Comments on: Kowtowing to the Bigots

By: Clarice

Clarice — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:59:51 +0000

Yeah, Matt, they might, but they’d probably be too busy worrying about things like rape, domestic violence, people-trafficking, you know, the usual.
There’s nothing wrong with being depicted making sandwiches you see, unless making sandwiches is going to be somehow belittled.
It’s the belittling that’s the problem, not the foodstuff.
Minority types of family set-ups are probably well aware that they’re minorities, and their expectations of representation are probably adjusted accordingly. They would only be able to complain to the advertising industry as a whole rather than to any particular advertisement. It’s a numbers game, Matt, so that’s a bit of a red-herring…

By: Alex Burford

Alex Burford — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:01:14 +0000

“incidentally I don’t think it appropriate that a product which is largely consumed by children be advertised by gay men, it’s not homophobic, it’s about not having to answer awkward questions from my kids at an inappropriately age.”

In what universe is that not homophobic? You choose your own comfort levels over educating your child. It is your discomfort with the idea of what gay men do in bed which makes you think that there is an age at which children should not be exposed to such things. Children of all ages are quite capable of understanding and accepting the concept of same sex relationships. Shame the same can’t be said of many adults…

By: Political Dissuasion

Political Dissuasion — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:23:12 +0000

I was watching Euro 2008, the Russia v Holland game, and after Torbinsky scored Russia’s second, one of the players kissed him in celebration.

Imagine my horror. This was on when obviously kids would be watching, football loving kids who are set to grow up being manly and hating all things gay.

I had to endure the uncomfortable situation of having to explain to my kids what a footballer was! Thanks a lot BBC, thanks a lot for corrupting my kids’ innocence!

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:13:26 +0000

a welcome return to form for the piece by the way.

What the…!? Are you saying I had gone off the boil!?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:12:44 +0000

Good to have you back, Matt.

Yes, it did occur to me very much that it might be Islamic Fundamentalists who were the complainants. I purposefully refrained from accusations of hypocrisy (”the reactionaries are only vocal when its Muslims” etc) for this reason, and only mentioned the Christian fundamentalists after finding the link to the AFA site.

By: Matt Munro

Matt Munro — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:07:56 +0000

Clarice I’m not trolling and I follow your logic, but had it been a woman sandwich maker and a nuclear familiy (or even two women) wouldn’t feminists complain about sterotyping and ask why men shouldn’t be depicted making sandwiches ? Also the single parent/blended family brigade would have grounds to complain about the fact that they were somehow being excluded or marginalised ?

By: Matt Munro

Matt Munro — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:02:11 +0000

Interesting that you make the mohamed cartoons analogy - has it occured to you that the same muslims who complained about bikini clad women on advertsing hoardings have compained the most loudly about this about this ? Which group in happy clappy, intolerantly tolerant modern Britain are the most homophobic ?

The giveway is that if it had been say the church the BBc would have said “christian groups have complained….” as it’s a muslim group exhibiting homophobia the compliants mysteriously become unattributable.

Incidentally I don’t think it appropriate that a product which is largely consumed by children be advertised by gay men, it’s not homophobic, it’s about not having to answer awkward questions from my kids at an inappropriately age.

Rant over, a welcome return to form for the piece by the way.

By: Clarice

Clarice — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:08:39 +0000

If the children called him “Dad”, it’d be fine.

By: Clarice

Clarice — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:07:33 +0000

No, Rob, there aren’t. Not ones that call one of the men “Mum”, and not ones where the Dad seems intimidated by the sexual overtures or allusions of his male partner and fellow parent.

My point (which I will make YET AGAIN) is NOT that it’s an alternative nuclear family (which it isn’t), but simply that the mother role (preserved and indicated by the children calling him “Mum”) is usurped by a male character. Why don’t you get this, Rob? Why the obsession with defending a homosexual relationship that isn’t being depicted? It’s a heterosexual relationship, where the mother has been miraculously transformed into a male by virtue of using the product…

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:21:36 +0000

But aren’t there real life families which have precisely the arrangement as depicted in the advert? Or at least, stay at home husbands with off-to-work husbands. I’m not clear why an alternative nuclear family, where a man takes on what is usually a woman’s role, is such a threat to the ‘traditional’ nuclear family.