I WANT THAT!
Boy, that ad really set back feminism. I was for women’s equal rights before I saw it, but now I’m going to lobby for stripping away women’s right to vote. My god man, she was in her underwear! How can you not immediately chain your wife to the stove and anally rape her after viewing this stuff?
Well, they couldn’t very well use Sacagawea. With the prices that Madison Avenue & the Garment District charge womyn for clothes, they can’t afford to appear to be making a womyn look like a Saca- Anything…
Isn’t it SWEET?!?!? Yeah, a crappy little .25 doesn’t have any stopping power so my wife wouldn’t be interested but an automatic is SO much better as a purse gun than the revolvers Smith & Wesson was selling in their Ladysmith line. A hammer? Isn’t that going to catch on something as she draws it?
OTOH, S&W doesn’t offer the pearl and pink grips they used to. Instead they had really nice rosewood grips that go fabulously with blued steel. Hmmm, I have smallish hands and regular size handguns are a little big. Am I secure enough in my masculinity to buy a woman’s pistol?
On a serious note…
I’m figuring some self-proclaimed genius figured that hey, SBA was about liberating women, right? And our product is so comfy it’s liberating, right? It’s a natural!
(sigh) In that case I fall back on my “marketers are morons” line. Senior year I picked up a friend’s marketing text and realized I had completely wasted four years of college by majoring in something that required work and thought and which would ultimately pay me less.
Sauron and I saw the Betsey Ross one the other night. It finished and we both looked at each other and said, “What the hell?” At first I thought I had drifted off for a second on the couch but when he said the same thing I figured out it wasn’t a dream. 
We never could figure out what they were advertising…guess I’ll call and tell him it was underwear.
Go figure.
Good God, man, why not?
Aw come one people, we should be applauding these underwear ads for resurging everyone’s interest in history. Thanks to these nearly naked wimmen, I now have a greater appreciation for our founding mothers. I now realize that underneath their clothes, they’re just as naked as everybody else!
I wonder if they’ll have an ad with Harriet Tubman next.
I knew Betsy Ross was probably a serious piece of ass. But Susan B. Anthony?
Interject random observation that women’s underwear - specifically the bra - was instrumental in women’s liberation. It’s a lot easier to be active and engaged when you’re mobility and breathing aren’t constricted but your breasts are still supported.
There is some irony somewhere in that vis a vis the commercial.
Where the hell did this come from? First off, the subject matters of the ads aren’t fictional characters! Second, the comic book did rather well to depict the characters rather justly, in my opinion. Hyde was the only one that was off, but Quartermaine, Nemo, and Griffin were damn near spot on (especially Griffin). The big beef with the movie wasn’t their “perversions of the artists’ original works,” it was the fact it was a bad movie. And besides, have you seen any of the original black and white horror films of the “classic” monster movies? Say, Frankenstien? Talk about perversions. It’s nothing new, but it’s not a big deal because those are fictional characters!!! Betsy Ross and Susan B. Anthony are real people from our history. Re-working them into hottie, undewear pushing charicatures of their true selves is just utterly ridiculous. It’s like that friggin Marvel Comic that’s planning on turning Princess Di into a super hero (do a search, you can find it yourself).
I haven’t seen the Susan B. one, but I have seen the Betsy Ross one and found it horribly stupid. Especially seeing as how a big visual statement of the feminist revolution was the burning of bras. Even aside from that, I think that a woman discussing what she would have done were she allowed to be a patriot would have something more substantial to say “I’d be wearing comfrotable underwear that makes it look like I ain’t wearing underwear.” Priorities, people!
-
A fly, or its lack. Convenience is still nice.
-
I am not yet to the point where added support would be comfortable. My breasts are still too pert to keep them pented up in a bra.
-
Have you actually WORN women’s underwear? I tried on a friend’s bra once and the underwires nearly KILLED me.
-
They don’t make the most attractive products in my size. If I have to wear ugly underwear I’m going to wear BUTCH ugly underwear.
The appearance of Betsy Ross should have sent up a flag.
No doubt they will but with retouching the picture will look something like this
Ummm. I haven’t seen the ads so maybe they are that obnoxious.
But early feminists certainly considered comfortable underwear to be one of their priorities. It’s just a shame the advertisers didn’t have to wit to make it “I am Amelia Bloomer”.
Ok, a woman going out in “public” (ie, on TV) would certainly have shocked 19th century Susan (as would most of the 20th century), but you can’t say she doesn’t have a well documented history of endorsing women wearing comfortale underwear.
Who knows, maybe she’s up in Feminist Heaven looking at that ad (on Feminist Heaven cable, of course) and thinking “Thank god, no more corsets”.
On the other hand, I’ve have no idea what Betsy Ross’s take on it would be.
Okay, “I am Amelia Bloomer” would be funny. And I can see your point about the suffragettes and comfy undies. But SBA as a sex goddess? Maybe if she had all her teeth her cheeks wouldn’t have been so sunken. And maybe a smile wouldn’t kill her–Stanton had a radiant smile. Maybe it’d work.
Coming soon to a TV near you, the latest Bud Girl, Carrie Nation!