Archive for the ‘Feminism’ Category

Gillette Shaves Toxic Masculinity

Tuesday, January 15th, 2019

It’s another depressing sign of the times.  Gillette has become the latest victim of androphobia, a disorder that seems to be sweeping the land.  As a result, their marketing department (apparently composed of hypoandrogenous boys and/or misandrous women,) is busy setting out to offend a sizable proportion of their customer base.  I don’t know what sort of business school they attended, but it can’t be a good one.  The video below chides men to drop their toxic masculinity in favor of some sort of more “civilized” maleness.  What none of these dolts seem to understand is that it has always been men who have civilized the world.  Otherwise, it would still be a matter of “rule of the jungle.”  Men won’t let themselves be bullied in this way, but it’s important to understand what’s at stake.  The Gillette Company was once a world leader, but it’s not the same company that King Gillette founded any longer.  A long time ago, when I was a young man with barely enough whiskers to shave, I bought my first razor, and it was a Gillette.  I’ve used Gillette razors all my life, but this advertisement tears it for me.  I’m a man, and wouldn’t be mistaken for anything else.  I doubt the women in and around my life would consider me “toxic” in any sense.  The idea that the default conduct of men is to rape, rampage, pillage and grill everything in sight is absurd.  When I first viewed this video, I kept waiting for the punchline. It never came:

 

Perhaps it is that Gillette is just trying to be noticed, and that this is some sort of marketing-department-generated publicity scam, but it doesn’t seem that way.  It seems as though the marketing department has been taken over by people who don’t know what masculinity is, but certainly seem to have captured every bad stereotype about it.  In much the same way that media loves to create caricatures of every group, but then disclaims bigotry, here Gillette has decided to portray men in the most negative fashion.  Masculinity is all about violence and abuse, if we are to take this video seriously.  According to this video, “men need to hold other men accountable.”  It’s been men holding men accountable since Genesis.

I’m actually surprised that more women don’t react badly against this.  They are the sisters, mothers, and daughters of men.  Surely, they cannot agree that this portrayal, this bad caricature of men, is anything but absurd.  One of the other things always implicit in this nonstop screed against the radical feminists’ view of manhood is that this is the default orientation of all men; if this is so, all women who choose men must be also fatally flawed.  They never seem to understand the self-indictment implicit in this view.

The odd part is that the masculinity portrayed in this video is out of control.  I’ve never associated “out of control” with the pinnacle of masculinity.  In fact, the models of masculinity I’ve known were very much in control of their lives and their passions.  I’m fairly certain that part of what my father set out to accomplish with us boys was to make us civilized, thoughtful, respectful, but only combative when self-defense or sport required it.  If Gillette sees masculinity in the light they’ve portrayed it here, I don’t believe they know their customers, and can’t possibly serve them well.  On that basis, I’m switching to Schick.  If that company goes off the deep end, I’ll switch to a straight razor or grow a beard.  I’ve been around far too long to permit some pubescent twits to insult me.  I don’t need them; they need me.

Grilling is always good, by the way.

Advertisements

The Real Woman-Haters Aren’t Conservatives

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Lefties Need Not Apply?

Over the last week, we have been regaled with the notions of respect that Democrats have for women, and the love and compassion liberals always show them, while simultaneously being told that those mean old white guys in the GOP simply don’t understand women, their issues, or why misogyny of the sort they allege Rush Limbaugh displayed ought to be considered a generalization about all conservatives.  Of course, while offering all of this, they conveniently ignore a few things that might be relevant to this argument.  For one thing, they ignore all the leftist men who have done much more horrendous things to women in recent memory.  For another, it’s clear that despite all their posturing, the independence of women is not their actual concern.

Do we hear about how Anthony Weiner treated women on Twitter or his own wife?  No.  Do we here about John Edwards and how he treated both his wife and his mistress?  No.  Do they mention Bill Maher’s disgusting remarks about Sarah Palin?  No.  Do they bother to say a word about how Bill Clinton treated a long line of women?  No.  Do they say anything in defense of the women abused by leftist men in ways far worse than anything Rush Limbaugh ever said?  Hell no.  Teddy Kennedy? No way.  Chris Dodd? Not a chance.  Worse, when any of these liberal men came under fire, the general theme was to attack the women and question their credibility, and attack their character, in a bid to portray them as “gold-diggers” or, yes, “sluts.”  Where were the “slut-walks” in protest of all of this, then?

What you quickly realize when evaluating all of this is that while Rush Limbaugh seems genuinely sorry about his remarks, his remorse is frankly unmatched by the others mentioned above.  More, it’s astonishing how few feminist activists went after any of those mentioned above, but who can’t wait to slam Rush Limbaugh.  There is one reason for this disparity in treatment, and the answer is as plain as the nose on your face:  It’s all about politics.  These feminists who drop their professed principles when it is a liberal man involved are simply guilty of renting themselves out for the sake of ideological brothers.  There’s a name for that, but at the moment, it escapes me…

You see, the problem is that these alleged proponents of the rights of women quickly forget all of that when they think the source from which their bread is buttered may be under threat.  At that point, all of their haughty talk about their ideals and their principles most frequently goes out the window.  What you realize is that they’re really all about one thing, and nothing more: Abortion.  Anthony Weiner, and Bill Clinton, as well as Bill Maher, are rabidly pro-abortion.  Rush Limbaugh has two strikes against him, and they are that he is conservative, and he is pro-life.  This makes him a target for them from the outset, and his pro-life views have always made him a target.

Limbaugh has long poked the feminist front, casting out terms like “femi-nazi” to describe the most virulent of the post-modern feminist movement.  He’s right about them, too, and that’s the reason he’s been the object of their scorn since he first took to the airwaves.  They monitor him closely for any indication that they will have a new excuse to renew the vigor of their war against him.  The truth is that Limbaugh has a good deal of fun at the radical feminists’ expense, and truth be told, I think that’s what he set out to do in this case.  Clearly, he didn’t think it through, and said two words that have begotten all of his current troubles.

Now comes the story that Bill Maher has effectively donated one million dollars to an Obama SuperPAC.  This is the same sick man who flung the “t-word” at Sarah Palin.  Shouldn’t Obama urge the SuperPAC to return the funds, not wanting to take cash from a misogynist like Maher?  Of course, this dual standard is evident most of the time.  Occasionally, as in Maher’s case, the National Organization for Women will make some token statement about the leftist, but that’s where it generally ends.  There are no boycotts, and no demands to get the offender off the air, or any of those things, and let’s be honest:  The things Maher has said about some women make anything Limbaugh said seem quite tame by comparison.

The left claims to care about women and their issues, but the truth of the matter is that rather than seek independence for women, what the radical left seeks is to simply change upon whom it is that some women are dependent.  They seek to make government into a sugar-daddy for dependency, as a way to usher more women into the hands of socialism.  This is part of the left’s desire to re-order society in their Utopian vision, where women will be reduced to walking bearers of babies who will then become the next generation of worker-bees in the hive that is their model society.  As they posture in false bravado on behalf of Sandra Fluke, let’s not forget what these people really seek and who it is that they will ultimately harm most deeply if they have their way, and it’s not men.

________________________________________________________________________________________________