Snickers Advert Pulled

dade · 30-07-2008 9:00am

do you reckon they'd be offended by this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViccaoJt_Yc

stevelknievel · 30-07-2008 10:15am

robby^5 wrote: »

So basically the people who have asked this ad to be pulled are saying that gay people act feminine, isn't that just promoting a negative stereotype? Snickers made no allusions to this man being gay, just him being a big girls blouse.

Basically by asking this ad to be pulled they're reinforcing the image that gay people are these sissy girly guys akin to the stereotypes we see on sex and the city and that they need special treatment.

Way to set back your own cause 30 years.

Exactly what I was thinking Robbie. They've shot themselves in the foot. I know this is very un-PC of me but does anyone think these PC people should be sent to some deserted island where they are protected form the big nasty ads and let people with a sense of humour enjoy themselves. No wonder everyone's depressed these days...

OK-Cancel-Apply · 30-07-2008 10:17am

Looks harmless enough, unless they thought it would encourage school bullying. Adults see things differently to kids, and ads get into the mind more than films do.

Defenestrate · 30-07-2008 10:19am

stevelknievel wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking Robbie. They've shot themselves in the foot. I know this is very un-PC of me but does anyone think these PC people should be sent to some deserted island where they are protected form the big nasty ads and let people with a sense of humour enjoy themselves. No wonder everyone's depressed these days...

A deserted island sounds too nice really. The island should contain all the paedophiles and suspended sentence criminals that their bleeding hearts saved from jail. Let's see how PC they feel when they wake up to some creepy old man leering at them.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 10:21am

Can people really not see that the ad trades on stereotypes of gay people as effeminate and mincing?

It is blindingly obvious that this is the reason they picked speed-walking - because it imposes an exaggerated, bottom-wiggling walk. Add to that the dialogue about "being a man" and the "get some nuts" tagline, and I can't believe you all really think the ad has nothing to do with camp gayness versus hyper-masculine heterosexuality.

dr.bollocko · 30-07-2008 10:26am

gogglebok wrote: »

Can people really not see that the ad trades on stereotypes of gay people as effeminate and mincing?

It is blindingly obvious that this is the reason they picked speed-walking - because it imposes an exaggerated, bottom-wiggling walk. Add to that the dialogue about "being a man" and the "get some nuts" tagline, and I can't believe you all really think the ad has nothing to do with camp gayness versus hyper-masculine heterosexuality.

That assessment speaks more about your own stereotypical view of the homosexual population than anybody elses mate.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 10:33am

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That assessment speaks more about your own stereotypical view of the homosexual population than anybody elses mate.

No, it plainly doesn't. It acknowledges that gay men have been stereotyped as mincing and camp, and suggests that the ad is invoking that caricature.

Are you saying that the caricature doesn't exist?

dr.bollocko · 30-07-2008 10:40am

gogglebok wrote: »

No, it plainly doesn't. It acknowledges that gay men have been stereotyped as mincing and camp, and suggests that the ad is invoking that caricature.

Are you saying that the caricature doesn't exist?

I am offended by that on behalf of mincing straight men everywhere.

stevelknievel · 30-07-2008 10:44am

gogglebok wrote: »

Can people really not see that the ad trades on stereotypes of gay people as effeminate and mincing?

It is blindingly obvious that this is the reason they picked speed-walking - because it imposes an exaggerated, bottom-wiggling walk. Add to that the dialogue about "being a man" and the "get some nuts" tagline, and I can't believe you all really think the ad has nothing to do with camp gayness versus hyper-masculine heterosexuality.

It is picking on effeminate, mincing people. It is picking on less than hyper-masculinity. But it's all about the humour. It's supposed to be funny. I can't imagine Ronaldo or Drogba complained after the first one with the diving footballer. When did we become a nation of people who can't laugh. A mate of mine said it best a few weeks ago. We're turning into England. Family guy did an episode set in Ireland and what it showed was a stereotypical Irish village, with the sheep and the alcohol. Now I'm a proud Irish man but I did not write a letter of complaint. I did not try to get the episode pulled. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. One of their best. My point is if something is meant as a joke then please people, just take it as a joke.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 10:46am

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I am offended by that on behalf of mincing straight men everywhere.

A disappointingly tedious response, Dr B. You're wrong about this, and it's a shame to see you and everyone lazily reaching for the prefab "PC Brigade" nonsense.

It's fair enough to find the ad funny, or to deplore its being banned, but to deny that it trades in gay stereotypes is either wilful or stupid.

pickarooney · 30-07-2008 10:47am

Camp eighties stereotype? Look no further than Mr. T.

MikeHoncho · 30-07-2008 10:49am

No big deal for Mars. They pull the ad and get loads of news coverage. Threads like this pop up all over the place and the youtube views go through the roof costing them a fraction of what they would have had to spend buying TV airtime to reach the same audience.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 10:50am

stevelknievel wrote: »

It is picking on effeminate, mincing people. It is picking on less than hyper-masculinity. But it's all about the humour. It's supposed to be funny. I can't imagine Ronaldo or Drogba complained after the first one with the diving footballer.

I agree with much of what you say. But the general consensus here that the pelting of an effeminate mincing man has nothing to do with a culture of homophobic bullying is just silly. It blatantly does. That's what distinguishes it from the diving footballer ad.

dr.bollocko · 30-07-2008 10:54am

gogglebok wrote: »

A disappointingly tedious response, Dr B. You're wrong about this, and it's a shame to see you and everyone lazily reaching for the prefab "PC Brigade" nonsense.

It's fair enough to find the ad funny, or to deplore its being banned, but to deny that it trades in gay stereotypes is either wilful or stupid.

If you feel that it trades in homosexual stereotypes then that is up to you.

You are wrong and outdated in your stereotypes but again that is entirely up to you.

Yes. There is a stereotype of a mincing queer that exists in the minds of many people. These are the kinds of people that think homosexual men shouldnt teach in boys schools because they might rape the pupils.
In other words, morons.

We live in an a post metrosexual age.
They have just released a selection of make up specifically for men.
Was there not a thread in AH specifically referring to the "feminisation of man"?
That bloke from lost advertising men's moisturiser.
We spend more now on clothes, hair, all of that tat.

Have you noticed any of these trends of, oh, the last ten years?
Are ya blind?

My point, initially, was simply that you don't seem to realise that you do not have to be gay to be effeminate.
I didnt want to get into a tirade about it and hurl masked abuse at you for your ridiculous views.

But if you equate effeminacy with homosexuality then that is your problem buddy, not mine.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 10:55am

pickarooney wrote: »

Camp eighties stereotype? Look no further than Mr. T.

Indeed. The butch black guy ejaculates chocolate phalluses at the mincing white bottom. They should reinstate the ad, and release the 18-cert sequel.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 10:58am

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If you feel that it trades in homosexual stereotypes then that is up to you.

You are wrong and outdated in your stereotypes but again that is entirely up to you.

Yes. There is a stereotype of a mincing queer that exists in the minds of many people. These are the kinds of people that think homosexual men shouldnt teach in boys schools because they might rape the pupils.
In other words, morons.

We live in an a post metrosexual age.
They have just released a selection of make up specifically for men.
Was there not a thread in AH specifically referring to the "feminisation of man"?
That bloke from lost advertising men's moisturiser.
We spend more now on clothes, hair, all of that tat.

Have you noticed any of these trends of, oh, the last ten years?
Are ya blind?

My point, initially, was simply that you don't seem to realise that you do not have to be gay to be effeminate.
I didnt want to get into a tirade about it and hurl masked abuse at you for your ridiculous views.

But if you equate effeminacy with homosexuality then that is your problem buddy, not mine.

Like your previous response, that is not based on anything I've said. I don't know who or what you're arguing with here, but it's not my posts.

stevelknievel · 30-07-2008 11:01am

gogglebok wrote: »

I agree with much of what you say. But the general consensus here that the pelting of an effeminate mincing man has nothing to do with a culture of homophobic bullying is just silly. It blatantly does. That's what distinguishes it from the diving footballer ad.

I'm sure it does, but first I saw of the ad, I would have just thought camp, not gay. And although I'm sure most people probably jumped to the gay conclusion, the fact that gay rights did, did nothing to help their cause.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 11:09am

stevelknievel wrote: »

I'm sure it does, but first I saw of the ad, I would have just thought camp, not gay. And although I'm sure most people probably jumped to the gay conclusion, the fact that gay rights did, did nothing to help their cause.

Maybe not, but that's the way it is with causes. The first stage is to abuse people for what they are, and the second stage is to abuse them for protesting about the abuse.

Banning the ad is an over-reaction, certainly, but it's no harm to point out that there is something a bit bullying (and fearful) in the appeal it's intended to have.

zuroph · 30-07-2008 11:28am

um, that guy wasnt gay.

speedwalkers around the world should now sue the gays for calling their sport offensive.

Duggy747 · 30-07-2008 11:36am

Free advertising for Mars at a low,low cost? I bet they're smiling. I guess we are all wrong, all gay people ARE camp who do effeminate things...........according to the gay watchdogs for taking a stance against this advert.

*YAWN* I guess people overlooked the exaggarations that the walker is a girl's blouse of a man and Mr.T is the pinnacle of masculinity. I mean, he bursts through a house on the back of a pickup with a giant gattling gun

I guess if it was a white guy in Mr.T's place and a black guy in the walker's position we'd have racist watchdogs all over the place.

The world is going down the toilet cuz people are letting the rabid PC-brigade get away with things like this. Everything being banned or censored in case it offends Hadji over in Bristol or a gay guy called Kevin in Tyrone................despite these people probably never being offended by such things.

Negative sterotyping thats just helping society's imagination eat itself up. The intentions may be good but, Jesus Christ, there's got to be a fùckin' line!!

Anywho, the reactions have just made male speedwalkers feel like asses now that their hobby is associated only with homosexuals. Well done!

Agamemnon · 30-07-2008 11:52am

Maybe it's just me, but the reason I find speed-walking laughable has nothing to do with homosexuality or campness. It's the ridiculous amount of effort put into fecking walking that's funny, when it would be so much easier to break into a jog. If that's an Olympic sport, they might as well introduce speed-sitting or speed-sleeping as well. Whenever I see speed-walkers bursting a gut trying to go fast, I feel like shouting "JUST FUCKING RUN!" at them.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 11:55am

Agamemnon wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but the reason I find speed-walking laughable has nothing to do with homosexuality or campness. It's the ridiculous amount of effort put into fecking walking that's funny, when it would be so much easier to break into a jog. If that's an Olympic sport, they might as well introduce speed-sitting or speed-sleeping as well. Whenever I see speed-walkers bursting a gut trying to go fast, I feel like shouting "JUST FUCKING RUN!" at them.

Very funny. "The gold medal for moving very fast without running" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as the sprint.

Are there any Irish speed-walkers at the Olympics?

Dinter · 30-07-2008 11:55am

I don’t see how that advert had anything to do with homosexuals.

Yes it was aimed at “effeminate” men as against the “hard” men who eat snickers. However it is certain posters who are drawing the conclusion that all effeminate men are homosexual.

By that reasoning was their earlier advert about an effeminate man faking a foul also in some way anti homosexual? It doesn’t matter as homosexuals don’t own the copyright on effeminate.

I know it can be handy for certain members of a community to have a trump card to play so they can be seen to “justifiably” flagellate themselves to improve gay rights while clambering over each other for a place in the pantheon of gay rights activists.

However just because they can draw the most tenuous of links doesn’t mean they should. To be honest I think the stink being kicked up about a perfectly reasonable advert is more than anything making the gay rights “cause” seem effeminate. Why not attack the crisp advert that has a man being sucked up a pipe because he knows what a plie is?

To hear the self gratifying and congratulatory tales of impending bullying and violence between heterosexual and homosexuals that was so narrowly avoided by these “champions” bothers me more than an advert ever could.

They think this advert is in any way important while Iris Robinson apparently represents people's opinion. Good job!

mehfesto2 · 30-07-2008 12:02pm

Good thread.
Great piece there too, Dr.Bollocko. Said what I would've had I been here at the time!

But one thing; I've read this topic on other threads and as far as I know, it wasn't a gay-rights group that brought up the case, just some ninny with too much time on their hands. I read on the EP forum that gay-rights campaigners tried to have it reinstated, infact.

I would be horribly offended if some gobsh*te took it upon themselves to complain about this ad for the sake of homosexuals' rights, when no such offence is visable. He is purely effeminate, not gay. There's a world of difference. To think people still associate the two is baffling. How do people not see the difference... I mean we live in a world with Russell Brand in it!

Dinter · 30-07-2008 12:04pm

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I mean we live in a world with Russell Brand in it!

Actually that point alone should mean the ad's reinstated.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 12:04pm

Good call on the crisp ad. It represents exactly the same kind of self-definition and calls on the same fears about masculinity.

This, however is missing the point:

Dinter wrote: »

However it is certain posters who are drawing the conclusion that all effeminate men are homosexual.

You are right that such a conclusion would be ludicrous, but nobody is drawing that conclusion. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist.

Dinter wrote: »

I know it can be handy for certain members of a community to have a trump card to play so they can be seen to “justifiably” flagellate themselves to improve gay rights while clambering over each other for a place in the pantheon of gay rights activists.

That's such a crappy reduction of people's motives. Can't you disagree with someone and still allow that they might be making their point sincerely?

Dinter · 30-07-2008 12:17pm

gogglebok wrote: »

You are right that such a conclusion would be ludicrous, but nobody is drawing that conclusion. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist.

Exactly. However you do seem to think that the add is directly aimed at effeminate men and that in some way all effeminate men are homosexual and all homosexuals are apparently in danger from people blindly following Mr T's example i.e.

gogglebok wrote: »

Maybe not, but that's the way it is with causes. The first stage is to abuse people for what they are, and the second stage is to abuse them for protesting about the abuse.

or

gogglebok wrote: »

I agree with much of what you say. But the general consensus here that the pelting of an effeminate mincing man has nothing to do with a culture of homophobic bullying is just silly. It blatantly does. That's what distinguishes it from the diving footballer ad.

So people aren't entitled to their opinions then? Perhaps you're seeing offense where there is none!

gogglebok wrote: »

That's such a crappy reduction of people's motives. Can't you disagree with someone and still allow that they might be making their point sincerely?

It certainly is a pretty crappy motive but it's a much better motive than somebody actually getting offended enough to complain.

Sherifu · 30-07-2008 12:24pm

All yall **** is ...

MJOR · 30-07-2008 12:25pm

So it offended suposeddly gay power walking yellow shorted men? It's funny:). Are they pulling yorkie ads too because they say they are not for girls?

Sure welcome to the world of metro sexuals. Men are every bit as bad as women for hair / skin products etc. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make they gay becuse they look after themselves.

FFS. We should start a campaign to have it put back on.

gogglebok · 30-07-2008 12:46pm

Dinter, I've been saying that the ad uses a gay stereotype in a way that "has something to do with" a culture of homophobic bullying. You can disagree with that if you like, but I don't understand how do you construe it into "effeminacy = homosexuality." Or any of the other positions you attribute to me.

The effeminate guy in the ad may not be gay. Absolutely. But the ad is about defining the limits of proper masculinity, and it excludes the mincing guy. He is not a proper man. The ad sets up the character codes of proper manhood in a way that excludes characteristics traditionally thought of as gay.

Now imagine if the guy in the ad was wearing a conical straw hat and a Fu Manchu moustache and saying "me so velly solly!" while smoking an opium pipe and spelling out the sayings of Chairman Mao in rice on the back of a big jade dragon. That would be a Chinese stereotype even if the actor or the character was not Chinese. Do you see that?

Do you see that acknowledging that fact does not make me a closet Sinophobe (as you and Dr Bollocko ludicrously seem to suggest)? Depressing as it is to be forced to point out something so basic, let me have a go. Acknowledging that a stereotype exists IS NOT THE SAME THING as believing that the stereotype is true.

Snickers Advert Pulled

Comments