It is offensive. Just making a quick analysis.
Assuming the white male was gay this ad is entirely homophobic. Assuming he is not, the ad leans on being sexist and asserts a problem with gender expression.
Sexist: because it deems "feminine" qualities as bad.
Problems w/ gender expression: because the man is breaking social norms where society judges what is "masculine" and "feminine." His behavior is inappropriate because it makes him less of a man?
The aggression used (although you gotta love Mr. T :p hehe) directs a negative and violent choice of action towards these "feminine" qualities. Using intimidation to assert authority and whip people back into 'proper' social structure. I'm still wondering how power-walking is not "manly" enough. Haha. So odd.
Also, you so know the commercial would have been considered racist had it been a white man using the Snicker gun and shooting the bars of delicious goodness at a black man.
"According to CNN Snickers (M&M) has announced that after protests from many gay rights groups that they are pulling the advertisement globally."
" Sexuality has nothing to do with gender identification, and when we relate the two, we further support a gender binary as an acceptable way to understand and order our world . A gay male is just as masculine as a hetero male. The problem is that we have assigned specific behaviour patterns to masculinity without acknowledging that what we view as masculine has morphed over the centuries, thus what we have normalized today is simply the result of the continual social disciplining of gender performativity."
From: Link
Some one said it better:
" Sexuality has nothing to do with gender identification, and when we relate the two, we further support a gender binary as an acceptable way to understand and order our world . A gay male is just as masculine as a hetero male. The problem is that we have assigned specific behaviour patterns to masculinity without acknowledging that what we view as masculine has morphed over the centuries, thus what we have normalized today is simply the result of the continual social disciplining of gender performativity."
From: Link
9 Comment please:
This is pretty normal. I suggest you look up some of the Yorkie adverts here in the UK.
Just checked it out.
O.o watched a few on youtube and wow... they aired that!? People must have taken offense. A little of homophobia, "anxious masculinity" [google it], and sexism all dressed up as homour.
Sexuality has nothing to do with gender identification, and when we relate the two, we further support a gender binary as an acceptable way to understand and order our world . A gay male is just as masculine as a hetero male. The problem is that we have assigned specific behaviour patterns to masculinity without acknowledging that what we view as masculine has morphed over the centuries, thus what we have normalized today is simply the result of the continual social disciplining of gender performativity."
That commentary would be from me at womanist musings.
Oops. I forgot to link the quote. Thanks so much. I'll link it now in my edit. :) I have that blog on my blog roll.
Hi Stephy, I've recently read an interesting article about this situation and have made a journal entry with a response: http://laser-kun.livejournal.com/69647.html
This is Stephy. Too lazy to login since I am not on my computer atm.
I read it. Thanks for the link, Laser.
Yeah I heard it was pressure from the US that got it pulled. Yes much of the country is conservative. I think it was the gay community (which aren't really considered conservative ...) of the U.S that complained and got it pulled. They took offense and they got it pulled. (I believe?)
Anyway, what you wrote mostly was about how conservative and self-righteous the US is and mocked certain organizations and how the man was not gay and America was in the wrong. Here is a hint, not all Americans are far-right, nor "nearly facist".
Yes, "what is the world coming to"? Darn those American conservatives for pulling a sexist ad. Just had to point out that over-reaction. It made me laugh. >_>
I did not go in depth much about the gay part since I did not believe the man was gay and only said "If we assume he was..." Which, whether or not he was, still depicts this ad as sexist and "anxious masculinity". There is a book about that. Good read.
Once again the ad makes fun of men who do not depict "appropriate" manly behavior. Speed walking is not manly? So he is a disgrace? This is possibly why the gay community got involved since a lot of our society (as well as within the UK) likes to associate gay men as "less manly" than hetero men, which of course is not true and so many would assume the man in the ad is "gay". Whether or not the action of speedwalking is "gay" (I even have in my post "I'm still wondering how power-walking is not "manly" enough" and never once said it was gay) is not the only problem.
I don't agree with America getting involved in another countries advertising, (I seriously get so fed up with the ads "we" pull all the time in the US) but since it was done and over with I figured I'd write about it and never once said "GO AMERICA" (you sexy far-right and nearly fascist country).
I didn't go on about the man being "gay". Nor supported the US taking the ad down. I merely spoke about it. The only reason I am taking such offense is because you said at the beginning of your post "This is kind of a response to Stephy's ..." which MAY cause readers to just read that one part and just trash me after reading your post thinking that I was in support of everything you wrote (which would suck since I wrote nothing similar to that, so not sure if this was your intention).
You never spoke about how the ad DOES assert problem on gender expression. Odd. Which was mostly what my entire post was about. Interesting. Also, I am a liberal, (and it doesn't make me any less of a liberal just because of an Ad pull) but can't tolerate sexist crap.
Typical. Not really much to say on this one other than I agree with you.
Hi Steph,
Sorry I didn't see your comment here, I'd have assumed you'd have commented on my blog rather than here.
>> Here is a hint, not all Americans are far-right, nor "nearly facist".
I'm generalising here, obviously. I'm generalising against the conservatives state-side who took great offence at this ad and who demanded that it being taken down. This is obviously true of the majority of Americans, other why are all serious American positions be on the far right and authoritarian ends of the political compass (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection)? Surely US voters would vote people who would match their views for the candidate they're voting for?
America is a far-right wing and near-facist country by majority, this is pretty much a fact, so I'm not sure why you picked me up on it?
I would hope that you are enlightened enough to realise how America is viewed by people, especially here in the UK. Our former Prime Minister Tony Blair was often described by our newspapers as "Bush's lapdog" and led some very low approval ratings. I personally am scared shitless about the prospect of having to cross US border patrol next month when I visit the country, especially considering some of the laws passed recently. I'm planning on taking my laptop, however US border control (under US law) have the right to seize my laptop permanently, without cause upon crossing into the US. They have the right to deny me access as I plan on taking a camera with me. These things scare me about the US and the Government that the populace appear to have sleep-walked into.
But that's beside the point :)
>> Once again the ad makes fun of men who do not depict "appropriate" manly behavior. Speed walking is not manly? So he is a disgrace?
Surely you realise that this is a joke, right? The ad is being humorous, that he is not exhibiting stereotypical male behaviour. Within the context of the UK populace, where a great deal of variance from the stereotypical male persona is tolerated and accepted, it's fairly obvious that this is a joke, especially within the manner that it's being done. I did address this matter directly within my original journal entry.
>> "This is kind of a response to Stephy's ..." which MAY cause readers to just read that one part and just trash me after reading your post thinking that I was in support of everything you wrote (which would suck since I wrote nothing similar to that, so not sure if this was your intention).
No, absolutely not my intention. My intention was to illustrate a contrasting and opposing view to your blog entry, justifying some of the behaviour you originally pointed out as unacceptable and the context which makes it acceptable. That journal entry originally started out as a comment on this blog, but I moved it to my journal when it got too long. I would hope anyone that clicked through to your blog and actually read it would see a huge difference between our views.
>> I don't agree with America getting involved in another countries advertising, (I seriously get so fed up with the ads "we" pull all the time in the US) but since it was done and over with I figured I'd write about it and never once said "GO AMERICA" (you sexy far-right and nearly fascist country).
My journal entry was mainly about how wrong it is for America to act as the World Police and police moralities in other countries, especially when it's blatantly obvious that the people calling out understand nothing about the culture those adverts are being shown in.
>> Also, I am a liberal, (and it doesn't make me any less of a liberal just because of an Ad pull) but can't tolerate sexist crap.
Sexist? This ad isn't sexist, it's making a humorous quip at those who do not follow masculine stereotypes to advertise a link between the nuts inside a Snickers bar and the nuts inside a male scrotum. You may be offended by this, but the populace of the UK - the culture which the ad was made in and aimed - are not, because they do not hold such old-fashioned views as you appear to do that males not conforming to a stereotype of high masculinity need to molly coddled.
As a final link, read this. This is a blog entry from The Guardian, one of the biggest-selling newspapers in the UK (even if it is liberal and more left-wing than our current government). The comments may be particularly enlightening - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2008/07/was_mars_right_to_pull_mr_ts_a.html.
America is pretty messed up right now (and I seriously would just love to leave this country if McCain was elected); I just dislike generalizations. At the time of my reply, I was probably offended since I am completely the opposite of your generalization and from what I read (might have misinterpreted) anyone offended by this ad is conservatives/fascist/easily offended.
Yes, this ad was a "humorous quip" but it doesn't make it right. If it was a racist ad dressed up as a joke it would not make it right. This is a bad joke displayed as humor to overwhelm the fact that it is offensive (of course not to those who see nothing wrong with this ad). It being a "joke" is an excuse.
I have shown many of my UK friends on Skype this ad and many of them have said it was offensive without me even saying anything. It's not just those crazy conservative, fascist Americans who hate it. I'm not making a point here, but I just wanted to say that.
Also, just to mention again, it was the gay community who got the ad taken down. They are not considered fascist/conservative. Not to my knowledge.
Don't think it is sexist? Wow.
Well, I already explained how it was sexist. I won't try to change your mind. You don't feel that way and so I accept that and will not push my opinions. You just have more backbone to sexist material perhaps.
Post a Comment