Opinion

Pat Law and Henry Adams on sexism in Singapore’s adland

Michelle TanLast week, we ran a story about an awards submission for the unsung heroes of Singapore’s ad industry that described a female executive as a “MILF” and a “visual treat” for creatives.

The copy for the nomination read in full: “Our resident yummy mummy/MILF who chases the blues and the suits away. Her model-like figure and act-cute abilities are always a visual treat for tired and stressed creatives.”

The response to the story was mixed. Some thought the nomination was ‘shameful’ to highlight physical traits rather than professional merit. Some thought Mumbrella was being sensationalist in its reporting. So we asked two female professionals for their perspective.

Pat LawPat Law, MD, Goodstuph

Do you feel that the Creative Circle example is symptomatic of wider sexism that exists in the ad industry in Singapore?

Do we put beautiful women with nice racks on print? Yes, we do. Do we put half-naked bodies of men with washboard abs on print? Yes, we do too. I think sexism works both ways and we are guilty of both.

If so, how prevalent do you think sexism is?

I honestly have not encountered sexism in the industry at all. Lucky me.

Can you recount any incidences of sexism that have affected you personally?

Fortunately, no. And if I may be honest, I don’t think the MILF comment was that big of a deal. Rude, yes, but it’s not the end of the world. I am, however, appalled by the description thereafter – “Her model-like figure and act-cute abilities are always a visual treat for tired and stressed creatives.” Who on earth is retarded enough to talk like that? Genuine question.

 

Henry AdamsHenry Adams, founding partner, Contented

Do you feel that the ‘MILF’ Creative Circle nomination is symptomatic of wider sexism that exists in the ad industry in Singapore?

Yes and no. I don’t actually have an issue with Michelle being described as a ‘visual treat’. My art director in London was a 6’ former model of such breathtaking natural beauty that it was a genuine pleasure to look at her (and I say this as a heterosexual female). Her great beauty was one of her defining characteristics, along with great talent and a great personality and it would be foolish to pretend that it didn’t exist.

I do, though, have problems with the use of ‘MILF’. This, I think, is a crude term, invented by men, for men. Being called a MILF is categorically not the same thing as being called attractive or even ‘hot’, rather it’s a term men use to grade a woman’s sexual desirability and, therefore, reduce her to a sexual object. In this sense, it’s certainly symptomatic of sexism in actual advertising (see the examples tweeted to the Everyday Sexism Twitter account with depressing regularity).

However, within Singapore’s ad industry itself, sexism more often wears a different face: that of financial inequality.

How prevalent do you think sexism is and in what form does it come?

If you accept the broad definition of sexism as ‘prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex’, then in terms of pay, the Singapore ad industry is unquestionably sexist and sexism is unquestionably prevalent. I don’t know one single senior woman in the industry here, for example, who is paid as much as her male counterparts. This pay disparity is unfair, inequitable and something that needs to be addressed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Get the latest media and marketing industry news (and views) direct to your inbox.

Sign up to the free Mumbrella Asia newsletter now.

 

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing