"Sexism is not always obviously violent, exploitative or degrading. It can be unintended or disguised innocently as humour, but it is always insidious, offensive to and exclusionary of its victims."

Sign the petition

In Australia we have a self regulatory advertising system. This system is in place to (supposedly) ensure that "advertisements and other forms of marketing communications are legal, decent, honest and truthful and that they have been prepared with a sense of obligation to the consumer and society and a sense of fairness and responsibility to competitors."

As part of this system a 'code of ethics' was drawn up. Each time a complaint is made the Advertising Standards Board goes back to this code to see if the ad is in breach of one or more of the codes. But how effective can the code of ethics be when it completely ignores sexism? 

One woman's battle against porno and violent fashion

HRC needs to take stronger action on images which contribute to harassment and excuse violence

Last month I wrote about Caitlin Roper’s campaign against pornographic t.shirts and featured an interview with the young Western Australian woman and sociologist Michael Flood on the subject.  One of Collective Shout’s most active members, Caitlin had attracted a list of heavy hitters –including Noni Hazlehurst, Steve Biddulph and Dr Joe Tucci - to a statement condemning the proliferation of porn-themed shirts and calling on retailers to choose corporate responsibility over profiting from hyper-sexualised and violent images. Caitlin also recently wrote to leading asking them not to stock these t.shirts. One reply was received, from Bernie Brookes, CEO of Myer, who wrote: “I have copied and circulated your information to our product designers, developers and buyers to assist them in the understanding of the Collective Shout’s stance.” Not exactly what you’d call a commitment, but at least he’s responded. Caitlin is justifiably frustrated. She said in an email: