In liberal society, male and female are made not in the image of God, but in the image of feminism

The below is a cropped version of an advertisement in New York magazine for “New York Deals: A Short List of our Favorite Bargains from Select Partners on the Web”:


The woman is in the foreground. Her jaw line is strong and decisive. She is savoring the pleasure of the moment with all the mastery and egotistical verve of an Ayn Rand heroine.

And the man? (Or should I say the “man”?) He is in the background. His face is soft and passive like a baby’s. There is zero energy, zero character, zero masculinity in his face.

And here’s the thing I still don’t understand. We know that feminist ideologues—which includes all professional media and advertising people—automatically disseminate such politically correct images of male and female. But advertising, including the above ad, is directed at ordinary women (and men). Why would ordinary women (and men) be drawn to such an unnatural, indeed perverted, portrayal of the sexes, instead of being repelled by it?

* * *

Let’s put it this way. Is it really the contemporary woman’s ideal, when contemplating the pleasures she might enjoy at a spa, to imagine herself enjoying them in the company of a male homosexual?

- end of initial entry -

September 2

Paul T. writes:

One possible answer, counterintuitive though it may be, is that many people in the advertising industry are less concerned about actually selling their client’s products than about awards, recognition and status within their own professional circle. This is not just my opinion, it’s been addressed in classic books like Ogilvy on Advertising. And that circle is now much more politically radicalized than it was in Ogilvy’s day.

Of course, the contrary could also be true—that ad-agency research demonstrates that the purchase decision for this particular product or service tends to be made by the woman, so it is the woman who must be flattered and made to feel that she will be “empowered” by purchasing it. If that requires the emasculation of the man, well, that’s just collateral damage. Gotta move the product.

Buck writes:

I’ll speculate that she’s not imagining the company of the male next to her, or perhaps of any man. It may be the knowing and superior hands of another female that she is savoring in the moment. And maybe the delicate, unmanly arms in the background give zero-man no pleasure. Maybe they came to the spa together to be transported far from each other. Female feminist love that they are becoming more like men. Maybe a male feminist laying next to any fully actualized female feminist can have no energy or character or masculinity. Why would they be together? Maybe they shared a cab.

Texanne V. writes:

“Male and female, He created them,” has become, “Straight and Gay, He created them.”

Many people who think of themselves as Christians or are vaguely Christianish (such as embrace Moralistic Therapeutic Deism) without knowing or caring about Christian teachings or doctrine, have been conditioned to believe that there is a distinct category of human beings known as homosexuals. Ignoring all common sense, and even so-called studies which fail to identify a genetic marker which might incline a person towards homoerotic feelings and behaviors, large numbers of seemingly thoughtful and intelligent adults really believe that “gay” people are actually “born that way”—as opposed to normal humans like themselves who were born desiring to have sex with the opposite sex. Of course, they were born with no such desire and were allowed to be children, boys and girls—so different from today’s children who are conditioned from a very young age by pornography passing as entertainment and education. Their own sexual awareness was allowed to develop naturally in a cultural structure designed for courtship and with an ideal of marriage as a private and sacred place for sex. They don’t even realize how they have been manipulated, and have no concept of how we are all paying for their foolishness.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 31, 2012 04:12 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):