I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK, Fiat Chrysler seem rather keen to flog their wares to women. Nowt wrong with that, but have we really not moved on from their pre-Don Draper approach?

Exhibit 1: the Chrysler Ypsilon (yes, 'Chrysler', not the Lancia it really is- long story). As a ovary-haver, you are meant to buy this not because it's efficient, or cheap, or practical, or even nice to look at per sé- no, you buy it because it makes you look better than lipstick does.

Credit: Fiat Automobiles UK ltd.

Exhibit 2: the Fiat 500. Consumer durable as seasonal fashion item. Not even suggested; spelled out barefaced.

Credit: Fiat Automobiles UK ltd.

Is this in any way better than Dodge's 1955 wheeze to go after the same demographic with a pink Coronet called 'La Femme' with matching rain accessories and hand bag?

Credit: history dumpster

Now I don't posses ovaries, but I don't think I'd be particularly flattered by a company's suggestion that the only way I could be persuaded to buy their car is to think of it as a fetching pair of shoes.

To be sure, Fiat Chrysler do a very similar thing when they're trying to flog their stuff to us guys. A Dodge Power Wagon, for example, may have been an unassuming implement for moving lumber and hogs back in 1955, but a 2014 Ram 1500 is just as much a fashionable head-turning image enhancer as that Ypsilon.

The difference is, we can at least pretend that we need that truck for the manly man lifestyle we want everyone to think we lead. Put differently, the aspiration we're being sold is plausibly bound up in the product itself. What Fiat Chrysler is trying to sell to women is the aspiration of being fabulously fashionable, by pretending that their product is something it patently is not: a piece of clothing or make-up. Do they think their female customers are too dim to notice?