Answer:
Explanation:
Companies that align themselves with equality and social justice have produced some remarkable ads in recent years— remarkable in terms of aesthetics, connectivity, and popularity. The #LikeAGirl commercial focused on linguistic microaggressions that can have a seemingly permanent negative impact on the way that grown men and women view femininity. To contrast the negativity, Always interviewed young girls and inspired its audience with the result:
Though this commercial was featured prominently during the Super Bowl, it made an even bigger splash, going viral on social media and regular media alike. To date, it has been viewed online nearly 60 million times.
Like the razor ads referenced above, the Always commercial makes no attempt to shame viewers into buying its products. Certainly, some viewers might feel a bit of shame in having used demeaning language in the past, but this commercial aims more at instilling its audience with a challenge: to treat femininity with respect, and to raise a new generation to feel proud of fighting, playing, talking, running, and simply being #LikeAGirl.
Placing the ad in the Super Bowl showed first that making commercials for a television audience is still a very effective way to advertise products. But because so many men watch the Super Bowl, the placement sent a bigger message– that although Always makes products almost exclusively for women, all genders are responsible for ensuring that children grow up respecting each other and respecting themselves. As such, the ad was empowering to everyone.
Answer:
she felt bored, sad, and hopeless
Explanation:
i may be wrong
Answer:
why do u think Anne names her diary
Answer:
C. It highlights the ways in which the animals are being silenced and controlled.
Explanation:
Based on the given excerpt, we can see that some animals, four young pigs to be precise wanted to show their displeasure, but they were silenced by the dogs.
This shows that the impact of the dogs were to silence and control the other animals.
Therefore, the correct answer is option C.
No.
It is moral hypocrisy, saying you are going to kill someone because they have killed someone just doesn’t add up.
With the lethal injection, thirteen states including Texas (which has killed over 500 with the death penalty out of around 1700) keeps their ingredients a secret to the American public. Even the Pope, if you’re religious, says that it is ‘inadmissible’
