Sociological Images

Comments

• 

  Andrew 11:28 am on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  I kind of pity the advertisers here. They were trying to sell a cheap little car at a time in which cars were, for American men, the dominant symbol of masculinity and status. They had to pre-empt the idea that the Coupe made you look like a cheap little man. So what did they use? Of course! Lots of hot chicks. Not like you could fit Michelle and Tammy and Alison in the car, of course. Let alone the skis.

  Now that more women own cars, environmental concerns are more fashionable, and fuel is more expensive, the efficiency and stylishness of the car would be the selling points. But in order to get us to that point, car dependency had to rise to disastrous levels. In the long run, this seems like a bigger problem to me.

• 

  Yael 2:21 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  At least for me, all the links you provide for previous posts seem to be broken – I get an in-blog ‘page not found’ notice. Does anyone else have that problem? And if so, could you please check up on this?
  Thanks.

  PS – That is indeed quite a stupid ad. Also, I can’t figure out what the woman on the far left is supposed to represent: from right to left, I see tennis gal, high-society gal, boating gal, rodeo gal, beach gal [this is starting to sound like a list of Barbies], regular gal[? this is the 70s, I assume?], ski gal, and then mystery lady with the babydoll and the strange hair. What is she? Bedroom gal? I don’t get it.
  Then again, I have probably been thinking about this way more than I should have…

  • 

    splack 3:21 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

    The links all work for me. I’m on Mac/Safari.

    I wondered about the woman on the far left too. I guess her “type” (collect them all!) is defined by the activity of wearing lingerie. I’m sure it makes perfect sense to someone, somewhere… in the ’70′s.

    • 

      Yael 6:46 am on November 28, 2009 | # | Reply

      Links work today, so I’m not sure what happened yesterday.

      And yeah, I suppose she’s just Lingerie Gal. Ugh.

• 

  Jamie 2:32 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  Awww, dang. I thought the same thing too – that maybe, despite its homogeneity, it was aimed at women. Alas…

• 

  the crab 3:38 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  The add is out of place in 2009, but it was not when it was produced. The world was a lot different back then.

• 

  maus 3:55 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  I really don’t see it as “buying” the women as in all the expensive dates.

  • 

    splack 4:16 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

    I think they could have used the words “dinner with” in the second part of this copy if they didn’t mean to imply that women are simply purchased the same way one would buy a transmission or air conditioning or an engine:

    But what would you rather have? Automatic transmission, air conditioning, and a 400-horse-power engine?

    Or Michelle and Tammy and Alison?

    Perhaps there’s an allusion to dates in the ad but their copy flat-out equates women to things you can buy for your car.

    • 

      Andrew 4:21 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

      If you think that would change anything, you might have a very different idea from the average male about the purpose of a dinner date!

      The ad is no less sexist/objectifying without any text at all. Funny enough, though – the car looks a lot better without all the clutter in the background.

      • 

        splack 4:25 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

        I realize many people equate dating with a form of prostitution. I actually deleted a part about that from my comment. The point (still) is that the ad equates women with car parts.

        • 

          Andrew 5:36 pm on November 27, 2009 | #

          Technically the point is that having more money to spend on women is better than having better car parts. Because all women are prostitutes, who will squeeze themselves into anyone’s tiny little car if he spends enough money on them.

          Dinner is one of the ways to implement this transaction…but more explicity, skis and lingerie and tennis rackets (which the cheaper car allows you to afford) are more effective.

      • 

        splack 9:59 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

        Andrew, MY point was that the ad equates women with car parts.

        I’m not sure why you assume the man in the ad is supposed to be buying the accessories for the various women/dollies.

        • 

          Village Idiot 10:19 am on November 28, 2009 | #

          The ad does not say you can buy the women (like car parts are bought). It asks which you would rather “have.” So, I agree with Andrew; I don’t think the ad equates women with car parts. I think it implies you can afford all the other kinds of maintenance that women apparently require such as sports equipment, a fashionable sport-specific outfit, and of course a trip to the mountains, beach, or tennis club so they can use their nifty new gear.

          Maybe the slogan should’ve been “The New Honda Coupe: It Might Get You Laid Until She Meets a Guy Who Can Afford a Diamond Ring”?

        • 

          Jamie 10:36 am on November 28, 2009 | #

          I think you’re both right… The ad clearly equates women with “things.” Maybe they aren’t explicitly saying ‘car parts,’ but they certainly aren’t human beings, either, when you take into account the heading and then the smaller text.

• 

  Jamie 3:56 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  Absolutely! Because advertisers have come so far…oh wait:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vUXwvy6BE0&feature=player_embedded

  • 

    JT 8:51 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

    To be fair, that isn’t a real advertisement. Someone made it as a “joke.” I agree with your point, though.

    • 

      Jamie 9:28 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

      haha, yeah…though we still have “poca-hotness” to contend with, too

• 

  Rhys 5:23 pm on November 27, 2009 | # | Reply

  You don’t get many chicks topping out at 75 miles per hour.

  • 

    Village Idiot 10:39 am on November 28, 2009 | # | Reply

    Just tell ‘em you’re holding back ’cause you don’t want to scare ‘em by engaging the turbo and going pedal-to-the-metal. If she doesn’t believe you, then say “Oh yeah? Well then why did it come stock with a racing mirror?” (then point to the mirror)

    The ad clearly says ‘racing mirror.’ Granted, you only get one mirror but I bet you don’t even need it because who do you have to worry about catching up to you from behind when you’re blazing down the highway at a blistering 75? As long as you don’t try showing off this car’s abilities on an uphill stretch, you’ll be fine.

    Or, you could spin it differently and say “Well baby, those fast guys in their fast cars are looking for fast women who are just gonna get dropped off as fast as they got picked up, you dig? But I ain’t like those guys; I like to take things a little slower… just like my car.”

    • 

      Jamie 10:45 am on November 28, 2009 | # | Reply

      LOL! Like “Be Cool” where John Travolta gets a hybrid and when asked about the speed he says, “If you’re important, people will wait.”

• 

  Joe 5:57 pm on November 28, 2009 | # | Reply

  Yeah, who wants AC? Let Tammy and/or Alison take her top off if she’s hot!

• 

  Joy-Mari Cloete 6:02 am on November 30, 2009 | # | Reply

  OEGEE, this ad stinks. So it’s a car for cheapskates who want to date, ie, own as many women as possible. Lovely.

• 

  Ben Zvan 10:54 am on November 30, 2009 | # | Reply

  “Up to 40 miles per gallon” up to 40 years ago. Oh progress, where have you gone?

• 

  Eve 12:51 pm on November 30, 2009 | # | Reply

  I want that car. It is awesome. All the women can be my friends for various activities. We can hang out and talk about feminism while we go skiing, lingerie shopping, to the rodeo, etc.