Posted on 02/15/2010 10:21:11 PM PST by goldstategop
By far the most popular ad shown during the latest Super Bowl (the trademarked name “Super Bowl” is used here without the expressed written consent of the National Football League) was the Doritos “House Rules” ad. Tens of millions of Americans saw it as hilarious.
That is unfortunate. Anyone aware of the manifold social pathologies the ad depicted did not find much to laugh about.
Here is the ad:
A man knocks on a door. A pretty woman answers it. He hands her flowers and she thanks him. He has presumably come to take her out on a date. She introduces her young son to the man and excuses herself. She walks back to her room. The camera focuses on her shapely legs, quite visible given that she is wearing a miniskirt. The man stares, indeed leers, at her legs and makes a facial gesture suggesting, shall we say, sexual interest. The boy, who appears to be about five years old, sees this and drops his toy. The man sits on the couch and helps himself to a Dorito. The boy walks up to the man, smacks him hard across the face and says, "Keep your hands off my mama. Keep your hands off my Doritos.”
Here are the major elements of dysfunctionality this ad depicts:
First, a child smacking an adult across the face is not funny. It is, in fact, one of the last things society should tolerate. I will deal with the widespread defense of the child’s action — “he was only protecting his mother” — later.
In real life, a child who hits an adult needs to be disciplined. If a child did that to me, I would grab his offending arm and apply enough force to make it clear that he will never do that again.
After I mentioned this on my radio show, some psychotherapists sent me e-mails disagreeing with these views. They noted, for example, that “violence breeds violence.”
Some clichés are true; I find this one meaningless.The truth is very different: Immoral violence breeds violence; moral violence (such as just wars, police work, and appropriate parental discipline) reduces violence.
I am well aware that vast numbers of Americans (and Europeans) believe that engaging in any physical discipline of a child is wrong. I, too, held this belief for most of my life, and I never hit or spanked either of my sons. I have changed my mind because of all the fine people who have called my show or written to me about how they were spanked and now believe that they are better adults because of it. It is a given that I do not defend physical — or any other form of — abuse against a child. Of all the world’s evils, child abuse may rank as the greatest. But a properly administered spanking is not abuse. The New York Times recently published an article titled “For Some Parents, Shouting Is the New Spanking,” in which it noted that many parents now regularly scream at their children in part because they cannot spank them. I am not at all certain that being screamed at by a parent is an improvement over spanking.
The Doritos kid deserved a physical response from this man — as in pressure on the offending arm. With regard to the argument that this man was not the boy’s parent — and the terrible fact that there is far too much hitting and abuse of children by stepfathers and boyfriends — I do not believe that only parents may physically respond to a child. Teachers, for example, should be permitted to do so — I was physically dealt with by a number of teachers, and in every case I deserved it. I also did so as a camp counselor — to great effect. And so should the man whom the child in the ad smacked. In an ideal world, all adults raise all children in some way.
Second, the two adults in this ad act, to say the least, very irresponsibly.
The man acts and speaks like a lecher and moron. And the woman should not have exuded sexuality for a date in front of her little boy.
Those who argue that the boy was just defending his mom may well be right. But that only further reinforces the point of what a dysfunctional scene the ad was portraying: A leering man, a mother dressed in a sexually provocative way, and a sexually aware child who essentially serves as man of the house at the age of five.
Finally, people only find funny that which has some truth in it. Would this ad have worked as well if the characters depicted were all, let us say, Asian-American? Would it have been as effective if it portrayed whites acting this way?
Tragically, it worked in part because the characters were African-American. The unimpressive sex-on-the-mind male, the sexually provocative single mother, and the prematurely sexually aware and violent boy who is man of the house were familiar — either as an inaccurate white stereotype of much of urban black life, or as an accurate stereotype of much of urban black life. In either case, the ad is not funny at all.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Inaccurate?? We've got a 70% illegitimacy rate in the black community.
It would be quite common for a woman with children by one or more fathers to be regularly "entertaining" other men in her home, who will have encounters with her children, not all of them good.
Doritos should have added that they accept Food Stamps.
I saw that ad at the time and thought the same thing.
And the liberals had a kitten when Tim Tebow play-tackled his mom.
>>There is nothing funny about an ad that condones the worst social pathologies in our nation. <<
It was demeaning to blacks more than anyone.
Where’s Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr.? Where’s Al Sharpton? (crickets)
Dennis, the behaviors you complained about are not only acceptable, but they’re the law. Thanks to Republicans, Democrats, and their feminist legislation, we’ve already had “change” for a long time. If you so much as sass a woman or her kid, you in big trouble, son. No more than an accusation is needed for you to lose your rights, your home and just about everything else. Breaking working class families keeps them from rising to compete.
I had a similar response when I say the ad. I thought lots of ads were funny. This one is tragic.
Poor little kid trying to defend what is left of his mother’s honor.
What a commentary on our nation today.
Where’s the link to the ad ?
No, it was hilarious. The women in my house stood up and cheered. Finally, a man who stands up for that woman's honor! Even if he is under 3' high.
The kid was the only sane one in the house. Yes, it's tragic. But you have to start somewhere.
Thanks. Yeah, that seems a bit of a misfire to me.
The women in your house who cheered the kid lack perception. Let's hope it's only temporary.
It’s hard to tell in this ad where farce leaves off and imitation of life begins. That kid was precocious far ahead of his years.
Apparently, Moma was getting ready to give little sonny another sister or brother by a different Daddy. That’s what I saw.
These images/portrayals go around the world. Think many could have been used for Al Qaeda recruitment. And who knows, maybe they are. Weakness invites it's own revenge.
Reflecting what we now unfortunately, - regularly - view on TV; many of these ads make fun of males - and males only. Men, who appear to have been too long separated from their 'maleness' and who now represent a new definition and 'standard' for what was heretofore - before excessive feminization - recognized as the American MAN. (Sad as well, having children/ boys and girls, get such an embedded message. . .albeit saddest for the boys in the long run, and eventually, by turn; all of us.)
That said, there were some good ones - with redemptive humor/lol.
Yes, and if a picture worth a thousand words; this commercial was full of 'potent' messages.
“It was demeaning to blacks more than anyone.”
The ad was idiotic and yes demeaning to blacks. However, I would guess that it was also the favorite commercial amongst black viewers. It’s the same kind of twisted logic that has 95% of blacks voting for democrats in every election.
>>The ad was idiotic and yes demeaning to blacks. However, I would guess that it was also the favorite commercial amongst black viewers. It’s the same kind of twisted logic that has 95% of blacks voting for democrats in every election.<<
Quite insightful. I just wish we could translate that insight into some sort of action :(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.