I'm going to save anyone the trouble who might be inclined to suggest that this commercial could just as easily feature a middle-aged woman whose husband was replaced with a young hawt stud. Yes, it could. But it doesn't. And the reason it doesn't is also the explanation as to why it wouldn't be the same thing even if it did—because we do not have a cultural history where men were legally considered their wives' property. We do, however, have a cultural and legal history in which a woman's civil identity was covered by or absorbed into her father's or husband's, beyond which we've barely moved in many ways.
SgtMum, who gets the hat tip, also notes: "Chrysler seems to forget that the majority of all car buying decisions in the US are made by women. Women like me who don't think the concept of wives as a possession to be 'upgraded' like a cup of coffee or a car is funny." Indeed.
And I'm frankly amazed that this kind of "humor" is still operable in this day and age, not just because it's offensive, but because its capacity to make anyone laugh should have passed its sell-by date decades ago from sheer overuse.
What are your thoughts? Discuss.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus