ioergerbomb20

[ioergerbomb20]

Tumblr 3

In this essay, I will examine the critical question of what gender/sexuality norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it rhetorically done, and/or how does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norms? Is it productive/unproductive (ethical/unethical)?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed Snickers’ Super Bowl commercial “Manly,” which was shown several times during the 2007 Super Bowl.  While attempting to use satire, Snickers unethically constructs the sexuality norm that homosexuality is unmanly and unacceptable, which leads young minds to believe this behavior is acceptable.  

Snickers is a multibillion dollar candy company that is best known for their candy bar.  They have large amounts of money to put into advertisements, such as commercials and sports ads.  They and other competitors will typically put commercials into the Super Bowl.  The Super Bowl is one of America’s most watched televised events each year, with the broadcast consistently having over 90 million viewers.  The company is well known for their use of satire in commercials that have previously received backlash.  Despite this, they continue putting out commercials that make an attempt at humor.  In 2007, they put out a Super Bowl commercial that may have gotten the most backlash their company has received to date.  The commercial showed two men working on a truck, then after sharing a candy bar, they accidentally kissed.  They then acted as if the kiss was disgusting, and decided to act like what they thought was manly.  

Butler wrote an article about gender and how it is undone.  The text explains how gender and sexuality norms are reliant on societal norms (Butler, 2004).  The article goes on to explain how gender is like ethnicity, in that it wants and needs to be recognized.  Butler states that gender and sexuality are complex, because their stories are unable to be told.  These stories are unable to be told, because they are continuous throughout our society today (Butler, 2004).  While people cannot fully understand these stories, they can attempt to defend the people being misrepresented.

Snickers creates a notion that doing something homosexual is wrong.  In an attempt to use satire, the commercial has these men acting absurd after realizing they had just kissed each other.  One of the biggest issues with satirical use is the audience misunderstanding the message.  Snickers came out shortly after this commercial to defend themselves by arguing homophobia was not their intent.  One could argue that the fact that they did not consider how this commercial would make someone feel is an extreme issue as well.  The company released three other alternate endings shortly after this commercial was released in an attempt to fix what they had done.  They clearly did not get the messages people were giving them, because every time these men kissed, they were still showing extreme disgust.  The three other endings to the commercial consisted of ripping each other’s hair out, drinking oil, and fighting one another with tools after kissing.  This illustrates to the audience  that the company is not understanding why groups of people were upset with them.  

Snickers also overestimates the young mind while creating this commercial.  In ripping out body hair, drinking oil, and fighting, Snickers paints the narrative that acting out is acceptable.  Even the facial expressions of these men were showing pure shock and disgust.  If satire was their true intent, then they needed to take into account the ignorance of the young audience.  All a child wants is to understand the world they are living in, and they do not need companies misleading them in a failed attempt to use satire.  Additionally, any female that may feel they want to pursue that work may be turned away because of these messages.  Lastly, the most concerning part of this commercial is that these messages are coming from a candy company, which makes a majority of their money from their product going to families with children.  These children are getting the impression that treating people in this way is acceptable, no matter how they identify 

Snickers constructs the gender norm that men should follow traditional stereotypes.  They do this by the commercial showing them working on a car at the beginning.  In an alternate ending the company adds a third male character.  All these men fit a traditional stereotype of a mechanic.  The commercial does such a poor job of setting an example for people that they construct false gender and sexuality norms.  The commercial begins with two men working on a truck, which is a stereotypical male job.  Most people in society would not think twice about this, because everyone was brought up seeing these things.  The danger of these messages given by commercials is that people are not invited to expand their views.  Instead, Snickers invited people to become more narrow minded by backing up the societal norms we have today.

Overall, Snickers’ attempt to use satire on a controversial topic is unproductive and unethical.  Their hope was to create laughter amongst their audience by making the two men act like animals, but the message they gave was left to be interpreted differently, especially to younger groups.  The commercial limits people from expanding their horizons, instead of encouraging the world to become a more accepting place.  There are much better ways to use satire with lighter topics.  At the time this commercial was released, LGBTQ+ members were fighting extremely hard to earn the same right everyone else was already given.  Gay marriage was not even fully legalized in the United States until 2015.  

A study in 2005 viewed how people would respond to idealized images of the male body.  Men who saw these images in advertisements viewed the naked men differently than intended.  The audience used stereotyping and homophobia to form their views on these naked men (Elliott, et al., 2005).  This research is extremely important, because it shows the view we have as a society.  One could argue that the United States is an uninviting environment e for a member of the LGBTQ+ community to live.  The fact that an image of another man naked gives a group of people a negative homophobic ideology backs up this concerning belief.  If everyday American people are unable to understand right and wrong, then how can society expect commercials and children to know right from wrong?  While Snickers fails society with their commercial, society continues to fail itself with the results of this recent study.

I analyzed the Snickers commercial “Manly'' from the 2007 Super Bowl.  Snickers, a multibillion dollar company, unsuccessfully uses satire and creates a narrative that being gay is unacceptable and frowned upon, which leads the youth of America to claim this false ideology.  Several times throughout this thirty second ad, Snickers gives the impression that homosexuality is disgusting and unmanly.  The company also fails to understand that many children lack the mental capacity to fully understand sattire.  Lastly, they construct gender norms that discourage society from change.  Companies, such as Snickers, need to do a better job of using satire in the future in order to continue to improve society.  

Butler, J. (2004). "Introduction: Acting in concert." In Undoing gender (pp. 1-4). New York: Routledge. 

Elliott, R., & Elliott, C. (2005). Idealized images of the male body in advertising: a reader-response exploration. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(1), 3–19. https://proxy.augustana.edu:2138/10.1080/1352726042000263566

jbobbarry. (2011, July 13). Snickers Superbowl commercial with alternate endings. YouTube. Retrieved November 21, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbLTyclcsxg 

[ioergerbomb20]

Tumblr 2

In this essay, I will examine the critical question: What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed Jim Valvano’s ESPYS speech, which was given on March 4, 1993.  By using ethos, pathos, and logos, Jim Valvono effectively establishes that cancer research urgently needs more attention, and that something can be done if people work together to raise money.  Overall the rhetorical appeals used are ethical in raising awareness.  

James Thomas Anthony Valvano, also known as Jimmy V, was a basketball coach at several universities.  He is most well known for his time at North Carolina State University.  During his tenure, he won the 1983 Division 1 national championship.  He paired this success with two regular season ACC championships along with two ACC tournament championships.  After 1990, Coach V retired, and became a broadcaster for ESPN.  He worked for ESPN for two years before he was diagnosed with cancer in 1993 and given little time to live.  Within the next year he gave the ESPYS speech that would change cancer research forever.  

Herrick explains Aristotle’s arguments on how ethos, pathos, and logos are used in speeches.  The article explains how logos appeals are used in rhetoric to make reason or logic of something (Herrick, 2005).  Aristotle’s argument to how pathos would be used is to get an emotional response out of the audience (Herrick, 2005)  Authors will use pathos to get the audience to feel a certain emotion about them or their cause.  Lastly, ethos, according to a book of Aristotle, is used to give the author credibility.  The three artistic proofs help any speaker make a strong argument if used correctly.

Ethos is used at several different points throughout Jimmy V’s speech.  He first used ethos to establish his credibility at the moment.  He states “Now I’m fighting cancer, everybody knows that (V Foundation, 2021).”  Before this speech, almost everyone knew Coach V was dying of this dreadful disease, but when he reminds everyone that he is fighting cancer, he uses ethos to show he has credibility.  He also used ethos with his attitude towards cancer research.  He states that “but try if you can to support, whether it’s AIDS or the cancer foundation, so that someone else might survive, might prosper and might actually be cured of this dreaded disease (V Foundation, 2021).”  He is saying how he is optimistic of the fact that cancer may one day be cured if everyone does their part in funding research.  He knew that there was no chance he could survive, but wanted future fighters of this disease to have a chance.  

Jimmy V also uses pathos to call at the emotions of his audience.  He calls his audience to feel a sense of inspiration.  He does this by telling his audience that much more money is going into AIDS research.  He explains how AIDS research has made huge strides, due to the massive amounts of funding it has received (V Foundation, 2021).  He wants his audience to feel inspired about their abilities to change the world in a positive way.  He seems to be attempting to convince this audience that every dollar given could change cancer research forever.  While pointing out the positive outcomes of AIDS research, and tying it to the amount of money given, he is pulling at the hearts of his audience to give more money.

Pathos is also used throughout the speech to give a sense of hope.  Coach V gives the V Foundation motto of “Don’t give up . . . don’t ever give up (V Foundation, 2021).”  This quote is used to give the audience hope about the potential of curing cancer.  He stood before everyone with the intention of giving them hope about what is coming in the future.  He also states “Cancer can take away all my physical abilities. It cannot touch my mind, it cannot touch my heart and it cannot touch my soul. And those three things are going to carry on forever (V Foundation, 2021).”  Obviously, people were going to sympathize with him, but this was likely not his goal.  As stated in his motto, he wanted people to never give up, no matter the circumstances.  This quote could be applied to both cancer research and cancer patients. 

Lastly, Jimmy V uses logos to not only give statistics, but give people the opportunity to change.  He uses statistics, such as 500 thousand people dying a year from cancer, and one in four people get cancer (V Foundation, 2021).  He uses these statistics to show the significance of this deadly disease.  He is also giving everyone the opportunity to change their ways when giving their statistics.  He does not say this, but it is likely he is hinting at people living healthier lifestyles as well.  There are carcinogens in so many things people enjoy, which shoots cancer numbers through the roof.  Jimmy V also gives everyone the opportunity to change the world by giving money to his cause.  

Overall, Coach V’s argument about the urgency of cancer research is ethical.  He never deems giving money to his foundation to be a requirement.  He is very passionate about his cause, and uses several deep examples to make his argument, but he does not force anyone to give money.  Instead he is arguing that he wants less people to be going through what he is.  He wants to save as many people as possible.  He seems to be a genuine man that wants to inspire everyone to change with his story.  Coach V wants everyone to have the chance to survive cancer, and believes it is impossible without more money for research.  Since giving this speech, Jimmy V has been praised for his contribution to cancer research.  

I analyzed Jimmy V’s ESPYS speech given in March of 1993.  By using ethos, pathos, and logos, Jimmy V establishes the urgency of cancer research in the world today.  He ethically explains how something can be done if people give money to the cause.  Cancer is a horrible disease, but Coach V gave several examples to inform and pull at the hearts of the audience.  He inspired everyone who had the opportunity to witness this speech, and continues to give people hope today.  

Herrick, J. A. (2005). Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp. 69-81). New York: Routledge. 

ESPY awards speech. V Foundation. (2021, December 22). Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.v.org/about/remembering-jim/espy-awards-speech/ 

[ioergerbomb20]

Tumblr 1

In this essay, I will examine the critical questions: What central narrative(s) does this artifact tell about me or U.S. culture or a certain group of people through how it rhetorically sets a scene, constructs characters, and/or sets up events? [Give specific examples/quotes from the rhetorical artifact.] In doing so, what values does it promote and ignore (who does it include and exclude)? In which ways is this narrative (ethically) productive for society, in which ways is it limiting, and is it more productive or limiting?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed an NFL 2016-2017 season promo video.  By combining the audience, characters, and theme, the author shares a narrative of toxic masculinity by showing immaturity and aggression are acceptable behaviors in sports.  Overall, this narrative is unproductive and limiting for society, because it shows how fighting is an acceptable part of football. 

The National Football League (NFL) is the highest level of football an athlete can play in the world.  It also has some of the most watched broadcasts out of all sports.  The Denver Broncos were coming off a Super Bowl victory, with hall of fame quarterback Peyton Manning retiring.  The creator hoped to create a sense of “hype” for their fans by creating a video showing intense moments from games in the 2015-2016 season, but may have given off a different message.

Palczewski explains how retelling stories gives a basis for American values.  Narratives play an important role in how our children act in society.  This concept directly correlates with the concept of social truth.  Social truth refers to “the beliefs and values that do not refer to some objective, but to social reality - those beliefs about what people have arrived at together (Palczewski).”  Narratives can be immensely misleading to an audience, especially when at a young age.  They can teach their audience to act in ways they should not.  Another author explains the importance of audience, characters, and theme when creating a narrative (Foss, 2004).  Foss explains the key components to analyzing artifacts efficiently.  These are broken down into eight central components.

One of the narratives shown in this video is that the audience should believe football players are aggressive people.  In the first few minutes of the promo, there are several instances where players are fighting.  The players are being cheered on for doing so, which is an ethical issue on its own.  This behavior is a pattern throughout the video and lasts for a significant period each time.  The players are showing clear hatred and anger while fighting, due to their body gestures and facial expressions.  The video uses a tense tone to give the audience even more feelings about the situation.  The clip choices tell us the creator wants their audience to view aggression as exciting.  The audience is clearly enjoying the aggressive behavior, because they are jumping and cheering during the acts.  Children are seeing adults, that many of them put on a pedestal due to their professional status, fight like they are animals.  Here lies an extreme issue, because little league games and up will now show this behavior as well.  The creator could have excluded this violence from the video, but chose not to.  Afterall, football is an aggressive sport by nature, but the selected clips occurred during illegal parts of the game.  

Another important component to analyzing this artifact is the characters.  The promo shows another instance of two players fighting in the endzone after a call did not go in one of their directions.  This clip shows players, not only going against the rules, but also attempting to physically harm one another. This is shown by the numerous punches thrown, and the facial expressions on each player's face.  They looked like they wanted to kill each other. The characters of this clip would be the players.  The characters are also given the impression that aggression is an acceptable behavior.  The creator is promoting the rules of football being broken by advertising it.  Another concerning part of this clip is the fact that the officials do not step in to break the fight up.  Only one teammate does, and the clip never shows what happened.  Players are very minimally penalized for these actions that are against the rules of the game.  Oftentimes players will have very small fines for the salaries they are paid, which does not make the players feel as if they had done something wrong.  This instance completely ignores all coached values of the game, and puts personal feelings above all.  

The promo video does not stop framing a narrative around football players being immature and aggressive here.  The theme of this video is supposed to be a new beginning, but instead is setting a theme of violence and disrespect is justified.  Players are constantly being shown showboating after they make a good play.  One could see this by the dances the players do after making a good play.  Other times, players are even taking their helmets off and spiking them into the ground.  They are technically allowed to dance within the rules, but this may cause an ethical issue.  In this way, the creator of this video is being ethically limiting, because people are being taught to celebrate the downfall of another person.  There is nothing wrong with celebrating with one’s teammates after making a good play, but there is an ethical issue with dancing over the opposing team when you beat them as shown in the video several times.  These clips seem to be in the video to make fans excited, but instead are showing fans that it is okay to make another person feel bad.

Overall, the author’s attempt to promote the 2016-2017 football season is unproductive and limiting.  Their hope was to generate a sense of “hype,” but instead they may have offended and given a bad reputation to many of the players in the league.  This is an ethical issue for a few reasons.  The first being that it frames all football players as being a certain way, when in reality they are not.  The second ethical issue is that, as addressed before, children are being taught to act like the players.    This promo is also unproductive because it frames all football players of being a certain type of person.  Whether it is aggressive or immature, the players are given a bad look from someone viewing the video that does not watch football.  As stated before, society already views football players as careless towards others.  The creator could do much better in promoting their players in a positive way.

An article written in 2008 discusses sports rhetoric and the tensions it may create.  An interesting point made in this article is that rhetoric within sports can cause tensions with the public, but argues in the end balance is an important part (Boyd et al., 2008).  This is important, because the author could have clarified the reasoning behind including the clips they did in the video.  Critics will always attempt to find a way to create tension between the sports world and public, so creators of these promotion videos need to clarify what some of their rhetoric means.  Instead, the creator decided to leave interpretations up to the public.  

I analyzed an NFL 2016-2017 season promo video.  By combining the audience, characters, and theme, the author shares a narrative of toxic masculinity by showing immaturity and aggression are acceptable behaviors in football.  This narrative is very unproductive and limiting for society, because it shows how fighting and showboating is an acceptable part of football.  Children are being given the example that these horrific behaviors are acceptable, so this behavior  will likely be shown in little league games going forward.  Lastly, all players do not act like the players shown, but every player is being framed in this way.

YouTube. (2016, September 7). NFL 2016-17 season promo ᴴᴰ. YouTube. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWz4JigtZCk 

Boyd, J., & Stahley, M. (2008). Communitas/Corporatas Tensions in Organizational Rhetoric: Finding a Balance in Sports Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(3), 251–270. https://proxy.augustana.edu:2138/10.1080/10627260801962707

Foss, S. K. (2004) Narrative Criticism. Rhetorical Criticism (3rd ed.) (pp.333-341), Long Grove, IL.  Waveland Press Inc.

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., Fritch, J. (2012) Narratives. In Rhetoric in civic life (pp. 117-146).  State College, PA: Strata Publishing Inc.