Graffias
Rogue
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 924
- Reaction score
- 309
- Location
- Midwest U.S
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, was famous for his Torches of Freedom march. Basically, Bernays was hired by the big tobacco companies to get women to smoke so the companies could increase their profits by selling women cigarettes. To accomplish this, Bernays got prominent women, who were involved in the campaign for women's rights, to organize a giant march of women cigarettes, as a symbol of their freedom.
The Museum of Public Relations
It appears that the rise in feminism can be traced to the desire by corporations to exploit women for profit.
So the question is, have feminists been used by corporations to exploit women to increase corporate profit?
partly l agree but l can claim she is free and independent and l dont think she is as idiotic as rihanna.it depends on how one interprets the concept of feminism.it doesnt mean denying your nature ,your evolutional facts and trying to change your hormones
Once again we have a clear cut case of an ideology that takes an innoxious word such as "feminism" or feminist" and prevaricates it into something pejorative, which in my opinion, renders the question as less than intelligent.
French author Alan Soral gives provides a comprehensive answer to your question.
French author Alan Soral gives provides a comprehensive answer to your question.
Every ideology on the planet has been exploited by corporations for profit. Communism may be utterly opposed to everything that a cheap garment manufacturer stands for, because that doesn't them from making a buck off Che's face on a t-shirt. The OP trying to single out feminism is inconsistent and merely projection on his part.
First of all, I strongly disagree with your assertion that she is free and independent. To see how this is so, if you closely examine her song, the shoes that she wears, she did not make. Someone else made them. So she is dependent on those people. What if all of a sudden there was no one to make shoes. She would have to do it herself. The house that she lives in, she did not build. She depends on others to do that. What she does do is sing and expose her body to make money to facilitate her so called "independence." And quite frankly, it is rather sad that although there are women much more intelligent and have a much more to contribute of substance to human society, they are barely known, while Beyonce is very rich and famous. It's a very backward situation.
But all that aside, because I really hate to say those things about a black woman, being that I am a black male. Let's assume that what you have said is indeed true. The problem is that Beyonce's so called freedom and independence has come at the expense of other women who are not as fortunate and actually have to work very hard at jobs that pay very little to get by. By her activities, Beyonce promotes the idea that one can be free and independent by obtaining objects that the average black woman especially, will have to work very hard, sometimes two or three jobs, to obtain. And even in those cases, many times the fruit of such labor is only enough to be able to afford the basic necessities and not the type of Prada shoes that Beyonce can afford. So what kind of freedom is that?
you should have told me that you are anti capitalist ,wellcome to the club
yes in this respect we can claim none of us are free..
What is troubling in the case of feminism is that although it purports to be against the objectification of women, it has lent itself to such objectification, and has thus allowed women to be psychologically conditioned to believe that purchasing commodities produced by corporations (e.g. cigarettes) will empower them and make them independent, when in fact the opposite is true.
Furthermore you assertion of projection on my part is absurd because it is based on the notion that I am an advocate of communism.
Men who worked at Phillip Morris created Virginia Slimms, so blaming feminism for that is bull****. They would just as cheerfully sold a cigarette's for housewives if that is what would have made them more money.
Feminist Ruth Hale also called for women to join in the march saying, “Women! Light another torch of freedom!
The Center for Women Policy Studies was founded in 1972 as the nation’s first feminist policy analysis, research and advocacy institution.
They would just as cheerfully sold a cigarette's for housewives if that is what would have made them more money.
Every person in America is conditioned to buy consumer goods, so once again you are inconsistently singling about feminism without cause.
No, its your thread blubbering about masculinity being destroyed by the media that motivated that particular comment.
In New York, a law was passed in 1908 making it illegal for women to smoke in public (Sullivan 1930; Sobel 1978). However, smoking among women began to increase, and some women smoked openly in the 1920s, as social and cultural changes lessened the taboos discouraging tobacco use by women (Sullivan 1930; Brooks 1952; Tennant 1971; Wagner 1971; Sobel 1978; Gritz 1980; USDHHS 1980; Ernster 1985; Waldron 1991). Printers'Ink noted in 1924 that World War I advanced the custom of smoking among women (Wessel 1924). Although Grace Coolidge is believed to have been the first First Lady to smoke cigarettes, Eleanor Roosevelt was the first to smoke publicly (Hoover 1934).
Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, was famous for his Torches of Freedom march. Basically, Bernays was hired by the big tobacco companies to get women to smoke so the companies could increase their profits by selling women cigarettes. To accomplish this, Bernays got prominent women, who were involved in the campaign for women's rights, to organize a giant march of women cigarettes, as a symbol of their freedom.
The Museum of Public Relations
It appears that the rise in feminism can be traced to the desire by corporations to exploit women for profit.
So the question is, have feminists been used by corporations to exploit women to increase corporate profit?
Capital based morals for a price is to be expected under any form of Capitalism.
Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, was famous for his Torches of Freedom march. Basically, Bernays was hired by the big tobacco companies to get women to smoke so the companies could increase their profits by selling women cigarettes. To accomplish this, Bernays got prominent women, who were involved in the campaign for women's rights, to organize a giant march of women cigarettes, as a symbol of their freedom.
The Museum of Public Relations
It appears that the rise in feminism can be traced to the desire by corporations to exploit women for profit.
So the question is, have feminists been used by corporations to exploit women to increase corporate profit?
So - after women's suffrage, winning the right to use birth control, and being able to become things such as governors of states such a s Texas.
Look at marketing history: corporations will exploit anyone and anything to make a few sales. It's called marketing.
I guarantee you just as many - if not more - products have been marketed to men to further sales.
Real morals cannot be based on capital. What you are speaking of is a business transaction, not morals.
But - you have to admit it was pretty ridiculous that it was illegal for women to smoke in public.
Uh what?!?!?
When I was single, I had the same Sofa, bed and furniture for years!!!! Corporations don't target men nearly as often as they target women. Some sources state that women control 80% of household spending. Why in the hell would any smart corporation target men more than women? Certainly there are niches that target men specifically, but women are the prime target. It does not take a mathematics or economics major to understand this....
Yes,
It has always been my belief that corporations are behind feminism. It makes complete sense when you think about it and it really does not take that much thinking to understand the concept. More workers equals a larger economy to profit from.
At one point, families were able to have 1 full time worker and 1 full time to raise the children. No longer the case! Now, corporations have made it almost impossible for someone to have that option. The feminist movements goal is to tear apart the family. They are useful idiots for corporations. Corporations have funded the propaganda and steered the movement in this direction in order to profit from it. The more men and women hate each other, the more they will have children out of wedlock and all of us will have to be paid slave wages in order to survive. In order to survive we must buy things. When we buy things, we line the pockets of the very people who are trying to destroy our families.
The destruction of the family in America is a corporate dream.
Social morals for free may require some faith; capital morals for a price only requires capitalism and an Institution of money based markets.
I agree with what you have said here with two exceptions. I don't think feminists have a goal to tear apart the family, neither do I think that the destruction of the family is a corporate dream. Having said that, feminists, in order to achieve their goal of independence for women, have been used by corporations such that women, instead of becoming independent, have merely substituted one type of dependency for another. And that has led to the erosion of the family. Not only that but they have been mislead by corporations into believing that the consumption of corporate commodities is itself is empowering and liberating when in fact, the opposite is true. With regards to corporations, they don't care about anything except making money. And if the destruction of the family is a by product of that, they don't care. As far as they are concerned that's just tough, it's life, too bad.
And I will repeat, there is no such thing as capital based morals. Morals have to do with what is right and wrong. Capital does not care for right or wrong. To capital what is right is what makes more capital. And killing an innocent person is fine if it results in making more capital. Quite frankly, that is a big the problem in the world today. The US has gone into places like Iraq and killed innocent people to secure oil supplies for the sake of making money.
While I think you're touching on a good point I think you're also skewing it out of proportion.
The Feminists did not foster the idea of marketing to women - the COMPANY fostered the idea. They covered the cost of advertisement and contacted women who were willing to pose as models in ads.
For one: women are not unifiably reliant on any one product these days because it 'makes us dependent'. I think you can throw out that belief because it's false. Are men unifiably reliant on a product to 'make them manly'? No.
Makeup, Cigarettes, Shaving Cream, and Lawn Mowers have not altered the family dynamic in any way, shape or form. Things have not altered or destroyed the family dynamic. Products do not do that. Social values and other things do that. Beliefs and Morals are what do that.
He, who before was the money-owner, now strides in front as capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his labourer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business; the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but — a hiding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?