Friday, 18 July 2008

women are like cars.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/009775.html

:-(

6 comments:

Emma Darkly. said...

...*sigh* I think the ad only means that "Ok, so what? Other people have had her, but she's still a fucking beauty".

I don't think it's _that_ sexist.
Silly feminists.

mintspy said...

ok to explain,

1. the ownership thing, this ad is for a product, not sex. takes it too far imho cuz even tho the implication is there in many ads, it's really really there here. in fact, there is no car in this ad.

2. this person sums it up in comments:

"If you were to say that you dislike the fact that sex is being used to sell things unrelated to sex I'd have to agree with you, not because I have a problem with sex but because I have a problem with the assumption that my genitals control my wallet."

it's demeaning to it's target audience too!

3. the implication that sexually experienced women = "used". it's all wrong for me, a used car cheaper so a used woman is _____ basically to me it implies that sex is what women are useful for, and not much else

4. owning a used bmw is like shagging this woman! give us money and you can! both are products to buy!

on a side note: this girl looks pretty young, bmw drivers are (usually) much older.. i know that happens a lot, but this girl looks *really* young and that sends my creep-o-meter beeping. basically, as this person says "Most guys with enough money for beemers are probably old enough to be that girl's dad"

*places self in silly feminist camp*

mintspy said...

ok points 1 and 4 are pretty the same but meh it's early

miss snowmantle said...

yeah she does look about 13 :-s

Emma Darkly. said...

Hm, granted that she does look about 13, but she can't be too young since "you know you're not the first".

I think the age of the girl might just be the consequence of the advertisers being too scared to make her look too old, simply because the point of a used car is that it doesn't have to be falling to pieces just because it's not new.

But I also think you're reading into it. I really believe the point of the add is merely to say: You're not the first, but does well, so what? The lack of car makes it all the more a genial marketing idea.

All ads are demeaning to their target audience; they all assume the consumer has no idea what they want or need and that they've broken through a world of haze and confusion to finally bring you the product that will not only change your life but also produce the (insert whatever the product's function is) you always wanted. Using sex to sell something is "fair game" at this day and age, it's just up to the consumer to decided whether they'll let it sway them or not.

Don't forget, people use sex to sell things because... sex sells! I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's tried and tested. Maybe it shouldn't, but that's a different matter and not one shareholders tend to worry about.

I don't agree with point 3 at all. I don't think it implies she's used per se. I don't think they're trying to sell the woman either, or implying ownership of her.

As for the side note; maybe they want to expand their target consumer to younger ages, or make their older customers feel young.

mintspy said...

Objectification is the process by which people assign meaning to things, people, places, activities, (or, in the case of self-objectification, themselves), and thus become part of cultural constructions which inform and guide behaviour. This term also refers to behaviour in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own, in other words as, as without agency. In this sense, it is a synonym of reification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification