01-19-2019, 04:03 PM
You may have seen, or read about, the new Gillette long-form commercial. Even without reading any commentary, most people can pick up that it relentlessly targets a very specific demographic. There are reasons for this, and the fact that the commercial has generated a big chunk controversy shouldn't be surprising. We shouldn't be so naive to think it's all a strange coincidence. Everything you see on television, from the script to the cast to the direction in general, is very deliberate--commercials, even more so.
It's a near certainty that Gillette, or Proctor & Gamble (Gillette's very large parent company) knew the kind of uproar it would cause. Currently P&G's stock is down, but that's the short play; corporations are rarely have such a high time-preference. Additionally, It's doubtless that P&G are in bed with globalists. You can't exist as such a large entity without establishing those ties, and while I don't know if there's a direct connection between the release of the commercial and the new APA guidelines for treating men and boys, the coincidence seems too well timed. I am, however, fine with leaving it as merely a coincidence.
While there's nothing exactly wrong with the behavioral corrections suggested by the commercial, there's nothing particularly moral about it, either. The context matters. Men shouldn't verbally harass women, but there was nothing indicating the man was going to harass her. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with a man "cold approaching" a woman as a courtship overture. To suggest otherwise would be lunacy. There's also nothing with wrong with stepping in to stop a violent encounter between two boys, but there's also nothing wrong with roughhousing, and I dare to say there's nothing wrong with letting two boys duke out a dispute.
It seems that, as the end result of a few decades of media influence, a demographic (the demographic targeted in Gillette's commercial) have developed a deep hatred for themselves. There's few other scenarios I can see in which this type of commercial would be acceptable to even a small portion of the population. At the root of this attitude is an approach to the sexes that would baffle the ancient Hebrew, and this. Men and women each have their own "peccadilloes" and consequent strengths, that the social demands of Western civilization, particularly feminism, managed to muddle quite well. Genuine glimpses of genuine masculinity or femininity are just that: glimpses. but anything genuine would most likely be not on accident. These days, it may pay to keep an attentive eye towards that.
* An economic term, meaning a market actor that prefers things now at a high cost, rather than later at a possible lower cost.
It's a near certainty that Gillette, or Proctor & Gamble (Gillette's very large parent company) knew the kind of uproar it would cause. Currently P&G's stock is down, but that's the short play; corporations are rarely have such a high time-preference. Additionally, It's doubtless that P&G are in bed with globalists. You can't exist as such a large entity without establishing those ties, and while I don't know if there's a direct connection between the release of the commercial and the new APA guidelines for treating men and boys, the coincidence seems too well timed. I am, however, fine with leaving it as merely a coincidence.
While there's nothing exactly wrong with the behavioral corrections suggested by the commercial, there's nothing particularly moral about it, either. The context matters. Men shouldn't verbally harass women, but there was nothing indicating the man was going to harass her. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with a man "cold approaching" a woman as a courtship overture. To suggest otherwise would be lunacy. There's also nothing with wrong with stepping in to stop a violent encounter between two boys, but there's also nothing wrong with roughhousing, and I dare to say there's nothing wrong with letting two boys duke out a dispute.
It seems that, as the end result of a few decades of media influence, a demographic (the demographic targeted in Gillette's commercial) have developed a deep hatred for themselves. There's few other scenarios I can see in which this type of commercial would be acceptable to even a small portion of the population. At the root of this attitude is an approach to the sexes that would baffle the ancient Hebrew, and this. Men and women each have their own "peccadilloes" and consequent strengths, that the social demands of Western civilization, particularly feminism, managed to muddle quite well. Genuine glimpses of genuine masculinity or femininity are just that: glimpses. but anything genuine would most likely be not on accident. These days, it may pay to keep an attentive eye towards that.
* An economic term, meaning a market actor that prefers things now at a high cost, rather than later at a possible lower cost.
