG- sexism-memo-CEDAW.pdf

Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450.

Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277-295.

Swami, V., Coles, R., Wilson, E., Salem, N., Wyrozumska, K., & Furnham, A. (2010). Oppressive Beliefs at Play: Associations among Beauty Ideals and Practices and Individual Differences in Sexism, Objectification of Others, and Media Exposure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(3), 365-379.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big-Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.

89

APPENDIX

90

91