Sony Handycam ad infantilizes black men?
by Carmen Van Kerckhove
What do you folks think of this ad? (Hat tip to HighJive) I’ve been seeing it on phone booths around New York City, and for some reason it vaguely bothers me. Maybe because it reminds me of John Singleton’s Baby Boy and the idea that African-American men are infantilized by society and never grow up. I’m not sure. What do you think?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
merq wrote:
I’ve seen these ads too, and honestly, I really don’t see it that way. While I totally get what you’re saying, I could very easily see that being a white family in that ad.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 7:39 am ¶
Kaywil wrote:
At least they’re showing that black people have families…and take care of their kids…
Posted 25 May 2007 at 8:54 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Same.
I get the Baby Boy/Infantalization angle, but I think that the context of the ad play more like family humor. Like Merq said, you could easily place another ethnic group in the ad and it would play.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 9:24 am ¶
Bohemian Writer wrote:
I agree with the above posters as well, I didn’t think it was racially motivated at all, it was simply just another ad IMHO…
Posted 25 May 2007 at 9:28 am ¶
justin wrote:
If there was a white family in that ad they would be like characters from Everybody loves Raymond (ie; not white enough) or it would be three pictures of Norman Bates photoshopped together.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 9:33 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
here is the live action commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7OT2ULLAI
I remember going “awww” when I watched this commercial. I didn’t find it offensive at all and was actually happy to positive representation of the black family on tv, as people commented previously.
I found the (tv) ad to do quite the opposite with regard to infantilization. Note that the character seems upset by his parents’ treating him like a child.
p.s. here’s another ad I found on youtube.com that features another family of color (this time, of Asian descent). Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXOYqrVt8_k
Posted 25 May 2007 at 9:47 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Wendi – I thought of the live commercials too (thanks for finding them).
Carmen’s probably too busy to watch TV. But I can see where the print ad is WAY more open to interpretation. Most people don’t read the fine print, and they wouldn’t get the idea, unless there was also a picture of what the family SHOULD have done, which would be a picture of watching their son as a baby in the sink.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 10:03 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Oh I had no idea there were live commercials too – I’ll have to check those out. Thanks Wendi!
Lyonside, I’m an unabashed TV fan but sadly I have had to whittle down my TV watching a lot in the past 6 months.
Plus I Tivo everything so am pretty clueless about commercials these days.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 10:16 am ¶
deb wrote:
I saw this ad for the first time yesterday. I thought it was pretty funny, and didn’t read anything else into it.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 11:06 am ¶
Rob wrote:
I don’t see it that way either but I must state that it depends on the race of the family.
See, though any race could have played that family, I find that if the “baby” had been an Asian man, it would reinforce the asexualization of Asian men which is already rife in American society.
If it was any other race, it would have been fine.
It’s like the role of a stupid jock; it can be played by anyone. However, if it was played by a black guy, it would be a stereotype. Not so much if an Asian guy played it.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 11:26 am ¶
Eun-jung wrote:
I have to agree with everyone on here – I took it to be family humor and was actually happy to see a black family being portrayed in such a way.
I don’t know Rob – I think an Asian family could have easily portrayed it as well.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶
Elisha wrote:
This ad doesn’t bother me but I’m not black. Another camera ad about a dad not being a horse’s butt doesn’t bother me, but I’m not a father. I feel like men in general get made fun of more often than women.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶
HighJive wrote:
i never saw any racial issues. it’s just that the photo looks dumb. plus, mom washing son’s inner thigh is kinda weird.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
HighJive – LOL! Maybe that’s what creeped me out about the ad. You’re so right – moms should be nowhere near the inner thighs of their grown-ass sons.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 2:34 pm ¶
tasha wrote:
I’m black, and I don’t see it as offensive, a little strange perhaps, but I’m not sensing any covert racial undertones. If you’re going to take issue with how the protagonist was “infantilized” in “Baby Boy”, then you need to add “Friday”, “Menace II Society”, and several other urban films to that list that feature unemployed, black men in L.A. that aren’t in school, living at home with their parents amongst upwardly mobile black women, many of which, based on census bureau stats, are raising their children alone. “Baby Boy” didn’t glamorize the lead character’s life. It, along with “Boyz n the Hood”, were realistic portrayals of life among various young, black males in South Central, L.A.. What should offend you is not how Singleton (a black, male, South Central native) depicted his protagonist in “Baby Boy.” What should offend you is that such characters exist.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶
mike wrote:
The whole point of the ad is that treating adults like children is absolutely preposterous.
I thought it was pretty funny.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 6:33 pm ¶
Blanky wrote:
THAT’S a racial commentary?
Commericials have a tendency to make men appear to be slow and subservient, yes, but that could’ve worked just as easily with any other ethnic group.
They probably just thought, “hey, try for the diversity dollar.” If that’s a malicious attack, everything is.
Posted 25 May 2007 at 6:37 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Blanky:
Since I think you’re relatively new to the site, see the “?” in the title? That means that Carmen isn’t condemning it out of hand, she made an observation and then ASKED FOR OPINIONS.
When a racial commentary is made, don’t worry, you’ll know.
Posted 26 May 2007 at 7:57 am ¶
Blanky wrote:
Oh, I knew. I was just sort of surprised at this even being considered as a racial commentary.
Posted 26 May 2007 at 11:32 am ¶
JD wrote:
Elisha I like your commentary, I’m a man, and I also find it troubling that in general men are always seen as being stupid in many commercials. Sorry but at what point do we keep looking at angles that may not exist. Sure, they used a Black family for this ad, but I’m pretty sure you could’ve used the same sentece with other groups added to it “… the idea that Hispanic-American, Indian Men, Vietnamese men, Chinese men, White men are infantilized by society and never grow up.” Mike’s got the point that I got from the commerical, that’s all. Now if the family had gotten put into a situation that would be sterotypical then I would’ve question the ad.
Posted 26 May 2007 at 12:44 pm ¶
Eun-jung wrote:
Thanks for that link, Wendy Muse – totally loved that Asian Handycam commercial… made me cry!!
Posted 27 May 2007 at 6:51 pm ¶
S wrote:
Rob has a good point, it could appeared differently to an Asian man since the stereotypes about Asian men could be implied in an ad like that. Of course, if you’re not the one with those particular stereotypes linked to you, then it’s easy to miss it or worse, blow it off as nothing.
I thought it was funny, though!
Posted 29 May 2007 at 2:50 pm ¶
Bekka wrote:
I personally saw the TV ad first, and the infantilization aspect never struck me before you mentioned it. I think the print ad is clearly a snapshot of the TV ad, a spin off of it, and was probably never intended to work fully on its own. While I think the infantilization problem IS there with the print ad, I think it was almost certainly just a mistranslation from one medium into another. Personally, I think they were taking a stab at multiculturalism by protraying a successful, noncontroversial, middle class African American family as their protagonists.
To JD, though, I disagree with the contention that any race could have been just as controversial. Historically, black and Asian men were systematically emasculated, socially, but especially economically. The position and power of men of other races hasn’t been nearly as aggressively knocked around by history. As a feminist, I’m not at all sure that’s a good thing, but that’s a whole separate can of worms…
Posted 29 May 2007 at 9:42 pm ¶
Lo Fleming wrote:
This commercial doesn’t bother me, but you know what does the car max commercial. The one where there is a guy who appears to be of middle eastern descent they go back in time with camels and then it goes back to modern day…something about that commercial isn’t right, but they have focused grouped it too death so you can’t say exactly what it is, but it doesn’t seen right.
Lo
Posted 05 Jun 2007 at 4:08 pm ¶