3 ms·
> The whole implication is that "girly = bad" which is sexist, and then you have guys who are going to be emasculated if they enjoy a "girly" thing which is als
by serf 11y ago
> The whole implication is that "girly = bad" which is sexist, and then you have guys who are going to be emasculated if they enjoy a "girly" thing which is also sexist.
Cars are designed with specific genders in mind.[0][1][2]
I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is. The linked articles come to some conclusions as to why.
Also please note that no one made the 'girly=bad' assertion but you.
[0]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-02/hormones-fuel-auto-sales-in-sex-driven-market-jason-h-harper http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-02/hormones-f...
[1]: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/chap6.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/chap6.pdf
[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10077069/Designing-cars-that-women-want-to-buy.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10077069/Designing-cars-...
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago> Also please note that no one made the 'girly=bad' assertion but you. It was implicitly made. They dislike the Bolt's look so described it as "girly" (using the term as a negative). So unless you're claiming that they meant "girly" as a compliment, my point stands. If they didn't mean "girly=bad" then their entire statement makes no sense. It only makes sense if they meant it negatively.
- Cthulhu_ 11y agoMaybe s/he was just making a statement? Let me re-quote it, there's no judgment of any sort attached to the statement "Bolt? That's a car for girls(at least by design)." Any negative connotation with that is in the eye of the beholder.