Advertisements echo with many reverberations and overtones. Different people hear different things, and with all the multiple meanings, it’s not always clear which is most important.
This week Lisa Wade posted this Snickers ad from Australia. Its intended message of course is “Buy Snickers.” But its other message is more controversial, and Lisa and many of the commenters (more than 100 at last count) were understandably upset.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgjTZQiySw[/youtube]
The construction workers (played by actors) shout at the women in the street (not actors). “Hey,” yells a builder, and the woman looks up defensively. But then instead of the usual sexist catcalls, the men shout things like,
I appreciate your appearance is just one aspect of who you are.
And
You know what I’d like to see? A society in which the objectification of women makes way for gender neutral interaction free from assumptions and expectations.
The women’s defensiveness softens. They look back at the men. One woman, the surprise and delight evident in her smile, mouths, “Thank you.”
But, as the ad warned us at the very beginning, these men are “not themselves.”
Hunger has transformed them. The ad repeats the same idea at the end.
Here’s Lisa’s conclusion:
The twist ending is a genuine “fuck you” to the actual women who happened to walk by and become a part of the commercial… I bet seeing the commercial would feel like a betrayal. These women were (likely) given the impression that it was about respecting women, but instead it was about making fun of the idea that women deserve respect.
I suspect that Lisa too feels betrayed. She has bought her last Snickers bar.
My take is more optimistic.
In an earlier generation, this ad would have been impossible. The catcalls of construction workers were something taken for granted and not questioned, almost as though they were an unchangeable part of nature.* They might be unpleasant, but so is what a bear does in the woods.
This ad recognizes that those attitudes and behaviors are a conscious choice and that all men, including builders, can choose a more evolved way of thinking and acting. The ad further shows, that when they do make that choice, women are genuinely appreciative. “C’mon mates,” the ad is saying, “do you want a woman to turn away and quickly walk on, telling you in effect to fuck off? Or would you rather say something that makes her smile back at you?” The choice is yours.
The surface meaning of the ad’s ending is , “April Fools. We’re just kidding about not being sexists.” But that’s a small matter. Not so far beneath that surface progressive ideas are having the last laugh, for more important than what the end of the ad says is what the rest of the ad shows — that ignorant and offensive sexism is a choice, and that real women respond positively to men who choose its opposite.
* Several of the comments at Sociological Images complained that the ad was “classist” for its reliance on this old working-class stereotype.
Cross-posted at Montclair SocioBlog.
Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.
Comments 29
Bill R — April 5, 2014
This is not a work of art that requires much interpretation; its an ad, simple.
The key question of sociological interest is why a corporation would invest a lot of money in using this content to motivate purchases of their products. Of course, they do it to sell and believe it will. It speaks more to the culture and the mindset of their market niche than anything else.
mandassassin — April 5, 2014
Um, what? "But it really means the opposite of what it says it means" doesn't really fly for me. Especially when it's explicitly devaluing/gender policing men who want to interact respectfully with women. Sure, men who already view disrespecting women as a problem might get Dr. Livingston's interpretation here; but men who are committed to toxic masculinity, or more on the fence, seem more likely to take away the explicit message of the commercial. For men who street harass, making women upset and uncomfortable is a feature, not a bug.
Shawna McComber — April 5, 2014
All publicity is good publicity for someone with something to sell. I suspect they knew this would be controversial and are delighted by the responses. I see the add as mostly saying derogatory things about a certain group of males, if not all males, and pointing out an experience women have to deal with even in these so called enlightened times. The fact that the nice/enlightened version of the men is not their natural state is the main point of this add, but wanting to return them to that horrible natural state by feeding them a Snickers is an odd concept and I have to ask why anyone thought that was funny.
SarahMKraatz — April 5, 2014
Its intended message of course is “Buy Snickers.” But its other message is more controversial, and Lisa and many of the commenters (more than 100 at last count) were understandably upset. http://qr.net/sqr6
Quib — April 5, 2014
I'm curious if the "You're not you when you're hungry" campaign has
been different in Australia than what I've seen in America.
This
seems to be inline with the narrative of the other ads : men having
funny out of character moments, who need a sugary snack to get back to
being themselves. Even if the ad here is presenting the behavior as an
improvement, it's still framed as a ridiculous departure from being
themselves. That's not a genuine challenge or questioning of the status
quo.
It is interesting, and I think it's what confuses the intended message, that the feminist rhetoric is coherent.
The
language seems genuinely familiar with feminist theory and gender studies,
to the point where I have to suspect someone involved supported those sentiments, and had their work redirected or misappropriated.
eagoodlife — April 5, 2014
As an Aussie feminist of advanced years I have asked young women in my family and of my acquaintance what they think of this ad - all are feminists and assertive, no-nonsense young women. Women here in my part of Australia are no longer familiar with the type of male harassment which involves shouts from building sites - it seems to have ceased for the most part, because men know it is not acceptable. All find this add amusing and are puzzled that the rest of the world seems to be so short of humour. It just goes to show that you can't make assumptions about what happens in countries you don't know, based on what happens in your own!
Fiona and Shalimar — April 6, 2014
I still think it's sexist. The idea I get from this is that as long as the message is 'right', the fact that the 'joke' is still on the women is acceptable. I don't get a feeling of respect for women from this ad. Also it sends the message that as long as you tell us what we want to hear, it doesn't matter what your actions are. Not true.
Turning the tables, missing the point #Everydaysexism #feminism | Quiet Riot Girl — April 6, 2014
[…] snickers ad has generated some commentary, including two posts with differing viewpoints in Sociological Images and a not very complimentary piece in Time […]
skilletblonde — April 6, 2014
Well...I knew it was too good to be true.
Zv3r — April 7, 2014
Ok, so, the ad does show that its possible for construction workers to be polite encouraging and friendly. But its just by mistake. The ad is still sexist.
jules — April 7, 2014
Just switch the women into black women or men and have them yell at them: you know what i want? I want a world where black people are equal to white!
Such a switch shows you in a minute if it is appropriate.
For the rest, i believe it is best to be above it and let's start our own image culture. Make how we want it, and focus on what is ok what already exists.
Don't give it so much power!
The Dutch ad is as follows: diva is asking where the deodorant is. He is hungry and changed into a right diva.
Well. Ok
Let's stop identifying with those stereotypes.. I dont thibk that men identify with them either. And the ones whi do.... well if everyone around you is thinkig sexist it is a problem. When its just a joke.... it's not such a big deal.
Damien Quinn — April 7, 2014
The only basis for saying this ad is sexist would be to say it plays on
automatic assumptions about male behaviour and is sexist toward them. To
say it is misogynistic is utter bullshit.
The ad acknowledges a stereotype about male builders, not women. The only thing to be said about the women in the ad is that that they too believe the stereotype the ad is promoting, their reactions suggest that they automatically assume that a builder who is shouting at them will be sexist and abusive, beyond that, women are neither maligned nor affirmed by the ad itself.
If the ad showed a woman surprising a man by fixing his breakdown on the side of a road or surprising him with her deep knowledge of sports, that might be mildly sexist, but you'd get the joke.
Jacquelyn Imperato — April 8, 2014
I think the "you're not you when you're hungry" presents the behavior as NOT a choice. I think it presents being sexist as who/how construction workers (working class men, men) REALLY ARE and being considerate and respectful (though still demanding women's attention & time, so...) as a weird effect of being hungry, like crankiness. It does show that women appreciate the "nicer" comments, but I don't think it does anything to undo that old perception of it being an unpleasant, unchangeable part of nature.
ThisMachineKillsLeftists — April 11, 2014
Yeah, the ad is sexist in the same way reality is sexist.
If I were to take out the parts of your post about who's feelings are hurt, I don't think you'd be left with any points to make.
You’re Not Your Misogynist Self When You Are Hungry. | About A Blog — April 13, 2014
[…] in nature the content of the advertisement caused an almighty debate over many platforms. Many thought the advertisement was an effective tool that through satire illustrated an unfortunate […]