Silly Little Fairy
Unbeknownst to me prior to Saturday and this morning, there is an ad going 'round that is stirring up a lot of controversy. It's a Dodge ad wherein a fairy is flitting about a city, turning buildings into gingerbread houses and trains into choo-choos. When she tries to change the ultra-masculine Dodge somethin'-or-other compact into a cute little buggy? a pumpkin carriage?, she fails. In her increasing frustration to change it, she flies into a building a slumps to the sidewalk. A passing ruffian in black walking a black Doberman says, "Silly little fairy." She zaps him, and he turns into a preppy looking sissy boy walking Poodles. Ha HA!
I hadn't seen this ad. My friend Ted, "who just happens to be" gay (I'm referring to George Carlin's routine on the absurdity of referring to a person's race/sexual orientation/etc. by saying "who just happens to be _____"), described it to me and said it was really funny.
You can see for yourself through this disparaging-of-the-ad article: http://www.adage.com/columns/article?article_id=108621
So I watched it, and I could see how it could be interpreted in a number of ways. Personally, I'm not terribly offended by it. It's obvious (to me, y'all) that the "fairy" comment is, in fact, referring to gay people. The context makes that blatantly obvious and any viewer of any Dodge ad is well-aware that Dodge is all about appealing to REAL men--men who spray other men with hoses if they use their truck for something pussy like hauling sewing tables (as opposed to hauling pussy, which is completely admirable). And, truth be told, I think some of these ads are rather amusing, though slightly irritating in their complete and utter transparency, tranparency akin to ALL ads for razors, which ALWAYS end with a close-up of a guy's face being stroked and nuzzled by a gorgeous babe (read: You will get pussy if you are stubble-free and got stubble-free with the machoist razor in the world. A razor with so much technology that it actually launches itself into space when the 5 blades grow dull).
But the REAL story lies in the comments about the disparaging article about the ad that you can read on Advertising Age's web site (which I hope you can read without registering by following this link: http://www.adage.com/opinion?article_id=108621).
Most people called the author an obnoxiously PC faggot. In their zeal to decry the ridiculously PC nature of our society today (which I must be missing, for the most part), the hatred oozed. ALL those who interpreted the ad as obnoxious were 'ultra-sensitive homos' with no sense of humor. But how can they have a sense of humor when SO MANY people automatically assume that ONLY homosexuals would be offended by the ad?
I'm reminded of an episode of the British version of The Office when David Brent, the idiot boss, tells a racist joke and gets in trouble for it. He automatically assumes that the lone black guy in the office told on him and is surprised to find out that it was a white woman and that other white people were offended, too. He asks, "Well if [black guy] is OK with it, what's the problem?" To which the woman responds, "Why should only black people be offended by racism?" The people who thus assumed that only homosexuals would be offended. . . well, I could almost hear them through my computer screen, so happy to have this chance to put their prejudice into the world by lumping all homosexuals into one hyper-sensitive sissy camp as opposed to thinking that maybe, just maybe, there may be variety of opinion among the millions of people who just happen to be gay.
In this instance, the comments were far more offensive than anything Dodge could muster.
The funniest part? Ted told me the ad was for Toyota.
I hadn't seen this ad. My friend Ted, "who just happens to be" gay (I'm referring to George Carlin's routine on the absurdity of referring to a person's race/sexual orientation/etc. by saying "who just happens to be _____"), described it to me and said it was really funny.
You can see for yourself through this disparaging-of-the-ad article: http://www.adage.com/columns/article?article_id=108621
So I watched it, and I could see how it could be interpreted in a number of ways. Personally, I'm not terribly offended by it. It's obvious (to me, y'all) that the "fairy" comment is, in fact, referring to gay people. The context makes that blatantly obvious and any viewer of any Dodge ad is well-aware that Dodge is all about appealing to REAL men--men who spray other men with hoses if they use their truck for something pussy like hauling sewing tables (as opposed to hauling pussy, which is completely admirable). And, truth be told, I think some of these ads are rather amusing, though slightly irritating in their complete and utter transparency, tranparency akin to ALL ads for razors, which ALWAYS end with a close-up of a guy's face being stroked and nuzzled by a gorgeous babe (read: You will get pussy if you are stubble-free and got stubble-free with the machoist razor in the world. A razor with so much technology that it actually launches itself into space when the 5 blades grow dull).
But the REAL story lies in the comments about the disparaging article about the ad that you can read on Advertising Age's web site (which I hope you can read without registering by following this link: http://www.adage.com/opinion?article_id=108621).
Most people called the author an obnoxiously PC faggot. In their zeal to decry the ridiculously PC nature of our society today (which I must be missing, for the most part), the hatred oozed. ALL those who interpreted the ad as obnoxious were 'ultra-sensitive homos' with no sense of humor. But how can they have a sense of humor when SO MANY people automatically assume that ONLY homosexuals would be offended by the ad?
I'm reminded of an episode of the British version of The Office when David Brent, the idiot boss, tells a racist joke and gets in trouble for it. He automatically assumes that the lone black guy in the office told on him and is surprised to find out that it was a white woman and that other white people were offended, too. He asks, "Well if [black guy] is OK with it, what's the problem?" To which the woman responds, "Why should only black people be offended by racism?" The people who thus assumed that only homosexuals would be offended. . . well, I could almost hear them through my computer screen, so happy to have this chance to put their prejudice into the world by lumping all homosexuals into one hyper-sensitive sissy camp as opposed to thinking that maybe, just maybe, there may be variety of opinion among the millions of people who just happen to be gay.
In this instance, the comments were far more offensive than anything Dodge could muster.
The funniest part? Ted told me the ad was for Toyota.
posted by lulu | 6:26 AM
5 Comments:
First of all, I was not able to read the Ad Age story on the "fairy ad" (it wanted me to register and I didn't want to bother . . .)
BUT . . .
#1. Apropos of nothing relating to this post or the story at large, neither the "fairy" ad or the Yaris ad is new. They've been around for at least a couple of months and I've seen them several times.
#2. I don't find the Yaris piggy bank ad remotely disturbing. It's an animated piggy bank, not a realy pig, people. Did anyone shriek in horror when Mr. Potato Head was smashed into his component pieces during several scenes in Toy Story? Call me desensitized, but I think there are larger human tragedies to fret over than the fate of a computer-generated foil on a car ad.
#3. I never ONCE thought of the fairy-induced transformation of the dude on the Dodge ad as referring to homosexuals. The fairy transforms a)the top of a skyscraper into a strawberry-shortcake like confection with whipped cream and a cherry and b) an elevated train into a primary-colored choo-choo before unsuccessfully trying to transform the Dodge.
That's what is going on, making things cute. When the dude is transformed, his leather jacket and doberman are transformed into country club pastels (with sweater tied around neck) and a poodle dog of some kind. Is that "gay"?
I hope (for all concerned) that this does not constitute the homsexual lifestyle. It seems far too constricting, superficial, and stereotypical in this day, where I hope all homosexuals are simply trying to live their life without having others tell them how to live it.
In both cases, I think people are putting forth too much effort trying to find something to be upset about and distorting what is there . . . which, in the end is nothing more than attempts to sell cars.
Everyone shoudl keep their eyes on the ball and save your mindless, wrongheaded interpretations for Matrix sequels and Superman Returns trailers.
Geez, Burb! Kitten with a whip!
1. New to me. I don't get out much.
2. Haven't seen it. Sounds dumb.
3. The possibility of differences of opinion was referenced in my blog. If it was just about turning him into something "cute", I must side with some of the folks who made comments like "why not turn him into a pink bunny, or a teddy bear?" and the like.
For me, there are two things that make the pastel poodle walker "gay". One is his embodiment of the lingering gay stereotype. The other is what is said by Mr. Macho in a vaguely hostile and amused way immediately prior to being zapped--"silly little fairy". This stereotype of a "manly man" is zapped into what might be his worst nightmare--a stereotypical gay guy. If Mr. Macho was a real person (bear with me here) it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that every pastel-wearing poodle walker he passed on the street would be labeled a faggot in his mind--or in his mouth. So being turned from one stereotype into a loathed (to him) other is poetic justice and, thus, amusing. (And perhaps he'll even have more fun!)
"Mindless, wrongheaded interpretations"? Are you now the official arbiter of corporate America's advertising messages? Seems pretty harsh for you, Burb! : )
Sorry--one more thing. The dogs are not poodles. But they are very gay.
Once again, the absence of voice makes me sound angrier than was intended.
I just don't agree with the interpretation and feel that people are wasting time (like me) getting upset (like me?) over something not really that important. (Hence the final paragraph about "mindless . . . interpretations" that should be devoted to more important stuff like movies. (Again, sarcasm doesn't translate well when I write . . .).
I am not quite sure what to think of the Dodge ad. I've seen it but it never really struck a chord with me.
There are, however, a few new Bud light ads that I could do without (at least I think it's Bud). These are the stupid "Man's Law" ads that usually accompany sporting events. There are about a dozen male athletes and celebrities sitting around a table coming up with a list of law for "manly men men" to follow. First of all, the ads are plain not funny. Secondly, most of the ads and their "jokes" come from homophobic behavior. There is one in particular where they are discussing how to properly cheer someone during a toast. They show video of two guys clinking the tops of their bottles together and a long line of spittle is connecting the two bottles as they seperate. Burt Reynolds (leader of the group I suppose) claims that this act is equivilant to kissing. All of the guys squirm and "ewww" over the thought of it. Sadly, this probably reflects 95% of the viewing audience that is watching these sporting events, but it is a sad representation of our population.
Post a Comment
<< Home