"Racist" (or something) Superbowl commercial

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Spoiler: snippage

I think you're both being reactionary. In the first place, I admit it wouldn't seem right if the sex roles were reversed, but there's a good reason for that. The trope the ad is playing on is the "wife obsessing over husband's health." I've seen this is numerous sitcoms, from That 70's show to that Tyler Perry sitcom. It's an exaggeration of the cultural dynamic by which the wife nags the husband about his health, and it's well established in pop culture and comedy. But it's not the same the other way around. "Man obsesses over his wife's health" is not a common trope, and wouldn't make sense in a satirical commercial. That's the reason you get a slight dissonant feeling when you think about the reverse situation.

Speaking of the abuse, the reason she "attacks" him instead of just taking it away is because that would be mundane and non-contextual. In other words, not clever, therefore not funny.

About the soda can. Notice a dramatic shift in tone right at the end of the commercial. This is purposeful. The irony is that well-meaning, ultimately harmless violence ended up severely wounding some random passerby. This is the crux of the tonal shift. We've moved from a caricature of "nagging wife" behavior to what would really happen if she were to act like that in real life. You can't take it out of context and say "this is clearly abusive." Yes, it is abusive. It's aware, and it's building the joke out your impression of the violence before. Where you (that is, where you should have) dismissed the cartoonish actions of the earlier scenes as camp and silly, suddenly the ad goes, "What if that was real life?"

(BTW, the other half of the joke that makes it work is simple physical humor. They use it on AFV all the time. Dude falls off his bike and it looks like it really hurts. Nut shots? They really hurt. And they're funny. Geddit?)

I don't know how reactionary I'm being, but I'll follow along.

By saying it's commonly done doesn't make it an untouchable ideal in our society. I agree with you, it is commonly done. But that does not make it right.

I simply say it's not acceptable if one can question it on one side, but rather not on the other. There is no difference in sides other than perception. i.e. Fat kid mocks skinny kid for being skinny, ok. Skinny kid mocks fat kid for being fat, bad. Now, the situation for both of these sides is the same. A belittles B for physical appearance. If that action is unacceptable one time, it should be unacceptable at all times. Fat people shouldn't get a break because they were picked on. Skinny people aren't?

It's like this. I had a hell of a time feeling like I fit in because I grew up in a white neighborhood in (at the time) a predominantly affluent and Caucasian city. I wasn't often the target of many racial attacks, but people damn sure went out of their way to remind me that I wasn't their kind. Now, I took the few true racial attacks out of proportion (i.e. feeling that the sentiment is bubbling under the surface of all white people) and lumped it together with the white kids and adults really not knowing how to act with me, and it made me go to a militant phase.

Because of the previous 'slights' to me, I found it perfectly ok to make white jokes. However, with age comes maturity. I eventually realized through 'all the good I was doing sticking up for myself and educating of the wrongs done to me and my people', that first stupidity was compounded by the fact that I was making fun of them and few people like that. Especially when the person doing it makes them feel guilty for trying to do the same exact thing.

I learned if I wanted to be just a person, I had to act like just a person. No special subgroup or whatever. Just Obsidian.

Now, it's commonly done to make fun of white people. They are the America of the world, everyone just take your pot shots. But just because everyone does it does not make it right. It causes a divide, and if there's one sentiment I've heard over and over on this very forum, it's that people want to have the same freedoms and just feel like their rights are being respected too. The first step to doing that is taking all the unbalanced "It's ok if A does it, but feels somehow wrong if B does the same thing" and throwing that in the garbage.

 

[Unesh52]

Now, it's commonly done to make fun of white people. They are the America of the world, everyone just take your pot shots. But just because everyone does it does not make it right. It causes a divide, and if there's one sentiment I've heard over and over on this very forum, it's that people want to have the same freedoms and just feel like their rights are being respected too. The first step to doing that is taking all the unbalanced "It's ok if A does it, but feels somehow wrong if B does the same thing" and throwing that in the garbage.

I agree with you entirely. Regardless of what you think should be done, actions should not arbitrarily be considered acceptable or not based on insignificant factors.

So is it safe to say you think it's perceived as "ok" if the gender roles in this commercial are as they are, but that if they were switched it wouldn't be? In real life (as in, if I saw these types of things going on in the street or at a friend's house) I would agree. But this was a joke in a commercial. That distinction may seem arbitrary at first, but I argue that it's not. One should be able to recognize that these are simply archetypes based on complex real world situations, and not take the fact that they're used in the ad as an endorsement.

That being said, I know that a persistent exposure to a certain stereotype -- or any idea -- can lend it more credibility. In other words, media can affect perception. But that's not the argument I'm hearing. That argument I hear is that the ad perpetuates the sexist double standard all on it's own, or somehow more significantly than other instances of this in media. Even if you're arguing that the constant reinforcement of this idea is biasing public opinion, you have to acknowledge that the individual examples are not responsible. They're not intended to have this effect, and likely, the producers of the thing are not even aware of the problem.

But personally I don't think every stereotype or archetype or trope needs to be eliminated from pop culture. Part of the reason such things exist, and most of the reason they're so prevalent in advertisements and popular media in general, is because people know what to expect from them. If we suddenly got rid of every stereotype, authors would have to develop an ethos and persona for every single character they create, and work out ways to explain their motivations within the context of the story. That actually sounds great on paper, though I think it would turn out to be more of a pain than anything in practice (think of all the support characters no one would be able to understand), and more importantly, it would make the job of the advertiser impossible. You don't have time to establish a unique character in most advertisements. This explains why they went with the "domineering wife" figure and the "helpless man" eying the "inexplicable sex object." These are things that the intended audience (presumably adult males) can probably relate to, or at least know someone who can. It's not an endorsement of spousal abuse. It's an exaggeration, designed to get the viewers together on common ground so they can relate to the actors, and therefore the product, in an environment that pleases them. It's funny stuff they can relate to.

 

[Nimcha]

Heh, I didn't even think it was funny. You Americans and your weird humour...

 

[Alon Shechter]

Well clearly you did not see the Old Spice Superbowl commercial.
Mind you, Old Spice wins everything, even when it doesn't.
Also...
I'm a white guy but my keyboard is black,
and since I'm typing on the keyboard, which is black,
I AM TOTALLY RACIST!

 

[ShadowsofHope]

..How the fuck could that ever be considered "racist"? I mean, honestly. I just laughed at the girl getting smacked in the face by a Pepsi can.

Um..that was supposed to be accidental. If you look closely the woman saw her man giving googly eyes to another woman and the can was meant to hit him. Acting in defense the man ducked and the projectile just happened to hit the Caucasian Female. It was all mere coincidence and nothing more. To accuse it of racism is just silly.

This man takes the words from my mind and unto the internet.

 

[Pecoros7]

Here in Southern Louisiana I've formulated a racism test:

-If it was meant with hate or meant to hurt/bash someone and their race then it's racist.
-If you look at a normal situation and -needlessly- see race being involved when it really isn't, then THAT'S racism.

Commercial = Not Racist
Congresswoman = Racist

I like that, although I use a different test.

For mixed race interactions, reverse the races of those involved. Is it still offensive (for the same reason)? If it is, the offense is situational rather than racial. You may have simply assumed additional offense where none was meant because you share the offending party's race. If it isn't, it MIGHT be racist. Proceed to step 2.

Assume the cast had been all one race, starting with the presumed victims (in this case meaning an all black cast). Is it still offensive? If so, reverse races again (all white cast). Still offensive? If not, it could be racist. Otherwise it was situational.

Finally, try replacing the minorities with any other ethnic group. Does it still make sense (regardless of whether or not it is offensive)? If so, it wasn't racist. If it doesn't work for other groups, then congratulations; it was probably racist.

If you're pretty sure you've found something racist, how should you respond?

Was it clearly derogatory, harmful or hateful, e.g., depicting a minority as inherently stupid, lazy or violent? Call them out on their racism. It's important to let them know that we won't tolerate that behavior.

Was it mostly harmless and just in poor taste, e.g., assuming black people all eat watermelon and fried chicken? Chalk it up to bad taste and let it go. You can voice disapproval, but don't get your pants in a bunch over it. It just isn't worth it.

 

[Flamezdudes]

People need to just get over it and stop trying to pick out racism where there is none.

 

[AmayaOnnaOtaku]

Here in Southern Louisiana I've formulated a racism test:

-If it was meant with hate or meant to hurt/bash someone and their race then it's racist.
-If you look at a normal situation and -needlessly- see race being involved when it really isn't, then THAT'S racism.

Commercial = Not Racist
Congresswoman = Racist

Lonewolf for President!!

You said what I was thinking while reading the post.

 

[Legion]

Typical human stupidity.

White woman hits black woman = Either, "racist attack", "black women are weak" or "racist because black women never get to hit white women, it's always the other way around".

Black woman hits white woman = "Black women are violent", "Black women are racist against white women" and so on.

What baffles me the most about these morons why cry racism every ten seconds: If it were that obviously racist, then why aren't the people involved bothered?

It's like with South Park where it gets accused of racism, the people voicing the black people are black, they are clearly not offended, so why the hell is anyone else.

 

[Ace of Spades]

This is the kind of thing that needs to stop happening if we are to create a truly tolerant society. As long as there are people who cry racism at every potential target, we are going to make no progress. It's like those people who complained that the only female character in COD4 had to be rescued by the player character. If they hadn't included that section, they probably would have complained that there weren't any female characters in the game. Everyone in the world needs to take a collective deep breath and stop creating prejudice where there isn't any.

 

[JSkunk22]

Hate crimes are a vicious hypocrisy. This was one of the few commercials I actually saw, and I flat out laughed, because it was so out of left field with that ending. I thought it was great, it didn't care that she was white or black or whatever. BUT, of course if we switched their ethnicities people would cry foul. Because people are unknowingly racist more often than not. If you looked at these people and saw their color and used that as a stand, then yeah that's racist. If you just saw -people- being goofy in a commercial, then congrats, you're probably not racist. Maybe.