I've seen this before. it's horrible. I'm wondering what the small print says, how do they justify (if at all) such a degrading image?

Hey... this ad is disgusting! My friend Amy (over at Appetite for Equal Rights) posted about this a little while back...http://appetiteforequalrights.blogspot.com/2008/04/vintage-sexism.html

It's so disgusting.. violent, dehumanizing... even for back then I can't imagine how this was okay to anyone.

Dear fucking god that's disturbing. The text is worse (couldn't decipher one of the words, though)

Though she was a tiger lady, our hero didn't have to fire a shot to floor her. After one look at his Mr. Leggs slacks, she was ready to have him walk all over her. That noble styling sure soothes the savage beast. If you'd like your own [?] carpeting, hunt up a pair of these he-man Mr. Leggs slacks.

Ah, just figured it out:

If you'd like your own doll-to-doll carpeting

oh, gag. i think it said something about "doll" carpeting. great this ad likens women to carpeting, tigers, a "savage beast," and a doll.

Cheetara! Nooooo!

Wow, seriously? What year is this from? Who bought that stuff? I mean it's not even subtle woman-hating!

It looks like it's from the 80's to me. Backlash indeed!

that is just weird, even for back then.

What kind of crazy drugs was this ad's copywriter taking? From the creepy cut-and-paste head on a tiger rug, to a bunch of jibberish that makes little to no sense... I am amazed that no one spoke up at a board meeting to say that this ad might not be a great idea.

Norbiz - you made me laugh.

I don't know which is worse.. the overly sexist, misogynist ad or the fact they actually made pants called "Mr. Leggs."

Oh who am I kidding

Too bad she will probably not live to record another album, because this would make a good CD cover for an Amy Winehouse release.

I'd say it's from the 60's, myself. Knowing what the text says just makes it even more disturbing, no matter what the era!

Clearly before Photoshop...you can see she was laying under the rug. Today you could just cut and paste a head onto a rug.

Anyhoo. Eek.

Well, "Mr. Leggs" sure defined a great brand identity with this campaign, didn't they?

Right up there with Coke for brand name recognition in this century ...

Did anyone else notice that the tail is sticking up in an unnatural way?

Lear: She's obviously presenting.

Also, I wouldn't blame the tiger advert for "Mr. Leggs" apparent failure. I blame it on the fact that Mr. "Mr. Leggs" seems to have no cock.

That's just poor market strategy. Men who want to look dickless don't have enough buying power to justify that stance.

According to this:
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/vintageadvertising/2007/05/mr_leggs_trouse.html

the words in question are "doll-to-doll carpeting."

Which makes it even worse....

This is from 1970... pretty frickin' awful even for then.

Absolutely sickening!

Apparently the woman in the photo is a girl and guys like to have girls around their homes. The language use is creepy. I know a lot of women these days don't care if they are called girls (i admit to using the word chick or chica on occasion), but I can't stand it. Guys are men, but women are girls. Guys like to date girls, they met this girl recently, they can't understand girls - girls girls GIRLS. When women continue to be labeled as girls it's hard to see that we've made any advances.

I noted on another site that this ad was from 1970 or 70s.

How is this sexist?

enhancedvibes: I pretty much go with "dude" for all genders. Anyone who gets too upset by that isn't someone I want to be friends with anyhow.

Oops. I'm an idiot.

I meant how is this racist.

It's obviously sexist. I need more coffee. Arrgh. Again, sorry.

Yeah, I'm with Zardoz...how is the ungle theme racially offensive?

Yeah Im with Zardoz...how is the jungle theme racially offensive?

GopherII i agree with you. i got to a womens college and all i ever hear is "all-girls college"' i can't stand it.

I don't mind use of the word "girl" in the right context to me it's the equivalent of "guy." Obviously when it's something official, "woman" and "man" are more appropriate, but in casual conversation and colloquialism (which ads frequently use), "girl" doesn't bother me. In a lot of cases "woman" or "man" would be too formal. And "gal" sounds stupid to my ears. I guess it's context. Some people do use it with a condescending tone, but in general it doesn't bother me.

Probably the least of our worries with this ad. ha.