Mumbrella360 video: Addressing Adland’s Gender Diversity Problem

Cindy Gallop’s argument has as much substance as a Michael Bay movie, so at least she got her little slogan right. The way she talks about (white) men is deeply prejudiced and offensive, and the way she talks about women is infantilising and thus sexist.

Three female leaders complaining about the lack of female leadership…What about inviting someone like Kevin Roberts to speak for the opposition, instead of just another echo chamber of whining feminists?

What exactly is ‘the opposition’ to equal representation of men and women at a senior leadership level? This wasn’t a ‘should we or shouldn’t we’ debate – it was a ‘how do we’ discussion, albeit a heated one at times. Speaking with passion and enthusiasm is not whining; complaining about the ‘under-representation’ of men on an industry panel is.

@Tess

The fact that it wasn’t a “should we or shouldn’t we” is the problem. It creates the illusion there’s no opposition. I know the dictionary says it’s about equality, but listening to Cindy Gallop, do you get the feeling equality is her primary objective?

The opposition would argue that equality already exists. There are, however, two kinds of equality: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Many believe (including me) that the former is what counts, and that we have achieved this.

The opposition would say men and women choose differently based on different skills, interests and priorities. This manifests itself in all areas of society. Achieving equality of outcome means interfering with a whole bunch of important principles and freedoms.

The opposition also has very convincing arguments against all of the panel’s assumptions around harassment, pay gap, sexism, diversity equals profit etc. Unless, of course, you believe that the limited amount of research put forward was unbiased and represents some kind of scientific consensus.

If you watch the debate with an open mind, you should be able to pick apart their argument quite easily as it’s full of fallacies and contradictions. And when everybody is on the same side ideologically, not even the most ridiculous claim are challenged.

Ask yourself this:

With all the enormous amounts of goodwill, grants and scholarships, initiatives, conferences, awards, media coverage and mentorships, not to mention the backing of every single woman, as well as most men, in the industry, why do women still only constitute 13% of creative departments?

Could it be that they choose differently?

Capitalism is colour blind and don’t care about gender. Shareholders want money. So if more women means more profit, wouldn’t the shareholders demand more women? If women makes 77 cents on the dollar, wouldn’t they demand only women were hired?

Could it be that feminism has got it wrong?

I believe feminism is a destructive and counter productive ideology that divides rather than unites us. It sets the genders up against each other and uses a range of false and dishonest arguments to convince us of its conspiratorial worldview.

And btw, I didn’t complain about the lack of men on the panel, but on the lack of opposition. There’s plenty of women who are anti-feminists, although I haven’t seen or heard about anyone in our industry.

Feminism is the belief that women are equal to men, so no I don’t think it’s got it wrong. I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of any anti-feminists in our industry; I’d hope you’d be hard-pressed to find a woman anywhere who would be willing to admit to herself – let alone her peers – that she didn’t subscribe to that belief.

Like it or not, it doesn’t matter that you believe we’ve achieved equality. The impacted party – women – are telling you otherwise, and it’s really not up to you to validate or approve this claim.

Your argument and that of the likes of Kevin Roberts are based on insisting ‘women have different priorities to men when it comes to their careers’ despite those very women are telling you otherwise. Priorities, skills and interests vary based on the individual, not their gender.

I think Cindy’s objective is equality, but unfortunately (and uncomfortably) for some, first she needs to get to ‘interfering with a whole bunch of important principles and freedoms’ that they’ve enjoyed to date.

The argument is a complex one, and the panel never claimed to represent an industry consensus. Still, the ability to sit back and examine this issue ‘objectively’ is a position you’re afforded because it doesn’t impact or impede you in any way.

You don’t get to say that it’s a complex argument after regurgitating every talking point from every feminist ever. I’m sad, but not surprised, to see that you too are blinded by ideology and tribalism.

And as you read this I can feel your indignation. How dare he?

Well, why don’t you give me a chance to explain.

Your argument is boils down to this: I can’t have an opinion because I’m a man; whatever a couple of women say must be the truth and I better know my place and shut up and listen.You’re attributing motives I don’t have, and make assumptions about my privilege that is based on (let’s be honest) conspiracy theories.

It’s called the ad hominem fallacy. Look it up.

You don’t address a single line in my actual argument. Feminists rarely do because they’re so convinced of their moral superiority by the virtue of being born a woman.

Let me tell you something: women are oppressive, hypocritical, narcissistic bullies. The impacted party – men – are telling you that’s the case and it’s really not up to you to validate or approve this claim.

If you think that’s a silly thing to say you’re just demonstrating your own double standards and intellectual bankruptcy.

Check mate.

@Cindygallop, you’re argument about ‘bullshit like a white straight guy’ is ridiculous. THAT is the problem with advertising in Australia, there are bullshitters, bullshitting there way into positions they are not ready for. Their bad habits make the departments work crazy hours, because ‘bullshitters’ cannot lead properly when they don’t have the answers, therefore more woman leave the industry because we can’t balance the insane hours and still have children. Creating a culture of ‘bullshitters’ will not help anyone, and telling us to do so is insulting to women. Why the hell should we pretend to know what we are talking about to get ahead, rather, let’s show the ‘straight white guys’ how it’s done properly, by learning and knowing what we are talking about.

I don’t feel indignant at all – you’re entitled to your opinion, as am I. I think men should absolutely be weighing in on this issue, as nothing will change without their voice (and influence) in the mix. Men are not the enemy, and I’m sorry you misinterpreted my comments – or the intention of feminism – as such. I think you’ll find Cindy Gallop to be one of the greatest admirers of your fair sex, in fact.

Still, in the interests of answering your arguments:

re: Women in creative departments, nobody has tried to avoid the fact they are in limited supply, or that the reason for this may be, in part, a result of women ‘choosing differently’. The reasons they’re doing that are what people are interested in identifying, as by many accounts it is not for a lack of desire. No one is blaming this issue on men alone.

Re: Capitalism, demanding more women as cheap labor would mean actually acknowledging they are cheap labor for no reason other than their gender, which would be problematic for shareholders/businesses/brands in a first world country that ascribes to equality of the sexes.

Re: feminism, I don’t disagree that at times it can be divisive in it’s execution, but major change has rarely ever been driven by stepping softly. It also is a highly emotional issue to those affected, and that is reflected in the intensity of the argument.

Anyway, I doubt you and I are likely to come to an agreement in the hallowed halls of the Mumbrella comments section, so thank you kindly for the Latin lesson and the good laugh I got out of: “Women are oppressive, hypocritical, narcissistic bullies.”

I’m have no doubt some are, as are some men. Again, it comes down to the individual, not the gender.

I didn’t say you couldn’t have an opinion. What I actually said was that you are not in a position to invalidate a problem or declare it ‘solved’ just because it’s not impacting your day to day. Responded to your points below, as requested.

@Tess – I appreciate the response.

The topic is so divisive and sensitive and the debate so polarised that there’s no room for a moderate position in the middle. Instead we’re both forced to defend the “for” or “against” camps respectively.

I believe the (well-intended) mistake you make is defending feminism’s most vocal and extreme proponents based on your own, more moderate, point of view. Similarly, and needless to say, I’m not against equality between the genders, quite the opposite. I’m against feminism as it’s being practiced today, and I believe that’s a far cry from its original dictionary definition of equality.

Which is why I disagree with your claim that people like Gallop are interested in the subtler causes for lack of women in creative departments. She says it over and over in no uncertain terms that straight white men are the problem (the fact that she brings in race and sexual preferences so readily should plant a big read flag), and that she has no time for people who disagree with her (indeed, it took no more than one critical tweet from me for her to block me).

If women are in short supply we can’t demand 50-50 representation. If you believe women choose differently (btw this is something the Gallop school of feminists refuses to acknowledge, as it implies women indeed have free will and equal opportunities, which would invalidate their narrative of an oppressive patriarchy) you need to say so rather than assume that that’s what Gallop et al really believe. As it stands now, they’ve succeeded in establishing a range of myths on which all subsequent debate is now based. Men systematically preventing women from getting the jobs they want is one of these.

The pay-gap is another.

You seem to say that capitalism hire men to cover up the fact that women are being paid less so as to not look bad. However, capitalism is only a concept and is in itself amoral (which is different from immoral). No single company, CEO, shareholder or board feel it’s their responsibility to protect capitalism from claims of inequality. Which is exactly why the fact that men are still being hired is proof that women cost the same.

I know what you mean about ‘no major change happens by stepping lightly’. However, that is assuming that major changes are required in the first place. I argue it isn’t.

Some (most) women are intelligent and reasonable and I do suspect you may be one of them.

My hope is that those of you with a moderate point of view are able to divorce yourself from the most divisive and extreme aspects of ideological feminism, and that we rather than perceiving the debate as battle of good vs evil can treat the it as a range of complex and important questions and issues.

@Stacey

I’d also add that the her generalisations are deeply offensive. We are the only group in the world against which such blatant racist and sexist remarks are accepted without the slightest risk of consequences.

Why is this ok? If I said this about women, gays or blacks there would be dozens of commenters calling for my head on a plate, and rightly so.

If equality is the goal, why do you accept such double standards?

I was sad to miss this last year, so great to watch it now when it feels even more relevant. I have experienced so many of the points that are raised here and I to have just put up with them. Both sexual and around pregnancy and family. It’s so hard for us to talk about this, even when we want to non-disparagement clauses make it almost impossible and terrifying. Good onya Cindy. There are so few women willing to speak up and you take so much of the flax for us. I love what I do, I love being a part of this industry but this kind of change is something we all need to push for ad land to catch-up with the times so we aren’t eventually pushed out.