Continuing the "quirky Sundries" theme today, I thought you might be interested in this banned Snuggle commercial that just didn't quite cut the mustard with the FCC censors. NSFW, muthas.
The Australian GLBT chapter have found a Telstra television advert to be highly "homophobic". When they sought to file an official complaint in a government website, they found that the site was not equipped for such a complaint. This in turn was judged to be "discriminatory".
I read the article before I saw the video, so I was expecting something really insulting. Perhaps a 'light in your loafers' comment by an actor, or perhaps the gratuitous throwing of fudge (humour me).
But this is the spot they took grave offense to.
You know what really struck me about this ad?
That two grown Australian men would be excited to watch a sport shamefully known as "w*g ball" in Australia (soccer being the chosen sport of non-British emigrés). That's because "real Australians" play Aussie rules football.
Progress isn't always progressive, guys. Sometimes the progress is about something else.
Anyway, have you seen Aussie rules footballers in action?
This Thanksgiving Day, the "Our Country Deserves Better PAC" will be coming out with a television ad thanking Governor Palin for her 2008 run for Vice-President.
She made the word "shoutout" famous in a political setting, but now, she's getting a little shoutout of her own. Nice.
EDIT: Well, boo. I cannot get the video code to work, so that it doesn't constantly load (even with Peggy Gero DaValt's tips).
A relatively underreported quasi-debate between the two presumed candidates for the Presidency took place on Saturday.
That it took place at Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch in the heart of Orange County, was surprising to a lot of us, but even more surprising was that the format included:
1- The reverend, Rick Warren, asking identical questions of each candidate 2- Each candidate received a full hour of scrutiny, and a chance to answer each question at length 3- No journalist asking "gotcha" questions, in a constant rehash of bullet points on Iraq, the economy, America's deteriorating this-that-or-the other
It was so refreshing to see this forum, that one almost forgot this was an important political stop in a campaign that has stalled nationally since Senator Clinton declared defeat.
For almost 3 months afterwards, we've only had national ads as our lone chance to compare candidates directly, plus a foreign tour where one candidate decided he'd rather court plaudits in Berlin than in America.
Frankly, I was wondering when the campaign would begin in earnest, and I'm happy to say, it finally began on Saturday.
Those of you who watched this forum already know that Senator John McCain impressed. He is not a religious man, nor is he particularly an evangelical-approved Conservative Republican.
But in his rapid-fire responses, Americans once again heard what a relaxed Commander-in-Chief would sound like -- and not an embattled, defensive man always thinking two steps ahead to the inevitable gotcha question like President Bush has sounded for, oh, about 7 years now.
Actually, as I was composing this post about the Saddleback forum, I was suddenly reminded I had seen a very similar performance from President Bush, and it wasn't dated sometime in early 2001.
Moreover, it was a performance which showed him earnest, affable, answering questions without a single hesitation or mangled sentence, and further, had been full of probing questions -- but lacking in the usual tense animosity towards him.
Do you recall it?
It was none other than at the NBC studios with Bob Costas, sports geek extraordinare, having a 3 minute chat with President Bush during the a break in the Beijing Olympics coverage.
Don't take my word for it. Here it is below.
If McCain hit a grand slam at Saddleback, it can be said that Bush got on base, and even stole 2nd when they least expected him to.
I can't recall when there was such a fantastic week for Republicans, as this mid-week boon in August '08.
It may be the most significant moment before the Democratic Convention, which promises to be more controversial than anything the Olympics have coughed up so far.
By now, most people in the US are well aware of the Snickers Super Bowl advert.
It showed two car mechanics who somehow lip-locked whilst eating each end of a Snickers Bar, and to mask their gay overtones embarrassment, they decided to rip their own chest hair out, in a show of masculine bravado.
Here's the commercial on Youtube, which incidentally has three alternate endings.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign complained and got Masterfoods to withdraw it (after it played during the Super Bowl). I wonder if non-activist gay people and gay-friendly non-gay people are offended by that ad. I think it's funny. It makes fun of guys who are afraid of being gay, which isn't endorsing homophobia. It's mocking it.
Something quite palpable to anyone who watched the ad, during the game.
(Note to The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Human Rights Campaign: try to get a snappier title. Writing, let alone saying this, is about as accomodating as Margaret Cho is about President Bush. Maybe 'Gays Against Disses'? That works)
In the day of the Borat Phenomenon, which pokes fun at both gays and homophobia in such starkly satiric terms, you'd think that maybe Masterfoods could get away with this ad, without raising a hullabaloo, right?
Nope. We're not there yet. I mean, we're not back there yet. I mean, oh God, you know what I mean.
Anything vaguely touching on the gay angle is not appreciated by those who don't anoint the source as noble in intentions, beforehand -- like a guy who likes to make fun of beefy, working-class, white Southern men, ironically the kind inferred in this commercial.
I personally tittered when I first saw the ad, but it quickly became silly on second showing.
But then that's when it hit me.
Hey! Didn't we have a similar outcry about a candy bar advert in Britain, back in the day (2001)?
That's the year that Nestlé UK came out with their new ad campaign for the venerable Yorkie Bar, featuring the unforgettable tagline:
Woo, it's not for me! Waaaaait a minute. No, no. That's okay. I don't like candy, remember, so woo, yeaghhh! High ten!
As you can imagine, the feminists in the UK, and a good deal many other women besides, had a field day with the situation.
At "The F-Word" British feminist site, one writer actually notes that there are not one, but TWO candy bar ads making the rounds then, which featured anti-woman overtones; the other being the Echo Bar.
Catherine Redfern then says:
Nestle claims to be taking a stand for the “British bloke” and says that by making a chocolate “just for men”, they are offering men something just for them in a changing, confusing world. They have actually used the word “reclaiming”, as if women have “taken” chocolate away from men - despite the obvious fact that chocolate is mainly marketed to women by the people who create it.
But from the ads, they seem to be targeting not “British men” but British, large, bearded, macho, builders. That’s gotta be a limited market, guys.
Hey, that's actually sound argumentation.
Capitalism is not about alienating potential spenders of dosh. It's about targetting the largest common denominator so everyone gets rich, yay!
And then this blogger in America recently pounced on the candy bar, making her muse about what men are entitled to have these days, just for them.
What I want to know is what don't men have left to claim for themselves any more? The remote? I got my own, I don't need yours. Sports? Have at it fellas, I'm truly not interested unless there is a good story. I don't have cable and even if I did I will not be watching ESPN and dang sure not Fox Sports Network.
Hummers? either the automobile or the other kind? Which last I heard (unless you are in the 10% club) you still need a woman. Or some kind of suction device.
10% club? Is this a Shortbus reference I'm not getting? You know, that scene. Anyway.
So I checked the Nestlé site, and found out that indeed, their advert campaign did hinge on making a gender-exclusive statement.
YORKIE - "IT'S NOT FOR GIRLS"
In 2001 the Yorkie "It’s Not for Girls" campaign was launched because, in today’s society, there aren’t many things that a man can look at and say that’s for him.
The 'Not For Girls' campaign theme for Yorkie uses humour, which resonates with today’s British male and simply states that Yorkie is positioning itself as a chocolate bar for men who need a satisfying hunger buster. With five solid chunks of chocolate, it’s a man sized eat!
You know, I kinda had more sympathy and allowed myself a giggle at my own sex' expense BEFORE I read this disclaimer by Nestlé.
Here they just sound rather like schoolboys caught leering at the girl's soccer team, and then claiming they were just doing so because boys will be boys, and anyway, they were there to make fun of the girls playing soccer -- as if such a ridiculous thing as girls knowing about soccer existed, pfff.
And though of course, the emphasis is to draw attention to their product, even bad attention, to increase sales due to exposure, that "man-sized eat" ending hung there like a limpid flag of protest.
They backtracked, soft-pedalled, and went out on the offensive, all in one. How dorky is that?
Without further preamble, here is the Youtube ad featuring the Yorkie Bar "It's Not For Girls!" tagline.
Judge for yourself if it was offensive, or silly, or funny, or "all of the above", that uniquely post-modern response to every ticklish question.
And yes, the ad campaign and chockie bars' wrapper did get axed.
Are you kidding me? Who wants to have a Yorkie Bar, when you can have Wine Gums instead?
P.S.: Remind me, since I am too young to remember, did feminists or outraged males have a collective cow, when the roll-on Secret deodorant was being flogged on the airwaves?
"Strong enough for a MAN, but made for a WOMAN"
My tell-me-if-it's-sexist-or-not Glora Steinem 8-ball just doesn't know what to say about that.
Can you think of other examples of these "for one sex only" advertising campaigns?
And can you imagine the outrage in America by disparate groups, if Nestlé USA were to use the Not For Girls campaign for their candies here?
My dears. We would never hear the end of it.
I guess the only extanct one is, Swanson's Hungry Man TV dinners.
Dudes, if you want to eat one pound of Salisbury Steak, knock yourselves out.
IN THE COMMENTS: Ruth Anne looks forward to gender-neutral tampon ads; Christine clarifies that the 10% is the Kinseyian percentage attributed to the amount of homosexuals in the population (doh!); Ron remembers a saucy Irish Spring soap ad; whilst Pastor_Jeff reminisces about the allure of Enjoli and Charlie to women of the 1970s, who were starting to live lives outside the home, and wanted to smell right for the occasion, so to speak.
But for those who were still stay-at-home mums, Charlie spoke to a life more sophisticated and fun, as well.
I just thought of another advert, with quasi-sexist-feminist overtones.
The much loved "It's not nice to fool mother nature!" margarine ad.
I vaguely recognise that actress. It's not Bea Arthur of Maude fame, is it?
She's got that same low timbre to her voice, and looks a bit mannish, as aging women did during those burning bra times (vide Bella Abzug).
