There’s an uproar in (where else?) the blogosphere about one of the Super Bowl ads — you know, the one where two macho dudes have a “Lady and the Tramp”-style confrontation over a Snickers bar.
Evidently, the ad was part of a larger web campaign by Mars. Their website featured some rather repulsive alternate endings, and several NFL football players registering disgust with two guys kissing. There’s been quite a fuss kicked up about it (from the NY Times):
Complaints about its Super Bowl commercial for Snickers candy — showing two men committing violence against themselves after they accidentally kiss — led the company to decide late yesterday that it would withdraw the spot.
Masterfoods, which received complaints from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign that the commercial was homophobic, also took down related material on a special Web site (afterthekiss.com).
It’s never mentioned in the Times’ article, but it was in the blogosphere that the complaints probably hit the requisite 10-decibel level necessitating action — and specifically, it was at Americablog (and here).
It’s interesting to me that I read this in a much different light… because I saw the ad, and the material on the website, as a satirical smack at idiotic macho men.
The reactions in the blogosphere are fascinating. Ann Althouse, for instance, saw it pretty much the same way I did. (Should I be worried about this?):
I think it’s funny. It makes fun of guys who are afraid of being gay, which isn’t endorsing homophobia. It’s mocking it.
While Daniel Rubin at Bling was apparently untroubled by the ad itself, but found the supporting site’s message a bit off-key:
My first reaction when I read this, was that he was making much ado about nothing. Particularly when the progressive blogger noted that the family that owns Mars is a big supporter of the Republican party. Leaving his feet to the throw a punch, I thought.
But what was up with showing ball player after ball player react to the video? Where’s Dave Kopay when you need him? And after watching the now-pulled alternative endings, which can still be seen here, I’m wondering what the ad agency and Mars officials were going for. Making fun of rednecks?
Down With Tyranny sees something extremely dangerous (like John Aravosis did), with an odd opening warning about candy bars causing cancer:
The ad is not just blatantly homophobic; it very much advocates extreme violence towards gay people.
And John Whiteside at Blue Bayou says:
It’s obvious, of course, that the marketing folks at Mars didn’t invent irrational horror of homosexuality; they’re just playing on it. Still, the ads reinforce a pretty repulsive idea: that responding to same-sex attraction with violence is, if not reasonable, understandable.
When I thought the entire situation over, though, it was the recent “You wouldn’t make it in pro football” ads that were playing in my mind.
Surely you’ve seen them? There’s one, for instance, where a relatively wimpy-looking guy somehow finds himself in a locker room and prepares to dress-out, but is immediately confronted with his obvious… er… inability to fit into the apparently standard-sized NFL jock strap.
Taken all together, actually, I think there’s something here that’s both more, and less, than screaming homophobia — kind of a Y-version of the anorexic runway model — and the entire situation is exactly what Dr. Steven Taylor called it: a pop culture rorschach test.
And we’re failing, because we’re such easy targets.
First K-Fed, now the Snickers d00dz… where will the insanity end?
What surprises me is John Whiteside’s reaction. Normally he is a bit more level-headed, and able to see satire/parody style humor for what it is. And, btw I happen to agree with you and Ann Althouse: it was making fun at those who are sterotypically homophobic.
Guess I’m gonna have to write this one up, too… stay tuned.
~EdT.
Well, note that the original Super Bowl ad didn’t perturb me all that much – it was stupid, but whatever. It was the alternate one with people beating the hell out of each other that I had a problem with.
I was also looking at it with my professional eyes (I do this stuff for a living) and was really struck by how dumb it was.
Over-reacting? I don’t know. Talk to me next time somebody does a funny ad about lynching or raping somebody’s daughter.
John —
The alternate endings were dumb. OTOH, I laughed Right Out Loud at the one that actually aired… but I was laughing at the idiots needing to prove themselves.
I’m afraid that this is my standard reaction to male bloviating.
Given that I’m not homophobic or otherwise reactionary on this subject, I’m finding the entire situation fascinating. Obviously, as Poliblogger says, it’s an inkblot test. We’re all seeing different things.
Oh, OK, I didn’t see the “alternate” endings, so I thought you were referring to the original commercial. Yes, it may have been “dumb” – but it caught my eye, which is IIRC what commercials are designed to do.
~EdT.
Maybe it is just a mutation of PDS. If we can find a vaccine for that, I would support making *that* mandatory.
But, then, it would make the world duller and more predictable.
~EdT.
Polimom – we all bring different stuff to this, I guess. And I admit, my threshold once you get into the violence part (even jokingly) is pretty low. Probably comes from having seen the real thing up close.
I’m not suggesting that everything has to be designed to the lowest threshold of offense, either. But this is an advertisement – it’s an arena where you want to be more careful of sensibilities, because you’re trying to convince people to do something (such as buy Snickers). I’ve vetoed stuff that would be far less objectionable than this, actually. (I’m having a flashback to a really, really bad agency presentation right now!)
Also, just to be totally clear: I’m emphatically NOT suggesting that there be any legal restraint of ads like this.
I wasn’t watching the Super Bowl with young kids in the room, so my attention to details wouldn’t be the same as if there were. So I can understand if parents of young kids had a problem with something aired specifically because it aired during the Super Bowl. I can understand that parents would like of all things for the Super Bowl to be something on television that they too can just enjoy and not have to be on alert for questionable material. If that was what all the uproar was, then I’ll go along with it.
What has occurred to me having seen the alternate endings, and the blog reactions is that there are two groups of people to be made fun of. Not only two, but two that are involved in this issue. One is the “homophobic” male that is referenced to in the ad that must do something manly to counteract any unmanly actions. The other group, and one I don’t think is discussed much, is the “homophobia police” that will jump on anything to say that gay people are being put in danger. This ad doesn’t advocate violence any more than Grand Theft Auto.
Well, advocacy and normalization aren’t the same thing, but they both have an impact.
The reaction to this ad, which wasn’t very well done in my opinion, is an example of one of the reasons why I have conciously withdrawn my support for “American” society, it’s government, it’s economic system and it’s way of life. This ranks up there with one of the sillier things I’ve ever seen. Your people are dying in Iraq and you are worried about a Snickers ad. Oh, and it’s “homophobic” but the loons that critisize it aren’t “heterophobic”?
Get a new perspective.