In article , 
grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net says...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:15:49 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article , 
> >greg1199{at}yahoo.com says...
> >> 
> >> Viking wrote:
> >> > Macy's ad--men standing around, waiting obediantly to
carry what the
> >> > woman buys. Text: "Golfers bring caddies. Shoppers
bring husbands."
> >> >
> >> > Let them know what you think:
> >> >
> >>
http://www.macys.com/catalog/syndicated/remote/remotesyndication.ognc?Brand=FDSSURVEY
> >> 
> >> My response to the add:
> >> 
> >> Despite the stated purpose of this comment box, I cannot tell you of an
> >> in-store experience, because I will no longer be in any of your stores.
> >>  Why?  I find one of your recent advertisements greatly offensive and
> >> insulting.  The add shows men standing around, waiting obediantly to
> >> carry what their wives buy. The text reads, "Golfers
bring caddies.
> >> Shoppers bring husbands."
> >> 
> >> Firstly, whoever wrote that is a flat sexist who thinks of men as
> >> little more than servants women use to do the heavy lifting.  Also, has
> >> it occurred to you that men do, at times, use your store?  This will
> >> undoubtedly come as a shock to someone dim enough to liken married men
> >> to golf caddies, but the floor space you use to sell men's clothing
> >> often attracts .... men, and you arrogantly take them for granted when
> >> you insult them.
> >> 
> >> Why do you insult men in an effort to woo female shoppers?  Is it your
> >> opinion that women enjoy seeing men insulted?  Is it therefore your
> >> opinion that most women, even married women, hold men in some degree of
> >> contempt?  What would lead you to believe such a thing about women?
> >> 
> >> If I receive some incentive from you, I may reconsider whether to
> >> enter, ever again, one of your stores.  Otherwise, Dillards is just as
> >> good, and they don't insult men for fun and profit.
> >> 
> >\
> >You could have added:   "Since when are the golfers using the
caddies'  
> >money  to pay the greens fees?"
> >
> >
> >Mark Borgerson
> >
> 
> 
> Really, BM?
> 
> If someone else had said what you just said, you would have responded
> by challenging that person to prove that women use their husband's
> money to shop in all instances.
> 
> And then if that person had bothered to respond that married women use
> their husband's money to shop in MOST instances, you would have
> responded, "That's probably true, but can you PROVE it?  And aren't
> there a large number of unmarried female shoppers?  And besides,
> aren't most married women at least employed PART-TIME, so who's to say
> whose money they're spending?"
> 
> In the end, you would have pedanticized this secondary factual issue
> to death in order to draw heat away from the overriding issue of
> whether this ad was appropriate - and you probably would have found
> some other reason to justify the ad.
> 
> So you're willing to allow yourself the freedom to criticize
> women-firstism once in a while, are you?  When are you going to allow
> others that same freedom?
> 
> 
I've never tried to stop anyone from criticizing anything.  I just try
to point out those instances when  their arguments get a bit ridiculous.
The analogy between shoppers and  was faulty and I pointed it out.

Thank you for filling in the details.

Is 'pedanticize' even a real word?  I couldn't find it in any of the
online dictionaries.  Maybe  it only appears in those special 
dictionaries they give to lawyers!   ;-)


Mark Borgerson



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 4:56:26 AM ---