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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamu
Aren't the Aramada and the Xterra and all the king cab trucks built on a "manly" truck platform? Given that 99% of people including men never use their SUVs for anything other than driving on suburban roads I think Nissan was very smart converting pathfinder to lighter weight unibody construction. Especially with now near $5 gallon gas prices!
I never understood the redundancy in having Armada and pathfinder. If you half the man you claim to be why not drive the manly Armada? After all that's a mans man SUV. Not a pretender like old pathfinder or what? Girls SUV from Toyota? That Toyota may be truck based but its a chick SUV for sure. It really can't hual anything other than chicks in the back seat.
|
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.