“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.
“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.