One Mark or One Waffle

To begin with, I'm an aficionado for food. While many people despise breakfast, breakfast happens to be my favorite meal of the day. From the aroma of my mother's pancakes to the ding of my Henrietta Hen (hard-boiled eggs), I look forward to what foods will start my day on a positive note. Recently, I've fallen in love with waffles. The smell of the chocolate-filled Belgian waffle is so strong, and no matter how stuffed I am from the rest of my meal, I always finish this waffle.

This week, however, I've become more aware of my actions with name-brand foods that are generally displayed on Western advertisements. For example, take a look at this advertisement about my favorite waffle, the Eggo® Thick & Fluffy Waffle.



In "Disability," Nancy Mairs discusses the rationale of advertisers for not including the disabled. The advertisers she spoke to claimed that they didn't want to insinuate the idea that their product is "just for the handicapped". Following this, Mairs compels us to think logically by asking rhetorical questions, such as "if the disabled were drinking Coke, would we switch to Pepsi in fear that we would be struck sightless?" No, right? This seems illogical; under this logic, everyone who isn't disabled should be eating the same exact foods. (But also, Mairs tells us that everyone ends up disabled - so maybe we should all be eating the same exact foods and brands.) Now, if we all find the advertiser's claim to be incorrect under the logic of hypothetical daily situations, what difference does an advertisement make?

As seen by President Trump spending $10 million for an ad on the Superbowl this Sunday, advertisers spend millions of dollars to research their target market and promote their products. This then brings into play, would including the disabled cause a loss in profit? To bring it back to my lovely, delicious waffles, I often wonder about the possible outcomes if Kellogg's Eggo® were to include the disabled in their ads. In the aforementioned video, what if the lady came out with prosthetics - would the interest in Thick & Fluffy Waffles dissipate?

What happens now in society is that people are constantly marked by societal norms. The unfortunate circumstance created over time is that the disabled are marked as "temporarily unabled persons". Just as Deborah Tannen analyzes how women are marked by their appearances in "There is No Unmarked Woman", the disabled are equally as marked by their appearances. Amputees will look for prosthetics so that they are slightly less marked, but their prosthetic still sends a message. Since we naturally have judgmental minds, it is likely that in some cases, people will feel intimidated or scared by the physical appearance of the disabled. In advertisements, the majority of viewers (able-bodied) may feel that products for the disabled are not for them; thus the advertisement may capture the attention of the disabled but lose the attention of the majority. I suppose, in this case, advertisers are too afraid of losing profit and customers. However, it really shouldn't be like that; the stereotypes held with each "marked" group are often untrue and create problems, such as the questionable proposition that the disabled do not complete the ordinary activities of daily life or that women must be dressed up to be somewhat respected. It's time to stop avoiding social problems, especially for advertisers, who affect societal stereotypes. Start representing the underrepresented as is - without any under or over-exaggeration.

Don't judge a cover by its book. Don't judge a person by his or her appearance.

To reflect on this as a whole, it's sad that one mark can transform societal views. Underneath every appearance is a person with a different background and unique personality. We all have similar basic needs; if quality items were not in the market due to an advertisement with the disabled, I'd have to say that we'd be missing out on a lot of good innovations in the world for our social biases.