NOW claims DV is the ‘real issue’ with Tebow’s Super Bowl ad

Article here. F&F covers this issue here as well. Excerpt:

'The National Organization for Women (NOW) just can’t seem to get enough of Pam and Tim Tebow. After several weeks of sweating over the likelihood of a “pro-life, anti-abortion” ad featuring the Tebows and sponsored by Focus on the Family, the president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, is claiming that the Super Bowl ad promotes domestic violence.

In the ad, Pam Tebow begins talking about the uncertainty of little Timmy’s entry into the world. Suddenly, she’s tackled by the Heisman Trophy winner and thrown off-screen. She immediately bounces back up and scolds her son, saying, “Timmy! I’m trying to tell our story here!”

So while the ad was meant to discourage women from having abortions, O’Neill – according to the Los Angeles Times – saw a much more dangerous message being promoted:

NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I have penned before on this topic. I saw part of the Superbowl this past Sunday. At close to the end of 2Q, I stopped watching (I confess I figured the game was going to the Colts, too).

I noticed a great deal of discussion about the injured players suiting up anyway and risking their abilities to walk anytime soon afterward if they should get tackled in such a way as to cause them more injury.

Oh I know, they are getting paid. And they are adults, and making their own decisions. Still, it is left to us to ask, why would they do this? Why devalue your own health and safety so much that you would do this? Few women would. I know there a handful of female boxers and football teams in existence. The reason is not as NOW may have you believe that it is due to oppression, etc. It is that females seem to value their health and safety so much more. There is little question in my mind that this is taught by societies, not part of us by default.

As others have commented on, I also noticed the highly self-conscious TV ads. These ads had a sense of self-diminishment from a masculine standpoint, and indeed, a majority of viewers of the game are male. These ads would not have made it to screen if the producers of these ads did not think it would sell products to men, not at $3 million/30 secs.

I'll tell you what I see when I see a spectacle like the Superbowl: I see a lot of men on the field and off it getting together to revel in their own disposability. I see the ads during the game to be a way of rationalizing the self-internalized sense of disposability men feel. It comforts them to see their own sense of powerlessness (did you notice that Honda ad?) and to see that by the fact other men seem to accept it, it is all right to do so. This is "cold comfort" on a species-wide scale.

And feminists have the gall to say that what they are seeing is in fact a form of oppression against women. Well it is neither a form of oppression against women nor a form of oppression against men. For my money, it is a bizarre form of ritual internalized self-immolative disposability that can find its roots well-placed in both pre-civilized times and modern-day misandry.

I saw in a video clip wherein the the N.O. Saints' quarterback Drew Brees held up his son to the crowd after the victory. It was touching that he kissed the boy's little hand at one point. That was beautiful. The only problem I had with what I saw was that one day, maybe that little boy would want to grow up to throw himself into a meat-grinder that is the world of professional contact sports, all in the name of respect for his father. I hope he grows up to make his own decisions and that that will not be one of them.

Like0 Dislike0

What about Betty White? She got roughed up!

Like0 Dislike0