Australian government’s ‘Women’s Network’ logo roasted on social media


The logo of the Australian Prime Minister and Cabinet Office’s (PM&C) new ‘Women’s Network’ – which aims to promote gender equality – has instead been roasted online for its phallic appearance. A description of the network states that it “advocates for equal opportunity on behalf of its members and is an inclusive, volunteer-based organization, built by members, for members.”

“The Women’s Network assists PM&C and enables the cultural change aspirations expressed in the ministry’s 100-1000 Day Transformational Change Plan by helping to implement the Gender Equality Action Plan and the Embracing Inclusion Program and Diversity from PM&C,” the description continues.

“The Women’s Employee Network promotes gender equality and helps its members achieve success in their personal professional lives. The priorities of the network are based on driving cultural change and encouraging men to lead this cultural change, especially in areas where men can make a significant contribution.

“The network promotes the professional success of women by facilitating opportunities for learning, networking and professional mobility and by encouraging flexible approaches to work.

Rather than focusing on the network’s supposed purpose, social media users instead focused on its logo – which many initially assumed was a fake due to its overt resemblance to a penis.

“I really thought that logo for the Prime Minister’s and Cabinet Office Women’s Network was fake but uh…do they know?” wrote a Twitter user next to an image of the logo.

Others were furious with the NSFW logo – noting that it detracted from the network’s real purpose.

“Why did the juvenile idiots in your department create male genitalia from the Women’s Network logo?” political and social commentator Ronni Salt wrote.

“How hilarious. Let’s degrade women. Again. Anyone who understands graphic design knows this is deliberate. Anyone who hasn’t understood this is not doing their job.

Salt shared a screenshot of a graphic designer’s response to the logo, who in his tweet noted that “the designer knew EXACTLY what he was doing, from font choice to layout to design. color”.

” It is not an error. It stinks of teenage malevolence, ”added the graphic designer.

Author and journalist Quentin Dempster agreed, Tweeter that the appearance of the logo “satirizes what all women and men of goodwill are trying to achieve: the empowerment of women, equal rights and an end to a culture of violence, sexual assault and misogyny”.

Reddit users echoes feeling, with one commenting that “at this point I think [the Federal Government] just take the p*ss”.

“Honestly I’m at a point where I don’t know if they’re so incredibly stupid or if they’re doing it on purpose because they’re so misogynistic,” another wrote.

Rather than focusing on the network’s supposed purpose, social media users instead focused on its logo – which many initially assumed was a fake due to its overt resemblance to a penis.

“Honestly, I don’t even think it could be a case of seeing what you want to see. It’s just almost an ad*ck picture,” a third person commented.

Others have asked how much an ad agency might have been paid to create the logo.

This is not the first time that the validity of a federal government campaign has been questioned – let’s not forget the infamous taxpayer-funded “milkshake” ad about sexual consent last April.

The $3.7 million campaign was pulled after a backlash from the public, with hundreds of people – including government officials and rape prevention activists – calling it a dangerous waste of money and “ big failure”.

the Bizarre video showed a woman smearing a man’s face with a milkshakewhile another used the example of a man eating a taco to explain sexual assault.

“Young people are more sophisticated than this content gives them. And sex and consent are way more complicated than videos about milkshakes and sharks at the beach,” Karen Willis of End Rape on Campus Australia, a prevention educator with 30 years of experience.

“These resources are well below national standards and what experts know is needed to actually change behaviors and prevent abuse.”


Comments are closed.