Tweet
Monica Helms has posted on a new Boost Mobile ad that has Indy Car Driver Danika Patrick’s pit crew crossdressed, and performing their duties as pit crew while engaged in a “visual wrong.” They’re calling the ad campaign this belongs to the “Unwronged” ad campaign. The ad:
Here’s the background piece with the ad’s director and staff — as well as Danika Patrick herself:
A quote from the Danika Patrick from the second video:
I think that they really have some cool concepts for their commercials that are definitely going to get people talking — that are going to get people laughing.
A quote from the director (on a second commercial in the campaign) on what he and his creative staff sought to create:
That is we set a very visual wrong…
A very visual wrong? Being visibly trans is a very visual wrong?
Kind of plays to easily into the hateful comment from Rob Williams we highlighted yesterday:
Sometimes you need to tell people that you’re wrong, you’re evil, you’re a drama queen, and you need to get over life. What you describe Dawn is every person all the time throughout their life “I need attention. I need to be loved for who I am.” You know who you are? You’re a dude ’cause you got the plumbing. And, that’s what most of us see, and that’s why we call them freaks and weirdoes.
Monica wrote in her blog:
As you can see, this commercial just looks plane dumb on the visual level, but it also uses men in women’s clothes in a negative context. Trans people who saw this commercial went ballistic. Even though the commercial does not specifically make fun of trans people, out of the 300 million Americans, many will use this as another excuse to discriminate and hold back equality for Transgender Americans.
I would say it differently. I would ask the question:
“Are you saying, Boost Mobile, that being visibly transgender a ‘very visual wrong’? What does your anti-discrimination policies look like regarding ‘gender identity or expression’? — do your internal business policies tell you anything about this?”
The CEI says that Sprint Nextel — Boost Mobile’s parent company — has a 100% rating.
And yet even with the 100% rating, Sprint Nextel/Boost Mobile believes crossdressed human beings need to be “unwronged?”
I wasn’t too concerned about the ad until I saw the name of their ad campaign, and the comments of the director. The level of cultural cluelessness about a group of human beings for which they have specific Human Resources policies regarding is something I’m finding myself a bit uncomfortable with. Do their trans employees need to be “unwronged” too?
What are your thoughts?
~~~~~
Update: Fixed the incorrect spelling of Danica Patrick’s first name in this article. For some reason my spell check told me she spelled her name with a “k.” D’oh!
~~A~~
20 Comments
100%No.
Transgender Benefits
?
Benefits Insurance Available to Employees Transgender Treatment Covered CEI Points Awarded
Transgender Benefits (at least one) + 5
Short-term Leave After Surgical Procedure
Mental health counseling
Hormone therapy
Medical visits
Surgical procedures
Try 20% for transfolk.
100% for Cisfolk.
As for the commercial itself, it uses a sense of being trans as a wrongness.
Some people think its funny — if you do, that’s transmisogyny.
Because transfolk, like cisfolk, come all sorts of kinds and types, and some of them really do look like thoe guys and call themselves guys, and if ya’ll feel that’s wrong well…
You’ve got a problem.
But then, what do I matter — I”m just one little girl.
I think the ad is great!I disagree with your quote from Helms that it “looks dumb.” I think it is a visual hoot. Further, she even states that “the commercial does not specifically make fun of trans people.” So, where’s the beef?
You asked a number of questions, such as – “”Are you saying, Boost Mobile, that being visibly transgender [is] a ‘very visual wrong’?” – without taking a position yourself. So I really don’t know what you think. But as far as the technique of pulling in a totally off-the-wall quotation from somebody named Rob Williams who has no tie-in whatsoever to this particular story, presumably hoping that his intolerance will somehow reflect on the Danica Patrick ad–that’s just lazy and dishonest.
What’s “wrong” (and funny) about these visuals is seeing guys wobbling around in traditionally female attire while performing physical labor. It doesn’t compute because as everybody knows, you can’t easily do these physical tasks when dressed the way most men like to see women dressed. It’s really that simple.
We used to call that sort of bearded-men-in-skirts street drag or gender fuck. When did it stop being funny?
I hope none of the gay organizations take this up as some sort of injustice they need to do battle about. That would be embarrassing. But if you decide to send out some angry emails, please spell Danica’s name (not Danika) correctly. She’s too cute to get it wrong.
Nope, sorry Boost MobileI won’t be using your services, even if I could afford your fees.
HRC needs to rewrite their…. ooops! What am I saying? I forgot — HRC has about as much respect for us transfolk as the reicht does for the entire TLBG spectrum!
Furthermore, I can hardly wait for the “Sign Them” spotwhere Danica signs the guys’ “man melons” saying, “You think that’s wrong? What a rack!”
Turn those tables, sister.
When did it stop being funny?When people realized that it was sexism — sorta like the whole “ya can’t do this dressed like that” kinda thing (check it out in japan — girl wearing less than that do the same jobs).
And for genderqueer people and many crossdressers, its never funny.
See my earlier post.
Somehow I think I should be offended by this onebut I just can’t bring myself to do more than laugh. WTF?? It was in the embedded video above. Thanks, Autumn!
“When did it stop being funny?”Ask Janice Raymond.
One little girlwho has her head on right.
A woman’s placeUsing Danica Patrick — a notable female driver in an virtually all-male arena — as their spokesperson in this series of ads (signing the man’s chest ad which I’ve seen on TV in my market) strikes me as the unexpected or visual wrong being emphasized by the ads.
As in, “Wait, that’s a woman signing a man’s body,” brings all the traditional stereotypes that entails, and therefore puts on hold, would seem to be a good thing for breaking down gender stereotypes.
Anyone, any gender, wearing heels in the pit is (in)appropriate – the (un)wrong – the layers that gender fuck brings out.
It’s “unwronged” to think a woman can be a race car driver (or on the pit crew, or president, etc.)
The benefit coverage of the corporation is what is more concerning.
silly ad!!I thought the ad was rather silly because pit crew clothing has never been gender specific. Instead, it is safety specific. Fire suits and full-face helmets are necessary because pit fires are always a looming hazard, especially
with the alcohol fuels used in Indy cars because they burn
without a visable flame and it is quite possible to be engulfed in fire without realizing it. Safety comes first
and I don’t care for depictions that ignore that.
Perhaps it’s part of the process of inclusion – everyone can say that allother American’s deserve to be treated equally and protected under the law, but we all know the reality is much different.
But one of the things that has happened over the years, especially in TV, has been the use of stereotypes and cheap humor to introduce more people to the one’s they didn’t know. And as they got used to seeing them, they started thinking and attitudes changed.
African-Americans got cast into Sanford & Son, The Jeffersons and Good Times in very stereotypical roles – for many people, it was a first time looking into their ‘lives’ – yes, the humor could be offensive, but some people actually questioned what they believed about other races because of these shows. And over time, the way they were projected changed from a different “them” to a more inclusive “us”
The same with exposure to gays (especially men) – we’ve gone from being portrayed as extremely feminine and campy to more mainstream in the programming – and along the way, people realized that we’re just people as well. Same hopes, dreams, desires and heartbreaks.
I’m not saying that it’s right, but maybe that it’s one way, through pop culture, of introducing new ideas to people who’ve never been exposed to them before.
How many people (outside of our own circles) would have ever met someone trans? Much less sat down and actually had a conversation to try to wrap their heads around the concept that gender isn’t binary (that’s a huge one even for folks like me who wanted to understand it – I can’t imagine the hurdle of having that conversation with someone who’s just worried about which bathroom you’re going to use)
So maybe this is chance to educate rather than one of simply airing outrage. It’s a woman doing a damn fine job in a traditionally all male sport – and going a step further by having the crew dressed in women’s clothes. Some people are going to get that juxtaposition for the challenge to think outside your box that it is, others are going to go “that’s not wrong, it’s just silly”, a few are going to wonder why anyone wants to wear heels (no matter what gender they are) but mostly – when’s the last time you saw transfolk on TV?
Has it been often enough to no longer be noteworthy? Have there been the coming out stories on Lifetime? Or even the provocative ones on HBO where the lead character lives up to every negative stereotype out there and we wind up finding out he’s a likeable human after all the layers are peeled away?
If the activists want to be outraged about this, fine. But maybe they’d be more productive using it – getting the backlash to prompt Boost Mobile to sponsor the Lifetime TV show of a mother struggling to understand what their child is going through and how and where they found the answers to the questions no one is asking publicly in a big way yet (I’m thinking the NASCAR/Indy race fans are a little ways away from being a target market of changing hearts and minds yet)
Let me say, as a 44 year old gay, white cisgendered male – I don’t think I’ve ever posted anything in a trans thread before in over 3 years reading the Blend. I have had 3 transgendered college students working for me over the past two years and they were hugely helpful (and patient) in getting me to understand both the concept and the issues.
It’s not always easy to participate in an online conversation where you’re afraid of saying the wrong thing – especially when a large percentage of the threads are focused on the outrage of how someone has been mistreated or portrayed. I’ve had online discussions with straight allies who “didn’t get” why something was offensive to the LGBT community even though they were trying to be supportive and it took dialogue for that to change. So I hope nobody reads this post as saying someone else shouldn’t be offended by the commercial – I’ve never walked in your shoes.
But I am saying – don’t miss an opportunity for teaching moments either. And don’t overlook the value of bringing your issues into America’s living rooms – even if it starts with the offensive stereotypes – because change in attitudes can’t happen without the dialogue.
What’s wrong with the ad?It’s funny. There’s nothing to read into beyond the obvious which is the problems Danica faces competing in a male dominated sport. Good for her to turn the tables and to do it in a fun and entertaining way.
This ad says nothing about trans women. If you are a trans woman and you want to compare yourself to a really hairy man in heels and a halter top then you probably have issues much bigger than this ad.
I AM a transwomanand while I don’t care for the ad because I think it is rather dumbed down, I am not offended as a transperson. As a woman, I do find myself very concerned about sexism with it; as if showing a female side is some sort of wrong?
That Go Daddy ad, on the other hand, is truly offensive to me as a woman.
Unless thats how others see youFirst, plenty of trans folk are more cursed by the hormones of their external anatomy than others. So they are more visibly trans.
Second plenty do get the ‘hairy man in heels’ stuff from others just for being visibly trans. Let alone a male-bodied genderqueer who mixes gender expression freely.
So plenty of us do get thought of as hairy men in heels.
Especially crossdressers, male-bodied genderqueer and others of the gender spectrum.
It comes down to what needed to be “unwronged.”Hi Scott,
I am ambivalent about the commercial itself. As HunterC pointed out, the first “very visual wrong” in the commercial may be that Danica is a race car driver — it’s not actually a wrong, but it’s a challenging concept for some within the male driver dominated sport if Indy car racing. I didn’t find the commercial particularly offensive.
However, the problem for me is that the name of the ad campaign that this commercial is a part of is “Unwronged.” The concept behind the set of commercials is just as Boost unwrongs the wrongs of cell phone billing, there are “very visual wrongs” that should be unwronged.
It’s the explanation for the campaign that, in conjunction with the presentation of men-in-dresses, concerns me more than the commercial itself. I don’t like the idea that the secondary message of their commercial to my peers and me — likely unintentional — is that visibly trans people need to be unwronged; that trans people are wrong to begin with.
I don’t like those secondary messages, even if these are unintentional messages. That’s why I framed the this diary in terms of cultural cluelessness; the commercial was created in a manner that didn’t take into account about how actual trans people may be offended at the idea that their human experience may need to be unwronged.
Misplaced OutrageThose who insinuate that the commercial illustrates that this is how society sees “trans” people i.e, as hairy men in dresses don’t seem to voice the same upset when the most ridiculous of men in beards, sky high hair, stupid, garish feminine attire and make-up act out at gay Pride parades.
Is there a difference?
Sure there is…keep the commercial and lose the flamboyants who dress up as female characters in the parades. It is those idiots society relates not only to trans but, universally, to homosexuality as well. A commercial using role play is harmless.
As Batty points out……not all trans women — or transgender people who are born male but expressing female gender — are transsexuals. Transgender, as a term and a concept, covers an umbrella of gender variant subcommunities.
And, you’re making my point in a round about way. My peers and I am compared by the religious right to really hairy men — we are judged by our visuals. And, when I began my transition in 2003, I had a very heavy beard that was almost impossible to cover with even the heaviest of pancake make-up. I had that visual beardline until 2005.
I also wore high heels as a visibly trans woman, although I didn’t wear halter tops — not because of a “passing” issue, but because at the time I was wearing breast forms that wouldn’t work in a halter top.
Was I less of a woman than I am now because I was visibly hairy and wore high heels? From your comment about comparing myself to a “really hairy man in heels and a halter top,” apparently I was less of a woman.
Basically, this is why “passing” in one’s target sex is such a big deal in the trans community — especially for male-to-female (MTF or M2F) trans people. M2F’s are mocked when they are visually trans. This commercial isn’t mocking trans people per se, but it is making fun of the “very visual wrong” of obviously male bodied people wearing women’s clothing.
Much ado about nothing…Setting up a “visual wrong” is a comedic staple that’s been used since the first sight gags.
In Disney’s Fantasia, you had hippos as ballerinas; the “star” in Singing in the Rain was a beautiful blonde with god-awful voice and accent; the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for heaven’s sake are great examples of using the “visual wrong” to play up the absurdity on the way to the punch line.
Just like with anything comedic, sometimes you hit the mark — sometimes not.
The hair-trigger reactions to perceived insults — intended or not — dilute future ability to deal with real animus. Keep your powder dry.
So your point is that two wrongs make a right?Because gay men dress up at Pride in a way that mocks femininity and is misogynistic, therefore its ok for a cisgendered company to mock males in feminine attire in a way that is offensive to the trans community?
How do you figurethat mocking femininity is misogynistic? Put another way: What, exactly, is femininity?