« Food for Thought | Main | A Moment of Silence »

February 08, 2010

Huh????

Not to pick on Glenn, because he didn't make up the title of this linked post, but it made me think of that line our parents used to repeat whenever someone hurt my brother's or my feelings on the playground:

No one can make you feel bad without your permission.

It was good advice, too, because it happens to be true. I watched all five of the ads, and I'm confused. I'm not seeing the "women emasculating men" aspect at all:

Ad #1: Men striding about a vacant field in their underwear. Not a woman in sight.

But perhaps one is lurking just out of camera range hoping to lure yet another big brute into the tall grass where she'll physically overpower him, snatch his trou, and send him off to warble "I wear no pants" with other similarly pantless fellows? It's the SuperBowl. Anything is possible.

Ad #2: Again, not a woman in sight. Undoubtedly they're off screen again, tinfoil-penetrating mind control rays shooting from their nipples as the narrator somberly drones on and on...

"I have no mind or will of my own, but I'll get her back by .... umm.... driving a reeeeeeally loud car."

Ad #3: "I was on my way out the door to do something fun but as every intelligent person knows, no real man can resist Lite beer."

*whistling*

Ad #4: Charming. Man and wife drive down a dark road and are waylaid by sinister thugs. Man bravely sacrifices the little woman and runs like hell.

Ad #5: Man looks back on the journey to adulthood, marriage, fatherhood and briefly thinks of slitting his wrists concludes there is nothing inherently unmasculine about having well moisturized skin.

A well stuffed marmoset to the astute reader who can identify the common theme here.

Posted by Cassandra at February 8, 2010 11:21 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3538

Comments

'...lite beer'
'...really loud car'
'...hoping to be nekkid'
'...sacrifices his wife to save his skin'
'...moisturizer..''

Emasculation of men in touch with their feminine side?
I mean, after all, we would run like hell from trouble because if a man stepped up to protect his wife, it is exactly what he would tell her to do.

Or is it about feeeeeeellllllinnnnnggs?

I would love mind control rays shooting out of my
brain, let alone any other body parts. You have
ANY idea at all how to subdue an 11 year old to your will?

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 07:10 AM

I have it on good authority that it's your hair that is the problem.

Posted by: Grim at February 9, 2010 07:58 AM

Yup, your world frightens and confuses me, still, only more so.

*pinches self and looks down to insure that this is not another, caught outside of the cave, sans pelt dream...*

Posted by: Cirroc at February 9, 2010 09:01 AM

You have
ANY idea at all how to subdue an 11 year old to your will?

Male or female? :p

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 09:04 AM

Duct tape respects no gender...

Posted by: Alstair Cooke's cousin Cletus at February 9, 2010 09:44 AM

The ads are aimed at men whose attitudes toward women include fear, hostility, frustration, and confusion. What's interesting to me is that this trend is toward men who define themselves excessively in relation to women. It used to be women who characteristically defined themselves excessively in relation to men.

Posted by: Texan99 at February 9, 2010 10:13 AM

"Hey guys! This is the Super Bowl! This is OUR party, dudes! We'll throw in a couple commercials with cuddly horses and babies for the chicks to coo at, but mostly it's going to be about GUYS doing GUY stuff and saying things that GUYS say to other GUYS when the ladies aren't around. SDo beat that chest and grab another beer, because for this one day every year, there ain't no *&^%$# Viagra commercials allowed."

Now, excuse me while box up some of my some of my Junior High footbal trophies to make room for yet another suffed marmoset.

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 10:43 AM

... mostly it's going to be about GUYS doing GUY stuff and saying things that GUYS say to other GUYS when the ladies aren't around.

But that was kind of my point, spd. Clearly these ads are pitched to men. My default assumption going in was that whoever created the ads would be appealing to men.

That's why I found it really bizarre to see the item on Instapundit: "FIVE SUPER BOWL COMMERCIALS about women emasculating men."

So I look at the commercials thinking I'll see, oh I dunno... women emasculating men?

But what I saw was fairly well described by Texan99: a lot of men who are resentful of their own inability to stand up for themselves, even when (in the case of the Bud Lite commercial) there's absolutely no pressure on them to do anything they don't want to do.

If the point was men making fun of their own conflicting feelings about the demands/stresses of being a husband and father, I totally get that. But why call this "ads about women emasculating men"?

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 11:23 AM

The commercials were about women emasculating men? Wait a minute. *rumages around* Nope, still there. They must not have been very effective commercials, eh? (Cue guys laughing and trading high fives.)

Let's not over-analyze this. [And yes, that is the typical male response to everything, but I can't imagine why.] Ever since Eve first told Adam not to leave his dirty leaves on the floor of the bathroom guys have been complaining to each other about how they're losing their, um, attachments, to women. I mean, who else are they going to complain to about it without it (a) being over analyzed, or (b) giving somebody a potentially painful idea?

The bottom line is that these commercials were designed to get guys to say "Yeah, man, ain't that the truth!" right out loud and in front of that certain somebody else without causing a fuss (or, worse, a conversation) and then immediately go out and buy the product being pitched. (Gotta support the "bruthas" speaking truth to power, don't you know.)

So. I'll be in the garage eating a couple of Snickers, that is, if you (*sob*) still want me! :-)

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 11:58 AM

But what I saw was fairly well described by Texan99: a lot of men who are resentful of their own inability to stand up for themselves,...

Mind you I'm fairly sympathetic to that point, part of being a man is standing up for yourself.

But at the same time role reversals do tend to point the finger at the controlling husbands not the supplicant wives even though they share equal blame.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 12:04 PM

spd, who will you turn into if you eat the Snickers? What is a suffed marmoset?

Gender of 11 yo? Female.

I got an A in my statistics class. Does that count?

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 12:43 PM

:turns up Spike Channel and pretends he doesn't hear Cricket:

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 12:49 PM

Congratulations, Cricket! :)

The commercials were about women emasculating men? Wait a minute. *rumages around* Nope, still there. They must not have been very effective commercials, eh?

That was my point. That they weren't about women emasculating men at all.

The posts seemed like a somewhat inflammatory headline ("There "they" - whoever they are: the media? women? - go again!!!") in search of a narrative.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 12:50 PM

Sooooo, are you saying that I'm right? Or are you saying that I'm correct to agree with you? Or are you saying that we should have a conversation about it? (I can keep this up all day, folks.)*

*(Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt at home.)

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 01:17 PM

I think what I was saying is that I saw the commercials pretty much the way you saw them (as a humorous exhortation to support the "bruthas" speaking truth to power).

From a guy's perspective, that should be a *good* thing, right? Fight the power, and all that.

Doesn't seem to fit the narrative about how men are ridiculed/belittled/emasculated by an overly feminized culture, yet that's what "FIVE SUPER BOWL COMMERCIALS ABOUT WOMEN EMASCULATING MEN" implies they're about.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 01:30 PM

Oh, I forgot:

Sooooo, are you saying that I'm right?

Yes, dear :) Men are *always* right, aren't they?

Or are you saying that I'm correct to agree with you?

That assumes I'm correct.

Or are you saying that we should have a conversation about it?

Only if that's what *you* want, spd...

[batting eyelashes furiously to no discernable effect]

Oh man. I'm gonna pay for that one. Heh.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 01:33 PM

Doesn't seem to fit the narrative about how men are ridiculed/belittled/emasculated by an overly feminized culture, yet that's what "FIVE SUPER BOWL COMMERCIALS ABOUT WOMEN EMASCULATING MEN" implies they're about.

Yeah, but isn't the exhortation to fight against "X" still "about" "X"?

After all, if "X" didn't exist there'd be no need to fight against it.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 01:59 PM

A Chuck Norris Fact:
4. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

I added my own in light of this on the Chuck Norris Fact Page on FB:
"When Chuck Norris sings lullabyes, all babies go to sleep. Instantly."

Didn't spd make that comment about rummaging around for something?

heh.

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 02:02 PM

..isn't the exhortation to fight against "X" still "about" "X"?

I give up ;p

I attempted to point out that the commercials did not, in fact, feature a single example of women emasculating men. However I'm not willing to argue over whether any "emasculation" was real or existed only in the minds of whoever wrote the ads.

I shouldn't have brought it up.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 02:08 PM

Or are you saying that I'm correct to agree with you?

That assumes I'm correct.

Na-uh! You could be utterly wrong about the underlying facts, and think me "correct" because I agreed with you, which, even though I might completely disagree with you on the underlying facts, is the correct decision on my part because it avoids a conversation about the greater meaning of the underlying facts, which I am correctly attempting to avoid, which means that I am correct to agree with you, which means that you're right again, as always.

(Question for Guys: Why is it that Smart People always seem to know when to quit but never seem to know know when a "wet paint" sign is just getting one over on them? You'd think they'd want to know for sure. I would.)

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 02:29 PM

Appearently I've hit a nerve I did not intend. I was trying to approach this topic from an academic standpoint, not as a defense.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 02:33 PM

/swatting spd for being such a punk.

Yu-Ain, I'm sorry. As you may have surmised, I have something else on my mind and I got frustrated because I didn't seem to be able to get my point across. Also, mr rdr is having waaaaaay too much fun making fun of me :p

I guess I would say that there's a difference between ads that are about women actually emasculating men and ads that are about men believing women are trying to emasculate them? Just as there's a difference between women thinking men are overbearing/trying to oppress them and men actually doing those things.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 02:41 PM

I guess I would say that there's a difference between ads that are about women actually emasculating men and ads that are about men believing women are trying to emasculate them?

I agree they are different. I'm only thinking that whether or not you are addressing a topic doesn't depends on whether or not you are actually correct. The ads may be incorrect as it pertains to actual emasculation, but that just makes them incorrect about it and not on a different topic.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 03:26 PM

I don't disagree Yu-Ain, but that misses my point.

If you're actually trying to convey the idea that the ads were about men who think they're being emasculated (when in fact they're not) wouldn't the accurate headline be: "5 SUPERBOWL ADS ABOUT MEN WHO FEEL EMASCULATED BY WOMEN" rather than "5 SUPERBOWL ADS ABOUT WOMEN EMASCULATING MEN"?

Of course this assumes the aim was to correctly convey the content of the ads.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 03:31 PM

A well stuffed marmoset to the astute reader who can identify the common theme here.

I thought you were replacing those with kittens. Isn't that why you were interested in "Bouncing Kittens" some time ago?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 9, 2010 03:35 PM

I am sorry Ymar, but since George Bush and Barney the White House Terrier ate all the kitten I have not been able to lay my hands on one :)

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 03:39 PM

Perhaps more accurate, but unweildy and given that the ads were directed at men, no one like being blamed for their own problems. (Of course, I would have said that calling your customers sissies is not exactly a smart idea either. But Dockers apearently disagrees :-) )

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 03:51 PM

And FloTV calling its customers spineless just doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me either.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 03:57 PM

Cassandra, I was wondering about that 'common thread' re: emasculation only because if these were superbowl ads, isn't this a way of throwing something to the wimmin?

Not so much a dig at emasculating women but how equal and inclusive we are?

I had a whole screed about football, but spd's Spike Channel drowned it out. :)

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 04:15 PM

Late to this but I thought the commercials were saying, "Guys, don't let women tell you what to do. Let us do that." So I guess I disagree with Cassandra. I don't think the correct label would be:

"5 SUPERBOWL ADS ABOUT MEN WHO FEEL EMASCULATED BY WOMEN".

I think the correct label would be:

"5 SUPERBOWL ADS AIMED AT MEN WHO HAVE PERFECTLY FINE LIVES INCLUDING GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH WOMEN BUT CAN BE MADE TO WORRY THAT WOMEN ARE EMASCULATING THEM".

On the other hand, it's always at least remotely possible that at least some of these ads were supposed to be funny because they're ridiculous. I'm not sure I'd bet money on that though.

(The spell checker doesn't recognize SuperBowl? That's just not right.)

Posted by: Elise at February 9, 2010 04:22 PM

I, personally, would have gone with "5 SUPERBOWL ADS AIMED AT EMASCULATED MEN".

This leaves off the accusation that women are the problem the real title suggests while also leaving off the accusation that it's all in men's heads that Cass' title suggests.

Who is at fault is simply not asserted.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 04:34 PM

"Guys, don't let women tell you what to do. Let us do that."

Except that guys usually don't have to be told to like loud cars, beer, and gadgets.

To me it's more of a condescending, "we know you're too spineless to stand up for yourselves completely, but *this* you can get away with."

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 9, 2010 04:39 PM

#1: That tribe never gonna propagate species. Problem solved

#2: Anyone who buy Mopar at this time tussling with issues arguably as severe as women, sex, relationship and whether or not misplaced package.

#3: Got no stone to cast at fellow who sees and seize opportunity to snarf beer, even if light or lite beer... That still beer right?

#4: Ok, modern day Henny Youngman joke, I get... Ha ha.

#5: Fellow want to feel soft and pretty, NTTAWWT. No ask, no tell. No have to, due to smell.

Excuse Cirroc, got to take pelts to dry cleaners...

Posted by: Cirroc at February 9, 2010 05:13 PM

[nevermind]

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 05:24 PM

:Comes in from garage and turns down i-Pod:

"...we know you're too spineless to stand up for yourselves completely, but *this* you can get away with."

:Briefly considers whistling aloud before cranking up volume past "bleed" and returning to garage and invisible friends:

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 05:35 PM

Uh oh. Cirroc not watch much TV nor is sophist-a-cated in speaking to matters of social normisms. Cirroc hope comments not aggravate or anger hostess.

*Cirroc sense he better follow spd rdr lead and retire to cave to paint alien beings in under pants on walls, run in circle, club dirt, and howl at big light in sky. Bows towards hostess, and backs away as fast as too tightly cut pelt allow*

Posted by: Cirroc at February 9, 2010 05:58 PM

Before you never-minded your comment, Cassandra, I caught a glimpse of you saying something about humor so I'd like to chip in my two cents worth - this is a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately.

Sarah Palin wrote crib notes on her hand. The Left side of the blogosphere went ballistic. Then she wrote "Hi Mom" on her hand. I thought that was pretty funny and think the correct response from the Left side of the blogosphere would have been to laugh and admit she won that round. Today I read that Robert Gibbs wrote "hope" and "change" on his palm; it's being reported that he "mocked" Sarah Palin. I actually think that's pretty funny, too, and I hope Palin is clever enough to make a funny crack about it, perhaps something to the effect that this is proof Democrats can learn a lot from Republicans - or maybe she could write that on her hand.

Similarly - to go back to SuperBowl ads - I think once the Tebow ad aired organizations like NOW should have laughed ruefully and admitted they got suckered. The ad was about as innocuous as it could be and if NOW, et al, had not made such a fuss about it probably 80% of the people who saw it would have scratched their heads and wondered what it was for. Instead, NOW decided to attack on a different front, finding something else wrong with the ad.

It seems to me that much of the political culture is really good at laughing at the other guys in a rather sneering way but we've all gotten awfully bad at laughing at ourselves. It makes politics awfully grim and - I'm increasingly coming to believe - awfully boring.

Posted by: Elise at February 9, 2010 06:01 PM

Cirroc:

No worry. Deleted comment not aimed at you. Besides, everyone know women talk/think too much. Need to shut up now.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 06:03 PM

...much of the political culture is really good at laughing at the other guys in a rather sneering way but we've all gotten awfully bad at laughing at ourselves.

Bad at laughing at our own foibles and bad at seeing anything though someone else's eyes.

We no longer even try. Everything is just another excuse to take offense - even if we just finished bashing the "other side" (whether it's men, women, liberals or conservatives) for doing what we've done a thousand times.

I'm tired of seeing every criticism - no matter how unrelated to her sex - of Sarah Palin as "misogyny". I'm sick of seeing everything on the face of the earth labeled as "misandry".

We're defining pathology down to the point where it's meaningless, but more importantly we're making enemies out of those we disagree with.

I am sorry for my ill humor. I just need to get away.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 06:09 PM

Comments in no particular order to previous comments:
Cricket, congratulations on the "A"!

I own several pairs of Dockers, but only because my wife buys them and makes me wear them. Does that make me emasculated?

I have an extremely obnoxious kitten to give away, if anyone is interested. El Diablo.

If spd rdr was less emasculated, he might have some real friends instead of the imaginary kind.

Elise, you are probably the smartest person who comments here (I read your blog from time to time, so I knows you is plenty smart), but I truly wouldn't expect any rash of self -deprecating humor to make an outbreak in Washington anytime soon.

It's snowing here in Klumbus again. Bring me the head of Alfredo Gore.

Okay, back on my head.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at February 9, 2010 06:35 PM

If spd rdr was less emasculated, he might have some real friends instead of the imaginary kind.

First, they are NOT imaginary friends. They are INVISIBLE friends.

Second, they don't like you anymore.

I hope you and the Dockers your wife makes you wear are happy now.

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 07:36 PM

Cassandra needs spa cave and curing salt. Smoke lots afterward...

Oh. formula for making bacon.

Never mind.

Posted by: Cave Bug at February 9, 2010 08:13 PM

Cirroc no Neanderthal, buy mate day pass at spa for valen, volen, heart day.

But, making bacon? Do suppose to do that while half or whole nekkid? Never mind...

Cirroc think hostess be better when Unit return.

Till then, we make drawings on cave wall of alien tribe in under pants, spd rdr + invisible friends, and Docker Don's mate picking pelts from pelt locker for Don, we club dirt, we run around monolith, and we howl at big light in night sky.

Then we drink lots of beer and repeat.

Posted by: Cirroc at February 9, 2010 08:23 PM

:)

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 08:29 PM

Worth it.

Posted by: spd rdr at February 9, 2010 11:48 PM

Hang in there Cass, spring will be here soon. Cricket, congratulations on the "A"! It scares the hell out of me to know there are people around that are smart enough to actually understand statistics.
Mainly because the only other person that I know of that understands statistics is my little sister, and she does scare the hell out of me.

Posted by: Russ at February 10, 2010 02:09 AM

Actually, I have Cassandra to thank for my Early Understanding of the subject, since she is a stats/math sort of persyn. If she used a term I didn't understand, rather than say 'Whot-in-helk-izzat-supposed-to-mean?' I googled. And I read the post several times for understanding. No commenting.

The course was not a comprehesive treatment of the subject, being designed for managers and the use of probability, regression, etc. to make decisions. What I liked about the text though, was how they taught you the math. It actually took you through the steps, like a basic algebra course, and explained the symbols. My professor not only thoroughly understood his subject, his guidance for the course ensured comprehension even at a basic level.

In short, I know enough to be dangerous!

MWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Posted by: Cricket at February 10, 2010 07:16 AM

Why, thank, Don Brouhaha. Although I have this sneaking suspicion you would agree with the judgment of my mother, aunt, and grandmother: Her teachers say she's smart as a whip but I swear that girl doesn't have the common sense God gave a goose.

Sadly, I don't expect an outbreak of self-deprecating humor in Washington - although I suspect that if a politician manages to dig down deep and find his or her sense of honest, non-snide, laugh at my side too humor, he or she would have a good chance of being elected President for Life. I simply hope sometimes that pundits will lighten up a little.

Still, the idea that politicians may be able to be funny in a non-sneery way is not totally nuts. Ever since Neoneocon posted this video, I've had this fantasy that we may see something like that again.

Posted by: Elise at February 10, 2010 11:40 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)