solarbird | A really good summary of the majority of US Super Bowl commercials

Current Mood: cranky

Entry tags:

politics

A really good summary of the majority of US Super Bowl commercials

From

fengi, here, via

nihilistic_kid:

HAVING TO PRETEND THE FUCKHOLE IS HUMAN.

DOESN'T THAT SUCK?

DON'T BE A GIRL, BUY OUR SHIT.

The misogyny really was just laid out there this year. How horrible and emasculating it is not to be a total ass all the time; how if you're forced to choose between your automobile's tires and your wife, if you're a real man, you'll throw your wife out of the car in front of the guys with the guns and take off to save your automobile's tires from theft; how horrible and emasculating it is not to have a TV screen showing sports in your face at literally every moment.

(Which, if you analyse things even momentarily, also means you're not a real man if you're not a braying jackass, a coward who throws companions to the wolves while screaming off to save your own life, and a mindless consumer who spends most of his time staring at a portable television showing sports and sports ads. In other words, if you're not a baby having your whims catered to by the moment.)

This is deeply broken.

It's a shame, really. It was one hell of a championship, if you're into handegg. No, seriously, it was the best game I've seen in a while. It's not just the let's-start-the-second-half-with-an onsides kick call (which was brilliant, as was the cut to the Indianapolis coach literally gaping - spectacular directing work there), no; I really thought the quality of play up and down the field - but particularly of both offensive lines - was just marvellous. You really got to see two impressive coaches and teams at work here. From a game standpoint, that was nice.

Too bad about the pathetic, insulting packaging wrapped around it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ugh, it's the weaponized hot-media version of the 'Christians are the most repressed minority' meme. I'd love to see some of these redone with racial themes, the same format applies there as well.

you know, this is a great example of how the Patriarchy really does Hurt Men Too. I *desperately* want more guys to start having conversations around what kind of bullshit this is going on here, because this is something we ladies can't really do for them. But most of the post-macho guys I know are just content to be all "Whatever, I'm not like that, I'll just disengage from it instead of challenging it," and that kind of sucks.

It's like when Erik was looking for books on prospective fatherhood, and out of an entire shelf of books, he found TWO that just made him feel mildly queasy instead of outright wanting to throw them across the room. Because virtually ALL of them have this same attitude, "hurr hurr hurr don't tell your wife she's fat and if she bitches about not wanting to have sex or that her feet hurt, pretend that you care." It's awful and heartbreaking, that this is the psychological environment presented to men who are about to become 50% responsible for the raising of another person.

It's very hard to engage directly, because the dominant male culture is to be an aggressive asshole. Calling them on it is, in their world, a precursor to a fistfight. I really don't want to get punched in the face for calling someone on their bullshit, so unless I know them very well, I'm not going to.

And making it doubly hard, people who are part of this culture, I don't want to know very well.

I'm really grateful that I rarely have to interact with this worldview, especially these days. Not every workplace I've been at is free of the misogynistic default male culture, but my current one is. Yay!

It's definitely a dominant theme of my life, going back to childhood, being abused by this culture and feeling apart from it. There's a lot of pain, there. It's very rarely acknowledged as a problem, by society.

So, on an individual level - fuck no, I'm not going to challenge aggressive assholes on their core assumptions, and I'm not going to get to know them because they're aggressive assholes. And on a societal level, I'm at an utter loss. At some point we seem to have become receptive to the idea that the image of women in the media can be harmful (especially body image issues), but that hasn't happened for men yet. And I don't really see any signs that it's about to.

All I know how to do is not be like that, and hope that other people notice.

Ok i am going to have to call a certain amount of bullshit, here.

Calling someone out on their aggro behavior is not a precursor to a fistfight across the board. That's just silly. Sure that's the case if you're in, say, a biker bar, and you start hectoring some guy on why he shouldn't be calling his girlfriend a 'bitch'.

Even then, you're far more likely to get called 'a pussy' and summarily ignored than punched in the face.

What's a lot more likely (and frankly, more disheartening and difficult to deal with) is this scenario:

Male a: "blah blah bitches and hos blah blah asshole language blah lbha."

Male b: "that's not cool."

Male a, c, d, and e: "Dude what are you, whipped? don't be such a humorless Politically Correct asshole."

Male b: "I'm not, I'm just saying that wasn't cool."

males in residence: "Whatever you sweater-wearing spineless liberal douche."

And so the "masculinist" echo chamber carries on in its own way, nonstop, content to ignore any dissenting voices as coming from people who don't really count.

The only real way to have any change in those cultures is just to be involved (at work, wherever) with people who behave that way, and demonstrate through your own actions, that it isn't acceptable.

One way I tend to do it is just to wait for someone to say something atrocious and reply, "Really? seriously? did you just say that and mean it?" and when they say, "yeah! what's the problem?" I just shake my head, indicate my displeasure through posturing, and go back to work.

Or I do something, and explain the action behind why I did something, which goes counter to the 'prevailing wisdom'.

Going through life living in fear of every male punching you in the face because you disagree with them is not a recipe for changing anything. That's bomb shelter living.

"Calling someone out on their aggro behavior is not a precursor to a fistfight across the board." Well, no, not along most of the west coast (excluding some parts of LA.) and most major cities.. But go east of the mountains or over to the Olympic peninsula and then yes, yes it is. Having long hair when you are a male is cause for violent commentary, and seemingly polite conversation, with people you thought were friendly, can get violent in the blink of an eye.

"Going through life living in fear of every male punching you in the face because you disagree with them is not a recipe for changing anything. That's bomb shelter living." Yes, That's a good way to put it. Living in Provo Utah and Port Angeles Washington, I always felt like I was in enemy territory. Denver Colorado wasn't too bad, until you got out of the city proper. Crow Agency Montana was about the only small mid western town I've felt comfortable in..

Do you really think that isn't a response visited upon women? Really?

Also, see response below about frowning to Kirby.

At some point, maybe at most points, simply walking away and disengaging is not a bad idea. Minding, though, that strategy may have to be backed-up with effective and concerted self-defense if the Neanderthal(s) in question decide to respond to that attempted disengagement by pursuit.

Hope I am making some sense; words are not coming easily today, which is a pity because this has been a subject of great personal significance over the years.

Walking away and disengaging is not a bad idea for *yourself*. But it leaves the problematic structure intact. It's a good strategy if you don't need or expect things ever to change, but it does insure that things never will.

I suppose that this all depends upon context. If the bad actor in question is someone within my close social milieu, then **yes**, quite agreed that engagement with the intention of fostering beneficial change is a better option, all other conditions being equal.

That especially obtains in the case of young people to whom I bear some duty of mentorship. There, I can imagine the possible future in which they rise to their own places of power and they deal more amenably and fairly with each other.

On the other hand, when dealing with strangers and passing acquaintances, there's the problem of limited resources, and a certain nagging sense on my part that even bothering to engage is somehow an enabling behaviour, where I risk being sucked into the dymnamic called "it's all about the man."

I'm really rather glad I missed yesterday's gladiatorial telethon. I probably actually had a better time at my Border Patrol interview than I'd have had sitting there in front of the teevee.

No, see, I'm not talking about speaking to individuals. I'm talking about speaking to the larger structure involved. There's been a huge feminist response to these horrible ads, but while I've seen men complaining about them, I haven't seen any male response to them.

Where are the letters written to CBS and to each individual advertiser? Where are the letters written to the NFL? Where are the boycotts?

For that matter, you can engage without enabling. The frown is a great example of this. Some dude says something awful, your head shoots up, and you make a face, then go back about your business. All you need to do is not yield your space to the assholes.

Thanks for the clarification: that is helpful.

I'm not terribly surprised by the lack of male response to those ads: I'm sure that their communicative dynamic is driven by a deeply-conditioned fear of looking weak or in some fashion un-male in the eyes of their imagined peer-group(s).

The example of the frown is indeed a good one, and something that is, here at least, so deeply-ingrained (right in there with the 'eww' vocalisation) that it slips recognition as being an element of behavioural change.

I do have to keep in mind the practical need to pick my fights; all the same, there is usually room for the situationally-appropriate behavioural encouragements, even if they are (most of the time) relegated to the status of secondary or lower communications objectives.

For what it may be worth, I do also see a difference between yielding my space and vacating a space which they may or may not have chosen to arrogate unto themselves -- I long since gave up on trying to inhabit the patriarchal space 24/7. That's not the same as separatism (although I did do that once); it's more about refusing to dignify some of their shitty behaviour, let alone being complicit in its social legitimation, by playing along in any way.

Given in the hopes that some of these words will make at least shards of sense; the topic is worthy of thought.

"Do you really think that isn't a response visited upon women?"
Wait.. What? No, I think the violent response to disagreement that some folk have is not limited to males (or females) I feel that far more violence Is directed at women, whom a perpetrator would see as a safe(r) target..

I was responding to Loopback's cry of bullshit.. My personal experience, in rural areas, is that disagreements Can get violent. (on Any subject.. But sexual roles are an especially hot topic.)

It is hard, and I do have sympathy. Women certainly had it easier in that regard; it is easier to challenge a passive culture by being assertive than it is to challenge an aggressive culture by being gentle.

But -- feminists did, and do, suffer physical violence at the hands of the macho shithead culture. I don't think there's a way out of this fight that doesn't involve some risk.

On the gripping hand, though, I don't think it's necessary to directly face-to-face challenge individuals on their behavior, but I do think decent men are going to have to start challenging the institutions that support such behavior. There's been a lot of noise about the shitheadedness of the Super Bowl from women, but has there been a lot from men? Could you write letters to CBS and to all the advertisers who pulled this bullshit saying "This is an awful depiction of men, which leads to abuse and oppression of all but a tiny subculture?" Alternate narratives to the dominant, shitheaded one aren't just going to arise on their own; they have to be put out there.

The choice isn't "keep your head down and ignore it or else get punched in the face." There are other options.

For the record, I enjoyed the Super Bowl by sitting in a chair having a guy draw pictures on my skin with a needle. When he had been asked earlier in the week what he was doing for the Super Bowl, his answer was,

"I dunno. Probably putting a tattoo on someone who also doesn't give a shit about it."

Frowning. It was a tool used by white civil rights supporters in the 50s and 60s in difficult areas during that phase of the civil rights movement. You don't start anything, you just fail to give the expected affirmation and instead just frown. It's a little thing but somewhat effective from someone in-group and doesn't give an excuse for a confrontation.

Here's to that. It's amazing how shaken someone can be when they don't receive the affirmation they've always assumed will be there. A scary amount of people don't actually realize that the there are people who don't think like them.

Privilege, privilege, privilege. If you don't challenge sexist assholes, then you push that burden back onto women, who are even more vulnerable to the typical response.

True, but unhelpful. Calling privilege, even when accurate, doesn't encourage those with that paricularal privilege - the privilege to ignore the problem becuase it doesn't affect them - to step out of the comfort zone and act anyway, despite that privilege.

What approach do you suggest?

In this kind of case where they're saying "yes but I fear retribution" then how to do things that make retribution less likely if not effectively impossible. See above. It's a small thing, but effective.

A good addition to the toolbox.

I still think it's important to call out the privilege of avoiding retribution when women do not have that choice. When we stand up for ourselves, we take the risk of getting insulted, demeaned, shamed, and yes, physically attacked. If you honestly care about us, you'll take that risk with us.

See, now, you can and sometimes absolutely should say that. But whittling it down to a label and tossing it out there as kind of a perjorative will generally shut people down more than get them to do something, particularly in comparison to telling them what they could do. Particularly when they have an expressed interest in being helpful but have fear.

because motivation for action isn't important? That's nothing more than an appeal to guilt to get people to act.

You don't get people taking your side in a way that matters by guilting them into it by yelling privilege at them or telling them how they have a choice and the other group doesn't.

They have to buy into it, body & soul, and believe it to be true. Then they run with it.

"Privilege" is one of the words that has driven me out of more dialogues with groups I am in support of, because I have no interest in being told about how goddamned privileged I am by those who are not. since the Hierarchy of Privilege Finger Pointing can only go from the disempowered towards the empowered.

Do I think 'privilege' exists? abso-fucking-lutely.

Do I think it gets trotted out instead of actual reasoned conversation more often than not? You bet.

"If you cared, you'd do this."

Gosh, then I guess every time I don't meet your external standard of behavior, it demonstrates that I don't honestly care. At some point, that leads to people genuinely not caring anymore. If you're going to be hanged as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread or for robbing the treasury, why not at least steal enough to live well until you get caught?

Jezebel has a gallery of these videos here (http://jezebel.com/5466296/woes-of-bros-super-bowl-ads-star-pathetic-men---and-the-women-who-ruined-them/gallery/). They share your opinion of them.

I did get the impression that it was an above-average superbowl game. I mostly stuck my fingers in my ears and studied the kitchen while the ads were on.

Commercials always play on base emotions, biases, and stereotypes. It's why I refuse to watch them if I have a choice, even the creative ones that often air during the Super Bowl.

I do actually enjoy the game of handegg [:-)] in theory. I just don't like the money and cultural bullshit that's wrapped around it, and the central place it holds in our society, given all that bullshit.

Oh, it was a hell of a game. We got a little bit of everything in this one - daring coaching (on both sides), outstanding special teams action (I LOVE it when I'm surprised), linework just to beat the goddamn band... It wasn't just effectiveness, it was that you could really tell it wasn't defensive line failures or poor play. It was really good play on both sides of the lines with the offensive lines being just a tiny bit better. And both QBs putting in great performances on top of it with just one little mistake to tip the game decisively, late. Brillant game.

I don't know. If I were an advertiser, I would appeal to the kind of lunk-headed moron who finds such spots appealing.

Why? Because they are far less likely to question the obvious propogandistic appeal the ads proffer?

Why? Because they are lunk-headed morons.

Lunk-heads have money, and don't think too awfully hard about emotional appeals, especially if much beer is being consumed. I understand the damage it does to our society, but these companies have quarterly numbers to make, and (according to court precedent) must do everything possible to enhance their shareholders' value.

Yet another sign of the "spiritual death" our nation has achieved.

Have you read any Slavoj Zizek?

I can barely read the name! So that's a big no. ^_^

You're following a line of analysis that's central to his philosophy - ideology vs. the Real. You might think of it as a modern application of Lacanian psychoanalysis. I've posted a few entries with vids (http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wordpress/?s=zizek), if you'd like to get your feet wet.

I, like you, loved the game and was irritated by the stupidity of the commercials that said to me, "You're not a real man unless you're an arrgant, selfish, sexist jerk."

Not all of the commercials were bad, but many of them were painful. The Kia stuffies-go-to-Vegas was sort of fun. I was gaping in astonishment over the house ad for Late Night With David Letterman because I had a hard time believing Leno would have been willing to do an ad for his soon-to-be-again direct competition, or that NBC would permit it. (Apparently NBC actually flew Leno out to New York City in the company jet so they could sneak him into the Ed Sullivan Theatre in disguise while Letterman was taping that day's show, and then they snuck Leno and Oprah into a private green room until they could shoot the spot.)

And yet again, GoDaddy tried to sell internet services with misogyny.

I actually missed most of the ads, because I would switch over to Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl during breaks.

The Super Bowl was a great game. Both teams played hard and were well coached. One great defensive play sealed the win.

The officiating was good, too. Where was that officiating crew when the Seahawks played in the Super Bowl.

auughh, GoDaddy. This time last year they offended me enough to cause me to switch my domains to another provider. `Glad` to see that my decision continues to be correct. :\

I applaud you, not, honestly, for tearing apart ads which I will probably never see (tho that's cool too), but for introducing me to the term 'handegg'. As a totally-non-team-sports-interested person, I've often referred to it as "that egg-shaped one", and now I feel I have something that flows a bit better.

Just don't forget: there's American, Canadian, and Austrailian Rules handegg. Confuse them at your peril! ^_^

Thank you from me, too. :) I really could have used that term last Friday.

When people talk about how feminists are men-haters, I can usually confuse them by stating that I am a feminist, and I don't hate men. To support this, I add that my sister is married to one, and I'm totally OK with that. However, to be honest, sometimes I feel inclined to make exceptions.

For me, its a matter of honor never to let this kind of crap pass without at least a frown.

Handegg.

*snrk* :D

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A really good summary of the majority of US Super Bowl commercials

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject