I wonder... could you even admit that the way that things are marketed to men vastly differs from the way that things are marketed to women... perhaps even loosely related to the lines in which I describe, without resorting to this sort of ridiculous behavior?
Yes, many products are marketed differently to women than to men.
That, however, does not prove your assertion that women are more interested in "unquantifiable social relationships" than "observable facts and material challenges".
In fact, I'd argue that I could find quite a few female members of this board who are far more interested in the latter, and quite a few male members who are more interested in the former.
Admittedly, there may be less reason to do things this way than advertisers presume, but I would tend to assume that it is done because it at least seems to work. I have no desire to sift through several pages of irrelevant google results (my only reference available) to find something that I see as quite obvious. I have actually tried a few key words, but what I came up with was a lot of unrelated crap.
Much as your own argument here is entirely unrelated, I'd say.
Unfortunately, the next thing is... after I actually do that, people will next resort to calling me down for cherry picking things that fit my conclusions.
Nope. I'm calling you out for an absolutely irrelevant argument that does not support or prove your claims in any manner whatsoever.
You see the problem is: Once challenged in this way, there is absolutely no "win" in the situation, and you damn well know it. Why don't you just tell me I'm wrong and explain why you think this is the case... rather than intentionally placing me in a no-win situation that pretty much ruins all reasonable dialogue? I've seen this multiple times before... I'm not new to this at all. I know exactly how this sort of behavior functions on this forum.
Then you
should be aware that the kind of argument you're making will immediately be challenged. "I won't present any actual proof of my position, because if I do so, I'll be attacked for it. Instead, I'll make an unrelated claim, then insist that it somehow supports my assertion".
Or, alternatively -- and
always one of my favorite arguments from those who can't support their claims -- is the whole "I made the claim first, but I have no need to prove it, if you disagree, then you have to prove it's false." I know that you've spent quite a bit of time on these boards, so you
should be aware of just how lame that particular argument is.
Now, to illustrate my point about the complete irrelevance of your argument above, let's say that I were to claim that women are more likely to be attracted to the number 12, while men are more likely to be attracted to the number 14. And I then made the argument, as you have above, that obviously marketers take different approaches to men than they do to women, and that supports my assertion that they prefer different numbers.
The problem here is that there is a huge, gaping, logical fallacy involved. Yes, women are marketed to differently than men. But that doesn't in any manner, shape, or form mean that
the specific difference that you claim between the two groups is true. No moreso than my claim about preferences for different numbers. Quite the opposite, I can easily cite examples
from specific marketing strategies for men and women that would demonstrate the exact
opposite. Consider marketing cars. When marketing to women, it is concrete facts and figures that they tend to be more interested in -- specifically, the car's safety, it's fuel consumption, etc. Women, especially those with children, tend to place a very high priority on concrete, objective factors such as how safe the car is, how much fuel it consumes, etc.
Men, on the other hand, respond much more to an emotional appeal. How powerful the car will make them feel. Or how attractive women will find them. Or how fast they can go. Or how cool they'll look. And all those scantily clad hot women they have standing around the cars at car shows...I assure you, they're not there to cause an emotional/hormonal reaction from the
women.
So, again -- no. Your argument about differences in marketing to men and women doesn't even take the
first, tiniest step towards substantiating your claim. And, like the poster before me, I'll challenge you to give actual
proof of your assertion, rather than personal anecdotes and unrelated claims.
And if you're afraid of people jumping all over you, or being in a no-win situation, may I suggest that the strategy you've employed thus far in this "debate" (and I use that term rather loosely) is probably not the optimal one.