It does not worry me in the least that someone wants to score cheap laughs with product names. I am just speaking up for the poor people whose lives are complicated by serious ‘isms’ such as chauvinism, racism, and sexism.

Funnily enough, it has been suggested that the Yorkie chocolate bar contains so much sugar and fat, that no girl would want so many calories. Maybe blokes don’t mind being fat and unhealthy. There you go, making assumptions.

Fair enough; there might be tradition and history to the Yorkie bar. But pray tell, what’s this ice-cream all about? The photo below was taken at a Melbourne ice-cream store. The tub with the pink heart is labelled, ‘Just for girls’. No idea why. The store interested me because upon entry, the music was most unbecoming of any retail establishment. I asked the attendant (I had to yell it out) to tell me who chooses the music. She said, ‘When the boss is away, we can play whatever we like.’ I wonder if the boss also lets her change the ingredients? We live in a world of multimedia, yet staff members seem to think that store-music is for their own amusement… something to while away the boring hours.



P.S. I finally succumbed and opened the wrapper and tasted the chocolate. My first thought was that it is overly sweet, almost sickly sweet. More like eating pure caramel. My second thought was that the term ‘Not for girls’ could have come as a put-down when someone said to the inventor, ‘Hey this is too sweet’, and the retort was, ‘Don’t be such a girl’. Sometimes, friends and colleagues browbeat people into submission, by insulting their opinion.

The reason for my indiscretion and bad taste is that the green ‘cock’ ad was found on the back cover of a magazine called, ‘Her Business’. Don’t you think that it is a disgrace for such a magazine to perpetuate this rudeness towards the species of the opposite gender? Can you imagine if a magazine by the name of ‘His Business’ printed an ad that put down female bosses?

What’s good for the goose…

At first glance, I thought that the coffee outlet was riding on the reputation of Jamaican men’s willies, and calling their extra-large cups ‘Jamaican’. But I later realised that it must be a pun – a play on words, considering the name of the store and the origin of the coffee that it sells. So I corrected myself and thought nothing of it, until I came across a sign that said, ‘Size does matter’. Now what are we supposed to think. And to draw our attention to men, willies, and sex, we see a topless man in the photo.

I wonder how this style of promotion would have worked if a bar, selling beer from a country known for its buxom women, used topless women holding two jugs of beer, with the same type of suggestive text, saying that size does matter.

Is Jamaica Blue ‘objectifying’ the penis? This is a term that was used in relation to the Nando’s double breast burger that showed a women with large breasts. The TV was banned because we were told that the ad ‘objectified’ the bosom.

Maybe it can be argued that the ‘Jamaican’ serving of coffee does not objectify the male member because Jamaican men are not that large. There have been studies of penis sizes around the world, and the outcomes show very little difference. I discovered this while researching the RTA Pinkie ad (see that story here).

Perhaps it’s all a myth. Sure, the odd porno star might have something to sing about, but the average Jamaican is just an average guy. This means that the worst that Jamaica Blue is up for, is innuendo and false advertising.

Isn’t it interesting that self-deprecation is humours. If they had made other observations about other races, they would be in deep trouble. For example, what would you make of the size-range featured below?

Is a man-size tissue more absorbent to cater for the additional boldly fluids that men excrete? Or are men so afraid of being called pansies that they cannot possibly admit to liking soft tissues. Softness would mean weakness? So are men’s tissues not only larger and thicker, but also rougher? Interesting that men are the after-thought. We say, ‘Ladies and gentlemen’. We put women first. I think most women like that. Yet when it comes to products, men come second, because we presume that men either do not shop, or do not care, or are otherwise barbaric and would happily blow their nose without tissues, or they need to be stroked and cajoled into trying products that might place them on the dangerous borderline of making them effeminate. Men! Such fickle creatures. So insecure. Is that why they need to be so macho? Are they trying to hide insecurities?

I was at a jeweller’s recently and noticed the size of watches nowadays. My goodness. Any larger, and they would have to be worn around the neck. Either that, or men will need a sling just to prop up their arm from the excess weight on the wrist.

So now we are to believe that men smell more than women. So much so, that they need a wider stick to cover three times the area. I can’t help but read all the double-entendres in this ad. The product is made by Mennen, making it clear that it is for men from the start. Then we have a man-size ‘stick’ that ‘pops up’ and ‘strokes’. No drop no dampness, no messy rub on. One stroke daily... It won’t stain clothes. And the scent is all man! It is the speed stick. Were men so busy in those days that speed was an important factor?

Why did the Advertising Standards Bureau not ban this ad? The RTA Pinkie campaign humiliates the very ego-driven group of people who are yearning for acceptance. It demeans males by saying that a small penis is a bad thing. Now guys have to find even more ways to prove their manhood.

This article is Part 2. It was split because the file size was becoming too large.

Please start by reading Part 1 by clicking here.

3) Is the campaign focussing on the penis?

One person who complained to the Advertising Standards Bureau said, ‘Genitals of young men have nothing to do with bad driving. The add (sic) is designed to be sexist and humiliating to men. The add (sic) encourages and sanctions from a government body the sexual harassment of young men with these crude, sexist and offensive behaviours.’ In response, the Roads and Traffic Authority, being the advertiser, responded to the Bureau, saying, ‘The response to the campaign by the focus groups was overwhelmingly positive. Most people involved in the groups knew about the Pinkie gesture. The groups recommended that the RTA proceed with the campaign because: It had the potential to change the behaviour of the target audience; It is powerful, it is different and it effectively utilizes social disapproval of poor driving behaviour by peers and the wider community; It puts the issue back in to the hands of the community; and the campaign is preventative.’

Let us examine these points. 1) Of course people would have known about the Pinkie gesture? So what? A universal insult is not lessened due to its popularity. The converse is true. In the 1994 film, ‘The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert’, there is a scene in which an angry wife insults her husband by giving him the pinkie while saying something like, ‘And you have a small dingaling.’ The derogatory tone of that insult goes back a long time. 2) The RTA said that the focus group felt that the pinkie insult has potential to change behaviour. Most forms of bullying do change behaviour. Beating people over the head changes behaviour. The efficacy of derision does not justify it execution. As per the analogy featured in Part 1 of this article, hitting girls could change their behaviour and attitude towards smoking. That is no defence and no excuse. 3) The RTA says that the pinkie gesture is powerful, different and shows disapproval. Of course a grand insult is powerful. And yes, it is different because such bold and brazen advertisements are not common. How can the Bureau accept this type of response from the RTA? If beating young girls helps some of them to stop smoking, would it stack up if an advertiser said that hitting children is understood to be a sign of disapproval and not a sign of abuse? Would a campaign of tough-love that involves spanking be approved if it can be shown to be effective and powerful-enough to change behaviour? The submission by the RTA is disrespectful and does not answer the questions. The acceptance of the RTA’s response by the Bureau and the Board shows a lack of depth in the investigation process.

The Bureau and the Board and the RTA have failed to address the question. Therefore, they ought to re-open the cases and start again.

Every time that someone objects to the ads, the question of humiliation is dismissed, and the focus on the penis is ignored, and the reference to the size of a penis is overlooked. However, we learn a lot from a submission by the RTA and the advertising agency (Clemenger BBDO) to the Effie Awards. Incidentally, we are told that the Effie Awards were introduced in 1968 by the New York Marketing Association. These are now held in 39 countries.

In the submission to the Awards, both the RTA and Clemenger BBDO state that the $2 million pinkie campaign ‘provoked a global media storm’. The submission says that young Aussie blokes love to speed. ‘Ask a young bloke to slow down? Don’t be a pussy.’ The submission outlines some of the sad statistics in relation to deaths amongst young drivers who speed. The submission said that the campaign had to have ‘social currency to damage speeding’s social aura’. It said that the RTA had to take an ‘untried peer-to-peer approach to cut-through and persuade the audience… If drivers wouldn’t listen to the RTA, they would have to listen to their mates.’

In introducing the campaign, the submission says, ‘The creative idea was to undermine the speeding driver by giving him a very real very immediate consequence to his actions. You might not die, but speed and everyone will think you’re an idiot.’

At no point am I condoning bad driving. Nor am I suggesting that young Aussie blokes ought to drive recklessly. The question here is, does this campaign ignore social decency? Does it focus on the penis? Does the RTA campaign insult males who have a small penis? Does it say that anyone with a small penis is an idiot? Does the size of the penis become the centre of this argument? Is a small penis a bad thing… so bad that if you are an idiot, you must have a small penis, because having a small penis is bad.

In each of the three cases over three years, the Advertising Standards Bureau has failed to ask the RTA to respond adequately. So much so that in the three cases, the RTA responded almost identically, which to me seems like a snub. If the community has concerns about indecency in advertising, and concerns about advertising that is damaging young people’s ego and self-esteem and causing other potential issues associated with manhood, then the least that the Bureau and the Board could do is ask the RTA to refrain from regurgitating its defence in an off-handed manner.

The submission to the Effie Awards, to my mind, proves that the whole campaign is about the penis. It is not about saying that someone is an idiot. It is saying that someone who speeds must have a small penis, and this is designed to humiliate the driver. Of course this is effective, but so too is the Taliban when it canes women for not covering-up from head to toe. The Taliban can argue that its campaign of whipping young men had seen virtually 100% compliance and obedience to social norms, such as wearing beards and long trousers. The public humiliation has seen virtually no male wearing shorts or shaving his beard. Efficacy is no defence in this argument.

The RTA had produced these pub coasters, featuring the RTA logo and the phrase, “Speeding. No one thinks big of you.”. No coaster in the world has a hole in it. Why the hole? The back of the coaster shows an unzipped pair of jeans, with a hole. Am I being delusional to presume that the hole refers to the size of the penis?

An interactive Flash front page at CashewBoy.com was part of the RTA campaign. The site is tasteless to the extreme, featuring pubic hair, tissues, and miniature condoms, plus a link to allow people to send tasteless emails that point to the site.

For the RTA, Clemenger Proximity developed a website called CashewBoy.com. What could the size and shape of a cashew have to do with this campaign? According to the submission to the Effie Awards, ‘The XX Small condom – strictly for guys who liked “tearing it up” at any given opportunity – was advertised virally and led to CashewBoy.com where you could find out how you measured up and send a speeding mate a friendly message.’ There is nothing friendly about the message.

One of the links shows a blow-up sex doll called ‘Mini-mouth Mandy’ whose mouth opening narrows to suit the size of the small penis. The online animation talks when a user presses any of the keyboard keys from 0 to 9. Here are the ten recordings. How can anyone say that this campaign is not about humiliation based on the size of the penis?

The RTA pinkie campaign has a website that shows a blow-up sex doll who says the following: ‘Um, is it in?; Thanks, I needed a toothpick; Ohh, my little nephew has one just like that; I smoke joints fatter than that; It still works, right?; Arrr, let’s just cuddle; Ahhh, so this is why you judge people on their personalities; At least this won’t take long; Oh, it’s hiding; So, this explains the way you drive.’

To listen to Mini-mouth Mandy speaking, click on the green play button below for all ten insults that degrade the penis. The last one says, ‘So, this explains the way you drive’. The RTA and its ad agency Clemenger BBDO recognise that men drive fast in order to compensate for other areas of their life, such as to seek approval, to be cool, to impress friends, to bolster their manhood, and to show off. They try to boost their self esteem. Mandy hits the nail on the head. Boys drive badly because they feel inadequate in some way. One of the aspects of their problems is their manhood, including shaving, puberty, and virility, as well as penis size. Youths are impressionable. They dare not deviate from the norms of peer-group fashion. They wear similar haircuts and similar colours and similar jewellery, and they follow each other in terms of piercing and tattoos. They are so impressionable, that they would worry about someone putting them down. Insulting their manhood by associating ‘loser’ with ‘small penis’ is compounding the original problem.

Clicking on the ruler brings up text that says, ‘How do you measure up?’ Clicking on the ruler takes the vsitior to a page where a PDF file can be downloaded. The small print reads, ‘Print out page and push root of erect penis against broken line for relative comparisons.’ The chart below references Robert Latou Dickenson. I believe his name was Dickinson (1861-1950).

This chart fails to note that an average penis at 15 cm seems to ignore Australia’s multicultural population. Certain young men of a certain racial background will have vastly different sizes. Asians, in general, are much much smaller than this chart is suggesting. This chart is irresponsible because it omits any data to show its age and the age of the respondents to Dickinson’s experiments as noted in his ‘Atlas of Human Sex Anatomy’. The chart also fails to provide data relevant to males around the age of P-Platers, by ethnicity. Young men in the RTA’s target group might not be fully developed sexually. The RTA was specifically targeting P-Plate drivers. Such young men might not have completely matured, and might indeed follow the RTA’s suggestion, place their penis on the chart, and feel that they are not yet in the race, thereby raising their anxiety about needing to prove their manhood. The campaign as trying to simmer down one’s obsession with manhood. Yet this chart inflames it.

I remind you that the Advertising Standards Bureau, along with its Board, asked the RTA to respond to the complaint that the pinkie campaign is demeaning and insulting. The RTA said, ‘We reject the suggestion the advertisement is discriminatory and humiliates men.’ Here is the scan from the report:


When challenged that the pinkie gesture puts men down, the RTA said, ‘We reject the suggestion the advertisement is inflammatory. The gesture is never directed at the driver, there is no confrontational elements incorporated into the advertising at all.’ Here is the scan from the report:

How can the RTA keep a straight face and say that the gesture is never directed at the driver? How can the Board miss this diatribe?

Will the RTA argue here that the TV ad is not the same as the other elements of the campaign? Unfortunately, the RTA cannot separate one element from the other, partly because by its own admission, when dowsing criticism levelled at it, it wrote, ‘It is the first step in a multi-phased approach…’ Here is the scan from the report:


When asked to respond about the ads being sexist, the RTA said, ‘We reject the suggestion the advertisement is sexist. It is evidenced based as discussed above.’ Here is the scan from the report:


All I can say is, ‘poppycock’. The RTA is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Board by using impressive statements like ‘evidenced based’. It would not be difficult to gather any type of evidence from a range of citizens from NSW who could skew any report, any-which-way, to arrive at evidence to show that the community supports any extreme position you would care to name. Just because an advertiser can conduct focus groups and have people nod in agreement about certain campaign strategies does not exonerate the advertiser. The Advertising Standards Board ought to have dismissed this vacuous response from the RTA. Anyone can conduct a focus group that shows that people want all sorts of things, or agree with all manner of strategies. That hardly matters. I am sure that for every person who complained about the banned Nando’s double breast chicken ad, I could furnish one thousand people who would say that they see nothing wrong with it. Anyone who dares to defend themselves based on ‘evidence’ had better furnish all the study results, methodologies, questions, and any other influencing factor. So here we have a self-regulated Bureau accepting self-conducted research as evidence and as defence? That is tipping the balance into another realm.

So let us re-visit the question: is this campaign about the penis? Despite three reviews, the Advertising Standard Board said that the pinkie sign would be understood by most people in the community to be reflective of the juvenile behaviour by the person, rather than specifically to the size of his penis or his manhood. Here is the scan from the report with yellow highlights added by me:

Yet, in a previous report, the Board had said, ‘The Board considered that most people would understand this to mean, not that the person has a small penis per se, but rather that the person is less of a man…’ The statement above contradicts the statement below. Isn’t this sad and embarrassing and totally unacceptable! Above it denies that the Pinkie sign refers to ‘manhood’, yet below it admits that the sign points to someone ‘being less of a man’. How can ‘being less of man’ not be about ‘manhood’? Here is the scan from the report with yellow highlights added by me:

In Clemenger/RTA’s submission to the Effie Awards, it notes that young males drive with their penises. It mentions balls and pussy as well. It seems to me that the whole campaign was all about the penis. It was all about manhood.

4) Is the campaign insulting and demeaning?

All along, the RTA has denied that the pinkie campaign is in any way demeaning. Yet here, in a submission for the Effie Awards, RTA and Clemenger give examples of why the ad has been effective. It quotes a female saying that the advertiser ‘…had done a great job of demoralising some of these guys…’ A male was quoted as saying, ‘…talking about a small penis and speeding is really effective for your male ego.’

There is something flip-floppy about this campaign. No two sentences make sense. The submission to the Effie Awards includes media clippings. Why does the RTA and Clemenger show a newspaper headline, ‘Let the pinkie ads run, real men not offended’? So, are male drivers offended? Is anyone offended? Maybe it is saying that NOT-real men are offended, and that is precisely what’s wrong with this ad. Of course real men are not offended. Whereas young men are offended, especially if they have issues and problems associated with their physical size, their penis size, their ego, their lack of meaningful relationships, their lack of ‘enough’ sex, their lack of muscle and power and influence, and their lack of intimacy or acceptance or  self-esteem. They are so humiliated and offended that they are changing their behaviour through the very intimidation that they were hoping to overturn. Now they have to suffer more of it! It is not the role of an advertiser to create such inadequacies in the very men who perform badly due to a range of inadequacies, while at the same time, telling society that any and all males with small dicks are not up to par and not complete men. They are ridiculed to such a degree that people make fun of their condition. Is this like making fun of the disabled? Right on par, dear reader.

My goodness, we cannot show a woman with breasts on TV, yet we can humiliate a man about his penis and his manhood. This campaign was effective because it was demeaning! We can be glad that it was effective, but horrified at the method taken. Do the ends justify the means? If so, maybe the Taliban is onto something. China’s dictatorship is onto something…

If this campaign were not so shocking and so alarming and so demeaning and so outrageous, it would not have been the third-most emailed story in the world. It would not have received such global media attention. Why was it attractive? Why did so many media outlets and TV and radio shows take up the story? Because it had balls. It had guts. It hit hard. This hard-hitting approach is proof-point that it was stunning in its news value.

No-one is denying the need to hit the message home to young drivers. But if the ends justify the means, then why do we have the Advertising Standards Bureau and why do we have codes of conduct?

I trust that I have shown you why this ad is a bad ad. Not everything in life can be measured in terms of profit, and not all ads can be measured in terms of effect. Sadly, the Effie Awards website says, ‘The Effie Awards honour the most significant achievement in advertising and marketing communications: effectiveness.’ I do not believe that the only thing that matters in ads is their effect. Responsible people must also consider the side-effect!

P.S. It’s all well and good to protest. It helps if the protester could offer some suggestions about tackling the problem. For this reason, I have posted my recommendation to the RTA about how we might combat some of the problems associated with speeding, bad driving, and fatalities. I have been talking about this issue for over ten years. I have conducted many radio interviews about the topic. I have posted my recommendations here.

This article was written by Jonar Nader, author of ‘How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People’. Jonar is a consultant whose website is www.LoseFriends.com

The advertising campaign has been embraced by the community. Not only are fathers now hitting their daughters in order to help them to stop smoking, we now see boys hitting girls in schools in an effort to help girls become better at sport.

So there you have it. Hit your girls. The television, print, and radio campaign was so popular that almost every other media organisation around the world had reported about it. The TV ad shows a father slapping his daughter on her face. The mother hears the scream and she calls out from the kitchen, ‘Don’t tell me Sally is smoking again?’, to which the father responds, ‘She’ll soon learn’. The controversial campaign has drawn criticism that teenage boys are now smacking their female friends at school whenever the girls are seen doing something wrong. One mother complained to the advertising standard bureau, saying, ‘My daughter was minding her own business at a sports carnival. She was trying to shoot a goal, but missed. A 14-year-old boy came up to her and smacked her across the face, saying that she must learn to play better’. The advertising standards bureau investigated the case and asked the advertiser to respond. The advertiser said that the community was behind the campaign because it saves lives. The advertiser said, ‘No family wants to see their daughter suffer with lung cancer. We are not advocating that teens ought to hit girls for no reason at all. In our ad, we never show a boy hitting a girl. In fact, there are no boys in the shot. Everyone whom we have surveyed has agreed that the ad is not condoning violence against women. Viewers are smart enough to see that the message is aimed at helping girls to stop smoking. The community is sick of seeing females suffering with cancer and emphysema, and nicotine-related debilitating diseases. Besides, we are not advocating that boys hit girls for any and all offences. We are just saying that fathers must hit their daughters when they smoke. The community can see that the message is not about violence, but about love and care. Anyone who does not support our campaign is really saying that they do not care about the thousands of girls and young women who take up smoking each year.’

The Primo Hotel chain has adopted the hitting campaign and allows its senior staff to discipline juniors who do not perform to the prescribed standards. The hotel says that everyone benefits from this tough-love scheme which has improved food quality and service levels.

The advertising agency won numerous awards for the ‘She’ll soon learn’ campaign. The account director, Andre Franks, said, ‘Almost every TV and radio station around the world has featured our ads. The publicity has been priceless. In fact, we were thrilled to see the campaign spill into other important areas of civil society. People have realised the importance of an authority figure. Juniors are recognising the value in discipline. Surveys show that although they do not like being hit, young people appreciate being reprimanded when they do things wrong. Our surveys prove this.’ Mr Franks said that the campaign has crossed gender boundaries, and now his message is being used for all sorts of discipline across a range of societal and business issues. ‘Young people today are not reaching their full career potential because they have no father-figure at work,’ added Mr Franks. ‘A hotel chain in Germany now encourages tough-love in the workplace. The chain has reported a sharp increase in quality control. Posters in the workplace remind apprentices that they will be supervised and disciplined for their own good. In fact, organisations now use the ‘You’ll soon learn’ slogan as part of their recruitment campaign, to assure junior applicants that they will be nurtured on the job.’

This article will look at the damage that this campaign has caused.

My dear reader, everything you have read above is almost (but not quite) fictitious. It is similar in nature to the absurdity of the real ad campaign that uses the pinkie to suggest that young drivers ought to slow down. I will show you why the campaign is damaging and demeaning and no different from the scenario above. If you found the paragraphs above to be unacceptable, then please follow me as I explain to you why the ‘No one thinks big of you’ campaign is outrageous. That campaign by the RTA (Roads and Traffic Authority) is similar to, and just as absurd as, the story above about the need to hit young girls.

If the above did not stir you, then please stop reading now, because I would have nothing to say to you.

If you are not going to read this article word-for-word, please refrain from reading it at all.

The level of debate in our country seems to be devoid of careful intellectual engagement. As a result, we end up with stupid retorts being flung back and forth, with tit-for-tat simple misleading and self-serving statements that do nothing for rigourous thinking.

The RTA and its advertising agency ‘Clemenger BBDO’ along with the Advertising Standard Bureau have refused to see anything wrong with the ad that depicts a girl raising her pinkie finger at a speeding teenager. The advertiser says that the ad saves lives. Let us explore the following issues:

1) Is the ad sexist?

According to the RTA and the Advertising Standards Bureau, the ad is not sexist. I say that it is sexist, demeaning, damaging, and deplorable. Here is how to test the question. Suppose that girls, more than boys, are dying on the roads as a result of speeding. Suppose that we want to create a new ad that will drive the message home to girls that they should not speed. So, an ad directed at girls, must speak to girls, and make sense to girls and be relevant to girls, and must be hard-hitting and shocking and penetrating to such a degree that it will change their behaviour. Assuming that the pinkie ad had never existed, would we design an ad wherein we see a girl-driver speeding, then a teenage boy in the street, fearing for the girl’s safety, raises his pinkie at her while the ad says, ‘No one thinks big of you’. Would this message, three years ago (before the controversy of this campaign), have worked as a message to young female drivers? Would it even work now after all the exposure? No! Can you imagine a meeting at which the advertiser asks, ‘What has a pinkie got to do with girls driving fast? What’s the inference to the word “big”?’ Neither the ad, nor the message, nor the gesture, nor the tag-line would have worked if the target audience were female. End of story. This is the test. If that ad would not have worked for girls, then it was specifically targeted at boys. When one thing is specifically targeted at a special group based on gender, that makes it sexist. End of story. The ad is sexist. That breaks section 2.1 of the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ Code of Ethics which requires ads to treat sex and sexuality with sensitivity. There is nothing sensitive about an ad that meanders from the ‘driver’ to his ‘penis’. The ad is saying that a bad driver is a bad person. Is a bad person someone who is Asian? No. Is a bad person someone who is fat? No. Is a bad person someone who is going bald? No. The ad says that a bad person is someone with a small penis. Anyone who has a small penis is not much of a man. We don’t think much of anyone with a small penis, and we do not think much of anyone who is a bad driver. The ad places ‘bad drivers’ and ‘people with small dicks’ in the same category.

It is my opinion that this ad must be taken off the air because it is sexist and demeaning. However, you might wish to condone sexist ads, in which case, let’s take the gloves off and start allowing sexism all over the place. If you agree that this ad is sexist, and if you are saying that it is okay to stay on the air, then you are agreeing that it is okay to be sexist sometimes. If it saves lives, let us be sexist. Well then, using this logic, if hitting girls stops them smoking, and if this saves their lives, then hitting girls should be acceptable for their own good.

Our society disapproves of sexism. If you vote to keep this ad on the air, this would un-do decades of work by wise people who have taught us that civilised societies must not discriminate based on gender. If we accept sexism, we would go back to the dark-ages and say that women must stay at home, not smoke, not take important roles in society, and not enter pubs. That’s all very healthy for women. No Olympics, no smoking, no drinking, and (as is the case in some countries) no driving! How can something so good for women be bad for them? Bring on sexism, or take that ad off the air, because it talks to men about men’s private parts. It talks about the penis, and worse, it talks about the size of the penis, and worse still, it says that a small penis is bad.

A weak-minded person clutching at straws would remind me that the ad has to target males because the males are dying on the road due to speeding. Indeed, if an ad must target a certain group, for a certain reason, it must speak to that group without humiliating another group. The ad is not sexist because it speaks to males about slowing down. It is sexist because it is saying that having a small penis is bad. In the long term, it translates into a derogatory insult against any boy who does anything of which his female friends disapproves. The pinkie becomes a gesture that puts down boys and teenage males when they displease others. We get to the point, at which we have already arrived, where female teens will give a bloke a pinkie whether or not he is driving. I have seen girls use the gesture to demean boys about all manner of things, just like some teens use the word ‘gay’ to refer to something that is not to their liking, and the word ‘sick’ to mean something that is cool.

If cars reflect manhood, then what does a penis reflect? A penis reflects manhood, more so than cars! If young men get behind the wheel of a car and speed to assert their manhood, then how much more would they need to compensate for their manhood now that we have told them that they are ‘less of a man’ on two counts: one is that they are young, and two, they have a small penis. Many teenagers are not happy with the size of their penis, no matter what size it is (they just want it bigger — at least as large as the imaginary size that people seem to expect, or as large as the porno stars’ member).

My goodness, women have been arguing for decades that magazines must not air-brush photos of models. Women do not want their daughters thinking that they are lacking beauty if they do not have perfect figures and perfect skin and perfect teeth and perfect boobs. Many lobby groups have tried to change the skewed body-image. Sensible women have been trying to suggest that it is okay to have a figure that is not similar to that of a super model. Imagine all the fuss that women have made about the true shape of an average body. Don’t forget that bodies are out in the open for all to see. We all share the problems and challenges of body image. In this struggle, the body is on display for all to see. Whereas a man’s private penis, which is the primary thing that reflects his manhood (and represents his sexual pleasure or fantasy, which he thinks about a million times per second), is now being denigrated and measured in terms of centimetres and inches, and judged to be of no value if it is small. This RTA campaign asserts that size does matter. If you have a small one, you are not so much of a man, and no-one thinks big of you. The ad is accusing the man of compensating for his small penis. In effect, the ad is saying something like, ‘Hey, you are speeding because you are trying to impress us so that we would think that you are a big man, and men are only real-men when they start to shave and when their dick is large… but you must have a small penis because you are trying hard to make me think that you are big. If you are showing off to such a degree, you must really have a small penis, and so you are a loser. I can tell by your bold driving that you are lacking in your manhood. The fact that you are speeding means that you are trying to tell me that you have a big dick, but in fact, I do not think that you have a big dick. I do not think that you are a man. I do not think big of you. No-one thinks big of you. I do not like you when you speed. I dislike you so much that I am angry and I need to insult you to get my point across. Just like you are trying to tell me that you are a man, I am trying to tell you that I am angry about your behaviour. And the best way that I can show you my anger is to insult you. The grandest insult that I can think of is to say that you are a poof… no not good enough; that you are a black nigger… no not good enough; that you are a girl… no not nice; that you are Muslim terrorist wog… no not quite right. I know, the grand insult is this: you have a small dick… that ought to do it… that’s nasty enough.’

Men have a mind-blowing concern about the size of their penis. They cannot change its size. They can change the colour of their hair. They can change the country in which they live. They can decide to drink alcohol or not. They can decide to get a tattoo. But they cannot control the size of their penis. So this ad is about dicks. And it says that you have a small cock if you speed. How, in the name of all that is sensible, can you tell me that this ad is not sexist? (Oh but it works!) I hear the whispers. They want us to believe that the ad works. That is yet to be proved, but let us agree that it might work. If the ad works, are we saying that sexism is okay? Is that the argument? If hitting girls from a young age shows a reduction in those who take up smoking, then can we please hit girls, because it works? But it works! Fear not. No father will draw blood. The voluntary code of conduct will see to that.

Over the years, I have discovered that people have the capacity to be empathetic, but only when they understand. Sadly, humans find it difficult to understand something that does not hit their personal raw nerve. For example, if you love cats, you would find it unfathomable how someone can be terrified/petrified of cats. If you are not scared of spiders, or if you have no fear of heights, you would find it comical to watch someone exhibit their phobias about such seemingly insignificant matters. With this in mind, there might be people who still have not cottoned-on to the severity of this RTA pinkie campaign, and they might dismiss it as a bit of harmless fun. One mother of two teenage girls said to me, ‘Look, the ad is effective.’ I asked if she could understand that boys with a below-average penis will feel inadequate. She replied, ‘Who cares. Size does not matter. They should know that. They should understand that society does not care about penis size.’ How can she assert that size does not matter, when apparently, according to her, size matters so much that it matters so much that it matters so much that it is used as an arresting insult that, according to her, is causing boys to slow down. If something does not matter, then what’s the fuss all about? If the size of a penis did not matter, then the boy would not care about the message of the ad. If the ad is working, then the insult is working, which means that size does matter. Which brings us back to square one: humiliate a guy about his manhood, while he is in the process of trying to assert his manhood. This is a circular problem that will detonate somewhere else. This campaign only shifts the problem. Here is an example: suppose that the Mexican government can put a stop to the drug trade by legalising drugs and providing them at no cost at every street corner. Will drug-lords in that country retire? No! They will go and find another lucrative industry and start selling fake passports or fake banknotes or stolen diamonds or firearms. A criminal will shift his attention to another trade if his industry is shut down. Equally, a child whose ego needs stroking will find another way to assert his manhood, more so than ever before, now that he has been told that no-one thinks big of him because he has a small penis. The problem has just doubled! He started out trying to show off. He started out trying to seek attention. He not only fails at this effort, but is now told that he now has two problems. The first is that he is not inflating his ego and his manhood, and the second is that by his actions, he has gone backwards, and he has not only NOT impressed the chicks, but that the chicks have called his bluff and demeaned him. Two steps back, my dear reader! Subtle. Powerful. Damaging!

Anyway, for those who cannot empathise, here are some ads that are similar to the pinkie ads. If you cannot see the drama associated with demeaning a small penis, then can you see the drama associated with demeaning: fat girls and their vaginas; black men and their social standing; Muslims and their religion; and Irish men and their nationality?

Obesity amongst females between 17 and 25 is at an all time high. It is causing problems for the individuals and for society. The costs to both are exceeding $100 million each year. A campaign was launched to drive the message home and to put obesity on the agenda. This ad is part of a campaign that says that girls could lead a happier life if they were able to attract a boyfriend. The ad gives a solid reason for girls to moderate their bad eating habits. Much like anti-smoking ads depict gruesome smoking-related diseases, this campaign tells girls that boys do not like fat chicks, and more so, boys do not like fat vaginas on fat chicks. Fat girls are unattractive, and fat vaginas are a turn-off, and no girl would want to be left on the shelf. Obesity can lead to so many other health problems. P.S. The term ‘pussy’ in some cultures is slang for ‘vagina’.

High school students across the greater London area are skipping school. The truancy rates are alarming parents and community leaders. The department of education has realised that many young people no longer fear their parents. They also know that the police are fewer in number and cannot dedicate any resources to apprehending students who tend to frequent the shopping districts. Shopkeepers have been asked to adopt a voluntary code that bans school-aged students from entering their stores during school hours. Unfortunately, few shopkeepers are complying. The department of education conducted a range of surveys and discovered that the only thing that strikes some fear into the hearts of teenagers is the prospect that they might become homeless. This campaign was launched to show people that if they do not go to school, they could end up like black people. No-one wants to be black.

Not so long ago, everything happened faster in America. Now, it seems that the UK is the rapid melding pot from which the United States can learn. Of major concern is the clash of cultures and creeds. The UK has been troubled by multiculturalism. So has France. In an effort to keep some law-and-order in the USA, a citizen action group, funded by white supremacists, who gladly accepted donations from Jewish business groups, have launched a public and political campaign urging citizens to keep religion out of politics and out of the public eye. In essence, the groups is saying that religion divides a community. Critics have argued that the campaign is targeting Muslims by suggesting that the current multicultural tensions are being blamed on Muslims.

In a survey of Western nations that are current or former Commonwealth members, it was found that people ranked the Irish as the most daft. If any nationality represents docility, it is the Irish. This revelation helped to cement the idea that men who were violent against their spouse could be humiliated by being called Irish. The expression, ‘Don’t be so Irish’ extends from the pub-culture that enjoys telling jokes at the expense of the Irish. The advertiser said that it needed to humiliate violent men in a language that they would understand. All men completely understood the essence of the dumb-blond joke and the Irish joke. This campaign was used because the budgets were small. The advertiser did not have the money to start a whole new frame of reference, so it decided to use an existing one: that Irish people are silly, and the men are daft. And so men who bash their wife are dimwits, just like the Irish are dimwits.

2) Is the campaign humiliating?

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau had received complaints about the RTA pinkie campaign. It reviewed the matter three times: in July 2007; June 2008; and October 2009. On all three separate occasions, with separate arguments from the public, the Bureau dismissed the complaints, saying that the ads are not demeaning. In the 2009 review, the Bureau said, ‘The Board also noted that the use of “the pinkie finger” sign in the advertisement would be understood by most people in the community to be reflective of the juvenile behaviour demonstrated by the person, rather than specifically to the size of his penis or his manhood.’

Yet, in the 2007 review, in response to the pinkie referring to the penis, the Bureau said, ‘The Board considerred (sic) that most people would understand this to mean, not that the person has a small penis per se, but rather that the person is less of a man…’

In 2007 the Bureau admits that the pinkie sends the signal to the driver that he is ‘less of a man’, whereas in 2009 the Bureau denies that the pinkie is referring to ‘manhood’.

How bizarre. The slogan is ‘No one thinks big of you’. So to what does ‘big’ refer? It must either refer to his manhood or to his penis, and the Bureau says that it refers to neither. How weak is that argument?

The Advertising Standards Bureau’s website states, ‘The Advertising Standards Bureau administers a national system of advertising self-regulation through the Advertising Standards Board and the Advertising Claims Board.’ It is interesting that this is all self-regulating. In other words, advertisers are trusted to regulate themselves. I am not sure that the United Nations would accept Nuclear Weapons self-regulation. What would happen if someone were concerned about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program? If it were self-regulated, a person would send a letter to the board and outline the concerns. Would the international community be satisfied that concerns and complaints were reviewed by the Iranian government?

Anyone objecting to self-regulation could be accused of insulting the Board. Not so. We are saying that we must remove the onus from people about whom we are complaining. It is not fair to put people in this position. Justice must be done, and be seen to be done, and be seen to be impartial, and be impartial, so that no-one can cast aspersions.

The Advertising Standards Bureau has an Independent Reviewer. I was unable to find out how many cases are referred to the Independent Reviewer, and of those cases, how many the Independent Reviewer managed to overturn. I would like to study those numbers.

The Advertising Standards Bureau is funded by the advertising industry. This makes it a self-funded, self-governed Bureau. It has a Corporate Board of Directors, who, at the time of writing, comprised: Mr Ian Alwill, Director Australian Association of National Advertisers and Director of Marketing Communications, Nestle Australia; Mr Michael Duncan, Agency Client Director, Nova 106.9 Radio; Mr Hayden Hills, Group Manager Finance Operations, Allianz Insurance Australia Ltd; Mr John McLaren, Director, Clemenger BBDO (the agency behind the RTA’s pinkie campaign); and Mr John Sintras, Chief Executive Officer, Starcom Media Vest Group.

The other group within the Bureau that presumably makes decisions about complaints is the Advertising Standards Board. Its members, at the time of writing, are shown below. Not all of these members were on the Board from the time that the first complaint was heard and dismissed in 2007. However, they were all members when the October 2009 complaint was heard and dismissed.

The Advertising Standard Bureau has an Advertising Standards Board that considers complaints about advertisements. Board members in 2009 comprise: TANVEER AHMED; THE HON JOHN BROWN AO; SIBYLLA BUDD; JOANNA COHEN; BARBARA DAVID; KHOA DO; ANN DRUMMOND; RACHEL GRANT; THOMAS KENEALLY AO; SOPHIE KILLEN; JOHN LEE; JANEMAREE MAHER; PAUL McCARTHY; PAULA McNAMARA; GARY RICE; GRAHAM RIXON; NATASHA STOTT DESPOJA; JOSEPHINE TIDDY; CRAIG WHITE; HELEN WICKS.

From the Nando's TV ad that was banned.

I am not sure how often these fine citizens meet. We are told that they meet ‘regularly’. I am not sure how they have the time to read and assess approximately 2,000 complaints each year. I am not sure if all twenty members meet at the same time. The reason that I show you who these people are, is so that you can wonder with me how this group of eminent Australians failed to see that driving has nothing to do with a penis. I would not have gone this far to list them had it not have been for the fact that I believe that this very group saw fit to ban a Nando’s Chicken ad in which a buxom woman orders double-breasted chicken and chips. The plate is delivered to her and placed at her table. She looks down and declares that the chips are missing. The waitress points out that the chips are on the plate. We, the viewers, then realise that the chips were not visible to the customer because she has big breasts, and when she looked down, she could not see the whole plate. Her big breasts obscured the chips on the plate. This group of people, I presume from all that I could work out, banned the ad because it was sexist. A beautiful lady, with all that God had given to her, looks down and does not see the chips. The play-on-words refers to the double breast chicken burger. A woman’s breasts are not like a woman’s vagina, and as such, not like a man’s penis. The ad neither demeans women nor breasts. Nothing derogatory is said or insinuated. But okay, for the sake of argument, I can accept that the ad might have offended some people. Who knows how many? Three? Okay. But how on earth can it be said that the Nando’s ad was offensive, yet the Board ruled that the RTA pinkie ad was not equally offensive or demeaning or degrading to men? That decision is incomprehensible. It makes me want to read or hear the word-by-word argument/debate/deliberation. The Bureau says that it wishes to be transparent. I would suggest that meetings ought to be recorded so that we can see and hear the adjudication in action.

The Nando’s official Case Report of April 2009 states the following as one of the complaints against the Nando’s TV ad: ‘It not only completely objectifies women, it asserts that women’s breasts, therefore women, are something to be eaten. It is also sexually inappropriate for the time slot, regardless of the objectionable nature of the ad as a whole.’ The report then states, ‘…the Board determined that the woman was depicted in the advertisement in such a way that was objectifying and demeaning and crossed the line in terms of discrimination towards women…’

3) Is the campaign focussing on the penis?
One person who complained to the Australian Advertising Bureau said, ‘Genitals of young men have nothing to do with bad driving. The add (sic) is designed to be sexist and humiliating to men. The add (sic) encourages and sanctions from a government body the sexual harassment of young men with these crude, sexist and offensive behaviours.’ In response, the Roads and Traffic Authority, being the advertisers, responded to the Bureau, saying…

NOTE: This article was becoming to large, so it is split into two parts. Please read Part 2 here that shows evidence of an RTA website that is fixated on the penis. Listen to this from Mini-mouth Mandy, an RTA blow-up sex doll that humiliates men and their small penis.

Read about this in Part 2 by clicking here.

This article was written by Jonar Nader, author of ‘How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People’. Jonar is a consultant whose website is www.LoseFriends.com

This is a popular men’s magazine called ‘Men’s Health’. It has short-articles that are informative, yet entertaining. I always find it amusing to observe how this magazine desperately tries to position itself as a bloke’s publication. It is a magazine about men’s health, yet one would think it is a magazine about ‘how to pick-up chicks’. Perhaps that falls under the category of mental health!

This men's magazine is keen on telling its readers that it’s for tough hetro blokes. To remove all doubt, it feels obliged to mention women and sex on the front cover. This issue reveals her secret sex fantasy.

Men are a funny lot. It seems that they will do anything to attract the women of their dreams; anything short of making themselves more appealing. Ask a man with bad skin to consider a facial, and he recoils, wondering if his mates might think him a sissy. Researchers would have us believe that men are fickle. Apparently, men would never admit to using beauty products. Apparently, they are so screwed-up that they would never buy a product unless it says, ‘For men’. Nivea worked this out ages ago. Hence, the ‘Nivea for men’ label which produces a range of products for the insecure macho guy.

Here is another example of a magazine that worries about is readers. The man purchasing this magazine does not want anyone to think that he is perving on hunky men. He wants the publisher to advertise the fact that he is not a pansy. So the editor places a naked buxom naughty girl on the cover, promising to advise the reader ‘how to keep her coming back for more’.

I am not sure which is worse: to be accused of being interested in one’s health and fitness, and therefore an admirer of muscle and physique, or to carry a magazine that would suggest that the reader does NOT know how to keep her coming back for more. Would you sit in a public place reading a book titled, ‘How to reduce haemorrhoid pain’? Then why would a man want to be seen reading stuff about how to satisfy women? That would turn women away. Women want experienced men, not beginners who resort to magazines to plug any holes in their inadequacies. It’s all too complicated. Men should step up to the mark and stop being so sensitive. Oh well, that’s easier said than done. So here is a better idea for the magazines: go back to the old brown paper wrapping. Perhaps the new editions could come with six different covers. Each reader can wrap the cover that makes him less self-conscious.

Incidentally, I noticed that the ‘Men’s Health’ magazine had previously promoted, on the front cover, eight sex moves to blow her mind. Only recently, it has found four more. It now promotes twelve ways to drive her wild.