New Protected Class: Straight White Guys
February 7, 2007 by Laura | Trackback URI
The Snickers commercial brouhaha has illustrated that in a politically correct world, there is no one whom it is safe to mock. Who would have thought that homophobic white guys are now a protected class?
The Snickers Superbowl commercial, where the lips of two straight guys (who are inexplicably eating the same Snickers bar) touch. They immediately try to “cleanse” themselves by performing various supposedly macho activities. It’s amusing in a vaguely stupid way. It is not, as the blogger who started all this insists, “gay bashing for fun.” On the contrary. It mocks straights, the unsophisticated average joes who are supposedly so horrified by anything that smacks of homosexuality that they have to go to extremes to distance themselves from it. It’s not that we find homosexual sex acts distasteful… it’s not that we believe that science proves the body was not designed for that activity… it’s not that we believe sex is a private activity and we don’t enjoy public displays of affection… it’s not about religious faith. No, anyone who proffers anything less than wholehearted approval, is fearful. So fearful we would do injury to ourselves. That was the message of this commercial. That is the group being mocked.
The Malcontent (who is gay) in his post The Grievance Gays acknowledged that for many people, the goalposts have been moved from toleration and acceptance to something far beyond it:
What to make of the new definition of homophobia now concretely embedded in gay thought? No longer do we ask for amorphous tolerance and equality before the law. Now we seek not mere acceptance, but affirmation and security in all areas of politics, media, sports, entertainment, and advertising. A grimace from the face of an NFL player and an odd throwaway comment, and soon organizations like the HRC speak of violence against gay youth in response. Straight men must now always be comfortable with displays of same-sex affection, and if they are not, they must be hidden, silenced, scrubbed clean of public record. Anything less is harm against gays. You will do nothing less than celebrate and accept every aspect of our lives, or you will learn to shut up.
Here’s a word for those people The Malcontent was describing.
The real joke of it is that the commercial furthered the heterophobic agenda. The commercial is obviously making fun of the stereotypical homophobic man. Making fun of homophobia – i.e. further marginalizing those people who for various reasons, do not want to engage in homosexual behavior or view it – benefits the heterophobes. I mean, look at the commercials – they were ripping out their chest hair, drinking motor oil, slamming their heads with the hood of a car. The commercial made people who oppose homosexuality look ridiculous, desperate, and stupid. Who wants to be that guy?
This was a PR bonanza for their side, but in their quest for victimization, the groups The Malcontent calls the “professional grievance organizations of Gay America” had what amounted to a somewhat amusing ad attacking their enemies taken down.
Thanks, guys! Keep up the good work!
I would...
Like an aging monument, democracy itself is crumbling.
First of all, I did see the ad with a number of straight men during the Super Bowl, and if the ad was to make fun of homophobia, they didn’t get the message. They made the usual “Brokeback” comments and a few “f**” comments, and one said that the ad was trying to push a gay agenda. I do realize other straight men didn’t have the same reaction, but I think you’re underestimating just what the ad appealed to.
If the point of the ad had been making fun of homophobia, then I doubt that they would have included the video of football players being disgusted by men kissing. The people who made the ad also agreed to let GLAAD see the ad (before the Super Bowl airing), then changed their minds. They obviously knew the ad was going to cause some kind of reaction.
The point of the ad was to try to generate shock value and appeal to frat boys. Men kissing = ew. Men abuse themselves = ha ha. The ad that aired during the Super Bowl was OK, if kind of dumb. Everything else, especially the video with the football players, was much worse.
- a homosexual who demands that their sexual behavior receive not just tolerance but celebration.-
The Malcontent description of the ad campaign (the football player reactions) points out that there wasn’t tolerance in the reaction, much less celebration, so the defition doesn’t fit.
Perhaps. As a woman I’m sure I perceive this differently than a man would. As for the football players, there were both “ewww” and “whatever” reactions, as the Malcontent noted. The people griping are selectively picking some reactions to further a complaint, and the goal is to tolerate no dissent whatsoever – nothing less than universal approval will suffice. I can understand that – I’d love to have universal approval for my lifestyle, which is offensive to many people. But it’s not realistic or fair for me to demand that.
I may have been unclear in my writing, or I may not have understood the last part of your comment – I was NOT calling the Malcontent a heterophobe – quite the opposite. I was calling the grievance mongers he was criticizing heterophobes. From what I’ve read on the Malcontent’s blog, they seem like reasonable people. Sorry to have been unclear.
Oh, I know you weren’t calling Malcontent a heterophobe. I apologize for being unclear. I meant that part of the ad campaign was not anywhere about tolerance or about celebration, therefore I don’t think objection to the ad was heterophobic.
Thank you for being so polite. I shouldn’t have been so abrupt.