CMike2780
 

By all means, express yourself. I find it rather amusing that you have designated yourself the arbiter of what is or is not outdated. Interesting, anyone with views different from yours is old and outdated. Afraid to use the work "chick?" You sound like the metrosexual males I used to encounter in the Bay area of California. How trendy you are. I notice that you made a jump to a political statement tying a lament about the chickification of cars to claiming I don't support the right of women to vote. You forgot to add that I'm a racist, bigot, homophobe, and, God forbid, probably not a liberal either. I notice in your posts you also jumped to defensive sarcasm about not being a real man. Hmm. I didn't say anything about that. Seems to me a case of projection on your part. Perhaps you need to deal with those issues seated comfortably in your heated seats dining on quiche.

No problem with the word "chick", just your 1920's rhetoric. I'm not even going to guess why you have metrosexual male encounters in the Bay area of California. :wtf2:

CMike 2780
 

My use of the term chick is not from the 20s. History a tough subject for you? Judging by your concern with political correctness, I have no doubts you wouldn't need anyone explaining metrosexual to you at all.

I completely understand what you are complaining about and in some small ways I agree with you. At the same time, you just come across as someone who is extremely offensive, ignorant and narcissistic. Just because the general public doesn't agree with you, it makes everyone a girl or a puss? Based on the sales numbers from the SUV world, maybe you should realize you are in the minority, male or female. Most people want SUV that is safe, comfortable and efficient. Most of the offroading SUVs get now are at the local strip mall or on their own lawn. If you don't like where the industry is going, go design your own car. Or you can always get a diesel truck and put two giant exhaust pipes out the truck bed. I am sure you will look tough and gain plenty of attention.......from guys.

What else are you going to blame women? Unemployment? Illegal immigration? Economy? Middle East? Also are you going to call all the VDC users a puss too? How about people wearing seatbelts?

Cossie16
 

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?

Your semi-hysterical fear of not being "manly" even though I never suggested that, is obviously autobiographical. The only way, and pay attention this time, you could jump to such a conclusion, is if you have insecurities about your own masculinity. Otherwise, how could you and that other poster have jumped to screaming about what is a real man. No one, including me even posted anything suggesting that and yet this is how you to chose to inerpret what I posted. May I make a suggestion, innocence doesn't shout with cries of injury but the guilty do. Perhaps you like the new chickified Pathfinder and, me exposing this and you and that other poster liking the vehicle, have been exposed. Think about it before you engage in insult and ad hominem conclusions about someone you don't even know. Think about it before you indulge in your hackneyed politically correct cliches. They have the depth of intellectual integrity as the juvenile occupy wall street folks.

Please do enlighten us, he who doesn't know how to set the clock in his car. I know what a metrosexual is, but apparently not as much as you with your "metrosexual males I used to encounter in the Bay area of California." :supergay:

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.

So I am jumping to conclusion after you dropped 4 c bombs in your first post alone? One or two, it's funny and it's all for good fun. The more you kept going, the more you made yourself sound like an angry old man.

I am sure you get plenty of support, except none of them are buying the vehicles. The bottom line is what drives car design at the end of the day. Bringing the sex card will only get you so far and you just make yourself sound like a fool.

Completely disagree that a comfortable car only appeals to women? I bought my Jeep Grand Cherokee because it had great mix of on road capability as well as awesome offload abilities. It puts silly ford and Chevy SUVs to shame off road.

Incredible Mercedes designed chassis and suspension combined with good ole Jeep touches. Heated seats, back up camera, voice command NAV and entertainment, lots of thoughtful features. Very fuel efficient v6 that has no trouble towing my 5000 lb trailer and 370z race car.

If anything newer cars are more masculine! Way more power, more tire, bolder designs.

So true...



:iagree: There is no point in this post I can't disagree with. Well written and a total Ignorance-Stopper. :tiphat:

CMike 2780
 

Is that you talking or the voice of your inner woman...Oprah.

Name calling is always a good way to try to win an argument.............

nuTinmuch
 

I understasnd what you are saying but I don't think my argument was flawed as it was no argument. What I posted was a tongue-in-cheek lament (perhaps too "nuanced" for those nursing certain insecurities) not an argument. If you read my posts you will see:

I don't advocate a change
I recognize market forces cannot be ignored
Nissan must follow the market
But, they went too far. They have cross overs in several models.

I am not the one who invented the term "chickification" of SUVS. Automotive writes have discussed it for years. They have noted that in some cases for a husband to buy his truck/suv it must have certain features that appeal to women. I am old enough to remember when SUVs could be ordered without carpets which makes sense for people like me. The chickification of cars most certainly includes "softer" or feminine touches if you prefer. that appeal to women more than men. Seat warmers, soft rides, etc. My wife is a perfect example as she favors the feminie touches which have more to do with comfort than performance. I think you missed by point with the Juke. What I was stating to another poster was that Nissan already has three cross over vehicles, Juke, Murano, and Rogue, The new Pathfinder is morphing into that direction but may stop short and evolve? into a soccer mom van.
Once again, I wonder about the motives of people who respond when they feel the need to insult and engage in ad hominem attack. Calling me stupid because you disagree is no argument. It is no class. You could disagree with everything I said and I would respect you. But the name calling ruins a good argument and you made a good one. I stick with what I believe having watching this evolution from the 1980s on, and from what automotive writers write themselves. the chickification of automobiles is being executed to appeal, as you noted, to the feminine market, who share different tastes from men. I can't help it if some posters are offended. It would seem they have issues better addressed in a different setting.

Cossie16
 

Go back and read your posts. You and that other poster, based on me using the word "chick" (which I will continue to use whether you like it or not) jumped to all sorts of conclusions about me being stupid, out of date, a neanderthal, want to take the vote away from women, and more. This from people who don't even know me. That suggests a political tripwire from which your world view operates.

Angry, I am laughing. I find you hysterical. Dropped the "C" bomb??? What has happened to manhood in America. Let me lay it out as simple as I can, two "male" posters are outraged and furious because I used the word "chick." Two "males." Jeff Cooper must be turning over in his grave. You know, it is okay to disagree and tell me why I'm wrong without devolving into name calling and mockery but, I guess that is part of your nature.

Shamu
 

I appreciate your post but I am dumbfounded as to why it is so hard for people to read a post and draw conclusions that do not exist. When did I say a comfortable car was chickified. Because you were respectful, I'll take the time to explain it one more time. I liked the Nissan Pathfinder. As I approach retirement, I was thinking about selling my Z and buying another one. I am a hiker and hunter (more hiker). I love winter and hike in snow. The colder the better. I also haul firewood and other parts that require a stout truck and 4x4. Some of those parts are for my other cars, two 1960s Mopars. The Xterra was too small for this and the Armada too large and expensive. The Pathfinder was just right and it looked good. My lament was partially tongue in cheek about the chickification of the Pathfinder. Everyone I have shown it to agrees...except for females. A definite bifurcation exists because men have looked at it as an SUV/truck. Not all of course, but many including me. Nissan ruined it by chickifying it into a soccer mom mini-van. Now, did I suggest that Nissan should make one vehicle to suit me? Of course not. No one should. That is, unless others feel the same way. If not, I'll go my way and look for an alternative. Back around 1989-1990, Mazda turned their Rx7, which came in about 4 models raning from $15K to a single model that ran around $35K...back then. I have owned 5 Rx7s and could not afford the new one. I wrote to Mazda to protest. They told me market research supported the change. I told them they were making a big mistake. I was correct and they not only lost a huge segment of the sportscar market, the Rx7 was canceled. You don't have to agree, and that is fine. I am no prophet. Only time will tell about the pathfinder.

unkown 370
 

True, too bad the ignorance is in what nutimuch posted. Simply finding someone you agree with does not prove an argument. It helps if youre mind isn't made up before you read what people post.

Cossie1600
 

I guess we still won't agree and that is fine with me. But I do agree that for many people, employing ad hominem attack is always a substitute for arugment. Along with creating straw man arguments and misrepresenting what I posted. For all who disagree, I am enjoying this. Imagine, "men" angry because someone called a chickified vehicle chickified. I suggest the outrage stems from the fact you know I might be right.

If anyone has anything to offer as far as an argument, you can pm me so we don't waste the patience of other forum members. For those who simply want to trash me out from behind your keyboards, have at it. I don't see any value in wasting my time with you. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go watch the movie Patton.