'You a Disgrace to the Man Race'

What's next, Bob? All pit bulls maulings are Verizon's fault?

No, Steve, the pit-bull maulings aren't Verizon's fault, and the church shooting isn't Snickers's fault. I'll explain this for you.

Let me know if this gets confusing for you. If so I'll slow down so you can follow:

1) Violence against gay men, or effeminate men, or weaklings, or oddballs -- all lumped under the general category "faggot" -- is not theoretical. As yesterday's episode demonstrates, it is all too real. With me so far?

2) Anything that normalizes that kind of behavior -- to use Pat Moynihan's term -- "defines deviancy down." That can only perpetuate the society's worst, basest conduct.

3) If anybody shouldn't be playing that role, it's an ad that barges in unvited, and that ostensibly represents a multibillion-dollar corporation.

Lemme know if that clears things up for you.

Bob, I'm afraid it's you who is the bigot. I'll explain this for you.

Let me know if this gets confusing for you. If so, I'll slow down so you can follow:

1. The man in the Snickers ad is never identified as gay. He is simply a "wimpy" guy.

2. Not all gay men are wimpy. (Ever heard of a "bear"? If not, look it up.) Like any other group, gay men come in all sizes, types and degrees of macho-ness. It's only the bigots who assume that someone who is effeminate must be gay. (For the record, bears are gay men who are burly, hirsute, bearded and generally...well...generally described in much the same way as YOU would be.)

3. Not all wimpy men are gay. There are plenty of straight wimps, and to assume that the weak guy in the ad, rather than the big macho one, is the gay is an overt example of bigotry on your part. This is in contrast to the implied gayness you thought you saw.

Oh for crying out loud, Laurence. Before you next hit "send," would you at least read the original column, which explicitly acknowledges all three of your points? (Excepting that bizarre portion of your third item, in which you ignore the obvious coding/shorthand in all three spots I wrote about.)

Then, if you find a single molecule of bigotry, well, just have at me.

I looked at a Salvator Dali painting once and had the overwhelming urge to melt a clock. It wasn't my fault, I know that he likely didn't intend for me to vandalize the innocent time piece, it was just being itself after all, but never-the-less I brutalized it in a horrible display of surrealist rage.

You know what they say, "monkey see, monkey do" when will the media finally clue in and acknowledge that every image they display unwittingly forces us to shop, eat, procreate and kill. It is time they took responsibility for the power they wield over the IQ challenged masses.

It is amusing to me that in the same month that this advertisement has created such rage over it's proposed "anti-gay" message that in England they pulled an add that had two men kiss as it was deemed "too gay" by conservative groups.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some books to burn.

The problem here, Bob (is it ok if I call you Bob?), is that you've missed the point I was making. I did read your article, and what I was responding to was the condescending tone you take with anyone who disagrees with your sometimes oversensitive viewpoint. Rather than consider the argument, you belittle their points, much as you did with the first poster, and as you just did with me. Rather than make a logical argument, you simply call my point bizarre. As for the Snickers ads in question and the subsequent protest, many gay people were offended by the idea that someone needs to stand up and defend effeminate folks as if they're all gay. After all, stereotyping is bigotry. More gay people laughed at the ads than were upset by them, but those vocal few who were upset are the ones whose wishes get catered to. I fully recognize that it's tempting for you to cross the bounds of writing about advertising, and try to connect the influence of ads to the world around you, but sometimes the effort just screams of wishing you were writing in a larger forum. In this case, you should first recognize that the responsibility for any violent action lies with the attacker, not some random playful ad. There is a big difference between hate speech and a comedic ad, even if you didn't find it funny.

By the way, to assume that the effeminate nature of the racewalker is coding/shorhand for making him gay is to buy into those stereotypes that we're all theoretically trying to avoid. After all, there are plenty of people who for years have thought that Mr. T came off awfully gay...

Laurence,
The first commenter is a blogger who has in the past year broken every rule of journalistic ethics, basic fairness and -- oh, yeah -- truth with respect to my column. I wish I could ignore the likes of him, because their excesses don't really count for much. On the other hand, gnats aren't consequential either, yet highly annoying.

As for "screaming" for a wider forum, well, psychoanalyzing strangers via 600-word columns is a dicey enterprise. Once again, before hitting "send," you should really try doing due diligence. A Google search would probably do the trick.

And for the triquillionth time, I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED THAT THE AD PROVOKES ATTACKS. What I did say is that we live in a world where people deemed to faggotty get attacked, physically and otherwise, and for an ad to normalize such conduct, even in a jokey way is wrong.

Finally, you cannot possibly believe that the racewalker was code for faggoty. The ad was explicit: "You a disgrace to the man race. Get some nuts."

oops. i mean "you cannot possibly not believe that the racewalker was code for 'faggoty'..."

Bob,

First off, I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to enter into this discourse with me, and to write me back more than once. That shows much more respect than your initial tone with me did. As for the first commenter, I have no idea what his history is, but I don't think that he demonstrated any such qualities in the context of the article at hand. If there was other history, it wasn't apparent there, so my apologies for being unaware of your prior interactions with him.

It's true that it would be very questionable for me to totally psychoanalyze you in the context of a 600 word article, but you have to remember that you're a somewhat public figure, and the analysis becomes a little more cogent in the context of the larger window we're all afforded. So please don't assume that I haven't done any due dilligence just because I don't agree with your viewpoint here. I wasn't suggesting that you were a consistent and intentional bigot. On the contrary, you've pretty consistently fallen on the side of supporting the PC side of things. The bigger picture, however, is that in many cases, the people screaming loudest at "offensive" things aren't actually offended themselves, but worried that someone else might be. Meanwhile, those who "should" be offended would rather not have their battles fought for them and in their name.

Since I myself am not gay, I asked more than 30 gay people (men and women) how they felt about this ad in an effort to gauge the real likelihood that the gay community is bristling at Snickers' ad efforts. To a one, they've all said they found it funny and entertaining, and not the least bit offensive in its characterizations. In fact, most of them found the bare chested, bearded man acting macho to come off as more gay than the walker...(surprising to some and less so to others, I'd guess). They all felt the point of the action in the ads was not to attack/injure the wimpy racewalker, but to get him to try harder in his excercize efforts. Mr. T isn't attempting to kill the racewalker with candy, he's annoying him (much like your first poster friend annoys you) into working harder, by running instead of lame racewalking. If you're a racewalker, you might take offense at this, but I'd say the racewalking community isn't really at major risk of violence. While I know that asking 30+ people is hardly a statistically reliable barometer of the entire gay community, I think the unanimity of the response is more than enough to suggest that we should dig deeper here. More to the point, their position is no less valid statistically than the advocacy group that spoke up based on the reaction of one or two people. The fact is that the group exists purely to stir up this kind of trouble, and thereby draw more attention to various other issues. By taking up this cause, you've become their unwitting pawn. Meanwhile, there are many who feel that by taking a stand on such marginal and devisive examples, you actually undermine their cause, by making them seem whiny and oversensitive (another gay stereotype).

As for "normalizing such conduct", I think it's ludicrous to make any assumptions about normalizing anti-gay violence based on a clearly silly television spot, in which a barechested 70's icon smashes through an entire city block worth of houses on a military vehicle that shoots peanut and nougat laced candy bars at racewalkers in an effort to get them to increase their cardiovascular output. So no, the racewalker wasn't code for "faggoty", at least not in the homosexual sense. As stated before, even most gay people found Mr. T to be more latently homosexual. The racewalker may be how our grandparents perceived gays, but didn't match even current stereotypes. Instead, the racewalker was code for wimpy, lame, sniveling...all of which are counter to the hearty, robust image that Snickers is implying for its feast of a candy bar. If you assume that any mention of "man" or "man race" is a call for heterosexuality versus homosexuality, then you should have been attacking Swanson years ago. After all, if you apply your argument to their advertising for Hungry Man dinners, then people have been shamed for years for eating those faggoty regular dinners. Similarly, Chunky soup used similar strategies for years, only with less humor, and managed to skirt any overinspection. Since Chunky was made by Campbell's, which also made less manly soups, are we to assume that they had inner conflict about their sexuality? Come to think of it, Campbell's soup and Swanson dinners were owned by the same company, so maybe they have a culture of anti-gay speech. Time for an open letter?....

Bob~

Be forewarned. Whenever someone begins a sentence with "I am not gay, but I do know some gay people" you are never going to get a straight answer.

Lets just call it like it is. In this particular ad the guy is gay and its ok to pummel him for not being "manly enough". As an openly gay woman I find it highly offensive and the defense of the ad disappointing. Maybe all those white straight guys need a job at Omnicom working on the Mars account.
DDM

Earth to Laurence Shanet,

You can cease and desist with the gay focus groups, friend. The ad has been denounced and pulled, thanks to the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation—a gay rights group. Go figure.

The Human Rights Campaign has made an ironically stupid move, together with those criticizing the ad for being anti-gay: there is no correlation between speedwalking (which is genuinely ridiculous, we can agree on that) and homosexuality. By implying that correlation the HRC is falling for the very same stereotypes it's mean to fight, and effectively stating that, well, gays are faggots. Good job!
Stefano Augello
finalburp.wordpress.com

Bob,

I AM a gay male, and think that Laurence has made some excellent points. I was not offended in the least by the ad, and did find it very funny. I'm always upset when entertaining fare of any kind, whether commercials or programs, is pulled because of knee-jerk oversensitivity. Personally, I find the actions of the HRCF to be embarassing. They should save their public efforts for things that need them instead of attracting attention to themselves for silly reasons that erode their credibility. Even many people who support their cause may now on some level trivialize them in the future. I know I will.

Jack Jones, just because your "side" has won an unfair battle doesn't mean people should stop discussing and denouncing wrongs that were done (even if they were done to an ad agency or a non-minority group). Grow up. After all, when the ads ran, no one just said, "well, the ads have run and people laughed, so you can stop your protesting and denouncement". Your comment was simply ignorant. And just because some group presents themselves as the voice of all gay people doesn't mean they are, nor does it mean we're all really offended by the stupid things they protest. Your response makes me assume you didn't actually undertand the points made upthread, so I'll forgive your not getting the whole point of asking LARGE groups of people. But to help out, how would the average Christian feel if one specific sect (say, the Mormons for example...or the Christian Scientists) made proclamations on behalf of all Christians? Probably not very pleased. And it certainly wouldn't represent their voice. I hope you can see the potential damage here.

Dawn, being an openly gay woman doesn't give you any more right (or perspective) to comment on the ad than previous posters who are straight men. After all, none of the stereotypes in question (being an effeminate or wimpy male) apply to lesbians. In fact, if there are stereotypes at all for openly gay women, they're quite the opposite, so the offense you've taken is of the "I'm offended on someone else's behalf" variety, just like the straight men. You opened by calling into question the statements of anyone who opens with "I'm not gay, but I do know some gay people", and I have to do the same for you. After all, your perspective is also that of an outsider to the issue. I respect your opinion, but you're in no better position to represent the opinions of a gay male, especially a wimpy or effeminate one. And your blanket angry statement about white straight guys outs your position quite completely. You, after all, just know some gay males, too...you aren't one. Gay males don't need everyone to constantly jump to our defense...we're quite capable of defending ourselves...whether it be from fictional veiled hate speech or from cannon-propelled candy bars. After all, isn't the point EVERYONE has been making that it's unfair to characterize us as defenseless?????