Next Gillette Should Target 'Toxic Femininity'
January 17, 2019
Next Gillette Should Target 'Toxic Femininity'
By Jeannie DeAngelis
Recently, Gillette, the company whose razors have shaved the faces of many a male, as well as the legs of many of a male identifying as a female, officially crossed over to the lassies' side by launching a marketing ploy that portrays men as salivating troglodytes who alternate between patting women's heads and behinds.
After rendering most men as louts, the Gillette ad asks America the question: "Is this the best a man can get?"
Granted, on the surface, encouraging anyone to be a better person is a worthy endeavor. However, a problem arises concerning who it is that gets to determine what a man's "best" actually is. Furthermore, Gillette must have forgotten that setting benchmarks for how others should act undermines the foundational argument of the women they defend. After all, doesn't the right-to-choose crowd quell its guilt-ridden consciences by espousing that there is no absolute moral truth and that what's right for a person hinges solely on personal reality and conviction?
Besides, what right does the crowd that tortures unborn males have to criticize men for harassing women? In any event, if setting an example is the goal of the Gillette ad, the logical place to start might be for the razor magnate to inspire female accusers to refuse to participate in behavior far more toxic than the activities they condemn.
Yet despite the presence of those glaring inconsistencies, Gillette chose instead to glean its inspiration from the #MeToo movement, whose women pride themselves on aborting the offspring of men who have zero say as to whether or not their children get to live or die.
In addition to clips from sitcoms and cartoons and snippets of "boys being boys" doing unacceptable things like wrestling and rabblerousing, the ad also features an activist actor named Terry Crews, who, after being sexually harassed himself, makes an impassioned plea for Congress to "hold men accountable" via legislation that targets things like whistling at shapely women.
If Gillette believes that wagging a marketing finger of rebuke in the face of menfolk has the muscle to defuse the outworking of testosterone, then maybe a Mach 3 could also persuade a certain male Nobel Peace Prize-winner to rethink "bringing a gun to a knife fight" as well as convince him that getting "in the face" of political adversaries isn't exactly #MeToo-compliant.
With that in mind, the next time Terry Crews addresses Congress, the former football player could majorly impact the recidivism rate of convicted rapists and curtail male-initiated gun violence in the city of Chicago by requesting that Gillette issue free razors to every American male.
In the meantime, the gist of the ad places the full burden for change on toxic masculinity and emphasizes the negative effect butt-gazing, catcalling, and barbequing may have on the next generation of boys. What Gillette chooses not to mention is how a mother who believes she has the right to abort a sibling, or Bruce Jenner shaving his legs and turning into Caitlyn, impacts the fragile psyche of a young boy.
Nonetheless, neither abortion nor transgenderism is likely to become a hot topic in an upcoming ad campaign because, notoriously, the female sex driving the lion's share of criticism tends to exempt itself from the rules its members impose on those they deem oppressive.
For example, females encourage one another to embrace imperfection with a sense of pride. Nude women can get out the vote by refusing to submit to feminine stereotypes, but if a man succumbs to primal instinct and dares ogle a naked female a public scourging for sexual harassment is sure to follow.
Notwithstanding glaring double standards of that kind, the sad truth is that this debate should be about not merely bad behavior in men. Instead, the discussion should also include shout-your-abortion females, who, when not contributing 1 million babies a year to a 46-year-old death toll, spend lots of time recruiting sympathizers to assist in their effort to issue authoritarian diktats to men with far less blood on their hands.
As the Gillette ad rightly points out, "the girls watching the women today will be the women of tomorrow."
That's why, if it's a man's job to purge toxic masculinity, women should assist in the purification of their sex, because which is worse: little rascals behaving like he-man women-haters or females who esteem themselves less violent and aggressive exercising the right to abort a half million male babies a year?
Therefore, if fostering a kinder, less "toxic" nation is really at the heart of the Gillette marketing effort, why not give equal time to a commercial that enlightens a one-sided argument with facts?
Why not pitch an ad that chronicles the U.S. death toll for war, which has 52 million fewer fatalities than the 53-plus million babies who died during the female war on life that commenced in 1973? And then, instead of chastising men by lining them up behind barbeques, why not offer an incentive for change to the next generation of Venus razor-users by lining up 3,000 aborted babies on a garbage heap?
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...emininity.html
Reply With Quote
