Zack Johnson

I was wondering in what context this video was produced and in what way you found it insensitive. This video was interesting in how it tried to demonstrate how a male might react to suddenly developing female genitalia overnight, but I thought Zack reacted calmly and rationally, he tried to adjust to his situation. He did not try to do anything rash or dramatic to try to correct his situation. I could see how this movie does typify feminine as a sensitive, complaining, yet thoughtful gender, but perhaps this is the form of femininity that would exist should Zack be miraculously transformed into a woman. There are many types of feminine, why should this be discounted as offensive when it does exist? Should he still have possessed a more neutral or masculine existence?

I wrote a whole response to your comment and then some how I messed it up and it didn't save! boo... (I have a lot of homework, so I will not have to respond in so much depth again). This is an ad campaign to sell the product TAMPAX. Here is also a link to the blog, in which I found the video:

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/16/selling-tampax-with-male-menstration-wait-what/

To clarify, I do not find the whole piece insensitive. Most of the time I was waiting for a 'typical' response to come from Zack regarding his new parts. I appreciated that he didn't freak or go all sexual on his parts. To respond to your last question I am not sure how I wanted him to act. Your question implies he could only have three reactions: one where he was more feminine, one where he was more masculine or indifferent to either. Why is it that having or not having the 'correct' parts determine how one should act. AND why does it take this magical change to for him to start to sympathize as if having a magical vagina changes your understanding of how a female identified body experiences life. Plus, lets face it having your period for the first time wasn't that great! If I only had used Tampax tampons if might had been better and less humiliating.

Just one question that feels like a root to me: Why are those genitals "girl parts" or "feminine"?

Oh boy, this is a very different and interseting video. I agree that parts of this video are incensitive to women, but more than that I think those parts reflected ignorance of what it means to be a woman and femininity. I say this because right away when Zach's genitals changed to what he called "girl parts" he also adopted stereotypical feminine characteristics such as being emotional, irratable, and sensitive. The problem that I find with this is that it goes with the assumption that those stereotypical female characteristics are inherent to all women, while I would argue that the vast majority of it, or at least part of it, has to do with socialization than anything biological. It could be argued that Zach adopted these more "feminine" characterisitcs because he too was socialized and therefore knows how a woman is suppose to act so he may have been acting that way because he thought he was suppose to. However, I think that requires far too much thinking for a Tampax commercial so I find that possibility to be highly unlikely.

Wow, I hardly know how to respond...that was kind of weird to watch, especially not understanding what this video was created in relation to, I kinda cringed in several spots. First, I really like all points everyone brought up, it all gets ya thinkin'. The video could be viewed maybe not as insensitive but maybe more as misguided or misinformed, yes Zach handled the sudden overnight change of his genitalia rather calmly, no drastic measures taken, just going on with his daily routine but I think that just served as more of an opportunity for the creators to further perpetuate stereotypes about "women and menstruation" it did make me cringe a little, especially the end when Zach states something like, "fifty percent of the population get there period and they seem to be doing just fine." Indicating somehow that menstruation is an affliction, maybe even a disability with real side effects that you have to somehow overcome in order to be "normal" liked the unmarked male. Characteristics of sensitivity and irrationality are marked as specifically "female who menstruates" personality traits, they're marked as unwanted traits, instead of as fluid characteristics of many different kinds of people and personalities. I see this add mostly as a result of socialization of femininity which serves as further perpetuation of said socialization right down to the use of Tampax Tampons.
And maybe to try to reply to Remy a little: In regards to this ad specifically, Is it a question of why, if Zach identifies as a male and/or masculine, are his genitals anything but that as well, regardless of their form? Why do we genderize body parts as specifically male or female as though they alone determine who we are or as though there is no in between the two? Why are our bodies comprised of genderized parts that are automatically indicative of the whole? Am I looking at that questions the way you meant it? It is a rather good question, and one that many would not have an answer for but makes you think. (but if I am wrong, let me know, I want to understand)