Gillette For The Gentle Rapist.

[BIAD]

Another win for the blue-haired lesbians, get a male-orientated company to cuck and lose its customers.
With this mentality, how can we be sure we went to the moon?!!

CUT IT OUT

Men threaten to boycott Gillette over new #MeToo-inspired ‘woke’ advert that aims to stop ‘toxic
masculinity’

Many critics took to social media to say they would no longer be buying its products amid claims the brand
'insulted their own user base'



'MEN have threatened to boycott Gillette over the company's new #MeToo-inspired ad that aims to put an end
to "toxic masculinity". The new campaign, which features a thought-provoking film, has put a new angle on the
classic "The Best A Man Can Get" slogan - but not every customer is on board.

The shaving brand has taken on sexism, sexual harassment and bullying with its advert, which puts the responsibility
to change on men. But many critics -including Piers Morgan -took to social media to say they would no longer be
buying its products amid claims the brand "insulted their own user base".

One person tweeted: "So we just started 2019, and already a company has started pushing sexism towards
Men... @Gillette have no become a Leftist Bigot Company that insulted their own user base by calling them 'Sexists'".

Piers declared this morning he would no longer be using the products, and clashed furiously with a Good Morning
Britain guest as they debated the ad. His fury was echoed by many on Twitter, with another person unhappy with the
advert wrote: "Get Woke, Go Broke. I will no longer be using your products.
"I am not a bad person because I am male."

The advert features depictions of men talking over women, boys fighting and men catcalling or pretending to grope a
woman's bum. A voice over says: "We can't hide from it. It's been going on far too long.
"We can't laugh it off. Making the same old excuses.

"But something finally changed, and there will be no going back. Because we, we believe the best in men, to say the
right thing, to act the right way. "Some already are, in ways big and small."
As the advert goes on one dad is seen stopping boys fighting after others brushed it off with "boys will be boys", and
a man is seen stopping his buddy from catcalling a woman passing by.

It has had more than 250,000 dislikes on YouTube, and around 49,000 likes.
Many of those slamming the ad, who mostly appeared to be men, were also unhappy that the socially conscious
campaign was directed by a woman. Kim Gehrig was selected through Procter & Gamble's partnership with Free the Bid,
a program that advocates for more female directors.

Canadian conservative media personality Ezra Levant wrote: "A shaving ad written by pink-haired feminist scolds is about
as effective as a tampon ad written by middle aged men." But plenty of people also came to Gillette's defence, with one
person posting: "I wonder how many people here actually watched the video and didn't just blindly hate it.

"This is not anti-men propaganda bs, this is simple advertising to be respectful to each other, what's so bad about that.
"So many idiots here defending disgusting behaviour."
Another said: "Wow, so many of the comments here just go to prove why commercials/videos like this are necessary.
"At no point in this commercial did it say all men are guilty of these actions, yet here are so many men defending themselves."

A Gillette spokesperson said: "Gillette first introduced its tagline 'The Best A Man Can Get' 30 years ago.
"Today, we’re saying that the ideals that this statement inspire still hold true – but there’s more we can do as a brand, and
as a community of men, to live up to this ideal.

"As a brand that has been part of manhood for over a century we have a responsibility to influence culture and use our
voice to champion positive male behaviours. "We expected debate -discussion is necessary. This campaign encourages
all men to strive to be the best versions of themselves everyday to set the right example for the next generation."



Many people said they would be boycotting the company after the advert was released...'

SOURCE:

[Mystic Wanderer]

Gillette is the razor brand I've used all my life. I've never found another as sharp that doesn't nick my legs. I certainly won't be giving it up because some air-head that doesn't even have two brain cells thinks it's okay to bully, and all those other things shown in the ad.

Again I ask, what world did I wake up on?  Their thoughts on how things should be just leaves my mind befuddled.  

[guohua]

Gillette make razors and other products that is true, but now it would appear the company is interested in Political Correctness.

So, according to Gillette my husband should not get out and open the door for me or carry in the Groceries or tack out the trash or move the trash cans to the street for trash day, what if someone disrespects me, my husband suppose to just stand there?

Men aren't supposed to be Masculine?

Well Boy's, Hand your Nuts Over To Your Wife, Girlfriend or Boyfriend and Turn In Your Man Card.

[Wallfire]

Gillette is the razor brand I've used all my life. I've never found another as sharp that doesn't nick my legs. I certainly won't be giving it up because some air-head that doesn't even have two brain cells thinks it's okay to bully, and all those other things shown in the ad.

Again I ask, what world did I wake up on?  Their thoughts on how things should be just leaves my mind befuddled.  

WHAT dont you know its Januhairy, the LTBGQ mob will be very angry with you 

[Mystic Wanderer]

Gillette is the razor brand I've used all my life. I've never found another as sharp that doesn't nick my legs. I certainly won't be giving it up because some air-head that doesn't even have two brain cells thinks it's okay to bully, and all those other things shown in the ad.

Again I ask, what world did I wake up on?  Their thoughts on how things should be just leaves my mind befuddled.  

WHAT dont you know its Januhairy, the LTBGQ mob will be very angry with you 

True!  

[gordi]

I am a bit lost in this world.
I am a guy.
I am a straight, caucasian, middle-aged guy.
I like to think that I'm a good guy.
I treat others as I would expect to be treated myself.
I respect other people. Other races. Other faiths. Other colours. Other beliefs...
I care for my family, my friends, my community.
I'm not religious but I do have a good moral compass.
But, I find myself questioning more and more where I fit in with all of this stuff that's been happening to my world recently.

"White People should be ashamed for the way they have treated people of colour"
"Men should be chastised for the way they have treated women"
"Straights should be punished for the way they have treated the LGBT community"
"Older people are useless and should move aside and let the young folks get on with it"

Every "minority" or group within society seems to have a voice now... except mine.

I'm going to stop now, because no matter how I try to word how I feel about political correctness and "positive" discrimination within TV, advertising and the media, it will come across as if I am old, bigoted, and bitter.

[BIAD]

...I'm going to stop now, because no matter how I try to word how I feel about political correctness
and "positive" discrimination within TV, advertising and the media, it will come across as if I am old,
bigoted, and bitter.

The many divisive 'accusations' you stated are merely weaponized sentences designed to play on externally
agitated social differences in the class system. They're MEANT to make you feel wrong!
(I apologise, I know you're already smart enough to know that!)

I'm bigoted with many of my thoughts and they're mine. I'm old and have experience, David Hogg fails in
that area... is he ageist? On the plus-side, my bitterness -when reading on the internet, dissipates when I
realise that is what the text is meant to do.

The TV and newspapers want ratings and they use outrage-tactics to do it. It's not real and if you wish to]feel
anything, you should feel sorry for these sh*t-bags desperately trying to save their trade!

You are Gordi and in my humble opinion, that's a higher standing than most.

[Ninurta]

I am a bit lost in this world.
I am a guy.
I am a straight, caucasian, middle-aged guy.
I like to think that I'm a good guy.
I treat others as I would expect to be treated myself.
I respect other people. Other races. Other faiths. Other colours. Other beliefs...
I care for my family, my friends, my community.
I'm not religious but I do have a good moral compass.
But, I find myself questioning more and more where I fit in with all of this stuff that's been happening to my world recently.

"White People should be ashamed for the way they have treated people of colour"
"Men should be chastised for the way they have treated women"
"Straights should be punished for the way they have treated the LGBT community"
"Older people are useless and should move aside and let the young folks get on with it"

Every "minority" or group within society seems to have a voice now... except mine.

I'm going to stop now, because no matter how I try to word how I feel about political correctness and "positive" discrimination within TV, advertising and the media, it will come across as if I am old, bigoted, and bitter.

Well Gordi, I AM old, bigoted, and bitter. I am SO old, bigoted, and bitter that I give far, far less than a flippin' fuck what they think or how they perceive me. I am, however, very comfortable in my own skin, and extremely comfortable in telling them they can kiss my old, bigoted, bitter, and wrinkled ass.

When they get old enough to have hair on their 'nads, they can start thinking about the possibility of getting old enough to not give a rat's ass what they think... and when - or if - they actually make it to this age, THEN they can think about passing judgement on me...

... but they better be able to run faster than me when they get in my face to pass that judgement!

Until then, they can just get their little bitch asses into the kitchen and make me a sammich!

.

[Wallfire]

Now this is what google is all worried about. They feel they have power over the world, the sad thing is they might just have. I made a point of look at the gillette advert.
Seem to me they missed the point that in Europe its muslim men that are the greatest cause of rape, child rape and oppression of children.

‘DISRESPECTFUL’: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES MELT DOWN OVER THE WORD ‘FAMILY’
10:10 PM 01/16/2019 | INVESTIGATIVE GROUP
Peter Hasson | Reporter

• Google employees melted down after the word “family” was used in a company presentation, documents obtained by TheDCNF show. 
  
• Employees were upset that the word was used in a way that links families with children, which they argued was homophobic. 
  
• A Google vice president acknowledged that the word “family” had sparked “concerns” about inclusivity.
  

A Google executive sparked a fierce backlash from employees by using the word “family” in a weekly, company-wide presentation, according to internal documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Many Google employees became angry that the term was used while discussing a product aimed at children, because it implied that families have children, the documents show. The backlash grew large enough that a Google vice president addressed the controversy and solicited feedback on how the company could become more inclusive.
TheDCNF received the documents from a source who insisted upon anonymity in order to share them. (RELATED: Google Employees Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search)
One employee stormed out of the March 2017 presentation after a presenter “continued to show (awesome) Unicorn product features which continually use the word ‘family’ as a synonym for ‘household with children,'” he explained in an internal thread. That employee posted an extended rant, which was well-received by his colleagues, on why linking families to children is “offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong.”
He wrote:

This is a diminishing and disrespectful way to speak. If you mean “children”, say “children”; we have a perfectly good word for it. “Family friendly” used as a synonym for “kid friendly” means, to me, “you and yours don’t count as a family unless you have children”. And while kids may often be less aware of it, there are kids without families too, you know.
The use of “family” as a synonym for “with children” has a long-standing association with deeply homophobic organizations. This does not mean we should not use the word “family” to refer to families, but it mean we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children.
Even the sense, “suitable for the whole family”, which you might think is unobjectionable, is totally wrong too. It only works if we have advance shared conception of what “the whole family” is, and that is almost always used to mean a household with two adults, of opposite sex, in a romantic/sexual relationship, with two or more of their own children. If you mean that as a synonym for “suitable for all people” stop and notice the extraordinary unlikelihood of such a thought! So “suitable for the whole family” doesn’t mean “all people”, it means “all people in families”, which either means that all those other people aren’t in families, or something even worse. Use the word “family” to mean a loving assemblage of people who may or may not live together and may or may not include people of any particular age. STOP using it to mean “children”. It’s offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong.

Roughly 100 other Google employees upvoted the post, signaling their agreement. Other Google employees also echoed their displeasure with the term. “Thanks for writing this. So much yes,” one wrote.
“Using the word ‘family’ in this sense bothers me too,” wrote another employee, who felt excluded by the term because she was neither married nor a parent.
“It smacks of the ‘family values’ agenda by the right wing, which is absolutely homophobic by its very definition,” she wrote, adding: “[I]t’s important that we fix our charged language when we become aware of how exclusionary it actually is. As a straight person in a relationship, I find the term ‘family’ offensive because it excludes me and my boyfriend, having no children of our own.”
“My family consists of me and several other trans feminine folks, some of whom I’m dating. We’re all supportive of each other and eventually aspire to live together. Just because we aren’t a heterosexual couple with 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, and a dog doesn’t mean we’re not a family,” another employee added in agreement.
Another employee wrote that “using ‘family’ to mean ‘people with kids’ is also annoying to me as a straight-cis-woman who doesn’t have or want kids. My husband, my parents, and my pets are my family.”
[img=772x0]https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/google-building-e1547686917833.jpg[/img]The new Google logo is displayed at the Google headquarters on Sept. 2, 2015 in Mountain View, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Google vice president Pavni Diwanji joined the conversation and acknowledged that use of the term “family” had sparked “concerns.”
“Hi everyone, I realize what we said at tgif might have caused concerns in the way we talked about families. There are families without kids too, and also we needed to be more conscientious about the fact that there is a diverse makeup of parents and families,” Dwiwanji wrote.
“Please help us get to a better state. Teach us how to talk about it in inclusive way, if you feel like we are not doing it well. As a team we have very inclusive culture, and want to do right in this area. I am adding my team here so we can have open conversation,” Dwiwanji concluded.
Google did not return a request for comment on the controversy, which is yet another example of left-wing Google employees bringing their politics to work with them.
WATCH:

TheDCNF previously reported that Google employees had internal debates about whether to suppress right-of-center media outlets, including The Daily Caller and Breitbart, in the company’s search function. That conversation, too, included a Google vice president: David Besbris.
Besbris and other participants in that conversation advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check feature at the end of 2017.
Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.
Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January 2018, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

source

[BIAD]

The Australian Open is broadcast in the early hours on the television here in the UK and my wife is a tennis fan.
My son rises at 5.30.am. and being the forever mother, my wife leaves the TV on and goes to make him some
breakfast.

With one sleepy-eye open, I switch the channel and find out what is happening in the world.
This morning, a 'feel-good' Breakfast News channel 'Good Morning Britain' caught my attention when I heard
the last Yellow Pages business directory would be delivered today before it's fazed out for good.

This once-large book is the UK's version of America's White Pages directory and offers the reader telephone
numbers for companies. At one time, it even held private numbers of the public, but with today's technology, the
internet has finally killed off the expression "I'll check the phone-book".

In a light presentation of the announcement, the TV programme showed a commercial from the eighties and
realising I wasn't going back to sleep, I watched the advert that brought a smile to face due to the memory of it.
Later during the actual commercials on that television channel, another showed another modern-day manner
of advertising products

Here's the eighties commercial.




Notice the social-class position of the dated family.
The male has came home from work carrying a Joiner's tool-bag or 'bass'. The viewer is informed by the optics
that there's no household vehicle and that the man probably works locally. He is skilled and works with his hands.
In the eighties, he would be perceived as 'upper-working-class' as he has invested his time on training for a trade
that is above the average labourer.

The manner of his dress indicates he works on a construction site and obviously interacts with other males in that
industry. This also means he daily involves himself in a social structure where weakness is mocked and strength of
character is appreciated.
Basically-speaking, it's the way a physical-like style a male carries himself in essence to protect his family, property
and survival. 

The man arrives home and his son is musing on a style of bicycle and after the dominant patriarch (notice how he stands
over the boy with his vulnerable areas exposed), the father doubts the decision-making of the youngster but doesn't rule-out
that such a purchase is possible in the future.

We're shown through the sad features of the boy that he's aware that such a specifically-designed bicycle is not going
to immediately be given and that he's also appreciates that it is probably out of his family's price range.

The lad is sat in a back-yard of his home where it's suggested a garden could reside due to the hose-pipe hanging
from the exterior wall of the kitchen. An old wash-tub hangs there too, implying that washing-machines were still a luxury,
although the tub may have been kept via traditional frugalness.

The mother is preparing the evening meal and on entry by the father, does the viewer becomes aware that the mother
is in-on some-sort of clandestine plan that involves the child's wish. They both focus on finding a bicycle-outlet in the
telephone book and we realise that a benevolent success story is unfolding where the 'Yellow Pages' is a paramount
point to the whole situation.

The next day, we see the boy quietly taking his new racing-bike out and the father is shown peeping out of the bedroom
window watching to see the happiness of his son with his new gift. The youngster seems aware that his father is monitoring
his movements and glances up at the front bedroom window to see of he's correct.
Having to maintain his dominant role of strong, protecting and wise parent and father, the man pulls away from view,
but the son notices the movement of the curtain.

The boy smiles to himself as he understands that his happiness is important to his parents and that certain positions
of standing cannot be let down. The father feels the boys excitement because he too once knew that care-free wonder,
but only releases his view in a friendly acknowlegment with a touch of light-hearted self-congratulation regarding the
bike's seat.

The viewer is left with the confidence that a caring family unit -of all levels of class structure in society, needs the Yellow
Pages.

Now watch this 2019 commercial.



A boy in his bedroom articulating his dream version of a vehicle with coloured pens. The father leans through the bedroom
door and asks if his son would like to see his new car. The way that the male offers the opportunity and the response of
the child implies the standard family-bond is there and that special 'male-ism' of enjoying physical objects is something
they're both aware of in each other.

In reality, this initial segment of the commercial tells us the father is the son's friend and not a mentor.

Notice the man does not actually enter the room, could this be out of respect for his son's private space? We're to assume
the property would belong to the parents and when teaching a young male respect for his elders and rules of an household, it
would be normal for the male to enter the child's area, dominate that space, but still leave a confidence of safety.
Yet, he merely speaks from the doorway.

An exterior view shows that the home is considerable, there is a driveway with a large neatly-cut lawn at the front of the house.
No wash-tub here, this family is affluent and since the male has hinted that his car is a new car, we can surmise he also had
a car before this one. Hence, we perceive this family as upper-to-middle-class.

Holding his illustrated idea of the perfect car, the boy looks at the new car and his father asks him for his approval.
The roles have been reversed now. The adult requires the boy's endorsement and when it's not given, the father weakly recites
some gimmicks of the vehicle and is answered with condemnation from his son.

The young lad surveys the car and repeats that he doesn't favour his father's choice, advising that "it doesn't have any rockets"
The father counters his son's negativity with another defensive call of a modern add-on of the vehicle and asks again for the
boy's blessing via his body-stance.

The son adamantly states the car is not the one he had drawn and confidently waves his illustrated idea of what a correct option
would and should be. In an attempt to maintain his friendship with the boy, the father weakly says that one day, the son might get
to drive it. The child throws his drawings at his father in anger and the adult flinches in the defence.

Finally, the adult reaches out to put his arm around his son and the boy rejects the offer and actually stares at his father when he
does it. The dominant person in the shot is obvious.

There you are... Google's constant social engineering and progressive educating of the last twenty-odd years has changed
the map of the family-unit. The father is a mewling man-boy and is dominated by his spoilt child.

The mother is missing from the disrespectful situation because the goal of demeaning fathers would become confusing if the
mother had interceded and rebuked the child and if she agreed with her husband, it could be seen as servile.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Bravo @"BIAD".    

That was quite a deep-dive observation of the two commercials.  I probably wouldn't have picked up on some of that on a conscious level, but the "programming" would still be ingrained into my subconscious with the point "they" wished to convey.

Sneaky bastards!

[BIAD]

Bravo @"BIAD".    

That was quite a deep-dive observation of the two commercials.  I probably wouldn't have picked up on some of that on a conscious level, but the "programming" would still be ingrained into my subconscious with the point "they" wished to convey.

Sneaky bastards!

There are others. Mixed-race families are promoted for their agenda and whilst I have no problem
with mixed-raced marriages, having it shoved in my face implies a hidden racist guilt of the creators
of these commercials needs to be slyly aired.

The product that's for sale...? It doesn't matter.

Ginger hair is also a favourite, it's supposed to represent a minority on television and yet to the
normal people who watch the boob-tube, it's just a colour of hair.

The commodity...? who cares.

Those with disabilities are constantly painted with the marks of honesty and and kindness.
Nobody in history as ever done anything evil whilst steering a wheelchair.
They struggle with something and only with condescending virtuous assistance, is the weepy
music cued-up and everyone feels love for the person who will still have the disability tomorrow.

White men are usually always portrayed as unsure and need the confident hand of a female or
coloured person. The days of a strong male character have long gone and if needed, provide
an obtuse ignorant foil for those who're displayed as wise to purchase the product.

The question is why would -what was once a natural inbuilt trait of a male, be frowned at and
exhibited as a negative?

The dominant partner in a lesbian or homosexual relationship is not shown in the same manner
and the real-life duel-role of heterosexual couple is never broadcast these days in regards of
parental care.

So why demand the male rids himself of his combative, dominating attributes? Why force -via an
advertising company that is paid to promote a brand, a man to behave with a weak, confused
deportment?

You know why.

[Ninurta]

So why demand the male rids himself of his combative, dominating attributes? Why force -via an
advertising company that is paid to promote a brand, a man to behave with a weak, confused
deportment?

You know why.

What I have always found amusing is the way that folks expect a man to behave with that weak, confused deportment you speak of until hell breaks loose. THEN, and only then, those same folk tend to try to hide behind you and expect you to do something. They develop a sudden appreciation for the combative, dominating attributes that the same folk so lately decried.

I call bullshit on that - if they want to dominate ME and lead ME around by the nose in the everyday world, then THEY can rise to the occasion when danger threatens and save ME instead. It's only fair, and anything less is saturated hypocrisy.

Can't have it both ways. Pick one, and stick with it.


.

[Ninurta]

‘DISRESPECTFUL’: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES MELT DOWN OVER THE WORD ‘FAMILY’

source

What a bunch of whiney-babies.

back in the day when men were men and women were women and both were damned glad of it, a "family" DID consist of paired adults with children and offspring. A set of paired adults WITHOUT children was not a "family", it was a "couple".

Now - and it has been going on for a long time, as I noticed the tendency back when I was at TOS - the Left wants to redefine the language to mean what THEY want it to mean. I said back then, and I still say now, that words have defined, concrete meanings. If we don't agree on what a word means, communication is impossible. When you attempt to redefine my language, you are NOT redefining it so much as creating a new language of your own, and mere communication cannot possibly be your intent in doing so, as it renders communication impossible.

So, they can define the sound "family" to mean whatever they want it to mean, but at the same time they should not expect me to follow suit, as I already have an established language, and have no need of adopting theirs.

Why should I display "respect" to them by allowing them to change my language when they are disrespecting ME by redefining it? They are saying in effect that established language is unworthy of respect, and by extension those who use such are as well.

Here is some clear language for them: kiss my ass.

.

[BIAD]

What I have always found amusing is the way that folks expect a man to behave with that weak, confused deportment you speak of until hell breaks loose. THEN, and only then, those same folk tend to try to hide behind you and expect you to do something. They develop a sudden appreciation for the combative, dominating attributes that the same folk so lately decried.

I call bullshit on that - if they want to dominate ME and lead ME around by the nose in the everyday world, then THEY can rise to the occasion when danger threatens and save ME instead. It's only fair, and anything less is saturated hypocrisy.

Can't have it both ways. Pick one, and stick with it.

Yeah and in my view it's because it's based on a selfish emotional response to being unable to deal
with real-world issues.

Countries look for weaker countries to dominate and in most cases these days, it's usually done politically.
That dominance can grow into a situation where both countries eventually rely on each other.

Political groups attempt to dominate opposing parties with thought-out policies that favour a majority of
people who'll assist in putting them into a greater position of power. However, good ideas are neutral and
can come from either side.

People strive to better themselves by offering skills more valuable to a employer than another hopeful
candidate and some create products that compete against other commodities in order to enrich and
ease their lifestyles.
The employer needs workers and workers need pay. Companies need customers and visa-versa.

A man or woman seeks control in a relationship until it's realised that a mutual partnership can be beneficial
to both and any offspring. A male can protect the family that a female raises, the two individuals become one
benefit to the vulnerable.

Opposing situations that can be held in the mind that both have a symbiotic-like connections and yet, seen
as different when first approached.
An emotional mind doesn't doesn't use this type of reasoning, a child doesn't perceive the world in that manner
and that's what today's politics is playing on.

Identity politics is schoolyard politics.

[BIAD]

What a bunch of whiney-babies.

back in the day when men were men and women were women and both were damned glad of it, a "family" DID consist of paired adults with children and offspring. A set of paired adults WITHOUT children was not a "family", it was a "couple".

Now - and it has been going on for a long time, as I noticed the tendency back when I was at TOS - the Left wants to redefine the language to mean what THEY want it to mean. I said back then, and I still say now, that words have defined, concrete meanings. If we don't agree on what a word means, communication is impossible. When you attempt to redefine my language, you are NOT redefining it so much as creating a new language of your own, and mere communication cannot possibly be your intent in doing so, as it renders communication impossible.

So, they can define the sound "family" to mean whatever they want it to mean, but at the same time they should not expect me to follow suit, as I already have an established language, and have no need of adopting theirs.

Why should I display "respect" to them by allowing them to change my language when they are disrespecting ME by redefining it? They are saying in effect that established language is unworthy of respect, and by extension those who use such are as well.

Here is some clear language for them: kiss my ass.

I totally and emphatically agree.

[BIAD]

We can discuss the realities of feminism in the advertising world, but I think this article below will explain it far
better than myself.

The title tells you everything. These are suggested new rules to lure customers to a product, not original rules.
Which means the perception of making the customer believe a preferred brand enhances their lifestyle can
-and does, change.

The currents of the markets need to be monitored and harnessed, hence the vast investments that are made to
take advantage of rising opportunities. The customer must never be made aware that they mean little to the seller
and that the true interest is in the contents of their wallets and purses.

This is why to that cynical space between the seller and the buyer must never be breached, companies want
to be seen as your friend and to be trusted. When in reality, they're simply taking money for their wares.

But if a business virtue-signals a belief system, supports a social movement and ideology that doesn't remove
dandruff or make your underwear sparkle, then they have moved from their comfort zone into an area where
for-and-against opinions reside, opinions that divide people that are also customers.

Today -just as the corporate elite in the futuristic movie 'Robocop' boasted, "good business is where you find it!"
any advertising is good advertising. However it's short-term and when a company announces it's drank the Kool
-Aid of an '-ism', it has to be prepared to go all the way.

Or at least until their product is updated.

THE NEW RULES OF USING FEMINISM IN MARKETING.


'The international movement against sexual harassment and assault, #MeToo, has increased visibility for the
challenges women face around the world. It’s also raised the stakes for brands who want to engage female
consumers.

In the past two decades, the use of “femvertising”—marketing to women with themes of feminism—has risen
sharply as the modern-day women’s rights movement gains huge popularity. Watershed moments like the
Women’s March have left brands eager to capitalise on the supercharged consumer sentiment surrounding
this topic.

However, feminism (the belief that women should be treated equally to men) isn’t a tagline. It’s a mindset that
has sustained an ongoing and very real battle for women’s equality since the first-wave feminists of the 19th
and early 20th century.

Profiting from these ideals while embodying the opposite is not clever, it’s exploitation.

An early example of femvertising is Dove’s “Evolution” spot, which earned millions of views for the provocative
and unexpected way it used advertising to question society’s standards of beauty. The sentiment became the
basis for Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty,” garnering buzz that provided 30X the exposure compared to the
paid-for media space, and helping to sharply increase sales at Dove in the decade after the campaign launched.

Perhaps hoping for a similar outcome, many brands have since jumped on the femvertising bandwagon, seeking
to attract not only female buyers, but Millennial consumers (and their $30T of spending power). More than nine in
10 Millennials would switch brands to one associated with a cause, according to research conducted at the HaaS
School of Business at Berkeley.

Brands also seek the added exposure offered by these feel-good campaigns, which have the right formula to be
shared widely on social channels (they’re often highly emotional and contain messages and stories empowering to
women.)

The sobering side of femvertising

To date, many brands have pumped millions of marketing budget dollars into femvertising campaigns.
On the positive side, they’ve helped to insert positive, empowering messages into the public narrative.
Whereas, historically, many ads have created new insecurities, these reflect ideals of equality.

However, these story arcs are often only used when convenient, and are too frequently only deployed as lip-service by
companies who exhibit less-than-ideal behavior internally.

Some examples:

Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also owns Axe body spray, a brand known for a history of wildly misogynistic
campaigns. The disconnect between intention and action becomes clear when a consumer considers brands
with such conflicting messages (Dove and Axe) side by side.

Fearless Girl, commissioned by State Street Global Advisors, was intended to raise awareness about gender
diversity in corporate leadership. A noble cause! However, State Street recently settled allegations to the tune
of $5M that it paid female and black executives at the firm less than their white, male counterparts.

KPMG’s uplifting video spot about women breaking the glass ceiling stands in stark contrast to its $400M class-action
lawsuit alleging a pattern of gender discrimination, including denying promotions to women and penalizing them for
taking maternity leave.

On the surface, Pantene’s ad encouraging women to stop apologising should be celebrated for its empowering message.
However, in context, there’s inherent conflict in a beauty product’s use of femvertising: women spend $426B a year on
beauty products designed to conceal blemishes, stop aging, lighten their skin tone, and in so many ways change
appearances to fit ideals. And, in a business context, they spend $141B more than their male colleagues, while earning
less—an average of 79 cents to their dollar (if they’re white.)

Audi’s Superbowl ad focused on daughters (an expensive bet on femvertising) centered on the importance of gender
equality as it relates to our daughters. But, consumers responded with criticism, many arguing that this was a
disingenuous move as the brand hadn’t taken a public stance on the issue of gender equality previously in its
marketing. In addition, Audi has no female board members to stand behind its rallying cry.

All this is not to say that these organisations must be perfect examples of gender equality in order to continue to be
successful, however they invite criticism when they leverage ideals of feminism to profit without consideration for
the responsibility they adopt by doing so.

When their own behavior does not stand up to feminism’s ideals, it creates a disconnect between a brand’s intentions,
and its actions–and consumers are increasingly wary of that gap. It’s lip service, and nothing more.

High-risk of exploiting the women’s rights movement

Perhaps most importantly, when brands claim to be stewards of feminist ideals in their advertising, but do not live up
to those ideals in practice, it has a direct impact on the women’s rights movement. There is a very real danger in
companies exploiting feminism’s message without taking action to further the movement by diminishing feminism
to a tagline, or a hashtag, instead of a mechanism to engage in the real, hard work of promoting true equality.

I call this trend in marketing to women “faux-feminism” and it contributes to an illusion of progress. It allows the millions
of consumers who see these ads to believe equality is closer than it actually is, creating a diversity blind spot and
obstructing the progress being made.

When those who have not experienced sexism see these ads, they mistakenly believe the challenges facing women
in the workplace are fixed (or not real in the first place.) A study by McKinsey & Co. found that men are more likely to
think the workplace is equitable; women see a workplace that is less fair and offers less support.
We cannot solve problems we cannot see clearly.

The new rules of marketing to women on a feminist platform

So, in this new era of #metoo and femvertising, there are new rules for marketing to women using the ideals of feminism.

The reasons are two-fold: first, to avoid creating disillusioned consumers who will react strongly against a brand for acts
of faux-feminism, and second, to protect the progress made to-date in the feminist movement, in a time when women’s
rights remain under attack.

I’m not an advocate for all brands to use feminism in their advertising. But, if you’re going to capitalise on the movement,
consider your responsibility first. There are three preliminary guidelines:

1. Think twice–Taking any stance as an organisation on a politically charged or hot button issue is a risk,
which will invite criticism from both supporters and opponents of the issue.
But, it’s more common than ever, as many CEOs are adopting their platform as activists.

As content marketing expert Doug Kessler said, “Think hard about attaching your brand to things that matter
way more than your brand ever could.” There are many avenues your marketing can take.
Think twice, maybe three times, as to whether gender equality is the direction that makes the most sense for you.

Is your product is truly prepared to be a steward for the message you’re promoting? One recent example is Lean
Cuisine, whose campaign surrounding women “having it all” invited loads of social media backlash due to the
history of the brand’s low-fat frozen meal products perpetuating beauty standards.
Ironically, it’s those standards that contribute to the pressure on women to, indeed, “have it all” in the first place.

2. Practice what you preach–Don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk.
Ask the hard questions about how your organisation manifests feminism’s ideals before you stand on this platform.
That means transparently pay women equally to men, demonstrate women leadership at the highest levels of the
organisation and throughout the ranks, mandate supplier diversity, make unconscious bias training available t
employees, provide strong family leave programs, deploy inclusive hiring practices, and most importantly,
stop objectifying women in the marketing of other product lines or business units.

Before you approve this risky move to join the red-hot topic of women’s rights, honestly hold your company up to the
ideals of feminism for scrutiny before you exploit the narrative for your own publicity.

3. Think beyond the hashtag–If you determine that your organisation practices what it preaches, consider what else
you can do to support women beyond the feel-good message of your hashtag. One recent example is Jane Walker,
a campaign from Diageo on International Women’s Day that temporarily changed the Johnnie Walker icon to a
female version (Jane).

On the surface it first seemed like lip-service (like McDonalds flipping its Golden Arches,) but digging deeper, the
company’s dedication to women went far beyond Jane. The company donated portions of the sales to organisations
supporting women’s progress, they joined the CEO Action for Diversity and Inclusion, they boast a vocal, female CFO
who is clear about the importance of inclusion at the organisation, and the makeup of both their board and blenders
is nearly half female.

Final word to marketers

The onslaught of femvertising has created a sense of disillusionment among consumers who are rightfully holding brands
up to the standards of the feminism movement they claim to be part of.

If we can’t hold our organisations up to the scrutiny of true equality, we should never cheapen the movement by exploiting
the narrative. It’s too reckless and there are real consequences. Our society, and our consumers, deserve more.
We can and must do better. Marketing is a powerful force: one with the potential to change ideas and create positive action.
Use that power thoughtfully...'

SOURCE:

[BIAD]

Here's an interpretation of the new movie 'Bird Box' and the programming that
progressives want to hammer into you, may be inside this film.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Here's an interpretation of the new movie 'Bird Box' and the programming that
progressives want to hammer into you, may be inside this film.

I've been hearing a lot about this movie.  Don't know if I'll watch if it's filled with Liberal brainwashing.

This guys breakdown of the show tells me I wouldn't like it.  Thanks for letting us know.  

[Wallfire]

Says it all