Well, well, well.
Looks like an ultra-woke corporation is learning the very hard way that deciding to please under 1 percent of the population is likely going to lead to backlash in some form from at least part of the other 99+ percent.
And what backlash it is, considering that none other than ultra-trans militant Target has lost $12.5B in market valuation in just a few days, and this devaluation is in addition to the general decline that almost all companies have seen in their share prices over the past several months.
Indeed, ostentatiously promoting LGBTQ apparel for infants, along with “tuck friendly” swimwear for “women,” probably did not constitute the best actions to take for a retailer already dealing with the ongoing aftermath from ironically Democrat pandemic policies.
And, after the company decided to pull the highly perverse merchandise from its shelves, the retailer endured additional backlash from militant leftists who believe the retailer should apparently serve as a de facto representative of alternative sexualities.
One such leftist includes Justin Wolfers, a professor of public policy and economics (i.e., a Marxist).
“One of two things are true. It could be [Target] are cowards and they use that as protection and a smokescreen so they could make a cowardly decision, or it could be that they are actually genuinely concerned about the well-being of their employees and they have had credible threats,” Wolfers whined.
Oh, is that so?
In other words, Wolfers is actually questioning whether or not the decision to rescind marketing highly sexualized apparel to infants is “cowardly” or not.
What has this nation come to? What have academics come to?
Target spokesperson Kelly O’Keefe, apparently expecting such backlash, claimed that the decision was motivated by safety, rather than financial, concerns.
“Obviously any incident that would put employees at risk is something that any company would wisely take seriously … This is a reflection of an unfortunate moment in our history, when one has to assume serious risk might be real,” O’Keefe proclaimed.
She added that the stores focused on “items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior.”
Yeah, like “tuck friendly” swimwear for women.
And pro-trans messages for children.
Needless to say, the ultra-left professor/protestor is not pleased.
“If that is the case, when Target caves into this, then it says that the moment you threaten the employees of even a very large corporation, you get to control its policies. This is economic terrorism, literally terrorism, creating fear among the workers and forcing the corporations to sell the things you want, not sell the things you don’t,” Wolfers raged.
Wow. So, removing transgender apparel for infants is now considered “terrorism.”
Imagine how the 9/11 terrorists would react to the definition of “terror” now … a definition promulgated by American professors on public television.
Author: Jane Jones