Judy Shepard: The Snickers ad campaign encourages hate

[Bluebear]

Wow, she needs to lighten up! :sarcasm:

====


Judy Shepard

The Matthew Shepard Foundation today strongly condemned an ad campaign by Snickers.

The campaign was launched during CBS television's Super Bowl programming on Sunday and was watched by tens of millions of Americans.

It shows two mechanics eating from opposite ends of a Snickers bar and, after their mouths touch, ripping out their chest hair in an attempt to "do something manly."

The Snickers website shows alternate endings for the ad, among them, a version called "Wrench" where one man grabs a wrench and uses it to bash the other, who responds by slamming the hood of the car down on his head...

Judy Shepard, Executive Director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation, said she was outraged at the NFL and at the Snickers brand, which is owned by Mars and is the official chocolate bar sponsor of the NFL: "This campaign encourages the same type of hate that led to the death of my son Matthew. "It essentially gives 'permission' to our society to verbally or physically harass individuals who are gay, lesbian or bisexual," she said. "In particular, I am dismayed that these players, who are role models to our young people, would participate in perpetuating such discrimination and prejudice."....

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3646.html

[JackBeck]

1. She's got no ball in this game, does she?

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Good for her.

This woman has been through so much, I am glad to see she is still working with us.

[JuniperLea]

3. I would have rather they used this ending

"The Snickers website shows alternate endings for the ad, among them, a version called "Wrench" where one man grabs a wrench and uses it to bash the other, who responds by slamming the hood of the car down on his head..."

Kissing without permission is a no-no regardless of sexual orientation.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Are you trying to be funny?

[Ian David]

14. The "person" you're replying to is on my ignore list. My guess is, "no."

I'm really disgusted by some of the attitudes of my fellow DUers about this.

Anyone who does not find this ad campaign offensive has absolutely NO business calling themselves a Progressive.

Period.

It does NOT get any more clear than what M&M Mars has done.

They have put together a series of ads saying, "If a gay man kisses you, hit him over the head with a wrench."

What if it were, "If a black man whistles at a white woman... lynch him."


Moments after being forced to kiss Uhura, Kirk hit her over the head with a wrench and then poisoned himself.

[Bluebear]

17. Thank you, Ian. nt

[bear425]

48. I personally think that eating food out of your co-worker's mouth

is a no-no.

A bigger no-no is advocating violence against homosexuals or any group, for that matter.

[sniffa]

4. oh for crying out Loud!!

you peopLe reaLLy need to Lighten the fuck up.

[JackBeck]

7. LoL.

You need to stop having hissy fits.

[Hissyspit]

15. Did someone say "hissy fit"???!

[Bluebear]

16. :)

[Bluebear]

97. .

[trixie]

31. You need to get a clue

[Bluebear]

94. .

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Wow. What a whining complainer she turned out to be.

Get over it, Judy. Lighten up. It's JUST a commercial.


:sarcasm: for the avatar impaired.

[Bluebear]

8. She missed all the hidden social messages & finesse in the ad.

:eyes:

[ThomCat]

51. I know. The subtlety just escaped her.

I mean, ads are often elaborate satire. Everyone knows to look for the hidden meanings. Right?

[Goblinmonger]

91. The satire in that ad

was neither subtle nor elaborate. The meaning isn't that hidden. We laugh at guys who beat themselves up because they can't handle doing something unmanly. We LAUGH at THEM. The brunt of the joke are the people that are homophobic. Not very subtle satire. Plus, from the beginning they are not people we are supposed to identify with. They are the stereotypical rednecks (apparently a group still able to be made fun of with nobody being offended about on DU) and should be seen as backwards. Not the type of person that is portrayed as the average american male on television. They are the other. And then we laugh at their stupidity. That isn't subtle. Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it is hidden.

And I feel for Mrs. Shephard, I really do. But I do not agree with her assessment of the ad that was aired during the Super Bowl. Apparently that makes me a bigot and homophobe, I guess. I never knew that about myself, but guess I'll have to stop working for gay rights here in Wisconsin from now on since I now know my true nature.

[racaulk]

9. She should just stop being offended. She's too sensitive.

It was just a commercial.

:sarcasm:

I saw Judy Shepard speak several years ago, a year or so after her son was murdered. She's small in stature, but has a huge presence about her. When she speaks, people listen, because she has seen the results of anti-gay hate first hand. I simply can't express how much love and respect I have for this woman.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. I can't imagine her pain.

The tortured thoughts she must have about what her little boy endured makes my skin crawl.

I have a son. I *think* he's straight, but he's only 14, so time will tell. I can't imagine going through that.

[Bluebear]

12. Not only to endure his death, but to have the mind wander at what he went through.

I can't imagine it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. this is the same as bashing white male heterosexuals.

cos of course white male heterosexual get beaten up for their color/sexual orientation/gender frequently.

sigh!

[racaulk]

13. Agreed.

Oh, to be a white heterosexual male in our society. They're so tread upon, you know.

:eyes:

[Solly Mack]

18. Oh now, she's just using the death of her son to promote herself

If anyone needs a sarcasm tag, run - don't walk - to your nearest hospital and have your head removed from your ass immediately

on edit: you know, all things considered, a sarcasm tag might be needed at that


:sarcasm:

[JackBeck]

22. I made to correlation between the two yesterday.

No one bit.

[Solly Mack]

27. I honestly expect someone to argue that point

considering some of the comments of late...I really do.

[ronnykmarshall]

24. Like that Cindy Sheehan woman.

:sarcasm:

[Solly Mack]

29. Those self-serving women!

Amazing init? But just wait...sooner or later..someone will seriously make the point

[Midlodemocrat]

30. She an opportunistic witch, just like that Cindy Sheehan.

How dare these two mothers have an opinion on anything other than child rearing?

:sarcasm: just in case.

[Solly Mack]

32. Damn shame we have to add the sarcasm tag isn't it?

With such statements, the sarcasm should be a given

[ronnykmarshall]

19. Oh she's just being too sensitive!

:sarcasm:

[Casablanca]

77. Yeah, but it got her attention didn't it? Instant mindshare!

And I used to think that the "made ya look" game was just for four-year-olds. People build careers on it now.

[walldude]

20. I met her once

She spoke at an event where I was doing the sound reinforcement. A terrific person who deserved none of what she has had to deal with. I won't watch the commercial, I don't see the point, many DU'ers whom I trust, seem to think it was offensive and thats enough for me. I did get sick of the defense of it and posted a rant about it.

[uppityperson]

21. k&r, good for her. Hoping peace for her.

[Bluebear]

95. and just for the morning folk

[uppityperson]

96. Indeed, bluebear

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Still Haven't Thought About The Original Issue Enough To Forge An Opinion, But I Do Think She's 100%

wrong with this.

[verse18]

28. The Great White Hetero Father has spoken

Thus is it so. Amen.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Oh How Dare I Have A Fucking Opinion Different Than Yours LOL Grow Up.

[verse18]

38. Where in my reply did I say you could not have a fucking opinion different from mine?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Well Gee; Since You Reacted With Such Passive Aggression I Could Only Conclude That You Took Offense

to my having had a differing opinion.

If the concept of having a different opinion wasn't so poisonous to you, then I would've expected you to have replied with something civil and contextual rather than something personal and childish.

[verse18]

44. So that means you can put words in my mouth?

"I Could Only Conclude That You Took Offense..."

Well, you concluded wrong.

"If the concept of having a different opinion wasn't so poisonous to you"

Where did this come from? I never said that.

"then I would've expected you to have replied with something civil and contextual rather than something personal and childish."

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. Sorry, That Did Nothing To Change My Perception. Actually, You Explained Nothing. Seems To Me That

you were in fact replying with passive aggression because you didn't like someone having a differing opinion. That's my perception of your tone and lack of civility geared towards context. Now if that perception turns out to be wrong, then so be it. But let's just say you have yet to provide any reason or justification to believe otherwise.

No biggie though. :shrug:

[Ian David]

58. You're entitled to an opinion. Hitler had an opinion, too.

There!

I did it!

I invoked Hitler and ended all hope of reasonable debate.

Now, we can all turn off our computers and go to sleep.

[blonndee]

61. ROFL!!

Now you're in for it, I'm afraid. Prepare for A Lecture. ;-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. So Did Einstein, Mozart, Newton, Edison And Kepler. Odd Though That When You Think Of Minds With

opinions, Hitler was the first that came to your mind.

:scared:

[ThomCat]

52. LOL! His post was exactly what I expected.

And your response is dead-on! :applause:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. Awwwww, That's Cute Mr.Thomcat. Got Anything Of Substance To Say Or Are You Not Capable Of Engaging

in actual discussion of like, ya know, context and stuff.

It's ok if ya can't and can only respond in discussion with 'hooray's!' and 'hey that childish yet completely absent of any context or logic attack was awesome!' type schoolyard bravado. I'll understand.

However, if you actually have anything of context and intellect to say then maybe we can actually have a discussion.

Choice is yours. :hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

36. That's confusing.

If you haven't formed/forged an opinion, then how can you say she is 100% wrong?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. They Are Separate Issues. One Is About Whether It Was Offensive, One Is Whether It Promotes Hate.

I don't think for a second that it promotes hate. But I haven't gone through the objective and critical thinking processes enough yet to really reach a conclusion on the former. I've been leaning towards thinking the commercial that aired itself was perfectly fine, but thinking the one where players make disgusted faces isn't. But I'm not sure that makes sense to be split on it, even within myself, so I know I have to give it deeper thought, which I haven't yet.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Thank you.

That makes sense. However, I will disagree with you and say that it does promote hate. It may not be an "in your face" type of "go bash a queer," but the message is the homosexuality, even accidental, is worthy of disgust, and in the "wrench" version, worthy of violence. I don't think it was the intention of the marketers to make such a statement, but it just goes to show there are some forms of bigotry, which if disguised properly, can still be seen, even praised, in "polite company."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Where I Disagree With That Is That I Don't Equate Disgust With Promoting Hatred. I Think It

promotes disgust.

As far as the wrench ad goes, I don't agree that the violence was considered worthy because of accidental homosexuality. I think the violence was just another cliche of what is considered to be 'manly', and just another way of expressing the warped concept of "if you do something perceived as being gay, you should quickly do something manly to erase the uncomfortable feeling of having done so". That's what I consider the plain message to have been. I don't agree with that message, but I also don't think it can be turned into a message of "if you have someone accidentally do something that can be considered gay towards you, you should resort to violence" either. That wasn't what they were doing. They performed the acts of violence out of intent of proving they were 'men', not out of retribution to each other for having done something otherwise.

[Ian David]

62. It says that a legitimate way to deal with that disgust is to kill the other guy

See:

Gay panic defense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gay panic defense is a term used to describe a rare but high-profile legal defense against charges of assault or murder. A lawyer using the gay panic defense claims that the defendant acted in a state of temporary insanity because of a little-known psychiatric condition called homosexual panic. The defense rarely wins acquittals, but it is often successful at reducing culpability and mitigating punishments. In the cases where it does so, the verdict is often cited as a case of jury nullification rather than being one based upon legal fact or precedent. In the UK it is known as the 'Guardsman's Defense'.

According to the gay panic defense, romantic or sexual propositions of a homosexual nature are so offensive and frightening to certain individuals that they can bring on a temporary psychotic state characterized by unusual violence. The defense often sparks outrage within the gay community when it is used, where it is said to be "blaming the victim." No analogous defense pertaining to heterosexual encounters has been recorded.

The defense is primarily used in the United States, especially in areas where social fear and disapproval of homosexuality is widespread. The gay panic defense is also occasionally used in cases of violence against transgender or transsexual persons.

Though never common, use of the gay panic defense is increasingly rare as homosexuality becomes more accepted. Judges often allow the defense only if used to establish the defendant's honest belief in an imminent sexual assault. Guidance given to counsel by the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales states: "The fact that the victim made a sexual advance on the defendant does not, of itself, automatically provide the defendant with a defence of self-defence for the actions that they then take."

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

Anyway, after being on the fence about it for a long time, I've decided to finally add Operation Mind Crime to my Ignore list.

{poof}

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Actually I Strongly Disagree With That. Like I Said Previously, Which You Seemed To Conveniently

glance over completely, was that the violence was done as a cliche action of personal manhood as a way of self assurance that in essence said "see? I'm not gay! I just did something cliche manly!".

For your opinion to be accurate, the personal message would've had to have been "that fucking guy kissed me! I'm gonna beat the fuck out of him for that!".

Now if you truly want to believe that the latter is what happened, you're entitled to that opinion. Hitler had an opinion too, don'tcha know? But forgive me if I find the latter option to be beyond a logical absurdity and stand behind the former notion, which in my opinion makes far more logical sense.

And as far as you putting me on ignore goes, whoop dee doo. I barely ever chat with ya and consider you to be of insignificance anyway, so if you want to consider yourself special enough to think for a second I'd notice that you ignored me, or think for a second that we've ever conversed enough to make you feel empowered or something; well hey, I won't rain on your "hey! look at me! I'm ignoring OMC even though we never talk, just so I can feel special!" parade. Like I said, I barely noticed you before and I'll barely notice you in the future.

Pretty sad that you were too weak to actually engage in civil discussion, and could only partake in hit and run pot shots. :hi:

[Duncan Grant]

70. Great critical thinking skills there, sport. Read all about it...

You haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion but you do think she's 100% wrong. :wtf: :freak:

What kind of argument is that, OMC? And you're upset someone responds to this malarky?

I'm calling bullshit. Not unlike hundreds before me...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Please Read Context Before Issuing A False Knee Jerk Response.

I said I haven't forged an opinion yet on the flatly offensive vs. not really offensive aspect of the argument, of which there have been quite a few threads having discussions on (which you won't see me in one of).

However, I have thought about this thread's aspect of the campaign; that it is promoting HATRED; enough to reach a personal conclusion that I 100% disagree with that assertion. I have provided several reasons to justify my position, if you actually read elsewhere in the thread.

So spare me your calls of bullshit. I simply responded with honest opinion and have supplied substance for its existence in a civil manner. If you are incapable of handling civil discussion without issuing knee jerk calls of 'bullshit' for no reason whatsoever, then I feel for you.

[Duncan Grant]

78. Oh please stop with the passive agressive calls for civility.

This isn't my first day at the rodeo, OMC.

You don't have an opinion but you think Judy is wrong. Ok.

Back to you, Chet...

[Bluebear]

79. Is THAT who you're talking to!

:)

[Duncan Grant]

82. Elementary, my dear Watson.

Rather. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Since You Are Refusing To Engage In Civil Discussion, And Have Committed Yourself To Replying Only

with absurdity, then I guess there is no conversation pending.

Also doesn't help that you keep refusing to read context, since it is amazing that you keep repeating the completely wrong premise of "you don't have an opinion but you think Judy is wrong". If you just actually stopped to READ for a second you'd see this has been handily refuted and explained. Not really sure what your malfunction is with this.

But since you only want to engage in taunting and provocation instead of civil and rational discussion, you can now talk to yourself if you want.

Nite! :hi:

[Duncan Grant]

83. Nite!

:crazy:

[verse18]

25. The snicker commercial apologists will avoid this thread

like two men kissing.

[Bluebear]

26. You are correct.

And it should shame them. But it won't.

[Darkhawk32]

50. Oh really?

[verse18]

66. Here's one now.

You proved me wrong.

[Duncan Grant]

73. Welcome. It just wouldn't be a party without you. (nt)

[Maven]

34. Judy, calm down! It's just SATIRE!

Mars, Inc. is actually making fun of homophobes. :sarcasm:

[JackBeck]

35. They should have made the boys who did this to her son star in the commercial.

[Maven]

37. Yeah, man! That would have been SO cutting edge! nt

[treestar]

65. Shouldn't the death of her son be classed as much more

serious than this ad? I can't really see this ad as being at the root of such horrible things.

It is chicken-little panicking to invoke this ad as related to such a serious crime as her son's death.

It's like that movie where if you smoke a joint, you'll end up on hard drugs.

[Bluebear]

74. SHE weighed in on the ad, You say she is out of line?

[Bluebear]

86. Hello?

[JackBeck]

87. Of course her son's death is more serious.

I guess my premise was having those that committed the crime having to kiss someone of the same-sex, then beat each other up over such a non-manly act. Since they already did it once (beat that life out of someone), they must be naturals.

[Mabus]

39. She's right

People who say that ad wasn't harmful probably haven't experienced hate and discrimination. Of course they can laugh, it isn't part of their reality.

[nam78_two]

43. K&R.nt

[terrya]

46. Lighten up, Judy!

God, what a killjoy! Her kid's been dead for 12 years now! Get over that homophobia stuff, woman! Sheesh, didn't she get the memo?

[Darkhawk32]

49. Sorry, I just don't see the big offense. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt the intention of ...

the commercial was to offend gays or offend the Shepard family. I'm sorry she took it this way, but regardless, I still just don't see it.

Like I've said before, if they were in the middle of a formal dining room or something, then I'd say you folks have a point. But they were in a garage and I don't think the writers wrote this script with the Shepards in mind. Fact of the matter is, 99.999% of the people that saw the commercial even linked it to the Shepard case.

At the very worst, it was an unintentional offense.

[racaulk]

53. That's a fact, huh?

"Fact of the matter is, 99.999% of the people that saw the commercial even linked it to the Shepard case."

Is that a fact? Do you have some conclusive evidence to support that fact? Or could it be that you're just making up statistics to support your position? Until you can produce that evidence, I think that statement can be dismissed as a strawman argument at best.

For me, it's not the offense, intended or otherwise, that is so bothersome. It's the message. The message came across loud and clear that same-sex attraction between men is something that is disgusting, something to be mocked and ridiculed and derided. And it wasn't just the single advertisement, it was the whole ad campaign on Snickers' website. Again, the message was loud and clear, and that message is exactly the kind of thing that breeds anti-gay hate and bigotry...

...which led to the death of Judy Shepard's son.

So in light of that, I would say that's in a perfect position to comment on the Snickers advertisement and its intentional or unintentional offense. And until you or someone you love has been on the receiving end of the ugly face of homophobia, I would say that you're not in that position.

[Darkhawk32]

54. Well, the message I got is that they were bashing hyper-testerone-laced behavior.

But that's just me.

And you're right, I don't have conclusive proof of that 99.999% number. But seriously, do you think everyone that watched that thought of Matthew Shepard? I seriously doubt it and I seriously doubt the writers intended it as such.

[Bluebear]

55. I can only imagine what they are saying.

Sometimes it's tempting to take people off ignore to see :)

[racaulk]

56. I don't have anyone on my ignore list.

But after reading some of the posts in these Snickers ad threads today, I'm tempted to start. The latent homophobia in the GD forum today has been astounding. How people cannot take the "it's just a joke, don't be so serious, get over it" mentality and connect it to the perpetuation of bigotry that leaves gay people harrassed, ridiculed, and dead is beyond me.

But I have seen your posts all over the place today, Bluebear. Thanks for being a voice of reason. :hi:

[Bluebear]

57. Peace to you, racaulk

I know I have turned off a whole bunch of people with my "oversensitivity" over this, but so be it.

[Ian David]

59. I can lend you MY ignore list. I've been told it's a who's who of woo-woo. n/t

[Bluebear]

60. We must compare notes sometime.

Mine went from one to none today.

[Ian David]

63. This is so OBVIOUS that I can't imagine anyone being either dense or bigoted enough not to get it

It's not even a CLOSE call.

It doesn't get any more obvious than this.

I could show this stuff to my four year-old daughter and she would understand.

What the fuck is wrong with some of these people?

[Bluebear]

64. 'What the fuck is wrong with some of these people?'

:shaking head:

[Casablanca]

80. "It's just business."

I wouldn't be surprised to see the same PR firm working on a sequel to the ad where the hobophobe is back playing with his children, kissing his wife, and being a fine compassionate, upstanding member of the community. Promoting the idea that he really is a good guy when you get to "know" him.

That's the thing about PR hacks, they're so versatile. You write the check, we'll build the meme.

[TankLV]

92. I immmediately linked the ad to the sheppard case, and so did MOST of us

so there - we've COMPLETELY proveg your "fact" WRONG!

Go back to your gay bashing bar where you belong, honey...

[Darkhawk32]

93. To you: not being offended = gay bashing. Sad, just sad.

[Duncan Grant]

68. She's alienating all the straight supporters of gay rights!!!! OMG!!! OMG!!!

Grow a thicker skin Judy, and stop taking yourself so seriously. This sort of crybaby bullshit really alienates the straight people who support our civil rights.* :sarcasm:

*links available upon request

[Bluebear]

69. *links available upon request

:rofl:

[ThomCat]

76. "*links available upon request"

:rofl:
That is so amazing!

It's also very truly sad that people really said all those things and apparently meant all of it quite seriously.
:(

[Nikki Stone1]

84. No she's not. She's not attacking her allies here.

She is pointing out the ad's homophobia, and considering she lost a son to it, I listen to her.

[Bluebear]

85. Thanks hon, but the poster was being sarcastic :)

[Nikki Stone1]

88. Ah. Sarcasm.

Really? No kidding.

[Bluebear]

89. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

90. Beer?

:toast: