Replies

Victoria’s Secret is SUPPOSED to be all about sexy. Years ago, their main customers were guys buying stuff they wanted their girlfriends/wives to wear.

Women would buy their stuff because they wanted to feel desirable.

Positioning the outfit with land whales was not a good move.

"'Business of Fashion' reporter Cathaleen Chen was SHOCKED to report this week that all the 'favorable reviews from online critics never translated into sales.'"

Cathaleen Chen has the IQ of a toadstool. A dozen "online critics" swooned over their new strategy and Cathaleen Chen thought that was representative of the market. You just cannot fix stupid.

"Cathaleen Chen is a reporter and writer based in New York City. Currently, she covers fashion and retail at The Business of Fashion. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Business Insider and the Washington Post, among others. She graduated in the class of 2015 from Northwestern University, where she studied journalism, sociology, and creative writing. She misses Chicago dearly.
Originally from Urumqi, China, Cat later grew up in the Pittsburgh area. Though she found local Steelers' fanaticism endearing, she never picked up a penchant for sports. Here are some things she does enjoy: striped shirts, art museums, David Lynch, karaoke, most ballroom dances, and cheap champagne. She lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn."

It's interesting that Cathaleen isn't a porker.

They overestimated the tranny population when they hired her, I think.

Victoria’s secret revenue dropped from 7.5billion in 2019 to 5.4 billion the next year, 2020. That was the result of dropping the Victoria’s secret fashion show.

They recovered to 6 billion in 2021 but have fallen again

In a story about spoke-lesbo Megan Rapinhoe the phrase, “dove face-first” was used.

I salute you, Warner Todd Huston!

I think this is vitally important, not important just because it is issue with Victoria's Secret using a repulsive person like Rapinhoe to push their product.

I think there are two bigger things at play, and both of them are disgusting and repulsive intellectually and physically, and quite destructive and corrosive not just to our society and values, but to commerce and industry as we have known it.

PART 1: GOAL OF CHANGING PERCEPTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE PROPAGANDA

The use of the word PROPAGANDA is deliberate. Using imagery, half-truths, and/or outright lies, projected ad nauseum, from all sources and directions, to change attitudes and sculpt opinion.

This is insidious and far reaching, but ultimately, slower working and less caustic than the element described in the next section. We all know that the Left wants to use media, entertainment, the news, K-12 and higher education, and everything else to sculpt human behavior to what THEY want it to be. (If you doubt this, look at the video that Bill Whittle references regarding Google and AI. Google produced a short video for internal consumption only that leaked out called "The Selfish Ledger" based on a book called "The Selish Gene". They brag in this about how they want to change human behavior by providing them with the "correct" information that will allow the individual to change themselves instead of being forcibly changed at the point of a gun or societal pressure, both of which independent-minded people will resist.

Bill Whittle, someone I greatly admire, talks about this in one of his Firewall episodes below. I don't like to link to YouTube, but the Rumble version won't allow you to bring the viewer right to a point in the video as YouTube does. Here is a link to his analysis right at the 13:57 mark of the movie, where he states that this Google video is the most cold blooded, terryifying thing he has ever encountered. I don't think he is being hyperbolic, in light of how Google makes no attempt to hide what they are trying to do, and is quite proud of it. That alone qualifies his analysis adequately. They think they are going to conquer human ignorance with this approach, and they fully believe that most humans on this earth will happily go right along with it.

LINK: The Stolen Election, Pt. 2: Hiding Biden Laptop Scandal Reveals More Frightening Social Plan (by Bill Whittle)

You may ask, what does this chilling video blandly describing the benefits of using an approach to modify human behavior by giving people only the information they want them to hear, to steer them into a desired mind-set or path of behavior?

Bill Whittle cogently (and POINTEDLY) uses their OWN words in the video to point out the ONE salient fact critical thinkers will pick up: The people running Google aren't going to use their tools (that is accessed by BILLIONS of people around the globe every single day, and MOST regard it as the Book of Truth) to change people's behavior in order to respect human values, American Values, or God's Values. They are going to use this powerful tool to change peoples behavior to "REFLECT GOOGLE'S VALUES AS AN ORGANIZATION".

In light of that, Freeper griswold3 posted a link above to:

LINK: Dove launches obese and hairy armpit campaign in NYC subways to promote showing off unshaven women's underarms

This is just an example. They don't feel it is "fair" or "nice" to have an opinion on whether armpit hair (or leg hair) in women is a good or bad thing, and don't think men or other women should judge them for it.. Same with weight. Same with physical attractiveness according to "traditional" standards". And now, if you make a face about a transvestite or transsexual as being someone you wouldn't be attracted to as a male (because it is really still a man) these same people insist you can and should be judged negatively on that.

IMPORTANT NOTE: We generally don't judge people we know based on weight or "attractiveness", because many (including myself) may be overweight or "unatractive" in some way. We DO form impressions on people we do not know, such as "That isn't someone I would go out with" but, once you have interacted personally, people may be quite attractive, engaging, and likeable in many ways. This isn't really about that kind of thing, those are examples, so I hope people who take the time to read this post don't get hung up on it. It just happens to be in the context of Victoria's Secret and their efforts in this area. My purpose here is a discussion of the process of trying to "change" people without their knowledge or understanding, and "sculpt" them into something "someone" views as "better". And that someone may be Google. Or it may be a government. Or, it may be Google AND a government working in tandem. And that is the focus of my discussion here.

So, we see all these overweight women (however nice and pleasant they may be in person) and bitter, unpleasant, unattractive women being used as models for a company that made it's reputation on traditional values of feminine beauty and intimate attire. And is isn't just Victoria's Secret. It is happening all across the board, and is being done in an attempt to change male ingrained attitudes towards what is seen as physically attractive in a woman.

It is interesting that you don't see this equivalent push to change what women view as physically attractive in a man, except for the overall feminization of men in media, entertainment, or advertising, when it doesn't cross the line into portraying them as imbeciles. There is a reason for that. Most men I know aren't falling for it, because biology gets in the way. And, all this plays into the second part, described below as well, with the Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) part of this equation.

PART 2: DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, AND EQUITY SCORES FOR INVESTMENT (DIE, not DEI)

This is the most important thing, and the most destructive. This whole thing, the entire concept of a corporation using a man dressed as a woman like the Bud Lite thing (when their primary audience is beer-drinking guys at sporting events) or a physically repulsive, hateful man-hating, anti-American lesbian like Rapinhoe (when their primary audience is women who want to appear attractive to men, or to themselves) is both baffling to us, and completely understandable to them.

Folks, this isn't random, it is ALL related, ALL OF IT, to the DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) crap being pushed in the corporate world to increase their DIE score so investment is more attractive to those who are big players like BlackRock, who decides for tens of millions of people (if not hundreds of millions around the globe) where money should be invested. They advise, right?

From BlackRock: "BlackRock is one of the world’s leading providers of investment, advisory and risk management solutions. We are a fiduciary to our clients. We’re investing for the future on behalf of our clients, inspiring our employees, and supporting our local communities."

So, every corporation is scored by BlackRock (and many others on this Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) BS. Note, THEY formally refer to it as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), but I specifically refer to it as "DIE" for obvious reasons.

There is BIG money involved in this, and make no mistake-the DIE score applied by BlackRock and others has far more weighting in the formula that it should. NORMAL people (Not Leftists) would look at bottom lines, investment in various aspects of business such as, how well a company is run, turnover, future outlook for products and services as factors plugged into an equation to determine if it should be invested in or not. All of those things contribute a "weighting" in the "investment formula" that either says invest or don't invest, which they use to recommend to entities with money looking to invest.

One would hope that business factors like the bottom line, future outlook, etc. would be the most highly weighted items that would provide a reliable "invest" or "don't invest" score. But the Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) portion of that entire equation is very likely highly weighted, far out of proportion to the real business of the corporation which is to be self-sustaining and profitable to the owners and any investors.

DIE scores completely turn that on its head. This is a 100% Leftist, Marxist construct.

Ever wonder why Gillete would cut its own throat by disparaging its main audience, men with "toxic masculinity", making all men wife beaters and woman abusers? DIE is why.

Ever wonder why Budweiser would cut its own throat by pushing a transvestite male as a corporate spokesman, repulsing its main audience, young, masculine men who swill their inferior product at sporting events, mostly because it is inexpensive but can still provide a buzz? DIE is why.

Ever wonder why Victoria's Secret would risk driving themselves into insolvency by making a physically repulsive, hateful man-hating, anti-American lesbian like Rapinhoe the spokeswoman for a product aimed primarily at women who want to make themselves attractive to men (or men who want to buy the product for the woman in their lives to make them more attractive in their eyes)? DIE is why.

Ever wonder why you turn on the television (if you still do) and EVERY sitcom or show features women, blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, and transvestites, and minimizes or reduces the roles of white men? DEI is why.

Ever wonder why commercials primarily feature 13% of the people in the population (blacks) in 90% or more of the commercials you see on television, all are predominately women featured, and that males have a completely diminished role, even to the point of being points of ridicule? Sure, part of it is marketing (women hold the "purse strings" in their estimation, with some degree of truth) but...DIE is why.

REMEMBER: "DIE IS WHY".

This has removed the traditional capitalistic goals of being self-sustaining and profitable to owners and investors, and has replaced the traditional competency metrics of output, efficiency, performance with non- Marxist values of the right skin color, the right race, the right sex, and the right sexuality, not a single factor of which has even the slightest contribution to the quality of design or performance, self-sustainablity, or profitablity. And as such, do not promote those things, but instead, invariably and without question, must by definition ERODE and CORRODE those things.

In summary, not objective COMPETENCY based metrics, but but subjective DIE metrics.

In this new DIE world, the corporations that inhabit it are not intended to provide products, but are rather intended as another tool to exact societal change to support Marxist goals.