Donald Trump’s views on women are controversial. He says things so thoughtlessly they draw praise and ire. What he says stirs passions of supporters and critics alike…
Donald Trump’s views on women are controversial. He says things so thoughtlessly they draw praise and ire.
What he says stirs passions of supporters and critics alike. On record Trump celebrated “grabbing her by the pussy.” On record, again, his presidential intuition was to compliment France’s first lady with “you look in good shape.”
Reactions swiftly populate the social media world – without limitation to Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit- and without forgetting traditional and non-traditional news outlets. Donald Trump, as a public figure, is either a master of rhetoric or a master of none.
Many many came out criticizing Trump for his “compliment” to Macron, and not without good reason. Given his history with women, one rich with anecdotes of harassment and bravado, Trump brought this on himself. It’s sad he hasn’t learned a thing from past performance.
Thus we come to a moment in our political present when Reebok, a sportswear giant, decided to educate the 45th President of the United States of America and the world’s public of gender propriety: when to say and when not to say to a woman she’s beautiful.
The iconograph speaks for itself, and many have spoken of it in praise. So what’s the problem? It is Reebok’s 6th pedagogical criterion on when it is appropriate for a man to say “you look in good shape…beautiful” to a woman: “Did you just find an action figure from your youth, unscathed after decades in your parents’ basement?—->YES”.
The graph speaks to relations and etiquette between men and women. Yet, at the same time, and by way of humor or ridicule, it restrains men into a specific gender mold. The mold of the male, who in his youth, played with action figures! Let’s not forget the debates around girls playing with dolls and how it confines them into gender stereotypes. Is Reebok’s tweet any different? We think not!
If Reebok gave the public its 2 cents on male and female (cisgender?) relationships, maybe it could’ve done a little better than reinforce the very stereotypes it sought to undermine.