The Humorlessness Of The American Mommy
Genocide got you down, ladies? No, turns out it's just a Motrin commercial sending American mommies into a rage:
One of the outraged mommies responds, speaking a lot, not saying much of anything (do we think she actually knows why she's mad?):
More mad mommies here, plus sickening soundtrack:
Yawn. The horror! The shock! Get back to me mommies when you see demeaning ads every damn day on tv towards your gender (men), demeaning them as idiots (verizon cell phone ads, retards (the cherios ad), barely competent doofuses (pizza hut), and buyers of diamonds (because you know, love rocks and a diamond is forever..). The king of the whipped husband ads being "Suzanne researched this" by Century 21 (and so emblematic of the housing bubble mentality and modern marriage).
Also, dear god. 9 full minutes of forum posts complaining about this horrible horrible travesty of justice.
Sio at November 30, 2008 11:39 AM
The mom in the second video certainly hit all the buzzwords and I know *how* she is upset, but you're right, she didn't explain anything about *why* she is upset.
I thought the commercial was cute.
And our model of baby carrier was the baby bjorn of course, because the sling did nothing for me.
It's more important for people to make sure you know how upset they are than to explain why they are upset. It's a win-win for them. No explanations are needed and you're clearly oppressing them by asking, and no listening needed.
However, I will sell my stock in Motrin, my guess is that due to this commercial, many women will no longer be buying it during their periods.
jerry at November 30, 2008 12:51 PM
Oh boy. I have stopped watching the third video after the third minute!
What a brunch of self-entitled sissies! Newsflash ladies, being a mom don't give you the right to be thin-skinned. The more I look at the original video, the more I see why they are angry; it's not about carrying the kid but calling it a fashion statement. So, the whole thing is all about "How dare them, daring to say that carrying our child around is a fashion!".
Meh. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Toubrouk at November 30, 2008 1:08 PM
I saw this sometime last week, a friend sent the Motrin ad with this one included;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVMyswao30
juliana at November 30, 2008 1:48 PM
Toubrouk, you're right, I had a comment to that effect, but I wishy washy edited it away.
In a sense, what better way is there for a mommy to make sure you realize they're a mommy than to pick the kid up and get him in your face?
And the different carriers do have different fashion politics. The carrier you wear says a lot about your parenting style (and your budget) and the slings are certainly the most eco-hippy-parenting friendly.
jerry at November 30, 2008 2:02 PM
Good lord, girls. They're trying to sell a PAIN MED for crying out loud. And they're right about one thing - carrying something, or someone, around is invariably hard on your back.
If you're all worried about being "demeaned" by "vile" advertising why not get all freaked out over every damn "feminine hygiene" add ever made?
Silly twits.
catspajamas at November 30, 2008 3:12 PM
Uh, no - if you use a well designed front carrier properly with an infant, it is not a big deal (did this 30 years ago, and I'm 100 lbs & had a 9+ pound baby).
What IS hard on the body is one of those plastic "bucket" thingies that I see moms and dads carrying baby in away from the body with one arm.
OTOH, who still watches TV? Or hasn't trained their brain to automatically tune out advertisements?
fraydna52 at November 30, 2008 4:29 PM
Holy shit,what a fucking crock. I am assuming that when I got intimidated by the nine minutes plus, of third video and gave up, I didn't miss much? Didn't think so.
Honestly, carrying my baby in a snuggly kicks my ass and ironically, I take ibuprophen for it (though not Motrin, because it's too expensive and ibu is ibu). I love my baby and I really love to carry him that close, when it's practical. But to claim there was anything offensive in that ad is fucking silly - though not necessarily a whole lot more than my commenting on the stupidity of their being offended......
DuWayne at November 30, 2008 6:20 PM
Those dumb bitches are using Danny Boy to rant and rave. How abusive of my Irish heritage! Clearly these women did not consult the Irish when making this video which is so insensitive to my Irish culture.
I will never support moms again.
Farker at November 30, 2008 8:08 PM
Apparently, the outrage worked and Motrin apologized:
http://twitpic.com/mdfd
And Feministing gets its hate on Motrin, political correctness, and all sorts of oppressors:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/012250.html
jerry at November 30, 2008 8:26 PM
Amongst other issues, the feministing thread contains this fun bit of hate on Motrin:
What about the ridiculous bus stop ads I've been seeing everywhere? Have they been pulled too?
They feature two giant Motrin tablets next to each other, each with a different word written on them. For example, "high - heels" or "heavy - handbag" I hadn't seen the television ad until today, but those street ads really piss me off.
Instead of doing something like wearing comfortable shoes, just abuse pain relievers!
jerry at November 30, 2008 8:31 PM
I only watched the commercial and the first response.
The commercial may have been stupid, but it was a commercial. Is this something for a grown woman to worry about? Dorothy Parker comes to mind... Is anyone surprised that the message is pandering, demented and offensive?
So then I watched the first response. (Well, the first 40 seconds of it.) Notice that first time she breaks eye contact, she looks over the camera lens, as if she really shouldn't have to bother shooting this video. (Though obviously, nobody asked her for her response to the ad: We literally watch her turn the camera on herself at the top of the clip.) So she's very eager to condescend. Note that the first time she breaks syntax (circa :27), her concentration collapses in a collage of overwhelming, girly feeling.
She's young, she's pretty, she's wearing lipstick for nobody. She's spent the last seven to twenty months changing diapers, with many more to go. She hasn't looked another grownup in the eye since Britney had hair. She's been having fights with a toddler who's been tossing boiled peas over the edge of his highchair. She's been winning those fights, but she's starting to wonder what it would be like to have conflict with another adult. So here we are.
She's not angry: She's lonely.
Now, I love YouTube as much as anybody. But it's getting out of control. Shortly after the election, Obama's people announced that he'd be doing weekly YouTube address (as President of the United States!)
Wapo nov 14:
| "This is just one of many ways
| that he will communicate directly
| with the American people and make
| the White House and the political
| process more transparent,"
| spokeswoman Jen Psaki told
| us last night.
How could such a channel of communication possibly enhance "political transparency"? Isn't uninterrupted point-to-multipoint communication the quintessence of stage-managed politicking? Isn't one of the central powers of our presidency its value as a bully pulpit?
I can't understand this. Reagan was loathed --righteously hated-- by the press for limiting the number of his press conferences. By the time of Dubya, White House journalists were too sullen to be offended anymore. Nowadays, people are patting the President-elect on the head for being so futuristic as to embrace the same onanistic forum used by Motrin's twitchy momma.
And when the most powerful and most sophisticated political players in the world jerk us around through these media, even journalists I admire are moved to worry for the President's "loneliness."
(Keep reading.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 30, 2008 8:58 PM
You know what I want from my President?
Not lonesome eye contact with a video camera in a dramatically-lit television studio.
I want Question Time. The hardass kind.
That's how to "make the White House and the political process more transparent".
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 30, 2008 9:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/30/the_humorlessne.html#comment-1608906">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]I would love this, Crid.
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2008 10:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/30/the_humorlessne.html#comment-1608908">comment from jerryActually, I'm going to write about this soon. There's a cost-benefit thing going on in wearing high heels and maybe a bit of Zahavi & Zahavi-an "costly signaling," i.e., I am not a farm laborer so I can totter around on sexy but totally impractical shoes. Then again, many of these heels say "I WORK ON 9th AVE!"
Me? I'm rarely in flats, but I wear boots almost solely, and never buy uncomfortable ones. Cheap shoes tend to be hard on feet.
Also, I have a great shoemaker, who's kept one particular pair of boots in fantastic condition, despite the fact that I've had them since 1992, and have worn them relentlessly. If you're in Santa Monica, he's Alex the shoemaker, on Main Street near Pico. Tell him the redheaded girl sent you. We talk when I'm there, but that's how he knows me. Convenient, this redheaded thing, unless you're robbing banks.
For those who are interested, Zahavi & Zahavi's great book on costly signaling is here: The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle.
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2008 10:51 PM
Juliana, that was a great video...I'm a righty so it doesn't really apply to me but I use the mamba sling...it's great because it holds my rifle in place against my chest, but I can move it when I need to, and I can go hands free too...funny as hell!
Blackjack at December 1, 2008 3:46 AM
Not to support the Motrin-protesting moms (hell to the no!!!), but Crid, you hit the nail on the head with why these moms are lashing out. Question is, after winning the pointless battles with the toddlers (hey, I'm a frickin' four star general in that war) why aren't they doing anything to remedy their loneliness (and a touch of boredom, methinks)? Childraising is not a coda. You do not automatically segue from MOPs (mothers of preschoolers) to lonely cat lady with a long grey braid down your back.
No sympathy for these cows. 18 years from now they'll be the ones just "popping in" on their college kids 400 miles from home because they have nothing better to do.
Blackjack- glad you liked it ;)
juliana at December 1, 2008 4:40 AM
Lot's of Obama supporters now expect that with the Internet savvy of his campaign, they'll be able to comment meaningfully on bills, policies, the like.
I hope so.
I'd just be happy with Question Time or an Internet/YouTube version of it.
However, I don't think these women are lonely. I think just feel entitled in 10,000 different ways. No one can challenge them on their bullshit. The Onion wrote an article a few years back, Women now empowered by everything. This is just the logical outflow of that.
Now, when Glenn Sacks brings up issues involved in commercials that demean men, can these women be bothered? Well, yes, but bothered by Glenn Sacks, not by any sort of agreement on underlying commercials. A year or so ago, during one of the "campaigns" at Feministing, I added my message suggesting their current campaign actually meshed quite well with a campaign Glenn was running. And I emailed three people, Glenn, Jessica Valenti, and Ann Friedman. Anyway, Glenn responded, silence from the women.
I suspect it was an affront that I wrote to them with the suggestion.
jerry at December 1, 2008 6:52 AM
Having 3, and a 4th on the way, I can assure you carry a baby does hurt! I buy generic meds, but good for Motrin for this ad. It's funny. A lot of people in this world need to get a life.
I agree men in ads look like idiots. I'd be upset by that. Women are too frequently though. Ads cater to the lowest possible intelligence denominator. That's why I don't watch them, ever.
momof3 at December 1, 2008 7:10 AM
I was the one that usually wore the baby carrier. It was more convenient for shopping than carrying her in my arms for 30 minutes to an hour, certainly. But like any time you're carrying extra weight, there are more and less effective methods. Some might be uncomfortable. Change methods, do something to help the pain, or just suck it up and deal. Your choice. Certainly doesn't make you a martyr because someone suggested you take a Motrin. Cripes.
People need to get over themselves. The ad didn't suggest you weren't a good mommy for carrying your baby - nor suggesting you DON'T carry your baby. It said it might be uncomfortable - so take a Motrin if it is. How horrid.
If you get that bent out of shape over a harmless commercial, you might need a Motrin after all.
Jamie (SMS) at December 1, 2008 10:43 AM
The reason they were upset is because the ad sounded like some bimbo saying wearing a baby is a fashion statement. It's condescending. Do you really not get why the ad was insulting?
Having said that, who cares. Lots of ads are insulting.
NicoleK at December 1, 2008 11:25 AM
I'm becoming more bemused the more of this thread (and the YouTube comments) I read.
How hard it must be to live in a world where so many easily ignored ads are found to be "insulting." How pampered/privileged were these people as children that such things twist their undies into a knot? Aren't there more important/significant things to get offended over?
Guess this ties into the other blog thread about who's more obnoxious, Conservatives or Liberals? Guess it depends on which commercial they're getting offended at? I've seen "baby brigade-ers" on both sides of the political aisle. Guesses? Does it matter?
Those people need thicker skin, a dose of rational thinking, or a surgical sense of humor enlargement more than they needed the motrin. Or, maybe just a few shots of really stiff vodka - as long as they're not currently pregnant or operating a vehicle.
Jamie (SMS) at December 1, 2008 11:49 AM
"I agree men in ads look like idiots. I'd be upset by that. Women are too frequently though. Ads cater to the lowest possible intelligence denominator. That's why I don't watch them, ever."
Boy, can't you tell from the ads who they're trying to sell to? There was one for pick-up trucks where the mother babbles on and on at the babay and then finally after they are all home and she's gone in to the house, the dad looks the kid in the eye and says "One word: Hemi." Not too subtle.
I have to admit aside from the pandering in the Cheerios ads that really turned me off to Cheerios, the only truly disturbing ad I have seen was for the allergy med where they had a giant flower beat down a woman who was trying to play tennis. Partly it was the fact that she was trying to do something enjoyable, and I think messing with that is especially despicable, but the part where she got beaten to the ground was just shudderific. They pulled the ad before too long, but not soon enough.
Jim at December 1, 2008 12:25 PM
How about the anti-germ spray that shows a little boy coming in from outside covered with germs and en-germing the phone. Mom rushes over to stop the little girl from touching the phone and whipping out her can of spray to get the boy's cooties off of it.
No similar ad exists showing a little girl with germs and Mom rushing in to save her little boy from the girl's germs.
Conan the Grammarian at December 1, 2008 1:10 PM
C the G: No similar ad exists showing a little girl with germs and Mom rushing in to save her little boy from the girl's germs.
True enough. But hey - snips and snails and puppy dog's tails are what little boys are made of ; )
But the worst part of the whole anti-germ thing is that Mom will be completely surprised when her little darlings fail to develop an actual immunity system. The whole anti-germ thing has gotten totally out of hand. As James Herriot pointed out - the knacker man's kids are always the healthiest in the neighbourhood.
catspajamas at December 1, 2008 2:50 PM
Nicole,
The reason they were upset is because the ad sounded like some bimbo saying wearing a baby is a fashion statement.
The ad I saw made all the same statements I heard 11 years ago about carrying babies. The bonding, less crying, more healthy....
And oh yeah, it IS a fashion statement. A tie-dye sling vs. a solid/plaid bjorn vs. a stroller.... I've been in baby stores, your choice of carrier is a fashion statement. And if it wasn't we wouldn't see all the choices with all the different fashion styles attached to them.
Yelling people down, because they dislike the fact that are a creatures of fashion (as is most of humanity) makes them look and sound ridiculous.
jerry at December 1, 2008 3:02 PM
"The reason they were upset is because the ad sounded like some bimbo saying wearing a baby is a fashion statement."
Seriously Nicole, I bought my baby bjorn because the box has this picture of the coolest hippest dad I have ever seen and I want to look as good as him. No seriously. I guess I'm vain dad. But keep in mind, wherever we go, pictures will be snapped.
But i get what you're saying. Many parents get offended by the suggestion that they had kids to enhance their lives in any way.
smurfy at December 1, 2008 4:41 PM
Many people in the world live their whole lives just looking for things to offend them. The "mommies" in those videos form the core or this group.
Jay at December 1, 2008 7:27 PM
The thread above may have linked to it, but s/o posted a great parody response on YouTube - lady carrying a toddler-plus in front of her.
Mr. Teflon at October 29, 2011 9:08 PM
Leave a comment