I think it says a lot about us as media-consumers that this is the type of thing that warrants a whole press conference, the type of thing that makes it on to the news on various networks. Aren’t there more important things that we should be concerned with? Where’s the integrity? This type of reporting is far and few between. Perhaps this explains why I don’t watch much television in the first place…

Response to Deborah Graziani
This was a great marketing move on the dating company’s part just like Deborah said. The commercial gets the attention of all those who watch it. Mancrunch surely knew that they would not be able to get a spot as part of the Super Bowl commercials, because they knew from the beginning, that it would be truly too controversial to air. If you ask me this is genius marketing! After knowing that it would be too controversial they made it anyways and tried to sell it, all the while they pretended to be naïve. Just like all the other banned commercials they have gotten their publicity in the media for the simple fact of being banned and without spending a penny. For example this Doritos commercial that was banned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_DiTPoy-A&feature=player_embedded

Yes, it was banned, but just because it has the word banned in the title and it’s now on YouTube, just like all the other banned Super Bowl commercials, just as many people will click to watch it. Thus creating publicity for Doritos without having to pay.
So whether marketing companies pay 3 million per 30 second slots or 0$ it is up to them. We see now that both have been done! Which is more successful?

Many others have noted that a hegemonic (heterosexual, white or black, middle-aged, beer-drinking, middle-class) male emerges as the vision of the pinnacle of masculinity.

However, Sonia noted above that women became the sideline targets–as nagging and castrating helpmates but somehow integral to Superbowlish masculinity. So if you’re a respectable family man (i.e., father, maritally faithful, corporately successful, disciplined) your masculinity is diminished — how to compensate?

The answer is provided by the commercials: buy mannish stuff. Two commercials made this very clear: Dove for Men and the Dodge Charger.

The Dove commercial runs through the hegemonic male identity: white, married, father, protector, handy man, financially successful – then makes the point that after you’ve sacrificed so much of your pride and energy, indulge in your masculinity by using – soap? …for men. It’s soap for manly men. Made by a company that’s invested a lot of money in an anti-hegemonic ad campaign trying to make women feel comfortable with their bodies (not a particularly interesting or welcome subject to the hegemonic male). I didn’t feel convinced.

The Dodge Charger commercial even more overt and runs through the same narrative, only in first person. The white male is talking to his castrating female counterpart: “I go to a 9 to 5 job, I go shopping with you,” etc., suggesting all these things are self-sacrificing, counterintuitive actions. And he ends claiming that one thing counterbalances all of this humiliation – that he indulges his masculinity by driving a certain kind of car. The commercial itself is well-done and I think if I were a man it would weigh on me.

To a less obvious extent, it’s the same with the Snickers ad, the Bridgestone Tires (Bachelor party) ad, the Bud Light survivor ad, the Flo Tv “Spineless” ad,

Can you buy the adrenaline-pumping, wild-oat-sowing, freedom-loving aspect of masculinity that seems to get sacrificed to responsibility? According to the Superbowl, you can.

________

Muslims and TV

My parents are retired and watch lots of television, particularly the crime shows and lawyer shows (these shows are very prevalent – go to any major network’s website and click on “shows”–they make up more than half of primetime showing). A mutation of this is the army/navy lawyer show, like NCIS or JAG.

These shows invariably take on Islam and Muslims. The attempts to portray Muslims fall largely along the Sean Hannity/Bill O’Reilly dichotomy – there are “moderate Muslims” – portrayed as law-abiding, tax-paying, shutting up and minding their own business Muslims, and the “fundamentalist”/”radical”/”Islamist” Muslims that are busy at work trying to blow Americans or Israelis up.

Weirdly enough, these shows are trying hard to change their superficial image. There are more and more good guy Muslims being shown, but they are always portrayed juxtaposed, as either victims or suspects of horrible violence, spousal abuse, religious fanaticism or terrorism. For example, I think it was NCIS, where there was an episode where a white pastor’s son soldier converted to Islam and was murdered in the episode. Another episode showed a suspect of planting car bombs, a former American Muslim Iraq-war veteran, as disfigured and reticent; most of his character is relayed through his white Christian wife.

There are no shows (outside of Little Mosque on the Prairie in Canada) on network TV that have Muslims as main characters. There is a Muslim comedian/actor, Aziz Ansari, who stars on “Parks and Recreation,” a documentary “The Office” type show. Ansari plays “Tom,” a pervy self-agrandizer from North Carolina who is neither a practicing Muslim nor has any connection to Arab/Pakistani/Indian culture, though is sometimes mistaken for a terrorist.

A good website that keeps tabs on Muslims and media is elanmag.com.

I wanted to comment on some of the things that I found particularly enjoyable about the Olympics so far.. I really like the idea to have a province or territory “present” themselves each night at the medal ceremonies in BC place. The idea to have live performances, essentially just an open concert, is great and many of the artists are international successes. Nelly Furtado, who had the theme song for the world cup a few years ago, is a great example.
I also love the profiles on the athletes. They always seem to have terrific stories that indicate just how difficult it is to get to the Olympics and perform at such an elite level.
The support from Canadian companies has been great too. Obviously there is an advertising benefit to sponsoring athletes, but it is companies like Excel Gum and RBC that are not only Olympic sponsors but also sponsors for the individual athletes and teams.
I hope everyone has the opportunity to watch the games and cheer on the athletes!

I believe that a clear example of reductionism lies in the portrayal of women in the Disney film titled “The Little Mermaid”. In this blog, I will discuss how the movie is a gender biased film that offers a unified and homogeneous misrepresentation of women.

When Ariel sings the song “Part of Their World”, the audience gets a clear idea of what her goal is at this point of the film. She wishes she was something she is not: a human. Near the end of the film, Ariel’s goal changes as she is now determined to find the prince and get him. This demonstrates that love is submissive and that the fate of the little mermaid goes to the dominant group: man.
In comparison to men, the film portrays women in a demeaning manner. The average woman in the film is powerless, unless she is demon-like, smothering or monstrous. Ursula, for example, is demonstrative of the fact that in order for a woman’s power to surpass a man’s power, she must be ugly.
Love is represented in relation to sacrifices. In Ariel’s case, she starts by letting go of her family in order to get her man. She then loses her voice with the intention of gaining the ability to commit herself to the prince. Ironically, the first thing that the prince was attracted to was her voice. However, Ursula reassures Ariel by telling her that her looks, face and body language will remain- simultaneously sending the message to girls that appearance will always be of greatest importance.
Ariel is the one who is made to stand representative of the entire race in this film. Since she is the main character, young viewers of the media have faith in her actions. The Little Mermaid should be used as an example that Ariel is not necessarily representative of what it means to be a woman, and that a kiss is usually not all it takes to fall in love.

Since this blog discusses banned Super Bowl commercials, I was tempted to discover what other commercials have been rejected, and why. The commercial that I fell upon and that caught my attention is a Snickers commercial that shows two males working on a car. One man pulls a Snickers candy bar from his pocket and starts eating it while the second man begins chewing the other end. As a result, the two men touch lips and then back off from each other extremely quickly, terrified by the sinful act they have just committed. Assuming that if they do “something manly”, they will be dismissed from the misdeed in which they have done, and consequently rip hair off from their chests.
When I saw this commercial for the first time, I was not exactly sure how to take it in. I read on CNN.com that the Human Right Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) condemned the ad. Clearly the commercial is controversial, but I believe that it gives two messages. Firstly, are they trying to say that males have to pronounce their masculinity by being heterosexual and nothing else? Or do males have to pronounce their masculinity by being homophobic?
The “accidental” kiss, in my opinion, is not what should trigger the audience’s uproar. Personally I was more shocked with the fact that the two men believed they committed something that was completely immoral. The commentary on the website where I retrieved the video was also pretty shocking. One of the comments that struck me the most was, “What do children think when they see this commercial? Are they learning anything?”. I believe this is where the notion of hegemony comes to play. The manner in which the hegemonic ideology is perpetuated is by showing that if the two men were to have intentionally kissed, they would not be “manly”. In other words, homosexuals should not be considered “manly”.
The ironic part to this commercial is the fact that it was “banned” due to its controversy. However, it seems to be causing more controversy since it is considered “banned”.

http://www.spike.com/video/kiss/2819686

The commercial that caught my attention is the 2010 Hyaundai “Luxury”. Many people want a car and many people are attracted to luxury and would love to be rich. What a better way to get these people interested than telling them they will get luxury at a affordable price.However, I find it only adresses the middle class and upper class since everything they show in the video is very expensive. I think publicity should adress all the classes, but I understand that for Hyaundai or other company that want to sell the product; that the lower class is not their target class.
Over all, i find the commercials funny, but ridiculous and it is why we remember them that much.