Rafael's Indian promo, militant feminism and other trifles

As a latent MCP (Male Chauvinist Pig), I am always on lookout against committing another involuntary faux pas that will expose my inner id (Yid?) again. This time I simply cannot avoid a (mild) confrontation with the... anyway, here is the story. It starts with a moderately stupid, moderately cheap promo clip of Israeli arms developer and manufacturer Rafael. Here it is:



After watching it, you can agree that it may be too cute and too cloying as well, but it's a matter of taste. And that not all the female participants stand up to scrutiny by an expert (oh well, even by an amateur). Otherwise it is just another attempt to encourage sales of another kind of hardware/electronics by somewhat subdued (compared to other similar ads) use of natural female attractions.

But this is only a start. The said promo has apparently stepped on two over-sensitive corns of the Californian Jooish folks calling themselves Jewish Voice for Peace: anti-Zionism and militant feminism. And thus caused a stream of adjectives that any Mark Twain's time reporter would be proud of. Here are some examples.

On Indian customers as perceived by what is called "Israeli defense officials": "feminized, sexualized, exoticized, undeveloped dependent on Israel's/Raphael's masculinized high-tech-protection".

On the promo itself: "Outrageous, blundering, ignorant and offensive".

On Rafael image: "masculine, black leathered, superior".

When it came to what the author (Rela Mazali) calls "Israeli culture", she obviously went out of steam, since what she says about the said culture is "[it] systematically and actively works to weaken women through a broad spectrum of strategies and practices". No adjectives. And then the article swiftly goes to annihilate the said culture, the said society etc... All triggered by that clip.

So, what can I say? First of all, I wouldn't purchase any armaments from Rafael (not "Raphael" as the learned Ms Mazali stated) until further notice or before they come to their de-masculinized senses. Or, simply put, are sufficiently emasculated.

Second: I want to draw the attention of Ms Mazali and her esteemed colleagues to the form of the weaponry presented in that clip. Definitely phallic (not "fallic"), and this concern should be addressed by Rafael immediately. Or else (see above).

Third: while I've enjoyed, as mentioned above, the extraordinary prowess in the use of adjectives, I suggest that the process should be streamlined. I mean further extrapolation of the creative use of that "-ized" suffix (or whatever it is called in English grammar, how the heck would I know?). For example: instead of "Outrageous, blundering, ignorant and offensive" use "outragized, blunderized, ignorized and offensivized". Instead of "masculine, black leathered, superior" it should be "masculinized, black leatherized, superiorized (supersized?)" etc.

Of course, in some cases an explanation of the term should be attached. For example, the use of "enemizes" by Ms Mazali has caused me to read the whole sentence where it appears at least twice. Before I grokked that it is not some exquisite perversion applied by the Zionists to their neighbors.

Well, time for a conclusion. What can I say about the article as a whole?

Just that it is simplifized, shrillized, black-and-whitized, hyperbolized, anti-Israelized and ignorantized to the hilt.

Oh, and as a result: stupidized.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com