In a sweet anecdote, Sociologist Michael Kimmel talks about how he was playing the game of opposites with his son. “What is the opposite of up?” “Down.” “What is the opposite of awake?” “Asleep.” “What is the opposite of man?” He asked.
And his son replied, “Boy.”
Kimmel tells this story as a glimpse into an alternative world in which men do not define themselves in opposition to women, but see manhood in terms of maturity.
We don’t live in that world. And Dockers thinks it can sell khakis by encouraging men to define themselves as not-women in its new man-ifesto ad campaign (text after the jump):
Of course, what is really interesting about this ad is the way that it defines manhood as in opposition to all kinds of things: womanhood, of course, but also boyhood, and feminine manhood, androgyny, and whatever disco, plastic forks, latte drinking, and salad represent. What do men get? Being in charge of women and children… and dirty hands (maybe the dirt is metaphorical).
I’d much rather live in Kimmel Jr.’s world.
(Thanks to Christina W. for encouraging us to write about this ad.)
For a similar ad, see this Ketel One commercial expressing nostalgia for a pre-feminist time. And, for lots of material documenting the new pop culture version of masculinity, browse our gender: masculinity tag.
Jump for a transcript of the text:
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. 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.
Comments 119
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — December 7, 2009
Ever since I started reading SocioImages, I honestly am convinced that advertising should be banned or at least, limited. IT really does have a profound, harmful effect on the public's perception of certain groups.
Buddy McCue — December 7, 2009
I'm reminded of that book that was popular 'way back in the '80s (or was it the '90s?) entitled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche."
My opinion was that real men don't let pop-culture publications decide what they may or may not eat. I had never tried quiche at that time, so I was curious to do so.
Turns out to be pretty good, and filling, too. I can't imagine why "real men" wouldn't want to eat it.
Carey — December 7, 2009
I am cracking up about two things: (1) that *Docker's khakis* are supposed to be what makes men uber-masculine, manly MEN again and (2) that after that big tirade about MEN there are options to "Shop men's" and "Shop women's." I sure feel like buying myself some (manly?) khakis now.
Tlönista — December 7, 2009
"Dirt and patriarchy"—I love it!
Coincidentally I have just discovered that I can fit into the smallest size of men's pants. As I start adding more of those to my wardrobe, this is one brand I will gleefully boycott. Er, butchcott.
Also, this androgynous barista would like to point out that they got the order wrong; it would be a "nonfat, extra-foamy latte". KTHXBAI.
Nathan — December 7, 2009
That's alot of all-caps distressed typography to plow through. I wonder if anyone in the department store would even take the time to try to make sense of that add.
And who is really gonna wear dockers for all their "manly-man" chores? I can't image any man (or woman) putting on a pair of dockers to do their yard work, construction jobs, plumbing, electrical, or any physical work of any kind. Dockers are pretty much good for the poor shlump working at their computer in their business-casual job, hoping the ugly pleats cover their paunch.
Tabitha — December 7, 2009
I thought this ad was on the level of the rest of them until the part about society's PROBLEMS that our apparently genderless (who knew we had come that far!) time is apparently ignoring. The part about how men need to fix the, "crumbling cities" is probably supposed to be humorous in being overly dramatic, but urban planning has been dominated by men for most of the twentieth century and then some. Children misbehaving? What the hell are they even talking about? And maybe some people want to be what you would consider androgynous, Dockers.
Also notice, that to the right of the "Shop Men's" button is a, "Shop Women's" button, so they can't think that this passage would be very alienating. I wonder if this has to do with Dockers khakis not really being perceived as a high-machismo item to begin with; they can be overtly anti-feminist while still playing it off as doofy. Maybe?
judy — December 7, 2009
"Men were stripped of their khakis"? Really? And don't get me started on that road "between boyhood and androgyny". I mean, are they trying to paint androgyny as a bad thing? And if so, then why do they have a women's department?
This ad is stupid in so many ways.
karinova — December 7, 2009
What's up with all the "Man Laws" in advertising lately? Ads for liquor, beer, hamburgers, jeans... and now Dockers. I feel like if I were a man, I'd be mighty tired of commercials telling me what to be all the time. (!) Especially if I were a well-rounded man, and not some macho caricature. I mean, their man definition isn't exactly flattering. In a way, it's just a slightly different version of those all-men-are-idiots commercials, you know?
Did something happen recently that's got American men feeling insecure? You'd think we just elected a woman as president or something! Oh hey, wait. Heyyyy. Is this... is this because of gay rights?
lady brett — December 7, 2009
yes. that surely inspires me to "shop women's"...
Sarah — December 7, 2009
Ugh.
This whole "be a real man" movement has been a bearded response to the smooth-chinned metrosexuality movement. "Being a real man" apparently involves being a dirty, stinky, hairy, immature, drunken, steak-eating flannel-bedecked lumberjack with no respect for women or culture. Marketing that plays into this (good god I hope it's just a) fad by essentially telling men that it's time to go back into caves and start hunting lions - otherwise, they are no better than us weak, unstable, useless women.
Joel Bass — December 7, 2009
This is offensive in a dozen different ways, but I think it does pick up on a vague feeling a lot of people have, which is that a lot of people don't seem to act like grown-ups anymore. To me, this has nothing to do with gender, except that some sexist men prefer women to be little-girlish, and so are more bothered by childish men than by childish women. This ad takes our culture's celebration of immaturity and tries to make it the about the feminization of men, which I don't think it actually the problem at all. And, of course, rather than inspiring anyone to "grow up," this ad just promotes another kind of immaturity, one featuring misogyny and cartoonish gender roles.
Along with the standard sexist advertising, I think we'll continue to see this particular branch of it for a while, as long as our media continues to sell us the (opposing?) ideas of Staying Forever Young and Being a Real Man.
Buddy McCue — December 7, 2009
What do you mean by "yank advertising?"
Do you mean that it comes from the United States, and that this fact is reason enough to dismiss it as being somehow undeserving of analysis?
Surely this can't be what you mean to express?
Niki — December 7, 2009
"The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street."
Funny, I thought it was women's job to raise the kids? I guess the dudes just step up to dole out the discipline. I also wonder why "real men" don't care about little old men crossing the street. Do they want them to fall, or something?
"For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes."
I don't even understand this statement. So...until this apparently genderless age, we didn't need to care about bad guys, allowing them to roam free, being bad? We didn't need heroes to step up to these bad guys before? This isn't offensive, it's just genuinely confusing.
And finally:
"We need grown-ups."
Ahh, we're finally getting the root of the problem. Women don't count as adults. They just need taking care of too, by the real "grown-ups." Women and children first, amirite?
Niki — December 7, 2009
"The idea that gendered are somewhat opposites is a religious pattern and is only present in predominantly religious societies. In other words, not in any of the western first world by large."
Forgive my frankness, but you are very mistaken. By and large, in the Western world I inhabit, genders are almost always perceived as in opposition to one another. What isn't feminine is manly; what isn't masculine is girly. And, perhaps most significantly, manliness is the default of everything, and things become feminized when painted pink. Such simple differences have strong implicatinos. I don't agree with this idea - I don't personally believe in "opposite" sexes - but the idea is definitely predominant.
judy — December 7, 2009
Please don't engage aneka. S/He is a troll.
A Random Claire — December 7, 2009
I hate khakis. Obviously I am one of those oppressive non-fat-latte wielding women who won't let men be men.
But ugh. Boring.
Jamie — December 7, 2009
So wait...real men wear dockers?
I suppose they also stream sports whilst their wives shop for their slacks too, then.
I'm so sick of advertisers deciding who the real men and women are.
Jamie — December 7, 2009
aneka, I've seen the comments you've written that've been deleted, because anyone who subscribes to a particular posts gets e-mail when there is a reply before they end up deleted. You are blindly hateful towards anything United States, and your posts reflect that fact. So your "victim" stance is an absurdity.
waitatic — December 7, 2009
hmmm - if it is the women who buy men their slacks (according to an earlier pic), why is Dockers trying to speak directly to men and insult the very people who plunk down the credit cards. unless they are trying to appeal to the men without "their own" women.
KD — December 7, 2009
But Pete the Pounder and his wonderful ice cream bars told us that khakis were a symbol of the emasculation of men. Did Pete lie!?
The Muslim Anarchist — December 7, 2009
Of course, they could have defined manhood in contrast to emotional literacy, a longer life expectancy, nurturing, mutualism, and - last but by no means least, social skills. But that would be attributing these qualities primarily to women, which I'm sure a few armpit scratching evolutionary biologists called Simon would go along with. And probably a few women. Personally, I think we should all just go totally Judith Butler and sod gender. It's a pile of socially constructed bullshit which has about as much to do with genitalia as it has khaki. Be neither woman, nor man - just a postwooden o-men.
Jamie — December 7, 2009
Exactly. Dislike based on generalized notions of a society is prejudice.
Which is why to generalize a country so diverse is completely ridiculous.
"The real thing is to understand what creates it in the first place." So then we can go back to the begining of time, then, because these problems of class, sex, and race have always existed in varying forms.
If we were to completely follow that logic, the united states is a teenager compared to the ongoing problems of other developed countries. So to say that the US somehow causes all of these problems, when the US, to you, has no real "culture" anyway, is to say that the influence of other countries on the US is the origin of the problems you see reflected. It's circular.
Humans have had problems and culture/class wars long before the US ever came on the scene, and it will continue to have them long after the US is gone. Your personal disdain for a particular aspect of human culture/interaction is not license to derogate an entire country, itself. It's the *definition* of prejudice, plain and simple.
Kevin — December 7, 2009
Ah! It seems aneka's comment got deleted and now the comments are chaos. I imagine "yank" averaged at least once every other sentence, so I think I can think of a good recreation to make sense of the replies to it.
KD — December 7, 2009
Wonderful. I was selected to fill out a survey for Dockers.
"Reason for visiting this site today?
*Other - Observing sexist advertising"
I liked the part where I had to rate how masculine Docker's pants were, and then check whether I was male or female.
Eneya — December 7, 2009
Question - if you are a real man when you wear khakis... does this means that they are planning to start selling pajamas? Or khaki underwear??
Or it is implied that real men do not change (to be more manly obviously... the smell is going to chase everything away, so there you are... manly as hell, nobody picking a fight with you.)
:)
P.P. I do not mind khaki... but it is too much "look, I'm a soldier with-everything-else-that-our-stereotypical-society-understands-by-this" to take it seriously.
phio gistic — December 7, 2009
Oh, that's delightful. It seems if you reload the Dockers page, you too may get the chance to fill out a [long] survey! I had to turn off my pop-up blocker to get it to work but it was worth it, as I got to include such comments as
16.1: Please specify primary reason for visiting:
"Came to gawk at the ridiculously sexist ad campaign."
21: *Based on your experience on Dockers.com today, which of the following best describes your opinion of Dockers?
- I feel a lot worse about Dockers
21.1: Please describe why.
"I'm surprised by the really retro and toxic ideas of Dockers and what it means to "be a man" (and by implication, what it means to "be a woman"). I thought Dockers was a classic brand, like Levis, not a brand that defines itself as macho, sexist, gender essentialist and reactionary."
Jamie — December 7, 2009
pfft. You're missing the point...they don't care, because real men don't do silly internet surveys.
Buffy — December 7, 2009
If "wearing the pants" is what masculinity is all about then why is Dockers selling pants to women? Doesn't that clash with their campaign?
E — December 7, 2009
Lovely, homophobia, sexism, and ageism all rolled into one. Oh, and let's hate on the vegetarians too.
Isn't advertising not supposed to alienate everybody but one asshole demographic?
My guess is that they are trying to change the prep school boy association with khakis. It ain't gonna work.
splack — December 7, 2009
With all the (very) bad manly-man advertising SI is picking up on lately, I thought I would post a link to one of my favorite favorite subversive ads playing right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr_G2DOD5zk
With the two men catering to the woman it seems that the gaze is assumed to be... female!
junequest — December 7, 2009
Since when are we a genderless society? Dockers is giving us way too much credit.
Maria — December 8, 2009
I'm blaming this whole "let's go back to when men were men" trend on the popularity of Mad Men.
Ironically, the trend seems to be most prevalent in ads.
Kelle — December 8, 2009
Looks like they were trying to do a Fight Club kind of thing and completely missed the point. Now, FC had its own issues, but wasn't one of Tyler Durden's little motivational sayings "You are not your fucking khakis!"? And was all anti-corporate/anti-brand and stuff? As in "Real men don't do what corporate advertising tells them to, they do their own thing."
Hugh — December 8, 2009
I'm fascinated by the idea that in the past "women rarely had to open doors" and "little old ladies never crossed the street alone".
It seems like this idea changes it's meaning quite drastically when you go from "men opened doors, when the opportunity arose" to "men opened all the doors, all the time"? At the least it's elevating a courtesy to an essential service, but I wonder if there's more to it than that?
on advertising « il miø mare — December 8, 2009
[...] mi-a placut foarte tare acest comentariu, preluat de pe site-ul SociologicalImages, la articolul Dockers Defines Manhood as Anti-Everything Except Dirt and Patriarch [...]
Shana — December 8, 2009
I think it is interesting that after listing all things girlified that have led to the decline of civilization, there is a button to "shop for women". I wonder: are they shopping for a woman that will purchase and iron their khakis while making a roast and vacuuming cobwebs in high heels, or are they shopping for manly items for those pesky overly feminine women since the company claims to be for men? This is tounge in cheek of course, but after that diatribe, why would a woman want to shop there at all?
KD — December 8, 2009
Another observation:
The rant tries very hard to avoid looking like it blames women; it appears to blame a modern urban society for the failure of men. Even the phrase "wear the pants," which is widely known as a euphemism for power in a household, is portrayed as some more vague assertion of masculinity that is not directly confrontational to women. The perpetrators - discos, latte, salad bars, plastic forks - are all things that would likely not be recognized as gendered by the average person, and more readily attributed to modern urban life. For people that understand that doors are no obstacle to women, and know who will be ironing the pants of the man that "wears them well", this is anti-feminine as hell. But I wonder if other people would see it that way.
This is all especially unintentionally comical to me, because khakis, being part of the standard retail uniform nation-wide, are one of those things that symbolize urban yuppiehood to me.
phio gistic — December 8, 2009
Who "Wears the Pants" is a metaphor for who has the power in a marriage. One spouse "wears the pants" and the other...wears the dress? Gagas around pants-less?
Anyhow, the imperative that "Real Men" "Wear The Pants" is meant as a put-down to men who don't have all the power in their marriages. Compare and contrast with "hen-pecked" and "p*ssy-whipped."
lsmsrbls — December 8, 2009
You know, if it wasn't being used to sell pants, this rant would fit in perfectly on right wing radio.
Chivalry, lattes, genderless society, grown-ups, salads, disco, discipline...it sounds straight out of Limbaugh or Hannity. Those are the same complaints they have about liberals.
I wonder if Dockers is trying to target the same disgruntled audience.
pv — December 8, 2009
Tabitha:
"I wonder if this has to do with Dockers khakis not really being perceived as a high-machismo item to begin with; they can be overtly anti-feminist while still playing it off as doofy. Maybe?"
I think that's absolutely spot-on. Its a variant of the 'irony defense', but I think its a particularly thin one. It's just not funny, the 'irony' is just too banal, it appears to be aimed at people who are slightly unsure about having those sentiments but haven't moved very far from them.
Then again, given the unreadable font and how dull it is, perhaps its not intended to be _read_ by anyone, its just space filler, where the actual content is just a joke between ad execs and over-analytical sociology blogs?
judy:
"Did something happen recently that’s got American men feeling insecure? You’d think we just elected a woman as president or something!"
Well, if we are going to psychologise (and I'm not convinced this is a 'trend' rather than something that crops up all the time), seems to me that for white men, electing a _black_ man might be almost as bad in that respect as electing a woman.
Jenn — December 8, 2009
Apparently all women are completely non-heroic children. Awesome.
Tadjio — December 8, 2009
I would LOVE to think that these sorts of almost-frantic patriarchal calls-to-arms are a backlash against a society that is, in general, becoming less and less concerned with gender roles. I'm going with this explanation, in fact, because it makes me feel better about the while affair.
What's wrong with enjoying lattes AND beer, salads AND steak? are metrosexuals any less likely to be responsible parents or kind to the elderly than someone steeped in outmoded ideals of machismo?
A friend of mine observes, whenever this sort of thing comes up, that in many cases the REAL MEN!! advertising campaigns emphasize that all of Joe Average's foibles are natural, healthy and praiseworthy signs of his virility. Doesn't like to bathe? doesn't feel compelled to eat his vegetables? would rather watch monster truck rallies and drink beer all day? suddenly intellectually handicapped by the sight of a woman in a bikini? these aren't character flaws (even minor ones), it's MASCULINITY!
Jenjen — December 9, 2009
Oh yes, because our world has become SO female dominated. Let's run away from this dystopia where women are second class citizens and return to the paradise where they weren't citizens at all.
C. V. Reynolds — December 10, 2009
I'm a man, but also a feminist and a vegetarian, which I suppose means I'm not a "real man". I've openly bragged in the past about not being one of the knuckle-draggers so lovingly described as the ideal in this advertisement. Why must one have to be an immature man-child to be considered a "man"?
Usually, the ads annoy or anger me, but this one almost drove me to tears for a moment. I guess I may be feeling particularly sensitive now, but maybe the bluntness of the hatred contained within the ad did it. Referring to women as useless/slaves/objects/children/unheroes, they blame women for what they deem as society's problems. In this ad, "the world" is just a euphemism for women or femininity every time it is used. And who's to say that women can't open their own doors, or the little old ladies can't cross the street alone? Is it against an unwritten law for them to have some independence?
What makes them think that women will want to shop at their place after an ad like that? The ad-makers always assume that women will just sit back and take their verbal abuse, then give the store their money anyway. Sadly, I think that women are so used to the abuse by now, that they may do just that without thinking of the consequences.
giotto — December 10, 2009
I'm arriving a bit late to this one.
As many in this thread have pointed out, Dockers in particular and "khakis" in general are now associated with casual Fridays and business travel wear and tech support guys in polos with logos; meanwhile the guys doing "manly" jobs are wearing Carhartts and Dickies and jeans and such... But khakis used to be something very different: the term itself comes from Persian via the British occupation of India and originally was used, in English, in the context of military uniforms. You know, the hard manly work of taking up the "white man's burden." The US adopted khaki colors soon after, and if you look at photos of WWII pilots off duty they are often wearing khaki-colored chinos, the predecessors to today's Dockers. That WWII pilot look--khaki's and leather jacket--is probably most famous today from the character of Indiana Jones.
Equality — December 18, 2009
First they use sexism and now they use racism. I guess we'll be seeing a homophobic version too.
"Once upon a time, white men wore the pants, and wore them well. Black men rarely had to worry about measuring up and little old black men were happy on the plantation. White men took charge because that's what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed white men. Urban by urban, wigger by silly pride-free wigger, white men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and racial equality. But today, there are questions our race-free society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old black men are left longing for the plantation. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need white men to pull up their pants, turn off the rap and hip-hop, 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 white male supremacy. It's time to wear the pants."
“We’re Only Protecting Them From Themselves” » Sociological Images — January 28, 2010
[...] food, Miller beer, beef jerky, alcohol (see here, here, here and here), cell phones, and Dockers. See also: “how to give the perfect man hug” and “how I sit on the [...]
Dockers wants men to “wear the pants” « — February 2, 2010
[...] check this out for more info. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Turning the Other Cheek?Real [...]
Cupcakes for Men. No, Seriously. Cupcakes for Men. » Sociological Images — February 19, 2010
[...] posts: selling chocolate to men, real men don’t drink lattes, the Klondike mancave, a gendered menu, sugar’s for girls, energy drinks and masculinity, eat [...]
McCoy Crisps: Men are Stupid, Shallow, Sexist, Sport-o-Holics » Sociological Images — March 18, 2010
[...] as for-manly-men-only. Add this one, featuring McCoy Crisps, to some of our other examples: Dockers, Klondike Bar, Alpo, Oberto beef jerky, and Ketel [...]
“What is the opposite of ‘man’?” « Adi Adams — October 7, 2011
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/12/07/dockers-defines-manhood-as-anti-everything-except-di... Advertisement Eco World Content From Across The Internet. Featured on EcoPressed Stuff We Need: Solar Bridges Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Rjjspesh — November 24, 2011
Pathetic. And WHAT excatly is this precious 'manhood' anyway? It's seperation from women & the privelige that comes with it, that's what it is.
A Man — August 11, 2013
I seem to have wondered into a feminazi page. I'll leave before you gender psychos try to afeminate me.