In the latest and greatest move by the GOP to try and lure women back to its sinking ship of a political party, the powers that be have now released what I'm sure they consider to be a hilarious and effective ad campaign that parodies "Say Yes To The Dress," except in this case, the "dresses" are political candidates. It starts with a young woman who just graduated college and is shopping for wedding dresses with her mother. She wants to wear the sleek and sexy "Rick Scott Dress" but her out-of-touch mom thinks that the lacy and ugly "Charlie Crist Dress" is better. Obviously Ross wins because the daughter says emphatically that "This is MY decision."
So many layers here, I'm not sure where to begin unpacking. First of all, the fact that the girl is fresh out of college-- is this a subtle message that women should look for husbands, rather than careers, right when they graduate? Also, is the GOP actually suggesting that women should take choosing a political candidate who will make future decisions involving their rights, bodies, and treatment in the workplace in the same level of seriousness as choosing a wedding dress? Apparently so. Because wedding dresses and candidates are, like, totally the same thing.
vs. 
BUT WAIT! I just remembered something from a linguistics class I took in college--literally just now as I was typing the previous sentence. The word "candidate" comes from the Latin word "candidus" which means "to make white or bright." When men were running for office in ancient Rome, they all wore white togas when speaking before the Senate during elections so the rich guys couldn't dress fancier than their poorer counterparts. "Candidus" is also where the word "Candida" or yeast, comes from. Fun facts for days!
Okay stepping off the English nerd soap box now. I do NOT think that the Republicans were thinking this deeply into linguistics and etymology when they made this campaign. In fact, I could go on another nerd tangent about how wedding dresses are white to symbolize virginity and purity because women are reaaaaaly not supposed to be having any form of sex before their wedding night, but that's for another day.
So what were the repubs thinking when they made this really fascinating and culturally relevant campaign? Apparently what they presume that women value most, namely, reality TV and shopping for wedding dresses. Now, I know a LOT of women who have spent a LOT of time shopping for wedding dresses (and watching "Say Yes to the Dress" for that matter), but these women also happen to be smart, educated professionals who understand the difference between voting and shopping. Notwithstanding the fact that women were not even allowed to vote in the not-so-very-distant history of this country, you would think that they could make a campaign that showed, gosh I don't know, female science researchers getting funding from a GOP candidate or something (but maybe they can't because what are the odds of that ever happening).
If the republicans wanted to make an analogous ad to reality TV that would effectively make me switch teams, it would be more akin to "Extreme Home Makeover" in which we watch as a house (former GOP) with no recycling bins and a gigantic water-sucking lawn gets turned into a fully functioning solar-powered work of art complete with self-sustaining vegetable garden (new GOP). You get the point. I'm going to stick to my Netflix documentaries, thanks.
