A Lesson in Corporate Wokeness: The Disaster After Making Aunt Jemima a Pariah

[TBoneTX 45,248]

"Leave of absence" in this context probably means that she's being pushed out the back door.

[MarJhi 958]

3 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Folks, some truly excellent discussion in this thread.  We have another thread or two for trans/gay/etc.; might we keep this thread centered on corporate wokeness?  Gracias.

Advertising tells me that corporate wokeness and trans/gay and "everyone is a racist" ideology fueled by ESG are skipping hand in hand down the yellow brick road, they are inextricably tied together.

 

But I will comply with your request. 😁

[MarJhi 958]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

"Leave of absence" in this context probably means that she's being pushed out the back door.

Or it means she will be financially compensated to quietly go away. Paying her to go away and hoping their customer base thinks she was terminated is the best they can hope for.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

On 4/21/2023 at 12:05 PM, yuna628 said:

So I'm going to say something from my perspective after looking through that article, and you'll likely not agree, but hey maybe food for thought?

 

One thing a lot of people seem to go towards when buying a product is brand loyalty. They may associate an icon with a brand which makes it instantly recognizable. Some may be so loyal they will never try something new. Others may try something new, just because they are an exploring person, or perhaps they are experiencing financial hardship so they look for something cheaper, some may give up a product entirely for the same reason, or of course there is still a supply chain issue/lack of availability.

 

I don't often see pancakes as something that people tend to have every single week. In my house it used to be more of a luxury item, and when we had it for special holidays, we were loyal to a particular brand of mix. Same with syrup. There is one syrup that a lot of people use in this state, because it's a generation thing. It's sorta like Old Bay here, it's just what people use. As a kid I can only recall having pancakes for Easter, Christmas morning, or as a special treat. Now my husband is a pancake and waffles person. He likes fixing them all the time, but we still are loyal to the brands we have. I can tell you that Aunt Jemima isn't one of them. 

 

For those that were once loyal to that brand, I'd say the author of the article does not prove his argument because he lacks investigation into other possible causes of sales downturn. Supply chain issues, inflation, lack of funds, lack of product, and lack of new brand recognition could all play a part. He did not seem to look at competing sales, which I suspect suffers from the same problem. I don't really buy that a large percentage of the public felt so grievously injured that they could never dare swallow a rebranded Aunt Jemima ever again. Of course there may be some, but not enough to make an impact.

 

That is why I largely laugh at people chucking cases of beer out or shooting it (hey you bought them to destroy them so the company gets your $s and it saves your life not drinking cheap swill). It happens nearly every year. Book and CD burnings, film protests, offensive ad campaigns, food rebranding and endorsements. A company can choose to put what they want on a product and can choose to change that product at any time. A lot of companies started putting artificial sweeteners in their products and not notifying the public. One example was Seagram's ginger ale - which changed the product to foul tasting. It took a few years, but Seagrams realized it wasn't that great of an idea. The same with a cider company I enjoy which put artificial sweetener in - completely changed the formula. Took about two years for them to change it back. Currently, there have been some interesting dairy shortages I've noticed - especially when it comes to lactose intolerant types, creamers that claimed to be organic or free of flavorings. Inflation, supply chain, and lack of money flow have led to companies consolidating products, or subtle rebrandings. One coffee creamer company that many people were loyal to, have rebranded the packaging and neglected to tell everyone that instead of having a few 'simple' ingredients like milk, sugar, and cream it is now changed to buttermilk, HFCS, soybean oil, a thickening agent.. etc. That change has spurred somewhat of an uproar. A lack of supply means there are less options to switch to, and is causing shortages in other competing brands. In the UK, some of our favorite drinks we take for granted here have had whole formula changes in response to new government regulations and taxes involving sugar. It is now laden with artificial sweetener combinations in 'non diet' drinks. Sweeteners that have been proven to be unhealthy and dangerous. 

 

I am not offended when a company wants to rebrand or market to people other than me. I am not offended that gay or trans people want to drink beer. They exist and have to drink something. If we are to be a free country for all people? We are free to make choices. I care if a product is a good product, tastes okay with good ingredients. I have not ever felt that the logos for Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima were appropriate. Those logos being there or not on the product do not make me want to buy them more or less, because there are other better and cheaper options. If someone isn't buying Aunt Jemima or Pearl Milling because there is no longer a ''mammy'' on the bottle, I'd say I hope they have some other healthier life priorities to fixate on.

I lived thru the new coke marketing disaster or stroke of genuis depending on how you look at it. 

 

I also can see how having old black servants on products could be offensive to many.  I don't think changing that was giving in to the absurdity of the woke movement. 

 

I politely disagree with you and the Bud Light thing. They straight flipped over in the left ditch.

 

Interesting side note. I am a ketchup fanatic and was rabidly loyal to the Heinz brand. Then one day when I was in a low funds period I realized Kroger brand was almost half the price. I tried it and realized it tasted almost the same. Same with Kroger mayonnaise.  It has been a wrap ever since then.

[Boiler 45,442]

They could have created a TransBeer, why destroy an existing product?

[TBoneTX 45,248]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I am a ketchup fanatic and was rabidly loyal to the Heinz brand. Then one day when I was in a low funds period I realized Kroger brand was almost half the price. I tried it and realized it tasted almost the same. Same with Kroger mayonnaise.  It has been a wrap ever since then.

It's almost always the same product from the same factories, but with different labels on it.  Weeks or months from now, we'll never remember any difference in taste or quality, but pennies saved will add up.

[yuna628 9,671]

15 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I lived thru the new coke marketing disaster or stroke of genuis depending on how you look at it. 

 

I also can see how having old black servants on products could be offensive to many.  I don't think changing that was giving in to the absurdity of the woke movement. 

 

I politely disagree with you and the Bud Light thing. They straight flipped over in the left ditch.

 

Interesting side note. I am a ketchup fanatic and was rabidly loyal to the Heinz brand. Then one day when I was in a low funds period I realized Kroger brand was almost half the price. I tried it and realized it tasted almost the same. Same with Kroger mayonnaise.  It has been a wrap ever since then.

Appreciate your kind response. I just find the situation rather overblown, because the company has funded and promoted LGBTQ causes for years, and that included branded rainbow flag cans and other materials. Would the reaction have been just as severe with RuPaul (I do not recall outrage when RuPaul and others received sponsorships and ads from makeup sellers) or Laverne Cox? Can no trans person or drag queen ever be associated with a beer?

 

I tend to be very loyal to certain brands Heinz and Coke being two of them, even if they have changed or removed products over the years. I don't support all of their policy swaying and I'm not about to go shooting at jars of pickles and ketchup and cans if they did something objectionable. I don't support some things about Chic Fil A either, but without a doubt I do love their food. Certainly there has been some boycotting and outrage of that company over the years. And I just feel all of that is silly ultimately. People get worked up until the next 'outrage' to be capitalized on. It's sad to see.

 

[Dashinka 24,479]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Appreciate your kind response. I just find the situation rather overblown, because the company has funded and promoted LGBTQ causes for years, and that included branded rainbow flag cans and other materials. Would the reaction have been just as severe with RuPaul (I do not recall outrage when RuPaul and others received sponsorships and ads from makeup sellers) or Laverne Cox? Can no trans person or drag queen ever be associated with a beer?

 

I tend to be very loyal to certain brands Heinz and Coke being two of them, even if they have changed or removed products over the years. I don't support all of their policy swaying and I'm not about to go shooting at jars of pickles and ketchup and cans if they did something objectionable. I don't support some things about Chic Fil A either, but without a doubt I do love their food. Certainly there has been some boycotting and outrage of that company over the years. And I just feel all of that is silly ultimately. People get worked up until the next 'outrage' to be capitalized on. It's sad to see.

 

Why is it sad to see that loyal consumers are voting with their dollar?  That is the free market.  As I said earlier, companies can do whatever they want relative to political causes which the trans-activist community is pushing a big cause.  I personally don't think InBev/AB would have seen the same response with Rupaul as they are a drag queen which is not the same as a transgendered activist.  What a lot of people are seeing with this transgendered activism is how it is impacting children with what is essentially a fad.  There are states requiring medical insurance companies to pay for "gender affirming" care, but for some reason these same states are not protecting those that decide afterward to de-transition.  Whatever, when activists are out there pushing this sort of permanent physical change on children, often times taking the parents out of it, a lot of people in the weeds take notice, and the transactivist InBev/AB choose seems to be at the forefront of the fad they are pushing.

[Boiler 45,442]

If Bud Light had teamed up with Dame Edna, recently sadly passed, I would not expect any issues.

 

 

[TBoneTX 45,248]

37 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

shooting at jars of pickles

This sounds like a lot of fun, and it would make a spectacular mess!   

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Appreciate your kind response. I just find the situation rather overblown, because the company has funded and promoted LGBTQ causes for years, and that included branded rainbow flag cans and other materials. Would the reaction have been just as severe with RuPaul (I do not recall outrage when RuPaul and others received sponsorships and ads from makeup sellers) or Laverne Cox? Can no trans person or drag queen ever be associated with a beer?

 

I tend to be very loyal to certain brands Heinz and Coke being two of them, even if they have changed or removed products over the years. I don't support all of their policy swaying and I'm not about to go shooting at jars of pickles and ketchup and cans if they did something objectionable. I don't support some things about Chic Fil A either, but without a doubt I do love their food. Certainly there has been some boycotting and outrage of that company over the years. And I just feel all of that is silly ultimately. People get worked up until the next 'outrage' to be capitalized on. It's sad to see.

 

Lawd have mercy if Diet Coke went away I would die a slow death. 

 

I did make the switch to Kroger Ketchup when I discovered it was so much cheaper than Hienz. 

 

As for kind. I never understood why people can't disagree on a subject without all the vitriol. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Why is it sad to see that loyal consumers are voting with their dollar?  That is the free market.  As I said earlier, companies can do whatever they want relative to political causes which the trans-activist community is pushing a big cause.  I personally don't think InBev/AB would have seen the same response with Rupaul as they are a drag queen which is not the same as a transgendered activist.  What a lot of people are seeing with this transgendered activism is how it is impacting children with what is essentially a fad.  There are states requiring medical insurance companies to pay for "gender affirming" care, but for some reason these same states are not protecting those that decide afterward to de-transition.  Whatever, when activists are out there pushing this sort of permanent physical change on children, often times taking the parents out of it, a lot of people in the weeds take notice, and the transactivist InBev/AB choose seems to be at the forefront of the fad they are pushing.

I could care less if a consenting adult decides to become Transgender at thier own expense.  The madness of pushing this agenda is beyond comprehension 

[yuna628 9,671]

46 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I could care less if a consenting adult decides to become Transgender at thier own expense.  The madness of pushing this agenda is beyond comprehension 

On one hand I agree with you. The problem is in how children that are struggling with identity and sexuality challenges are treated by their peers and adults around them. School can be brutal. If children with these struggles were treated with greater care perhaps they could indeed wait to decide until adulthood for physical transitions if that is what they want. But there is one other thing I can think of: again imagine a child that is born intersex. In the old days those children were forcibly transitioned to be a gender and sexuality that did not appear to come forward at even the earliest of ages. There are countless examples of children born with obscure gender parts or other deformities that had surgeries and hormones - assigned a gender of whatever was easiest, and it turned out that clearly was not in their nature. These examples tell me that we are all more than outward parts and hormones. Their parents and doctors made the choice for them, because they were afraid of the stigma and how the children would be treated. That ended up not being the right thing to do. This ended up leaving kids now stuck in the wrong body essentially, and the path to correcting that in adulthood was a painful challenge. Some of it led to suicide.

 

How do we also feel about parents that give their children breast augmentation or reduction to help them endure the torment at school or body image issues? Boys with gynecomastia? Girls with uterus didelphys? Boys with other deformities? How do parents and doctors help these kids? Is it ever acceptable to have your child be modified in some way until they are an adult? I wish we could say it is OK and a kid would be accepted no matter what in this world, until they reach adulthood and can make a choice, but there are always going to be complex questions that arise. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by yuna628

[Dashinka 24,479]

57 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

On one hand I agree with you. The problem is in how children that are struggling with identity and sexuality challenges are treated by their peers and adults around them. School can be brutal. If children with these struggles were treated with greater care perhaps they could indeed wait to decide until adulthood for physical transitions if that is what they want. But there is one other thing I can think of: again imagine a child that is born intersex. In the old days those children were forcibly transitioned to be a gender and sexuality that did not appear to come forward at even the earliest of ages. There are countless examples of children born with obscure gender parts or other deformities that had surgeries and hormones - assigned a gender of whatever was easiest, and it turned out that clearly was not in their nature. These examples tell me that we are all more than outward parts and hormones. Their parents and doctors made the choice for them, because they were afraid of the stigma and how the children would be treated. That ended up not being the right thing to do. This ended up leaving kids now stuck in the wrong body essentially, and the path to correcting that in adulthood was a painful challenge. Some of it led to suicide.

 

How do we also feel about parents that give their children breast augmentation or reduction to help them endure the torment at school or body image issues? Boys with gynecomastia? Girls with uterus didelphys? Boys with other deformities? How do parents and doctors help these kids? Is it ever acceptable to have your child be modified in some way until they are an adult? I wish we could say it is OK and a kid would be accepted no matter what in this world, until they reach adulthood and can make a choice, but there are always going to be complex questions that arise. 

So if we allow children to make this decision with little counseling either for or against, why are children not allowed to do other things that are forbidden until they turn 18?  There will always be exceptions to the rule for specific medical conditions, but how do you explain the fadishness of this current push?  How does a kindergarten teacher end up with an entire class that identifies as the alternate gender?  If this is truly an issue, why are the numbers greatest in some areas (not common across the population)?  If this was truly a medical/psychological issue, why are some medical facilities (Vanderbilt comes to mind) pushing it for the dollars it brings in?  If this was a just a psychological issue, then why are those that de-transition treated so poorly by the trans-activist community?  Why is it always a Sophie's Choice regarding potential suicide when the suicide rate of children that go through gender affirming care is the same?

 

Personally I am not in favor of any elective plastic surgery for minors, but that is not my choice for others just as this is not my choice if it is made by the child and the parents with competent counseling.  Instead we get states that are doing everything they can to take the parents out of the decision, providing everything they can to let children make this monumental and irreversible decision and yet forbid children to do other things like drink alcohol, smoke weed, etc.

 

Whatever, when you equate an actual medical need to the entire population there is going to be pushback.  Corporations would be in a better position if they did not dip their toes into hot social items.  Heck, even Phil Jackson is saying the NBA in all their social activism is un-watchable, and it is.  People do not want this activism pushed in their faces.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

5 hours ago, yuna628 said:

On one hand I agree with you. The problem is in how children that are struggling with identity and sexuality challenges are treated by their peers and adults around them. School can be brutal. If children with these struggles were treated with greater care perhaps they could indeed wait to decide until adulthood for physical transitions if that is what they want. But there is one other thing I can think of: again imagine a child that is born intersex. In the old days those children were forcibly transitioned to be a gender and sexuality that did not appear to come forward at even the earliest of ages. There are countless examples of children born with obscure gender parts or other deformities that had surgeries and hormones - assigned a gender of whatever was easiest, and it turned out that clearly was not in their nature. These examples tell me that we are all more than outward parts and hormones. Their parents and doctors made the choice for them, because they were afraid of the stigma and how the children would be treated. That ended up not being the right thing to do. This ended up leaving kids now stuck in the wrong body essentially, and the path to correcting that in adulthood was a painful challenge. Some of it led to suicide.

 

How do we also feel about parents that give their children breast augmentation or reduction to help them endure the torment at school or body image issues? Boys with gynecomastia? Girls with uterus didelphys? Boys with other deformities? How do parents and doctors help these kids? Is it ever acceptable to have your child be modified in some way until they are an adult? I wish we could say it is OK and a kid would be accepted no matter what in this world, until they reach adulthood and can make a choice, but there are always going to be complex questions that arise. 

The thing is.. Most kids don't have a clue about their sexual identity. It is being force feed to them. The cases you are talking about above are body deformities boy with breasts etc (yes you made me google) Convincing a kid to cut their gentile off  and undergo radical surgery to morph them into something they are not is not even close.

When I was 8 years old I thought if I dug in the back yard I would find pirates treasure or that if I tied a cape on I could fly.