Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!cambridge.apple.com!alms
From: alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: MacWarehouse
Message-ID: <ALMS.89Oct25150421@brazil.cambridge.apple.com>
Date: 25 Oct 89 19:04:21 GMT
References: <26933.2542AACD@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> <31351@cci632.UUCP>
	<1989Oct24.234158.11096@aucs.uucp> <370@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
	<1989Oct25.180150.28389@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu's message of 25 Oct 89 18:01:50 GMT

In article <1989Oct25.180150.28389@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) writes:

   I'm a little amazed that there is so much controversy over the
   MacWarehouse ads.  Are you people also complaining to Calvin Klien?
   Dial Soap? [stuff deleted]

The difference is the target audience.  It's not surprising when the
_relatively_ uneducated TV and Billboard audiences are targetted with
sexist ads, or when the macho sports audiences are.  Perhaps people
expect Mac users to be more educated, and more aware of issues of
sexism in our society.

   The picture is of a nicely dressed woman smiling at the camera.  No
   suggestive positions, no suggestive copy, just identifying (in a
   positive light) those with whom we do business when we order.

I agree.  After looking at the ad again, it could just as easily
have been a male employee (any employee) leaning on the Mac.
It's not slinky or sexy.


 -andrew