You might remember, in my last post, that I made an open letter to Sheilas' Wheels regarding the sexist and unfounded "fact" that women are better drivers. I sent this letter both to Sheilas' Wheels and the Advertising Standards Agency, hoping that the former would make a U-turn, or at least put the brakes on the spreading of such lies.
No such luck (or sense). Here is the Advertising Standards Agency's response (edited for brevity, without omitting or altering relevant content):
Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority. I’m sorry to hear that this ad has caused you concern.
We’ve carefully considered your complaint and the ad in question, but I should tell you that there doesn’t seem to be a case to answer under the Code on this occasion. Section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act permits preferential treatment in relation to certain types of insurance, and we note that the broadcasters and publishers received substantiation to show that female drivers have a better claims record on their motor insurance policies than male drivers. This doesn’t, of course, mean that there are no good male drivers or that women drivers don’t have accidents. Whilst I do appreciate your concern regarding the claim “It’s official- women are better drivers” we note that the leaflet immediately explains the advertisers basis for this claim, and taken as a whole we don’t consider the ad likely to mislead consumers. I also understand that you find it offensive, however, we consider that the ad is merely playing against the generalisation that women are bad drivers, and given this we believe it unlikely to cause serious and widespread offence on the basis you suggest.
Although we don’t propose further action, I’d like to thank you for taking the trouble to raise this matter with us.
So there you are. It seems that you get nowhere as an individual writing letters of complaint. If this sort of response is typical for my type of complaint, then it is obvious why organisations like Fathers for Justice have resorted to using physical stunts coordinated by groups. It might seem immature behaviour on the face of it, but then the system they're battling against is immature in its views: the only way they listen is by being shouted at, put in the media and coerced into doing the right thing.
Sadly, rather than realise the errors of its ways on moral grounds, Sheilas' Wheels chose to expend its energies developing a defense of its claims. It was equally dismissive, and refused to answer the specific and clear points that I made. Their response (edited similarly):
Thank you for your letter [...] We are always interested to hear our customer's [sic] views [...]
We apologise if you found the Sheilas' Wheels literature insulting as this was not the aim of the leaflet. Sheilas' Wheels marketing materials, such as this leaflet, is intended to make women aware of a brand that recognises the lower insurance risk that women represent, whilst providing great benefits at competitive prices.
All our marketing materials go through a stringent approval process and are not released into the public domain without careful consideration of content, including messages and any substantiation used.
I hope this alleviates your concerns and thank you again for taking the time to write to us.
Interestingly, they 'apologised' for the insult. Now let's examine that more closely. If I tell someone to go stick their head in a pig, then just saying "sorry" is not a real apology. The only way to apologise is to admit its inappropriateness and withdraw the insult. An insult is done deliberately, to someone else, without regard for their feelings or well-being. It is a callous and thoughtless act that does not take into account the damage it might do to an innocent party.
The "apology" is thus irrelevant. The only two valid points the letter makes are that they wanted to flatter women, and that the material was approved by an internal body. The problem is, of course, that they aimed to flatter women with flagrant disregard to men. Their response, then, simply says that they knowingly approved a leaflet that demeans men.
Well, at least they're honest, I suppose.
But even if its assault on men is technically within the law, it isn't necessarily within the spirit of the law. Section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act (as quoted by the Advertising Standards Agency) allows the use of statistics by insurers to show facts that provide gender bias. However, surely this does not extend to making an absurd claim that one sex is "better" than the other, nor of abusing the word "fact."
The next stage would be to campaign. But why should it come to this, when it's merely common sense and decency? The answer, of course, is that companies are not there to be decent. They're there to make money in whatever way they can get away with. And the law needs to be changed to stop them. Not that this is likely until more enlightened times: men-bashing is fashionable.
As I've said before, the message is clear: it's OK to be sexist, as long as it's against men.
- - - - -
Update (13.03.11) - It seems that this saga has taken a funny turn. As from the end of next year, it will be illegal for car (and other) insurers to discriminate on grounds of gender. While the sentiment makes sense (at least in the case of car insurance), I can't help but be suspicious. No doubt, it'll be used as an excuse for the insurers to make more money by putting insurance premiums up per person on average. I also have no doubt that that's exactly why the legislation was passed. Secret/golden handshakes? Corporations controlling the European Court? Surely not...
