Looks like some misogynist pig created Dockers' latest ad campaign

remind wrote:

Sexist attacks against women,  come in all places, shapes and sizes it seems these days...

And it seems Dockers, is quite  content to try and sell their products at the expense of women, mainly by telling men the world's ills are all the fault of women.

The phone number to contact Dockers from BC is 1 800 362 5377.

I just talked to a nice young woman who I think will pass on the fact that I have bought many pairs of Dockers but I never will again because of this blatantly misogynist ad.  I hope other men on this board will follow suit.

I posted this in the thread Remind mentioned it in.  Time to step up and tell Dockers what you think. 

Well, take umbrage at the sexist implications against women, it's also a cheap marketing gimmick aimed to manipulate men by casting aspersions on their manhood if they don't wear Docker's.   

Right.  Like marketing knobs know thing one about manhood.

Oh, sorry!  I didn't see that in the other thread.

Feministing readers have a good take on it too.

It deserves to be highlighted in in its own thread so people can understand what Dockers stands for and hopefully give them "feedback."

Gah!  Yeah nothing affirms my manhood like pants and hey maybe we can really go back intime and have it when beating your wife was ok and slavery was still legal.

Idiots! And with links to Shop women?  Some marketing person needs to get fired

I don't know, I feel less offended by this than by many other things. It seems like just a gimmick to me. I think they know it's ironic. I think they also know it will get them a ton of extra exposure. I find it somewhat amusing.

Um, excuse me for falling into stereotype here, but are we really to believe that khakis will restore masculinity to its rightful historical place?

I've never worn Dockers, and now surely never will. What a horrible ad.

I tend to gravitate to them at ValueVillage, they are comfortable but much more so for $5.  Fuck, gotta find something new to wear.  Who's going to expose Levi's? 

That's what made me laugh about it too, Catchfire.  Like, by wearing dad pants, by wearing business casual cubicle pants, that makes you a real man, that makes you sexy and "take charge"?  Way to fight the gender war behind the desk!  Hahaha!

Now "wife beater" undershirts - those are manly and sexy.*  Maybe Dockers should consider adding those to their line.  Just think of the ads they could make about those! 

*For the irony-impaired: no they're not, and that's a sexist name for them, just the kind of sexist name Dockers would love.

RevPlease, if you're paying $5 for them at Value Village, then at least you're not giving money to Levi Strauss.  So go for it.

There's jeans made by other companies, you know. I'm wearing Nevada's (from Sears) that cost $29 new about seven years ago.

My first take was some what similar.  A tad patronising to women but I don't necessarily believe that machismo to point of stupidity is misogyny.  Giving the ad a second read the call to "wear the pants" at the end of the ad goes too far with what it implies, at least in my opinion.

"Men took charge because that's what they did," isn't misogynistic?  Think about it - if men are "in charge" what does that make women?  Oh yeah, NOT in charge.  Subservient, you might say.  Boy, those sure were the days, when men were men, and women were treated like inferior shit.  Awesome!

Claiming that moving to equality between the sexes means men are androgynous, the world is genderless, and that things are terrible now isn't misogyny?  I think it is.  Claiming that men doing anything even slightly feminine (e.g. eating salad) means that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's time to roll back the clock and for men to "take charge" and "wear the pants" again, isn't misogynist?

Claiming that if men can't help little old ladies cross the street, then no one can or does - that isn't misogynist?  Especially considering that the vast majority of caregivers for the young and elderly always have been, and still are, women?

Claiming that cities are crumbling because of equality between men and women isn't misogyny?  Cities are crumbling because the rich, white, male capitalist fuckwads running this planet are more interested in profits than citizens, not because women have claimed their rightful place.  Now, city-building men AND women can't get enough funding for transit and infrastructure and community centres because they're too busy fighting the kind of rich, white, corporate men (and the occasional white corporate woman) who thought this ad campaign was such a great idea.

I think it's pure misogyny.

lol at catchfire.

On the surface of it, it is amusing to deny such, and one might not think it could assist in returning "masculinity to its rightful place", but when extended thought about historical khakis imagery one sees what it does infer and imply.

khakis clothing, was historically worn by either the military, or big game hunters and the colonialists in South Asia and Africa. Patriarchial endeavours are inherent it khakis reality.

Nowadays it is worn by mainly the "professional" crowd, so much so that it is a uniform of sorts. It is not just casual liesure and business wear, it implies a solidarity of class distinction and unified action based on beliefs and perceptions. Apparently misogynist beliefs and perceptions, if Dockers is using that type of advertising, as they gotta kow thir cliental, or they would not be as successful as they are.

Thus putting the covert into overt, could translate in a myriad of ways societally.

If you need a good place for jeans, go to Marks Work Warehouse. Good prices and excellant quality!

Don't buy dockers shit

Nothing wrong with the Dockers ad. The problem lies with the sense of humour of some people on this website. Try being a white male and endure the TV commercials where the hubby is nothing but a goof and target of derision. Gee, no subliminal (heck, even overt) misandry there!

I see the ad as more 'pro-male' than 'anti-female' but I guess for some people, they're one and the same.

Angtwang

For some people?  What people would those be, angtwang?  People who think women and men should be equal?

What's funny about the ad?  Tell us where the humour comes in.  Even if you agree with it, I don't see where the joke is supposed to be.  Maybe you could explain.

Who's saying that commercials that make men look stupid are okay?  But yeah, you white men, you have it so tough.  It's hard getting paid so much more for the same work, never being discriminated against, except in a few commercials where guys can't do -- wait for it -- housework, because women are supposedly so much better at it, which is why it's been dumped on us for the last few centuries.

Cry me a river.  Oh, and welcome to babble, of course. :)

Regarding post 14 Michelle, clearly I've missed a lot of the subtext of the ad, thank you for spelling that out for me.  I would like to disagree with you on one point.  I don't think the authors are attempting to claim that gender equality is weakening men and degrading society.  The attack on discos and lattes makes it pretty clear that they are attempting to pin the blame on cultural evolution.

However, as you've pointed out there's enough explicitly said and much more that is implied to make me agree that ad quite misogynistic.  The weak intention is made worse by poor execution.  It's incredibly arrogant, insecure and ignorant.  I do think that there could be some argument made that over the twentieth century the social identity of the male has become less defined.  It's troubling that so many can't seem to define a male identity that isn't based in aggressive dominance.

Interesting, I'm male and I see it as being anti-male.  They're trying to exploit men's confusion about masculinity in order to make a profit.  I don't really see how that could be pro-male.  I don't need anyone telling me what i need to change in order to meet someone else's definition of masculinity and it becomes insulting when they're doing it to make money.

The odds that I would ever buy new Dockers before this ad came out though are pretty low to begin with.

Hey, great discussion peeps.

There is always a link between the dominant group and the group or groups designated as "other". White masculinity cannot exist without the presence (even in absence, as the text of the Docker ad bears out) of such groups, which would be all women; men of colour; anyone else who falls outside the line of white male ruling class (or ruling class wanna-be) able-bodied heteronormativity.

So, the ad doesn't refer directly to women, it infers it. Which is, among other things, misogynist.

The "new" (which I don't really think is new at all but let's pretend for a moment) angle for this ad is playing on white men's insecurities something that is not a norm in advertising from how I've read it. Playing on women's insecurities, and in fact inventing insecurities that didn't already exist, that's of course the basis of most advertising aimed at women, but I digress.

There's also the issue of the politically expedient timing of shifting blame away from the beleaguered system of white masculinity (Waaah! Cry cry!), to all the "others" who have gained some social and political ground in the past 50-60 years. Neat trick. NOT.

I don't find the gimmick terribly original (this backlash theme has been used, seriously and facetiously, many times in the last twenty years, and to me comes across as very '90s) and my guess is they know that, too. Not only that but to suggest that a brand of pants can reclaim masculinity for someone has to be ironic in this age. Which is why I think it's intentionally silly. So my take on it is it's either hackneyed or it's meant to be silly. Sexist yes -- again, perhaps ironically so -- but I don't see misogyny in it, even if the sentiment is genuine.

I'll concede though that whether the intention is silly or serious they are benefitting from that grey area, and that might be what makes it readable in different ways by different audiences.

But I can see I'm not going to win anyone over with this argument.  :)

I find this distinction between "sexism" and "misogyny" interesting. It's like when people say that their not homphobic: they don't "hate" or "fear" LGTB folk, they just don't want to give them the same rights as straighties. So why, when an ad asserts one gender's authority over another, that allocates strength and dominance exclusively for males, that denies the full humanity of women, men of colour, seniors, is it not misogny? Is it just "casual dislike"?

Why do the ancient Greek scholars come up for air in discussions about marginalized groups? Do they get so literal with words like "pedophilia" ("it's not really "love"), "kindergarten" ("it's not really a "garden") or "pancake" ("it's not really a "cake")?

This is what I was thinking too.  It reminds me of those horrible beer commercials, the guy with the white and blue spandex?  I found it funny, not offensive except in a eye-rolly sort of way.

But that's just me.  Perhaps I don't "get" it.

I don't think I'd mind it as much if I knew for sure that it was being intentionally OTT.  For instance, if the male model was smoking a pipe, sporting an eye patch and holding a baby tiger.  But this interview makes me think otherwise.

Oh yeah, we got it bad.  Thank God Dockers is here to help me regain my rightful domination with their pants.

This whole idea of nostalgia for a previous era of masculinity is a common theme in advertising right now. I guess I'm part of the 'consumer target' for a lot of these messages, e.g. a male in my early 30s and I seem to be noticing them a lot, particularly in liquor. I can't get on YouTube from my office but if anyone cares to search, there are ads for Canadian Club whiskey based around the theme "Your dad was not a metrosexual" with old photographs of real men, that I actually found to be a pretty good campaign (I drink the stuff anyway). Wiser's whiskey has a campaign around "The Wiserhood" where men are congratulated for example, for using a real knife isntead of electrical carver to carve a turkey or ripping an ugly seater their wife gave them so they'd match as a way of getting out of wearing it. Again, pretty decent spot. Another one for Chivas all about chivalry and reminding men of olden times when men held doors for women and whatnot. I found that one kinda lame. And, of course, one of the most popular shows on TV these days is Mad Men (based around avertising, ironically enough) which I definitely think is a brilliant show but whose appeal lies largely in nostalgia for a time when men dressed in suits and hats and drank and smoked and their beautiful wives would ahve a nice meat and potatos dinner waiting for them when they got home.

Anyway, I don't work in advertising but, like I said, I seem to be the target demographic and the Docker's campaign just doesn't work for me. I actually do like some of the liquor ads but the theme seems inappropriate for Docker's mainly because I just associate the brand with middle-management men with no style sitting in cubicles all day. If I kick back with a nice glass of Canadian Club on the rocks I suppose I feel vaguely "manly" whereas if I walked around in a pair of pleated Docker's khakis I'd basically feel like a giant tool.

Perhaps it would also help to point out that the "decline of the American male" has been a major cultural and popular theme for over 150 years.

Pushing a myth for 150 years eh?!

The liquor ads doing the same thing are disquieting.....

Well, that's just in America, and a fairly conservative estimate. If I were a betting man I'd say it was going on even longer across the pond.

So... it's misogynistic because it's imposing tight gender standards on men? Seems primarily misandristic, really. Also not good for women, but this is about making men feel powerless to be anything but perpetuators of a system that serves them poorly.

Go cry somewhere else.

Um... who and what are you hoping to refute with femmephobic language?

Edited to add: Also, thanks for underlining my point and several others I've recently made.

You're correct I used poor langauge.  My apologies.

No it is about making men feel entitled to a system where their privilege is not only restored but rightly so.  Did you even read the ads all the way through.

We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency.  It's time to get your hands dirty.  It's time to answer the call of manhood.  It's time to WEAR THE PANTS.

Yes, I did kropotkin, including:

... men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny...

So yes, androgenous presentation, healthy food, genteel work, are apparently not allowed because it's the job of the male-assigned to go forth and continue to be the expendable sex. This wasn't about male privilege, it's about gendering physicality, and, as a result, reinforcing the idea of the expendable sex. But hey, surely it's male privilege that has most jobs with exposure to the elements, and 93% of workplace fatalities as male. Society is misogynistic by structure, but it's also misandristic.

Even if men are making themselves expendible through "sacrificing themselves", "wearing the pants" is nevertheless a prescription to dominate and be in control of others, as clearly the world is dysfunctional without male dominance (hence the world crumbling, bad children, etc....).

I never said powerless, I said expendable. But then, since when is spending less, working more, and dying sooner considered dominance?

This is babble and the feminist forum or have I entered some sort of space time continuum?

I fail to see what's anti-feminist about saying that breaking down gender roles materially helps most men too, or that oppression isn't unidirectional.

Yes. I think the argument is that lines about the world crumbling because of a lack of men taking charge are hard to ignore in the analysis. The substantive effects of male dominance have made women expendible as well (objects for the male to assert masculinity on).

I'm not going to argue with your point as I am in agreement with you. But you'll have to note that many babbler's become suspicious when a critical perspective does not acknowledge something as glaring as the power obtained from of masculinity (self included).

1111111111111111, I wasn't saying the post wasn't femmephobic, just that it was misandristic... the two can and often do similtaneously exist.

I don't think there's anything objectionable in what you are saying. My take is that while it helps an argument to highlight some aspect and not another, at the same time that tactic can mislead those who are trying to gauge the politics of the speaker.

Hence the remarks from Kroptokin and myself.

I have to agree with you here, it's taking the premise to the point of stupidity. But I'd add that it's trying to be ironic/cynical, this isn't genuine. It's postmodernism in advertising, which isn't all that new these days...

That being said it's still idiotic.

And Dodge joins the ranks of Dockers witht their new Charger ad...good grief one would think with the trouble car manufacturers are in they would not want to narrow their market share so much....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPmYxLUoZVc

Stupid commercial.  The thing is, it provokes a couple of smirks from me, since a lot of us can recognize certain "hot buttons" in the domestic gender war, right?

But ultimately, it pisses me off, especially the end of it.  Because what they're saying is that men should a) be in charge of deciding what car to buy, and b) be rewarded WITH A FUCKING CAR for reaching the very barest minimum level of courtesy for other people, especially when living with someone else.

Like, you poor nasty slob, having to rinse out the sink after you shave.  For tolerating members of your partner's family - as opposed to, what, being a total asshole towards them?  Oh gee, honey, thank you so much for not treating my mother like shit, and not making me wallow in your filth, it's such a huge sacrifice you're making for me - you're absolutely right, you can have any car you demand, and I'll sit by and bat my eyes at you because you're such a tough guy, making your last stand and all.  Oh, and P.S. fuck you, I want a divorce, get yourself a maid, asshole.

Yeah, I found this one more offensive than the Dockers ad. I could see some humour but it was also skirting a more sinister edge as well, demonstrated by the breakout into the road rage (instead of beating the gf up?) Sad that some commercials really haven't come very far, and in their retrogression, they hold back those to whom they appeal.

I watched a Seinfeld episode this evening, Jerry and Elaine were mocking Docker's Denim, and that was back in 1995 or '96!