Social Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

I thought the Doritos Super Bowl ad was hilarious, creative, and clever. Does NARAL (pro choice group) have a legitimate complaint against it?

Asked by elbanditoroso (33158points) February 8th, 2016

No, this is NOT a question about abortion.

article

Apparently NARAL (National Abortion Results Action League) didn’t like the commercial because it ‘humanized fetuses’.

My view is that there was nothing that deep – the ad make a hilarious case for selling potato chips.

Is NARAL swatting flies that don’t exist?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

Dutchess_III's avatar

I missed that….it was funny!

rojo's avatar

Too much time on their hands and too little in the way of a funny bone.

CWOTUS's avatar

No, the complaint is illegitimate. It should be aborted.

rojo's avatar

Has PETA bitched about the Heinz weiner dog commercial yet? I mean they were dehumanizing those dogs, implying that they were a food source that we should considering.

Lightlyseared's avatar

They just trying to ride the super bowl publicity wave. But complaining about this is unlikely to do them any favours.

ibstubro's avatar

News flash: A full term fetus is a human.

That said, I thought the commercial was lame.
I preferred the “Youthful 32” Doris Roberts ad, but, overall, I thought Doritos wasted their Super Bowl big bucks.

Soubresaut's avatar

They don’t have a legitimate complaint in any legal sense, and I agree that their getting too upset about a “silly” commercial may do them more harm than good…

At the same time, I think in the social sense, everyone has a legitimate complaint when they feel some issue is being made light of or otherwise poorly treated.

An article I found on U. S. News makes me think this was less about the Doritos commercial specifically, and more a point NARAL was trying to make about how often media, and especially commercials, play into stereotypes (particularly sexist ones). I suspect, that since NARAL tweeted about so many commercials, they were trying to show how pervasive this kind of stereotypical thinking is… Perhaps if we try to critique any one media portrayal of gendered stereotypes, or brusque treatment of sensitive social issues, it can look a bit frivolous… But demonstrating how widespread the pattern of “tiny” sexist digs actually is can help us better appreciate the larger social effects of those accumulating tidbits.

Anyway, if we were to critique one commercial itself:
Part of NARAL’s complaint about the Doritos commercial was the “sexist tropes of dads as clueless and moms as uptight.” And wasn’t it the dynamic between the parents that made it “funny”? The commercial doesn’t start with the fetus, but with the wife’s annoyance that her husband was eating Doritos at the ultrasound. And as he begins to notice the fetus’s reactions, she’s telling the doctor “see what I have to deal with?” The wife only gets mad after the husband makes the baby jump up against her stomach, effectively head-butting her from the inside—which seems like a fair response, but is still treated humorously. She says “ow” and he laughs…. And we have the stereotypical “clueless” man and “uptight” woman. The fetus just seems to be a mechanism for amplifying the situation, so that we can get some outrageous outcome (sudden labor) from a “believable” bickering duo. Conceptually, we were supposed to laugh at how events unfolded between the dad’s fooling around, and the mom’s trying to get him to stop, and then laugh at how the whole situation devolves. The fetus itself might have been surprising, but it wouldn’t have been funny. Would it have been as funny if the dad stopped? If the mom had joined in on the humor, and placed the chip on her stomach? Etc. The humor was in the “sexist tropes.”

I’ve heard people argue that making humor out of stereotypes can help to dismantle them. I have a hard time with that concept, so I generally don’t find that kind of humor funny. However, whether someone considers the commercial light silly and harmless, with no significant social impact, or whether they consider it socially harmful, reinforcing stereotypes, or whether they consider it socially beneficial, deconstructing the stereotypes, it seems NARAL’s at least somewhat accurate in their critique: it relies on sexist concepts.

flutherother's avatar

It’s the latest attempt to increase brand awareness through being controversial. It seems to work and I even tried to watch the ad on Youtube but it was preceded by another ad. We seem to be drowning in advertisements.

gondwanalon's avatar

This is madness. The human fetus is 100% human. And as such is entitled to have all rights that all humans have.

Here2_4's avatar

^^^^ Except in the case of puppy monkey baby, which I found revolting, and should be retroactively aborted.

rojo's avatar

Awwww @Here2_4 How can you say that? Three levels of cuteness in one!

Here2_4's avatar

Some things should never be mixed, like sex and siblings, or orange juice and milk.

ibstubro's avatar

“The National Abortion Rights Action League is angry about a Doritos Super Bowl ad it accuses of “humanizing fetuses.”

How is a fetus born during the 30 second spot not human?

Here2_4's avatar

I agree with you completely on that point, @ibstubro. They say right during the commercial that she is full term.
The only part I find offensive is how they trivialize Mommy’s pain as baby thrashes about, then springs out of her.

ibstubro's avatar

Not to belittle the OP, but I thought the whole thing was incredibly lame, @Here2_4.
Runner-up in a HS Current Affairs class project.

I’ve seen ½ a dozen Super Bowl commercials and I haven’t been overly impressed with one yet.
Good thing Gaga sang the anthem! :-)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther