"Much ado about nothing"?

[veronica_rich]

The Super Bowl's Buzziest Ads - Yahoo! TV Blog (Check out the very last one.)

Well, MIKE, seeing as you don't have a uterus, why don't you just shut the hell up about whether that ad was a big deal or not? You are so NOT qualified to have an opinion on this. The one thing every woman reading this can likely agree upon is that the issue of choice is not "much ado about nothing."

Asshole.

Oh, and while I'm at it - I didn't watch any of those supposed man-bashing ads because I have the same opinion of those as I have of sitcoms that do the same thing almost all the time. If you're trying to be funny and give all characters equal chance to look like fools, that's one thing (although my idea of "funny" is probably off - I'm one of the few children who watched "I Love Lucy" and asked my mother, "Why is she always whining to him? Why is she begging HIM for a car? Why doesn't she get off her butt and work for one? Or talk to another producer for a part in a show?" But at least she and Ricky both got the chance to look like fools). But when you're making just one or the other "side" look bad, dumb, shiftless, stupid, clueless most or all of the time - UGH. Doing it to men is just as bad as doing it to women, because it's patronizing and basically says "we can't make you women look good without dumbing these fools down to achieve it." And it makes me hate men, which I don't like to do.

Comments

[zagzagael.livejournal.com]

My interpretation of "those" ad spots last night was the opposite - I think they are directly appealing to the "new wave" of false equality in relationships and between the sexes wherein men have basically been neutered by the feminization of the male in today's American society. I think we ARE going to see a backlash of that....not back to the Chauvinistic/Doris Day days....but at least a return to men being men again. I thought the spots were fantastic!

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I'm going to play the ignoramus (really, it's not that difficult for me) and ask what you mean about "men being men" and "false equality" and "feminization of the male." I sort of get the last one, but not the first two.

[xenafox.livejournal.com]

Oh my God. The ads were so fucking awful this year. My boyfriend and I watched them and often times just found ourselves going "...what?" They weren't even funny ads, just outrageously sexist...or maybe stereotypical is the word I'm looking for...I don't know.

Although to be honest I think you're jumping the gun on Mike there...I actually kind of agree with that particular commercial, in the sea of flashy ads with talking animals and flashing lights, it really is "much ado about nothing" in my mind. I don't even think I noticed that ad.I think that's more of what he meant.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I don't believe he was talking about the flashiness of the ad itself; I got the distinct feeling he was referring to the issue itself. The most demure, beige ad in the world that's suggesting I shouldn't get to make choices about my own body, paid for by an organization that campaigns to make that kind of limitation legal, is a big deal to me. It may not be to MIKE, but MIKE doesn't have a uterus.

[xenafox.livejournal.com]

Yea I definitely gotta disagree, I think you're reading way way too into it (and I'm one of the biggest pro-choice/abortion-is-a-woman's-choice people around).

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

NO YOU CAN'T DISAGREE GET OFF MY JOURNAL. XD

I DO have things I'm oversensitive about. Men saying anything about anything having to do with abortion other than "it's not my business" rub me the wrong way. Oh well; that probably won't change soon ...

[xenafox.livejournal.com]

SHIT NOT AGAIN.

XD Yea, I understand, I get REALLY mad about that stuff too. Unneededly so though, myself, I was a rotter to my boyfriend once simply because the idea of abortion made him uncomfortable. *Fails at life*

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

I loathe people who take issues of women's health lightly as much as the next, but I wonder if Mike's "much ado about nothing" comment was most in direct response to the controversy that led up to the ad. Much was said of using the Super Bowl to proslytize. Maybe it was more like, "After all the hubbub leading up to Tebow's ad, it turns out it wasn't the raging religious anti-choice TV spot it was made out to be?"

(...With the full disclosure that I haven't watched the ad itself--no sound atm so didn't see the point--and have no idea how Tebow's ad did or didn't end up coming off. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, anti-choice is anti-choice, but eh.. maybe they were just more ~subtle~ about the message, which seems to make a lot of difference depending on the viewer >_>)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

My problem is this: If you're a man and you're commenting on anything having to do with choice, abortion, what-have-you, you need to be REALLY careful how you communicate. Because it is not at all clear what he's referring to. I'm not a stupid woman, and I took it as him meaning "eh, no big deal." I feel that even a quiet, demure television spot AIRED DURING A PROGRAM AIMED PRIMARILY AT MEN (WTF?) that suggests women shouldn't get to make certain choices about their own bodies is a big deal to me.

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

A completely understandable assumption to make based on what he said. He certainly didn't mention outright how much controversy surrounded the airing of the ad before it came out--what little he did say was very offhand. I couldn't even say for sure that his "much ado about nothing" comment was about that at all, but I saw an equally likely alternative possibility, so I thought I'd mention it.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I know. But this dude is purportedly a professional writer of some sort, so he should really know how to say what he means when he's doing it for work (as opposed to just goofing around on the Webz). When one of my columnists puts in something confusing or questionable and they want to leave it that way, I just shrug and figure they deserve the worst of whatever perception people might have of it. *G*

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

*nod* It's quite unprofessional. Whichever way he meant it, it's pretty unprofessional, really :[

[bellumed.livejournal.com]

I didn't watch many of the Superbowl ads, but my special favorite ads of that variety are the ones for cleaning products. Apparently dad is too much of an idiot to operate a mop and mom does everything for everyone because she's SUPERWOMAN lol right guys? Do they not run these ads by experimental groups who can tell them how goddamn stupid this is?

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Ugh, those are on ALL THE TIME. I get so annoyed that every cleaning ad stars women doing the work. Even if you're selling primarily to women, you know, we can SEE a man doing the work and IMAGINE ourselves doing the same thing. OMG IMAGINATION FTW. :-D

[a-silver-rose.livejournal.com]

The fun about Lucy was that even though Ricky more often than not told her no, she'd find a way to sneak in anyway. Rather subversive for the times, IMO.

I barely watched any of the game, and missed most of the ads (including the Tebow one), but if I understand what's been written about it, it was Mrs. Tebow's CHOICE to go through with the pregnancy and eventually give birth to her son. That's what gets me, that anti-abortion/pro-life wants to stump that if given a choice, that women will run out and get abortions all day long.

IMO, the Betty White commercial kicked ass. Loved it!

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Well, I can appreciate that behind the show, Lucille Ball was running things. For the 50s it was probably subversive and funny, but I'm just weird anyway and I was in the 80s. :-P

And your point about choice is well taken. That's what the Tebows and Palins of the world refuse to acknowledge: THEY made a choice. THEY chose to have their babies and welcome them and raise them. Every kid should be wanted if it's going to be born. If it's not going to be wanted, terminate the pregnancy before it becomes viable outside the womb.