Description:
An email listed a selection of Amazon products, including a men’s sleeveless undershirt which was described as a “wife beater”.
Complaint:
The complainant objected to the advertisement as they found the use of the term “wife beater” to be offensive and misogynistic. While the complainant understood the term was commonly used to describe this type of undershirt, they raised that this should not be an excuse to perpetuate the usage of the offensive term.
Response:
The advertiser responded that this clothing descriptor was commonly understood and accepted across retail and popular culture for this specific piece of clothing. The advertiser raised that the use of the descriptor did not breach their own policies as they considered it as a reference to a piece of garment rather than an endorsement of harmful behaviour.
Decision:
Council reviewed the advertisement as well as the advertiser’s response.
In its deliberations, Council discussed at length the use of the term “wife beater” and its place in retail and popular culture. While Council understood that the descriptor has been commonly used in retail to describe a men’s sleeveless undershirt, they considered it outdated and distasteful.
The majority of Council members were of the view the term had become offensive to a large portion of the population (even if they were unable to pinpoint when that shift had in perception amongst society had occurred). Further, a majority of Council found that the continued use of the terminology presented an indifference to its meaning, which some members felt normalizes or even condones violence against women
In its deliberations, Council focussed on the language of Clause 14(b) which included a prohibition against directly encouraging, or exhibiting obvious indifference to, unlawful behaviour. Council did not consider that the use of the term ‘wife beater’ was directly encouraging the unlawful behaviour of violence against women; however the majority of Council did find that the term amounts to a display of obvious indifference to such unlawful behaviour.
For these reasons, a majority of Council members found that the use of the term “wife beater” to describe a garment, while commonly used, contravened Clause 14(b) by displaying indifference to the unlawful behaviour of violence against women. A majority of Council members also found that the use of the term in the ad breached Clause 14(d) by presenting an indifference to attitudes that offend the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.
Infraction:
14(b) and 14(d)
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement:
At Amazon, we strive to maintain a store that is welcoming for all. We exercise judgment in allowing or prohibiting listings, and we keep the cultural differences and sensitivities of our global community in mind when making decisions on products. For more information on the guidelines we use, please refer to our Offensive Products Policy.
