Pepsi's 'Men's Pain Is Funny' Super Bowl Ad
February 5th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
The Super Bowl ads in general were pretty fair to men this year, but there was one major exception--Pepsi's "Magnetic Attraction" commercial. According to the MySpace Super Bowl ads description:
"The Pepsi Stuff promo shows Justin Timberlake being drawn toward a woman and somehow pulled through space, off the ground, by some magnetic force. He crashes and gets beat up by his strange experience being pulled through space and having close and sometimes painful encounters with immovable objects and experiencing near misses with death."
I understand slapstick humor but this was over the line--Timberlake is in severe pain in the ad, and gets painfully whacked in the nuts on three separate occasions. All because some pretty girl is sucking him in by drinking her Pepsi (pictured). To watch the ad, click here.
The two people to contact at Pepsi regarding the ad are:
PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi. A very high profile individual, she was #1 on Fortune’s list of the 50 most powerful women in business in both 2006 and 2007. She can be reached at indra.nooyi@pepsico.com, headquarters phone: 914 253-2000, headquarters fax: 914 253-2070
Pepsi CMO Cie Nicholson. She is the Pepsi executive with the most direct responsibility for the ad. She can be reached at cie.nicholson@pepsi.com, or headquarters phone: 914 253-2000. Her personal fax is 914 249-8361
To email them both, click here.
The ad was designed by BBDO, a prominent advertising agency with a track record of making commercials which denigrate men and fathers. To view some of them, click here.
To contact their corporate offices, see the contact information below:
Andrew Robertson, BBDO CEO, andrew.robertson@bbdo.com, Phone: 212 459-5000, Fax: 212 459-6645
Bill Bruce, BBDO-NY Chief Creative Officer (The BBDO executive with the most direct responsibility for the ad), bill.bruce@bbdo.com, Phone: 212 459-5000, Fax: 212 459-5280
To email them both, click here.
Thanks to advertising guru Richard Smaglick of www.fathersandhusbands.org .
To be fair, while BBDO does have a track record of anti-male commercials, they also produced the fine AT&T ad "Monkey," which can be seen here.
"));
19 queries. 0.504 seconds.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Looks a lot less painful than getting sucked into fatherhood and/or marriage by an American woman who then exploits and American family court to her advantage and the extreme disadvantage of a child and father.
I'd take the pain and near-death experiences over that any day.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:33 am
We should all look forward to an egalitarian society where the site of a woman taking a vicious blow to her breast is SO funny!!!
February 5th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Yeh, I questioned this when I saw it and the thing that made me sick were the three girls sitting there sunning themselves like little queens and dad is just a TV junkie with nothing to say because don't you know, men are only here for women. They are just soooo beautiful and desireable when the fact is American women have a mental diesese stemming from gross matierialism.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:49 am
The interesting thing about these TV ads is how powerful media really is and how little we can even see our unconscious alignment with it.. unless we get free of it for several years. Yet it takes as little as a few weeks to see its impact impact especially if one is renewing their mind with a regimen of alternate discipline, such as Bible study, or working to reverse the media enforced trends by coming up to speed by lifting up others so they too can *see*. As one who in recent years has eliminated TV from his home altogether and now rarely watches sports, the ads are repulsive to me, but the real repulsion is seeing the reflections of TV in people in the depravity of culture around me. What we see on TV is accelerating moral decline that is putting our society in full tilt and will soon cost us our national sovereignty because everyone is so busy being entertained they have no time to be informed for instance on who to vote for if one is serious about a return to our constitutional heritage. Fact is in general we are being entertained into the abyss. I watched the super bowl yesterday with a Christian buddy and at a local pizza house. And yes the game was entertaining but the hype and the commercials were a true indication of why we really do have the leadership we deserve..and the fact that they push gender bias goes directly to men having handed off their Biblical place as the gender leaders via simply checking out with the remote..
February 5th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I have dropped out of watching tv and allowing my children to watch tv because of all the hypocrisy in the tv commercials and shows making it okay for women to hurt or demean men when this is not acceptable to show the same ads when women being attacked. We need to seek equality and American women have the most rights above men and yet don't some satisfied. We need to teach our children to respect each other and these ads are poor examples. Maybe Pepsi should focus on equal parenting and they will get more sales than having a guy getting kicked in the nuts and in pain. I can't picture myself drinking Pepsi thinking of a guy getting kicked in the nuts.
Marcy Ganz
http://www.crispe.org
February 5th, 2008 at 1:18 am
AP hit it again!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I think you missed the point of the ad. It was not Timberlake being sucked in by women, it was for a promotional contest Pepsi is running, in which the winner will recieve concerts tickets, or something similar. The tag line is "Each sip brings you closer to Justin Timberlake..."
While I agree TV is not always fair to men, this was not that big of a deal, in my opinion, and I think the purpose of the ad gets lost if we look at it from an anti male attitude.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Good grief, Bob. You must be kidding.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:51 am
I missed the game since I didn't care about the game and I know the commercials will get spammed for next few months.
Three anti-male strikes in one ad:
1. At the start of the ad notice Timberlake lecturing his male friend for being immature.
2. Timberlake being subject to horrible acts of violence and near death.
3. And at the end the dad that is portrayed as a tv junkie.
And like Jay R. said I'd really like to see the day where the female analog of that ad (imagine Shakira being repeatedly smashed chest first into a brick wall along with the other things that happened to Timberlake) is deemed "acceptable and funny".
February 5th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Something else I noticed is the girls are always attractive. You want to like them because they are beautiful. But when they do make an ad with a more positive male image it's usually with a guy who isn't that attractive or kind of a loser.
For instance the ad where the guy is playing his guitar and talking about getting married and finding out his woman has bad credit and now they can't buy a house. Whatever positive message that is made about men it overshadowed by the fact that he's still a loser and his woman is better looking than him.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:44 am
The girls over at the N.O.W. website (now.org) have posted their reviews of all the SuperBowl advertisements, which they were monitoring for offensive content.
Mostly they were complaining that women were not especially prominent in this year's commercials, having been replaced by more interesting characters like furry computer-generated rodents.
Such is the supremacy of feminism today...
February 5th, 2008 at 5:47 am
I also think it is hurtful to make fun of men who have gender identity issues.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:24 am
i hated that commercial ... i have no idea who timerlake is and the ad was violent.
i loved the take off on ugly betty in the peanut ad ... funny (the fems probably found it nauseating)
February 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I was totally on board with the last campaign to write... Volvo, I believe... about their choice of ad agencies. I didn't like the way they portrayed fathers and men in general in their ads.
This ad however, just doesn't strike me the same way. "Each sip brings you closer to Justin Timberlake" just isn't offensive to me. Yeah, Justin is getting battered and nearly killed as he gets pulled toward the girl, but she looks surprised when he lands in her yard - as if she had no idea it was happening. Yeah, the three girls are sitting out in their backyard tanning and doing nothing productive, but hel-lo? Anyone here actually HAVE teenage girls? That's what they do! And when the TV strikes Justin and knocks him out with the dad picking up the TV and lugging it off, I took that as the dad pre-empting any hanky-panky between Justin and his daughter by getting the prize HE wants instead of letting her have her prize of Justin.
I don't see the need to protest this one.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Georgia Girl,
come out from under the rock that you've been under if you don't know who he is. On that note, I wasn't offended much by this ad except for the father at the end and the male cross dress (andy samberg from SNL). They weren't being malicious in trying to hurt him, they were simply sipping, they didn't realize where he was and that he was getting hurt.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:01 am
It isn't funny when people get hurt. It is okay for people to be hurt if you don't know they are being hurt? Whenever there is slapstick who gets hurt?
(Okay, There is the commercial for the voice activated computer in your car and it is full of slapstick humor and except for the woman who walks into a door it mostly happens to men.)
Why is it okay for men to be hurt? Men are disposable.
Men (and Fathers) will always be disposable if we keep going "They weren't being malicious in trying to hurt him, they were simply sipping, they didn't realize where he was and that he was getting hurt." After all he is just a man right? A man out to do his dirty thoughts to a sweet innocent teenage female?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I tend to agree with Don's comments.
I was on board with the other campaigns, as I saw a true "men/fathers are idiots" message in the ads. This one, however, doesn't meet that standard for me. The ad is not about a "man" or a "father," nor does it make any statements about those groups in general. This ad is simply an unfunny, "look at the celebrity's pain" type of spot.
If I take issue with any particular part of the ad's message, it's that it furthers the impression of entitlement that our youths already suffer from. Everyone, even celebrities, should be at your beck and call. It's ok to treat people as badly as you like, as long as it makes you and your friends laugh. This is a genderless problem, but has become much more pervasive since companies started marketing to kids and teens as their major demographic.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Good grief! I think Glen's got a pretty good head on his shoulders, but to claim this ad in any way is bad for men is just too over the top. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a funny ad is just a funny ad.
Protesting this ad gives mens rights organizations a bad name.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Wow, you guys have your undies in such a wad you're going to need a pair of pliers to get them out. I don't know if you are aware of this but all the terrible things that happened to Justin Timberlake in that ad were special effects. He really didn't get hurt. Feel better now? Also, Marcy and Gary, you really need to get over yourselves. Life is too short and wonderful to waste it on being so negative.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
But you can't make a reverse ad can you? With some teenage boys sipping their sodas and pinballing who? Avril Lavigne or some other young female singer could you? You wouldn't see that without the pinballing either, "Every sip brings you closer to Avril." That would be "creepy" wouldn't it? Seen as encouraging stalking or something wouldn't it? Pretty and sweet woman singer having to think of all those boys having dirty thoughts about getting close to her?
*acid laced sarcasm voice on*
Thaaaat's right. Silly me. It is just a funny thing when a man gets hurt. No big deal. Men get killed at work all the time. 93% of workplace fatalities happen to men.
Why should we be worried about a guy getting it in the nuts for pretend on a commercial during a game where men beat up on each other? Man up and accept your disposability.
How do you think we'll get them to see Fathers are important if we can't take seeing a guy get a couple of shots to the gnads? They won't let us have a place as Fathers if we can't accept our place as men. Man up, gentlemen, quit whining and take that hit for the humor of all.
*acid laced sarcasm voice off*
February 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I agree, Lewis. We can't lose sight of the fact that this is a man being hurt, and they would never dream do a commercial where the genders are reversed. THAT'S the problem. There is a definite double standard at work. This is one of those double standards that a lot of men (most men, I dare say) buy into, because they never think about these things. I can say with confidence, based on the fact that I see at least one movie a week at a movie theater, that men (especially young men) laugh more at the kick-to-the-groin humor than women.
We need to take a stand and let advertisers know that we are noticing the double standard where men are afforded less dignity, less respect as human beings, when it comes to being physically hurt, behaving childishly and not having a clue. Yes, women at times are treated as sex objects, and Glenn sometimes backs NOW's protest of certain ads that degrade women ( I agree wtih him on that). It works both ways, and we shouldn't tolerate men being used as punching bags, or being treated as expendable, just so some company can sell soft drink.
I'm a Coca-Cola man myself.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Guys:
IMO: this is absurd. We need to pick our battles or we will lose the miniscule amount of credibility we have worked so hard for.
I believe that there are far more reaching anti-male and anti-dad issues that we could spend our energy on. I also pray that one day this won’t be so!
February 5th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Re Lewis:
You have to pick your battles.
Yes, there are some things in that ad that would not work in our society if the genders were reversed, but that doesn't make the ad sexist. An ad that features a topless man would face a similar problem if we hypothetically were to switch the genders.
To protest this ad on the grounds that it anti-male does a great disservice to those campaigning against ads/shows who are clearly anti-male, or worse, whose entire MESSAGE is the denegration of males.
Let us not forget, it would be easy for a motivated party to find anti-female examples in ths Pepsi ad, which would make any defense of this campaign difficult.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Honestly guys, with illegal immigration, an impending economic crisis, an election season that has all but ignored the destruction of families by the courts, etc, ....
Do we really have time to worry about this ad, which is merely a drop in the bucket compared to issues that REALLY effect us? Why waste time on something that small when there are so many real problems we've barely begun to put a dent in?
Thomas Lessman
. www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us
February 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Count me as one who doesn't think this is worth protesting either. While I agree a similar commercial with genders reversed would never happen, I think women should be more offended from this one than men.
The commercial was obviously promoting to women, e.g. drink more pepsi and get Timberlake, lay out and be lazy in the sun, drink empty calories, and increase your risk of sun cancer. If I were a women, I wouldn't think Pepsi thought much of my gender, or my inclinations.
I think a better route than protesting would be to ask the feminists why they aren't protesting it..... as patronizing as that may be.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am
yeah
February 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am
agreed
February 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I'll be fine with this ad when women can be crotched at even half as often as men are. As it is, Pepsi will be getting my letter demanding that in their next ad, they portray a woman getting struck between the legs - three times - with a mailbox. I was fine with the sucking, etc...but somehow as the ad went on, I just knew he was going to catch one in the crotch...and sure enough, he did.
On the subject of crotching, I was impressed with the show Las Vegas the last couple weeks. In the first week, the one woman threatened to punch some guy in the nuts (which pissed me off)...in the next week, another girl threatened that same woman with a punch (or kick) to the ovaries. I was impressed. Now of course they would never let a guy make that same threat, but at least they were moving in the right direction by giving each gender equal time. Incidentally, as far as I know, these were the only two instances of crotch-jokes in Las Vegas - ever.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Al Zimmerman, leader at the government's Department of Children and Families (DCF), is arrested on eight counts of soliciting two boys for sexual purposes. One of the boys had been in DCF care.
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080205/CAPITOLNEWS/802050332
February 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
"I understand slapstick humor but this was way over the line--Timberlake is in severe pain in the ad, and gets painfully whacked in the nuts on three separate occasions. All because some pretty girl is sucking him in by drinking her Pepsi (pictured). To watch the ad, click here."-Glenn
Call me oversensitive, but I agree with glenn and the others that think the ad is a bit out of bounds. I am tired of men getting hit in the nuts. How many commercials see women taking a blow to the vagina? It is this mentality that allowed society to trivialize the lorena bobbit incident.
Most people have heard of Nathanson's book "spreading misandry," but there is also another one called "media and male identity" by an austrlian professor named "Macnamara." The book covers a study by said author, and seemed to come to the conclusion that 69% of media portrayals of men are negative. It is a great book, although I didnt agree with absolutely everything in it.
Masculist XY
February 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
What is wrong with some of you people? If anything in that ad was to be considered outright misandrist, it would be the three hits to the nads by a mailpost! All in the name of "humor".....
WOW! I cannot believe that some of you didn't find that about as offensive as it gets! The force that they implied for that 'gag' under normal and realistic circumstances would have caused sever internal damages and possibly death....
Fun-NEY! HAHA!
February 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I thought the battle was that men (and by extension Fathers) are not disposable?
Isn't that 'males are disposable' why the courts feel it is okay not to enforce custody orders? Why women get the kids in divorce? The man is going to be killed on the job anyway right?
Of course it is okay to laugh at this, men don't have feelings and don't suffer so it is not big deal that this guy is pretending to suffer to sell soda. Is that it?
Don't feel sympathy for this guy because compared to the REAL pain you got coming when she gets tired of you, intiates a divorce you don't want and makes you support children you never see at a level beyond your means. No one will spare a moment for you then so get your laughs in now. Is that it?
Laugh at this guy it will toughen you up. It will teach you to laugh it off when things get really unfair. Get you ready for the ways it is really going to get stuck to you. Come on if you don't think this is funny how are you going to take it when the doctor diagnoses black lung and says you can't work or you'll be dead in a year but don't fall behind on that onerous child support payment you can barely make working 55 hours a week? Is that it?
The battle isn't to change the fundamental view society holds of men? It isn't to have us seen as more than a sperm and resource producing organism that can be harmed for amusement?
The battle isn't for men to be seen as feeling beings that care about their offspring? That want what is best for them? As beings that have more to contribute than making a wage?
Oh poor baby got hurt and can't work to make his child support payments? Too bad. I think you just aren't motivated enough. What you need is to have them increased. We'll see how hurt you are then won't we? Tough it out and get to work. That attitude doesn't start with laughing at a celebrity male getting punched around in a commercial? That attitude isn't the one the war is against? That isn't the real battle?
February 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
For the men who don't think this ad is worth protesting, would you not expect to see women's groups protesting Super Bowl commercials that portray women as sex objects? Of course you would. They would say, and rightfully so, that such ads detract from their dignity as human beings.
Don't you agree that, as in this commercial, men are routinely portrayed as punching bags and buffoons, and that such portrayals detract from men's dignity as human beings? The question scarcely survives its statement. And shouldn't we disapprove of such negative gender stereotyping -- even though it affects men?
The reason you're not offended by this is because these sorts of messages are so ingrained in our culture many of us think nothing of it. THAT may be the scariest thing of all.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
You got it Glenn. I wrote all four of those dirt bags. That commercial was senselessly violent and thoroughly unfunny. And then he finds her attractive after all the hell she put him through. What a load of garbage. Here are the contents of one of my letters:
"You folks have gone way over the line! Your Super Bowl Pepsi ad stinks to high heaven. How dare you portray men as masochistic idiots? But I must say that the psychopathic woman in the ad is quite realistic.
But seriously, you and your cronies are going to have to find new butts for your stupid and unfunny jokes. I demand that you pull that offensive ad or I will never drink another Pepsi as long as I live. And I'll encourage my family and friends to follow suit. While I'm at it I'll be boycotting all products that employ male-basing in their ads. If you were real professionals you wouldn't have to bash anybody."
Stephen
February 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Somebody is apparently trying to take my comments out of context. Not once did I say the ad was "funny". And I really don't give a damn whether women's groups would protest the add if it was a female instead of a male getting hurt.
What I said is that there are real issues and problems that our movement has to deal with and is barely half-assing. That's because people who should be protesting in front of their family court building, or talking to their state legislators regarding anti-male legislation, or anything else constructive, are instead too busy wasting their time complaining about a Pepsi ad where a guy gets hit in the nuts.
Yes it was a bad taste ad. No it's not so important that we need to drop everything else just to make Pepsi feel bad. There are other things our movement needs to get accomplished, that are far more important than this stupid ad, and we can't afford to waste time with petty commercials.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lessman
. www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us
February 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I was actually wondering what took you so long to post this. As soon as I saw it, I knew it would be on here - and you're right. That said, my step-son found this spot hilarious; I did not.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
George Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 5:47 am
I also think it is hurtful to make fun of men who have gender identity issues.
------------
Justin Timberlake is GAY???? (j/k)
February 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Thomas: "Yes it was a bad taste ad. No it's not so important that we need to drop everything else just to make Pepsi feel bad. There are other things our movement needs to get accomplished, that are far more important than this stupid ad, and we can't afford to waste time with petty commercials."
Thanks for speaking for the rest of us Thomas and letting us know what should be important to us. My moral compass is obviously faulty. Please accept my sincere apologies for stepping out of line.
I'm with Glenn on this one: this (the portrayal of men in media) is an important aspect of our movement. I'll add that chances are good all of those other equally important things you note probably won't get accomplished until we take care of how men are portrayed and how we see ourselves.
Rosemarie: "That said, my step-son found this spot hilarious; I did not."
Sounds pretty typical. For some reason many men love to see other men getting hit in the nuts. I'm not sure why. The double standard is what I find distasteful. If it were even half as acceptable to portray women getting hit in the crotch, I would be fine with it and just take it as slapstick humor. (though I was quite surprised while watching Monster In Law the other week when Jane Fonda blasted her female friend in the crotch).
February 5th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Notice the 96% approval rating for this commercial at MySpace Video. Read the comments that are part of that site. They especially loved seeing him get hit in the groin. Some just wanted to take him home. I believe other commentators here to be correct in their gender reversal. We couldn't laugh at a women's pain (even if it's just acting) Taking into account the MySpace comments, males making similar ones would likely be labeled pigs [rather than heterosexual (for the mild remarks)] It's a sign of the times. Glenn, they got to get 'Sacked'.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Bob Barker, you're too sophisticated for your own good. Such thinking finds art in a picture frame with nothing in it. Such thinking calls Chuck Berry and Little Richard pop singers instead of the founders of rock and roll. It walks and quacks like a duck so it's a duck.
Just as women were the biggest protesters of the suffragettes, I see that men are perhaps the biggest obstacle to men's rights. I can't believe that men would defend these stupid and dangerous commercials. Wake up. The litmus test for discovering if an ad is offensive is "can you portray a woman in the same way and get away with it?" If you can't then it's a double standard. With men supporting male-bashing who needs feminists?
I'm going out on a limb with this one. I think the men who support this crap are PAMs. Feminism has won the game.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Lance has it right when he says:
"I'm with Glenn on this one: this (the portrayal of men in media) is an important aspect of our movement. I'll add that chances are good all of those other equally important things you note probably won't get accomplished until we take care of how men are portrayed and how we see ourselves."
We do need to think about how we see ourselves.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
In a way, I think this advertising accurately depicts what can happen to any man who gets “sucked” into a relationship with many females in today’s American society.
It may not happen, if you’ve found a good woman, but the potential always exists no matter what.
Kevin Merck
February 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
You know Stephen, you and I have had a tussle to two on this board...but when you are right your are right:
Stephen: "Just as women were the biggest protesters of the suffragettes, I see that men are perhaps the biggest obstacle to men's rights. I can't believe that men would defend these stupid and dangerous commercials. Wake up. The litmus test for discovering if an ad is offensive is "can you portray a woman in the same way and get away with it?" If you can't then it's a double standard. With men supporting male-bashing who needs feminists?"
Men are by far the biggest obstacles to the MRM.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Lance says: "Thanks for speaking for the rest of us Thomas and letting us know what should be important to us. My moral compass is obviously faulty. Please accept my sincere apologies for stepping out of line.
Nicely said. I was just about to reiterate that being viewed as punching bags is a real issue that needs corrected.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Thanks, Lewis: "I was just about to reiterate that being viewed as punching bags is a real issue that needs corrected."
Agreed! Until men stop laughing at this crap, we won't take ourselves seriously nor realize that there is a problem. You won't have marches on congress (or the court house or whatever) as long as men accept their lot in life as humanity's punching bag.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Lane: "Notice the 96% approval rating for this commercial at MySpace Video."
Do you have a link? It might be worth it for us to go there and make some of these comments. I have found a growing "men's movement" on YouTube that does question double standards...but we can always help!
February 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Lance:
Sounds pretty typical. For some reason many men love to see other men getting hit in the nuts. I'm not sure why. The double standard is what I find distasteful. If it were even half as acceptable to portray women getting hit in the crotch, I would be fine with it and just take it as slapstick humor. (though I was quite surprised while watching Monster In Law the other week when Jane Fonda blasted her female friend in the crotch).
---------------------
I asked my step-son if he would find a woman getting hit in the genital area funny. He said no, because it wouldn't hurt as much. So he's basically admitting that, to him at least, that man's pain was funny.
He told me that there are plenty of jokes about women's nipples getting twisted, etc., and that he felt women were the butt of jokes just as much as men.
I'm not sure about that. The only thing of which I AM sure is I'm becoming an old stick in the mud.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
As is so often the case, we have a situation here where a female cheif marketing officer in a matriarchal company gets a group of men to create an ad like this. The guys that do this are a bunch of ...
You'd think that Pepsi's CEO Indra Nooyi, a woman who came from Calcutta and has been voted for the last two years to be THE most powerful woman in business would have a little more respect for the culture that has honored her humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra_Nooyi
India has now become worse than the US when it comes to feminist dysfunction. A false allegation of domestic violence there can land the whole family of the falsely accused in jail.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Haven't seen the new Pepsi commercial, but my vote for most hateful, anti-male commercial featuring violence I believe was from Progressive where a woman at a bar plays with a vodoo doll or something and tortures what is apparently her ex across the room through the entire commerical.
I grabbed the People Magazine with the cover, 'Revenge of the Ex's', as it seems to epitomize 'the woman's right for vengence against their man' for future reference. The three women are those presumed to be abused victims of womanhood Reese Wetherspoon (reported to have been cheated on by husband Ryan Phillippe); Jessica Simpson (whom I believe divorced Nick Lachey); and, the 'I got pregnant, what a surprise', former girlfriend of Patriot's quarterback Tom Brady. I didn't even glance at the article as the cover told the whole story in my view.
Mike
February 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Glenn provided it where he writes, "To watch the ad, click here." That will take you there.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
myspace Superbowl ads:
http://www.myspace.com/superbowlads
But I can't find the place where they were rated. I did see it this morning when I logged in, but can't find it now.
I'll keep looking.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Rosemarie: "I asked my step-son if he would find a woman getting hit in the genital area funny. He said no, because it wouldn't hurt as much."
That too is a typical misunderstanding or lack of understanding of anatomy. You should counter with the question: if it wouldn't hurt "as much" (whatever that means - one may or may not hurt "more" depending upon the individual but they both hurt pretty bad), why do they make female groin protectors:
http://www.karatedepot.com/pr-gr-05.html
Or tell him look around YouTube for "vagina bust" or the like (be sure to substitute more "profane" or potentially offensive words for vagina - you get my drift).
Rosemarie: "He told me that there are plenty of jokes about women's nipples getting twisted, etc., and that he felt women were the butt of jokes just as much as men."
When has he ever seen a women get a "titty twister" on a commercial??? Or in a movie for that matter...Hell, I've probably seen more men get "titty twisters" in movies then I ever have women.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
RE 96% approval. I tried Glenns link again, just click and it is there.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Lane: "Glenn provided it where he writes"
Oops...thanks! I had already seen the commercial in question so I did not click through.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I gotta go with a few others on this, it wasnt a big deal, Justin acting immature, well, look what he does for a living, his life is one big party.
And the slapstick part of this was nothing.
Everyone has read the story of the boy who cried wolf, do we really want to be known as the guys who cry about everything, we lose credibility that way
some things you just have to laugh at...........because theya re kinda funny. To me,this add was very small potatoes
February 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
"The litmus test for discovering if an ad is offensive is 'can you portray a woman in the same way and get away with it?'"
Bingo. That's the litmus test I point to when people say that [fill in whatever issue here] isn't a big deal.
By the way, Mr. Timberlake has testicles, not "nuts" or "balls." We ought to stop using slang words for male or female genitals. If the word that rhymes with "stunt" is considered horrible and offensive to women, fine, but then we should eliminate the words that rhyme with "stick" to describe a man's body, as well as the ones I wrote above.
"That too is a typical misunderstanding or lack of understanding of anatomy. You should counter with the question: if it wouldn't hurt 'as much' (whatever that means - one may or may not hurt 'more' depending upon the individual but they both hurt pretty bad), why do they make female groin protectors."
Another excellent point: that area is a very sensitive one for women and girls, too, and being a sports fan I am aware of a few cases of them being agonizingly hurt there -- which isn't funny, either, just as it's not funny for a man or boy to be hurt there. It's just telling that the media and Madison Avenue think one is taboo and the other is G-rated family fun.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
bmmg39: "that area is a very sensitive one for women and girls, too, and being a sports fan I am aware of a few cases of them being agonizingly hurt there"
Case and point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MBPqwj-x5E
(we all know soccer players are the best actors there are, but a stretcher is pretty serious).
February 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Mark says "Everyone has read the story of the boy who cried wolf, do we really want to be known as the guys who cry about everything, we lose credibility that way" I agree to some extent however we must consider how few of us there are compared to 'them'. Making a point of the smaller things might make the larger, already ignored issues more easily recognized.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Letter I sent to Pepsi, similar one sent to the ad agency:
I write to protest the Justin Timberlake Pepsi ad that aired during the Super Bowl that shows Mr. Timberlake being physically hurt, including several “amusing” blows to the groin.
Respectfully, the ad was sexist and not befitting a company of Pepsi’s stature.
If Pepsi had run an ad that portrays women as sex objects, you would be inundated with protests from women’s groups and from many men. And rightly so because such ads detract from women’s dignity as human beings.
Well, men are not immune from negative gender stereotyping, but such stereotyping seems far more acceptable. Men are routinely portrayed as punching bags (as in this commercial) and buffoons. Would you not agree that such portrayals detract from men's dignity as human beings? The question scarcely survives its statement.
Ask yourself if you would have run the same commercial with a female star being physically pummeled. Of course you wouldn’t. It only “works” with a male.
And that’s the problem.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
"Everyone has read the story of the boy who cried wolf, do we really want to be known as the guys who cry about everything, we lose credibility that way"
I agree with this to an extent............
However, one of the challenges of masculism is men finding the strength to speak up and admit hurt/vulnerability.................................. which goes against the male socialization to "take it like a man". It is too easy for men to laught this stuff off...........we are programmed by society to do so. In fact, men seem to find this stuff more funny than women sometimes, and that is simply brotherhood betrayal.
In other words, I think men should find the strength to complain a little more and women should find the strength to complain a little less. There is a nice happy medium between being a cry-baby and being a macho maniac. I think men and women should both seek this happy medium.
Masculist XY
February 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Out of curiosity a question for those who are "okay" with the ad.
Do you have a dangerous and/or physically uncomfortable (exposed to the weather or blast furnace) job?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
The symbolic representations of what we agree to believe and accept as a culture -- i.e. advertisements -- tell us a lot more about our society than anything going in politricks right now.
How come Hillary wasn't driving the car that narrowly missed the squirrel?
That would have been priceless!
February 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Re Lewis:
"Comfortable" with the ad? How about, "comfortable with waiting for a better spot to get our point across"
The fact of the matter is that there are MANY problems with this ad and what it says about the marketing industry and society as a whole. The biggest of these problems, however, is not the portrayal of men. It is the "pain is funny" message. It is the "I'm entitled to sit on my rear and still get everything I want" message.
Compare this to the Verizon commercial, where the crux of the ad was the failure and stupidity of the father. There is no comparison.
I'm not saying that the commercial had zero anti-male content. I'm just saying that we should keep our eyes on the big picture, which is to be taken seriously and convince the world that we are right.
This kind of hypersensitvity will only lead to the kind of ridiculous fanaticism we see spouting from the NOW feminists of today.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I am on the side that this sort of ad is not okay. I did call the number and was referred to 1-800-433-2652. Perhaps I am too sensitive to these sorts of things now, but I was also troubled by the Icebreakers add where the man being "nice" by giving a piece of gum to the female celebrity was rewarded by being bum rushed and tackled by the celebrity's bodyguards. I thought it was an excellent metaphor for what happens in instances of false allegations.
Good to have the varying viewpoints on this one gang, but I chime in with the lithmus test that if we don't do it to women, we don't do it to men- and these female executives do need to be made aware, and Pepsi needs to be held accountable- damn, I really enjoyed Gatorade. Interesting that there is such a love hate with this add. Noticed it was ranked as the second worst on Fox Sports yesterday, but have heard several women say it was their favorite here at the office. While I am sure that is true of some men as well, I have yet to hear it. Carry on the good fight all- whichever side you may take on this one.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
"I'm just saying that we should keep our eyes on the big picture..."
That would require that we teach history in the schools where our children are currently being lobotomized.
It will never fly... even with The Shrub's no child left behind... kids waving frantically at the school bus as it pulls away.
Well, there are more critical matters to attend to...
Like the fake elections we love.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
GS, I thought I had put through a post reply to Thomas on this thread but don't see it. It had a link, would this have been spam blocked? - AP
February 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I don't see it--can you repost?
February 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Sure,
Thomas,
Regarding female beauty, there are many examples in nature in which we see that evolution does not permit nature to render a beautiful attraction (a.k.a. lure) within a species unless that lure is placed adjacent to a predatory trap which is every bit as deadly as the lure is attractive.
Check out the Viper Fish and the Dragon Fish at the link below -- these are two highly evolved deep sea predators which dangle a warm, glowing, inviting-looking bioluminescent light "organ" in front of other fish too blind to see what is behind the light -- a set of fangs so vicious that they make sharks and piranahs appear benign by comparison.
Here are these fine specimines of nature's habit of pairing a lure with a trap: http://www.oddee.com/item_79915.aspx
So this is how nature works I think, and nature offers many examples:
Venus fly trap.
Viper Fish
Dragon Fish
Highly Attractive Women.
At least that's how it looks from where I sit:)
February 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
So what if Pepsi thinks some men are "hypersensitive"? They're probably rolling their eyes about some of our notes. Why should we care about that? I promise you that the next time, they'll be at least a little more sensitive to a possible backlash -- and they'll think long and hard before doing something even more offensive. As the following form email response says, "We want to entertain people, not offend them. And if we miss the mark, we need to know about it."
A Message from Consumer Relations 011503944A
Dear Tim,
Thank you for taking the time to email us about our recent Super Bowl ad for Pepsi Stuff. We appreciate your comments and I assure you that we attach a great deal of importance to the views of our consumers.
It’s extremely important to us that our advertising serves to enhance the positive image of our brands. We want to entertain people, not offend them. And if we miss the mark, we need to know about it.
You can be assured that the important issues you raised will be shared with our senior management and advertising teams. I want them to be aware of your opinion as they discuss future initiatives.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us and for sharing your constructive comments.
Sol Moledo
Senior Consumer Relations Representative sol.moledo@pepsi.com 011503944A
February 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
A copy of my letter to PepsiCo's executives:
Ladies,
Respectfully, I wonder why you feel that I will be more inclined to purchase your product as a result of seeing vacuous women using it. Even more, I wonder why you think I would be enticed by an extended spectacle in which a man is involuntarily subjected to an alarming and obviously injurious sequence of physical abuse, including, or course, "hilarious" multiple traumas to his reproductive organs, all so that he can finally be "presented" to said vacuous women as a sex object.
This is to let you know that due to the hostile and contemptuous attitude toward men's physical welfare revealed by your company's advertising, I will no longer purchase your product (which I have enjoyed in the past). I will encourage others to do the same. A company with the stature of PepsiCo carries a lot of societal "clout." It is a shame you are using it to send the message that a man's pain and injury is not only acceptable, but is a source of entertainment.
"Oh, come on, this is a joke!" you may say. To which I respond: just reverse the genders on your "Magnetic Attraction" commercial and tell me how funny it is. A young woman torn from her companions, blasted breasts first into walls, dragged along the street and struck multiple times between her legs, and finally deposited in front of semi-naked men who proceed to leer at her. You run that commercial, and I'll keep an open mind as to what is "funny."
Respectfully,
J. Riggs
February 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Excellent letter Jay!
February 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Lewis said...
That attitude doesn't start with laughing at a celebrity male getting punched around in a commercial? That attitude isn't the one the war is against? That isn't the real battle?
It's one battle in a much larger war. Not all of us are here because of divorce and custody issues.
Thomas Lessman please also take note.
Rosemarie said...
He told me that there are plenty of jokes about women's nipples getting twisted, etc., and that he felt women were the butt of jokes just as much as men.
Did he give any examples? I've been in this world nearly fifty years and have never heard a nipple twisting joke aimed at women. Is it something women do among themselves?
For those who like writing to advertising companies and the businesses whose ads offend...
Write also to other customers of the advertising companies which produce the offending ads alerting THEM to the misandry and laziness of their chosen ad company. It takes a little research but typically the advertising firms brag about who their customers are on their websites.
Thus, using Pepsi for example, if they use Company "A" to produce their offending ad and Company "A" also has Companies "X", "Y" and "Z" as clients then write to "X", "Y" and "Z" as well.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Re Tim:
I respect your opinion on this matter, and I can understand both sides of this issue.
I just want to make clear that my posts, and most of the anti-protest posts here, are not saying that we think that this kind of ad is "acceptable." It's stupid, unfunny, and somewhat vulgar in what it tries to portray as humorous. That said, it's not a commentary on men, and in my opinion, isn't even gender specific.
The ad is marketing to teens about how, if they continually nag their parents to buy Pepsi, they'll be able to win the starring role in some celebrity photo-op. One could even make the argument that the pain inflicted in the ad was an attempt to humanize the celebrity to the fans that idolize him.
Yes, the popularity of the "physical pain is funny" gag is a sad commentary on our society. Yes, the stars of those gags are almost exclusively men. But it depends on the context, doesn't it? The Three Stooges made their entire careers through physical humor. I'm not a big fan of them myself, but to each their own. In my opinion, this ad was a poor attempt at that kind of humor.
You want to know the ads that really bother me? They're the ones where the man DESERVES the pain, because of some stereotypical view that he is little more than a caveman. They're the ones where the kids, encouraged or led by their mother, roll their eyes at the sheer stupidity of their lunkhead father as if they'd been doing it their whole lives, and have basically been raised by one parent. They're the ones where the wife tells the husband what to do, as if it's a command that the man was born to obey. Those are the ads I hate, and there are many examples of them.
This one is just stupid.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Steve K. -- you make very good points, and I certainly agree with you about the "roll-their-eyes-at-the-stupid-man" commercials. Those are repulsive. The Pepsi commercial is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst we've seen. But I'll tell you what I keep thinking: when I see Glenn's Web site numbers, and the fact that he's getting bigger and bigger, I don't mind seeing him flex his muscles more and more -- start calling these big companies on things like this.
The point about the Three Stooges is interesting -- I was a big fan and, to be honest, I never thought about them in terms of gender until you just mentioned it.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I always hated the Three Stooges because of the violence and meanness exhibited. Even as a kid, I knew that being poked in the eye and hit on the head HURT. I couldn't understand why these men did this to each other for no reason, or why they would hang around with someone who would hurt them capriciously. I do, however, acknowledge that I am probably in the minority on this one.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
GS, reposted - 2 more trys, system says duplicate detected, so maybe it's in the queue.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
May I add, re the Three Stooges:
Their physical comedy was mean and hurtful. I liked Laurel and Hardy and Abbot and Costello -- they also relied heavily on physical humor, but their's wasn't nearly as nasty. I don't recall them hurting each other on purpose, or for "fun."
February 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I want to say something to the people who find this add acceptable or who casually write it off as not much. Ads like this are about as bad as it gets. It's a sadistic ad that appeals to people's sadistic tendencies while masquerading as humor. What I want to know is what does it take for you to object to this garbage? Do they have to portray men being fed to lions before you get the point. Or is that so slapstick that they could get a laugh with that too?
And to those who think there are bigger issues than this well, the MRM is doing just fine. Public protests and ad campaigns take time and money. I'm sure that such activities will arrive on schedule. But in the mean time I believe we need to establish a common viewpoint. Just take a look at how well organized and single minded all 3 waves of feminism are and were. Their views didn't differ greatly but with the men we're one mixed up crew. The MRM has too many contradictions that need to be resolved.
When I was in basic training, at the beginning you had a motley crew of raw recruits who came from all walks of life. It was a rainbow of personalities, economic classes, cultures, body types, races and so many other factors. Well at the end of 8 weeks we all had one thing in common: we were all soldiers who could take on any enemy because we were a fighting machine. Yet we were still individuals. My suggestion is that you lower your tolerance for male-bashing in all forms and raise your standards and expectations of people, government and the media. In other words, demand respect. It wouldn't hurt you and it would certainly bring about the change that we need. Let's get the job done first and then talk about our differences of opinions.
Failure to call a spade a spade is the real thing that's going to hold back the MRM. I wouldn't have a problem with the ad if it was isolated to a single high school perhaps. But it was shown to one of the 5 largest audiences of the year.
"begin sarcastic voice-over"
I have no problem with the ad. It's just another one of your typical male-bashing ads that are a part of life. People will laugh at it and forget about it so quit whining. And so what if it was seen by 50 billion people? We all know that television has no serious effect on people. And everybody knows the difference between television and reality. Those advertisers are professionals and they're just doing their job. What else can you expect from people trying to sell a product? Lighten up. Men are tough and shouldn't waste their time with such trivial matters such as television commercials.
"end sarcastic voice-over"
February 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Re Tim:
I think we would both agree that Glenn's numbers are a good sign that people are waking up to the fact that this issue needs addressing. We may disagree on this issue, but it's good that we're both on the same team.
I think that the reason I don't like the Three Stooges is that I was exposed to them too early. I thought "There's Something About Mary" was funny as hell, and that had plenty of physical humor! I also think that part of the reason the Three Stooges are so popular is because men saw it as three guys who were close enough to "speak" their minds to each other. Call it the "Male Bonding For Idiots" of its day. :)
Re Jay:
Just goes to show how society has changed. It used to be funny because the "violence" was so theatrical and overacted that no one saw it as real. Now, it's all about making it look and sound as real as possible.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
AP: "GS, reposted - 2 more trys, system says duplicate detected, so maybe it's in the queue."
Yeah, I've had the same problems in the past. I'm not sure what the issue is sometimes with this software - it seems to be a bug. I've only gotten around it by cutting the post in two or three. As you say, it does say there is a duplicate. It took me an hour or more of trial-and-error to finally end up with a working set of posts.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Jay R Says: "I always hated the Three Stooges because of the violence and meanness exhibited. Even as a kid, I knew that being poked in the eye and hit on the head HURT. I couldn't understand why these men did this to each other for no reason, or why they would hang around with someone who would hurt them capriciously. I do, however, acknowledge that I am probably in the minority on this one."
Well it isn't a minority of one. I'm not a big Stooges guy either.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Anyone who is foolish enough to think this ad is okay simply has to visualize it with a woman taking all the abuse to see that it is not funny.
On the positive side the man is Justin Timberlake so there is some justice left in the world.
Simple answer to simple problem- dont drink Pepsi, and dont let your wife/girlfriend do the shopping for you.
Men make most of the money yet women spend most of the money, so of course the advertising industry makes ads that make the girls feel superior to us in order to get their(our) money. Do your own shopping, plain and simple, and soon the fools and victims in ads will be female. We have the majority of the money, hence we have the power to dominate the market. All it takes to do the grocery shopping for a family is a 2 hr trip to the supermarket once a week- if that's too much trouble to turn the advertising tables then men have no-one to blame but themselves.
To the feminist lurkers- we have most of the money because we do most of the work. Check your census.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
"I always hated the Three Stooges because of the violence and meanness exhibited. Even as a kid, I knew that being poked in the eye and hit on the head HURT. I couldn't understand why these men did this to each other for no reason, or why they would hang around with someone who would hurt them capriciously. I do, however, acknowledge that I am probably in the minority on this one."
Well, it looks like I am part of that minority too.
Actually, I prefer witty dialogue more than slapstick...............I much prefer the British "Office" to the American one.
Masculist XY
February 5th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer--I found your post in the spam blocker--why it didn't come up last time I searched I don't know. I also don't know why it would be there to begin with. Anyway, I fished it out.--GS
February 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Great post Michael Claymore. I've stated this in other posts that "if men don't play the game then the game ends. And to any feminist lurkers: not even you can stop us.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
GS, no prob. Thanks! -AP
February 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Dear Indra, (Dear Cie)
It’s hard for me to understand why a company like Pepsi has to resort to man bashing as a means to sell its product.
I would expect a woman of your stature to be more socially responsible.
You lost this customer and many more if I can help it.
Sincerely,
Kevin Merck
I didn’t write to the advertising company because they would sell their soul for a Pepsi contract. Pepsi is responsible, not the advertising agency.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The beverage industry is blogging on this. You can let them know what you think here:
http://www.bevnet.com/bevblog/2008/02/something-sucks-about-pepsi-ad-complaint/
February 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
AP - It is truly insulting to compare fully evolved sophisticated fish and plant predators to women.
No mammals in your inventory of superior species?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Roy,
Well, we do have an insect example (not a mammal of course) in the female preying Mantis, who draws her male mate into copulation and then has been known to bite his head off and make a meal out of him (she does get hungry, and what the heck -- she's going to need food to grow, lay and care for those fertilized eggs and all)
Think is, I can't think of any mammal species other than humans in which the females routinely use lures to trap their food the way American women do.
Maybe this is because mammal species other than humans haven't yet figured out
1. how to store food/resources/wealth in something called "money", and
2. how to use that parasite called lawyers to extract that "money" from a male member of the species.
Anyway, I didn't mean to insult those fully evolved fish, plants and insects by comparison:)
February 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am
You can actually buy the preying Mantis as a pet on the Internet. (The females...)
It is a quite incredibly beautiful creature if you look at it closely.
They have eyes like every supermodel on TV.
Predatory and blank.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Way to go guys. While I might disagree with you I have to point out that protest like this only gets more people to watch the commercial. Trying to ban or protesting something only gets it more free publicity. Now people who never saw the commercial will seek it out lol. I thought only Womens and minorities and religious rights groups were this stupid. You have only made us men look even stupider than the ad did.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
scum1 Says "Trying to ban or protesting something only gets it more free publicity. Now people who never saw the commercial will seek it out lol. I thought only Womens and minorities and religious rights groups were this stupid. You have only made us men look even stupider than the ad did."
Good point--Of course, the ad did air during the Super Bowl, with 97 million viewers, but putting it on my website was definitely the foolish move which will bring the ad to the public's attention.--GS
February 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
LMAO.
Glenn... picking on a kid like that.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Under Scum1's logic, no one should ever protest anything for fear of bringing attention to the thing being protested.
Glenn's highlighting the commercial served a very useful purpose. Many people who paid no attention to that commercial when it aired had a chance to see in a new perspective -- and a lot of people realized, "You're right! They would never do that to a woman!"
Most important, if we did not protest, Pepsi and the ad agency would only get bolder with their male bashing the next time around. Now maybe they'll think twice.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Scum1, you picked a lousy place to tell men that they shouldn't protest. That's like coming here and telling us to behave. And what's with the mentality that we're making men look like idiots? If you want to see that then just turn on your television. It's sad when someone who is unsympathetic to your cause masquerades their views as logical, acceptable or just giving good advice. I say you're either with us or you're not.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Have a look at what Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, girl from Calcutta and now the most powerful woman in American business two years running, has to say about America. In this commencement speech at Columbia University she describes America as the world's middle finger. Yes, that IS what she means.
Is it any wonder she is so willing to disrespect our culture in her advertising?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2005/nf20050520_9852.htm
February 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Thank you Charlie Brown for the link. I now have another person to add to my list of people I really want to meet one day. She sounds great.
(and no, I don't think she was being disrespectful to America in any way....IMO she was doing just the opposite. She was saying we - as individuals and as a country - reap what we sow. Isn't that what we have been telling feminists forever: you can't legislate respect, you must earn it. Similarly, on the world stage, we as a people aren't entitled to respect, we must earn it, and the moment we forget that we will loose the respect we desire).
February 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
gwallan - how are you? This is contrarymary from SYG - hope you are well.
I didn't ask my stepson for examples as I was very uncomfortable with the subject. I'm kind of a prude when it comes to discussing sex or sex-related topics to begin with. It's not easy watching men get hit in the groin on ANY level for me. I'm always the one wincing when someone gets hit ANYWHERE in a movie or on TV. I do not like slapstick on any level. My stepson, however, does enjoy it and he said the commercial was just funny slapstick.
I think that commercial is wrong on so many levels.
Interestingly, the stepson refers to Lifetime TV as "the man-hating channel". So he IS aware, on some level, of the beating men take in the media. I've told him I used to a member of NCFM and am currently a member of F4JUS and he didn't seem to think I was crazy. I think my "husband" was a little surprised. Or maybe not. He knows the reason why I joined, and sometimes it's just to painful to acknowledge that the false accusation has impacted our lives in so many ways.
When I get more $$, I will rejoin NCFM. I may not agree with everything, but I do believe it's more than a worthwhile cause.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
YIKES! I can't believe I wrote "to" instead of "too".
Geez, I'm getting old.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I received this email from Pepsi today, and my response follows.
A Message from Consumer Relations 011504570ADear Kevin,
Thank you for taking the time to email us about our recent Super Bowl
ad for Pepsi Stuff. Your email to Cie Nicholson was forwarded to my
attention with a request to personally respond. We appreciate your
comments and I assure you that we attach a great deal of importance to the
views of our consumers.
It’s extremely important to us that our advertising serves to enhance
the positive image of our brands. We want to entertain people, not
offend them. And if we miss the mark, we need to know about it.
You can be assured that the important issues you raised will be shared
with our senior marketing staff and advertising teams. I want them to
be aware of your opinion as they discuss future initiatives.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us and for sharing your
constructive comments.
Sol Moledo
Senior Consumer Relations Representative
sol.moledo@pepsi.com
011504570A
Thank you for your considerate response. I’m glad to see that you are taking a look at the practice of belittling men for the purpose of comic relief. I’m sure you understand that women and minorities have been the victim of this kind of advertising in the past and that it’s inappropriate no matter who the target is.
Sincerely,
Kevin Merck
February 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Lance, do you think women have had to earn the respect that prevents them from being rammed in the crotch in superbowl ads?
Get real.
Nooyi is a devout Hindu who wears a sari to board meetings. She espouses a religion based on a caste system. That's a system that makes you untouchable if you're not born to the right parents.
Don't you think a culture that has given this girl from Calcutta the opportunity to become the most powerful woman in American business deserves a degree of respect from her?
February 6th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I believe that Nooyi is too educated. I don't know if she's a staunch feminist but she's had a dose of the poison simply because she went to university. There is a big difference between this generation of immigrants and immigrants of the past. I'm a big classic movie fan and I read the biographies of all the big movie moguls of the 1930s and 40s. People like Louis B. Mayer of MGM revered this nation. All those mom and apple pie movies for the most part were not created by Americans. That image was created by immigrants who ran the movie studios. They appreciated and loved America because it was and still is the leader in freedom.
Today's immigrants increasingly don't love America, refuse to assimilate and often aren't even grateful for what America has offered them. Some people might say that this is today and things change. Gratitude never goes out of style. And we never should have pandered to immigrants by assimilating to their culture instead of demanding that they assimilate into ours. I believe Nooyi should hold herself to a higher standard.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
"This is contrarymary from SYG - hope you are well."
Rosemarie -- can you get Dr. Evil to un-ban me?
I really miss all my friends at SYG.
Is he just mentally constipated or what?
February 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Indra Nooyi is a member of The Trilateral Commission. You'd think she'd have a different kind of world view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission
http://www.southasianwomen.org/congress/speaker.htm
February 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
CB: "Lance, do you think women have had to earn the respect that prevents them from being rammed in the crotch in superbowl ads?"
Huh? Not sure what your statement has to do with anything. I'm going to need a bit more to understand your point as I am not seeing how you are connecting "respect" with superbowl ads.
What I meant (by a parenthetical note no less): If you have read this blog for more then a few days, you'll know that one of the common themes here is the fact that feminists demand respect for every individual woman simply because the individual is a woman regardless of whether that individual has earned it. It is this sense of entitlement that I was referring to. I'm still not sure where you are going here or why you are making connections where none were meant. It's fine if you want to make connections, but you should try to explain where you are creating them.
CB: "Nooyi is a devout Hindu who wears a sari to board meetings"
So you are attacking her religion now? That's rich. That really put's your opinions in perspective. You should do a bit more study on the subject. Let's look at the horde of people - historically - that have been slandered at the hands of Christians. Does this mean Christianity is just as broken simply because it, by nature and by definition, is exclusionary of any person that does not buy into its orthodoxy? Ethnocentricity has got to be one of the worst attributes of we Americans....and you seem to be exhibiting it in spades.
CB: "Don't you think a culture that has given this girl from Calcutta the opportunity to become the most powerful woman in American business deserves a degree of respect from her?"
Huh? How is she being disrespectful of America? Because her HUGE COMPANY made a stupid ad? (an ad that I agree was offensive, but what does her ethnic background have anything to do with it)
Why are you so fixated on the fact that she emigrated from India? Here's a clue: this is a country of immigrants. Get used to it. As far as I know, she's as much a citizen as you are.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
sorry slandered was supposed to be slaughtered...
February 6th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
"When I get more $$, I will rejoin NCFM. I may not agree with everything, but I do believe it's more than a worthwhile cause."-rosemarie.
Hey that is cool you were a member of NCFM in the past. I just joined a little over a year ago, and I like it. There are a variety of perspectives there, and they don't ascribe to a left or right wing agenda. It is non-political and non-profit.
Masculist XY
February 7th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Lance, you create more straw man arguments than a feminist.
Indra Nooyi has benefitted profoundly from this society’s openness. That openness is rooted in the principle that all people are created equal, that we all have inherent worth. Yes, you can exploit that openness while violating the principles that make it possible. That’s America. Nooyi so loves the world that she promotes the well being of all mankind and defines world politics as a member of The Trilateral Commission. Yet she allows her company to take a maladjusted former child star and pay him a large sum of money so he and his friend’s profoundly troubled and suicidal ex-wife can be humiliated. She allows her company to spend $5.4 million for a minute of air time to show the world a high profile perversion of this dangerously unstable woman’s identity, to mock her troubled behavior and to show him being whacked in the head and rammed in the crotch over and over… all so she can sell more fizzy drinks? This reminds me of what the Romans did in the coliseum, only the female version of it.
This is sick. It’s sick in so many ways. And it’s symptomatic of a much deeper problem.
Our society will not tolerate that kind of leadership from someone of her stature, and she knows it.
So do you.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:22 am
roy Says:
February 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
"This is contrarymary from SYG - hope you are well."
Rosemarie -- can you get Dr. Evil to un-ban me?
I really miss all my friends at SYG.
Is he just mentally constipated or what?
==============
I think I know who you are now!! If I recall, you managed to hurt my feelings on more than one occassion. IF you are who I think you are.
But brilliant. Very brilliant.
Perhaps you missed out on my freak out there. At the risk of breaking rule six, I really lost it there -- and over a female member. I had two severe warnings for going after her and calling her, er, bad names. I had had it with her insults. The thing that bothered me most about her is she did the very thing she decried in women: Being nasty and then playing the, "I don't understand and I'm only a victim, please help me, Dr. Evil".
I left shortly after my wonderful friend Sir Percy left and I said I wouldn't be back. Oh, well. That's the down side of being very "passionate", for lack of a better word.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Masculist - which chapter?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
CB: "Lance, you create more straw man arguments than a feminist."
Me? Look in the mirror buddy. I'm still confused why you think her ethnic background has anything to do with anything. You sound like a racist (and/or an elitist) bigot. You're also a bit of an alarmist...I'm not the one pontificating about the fall of civilization because of a commercial that I too found highly offensive.
CB: "Our society will not tolerate that kind of leadership from someone of her stature, and she knows it."
Apparently our society does. She isn't the first (nor will she be the last) to use a crotch joke to sell something. And here's a hint: the majority of the other companies attempting to sell product on the back of sexual assault (ie: crotch jokes) are run by born-and-bread Americans. The fact is many (probably most) people find male-crotch jokes funny but female-crotch jokes less so - that's what's disturbing to me.
Part of the goal of this movement is to underscore the inherent sexism of this sort of advertising and that is why I support this campaign. However, unlike some people, I do not believe that we should just become another group of comic-police that dictate to others what is funny. Therefore, my letter to her simply asked her when we can expect to see a woman like-wise sexually assaulted to sell fizzy drinks. The problem in my mind is the double standard.
I'm also still confused why we are arguing. You brought up her ethnic background while at the same time giving us a link to a talk she gave that I wholly bought into. What does any of this have to do with this Pepsi ad? (an ad that we both find offensive - so we are in general agreement on the topic of this campaign) It still sounds like you are beating your strawman to death by trying to make connections between her ethnicity and this ad where there are none. Do you really want to keep going here?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Rosemarie if you still have my email please write.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
"Masculist - which chapter?"-Rosemarie
I just have the basic national 30$ membership, subscription to Transitions, and access to the group's discussion forum. The closest regional chapter to me is Twin Cities.
Masculist XY
February 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I wouldn't call this offensive. It's true that only men getting hurt in slapstick gets kinda tiring. But this wasn't about her hurting JT, as she had no idea. An anti-male ad would just justify her hurting him and then laughing at his pain.
The advert sucks, but it's not anti-male.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Lance,
Is it fair for me to surmise that you don't expect or even want to "see a woman likewise sexually assaulted to sell fizzy drinks". Isn't that because you don't believe it's healthy for the media to mass market to society with approaches that portray people in this way? Barbara Lippert, America's most prominent ad critic, recognized this on Charlie Rose the other night, and much of the ad industry has already come to recognize this change in the zeitgeist.
Nooyi is not a dirtbag tycoon. She's a highly lauded social and business leader in a position of world influence. She's already taken some serious heat in the blogosphere for her lack of respect for America. Aside from her position at Pepsi, this is now what she's most known for.
Our society hasn't associated Nooyi with this type of advertising in the past. We are moving toward establishing this association where it needs to be made. When it is made, this will stop. It may even stop beforehand to prevent such an association with her and her company.
If she had been the kind of leader called for by her stature, Pepsi wouldn't have gone down this high priced low road.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
CB: "Is it fair for me to surmise that you don't expect or even want to "see a woman likewise sexually assaulted to sell fizzy drinks"."
As long as crotch jokes are equally acceptable to both genders, I couldn't care less. The double standard is what bothers me. So no, I don't think that is a fair assessment. Let me rephrase that since you are asking two questions: whether I expect or whether I want. What I want is equal treatment. So yes, if slapstick humor is going to include crotch jokes, then yes I want to "see a woman likewise sexually assaulted to sell fizzy drinks." Now do I expect it? No - not until women can be treated as disrespectfully as men can be treated. There does seem to be a (very) slow growing number of female-crotch jokes. I've already said a few: the Las Vegas TV Show (technically an ovary bust joke, but it's a start), Monster in Law (full-on female-crotch bust), Stick-it (I'm told a girl sticks it to a balance beam the hard way), and a couple of others.
As a libertarian-minded individual (social-liberal/fiscal-conservative), I do take issue with dictating to others what is and is not funny. I believe that, assuming we can get past our "chivalry", we can see female-crotch jokes to be equally entertaining...whether that's very or not very entertaining dependent upon the individual.
CB: "Isn't that because you don't believe it's healthy for the media to mass market to society with approaches that portray people in this way?"
Unhealthy? Oh I don't know. The double standard and the implication of male disposability is what's unhealthy. Crotch jokes themselves (and laughing at people in pain for that matter) have been around for a long time. In some respects, I believe that it is more healthy to be able to laugh at oneself. Is the crotch joke a harbinger of doom for western society? IMO, I don't think so. The assumption of male disposability and female sainthood is far more detrimental as this assumption is a result of female privilege which goes against egalitarianism.
CB: "She's already taken some serious heat in the blogosphere for her lack of respect for America."
That may be true. Beyond your link, I've never really read anything about her. From what I saw in the link though, I don't feel that she was being disrespectful. I can't comment beyond that.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Charlie Brown,
Nooyi is the CEO of PepsiCo. Pepsi is one of 4 or 5 divisions of Pepsico each with their own president. I would highly doubt if she was even remotely involved in the creation or even approving of this commercial.
Granted, as a CEO she should be more involved but a in large corporation I highly doubt it.
callum Says:
"I wouldn't call this offensive. It's true that only men getting hurt in slapstick gets kinda tiring. But this wasn't about her hurting JT, as she had no idea. An anti-male ad would just justify her hurting him and then laughing at his pain.
The advert sucks, but it's not anti-male."
I agree with you 100%. If she was purposely hurting him I would agree with the anti-male. But she had no idea. This commercial is really stupid (really REALLY stupid) but not anti male.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
At $5.4 million for 60 seconds of the highest profile exposure her company will receive all year... you better believe she was involved.
The ad isn't anti-male because the girl knew Timberlake was being rammed in the nuts over and over. It isn't anti-male becuase she didn't. It's anti-male because it's a depiction of a man being slammed into a window, thrown off a building, bashed in the head and rammed in the nuts over and over.
Mocking a very troubled fallen starlet and young mother on the brink of suicide while her parents plead for the media to leave her alone is also sick beyond belief, and way below the standards of decency we should expect of any major marketer.
Here's the long version of the ad: http://girlstalkinsmack.com/index.php/7312/extended-justin-timberlake-superbowl-commercial/
February 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
This thread is getting ready to head into the archives so I hope it gets read. I think that everyone here should protest this ad and leave your personal feelings at home. If someone insulted you and you weren't offended does that make the insult acceptable? Don't over-intellectualize it with something like, "well, she didn't know she was hurting him." This commercial was an insult to all males and just because you weren't offended personally doesn't mean you should back away from your duty to eradicate this kind of crap. Feminists succeeded because they had a single purpose to bring men down to their knees. Men will never win as long as we let them kick us and we don't have a problem with it because we don't see kicking as an insult.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I realize that this thread has rolled off everyone's radar, but I just wanted to add a quick note: the ad aired again. It seems they have made a pretty significant edit. While a "nut-whacking" does occur, it is significantly diminished. Further, there is only one obvious nut-whacking...and the other two are viewed from a completely different angle so that they are less obvious.