Companies changing their logo background

[OneOfThoseOldFashionedWomen]

If a company has the new pride flag as their background do you think that it means they subscribe to the erasure of women?

I think it means they have a diversity and inclusion team who changed the Twitter logo and the people who run the business carry on as before. It’s just rainbow washing.

I'm not sure they think about it too deeply. It's a box-ticking / PR exercise.

I think if they had any idea how offensive to women all the rainbowing has become, they might rethink their approach.

The rainbow/new rainbow flag has become a symbol of toxic misogyny and cancel culture.

It means they are ticking a box. If they have it in their logos in the Middle East, they give a shit about LGB people. As we all know, in the Middle East it is : be trans or be executed.

I do hate the rainbow washing. It's meaningless - half these companies are owned / part owned / operate quite merrily in parts of the world where being gay gets your head chopped off. What the hell is the point of colouring in your logo in a country that has already got legal protection and equality sorted, but doing fuck all in the countries where gay people are hounded, abused and killed?

Don't read too much into this. It's box ticking, virtue signalling, an easy diversity "win". Like the greenwashing only rainbowy.

Does it mean that the company is actually doing anything positive, for anyone? Probably not. Looks pretty though.

Husband does website design he says many sites just have it set up automatically now - rainbow appears for June then goes away again after.

What is quite interesting is the global companies who rainbow the logo in many countries, but not all (e.g. not the Middle East).

‘I think if they had any idea how offensive to women all the rainbowing has become, they might rethink their approach.’

I don’t think they care about what women find offensive. When did anyone ever?

I watched a hair dye ad the other day where it said “drinks with the girls” and “the girls” were drag queens. I don’t dye my hair but I guess they do. 😂 There’s money in it I suppose.

Cross posted with Sir Sam!

Rainbow washing, with a touch of hypocrisy.

Often a UK twitter account will be full rainbow and glitter while twitter accounts for the same company but for customers in countries where Homosexuality is illegal and/or socially unacceptable there will be no reference to pride at all.

I watched a hair dye ad the other day where it said “drinks with the girls” and “the girls” were drag queens.

I'm fairly sure that ad has been changed, IIRC the original ad didn't have drag queens in it

It's box ticking, virtue signalling, an easy diversity "win".

Yes I can see that they think that, however with the trans flag I no longer see it to represent real diversity, well certainly not diversity that represents same sex attraction or women. I'm not sure it is a win for me, I think I'm going to spend my money elsewhere.

Interesting about the middle East, read a very interesting tweet about FIFA and their pseudo support for diversity after awarding the World Cup to Qatar.

You'd think companies would learn by now, how easy it is to compare and contrast:

mobile.twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1533687593757462529?cxt=HHwWgsCy5bOv4MgqAAAA

mobile.twitter.com/bart1eby/status/1533695628068405250

We can see what their values are: $$$. That's it.

Nothing wrong with promoting awareness of diversity but only if they also change their logo for other groups and , if an international company, they also change their logo in every country where they do business. If not, it is just meaningless " virtuè" signaling

This!

I think this from the US Marine Corps is the best/worst Pride washing ever.

twitter.com/USMC/status/1531994393950953472

Yeah, that one is a what the actual fuck moment.

Rainbow coloured bullets, the most inclusive way to die. 🙄

The only surprise is that some TRA hasn't reposted it with a "Coming to a TERF near you soon!" caption... (Actually, I'm not betting on that one.)

Is vaguely threatening, in a bullet with your name on it fashion. Could be taken completely the wrong way, though i initially saw crayons.

I found it “ interesting “ that it was the new flag which was used at the Jubilee parade, not the more appropriate original one.

Where is the dignity in shooting someone?

Putting aside an GC concerns for a moment, from a BRAND DESIGN point of view sticking the pride flag behind an existing logo is shit and makes a company look like complete marketing amateurs!
The same companies (yes, John Lewis and Sainsbury's...) will likely have spent millions on a 'Brand Guidelines handbook' which explains how logos must be used in B&W, how they can't be stretched, or used with certain colour combinations etc etc and then they let the Diversity Intern come along and insist that these utter ABOMINATIONS of their logo be used for 1/12th of their trading year. It's terrible marketing practice!

I used to write to them and tell them this, and how also how offended I was that they didn't make similar concessions for Internation Women's Day or Hedgehog Awareness Week, but I only ever got back a standard response which entirely missed the point of my email.

Saw this the other day...

I agree, it's largely mindless 'ooh we're being nice'.

However as a lesbian I see that stamp of 'we are stating here our political affiilation to a group who are homophobic and believe in the subordination of females' and it chills me. As a gay female - yeah, they're stating that they not only exclude me but support a group that actively threatens me and wants my equality, access and sexuality removed. And they can stay away from me.

I wonder if they actively realise that it's a very exclusionary, scary kind of inclusion that they're signalling a commitment to?

Promoting the Pride Month costs corporations almost nothing, literally. They don't have to do anything real to improve conditions for the LGBTetc. if they are not fair.

In another thread about a bank in NZ covering gender affirmation leave similar principles apply: There will be very very few who are going to use that so it's not going to lose them much money. Extending something similar to, say, breastfeeding women would cost them many times more as many more new mothers would take such leave.

That's one reason why supporting tiny groups is much more common than supporting women or supporting people who are disabled to work for a corporation. The latter may require expensive alterations and so on.

But all of these virtue signals about the Pride Month etc. are corporations following public opinion. They will not take risks and lead, and they won't do this in the Middle East, say, as that would cost them money and customers.

It's just marketing. I work in marketing and companies don't really care it's just about PR and perception.

For black history month and women's day all the companies I've worked at did activities on social media and have zero representation at a senior level.

I don't get it?