I don’t think she is looking for a starter husband - I think she’s supposed to be a newbie to husband hunting. And yeah, vaguely offensive on multiple levels (like what woman doesn’t know about Fuck Me Heels and a Little Black Dress to attract male attention - that’s like telling a woman to put her keys between her fingers walking to the car - we all know (mixed signals though, ain’t it))
Its actually funnier if she is looking for a starter husband 
Well I wasn’t talking about the ad I was discussing the general comments about husband hunting.
Looking at the links now, I can’t get too offended by them. The husband hunting one does treat guys as something like objects / animals, but that seems to be common in media generally; it’s still fair game to joke about men in that way. And I think it’s generally OK because no-one would really believe men are just automatons, whereas in the past stereotyping of women, minorities was based on real prejudice.
Both ads also come across as patronising and old-fashioned in their treatment of women, but I think just a rewording could have averted internet rage.
Offensive would be a tag line like “Then take off the damn shoes, get in the kitchen and make him a sammich - with our pannini maker!”
You are listing a bunch of disparate things there that get “looked down on” to very different degrees and, in several cases, for reasons well beyond the one you mention.
The ad is just a stupid ad. The article, otoh, is a great big pile of dumb. Any woman who reads that list and doesn’t immediately turn into a lesbian deserves what she ends up with.
Right, that’s kinda what got me. It’s true that the treating men as objects is bothersome, and so is the idea that stay-at-home moms do nothing all day. But it’s the combo of those ads that hit me. The Upworthy page linked to this Washington Post blog post, and from that article:
I kinda agree with that. If there were also ads for wearing fabulous shoes while giving a big presentation at work, or traveling around Europe, or negotiating a purchase for an amazing car, or going out drinking with friends, or walking your dog, or any number of other things, then I’d be less bothered by those two ads. But just these two ads together, it’s tiresome. There is actually a third ad shown on the New York Times page about the ad campaign, and it doesn’t help things, since it’s for the “Anticipatory walk of shame.”
And I think that is what gets offensive about “the MRS”- the idea that that is all women do or that it is their only priority.
Does anybody believe that now? I gather that in the past it was a snarky name for a real phenomenon and there were significant numbers of women who enrolled in college, got married, and didn’t finish school. They might’ve been expected to do that or advised to do it. Today I’m pretty sure more women than men finish college and we know people are getting married and starting families later- perhaps to the point that (as in this thread) people are making assumptions about the women who do get married while they’re in college.
All true. I think the point is that it makes the much smaller number of women actively husband-hunting nowadays look that much more ridiculous.
I think it happens less, for sure. But remnants are still there. I’m thinking back to an article advising women in Ivy League colleges to marry during undergrad as they will never find a suitable mate again-- that sort of thing.
The ad doesn’t even imply that. “Whether you’re looking for Mr. Right, or Mr. Right Now” is hardly pushing the idea “all women are just looking for a husband”.
Regards,
Shodan
Unless there are more ads I didn’t see, the campaign didn’t refer to the MRS thing at all. It’s something that came up in this thread as a more general reference to “husband hunting.”
That’s what “looking for Mr. Right” is.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course. But I don’t think the ads refer to ‘getting your MRS,’ which is a type of husband hunting specific to college.
True. And the ad copy in the first ad doesn’t even match the list. The woman is wearing weird black tights instead of a little black dress. Like the arrows, the ad mostly missed the target.
Nevermind; this isn’t the point of what even sven was saying or what you were saying. But:
That’s true, but it does leave the implication that single women are looking for a man at all times.
lolwut?
That’s true, but it does leave the implication that single women are looking for a man at all times.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see in any of the ads the words “all” or “always” or “most” or "usually"or “more often than not”.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe they want you start start slow & sell you bigger higher-power rifle when you are ready to hunt the next one?
Duck Season
The only activity described in the first ad is looking for a guy. Whether they’re looking for Mr. Right or Mr. Right Now, women are presumed to be looking for a man all the time. I realize that’s one ad out of a series, but that’s what they’re offering. For that matter I’m not in marketing, but it seems to me that it’s a bad idea to say your shoe can only be worn for one thing.