Seen this yet?
It’s an ad for Dockers khakis, and it’s stirring up trouble on the Internet.
My immediate response, kneejerky and snarky per usual, is here.
This morning I read Kim’s post, in response to the Dockers press release about this new “Wear the Pants” campaign. The choice press release quote:
“The intent of the campaign is to put forth a new definition of masculinity, one that embraces strength and sensitivity and appeals to men who can change a tire ANDa diaper,” said Jennifer Sey, Global VP of Marketing. “We’re not trying to shame men. We want to make them laugh at themselves and at the state of manhood. And, at the same time, encourage them to dress up, man-up and embody today’s new definition of masculinity.
And Kim’s response (excerpted):
That “balance” she implies (“men who can change a tire AND a diaper”) is absent, but what’s very much present is, “Once upon a time…women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did.” No one I spoke to read the ad as being tongue-in-cheek…Please just help me list the ways this entire thing is WRONG.
Gladly. And I’ll start with the two you mention briefly:
1. There’s no balance here at all, no hint of sensitivity or co-parenting. Men are not women or children. That’s the definition of manhood here.
2. By their reasoning, then, this definition of masculinity is not new. It’s old, tiresome, and irrelevant.
3. The ad campaign itself is nothing new. This sort of axiomatic Man vs. axiomatic Woman line of reasoning, whether it appears in ads or TV shows or books, happens every 7 years or so. Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche (which was tongue-in-cheek, though many took it at face value), The Man Show (which I think presented itself as satire but only as a front to get away with espousing really neanderthal ideas about both men and women) . . . this is already played-out territory. (Not to mention the whole “real men wear khaki” idea was done over a decade ago by the GAP, in a much more inclusive campaign.)
4. Circular reasoning. I guess the only place for it is in advertising, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. Dockers presents khakis as the item which will grant men their sensitivity while they keep on being rugged door-opening old-lady-carrying heroes. (Who neither eat salad nor drink lattes.) I suppose this is where the tongue-in-cheekness is supposed to be found, but their attempts fall short, mostly because there are no markers in the ad to suggest that Dockers is winking at us. There’s no modest proposal here. This ad sounds way too much like what we all absorb on a daily basis both from individuals and cultural institutions. (By the way? Opening doors has nothing to do with it.)
5. The press release also states that the new line of khakis is “aimed at emancipating men from the ‘Dilbert-hood’ of cubicle khaki.” Again, there’s nothing in this ad to suggest that what is emasculating men is their dreary cubicle existence. (But it does raise a couple interesting questions about where economic class fits into all this. White-collar workers are being reconfigured as more rugged, manly, working-class heroes?) Nope, this ad points at disco and salad bars as the culprit (because this ad was created in 1982). Oh, and one more thing is responsible for men not being MEN anymore:
6. “Somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men.” This idea, if it’s not the number one reason, is decidedly in the top three reasons why people, men and women together, do not support feminist priniciples or outright hate feminists. “Because the feminist movement doesn’t care about men.” Which is patently false (or should be patently false. Can’t count the number of times I’ve had to argue this point). And I cannot stand the fact that this sentiment is being used to SELL PANTS.
No related posts.