It also kinda leaves out the possibility that the reader/purchaser is not male. What if a straight female wants to stream sports? Or a gay male? I'm sure commenters will find even more examples, too. It's a very specific and exclusive advert.

Oh, that's right. A straight female or a gay male would never even watch sports. Silly me.

/sarcasm

This is weird. I never thought wifes shopped for their husbands, even in most traditional families. My dad loves to buy clothes, and my mum is the typical housewife but she hates shopping for clothes, so maybe my view is biased.

But I really had never heard of this.

I am so fucking sick of advertisers encouraging men to be lazy and boy-like while we females shoulder all the goddamned responsibilities!

This is a really efficient advertisement - it fits in as many stereotypes as is humanly possible within eight words.

1. Men working in the office - managerial types who need slacks, goddamnit!
2. Men not wanting to buy clothes - because paying attention to that kind of thing is not a Manly Thing To Do.
3. Women wanting to buy clothes - because she is more than happy to go out and buy him clothes, instead of making him do it!
4. Men not wanting to go shopping with the wife - because it's just TOO BORING.
5. Men wanting to watch sports - because sport-watching is for MEN.
6. Women not wanting to watch sports - because it's better to watch the sports while she's buying slacks; when she's around, she'll want to watch the cooking and cleaning and giving your husband blowjobs channel.

Did I miss any?

The original draft read, "You Have Free License to Be a Douchebag, oh incidentally, you can stream online content to your phone with our service." The new line is shorter.

While the green of the ad may be part of the company's corporate identity, this may also be an ad geared at holiday shoppers. While that wouldn't negate the "sports are for men" or "men are lazy" advertising tropes, it could mean that the wife is buying the slacks as a gift for the husband.

Becasuse, after all, wouldn't the husband need to be there to try the slacks on?

My husband makes me buy his clothes. Not because he is some sports leering a-hole, but because he is very small. He is 35 years old but most people think he is about 14. He is only 5'4" and weighs about 108lbs, so I have to get his clothes from the Boy's department. If I buy men's smalls, the pockets on the shirts tuck into his pants. That being said, he is humiliated by the experience so he lingers at the edge of the Men's department while I wade into the kid's department and make a few selections. I don't mind sparing him the embarrassment. I just wish a "small" man's shirt was proportionate. They are super thin and super long, as though a man must be over 6' tall or he is not a man, he is a child.

So lets get real here. If you are married guy (and have been for a while) then you like it when your wife shows interest and buys you clothes. Secondly, you probably hate department stores, but are willing to go with your wife to show support of the effort she's putting forth in purchasing things that are needed in the household. That being said, I can remember all of my pant purchases over the last 10-12 years (mostly because they came with suits and also because its been really infrequent). So if you wife wants to see you in something new, she'll go out and buy it. And for that we appreciate it (at least I do). So don't hate on the add above.

I love how Gwen refers to *her* assumption as *the* assumption -- as if it is the only logical and valid one. It's not.

Why does she assume that the ad believes women are servants who run errands for their husbands, and only buy them things when they are asked (or told) to do so? What specifically in the ad leads to that conclusion?

Is it not possible that the husband doesn't want pants, doesn't need pants, and never asked his wife to buy him pants?

Laugh if you want... but my story is just as valid as Gwen's, and there is just as much evidence to back it up.

@ Ron

Uh what? How would your version make any sense? Then again, that would just mean they assume that the wife is a crazy control freak who buys pants when the husband doesn't need any

While the discussion about gender roles has been interesting, I'm surprised no one else cued in on the invocation of "slacks." The advert does not say "pants", nor "jeans" or "pirate regalia." It's "slacks."

This has a class connotation, too. Not only does "slacks" imply a form of pussification, with "sports" as the implied antidote, it also speaks to men who *wear* slacks - white collar office workers who may inherently question their manliness already.

This advert is not for mechanics, tradesman or any other blue collar "genuine" social class.