Home > Commercials > Dockers “Wear The Pants” ad campaign – Part 2: …but who is responsible for getting us there?

Dockers “Wear The Pants” ad campaign – Part 2: …but who is responsible for getting us there?

Welcome to Part 2 of my look at Dockers’ “Wear The Pants” ad campaign. Part 1 can be read here. For reference, here is the ad again:

Now, as I said, the ad is a call for men to take back up their old ways of strength and leadership. However, it is not so much a call to arms as a challenge. It does recognize that men were stripped of their place in society, but it also saddles them with 100% of the responsibility for setting things straight. It ignores what the cause of the problem might have been, instead demanding that men just fix it by acting like real men again. In medicine it is considered bad practice to treat the symptoms without treating the cause, but that is what is happening here.

Here the cause is society, as a whole, which needs to change, but men can’t be made totally responsible for changing it. We aren’t all Hercules.

This ad’s sentiment is echoed by many public figures, like President Obama, who has given calls to men to ‘step up’ and become better fathers. That is unreasonable when you consider the world we live in. Men are being told to be more like traditional men, but those traditional men are hated by feminists everywhere.

Consider this:

When women were first entering the workforce, were they met with hostility for having not been working? Were they told to ‘toughen up’ and start ‘wearing the pants’? No, allowances were made, aid was given and support extended. Most of this had to come from the men who were in control of the workplace. If anything, they were given nice, clean pants. And they got to keep their skirts too.

Now let’s look at modern men:

First we have a nice guy who wants to be a better man. He decides to be more chivalrous and to take on more responsibilities of leadership. What might he get for allowances, aid and support?

  • Allowances: Women might ‘allow’ him to flee before he gets torn apart (verbally and/or physically) for trying to tell them what to do.
  • Aid: I am sure many women would be glad to ‘aid’ him in being chivalrous by taking every opportunity to exploit his politeness.
  • Support: There would be ‘support’ for him doing all the dirty work, as long as he doesn’t try to claim any special privilege for doing so.

Now how about a more family oriented man, trying to become a better husband and father. What would he see?

  • Allowances: He would probably be ‘allowed’ to take the kids to soccer when mom is tired.
  • Aid: I am sure he would get plenty of ‘aid’ in the chores, like snide remarks about how he did it wrong and constant check-ups.
  • Support: There are probably support groups.

The truth is this: women expanded their horizons with the assistance of supportive men. How can men be expected to do the same without the support of women? Men who wanted to see women doing more had to become feminists. Women who want to see men doing more will need to be masculists. That doesn’t mean telling men to man up, it means giving men back a position of respect and helping them to be proud of being male. Men don’t need to change to fit society, society needs to change to fit men.

It is unfair and misandristic to call on men to be ‘manly’ again without also calling on the rest of society to support them in doing so. That would be like suddenly calling on women to return to life as homemakers, without taking any action to allow them to make up the lost income from stopping work.

On the Internet, there is a word for such an idea:

St00pid.

And unreasonable, and impossible, and cruel, and…

Advertisements
  1. December 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    If I were a young woman, around 20, reading this thought process, I don’t think it would sound like anything I myself would think/do/expect of men. It is very unclear who these narrow-minded women really are, that you refer to as limiting
    men’s opportunities for more fulfilling lives. This woman you describe sounds like a throwback to the 50s – a cartoon of a woman, not a real person.

    Today’s women would want a WHOLE person as a friend/boyfriend/partner (someone fighting the social male-norm by making an intentional effort to BE the different man, a more whole person). Someone who both happily eats at the salad bar (in twills) AND hauls the compost to the garden (in denims). Someone who breaks a sweat shoveling the trail to make a safe pathway to a favorite bench AND sits with his girlfriend silently on the bench watching the wild birds in the forest. The DOER and the SEER. A whole person. Male strength AND appreciation of beauty being equal in value. Balance.

    Aren’t we each responsible to be that change we want?

  2. AQ
    February 12, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Wait, wait, wait… so “cities crumble” and “children misbehave” because men eat salad and drink lattes? And the call of manhood is to buy their pants? This is such an insulting, stereotyped, reductionist idea of masculinity! Aren’t you insulted as a man?

    • February 12, 2010 at 9:27 pm

      I believe that was the general meaning of my post on the subject.

      As I said, it’s “stoopid”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: