In 2020, the nation was hit with a pandemic both physically and socially. Due to COVID-19, media interaction, social media engagement, and online consumerism became necessary. In relation to widespread disease, social outbreaks concerning the black lives matter movement, police brutality, the presidential election and diversity & inclusion, set a call to action for Americans. Top fashion and shoe-manufacturing companies that engage with the public socially, financially, personally and for entertainment were evaluated on their contributions to Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. Through external marketing and communication strategies, shoe-wear companies display their approaches to social justice, equity and/or social responsibility. Inclusion & Diversity has different facets including, socioeconomics, gender roles, and race that contribute to how<br/>consumers interact with companies. This paper consists of a literary review, three company audits and analysis, and recommendations. The literary review in the introduction of my paper, explores the approaches to Diversity and Inclusion of shoe-wear companies as a response to social inequity. I conducted three audits to assess the history of Diversity and Inclusion at Nike, Adidas and PUMA to their approaches and commitment to Inclusion and Diversity through their marketing and communication strategies. I then conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis based on the marketing and communications of the<br/>respective companies to gain depth in my findings of sentiment, message strategy, corporate hierarchy, and suggestions for future communications. My analysis provided a conclusion that Diversity and Inclusion in marketing and communication strategies is an essential factor in the growth and success of the company. I identified that each company has areas of opportunity to create more visibility for the LGBTQIA+ ( Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual and nonbiary people) community, should continue to produce reports that analyze exactly how they plan to support Diversity and Inclusion and continue displaying their<br/>commitment on social media.
male bias in the English language. Male bias can be traced through American history in the form of laws of coverture and the categorization of women in law. Taking into account the connections between sexist language, history, and law, this paper investigates 1) how and why legal language is biased, 2) why male bias has persisted in law over time, and 3) what impact male-biased law has on women. The works of ancient philosophers, feminist historians, psycholinguistic scientists, and modern philosophers of law are used to explain the patriarchal gender hierarchy’s influence on law. Case law and legal policies demonstrate that sexism has been maintained through history due to the preservation of male-biased language and the exclusion of women from the public sphere. Today, the use of masculine generics continues to taint the legal profession by reflecting, rather than denouncing, its patriarchal roots.
The popularity of feminism is growing. Every day more people claim to be feminist and work is done to end the control of patriarchy. Feminism though, because of its different waves and isolated recognition in the media, the actual goals seem unclear to males in particular; it is predicted that this increase in popularity in conjunction with the lack of clarity contributes to the development of toxic masculinity. “Feminism” is defined by bell hooks as a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression and “toxic masculinity” is a specific model of manhood, geared toward dominance and control and fear of the opposite. To understand the relationship between the two, the documentaries The Mask You Live In and Miss Representation were reviewed as well as books by bell hooks and C.J. Pascoe. Popular culture articles contributed to contemporary views at the public level. Using the knowledge gained from the literature, further research was done through one-on-one interviews with males age 18 to 32. Much of the literature does support toxic masculinity being encouraged and reinforced in varying ways including through the lack of acceptance of femininity and society’s strict gender roles. The interviews were inconclusive in defining a direct relationship between feminism promoting the development of toxic masculinity.