02/06/2007
Masterfoods Pulls Offensive Snickers Ads and Website
The Snickers ads and the offensive reactions to them from NFL Super Bowl players have been pulled.
Alice Nathanson, a spokesman for Masterfoods, told Stuart Elliott of the NYT: "As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer, primarily 18-to-24-year-old adult males. Feedback from our target consumers has been positive, and many media and Web site commentators on this year’s Super Bowl lineup ranked the commercial among this year’s best. We know that humor is highly subjective and we understand that some consumers have found the commercial offensive. Clearly that was not our intent. We do not plan to continue the ad on television or on our Web site."
It would be nice to hear that the company understands exactly why showing Super Bowl athletes reacting with disgust to images of men kissing is so patently offensive (homophobia is a learned behavior), but at least the correct action has been taken. Good work, folks.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 3:30 PM EST by Andy in Advertising, Football (American), News, Sports | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Aww...I like the commercial. The only thing that was offense was the players reactions and that was only on their site. They should have just removed the reactions. I swear we are so afraid to offend someone in this country it is getting pathetic. It's a joke people. Soon we are going to be so politically correct we are going to be known as homosexual-americans and heterosexual americans.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2007 3:37:47 PM
Apparently they don't get it...or are playing (very) dumb. One of the "alternate endings" to the commercial on the website showed the two guys bashing the crap out of each other with a wrench and crowbar(don't remember which tools exactly) upon one of them stating "do something manly!" I believe one blogger aptly coined this the "Matthew Shepherd" spot.
Posted by: burnssuit | Feb 6, 2007 3:44:32 PM
Well most redneck males who this ad is targeted at thinks fighting is a manly thing. I'm sure a ton of money and focus groups went into this.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2007 3:54:31 PM
I'm sure that these ads can be perceived as anything by anyone. I saw it as two dumb men who were not comfortable with their sexuality trying to overcompensate with things that are preceived as manly. Others saw it as gay bashing. It's kind of like Happy Feet. Some people saw them as gay while others just thought it was a kids penguin movie.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2007 3:58:30 PM
I think the ad (and all it's alternate endings) was hilarious and "Boo" to Snickers for caving in to pressure on this one. If they had just gotten those offensive players off of their website I'd have been happy. How often do you get to see two straight guys kissing on TV? And their "gay panic" reactions were appropriate for the garage types guys they were playing. Like Rosie says "I'm getting tired of being the "Gay Police!" Please, let's all take a breath and move on with a chuckle.
Posted by: Bob | Feb 6, 2007 4:01:21 PM
They did the right thing, unlike ABC. They took action to correct their mistake in propagating homophobia.
I'm going to go buy a snickers..weight gain be dam*ed.
Posted by: John | Feb 6, 2007 4:08:04 PM
I thought the ads were funny, and not the least bit homophobic. The ads showed how moronic men can be..."do something manly" so they rip out their chest hair and hit themselves with tools. Frekin hilarious. What I did find homophobic and offensive were the players comments and faces, as they just backed up the sterotype of homophobia in sports and even more so, homophobia in the black community.
Posted by: JJ | Feb 6, 2007 4:08:19 PM
The players' reactions to the ads were completely offensive...the ads themselves were not as offensive EXCEPT the ad which showed the guys hitting each other with tools which tread much too close to fag bashing for my taste. I'm glad Masterfoods, M&M Mars, etc...chose to remove the ads.
Posted by: peterparker | Feb 6, 2007 4:20:33 PM
The ads are still playing as of last night, so don't know what they meant when they said they were no longer showing them.
I saw one on Comedy Central. HOWEVER, the commercial ended with the kiss and the realization. The aftermath was no shown.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 6, 2007 4:29:00 PM
"as they just backed up the sterotype of homophobia in sports and even more so, homophobia in the black community."
More 'those bad blacks!' fingerwaving again.
When Paris and Nikki Hilton are filmed using the word "faggot" several times, it says nothing about homophobia in the white community.
When two white sons of a wealthy white real estate seller on "The Real Housewives of Orange County" use the word "faggot" and their white mother doesn't bat an eye, it says nothing about homophobia in the white community.
Ted Haggard's white Evangelical flock's homophobia says nothing about the white community.
The Pope's stance on homosexuality says nothing about the white community.
The homophobic white ad execs (and they are white) who came up with that ad say nothing about the white community.
It's only when black football players or a black actor who acts in a homophobic manner that some idiot--take a bow, JJ--has to comment on homophobia in "the black community."
Posted by: SGR | Feb 6, 2007 4:35:01 PM
The answer to offensive speech isn't censorship, but more speech. What the busybodies protesting this should have demanded, and what Mars Incorporated/Masterfoods should've done is to post another ending showing the two mechanics coming to grips with their latent homosexual fudge loving tendencies, and making out in a vat of chocolate.
Seriously, folks, it's far more important whether or not Masterfoods/Mars offers the same benefits to same-sex partners, and protect their employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, than what some ad campaign says. Actions > Words.
Posted by: Perceive | Feb 6, 2007 4:39:39 PM
Showing two guys kissing and then saying they have to do something manly, suggesting that being gay isn't manly, isn't offensive? Sorry, but it is. I don't care if that's the mentality of "rednecks and garage-types." We should not just roll over and ignore this type of ignorance and homophobia.
I'll guarantee you that if it had been a white woman and a black man kissing by accident, and the white woman pulled away and said, "Oh my god! I just kissed a black man! I have to pour anti-freeze down my throat to get rid of the nasty germs!!!" people would be up in arms about it. Why should this be any different?
And furthermore, the spokesperson from Mars says the ad was never meant to be offensive or homophobic. You can't tell me that a room full of marketing executives, while discussing the concept for this ad, didn't ever think it might be offensive or viewed as homophobic. Not ONE of them brought it up? It never even crossed their minds? Give me a break! They knew exactly what they were doing, and it's time we (gays) start making our voices heard and stop allowing crap like this!
It makes me so sad/mad to hear gay people say we should just get over things like this. No the hell wonder we don't have equal rights! It seems that half of the gay population doesn't WANT them or think we deserve them. I'm beginning to think the far-right isn't the problem; we are our OWN enemy!
Posted by: JohnnyB | Feb 6, 2007 4:44:28 PM
Acting disgusting while watching 2 men (especially ugly men like those) kiss is not homophobic. If it had been 2 chicks making out, most gay guys probably would be making "eww" faces too.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 6, 2007 4:44:29 PM
"Feedback from our target consumers has been positive".......... That pretty much repulses me...
I'll remember that comment the next time I'm craving some M&M's. I just think that when you are pouring thousands of dollars into a marketing campaign you should consider all of us viewers, not just the target market. Maybe they could have come up with something a little less divisive.
Posted by: Greg | Feb 6, 2007 4:47:41 PM
Cross posted from the previous thread because some of the trolls have migrated here:
Thanks Zeke and JT for keeping the posters here honest by explaining the slippery slope of homophobia. It begins with a supposedly funny mass market commercial that creates a permissive culture of homophobia, escalates into homophobic slurs in the workplace (a la Isaiah Washington) and too often culminates in physical attacks (like that reported in Iowa where two 19yr olds assaulted a 16 yr. old gay boy).
Rather than posting here I asked several friends and relatives (and I have 85 first cousins on one side of my family) in several states to log on to the Mars website and express their displeasure at this offensive ad.
As you noted, it worked. In fighting the small things (as some have derided us) we have been able to curtail this expression of homophobia at the earliest stages. Do not wait until the ugliest and most physically dangerous expression of homophobia if you can stop it at inception.
I repeat my now standard mantra: I do not give a rat's ass if you like me or my gay brethren but I will not let you disrespect us or denigrate our families.
Zeke, JT, RB, Leland, my brothers, My hundreds of cousins (literally--long, cold nights on the ranch in New Mexico without television until the mid-50s!) and friends were just as incensed at this advert as were we and thankful that I alerted them to the website where they could voice their displeasure. They would not have gone to the site to view the other and even more homophobic alternatives or reaction shots. If the worst thing we are called is whiney for standing up for our right to exist as gay men unthreatened by verbal and physical assualts, then I say wear it with pride. I cannot adequately express how proud I am of you for your untiring willingness to defend yourselves and your families against the Matts (shorthand for ignorant homophobic bigoted cowards)of the world. Namaste.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 6, 2007 4:54:59 PM
>>It's only when black football players or a black actor who acts in a homophobic manner that some idiot--take a bow, JJ--has to comment on homophobia in "the black community."
Actually if you look at public opinion polls you would see that African Americans hold much more conservative views on homosexuality and gay rights than white Americans. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that homophobia is a much larger problem among Blacks in America than whites.
Is it the case that EVERY heterosexual African American is homophobic? No.
But taken as a group, homophobic attitudes are much more prevalent among African Americans than white Americans. This is a fact not racist conjecture.
Posted by: LightningLad | Feb 6, 2007 5:02:13 PM
Too bad Matthew Shepard could not move on with a little chuckle when he was attacked and left to die.
Here are some of the brands owned by the wingnut family that owns Mars...goodbye forever to EVER buying those candies, especially at Halloween, and all the other unhealthy JUNK foods which they have to sell with homophobic, violent "jokes."
Here's their list of poisons.
(snip)
The company makes such worldwide favorites as M&M's, Snickers, and the Mars bar. Its other products include 3 Musketeers, Dove, Milky Way, Skittles, Twix, and Starburst sweets; Combos and Kudos snacks; Uncle Ben's rice; and pet food under the names Pedigree, Sheba, and Whiskas. Mars also makes drink vending equipment and electronic automated payment systems. The Mars family (including siblings and retired company CEO Forrest Mars Jr., chairman John Franklyn Mars, and VP Jacqueline Badger Mars) owns the highly secretive firm, making the family one of the richest in the US.
Posted by: bambambam | Feb 6, 2007 5:10:12 PM
It's astonishing to me that anybody could think these moronic and nihilistic ads were in any way funny.
Posted by: Joseph | Feb 6, 2007 5:10:36 PM
Posted by: SGR |
That was a brilliant comeback answer to JJ's statement. Bravo.
And aww at the ads being pulled..but I must give it to you guys! Hopefully this will demonstrate just how much power we have individually, and together as a community. use it wisely..and let's go get em.
Posted by: Da | Feb 6, 2007 5:12:27 PM
Interestingly the ad producers contacted GLAAD a few weeks back and set up a meeting with them to get feed back on these ads. They set a date but then the producers cancelled the meeting a day or two before it was to take place.
They knew the ad was going to cause a lot of controversy and they knew it would be offensive to a lot of gay people. That's why they originally sought out GLAAD's opinion and also why the subsequently decided against getting it.
They obviously weighed their options and decided that offending the gay community in order to humor 18-24 year old straight males was an acceptable trade off.
Peceive, I agree with your first sentence 100%. However, I don't understand why you refer to people who did just that, and offered "more speech" as "busy body protestors".
Is protesting and speaking one's mind NOT "more speech"?
Do you find protest to be an unacceptable form of speech?
It seems to me that consumers protesting the public statements of a corporation, that depends upon them for their existence, is the epitome of challenging speech with more speech.
In my opinion this ad could have been much more funny, much more effective and much less offensive with just a little bit more thought being put into what happened after their lips came together.
For example, their wives/girlfriends could have walked in on them in mid lip lock and they would have been left to explain that they weren't cheating on them, they were JUST sharing a Snickers.
I have no doubt that that would have appealed to the 18-24 straight male crowd just as effectively but without offending a sizeable portion of their gay customers.
Would that not have been a win/win situation for them? And isn't THAT the real goal of such an ad?
I know if I was spending a couple million dollars for a 60 second Superbowl spot, I'd make damn sure that I made an ad that appealed to as many people as possible while at the same time striving to offend as few potential customers as possible.
Regardless of if someone gives a flip about being labeled homophobic or not, that just seems to make good business sense.
Even the most homophobic of ad designers should understand that.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 6, 2007 5:27:33 PM
I agree completely with JohnnyB.
Posted by: Fernando | Feb 6, 2007 5:39:37 PM
These are the reps at the ad company that made the ads:
https://www.tbwachiat.com/NewYork/index.html
Business Development: david.jenkins@tbwachiat.com
Public Relations: jeremy.miller@tbwaworld.com
Tell them how you feel about their work
Posted by: matt | Feb 6, 2007 5:49:21 PM
Acting disgusting while watching 2 men (especially ugly men like those) kiss is not homophobic. If it had been 2 chicks making out, most gay guys probably would be making "eww" faces too.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 6, 2007 4:44:29 PM
Dude, you are so damn wrong. I have never met a gay man who was grossed or freaked out by seeing 2 girls kiss. To a gay guy, it's nothing really. And I do know some straight guys who truly are not bothered by seeing 2 guys kiss either. It just does nothing for them. I think it has a lot to do with what you're exposed to and what you're taught. I think many "straight" guys feel they HAVE to be grossed out or else they would be perceived as gay, and you can't tell me homophobia has nothing to do with that. Imagine if those football players' reactions were totally different, like seeing the 2 guys kiss was no big deal to them. I guarantee many of their fans would be puzzled by their more "gay-friendly" reactions, and a lot of rumors and crap would start. I mean let's face it, I think football/sports fans are as or even more homophobic than then players themselves.
Posted by: _____ | Feb 6, 2007 5:59:37 PM
AND GLAAD BLEW IT AGAIN!!
Anyone catch the lame ED of GLAAD Neil Log Cabin G. on CNN today around 3:55 pm EST he was lobbed a question if he found the ad campaign homophobic "as some have called it"...and he couldn't answer...he didn't know!!! Now one can argue that the ad that was aired certainly was dancing close to homophobia but the rest of the web site--HELL YEAH
NEIL WHO PAYS YOUR SALARY?
Posted by: MCnNYC | Feb 6, 2007 6:12:32 PM
SGR | Feb 6, 2007 4:35:01 PM
LOL. perfectly said.
Posted by: johnosahon | Feb 6, 2007 6:18:31 PM
Gay is the new black.
It's okay to call us faggots, write discrimination into Constitution against us, fire us for being gay, toss us out of our homes for being gay, deny us equal rights and to hang us on fences and kill us. It's okay for the POTUS to tell the world we are second class citizens.
Haven't you heard? It's okay to treat gays as if they are nothing. Until we stand up and hold our heads high, we ARE nothing.
Gay is the new black!
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2007 6:20:43 PM
Matt, never let it be said that I don't give credit where credit is due.
That was an excellent suggestion.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 6, 2007 6:22:28 PM
"Actually if you look at public opinion polls you would see that African Americans hold much more conservative views on homosexuality and gay rights than white Americans."
And I'm sure you know 79.854028903% of polls are made up, right? Polls can be twisted and manipulated. Not saying they aren't to be trusted, but that one should be wary of them. Though, it's not like you actually posted these "polls."
Homophobia is a problem in general and shouldn't be confined to be more prevalent in only one community.
The ads were okay, it's the player's reactions to the ads that was the offensive part.
Posted by: Seann | Feb 6, 2007 7:10:01 PM
While I am not thrilled by the ad and don't think it's very funny, I can't say I'm a big fan of the idea of cheering on censorship like this, either. After all, imagine an ad that gets taken off the air because the Christian right declares it offensive? We'd be all over that. If we subscribe to the idea that people can't think for themselves and must only be shown concepts that we personally find acceptable, we give license to other groups to do the same.
Posted by: Dave | Feb 6, 2007 7:46:48 PM
I thought the first two ads were funny and the 2nd two were in very poor taste.
That said, I still can't get over the vids of player reactions being posted. That to me, reeks of more than a simple marketing ploy.
The ads are down and I rarely eat their shitty candy anyway, time to move on I guess
Posted by: moby | Feb 6, 2007 8:44:19 PM
I've seen quite a few people here use the word censorship where it doesn't apply. Censorship is when the govt forces a private individual or entity to block speech. Censorship is not when people protest what they find to be offensive. If that's censorship then you have a bizzare definition of free speech. The last time I checked- it's not one side where the offensive speech is okay, but the reaction to the speech (in the form of threatened boycotts are not okay). Indeed, what the people here did was also free speech. That is what is meant by the concept, not that you get to say whatever you want without people not liking it.
Posted by: akaison | Feb 6, 2007 9:40:29 PM
By "pulled", Mars must have meant "continue to air shortened version on television. Often."
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 6, 2007 11:52:35 PM
The website is now down. YAY. That's 1 for us vs. 1,000's... no, 1,000,000's for them.
I found the actual commercial humourous and in my own writings elsewhere gave it an award for being one of the best of the night. That was before I saw the Snickers website and became repulsed as most of us did.
I will most likely be slammed for this but I must say...
Did anyone notice that of player reactions the only caucasian was Grossman, QB of the Chicago Bears, who only chuckled as I recall. He had nothing negative to say.
The rest were black players. Many of the comments here are about the homophobia of the black community. To say all black people are homophobic would be stereotyping, but I would definitely argue that the majority of blacks, especially athletes, are indeed.
Posted by: GaYToR | Feb 7, 2007 12:03:12 AM
Of course this commercial was homophobic. I saw it live and was dumbfounded by how offensive it was. The implication, as always is that two men who kiss can't be 'manly'. Luckily I didn't get to see the website, and given that I can't make any judgments there. What was even more offensive to me was Masterfoods excuse for an apology in their press release - 'humor is subjective'. Had the subject of that humor been some stereotype of black people there would have been no subjectivity about it.
Posted by: Greg | Feb 7, 2007 1:25:11 AM
(homophobia is a learned behavior),
That is a profound and truthful statement for sure. No one is born homophobic or bigoted. They are taught. That's why it's important to get another behavior/knowledge out there, the knowledge that everyone has right to live their live free from fear, free to love, free to just be. It's a sad world that we've survived this long yet the hate still lingers.
Back to the commercial; saw it "live", my reaction was "dayum, that was offensive". Until this society realizes that mocking what someone "is" (as opposed to the common belief that gay is a choice) this kind of stuff will continue. And it majorly sucks.
Posted by: donte | Feb 7, 2007 2:12:16 AM
"I have never met a gay man who was grossed or freaked out by seeing 2 girls kiss. To a gay guy, it's nothing really."
Posted by: _____ |
I'm not freaked out, but I'm generally not keen on seeing two (straight) girls kissing, as they're portrayed in our heterosexist culture ie The L Word..To me it's just one step above porn, and it represents nothing about the reality of lesbian women out there..
And I know this because I've seen a reality series called Out of The City which features real lesbian stories, and man they were hot!!...I even felt a bit jealous cause some of them were looking like cute boys and I wanted to be in a sandwich between them lol.
I think there are natural 'dynamics' to gay relationships that mainstream culture has not yet understood, and a lot of the incomprehension and disgust may arise from there.
Posted by: Da | Feb 7, 2007 4:27:52 AM
The commercial by itself was hardly offensive. It was the website, with the homophobic reactions of the players that was truly offensive. This fact and point has not been present in any of the mainstream media's attention to this issue. And that is the problem. They don't care about the underlying cause of offense cause it didn't orignially generate any income. That says more than anything about out plight against mainstream America. Does being gay in America generate any income for the big corporations? I say no. And so they agree and air homophobic bullshit.
Where can I spend a dollar and be proud, nationally?
Posted by: domo | Feb 7, 2007 6:21:58 AM
"But taken as a group, homophobic attitudes are much more prevalent among African Americans than white Americans. This is a fact not racist conjecture."
Bullshit. Do a poll of white Evangelicals and see what they think of homosexuals. White Roman Catholics. Do a poll of white Nascar fans and you'll get more of the same. Same for White Republicans. Irish-Americans (who, in New York, still won't let gay Irish-American groups march in the St. Patrick's Day parade). Russian-Americans. See how homofriendly Italian-Americans in Bensonhurst are, why don't you. The 18-24 year olds Snickers says gave positive feedback to the ad are no doubt white.
Here's the fact that racists can't get through their thick heads: there is no singular "black community." Some blacks are homophobic. Just like some whites. It's not a special black religion that preaches homophobia. It's religion, period. Homophobia isn't worse because it comes from a black person. It's the same damn problem that infects all groups.
It's only when the homophobe under the spotlight happens to be black that some idiotic commentator has to tell us all that "the black community" is homophobic.
Yet you never see the same for stories involving white homophobes. The pub owner in today's story about Barrymore pie? White. The four teens who lured that Michael Sandy to his death? White. And on and on.
Here's what's racist: constantly putting down all blacks (in the form of "the black community") for being homophobes every time you come across a story that has a homophobe who is black. Refusing to see homophobia from blacks as the same as homophobia from whites. Never seeing the actions of a few whites as representative of the whole race, but always seeing the actions of a few blacks as representative of "the black community."
If we really wanted to keep score, we could compare all the instances of black homophobes--the football players, the actors who use the word "faggot"--with the actions of white legislators through the ages. Trust me, if there's any group that is so strident in their homophobia through the ages that they enacted laws to put down homosexuals, it is whites--who had the power and the will.
From the tortured Ted Haggards, Mark Foleys, and Clay Aikens of this country (who learned to fear being openly gay from their "white community") to right wing conservatives to the GOP to many stories of white men killing gay men and later using the gay panic defense, there are a hell of a lot of "facts" to show that homophobic attitudes are more prevalent among white Americans than any other race.
But you don't see us bringing that up every time there's a story about a homophobe who happens to be white.
Posted by: SGR | Feb 7, 2007 9:55:08 AM
Dumb ad, not funny, and borderline offensive. It reminds me of the scene in Planes, Trains and Automobiles where John Candy and Steve Martin have to share a motel room bed; they wake up in the morning and realize they are in each others arms, then quickly jump out of bed and act "manly" by talking about sports. I do buy Snickers from time to time but I think it's time to find a new candy.
Posted by: phil | Feb 7, 2007 9:56:31 AM
To say all black people are homophobic would be stereotyping, but I would definitely argue that the majority of blacks, especially athletes, are indeed.
-->That's it. I am done with this site. Now, the MAJORITY of blacks are homophobic? Who comes up with these "facts"? This site continues to be skewed with white men spweing their "white is right" attitude. Even IF more blacks are homophobic (and that is not true), so WHAT? Blacks make up less than 13% of the population, so even if 7% of blacks hated gays and lesbians, that is an incredibly small percentage of people, and blacks are not even the major decision makers in this country. Be more worried about the homophobic white men who make the major decisions, whether it be in sports, media, business, or politics. But, I guess if you are Brazilian (who are defined as people of color), then you are okay. I mean, Latin men are NEVER homophobic, right? Right? I quite this bitch, and all of you pseudo-activists who are more concerned with people who look like need to get it together. I hope we will never meet.
Posted by: Jared | Feb 7, 2007 11:01:16 AM
I have to agree with Domo above. It was the website that was truly offensive, much more so than the original commercial, which was merely pretty stupid and implausible, even by advertising standards. The response to the campaign was more about the offensive website, which took things to a darker, sicker level. This should have been made clear by the media in reporting the protests.
For those of you who mourn the removal of what you think was a funny commercial, don't worry. The advertising industry isn't going away any time soon. The next moronic, tasteless ad is just 30 seconds away. You'll soon get your fix.
Posted by: JT | Feb 7, 2007 11:45:34 AM
I think alot of individuals have overreacted over the ads themselves. What I took away from the ads are two straight men who are soo lame-brained that they believe the remedy to an unintentional kiss is to do something "manly" (stupid). I think this says more about dumb ass straight men than some type of insult to homosexuals. I will agree that the reactions of the football players wasnt necessary. Why does the average person need the reaction of a straight football player when its self explainitory. The reactions werent clever or funny and simply a waste of space.
I dont believe any one group is above being joked about. I think I can dissassociate a comedy that is meant to insult and attack from that which illustrates and exaggerates. When we become soo sensitive to comedy that uses some homosexual tone yet doesnt promote us as "good good good" or "equal" and it pisses us off I think we have become waaaay too anal.
Posted by: Toto | Feb 7, 2007 12:09:36 PM
Toto:
When we have the power to live our lives with equal (not special) rights -
When we can walk down any street without the fear that someone might bash us simply because we draw breath -
When religious dogma does not turn people into mindless sheep who believe that gay people are morally inferior -
When being "grossed out" by seeing two men kissing is perceived by the majority as immature rather than perfectly understandable -
- I'll laugh my f**king a** off.
Promise.
Posted by: JT | Feb 7, 2007 12:28:39 PM
I frequently defend "straight media" in these cases because I think gay activists are often too sensitive. Yet when I saw this spot, I did a double-take. It portrays the act of two men kissing as so disgusting that it warrants violence with a wrench, drinking motor oil, or having to do "something manly" (because of course, gay men are anything but). These are the kinds of media that make guys think twice about coming out. I think this is clearly homophobic; a reckless laugh at the expense of gays. And I am rather perplexed by the many in our community who have defended these spots -- there can't be that many Log Cabin Republicans out there.
PS: The contorted face Rex Grossman made when viewing the spots is the same face I made watching his performance on Superbowl Sunday. Now THAT was disgusting. As for the other featured players' reactions, well, knock me over with a feather.
Posted by: Joe | Feb 7, 2007 1:45:25 PM
SGR and Jared, I thought it was pretty obvious that the post by Gaytor was one of a troll ("YAY. That's 1 for us vs. 1,000's... no, 1,000,000's for them.")..Just don't pay attention to it, simpy put.
Also guys, let's keep our minds focused on the goal, the bigger picture shall we say, and take note of the noise we've managed to create in just a couple of months (TR Knight, Mark Lund, Yalegate, and now the Snickers ads)..I was just on blogsearch and found no less then 250 blogs had covered this story since it popped here a couple of days ago. That's huge!! It's thousands more that are discussing the topic on youtube, and weighing in, good or bad on their homophobia vs acceptance. I think Andy's blog has been doing an amazing bringing a lot of these issues to the table and it's def an exciting time for us...bottom line, keep talking and making noise.
Posted by: Da | Feb 7, 2007 2:26:54 PM
Zeke, DA, Joe, JT, Donte, Matt, Rudy, Leland, you guys are my heroes.
Jared, SGR - It's disappointing that there are gay racists who don't even realize they're being racist, but please stay. We need your voices. We're all in it together, even if sometimes others forget that.
To those who don't see that this ad was homophobic and contributes to the inequality we face, consider this: If any of you had seen this ad when you were too young to know how to think critically about the messages bombarding you from the media, would it have contributed to your decision to come out or to your decision to remain closeted? Would it have contributed to your young friends' acceptance or revulsion about two guys kissing, let alone loving each other? As others have said, if this ad had used women or blacks as the object of revulsion, wouldn't it be clear that it was offensive and inappropriate?
The fact that we are taking this company to task for this message sends a signal to other Americans that gay people expect to be treated with the same respect afforded to everyone else . The fact that this ad was displayed during one of the most iconic and VISIBLE American events makes this one of the most opportune times to stand up for ourselves.
For us to be afforded the same rights and protections that other Americans enjoy, we need to learn from women and minorities by making it socially unacceptable to display prejudice against us, especially those displays that seem "minor" by today's standards. Once it becomes socially unacceptable to be a bigot against gays, that social disapproval will eventually be codified into law.
Until that day comes, making a stink about this "innocuous" commercial sends a clear message to America that we demand to be treated with respect; perhaps it will also open their eyes to other forms of homophobia which are so commonplace that we fail to even register them as homophobia.
Undoubtedly, there will be those who - regardless of sexual orientation - think gays are too sensitive. But by continuing to be "too sensitive" about even the "little" things, we will eventually create an environment where it is unacceptable to publicly display any bigotry against gays, just as we have created an environment where it is unacceptable to publicly display any bigotry against women or minorities.
Once that becomes the standard, we will have raised the bar so high on what constitutes acceptable behavior towards gays that the "things that really matter" - affording gays equal rights in marriage, housing, employment - will seem so self-evident to most Americans that voting for legislation granting us equal rights and protections will be a no-brainer.
Posted by: Pierre | Feb 7, 2007 7:17:04 PM
Pierre:
BRAVO!
Posted by: JT | Feb 7, 2007 8:06:04 PM
Obviously some people are would like to pretend that there are groups of people out there that are NOT "more against" homosexuality then others. Well, I would tell them to do some research and take some college classes, esp. classes taught by gay black professors who will assure them of the homophobia in the african-american community. Same thing goes for the latino community. What it boils down to is usually religious views, as the majority of african americans proclaim a christian faith and latino americans proclaim a catholic(christian) faith. This was not meant to turn into a race debate, but as a gay male with many friends of all colors and backgrounds, I can assure you that minority communities are NOT AS accepting as majority communites. The bigger pictures comes down to education factors. African Americans are, sadly, usually not as educated as whites...which leads many not understand the whole homosexual issue because of their lack of educational opportunity. Now don't take offense to this, or you are only kidding yourself about the depths of homophobia. It's a lot deeper then the color of ones skin.
Posted by: JJ | Feb 7, 2007 8:33:32 PM
Zeke, DA, Joe..you guys are my heroes.
Posted by: Pierre |
Best damn words I heard all week!..Thank you Pierre :)
And I must say you really got me thinking with that eloquent post you just wrote. It made me see things from your perspective as someone who decried the ads -which went above my head as I said before- but I definitively see why you did not approve of them. So thanks for voicing it out so brilliantly.
Posted by: Da | Feb 8, 2007 2:11:01 AM
Back at you Pierre! I copied and distributed your eloquqent summation of why calling the bigots on the seeming "little things" matters. You are helping to make us better people and improving society.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 8, 2007 7:27:12 AM
http://sexxearch.info x
Posted by: Zmajrjx | Jun 3, 2007 2:08:41 PM