Hi, I'm Henrik Jönsson,
and I love commercials.
Advertising is a distillate of our zeitgeist,
a summary of the state of market forces
and an expression that combines growth, ingenuity
and what Nietzsche once called "the will to power":
progress, ambition, and self-realization.
Last week, razor blade manufacturer Gillette launched
a commercial with ideological roots in the #MeToo movement:
a viral campaign against sexual harassment of women.
The film has been polarizing, and has provoked strong reactions
both for and against its ideological message.
With that as a springboard, I'd like to discuss social engineering,
what this film really says about our times
and what the social consequences of its narrative are for society at large.
If you appreciate my videos, please help me keep making them
by supporting me through any of the payment methods to the left.
Each video takes over 20 hours to produce.
My continued making of them would not be possible
without your continued generous support.
Also, don't forget to click the "subscribe button" below
if you've not already done so, and click the "clock icon"
so you'll get a notification whenever I release a new video,
which I do as clockwork every Saturday morning at 0800.
Today we'll talk about toxicity, lies and videotapes.
Stay tuned!
TOXIC MASCULINITY
In 1901, the American businessman with the stately name
"King Camp Gillette"
got a patent on what was to be called "the disposable razor blade."
Gillette revolutionized the razor industry,
establishing a business model where the razor was sold cheaply,
and razor blades instead constituted a ceaselessly running revenue stream.
This was a genius move that in a couple of decades made Gillette
one of the world's foremost hygiene companies valued at over 40 billion dollars.
The Gillette trademark in itself was valued at $16 billion
when they in 2005 were purchased by consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble.
Procter & Gamble, or P&G, works with the New York company Grey to develop Gillette's ad campaigns,
and business has been bad.
Gillette's market share has fallen from 70% 2008 to approximately 50% 2018.
In connection with the 30th anniversary of the company's iconic slogan
"The Best a man can Get"
P&G wanted to get a firm hold on the brand by renewal,
and retained the London-based commercial director Kim Gehrig.
Gehrig was previously best known for her visually outspoken film "Viva La Vulva"
To re-brand Gillette, Gehrig created an ad that
that takes a stand against what some groups call
"Toxic masculinity."
To understand the position Gillette has assumed through its new commercial,
you're required to have a basic understanding of the conceptual world of modern gender studies.
"Patriarchy" is a term describing
the idea of the different genders relative power globally
whereby men unduly assumed a superior position to women
through social, economic, political and cultural oppression.
Within gender studies, this "toxic masculinity" is considered
to be learned destructive patterns of behaviour,
and is derived from the patriarchal power hegemony expressed by
violence, sexual aggression and emotional absence.
One could liken it to a gender-dependent variant
off the Biblical Concept of "Original sin,"
i.e. the notion that the man by virtue of his ancestors' actions
been inflicted with moral shortcomings that impose on him
guilt and requirements of repentance and forgiveness.
This is the key message of the ad:
to break what is considered patriarchal behaviour
by a new type of man entering as a moral representative
who prevents the expression of this "toxic masculinity."
They no longer stand for the materialistic ownership ambition of "The best a man can get"
but the moral responsibility of "The best men can be."
Duty trumps coveting.
The overture of the ad starts off by presenting the structure of the problem:
Bullying. The #MeToo movement. Toxic Masculinity!
Is this the best a man can get?
This leading question is answered with the illustration of its alleged consequence,
a horde of feral boys who with unchecked ferocity tear down
the walls of society itself and poison the atmosphere around
the fragile, weak and exposed with a tornado of cyber bullying.
The media has degenerated!
An Al Bundy stand-in is groping his racified housekeeper,
and a nudity celebrating Mardi gras partying corrupts
the tabula rasa of the innocent
who apathetically degenerate in the cushy couch of the middle classes.
and as unwitting victims get their delicate pages scribbled
with the pernicious heresies of toxic masculinity.
An executive douche in the boardroom belittles the lonely and isolated the woman
with inappropriate micro-aggressive touching
and arbitrarily denigrating mansplaining.
"Boys will be boys" drones an endless forest of barbequing imbeciles,
irresponsibly lined up as unthinking butchers of both
the climate marring meat that has turned themselves fat, foul, feeble and frail
and the young boys whose upbringing they neglect with an passive arrogance.
A video wall of abuse and hatred washes over us
as a patriarchal tsunami of evil.
There is no turning back.
For Gillette believe in the good of Man.
Men who forcibly stop
their psychotic bro-buddies without impulse control,
who otherwise roam freely harassing every woman they see wearing white hotpants.
And there are already some men who intervene.
But some is not enough.
Stop, stop, stop!
Here the narrative really derails completely.
So Gillette claims there are SOME men
that forcibly prevent their thousandfold douchey brethren
from realizing an unfettered inferno without end of sexual assaults?
Let me be the first to admit that
Mankind faces several significant challenges,
but what REALLY makes me concerned is
when capitalism suddenly exhibits behavior of pure self-harm
to their own target group.
Gillette sells razors. Mainly to men.
And think it reasonable to demean this whole target group
as brutalized boors without impulse control,
a breath from invoking a descent of our civilization into a burning
Eyes Wide Shut version of Lord of the Flies.
And with the purpose of recovering market shares.
From the men they've just collectively portrayed as disgusting cave men.
It's in no way an excuse, but the phenomenon is familiar
and expresses with rightly developed intuitive sensibility really a strength in market economics:
The capacity to capture emotional currents in the society and capitalize on them.
In 1971, Coca Cola captured the hippie ideal and made it their own.
A few years later, the yuppie era was upon us,
the same soda was sold with a completely different approach.
Gillette's commercial attempts to capitalize on feminist identity politics,
sometimes called "pink-washing."
In essence, they try to re-brand their name by superficial means
with identity-political ideals, in order to appear modern and morally attractive,
so-called "virtue signaling."
Gillette is far from alone in trying to monetize virtue signaling.
The Danish budget shoe franchise company Bianco:
And the German car manufacturer Audi tried in 2017 to pull the same stunt...
...with polarization as a result.
Swedish store chain Åhléns tries repeatedly to capitalize on identity-political virtue signaling,
in 2016 by encouraging a break-up with sexist clothing standards,
This is about the gender power hierarchy translating into a power hierarchy of clothes.
And 2018 by wishing to torpedo the myth of "The Swedish Christmas."
First, let's state that companies are totally free
to decide themselves how they want to communicate with their target groups,
regardless whether they want to offend parts of the razor consumption segment
or as when Guido Barilla, Chairman of the Board of
the global family-owned pasta company Barilla Group
openly took a stand against, and alienated the gay pasta consumers.
Few know that Barilla owns Swedish crispbread manufacturer Wasabröd
So now, at least you know that it certainly isn't some sissy gay crisps.
First of all, it is a sign of democratic poor health
when communication of politicized virtue signaling
that polarizes and alienates large parts of the market, is deemed important
to keep a brand name relevant.
But what's worse is that these communications with the visual strength of advertising
consolidates falsehoods with serious consequences
as the ads do not care about the actual facts:
for a brand, there is absolutely no difference between claiming
that chewing gum is a small part of America or...
...that all men are a heartbeat from committing rape.
Communication is instrumentally subject to the brand building that the
company board procure from their advertising agencies.
It is worth to analyze the patriarchal oppression
that these global consumer product manufacturers now present
established truth in order to strengthen their brands in a time of identity politics.
Let me start by highlighting the importance of continuously
evaluating societal structures that inhibit, hinder and hamper
success, development and innovative tendencies...
...but the assertion that the whole of human civilization
mainly is characterized by an ancient masculine tyranny
is preposterous.
They are, in the patriarchal debate
recklessly tossing around accusations of pay gaps,
where women are said to earn less than men because of their sex
without taking into account variables such as career choices, priorities and preferences
that are impacting the overall wage outcome.
Different groups are attributed collective identities...
...and do an analysis of power where differences in outcomes are confused with oppression
without recognizing that differences in the priorities of life,
personality dispositions and biological precedents influences the choices
that determine how people organize their existence socially, culturally and economically.
This tyrannical privileged patriarchy is also affected by
93% of all accidents at work.
Men account for 97% of all deaths in war,
represents 79% of all murder victims
and 80% of all suicides.
75% of all single homeless are men.
Men suffer more than women of depression
and lead shorter lives...
...if statistical outcomes in isolation are an indication of injustice.
This does not deny the existence of negative prejudices,
these do exist and should be combated,
but they are only a small part of a wide variety of variables
that together determines a person's life situation.
The claim that the overall CIS masculinity
is some kind of conspiring secret brotherhood
that behind closed doors rigs world domination
in order to oppress minorities on the basis of
gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity is not just an absurd fantasy
with roots in the cliché of matinee villains.
The idea of the patriarchy is destructive,
because young women get a victim identity established
whereby an enigmatic, abstract and malicious third party
is responsible for undesired situations in life
and necessitates political intervention with the law as a weapon
to enforce a more desirable human ideal
and compensate for perceived inequalities.
The idea of the patriarchy is destructive,
because it blames boys with an original gendered sin,
claiming that their ambition, energy and impetus for self-realization are
malicious urges always expressed at the expense of someone else.
The idea of the patriarchy is destructive,
because it deprives the individual of
agency and the responsibility of his or her own deeds
that is the only opportunity to learn to be better.
The only way to develop an understanding of cause and consequence.
The idea of the patriarchy reduces criticism of
the Center Party leader Annie Lööf to sexism,
instead of being a consequence of her being, for a long-term, communicating misleadingly
with resulting feelings of anger and betrayal.
They concurrently ignore that many other
strong women in parallel are displayed and praised.
The social engineering that based on an
analysis of patriarchy legitimatize far-reaching interventions
in our interpersonal, cultural and political systems
wish to correct and adjust Man as they find him
to raise a human being that they
with ideological arbitrariness set as a more desirable standard.
This is the method that's supposed to stop the emergence of more toxic masculinity.
According to Statistics Sweden, the number of boys
raised by single women, has tripled since 1960.
76% of all teachers are women.
85% of all social workers are women.
The majority of these boys reared by single mothers almost exclusively meet
female authorities when they grow up.
This is not to disparage women's efforts to raise children,
but it is in the light of our children's best also desirable to ask
how the increasing LACK of masculinity
during these children's upbringing is affecting the presumed escalation of
"toxic masculinity."
What the consequences really are of the absence of relevant adult male role models.
What happens when the absent men
are replaced with boys of the same age or elder, but in the same situation.
And yes, abuses exist.
Yes, injustices exist.
Yes destructive prejudices exist
that hinders and impairs performance and opportunities for many different groups
and that is wrong, bad and negative.
And it's certainly desirable to provide
support, help and opportunities so young boys
get the best possible conditions for growing up
to productive, empathetic and responsible men.
But not in this way, through guilt, punishment and coercion.
Not by government intervention and affirmative actions when manning boards,
or lectures about adult people's bedrooms
and corrections based on gendered power on the play grounds.
Not through social engineering where the state assumes the right
to educate our children and reshape our citizens.
Where the individual is deprived of his self-discovery autonomy.
Where the utopia of goals derived from criticism of norms justifies
the increasingly authoritarian and morally totalitarian means.
"The best a man can get"
is perhaps a father who cares?
Who shows how to handle ones testosterone-driven aggression,
and how to channel ones energy,
how to build meaningful relationships
and makes himself, his family and society as a whole stronger.
Do you agree that a society that embraces the individual's self-discovery
and respect peoples subjective choices
and their different outcomes are preferable to
a nurturing and governing society correcting outcomes?
Disseminate! Share! Subscribe to my YouTube channel!
Do you yourself have experience of gender policy interventions in society?
Please write a comment and share your experiences!
I welcome all respectful communication.
I'm Henrik Jönsson,
and I am a father, husband and man.
Sometimes I get it right. Sometimes I get it wrong.
But I strive, like the majority of all men I've ever met
to become the best I can be in all these roles.
That's all I had to say, thank you for listening.
THANKS TO MY PATRONS –
THANKS TO MY PATRONS PLATINUM SUPPORTER THANKS TO MY PATRONS –
THANKS TO MY PATRONS PLATINUM SUPPORTER
THANKS TO MY PATRONS –
THANKS TO MY PATRONS GOLD SUPPORTERS THANKS TO MY PATRONS –
THANKS TO MY PATRONS GOLD SUPPORTERS
Subtitles: Your Humble Translator Anders Dolf Ericsson
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét