Every Violent Act in the 2010 Superbowl Ads

Joe Sabia says,

cheetoth.jpgHere is a video documenting every violent act in the 2010 superbowl ads. i dunno what's dumber: the marketers for being this pathetic, or the consumers for giving marketers the impression we're this pathetic.
My money's on BOTH.


  1. Awesome! (Fake) Violence is hilarious! As Mel Brooks once said “Tragedy is me stubbing my toe. Comedy is you falling into an open sewer and dying.”

  2. LOL. Proles with their “American football” and Doritos corn tortilla snacks! Thank the good lord for my insulating blanket of self-satisfaction… or as it’s more commonly known, my smuggie.

  3. What is the point of this lame video? Most of the clips are taken from one ad; the VW slug a bug ad. But what’s the ideal world look like for the person(s) pushing this agenda? Rounded corners on everything? Helmets mandatory for life?

    No one is really for violence committed with malice, and there’s so much of that in the world, why don’t you start with that. It’s like someone came over to help me move and started with my napkins. Let’s move the sofa and fridge first.

    1. I’m guessing the point is to show how repetitive, uncreative, and lowest-common-denominator the ads were in comparison to previous Superbowl ads. If you can’t be clever, show someone getting beaned in the goolies. I didn’t watch the match myself, but that seems to be a common refrain among those who did.

      Delighted that the Christian martyrs beat the baby horses, though. Goooooo martyrs!

      1. @jr7my: h dr lrd. Y r clrly th bggst pssy n rth. N frthr xplntn rqrd.

        Chrst, ppl. t’s th Sprbwl. lttl slpstck vlnc drng th cmmrcls nd y hv yr pnts n bnd?

        Mn hv bcm s mscltd; t’s dprssng. fnd t sd tht t’s smhw cntrvrsl t r fw ds tht dpct mn smply bng mn – hvng sm smpl, mndlss fn. Wht nndrthls w r, rght?

        ‘d mch rthr spnd my Sndy hvng my sl slwly cnsmd by sm bryng hrpy wh fnds my ntrsts prmtv.

        1. Oh dear lord. You are clearly the biggest pussy on earth. No further explanation required.

          I spent Superbowl Sunday in a museum of natural history, wearing a skirt. You’ll get no argument from me.

      2. “Delighted that the Christian martyrs beat the baby horses, though. Goooooo martyrs!”

        This was the only good thing to come of this entire BB article.

      3. “I’m guessing the point is to show how repetitive, uncreative, and lowest-common-denominator the ads were in comparison to previous Superbowl ads.”

        If that was the point, then they should have expanded it beyond ‘beaning someone in the goolies.’ (whatever a goolies is, new one by me.) Because the uncreative & lcd went beyond just violence; Go Daddy’s ad is basically the same thing for the past couple of years.

        No the point must be that all violence is bad, which is ridiculous. Shooting someone bad, shooting someone trying to stab your innocent mother, good. Punching someone in the balls in a bar fight you started for no cause, bad. A little kid punching grandpa in the balls in the course of a game they’re both playing, in an innocent manner, funny.

        This is one of the posts here at bb that leaves those of us who are in the middle of the political spectrum, scratching our heads. I’m down with people on the extremes of politics driving or starting conversations about legitimately bad things in America and forcing us to confront our problems, like gay marriage and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, moving along our society’s evolution. That’s a good thing.

        This? This is a dumb thing. It’s certainly not a wonderful thing. Hell it’s not even an interesting thing.

  4. It’s way better than those Big Mac Wrap (?) banner ads that were on here, which tended to induce violent urges in the viewer.

  5. Wasn’t there supposed to be an ad for “Dante’s Inferno” the videogame!? Even a few seconds of that would pass all of this…

  6. The ads were completely run-of-the-mill this year. I found myself wondering, “they spend millions of dollars to air THAT?”
    Violent ads during a football game fit. Just like sentimental ads on the Lifetime network or video game/Hot Topic ads on MTV. I find it much more interesting to consider why the ads broke no new ground or made no new impressions about anything. Have we reached a plateau whereupon we are not presently capable of creative epiphany in digital/media arts?
    The most striking or culturally resonant ad was the screaming Denny’s chickens. How sad is this? Nothing visually or artistically groundbreaking, nothing daring to make a deeper impression than any other ad, just the same kinds of things we’re used to seeing advertised at us – except today, they cost more to broadcast.

  7. How about one showing all the misogynistic portrayals of women? All the “nagging” girlfriends and wives? The men, somehow emasculated by being “forced” to shop and put the toilet seat down? As if being a fully-functional and considerate adult human being unmans you and leaves you a shuddering, gelded thing.

    Stupid Bowl.

      1. “Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.” -Andrea Dworkin

        Whatever sandwich I make for you, you ain’t gonna want to eat.

        1. Hmm, that’s a very scary quote. Replace “feminism”, “women” and “misogynism” with other words, and you can get some functionally identical but quite unpleasant variants – it’s basically “if you don’t agree with us you’re a bad person”.

          Now, I’m not saying that she’s wrong. Indeed, I expect it’s only very rarely incorrect … but it’s formulated in a way that really rubs me the wrong way.

          1. And if you replace all the vowels with consonants and vice versa it would mean a whole different thing wouldn’t it? The hatred and fear of women as equals cuts across every culture on earth. Just because “First World” nations have managed to turn it into a form of entertainment (as opposed to say, genital mutilation) doesn’t make it any less about fear and hate.

            Trolls like Nick have so internalized their hatred of women they even have patterned logical responses. “I love women!” as long as they’re subservient and not making points that are critical of the heteronormative value system. “This is the kind of thinking that ruins feminism!” which is a way of saying, again, don’t challenge the norm, you go too far, lets all settle for the great big middle.

            Dworkin is strong water, often a bit far off the line in her rhetoric, but her whole point was to start some fires rather than just be another whinging academic pumping out monographs.

            Sorry to rant, but hearing co-workers regaling each other with how funny these commercials are, showing them to each other on hulu and seeing how deeply set the biases are makes my monday kind of suck

          2. If you have trouble understanding the text of the Charger commercial (which is the one I assume this whole flamewar pinged on) I suggest you read the following blog article to get a little perspective on what the commercial was aimed at addressing (albeit in the interest of selling cars).

            The Decline of Male Space-The Art of Manliness

            Also, my two cents: feminism ceases to be important if all it is used for is reversing prejudices in the opposite direction. Keep that in mind.

          3. Oh, I understand it clearly enough. There’s a segment of the male population (usually white, middle-upper middle class) who feel very put upon by the fact that American society now includes people other than them. That despite the overwhelming control of
            most of the seats in congress, most fortune 500 companies and governorships, men have lost their power animal or something.


            I’m white, male, hetero and I’ve never felt the kind of unarticulated rage that seems to be boiling under the surface of many of these ugly, hateful advertisements. Oh god! My girlfriend wants me to go SHOPPING! How will I survive?!? It’s lazy ad-writing (really, most of the “plots” in these ads are ripped right out of bad sit-coms and low-bar stand-up routines) that demeans women and makes men look stupid. Women are portrayed as shrews and harpies, men as dolts and powderkegs of rage. Boring and sad.

            Equality of the sexes doesn’t mean men have to look like lummoxes any more than it means women have to be seen as perfect.

          4. Equality of the sexes doesn’t mean men have to look like lummoxes any more than it means women have to be seen as perfect.

            Which is kind of my point. Men have value. Fathers have value. 364 days of the year, men are, by default, portrayed as oafs, fools, lummoxes and morons on nearly every sitcom and commercial looking for a cheap laugh. Has there been a positive male role model on comedy television since Cliff Huxtable?

            It is lazy writing, for one thing, and generally problematic that we can’t bring one group up without knocking another one down.

          5. Absolutely. My girlfriend calls it the “Dumb Dad Syndrome”. Father’s are portrayed as dopes who can barely talk to their spouses.

            It’s not that I’m humorless and demand that all comedy consist only of Capote and Wilde quips, but when you see this ocean of dumb, mean, violent comedy you have to wonder what’s driving it. I mean, are women really that oppressive in the eyes of the men creating these images?

            An example: I just saw the ad where a guy invades his girlfriend’s book club and starts hurling sexist insults and coming on to the women around him. The guy is a boor and the women are portrayed as weak, eyelash batters. And this sells beer. Whatever.

          6. An example: I just saw the ad where a guy invades his girlfriend’s book club and starts hurling sexist insults and coming on to the women around him. The guy is a boor and the women are portrayed as weak, eyelash batters. And this sells beer. Whatever.

            And people wonder why Bud, Miller and Coors are the biggest selling brands of beer. Boors enjoy pisswater, flavorless crap.

          7. And if you replace all the vowels with consonants and vice versa it would mean a whole different thing wouldn’t it?

            Oh, certainly – and you seem to have missed my point about how it was the method of the quote (saying that disagreeing with feminism, implicitly her take on it, means you necessarily are a misogynist) I disagreed with. It’s a form of argument mainly used by those who want to silence their critics by an appeal to feeling instead of thought, and I’m way oversensitive to it after seeing the same form of argument used by some extremely annoying people … e.g. hardcore christian-conservatives. (It’s usually “christianity/christians/cold and heartless” replacing the “feminism/women/misogynistic”.)

            Dworkin is strong water, often a bit far off the line in her rhetoric, but her whole point was to start some fires rather than just be another whinging academic pumping out monographs.

            There are subtle but ultimately harmful stereotypes about academics out there – careful what you perpetrate. ;)
            Anyway. I see the point: A blunter approach can be an effective way to change the debate fast. (With a certain risk of backfiring, of course – it can be easy to dismiss someone on form issues without addressing the content.)

            I agree that most anti-feminism is essentially misogyny in camouflage; I’m merely nitpicking about the rhetoric details because those interest or annoy me more than can probably be rationally defended. :)

            (And apologies for the smiley density – they really are quite useful as tone markers.)

    1. In other words, it is the one night a year when the man in a commercial isn’t an emasculated doofus getting his comeuppance by his spouse/mother/daughter.

  8. three words for the maker of the video-


    remnds me of all the do-gooders (who only wish us well)
    who complain about how somthing or other is going to kill us, like alar, chineese food, italian food, transfats, nose picking, Iradiation and religion.

    not a worthy boing boing topic… and besides. you missed the Bull crashing thoruhg the fence and better white getting cold cocked in a tag football game…

  9. “No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.”
    Andrea Dworkin

    Indeed, MGFarrelly, a bullshit sandwich.

  10. The boffs went by too fast for me, so I did a half speed remix which gives it a kinda horrifying fascinating rhythm. The commenters who get off on the rockem sockem action will like this twice as much, and we peace & love hippies can at least enjoy the danceable beat.

  11. lol Nick, if you’re trying to be a dick you might want to be a little more creative then “Make me a sammich”.

    Alas, the ignorant are not usually found to be creative.

    @ The slapstick commercials, just low brow humor. What one would expect from America.

    1. “Fmnsm s htd bcs wmn r htd. nt-fmnsm s drct xprssn f msgyny; t s th pltcl dfns f wmn htng.” -ndr Dwrkn

      rnclly, t’s xctly ths srt f mypc rhtrc tht lds t drsn f fmnsm. Jstly s.

      fckng lv wmn. Gt ff yr fckng crss.

      “ls, th gnrnt r nt slly fnd t b crtv.”

      ls, ths lckng n hmr whtsvr… cn… mm… g fck thmslvs. Qt m n tht.

      1. If you go back and use your reading comprehension skills I didn’t make a single statement that had anything to do with feminism or in defense of the woman you originally replied to and am, therefore, not on a cross. I simply requested you be more creative and therefore entertaining in your trolling and pointed out that you appear ignorant… which continues.

        Also I said I expect low brow humor from America. I didn’t say it originated there or even that it is unique to America. Just that it’s what I have come to expect.

        How’s that misplaced anger and lack of reading comprehension working out for you?

  12. nd, srsly, whn dd vlnc r lw-brw hmr bcm n xclsvly mrcn cntrvnc?

    ‘v bn rnd th wrld nd bck. Ths f y clmng sm mrl hgh-grnd fr nt bng mrcn cn sck gnt mrcn dck. Y cn’t pn th sns f hmnty n s. Y ll sck, t.

    Nm yr hmlnd nd ‘ll gldly lst th nstnss tht y’r rtrctvly rspnsbl fr.

  13. Wow, some seriously unthoughtful, profanity-laced, reactionary posts on here. A bit unusual for Boing Boing. Is someone feeling defensive?

    The message is: violence begets violence. Even the stupid slapsticky kind. If hitting someone is funny what does that say? Aggression is OK…possibly even hilarious!

    OK, so now someone’s going to call me a bad word or insult me. Sigh….

  14. I’d suggest a comparison with the adverts shown on British TV, except apparently the BBC broadcast Superbowl so there weren’t any adverts.

    It would probably be better to compare it with the adverts shown during a big soccer match anyway.

    1. In American football, you have slapstick violence in the commercials.

      In European football, you have actual violence in the stands and the city squares.

      Pass the Bud Lite. (The only time I’ll ever say that.)

  15. Fictional violence is fictional, m’kay.
    A few days ago CNN claimed that some “right to life” nutters tried to air their ad during the Superbowl, now how did that go?

  16. If there are ads to be complained about, they would be the focus on the family ads. Talk about an organization that incites violence and hatred (directly or indirectly)! Yeah, lets get some false outrage going about a doritos commercial while some of the most hateful people I have ever met get airtime.

  17. Watching the bowl with my boyfriend, we were kind of shocked at how hostile some of the ads were towards women. I don’t watch tv a lot, I’m used to internet sillyness, but seeing these ads in such spotlight made me sort of cringe. Especially the dodge one here:

    Too bad if I sort of like how the car looks, I’m a harpie that drains the life out of men by making him “act nice to my mom”, “clean the sink after he shaves”, and “go to work on time”. Not all of the complaints are even about women, but that car is totally MAN’S LAST STAND. Seriously, dodge can fail if they really don’t want female business.

  18. Clearly this is a sign that society is falling apart. We are DOOMED. DOOMED, I say. Run for the hills! Social APOCALYPSE!!

    Man, you people need to unbunch your panties. Maybe go have a lay down. You’re wound WAYYY too tight.

  19. I’d just as soon not get entangled in the pro-/anti-/contra-feminism argument, but I will say the number of “henpecked male” commercials leaped right out at me as well, to the point where I remarked on it somewhere before halftime. They may simply have been packed together in such a way that it became noticeable, and eventually comical.

    I have no idea what this means regarding feminism or misogyny.

    My wife: “I don’t see it at all; I think you’re projecting.”
    Me: “Possibly. Or I may just see it because they’re targeting ME.”

  20. I missed the superbowl to watch “Pretty in Pink” (okay, okay, I never saw it before. whatever). Now I’m all caught up.

  21. 1) “N wmn nds ntrcrs; fw wmn scp t.” ndr Dwrkn. Hv y vr SN ndr Dwrkn? Sh wsn’t gttng ny. 4 wrds, KLL T WTH FR!
    2) Mn ht fmnsm bcs t s bnxs. W lv wmn. W rspct wmn, ndd, w rvr thm. Thy r rrplcbl. Bt w wn’t lt n wlk ll vr s.
    3) Ppl shld nt trt ftbll s smthng tht rlly cnts. t’s frkn gm! njy t, bt dn’t cnfs t wth th mprtnt stff, lk pttng fd n th tbl, tc.
    4) ll ths ffndd by n thng r nthr? Gt vr t! t’s rlty. Y dn’t lk t? Chng th chnnl! Dh!

  22. The violence I was a bit unclear of was Tim Tebow tackling his mother…. was he mad she didn’t abort him or something? I mean, geesh, I guess I understand cause if he was aborted he’d be in heaven.

    1. “The violence I was a bit unclear of was Tim Tebow tackling his mother…. ”

      I thought that was weird too. If Tebow was a baseball player would he have beaned her with a 90-mph fastball? Or hit her with a bat? Good thing he’s not a boxer.

  23. Drp drp drp! M n rd gd.

    Srry, Phncks, ws rfrrng t th thr mrn. P.S. Yr hndl scks.


    ‘m nt trllng. ‘m cllng y t n yr lzly-rgrgttd trp.

    hv zr htrd f wmn. Nr d mst mn tht y ndbtdly vlfy flsly.

    “htrnrmtv vl systm”. r y fckng kddng m? Lk wh spnt $100 t cmmnty cllg.

    f th Sprbwl ds hd strctly prtryd mn s nt-scrtchng, ld p-mn, sspct tht y wld b chrng hpply.

    Y r th sxst.

  24. If I learned anything from that video (and having seen the commercials themselves during the game), it’s that NCIS is an evil that has plagued our fragile planet for too long. Won’t someone PLEASE think of that poor actor who gets slapped on the back of the head by Mark Harmon all the time?

  25. They’re commercials- do you really pay any attention to them, even the Super Bowl ads? It’s pathetic anytime a person gets bent out of of shape over something that, really, they don’t have to pay any attention to in the first place (God-botherers and evangelicals fit into the same category in my mind). How about going outside and playing in the snow for awhile, just for a little perspective? Grow up already and get past it.

  26. S Dddy sd t bttr. ‘m jst flmng smn wh dsrvs t. dgrss.

    Wmn rck. Ftbll s fn. Slly ds r fn nd hrmlss. Wsh th snd t f yr cllctv vgs nd mv n.

    1. Nick, you might agree with what I said, but, one little thing, CHILL! Bring the rhetoric down a notch so that people won’t dismiss it out of hand, due to the tone. It has been said that if you want to be heard, whisper. They have to strain to hear you.

  27. I disagreed with the VW ad. While having since 1998 grudgingly accepting New Beetles into the qualifiers for being bug-punched, it does not carry over to the entire product line.

  28. there was more violence in the ads than in the game itself. i guess thats what happens when you get 2 pass happy dome teams in the big game. i hate domes and the teams that result.

  29. I watched the game and then watched just the commercials a second time thru.

    There are some clips in there that were NOT in the broadcast.

  30. Wow, I’d think all the violence in the commercials would take more than 30 seconds. Still, a very funny video and I’m grateful to Whirled for combining all the funniest bits into one place.

    Reminds me of the best days of the Stooges or Benny Hill.

  31. Remember: if it doesn’t offend you, those who are offended are oversensitive and should chill out. If it doesn’t affect you, those who are affected are just making it up to have something to complain about. And if the affected, offended people are actually effective at addressing the problem, they’re oppressing you.

  32. I guess we can all sigh in relief that none of us will ever be suckered into watching 15 minutes of football over a span of 4 hours just for the bleedin’ commercials ever again. The peak in commercial viewing entertainment value was achieved whatever year Janet Jackson’s areola made a split-second guest appearance at the half-time show.

  33. I don’t watch football, the superbowl, or commercials. I don’t care much about professional sports although I like the sports I actually participate in. I don’t have cable tv. Life is good this way. I also have no interest in watching this video though. Sorry, but I just don’t care. It’s not marketed toward me and it’s not reaching me.

    Problem solved.

    I encourage anyone who dislikes it to similarly tune out. Buy what you like because you like it. I honestly don’t remember a time when commercials on TV weren’t annoying, rude, discriminatory, and stupid. Hey, you have adblock on your browser right? Turns out you can have it almost everywhere.

    1. Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn’t Own A Television

      Boing Boing, interweb–area resident blueelm does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers–as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.

      blueelm, who tells as many people as possible that he is “fully weaned off th glass tit.”

      “I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than watch television,” Green told a random woman Monday at the Suds ‘N’ Duds Laundromat, noticing the establishment’s wall-mounted TV. “I don’t even own one.”

      1. Area woman tired of constantly having to pointing out that a gender-neutral web handle does not automaticaslly make her a male.

        1. I hadn’t a clue of blueelm gender one way or other, but I don’t see the need to change an iconic Onion headline…just the text :)

      2. LOL. I wasn’t trying to be that sanctimonious. Honestly. For the record, though, concerning the whole sexism discussion. Blueelm would be an area woman.

  34. Whoops! “Automatically”

    Make that “Area man claims he needs more coffee before he can submit internet comments without spelling mistakes.”

  35. Violence is fun! Props to the maker(s) of this video for cutting out all those boring non-violent bits and just givin’ me lots of that red red kroovy I love so much!

  36. none of the action in that clip compares to the psychic violence done to me when forced to face head-on a reality in which joe montana stays fit by wearing sketchers shape-ups.

  37. My wife: “I don’t see it at all; I think you’re projecting.”
    Me: “Possibly. Or I may just see it because they’re targeting ME.”

    The point is that (generalization here) males have the power in society. An attack on the dominant *is* funny, and attack on the weak is just not funny.

    You’ll know when males have truly lost their dominance in society when the vast majority of both sexes no longer find the idea of male in a position of weakness humorous. Until then, males who take offense at such ads are in danger of being seen as simply the weak individual members of the dominant sex.

  38. The main message I took from all the emasculated men in these ads was that advertisers believe men feel threatened.
    (By women especially, but basically by everything)

    The ads seem to have been well received, so it looks like the advertisers’ impression was right, but I have to wonder what men are so afraid of at the moment.

  39. Wait wait wait wait wait. Back up a few hours.

    “No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.”
    Andrea Dworkin

    WHAT?!? Feminism, anti-feminism, whatever. I’m working on my degree in molecular biology, I stay home with my kids right now b/c I just had a baby, I play D&D with my husband, and I’m actively seeking a girlfriend, so I don’t know that I fit any gender stereotypes, but why on EARTH would a woman not like sex, unles she had some sort of medical problem? Seriously, woman. Admiting you like sex doesn’t degrade you in the eyes of men. Good gods. Don’t you understand men *at all*? Yelling in their face that you’re better than them just gives them penis envy and makes them puff themselves up like angry birds. And you really *don’t* want to be one of the guys. Trust me. They stink, they treat each other like crap, they’re rude, they can’t clean, and they have *no idea* how to talk to each other about anything other than the one thing they have in common. And if you’re one of those “I am woman, hear me roar” types? When was the last time you spent a week only in the company of women? I’ve done it. It was awful. Try it some time. Women and men need each other. Even if they’re gay. Get over it.

    I feel like I should add something in about Super Bowl commercials, but honestly I could care less about Doritos. I’m just still in shock that someone could say that about sex. Poor woman. Is she still alive? Someone should really find her a good woman–she’d be good with that, right?

    1. “Someone should really find her a good woman–she’d be good with that, right?”

      She had a horrible life. Had to add because Sea Daddy’s comment just didn’t speak to it enough. Gloating over the fact that the woman died almost completely alone hardly seems appropriate. I tend to agree, that she suffered from mental problems, but the argument from which that statement comes has to do with the idea that sex is not (or was not) under the *control* of women, and since women were a disempowered group that all sex ends up tantamount to rape.

      Now, I’m not making that argument myself, and I may have gotten it wrong… but I think it’s better to at least try to be accurate when slinging quotes around to the context of them.

  40. Nevermind the football-oriented violence: They managed to run the entire thing without showing a single female nipple! Children of the world are safe!!

  41. Most of the superbowl ads were pretty garbage, but I’m on board with a lot of the posters on here in saying that being angry about violent superbowl commercials is dumb. More than that, I think it sort of dilutes the seriousness of actual violence. Cartoony and ficticious, the violence on display here is for humor (slack-jawed though it is). Not to mention that it’s running during a game where actual large men were hurling themselves at each other as hard as possible to knock each other down.

    And the gender issues on display here weird me, too. Yeah, women and men are still cast in archetypal roles during one of the most archetypal divisions of gender on display in American society. Yeah, women still deal with problems, and, yes, absolutely men have their own image issues that society ignores under the veil of “it’s OK to make fun of men.”

    But raising gender issues in the Superbowl is kind of like talking about pagan tree ceremonies at Christmastime. Yes, you’re right, and nobody cares.

    1. But raising gender issues in the Superbowl is kind of like talking about pagan tree ceremonies at Christmastime. Yes, you’re right, and nobody cares.

      I love the comparison! Very true.

      I’d only say when do we talk about gender issues in any kind of large scale way in American society? If mulling over some advertainment gives us a chance to raise the issue and get the conversation moving, it’s worth a shot.

      Now if you’ll pardon me, I’m off to make a sandwich for my girlfriend.

  42. Wow. Naming yourself “NicktheDick” will only serve to make me ignore your comments. You might have something worthwhile to say, but I wouldn’t know it since your name indicates you may very well be a dick and I have no time or patience to read what you have to say.

  43. I am not sure if continuing the feminism discussion here is off-topic, but that was what I noticed from the ads as well.

    The “violence” was slap-stick and cheap laughs, but whatever.

    But that onslaught of men as pussy-whipped shmoes, and women as controlling emasculating nags was rather horrifying. Of course, yes, it’s the Superbowl, maybe this audience buys into that stereotype, or (ugh, even worse) maybe that *is* how many men and women experience their relationships. But if so, it’s really sad-making.

  44. Thanks for posting this. It definitely shines a light on the pervasiveness and careless way physical violence is used in mainstream media. Its just easy to write and takes no imagination whatsoever.

  45. …Also all the hatred for feminism in this thread is about as juvenile as those super bowl ads. Feminism is key to working for equality online and offline – clearly there is still a very long way to go. — Jonathan

    1. #90 – It is possible to be scornful of the more extreme examples (i.e. Dworkin) of radical feminism without hating feminism. Dworkin’s words and word choice made a lot of what she said pretty obvious.

      The default isn’t penis==rape machine any more than not agreeing with Dworkin + vagina==Stepford Wife. Her idea of equality isn’t exactly equality.

      I’m not buying into her idea that all sexual penetration is automatically degrading and there’s no possible context where it is not so.

  46. Well, glad to see I wasn’t the only male offended by the sexism in some of the ads. The Chrysler one was over the top, but the FloTV one was even a bit higher. Even the more subtle ones like the book circle were over the line. But whatever, they’ll be seen only once (hopefully), and each of those adverts blew 3 million dollars for the company. And, I’m glad to say I wouldn’t have purchased anything from said companies even before their ads.

    But I counted (+/-) 47 shots in the commercial, of which around half were from 2 ads. A bit disingenuous.

  47. And reading on–the arguments are interesting on this thread actually– I see that it is an onion article. Well that makes some sense then. For a second I thought maybe I did go around saying that on here all the time, and then I thought… wouldn’t some one who followed my posts enough to notice I repeatedly talked about TV abandonment have noticed I also talk (probably a lot more) about being female?

    And now I’m over-thinking again.

  48. Background information: I did not watch the Stupor Bowl, because I never do, and I haven’t watched these ads (video is blocked at work). I took a Philosophy of Feminism class from Marilyn Frye in the 70s, and got (the equivalent of) an A, even though I was openly male (I kid; in fact she went out of her way to treat everyone fairly…we submitted our papers with only student numbers). I read Daly’s Gyn/Ecology and liked it. I read her Wickedary and didn’t (her use of the term ‘final solution’ squicked me). I’ve never been a fan of Kit-Kats, but even if I were I would never buy one again after their offensive (to both men and women) “Need a moment?” commercials.

    mgfarrelly: Dworkin is strong water, often a bit far off the line in her rhetoric, but her whole point was to start some fires rather than just be another whinging academic pumping out monographs.

    Hmm. Did you actually intend to call her a troll? Not inaccurate IMO, but I’m not sure that was the impression you were trying to create.

    I think Dworkin’s fundamental error was mistaking misandry for feminism. The latter may lead to the former, but the two are not the same thing. The trouble with her quote about antifeminism being misogyny is not that it isn’t true, but that out of context (at least) it implies some things that aren’t true that she may not have meant. I don’t know; I stopped reading Dworkin after I ran across the bit about sex between men and women being rape unless the man never gets an erection. That, my dear friends, is misandry, not feminism.

    I think Dworkin’s extreme, nay trollish, statements make her other, more reasonable ones harder to accept. I read that statement about misogyny and antifeminism and agree with it, then notice it’s a Dworkin quote and wonder if I do. If ‘feminism’ means “agreeing with Dworkin,” then I don’t, because no, not all penis-in-vagina intercourse is rape, even in current patriarchal society. (If you want to argue that it was in, say, ancient Athens, where women were treated as property, I’m much more open to that argument.) Even if you think she’s right about that, do you really think anyone who doesn’t believe it hates women? Given her extreme (I would call it ludicrous) position on the one issue, in other words, it’s hard to be sure what she meant by the one that sounds more reasonable on the surface.

    Daedalus: But raising gender issues in the Superbowl is kind of like talking about pagan tree ceremonies at Christmastime. Yes, you’re right, and nobody cares.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses do. So do neo-Pagans (like me). But before you roll (your eyes) and scroll (the page to skip this comment), let me say that for me, it makes me more comfortable participating in decorating a Christmas tree. But you’re right to the extent that if someone brought it up at a Christian tree-decorating party, I’d probably say the equivalent of “Shhh! They think they’re the only ones here!” :-)

  49. thanks for sharing this info, superbowl seems to host a lot of violent demonstartion

Comments are closed.