Dockers’ new “wear the pants” ad campaign has ired some who claim its message to be sexist. You can click the image for a larger size. I fired off a tweet about my affinity for the ad, and was then made aware that there were a good deal of mixed feelings about it. Exemplary criticism. Some thoughts -
This is a brilliant campaign. That said, the copy is crude and it’s easy to see how some would be offended by it. I’ll concede that it can be interpreted as sexist – the message could be delivered in a less polarizing fashion, though almost certainly at the expense of the campaign’s effectiveness. I love this ad because it raises some serious questions about what it means to be a modern man. The changing power dynamics between the sexes is two-sided coin. Dramatic, necessary and overdue advancements in the pursuit of gender equality have meant big changes for what it means to be man.
Being a “man” used to imply bread-winning. It used to imply the role of the disciplinarian, it used to imply not being a nurse or secretary – err administrative assistant.
The issue of masculinity is studied academically, there’s Fathers 4 Justice, a group dedicated to evening out what they perceive are discriminatory aspects of family law in Britain. There is interest, attention and efforts to better understand and advance what might loosely be called “the man movement”.
The question of “what it means to be a man” deserves more attention just as the Dockers campaign deserves the criticism it has received. Without claiming any grave injustice or victimization, or comparing the “plight of men” to any other group, it is an interesting question that has gone unanswered – a role defined by the negative space left around after “unacceptable” is extracted.
One of the best ways to draw attention – either to the product you’re hawking or an issue – is to stir up some controversy. I’m a fan of this campaign for the hope that out of the collateral damage there arises a productive conversation surrounding modern masculinity.
-Sean
I’ll admit it, I’m wound up tight about this marketing campaign. Any company that romanticizes oppressive gender norms and suggests that men should “answer the call of manhood” has lost my business. Sorry Levi’s, you just got yourself a boycotter. While I’m on the topic of Levi’s, Dockers parent company, let me just say that I find it ironic that a corporation born and raised in San Francisco, the gayest city in the US, has got the balls to rally the masses around the need to change “our genderless society” and suggest that we are “stranded” in androgyny. I’m not playing like a girl on this one, folks.
So go ahead men, reaffirm your hetero-masculine identity by going out there and buying yourself some khaki. Oh wait a minute? You don’t buy pants for yourself because that, too, might somehow lead to the crumbling of cities? Sit back down, I’ll wear the pants on this decision.
Dockers should have used their marketing campaign to convince both sexes that they like shopping. Then, and only then, would their marginalizing and oppressive messages actually increase sales.
As it is, those of us who are too weak to open doors for ourselves will shut the door on them.
This is a topic near and dear to my heart.
“Masculinity” and what it means to be a “man” is certainly in need of careful examination. We live in an age of male infantilization where we are told what not to be, but not given suggestions on what to be.
The success of Jersey Shore is a testimony to what happens when men react to this constant mass pressure from both the left and right (if gender roles may be bifurcated in such as way). It is simultaneously a voyeuristic journey into what men are not supposed to be and a reaffirming mass media portrayal of what we still aught to strive for.
Compound this with a recession that is disproportionately affecting mens jobs, and we as a gender as further lost as to what we are supposed to be.
Thanks God it’s Christmas time and we can go shopping to build ourselves up! This is an activity traditionally pitched to women, but no longer.
Sexist? Absolutely. But this is the satirical portrayal of who men are. Anyone who thinks men just need to stop crying about how hard it is to be a man is absolutely right. But, this does not mean that we should stop have a critical discussion of who we are so that the genders work towards supporting each other in mutual progress.
I think being a man is one of the hardest identities to pursue in today’s society. And frankly, I’m thrilled I don’t have to deal with it.
That viewpoint alone does not make me sympathetic to this unoriginal ad campaign.
But, I do wonder how I would feel if a gender role that is “acceptable” to me was pitched by a big company. Like a missive against beefy, braindead, and emotionless neanderthals that chronically open doors, in favor of a lifestyle more historically maligned and perscuted by society. I imagine that, even if that role wasn’t one I identified with, I’d be pleased.
So, where is the justice in that? The same free speech rules would apply in both circumstances – this is not a government-funded ad, so my tax dollars have nothing to do with justice, or reparations. And for me, the argument has always been about the freedom to choose my own identity, and have it respected prima facie. It’s hard to apply that ideology to marketing, and I make no claims that this idea is a perfect solvent for this situation. Scholars on the subject of society and culture would do a much better job than I, explaining the significance and terminal potency of advertising. But for my purposes, I’m going to use my layperson’s opinion, and say these companies try to paint attractive pictures of what life would be like with their product. That, to me, is offering an option of who to be and not infringing upon people’s oft-disrespected right to define their identity.
I suppose, then, my rejection of Dockers and endorsement of the opposite situation (pro-queer or pro-feminist or pro-x) is a function of a sort of affirmative action in marketing. Reframing the debate in these more-precise terms renders it much less clear-cut for me than simply castigating a recognizably oppressive gender role splashed across billboards.
I share Jessa’s reaction that this ad campaign makes me feel a little weird. This topic is actually fresh in my mind, having just recently taught high schoolers about the women’ rights movement (in which Amelia Bloomer popularized loose pants for women- shocking to many at the time). The Romans thought of the Gaulic people as “barbarians” because they wore pants. I guess the Romans were right in there with the androgynous latte sippers. This ad is interesting in that it denigrates latte drinkers, but they’re selling khakis…..while it attempts to play on themes about manliness, men who wear khakis on a regular basis are far more likely to drink lattes than the manly jeans-wearers who this ad seems to be appealing to.
Timmy D is right on the money when he notes the impact of the recession on men and their identity as economic providers. Despite decades of large increases of women into the job force, and two earner households, masculine identities have continued to be tied closely to the breadwinner role. Recessions and unemployment hit men extremely hard psychologically because of this close tie between male identity, and their job. This ad seems to me to be clearly aimed at men who might be feeling vulnerable in their masculinity due to the economy….but them again, a huge amount of advertising towards men does this, at all times, so who knows.
Bronwyn is right about advertising in general- it doesn’t even really attempt to sell products: it sells an image, an identity they want you to think this product will provide for you. Not masculine enough? The V8 Ford will do the trick. Advertisers have learned it’s much more powerful to tap into your sense of identity to sell a product, than what the product will actually do for you in practical terms.
I’m no ad expert, but I’ve noticed a good chunk of advertising that isn’t directly tied to playing on people’s sense of identity is tied to the idea that whatever they’re selling will give people more control or power over their situation in life: “take charge” of this that and the other thing with this product is a typical message. This, it seems to me, is playing off of the overwhelming sense many Americans have that they don’t have control over the major institutions that shape their lives: work, politics, etc. This is also a good theme to run during a recession when people feel helpless, and that could be in play with the “wear the pants” ad as well.
My question is: were any women in the room when this ad was floated in the Levi’s advertising office?
There is a prevailing belief in today’s society that any man who engages in “traditional” male activities is attempting a John Wayne impersonation instead of just being themselves. Why must every guy on a motorcycle be labeled as trying to live through James Dean, why can’t someone have a beard without being called “outdoorsy”?
This mentality bugs the shit out of me because it focuses not on how that action (bearded motorcycling) fits into the landscape of the person’s character, but on the proximity of that action to the branding of the act by ads like this one. The discussion begs for this question because it seems to be a starting point for how marketing has perverted the definition of masculinity to be these iconic definitions and thereby caused people to see those who happen to act out traditional male roles as trying to be male icons. The result is that no one is allowed an authentic behavior if that behavior already holds a significant place in marketing.
Sure the ad preys on the weak who are unable to delineate between a pair of pants and their own sense of gender identity – that’s cheap and mean, but cheap and mean has always been at the core of retail marketing and we should mock the industry accordingly. The ad screams out to those who want a simplistic sanctuary from the complexities of modern sexuality and for that reason is a step back toward greater tolerance. Again, we must mock and humiliate the industry accordingly.
Ultimately I think this ad uses a very basic method of bobbing and weaving with the trends. The jean market of a million different styles and fits is complex with social nuance, so Levi sees an open market and goes for selling something simple and brands the image of traditionalism. That’s pretty standard. If simple traditionalism became the trend, Levi’s would be selling sophistication and complexity. The sale is in the novelty and in this ad they do the same trick well.