P&G’s Olympic-Sized Slap to all Father’s Faces Wins the Gold for Global Corporate Paternal Contempt

Congratulations to Cincinnati based Proctor and Gamble (P&G) for their slap to the faces of all dad’s around the world by once again willfully ignoring the contributions that loving fathers make to not only the world’s Olympians, but to the lives of the children whose fathers are “allowed” to be involved with them. Any father who has been divorced or never married fully understands the seriousness of my use of “allowed” with regard to rearing children as a single or divorced dad.

To Mr. Alan G. “AJ” Lafley, Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of P&G, I’m curious, did your father contribute at all to your own success? Did any fathers contribute anything at all to the success of any of the many executive managers you’ve met and worked with from around the world during the course of your career?

Clearly men and fathers have contributed to the success of P&G as 30 of the 42 positions (including yours) on P&G’s executive team are currently held by men, and many of which I presume are fathers? Have they contributed anything whatsoever to the successes of their own children, or are they all deadbeats as P&G’s 50 “Thank You Mom” Olympics related videos on P&G’s YouTube Channel implies (through silent omission) that all fathers are?

I counted 50 Thank You Mom” Olympics related ads on P&G’s YouTube Channel and zero “Thank You Dads” ads. Conversely, a search on P&G’s YouTube channel acknowledging dads at all turned up one video that was uploaded about 2 weeks before Father’s Day of last year. And this targeted advertising towards mothers at the expense of the contributions of fathers, clearly and incontrovertibly puts P&G’s contempt towards fathers on full display for the world to see.

So what does this mean, am I making a mountain out of a molehill in writing about this obvious disparity regarding the value P&G places on the value of a mother’s contribution to child rearing (priceless) versus a father’s contribution (worthless) when using P&G’s advertising as the weighted value? And, am I now one of the very people (or groups as a father) of whom I used to complain about years ago as being “too sensitive” and “ridiculous” with regard to being easily offended? I think not.

What does a 50:1 ad ratio whereby P&G acknowledges the value of mothers versus that of fathers in both child rearing and raising an Olympian really tell us about P&G’s corporate philosophy regarding fathers, and to what capacity can you really judge a company’s corporate attitude towards one gender (moms) versus another (dads) by their advertising alone? A plenitude.

Reality is this; Corporations, via advertising, reach out vicariously (via the actors in advertising) to their most valued and equally coveted customer base. Moreover, it’s that same base which must be feverishly protected and retained at all costs, AND at the expense of others when it’s politically expedient and acceptable to do so. Especially, when said base is protected by political correctness and well represented on as mothers are.

Following that logic, and judging by P&G’s advertising alone, it’s abundantly clear that as a corporation placing a value on its customers, fathers are worthless and their contributions to earnings via consumption of P&G’s products is to be taken for granted, while antithetically, mothers are priceless and to be worshiped and wooed.

For those thinking that ‘worshiped” is too strong an adjective, consider P&G’s 50:1 advertising ratio, and the nature of said ads. The content of those adds DOES amount to the worship of mothers, and at the expense of fathers. Again, through silent omission when considering the message this undoubtedly sends to the impressionable minds of children, especially young ones. It says that moms are more valuable than dads, and if one looks around the world today, said statement is more true (in statement, not fact) today than ever before. But little minds know no different.

How so is such at the expense of fathers? It’s through the silent omission of the the fact that fathers deserve the same praise and worship that mothers regularly receive and it implies fathers play no meaningful role in rearing children and are therefore worthless. Also, the implication is that only mothers are responsible for raising Olympians. Not so you say? Really? What part of “Thank you mom” P&G advertising thanking her for all of ‘her’ efforts in building a child into Olympian leads anyone to believe that fathers had anything to do with raising that child into Olympic athlete? None of it. Again, it’s simply implied that fathers are worthless. That’s clearly the intent when ALL of the credit is given to moms, and it’s sickening and disgusting that in 2014 a global entity engages in such tasteless and offensive advertising for the sake of revenue.

By focusing on one gender (moms) as P&G overtly does, and building them up extensively as they do during Olympic events, it quietly but effectively and unequivocally diminishes the value of a father in raising and developing his children, and it’s a contemptuous and absolute affront to fathers worldwide. If you disagree with me and you’re thinking “ridiculous” then think the following through. Imagine if P&G’s ad ratio with regard to crediting fathers for raising an Olympian versus mothers were 50:1, do you think there would be outrage and boycotts? Do you think that such would make headlines around the nation if not the globe?

The answer to that is an absolute, unambiguous, and globally resounding YES! NOW would be on the warpath, feminist and misandrous groups (of which P&G should be included) from around the world would be in protests, in the streets and on the news, and with one feminist group after another organizing a global boycott of all P&G (and its subsidiaries) products.

Those same groups would be demanding that Lafley (aka “AJ”) not only issue an apology, but that he also resign because he’d be labeled a misogynist and therefore unfit to lead P&G in his current capacity. Additional demands would likely include company wide sensitivity training, and that Nancy K. Swanson be immediately promoted to Chairwoman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer not because she’s competent to hold those positions (and I’m not saying that she’s not) but because she’s a woman and should therefore be promoted based on her gender due to P&G’s ‘insensitivity” towards mothers and thereby women.

Additionally, P&G undoubtedly cares nothing about pleasing its male base and fully takes their global revenue derived from fathers 100% for granted. Moreover, P&G’s contempt for fathers is astonishingly clear and is likely the very reason they generated their one token ad that ‘acknowledges’ a father’s contribution towards his child’s success.

Think this through, please. We live in a world of ‘offended classes.’ There are more politically correct classes than I care to enumerate, but no one can say anything today (whether it’s true or not is wholly irrelevant) without offending someone, and rest assured that those with the most political clout (of which women and mothers are) are sacred cash cows that are not to be offended by any means lest the offender incur their financial wrath.

So why does a global conglomerate like Procter and Gamble silently albeit very hatefully and maliciously covertly demean fathers worldwide, at the expense of children (through a false portrayal of the value of fathers), fawn over mothers, and through them, worship at the alter of feminism? It’s because they can, they must, and finally, because it pays immensely for them to do so.

To elaborate; P&G can and does (as evidenced by their advertising) demean and devalue fathers because in our society where everyone is offended by everything, there exists only one class of people who are not represented by a politically connected organization on neither a national or a global scale. A class that not only speaks as one, but more importantly votes as one either politically (as a voting bloc) or monetarily as a consumer group, and that class is fathers. But for fathers and men, corporations would be without anyone to portray as dolts, worthless, idiots and on and on for the sake of raising revenue via advertising. And trust me; the irony is not lost on the fact that men by far have the most representation when it comes to executive management positions. But politically and regarding consumership, we are wholly unrepresented.

Just look at how many companies demean and degrade fathers in their advertising. P&G is not alone, and although there are many others who treat fathers even worse, P&G is my focus here. Therefore, I won’t be enumerating all the others and will save that for another day. To my detractors, I say once again, try running a 50:1 advertising routine (on a global scale at that!) that credits only fathers for raising children and thereby producing an Olympic athlete and watch as “Rome starts burning” after being set ablaze (figuratively speaking of course) by feminists and other groups representing mothers around the world. The worst part is that today, most children are raised by day care centers, not their parents. Please know that I don’t say that to debase daycare workers.

If P&G truly valued women and mothers as much as they pretend to for the sole sake of revenue, then certainly the matrix of their executive management team would be comprised of more females. As I noted earlier, P&G’s executive management team contains 42 positions, and only 12 of those are held by women. That’s a slightly more than a quarter (28.6%) all executive management positions held by women while conversely 71.4% (nearly 3 times more) are held by men. And possibly less than that are being held by mothers. Moreover, P&G has had 12 CEOs in 12 decades, none of which were women. P&G has been around for nearly 170 years, and for not a single one of those years, has a woman ever been the CEO.

P&G must fawn over mothers as they do lest they fear a backlash for not appreciating a significant portion of its customer base and as a result, lose a significant source of revenue stream. They don’t fawn over fathers because doing so would anger their feminine base and cause a rage that would trigger the aforementioned backlash I described.

Therefore, and so as to feign their corporate “appreciation” for fathers, P&G does the bare minimal fawning dance that’s required to appease the tens of millions fathers who refuse to stand up for themselves as women do (and do very well I might add) whereby they demand respect as both women and mothers, and they will vote with their dollars so to speak to garner that respect.

That dance for P&G’s ‘appreciation’ of dads will only take place around Father’s Day (hence the one and only video in the 50:1 ratio I mentioned) because of two reasons; 1. Dads are paying attention that one day of the year (somewhat at least) and 2. The mothers and feminists will “allow” P&G to acknowledge dads on or near Father’s Day without penalizing them via protests and boycotts for daring to acknowledge the valuable role that fathers play in raising children, but not acknowledging mothers simultaneously.

And finally, P&G fawns over mothers (to the detriment of fathers by omission) as shown by their 50 “Thank you moms” advertisements to their one “Thank you dads” advertisements because it pays to do so by securing their feminine base through a false sense of appreciation that they convey for moms for the sole sake of revenue which in turns bolster earnings. Said otherwise, such advertisements convey a false sense of loyalty that’s directed towards mothers with the intent of building loyalty towards their brands.

I suspect that if I were to look into P&G’s charitable donations, there would exists a very long list of women’s/mother’s charitable organizations that are on the receiving end of P&G’s financial benevolence. That of course to make it appear as if they, as a corporation, truly cared. Such is done for that reason also because women, unlike men, tend to pay attention and want to see words backed by action.

However, if I were to look at the same list for donations made to men’s/father’s charitable organizations by P&G’s charitable foundations, I suspect that there would be few if any donations to the benefit of fathers.

My point? I have no doubt that as a corporation, P&G doesn’t care about mothers. After all corporations aren’t people, they are obviously entities that are run by people but devoid of feelings. Of course there are charitable organizations that do care for people though the work they carry out. Those however are non-profits of which P&G is not, it’s a Fortune 500 (ranked 28th in 2013) for-profit company. There’s nothing wrong with for profit, but it bears one point that plays into this post; P&G is in business to make money, end of story.

P&G as a for-profit (versus a non-profit) therefore doesn’t care about moms, dads, men or women period. P&G is a publicly owned corporation that’s obviously in business to generate revenue and earn a profit for the benefit of its shareholders. To do that, requires advertising and pandering through that advertising to increase revenue and thereby earnings and finally profits or rate of return.

The problem I have with Procter and Gamble as a corporation is not their pandering towards mothers, I get that, as every corporation panders to its customers. But where P&G intentionally and very hatefully crosses the line, and in doing so, severely denigrates the contribution and importance of fathers in their roles in raising children (and Olympic athletes), is via those “Thanks mom” Olympic related adds that intentionally portray a completely false narrative (and reality to the children watching them) that only mothers (and not fathers by any means whatsoever) contribute to the raising of children. That is an absolute insult to fathers around the world, and especially to the single fathers who by themselves, not only raised their own children (for those who did) but especially those who raised children that have or are participating in the Olympics.

It really speaks to how disgustingly low society has sunk to when a fortune 50 global conglomerate (P&G) brazenly, willingly and in the global theater completely marginalizes the role of fathers in the raising of their children for the sole purpose of pandering to women through mothers by creating these lying ads that portray fathers as worthless “do-nothings” with regard to child rearing. And that, for the sole purpose of generating additional revenue to grow earnings.

Mr. Langly sir, you are a despicable man for allowing Procter and Gamble advertisements that completely marginalize the role of fathers in raising their children to be run. I ask you again sir, did your father contribute anything, anything whatsoever to your successes? And if the answer is no, then the question I put to you is this; did any fathers contribute anything towards the childhoods and successes whatsoever of any of the 42 men and women on Procter and Gamble’s executive team? If your answer is yes sir, then why is it that as the CEO of P&G, your company has run 50 plus advertisements that imply that fathers have absolutely nothing to do with raising their children and contribute nothing to their successes?

Fatherhood today isn’t just in a critical state, its on life support. Contrary to the current false narrative fed to the public by feminists, the media and corporations like P&G that falsely portrays fathers as unecessary, worthless, indifferent and idiotic parents who want nothing to do with their children, (especially single fathers) just the opposite is true.

Most single, divorced, or never-married fathers are court-ordered absent fathers. By that I mean that court-ordered “visitation schedules” (or lack of thereof) prohibit (under the threat of contempt and thereby arrest and incarceration) fathers from spending much or in some cases, any time with their children. And study after study, unbiased and hundreds of them from around the world, clearly demonstrate just how destructive the lack of father’s involvement in child rearing is both to boys and girls. The list of damage (emotional and psychological) is as long as it is permanent, and yet many of us are kept away from our children, against our wishes, and via court order, and companies like Cincinnati based Procter and propagate that false narrative (that fathers are worthless) by airing 50 different aids that credit the raising of Olympic athletes to mothers only.

It’s time for the “political correctness” of insulting and marginalizing the roles of fathers in raising their children to stop. I for one will never again purchase any products made by P&G or any of its subsidiaries, nor will I ever again purchase P&G stock. What’s needed at this juncture is a boycott of all P&G (and its subsidiaries) products by fathers worldwide. No dad should accept P&G’s token Father’s Day ad as an acceptable form of gratitude in exchange for the billions of dollars in revenue that fathers bring to P&G. Additionally, no fathers should find as acceptable that no less than 50 P&G global ads are crediting the rearing of children to mothers only. That insinuation is an absolute affront to all fathers across the globe.

To all of you fathers of Olympic athletes; and especially to you single fathers of Olympic athletes who not only single-highhandedly raised your own children, but raised children who have or are participating in the Olympic games, CONGRATULATIONS and THANK YOU for being there as fathers for your children.

Sincerely,

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights
Email: tony.fantetti(at)ocffr(dot)org

This entry was posted in Misandry, Miscellaneous, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.