It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Elsek
Take a look at Dr. Peppers new ad campaign here.
Its focused towards "men" for whatever reason. I guess women "shouldn't" or "can't" have it, as its for "men".
This just seems like its trying to start a controversy. The article is from February but I just saw ad's for it on ESPN for the first time (maybe you've seen them a lot before, I don't watch a lot of TV".
If the ad said : "Not for Blacks", people would obviously outrage.
So why no outrage if they say "Not for Women". They're people too.
Originally posted by Elsek
Alright let me clear up where I am coming from and hopefully help everyone understand where I am coming from.
If you walked into the store tomorrow and saw [insert product] and on that product it said:
"Not for Blacks" would you honestly consider buying it? Sure it caught your attention. Sure it might sell. But would no one have a problem with what it was saying?
The female race should be just as equal as the male race, the black race, the white race, the purple race, etc. But its not.
Originally posted by Elsek
reply to post by Unrealised
So you would be perfectly fine if stores sold items that were branded with terms like "Blacks Only", "Whites Only"?
(If they still of course sold the item to you regardless of your race?)
Originally posted by Elsek
reply to post by Unrealised
So men and women aren't classified into groups like the definition of "race" states?
Ok.