By Dodge’s standards, I deserve a jet:
A woman’s perspective on Super Bowl commercials
Staff Writer
KATE BIZER ILLUSTRATION
You don’t have to pick up an issue of The Washtenaw Voice to know that the Super Bowl XLIV commercials, as a whole, were barely worthy of the word lackluster.
I have a better word: disrespectful.
It’s no secret that the Super Bowl attracts a lot of men. What advertisers across the country seemed to ignore is that this same event also attracts a lot of women.
As the most-watched television program in history, this year’s Super Bowl attracted 106.5 million people. It was estimated that anywhere from a third to 40 percent of those record-breaking viewers were women. This means that at least 35.5 million and up to 42.6 million women saw the game and the commercials.
As a civilian, I could tell you that most advertising isn’t based on the goal of alienating that many commercial viewers right off the bat. Yet several companies chose to do just that by framing men as victims of their relationships with women.
One of the worst offenders was the commercial put out by Dodge for the Dodge Charger. In case you’ve forgotten, this ad featured several forlorn-looking men staring straight into the camera while a list of their (supposedly) marital forfeits is flatly delivered. At the end, Dodge suggests that due to these hardships, men deserve a flashy car. They call it “Man’s Last Stand.”
Since when does anyone deserve something for simply being an adult? Some of the items on the pitiful list are, “I will be at work by 8 a.m.,” “I will take your call,” and, “I will be civil to your mother.”
Am I supposed to feel bad for these guys? My immediate reactions are:
- Oh em gee, being an adult is like, sooo hard. You deserve a Dodge Charger.
- How horrible of me to expect you to answer my call. It’s not like we’re in a relationship or anything. You deserve a Dodge Charger.
- Heaven forbid you respect the woman who raised me. How dare she try to teach me that I deserve better than you?! You obviously deserve a Dodge Charger.
If you didn’t like it, then you should’ve bought Dodge Charger instead of put a ring on it.
And no matter what, you’ll still have to put your underwear in the hamper.
For this to be so “crappy” for you to read Jeff, you sure came back to this article often. They way you gripe and moan you sound like you drive a Volkswagen. Zing!
Josh? You there, buddy?
Credentials. Yours. Go!
Credentials?
Please fill us in on yours, Josh.
You chose to use ‘mag’ as slang in your post. You didn’t put the dash in because you didn’t know any better. If you are going to critique the author, expect people to glance over your own credentials, which you so adequately displayed in your first post. You seem to have your own personal biases against women, which means that this is a waste of my time, and a waste of yours.
WOW, Josh. My exclusion of a hyphen means I didn’t put any thought into it? Is that really what upset you so much or was it that I commented negatively on something written by a person you can’t objectively judge? I’m surprised that in your hackneyed English lecture you didn’t scold me for using “mag” as a piece of slang!
The point remains and my viewpoint is clear. This article advanced my opinion that the paper, due to its abundance of female writers with shallow points and hokey styles, now reads like a bad women’s magazine.
Get fired up!
‘Fourth rate’ is hyphenated when it precedes the noun it is modifying. If you are going to post something, put some thought into it. Whether or not I am dating the author doesn’t change the fact that your post helps prove her point. She presented a viewpoint, and you went, “Oh yeah? Well I think your paper stinks.” Come on man, you can do better.
There is nothing wrong with my grammar, Josh.
Are you the writer’s boyfriend?
Arguing on the internet is dumb, especially when you are bad at it.
Scope! Strawmen! Cogency!
If this wasn’t what they were addressing, then why were so many ads put out by multi-billion dollar corporations, spending millions for 30 seconds of air, with this exact mode of expression?
The exact script of the commercial is irrelevant; even Quinn points out that this was merely the most offensive. What I’m trying to say is that this IS what they are addressing, it’s how a lot of men feel in this economy, and to just say it doesn’t exist is just not true.
Do companies not spend millions of dollars in market research? Did no less than four, major companies, all come up with the same general idea and just so happen to choose the same template and broadcast it at the same time? Companies understand that this is how people feel, and exploit it to get you to buy their things. This is a time honored American tradition.
You’re always welcome to address the scandal about it, and in fact most companies would rather you did (any publicity is good publicity, etc etc;) I’m just suggesting that it’s not as black-and-white as the commercial being just chauvenist. There is a real element here, just addressing it is touchy.
Ahem, I read this while driving in my Dodge Charger. The start was really really good and true, lol, but I wish you would have skipped breaking it down and going into details and instead talked about how sweet this ad was:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/126549
Lol, I guess that would depend if you thought it was funny, but the senseless, inoffensive humor (unless you’re a show sea mammal) is something anyone can enjoy no matter where he/she/ze lies on the gender spectrum.
You’ve always rocked at writing and I love that you’ve started making it your thing!
(Also, it’s funny that anyone who mentioned something negative on this blog was attacked precipitously by your pit-bull, Josh – I’m ready Josh, bring it!)
The commercial wasn’t directly addressing the idea of joblessness. It claimed that men made all of the compromises in the relationship and deserved a car because of it. That’s BS.
Statistically it made sense; men are losing their jobs faster than women, making them feel emasculated. The demographics are definitely there, just maybe they could have used more tact.
I mean, the very subject they’re trying to convey is ridiculously difficult when you think about it. There’re trying to express sense of fraternity in joblessness (which I can at least sympathize with ), and an inherent aspect of fraternity is exclusion. It’s hard to keep everyone happy when talking about something like this.
To say it doesn’t exist isn’t true, and to express it means to be chauvinist. There’s a very subjective line there somewhere, it’s just up to people to draw their own.
Maybe, as his Last Stand against being forced to read fourth-rate women’s magazines, Jeff should buy himself a Dodge Charger.
Wow Jeff, are you the proud/emasculated owner of a Dodge Charger? By the way, if you want to critique the way an article is written, you should probably check your own grammar, you fourth-rate moron.
This crappy paper is like reading a fourth rate women’s mag.