Gender Relations

So, with the Superbowl on it’s way this Sunday, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding some of the ads that are going to be displayed or not displayed. In my previous post, I mentioned CBS’ involvement in showing anti-abortion ads for the group Focus on Families. A little update of that effort : CREDO (the organization involved in the petition to pull those ads) have gathered over 120,000 signatures, which CBS is very aware of, but choose to ignore. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it is hard to feel sympathy for CBS’ hypocrisy with their “No-Advocacy” policy, when they start banning other advertisements that may promote certain lifestyles they do not wish to align themselves with.

Now, I have come across two specifically that really benchmark what kind of game is being played at the superbowl this year (pun intended). Even with the number of people that watch the Superbowl, football is largely a masculine sport with male followers. With that being said, I think it sets the stage for the two banned ads (I am sure there are more) that came my way.

ManCrunch

ManCrunch, which is an online gay dating site has had their ad refused by the powers that be. Now, there is already a little controversy with this ad in general. The signs in the back, the displeased friend, etc. Although there are multiple interpretations, I would say that having a football related , gay ad would be a good ad to run, regardless of some of the negatives. I think the ad breaks the gender barrier of saying that masculine, football-loving men are, indeed, gay as well. Take from the ad what you will, but the ban is very obviously one of gay nature (and im sure the image of very tough, football-loving, men shunning their heterosexual nature isn’t part of that AT ALL). The thing to consider here is the mash-up of gender and sexuality. Even though these men are retaining their masculine qualities (being strong, etc.), their masculinity is instantly stripped once they are gay. It’s an interesting and ironic measurement of gender studies to see how those two can be separate, then closely tied in specific circumstances.

GoDaddy

This one has surprised me. GoDaddy is notorious for very sexist, over the top, sexualized advertisements (FOR WEB HOSTING!). Just last year I switched my hosting to DreamHost because I did not agree with Bob Parsons’ take on women, the industry, and advertising. I didn’t want to support such blatant objectification of women. That is why their latest ad can only dictate the humiliation of effeminate acting men. In the ad, Lola (an ex-football player), built a business as a clothing designer. Of course, Lola is very “gay acting” (effeminate), and even though effeminiate does not equate homosexuality, I think it is implied in this ad. I am not sure the intent GoDaddy had with this one. Danica Patrick has been their mascot for quite some time, and she is in her full suit (sometimes she’s barely wearing anything), and narrating the story of Lola. I’m not sure if they were TRYING to sell limited images of gender (how a masculine man can become feminine with the snap of selling clothing — hint : selling clothes does not make you snap your fingers and lisp) or if they were trying to get the gay vote (if they were, they need better marketing consultants). Either way, it’s fail, so it is good this is pulled off the air, but in the same time, the reasons for it being pulls are also for the wrong reasons.

Now, between the ManCrunch and this ad, both gender and sexuality for men take a beating, as well as women’s right to choose abortion as an option. I am not sure how in 2010, we are regressing so much, but apparently the marketers are pulling out all the stops on this event.

I don’t watch the superbowl (as a male!), but I wish I did , so I could boycott the event. I really am excited to see what ads actually air, and then the final release of the rejected ads. If you have any other gender/sex related banned superbowl 2010 ads, let me know! Also, let me know your thoughts on the ads!

I am wondering what the fate of CBS’ anti-abortion ads for the superbowl game is going to be. CBS has a known “Anti-Advocacy” claim in their policy, yet the group, Focus on Family, has paid to run an advertisement about “celebrating life” (in a pro-life kind of way).

Focus on the Family’s “celebrate life” (read: anti-choice) ad features Heisman Trophy-winning college football star Tim Tebow. And CBS approved this anti-choice ad, even though the network has repeatedly rejected advocacy ads in past years including a 2004 MoveOn.org ad that went after then-President Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility and an ad the same year from the United Church of Christ showing them welcoming a gay couple who had been turned away from another church.

There’s a lot wrong with this that relates directly to last weeks overhaul of the legislation to treat corporations as individuals (i.e. they can push as much money into politics as they want). This seems like another fast footed option to give conglomerates more power that relates directly to women’s health issues. Now, regardless of which side on the abortion debate you are on, there becomes a moral issue of multi-billion dollar corporations that can put their money into sensitive and controversial issues (when their goal is to entertain). It’s an unbalanced approach because it’s not like women’s health clinics have the money to push into superbowl ads, thus giving an unbalanced representation of views (which I could also deduct was part of CBS’ thought process in coming up with their anti-advocacy policy, which puts them outside these types of issue).

If you feel strongly about this CREDO Action has a petition to pull the ads. It seems pretty late in the game to pull them, but at least it will show support that people do not agree with this position. The superbowl is masculine enough, do the ads have to promote taking away women’s rights?

SIGN THE PETITION :
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/superbowl_focus/?rc=fb_share1