08/07/2008
Mr. T on O'Reilly Factor: I am not a Homophobic Gay Basher
On Wednesday night's O'Reilly Factor, Mr. T defended himself and the homophobic Snicker's speedwalker ad pulled by Mars:
"To whom it may concern. Let my record speak for me. I am not homophobic. I am not a gay basher. I did not say anything that was negative nor derogatory nor disrespectful nor malicious, and I would never do a commercial if I thought it was offensive to anyone. Bill, speedwalking is an Olympic sport and that's the way speedwalkers walk. And the phrase 'get some nuts' refers to Snicker's candy bar having more peanuts. In the movie Rocky III I call Rocky Balboa a disgrace to boxing because he wouldn't fight a real man. There was no problem nor no complaints. March 31, 19896, the first Wrestlemania, I called this wrestler Roddy Roddy Piper a disgrace to wrestling because he was a dirty wrestler. No problem. No complaints. On the A-Team, I called the bad guys a disgrace because they was harassin' helpless people. No problems. No complaints. I have been pityin' fools for 28 years Bill, and it was never personal. Why didn't somebody talk to the actor who played speedwalker? He will tell you about my character."
While the ad is clearly homophobic, is there a way to test the legitimacy of the complaints? Shoot the ad again. This time use the most masculine man you can find, and don't focus on the swishy ass. Would the ad get its point across using the same script? Does anybody think the phrase "get some nuts" refers just to peanuts and not testicles? I don't think so. It clearly only works when effeminate stereotypes are present, stereotypes that have been used time and time again to defame gays.
Watch the O'Reilly clip, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 5:30 PM EST by Andy Towle in Advertising, Bill O'Reilly, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I pity the fact that I think Mr. T is probably not homophobic and generally seems like a nice guy. But he also clearly doesn't have the smarts or at least desire to recognize that this ad could be deemed offensive.
It's a stupid ad.
Posted by: Paul R | Aug 8, 2008 2:26:04 AM
Short shorts are not gay and neither is shashaying or whatever, if someone does that you can't automatically call them gay; that's stereotyping. The ad is for snickers and it used Mr. T...what did you want him to do hug the speedwalker? No Mr. T is a hardass. I can see how it COULD be interpreted as homophobic but if you're reading that deeply into a candy commercial then there's obviously something wrong.
Posted by: kurt | Aug 8, 2008 4:29:51 AM
The ad is very exercisephobic. Why can't they leave people alone that want to exercise and not eat junk food. The candy industry is feeling it in their waist. They clearly don't want the suburban fool working out. What's next, all the fast food chains moving out of the suburbs. They're seeing the end of fat people everywhere and they're clearly not happy.
Posted by: Almond Joy | Aug 8, 2008 7:50:42 AM
KURT -- that's right, short shorts and sashaying are not in themselves "gay", and to say so is stereotyping -- WHICH IS WHAT THIS AD DOES. How do you not get this? This ad equates speedwalking/sashaying explicitly with being effeminate. If it did not the line "Get some NUTS" would have NO play on words and would not be there. Most people's problem with gay people is related to gender - how are gays usually stereotyped? As effeminate sashaying screaming "non-men". The ad is clearly homophobic. One does not need to STATE "gay = bad" to be homophobic (or, perhaps more accurately, phobic-of-people-breaking-gender-norms). To which I might be only slightly peeved, except the ad THEN implies that if you see such a femme man, IT WOULD BE FUN TO SHOOT HIM.
Posted by: Strepsi | Aug 8, 2008 8:57:06 AM
I can see both sides of the arguement. My question is that the Big Sketch Show on Logo does stuff like this all the time. Remember the "Bear in my backyard sketch". Also Saturday Night Live and Mad TV have been making fun of gays and lesbians for a long time. Why isn't this deemed as offensive as well?
Posted by: Matt | Aug 8, 2008 8:59:44 AM
Matt - good question. On Logo, I'd imagine it is intended to poke fun at and deconstruct stereotypes (those making the program and those watching it are probably gay, and know very well how ridiculous and homophobic the content is, as do their viewers - we hope). When you are presenting something stereotypically gay to a non-gay audience that is not perceptive to homophobia and stereotype, it is quite irresponsible since it only provides affirmative feedback on their existing homophobic behavior and the irony (if intended) goes totally unnoticed.
Yes Kurt, I get what stereotyping is - that is what the ad is doing. The ad is playing on existing stereotypes about gay men - people who BELIEVE the stereotypes about gay men will see the speedwalker as gay. The creators of this ad are aware of this (which is precisely why they chose the speedwalker and why the ad is so offensive). That is why the "real man" and "get some nuts" are included in the same context.
Tell me this: Why would Mr. T (or anyone, for that matter) think someone speedwalking is not a real man or needs to get some nuts? You could say it's because speedwalkers look funny, but other things that look funny (I think the long jump looks pretty ridiculous) aren't considered un-manly. You could say it's because the man isn't doing a "real" sport that requires lots of physical exertion, but golf and nascar racing require little physical exertion and society doesn't those sports are un-manly. Get the connection?
Posted by: Scientitian | Aug 8, 2008 9:32:21 AM
Nothing is put on commercial television that doesn’t appeal to some kind of base emotion. If television only presented facts no one would watch it. This advertisement was put through numerous focus groups before it was aired. It made the focus group participants comfortable about their prejudices and made them associate that comfort with candy bars. Mission accomplished Snickers.
Posted by: ggreen | Aug 8, 2008 9:34:41 AM
The fact that gay bashing incidents have come to a complete halt since the ad was pulled is proof enough that it was homophobic.
Posted by: crispy | Aug 8, 2008 10:00:39 AM
The irony is that stereotypically, real men don't eat candy bars, they are for kids.
Posted by: anon | Aug 8, 2008 10:33:36 AM
"I am not homophobic."
In my experience, the only people who ever have to say that are homophobic. If you're not homophobic, you're never in a position where you have to defend yourself.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Aug 8, 2008 10:34:47 AM
Wow...y'all stayed away from "race" on this thread.
Sometimes there's God--so quickly, as Miss Dubois said.
Thanks.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 8, 2008 10:36:42 AM
Hello,
I didn't think that the commercial was homophobic and I admit that I did laugh. I would have liked to see how the world reacted if the walker was A. American or Asian though. Have you seen a man speedwalking? It is kind of comical, I laugh every time I see ANYONE with that face and straight legs. I know.... I know but, I guess I'm on the side of "lighten up".
The commercial is violent, that was the one thing that made me cringe. He is shooting a big gun at someone. I was thinking more about gun laws and the kind of acceptance of guns/gun access in our culture more than the speedwalker. But, it's Mr. T and he is a comedian. It looked like a Rambo spoof. I really was impressed at his response. I'm not sorry it is in the news, at least it is being discussed.
"The fact that gay bashing incidents have come to a complete halt since the ad was pulled is proof enough that it was homophobic."
I don't know about that one. I think there may be some checking to do about bashing statistics. I'd say it's still going strong and we can thank that ass Mr. McCain for in his stupid interview with G. Stephie. And if anyone corrects my grammar, I'm going to buy a Snickers, maybe 2.
Have a nice day out there. RB
Posted by: nycswish | Aug 8, 2008 10:55:20 AM
White Collar, my comment wasn't stupid it's true, as demonstrated by the many people who posted here saying that they didn't consider the ad homophobic. Like I said before, the homophobia in the ad is subjective. Just because you felt the need to act like and overreacting jackass who insults anyone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean everyone else did.
Posted by: Pekemo | Aug 8, 2008 12:04:48 PM
When Mr. T made the movie "DC Cab," he ceased being relevant in American pop culture (if he ever was).
Posted by: ATLsteve | Aug 8, 2008 1:08:30 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Let it go homos.
Posted by: thevegasstyleguy | Aug 8, 2008 1:21:51 PM
PEKEMO, that's a stupid retort. Common meanings exist, but you are arguing that they don't exist, and that's a stupid argument. The ad plays on common gay stereotypes, so to a reasonable person, it's not as subjective as you're making it out to be. Sorry, but many of the posters on this board seem incapable of even somewhat rigorous analysis, so the fact that some of those same posters agree with you isn't evidence that your point is true or well-reasoned. And the reason you're being insulted is because you keep making stupid arguments. People who make nothing but stupid arguments should be ridiculed. They're "time burglars".
Posted by: White Collar Boy | Aug 8, 2008 5:45:24 PM
Me thinks Mr. T protesteh too much... and that girly girly giggle he let out at the end... Hmmmm...
Posted by: jon | Aug 8, 2008 7:16:09 PM
WHITECOLLAR, all your doing is proving my statement true, by insulting people who don't agree with your opinion. I never said that common meanings don't exist, but just because they do doesn't mean everyone acknowledges them. And how is saying that not everyone agrees with you not making my point, especially when there are comments from other people saying so? If someone has a different view on something that you, it means they saw it in different terms. That's pretty much the definition of "subjective" and how deep am I making this argument? Some people saw it as homophobic, some, including me, didn't necessarily see it as such, that's pretty black and white to me. And besides, like KURT said, if you reading into a candy commercial this much, than something is wrong.
Posted by: PeKeMo | Aug 8, 2008 10:56:30 PM
Even if you take all of the gay subtext or innuendo out of the ad it's still pretty damn violent. A black guy shouting at a white guy to get some nuts??? While firing Snicker bullets at him from a machine gun? Hell, the whole ad is riddled with a violent subtext. And it's aimed at a guy that even if he isn't gay, looks pretty damn queer.
Either way the message is the same one - there's something wrong with this speedwalking dude and Mr. T is gonna take care of the problem.
Homophobic or not the ad implies violence and the black guy/white guy angle makes it even more insidious. Great, just what black guys need is one more reinforcement of the stereotype that they're all a bunch of violent thugs.
How would everyone be reacting if the guy with the machine gun was white and the speedwalker was black? Bet we'd be hearing some seriously different tunes. Go ahead Snickers, reverse the skin color of your characters and let it rip.
The ad is a giant piece of steaming excrement from every conceivable point of view. It's weird to see people defending it because it was so obviously designed to offend.
Posted by: Tom Clark | Aug 9, 2008 12:06:52 AM
No one has addressed perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this story: why in the world would Mr. T choose the O'Reilly factor as a forum for defending himself against charges of homophobia?
Tom Clark is right; there's really nothing to defend about this ad.
Posted by: Paul R | Aug 9, 2008 1:37:06 PM
PEKEMO, that's yet another really stupid argument. The point is that a reasonable person would indeed see the ads as playing on gay stereotypes. Just because you claim not to see those stereotypes does not mean that the ad is impossibly subjective and it's homophobia is indeterminate so we shouldn't criticize it. In this situation, it just means that you are kind of dense or unsophisticated or that you're playing dumb. Sorry, cultural relativist, but not all interpretations are equally valid. And it doesn't really require any deep concentration to see the homophobia in the ad. And the fact that it's an ad for a trivial item doesn't make it any less worthy of criticism. Most advertisements are selling trivial items, so you must mean that we should pretty much never criticize homophobic advertising. After numerous posts you still haven't come up with a logical reply. You've just added one illogical point after another. That's a very strong indicator of stupidity, and that's why I'm calling you out so harshly.
Posted by: White Collar Boy | Aug 10, 2008 1:42:16 PM
White Collar, from your past statements, you don't really have the right to state what is reasonable. My argument is simple, hell its not even an argument. Like I've said before, some people see the ad as homophobic, some don't. All your doing is needlessly complicating the subject. And what logical reply are you looking for?
I've made my statement which really doesn't require argument because it's clearly a fact. SOME PEOPLE DO NOT SEE THIS AD THE SAME WAY YOU DO!!! Why are you trying so hard to deny that fact? All you need to do is scroll up and see previous posts to confirm it. There is no argument here, and by continually insulting people who don't agree with you, all you're doing is making yourself out to be some immature psuedo-intellectual asshole.
You say that "not all interpretations are valid", so whose to say that your's is the only one with any validity ? At the end of the day, all your doing is bitching about a stupid candy commercial that hardly anyone saw and barely anyone is going to remember in a weeks time. Just because a speedwalker doesn't inspire images of homosexuality to me, doesn't mean I'm unintelligent, it just means that I don't think speedwalking = gay. And no matter how many times you call my posts "stupid", which is pathetic and immature in it's own right, I'm not going to equate speedwalking with being gay.
Maybe if you tried to submit your argument in a less bitchy, high-and-mighty attitude from the get-go, I'd be more inclined to take it into consideration. But since you decided to be an utter dick about it, your argument holds no weight with me.
Posted by: Pekemo | Aug 11, 2008 12:15:04 AM