I hope I'm not alone in thinking that advertising that stereotypes and denigrates men also stereotypes women and makes them look worse than the men they are trying (often ham-handedly) to criticize.
I'm prompted to write on this particular subject because of this website: puppyordog.com, a "promotion" for Victoria's Secret and has something (vaguely) to do with spring break.
Clearly, they do not understand how the whole canine thing works. In reality, A Puppy is crazy with energy, easily distracted and shits on the carpet. If you do the job right, A DOG is a reliable companion who knows how to behave, shits outside and holds still for you to wipe mud off his feet. All that aside, this site is openly about manipulating men because, clearly, most of them are badly behaved. When men are stereotyped in this way, it makes women look small, petty and bitchy. This has the effect of demeaning *women* and victimizing the men. How is this funny again?
I do not understand women who want a man they can push around. I do not understand why anyone would find strong, competent alpha-male and then try to *train* him to behave in a subservient fashion. Clearly, these marketeers are convinced that alpha-males are actually big babies inside.
I guess that women are hoping to find a cute one and then completely alter his personality. While we all know this will not work, this certainly indicates that any woman who would follow this advice is a total pain in the ass. I'm not saying that *I'm* not a pain in the ass -- I have it on good authority that I am, but I'm not a pain in the ass in this particular way.
The more I think about it, the more I think a man came up with this thing.
If I thought it would have *any* result, I'd write to the company, but I have no confidence that anyone would even read my nastygram. Because of that, I'm complaining about it here hoping that it will be eternally visible in Google. Tino has also blogged about this, concentrating on the "stomp on his foot with your heel if he doesn't behave" thing. The more google hits the better, I say.
Posted by nicole at April 16, 2005 01:29 PM
It's not just sexist ... it's *dumb*, for the reason you describe: the goal here seems to be not so much to have a heterosexual relationship as to have heterosexual property. Not bright.
Posted by Erich Schwarz at April 18, 2005 03:45 AM