Anyways, I agree it can be worth talking about/analyzing, but getting publicly angry about it is probably not fruitful.

Except, you know, my analysis of it wasn’t angry. The commenters, especially the trolls, are a lot more angry than I am about the whole thing. In this way, you can say that the ad also blunts criticism, because it goes from the premise that 1) all the critics will be “angry”, and 2) that anger invalidates one’s point.

I’d think it’d be more valuable to look at it as a symptom (i.e. why does it work?) rather than an agent of harm itself.

But it’s not an either/or argument. This commercial is both a symptom and an agent of harm. That’s how it becomes a vicious circle: item A draws upon negative cultural stereotypes which in turn reinforce those self-same stereotypes.

Well, sort of. You seemed to be saying that just discussing the ad in any way is giving BK free publicity, and that’s true. My point was that anger from feminists over the content, in particular, was likely precisely what they were going for in an over-the-top ad like this. It doesn’t just create publicity, but on top of that it serves to validate the worldview that the ad reflects (even if it’s a simplistic and unrealistic worldview.) Pretty smart, those marketing bastards are, huh? They’ve blunted your criticism before you even provide it. Anyways, I agree it can be worth talking about/analyzing, but getting publicly angry about it is probably not fruitful.

“Can you point me to where I stated or heavily implied that I thought that the BK commercial was “going to singlehandedly fan the fires of misogyny nationwide”? Like, seroiusly?”

Well … actually, no, I can’t, admittedly. (Not in your post, anyway; others have been more hyperbolic about the matter.) But you do, if I’m reading you correctly, believe that the ad could have deleterious effects. I’d think it’d be more valuable to look at it as a symptom (i.e. why does it work?) rather than an agent of harm itself.

I think the many feminists (of both sexes) in the blogosphere ranting about this, need to understand:

Uh, you do realize that the line you quote is an acknowledgement of your argument. The point of the rest of my post is to say that I don’t think that’s reason enough not to talk about this stuff.

Yes, “it’s only a joke” is not an excuse for everything, but I don’t think these commercials are really going to singlehandedly fan the fires of misogyny nationwide.

Can you point me to where I stated or heavily implied that I thought that the BK commercial was “going to singlehandedly fan the fires of misogyny nationwide”? Like, seroiusly? Because you’re not the first person to say this, and I thought I had made it reasonably clear that I was pointing it out as one example of many that picks up on and reinforces misogynistic culture.

I think the many feminists (of both sexes) in the blogosphere ranting about this, need to understand: The Burger King commercial is a raspberry directed at YOU, specifically. Seriously. That’s the point of the ad. It’s meant to appeal to guys who look at women in their lives and see a big wagging finger, always telling them “NO” and “Bad boy!”. You, to these men, are the highest embodiment of that big wagging finger. It’s not just that you’re talking about the commercial that makes it a success; it’s that you are fuming over it, just as BK is begging you to.

I don’t know what the proper response would be to that, to be honest, but I personally don’t think the commercials warrant quite the level of anger and serious discussion they seem to have sparked. Yes, “it’s only a joke” is not an excuse for everything, but I don’t think these commercials are really going to singlehandedly fan the fires of misogyny nationwide.