|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can blast Ford's customer relations division at www.ford.com if you click on "Contact Us" at the bottom of the page. I did. I listed all three reasons I will never, ever, ever buy a Ford:
1) Their misandrist hiring and promotions practices which they claim now to have abandoned;
2) Their misandrist Canadian market ad campaign mentioned in this post
3) Their history of religious intolerance (apparently, they used to have a "religion" blank on their application page, and folks of certain religions didn't get hired until after they were forced to remove that blank).
We'll see if I get any kind of response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also mentioned the Ford Explorer tire explosions from 2000, which Ford refused to take any responsibility for. I noticed, of course, that those Firestone tires apparently were ONLY exploding on the Ford Explorer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btw, I should point out that I do not agree with the methods used to determine "offensiveness" in this article. Offensive should be determined by the consumers (as we did with Ames Dept. stores) and not by a government panel.
I am glad, however, that the ad has been publicly denounced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but this is one example of feminists being hoisted on their own petard. They want the PC Canadian government to protect them, but the protection, not being under feminist control, is executed in a relatively fair way. BTW, what alternative would you propose? e.g. suing them for the promoting violence? Sorry, but how would that work? (And Arnie would be in a lot of trouble :-)). I would add that protests mean nothing to a company that thinks it can insult men and therefore sell to women, if men can't or won't do a successful boycott of the company. This would mean for example you could never stop jokes at men's expense in women's magazines when they're selling women's products.
Actually there's a Ford ad. running in Britain at the moment, that's of "woman dumps man and its good" type. The ad. goes like this. Woman drops man at the airport. She's driving and it's a Ford something or other. As he is walking into the airport he says casually over his shoulder, "You'll marry me, won't you?". He's portrayed as maybe being arrogant or sure of her answer. The song "It's a man's world" starts. She drives off to a field and drives around the field. You now see him looking out of the airplane window flying away and he sees in the field the word "No" carved in the crops. He's clearly shocked by this reply. She smiles at the plane. The voiceover says something like "it's better when you take control" (and presumably buy a Ford whatever).
Mind you the Renault ad is about as bad. (Selling to women equals put down men. Doesn't say much about women (Yes, I know it's a generalization))
Raymond Cuttill
http://www.cyberManbooks.com Opening on Valetines day (at High Noon)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, what alternative would you propose? e.g. suing them for the promoting violence?
Nope. I suggest not suing them at all, but using negative publicity and boycotts to destroy their marketshare. Government has not business telling anyone what he or she can or cannot say on the airwaves.
Also, boycotts DO work, as do consumer complaints (look at our success with Ames Dept. stores.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure that government involvement is a bad thing in this case. Outlawing both violence and inciting to violence are legitimate government actions. If this ad is simply offensive, the government has no business with it. If the ad is found, however, to promote violence, then the government should bar it.
Considering the amount of violence by women against men, I think the case could be made that this is something of an incitement to violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The panel that hears ad complaints is not a government body. All display ads contain a tiny surcharge which is used to pay a small group of private advertising executives: They are the panel.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The panel that hears ad complaints is not a government body. All display ads contain a tiny surcharge which is used to pay a small group of private advertising executives: They are the panel.
So the advertising industry in Canada is policing itself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @03:15PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
You should write to them and tell them that not only would you never buy a Ford, but that you're going to put one of those "peeing Calvin" stickers on your car, where Calvin pisses on a Ford logo.
...that'd get their goat...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Way to go up there in Canada Kirby Inwood!
Good to see something positive coming out of Canada.
Just what is the problem with Quebec...eh?
For the record the only Ford I ever owned was a Mustang and will never buy a Ford again even if they weren't misandric to the bone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that Ford equated men with ground beef, though that sort of view does seem to be rather prevalent. Add me to the column of persons who will not buy a Ford.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn... I really wanted to get one of those GT40s they are showing around. I would get a Viper, but then Chrysler et al are taking to bashing those that like to support the Second Amendment.
I suppose I'll just have to wait and get a Ferrari:). I don't suppose they'll ever lose sight of their prime market!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
