Rod Dreher

Islam, the Mideast, & Liberal Democracy

Your Big Fat Gay Oreo Cookie

By Rod Dreher • June 26, 2012, 10:29 AM

It’s not a joke: Oreos announced their support for gay pride. Jerry Falwell, you and Tinky-Winky should have lived to see this moment.

But seriously, isn’t this ridiculous? Since when does a cookie brand feel the obligation to take political stands? It’s absurd. Listen, I’m pro-life, but if Oreo announced its support for anti-abortion causes, I would find that bizarre. Likewise this. I think it’s very hard to overestimate the enthusiasm for gestures like this in corporate America. A newspaper executive once told me that if readers didn’t like the emphasis the paper he worked for put on gay-positive stories, then the paper could do without such “bigots” (his word) as readers.

So, what now? On to Chips Ahoy, which I guess must be presumed to be a vicious little Hate Biscuit until proven otherwise.

Posted in Consumerism, Culture war. Tagged gay, gay rights, Oreo.

71 Responses to Your Big Fat Gay Oreo Cookie

Newer Comments →

Alex says:

June 26, 2012 at 10:33 am

I don’t think “gay pride” is a much of a political stand these days. The parades and associated events are big tourist draws for the cities that host them and have turned into more of a generic, albeit-gay-themed, holiday. The rainbow Oreo you’ve pictured isn’t a “political” statement any more than the McDonald’s Shamrock Shake they roll out around St. Patrick’s day is a “religious” statement.
Christopher Larsen says:

June 26, 2012 at 10:43 am

Rod

Generally speaking large swathes of corporate America is pro-gay especially in the technology industries but also in manufacturing, public relations, entertainment, media etc. These gestures help to set a tone within the organization as much as anything. The conservative virtues of tolerance and respect for differences are recognized by corporate America. Corporations have led the way in adding nondiscrimination policies with regard to gays and lesbians because its good business practice and it helps attract top talent, much of it from gays and lesbians. One of the ironies of the conservative movement is its intolerance of homosexuality and its fetish-like adoration of a corporate America in which successful growing businesses support gay rights. I mean if support for homosexual rights and non-discrimination is good business practice how can the Republican party oppose it??
Eugene says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:02 am

Chips Ahoy is in fact a vicious Hate Biscuit, but that’s because they taste like the malice of Sauron: stale, bitter, and devoid of all that was once good in the world.
reflectionephemeral says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:03 am

Eh, seems like a harmless show of support for a group that has historically been the target of discrimination.

What about yesterday’s big religious liberty news? How come we’re getting all this about Big Cookie’s pro-gay agenda, but nothing about the Supreme Court stomping on the Catholic Church?

Remember, a few months back:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and several other Christian denominations filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Arizona vs. United States, supporting the principle that the federal government controls the enactment and implementation of the nation’s immigration laws. The March 26 brief argued that the federal government is in the best position to protect the well-established goals of family unity and human dignity in the nation’s immigration system. The brief also made the case that a patchwork of state laws could inhibit the Church’s mission to serve immigrants, thus impinging upon religious liberty. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service joined the bishops in filing the brief. … the brief argued that Arizona’s SB 1070 is not a solution to the problems in federal law and in fact creates more problems than it solves. … The brief said that state laws such as SB 1070 threaten to restrict the Church’s ability to provide pastoral and social service care to immigrants and their families, thus infringing upon the Church’s religious liberty.

You’ve been pretty charged up about the HHS’s regulation on employer-provided insurance plans covering contraception. Why haven’t you added 20 or so similar posts about the Arizona Republican Party becoming an “enemy of religious liberty”, and the Supreme Court launching an assault on Freedom?
PeterK says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:03 am

Bring back Hydrox!
Heatherer says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:03 am

Menh, I think this is about the same as all the breast cancer pink products I see in October. It’s not that I don’t support people with breast cancer; it’s that a bunch of companies are finding a way to make lots of money off of other people’s suffering. Before people “purchase causes”, they should look into whether or not the company is just pocketing the profits of their compassion. (Same deal whether you do or don’t support gay pride/SSM/etc – I don’t think it’s about the political stand)
Bruce says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:05 am

This is a business decision. Many people will start buying Oreos to support the company that supports their causes. For gays, and many people close to gays, this issue is so important that they will spend their money accordingly. Few conservatives are really going to care about this so much that they will not buy Oreos.

As for those working in the newspaper industry, they see themselves as cultural leaders and educators. They’re not just reporters of facts, but they are deliberately trying to impact and change society. So yes, many will flat-out reject portions of their market. They want to marginalize conservatives.
Beyng says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:07 am

Alex:

Did you even follow the link? The rainbow Oreo–looks delicious, by the way–was intentionally designed for a gay pride ad campaign. Don’t be mistaken: it is an advertising campaign designed to make money for Nabisco, not usher in a new age of justice and quality. But why do we have to be subjected to (sometimes offensive) political statements so Oreo can make a buck? Can’t they stick with telling me how delicious Oreos are?

No, corporate money and influence is acceptable when my side does it, right?
Floridan says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:11 am

I don’t think it’s absurd at all — I think it’s American commerce. Obviously, the “job creators” at Kraft Foods think this will make them some money. I doubt the decision was based on some whimsy.

Feel free to boycott Kraft Foods’ products.
James in Ohio says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:14 am

Link doesn’t work. They took it down maybe?

Meh. The people of this country have largely apostasized. Nothing surprises me any more. I hope Nabisco goes out of business.
Saint Andeol says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:18 am

I don’t care what they support I just want that Oreo. I don’t even need the colors, I’m just gonna buy a box and take the cream from 6 different cookies and make one super-Oreo.

Wait, what were we talking about again? Oh right. At least we don’t need to hear anything about this from Keebler. An all-male group of elves living together in a tree and baking cookies all day? I think we know what side of the issue they fall on.
Mont D. Law says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:19 am

This is just more evidence that all conservative positions on homosexuality are going the way of lots of other conservative positions. Komen, ALEC, the endless think tanks, the National Review etc. are losing their ability to fund the promotion lots of those positions. Corporations understand that they can earn effortless money by making rainbow cookies and hiring Ellen Degeneres. They also understand that supporting certain conservative positions costs them money.

oh and Chips Ahoy has had a gay cookie for years, it’s just been in the closet.

http://tinyurl.com/779glt
jaybird says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am

I think it’s very hard to overestimate the enthusiasm for gestures like this in corporate America.

I think this sort of thing has a lot more to do with the prevalence of gays and gay-friendly sympathy in the “creative industries” – advertising, fashion, photography, design, etc.
Roger McCarthy says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:28 am

Mmmmmmm cookies….
Rod Dreher says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:28 am

At least we don’t need to hear anything about this from Keebler. An all-male group of elves living together in a tree and baking cookies all day? I think we know what side of the issue they fall on.

Mmmph!
Thomas Aquinas says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:38 am

Gay Oreo? Isn’t that a black man whose a closeted gay: black on the outside, rainbow in the middle?
Thomas Aquinas says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:42 am

Once Oscar Meyer and Taco Bell jump on this bandwagon, the humor will be limitless.
mlindroo says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:49 am

> Eh, seems like a harmless show of
> support for a group

And for the same reason, I would not have problem if some company wanted to produce Jesus cookies, or something that appeals to Mormon or African-American consumers. Being an Iraq war sceptic, does it offend my delicate sensibilities if someone starts selling red-white-and-blue “Support our Troops” cookies? Nope — as far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with insulting/opposing world peace.

Really, I cannot see why Rod had to post a snide comment because of this.

MARCU$
Alex says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:51 am

Beyng: Did you even follow the link? The rainbow Oreo–looks delicious, by the way–was intentionally designed for a gay pride ad campaign.

Yes, I acknowledged that. What I’m questioning is why is a gay pride ad campaign necessarily a “political” stance? I live in a city where gay pride is a major event, with close to a million participants and spectators. It’s not really a political event at all any more – it’s a big festival with corporate sponsors, economic impact reports, grants from tourism bureaus, and the like. Most of the spectators probably are not even gay. As my analogy suggested, gay pride is about as political today as the St. Patrick’s Day parade is religious – that is to say only very tangentially and only for those who are trying very hard to see the political angle.

The question is, why do you and Rod see this is a political statement?
Liam says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:59 am

Keebler ruined Hydrox. ‘Nuf said.
Ben says:

June 26, 2012 at 11:59 am

The use of cookies as instruments to impact social issues dates back at least 183 years. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_cracker
Erin Manning says:

June 26, 2012 at 12:10 pm

Saint Andeol, your comment made me laugh!

We don’t much buy Oreos anyway. “Better cookies through chemistry!” would be an honest company slogan; besides, two out of five of us can’t eat chocolate. All the same, I will make a point of *not* buying even the “Golden” variety from here on out, because the last thing I want to contemplate when purchasing cookies is the politically correct sex practices being promoted by the corporate sponsor.

In fact, I went on a bit of a rant about this on my little insignificant blog recently. Rather than link to the whole thing, I’ll just share the relevant bit, because it really does sum up how I feel about this corporate sponsorship of trendy political causes nonsense:

What I would like to know is this: when the hell did it become the job of mere merchants who sell me stuff to attack my faith, patronize my values, belittle my morals, ridicule my deeply-held beliefs, and openly seek to marginalize those of us who don’t want this crap forced down our gullets every time we need a pair of shoes, a set of sheets, or a cup of coffee? When the hell did the expression change from “The customer is always right!” to “The customer is probably a Christianist bigot in serious need of Big Brother-style reeducation, served alongside his order of fries or his purchase of a tee-shirt!”?? When the hell did it become the job of some megalomaniacal soulless corporate sack of nothing to convince me that my morals are socially incorrect, when we all know for certain that the same megalomaniacal soulless corporate sack of nothing would push equally hard for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a Cannibal Rights Group, or the Society to Unplug Grandma Before Her Care Costs Us Too Much To Let Us Gratify Every Consumerist Whim the minute holding any of those positions seemed like a good bet in terms of the soulless evil corporation’s bottom line?
Scott says:

June 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm

This post fits right in (I think–not exactly sure) with that OccuPride group in SF.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/occupride-at-san-francisco-pride_n_1610784.html
CapeCodder says:

June 26, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Well, Rod, I guess Oreo’s will be the next target (oops, Target sold Pride T-shirts this year) of your dear friend Maggie’s NOM and a new boycott.

They didn’t like Starbucks support of gay marriage in WA, so they “DumpStarbucks” Even went interational!! (in gay-hating Muslim countries, natch). So, after lots and lots of effort DumpStarbucks has about 45,000 petition signers. After very little effort, a “Thanks Starbucks” site has over 645,000 signers.

So, based on that ‘success’ because General Mills dares to be against the MN constitutional ammendment, it is now time to “Dump GM”…..actually, Maggie can go on a well-needed diet, as Haagen-Das is GM, and all sorts of yummy cereal (and some healthy ones, too, like Cheerios). Good luck NOM, tilting against $19.billion companies.

Wonder when NOM will give up its Apples and Macs, and stops flying AA, UA, US, VS and other carriers.

Once again, Rod, your animus shows through.

Would you be upset if Oreos were red, white and blue for July 4th, or green, gold and red and white for Christmas, or green for St. Patty’s day?

Someday Rod, you might actually meet real gays, and share rainbow Oreos with them. Hey, they might even be married and have kids, too!!!
Roger McCarthy says:

June 26, 2012 at 12:48 pm

And a product called ‘Chips Ahoy’ (nothing gay about sailors – oh no) is your candidate for a ‘vicious little hate biscuit’?

But if it takes corporations joining the Great Gay Conspiracy to make you question the capitalist system then hooray for Oreos….
sharky says:

June 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm

I blame the Catholic bishops.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

June 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Saint Andeol, elves aren’t gay, they’re faeries.
dhoff says:

June 26, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Gay or straight, who can afford a package of Oreos any more? They are almost $5 a pack and the packs have shrunk considerably.
Mister Pickwick says:

June 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Corporate America has a deliberate strategy of breaking America up into lots of little subcultures, to which Corporate America can then sell customized products. Profit-driven Balkanization. Similar to identity politics, its identity consumption. Give each little subculture its own flag, its own symbol, and then flood the market with thingies that bear those subculture identifiers. The gay community now has numerous sub-sub cultures within it, each offering its own gold mine of marketing opportunities. The mainstream gays have their flag, the “bears” have a different flag, the lesbians have yet another flag, and the “leather community” has still another flag. (If you don’t believe me look it up) Divide and subdivide, market to and profit from those divisions and subdivisions. This strategy is extensively discussed in corporate boardrooms across America.

Rod, you ought to host a competition to design a flag for the straight community. Could be great fun.
Mike says:

June 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm

I don’t believe for a second, Erin, that if some retailer decided do to an ad campaign using homeschoolers with rosary beads in their hands, you wouldn’t be the first in line to buy their stuff. That’s the reality of our consumer (and tribal) outlook. You are just as tribal as those excited about the gay oreo and you’d be quick to endorse such an effort.

Which is natural, of course. People who go to Chik-Fil A because the owners are committed Christians and don’t open on Sunday are being just as tribal. Using businesses because they advertise in the weekly announcements from your local parish is a similarly tribal and consumer act.

Oreo just realizes that they can make money by showing support for an important consumer group.
TWylite says:

June 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm

There’s a “toss your cookies” joke in here, but I’m too indifferent to bother. But this kind of thing is pure Onion bait, and I feel obligated, so here ya go… http://www.theonion.com/articles/dinty-moore-breaks-long-silence-on-terrorism-with,3300/
Alex says:

June 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm

What I would like to know is this: when the hell did it become the job of mere merchants who sell me stuff to attack my faith, patronize my values, belittle my morals, ridicule my deeply-held beliefs, and openly seek to marginalize those of us who don’t want this crap forced down our gullets every time we need a pair of shoes, a set of sheets, or a cup of coffee?

Um, dude. The message of gay pride is, “Gay people exist and aren’t ashamed of existing.” Why do you see this as an attack on your faith? Does your faith depend on the non-existence of gays?

If a company engages Christmas-themed advertising in December and a bunch of atheists get all upset about “promoting Christianity” or “attacking non-Christian faiths”, you’d right see them as ridiculous. Why in this case is this ad campaign seen as overtly political or as ridiculing your deeply-held beliefs?
Neil says:

June 26, 2012 at 3:18 pm

I don’t care about their politics.

I want a triple-double stuff oreo.
jaybird says:

June 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm

What I would like to know is this: when the hell did it become the job of mere merchants who sell me stuff to attack my faith, patronize my values, belittle my morals, ridicule my deeply-held beliefs, and openly seek to marginalize those of us who don’t want this crap forced down our gullets every time we need a pair of shoes, a set of sheets, or a cup of coffee?

You got all that rage out of a rainbow-creme cookie? Wow.
Saint Andeol says:

June 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm

dhoff said: Gay or straight, who can afford a package of Oreos any more? They are almost $5 a pack and the packs have shrunk considerably.

maybe where you live. at my grocery store they’re almost always on sale for $3.15 or so, even the double stuff’d. I had to force myself to stop buying them. Every time I’d get the munchies half the cookies would disappear and I’d feel sick the next morning. And since I “get the munchies” a lot, Oreos don’t last more than 3 or 4 days max in my apartment.
Erin Manning says:

June 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm

Mike writes: “I don’t believe for a second, Erin, that if some retailer decided do to an ad campaign using homeschoolers with rosary beads in their hands, you wouldn’t be the first in line to buy their stuff. That’s the reality of our consumer (and tribal) outlook. You are just as tribal as those excited about the gay oreo and you’d be quick to endorse such an effort.”

Oh, how little you know me, Mike!

We used to live in rural North Carolina. My husband had a rule: avoid like the plague any business with a fish symbol in the window. As he put it, nobody will screw you over faster than a fellow Christian when it comes to business.

And that goes double for Catholics. Some words that make me RUN FOR THE HILLS are: “I’m starting a new ministry…” “I truly feel called to make my liturgical calendar-based home organization system available to the public, starting with our homeschool group…” “I know that God will bless my decision to start a Catholic praise and worship band…” “We both left lucrative careers to spread the Gospel through our Catholic-themed sticky wall art company…” and so on.

And if a major company ran an ad using Catholic imagery that wasn’t openly mocking Catholics (which is the usual way these things happen–for instance, I could see an ad campaign featuring rosary-holding Catholic homeschoolers as the “uncool” kids too lame to wear New Mega Super Slouchy Low-go Pants (slogan: Because Your Underwear Is Too Cool To Go Unnoticed!)–I’d still be deeply suspicious, wonder why the company was trying to exploit Catholics, recognize that in some boardroom some deeply cynical materialism-peddlers were saying things like “Hey, Catholics are an under served market, so let’s figure out the best way to appeal to their nostalgia and separate them from their dollars!” and, most likely, ignore their efforts to pry my money out of my hands.

Which is something I don’t really get about these campaigns. Does anybody think that the Powers That Be at some junk-food company went off on a Tibetan corporate retreat and, in mystic meditations sessions, had the beauty and wonder of gay sex revealed to them such that they felt compelled to make a political statement in favor of gay “marriage” all of a sudden? Nope. They don’t care about gay rights any more than they care about the environment or anything else; they just know how to market the illusion of caring to get a better return on their investments in order to please the stockholders.

If there were a sudden push to legalize polygamy, we’d have the group-marriage Oreo, after all. If drug legalization become a big, trendy issue, we’d have the crystal meth Oreo, as well. Anybody who mistakes corporate push-button marketing for actual caring deserves to have their money confiscated by the endless and greedy horde.
Rod Dreher says:

June 26, 2012 at 5:14 pm

It’s pretty funny how extremely sanctimonious some are about the dang homosexual Oreo. Gang, it’s an openly gay sandwich cookie. It’s comedy gold!

Mint Milano, I should say, is an excellent drag cookie name.
Peterk says:

June 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm

what i find funny is how many folks are outraged when conservative groups challenge companies such as Kraft and JCPenney for promoting the gay agenda, but have no problem with LGBT and other liberal/progressive groups challenge companies with conservative agendas.

be consistent
Erin Manning says:

June 26, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Oh, I see that I forgot to reply to Alex: um, dude. The message of gay pride is “Sodomy is the moral equivalent of marriage, and should form the basis for marriage, and anybody who disagrees is a hater hater social traitor. So all Catholics are bigots by definition.”

I don’t think that sodomy is the moral equivalent of the marriage act or that it should form the basis for marriage. I classify it as a grave evil along with adultery, fornication, pedophilia, and other sins of a sexual nature, because of my religious beliefs. The pro-sodomy movement wants to classify my religious beliefs as bigotry and hate, to force them out of the public square, to force people like me to give “marriage” based on sodomy our public support and approval (restricting our “religious opinions” to church on Sunday–for now, anyway) and to make it a grievous social offense for people like me even to voice those opinions. Sorry, but I don’t think cookies go awfully well with that kind of an agenda.
Sean Nelson says:

June 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm

All the same, I will make a point of *not* buying even the “Golden” variety from here on out, because the last thing I want to contemplate when purchasing cookies is the politically correct sex practices being promoted by the corporate sponsor.

Erin, if you can’t so much as enjoy a cookie without imagining “politically correct sex practices,” you might well meet the clinical definition for “obsessed.” Some of us manage to have whole friendships with gay people without dwelling on what goes on when the lights go out–just like we do with straight friends! It’s not the cookie’s fault that this is where your mind takes you, you know. This kind of hyper-focus on what you find most loathesome can’t be healthy for you.
SAF says:

June 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Mint Milano!?
Gay Oreo= closeted black gay person?!

I needed that.
CapeCodder says:

June 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm

Erin writes: “I don’t think that sodomy is the moral equivalent of the marriage act or that it should form the basis for marriage. I classify it as a grave evil along with adultery, fornication, pedophilia, and other sins of a sexual nature, because of my religious beliefs.”

Well, I hope you have traveled around the country and the world to let your Catholic priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the Pope know that pedophilia is a grave sin. They seem to have thought it was one of their priestly privileges.

And where, oh where, is the statement from Jesus condemning homosexuality? If it’s so dang important, why is there not a Commandment against it? I mean, its certainly not as bad a swearing or coveting my neighbor. Heck, it’s not even one of the seven deadly sins(as long as we don’t lust….).

Hmmm. You might want to think about all that. As you munch on a ….oops, guess you can’t munch on a cookie.
Alex says:

June 26, 2012 at 6:26 pm

It’s pretty funny how extremely sanctimonious some are about the dang homosexual Oreo.

Rod, you kinda started it. You’re the one who tagged this “Culture war” and said that this was an example of a company taking a “political stand”. I’m serious in asking this question: can you be specific in stating what political message you think is being conveyed here?
JonF says:

June 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Re: I don’t think that sodomy is the moral equivalent of the marriage act

Sigh. This is classic apples to oranges.
“Sodomy” is a specific sex act, one which some heterosexuals (married or not) indulge in, and which more than a few gay men do not (not to mention lesbians are anatomically incapable of it). Marriage is A) a sacrament or blessing rite of many religious bodies (though strictly speaking that is “matrimony”) and B) a legally recognized personal relationship.
The two are not on the same plane at all, and as mathematicians would say, they are incommensurable.
alcogito says:

June 26, 2012 at 6:32 pm

And last weekend Washington’s pretend-Catholic governor was Grand Marshall of the Gay Pride parade. If she had known about Oreo, I am sure she would have been tossing cookies to the crowd.
Matt says:

June 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm

I don’t think that sodomy is the moral equivalent of the marriage act or that it should form the basis for marriage. I classify it as a grave evil along with adultery, fornication, pedophilia, and other sins of a sexual nature, because of my religious beliefs.

Ah, but you see, I view attempts to marginalize human beings over matters which should, ideally, be viewed as none of your business and your notion that you have some sort of God-given right to absolute veto power of the sex lives of consenting adults to be grave evils. And I see no reason in the world why I should be affected, in the slightest, by your deeply held religious beliefs.
sjay says:

June 26, 2012 at 7:16 pm

at my grocery store they’re almost always on sale for $3.15 or so, even the double stuff’d. I had to force myself to stop buying them. Every time I’d get the munchies half the cookies would disappear and I’d feel sick the next morning. And since I “get the munchies” a lot, Oreos don’t last more than 3 or 4 days max in my apartment.

That is my exact experience too. I can’t stay away from the double stuffed Golden Oreos, which do go on sale every couple of weeks for $3.15 or so, or even 2/$5.
Peter H says:

June 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm

I’m pretty sure that Chips Ahoy has already had a variety with multi-colored chocolate chips (or was it mini M&Ms?).

Oreos have always been so black-and-white. Me, I’m looking for them to issue a special edition for those of us who prefer nuance — Oreos in shades of gray.
Ken Z. says:

June 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm

How did the Uncle Tom cookie (“black on the outside, white on the inside”) become a GAY cookie? And what does this mean for the whole civil rights schtick? I’m getting more and more confused!
Peter H says:

June 26, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Erin @5:24, does the marriage of Newt and Callista force the rest of us to give “marriage” based on adultery our public support and approval?