Comments on: Ads You’re Not Going to See Again Anytime Soon – Chapter 6

By: Eric Boysen

Eric Boysen — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:51:31 +0000

#27 – There are always two; no more no less, a master and an apprentice. Which is she though, the master or the apprentice?

#11 – That is pretty much the analysis my SAH wife and I did. I am insured enough to pay for only a couple of years until she can get a job and make her own way with the children though. I can’t afford enough to keep the family in style after my demise. She is insured too, but at a lesser level, not because she is not valued by me, but simply to cover the cost of child care. We just can’t afford more, and it probably would not be the first priority even if we had a bigger check coming in.

#13 – Was Barnard Princeton’s “sister.” If so, the young coed probably cheers for Princeton’s teams and by leaving school may also be leaving behind the opportunity for marriage to a Tiger. Maybe she is better off this way.

3 Ne 6:12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:20:48 +0000

Fun answer, BruceC, but it got me thinking. These ads are appearing less than two decades after Margaret Sanger began her fight for public access to birth control. Here is a small passage from her book The Case for Birth Control. You can read her book here.

A few years of this [gynecological and obstetrical nursing] brought me to a shocking discovery-- that knowledge of the methods of controlling birth was accessible to the women of wealth while the working women were deliberately kept in ignorance of this knowledge!... Statistics show us that the birth-rate of any given quarter is in ratio with and to its wealth. And further figures prove that in large cities the rich districts yield a birth-rate of a third of that of the poor districts. (Sanger, Margaret. The Case for Birth Control, A Supplementary Brief and Statement of Facts. New York: 1917, pp 6, 7.)

At this time, portraying a family with two children was clearly shorthand for wealth. And of course the preservation of wealth is the whole point of life insurance.

By: BruceC

BruceC — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:37:21 +0000

doh! I forgot the “tough-firmly-in-cheek” emoticon

By: BruceC

BruceC — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:36:16 +0000

Symmetry, like having both a salt and pepper shaker.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:32:13 +0000

I find it curious that each family has two children, a boy and a girl.

By: sister blah 2

sister blah 2 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:01:04 +0000

Huh, I take it this was before Social Security came into being (for the old couple). How sad.

Speaking of sad, the “Why, Daddy, Why?” is very far over-the-top! My goodness!!

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:59:01 +0000

Some of it is clothing and hairstyle, which can make a person look older by being old-fashioned, but I believe that people today just don’t physically age as fast previous generations. It could be all the anti-oxidants, vitamins and stuff, and maybe just a better diet overall.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:10:26 +0000

Having nothing but dry toast and tea for dinner will age you fast, Maurine! {g}

There was one I didn’t scan that I probably should have. They may be the same “elderly” 65-year-old couple, except THEY bought Beneficial, so they are eating at a table with a tablecloth, set with fine china instead of chunky Woolworth’s rejects, and both are well dressed, well coiffed, and have no worries.

By: Maurine Ward

Maurine Ward — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:58:12 +0000

Did anyone notice how old the 65-year-old couple with no job looks?

By: Velikiye Kniaz

Velikiye Kniaz — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:17:35 +0000

RE: #20

Don’t know if they do, Mark, but they (AIG) closed today at $3.75 a share. Why buy the insurance when you can buy a piece of the company?!?