I’m kidding, of course, but I’m such a slave to traffic for this site that I’m purposely going to act like every other blogger out there and craft a controversial headline just to get you in the door.  So, put down the rolling pin and read the rest of the post, hot lips.

So, apparently I’m in London for a week and when I get back and all I see is people getting all wound up about some of the Super Bowl ads that were directed at men.  Notice I’m not saying sexist, because most of the ads that have been deemed sexists by sites like The Frisky just aren’t sexist at all.  In fact, they aren’t even about “Women Emasculating Men” like the title of the article suggests, except maybe that fucking Dodge commercial, which I hated anyway.

The real problem with that ad was that they don’t mention the damn product until the end of the spot.  The more I think about it, the more it pisses me off.  All it would have taken was some better editing and it just would have been a better commercial.

Anyway, don’t get me started on that again, we could be here all day.  No, we’re here to discuss the “response” ad that was put together by Mackenzie Fegan last week in record time.

Outside of the $0.75 to a dollar number that was proven wrong back in the 70s*, you have some pretty solid points. However, you also have to realize that the agency probably pulled their punches on this one because they were trying to be funny, not be a dick towards women. Given a minute or two, I’m sure they could come up with some equally shitty issues that are unique to men, but that would be damn depressing, which is a bad tone when you’re trying to sell sports cars.  So, whatever… life sucks for the both of us. Trust me, honey, I’m the first to say that no one has the market cornered on pain, suffering, or being an asshole about who has more pain and suffering in their lives. I swear, if we all spent less time bitching about the other side and just realize we’re all equally crazy, we could solve a lot more of the serious problems in the world like cancer or why people in the UK think it’s OK to eat “prawn cocktail” flavored potato chips.

The real point I need to make here is just how easy it was for Fegan to put that response together. Outside of the product shots at the end of the Dodge commercial, they are on the same page as far as production value, but I bet the one from the agency cost a boat load more to do and took ten times as long to produce. Plus, the fact that her spoof is done in the same style and makes no mention of brand shows what a poor excuse for a commercial Dodge produced for the most expensive media buy of the year.

So, thanks to Mackenzie for proving my point that this was a suck ass commercial in the first place. Is the original commercial sexist? Of course it is, it was supposed to be. But then again, so was the response, so I guess we’re even.

Now that we’re done with this crap, would one of you ladies mind getting me a beer while you’re… Hey! That was at my head!

J.

* Basically, it’s not true… yes, women on average in aggregate make less than men on average in aggregate, but only because there are more men in higher paying jobs, not strictly because of sexism. When more women become CEOs, VPs, etc., then the gap will close up. In fact, it has been closing up for years now. The whole “for the same job” is a whole different issue that they have laws against now. I know, just because there’s a law doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but if it is, you can fix that shit now and be done with the problem.

Related posts you might enjoy:

1. Super Bowl Ad Review: WHO DAT don’t know how to sell their brand?
2. Ah, there it is. GoDaddy.com Super Bowl ad is banned.
3. Hyundai Pulling the Wool Over Our Eyes during the Super Bowl
4. Sorry ManCrunch.com, if you were an anti-abortion ad, we would totally take your Super Bowl ad…
5. Motorola picks a fight with Apple at the Super Bowl, and loses