At first I thought that this vintage Honda ad was aimed at women who wanted to do lots of “things.” And then I realized, no, despite the fact that all the women look alike, the ad is actually aimed at men who get to have “things,” like “Michelle and Tammy and Alison.”
Selected text:
But what would you rather have? Automatic transmission, air conditioning, and a 400-horse-power engine?
Or Michelle and Tammy and Alison?
More examples of women being conflated with things here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Found at Vintage Ads.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 24
Andrew — November 27, 2009
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 — November 27, 2009
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...
Jamie — November 27, 2009
Awww, dang. I thought the same thing too - that maybe, despite its homogeneity, it was aimed at women. Alas...
the crab — November 27, 2009
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 — November 27, 2009
I really don't see it as "buying" the women as in all the expensive dates.
Jamie — November 27, 2009
Absolutely! Because advertisers have come so far...oh wait:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vUXwvy6BE0&feature=player_embedded
Rhys — November 27, 2009
You don't get many chicks topping out at 75 miles per hour.
Joe — November 28, 2009
Yeah, who wants AC? Let Tammy and/or Alison take her top off if she's hot!
Joy-Mari Cloete — November 30, 2009
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 — November 30, 2009
"Up to 40 miles per gallon" up to 40 years ago. Oh progress, where have you gone?
Eve — November 30, 2009
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.