Advertising stole feminism & they’re STILL complaining + Women on Board lies

When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11727478/How-advertising-hijacked-feminism.-Big-time.html

Feminists know when something smells fishy.

….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.

…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….

Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.

…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.

These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).

It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.

Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?

Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.

This girl is dumb.

Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).

We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
Blogs own your job, bitch. It’s over. MSM/Print is dead.
Bloggers do your shit for free and better.

Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.

False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View at Medium.com

Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).

Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.

We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….

Actually in the FTSE250 in this report, as I said here;

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.

and

In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.

head desk blackadder give up
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gQjjZsLE5u0J:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06152.pd+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

And it does link to a very recent briefing paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/58/58.pdf which reads;

It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.

It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: https://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/house-of-lords-select-committe-inquiry-on-women-on-boards-written-evidence-submitted/ who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.

It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….

Back to the dumb girl…

…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).

The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..

All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.

…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …

These people will never be happy.

…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …

They have no money.

But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.

#Girls

…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …

Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.


Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.

…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..

See what I mean?

…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …

You made your bed, motherfuckers.

Non-scientist feminist tries to lecture Milo on women in STEM

She isn’t a scientist. She’s a teacher. She isn’t in the industry. She has no qualification to say this. Her opinion is null and void. Couldn’t they find a female programmer or engineer to argue this case? Why not? Because it’s bullshit. Notice how they can only find women to criticise STEM, who aren’t any good at it?

Feminists go on about confidence because projection.
She is referencing Imposter Syndrome (not a real thing, pop psych)  because that’s all feminism is, bluster and pomp.

If a girl in a science class doesn’t want to compete AT SCHOOL, a feminine coddled environment, she isn’t good enough for the sciences. Science is the hardest subject for good reason. It needs to be, lives depend on it, it demands you be tough, it is a fickle mistress.

It’s like the Night’s Watch of careers. This is why most scientific genius never married or had children. Science was their wife. Good luck expecting that level of dedication, intellectual curiosity and constancy from modern woman. (I say with heavy heart as one).

Why should we pretend we can dish out confidence like gold stars? What of excellence, arete? Encouraging merit? Confidence is hollow, it means nothing. It’s a pretence everyone has from time to time. She’s confusing it with self-esteem deliberately. Girls have chronic low esteem because of the feminist harpies pressuring them and blaming all their problems with an external locus – men, The Man, Patriarchy.

BOOM Milo brought the fact stats. I don’t need to post them again.

I love how she namedrops Cambridge. Like we care. “Look at my credential and tell me I’m clever!” Passionate people don’t cry, I bet her parents are nice. Passionate people work with their nose to the grindstone. The nature of sacrifice. Death itself couldn’t stop them. Sex-based Watsoning. Listen to her use the word “perpetuate” like a clever girl. How? How does it do this? If women are easily led, why is that?
She cites a priming study.

sherlock bbc cracking up lol laughing so hard

Without the priming based on stereotype the test results are fine. That isn’t how exams work. You just go in and do the test. Nobody primes you beforehand.

As soon as her real-world expertise comes in (teaching) suddenly she shuts up like a clam. She mustn’t insult the Hive! “I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the stereotypes.”

I’d have fun mocking this woman in a bar, for real. It’s a shame she’s thick because otherwise she’d be relatively attractive. I would ask her why she didn’t become a scientist herself, why she took the easy way out with teaching.

Except social psychology shows time and time again, most stereotypes are true?

What people call “stereotypes” are what scientists call “empirical generalizations,” and they are the foundation of scientific theory. That’s what scientists do; they make generalizations. Many stereotypes are empirical generalizations with a statistical basis and thus on average tend to be true. If they are not true, they wouldn’t be stereotypes.

Parity is impossible unless you remove freedom of choice. You must assign them their occupation. Hello, Brave New World!

Disclaimer: this shit annoys me because I’m in science.