Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector71
In my years I have found that people who jump to conclusions about others they don't know, in this case, you, often, not always but often project their own personality characteristics onto others. To wit, the majority of posters here, including the pms I received, suggested alternatives to the Pathfinder, understood the humor, and were no way offended. This is what leads people like you to misread my intent and jump to conclusions. As far as narcissim goes, it is you that impute all sorts of cliched motives to me, engage in ad hominem insults simply because I have a different perspective than you, claim to speak for the general public, and overreact to what was a post met mostly in jest. Everyone else but you and one other poster got it. Of course I'm in the minority. If you actually read my post, you would have realized that I tip my hat to the free market system and the fact that Nissan must chase profits in building what customers want. That does not change the fact that they are not always right, otherwise, why would they build what the majority did not want? or that there are millions who want an SUV without the gugaws that appeal to women not men. Many automotive industry writers have also lamented the chickification of cars, which by the way, automotive designers focus group test with female buyers, hence the term, and fortunately, there remain alternatives. Do you really believe that Nissan is omiscient in killing the Pathfinder? Can you say Rogue, Murano, Juke?
words words words
|
The problem is your argument is flawed -- cars have been long associated with masculine needs more than feminine (at least when it comes to advertising), and this is easily seen when you look at studies or data that genders vehicle purchases.
The Top 10 Most Popular Car Brands With Men and Women - Forbes
Yes, it's true that more women buy SUVs than men, but compare the percentages to the male-favored cars.
Basically, what I'm saying is the whole "chickification" argument is ********. I'm absolutely sure women have been part of the focus groups that these cars have passed through, but they haven't been the solitary factor in their development. The only car company you can claim that for is Volvo (who employees more women in their development process than any other manufacturer, iirc).
The reason SUVs are getting "softer" is more nuanced: fuel economy and a lack of interest in the traditional "sport" qualities that accompany SUVs. In other words, when was the last time you saw someone take an SUV offroad? Chance are if you have, it's been a Jeep or a purpose-built vehicle -- or maybe a SUV from the 90s with a bunch of retrofits.
The Juke doesn't exist because women. It exists because there's no longer a need to produce a vehicle that goes offroad. There's no want for that. There is, however, a want for "all-weather" (market perception -- not me) vehicles that are "capable" and are able to have the same utility that, say, the 90s wagons did (also why you're seeing a resurgence in wagons).
Now, you've said as much -- but you seem to be associating the changes with what women want when it's more what the market itself wants. That's why the term "chickification" is stupid. It's like calling the 50s/60s the "rockification" of music because everyone started using electric guitars, ignoring that those needs/wants existed ages before rock ever did.
But even if you were right, even if SUVs were being designed primarily for women... my answer, I guess, would be to deal with it. Cars have been primarily designed by/for men for literally a century. I'm sure the very existence of a few
not-so-grr-tough SUVs won't hurt you.