Click picture to see larger size.
The copyranter claims this is more evidence of rampant misogyny in advertising, and since I have experience with both trolls and well-meaning people who assume that every other explanation for something horribly offensive must be exhausted—no matter how implausible—before we consider something sexist (by gum, they’d claim a man who choked up a little was a crybaby who wasn’t tough enough to run the Free World, too! we swear!), I could hear all the scrambling already to declare this ad Not Sexist, or at worst, Sexist To Men. Because there’s no such thing as sexism, you know. I suspect the protests will be that this can’t be sexist, because it objectifies men, since you see them half-naked, and women aren’t even in the picture. And while I agree that this ad is no doubt sexist to men—mainly because the side effect of sexism towards women is sexism towards men that implies that men are as firmly entrenched in stifling gender roles as women—and misanthropic, in that it portrays people’s sexual habits as a strict trade-off on an objective hotness scale, I’m going to also agree with copyranter that this ad feeds the misogyny in advertising.
They don’t need to show the women, because at this point it’s thoroughly assumed that in order to have the right to look at these ads, you should be either a size 0 with D cup tits, or at least be very, very sorry that you aren’t and hating yourself and currently seeking every way to escape your disgusting current situation, body-wise and achieving the size-0-D-cup minimum requirement standards for inclusion into the public life. But more to the point, the degree of hotness you achieve as a woman in this ad (aka, how you dress up your acceptably perfect body) directly correlates to how much pain and discomfort you’re currently experiencing, as copyranter notes. There’s an irony there, which is that flats are really stylish right now, which the ad begrudgingly allows by making a cute pair of flats the third pair of shoes down. The shoe store makes money whether women are buying flats or heels, so the best explanation for the implication that women must be in pain to be fuckable strikes me as copyranter’s explanation:
In the 21st century, misogyny in advertising is still rampant, rampant, RAMPANT! You wanna know why? Because many, many ad agencies are still basically just boys club bastions with hardly a female writer or art director in sight. Women belong at home, supervising the Roomba!
So we have a world where a store wants to entice women to buy its shoes, but goes through a middleman who is more interested in sending the message to women that their sexual prospects depend on their willingness to suffer more than the message that the store probably wants to send, which is, “Buy our shoes! They’re cute!” If that doesn’t say something about our society, I don’t know what does.
The other irony here is that most real human beings aren’t beauty whores. If the trade-off to never touching a painfully high-heeled shoe again is that I don’t go out with 20-year-olds who spend all their time at the gym, well I’ve already made that trade-off. There’s no incentive here for most women to go up the pain ladder. In fact, I was miffed at the idea that mildly chubby men, as a general rule, have to settle for women who don’t have the good sense to actually wear real shoes when they leave the house.
OT: So, WTF, McNulty?!
66 Responses to “What if I wear the high heels with a ratty chenille bathrobe?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Maybe they mean the opposite, and the imaginary line goes in the opposite direction? That if you wear slippers all day that you’ll get the hot guy?
I have to wonder just what they’re thinking as well. Sexist for sure..but usually sexism has a purpose. To keep someone down or something…from my uneducated eye, my guess is nobody wears only 6 inch heels. So they might buy those AND the sensible heels AND the flats AND the slippers, as opposed to those who might just be happy with a few good pairs of flats and thats that.
From a sales point of view, it’s probably not a slippers or heels thing, it’s a slippers AND heels thing. I think.
Still amazingly sexist, in an almost uncountable number of ways.
“In fact, I was miffed at the idea that mildly chubby men, as a general rule, have to settle for women who don’t have the good sense to actually wear real shoes when they leave the house.”
The first thing I thought was “What’s wrong with chubby men?” My significant other is a “man of great stature” as he puts it; he is fat - actually fat, as opposed to the slightly padded body this advert seems to portray as ‘ugly’. The thought that he can only date the ’slipper-wearers’ is ridiculous.
But hot people only date other hot people, remember! Personality means nothing… us uglies have to make do with other uglies. ;oP
Is it just me, or is the “flats” guy hotter than the high heels guy?
It’s probably just me, since I’ve always had a weakness for the stringbean set.
“In fact, I was miffed at the idea that mildly chubby men, as a general rule, have to settle for women who don’t have the good sense to actually wear real shoes when they leave the house.”
The first thing I thought was “What’s wrong with chubby men?” My significant other is a “man of great stature” as he puts it; he is fat - actually fat, as opposed to the slightly padded body this advert seems to portray as ‘ugly’. The thought that he can only date the ’slipper-wearers’ is ridiculous.
But hot people only date other hot people, remember! Personality means nothing… us uglies have to make do with other uglies. ;oP
I live in either LL Bean moccasins, sneakers, or LL Bean boots. Feh to heels!! Or barefoot, when it’s above 30 degrees outside. T shirt and no coat if it’s over 20. Socks only if it’s below zero.
Flats Guy also has chest hair- oh yeah, much nicer. Hey, sexism IS a 2 way street!!
I clicked through to the larger image because the ad as it stands makes no sense. I thought “There has to be a line there - I must be missing it.” There’s no way to tell what the relationship is between the two axes - I mean, not all relationships are linear.
So, misogynist AND stupid. Let’s hear it for innumeracy.
It’s probably just me, since I’ve always had a weakness for the stringbean set.
Oh, it’s not just you. I’m with you- there are plenty of us, too. It’s no coincidence that David Tennant, High King of Stringbeans, got voted Sexiest Whatever like two years in a row in the UK.
I feel a slight aversion to guys who spend too much time on their abs- they’re just abs. They make jokes about cheese-grater stomachs, but then get all offended when I run after them with a brick of Colby-Jack. Touchy.
I only wear heels when I’m in a power suit, which happens occasionally, when I want to terrify somebody and revel in it.
by gum, they’d claim a man who choked up a little was a crybaby who wasn’t tough enough to run the Free World, too!
Sorry to be one of those troll-types, but they would.
Of course, the language with which they would make those arguments would be incredibly misogynistic (which negates the whole argument of the “sexism? what sexism? I don’t see no sexism here” trolls), but they still would do it.
Doesn’t work for me. I’m built like the guy second from right, only with more to the shoulders and arms on account of the boxing and such, and my lovely wears army boots most of the time. Heels have their place, but not all day every day.
I’m with Jay. Where’s the line indicating the relationship between the axes?
Really, all this did was have me imagining the guys in those shoes.
Wait–since my husband looks more like the first guy, does that mean I *have* to wear slippers all the time? I prefer socks, but I could find some slippers if it’s mandatory for the patriarchy.
There are plenty of women like me who can’t even wear 6″ heels because our feet are too small. So we’re supposed to resign ourselves because of our height and shoe size? What a way to sell your business!
PS Can I bring up another ad that has been setting my teeth on edge lately? It’s the credit.com thing where the guy with his band is singing in a basement apartment as the guy’s wife does laundry. It has a jingle along the lines of “I married my dream girl..but her credit was bad.” and ends with “if only I had…I’d be a happy bachelor with a yard and a dog.”
It might be OK if the woman wasn’t in the background doing housework.
I guess they’re looking for the 20-something guy and don’t care what females think of their service.
This is the kind of ad that might not be viciously misogynist if we didn’t live in a patriarchy-suffused culture (although no doubt both the shoes and the torsos would be different). So part of the reason for denying the misogyny of the ad is that it’s a way to be “post-feminist” or some such crap…
So if I buy each of those shoes, do I get each of those men? Like a matching purse?
This ad makes no sense. As Karmakin pointed out, many women are going to buy more than one of the type of the shoes in the ad, and the store certainly wants them to! It makes no sense to suggest that practical shoes are for ugly, lazy women who will only attract an “ugly, lazy” man. From a marketing point of view, it is counterproductive.
It only makes sense if you’re trying to reinforce the idea that women should always be on display for men.
I SO,/i> don’t get it.
Why are the cute little sneakers considered so unsexy?
I also had to think way way to hard to figure out what the ad was saying. In fact, without the post to give some context, I might still be scratching my head. So it sucks on two levels. It’s misogynistic and it makes no sense.
I would, however, advise stocking up on cute flats now. I’m sensing we’re about to swing back the other way big time.
that would be “too hard.”
Isn’t this ad a little (unintentionally, maybe) subversive by implying that women are actually attracted to hot male physiques, instead of money or any of the other things that we’ve Naturally Evolved to find attractive? I mean, most of these kinds of ads suggest that without the hot shoes, you aren’t going to get any kind of man, and that if you do manage to get one, you’re not going to be overly picky about superficial things like his appearance.
Anyone see the Wendy’s (or Subway?) ad where the lady walks up to the counter of a generic burger place, asks what she can get and the cashier told her a long list of things like “Low self-esteem, wider thighs, a lack of boyfriend, greasy fingers”?
Feministe is currently working on th Subway ad, Jonathan. And lou, I SO agree- she outta take that guitar and pop his ass with it! Or steal from “Animal House” and smash it on the wall…
The lack of a line indicating correlation threw me, too. And given the lack of any labeling indicating otherwise, I’m going to imagine the correlation being matching up the men to the shoes they themselves wear.
Also of note, on the scale of desirability, the only obviously man-of-color included in the lineup is the second to least desirable.
You’re free to click the link, DAS, and find me all the media outcry demanding that Bush resign because he actually cried—not choked up, but cried. I patiently await the cartoons, op-eds, and Chris Matthews flip-outs that you will surely present me.
You all missed the racism here. The black guy is paired up with the sneakers. So his partner (probably a woman of color) must be an athlete, jock, whatever.
(I also want to add a note that the captcha here is impossible.)
I agree that a handful of men who already fit into a predetermined media stereotype will get their emotional moments spun to fit the narrative. Dean’s scream was blown out of proportion to fit the narrative that said, “All war opponents are lunatics, not serious people.” As an extrapolation of that, the dwelling on Clinton’s moment of being choked up is a way of saying, “Women are not serious people.”
I still await the evidence that the many men that Lindsay documented crying in public created a huge scandal.
Lou:
There are plenty of women like me who can’t even wear 6″ heels because our feet are too small. So we’re supposed to resign ourselves because of our height and shoe size? What a way to sell your business!
Exactly! I have trouble finding stylish dress shoes because my feet are larger than average for a woman. Forget stilettos! (I wear an American size 11 in sneakers and 10-10.5 in dress shoes depending on brand.) I’d have a much easier time if I were a size 7 or 8, but it seems big feet are only preferable in men.
Oh well, I guess I’ll be stuck with comfortable shoes and a mediocre man.
Sorry, you’re making mountains out of molehills here. The store DOES want you to buy all of those shoes. And you CANNOT assume a relationship between the axes without a line or any plotted points and then a label to those points. It’s the classic not-given-enough-information problem. It’s your own insecurities that allow you to assume a direct positive relationship here, as evidenced by your remarks about having a size 0, D-cup body. There is no evidence for that in this ad whatsoever. No one has ever said that only “hot” women with “perfect” bodies can wear “sexy” shoes.
I usually really like your blog posts, but this is a poorly argued overreaction. Sure, the ad is stupid and ineffective but it doesn’t insinuate the things you’re assigning to it.
Don’t forget that with the perfect body, you must have the perfect feet for the cute shoes, my personal experience being in trying to find not ugly, not expensive shoes in the larger and wider sizes.
I have a great idea — let’s make every advertising executive on the continent (they’re pretty bad here, too) have to go to something we could call Real Life Boot Camp, which would be where they have to actually interact with and get to know people who aren’t like them and see how people live when they don’t have a thick layer of varnishy privilege insulating them from everything. Maybe if they emerged out of their superannuated-frat-boy coccoons, ads might not suck so much anymore.
On the other hand, having learnt that Wal-Mart Canada now intends to put Big-Brotheresque wall screens showing thirty-second teevee ads in all of their stores by the end of 2008, I’m more than ever convinced that we need a world with less advertising, not just better advertising. (Not that I shop at Wal-Mart, but I didn’t think it was possible for the Wal-Martians to make themselves more annoying and/or to advertise more.)
That Subway ad has been driving me crazy! One fucking cheeseburger is going to make absolutely no difference in your quality of life (maybe you’ll be a little more sleepy or gassy or whatever for the next four hours). If your self-esteem can be destroyed by one non-nutritious lunch, you never really had any, and if your boyfriend leaves you because you eat cheeseburgers from time to time, you are better off without him.
Yargh.
I just threw out my only pair of heels (they were sitting in the back of my closet and I literally never wore then, so they got chucked when I did a major closet overhaul).
Yet somehow…my guy is still hot. I think this graph is faulty! :O
Mmmm … third dude from the right.
Ooops, off-topic. Sorry.
I was going to suggest that this ad is correlating the shoes you wear while on the prowl (as opposed to around the house on a day-to-day basis) with the kind of gentlemen who will pay attention to you, but who on earth wears houseshoes in public?! So Harvey Nichols is actually suggesting that women wear heels not just for special occasions but for everyday use! Ugh.
Of course if you wear high heels on all your dates, then, once you’re cohabitating, slip on sneakers, the men will cry foul and accuse you of false advertising. (At least the douchey ones will.)
Does the f*ck-me-pumps phenomenon exist in non-heterosexual fashion? Do lesbians wear higher heels depending on how “noticed” they want to get at the bars? (I’m not playing dumb. I honestly don’t know. None of my female friends, straight or gay, wears high heels, so I’m isolated from high heels culture.)
Anyone see the Wendy’s (or Subway?) ad where the lady walks up to the counter of a generic burger place, asks what she can get and the cashier told her a long list of things like “Low self-esteem, wider thighs, a lack of boyfriend, greasy fingers”?
I actually like the part where she asks “Can I get that without the low self-esteem?”
The cashier looks back at his manager, who rudely snaps, “No substitutions!” The cashier gives the woman a somewhat apologetic look and a shrug.
That’s right–cause you live in America, woman, and if you plan to indulge in bad-for-you, fat-making fast food, by god we’re going to punish you for it!
Of course, I suppose the humor I found in the ad may not have been Subway’s intended message….
I was hoping the graph would be interactive, and you could draw your own line. In fact, you CAN do so in your imagination as an amusing exercise.
So, after all this sturm und drang, how many of you wrote to Harvey Nichols?
What I find ridiculous is: How can a graph be “faulty”, when there’s no data inside it? You are “drawing your own lines”, so all it illuminates is your own attitudes.
Yes, the race aspect jumped out at me, too. Because, what? Black guys only like the hot athletic shoe du jour? Black guys don’t work or play in environments where heels are appropriate?
Bah. Sexist and racist and stupid. I’d love to be surprised by that, but I’m not.
As for the ad, the distinctions it seems to be attempting don’t make sense. I own and wear some version of all those shoes, and I love them all in their own way. And, come to think of it, I’ve dated some version of all those men, too. Won’t say I loved them all, but I certainly appreciated each in their way.
Oh god, lou, that jingle is so damn catchy. It breaks my heart b/c my little girl loves to run around the house singing “I married my dream girl, I married my dream girl…” and then wonders about the rest of the words. I keep hoping she won’t see it again, but she keeps picking up more lyrics.
/threadjack
“In fact, I was miffed at the idea that mildly chubby men, as a general rule, have to settle for women who don’t have the good sense to actually wear real shoes when they leave the house.”
As a mildly chubby man, I wholeheartedly concur. But then I’ve never been the type of person who notices shoes much either way, unless they’re really, really waaaaay out there.
So maybe that’s my problem . . .
PS Can I bring up another ad that has been setting my teeth on edge lately? It’s the credit.com thing where the guy with his band is singing in a basement apartment as the guy’s wife does laundry. It has a jingle along the lines of “I married my dream girl..but her credit was bad.” and ends with “if only I had…I’d be a happy bachelor with a yard and a dog.”
I hate that ad too, FWIW.
I have to get in on the creditreport.com ad, too.
I actually like the jingle, because the melody is catchy and upbeat, but the message - that a 20something slacker with questionable grooming skills could have such stellar credit in comparison to his 20something wife - is what bugs the everloving crap out of me.
What, like this guy would be so much better off if he’d married someone else? So what if his current wife defaulted on some credit cards - it’s not like he’s old enough to have purchased four new vehicles, paid off all his student loans, and rented progressively more costly apartments in progressively posher neighborhoods over the last ten years.
Judging from his haircut, facial hair, clothing, and manicure, it’s highly unlikely he’s raking it in, so really, how much better could he have done?
The other part that bugs is that the wife’s credit is supposedly bad because she defaulted on credit cards, when we all know that if these are 22 year-old U.S. kids we’re talking about, it’s far more likely that she couldn’t make her student loan payments (now that those can’t be discharged in bankruptcy the way that some other kinds of debts can).
I guess my mind drifts to the question: “Well, slackerdude, if you’re so unhappy about living in your in-laws’ basement, why are you standing there singing that song with your slackerish-looking buddies, instead of working a second (or third) job, or at least helping your wife with the second shift she’s pulling (probably to compensate her parents for letting you hang around their house, emptying their fridge)? How about you go buy them some groceries or mow the lawn, or otherwise make yourself useful?”
I think that there is a profit-motive explanation for this. By suggesting a connection between the type of shoes you wear and the romantic partner you will have (leaving aside the ridiculously shallow way they make the connection that others have pointed out), the ad attempts to make shoes a MUCH more valuable commodity that they should be. A woman who believes that shoes are going to impact her romantic life that much will be willing to spend way more money on shoes than a woman who doesn’t see why it should matter that much. That doesn’t really explain why the ideal has to be pain-inducing, but I think it goes a little ways to explain why the shoe company wants there to be a hierarchy.
Really, all this did was have me imagining the guys in those shoes.
There is that, too- my #3 guy would luv to have the high heels!
Do they come in women’s size 10?
Woops; meant guy #4- buff with furry chest. Didn’t recognize him in briefs; more used to pink.
So, the message is, “Wear really painful shoes, and YOU TOO can score with a gay gym rat!”
W00t!
I have to admit that I looked at this and didn’t understand it. It seems like something is missing.
So, the message is, “Wear really painful shoes, and YOU TOO can score with a gay gym rat!”
Wouldn’t a woman need two gay gym rats?
Consumerism, the fashion industry, high heel manufacturers and retailers, as well as the practice of assigning worth to people based on their appearance, are all tools of the patriarchy.
I’m surprised that a retailer of womens’ shoes would allude to a calibration plot (I know, it’s just the axes) in their advertising. I wonder what went through their minds when they were making that decision. I’m betting it was something on the level of, “hurr, hurr!” but it could have been a deeper analysis; who knows with these people.
“It’s your own insecurities that allow you to assume a direct positive relationship here, as evidenced by your remarks about having a size 0, D-cup body. There is no evidence for that in this ad whatsoever.” - Naomi
*Sniff, sniff* I smell pedantry.
maatnofret, I hope I am misreading you with that “gay gym rat” comment.
Oh yes (yes, yes).
The men I have dated do not actually appreciate a woman in high heels as much as we are told. They may like the way the shoes look, but they also appear to find it annoying to go out with a woman who can’t walk at a reasonable pace.
I can keep up a good pace in a two-inch heel, but stilettos are treacherous. Special occasions only.
I’m kind of confused by the ad. I think it’s because I find it objectifying all around (be a sexual object to get a sexual object) and I’m not used to that.
Because many, many ad agencies are still basically just boys club bastions with hardly a female writer or art director in sight.
I’ve yet to see that in 20 years of supporting ad agencies. In fact I’d say, by my own anecdotal experience, that the male/female ratio in advertising is about even. Hell, at one point 5 years ago the agency I was at was completely staffed by women except for me - the tech guy - and the boss.
And therein lies the real reason; It’s not the ad agency at fault here, it is the CLIENT who signs off on this crap and the client is a boss and the bosses are still mostly men.
Just in case my other post doesn’t come through (and in any case, it won’t hurt to repeat this):
Consumerism, the fashion industry, high heel manufacturers and retailers, and the practice of assigning worth to people based on their appearance, are all tools of the patriarchy.
The fundamental problem with this ad is the mistaken premise that straight men give a shit about the shoes a woman is wearing.
Yeah, derrp, you are misreading me. My bad, though. I forgot my snark tags.
It was more a comment on how this ad in particular actively encourages us to judge on shallow appearances (as all ads do)–except that the stab at cleverness kind of backfired into absurdity.
Josh, I think the mainstreaming of porn has a lot to do with what women perceive straight men want us to look like (I also think it directly affects what straight men think they want). And spike* heels are pretty standard in porn, as far as I know. It’s not really about the shoes, specifically, but about conforming to what the patriarchy upholds as a standard for what a “sexy” woman should look like. High heels are one component of the pornalicious image that women are told we have to project in order for straight men to find us sexually attractive. Of course, the patriarchy also tells women that being sexually attractive to straight men is of paramount imporance as well. Which, I suspect, is why some women will endure the expense and pain that wearing spike heels entails.
Straight men may not give a shit about shoes, but in my experience they sure do give a shit about how well a woman conforms to the standard they see portrayed in porn.
*loosely defined as heels higher than say two or three inches
I think we should film an alternate credit report ad from the dream girl’s point of view:
Well, I married my boyfriend, I married my boyfriend
Thought he was dreamy, but I guess I was wrong
‘Cause now instead of helping me with bills and laundry
He spends whole day belting out that credit song
Now he has plenty of time
To sit and hear himself whine
Just because his friends all think that I’m a castrating whore
If he’d just go get an entry level job,
I wouldn’t plan on pawning his guitar anymore!
I see the ad and just go “What the hell?”. I’d never have thought it was anything sexist–I wouldn’t think it’s anything at all but some ad executive’s bad trip. I wouldn’t get it. I still don’t. Okay, if I match the slippers with the pudgy guy and so on down the line, whatever, but it’s pretty obscure to have any effect on me personally.
Definately… I like the “sensible shoe” guy too (probably because he has the exact physique of my fiance).
That’s why the dancers at strip clubs dance in nice flat comfy dancing shoes, and never 6″ stilettos… right?
The reasons some women wear heels is because
1) A lot of (yes, straight) men find heels hot
2) Those men that don’t notice women’s shoes do notice the way a woman’s legs and ass look in high heels.
The idea that women only wear heels to impress other women and gay men is seriously bullshit.
Wow, what a dumb ad.
Here, I fixed it so that it would make more sense.
http://www.halfrobot.com/imgs/harveynichols.revised.jpg
Or maybe the ad really *is* interactive where it’s actually running, and you can (by clicking) see the guy of your choice in the shoes of your choice. That would actually be amusing and witty.
The fundamental problem with this ad is the mistaken premise that straight men give a shit about the shoes a woman is wearing.
This is completely ridiculous, you know.Straight men compliment my shoes all the time, and I can’t even wear high heels. Men like boots, I’ve noticed. They don’t even have to be sexy boots. Just… boot-shaped.
And, because it bears repeating, heels change the shape of your legs. And your ass. And your walk. In ways that men are conditioned to find sexy.
Plus a lot of men who say they don’t care about this stuff would actually be quite annoyed if their groomed girlfriend started going round in sneakers. Guys who make a point of saying that they don’t care about shoes/makeup/whatever trapping of femininity are generally the ones who are the most invested in maintaining gender roles.
I just kept picturing the dudes in the shoes.
And I don’t know, I think it’s the tightie whiteys, or the lack of heads, but I’m not digging any of those boys. I guess I’m a man-hating feminist! Them’s the breaks.
Also, I like the new credit report jingle, realityfighter. I can’t stand that commercial, for all reasons mentioned, but mostly because IT IS NOT A FREE CREDIT REPORT. Not when you go through that site, anyway. You get automatically enrolled in TRIPLE-ADVANTAGE CREDIT PROTECTOR or some shit, for which you have to pay. That’s not free!
I just kept picturing the dudes in the shoes.
And I don’t know, I think it’s the tightie whiteys, or the lack of heads, but I’m not digging any of those boys. I guess I’m a man-hating feminist! Them’s the breaks.
Also, I like the new credit report jingle, realityfighter. I can’t stand that commercial, for all reasons mentioned, but mostly because IT IS NOT A FREE CREDIT REPORT. Not when you go through that site, anyway. You get automatically enrolled in TRIPLE-ADVANTAGE CREDIT PROTECTOR or some shit, for which you have to pay. That’s not free!
Holly -
Now, your fixed version makes an awesome ad! I would really love to buy those shoes after seeing that ad.
You’re all missing the point of the ad. It’s a pro-polyamory ad!
You wouldn’t wear any of those shoes for all occasions, right? So pick several boyfriends so you have the right one for every occasion.
No, I don’t really think that was what they were going for, but it would make more sense than any other interpretation I can think of.
What man do you get if you wear your sneakers on the way to work, but change into the pumps when you’re at the office? If you’re slipping into your pumps while you’re talking to a guy, do his pecs magically firm up? Do you have to teeter around on heels all the time to keep him from sagging?
I have to agree that they’re advocating polyamory, I have four pairs of pumps alone, that’s a lot of hot headless guys!
(BTW, the loafers guy is built just like my hubby. Shame on me for liking comfy shoes, I’ve ruined his physique with my selfishness!)
I hope this isn’t posted twice - I got an error message the first time.
“It’s the credit.com thing where the guy with his band is singing in a basement apartment as the guy’s wife does laundry. It has a jingle along the lines of “I married my dream girl..but her credit was bad.” and ends with “if only I had…I’d be a happy bachelor with a yard and a dog.”
It might be OK if the woman wasn’t in the background doing housework.”
The thing about this ad that bothers me the most is that it doesn’t make sense given the situation. 1) The guy could still apply for a mortgage by himself, even if he is married, and then his wife’s credit score wouldn’t matter at all. He might not be able to get a large enough mortgage to buy a house with a yard without her income, but then he wouldn’t be able to buy a house as a bachelor either. 2) Presumably his wife didn’t tell him about her credit score, so why would she give him access to it through this credit report service? Does it give you credit reports on anyone? The ad doesn’t seem to be trying to imply that.
Let’s pretend for a sec that nothing is plotted on the graph because you’re free to “mix-n-match” whichever combination of shoes and guy turns you on. The labels on the Y axis still imply that female hotness increases as you go toward the wildly impractical and terribly uncomfortable shoes.
Guys who make a point of saying that they don’t care about shoes/makeup/whatever trapping of femininity are generally the ones who are the most invested in maintaining gender roles.
Huh? Can you elaborate and/or back this generalization up?