Ad Industry Hits Back at Fatherhood Activists
February 19th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: A couple weeks ago I wrote:
"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. To watch the ad, click here."
I then suggested that readers who also thought the ad was over the line should express their views to Pepsi. I also provided contact information for BBDO, the agency which created the ad. I also noted, "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."
Advertising guru Richard Smaglick of www.fathersandhusbands.org assisted me in this.
The Pepsi ad certainly wasn't the worst anti-male ad I've seen, and I said so. However, I thought it was offensive and worth readers taking a moment to express their dissatisfaction.
Yesterday Jonah Bloom, an editor and columnist at Advertising Age, one of the leading advertising trade publications, fired back at men's and fathers' activists. Bloom accuses us of--guess what?--"whining." Bloom's article is below, with my comments interspersed in italics and brackets.
To write a Letter to the Editor of Advertising Age about Bloom's attack on fatherhood activists, email editor@adage.com or click here.
When It Comes to Whining About Ads, Father Knows Best
By Jonah Bloom
Advertising Age, February 18, 2008
Within 48 hours of the Super Bowl ending, a small group of extremists made it to the inboxes of Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, and Cie Nicholson, her chief marketing officer. "Interesting that Justin Timberlake can get whacked in the balls on TV and that's 'funny,'" said one of the e-mails, referring to one of the Pepsi spots that aired in the game. "If Indra and Cie were whacked in the cl*t a few times over in their lives, they would not think this ad so amusing. I'm sure all of you would frown on having a female go through the same torture in a commercial."
[This is a common tactic used by our opponents--they pick out one extreme or rude letter and then feature it as if it is representative of what we are doing. Anybody who has followed my work even a little knows that whenever we confront companies, legislators, governmental agencies, or others with our protests, we are always scrupulously professional and polite. But not all of my readers are sane, as I've said on many occasions. I apologize to Ms. Nooyi and Ms. Nicholson.]
This lunatic tract, purporting to be from a Bill Orr, was nastier than the others, but was far from being a one-off. Indeed, several dozen such e-mails were sent to executives at Pepsi; their agency, BBDO; or publications such as Ad Age and The New York Times. Nor was this the first such assault by this gaggle of men who feel the need to defend white men against ads (mostly) by white men that sometimes portray white men as somewhat stupid or incompetent.
[This is another common tactic used by our opponents--they pretend that what we are doing is a "white male" or racial issue. Again, anybody who has followed our campaigns, my writing, or my media work knows that I do not now nor have I ever promoted 'white male' issues. I promote men's and fathers' issues, with no racial component, and am sometimes criticized for not mentioning "white male" issues. In none of the campaigns we have done about advertising has there ever been a hint about race. None of the many blog posts and columns I have written about advertising which denigrates men and fathers have been about race.]
A loose coalition of these hombres against humor has formed in the past few years. Led by a guy called Richard Smaglick, co-founder of a group called Fathers and Husbands, they've attacked a few different ad agencies.
[It is odd, and perhaps telling, that Bloom chooses to focus on Richard Smaglick when the protesters in all of the events Bloom describes are my readers and people who came through my website, www.GlennSacks.com. Richard Smaglick is an intelligent and hard-working activist who thought up the Volvo campaign and took the idea to me. There is nothing about the Pepsi ad on Smaglick's website, and he has not publicly done anything about it, though he did contact some reporters. It seems rather unfair to beat up on Richard.]
In particular they spent several months "torturing," as one ad exec put it, Arnold Worldwide, which was considered guilty of "contemptuous depictions" of men in its ads for Fidelity Investments. The group even tried to persuade Volvo not to give its account to Arnold. Volvo did the sensible thing -- ignored the trumped-up charges and hired the agency.
[I am sorry that the advertising executive felt that we were "torturing" Arnold Worldwide, but that was clearly not our intent. Arnold Worldwide had a track record of making advertisements which denigrate men and fathers, particularly their Fidelity advertisements. When Arnold was competing for an advertising contract with Volvo, Richard Smaglick suggested to me that this might be an opportune time to intervene. We politely explained to Volvo that we were unhappy with Arnold's ads, and we suggested that Volvo give the advertising contract to another company.
Our campaign was modestly successful. We knew that Arnold was the favorite to get the contract, and were not surprised when they got it. However, Volvo did pledge to protesters that its advertisements would remain "family-friendly," and, as best we can tell, they have kept that commitment. The advertising series that Arnold did for Volvo uses the slogan "Life is better lived together" and is a likable series.
To learn more about our Volvo campaign, click here or see my Adweek column Father Knows Best (3/12/07).
As an aside, there is also other considerable evidence that we were happy to work with Arnold Worldwide to help them understand our concerns, and that Arnold was respectful and open to our message. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss the details publicly.]
But that wasn't the point for Smaglick and his acolytes. The point for them is that protesting against ads, particularly around Super Bowl time, is a cheap, easy way to get publicity. And it works, thanks to a seemingly infinite supply of journalists and bloggers (this publication and this columnist included, clearly) willing to indulge anyone with an e-mail account, a perceived slight against his person and three similarly minded internet buddies.
[I'm not sure why Bloom makes a reference to "three similarly minded internet buddies"--our Volvo campaign generated over 3,000 calls and letters in protest. My 2004 campaign against Verizon's anti-father ad "Homework" was publicized in over 300 newspapers throughout the United States and Canada, and also generated several thousand protest calls and letters.]
The media's complicity in all of this is only one of the depressing things about it. There's also the sad fact that marketers and their agencies take these people seriously, scrapping ad campaigns based on "backlash" from a dozen consumers. The fear of offending anyone anywhere at any time has contributed to the mediocrity that is TV advertising today.
Then there's the fact that the people who use such tactics undermine their own case by endlessly parsing sales material until they find something offensive. Even these dads-get-stereotyped-too groups have worthwhile issues they want to raise -- whether courts are biased against fathers in divorce cases, for example. But when they try to find hidden meaning in Justin Timberlake bumping into stuff, it's hard to see them as anything but unhinged individuals with too much time on their hands.
[I'm surprised that Bloom thinks that either Richard or I have to look long and hard to find ads which denigrate men and fathers. They are everywhere. How do I get the ones I feature? That's easy--my readers send them to me. I launched the Verizon campaign after a grandma who listened to my radio show wrote me about it. The anti-male ads that I feature on my blog are almost always sent to me by a reader.]
But the saddest thing about all this is the time and energy diverted from the more important ways advertising must be held to account. Right now, there are financial institutions with aggressive campaigns pushing credit to consumers whose debt loads are already crushing. Advertisers are spending billions to support an Olympics in a country with an abysmal human-rights record. There are companies with shocking environmental records making claims to environmental friendliness. There is a debate to be had about the merits and pitfalls of advertising drugs directly to consumers. Or, say, over whether a country that holds democracy dear should be happy its presidential primaries could come down to who spent the most on ads.
Sorry, but Justin's nuts just doesn't rank, and even these advocacy groups should be big enough to see that.
[Another common tactic opponents use is the "Isn't there something more important than this?" argument. The central flaw in the argument is that you can always use this in almost any circumstance.
I remember a particularly ridiculous example of this during our 2004 campaign against the "Boys are Stupid" children's shirts and products. Our campaign made newspapers and media outlets in six different countries, and received tremendous coverage in the United States. We were successful in driving the products out of 95% of the retail stores which carried them at that time. I don't remember whether it was a radio or television interview, but one person asked me, "There are millions of people starving to death around the world--shouldn't you do something about that, instead of protesting these T-shirts?"
If we judge things compared to the plight of Chinese political prisoners or Global Warming, neither our campaigns against anti-male advertising nor Mr. Bloom's columns in Advertising Age would rank very high.]
Again, to write a Letter to the Editor of Advertising Age to about Bloom's attack on fatherhood activists, click on editor@adage.com or click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.459 seconds.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I thought the pepsi ad was pretty funny and didn't see it as anti-male.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Then again, I was in Houston for the Super Bowl and actually got to see commercials which I've missed for every Super Bowl since 9-11 as I've been over seas and they don't run commercials on Armed Forces Network. Commercials are a part of TV you don't realize you miss until you don't see them for six or seven years. When I am in the Philippines I see commercials but they're usually in the Filipino language so I don't follow them all that well.
Perhaps I am so starved for commercials I miss important cultural issues within but I am struggling to see why this one is anti-male.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:55 am
I posted my initial email about the commercial, the following letter I received from Pepsi, and my response to their letter.
I think Pepsi handled the email I sent with class. I don’t think they would support Jonah Bloom’s perspective at all. They thanked me for my email and promised to share my concerns with senior marketing. I quote, “You can be assured that the important issues you raised will be shared with our senior marketing staff and advertising teams.
I would be willing to contribute what I can financially to a campaign against Jonah Bloom and this slanderous article.
Kevin Merck
Kevin Merck Says:
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.
Kevin Merck Says:
February 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I received this email from Pepsi today, and my response follows.
A Message from Consumer Relations 011504570A
Dear 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 19th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Regarding the comment about issues like starving people being more important than protesting against anti-male messages, this is all too typical. I have noticed that if feminists can't deal with an issue properly, as a last resort they tend to claim that there are other more important issues and so we shouldn't be debating the issue in question.
A case in point: not so long ago a video surfaced proving that a woman's rape allegation was false. In response, one feminist blogger castigated MRAs for being obsessed with things like false rape claims and not spending enough time focusing on things like insurance fraud.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:07 am
To be fair, I feel it is important to credit ad agencies that do father-friendly ads, as I recently saw in an ad for pampers where a father is shown caring for his infant child. He changes a diaper and is trying to get the baby to say "Dada", but baby keeps saying "Mama". By the end of the ad he is at breakfast with the baby, who looks at him and says "Dada!" The father is visibly touched by this. I liked the ad, thought it was father-positive, and feel that we should find out who is responsible for it and commend them.
- Ron ^*^
February 19th, 2008 at 1:07 am
This complaint seems to be a stretch to me...
I have been in advertising for over 20 years, and I truly believe that there is a substantial amount of anti-father bias to the creative concepts... but I can't agree with the same condemnation of the Pepsi ad.
IT'S A JOKE PEOPLE! Lighten up.
Have those of you who condemn this commercial also condemned the Ford/Sync commercial where the businesswoman walks up to a door with hot coffee in her hands and commands "Door Open." The door does not open and she runs smack into it, spilling hot coffee all over herself. Certainly we can't condone this, or agree that it is funny for a woman to be portrayed as breaking her nose or scalding herself with searing hot coffee...
See how silly that sounds? IT'S A FUNNY COMMERCIAL!
All of us here at this site have far more important, relevant and urgent issues that require our attention... I try to write as frequently as possible to legislators, journalists and anyone else who relegate fathers to second-class parental status. And I think Glenn Sacks is doing a phenomenal job of keeping these issues at the forefront...
But in this case, I'm afraid Mr. Bloom was right... this makes us look petty and haphazard.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I'm sorry, but i have to agree with kenboiraq. I didn't see this as anti-male. I am usually right there with you guys on this - I think it's a disgrace that we have to portray men (or woman) as idiots in order to attempt to sell products. It just sends a bad message altogether. And when I see ads like 'Monkey', I beam. That one is beautiful -- and so positive. The one thing I have learned over the course of my 45 years is that it is important to carefully choose one's battles. If not, the crux of one's cause might well be diminished. (Just as an aside, my husband also agrees - and he has been through anti-father hell and back and back to hell again AND never has a problem telling me he thinks I'm off the mark. This time, when I told him of the anti-male sentiment concerning this ad, he gave me that 'huh?' look.)
February 19th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Theresa:
Maybe you and Ken saw a different commercial than the one I did.
The one I saw had the guy flying through the air backwards through heavy traffic, being slammed into a metal post three times in the testicles, then hurled in front of the swimsuit model covered in dirt … and then to top it off, he is struck in the head with a car door knocking him unconscious.
How in the world is that not anti-man?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:45 am
I love how the author called us extremists and lunatics.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Kevin - it's the one we saw. We just didn't see it as anti-male. Frankly, I saw it as an attempt at physical comedy - not that I'm particularly a fan of such stuff. My husband didn't say whether he thought it was a good ad, but I know he didn't see it as anti-male either. It goes to show you that perception is everything. Please do not take my opinion as some sort of anti-male comment. I am NOT anti-male or anti-father by any means. But if I scrutized every add on TV, I could easily say that scads of them are anti-male or female when they probably where never intended as such. On the other hand, some are blantantly insulting. Remember the "Boys Are Stupid" clothing line? Now, I found that insulting. Disgraceful, actually. I was on a cruise with my husband and stepson and was appalled to see this crap on a cruiseline geared toward kids. I wrote a very strong letter to the cruise line and they removed the clothing. Some folks might see those items of clothing as nothing more than playful, but I think in the scheme of things, they screamed anti-male in comparison to the Timberlake ad. I am certainly open to hear how you see the ad as anti-male. I'm always open to other's opinions, especially to learn to be more sensitive to these issues.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Jonah Bloom to Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"Lighten up, you ridiculous negros. Can't you take a joke?"
February 19th, 2008 at 2:06 am
"There are companies with shocking environmental records making claims to environmental friendliness."
Yeah, man -- forget people, worry about trees. Why does it not surprise me this comes from an advertising person?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:07 am
There are many organizations - both governmental and non-governmental - that constantly tell us that all violence against women is wrong and that we must stop violence against women.
Why is it so hard to convince people like Jonah Bloom that all violence against men is wrong and that we must stop violence against men? If hating an ad that almost glorifies violence against men makes me a humorless extremist, then I guess I'm a humorless extremist.
Incidentally, here are the results of four Google searches:
#1: "all violence against women is wrong": 984 results
#2 "all violence against men is wrong": 1 result
#3 "stop violence against women": 175 000~ results
#4 "stop violence against men": 2370 results
February 19th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Theresa:
I just think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The goose doesn’t get the slapstick treatment because it would be perceived as “violence against women”. When we see an ad that puts a woman through the gauntlet of violence that is portrayed in this ad, and no women complain, then maybe I’m being oversensitive. I think we’ll be waiting a very long time for that commercial because that level of violence against a woman would never be considered appropriate advertising.
I see where you’re coming from, and I like the tone of your response, but I think you may be overlooking the obvious here. In my opinion, this commercial is in extreme poor taste, belittles and promotes violence against men, and needs to be pulled.
Kevin Merck
February 19th, 2008 at 2:42 am
I place the ad squarely in the "unimaginative and boring" category. Didn't even find it slightly interesting the first time I saw it (before I saw it on this site). Is it a tired theme (beating a guy in the nuts for a laugh)? Yeah, it is. Does it reflect a cavalier attitude to men in pain? Yeah. But it doesn't really stand out at all. Better comedy would have been him being slightly embarrassed at the whole thing, maybe accidentally snagging an unsuspecting "passenger" for one of the sips...but again...not a standout.
We could have picked a better example.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Bloom said: "Nor was this the first such assault by this gaggle of men who feel the need to defend white men against ads (mostly) by white men that sometimes portray white men as somewhat stupid or incompetent."
Maybe Bloom feels that the ads are an accurate portrayal of himself (assuming he's white). No wonder he's up in arms - "how dare you guys imply that I'm not a dunce!!"
February 19th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I am not at all surprised at the dirty tactics used by the bullies of the advertising bureaucracy. They use the same shaming tactics that feminists employ. They're mainly upset because they already have multiple millions invested in contracts and commercials that are misandrous and they now know what they can expect from us. I'm up for a midnight snack so I'll have to wait before I write my letter to them. The sheer volume of our letters scare them to death and they know that they have a nightmare on their hands. They know we mean business and will boycott their products. So they pull out the bag of tricks to sway us. They never saw the day when they would have to please either men or feminists. Got any other violators, Glenn?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
My letter to the editor...
The writer of this article needs to ask himself one simple question. Would the
advertising industry do this to women? The answer of course is no. Its all
really quite simple, if you wouldnt do it to the goose dont do it to the
gander. The article is so full of logical fallacies that i wont even bother to
list them. Suffice to say, this is the kind of honesty one can expect from a
publication dedicated to an industry that thrives on taking the best in
humanity and using it to sell toilet cleaners and hamburgers.
As for Mr Bloom's insistence that there are more important things to worry
about, one needs only ask, would he say that if this ad featured women being
abused and the complaints were from said sex? I think not- he simply doesnt
have the Justin Timberlakes for it.
Yours sincerely,
Humorless Hombre
February 19th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Questions that will be posed to Jonah Bloom in a call set up for this morning:
1. Were you aware, prior to finishing the article, that our campaigns have involved many thousands of people?
2. Were you aware, prior to finishing the article, that our campaigns have involved teachers, psychologists, physicians and prominent social scientists?
3. Prior to publication of the article, were you aware of any meetings between the leadership of the fatherhood and men’s movements and top ad agency executives? Were you aware of the representatives of the fatherhood and men’s movements who were involved?
4. Have you ever seen an attack on a woman’s crotch in a national TV ad?
5. If BBDO prepared a similar ad for Pepsi depicting a woman’s crotch being rammed three times into a mailbox post, would you expect it to be rejected because of the inappropriateness and degrading nature of such a depiction?
6. If a similar protest was launched by women in response to an ad depicting a woman’s crotch being rammed three times into a mailbox post, would you similarly conclude that those involved in the protest were “extremist” or “unhinged”.
7. Have you visited the fathersandhusbands.org web site?
8. Did you see the ads from Arnold Worldwide on the fathersandhusbands.org web site?
9. Did you notice that the first ad featured on our web page was an ad in which a black man was being maligned?
10. After launching our largest campaigns, those against Verizon, Fidelity and Pepsi, we became aware that the Chief Marketing Officers responsible for the material were all women. Were you aware that the CMO’s or former CMO’s responsible for any of these ad campaigns were women?
11. Were you aware before finishing the article that top executives at Fidelity have rejected the advertising approach that we protested, that the CMO responsible for it was invited by Fidelity’s leadership to depart and that Fidelity has adopted a new product focused approach?
12. Are you aware that one of fathersandhusbands.org’s members was formerly a CEO at a major ad agency?
13. Are you aware that J. Walter Thompson, one of New York’s largest ad agencies, has pledged to avoid male bashing in all of their advertising?
14. Are you aware that recently on national television, Barbara Lippert, America’s most prominent advertising critic encouraged the ad industry to avoid “attacking groins” and applauded the industry for the extent to which it had progressed toward this goal and for the progress it has made toward the goal of restoring some level of dignity to advertising?
15. Are you aware that an ad such as the Pepsi ad in question could not be run in Canada if Timberlake’s role were played by a female because it would be in violation of Canada’s national advertising standards?
16. Would you agree that the ad industry did some of its best work in the sixties and the first half of the seventies? Would you agree that many of the ad industry’s leaders believe that much of it’s best work came out of that era?
17. Can you name one ad from that era that depicted an assault on a man’s or woman’s crotch?
18. Are you in the loop regarding Pepsi’s decision about the Timberlake ad?
19. Has the article been included in the print edition? Is it slated to be?
February 19th, 2008 at 7:57 am
At this point, I don't see the ad as the issue. I see this man's comments as the issue. Re-read the article by Mr.Bloom and count the insults, slurs and clear lack of understanding.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Dear Editor:
I may not have found the Pepsi Superbowl ad as offensive as some (although I detest slapstick in any form), but I do find Mr. Jonah Bloom's comments in Advertising Age extremely upsetting.
Mr. Bloom knows better than anyone the effect advertising can have on one's opinions and how it can have a direct impact on one's actions. Far too many persons already view men as weak, lazy individuals. Feed a steady diet of advertising which routinely depicts men as idiots to persons who have abdicated doing their own thinking and such persons - as well as persons inclined to believe everything they read and hear - may be less likely to believe in shared custody, or that a man can be innocent of domestic violence charges. And those issues are, apparently, on Mr. Bloom's approved list of somewhat valid mens' concerns.
I warrant if Mr. Bloom had ever spent time in jail because of being falsely accused of rape or domestic violence, or if he had ever been denied access to his children or been thrown in jail for being a deadbeat dad despite working three jobs in order to pay child support, he might see the issue a bit differently.
Signed,
One of the three similarly minded internet buddies
Rosemarie
February 19th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Brad Daberko Says:"Have those of you who condemn this commercial also condemned the Ford/Sync commercial where the businesswoman walks up to a door with hot coffee in her hands and commands "Door Open." The door does not open and she runs smack into it, spilling hot coffee all over herself. Certainly we can't condone this, or agree that it is funny for a woman to be portrayed as breaking her nose or scalding herself with searing hot coffee..."
I know that ad and that is the only female in the ad. All the others doing similarly foolish things in the ad are men. She is not being acted upon by someone else either as is Timberlake in the Pepsi ad. It is her own carelessness.
I don't think that ad is funny either. But you can't protect people from their own carelessness. There is considerable amount of your safety that you alone are responsible for.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I wonder how far he'd get if he had made those statements to women that were upset at a sexist ad against women? How about a black person? A little person? Maybe the handicapped? Or even the elderly?
Oh wait, he wouldn't have.... not in a million years. For as we all know, the above are all "protected classes"....
"gaggle of men"? Who the hell speaks like that?
TMOTS
February 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I can laugh at some slapstick. The Ford/Sync ads are funny, but not roll-on-the-floor funny, and no one seems seriously hurt. They're also pretty non-gender specific - I can see the roles between the woman who walks into the glass and the man who's expecting his curtains to close reversed without any problem. I have yet to see the Pepsi/Timberlake ad, and I can't comment on that. I can accept that people who saw it are tired of seeing image after image of groin shot, especially when combined with the other humiliation portrayed daily.
I guess a few years of America's embarasssing home videos passing for humor have numbed us to the humor value of the 15 minute groin shot loop. I'm less offended that it's an accident, and considerably more offended when it's an assault because some man irritated a woman, said something inappropriate, or dared spoil her zen moment with her latte. In way too many cases, I hear women (not just on TV), express the view that some man's genetalia needs to be mutilated or removed in retaliation for some slight.
As far as ad copy goes, I'm considerably more offended by the lazy, idiotic, incompetant, immoral, cheating buffoon that seems to be the "TV Man" today.
The issue is the gross double standards for who's used as the butt of the jokes. For any ad copy, I'd request that someone swap the genders and consider if they'd get sued, picketed, or otherwise have a PR nightmare on their hands.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Again, it is not that some of us cant take a joke. I believe it is the DOUBLE STANDARD that annoys some of us: violence against men is considered funny and violence against women is considered unacceptable. This double standard reflect a cultural lens entrenched in chivalry, where mens suffering and pain takes a back seat to the needs of women and children. Naturally, many men let it slide because we are taught to "take it like a man."
I can take a joke the moment others can also take a joke. But it is difficult for me to be the unreciprocal butt of their jokes. In this way, they are not laughing with us, they are laughing AT us.
I support glenn in this matter.
Masculist XY
February 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
First they ignore us.
Then they ridicule us,
Then they attack us,
Then we win.
We have the moral high ground, and are fighting for a very confused generation of children.
Do you're part and send out lincs to this site to all on you're E-mail address book and state that they might fing this site interesting!
February 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I'm as sensitive to bias against males -- especially in Family Court and with respect to false domestic volence allegations -- as the next guy. But I don't believe there was anything wrong with the Pepsi commerical. Further, to compare it to some of your successful, and more important, campaigns of the past (Boys are Stupid t-shirts) really trivializes those efforts.
I believe these Glenn-generated campaigns are both 1) well-intentioned, and 2) designed to generate publicity. There is nothing wrong with either objective. However, sometimes the desire for publicity may lead to seeing slights and insults where none exist. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? If Glenn, or anyone, wants to be a serious participant in addressing the really important issues men and father face we can't jump at trivial, and in some cases, non-existent, issues.
Sorry, but this time I agree with the author of the Adveritising Age op-ed. Objecting to the Timberlake commercial is whining.
jeff opperman
February 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Personally, I find nothing wrong with this ad. It lacks the usual female laughing or sneering at the man and being content with how superior she is.
However, his criticisms are still ridiculous. We've all heard it before 'stop moaning'
Ya huh, so if advertisments degrade women (although I have only seen one example of this in my entire life) feminist groups should just 'stop moaning'?
Blacks shouldn't complain about racist cartoons (thinking back to some of the really bad ones here), they should just stop moaning instead.
He makes the mistake of comparing maleness and being white as badges of privilege. Let's see if this is accurate.
Blacks live shorter lives than whites, men live shorter lives than women.
Blacks are more likely to be stricken by poverty, men are more likely to be stricken by poverty.
Blacks were less likely to avoid the draft during 'Nam. Women were 100% likely to avoid the draft.
Blacks are falling behind in education, so are men.
Blacks are given worse prison sentences than whites, men are given worse prison sentences than women.
Blacks are more likely to be abused, discriminated against and harrassed by the police, as are men compared to women.
...I could go on.
Man, I hate the term 'white male'
February 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Following are the contents of my letter to Ad-Age. I already wrote Pepsi and BBDO:
I would like to state that Mr. Blooms attitude towards men is just as callous as the Justin Timberlake Super Bowl Pepsi ad was in the first place. Men are fed up with being the butts of everyone's jokes. If you're not allowed to insult other groups then you're not allowed to insult men either. Millions of men buy Pepsi and how do they thank us?: By slapping us in the face with their stupid ads. Doesn't sound like very good p.r. to me. I'll be ready to protest any and all ads that promote misandry. I won't stop until they make all the other groups the butts of their stupid jokes too. And no, there are not more important things for me to be doing.
Stephen
February 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
re: "a small group of extremists"
Rule #1 - When thoroughly defeated in a logical argument, call your opponent an "extremist" rather than concede defeat.
..Has there ever been a civil rights movement not started by so-called extremists?...
February 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
For those who find the Pepsi ad amusing or inconsequential, I'll stick with the inconsequential matters while you heroes go out and fight the real battles. That way we can cover more bases. While I'm at it, why don't I go and fight a few battles for the feminists since I have the option of picking and choosing? Better yet, why don't I just shut my trap and take it like a man. That should win a few points with our critics.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Editor,
Interesting it is that women for a couple of decades now have wanted men to be more sensitive. Men should demonstrate concerns not hold them in, and do so in a nonphysical but rather a constructive articulate way. Confusing it is that this has happened and now women like Jonah Bloom states this is whining.
I personally do not have strong objections to theatrical physical comedy. What I do object to is the bias way that it is presented. Logic dictates that if physical comedy is funny when perpetrated on one gender then it should be equally funny if done to the other. The only cogent conclusion that can be asserted is if this does not hold true is that it should never be funny. Until Pepsi (I am a big fan of your product, but I am a very principled person) can demonstrate physical comedy similar in nature perpetrated on women then Pepsi should seriously reconsider the currently airing Justin Timberlake and any future like style commercials.
I would like to add that it is true that most people are more likely motivated to respond to things gone awry rather than those that are balanced so please do not let this diminish the fact that Pepsi has created many entertaining commercials. It is also safe to say that there was more than one complaint to instigate Miss Bloom’s response, which indicates a problem that should not so easily be dismissed. I find it insulting. Furthermore, her response is ironically insensitive.
Thank you for your time,
Bernard S Misiura Jr
123 XXXXXX Dr
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX-XXX-XXXX
XXX-XXX-XXXX
February 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
What was so rude about Bill Orr's letter? I probably wouldn't have discussed the private organs of certain women, by name, but all he did was ask if they would ever switch the genders and have a woman being hurt "there." Bloom found even the merest suggestion of that to be offensive, but when it comes to men being hurt "there" Bloom bemoans that everybody's afraid of offending someone nowadays.
"Have those of you who condemn this commercial also condemned the Ford/Sync commercial where the businesswoman walks up to a door with hot coffee in her hands and commands 'Door Open.' The door does not open and she runs smack into it, spilling hot coffee all over herself. Certainly we can't condone this, or agree that it is funny for a woman to be portrayed as breaking her nose or scalding herself with searing hot coffee..."
Does she smash her breasts against the car door, or spill hot coffee on her vaginal area? No. And I WOULDN'T FIND THAT FUNNY, EITHER, but am merely pointing out that they have their limits when it comes to bad things happening to women, whereas there is nothing considered off-limits if it is happening to a man. THAT'S the complaint.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I wrote to Pepsi management again because they’re responsible for this article. There’s no way Jonah Bloom could have known about the emails without Pepsi cooperation. In my opinion, Bloom is acting as Pepsi’s attack dog.
Dear Cie (Indra)
I’m writing you with concerns over the article written by Jonah Bloom for Advertising Age Publication. There are issues discussed in this article he wouldn’t have had knowledge of without your expressed cooperation.
I find it very disturbing that you would respond to my email, which expressed my concerns with the Justin Timberlake Super Bowl Ad, in such a responsible and professional manner, and then allow, or possibly encourage, a company that represents your business interests to slander your customers.
I’m also somewhat disappointed that you’re still running this Ad. I’m pleased to see that much of the violence and degradation of men has been edited out, but it’s still in extreme poor taste, belittles and promotes violence against men, and does nothing to promote responsible advertising.
I’m extremely disappointed in Pepsi and I’m not alone. This issue has been discussed between my family, friends, and neighbors, and we’re all in general agreement on this. We’ve decided Coke is just as good, promotes a much more family-friendly advertising message, and is the responsible choice. We’re committed to spreading this message to others in our community.
The days of singling out members of our community for the purpose of comic relief are rapidly coming to an end. Is Pepsi going to be part of the *next generation* of Americans that doesn’t make fun of other members of the community for profit?
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Kevin Merck
February 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Ooops swing shift really messes me up and I should have had my glasses on some how I read Jonah as Jenna thinking it was feminine . . . oh well the point is the same. . .
Actually gave me a chuckle
b
February 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
"Within 48 hours of the Super Bowl ending, a small group of extremists made it to the inboxes of Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, and Cie Nicholson, her chief marketing officer. "Interesting that Justin Timberlake can get whacked in the balls on TV and that's 'funny,'" said one of the e-mails, referring to one of the Pepsi spots that aired in the game. "If Indra and Cie were whacked in the cl*t a few times over in their lives, they would not think this ad so amusing. I'm sure all of you would frown on having a female go through the same torture in a commercial.""
Honestly, I don't really see much wrong with his letter. It called attention to a double standard. It was a bit angry, but certainly not "extremist."
I have heard far worse vitriol from feminist "riot girls."
February 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Kevin, that is what I found interesting as well. Somehow Pepsi received these complaints, and all of a sudden Ad Age is addressing it in an article. Whether this really happened of course is speculative, but it does make one ponder if these executives at Pepsi are really committed to being responsive to the complaints they received. Oh well, I have printed out the entire list of Pepsi products, and in my little world, Pepsi products have been boycotted.
Did anyone else notice the other aritcle in Ad Age (link below). It is a critique of the "snide" debasing tone prevalent in advertising in general, and while not specific to gender issues, I think it relates well. Anyway, interesting read when set next to Mr. Bloom's article.
http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=125053
February 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I read the editorial about "snide" ads passing for sophisticated repartee. But did you get a load of those dunderhead comments that followed? Those mental-midgets just don't get it.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Any press is good press.
The MRA letter was not that bad, and everyone who got to read the article got to see that.
The article was even better in that it treated men's issues as if, yeah, everyone knows they have a point, and deserve reasonable sympathy, but hey, don't pick on me. That right there says so much.
I can't begrudge him making a story out of the issue, now all the ad people know, instead of us having to write them one by one. He may have done the most for us yet!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Stephen MW, you make a good point. A bunch of those advertisers know that a fire is going on. We didn't have to tell them individually because they all smell the smoke. Aaaah, yet more progress to savor.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Welcome back Rosemarie
February 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Huilenowl:
Thanks.
Printing off a list of products is a good idea.
Glenn’s blog gets over 400,000 unique visits a month.
I think it would be very foolish for Pepsi to underestimate the power of the individual choices we make in our everyday lives.
Here is a comprehensive list of their products.
http://www.smartspot.com/about/products
February 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Whiners?!?!?!?! Who's whining here:
"In particular they spent several months "torturing," as one ad exec put it, Arnold Worldwide, which was considered guilty of "contemptuous depictions" of men in its ads for Fidelity Investments. The group even tried to persuade Volvo not to give its account to Arnold. Volvo did the sensible thing -- ignored the trumped-up charges and hired the agency."
Those mean internet letter writers....ganging up on the poor advertising agencies!
Whine! Whine! Whine!
February 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
If men are whiners for detesting ads that depict violence against men, where is the similar criticism for the women in the following story who are detesting a much less serious issue?
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyActionDyn.aspx?cp-documentid=6274777>1=10923
February 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
A little history on Bloom, seems other people have problems with him.
Advertising Age uses a yellow crayon.
This week BBF Toby Bloomberg, Diva Marketing Blog, and I had lengthy conversations about a post written by Ad Age Executive Editor, Jonah Bloom. We were surprised to find that Mister Bloom’s post was written more in the style of tabloid reporting than of a respected journalist holding a senior position with a highly regarded publication. Bloom called out crayon CEO Joseph Jaffe for coloring the truth in a recent blog post announcing a second round of significant changes at the company.
“If Jaffe has fallen on hard times, he might want to consider applying for one of those big, corporate PR jobs where the key to success is saying and writing nothing, but employing so many unwieldy long sentences and so much repetition and jargon that no one ever guesses. Certainly this effort vaults him straight into the Spinmasters’ Hall of Bullshit.”
We both found Jonah Bloom’s/Ad Age’s coverage of crayon’s challenging situation disgraceful to the extent that we are collaborating on this post.
As experienced practitioners, we see right through this post as exploitative, exaggerated yellow journalism. And quite frankly, it’s disappointing to see this occur under the Advertising Age banner, the so-called industry authority hosting the Advertising Age Power
Neither of us knows Jonah Bloom; however, his bio suggests that his career has been spent working for journalist organizations that could guarantee salary/benefits and not as an entrepreneur. The world of a small business, especially a start-up firm, is quite different. There are sleepless nights worrying that a client’s check will come in before the light bill is due. Projects you were certain would pop are put on hold. Then there are the continuous expenses for the cost of doing business. But if you believe in your dream you make adjustments and trade the Starbucks mocha latte for a coffee made in your own kitchen.
Regardless of Jonah’s responsibility for penning this disgraceful post, Advertising Age itself has a responsibility here. And as marketing bloggers that are technically covered by the magazine, we demand better standards of journalism from Advertising Age.
Toby Bloomberg and Geoff Livingston
P.S. As a personal follow-up, it only seems appropriate to note that Advertising Age is probably the most venerable publication in the traditional advertising business. It has made several forays into covering the marketing blogosphere with posts like this, and, most notably, with its acquisition of Todd And’s Power 150.
While the actual 150 love this index for obvious reasons, there is an increasing groundswell of dissatisfaction with Advertising Age amongst the lower ranked bloggers and the marketing blogosphere, in general. The integrity and merits of this index since Advertising Age has acquired it are highly questionable.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
[...] Yesterday, Jonah Bloom, an editor and columnist at Advertising Age, one of the leading advertising trade publications, fired back at men's and fathers' activists over our 2007 protest against the advertising agency Arnold Worldwide, the Pepsi issue, and others. In When It Comes to Whining About Ads, Father Knows Best (2/18/08), Bloom depicts advertising guru Richard Smaglick of www.fathersandhusbands.org, who has worked with me on these issues and campaigns, as "unhinged" and an "extremist." To read my response to Bloom, see my morning blog post Ad Industry Hits Back at Fatherhood Activists [...]
February 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Note the statement about stereotypes, You can them understand his attack......Whatever puts money in his pocket
JONAH BLOOM: It's a nice thing to tap into as well, to poke fun at the Brits, and they're very safe. None of us are going to sit there saying, 'oh no but y'know white 60-year-old British males are terribly put upon.' We sit there and we're happy to laugh at him too.
Well, some of us anyway.
But Bloom reminds me that there's another British accent now echoing through ad land.
[ COMMERCIAL: "The thing is, everyone wants to save money on their car insurance." ]
He says the Cockney Geico Gecko has helped vault Geico up the car insurance ranks and become an ad icon in the process. Unlike his starchy counterparts, this character is approachable and friendly, a bit like the cheeky Cockney chimneysweep played by Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins."
But if these stereotypes sell, who's a Brit to complain? Britannia clearly rules the airwaves.
In New York, I'm Ashley Milne-Tyte for Marketplace.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Wal-Mart accuses Bloom and Ad Age of faulty reporting and refusing to admit they were WRONG....Good Luck Wal-Mart
Leslie A. Dach
Executive Vice President
Corporate Affairs
Government Relations
Jonah Bloom
Editor
Advertising Age
711 3rd Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Bloom:
I am writing to express our concern about your January 30, 2007 story, “Wal-Mart Overhauls Senior Management -- Castro-Wright Expected to be Replaced as CEO of U.S. Stores Division.” Based on our recent discussions with your editorial staff, it is clear that Ad Age chose to publish a story reporting unreliable rumors by unnamed sources who by their own admission were speculating about management changes at Wal-Mart. While Ad Age cited “people close to the company,” this does not excuse your publication from using unsubstantiated information to perpetuate a rumor. And in its haste to publish this story, Ad Age compounded its error by publishing a photo, captioned “Eduardo Castro-Wright,” that not only is not Mr. Castro-Wright, but doesn’t even resemble him.
Several news organizations and even financial analysts relied on the credibility of your publication and repeated this flatly incorrect rumor. The next day a number of financial analysts reported that the rumor you published was not true. We promptly informed you later that day,
when Mr. Castro-Wright publicly denied the claims in your story. Yet even at this stage, Ad Age stood by its faulty report, splitting hairs and refusing to admit that it was wrong.
Let me state on behalf of Wal-Mart – one more time – that the replacement of Eduardo Castro-Wright as head of our U.S. Wal-Mart division has not been considered or discussed in any way. To the contrary, our CEO Lee Scott has made clear on numerous occasions that our company will continue to support and encourage Mr. Castro-Wright as he continues his work.
Please know that we feel your actions have not lived up to commonly accepted journalistic standards and that our ongoing professional relationship should be considered severely strained.
Sincerely,
Leslie Dach
Executive Vice President
Corporate Affairs & Government Relations
February 19th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Glenn said:
"The Super Bowl ads in general were pretty fair to men this year, but there was one major exception--Pepsi's 'Magnetic Attraction' commercial."
"The Pepsi ad was an attempt at slapstick humor and not as offensive, but I thought it was still over the line."
It seems that glenn has changed his tune a bit regarding the pepsi ad as the two quotes seem to speak different levels of disapproval. At first he considered it a "major exception." I hope he is not regretting his initial analyses. I for one still think the pepsi advert was a "bad-ad", although I am probably in the minority on this position.
That aside, great job glenn. I am glad you had positive discourse with Bloom. Awesome! Keep up the good work.
Masculist XY
February 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I've actively supported Glen on several of his campaigns and have contributed to his website in the past as well.
However, I can't agree with this one. I think seeing Justin Timberlake get knocked around out weighs any anti-male bias here. In my eyes there are just too many other factors here. First of all he is a celebrity. Second, he is a celebrity half the people love and half the people hate. The fact that he is a male is way down on the list. (and just barely a male at that) If this was just an ordinary Joe getting knocked around, then I think we would have a valid complaint.
As it is, I think this is wasted effort and takes away creadability from when we really have a valid point to make.
Lets wait around a couple days and focus on something that really is offending. Just my opinion which I don't share very often.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
This endless picking apart of a single ad or two is almost beside the point, and forever discussing this or that aspect of an ad largely amounts to wheel-spinning.
While there is nothing wrong with pointing out that a particular ad is misandric, the important point to be made is that currently, there is a consistent , overwhelming pattern of depicting men as evil and incompetent, in these advertisements, greeting cards, movies, TV and other forms of media. Trying to appeal to one jerk about a single ad is almost guaranteed to be a waste of time, unless you can somehow get that person to see that this pattern exist, and has gotten to the point, where it is having deleterious effects on men and society in general.
On second thought maybe that's a waste of time too, since media persons are not known for being ethical, or for giving that much of a crap about any bad effects on society for which they may be responsible. I guess that makes the situation pretty bleak, but you already knew that..
February 19th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
In fact, continuously hammering away on someone about a single ad, gives people the impression that men's and fathers' rights advocates are, indeed, a bunch of overly-picky, grumpy old men.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
If you think about it, pretty much no-one took feminists seriously, at least on certain issues, until the feminists were able to show the existence of a pattern (of discrimination in hiring, bias in the media, or what have you).
February 19th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Sorry Glenn. When I said "media persons.." above, I was referring strictly to the ones I consider unethical because they are solely money-driven, such as advertisers and movie-makers. I didn't mean to imply that everyone in the entire field was bad!
February 20th, 2008 at 6:52 am
If we took the "aren't there other issues more pressing" argument to its extreme, we'd all have time to discuss one and only one problem facing the world. So, which is it? Do we talk global warming, or the war on terrorism? One or the other. Do we ignore the shrinking glaciers or the terrorist with the suicide bomb.
Of course, that's ludicrous. Human thought is wide enough for a wide variety of issues including anti-male advertising, and this editor seems to ignore that point. Of course financial fraud and unethical advertising of credit are important issues, but that's not what we're here to discuss. We're here to discuss what we see as the misanthropic bent of certain advertisements in the media.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Brilliantly said, John Meyer.
I also don't think Timberlake is treated as a "dumb guy" in the ad. The issue is (once again) a male being knocked around and hurt (which they SOMETIMES do with women), especially being hurt in his private area (which they NEVER do to women). Me, I don't like to see anyone of either gender being hurt. But the double standard is blatant.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Norman L, I can see your part about the MRM spinning its wheels occasionally. However I believe we should keep up the protest or they win. For instance, consider if after mr. Bloom implied that we should have more important to do that that is exactly what we attempted to do and dropped the subject. He would have won because he gave us a successful brush off and we got no where. Such a result is what I call really spinning our wheels. I was abused for many years and a doormat to boot. I know how manipulative some people can be and how entrenched their illogical viewpoints can sink in. When I began demanding respect I was ridiculed, cajoled, shamed and was the target of numerous other tricks. Jonah Bloom's harsh critique of MRAs was typical of irresponsible people. I'm most certainly not calling him a bully but he used classic bully tactics to get us to accept our abuse and go away.
It took me about 10 years to finally begin receiving respect from those who owed it to me. (If I respect someone they'd damn well better pay me in kind because respect is a two way street). Mr. Blooms evasive tactics were so typical of people I have dealt with in the past. He came back with the civilized response because he finally took us seriously. And that's only because we were diligent. We don't have to fight every single example of misandry I believe we should fight most of them.
Feminists tried to shame MRAs and still do for that matter. But they also have a delegation of militants who are out to dismantle our movement. Not that they could. But this is a direct of us hanging in there and refusing to be charmed, shunned, shamed, threatened or stopped in any way. Norman L, I know you're an ally but I just want you to accept that some people, such as myself, are naturally more militant than most. Diversity within the MRM is our strength.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
@Stephen said: "For instance, consider if after mr. Bloom implied that we should have more important to do that that is exactly what we attempted to do and dropped the subject. He would have won because he gave us a successful brush off and we got no where"
Perhaps you should go back and re-read my post - are you sure it is mine you're responding too? I'm not saying we "have more important things to do" in the same sense Bloom might (like focus on some unrelated area like world peace or global warming). That outlook has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.
What I am saying it that it's important not to get too caught up in the minutiae, for example all the specific arguing points of a single misandric ad. The pattern of overwhelming misandry in the media that has been taking place, is what we need to get across to people. I'm not saying we shouldn't complain at all about a specific ad. It's just that complaining without trying to get people (such as ad executives, and the public) to understand the broader issue, probably won't accomplish as much in the long run.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
[...] Yesterday, Jonah Bloom, an editor and columnist at Advertising Age, one of the leading advertising trade publications, fired back at men's and fathers' activists over our 2007 protest against the advertising agency Arnold Worldwide, the Pepsi issue, and others. In When It Comes to Whining About Ads, Father Knows Best (2/18/08), Bloom depicts advertising guru Richard Smaglick of www.fathersandhusbands.org, who has worked with me on these issues and campaigns, as "unhinged" and an "extremist." To read my response to Bloom, see my morning blog post Ad Industry Hits Back at Fatherhood Activists. [...]
February 20th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Norman L, point taken. I really do understand your point because I've employed it on occasion. One reason I went after Pepsi is I have plenty of time on my hands. But if I were really busy I would say let the others handle it.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
So, a white feminist advertising industry executive tries to shame men's rights activists with the finger-waggling line, "But the saddest thing about all this is the time and energy diverted from the more important ways advertising must be held to account."
There's lots of more important jobs for white feminist Jonah Bloom to do than make or defend advertising. I look forward to all the white feminists quitting their glam-jobs on Madison Avenue and, oh, moving to Saudi Arabia in order to use their fabulous communication skills to enlighten the people there -- or something equally "important" in the eyes of white feminist Bloom.
Sheesh!
February 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
There's lots of more important jobs for white feminist Jonah Bloom to do than make or defend advertising. I look forward to all the white feminists quitting their glam-jobs on Madison Avenue and, oh, moving to Saudi Arabia in order to use their fabulous communication skills to enlighten the people there -- or something equally "important" in the eyes of white feminist Bloom.
Spot on michael i. If that Pepsi ad had been Shakira getting her chest smashed into a brick wall repeatedly protesting this ad would have been "the most imprtant" thing to women and feminists. His original response was a not so cleverly disguised, "Violence against men is not an important issue." with a twist of the usual "ugh".
February 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Mr.Bloom is clearly in the tank for the Sectular Progressive movement insofar as the media is concerned. I personally have no use for Mr.Bloom views other than to let him talk so all can see what he really is. The only real concern I have for an individual like this is that he has influence...no matter to what degree how small...of what is beset before our eyes. He is defending a mistake and apparently is paid very well to do it. This should give pause to all, what kind of business Mr.Bloom is really in.