Blog Comments Blog Archives About Me Radio Gems The Trailer Links Contact

Television's Punching Bags

December 28, 2009 @ 10:15

There were a couple of commercials over Christmas that really pissed me off. I assume one has stopped running, while the other continues to make me shake my head at the hypocrisy and double standard.

The first one is that Honda commercial. There are a man and a woman standing at their front window watching another couple in their driveway across the street. The woman inside has what appears to be a food processor in her arms.

The couple across the street is celebrating the gift of a car that the man has given the woman.

The commercial ends with the woman inside showing obvious disgust with her husband that he didn't deliver a gift of the same magnitude, so she takes the food processor, rams it into his ribs and stomps away.

The is wrong on so many levels. The physical abuse, the dominance and the humiliation not to mention the fact that maybe the poor bastard can't afford to give his wife a car.

I realize that we've come a long way, and historically men have dominated women and there was a time that a man could freely and confidently put "his woman" in her place unchallenged, but is that any excuse for what we're seeing on television today?

If men aren't being portrayed as king sized goobers, they're being physically abused by women.

Don't get me wrong, if the hypocrisy angle wasn't there, I wouldn't give a shit, but we're constantly reminded of physical abuse against women so I find it kind of weird that advertisers and pea brained copy writers have taken the recent route they have.

It's like the term reverse racism. There is no such thing as reverse racism. The term reverse racism makes it sound like only white people are guilty of racism, and anything else is simply their racism being turned around, or reversed.

That's crap. Racism is racism.

Same with physical abuse, whether it's a man or a women being abused by a husband or wife makes it equally wrong. At least it should in our new frontier of political correctness. Why is it OK for men to take a pounding on TV today?

The second commercial that pisses me off has a double helping of hypocrisy. It's the Scotiabank commercial that features Cassie Campbell and Jerome Iginla.

This commercial ends with Cassie taking a full tilt run at Iginla and knocking him out of the picture. No problem they're both hockey players right?

Wrong. They would never dream of making this commercial with the roles reversed. There's no way anyone would allow that commercial to end with Iginla plowing into Campbell.

And what adds another layer to this for me, is Cassie. Several years ago, Humble and I were doing a remote at the Eaton Centre and Campbell was one of our guests. Before she got there, Howard and I mentioned that not only was she a great hockey player, she was also very good looking.

Apparently the feminist, judge me for what I am not what I look like Cassie Campbell was offended and told her handlers that she never wanted to be part of our show again.

So I find it amusing, and hypocritical that Cassie would take part in a commercial that displays a woman abusing a man. Remember, they aren't on the ice when this takes place; they're in a Scotiabank branch.

And I won't even talk about Campbell's less than competent performance of Hockey Night in Canada. The only reason she survives is because she's a woman and I'm sure she knows it, which again makes me wonder about her hypocritical side.

I think she'd prefer to be judged on performance not gender. But hey, there's no money in that.

Category: Stuff

Permalink Discuss

188 Responses to "Television's Punching Bags"

Mike from Lowville
December 28, 2009 / 13:45

Fred, I'm speechless.

December 28, 2009 / 14:05

You forgot one underlining theme of your rant, and that is, "Humour is suggestive"
Both of these spots where supposed to make you laugh, at best, chuckle at least.

I personally found "Mr. Goohead" to be not funny, I'm sure there where radio listeners that found him to be very funny. Consider also that Cassie Campbell found no humour in your radio "bit" about her or Women's Hockey. Also consider a certain former owner of a brewery that found no humor in being tricked into trashing his own product.
For which I found that bit to be quite funny, and you guys had to pay a price for it.

December 28, 2009 / 14:27

Rob what are you talking about?
Humour is suggestive? You have obviously missed the point of the entire post, and this explains how you probably missed the point of most Gooheads.
It gets back to this, would it have induced a chuckle if the roles were reversed.
You know the answer.

December 28, 2009 / 14:42

I did get the point! Fred didn't get the point of these commercials either.
Maybe you should get the point (apart from the one on the top of your head). TV IS NOT REAL! Both commercials have a some element of humour to them. Either you get them or not.
Those that don't get it
Bitch and complain about it.

Now is this "Gene Valaitis" that responded to my posting?
If it is, how much did Jesse and Gene had to payout for a little bit humor that someone didn't get?

December 28, 2009 / 14:53

Thank you Freddiep for making so many correct points but most of all thank you for rendering Mike from Lowville speechless. That's the only way he doesn't sound so stupid.

December 28, 2009 / 15:32

Couldn't agree more about the double standard. What makes the Campbell-Iginla scenario all the more ludicrous is the fact that women's hockey is non-contact. Ever see that video clip of Haley Wickenhauser freaking after a male midget rep player dared hit her behind the net? Hilarious. As an avid radio listener, I also nominate every Tim Horton's commercial airing. The premise is simple: Women are smart and long-suffering, Men are self-centred and stupid. Then again, that goes for just about every radio ad out there...

Mike from Lowville
December 28, 2009 / 16:20

Crawl back in your hole Argie.

December 28, 2009 / 16:46

Thanks Fred. This piece was real refreshing one of your best in a while. I remember that Cassie interview you and Humble did and what a terrible guest she turned out to be. It's anybody's guess how she survives at HNIC but like you said there is no money in integrity.

El Torpedo
December 28, 2009 / 17:24

Can't say I'm in too much of an uproar over either of these examples. I'm more offended by the crass materialism promoted by the Honda commercial than the "physical abuse", however your point is well taken. I can think of a real world example that's more disturbing than a television commercial. Anyone remember the story a few weeks ago about the guy in BC who was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a woman he didn't know? She turned around unexpectedly and hoofed him violently in the balls, causing severe injury - in fact he was hospitalized and they had to remove one of them. Awful story, right? But you'd never know it from the way people reacted - everyone from radio hosts to everyday people posting comments on the news websites found plenty of opportunity to make cheap jokes at this guy's expense. Is there any wonder he was too embarrassed to even report the incident for several days? Does anyone believe for a second that if a man had randomly assaulted a woman and caused the removal of one of her ovaries that there would be a single joke made about it?

Rick C in Oakville
December 28, 2009 / 18:14

It's always Open season on the male species in advertising.
Just as the Breast cancer fund raising machine has eclipsed the male Prostate cancer issue, even though a high number of men fall victim to this cancer (plus ask FreddieP, we have to pay for the tests). We are paying for the sins of our fore fathers treatment of women etc.

December 28, 2009 / 19:00

I'm sure Cassie Campbell didn't find Scott Gomez emptying his nose behind her before a TV interview classy but she didn't call him a pig---at least on air.

December 28, 2009 / 23:35

Ad companies and thus various companies who put products on the market that they want us to buy have been putting down men for ages. They think that this elevates women. But it only insults the women I know.
They tell me this. And they are no fools. What are they really trying to sell? Bullshit? Then I don't need it as I have enough of that on a daily basis.
NO sale!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 29, 2009 / 14:02

I love the wedding scene in Deer Hunter when the best man is grabbing the bride's ass, then the groom goes over and punches the bride - now that was funny

Dalton McSquinty is an Idiot!
December 30, 2009 / 16:48

Have you ever noticed that almost all commercials on TV these days makes men look like fools and idiots?
I mean really, if the roles in these commercials were reversed and there were in a couple of commercials on TV where the women looked like an idiot, those femi-nazi womens groups would be all over it like white on rice.....pitiful females these days....

December 30, 2009 / 17:04

There's lots of ads that women look stupid too---ie Herbal Magic screamers.

Bruce Mallory
December 30, 2009 / 20:03

Thats why
a. I don't like commercials.
b. I don't watch commercials
c. If I happen to have glanced at one (because I don't have control of the remote) I will not support the advertiser at all period.... UNLESS ITS A BUD LIGHT COMMERCIAL (I'm all over that how can you resist a good bar b qued Octopus)
My buddy Fred is right.... Pound the S^%t out of the men but go after a women and look the F out.......Again unless its Bud Light!
Happy New Year Everyone!

December 31, 2009 / 01:43

So, let me see...

Your problem is that these commercials have women be physical aggressive in a comic way toward men. And if roles were reversed, it would be considered offensive to most.

And it's hard for you to figure out why this is? This is offensive to you? Wow.

A woman hitting a man is potentially funny because violence against men by women pretty much doesn't exist. On the otherhand, violence against women by men is pretty prevalent in the world, and has been throughout our history. So people may find a joke about it to be in poor taste.

I guess that's hard to understand?

December 31, 2009 / 14:38

For the second consecutive December, Stephen Harper is putting Parliament on ice. In the act, the Prime Minister is turning prorogation, a sometimes sensible parliamentary procedure, into an underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament. In the interests of political expediency, the government will diminish the democratic rights of Canadians.
Proroguing stops committee work and makes all legislation pending before Parliament vanish. Historically, it has been used when a government has implemented most of its agenda. Until Mr. Harper's innovation, it was not an annual occurrence; the last minority government to use it more than once was Lester B. Pearson's Liberal administration in the 1960s.

Today, the Conservative agenda remains unfulfilled. More than half of all government bills - 37 of 64 - introduced since January, 2009, have yet to be passed into law. Eleven of these are justice bills, dealing with such weighty matters as elimination of the faint-hope clause (which still needs to be taken up by the Senate) and tougher sentencing for white-collar criminals and drug traffickers. These can be re-introduced when the new Parliament resumes in March, but they will need to go through the legislative process anew. In any case, Mr. Harper's decision means Parliament will lose more than 20 days: time that could have been used debating, amending and passing these bills.

There is a tactical political advantage to prorogation. The government temporarily eludes an issue of national importance that is particularly inconvenient: its knowledge of torture of Afghan detainees. Government members have already acted as truants when Afghanistan committee hearings are called. The government failed to provide documents to committee members, and implied it will disregard a parliamentary order to produce those documents. Prorogation is the logical extension of such thinking: shut down parliamentary debate entirely.

Prorogation would also allow the government a freer hand in the Senate: five vacancies need to be filled, and committees can be reconstituted after prorogation, giving Conservatives a "governing majority."

Political calculation is clearly behind the decision to prorogue. The Conservatives are hoping to bask in the glow of Olympic glory while dodging the mess and scrutiny of lawmaking, Question Period and an outstanding, unprecedented order from Parliament to provide transparency and truth on the detainee file. Then, they hope to return in March, stronger in the Senate and ready to reclaim, they hope, the public agenda.

Canada's democracy should not be conducted solely on the basis of convenience for the governing party. If the debate over detainees cannot be carried out in Parliament, then it should continue among Canadians at large. On this and other important issues, the government cannot delay accountability forever.

Any comments on The Rational Man....Fred??

December 31, 2009 / 15:06

I think it was a scotiabank commercial, not a McDonalds one. I would love to see Iginla nail her. I think it would be funny, and I also think that the Cassie I know would say bring it on.
I remember the incident, I think I was op'ing the remote... and I know her now. She's a good kid, and I think she's probably changed, grown as a person and gotten more comfortable in her own skin since that time way back when. She's also had a boat load of stalkers to deal with across the country since she became who she is, and I'd imagine it's a lot for a person to deal with.
Happy New Year sweet boy, say her to Doll and the kids
hope to see you in 2010.

p.s. Humble has totally kicked the shit out of you in the friends department on facebook. :)

Freddie P.
December 31, 2009 / 16:28

Thanks Shwarma.. you're right, Scotiabank... as for the facebook thing, I don't stay up all night clicking on hundreds of people I don't know.. Howard does, he told me.

January 1, 2010 / 15:24

I'm a first timer Fred and I appreciate your want to cut through the painfully obvious crap that gets laid on Canadian folks from the left of centres.I'm thinking that Cassie is simply angling to become the next G.G. She may need a better tan though.

January 4, 2010 / 13:48

This SO not an issue, Fred.

Be serious now. No amount of harmless tv commercials can ever equalize the thousands of years women have been objectified, abused, murdered or just treated as troublemakers in art, literature and history. Consider how the Bible pins Eve with the responsibility for the sin of man.

I personally like the recent Whiskas commercial which shows a cat (played by a man), who explains how his female owner will get the cold shoulder if she doesn't see to his proper nutritional needs.

Don't get yourself all worked up about it because I think you're going to see a lot more of it.

January 4, 2010 / 20:10

It's hilarious when white males get upset about how they're portrayed in the media. Get a life and find something else to whine about.

January 5, 2010 / 11:00

Fred: Check this out - just a drop in the bucket of what women have had to endure in the entertainment media over the years. You're argument really is ridiculous...

January 5, 2010 / 16:25

Oh, shut up, Pam.

« Dump Women's Hockey A Neighbour John New Year »