Superbowl Sexism: “Man-ifesto” edition

Transcript after the jump
Dockers’ feminist-hating “man-ifesto,” now in video form. Cause if dudes want to “wear the pants,” they should buy ugly khaki ones.


Dudes singing: I wear no pants [over and over and over again]
Voice-over: Calling all men…it’s time to wear the pants.

and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

11 Comments

  1. Comrade Kevin
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    Yes, I do like over-warmed myths, don’t you?

  2. supremepizza
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry where’s the sexism/anti-feminism here?
    The commercial makes no sense but there’s not a single reference to women…I think they’re saying guys who want comfort want Dockers (or some such; the ad isn’t all that intelligible). I may be clueless here, but I think maybe we’ve jumped the shark with this one.

  3. Jessica
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Check out the link to the print ad; that’s what I was referring to. This vid is just a continuation of a long-standing campaign.

  4. Destra
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Agreed. It was not the worst offender at the Superbowl, but it’s certainly has sexist undertones.
    Wearing the pants is an age old saying that again equates pants wearing to masculinity to power. It implies that you can’t be feminine and be powerful.
    I liked the concept of random people wandering through the hillsides, pantless, while singing silly songs. They need pants. Dockers has pants. I get it. It’s cute. However, coupled with the tagline, it crosses the line.

  5. MLEmac28
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    While this commercial was annoying, and has a sketchy ad campaign history, I wasn’t as bothered by it as the Dodge Charger ad.

  6. Sangha
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think these ideas are so much sexist as they are rather a fantasy created by marketing execs to better sell their products.
    They would rather have customers inside a neat box, instead of the scary alternative of having to be creative.
    How does this work?
    Let’s say that a marketing exec wants to sell a car. For the story’s sake, let’s say a Dodge Charger. ;)
    The marketing exec, instead of using creative skills, goes to the basement where there are a bunch of boxes on the shelves.
    Now, the Dodge Charger is in the MIDDLE-class buying range. So he goes to the middle section of the basement. Now, he decides whether or not a MAN, WOMAN, or BOTH want to buy the Dodge Charger. He goes for MAN, since many WOMAN have been successfully brainwashed into thinking that Chargers are BOY toys and that they should focus on Furniture.
    Now, he has a tough decision to make. Which RACE would like to buy the Charger? Well, the largest race in this MIDDLE-class MALE section are WHITE MAN. But there are other RACE in this MIDDLE section who can afford the Charger.
    Marketing Exec has a tough choice to make.
    Whether or not to be RACIST in his future commercial.
    Sure, RACISM may score him some FEAR points with some of the WHITE MIDDLE CLASS MALE, but why limit the product’s range? All of the MAN in the middle class section can buy the Charger and PROFIT is main GOAL.
    So, he opens up BOX MMA (Middle, Male, All).
    The box includes a letter inside.
    The BOX MMA species is downtrodden by WIFE, thanks to careful marketing that turned WIFE into an unrealistic stereotype whose always ask husband for HOUSE care, and CHILD help, often to Everybody Loves Raymond comedic effect. WIFE only concern is annoying BOX MMA.
    COMMERCIAL PLOT POINTS:
    BOX MMA wants to escape from WIFE. Now make sure to mention stereotypical WIFE bad points, and make an allusion to specific ITEM ability to escape WIFE.
    CUSTOMER watches this, and even though it resembles nothing like his real life, CUSTOMER believes it to be true and buys specific product.
    We have used this FORMULA thousands of times around the world and have even created many TV show episodes based on it. This FORMULA is deep in the psyche of CUSTOMER, thanks to our decades long work.
    Now our industrious Exec takes the document back upstairs, with a look of awe on his face, and he makes said commercial.
    CUSTOMER watches the commercial, nods his head along to stereotypical WIFE’S demands, and even though it’s not TRUE, he buys ITEM.
    CUSTOMER has been trained well.
    PS: Spelling mistakes are on purposes. ;) Also, I picked on BOX MMA, but there are many boxes. Which one do you fit in? ;)

  7. Eileen
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    I don’t understand why you think the thought process you just described isn’t sexist.
    And did you notice that you assumed that your imaginary executive was male? The people who devised this campaign very likely were male, as the majority of people who devise campaigns are male. And that’s not sexist… how?

  8. Sloppy Sandwich
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    I think you are misusing the expression “jump the shark.” When something used to be good, and has slowly been sliding into suckitude, there is sometimes a moment where you can say okay this thing now pretty much officially sucks, and that is when it has jumped that shark. The origin of this expression is the Happy Days episode where Fonzie waterski jumps over a shark.
    So we really haven’t jumped the shark in criticizing this add. The closest metaphor I can think of is that maybe we’re barking up the wrong tree.

  9. josieandseb.wordpress.com
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    I admit to being a little baffled by this commercial. The men seem pretty happy to be running through a field singing about having no pants – joyous, even. (I guess that’s because they’re too brainwashed by them feminist-types to realize that having no pants is a bad thing?) It makes running through a field singing about having no pants look really, really fun, like something I’d like to try my hand at.
    …But, wait, Dockers? I’m being tricked into putting on pants? What happened to being pant-less and free? :/
    -cate

  10. Sangha
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    I don’t understand why you think the thought process you just described isn’t sexist.
    I said these commercials were more fantasy than sexist. I didn’t say they weren’t sexist at all.
    And did you notice that you assumed that your imaginary executive was male?
    I did. Does it matter?
    The people who devised this campaign very likely were male, as the majority of people who devise campaigns are male. And that’s not sexist… how?
    Your logic is confusing. Because most of the people who designed these advertisements were male, that makes it sexist? Sexism does not need to be directed by a man towards a women or vice versa. A man can also be sexist against another man. A woman can be sexist towards another woman.
    But once again, I didn’t say the commercial wasn’t sexist, just that it was more fantasy based on unrealistic relationships created by marketing execs. In other words, I can’t name one man who doesn’t like talking to his girlfriend, yet still wants to be in a relationship with her. Usually, if you’re in a relationship, and you consistently do not want to talk to your partner, then that calls for divorce or breaking up. Both of which seem impossible in the worlds of these commercials. It also seems to be a staple of television shows, where the husband doesn’t want to spend any amount of time with his wife outside of the bedroom. Once again, I can’t think of a couple like that (who have lasted longer than a few weeks). That was my point.

  11. William
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think Dockers thought this ad through very well. I’ve just got the “I wear no pants” part stuck in my head.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

172 queries. 1.326 seconds