Posted on 01/24/2019 4:29:34 PM PST by daniel1212
What’s always puzzled me about this is, if a QB can throw a football better with a little less air pressure, why not let all teams’ QBs use a ball inflated to grip and throw best for them?
Are the the NFL rules intended to make the QBs less effective and efficient?
Sorry, I somehow jumped back to the previous thread I was readng.
That Gillette message is what the Quora poster is also attacking, quite well.
So Gillette is added to my “don’t buy” list.
With this Quora answer getting over 5,400 Upvotes (out of 100+ Answers) and most popular answers also being in opposition to Gillette (one gets 4,500+ upvotes) and an pro Gillette one gets 29 upvotes, it seems Gillette has lost many customers.
If Kristine truly is at a loss for her Dad’s reaction then I would suggest she needs to relearn the things her father attempted to show/teach her throughout life.
Because that commercial did nothing but attempt to shame men and boys.
She was endorsing Bullying by Marketing Means and was too ignorant to even realize it.
Because Gillette thinks football is "Toxic Masculinity” and too much air makes it worse? (I know you posted on the wrong thread but maybe we can make this relevant.)
Thanks for the report. I use an electric most days.
How was she endorsing Bullying by Marketing Means and was too ignorant to even realize it, rather than actually describing the nature of it? Where did she not agree the commercial attempted to shame men and boys? How much of the article did you read, in context?
Well, as much as Roger Goodell is influenced by political correctness, it is possible that the air pressure rule is intended to limit how toxic and effective the QBs can be. But Brady appears to have preferred less air to be more toxic.
I suspect Roger not so Goodell would affirm the Gillette ad. Over-inflated liberalism.
Yep, Goodell is all in on all the PC and social justice causes.
Indeed, the wheel$$$ of justice will catch up with their bottom line.
Hi, daniel11212 -
I read the entire article; thank you for asking, though. LOL
She was upset that her father didn’t want to watch the entire commercial. She said he said, “I’ve seen enough.”
As a man/husband(lover to her mother)/father it seems as if he was the ideal man. She as much as said that for us to understand. She was quite proud of his wonderful traits in all those roles.
And yet, yet, she couldn’t see his intelligence in rejecting the commercial outright. And the reason she couldn’t see his intelligence in rejecting the commercial outright? Because she was herself a narrow minded, feminist, who wanted to show her father how men should be.
She took it upon herself, to point to a commercial which shoved an ignorant, irrational point of view to a man who lived his life to the BEST HE COULD BE.
And she, being a ‘woke’ woman, well, she was to ‘woke’ to see she herself was insulting her father.
Look back at the article. She pointed out all the wonderful things he did. She took great time to go into detail about the way he lived/lives his life. And yet, she did not even know him enough....wait for it.... AS A MAN... to know it would offend him.
In her mind, it was all about HER, and about FEMINIST, and about WOKE WOMEN and WOKE MEN who were showing the world of ignorant man how it should be done.
And she wondered why he was offended enough to not want to finish watching the spiel of finely crafted hate.
I don’t doubt that he was and is a gentle, loving, protective, providing, and caring farther.
What is really clear is that somewhere in her mind, she thought he would approve of bullying.
Bullying comes in all sizes and both genders. And some of the best, most vicious bullies I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with are...wait for it...women. Her father was probably quietly stunned at her apparent pleasure in the direction of the commercial. His problem, how to tell his daughter that she may be part of the problem, especially if she (and apparently she does) agrees with the commercial.
I am glad you took the time to post a reply. It’s always a pleasure to communicate, even if there is a difference of opinion.
“The sad thing is he never even got to this part. “
___________________________________________________
You see that line?
That, my dear daniel1212 is what is the line that defined her entire article.
And she never understood why her father wouldn’t stay to watch the male of the gender being slammed wholesale.
It’s a shame.
Again, bullying comes in all sizes and both genders.
Aren’t there knives that can cut so finely that you don’t feel it until the blood is seen?
Her article is one such knife.
Saving this very good article that describes her father as a real man opposed to so-called toxic masculinity as well as wimps.
Thanks for posting the entire article.
It is crap crap crap and more crap. My most hated part in the propaganda piece is “some men are already doing it”. Not MOST men, just SOME.
Complete SJW, virtue signaling, crap.
“I saw this ad on Twitter and was a little taken aback, so I naturally shared it with my family. That includes my dad.”
The author was “a little taken aback”.
“He’s EVERYTHING that the ad supposedly encourages men to be.”
The word “supposedly” means something there.
“They asked “Is this the best a man can get? Is it?” . . . As if that’s what most men were in the first place.”
She’s clearly taking the position that it’s only a few men who behave badly.
“The standard is collective guilt. Everything that follows is now poisoned. Because Gillette poisoned it.”
I think she’s completely on the side of decent people and completely against the anti-male version of feminism. You clearly read it differently, but please look again and see if my reading is a better match to her words. I think her knives are aimed at the left, intended to cut them, but doing so gently that perhaps a few leftists will keep reading and maybe learn something (the eternal optimism of youth).
Which contextually is an unwarranted interpretation, for rather than never understanding why her father wouldn’t stay to watch the male of the gender being slammed wholesale, she actually went on at length on why her father deplored the male of the gender being slammed wholesale. "So - do you want to know why this ad lost my dad? Do you want to know why such an AMAZING man - a fantastic role model - was disgusted? Really? Let’s start at the beginning. Bullying” “The #MeToo Movement” “Toxic Masculinity” Is this the best a man can get? Is it? Right about here. Gillette lost him here. Right here the advertisement framed the rest of the piece in terms of opposing patriarchy and set itself up in the far left feminist and Marxist camp.[1] Gillette implied the best of men is bullying, rape, and toxic...."
Thus "sad thing" part simply cannot contextually define her entire article, but in context is expressing that the only part of the ad that her dad would agree with would never be seen since her father wouldn’t stay to watch the male of the gender being slammed wholesale. She is in no way perplexed by his refusal to be tortured in order to get to a piece of candy in a cup of filth.
In some sense one might be say it was unfortunate that piece was never seen, but while you can criticize that choice of a word here, contextually it simply is not because she never understood why her father wouldn’t stay to get to a positive aspect. Instead she elaborates why this rejection is fully justified. Context is king in both Biblical interpretation and here.
Yes. The only criticism that I belatedly give is that while the author lists as creds being a "scientist, musician, and all-around learning enthusiast," if she is a mother why is this not listed, and if she is not a wife and mom, then why. Being a father also means raising daughters to favor marriage and motherhood as the norm.
That’s a good story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.