(Wait, what? His name is Gall? That's great. That's almost as good as this guy's being named Malarkey.)
Here's the egregious passage in question, which comes at the end of the discussion of Ford's decision to factory-equip these cars with line locks, devices that allow drag racers (and now everyday knuckle-draggers!) to drive like jerks:
"Ford cautions that [the line lock] is 'intended for use only on racetracks' and that 'racing your vehicle will void your warranty.' But expecting owners to wait until the warranty is up to engage this function is like thinking Justin Verlander is waiting until marriage to test-drive Kate Upton."
Oh, yuck. This is a gross little quip for a couple of reasons: It starkly objectifies a woman, for one, and it trades on the cultural expectation that a man should "test-drive" a woman for her performance in bed before committing to her in marriage (while, it should be pointed out, the simultaneous expectation is that women remain virgins until marriage lest they be labeled "sluts").
As others have pointed out, "comparing women to cars has always been risky business." If you've ever wondered what it means to "objectify" women, a short answer would be that it means to to compare, and reduce, women to objects--like, say, cars--and in so doing, negate their autonomy and individuality. There is a long history of objectifying women--animals (horses, cats, etc.) and cars are popular choices--and of these two classic categories of objectification, cars may be the more troubling.
Let me be clear: both of these comparisons are both sexist and inane, but comparing women to cars is especially problematic. Animals, like horses, may often be under a rider's control, but they are still regarded as separate, sentient creatures with souls (albeit several rungs below humans in the Western conception of things). Cars--unthinking, soulless--not only go where you tell them to go, they exist for that sole purpose. They go fast when you press the gas and stop when you hit the brakes. They don't say, "I don't feel like going there today. Go alone." You don't want a car with opinions and ideas of its own. You do (or should) want a woman with opinions and ideas of her own. See the problem?
Furthermore, women are doubly exploited by the automotive industry, which has a particularly rancid history of objectifying women to sell cars to men (see that Jalopnik piece up-post), while simultaneously using unfair pricing tactics with women buyers, as this piece from the Atlantic discusses. The industry also has a less-than-stellar reputation for its recruitment, compensation, advancement, and workplace culture for women, as evidenced by the statistics here. All this despite the fact that women bought 40 percent of the 16 million cars and trucks sold last year and make the final decision in more than 60 percent of new car purchases, according to the Washington Post.
But respect for women's spending power is not the same as respect for women. Objectifying women, price-gouging them, and creating a workplace environment that marginalizes them is wrong whether or not women's dollars are contributing to automotive bottom lines.
The second problem with this particular gibe is that it trades on that tired old double-standard that requires that women be demonstrably good in bed before earning a commitment from a man but that they simultaneously be virginal and untouched on the day they marry that man. By referring to the couple's presumed premarital intercourse as a "test-drive" of Upton, Gall suggests that if Verlander finds Upton wanting (in handling, responsiveness, turning radius, or efficiency), he could--and should--put the brakes on the sale and select a different, well, model (gee, it writes itself). What about Upton's reaction to Verlander's performance? Well, that's irrelevant, because cars don't test-drive people.
I know that, demographically speaking, I am not Car and Driver's ideal reader. According to the publication's media kit, my XX cohorts make up only about 10 percent of the total audience. The typical Car and Driver reader is a 41-year-old married man who attended some college, works as a manager of some kind, and makes $50,000 or more a year. So only about a million pairs of women's eyes are likely to fall on Gall's one-liner. So it's not exactly woman readers I'm worried about. It's men. Not because of the "what if someone talked about your sister/daughter/mother/wife that way?" argument, because it too defines women's value in relation to the men in their lives--as if the only women who should be free of denigration are those who have brothers/fathers/sons/husbands. No. Sexism is bad for everyone, not just women. Rigid, reductive gender stereotypes limit everyone. When women are reduced to objects for men's discretion, men are reduced as well--to inhumane, hyper-masculine simpletons.
Which some of them--the ones doing loud-ass burnouts in the Wal-Mart parking lot in their Mustang GTs--are.
No comments:
Post a Comment