The 36-Hour Day
with Lylah M. Alphonse
I'm a full-time editor, a part-time writer, and a mom and stepmom to five amazing kids, ages 1 to 14. For me it's not about finding balance, it's about the daily juggle-- my career, my commute, freelance work, homework, housework, married life, social life, and parenting-- and finding the time to get it all done.
To learn more about Lylah, check out her Work It, Mom! profile and read her blog at writeeditrepeat.blogspot.com.
Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl commerical: What was so controversial?
Categories: Hacking Life, The Juggle, Uncategorized
I tuned in to the Super Bowl yesterday in order to root for, well, pretty much either team — as my husband likes to say, I’m deeply ambivelent about football — but also because I wanted to see the controversial ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.
I’ve held off on writing about it, so far. I wanted to see it first, in order to separate the ad itself from the controversey surrounding it. Some women’s groups were calling on CBS to pull the ad, which news reports said featured a strong anti-abortion message and was paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. Planned Parenthood preemptively launched an ad of its own on YouTube, before the Super Bowl, featuring atheletes talking about the importance of trusting women to make their own decisions.
So I settled in, ready to be riled up.
The anger levels were high before the ad even aired. “This ad is frankly offensive, ” Erin Matson, the Action Vice President of the National Organization for Women, told ABC News in January — before the ad was publically released. “It is hate masquerading as love. It sends a message that abortion is always a mistake.”
Except… it didn’t. The ad showed a proud and loving mom being fake-tackled by her football star kid. It directed viewers to the sponsor’s site for more information about the Tebow family’s story. That’s pretty much it. In fact, when I saw the ad, I thought the TV network was being clever, splitting it into two segments and airing one at the beginning of the game, saving the other until the end, in order to force people to wait for the rest of it. (Turns out there were two versions: The one that didn’t air, with Pam Tebow talking about “her miracle baby,” and the one that did.)
If you know anything about Tim Tebow, you know that he’s never put his beliefs on the back burner. He’s the youngest of five kids born to a family of Christian missionaries. He plays football with “John 3:16″ written into the black stripe under his eyes. His mom contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with him, and was urged to abort. She chose not to.
Even though my faith doesn’t align with his, I respect him for being true to himself.
The fact that either of them would appear in an ad like this isn’t surprising. What was surprising, to me, after sitting through it and all the other Super Bowl ads out there, was the fact that women’s groups were up in arms over the Tebows and silent about the Go Daddy girls.
I’m pro choice. “Pro choice” doesn’t have to mean “pro abortion.” In some countries, like China and India, being pro choice can mean fighting to have your baby. It can mean choosing to allow someone else to raise your child. It can mean keeping your daughter instead of abandoning or aborting her.
For me, the ad represented one woman’s choice. That’s it.
What’s so controversial about that?
Photo: The Associated Press
Subscribe to blog via RSS
I agree with you completely. I’m so sick of the GoDaddy.com commercials showing women lining up to rip their clothes off. Why is that okay, but a commercial so innocuous as the Tim Tebow commercial has groups raising all kinds of stink!
Patricia | February 7th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I did not see either of the ads, but I agree with your underlying message here. Most people who consider themselves “pro-choice” don’t have an agenda to increase the popularity of abortion, but sadly, some do. This ad controversy displays one aspect of this reality. There are other, equally disturbing aspects, e.g., the so-called “womens’ organizations” seething protests every time a law is proposed to protect very young pregnant girls (parental notification), to mandate factual counseling, and so on. I hope that more people come to realize that the leading so-called “women’s groups” (and some others) have a strongly pro-abortion agenda that is in no way respectful of women, let alone families. It follows that such organizations are not representative of most women’s heartfelt concerns.
One of the statistics often cited by “pro-choice” sources is that most US women who have had an abortion felt they had “no choice” but to do so. Am I the only person who sees the irony in that? I know so many women who have been pressured to have abortions - often by “loved ones” - and whether they resisted (and made their own choice to give birth) or not, the pain lingers for years, or for life. I don’t think that’s what most “pro-choice” individuals want. When you look past the surface rhetoric and observe the substantive actions of NOW, NARAL, etc., you find there is no effort to support women who want to choose life. I’ve never been pregnant, but I think I can relate to the feeling of wanting to keep the life in my uterus alive. It’s bad enough a so-called women’s group would throw its support on those who’d advise me to abort. But it’s unthinkable that they should demonize that maternal desire. All in the name of - women’s rights? I don’t think so.
SKL | February 8th, 2010 at 2:44 am
I, too, expected to be angry about the Tebow’s ad, and didn’t find anything offensive about it. I’m sure that had I visited the website, I would have gotten riled up, but I didn’t.
To SKL - as someone who has had an abortion, let me respond to your point about women feeling they had ‘no choice’. I was a sophomore in college. To me, any ‘choice’ that involved remaining pregnant was a non-starter. There was no pressure from anyone, including my boyfriend, (heck, I didn’t tell anyone else!) but in my own mind, there was only one choice - terminating the pregnancy. Although throughout my life I have sometimes wondered ‘what if?’, I do not regret my decision one bit. The only thing I regret is having been foolish enough to have unprotected sex thinking that it wouldn’t happen to me.
How does parental notification protect young girls? These are often girls whose parents preach abstinence only and refuse to give their children the information they need to have safer sex. If the girl wants to have an abortion, and knows her parents will oppose it, why should she have to tell them? Give me a break.
I’m absolutely behind truly factual counseling - here are your options, here are the resources that you can utilize depending on your choice - but there should be no pressure to either keep the baby or abort. The counselor should absolutely not be giving any advice. I don’t agree with groups on either side of the issue who want to push their own agenda.
I am vehemently pro-choice. I would love for people to only get pregnant when they want to, but that will probably only happen right after pigs fly and Santa brings me a unicorn. Until that day, women should have the right to choose what to do when an unintended pregnancy occurs. I have a lot of respect for women who choose to keep their babies, and I also respect those who know themselves well enough to know that keeping the baby is just not the right thing for them.
anonymous today | February 8th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Well, I am not asking anyone to regret their choice or disrespect anyone else’s. Anonymous, I agree with you that any “unplanned pregnancy” counseling should be agenda-free. Unfortunately, that’s not what the “women’s organizations” promote.
I have two daughters whose birth mothers made the choice not to terminate their lives. I will never stop thanking God and revering them for that. If that offends anyone, the problem is not with me.
SKL | February 8th, 2010 at 10:50 am
SKL - I am by no means offended by women who make the choice your daughters’ birth mothers did. On the contrary, I hold those women in awe, as I don’t think I would be able to give up a child I carried for nine months. I have had two children in the years since my unintended pregnancy, and I am thankful for them every day. I cannot imagine having the strength to give up a child after birth.
I agree that not all of the pro-choice organizations promote agenda-free counseling, but the ‘pro-life’ organizations are as bad or worse. At least the pro-choice organizations acknowledge that there *are* choices, and I believe that most of them do offer neutral counesling. Most people I know who are pro-choice truly support mother’s rights to choose whatever option is best for them, whether it involves abortion or not.
anonymous today | February 8th, 2010 at 11:04 am
The controversy isn’t about the ad, it’s about Focus on the Family’s agenda. Conducting a simple Google search uncovered that.
The reality is that Focus on the Family is a radical group with harmful agenda - and it goes WAY beyond opposing legal abortion and into issues like opposing the use of birth control. And until people look beyond the surface, they won’t “get it.” The Tebow ad was about one family, Focus’ agenda could impact millions of women and men.
Thanks for your attention to the issue, though. I just encourage you to deep slightly deeper.
Redsonja007 | February 8th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I, too, was stunned when the commercial came on and it was so… mild. I was expecting (from the outcry that led up to it) something much more in-your-face. I thought it was fine.
And YES, I would dearly love to see the whole GoDaddy let-me-show-you-my-boobs thing die out, instead. Yeesh.
Mir | February 8th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Redsonja007, I understand that, but the controversey before the ad aired was along the lines of Matson’s (from NOW) quote, above: “This ad is frankly offensive.” My point is that no, the ad itself was not.
A lot of people are offended by Focus on the Family’s political agenda — me included. But it’s not like Planned Parenthood tried to air their ad during the Super Bowl and got turned down. The decision to air the ad was based on the ad itself, not the agenda behind it. And the ad itself was about one woman’s choice.
A question for Focus on the Family: What if Pam Tebow hadn’t had the right to choose?
Lylah | February 8th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
As a black person I can’t help but wonder, if the same ad or a similar ad was sponsored by a white supremist group would the public stop for a minute to think about it? If an ad was sponsored by Islamic group would people stop to consider the TRUE agenda?
I’m a pro-choice and VERY frustrated w/the media’s unwillingness to scratch the surface. Their response is. Ok the ad’s benign. End of story, ladies. the reality is that groups have been talking about focus on the family the ENTIRE time.
The outcry wasn’t entirely informative all the time. But let’s not confuse what the REAL story is that CBS refused pro-gay friendly ads in the past (UCC), Moveon.org and PETA but coproduced Focus on the Family’s ad.
Redsonja007 | February 8th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Another point i want to make is that….women’s orgs do support women. With Sex ed, contraceptive ed, free basic health care and fighting against aggressive attacks during a time when there are still young ppl who don’t know basic facts about sex and health.
The MAIN people attacking women for having babies if they are single or low income are conservatives - not choice groups.
The reality is that if you’re having sex and/or if you have c hild outside of marriage, you’re not living according to Focus on the Family’s agenda. Period.
Redsonja007 | February 8th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I don’t think that most Americans would agree that Focus on the Family has such a dangerous agenda. Many women don’t happen to agree with them, but that’s not a good enough reason in this country to silence them (if it were, I’d have happily avoided hearing many obnoxious things originating from other organizations).
Honestly, I fail to understand the fear of pro-life and pro-abstinence organizations. I mean, unless they are physically raping women, they are not guilty of unwanted pregnancies / unwanted children. Moreover, if you want to protect your children from their messages, you can and should teach your own kids what you believe. Then you’ll never have to worry about them not knowing about whatever you consider “safe sex.” I could understand a pro-abstinence family worrying about their kids hearing of free sex and birth control, but I can’t understand the opposite scenereo. Knowing about abstinence as well as condoms isn’t going to make them pregnant. Knowing about adoption as well as abortion isn’t going to make them parents.
I also find it sad when people act like that the ability to have an abortion under any circumstance is required for a woman to have a happy and successful life. But if that really is the case, maybe next year, the NOW should run a Super Bowl commercial showcasing a real-life woman who declares: “Abortion was the Key to my Happiness.” Go for it.
SKL | February 8th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
redsonja - I’m having trouble figuring out how a white supremacist group could possibly make an ad as benign as the Tebow ad. I agree with you that the agenda of Focus on the Family is disturbing at best, but the ad itself - taken at face value - was actually kind of sweet. I found it interesting that she kept talking about it being her CHOICE. As Lylah said - what if she hadn’t had the choice?
anonymous today | February 8th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“The reality is that if you’re having sex and/or if you have c hild outside of marriage, you’re not living according to Focus on the Family’s agenda. Period.”
Well, I happen to agree with most of that (excepting being a quaified single parent to an adopted child). As do most religious groups, parents of teens, and individuals over, say, 30 or 40. Believe it or not, this is not a “radical view” but rather popular here in America. However, you still have a legal right to make your own choices and encourage your own daughter to have sex before marriage.
Sometimes Americans just have to agree to disagree.
SKL | February 8th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
“What if she hadn’t had the choice?” I agree. My ex-co-worker’s teen daughter committed suicide after her parents forced her to have two abortions because they didn’t approve of the father’s race. A friend of mine still cries over the four pregnancies that her husband forced her to abort decades ago. If she hadn’t had the choice, that would be sad indeed, but it doesn’t mean NOW should be thanked.
SKL | February 8th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Women should have life options. And parents should not force a child to have an abortion or NOT to have abortion.
CBS said it would accept advocacy ad from any org whose commerical was responsibly produced. Why would that exclude the KKK or even this recently formed whiite-only basketball league. My only point in raising the issue is that people seem unwilling to seriously consider Focus’s agenda but would take these other entities’ (white surpremists, Al Quada, etc) agendas more seriously. but thanks for the discussion.
Redsonja007 | February 8th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Lylah and anon. I agree 100% that I’m glad that women have options. That’s what I call it. But if Focus has its way that wouldn’t be the case.
For years, they have supported ab-only education that provides biased info about sex education. They support these fake clinics (crisis preg centers) that use the same unethical standards and even try to look like PP clinics but w/out any medical personnel. They are engaged in what’s called the contracontraceptive movement to discourage birth control. And, of course they support making abortion illegal.
There’s nothing wrong at all with having a vision of the world where every person was in a committed, loving relationship….and that every child is part of a healthy family unit. There is something wrong w/trying to FORCE that onto other people via protests, shady services and bogus laws.
Again….the problem w/the Tebow ad was Focus on the Family. You can go to women’s media center website for the original letter to CBS.
Redsonja007 | February 8th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
There was plenty of sound and fury over the GoDaddy ad the first year. Clearly it was ignored. GoDaddy doesn’t seem to see women as their primary customers.
I think the Tebow controversy stems from the fact that after years and years of saying they don’t take advocacy ads, CBS took this one.
Focus on the Family wants to deny women, including married women, any control over their own reproduction. They believe that women should get married as young as possible and dedicate their lives to subservience to their husbands,
And their so-called “Focus on the Family” denigrates the majority of actual families out there.
The ad that was ultimately aired sure looked like a big nothing, but would CBS have taken a Planned Parenthood ad even if it had nothing to do with abortion?
Lisse | February 8th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I briefly hosted a website with GoDaddy and when I was working with their technical support one night, the tech told me that 90% of their clientele operated pornography sites and it was nice to assist the development of one that wasn’t. Maybe the ads are just playing to their clients?
To the topic of the post: I didn’t see the Tebow ad. I am not an advocate of organizations like Family First, nor am I an advocate of Planned Parenthood. Both have agendas (at least in my experience) but even I had a hard time with the outcry over the ad before it was aired. It sort of served to reinforce my stance that “reproductive rights” means, to many, only the right to have an abortion and any other option or opinion posited must be archaic and crude and therefore, wrong.
BTW, reproductive rights is also not quite an accurate term to describe the rights granted under Roe v. Wade. That case amended the Privacy Act. “Reproductive Rights” are not discussed anywhere in the constitution. Your right to privacy over your body, however, is. It’s silly, but it’s one of those things that annoys me. Ardent supporters of both sides generally don’t even understand what they’re arguing about.
Also, how the hell did white supremacy get brought into this topic? [confused]
Phe | February 9th, 2010 at 12:30 pm