I am back from hiatus! Sadly, I’m not entirely sure anyone noticed. For my return to mediocre blogging I’ve decided to write up a post with a slightly different, more investigative approach. One of the criticisms I’ve received on this blog (well let’s be honest, I’ve only received one criticism because my blog is either great or no one cares enough to criticize it) is that I do more complaining than anything and offer no substance or solutions to the problems I present. Today I will (hopefully) silence my critic(s) with a more substantive post.
Over the past decade or so, America has slowly began to see prominent members of society out themselves as being gay as well as an increase in outed people in the general population. Support for the gay community and their rights has never been higher and the idea of someone being homosexual is no longer a taboo subject. Of course, the backlash to this movement seems to be just as passionate in steeping society in their archaic ways.
So what does this have to do with commercials? It seems to me that in recent years the concept of homosexuality has crept its way into commercials. While this seemingly sounds progressive, it isn’t. Now that homosexuality is a more common subject of conversation, it is now relegated to be what any popular subject is to be in commercials—a cheap source of comedy.
From what I’ve seen, there are currently three different commercials airing that incorporate the idea of homosexuality for a laugh (well an attempt at a laugh, since 98% of commercials that are supposed to be funny aren’t). Behold:
This one for Klondike is by far the biggest offender in its blatant homophobia. They take some of the most stereotypical “those guys can’t possibly be gay” figures in the bikers and make them hold hands because they supposedly fear “a moment of intimacy.” In doing so, Klondike is only furthering the mislead belief that “certain types of people” are gay and it would be absolutely ridiculous for a biker to be gay.
Sure Klondike, I’m sure everyone is thinking “haha that’s funny because those two tough guys don’t want to hold hands with each other because they’re afraid of intimacy.” To me it’s abundantly clear that the joke is two MEN are holding hands instead of two people afraid to hold hands because it’s “intimate.” Of course, this “challenge” is hyperbolized as being extremely arduous to the two men because they’re extremely “afraid of intimacy” (read: homophobic).
Klondike clearly knew what they were doing with this commercial by placing the homophobia under the guise of intimacy. If this were really about intimacy, why couldn’t the “challenge” have been a tough biker holding his mom’s hand or something along those lines? And after their time is up, why do two women jump onto the scene and the bikers immediately turn to them and away from each other? It was obvious to Klondike that blatantly saying “can these two men hold hands for 5 seconds?” would not be acceptable…why they thought calling homophobia something else and running with that is beyond me.
Really the only leg Klondike has to stand on would be the defense that they’re mocking that these bikers are homophobic to an embarrassing extent. Then again, calling this series of commercials “what the fudge?” moments seems to furthers the idea that the concept of men holding hands is blasphemous, not the ideas of the men themselves.
While I wouldn’t necessarily expect a frozen confectioner to resort to homophobia to promote their product, it doesn’t surprise me that a beer company would make a commercial such as this one. This one is certainly not as bad as the Klondike ad, but it also perpetuates multiple stereotypes that hinder the promotion of tolerance.
The setting: construction. Again, I presume that the construction scene was picked because some would think it would be inconceivable that a gay man could work in construction. Next the guy imagines he sees the prototypical Cindy Crawford looking woman because of course, this is what a “normal” man should picture in his head as an attractive person. He then asks “what’s your name” to the woman who isn’t actually there and the question instead is directed to the guy bending over in front of him. This scenario of course ends in extreme embarrassment.
Like I said, this commercial isn’t nearly as bad as the first one. But why even broach the subject of homophobia if you don’t have to? This same humor could have been achieved by replacing the bending over male with an old woman or something. A man hitting on an old lady seems more out of the ordinary than a man hitting on another man to me.
This Jack in the Box commercial is certainly a lot tamer than the other two (and definitely tamer than their other ad that encourages smoking weed and driving under the influence), but it still stands out to me. Obviously Jack and the guy hugging each other is supposed to be embarrassing and the girl thinks she has just discovered a huge secret about the two and this is all supposed to be funny because the two don’t want the girl to think they’re gay.
My question is simply: is this the best you really can do? It’s just such a simplistic idea to get a cheap laugh. I really think society as a whole has moved past the idea of “haha look at those guys, they’re gay.”
When those writing and filming these commercials make that advancement, however, remains to be seen.
