Comments on: Tom says, “This Wine is Gay”

By: Lolo

Lolo — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:10:19 +0000

i found your post well intentioned and valid in its questioning . it is always good to challenge those around us to be more aware, not only of themselves but also their endorsements and language… however ill placed or well placed they may be. i also enjoyed reading your responses. kudos.

By: Catie

Catie — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:37:53 +0000

I remember seeing Pansy about two years ago. At the time I remember thinking, “Uh-oh” and although I questioned their marketing motives, I decided this wasn’t about me and maybe I didn’t have a right to rant about what could be considered offensive to a community that I am not a part of. So instead I focused on the Beringer’s “White Lie” chardonnay ad campaign, who apparently thought women can’t hold their alcohol and only drink white wines. That ad campaign could also be considered offensive (but then again, I figured Beringer had several bins of stuck-fermented chardonnay and needed to onload so some good ol’ boys in marketing figured that the “gals” would love it.

When I read Tom’s article, I really didn’t find it offensive, but instead I admired him for bringing up a topic that would lead to one hell of a discussion. And Amy, I also admired her for bringing up another side of it. No matter, it’s all good especially when it brings comments and causes people to stop and think about these issues. Who knew that wine could be so damn political?

By: Stacy B.

Stacy B. — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:32:17 +0000

…I’m just waiting for the midget wine to roll out. You know, small people. They have different taste buds than you and I “normal” height people, right?

Oh! And I almost forgot about highly sensitive palate of those albinos out there! Geez! They taste things differently too, don’t they?

(Insert sarcasm here)

Let’s cut to the chase, there are six billion people on the planet and it’s safe to say there are six billion different and highly unique palates out there. It is too bad that marketing schemes capitalize on generalizations and harsh stereotypes
to create demographics cross sections of society.

By: Tom Wark

Tom Wark — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:30:18 +0000

I was thinking about Obama’s speech this morning and reading the various responses to it this evening. One thing is obvious. Certain topics in America are controversial, and no matter how they are approached the the person that brings these topics up must be aware that without careful wording they can offend others.

I can see how my post might be offensive and seem somewhat offensive even on close reading. And I don’t hold anything against Amy for her original take on the post. I like most of all that she read it (says my ego), but I also like that it provoked her to think about it. She’s a good thinker.

I have to agree with Amy that “Pansy” is offensive. Now, granted I’m not gay. However, I do have a very close family member who is, so I have some limited perspective and this association is probably what makes me quite willing to defend not only gays and lesbians but their lifestyle and their desires to be more fully accepted into the American political and civic culture.

I just didn’t feel it necessary to take on the offensive nature of “Pansy”. Its crass qualities should go without saying. But I have to admit, this idea that gayness, or any “ness” for that matter, could be associated with a particular element of taste or wine styles I really do find a fascinating topic. It’s a topic that speaks to our cultural identifications, stereotypes, truths about the nature of ideas and the complexity of how communication works—all topics I’m interested in.

Keep up the great blog, Amy.

Cheers,
Tom…

By: amy

amy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:31:40 +0000

Ger, point taken. The thing is, I don’t think that what Wark says is offensive. I agree that it is Pansy and those making similar moves. Wark does make good points, and he does talk about marketing. I think I do get what he was saying, but it is nonetheless an inflammatory topic. I didn’t say I was offended. But some people were.

Again, I’m glad he brought it up. And my apologies if it seems that I’m attacking Wark. I’m not. But I have a hard time with the Crawfords’ style.

I strongly recommend reading Wark’s article from March 14, “Is Wine Gay” on foodandwineforthegaypalate.blogspot.com because I think it clarifies his stance, which my commentary does not, nor was it intended to.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:12:55 +0000

I just don’t get how you can say that Tom Wark’s post is the offensive one. Its the Pansy wine that is offensive. Tom makes some very good points. Go back and read his blog. Your post here makes you sounds silly saying HIS post is offensive. Like you didn’t really read or “get” what he was saying.
Ger.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:18:57 +0000

Isn’t it even more disgusting that marketing like this actually sells? Not necessarily this particular line of BS, but this method in general.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:14:08 +0000

“I know its been done for ages, but I hate it. With all this Web 2.0, Wine 2.0, World 2.0 talk, arent we getting the notion that people want to be treated as individuals? Of course we look for commonalities, but we have to acknowledge diversity withIN communities.”

I have the same reaction as you do to the heavy handedness of mass marketing. The people at Kim Crawford don’t have the resources to one-at-a-time folks because they need to sell so darn much wine.

Instead they craft a message they hope will appeal to a large enough segment of a broader community to be successful. And at the same time they risk offending another sizable portion of the very same community.

All of which is what is so dehumanizing and lame. Wine is personal. We can try and reach out to others as winemakers and marketers, but what we really need to do is just be ourselves and market our passion and authenticity right along with the juice.

There’s no authenticity in Pansy. It’s all shallow pandering. That’s why it offends me.