Snickers mocks the premise of being gay as being "unmanly" on Super Bowl Ad

[Divine Discontent]

Slate magazine just had a breakdown of all the ads and I am grateful that the writer criticized Snickers for showing it was apparently still ok to use homophobia in an ad for laughs.

The problem was not the awkward kiss of two guys eating their way to the smooch, a la "Lady & the Tramp", with the candy bar, it was the after comments. "Quick, do something MANLY".

Nice thing for young gay teens to see and watch uncaring relatives and friends laugh at. People still don't get it. It's not the fact that humor can be derived from awkward accidental incidents where guys look like they're touching or kissing. It's the ensuing slam on gays being unmanly or being reflected upon as being "sissy". And this was voted by people as the best Snickers ad to show on the Super Bowl by people who watched it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0
http://www.snickers.com/contact.asp



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[Kagemusha]

1. Innocent question

Isn't it a mockery of over the top heterosexuality?

[orpupilofnature57]

3. That was my take.

[Solo_in_MD]

7. I took it as mocking homophobic insecure men...and it was pretty damn funny

Another thread on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x130398

[Divine Discontent]

9. check this out, and remember who's funding it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-promotes.html

I knew who was funding it, but I didn't know they showed the players reactions!!!! GGGGRRRRR and the other endings are aggravating (the beating one)

[triakis36]

21. I reacted the sameway as the blogger

It was stupid, but funny. That guys would do stupid things to protect their insecurities..but I was being too naive. The intended escalating reactions of the two mechanics after kissing definately made it clear that the jokes were on us. They were going to replay this commercial at NASCAR with an alternate ending, where either the mechanics beat the crap out of each other or commit suicide by drinking antifreeze. They are totally promoting violence against gays and worse suicide. I am glad GLAAD stepped in and put a stop to this.

[Zhade]

30. Geez, I'm glad they pulled it.

I work for DirecTV Sports, where we just landed a huge Nascar contract.

How the hell would I have felt running those ads? Like a traitor.

[Divine Discontent]

17. no, it was not. an understandable question if you really reach for it

but they used the embarrassment of straight guys appearing like gay guys, for the amusement of other straight guys to laugh at. I can imagine all the hoopla out in small communities when this commercial played, like in the small places I was raised... it was made to make people go "ewwww gross" and to make people say, "that snickers commercial" at the expense of my sexuality. I'm sorry you don't see why I would be upset, but as being a gay man (I have no idea your sexuality, but speaking for me) and having these kinds of "quick do something manly" BS jokes always done at our expense, you get pretty fed up with it after about the first 10,000 times. I respect that some non-malicious DU users do not understand our disgust, but perhaps when they read all that snickers had on their website and why we're offended, then it will be understood better.

Staight DUers typically don't enter the GLBT forums, some do, and I thank them, I need to pay the same respect occasionally to other forums to show my support for them when something happens in the news.

[ThomCat]

41. No.

Those guys were represented as "average joes" not as extremists. That commericial was supposed to appeal to their customers, not portray them as over the top.

I think it's obvious that the idea that this commerical is supposed to mock homophobia is a rationalization to defend homophobia.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Watching commercials should be done judiciously,or not at all

[MuseRider]

4. I thought the same thing

when I saw it this morning. Do something manly? Good grief but then again, it did make the manly thing look pretty darned stupid. Even though it could be seen as demeaning to all men I do think it was particularly insensitive to gay men.

Insensitive is probably not the best word. I like what Slate said, it was a slam. I know more manly gay men than manly straight men come to think of it but maybe that is my choice of friends. :shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

5. What is it about watching football that makes fans feel their masculinity/str8ness is in jeopardy?

[orpupilofnature57]

10. success by Osmosis.

[Ian David]

6. Oh, now they've done it. Snickers has pissed-off America Blog and TowlerRoad

I bet BlogActive is going to be on their case, too.

I seriously NEVER want to be on the bad side of those guys.

I'd rather have The FBI bust down my door than have AmericaBlog, TowlerRoad, and BlogActive after me.

But then again, if they WERE after me, I'd probably deserve it.

See:
Snickers Superbowl Web site promotes violence against gays and lesbians. Bears & Colts players react in disgust, on camera, to gays.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-promotes.html

[Divine Discontent]

8. WOW, thank you for this! n/t

[Rhythm]

18. yeah... hell hath no fury like John Aravosis when he gets rightfully pissed.

[DemKR]

11. Wow, and snickers is my fav candy. What to do?

[MuseRider]

12. I am so so sorry

for all the threads trying to make the point that you all are over reacting. I don't know what to say. It makes me sad and sick all at the same time. It also pisses me off more than anything I can think of. It isn't enough for some people that you do not have the same rights, they have to add ridicule to the mix. I am so sorry. :hug: :cry:

[Divine Discontent]

16. you are very kind to post that

half the people on DU are outraged with us. the other half, I guess have to have a lifelong bunch of late night comedy jokes made at their expense, along with the repeated commercials and shows where gay innuendo is used by straight people to make other straights feel embarrassed for appearing gay.

[ruggerson]

25. I really think it's whose ox is being gored

I usually find I am very sensitive to anything that demeans or subjugates women. Don't ask me why. And it pisses me off. But do I feel the same about something that demeans, say, Asians? Honestly, I don't feel it immediately in my gut. I recognize that it's not an automatic response with me, so I try to defer to whatever group feels maligned. The Biden comments, for example, did not really raise my ire, but I can see how black people would take offense from some of the language. And since THEY have lived those experiences and I have not, I defer to them.

[Zhade]

33. Imagine how I, a gay man, feel - I LAUGHED at that fucking commercial!

Laughed!

This was before I knew about the alternate endings and the bigoted NFL assholes' reactions...but they made me laugh at a hurtful slam at people like me.

I'm pretty damn upset about this.

[Ms. Toad]

35. That was my reaction, too.

Without the alternate endings and "the rest of the story," the ad seemed to me to be ridiculing homophobes. Self-mutilation is a WAY over the top reaction to an accidental kiss. The duo looked pretty ridiculous to me. Then again, as a lesbian, I'm used to thinking that it is ridiculous to be afraid of being gay/perceived as gay (and am used to having some good laughs at the expense of people who go overboard to avoid being perceived as gay).

I also recognized that it could just as easily be seen as reinforcing tired stereotypes, and immediately realized that asserting that it was homophobic would get the same reaction in GD that complaining about "man" coulter "jokes" would. Because it makes homophobes look ridiculous, explaining why the ad was inappropriate would be even harder than explaining why "man" coulter "jokes" are bad across because the belly laugh doesn't directly rely on the viewer's reaction to homosexuality - it projects that reaction onto two characters who are deserving of ridicule, so it is possible to laugh at their extreme reaction (as you and I did) even though I view homosexuality as a positive. The accompanying material (alternate endings and clips of reactions to the kiss) make it clear that Snickers also intended to legitimize the characters' disgust.

[jeffseadot]

13. *Shrug*

"... for showing it was apparently still ok to use homophobia in an ad for laughs."

I'd say it's entirely okay to use homophobia in an ad for laughs when the humor is at the expense of the homophobes. And for the record, that's exactly what this ad did.

[Divine Discontent]

14. oh really?

thanks for informing me as a gay man, and a vast majority of gay men who were offended, and our gay friendly friends here at DU, that we don't know what we're talking about and you, with your 9 posts, are letting us know that we are totally wrong for thinking differently, despite the whole website campaign for snickers being built around this ad and showing all the NFL players going, "oooh that's NOT right!" and making gross faces.

"for the record" ---- who says this crap? like they're the decider! related to shrubya?

[jeffseadot]

23. Graham crackers

I'm up to ten posts now... but yeah, that's hardly better. I forgot -- because I rarely express my opinions here, my opinions aren't valid. Silly me for wanting to get involved!

On the other hand, if entering double-digit post history somehow gives me enough authority to post on this prestigious board, I'd like to explain myself a little further. If not, then go ahead and ignore the following. Hell, for all I know, you've ignored everything up to this point except for choice bits that you can blow out of proportion to attack me with.

There are obviously mixed opinions about the commercial. My opinion, that it was making fun of homophobes and not homofolk, is mostly based on the reaction the two men had when they found out they might have kissed. Ripping out one's own chest hair is an incredibly over-the-top way to "do something manly." It's so over-the-top that I believe it was meant to be a joke. "Look at these fools," the commercial says to me, "they are so desperate to cling to their narrow-minded worldview that they are willing to do something really painful to themselves. Let us laugh together at these backwards-thinking men and the misery they have illogically caused themselves."

I'd also like to apologize to the board for trying to portray a matter of opinion as fact. We've all been hurt by people who make careers out of doing exactly that, and I'm sorry that I joined them.

[Divine Discontent]

26. sure thing.. thanks for your input, welcome to DU n/t

[ThomCat]

43. It has little to do with your low post count

and more to do with you presuming to dictate that your opinion is right and all of us GLBT people are wrong.

The apology is appreciated. But we're phenomenon will continue elsewhere on this thread. The majority always tries to dictate to the minority, and always in the majority's favor.

[TankLV]

15. Not. At. All.

The underlying premise is that's it's OK to make fun of gay people or people acting gay even accidentally.

Period.

And that there's STILL something wrong in acting gay.

Now let's have all the white people discuss when it's proper to use the word "nigger" as a white person and how black persons should "get over it"...

[ThomCat]

42. Funny, it's straight people who seem to think this.

Gay organizations and advocates have come out against this, and the vast majority of LGBT people here at DU who have commented on this have also come out against this.

So who's the better judge of whether something mocks gays, straight people who generally don't care about homophobia and have a vested interest in not seeing it, or the bulk of the GLBT community who have a vested interest in recognizing it and dealing with it?

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. I think really both POV's posted here are legit.

I think it is both homophobic and dismissive of homophobia at the same time.

A classic mixed message. Our corporate masters are not stupid.



>>>>Nice thing for young gay teens to see and watch uncaring relatives and friends laugh at.>>>>

No argument here.

OTOH, I'm thinking of the 'Nut 'N Honey" ads of about 10 yrs ago that LGBT groups successfully had pulled. The snickers ad is very reminiscent of this in tone and content . Very slight difference: the snickers ad goes just a *tad* further to lampoon the homophobic reaction of the principals.

Not much progress, ok. Not *quite* the same, either.

[justin899]

20. According to John the ad campaign has been pulled

but the reasons for their pulling it are unclear. One rumor (unsubstantiated) was that they received threats from homophobic activist groups who suffered from some delusion that it was a gay-positive commercial.

[mockmonkey]

22. Link about ad being pulled

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/70206012

[Divine Discontent]

27. ha

advertising geared to their core group of consumers, ha.. you mean, narrow minded teens and twenties who find anything relating to having "awkward gay humor" as hilarious.. nice Mars Inc... nice!

[ruggerson]

24. That's the one part that bugs me

it's a stupid ad, but I don't like the idea of young gay and lesbian teens having to see that shit on television and having it be one more piece of utter garbage society throws at them.

[Divine Discontent]

28. your thoughts echo my and MANY sentiments!

my friend told me that next night, Letterman had TWO gay jokes in his opening (non related to this).. a lot of straight people do not understand that they hear a dozen gay jokes about either gay people (who are out or not), about people appearing gay, or the like and it really gets on you as a gay person... so sick of it... I want to make it as uncool to make pointless gay jokes without a purpose as it is to make jokes about other people's differences... making a commercial about guys kissing for laughs for sports fans is so mocking of gays... if you don't get it, wake up.

[Zhade]

29. At first I didn't understand, since I saw the one ad on tv at work.

Then I read about the OTHER endings. Okay. I get it now.

What I didn't appreciate was being told today that I was a sell-out and support hatred FOR MY OWN FUCKING GROUP - all based on the assumptions of posters who didn't know I had only seen the one ad, at work, while distracted.

That's bullshit. My identity as a gay man was questioned because I didn't agree with the posters, based on my incomplete information. I resent that kind of treatment from alleged allies.

So, in conclusion, before jumping someone, learn the whole story first. (Not directed at the OP, just had to rant, because the thread wherein I was attacked was locked and I can't defend myself there.)

EDIT: resent it? No, it's more - I was wounded by it. I only accepted myself 5 years ago for what I am, and I get this kind of treatment from people who should fucking know better. It HURTS.

[Divine Discontent]

31. you are awesome! I went from being slightly offended to majorly offended

when I heard and saw the REST of the campaign.

you take care, remember people can overreact on the net, we all should get a chance to apologize, and I hope whoever really went off on you sees your comment. you are a good man.

[ruggerson]

32. Thanks for posting this

there is a kind of vicious pack mentality I've noticed from time to time when these issues arise. MondoeJoe, in another thread, was attacked for not thinking the ad was a big deal. His very credibility was attacked, by both straights and gays. As if straights had a right to attack ANYONE over this issue.

FWIW, my partner, who has pretty keen radar as far as homophobia is concerned, did not think the ad was a big deal. He thought it was stupid and made fun of the homophobes. I disagree with him, but the fact that he sees it that way is perfectly legitimate. It doesn't make him less sensitive or uninformed. It doesn't make him less concerned about gay bashing or homophobia. He just reacted differently to it.

There is a doctrinaire rigidity here at times that is disturbing and, imho, counter productive. We're all human beings and we all react differently to different events and we should be allowed the freedom to do so without such heavyhanded condemnation.

[Zhade]

34. I think it's self-defense. Let's face it, the sports world really IS homophobic.

I'm a part of it, through my job - and up until tonight, I never really reflected how the job I took before I accepted myself as gay conflicts with my identity. It's not comfortable here tonight, realizing this.

I think that, had there not been the rest of the campaign, the chest-hair ad could have been dismissed as maybe just a poorly-done, thoughtless joke. The rest of the campaign makes it clear it was not as such, and I'm glad they pulled it.

Thanks to you, and thematryred above, for your kind words.

[mondo joe]

36. You're not the only one. In GD I was accused of making up my lesbian friends

so I'd have a more "gay" opinion, and told I was dismissive of homophobia --- by HETEROSEXUALS!

I'm so done with the pack mentality.

[ThomCat]

44. In their defense

you do dismiss homophobia. You're not exactly an advocate for our community, at least not here at DU.

[Jella]

37. Good thread everybody...

it really touched on a few issues here on the boards. It does my heart good to see that everybody can have a different reaction, and that further discussion can ease the tension felt. I admit, I have not posted much at DU because of homophobia I felt in those first few months of being a member. I am liberal, but especially at that time did NOT feel like a democrat. Anyway, this was nice to see.

As for the add, I was a bit taken back by it, but did think it was really just a stupid add. After seeing the alternatives, and knowing what the sports community is like as to all things 'gay' I can see why it is indeed offensive.

Thanks again

[DeSwiss]

38. I'm a het....

...And I thought the commercial was a travesty. When I watched it initially and saw where it was leading, I chuckled. It reminded me of the Disney movie with the dogs and the spaghetti that I first watched on black and white TV when I was a kid. But when the mechanics began to inflict pain upon themselves by pulling out their chest hair I thought that these people don't have a clue about the message they're sending. Or that maybe they do.

All my life I've grown up with gay people (I'm 55). I have a gay sister. I don't have a homophobic bone in my body and never will. After I saw the other endings before they were yanked from the Mars website, I sent them an email telling them I won't buy their products any more and will actively encourage others not to purchase them as well. This is particularly so now (thanks to AmericaBlog), since I learned that one of the owners of the Mars' company, Jacqueline Badger Mars (see below), is a Repuke that donates large sums of money to Repug groups and politicians. Many of whom speak out against and who support legislation against equality for gay people.

ruggerson: "As if straights had a right to attack ANYONE over this issue."

It is hets who HAVE, and ARE the problem, that is homophobia. And I can't tell you how many het "friends" that I've lost because of their homophobia and my refusal to join-in with their bigotry and stupidity. And yet if things are ever to improve in this country, it will only come about when people like me face down heterosexual bigots.

So yes, I agree with you that no one has a "right" to attack anyone. But yes we hets do have a responsbility to speak out the truth to the blind and arrogant homophobia that is ingrained into society. And therein lies the problem. There's not enough that do.

I've seen this before. As a black teen I saw during the 60s how the majority of whites in America (many who disagreed with it) stood idly by while racists burned, bludgeoned and hosed people who sought full equality. And in the absence of a consensus against them, these racists continued to openly hurl one injustice after another upon black people. And it only began to change when those who were silent had had enough and began to speak against these racists, and later to marginalize those who continued in their racist ways.

So even when bigotry is displayed in stupid commercials --- which are, in the end insignificant when compared to the realities of living in a homophobic world (or a racist one) -- I believe that at least I must speak out. If I am to be true to my humanity....

* - From the http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-promotes.html">AmeircaBlog Snickers commercial article:

Looking up the Mars family on http://www.fecinfo.com/">FecInfo, we found over $10,000 in donations from a Jacqueline Badger Mars, of The Plains, Virginia, to Republican causes, including John McCain's exploratory committee for president. Jacqueline Badger Mars is also the name of one of the Mars daughters - http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/54/MY2E.html">she's worth $10 billion or so - and the Mars corportation just happens to be based in Northern Virginian which is where The Plains, Virginia is located as well. Thus, I think it's safe to conclude that this is the same woman.

[ThomCat]

45. ...

:applause:

:yourock:

[lettre de cachet]

39. Were they satirizing the football players?

Was it satire when they showed the football players reactions? I didn't go to Media School, so I'd appreciate an explanation. It's hard for me to grasp that a company would advertise during the Superbowl and then try to make football players look like idiots.

[Divine Discontent]

40. to answer your question, it was on the website.

and it showed them with headphones on watching the commercial and getting their reaction to it, for their core audience to watch on the website. They made eeew-gross faces and said, "that's not right", amongst other things. Mushin Muhammed is the one I remember primarily. They were going to do a NASCAR commercial for this Sunday's race, but that has been shelved, I suppose they woulda had NASCAR drivers reactions to for the fun of finding humor in men kissing being so gross.