Sexism and Speciesism Both at the Super Bowl
Published February 02, 2009 @ 09:52AM PT
First the sexism and then the speciesism.
Did anyone really believe that, whether or not PETA ever truly planned to pay for its Super Bowl ad, NBC's rejection was based solely on high standards that prevent it from airing sexist, objectifying ads? Umm, no. We all knew sexism was going to be rampant throughout Super Bowl commercials last night. We were not proven wrong.
I dropped my jaw and then picked it back up and growled at the television when Bridgestone portrayed Mrs. Potato Head "nagging" at her husband to slow down as he drove recklessly around sharp curves. And then when Mr. Potato Head stopped suddenly to avoid hitting sheep, and Mrs. Potato Head's mouth popped off, and Mr. Potato Head smiled deviously at her inability to speak and sped off? That's when I started yelling (and cursing) at the TV. What...the...hell? Female ruins male's unsafe fun by "nagging" at him, and he effectively shuts her up. How much more blatantly sexist does it get?
And then, of course, there were the myriad other ads featuring super-sexualized women and even one ad that got its laughs by having a box of flowers shout sexist, demeaning insults at a woman. Yes, NBC is clearly concerned about not promoting sexism and objectification of women.
-Continue after the jump for the rest of the sexism discussion & for the animal discussion-
And now I'd like to see all the hundreds of media outlets that came down specifically on PETA for its ad promoting vegetarianism come down on the companies behind these product-selling ads just as hard. Think it will happen? I have no problem with organizations and bloggers calling out animal rights and animal welfare groups when they see sexism or other inappropriateness in their campaigns. No problem at all. I do, however, have a problem with selective criticisms--if we're going to criticize ad campaigns whose underlying messages make us uncomfortable but insist we're criticizing only the nature and style of the campaigns themselves, then we better criticize equally or more offensive advertising campaigns with equal vigor. (And to be clear, this is not directed at any specific media outlet or blog; criticisms of the PETA ad were everywhere.)
As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for PETA + sexist + "Super Bowl" yields 32,200 Web results and 3,789 blog results. (This search yields only 4 results in the news search category, but change "sexist" to "sexual," and that number jumps up to 358.) Replace PETA with Bridgestone in the "sexist" search, and the numbers drop sharply. Even plug in "Go Daddy," and you still don't get even a fourth of the results that you get with PETA, and I don't need to tell anyone who was watching last night what the Go Daddy commercials were like. Much of this is a result of the fact that PETA's ad was rejected, and they pushed that story; publicity was PETA's intention. But still, all advertisers' intention is publicity, so let's hope those numbers change in coming days as people start discussing what they saw last night. If people aren't as offended by what they saw last night as they are by what they saw in PETA's ad, we have a problem.
---
And now the animals. Oh, the animals. They're the stars of Super Bowl commercials, aren't they? Everyone just loves seeing chimpanzees in commercials, for example, but few consider the life those chimpanzees live, what they've endured to become such "stars," or how demeaning such exploitation of them is. See what Jane Goodall has to tell us about the experiences these chimps go through so that we can have a few laughs at their expense: "Chimpanzees in Entertainment." See also "Why a chimpanzee in a suit just isn't that funny," published in 2005 following use of chimps in that Super Bowl's commercials.
Chimps weren't the only animals exploited or mocked last night, of course. Especially memorable was a water buffalo being hit in the face with a Frisbee and the depiction of a (not real) koala being punched repeatedly. Hilaaaarious! Ugh. And leave it to a dog food company (Pedigree) to go about promoting adoption of dogs by exploiting captive wild animals for our amusement (the aforementioned water buffalo plus a rhino, boar, and ostrich). See "Wildlife in Entertainment" for more on how these animals come to be in the entertainment industry and what their lives are like.
There were other instances of animals in the commercials, of course, but I think that's enough venting from me for one day.
It is not acceptable to exploit women just because men find it amusing, and it is not acceptable to exploit nonhuman animals because human animals find it amusing--neither is acceptable. But there is one enormous difference between the two. The women who participate in these such ads at least choose to; they can choose not to participate in their own (and their gender's) objectification or exploitation. The animals have no such choice.
---
(I just noticed that Wired agrees with me on some of these matters, including on the atrocious Bridgestone commercial and the not-funny nature of punching an animal, so three cheers for them.)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Women, Girls, and the So-Called Achievement of Killing
-
Killing "Without Qualms" Does Not a Feminist Hero Make
-
Is PETA More Sexist Than Mainstream Advertisers?
Comments (10)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.
I said it at the Women's Rights forum and I'll say it here: It's not the sex that's the problem, it's the "product."
If the women in the PETA ad were being used to promote....beer.... chips... soft drinks.... burgers.... web-sites.... then it would be fine. But Animal Rights? Puh-leeeeze! Take away the (dangerous) veggies and you've got a Victoria's Secret ad.
As a woman, I was more offended by the Mr. & Mrs. Potato-Head commercial and the Doritos commercials than the PETA ad!!
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 02/02/2009 @ 11:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Take a look at this
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/01/super-bowl-ads.html
HSUS thinks that the Pedigree ad is a reason for animal advocates to celebrate.
Maybe the animals used were CGI or footage mixing (in other words taking wild animal footage and incorporating it in the ads)?
Posted by Loredana Loy on 02/02/2009 @ 04:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I tried to catch a few of the commercials, but missed most of the offensive ones (except the surly flowers in the box). One I liked was of the Clydesdale "rescuing" the circus horse to run off together into the wild. It was enough to make me want to grab a bottle of beer. (But I don't happen to have that brand in my refrigerator.)
I just watched the Pedigree commercials linked to the HSUS blog, and thought they were stupid and wouldn't convince me to adopt a dog. What I got out of watching them, is the irritatingly irresponsible whimsicalness that some people have, when they decide they want to "own" some sort of exotic animal or novelty "pet". I didn't think they were funny. But then, I'm kind of humorless, I guess.
Posted by Sue G. on 02/02/2009 @ 09:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Attempts at politically incorrect humour walk a fine line: is it irony or chauvinism? No wonder this issue brings out so many different opinions, depending on which ad we're talking about. All the more reason not to jump to conclusions about every image of a naked body, and to consider each of them in context.
Posted by Campbell Macknight on 02/03/2009 @ 04:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I was pretty shocked at how many animals were in the ads too! I was like, did SAG have a falling out with Pepsi, Budweiser, Coca-Cola?
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 02/03/2009 @ 06:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi, Loredana. I obviously disagree with HSUS on this, as I often do; I think there are better ways to promote adoption of dogs than supporting the exploitation and captivity of wild animals. The animals really were used live in the ads. Indeed, the ads even received a relatively meaningless "humane" seal of approval from another organization, which I may post about soon.
Animals, actually, are a staple in Super Bowl advertising. Self-proclaimed animal lovers go crazy (i.e., with glee, not with anger like me) about ads with animals, so it's no surprise when Super Bowl ads make heavy use of them (whether real animals, puppets, computer-generated animals, etc.).
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 02/03/2009 @ 07:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The treatment of animals in ads aired during this year's Superbowl was worse than ever -- it seems Bud Light and others went out of their way to push the envelope on it. Also, some of these commercials showed that it's not sex that sells -- but sexism. I urge those who shrilly shrieked at PETA for turning both of those malignant trends on their ear with their creative, provocative, humorous ad to instead focus your indignation on NBC for their cowardice and on those responsible for this year's lineup of ads.
Posted by Nancy Van Iderstine on 02/03/2009 @ 07:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
the water buffalo being smacked in the face with the frisbee was the worst moment for me. i saw the ad a day early online, and then again the night of the game. in what world is that funny? i still feel bad for the poor guy.
i was extremely disappointed in the ad that used all the chimpanzees, too. argh, advertising.
Posted by lindsay t on 02/03/2009 @ 02:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Stephanie,
I absolutely agree with you. I was surprised to see that article on HSUS' blog. I can't believe the ad was mentioned as a great reason for animal advocates to celebrate.
Please post any details you have about the making of this ad. Thank you.
Posted by Loredana Loy on 02/03/2009 @ 07:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Humans have the ability to chose where animals don't. Animals are forced in to these situations by Humans.
As a women if I were an actress, I can tell my add agency, I will NOT do ads that exploit me as a women. The women who participate in advertising that could be judged as exploitative have a choice to do so or not.
I have close ties to the music industry and women are too eager to partake in explicit music videos for example. You can't blame everything on men. I know lots of men that are just as turned off by exploitation of women, I know many women who have the attitude... it's my body I can do with it as I please. It's a misconception that all these women are being exploited they are full participants and if you try to talk to them about it, they quickly let you know that it is none of your business. The argument usually is, it's my body... and don't look if you don't like it... the money is good... what are you a prude?... these women are not all poor victims of exploitation.
In an ideal world I wish all women would refuse to partake, in an ideal world I wish nobody ate meat or drank milk, in an ideal world I wish a lot of things.
Animal abuse is far worse then women showing skin in my humble opinion.
My TV consumption is at about 4 hours a week and I do not have cable. For the last 10 years I have found there is absolutely nothing on TV that interests me and I am tuning out. Especially the advertising is a TOTAL TURN OFF. I am an artist and I wish that advertisers would be more creative and artistic, instead of doing these low class stupidity ads. Most of my friends feel the same way.
The overwhelming amount of sex injected material is consumed by women. Many of these ads and shows are produced or directed by women.
Look at the two what I call "brain dead" shows Sex in the City and Desperate Housewife, the main consumer of it is women. I've never seen a full episode but the trailers told me all I need to know.
One day, I was at a Store, about five women were standing around (we were waiting for something) they started a conversation, they were carrying on about the show Desperate Housewifes, they actet like it was just about the greatest show, they knew all the names, and I noticed that the men had blank looks on their faces. So did I. These women all young ones, did not talk abut women being objectigfied or exploited they talked about who was doing it with whom and what the next scadal would be.
As far as I am concerned many women want to be portrait in such a manner, they seem to be upfront about it.
Animals on the other hand have no say, I doubt they love to have Frisbees hitting their nose, or get punched in the face, or tossed in to the ceiling and so on. Yesterday I saw a DQ ad where a dog eats a fried chicken dipped in to some sauce. That's not what dogs should eat. As a matter of fact it'll make them sick.
DQ thouhg it was funny, that a fat fried chicken eater would feed this to his dog.
Posted by Ginette Callaway on 02/04/2009 @ 08:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.