Posts Tagged ‘ super bowl ’

Viewer’s Guide to Super Bowl XLV

February 6, 2011
By

Will you be one of the 110 million people watching the Super Bowl today? Enjoy the game, the party, the beer and the snacks. For smart commentary on what’s happening on the field, check out Sarah and ClumberKim over at DraftDaySuit. But also, be an informed viewer about the culture that surrounds the game marred by sexual assault charges.

Have you heard the oft-cited statistic that incidences of domestic violence increase on Super Bowl Sunday? Not true. Domestic violence is a problem everyday and there is no proof to support a spike on game day. According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, an estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year. Why is it important to set the record straight about Super Bowl Sunday? Because some have used the misinformation as a way to discredit the advocates and feminists working towards awareness, education and help for domestic violence victims. If you need help, call the Domestic Violence Hotline 1.800.799.SAFE (7233) 1.800.787.3224 (TTY).

Dallas officials and sex trafficking advocates are warning people that Super Bowl host cities are hot spots for sex trafficking.  Deena Graves, executive director of child advocacy group Traffick911 told Reuters, “Law enforcement agencies and advocacy groups rescued around 50 girls during the previous two Super Bowls.”  Full disclosure, we didn’t fact check this claim about the spike in sex trafficking, so just like with domestic violence, remember these crimes happen everyday. For more information on how to spot and help victims, visit HumanTrafficking.org.

Usher is expected to make a surprise halftime appearance. I think Janet Jackson’s nipple is much more family-friendly than hearing from the artist who tops a list of “Top 10: Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients,” according to the Boston Public Health Commission.

At least there are no cheerleaders performing at this year’s game. Neither team has a squad, hence the lack of sideline entertainers.

And let’s hope the ads are actually entertaining this year. Last year’s ads had a common theme: men whining about the supposedly emasculating women in their lives.

The best action could easily be President Obama’s pre-game appearance on The O’Reilly Factor (4:45 p.m. ET). Wouldn’t it be amazing if the President took this opportunity to address the anti-woman legislation Congress has been cooking up this session? How ’bout it Mr. President?

News From Around the Web

January 17, 2011
By

Truth be told, we’re just not up for writing about some of the stories in the news right now. So here’s a roundup of links to some of the topics we should be paying attention to:

Sex trafficking spikes in Super Bowl host cities around the big game. Local officials in Texas are working to educate the community so as to prevent prostitution and help victims.

Stories in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal about the Arizona gunman who shot and killed many at a constituent event held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords reveal his misogynistic attitudes.

Speaking of misogyny, Kayne West’s new music video for his song “Monster” features dead women hanging from chains and lying in bed wearing only lingerie. You can read more and view the leaked video in the following link but let us first caution you it is very disturbing.

We hesitate to bring any attention to this tasteless celebrity but we need to talk about the implications of these types of images in the media. As a nation we are examining the level of vitriol and hatred that has infiltrated our political debates and what role it did or didn’t play in last weekend’s shooting. As a society we must also recognize that violence against women is prevalent in our society, and that the barrage of media images, programs and words that perpetuate hatred toward women carry consequences. Sarah Palin took down her infamous crosshairs map after last week’s shooting. Mr. West should cancel the release of his video.

2010 Political Review (Slideshow)

December 31, 2010
By

Here is a look back at just a few of the political stories we were talking about in 2010. What do you think 2011 will bring?

Women Well Represented Among Pulitzer Winners

April 14, 2010
By

The Pulitzer Prizes were announced earlier this week and women won quite a few awards. In the Journalism Prizes, Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman of the Philadelphia Daily News won in the Investigative Reporting category for their coverage of a police narcotics squad, and Sheri Fink of ProPublica won for a story on doctors cut off by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.

In the Local Reporting category, Raquel Rutledge of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel won for her reporting on fraud and abuse in a child-care program for low-wage working parents. Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post won in the Commentary category and Sarah Kaufman, also from The Washington Post, won in the Criticism category.  Mary Chind of The Des Moines Register won the prize in the Photography category for her photo of a rescuer dangling above a dam attempting to save a trapped woman. And in the Editorial Writing category, Colleen McCain Nelson won the award along with Tod Robberson and William McKenzie of The Dallas Morning News.

In the Letters and Drama Prizes, Rae Armantrout won the Poetry category and Jennifer Higdon won in the Music category.

These wins are significant not only because the Pulitzer honors excellence, but because there are still too few women serving up the news and not enough recognition for women in the arts. According to the report “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” from The White House Project, women account for just 22 percent of the leadership positions in journalism. And that’s not because women aren’t interested in the newsroom. Women have been the majority of college journalism majors since 1977. There are no women CEOS at the top 15 media corporations and only 17 percent of board members are women. On the Op-Ed pages specifically, approximately 80 percent of all the commentary is penned by men (according to The Op-Ed Project.) Even the Pulitzer board is comprised of 12 men and just six women.

As far as women in the arts, think of the poets you studied in school. Mostly men, weren’t they? Think of the hoopla around the first women to win an Oscar for Best Director – in 2010. Even the so-called “chick flicks” are created by men. That’s because (according to The White House Project report) women represent just 16 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers in film (this number has decreased in the last 10 years) and only 25 percent of all creators, directors, executive producers and producers for situation comedies, dramas and reality shows.

The issue is not that men aren’t capable of producing excellent works of journalism and art. They certainly are. The issue is that women represent 52 percent of the U.S. population and yet they are so poorly represented among the influencers who shape our national discourse. Even those who rail against feminism because they think feminists don’t value the differences between men and women should be able to agree that we need to hear from more female voices. We are a diverse nation. Shouldn’t that diversity be reflected in the media?

I believe women are so used to reading, hearing and watching male perspective that they become conditioned to accepting those points of view as “popular culture.” But when you review the numbers you see that popular culture is overwhelmingly male culture. When I open most newspapers I see an editorial page written by mostly men (and more often than not mostly white men). When I turn on the television, I see an increase in incidences of violence against women on primetime. When I watch major events like the Super Bowl, I see an all male team cheered on by scantily clad women doing suggestive dance moves and paid for by sexist advertising. Or, I hear Jamie Foxx singing about rape on the Grammys.

It is time the U.S. media better reflected all Americans, not just one slice of the population. So, congratulations to the Pulitzer Prize winners. May all of them -male and female – help pave the way for a more diverse media.

For the Ladies

February 12, 2010
By

Remember that Dodge Charger ad titled, “Man’s Last Stand” that aired during the Super Bowl? The one where the man says he will drive the car he wants to drive since the woman in his life makes him do oppressive things like put his dirty socks in the hamper, clean the sink after he shaves and carry her lip balm.

Well, there is a “Woman’s Last Stand“ commercial too. And you must see it. This one, is for the ladies.

Enjoy the weekend!

Super Bowl Backlash

February 9, 2010
By

This year’s Super Bowl ads revealed a common, and bizarre, theme. More jarring than even any of the GoDaddy.com spots, were the number of ads that portrayed women as controlling, emasculating and domineering. Or did they portray men as weak, pathetic and incompetent? It was hard to tell.

For starters, there was the Dodge Charger ad titled, “Man’s Last Stand.” The ad implied that because of women, men have it tough, real tough. Men (because of the bossy women in their lives) have to walk the dog, eat fruit, shave, clean the sink, take our calls, say yes when we want them to say yes, listen to our opinions and put the toilet seat down. I might have felt sorry for these pathetic creatures portrayed in the ad, if I hadn’t remembered that men do not have to do the majority of the housework, don’t take home .77 cents on the dollar in their checks every week, are occupying the corner office, and Don’t. Give. Birth!

And Flo TV’s ad “Spineless” painted an equally upsetting image of a poor man’s life. In this spot, sportscaster Jim Nantz, whose own marriage suffered when his wife lost interest in his career, informed us that Jason, the star of the spot, had his spine removed by his girlfriend. This rendered Jason incapable of watching football. Hence, the unhappy couple is seen shopping at the mall.  Nantz implores Jason to “change out of that skirt.”

Then there was the Dockers, “Wear No Pants” ad. This ad called for men to wear the pants and referred to Dockers recent online “Man-ifesto.” The Man-ifesto lamented the fact that “somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men.”

Perhaps it is because women are so horrible and overbearing that a man gladly gave away his wife in order to protect his Bridgestone tires in the tire company’s ad titled, “Future Car.” You can view all of this year’s Super Bowl ads here.

So many of the ads sent a specific message – that men are emasculated in their relationships with women and must reclaim some bizarre form of masculinity/independence. Can we blame this theme on the so-called mancession? Are men feeling insecure because they have suffered so many job losses resulting in more women on the national payroll? Are they annoyed by the statistics that show an uptick in the amount of housework men are doing? Are they feeling discomfort because more women are breadwinners? Are they threatened by Maria Shriver’s report claiming it’s a woman’s nation?  

Something is fueling a backlash. That was obvious on Sunday. And so I am left wondering:  If being in a relationship with women renders so many men impotent, wouldn’t these men have benefitted from CBS airing the Man Crunch ad? After all, shouldn’t we all have freedom of choice?

Happy Friday

February 5, 2010
By

Happy Friday.

Enjoy the weekend. We will be back after the Hypocrisy Bowl.

In the meantime, enjoy this cartoon from Instapundit (sent to me by my bff Steve). It’s another commentary on Apple’s branding brilliance.

Dear CBS

February 4, 2010
By

Dear CBS:

This weekend my family is going to spend time together celebrating life –we are going to watch the Super Bowl. I hope that during the event you won’t air any frightening or violent commercials for prime-time television shows like CSI or for R-rated movies. My children get really frightened when they see those ads during Sunday afternoon games in the regular season.

Actually, forgive me for suggesting you would air any inappropriate commercials this weekend. After all, I know you have gone to great lengths to protect my children. Thanks to you, my kids won’t hear the phrase “Go to hell” in any ads from Electronic Arts. That would have been just shocking. “Hell awaits” is much more family-friendly.

And I am so relieved that because of you my children won’t see two men kissing in a ManCrunch ad. Seeing that ad might have forced me to teach my children acceptance and tolerance and they are much too young for that.

Since you handled those other thorny issues so well, I am hoping you can help me with another tough parenting topic. When my young daughter asks about the half-naked, NFL cheerleaders gyrating on the sidelines during the game, how do you suggest I tackle the topic? Do you think she will respond better to a discussion about sexism, chauvinism, or misogyny?

Thank you for your help. I respect your opinion and look forward to hearing from you.

Signed,

A concerned, loving parent

Super Bowl, Super Hypocrisy

February 3, 2010
By

As you have probably heard, there is a major controversy brewing around one of the Super Bowl ads scheduled to run this year. CBS has accepted an ad from Focus on the Family featuring college football player and Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother Pam.

While living in the Philippines and pregnant with Tim, Pam Tebow says she was counseled to have an abortion because she had been taking harmful medication to treat dysentery. Pam chose to keep the baby and the result was her football star son.

Focus on the Family describes itself as, “a global non-profit Christian organization with a vision for healing brokenness in families, communities and societies worldwide through Christ. The purpose of the ministry is to strengthen, defend and celebrate the institution of the traditional family and to highlight the unique and irreplaceable role that it plays in God’s larger story of redemption.”

In January the group issued a press release about the ad. “The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

The Women’s Media Center (WMC) has called on CBS to cancel the ad but so far the media entity is not budging.

I have been trying to write something about the ad and the controversy for days but there is just so much to say that I’ve been struggling to organize all of my thoughts. So, in the spirit of one of CBS’ own shows, I’ve decided to do a Top Ten List. Here are my “Top Ten Reasons CBS is the Most Hypocritical Organization Ever.”

  1. CBS had a policy not to air advocacy ads up until – well, nobody is really sure when.
  2. CBS reversed the policy but apparently only told Focus on the Family about the policy reversal. In fact, CBS and Focus on the Family have been discussing this ad for months.
  3. In past years, this “no advocacy” policy has been the excuse for blocking ads from PETA and MoveOn.org. CBS also blocked this religious ad.
  4. CBS ignored calls from the WMC to cancel the ad stating, “At CBS, our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a process that ensures all ads — on all sides of an issue — are appropriate for air. We will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV.”  But then we learned CBS rejected an ad from a man-only dating site. Stating, “…the creative is not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” View the ad here.
  5. One of the concerns the WMC has with the Tebow ad is that women should have a choice in determining what is best for them when it comes to reproductive rights. Pam Tebow had a choice after all.  But did she really? Abortion is illegal in the Philippines and was when Tebow was pregnant with Tim.
  6. With its slippery, ever-changing policies, CBS is practicing censorship, plain and simple.
  7. CBS has no business, absolutely none, dictating morality. They are airing the Super Bowl after all. You know the Super Bowl, the annual winter rite where male athletes are super heroes and women wearing very little do suggestive dances on the sidelines to cheer them on.
  8.  8. CBS is the same organization that aired the Grammys. You know the Grammys, the show that featured Jamie Foxx singing his date rape anthem, “Blame it on the Alcohol.” Click here to read the repulsive lyrics.
  9. 9. At that same Grammy show last weekend, CBS bleeped out the f-words during a performance by Lil Wayne (who is headed to prison next week), Drake and Eminem.
  10. 10. According to the Parents Television Council report on violence in television, “Women in Peril,” CBS showed more incidences of violence against women on screen during 2004 to 2009 than ABC, NBC and even Fox. So while CBS wants to protect us from abortion and men kissing, and four-letter words, they have no problem airing violent imagery-especially when the victims of the violence are women.

Ladies, I’m not CBS so I am not going to try to dictate what is right and wrong, or what you should or shouldn’t do. If you enjoy football, or advertising, or the potato salad your friends serve, then by all means, tune in to the game, attend that party this Sunday. But be aware of what you are watching. The Super Bowl is not a family event. The Super Bowl is not some unifying, national celebration. The Super Bowl is a football game played by well-paid men, glorified for their athletic abilities. It is run by a major media entity with shifting censorship policies and it is paid for by organizations that make a pretty profit portraying women as sex objects and victims of violence.

Party on!

If you want to sign a petition asking CBS to pull the Focus on the Family ad, click here.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes