Plaintiff’s Attorney: Selling AR-15 Rifles With Macho Hyper-Masculinity is Dangerous

bushmaster ar-15 remington advertisement man card

courtesy Bushmaster

One of the attorneys suing Remington for selling the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook shooting thinks the way AR-15s are sold is a big part of the (alleged) problem.

The problem, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said, is that young men can be obsessed with the military or succumb to the image of masculinity that the ads promise if they buy the semiauto rifles.

“Consider Your Man Card Reissued,” reads a Bushmaster ad for its AR-15-style gun, the kind used in the Sandy Hook shooting. The ad speaks to a “macho hyper-masculinity,” said one of the attorneys, Katie Mesner-Hage.

Another Bushmaster ad reads, “Force of Opposition, Bow Down: You are Single-Handedly Outnumbered.”

“The advertising isn’t misleading. It’s actually extremely accurate,” Mesner-Hage said. “It’s a military weapon. It’s inciteful, reckless advertising.” The AR-15 is meant to serve “one purpose, which is to inflict as many casualties in combat” as possible, she said.

The bow-down ad states the Bushmaster is “the only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you’ll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense.”

– Chris Woodyard in AR-15 advertising speaks to ‘macho hyper-masculinity,’ gun control advocates say. They want it to stop

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Oh look, the feminazis don’t like men being men. Shocker. Perhaps we should re-consider allowing them to vote?

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed…. 🙂 🙂 🙂 Just joking, just joking.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Well, when the constitution (and nation) is ‘refreshed’ in the future, perhaps that detail can be addressed at that time… 🙂

        1. avatar Jefferson says:

          Need to fund a study on this, but women vote in a more self personal way, men will vote for others, especially their family. Remember this is a macro statement, not an individual one, however it has proven to be correct.

    2. avatar jarett says:

      Well…….since people like to act as if the second amendment doesn’t count maybe we should reconsider what the 19th amendment means. Maybe it only meant to give women the right to vote who were alive at the time it was passed. Hmmmmmmmm…….

      In all seriousness I love how daft people throw rocks in glass houses and then want get all upset when the identical stuff is thrown back in their face.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Sadly, it looks like we’re in for a very long fight re: 2nd Amendment rights. The Temperance and Prohibition movement was around for a hundred years.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Besides all that, the AR15 isn’t even a manly gun. It’s a gun for girly men. 😅😄😅

        Men shoot M1A, Garand, FAL, magnum revolvers, 10mm pistols, Mosins, Mauser, etc.

        I do have an AR15, and like it. 😆

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          I too have an AR, but my wife carrots a s+w 500 and keeps my nuts in her purse. Talk about a marketing conundrum!

        2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Carrys not carrots, fuckin auto correct!

        3. avatar Spelling Nazi says:

          You certainly do NEED spell check; it’s “carries”….

    4. avatar Thomas says:

      The feminazis… oh yeah, you mean the entire Democrat National Platform! The are now indistinguishable from each other.

  2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Ummm, so is call of duty an assault video game? What about Jeeps?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Hummrs, definitely…

  3. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Or he could be, God forbid, a normal heterosexual young man who happens to likes guns. Oh, the humanity!😱

  4. avatar Baldwin says:

    Company ad overstates uses and benefit of it’s product????? Wow! Is this the next big thing in marketing?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Well it’s patently obvious that the Remington advertising campaign for the Bushmaster is EXACTLY why Mrs. Lanza bought the thing.

  5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    My masculinity is 99.44% non toxic.

    1. avatar Dbag says:

      And it washes off completely, leaving no film!!

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I think that’s Zest. My masculinity is as pure as Ivory soap.

        1. avatar Ginder12 says:

          The real problem is the woosification of American boys. Every boy born in America should grow up with power tools, guns and a pickup

        2. avatar Bill B says:

          Just remember that Ivory used Marylyn “Deep Throat” Chambers as their spokesmodel at one point in time….

  6. avatar HP says:

    These idiots don’t seem to understand that vilifying the AR-15 is having the Barbara Streisand effect.

    1. avatar HP says:

      I should add, the plaintiffs in this case are doing a far better job marketing and selling AR-15’s than any silly ad that Bushmaster once ran.

  7. avatar Burner says:

    Get in the kitchen and make a samich

  8. avatar Scooter says:

    Ever catch an Old Spice commercial? Truck ad? Power tools? Beer? Marketing. Know your audience. However… shifting to market to females would be a growth area.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      They seem to be painfully unaware of the tremendous upsurge in women joining our ranks in the last decade or so. So, congrats, instead of impugning your target group, you succeeded in in pissin off a whole bunch of women. Baaaad move!

      1. avatar Say no the 19th says:

        “you succeeded in in pissin off a whole bunch of women” lol, please, all those women ran for congress.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Doncha know that Mrs. Lanza bought her rifle because “it made her feel like a real man!”

  9. avatar 24and7 says:

    Sounds to me like this violates Remington’s constitutional rights a freedom of expression and speech.. Remington should counter-sue in federal court.. the federal court should sanction the plaintiff lawyers in this case and force them to pay legal expenses and punitive damage, out of their own pocket..

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    The psycho Amazonians like to push the lie that evil corporations are training your sons and daughters to be certain ways when the reality is just the opposite. Stacks of studies have shown over and over that barring any outside influence children will overwhelmingly gravitate to gender-typed toys for their gender. Even is a gender-typed toy is not available the child will play with the available toy in a gender-typed way.

    All these social engineering Nazi’s trying to jam square pegs into round holes need to be reigned in or each generation is going to be more mentally ill than the last.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Children have a good bull$h!t meter and know when something doesn’t add up. And hypocrisy is something they really dislike.

      Put Progressive Gender Fluidity and Identity theory to them and they will say it is the most stupid thing they’ve ever heard.

      Kids will go with the flow while it is to their advantage (school, work,etc) but will rebel against the man when they can.

  11. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Had firearms not been available to Adam Lanza, he would have used dome other means to commit mayhem. He was bent on killing. His family and his doctors knew he was extremely psychotic but failed to keep him under control or locked up.

    Blaming advertising while the news and entertainment media are filled with extreme violence and military actions, weapons and killing is just a money grab……by the attorneys….. for the attorneys.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Maybe if all those soyboy doctors and counselor’s actually had a single pair of stones between them, and had actually done their jobs, the ones for which they were cashing big checks for, maybe all those kids might still be alive.

  12. avatar Sheldon says:

    Excuse me just because some State judge in a very liberal state said that this lawsuit could go forward, why did Remington not appeal to the federal court because under federal law they cannot be sued due to the misuse of their product. What’s next we’re going to sue General Motors for a drunk driver killing somebody?

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      I would think that the plaintiffs would have to prove that the perpetrator actually saw these advertisements.

      1. avatar anonymous says:

        And more. They are suggesting that men in general can’t control themselves. They are suggesting a man see’s this ad, and then all of a sudden he is at a school shooting the place up. It’s ridiculous, and what is more ridiculous, is someone them will buy it, and some of them will defend it. And not because it’s true either, but because their ideology is worth more than truth, and they will gladly lie to accomplish what they want.

      2. avatar Defens says:

        I wonder why Adam Lanza’s mom was so convinced by these manly ads that SHE was the one that bought the rifle in the first place?

  13. avatar D says:

    Female reporter: By selling rifles, you are equipping men to become killers.

    Us: Having a rifle does not make someone a killer. You, are equipped to be a prostitute.

    1. avatar Mantitude says:

      Not exactly tasteful, but incredibly true.
      That’s not too rare for the Truth, though.
      It rarely cares about human sensibilities.

  14. avatar Mad Max says:

    “The AR-15 is meant to serve “one purpose, which is to inflict as many casualties in combat” as possible, she said.”

    Ok, name one Western government’s military that actually uses civilian, semi-automatic, AR-15s in combat.

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      Ok, name one Western government’s military that actually uses civilian, semi-automatic, AR-15s in combat.

      Hint:
      NONE!

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Yep. Why would they when select-fire and full auto rifles are available to them.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Fair warning, gents, but you’re using a Red Herring.

          If you limit yourself specifically to saying ‘AR-15’ and not, for example, ‘assault weapon,’ terms which seem to be literally interchangeable to our enemies, you may be technically and semantically right; However, there are MANY instances of militaries using semi-auto-only versions of rifles that were available as select-fire weapons.
          One of the best examples is the FN FAL, specifically during the Falklands War; The Brits were using the L1A1 semi-auto version, whilst the Argies were using select-fire FN FALs–the exact same gun except for the fire control lever.

          It’d thus be ludicrous to argue that an L1A1 is NOT a ‘weapon of war’ simply because it isn’t capable of full-auto fire; Using that same argument in the case of the AR-15 is too close to sophistry for comfort.

          Frankly, in a military tactical force equipped with just one squad machine gun to provide the covering fire that an automatic weapon provides, having semi-auto-only AR-15s would be of little handicap, if any at all; AR-15s would serve just FINE as a ‘weapon of war,’ being accurate. suitably powerful, and well capable of rapid, sustained fire. Considering that current M4s are burst-fire guns, and most often USED set to semi-auto, the argument that a semi-auto AR-15 is not a ‘weapon of war’ is even weaker.

          If we go too far into that sort of weeds, we merely give the Enemy more ammunition against us.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Exactly. The progs don’t operate on the same logic circuits we do.

          When it does finally dawn on them that all semiauto firearms are fundamentally the same and singling out the AR is ridiculous — as we’ve been pointing out for years — they’ll start trying to ban them ALL.

          They’re already floating laws to that effect. The stupid new law in WA state treats *all* semiauto long guns like “assault weapons.”

        3. avatar M1Lou says:

          The current M4A1 brought back full auto. No more lame burst.

        4. avatar Ad Astra says:

          1st off during the Falklins campaign brit troops dtched their FALs for the autofire capable Argentinean version whenever they could.
          2nd in real world most m4s get left on busrt fire 24/7. When your cqb room clearing you don’t trust you or your squad mates life to a single round of 5.56. Secondly it only keeping count to 10 instead of 30 simplifies knowing when to swap mags.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      OK, name one Western government’s military that actually trains the majority of their troupes to use the AR-15s in anything other than semi auto mode. The only time it is ever used that way is to gain fire superiority and than is unlikely when you are just killing a bunch of people.

      The lack of full auto on a AR-15 has almost no influence on it effectiveness with every few exceptions. And using that argument sounds really stupid to anyone who really knows anything about firearms.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        That depends on your objective. For the purpose of a crazy left wing psychopath, full-auto makes a huge difference.

        1. avatar Ogre says:

          So, evidently, is bullet size. The NY Times (aka Pravda-on-the-Hudson) is currently running an article whose author says that while it’s true that people kill people, the use of larger caliber bullets kills them deader. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=The Upshot

          These people leave no stone unturned.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Yeah well, the .223 is a pretty small bullet. Dumbasses.

      2. avatar Bradley Carpenter says:

        Many weapons throughout history have been used by civilians and by the military; like the long bow; a sword; a knife; and so on. Also many rifles and handguns have been used by civilians and the military like the 1911 which was used by the military up to 1986 and then the Beretta un recently.

        Regardless of the weapon, it is the person who decides how the weapon is going to be used; something or someone may have an influence on their decision, but the person make the final decision; not the weapon.

        Therefore, all the things that any society suffers from like crime; envy; slavery; and hatred is the result of ignoring the precepts and principles of the Bible.

      3. avatar WARFAB says:

        So you’re saying much of the NFA and the entirety of the recent bump stock ban are pointless and we should be able to buy full auto firearms as easily as semi-auto?

        I could get on board with that.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          That is the logical plain-text reading of US v Miller.

    3. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      “The AR-15 is meant to serve “one purpose, which is to inflict as many casualties in combat” as possible, she said.”

      Also: Then why do police have them?

      Is she suggesting they’re planning to go on a mass rampage against “We the People”? That sounds like a really good reason not to give up our guns.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Thank you! This is a point I try to raise every time this canard comes up. Every assault weapons ban includes a carve out for police. The most recent one actually even roped in campus police. If ARs are “weapons of war”, what war is Paul Blart, Community College Cop slated to fight?

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Yep. The progressives’ own rhetoric indicates that they really do want to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible.

        Why else would they make sure that only the government wields these machines that are ONLY good for mass murder?

  15. avatar anonymous says:

    Plaintiff’s Attorney: Selling AR-15 Rifles With Macho Hyper-Masculinity is Dangerous

    Uh… no. This is PC talk and it is political nonsense to queue those on their side to “get in line.” The whole feminist “patriarchy” and “hyper-masculinity” PC talk. And of course they pair it up with guns to put liberals in line. Ideologues. They are selling an ideology, and they are using this to unify the feminists with the anti-gun groups.

    Further, it isn’t logically sound. They are portraying men as if they can’t control themselves. Hyper-masculinity is a term they created for political means. Just because you are a man, and are masculine, doesn’t mean you can’t control yourself and are going to go on a sandy hook gun spree. It’s an insult, and an accusation, and a call for political unity from their intersectional groups, all rolled into one.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It is not about logic at all, it is all about emotion and the fact that 20 small children were slaughtered, nothing more. It is therefore critically important to the plaintiffs to vilify the defendant as an evil war monger selling “weapons of war” to impressionable utes. In other words, the language is designed to have an emotional impact on the jury, a jury on which they will try to have a majority of democratic party females. Funny, they made this same argument to the Conn Supreme Court. (But remember, all that the court decided was that the plaintiffs stated a cause of action outside the protections of the federal law.)

    2. avatar Random says:

      This is the same point they use to make women where burkas. Men can’t control their passions so they can’t see a woman without raping her. to much BS for me.

  16. avatar RidgeRunner says:

    The ad is inaccurate, everybody knows the man card only comes with the AR10, not that puny glorified .22 round.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Thumbs up!!! But really M14 is the way to go. Wood and steel baby, wood and steel.

  17. avatar DrDKW says:

    Anyway, with sandy Hook, I thought it was the dirt-bag’s MOM that bought the gun!

    1. avatar Jim from LI says:

      Exactly right. So even though the Bushmaster ad is tone deaf and potentially alienating to a large potential customer base, the CT lawsuit fails to show a connection between advertising that appeals to masculinity and the woman who actually bought the rifle.

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      Yup.

      The entire ‘negligent entrustment’ theory fails because nobody entrusted Adam Lanza with a firearm. He didn’t buy it, he didn’t borrow it, he stole it, and he murdered his mother to get it.

      The ‘negligent marketing’ theory should be laughed out of court for the simple reason that Adam Lanza’s mom clearly didn’t need a man-card.

  18. avatar GunnyGene says:

    I reckon Henry is in trouble then also. They sell the “Big Boy Steel” in .44mag.

    https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/henry-big-boy-steel/

  19. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Plaintiff’s Attorney: Selling AR-15 Rifles With Macho Hyper-Masculinity is Dangerous”

    Is that statement supposed to be some sort of defense…???

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Yep the murdered momma was suffering from macho masculinity…golly I have 4 sons(no daughter that I KNOW of)! A moose-lims dream dude😋

  21. avatar MB says:

    I would guess Katie Mesner-Hage is married to a Beta male woosie, since she views maleness as something objectionable, and hence her hyphenated name she is the ruler of the roost. So all the AR-15’s owned by women are just an illusion or are those women suffering penis envy.

  22. avatar Bradley Carpenter says:

    Once again, if you believe that guns cause people to commit a crime or mass shooting; then cigarette lighters cause people to get lung cancer; the golden arches can cause heart disease; knives, forks, and spoons can cause obesity; a book of matches can cause some one to commit arson; and hot tubs and swimming pools can cause people to drown.

    Also, a gun does not have a mind of its own; it can not cause anyone to do something good or evil; or right or wrong. Somethings in ones environment may have an influence on the decisions that people might decide to do; but it is the individual that makes the final decision.

    Finally, the evil, murder and violence is in the soul of man; not a gun. Furthermore, even society of man either must be controlled from within or without; by the word of God or the strong arm of man; by the Bible or the Bayonet.

  23. avatar rt66paul says:

    For the most part. it appears to me that the shooters not hyper masculine, but are boys trying to measure up to the big boys and were found(in their own minds) wanting. A real man doesn’t have to shoot someone to prove to himself he is a man.

    There have always been bullies – unless you have really pissed one off, he/she won’t be there forever. Unless you are a femboy and <5'-2'' and 120 lbs, you can strike back somehow. These boys with guns are just that, boys with guns.

    My brother was a loner-nerd, even though he was, he never picked up a gun or tried to run someone over. There is more to it here, boys that do things like this have been crying out for years and no one in the family realized it, school counselors ignored the problems, etc. No man(boy) is an island, we all need some positive social interaction. If they really wanted to fix these things, they only have to have properly trained teachers, coaches, youth ministers, etc, that observe. If the kid is getting picked on too often, maybe a change of school will help. Many community colleges will take kids with good attitudes at 16 – they end up in a positive school, they can finish high school and get some credits towards general ed at the same time.

    One thing for sure, leaving them in a bad situation is not a good idea.

  24. avatar Salty Bear says:

    The sexism in the ad is off-putting to me, sure, but why involve the thought police?

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    Adam Psycho Lanza didn’t buy his guns, he murdered his mother for them. Are they going to make the argument his mother wanted her Man Card reissued and subsequently put the gun in Adam’s reach?

    She bought them legally, was not prohibited from having it. They need to accept she is at fault as a parent and stop blaming others. But she is dead, the father isn’t rich, and there agendas to push.

  26. avatar Sean G./The Rookie says:

    I lube my AR with Hai Karate. Does that make me guilty of extra-macho hyper-masculinity?

    1. avatar Jim from LI says:

      Eww, that stuff! You’d smell better using Hoppes #9 as an aftershave.

  27. avatar StLPro2A says:

    Betting there is a MR. Mesner-Hage that has no man card!!!! Wait, SHE (he or it or ??) may be the male…..check her card.

  28. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    What of the women AR owners ,are they too issued a man card.

  29. avatar Swarf says:

    This is bad news… for alcohol.

  30. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    And Dodge Demons, Numbnuts??!! Paint it pink and emphasis its uses for feminine defense.

  31. avatar possum says:

    I suppose if I stuck a Bushmaster( the snake not the gunm) down my pants

  32. If the AR-15 is wearing pink furniture, does that make it acceptable to the gun-grabbers? After all, nobody could say a pink AR-15 that looks like the one in the link below is “hyper-masculine”!

    https://www.tacticalgunparts.net/media/catalog/category/pink_223.jpg

  33. avatar Docduracoat says:

    You are all missing the point. It is 100% legal to advertise your rifle as anyway you want.
    As long as you make no direct instruction to commit a specific crime
    Remington has a right to free speech
    As others have said, Adam Lanza murdered his mother to obtain the AR.
    He was known to have a mental illness.
    The effect of advertising directed at his mother (and other AR 15 buyers) has no bearing on a mentally ill person misusing the gun.
    This case will no doubt get tossed out on appeal.

  34. avatar Sheldon says:

    Agreed 100%

  35. avatar Mark N. says:

    Do any of us really read gun ads? I can read a gun mag or the daily paper without looking at a single ad. I am more likely to read a gun review than read a gun ad. The ads just take up space on the side of the page.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      Yeah, but the photos are nice.

  36. avatar MyName says:

    If the plaintiffs are successful in using this approach to establish the liability of a company for the misuse of their product based upon some connection to the implicit benefit to a person’s image and social standing established in that product’s advertising, then, there is gonna be a lot of change in the not-too-distant future.

    Imagine all the people suing because the cologne they bought failed to get them laid.
    Imagine all the people suing because the suit they bought failed to get them promoted.
    Imagine all the people suing because the bicycle, or shoes, or total workout machine they bought failed to make them fit.

    Not to mention all the people suing because the beer they bought did not make them funny, attractive and the life of the party but, instead, it made them drunk and stupid and they got in a wreck and killed three people.

    Maybe gun manufactures should put a “Please shoot stuff responsibly, misuse may cause death” disclaimer in attractive typeface on all their guns. (Yes, I know Ruger already does essentially this)

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    Macho Hyper-Masculinity? They left out “toxic” and “white.”

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      That’ll all be in the next bomshell press release!

  38. avatar Jim from LI says:

    They shoot a lot of AR15s on The Walking Dead. For all we know that pretzel head Lanza thought he was killing zombies. So maybe they should sue AMC.

  39. avatar Hannibal says:

    Some marketing wenie trying to sell product from a corporation by needling at guys’ manhood is pretty cringey… along with any guy that buys a gun thinking it’s gonna make him a man.

    That said, too bad. If you want to attack the gun culture that causes the most destruction domestically, take a look at the culture in shittiest neighborhoods of Baltimore and Chicago. I’m pretty sure they aren’t looking at branded marketing material from AR makers.

  40. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    This is the mindset of the people who claimed that Joe Camel was a particular stereotype that specifically targeted blacks and caused them to smoke. Eek. The allegation is much more racist than the ad, if the ad ever was racially slanted. Yet these sick, corrupt, SJW’s never complain about non-stop prescription drug advertising for non-existent pseudo-medical conditions. Latiesse to grow your eyelashes? Restless leg syndrome? Fibromyalgia? ADHD, especially in adults? The never ending list of psoriasis drugs? Do that many people really have psoriasis? Or any of these conditions? And last but not least, the never ending list of atypical antipsychotics marketed for depression, all with the same list of dangerous side effects a mile long. Not one word from the SJW’s so I say, follow the money.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Bingo, thank you!

  41. avatar strych9 says:

    I get the argument. The problem is that you have to be kinda dumb to believe it.

    OK, an AR makes you a “real man” and “macho”. OK fine, I’ll accept that for the sake of argument.

    So, interrogative here: Is it considered to be a widely accepted part of Western Civilization that “real men” who are “macho” kill innocent and unarmed children?

    Wait, what? The indiscriminate killing of children is not something widely considered to be a male trait? No matter how “manly” you are, even going back to 1000BC in Greece, this wasn’t considered a “male trait”?

    OK, fine. We can get around that. SOP in the military is and always has been whole-sale slaughter of unarmed children since time immemorial, right? There is no term “collateral damage” that means “Oh, shit we didn’t mean to do that”? That term doesn’t contain the phrase “inadvertent casualties”?

    What? Even back before the dawn of written history children were not massacred but rather taken as slaves? Slaves that even in ancient Egypt could buy their own freedom by earning money on the side and paying their masters?

    You mean that entire legal argument is based 100% on total bullshit and requires someone to have, quite literally, grown up in another civilization and never read a history book? Fuck. And here they had my hopes up.

  42. avatar AZgunner says:

    The only danger in this add is that someone might actually get stuck with a Remington product.

  43. avatar Ad Astra says:

    Wait a product that promotes hyper violent, irresponsible, toxic masculinity?
    So they’re planning to ban gansta rap then.

  44. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I love these kinds of games!

    Lets take his statement and change one of the nouns and see what happens…

    “…The problem, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said, is that young men can be obsessed with the military or succumb to the image of masculinity that the ads promise if they buy the riding lawnmowers.”

    Hmmm…. sounds kinda silly now, doesn’t it? Lets go again:

    “…The problem, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said, is that young men can be obsessed with the military or succumb to the image of masculinity that the ads promise if they buy the three-piece suit.”

    Nope. Still sounds silly.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email