I’ve had some more thoughts and discussions regarding that upcoming Focus on the Family Superbowl ad. I thought more about how I don’t want to fan the fire of this controversy, and make publicity worth the $2.7 million spent on the ad in the first place. I thought about the dozens of emails I’ve gotten asking me to sign a petition or send an email asking CBS to remain consistent in choosing not to air advocacy ads – and how few I’ve acted upon (and why). I thought more in relation to disability studies – about what it means to say “don’t abort, your at-risk pregnancy could work out perfectly and he might even be famous!” Meanwhile, I thought about how many ads I’m offended by regularly – and how many I may be offended by during the Superbowl. These ads tend to make me angry, just like the FotF one probably will. And then I thought about how being pro-choice means I don’t have a problem with what Pam Tebow chose to do – keep her baby.

But all I really want to do is link to this wonderful video, that articulates all these different points in a simplistic and clear way – Trust Women.

So you may or may not have heard that this year, there’s going to be a Superbowl ad from “Focus on the Family,” a Christian-based pro-life group, featuring Tim Tebow.

I’ve gotten a lot of emails about this, and read a lot of blog posts about it, and I’m still kind of on the fence. When I first heard, I sort of dismissed it – because on the one hand, if corporations want to spend $3 million for a 30-second ad (probably missing their target altogether, too), why should I want to stop them? And I mean, if Planned Parenthood wanted to run an ad, I would be so gungho it’s not even funny. Especially because only a very small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does actually centers around abortion, yet I know that’s what people would be up in arms about – the pro-choice part. But after all this talk about the Supreme Court decision to basically grant multinational corporations personhood on account of the First Amendment (which doesn’t sound like a good idea to me), I don’t really want to grant Focus on the Family the same First Amendment rights that I have.

I mean, the only part that really makes me wonder, is the part about how

TV networks have traditionally tried to keep the Super Bowl free from commercials that could cause outsized controversy.

Something changed this year? Why? I remember last year PETA got a lot of press for proposing some risque and weird ads, which were denied by the network. It got them some press, but I mean, they were denied.

I still don’t really know. All I know is that the ad isn’t supposed to be “anti” or political at all, it’s just a story about family, about how Tim Tebow’s mom “chose life.”

But I do know this! Focus on the Family supports Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which are known to falsify information and lie to clients.

And I also know this!
It looks like this ad, for a gay dating website, was rejected by CBS. So what does that tell us. lakhlgdkhs.

I know that adrants was waiting for some feminazi to be offended by this ad (thanks for the snark!), but I don’t mind.

I mean, it only caught my eye because I just read these posts about how men are affected by gender norms, and it’s worth noting how men are always morons in commercials, and women either “just don’t get it!” (like the doritos one) or the women are just there to pick up the slack and teach her husband how to use the fucking blender.

(also! this isn’t a shoe-in for the superbowl yet, you can vote for your favorite here)

Every advertising student’s favorite holiday is quickly approaching – The Superbowl! On February 7th, every ad student and professor, as well as everyone working in the ad world, will get together and geek out about the superbowl ads. I wonder what the percentage of superbowl viewers are actually superbowl commercial viewers?

Anyway, here’s your first taste of one of the spots

via adrants

Because for me, the rare women’s studies/advertising dual major, the superbowl represents something slightly different.

via sociological images, here’s a recent ToysR’Us coupon insert for some fun science toys.

Notice! The ones with the least power are the pink ones! My stepdad was quick to point out at these are probably the cheapest models too, and that maybe pink is just supposed to be for younger kids or something.

But let’s be real here – little girls love pink! Pink is often the only color designated for girls, and often the only color little girls love.  A little girl who loves pink isn’t going to see or understand the magnification or the specs – she only wants pink! Not knowing that she won’t be LEARNING as much as little boys who HATE pink. Doesn’t seem fair, does it? And meanwhile, adults buying a cool science gift for a little girl will feel pressured to buy the pink one – because we all know already that pink is for girls – and the girl might be delighted to get the gagdet, not realizing that she was cheated. This makes me upset.

I wonder what Toys R Us would say in their defense? I can’t even begin to imagine.

Men – we know you are lazy bums! But women will fall for anything, so it’s ok! For further examples, see every Valentine’s Day commercial.

How the fuck does this shit get published?

via Copyranter

I always love a good dose of sexism, racism, objectification, and ass-cheeks all in one…

EDIT: IT’S FAKE. see comments.

Saying “this makes me cringe” would be a huge understatement. so Ill just let you see for yourself. It’s a Sprite commercial banned in Germany:

via

I saw this a few days ago but failed to blog it before perez did, which is a shame. but that doens’t make it any less upsetting.

It’s tough because reporting this kind of bullshit just give the brand more recognition and more chatter, which is the intention of making these kinds of ads anyway. But I don’t plan on buying Sprite any time soon. So uh, suck on that (pun very much intended).

Peta is so good at exploiting tragic situations by objectifying women. In case you didn’t know.

This was outside MJs funeral

via Copyranter

And these billboards were put up right after the death of Dr. George Tiller, in Kansas.

I’m not sure where I saw this first

I think the public forced PETA to take them down. Wow.

Been meaning to blog this poster for a few weeks now
Saw it at the London Transport Museum

maybe it’s not really “sexist” in the way I mean, but it’s interesting, to say the least.