Despite my tendency to pick apart commercials, I didn’t watch the Super Bowl. Prime opportunity missed! Football’s just not my thing, I guess. I did see the following Super Bowl ad yesterday, though:
Okay, now, admittedly some of the slapstick ways these guys are getting smacked is a bit funny, if you’re into that kind of thing. I love physical comedy when it works. My issue with this commercial is more about the fact they’re using the mythical tough-guy male trope, which I won’t really go into here (but feel free to discuss), and the tag line.
Really? Pepsi had to create a special diet soda that was “manly” enough for a man’s “manly” needs? So a man not wanting to consume a ton of sugar or load on the extra calories from regular soda is so different from a woman choosing her soft drink for the same reasons that Pepsi Max had to be marketed gender-specifically? Does this mean that I, as a woman, shouldn’t purchase this soda? It’s too tough for me? I’d be safer purchasing their standard diet option.
I wonder what men who’ve wanted diet soda for years have done in the face of not having a product suitable for their tough-guy needs.
What am I missing here, dear readers? Please, someone enlighten me.
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I think Breaksilence’s point was merely that non-penetrative and penetrative assault carry different penalties legally.
Sexual criminals (some of which are women; one in ten rape victims is male) start with peeping-tom type crimes. Some of them stay at that legal level of crime out of fear of the consequences, but most will escalate to groping or humping unwilling strangers. Some of them stay at that legal-level out of fear, but most will escalate further into penetrative assault (rape): either with an object or a body part — at least I assume that’s what “fingering” was in reference to.
Criminals don’t just start out with penetrative rape: they need to “work up the nerve” first. The escalation also occurs because the “high” wears off for each level of offense, provoking a need for a greater and greater “thrill.” Groping isn’t the same as rape legally or forensically, but it is a step in that direction for the offender psychologically.
Which I believe was Kesler’s point: both are sex offenses with the same motive that traumatize the victim, probably for life — which is why in gender-politics discussions non-penetrative and penetrative assault are held as the same crime.
How this relates to the commercial is that the commercial reinforces the idea that men are “above” women in some intrinsic way and that partaking in “girly” things intrinsically reduces a man. Sex offenders are able to do what they do because they view their victims as lesser beings, objects put on the Earth for their enjoyment. Fostering the idea that the feminine reduces the masculine is only pouring fuel on the male sex offender fire by cultivating an atmosphere that reinforces male domination of women and the idea that women are lesser beings/toys. That’s what makes sexism dangerous instead of merely annoying.
DragonLady
DragonLadyK(Quote) (Reply)
Yes, that is what I’m saying. Legal definitions vary from one locale to another, so unless people are discussing a case, they’re likely to be talking about the morals and ethics rather than the law.
Morally and ethically, there is no difference at all between sexual assault and rape. The ability to sexually violate someone in ANY way, however fleetingly, in whatever manner, requires a belief that the person’s body is yours for the taking. Either you believe that or you don’t. The groping alone justifies classifying this guy as a sexual predator – he is clearly on the “women’s bodies belong to me if I want to use them” side of the fence. For someone to enter the discussion and argue about what term we should call the perpetrator is doomed to be seen as showing more concern for the perp than the victim. How else could it be interpreted, really?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
For someone to enter the discussion and argue about what term we should call the perpetrator is doomed to be seen as showing more concern for the perp than the victim. How else could it be interpreted, really?
That’s why I like the terms “sex offender”/”sex crime” so much. Whether you’re discussing the law, forensic psychology, or ethics, those terms mean the same thing, they create an instant basic summary/word picture about the individual or crime being discussed, and it defines what sets those crimes apart from all other criminal acts right there at the outset. ^^
Furthermore, if someone is attempting to obscure the crime or defend the victim (which I’m not sure Breaksilence was trying to do; don’t know her well enough to make that call), those terms completely expose their motives by giving them nothing to hide behind. Anyone who wants to argue groping isn’t a sex crime or that someone who would do it isn’t a sex offender is clearly out of line.
(I’m an English nerd. Connotative vs. denotative definitions fascinate me. Pardon my geeking. ^^)
DragonLady
DragonLadyK(Quote) (Reply)
For someone to enter the discussion and argue about what term we should call the perpetrator is doomed to be seen as showing more concern for the perp than the victim. How else could it be interpreted, really?
Well, since the vocabulary used to refer to the victim and the perpetrator are linked, there’s a victim-side argument in favor of a distinction in terms:
If one believes that penetrative assault might increase the amount of trauma caused to the victim above and beyond the trauma intrinsic to her recognition of his disregard for her autonomy, there would be a reason to argue, for the sake of the victim, that the terms “rape” should only be used for penetratory assault. Such an argument could be completely detached from any sympathy for the perpetrators – the person making it could very well believe that the perpetrators themselves should all be lumped together as the same type of predatory scumbag.
It appears from some of the previous comments that there’s a generally-held belief that the only trauma caused by sexual assault comes from “the realization that this person thinks your body is theirs for the taking.” I can’t see why this assumption should be considered unassailable or opposition to it pro-perp, considering that, if incorrect, it would cheapen the perceived cost to the victim of penetratory assault below the actual cost and could make things more difficult for those victims.
(I’m not sure about whether any research has been done to test the assumption, but from a naive standpoint, I find it difficult to believe that the nature of the physical act – or, at the very least, the way in which it takes place – has no effect on the victim. I also feel like there might be something that I’m missing – that the differences in trauma might be taken into account in other ways that I don’t know about – since it’s so alien to me to think that there could be no difference.)
Ikkin(Quote) (Reply)
Thanks Ikkin, that’s in essemce what I think, but couldn’t convey.
Bleaksilence(Quote) (Reply)
I meant essence, sorry.
Bleaksilence(Quote) (Reply)
It appears from some of the previous comments that there’s a generally-held belief that the only trauma caused by sexual assault comes from “the realization that this person thinks your body is theirs for the taking.”
I didn’t mean to imply it was the ONLY trauma. I was offering that as the reason why any sexual assault can be equally as traumatic as another, and why you can’t assume that because a groping is seen as less intimate than penetration, it must have caused less trauma. The difference in trauma is partly due to the victim’s own psychology, and also to any number of contextual factors aside from what particular sex act was forcibly committed.
The only thing virtually all sexual assaults have in common is the perpetrator’s attitude.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I really think it’s simpler than most of you are making it. Most men find slapstick funnier than most women do.
(That’s a generalization, of course, and prone to the same flaws as all generalizations, but the popularity of The Three Stooges would seem to prove its intrinsic correctness.)
Therefore, using severe slapstick to sell to men is a valid marketing tool, no?
In the same way, more women than men – generally – will be affected in a positive way, for an advertiser’s needs, by pictures of cute infants.
Neither one has to mean that men hate infants or that women don’t enjoy laughing. It’s just marketing. And, if someone finds it upsetting, I truly can understand that. I’m continually pissed at Hallmark’s blithe and off-hand use of “Hah-Hah! Men are such oblivious apes!” sort of jokes.
Now, does the advertisement in question denigrate men? I suppose so, if you want to assume that the men watching the commercial are all going “Yuk! Yuk! Yup, that’s me all right!”, but making that assumption is even more hurtful than the one the advertiser MIGHT have been making, isn’t it? I just found it funny, albeit high on the brutality scale.
Does the ad, in some backhanded way, denigrate women? I think perhaps that’s a more valid point. It certainly excludes them entirely from the conversation, but isn’t that the advertiser’s prerogative? If Pepsi wants to eliminate 50% of their potential market for a product, that’s their stupid choice to make.
Anyway, very interesting writing here. I’d be less-than-honest if I said I agreed with all of it – obviously, from this response, I don’t – but all engagingly well-written and, I’m sure, well-meant. Dialogue is always useful, and thanks for that!
Suldog(Quote) (Reply)
Suldog, I think maybe you assumed from the nature of the site that the article was a rant about some unfairness to women, but if so, you missed the entire point. We talk about gender issues, which includes media presentations we consider harmful to men as well as women.
You may want to re-read and note that SBG said she loves slapstick when it’s well-done (me, too). She was concerned about the myth that men must eat unhealthy crap to be manly. She did not complain about women being excluded from the ad – rather, I think her point was rather that EVERYONE should be excluded from the message that you need special permission to make informed choices about your diet.
As we’ve discussed around here before, it is a terrible disservice to men to suggest that it’s not manly to eat healthy. That was the point of the article. It really didn’t have much at all to do with women.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments