The ANZ Bank proudly sponsors the Mardi Gras.
That might not surprise you. But this probably will.
After the ANZ Bank was informed that children were blatantly exposed to sexually explicit behaviour at the Mardi Gras, it came out with a rather strange statement on Twitter. It said that it supported diversity and inclusion.
It’s enough to give you the heebie-jeebies.
Who is running that bank? Why does it think it is ok to sponsor a parade where children watched as grown men in partially-removed leather g-strings groped themselves?
You can see my original tweet and the ANZ Bank’s response a couple of hours later below.
@ANZ_AU is one of the proud sponsors of the Mardi Gras. Maybe it’s not such good PR… #auspol pic.twitter.com/d1l1I6E9qi
— Bernard Gaynor (@BernardGaynor) November 13, 2013
@BernardGaynor, We support diversity & inclusion & proud to partner w / @SydneyMardiGras cc @Vanderubble @joalabaster @scottsues @DrRachie
— ANZ Australia (@ANZ_AU) November 13, 2013
February 17, 2014
Bernard are you aware of any banks that aren’t bending over? After seeing that poster in an ANZ branch today i’ve been googling, came across your article, and am trying to find a better bank and superfund.
February 18, 2014
ANZ is the worst. But be aware that NAB went after Mardi Gras sponsorship and I’ve also heard Westpac threatened a pro-family group.
November 14, 2013
Here son, sit here, watch the parade, and hold this flag. Does he even understand what’s going on in front of him?
November 13, 2013
Sorry, don’t you know that the ANZ already sponsors flagrant displays of heterosexuality on prime time commercial television? Also, you might want to review your definition of ‘sexually explicit’: nothing on display at Mardi Gras would be rated higher than PG or M.
November 14, 2013
Pat, I wouldn’t exactly call men wearing nothing but leather G-strings and topless women parading in front of kids PG or M. Now I don’t know if you have kids or not, but let’s say you do. Would you like them being exposed to something as sexually explicit as that?
November 14, 2013
Women can be topless on beaches in NSW- and almost every man has been topless in public at least once in his life. More seriously, if you actually look up TV is classification, most of this is legally acceptable on prime time television. It also appears to be acceptable according to ‘mainstream’ community values- so long as it’s heterosexual imagery. The right apply a double standard, informed by their homophobia, when it comes to Mardi Gras.
Notably, women’s bodies are represented in a far more sexually explicit (and demeaning!) manner for heterosexual male viewers. In fact, your children are bombarded non- stop with images of women who are reduced to nothing more than sexual props to spice up advertising. This concerns me. What doesn’t concern me is children who go to Mardi Gras and see women of all shapes, sizes and ages expressing an autonomously formed identity and sexuality that’s not regulated by commercial interests. It also concerns me that gender normativity and heterosexuality are still pushed on children as if it is only valid expression of human gender or sexuality. The greatest strength of Mardi Gras is that it breaks down this delusion.
November 15, 2013
Hi Pat,
Your concerns regarding sexually-explicit content on prime-time are widely shared by many Australians, particularly those with children. No doubt, Mr Gaynor also shares those concerns – concerns which are valid and are currently being fought by activist mothers.
The injustice of sexually-explicit content on television (both homosexual AND heterosexual), however, does not negate the injustice of sexually-explicit displays at a public event or place frequented by children. One wrong state of things does not outweigh or justify the other. Both are wrong, and both should be dealt with forthwith. Mr Gaynor has not suggested otherwise in his comments.
Your assumption that those that have a problem with children at the Mardi Gras are ‘homophobic’ suggests that you dislike the idea of a double standard for the treatment of homosexual versus heterosexual sexually-explicit displays.
This begs the question: how can you justify supporting homosexual displays at Mardi Gras whilst opposing heterosexual displays on television, except by applying a double standard that gives homosexuality a sort of positive discrimination or get-out-of-jail-free-card?
PS, just because something SEEMS ‘mainstream’, doesn’t mean it’s widely accepted or right in itself. The appearance of being a politically correct or mainstream idea or practice is largely controlled by the media you so rightly criticise. Judging by the addition of a ‘token gay guy/girl’ in a growing number of popular culture television shows and films, and given the increasing acceptance and success of bi-sexual and homosexual Hollywood celebrities, it seems unlikely that the media is driven by homophobia: the fault for dubious programming and unethical classification is a different malaise.