Dockers Ad Campaign a Good Fit, With Some Alterations

2009-12-14
By

500x_pants

“We can thank Levi Strauss & Co. for a new Dockers ad campaign that weaves sexism and homophobia into a pitch for pants,” says The Boston Herald’s Lauren Beckham Falcone. Similar sentiments are being echoed in print media across the nation and scathing condemnations have gone viral on the internet, particularly on feminists websites.

“It’s time to answer the call of manhood,” the ad says, “It’s time to wear the pants.”

It’s a pretty straight forward pitch. Reactions to it have ranged from tepid to histrionic, with a growing amount of traction for the latter.

Falcone asserts that Levi Strauss is “..waxing romantic about the days of submissive ladies and alpha males..”

It’s a fairly moderate statement compared to offerings of walletpop.com writer Jami Bernard, who says, ““Wear the pants” is a call to arms, even when used jokingly, that says the only way to be a man is to put women in their place.”

Bernhard further castigates Strauss’s campaign as tantamount to rejecting women’s suffrage and a desire to relegate women to vacuuming and other “womanly” duties.

Those pants pack quite a wallop.

Intertwined with the allegations of misogyny and homophobia are cursory, glancing blows at the commercialization of masculinity, and sometimes embracing it. Amanda Hess of The Washington City Paper writes, “For all the absurd fashion and beauty trends thrown at women, as gender-essentials, it’s refreshing that men, too, are being encouraged to satisfy societies gender norms by shelling out $70 for a pair of pants.”

Hess may have a point, but as far as gender-essentials go, cars and homes, which men are routinely measured by, run a lot more than lipstick and mascara.

Still, there are problems with the ad to be sure. Masculinity doesn’t have a dress code and can’t be purchased off the rack. But demonizing Levi Strauss for that stretches reason and fairness to the breaking point.

Traditional masculinity has been sold in cans of beer, bottles of aftershave, sticks of deodorant and a plethora of other products for ages, ever counting on men to head out and shop for those things in Chevy Tough Trucks.

The real men buy our product pitch isn’t new, and hasn’t raised eyebrows in the past.

No, it’s something else that makes Dockers campaign different, and it has painted a target on the company, with detractors happily adjusting their sights to zero in on the kill shot.

The reason, the real reason, for all this outrage, pretty much boils down two key phrases in the ad.

“The world decided it no longer needed men.”

And, following that,

“There are questions our genderless society has no answers for.”

There’s the ideological bombshell. It is the politically incorrect, but completely cogent idea that the loss of traditional masculinity has a higher price tag than a pair of trousers. It’s a common sense reality that nonetheless has a lot of people outraged, and fearful, that anyone would express a positive regard for traditional men.

To understand that anger and fear, we must understand that there is much more that drives it than is on the surface, just as there is much more to be gleaned from the meaning of the ad than can be achieved with literalistic reductionism.

Levi Strauss & Co. are drawing fire because, intentionally or not, the company challenged an orthodoxy that sees traditional men as evil, and old school masculinity as something that required reengineering into the feminized model that more and more men are emulating today. This gender Zeitgeist includes the advertisers. They are in the upper echelons of movers and shakers in the world that “decided it no longer needed men.” At least not as they were born to be. Those that embraced that kind of thinking are largely the same people making all the noise right now.

So if we are going to honestly dissect and evaluate what is happening here, it helps to understand that the outcry about the Dockers ad isn’t a reaction to sexism, but indisputable evidence of it in those complaining.

Their indignation isn’t because there is sexism in the ad, but because it is the wrong kind of sexism. Their contempt is a backlash fueled by misandry- the hatred of men and boys. For it is misandry, not misogyny that has become the gold standard of advertisers. And it became institutionalized in the mainstream media the moment they figured out there was a fortune in it.

One might ask where the voices of Falcone, Bernard and Hess were when Fedex and Pepsi used images of Burt Reynolds and Justin Timberlake, respectively, getting their genitalia smashed as a sight gag in television commercials?

Quiet as church mice, perhaps?

They are just a small part of the deafening media silence as men have become the punching bags of choice in pitching everything from bathroom cleaners to breakfast cereal. The latest offering is a commercial from Anheuser-Busch that depicts a woman, with an unmistakable sadistic glint in her eyes, fixing a boutonnière to her husbands lapel with a nail gun, while he is wearing the jacket.

Then, of course, once done with the flower, she wants to take it further and use the same nail gun to repair the zipper in the pants he’s wearing. Were it not for the implications of a faulty zipper, it could have doubled as a Dockers ad.

And no one would have said a word, just as they are saying nothing about the Busch commercial.

By the way, Anheuser-Busch’s Mr. Masculine, who grimaced and flinched as nails were driven into his body, actually managed to say “no” to driving them into his crotch. But the commercial ends with her still going for it.

The point has again been made. Sexually mutilating men is funny, and profitable. It is such an effective weapon in the arsenal of advertisers that it can be used to sell veal to a vegan.

Keep in mind that this was a beer commercial broadcast during a pro football game. Again, veal to a vegan.

Where physical abuse isn’t employed, humiliation often is. It’s routine to portray men in commercials as one dimensional idiots who couldn’t pick an analgesic without a lecture and close supervision from their wives. Men have become, in the eyes of ad execs and consumers everywhere, the weakened, less-than-masculine objects of ridicule that the Dockers ad points to as a problem.

And while Levi Strauss & Co. stopped short of getting the message 100% correct, the company has nonetheless taken a big step away from the redundant misandry of the advertising industry– and have agitated the prevailing powers in the process.

It’s a groundbreaking step in the right direction.

It is also a step that will foster more reactions. Admonitions will be issued and boycotts will be called for. Pressure will be brought to bear to compel a retreat from the campaign.

Let us hope they are not successful. For if they are, the net result will be Levi Strauss learning all the wrong lessons. It will force the company to abandon something quite rare these days, an intelligent and thoughtful ad campaign, and send it back to a world where nail guns and kicks to the crotch are considered enlightened advertising.

It will send Levi Strauss back to a world that no longer needs men.

And if Strauss is concerned about that world, as it appears to be, it will eventually understand that the time for measuring men by compliance with forced chivalry has passed; that men have intrinsic worth that transcends mere utility to women. But if given simple respect; a modicum of dignity, they will protect women with their very lives. Men didn’t get that from a code of chivalry. It is, and always has been, in their nature. Chivalry is just a label; a tag put on the actions of men to define what was already there.

Let’s hope that the Strauss Co. will see that assuming that what is happening to men is of their own making, reflects, however well intended, the very sexism against men that created all these problems.

But above all let’s Hope that the good people of Levy Strauss & Co. see that the forces that are lashing out with such vitriol at their ad campaign today have been lashing out at men and boys for the last forty years, and that they see, once and for all, that it is time for it to stop.

The company will need courage and conviction to do that. But that shouldn’t present a problem. Courage and conviction are just two of many things that come with wearing the pants.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

2,237 views

  • Lazier Than Thou

    While I certainly agree with the over arching idea that men are seen in society as enjoyably disposable, I can’t help but think that there is a line where we could be taking our righteous indignation too far. I, personally, believe that feminism has no real sense of humor(aside from the misandry) and I’m afraid the MRM might move in that direction. Part of what draws me to the ideas of the MRM is the idea that we could be better than that, willing to laugh at a joke at our expense while still holding fast to the ideals that make us strong.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that there are battles to be fought and won in the advertisement and media areas, but I’m also of the opinion that advertisements don’t force reality. Instead they seek to explain it or profit on the incongruities. The beer ad you spoke of, specifically, is not trying to push the idea that men are disposable or destroyed in an amusing fashion, rather showing that society does view men in that way. I think the idea should be to get angry at the underlying ideas expressed by the ad, not specifically the ad itself.

    I think it’s entirely possible that I’m speaking out of turn here because I’m tired(insomnia) and I have a headache so maybe this doesn’t directly apply to you. I’m just worried that the MRM could lose any sense of humility and become another feminism that is unbending and horribly corrupt. The ability to laugh at ourselves(or horrible depictions of ourselves) will go a very long way to remedying this personal concern.

  • DonnieH

    Bud Light commercials-

    They’ve all become about women trashing men. In addition to the one above, another features a man being pushed out of a moving car and another features a man (waiter) being tripped and sent through a large window. All done by women against men. Bud Light used to have some awesome commercials (Swear Jar, Waaaassssuuuuupppppp!), it’s really tanked since InBev (EuroWeinnies) took over AB. Maybe the new women-whomping-men ads are funnier to European men?

    As to putting women in their place: Often, the best place to put them is in your rear-view mirror. Like the ad says- put on your pants. Put them on and walk away.

  • Ray

    Through this advertising, we have seen a gender feminist reaction that the lid to a Pandora’s Box holding men’s issues has been opened on a national level.

    Will this prove to be the unveiling of the truth behind gender feminism’s curtain of deceptions and lies, or will the weight of misandrist harpy shouts drive the lid to the box closed so hard it will never more be opened? Ironically, men’s issues are not a Pandora’s Box, but something that when finally let out in the open and taken seriously will benefit all males, their families and all people of good will.

    I would hope that this ad is the beginning of a series of men’s issues ads by this company, but given that the bottom line of any company is profit, not ideology, I suspect the company will look at sales at all levels and gauge future ads accordingly. In other words, will any fall-off in women’s wear (no pun intended) be offset by an increase in sales of men’s wear. Ideally, an increase in sales of men’s and women’s wear should be seen as American consumers show their concern for men’s issues that have been grossly neglected for so long.

    Of course, this ad directly attacks the cornerstone of gender feminist ideology that holds that males are members of a vast Patriarchal conspiracy that oppresses women through power and control over them. Showing men in a benevolent and caring light undermines gender feminism’s basic tenet (Patriarchal oppression) so foundational to maintaining their tyrannical destruction of all things male.

  • Alphacat

    Let’s help our allies and not assist our enemies. I have stopped purchasing any Budweiser products and sent a letter to them explaining why. I also have begun to buy Johnnie Walker products due their male-positive ads. I also sent an e-mail to them, lauding their ads. I will now do the same for Dockers.

    Our women and children need men that have not been emasculated. Let’s use our purchasing power and the internet to right this ship.

  • http://www.standyourground.com POIUYT

    Paul Elam,

    The strauss advert is a double entendre. And it is one that, far from challenging the current orthodoxy, implicitly affirms it.

    The advert asserts an underlying expectation of males to be appropriately chauvenist when they’re clearly not and uses this reverse attempt to goad males into buying its product.

    Check the advert again, to see whom on account of their gender alone, nescesarily gets responsibilities and obligations and whom for elective other reasons appropriately enjoy privilages.

  • Jay R

    This is a wonderful development. It needs to be followed up with a “wear the skirt” advertisement. (Guess what ladies, being a miserable ball-buster as you aspire to become nothing but a second-rate man just isn’t going to get you what you really want — unless you enjoy being left completely alone, or treated like a human toilet by men who despise you even as they use your oh-so-available vagina.)

    And the hateful harpies (and mewling manginas) can just shut the hell up — or at least go somewhere else where their whining won’t annoy the normal people.

    Feminists: “We will kick men in the testicles until they love us!” “Why isn’t it working?! Guess we’ll just have to kick harder.”

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ poiuyt

    Surely you don’t think I didn’t read it carefully before setting off on writing an article.

    You are missing the point here. I criticized, quite openly, the aspects of the ad that were founded strictly on male service. (See, I really did read it) but I am compelled to acknowledge two things.

    One, the heat they are taking and where it is coming from is telling enough.

    And two, which is most important, we live in a culture where words like misandry and masculist still get underlined in red on spell checks. It is foolish to go off on tirades against people who don’t get every i dotted and t crossed coming out of the gate.

    Unless you want to force them right back where they came from.

    I am convinced there is goodness in this, even if it wasn’t shaped by twenty years in the trenches of this god awful gender war on behalf of men.

    So my personal suggestion is not to shoot them down, but to go buy a pair of Dockers, and send a copy of the receipt to them, advising whoever reads it that the purchase was for a good effort and that it is also a down payment on better attempts in the future.

    We need to TEACH people POIUYT, not just alienate them for not “getting” what it takes most of us years to get to.

  • http://www.standyourground.com POIUYT

    Thank you paul for your optimism, your effort and your vision in relation to this article and other things.

    Yet the politics of the mens movement, in crude terms, requires its adherents to automatically criticise, deconstruct, re-interprete, re-render and dispute everything. Blindly, fanatically, hysterically and indeed reflexively exceeding the methods of mans enemies, not least some males themselves.

    In view of the above, absolutely nothing at all is ever to be met with gratitude, but a perpetual insistence or a perpetual alternative or a perpetual difference. This isn’t madness but a methodical political matching of males’ enemies in order to exceed them.

  • http://www.benevolentgrammarian.blogspot.com bmmg39

    I can’t understand why, on MEN’S NEWS DAILY, for cripes’ sakes, anyone would be praising this ad. We absolutely SHOULD be moving away from this gendered society in which men (and men alone) are expected to be the heroes, the servants, and the ones helping old ladies cross the street.

    The idea that the world feels it no longer needs men or that women show disrespect to men is a separate topic entirely. I’m tired of men being treated like dung, and that’s precisely why I reject this old-fashioned idea of gender roles, in which men are expected to jump in front of a speeding bus and die happily doing so, all so the princess won’t get mud on her Italian shoes.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the necessity automatic criticism and reflex rigidity.

    To me, criticism should be a product of individual evaluation, performed as objectively as possible, not just as a knee jerk. And certainly I feel the need to look at deeper things with a corresponding depth of vision.

    The beauty of the MRM, and also one of it’s shortcomings, IMO is the lack of organization. Each man is his own cell, and can act as he wishes.

    I have no doubt there are circumstances in which your approach would be superior. But I think it is also wise to consider that we need reps out there to help educate people with good intent but bad information.

    Cheers

  • http://www.benevolentgrammarian.blogspot.com bmmg39

    “But if given simple respect; a modicum of dignity, they will protect women with their very lives.”

    – and then women will do the same for men. That’s the only way this thing is gonna work, folks.

    Everybody needs to stop blaming “the feminists” every time there’s some slight against men. There are pro-male feminists and misandrist feminists. There are also good traditionalist women and misandrist traditionalist women.

    The woman who says, “Don’t worry, boys! I’m not one of those feminists who thinks women and men are equal! I still expect you to hold the door for me, pay for my dinner, and then die in order to save my life!” is NOT your friend. I’d rather be with a feminist who considered me her equal than with an anti-feminist woman who expects me to be her unpaid bodyguard and her ATM.

    Please note: the mentality that it’s somehow funny for a woman to be using stapling a flower to a man’s chest is the same mentality that demands that men “start acting like men,” “start wearing the pants,” or “start taking it like a man.” Boycott Budweiser with my blessings, but don’t think for a minute this Dockers ad has the best interest of men at heart.

  • Ray

    Well, were getting at the heart of something I haven’t been able to put my finger on exactly for some time, but that I’ve struggled to define. I was dirt bike riding in the Ozarks with my brother and nephew a few summers back and read a book by Dr. Warren Farrell, during the same time period.
    “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint)” by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba

    I found myself comparing the liberated man envisioned by Dr. Farrell, a liberal, and my own traditional male role/behavior of the moment as “hell rider of the Ozark mountains.” It was quite a contrast. Was I really enjoying myself dirt bike riding, busting over big rocks, barreling full throttle through deep water holes, or was I just engaging in another sport, another behavior used to prepare men for disposability? Where did my self-exploitive, disposablity-conditioning, male behavior end and where did the explorer/discoverer behavior begin?

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a traditional, conservative man present an image (a role model) of what a liberated traditional man would look like, but I’d like to see that defined sometime. The truth is most traditional men don’t even think about what a liberated, conservative man would be and just accept the status quo. I even think that “liberated, conservative/traditional man” is an oxymoron, considering the responses I’ve seen from most conservative men regarding men’s issues. They’re not brainwashed/braindead male feminists who are merely toadies of gender feminism. I find traditional men are just completely blank to the idea that there’s any other role for men than the traditonal, chivalrous one.

    Although I greatly admire the work of Dr. Farrell, I’m not sure he’s definitively defined the role of “the liberated man.” Is there any place left for a traditional man and his values and behavior in the role of “the liberated man that’s been defined by liberal men like Dr. Farrell?”

    Given the technologically advanced society in which we live, what factors should define the role of the well-rounded, liberated man who has traditionally been required to be: success driven, mentally superior, physically superior, financially superior, procreationally superior, possession rich, etc.?

    What defines and completes the modern liberated man? Is it: success, sexual prowess, female companionship (single or multiple), money, worldly possessions, spiritual transcendence, or something else?

    Is it possible to have Dr, Farrell’s liberated man and a conservatively liberated man as two alternative male roles for 21st century mankind?

  • http://conniechastain.com Connie

    Is Madison Avenue starting to see the light? Just when I was getting sick of the smart-mouthed little girl explaining to her daddy why the sky is blue, along comes not one but two TV commercials that pay homage to males as builders.

    The first is for Samsung washing machines. Commercial depicts a mom emptying the pockets of a pair of her son’s jeans that she’s about to launder; son comes along, sees his “stuff” lying on top of the washer and uses the items (looks like a machine bolt, perhaps a square eraser, and various other things) to build a precariously balanced tower atop the washer (demonstrating that the machine doesn’t vibrate). The concentration on his face as he stacks the items is just, so, boy.

    The second is a Lego Christmas commercial that shows a son and father (or perhaps grandfather) building a village out of Legos. I don’t know if this is an underhanded smack at the teaches who banned Legos in the interest of promoting “social justice” http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml
    but I like to think so.

    Television is so anti-male I hardly watch it anymore, but now and then, it’ll surprise me.

    I think men and women have different roles and are better at different things (this doesn’t mean every single individual). Men are, among other things, builders. They are also, or should be, leaders, of the family, government, business, academia, church… This doesn’t mean women can’t help, or that they can’t lead if they have to; but men are the natural leaders. I think that’s the message of the Dockers ad.

  • Emily

    LOVE LOVE LOVE this campaign. I think men should wear the pants. Women are equal to men, no doubt about that. For some reason people think our differences are deserving of competition. We dont need to compete. We need men to be men and women to embrace being women. Please, please, men, make us feel loved, cherished and safe. Be men.

  • http://www.benevolentgrammarian.blogspot.com bmmg39

    Yes, all men are men. And all women are women. X = X. Reflexive property.

    A man is a man even if he bakes cookies, does needlepoint, and cries during sad movies.

    And a woman is a woman even if she drives a truck, plays basketball, and occasionally has gas.

    Men want to feel loved and cherished just as much as women do.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Jay Hammer

    Thanks for the question. I think it is a fair one, though I have to take some exception to how it is framed.

    To give you some context, let me speak for a moment to my own views. I am a constitutional conservative. And as such I have a lot of concern about many of the far right elements that have not only hijacked the conservative brand, but also, and this is my opinion, philosophically cohabit with MRA’s to our severe detriment.

    In terms of the affairs of men, to me they are as dangerous and destructive as the far left, only they have the added negative of operating in a sort of philosophical stealth.

    That being said, those are my personal views and my position here is to serve MND, as its editor, not to screen the boards for anything I find myself in disagreement with. Were I to pursue that path, I would be the only one published here.

    MND has an open invitation for alternative views, and I give all submissions due and fair consideration as long as they meet the editorial guidelines.

    But back to your original question, I simply have to disagree. Global warming is a much contested issue, within politics and within the scientific community, though admittedly the line between the two has been obscured.

    Taking a position on either side of the argument does not, in any way I can define, identify anyone as an extremist. It is a relevant, current issue and as editor I will consider any submissions on either side of the argument, again provided they meet editorial guidelines.

    The primary focus of MND is on men’s rights, but we do not require that all submission must only address that subject.

    As to your comment, I never saw it, and I read all of them in the site admin. If you would care to resubmit it, I will be happy to approve it.

    Thanks for your concerns.

    Paul

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @jay hammers

    The issue of global warming is relevant to the MM, because a close look at those pressing all the alarm bells are being funded by the same groups/types of people who promote feminism.

    Both have much to do with money (lots of it) and empire building.

    Furthermore, while, in your blog, you insist that the ‘data’ shows that GW is occurring, the data is not ‘clean’ by any means.

    The raw data has been ‘homogenised’ and recalibrated to fit the models.

    But it is supposed to go the other way!!!

    You are supposed to fit the models to the data!

    Thus, something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the whole methodology.

  • Masculist

    Thanks bmmg39 for acknowledging the restrictiveness of traditional male gender roles. Like you, I also believe that the traditional male gender role sucked long before PC feminism ever came along. And I too would rather share the company of a fair feminist than a die-hard traditionalist. Throughout history it has been mostly disposable men and boys who had to hold back their tears, “suck it up”, and “take it like men” by being providers, protectors, chivalrists, beasts of burden, and cannon fodder just so that females could live safe, pampered, and fulfilling lives as princesses or helpless damsels who enjoy the fruits of man’s labors.

    All males have XY chromosomes. That is what makes them men.
    Traditionally, men may have “wore the pants”. However, traditionally women have “wore the skirt”. And from where I am standing, there is MUCH more power associated with a skirt than a pair of pants. After all, it is considered perfectly fine for a female to wear pants, but it is NOT considered perfectly fine for a man to wear a skirt (which in and of itself is very telling a man’s narrow freedom of choice). Body guards are not considered as special or important as the people they protect. And men have traditionally been these bodyguards. If women are not willing to risk their lives to protect their men, I assert that these women do not love their husbands as much as these husbands love their wives. To say that men have loving “protective instincts” is like saying that women have “destructive instincts” (relatively speaking). True or not, that is not true love. Not even close. It is male exploitation and manipulation. Men and women alike have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Kant: “Feminine traits are called weakness. People joke about them. People ridicule them. But reasonable people can see very well that those traits are just the traits for the management of men, and the use of men for female designs” (approximate quote).

    Esther Vilar: “Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves”.

    E. Belfort Bax (1913):

    “It is rarely that anyone takes the trouble to refute the legend in
    general, or any specific case adduced as an illustration of it.
    When, however, the bluff is exposed, when the real facts of the case
    are laid bare to public notice, and woman is shown, not only as not
    oppressed but as privileged, up to the top of her bent, then the
    apostles of feminim, male and female, being unable to make even a
    plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott,
    and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of
    the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause.”

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    Hello Jay -

    I watched your video: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

    This is a fine introduction to cosmology — thanks for posting it. I would guess, though, that most regular visitors to MND are a more sophisticated lot than you seem to give them credit for. I would say the video was pitched at about an 8th grade audience — which is fine for the Washington Post or CNN — but our demographic surveys show that the majority of MND’s readers are college graduates.

    (One point of irony in the video: the “black box” hook of course made me think of Schrodinger’s Cat, and the physical limits of human knowledge.)

    BTW, if you have kids, you might consider turning them on to the classic cartoon series Eureka!, which is a more comprehensive crash course in basic Newtonian science — and fun for all ages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-7kkAu2Pg

  • jjtaup

    I must admit, I do in moderation believe in the fairly traditional gender roles. Yes, when my house is on fire I’m going to make sure my wife and children get out safely even at the expense of my life. In return, I expect her to treat me special (which isn’t always the case from either side). Women and men aren’t equal in my book, and you can call it sex for money (I work, she manages the home), that’s just fine by me–as long as both sides fulfill their obligations.

    Of course L-S isn’t doing this for love of manhood–they’re in it to make money (which doesn’t excuse Budweiser et. al). Nonetheless, obviously someone there has some balls, cause this ain’t the kind of poster you’d put on your car and expect to make it home. Most of all, this is a sign of the changing times, and I beleive the sacrifice that so many men have made in bringing attention to the gross inequality before the law of the sexes is having effect.

    Lazier than Thou’s admonition should not by overlooked, however. I don’t want to see the men’s movement turn into the same hateful demanding, demeaning cesspool that is feminism. This movement is (should be!) about truth, justice, and family.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ jjtaup

    I don’t want to see the men’s movement turn into the same hateful demanding, demeaning cesspool that is feminism. This movement is (should be!) about truth, justice, and family.

    I don’t really think that will be a problem. Despite the expected fringe presence of some whiners and misogynists, the voice of the MRM is impeccably clean, compared to that of feminism.

    I am sure that like most MRA’s that you have seen some of the lists of quotes from feminists through the times. You know, all sex is rape, men are rapists and that’s all they are, a woman needs a man like a bicycle needs….yada, yada, yada.

    No corresponding nonsense like this has been attached to any MRA icons that I know of. In fact, most of them speak only with clarity about the truth and justice you mentioned.

    I don’t think we are vulnerable to lowering ourselves to that because we self police much more effectively than feminists could ever dream to, which is to say that by all accounts there is no evidence that feminists self police at all. They self protect and self serve, but don’t self regulate.

    And that it what will take them down in the end, despite the current imbalance of power.

    There have been other male friendly ad campaigns in the past, but this is the first one that actually came out and literally said some things that need to be said.

    Anti-male bias in the media is a long established concern of the MRM. I can only hope that the Dockers ad represents a shift to another direction.

  • jjtaup

    I agree, Jay. We should have more posts from NAMBLA members. This site is just -oh- so undiverse. We should also have a column devoted to Islamic terrorists in the military. They’re so oppressed you know, because Admiral Mullen is so narrow minded. While we’re at it, how come no writers are dyed-in-the-wool feminists!? Harumph. No diversity whatsoever!

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    Jay – MND publishes MRA authors who adhere to our guidelines. The articles you cited above were written by individuals with a political opinion. Since we honor freedom of expression among MRAs, we are honored to publish their ideas to the world.

    One common theme among MRAs is that many appear unhappy with feminism’s cozy relationship with “liberalism”. In fact, it is plain that feminism is a full-fledged member of the runaway counterculture that modern liberalism now represents. In my view, the ideologies of modern liberalism are antithetical to the classical liberal values it purports to champion.

    So when you defend liberalism and parrot the talking points of the international Greens, you are automatically taking sides with an ideology that is in collusion with feminism and the postmodern narrative where even physical reality is considered relative and contingent.

    Contrary to your claim that MND is a “right wing site”, personally, I reject conservatism because IMO — taking a page from Baudrillard — the map of conservatism has become hopelessly disconnected from its territory..

    This is not the fault of its faithful adherents, but of the whirlwind changes in the conditions of urban life in a modern economy. For example, compared to past generations of humanity, ordinary men are visited with weighted disadvantages meant to curb the natural lustiness of the masculine experience. Indeed, the competitive aggression so prized in earlier generations of our species have become a sudden liability except in policemen and soldiers.

    By definition conservatism seeks generational stability and predictable conditions — so right away the very concept of conserving is diluted by the rapid changes in the economy and across our society. Can traditional men now be “conserved”? It’s too late for that. Something has changed. That’s what conservatives don’t understand. For them, chivalry and the duties of a modern warrior are enough to find their manhood and purpose. But most of us have no interest in becoming jailers, security guards, cops or soldiers. So what’s left? Conservatism doesn’t know.

    Speaking for myself, I have no affinity to either the left or the right, but seek only to find my own way as an independent reasoning being, unallied with any organized political group and unencumbered by PC groupthink. Other MRAs are free to choose their own biases.

  • Leila

    Excellent article, Mr. Elam. I quite enjoyed it

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Jay

    In the area of diverse opinions, I would encourage you to consider how many websites similar to this one would allow this type of posting to continue. Indeed, how many of of them would have both the editor and publisher come in to the thread to field your questions in the face of all this ranting?

    I think you may be on the only one.

    That being said, as far as your wishes that this website loses support and traffic, I welcome you to make your personal contribution to that end at any time you so choose.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Leila

    Many thanks.

  • allen tucker

    Have I been excommunicated…or are you just “moderating”

  • allen tucker

    Somehow….T.V. must be made morally interactive, and not as morally passive….opps… I forgot…that’s called the innernet…Feministic T.V. ( Talking.Vaginias.) as we know it is dieing a slow and deservied death due to the innernet. When the air waves went digital a while back, I decided that everything I needed could be had in a smart phone ! After getting my “G1 smart phone”, I Threw out all my paper media and the 5 old school T.V. sets I had. I never bought any new versions of either…I am now in complete control over to whom I speak, to whom and how and what type of contents or info enters my brain. I now have full independent control over your opinions and their speed of effect on me as well..so why and what purpose could T.V. possible do for me as a male ? But yet there is much harm it could do and is doing, as a male ! Unlike the bad ole days of T.V. was the only entertainment, I had to sit there, idlly,passively,on time and quietly, while it “SURPRISED” me with another dreadful-UNasked for: “kick in dick” commercial after “kick in the dick”show after commercial after show after commercil after show after commercial (you get the point ) of male pain and inconciderate humiliation , for me as a male viewer….I f***in got sick and tired of it with out any say in the mean spirted content….so, I threw the son of bitches in the back yard and like “‘LOT”( of the Bible) never looked back…Enough ball kicking !…like rape…I didnt need nor want, Madison Aves. or HollysHole’s (Hollywood) little “SURPRISE OF MALE BASHING! ” in my house, without my permission. On the innernet I find Everything I need, at the exact times I need it, to having only what I want shown to me and nothing else but whats wanted, with endless varity ! If I want interaction…the chat rooms..if I want to see a girl get kicked in the box…endless videos (not even one has ever been seen for a males self defense purposes, or even been suggested to males, on T.V….not once… in 50 yrs…isn’t that by itself a little strange ? ) I got Fired up with not finding any male protection from this type of shit, which led me to this MENS site within one day of getting the new G1 phone….so, unlike youall, can’t say I had the displeasure of that paticular ad or any nasty T.V. ads sense oct. 08. ad..but thru the innernet, I now know what not to do…and by that I mean : “I WON’T BUY…go get for…recommend… ANY A.BUSCH PRODUCTS OR ITS PARENT CO.S PRODUCTS…IN LIFE…EVER “….that’s a very long time…TO ALL AD EXECS…MAN TOO MAN..IF ….YOU HARM OUR GENDER….ILL PULL MY TENDER…I AIN’T PLAYIN !

  • Michael Thompson

    The question of humour in advertising is a very interesting one. There are many ads which portray men as dullards and the advertising agencies hide behind ‘humour’. If anyone takes offence they are branded as humourless.

    Most men can take a joke as long as it is meant as a joke but many aggressive people hide their intent to hurt behind jokes because it gives them a kind of escape if their aggression is exposed for what it truly is. The blame is shifted to the victim who just doesn’t have a ‘sense of humour’. The only way to tell the difference between a playful joke and an attempt to belittle, ridicule or hurt someone else is to see it in context. How well do you know that person who is having a joke? Is what they say consistent with what they do? For example, do they belittle men in other ways and generally have bad attitudes towards men or are they usually very respectful and diligent about ensuring men are treated equally. What is their body language and tone of voice? Is it threatening and sarcastic or is it jovial and light hearted. Jokes have to be evaluated in context because not all ‘jokes’ are meant to be funny.

    Advertising agencies which presume such familiarity are treading on thin ice. There is no context of relationship between the agency and the target of the advertising. There is no body language to communicate intent of either playfulness or malice. An agency that creates advertising which can be misinterpreted has no one else to blame but themselves if they are seen as being malicious. It is just as easy to create very good advertising which has no such ambiguity. Indeed many agencies deliberately hide behind the ambiguity because they do not have the integrity to state clearly what they are truly saying in their ads.

    It is not only the products that should be boycotted but the agencies themselves and all the other products they have anything to do with. Men and women should be saying we do not like the way you cowardly hide behind the ambiguity of ‘jokes’ in you advertising. We do not like your lack of respect and your lack of values and we will not be supporting any product that is advertised by you.

    The LS poster is probably not meant to be humorous but it is ambiguous in many other ways. It may or may not be malicious. It could be sarcastic. Either way it is poor advertising. Perhaps it was just meant to stir up emotions so that the brand name becomes a talking point. People begin to argue about its intent and that mushrooms in to heaps of free publicity for the brand. It could be intentionally manipulative. Such advertising should not be rewarded if it is trying to deceive. We should become suspicious of any agency which tries to deceive us. If they are trying to deceive us in this way then why should we believe them when they laud the merits of the product they are trying to sell?

  • allen tucker

    Jokes/humor…and how to question and re-focus an offenders faults back to them….”oh your such a uppity so & so and so on” said to you with light heated joyious tones..(insults framed as humor)…so you call them out on the insultuious ” uppity so & so” part…and they defensively say to you, “well…you oviously havn’t any sense of humor”…or the…”you very oviously can’t take a joke ! “…here’s how I reply to such insult/jokes….”well John”,I’d say, “I caught the insult part of what you’re saying. But somehow the humor escaped me in the punch line part, funny…all I detected was your intended punch….stops em dead in their tracks everytime…and quite embarrassing in public to them as well…why? Its simple. See, no one can tell a joke twice without running the risk sounding like an insulting-bore, or risk coming across as a borish-dullard…doesn’t matter either way, their trapped…the hot potatoe go’s back into tossers lap. And the important part…not in yours…and so I ask of all commercials, back,then, when I used to watch T.V. ” ? Where’s the beef ?” and by that , I mean, ?-Where’s the punchline ? Is there one ?, or am I merely. as a gender, getting punched ?

  • J.

    You’re an idiot for stating that the commercialized humiliation of men is just as bad as an advertisement that blatantly states women can’t cross the street by themselves without men. Are the crotch shot gags okay? No, I agree. Is it as bad as directly stating that women can’t fend for themselves without “real men”? Not even close.

    Not to mention the homophobic undertones in this, which you don’t even mention. Disco? Salad bars? Lattes? Who do you think they’re blaming the “crumbling cities” and “misbehaving children” on?

    While those two quotes were pretty bad, you ignored the rest of the ad which was significantly worse. Sure, your somewhat neutral stance works for those two lines. What of the rest? What of the little ladies, the latte drinking men? What of the “wear the pants” call to arms?

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    You’re an idiot for stating that the commercialized humiliation of men is just as bad as an advertisement that blatantly states women can’t cross the street by themselves without men.

    It is hard to respond adequately to that since I didn’t say anything of the sort, nor did I even imply it.

    Not to mention the homophobic undertones in this, which you don’t even mention. Disco? Salad bars? Lattes? Who do you think they’re blaming the “crumbling cities” and “misbehaving children” on?

    I don’t drink lattes, but had no idea that they were indicative of sexual orientation. I used to dance a mean streak in discos back in the day and I still eat at salad bars. Trust me, I need to.

    I assume that the ads reference to misbehaving children was a reflection of disempowered men in the home, a product of the state usurping the disciplinary role of the father and that the crumbling cities reference was indicative of a lack of leadership from men. None of it appeared to me to point to sexual orientation so I found nothing in the ad to address on that.

    While those two quotes were pretty bad, you ignored the rest of the ad which was significantly worse. Sure, your somewhat neutral stance works for those two lines. What of the rest? What of the little ladies, the latte drinking men? What of the “wear the pants” call to arms?

    I think I pretty clearly addressed the matter of “little old ladies” crossing the street by addressing chivalry. And I think, even if it was tacitly, that I addressed the matter of the “call to arms” by inferring that any such characterization of the intent of the ad in those terms is nonsense.

    As with the ad being an attack on women’s suffrage and seeking to relegate them to household duties, I didn’t think I could add to them.

    Res ispa loquitur.

  • http://conniechastain.com Connie

    Mr. J, I don’t know of any commercials that say women can’t cross the street by themselves; the reference in the Dockers ad is less about the incapability of women and more about the deterioration of our culture.

    There appears to be conflicting views of chivalry among the MRM, but to me the notion of men helping “little old ladies” (not “women”) across the street implies recognition of the diminishing abilities that age brings on and the greater physical strength of men. Somehow, I don’t find recognition of these facts humiliating, even in a clothing ad.

    As for youthful misbehavior–

    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders …
    90% of all homeless and runaway children …
    71% of all high school dropouts …
    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers …
    63% of youth suicides …
    80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger …
    70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions …
    85% of all youths sitting in prisons …

    …come from fatherless homes; that is, homes where there is nobody to wear the pants.
    http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/econ/nodad.htm

    Figure out what has brought about this proliferation of fatherless homes and you’ll have a better idea who deserves the blame.

    As for crumbling cities, they are the physical manifestation of our crumbling culture, the basis of which is the natural family, which is under sustained attack from the ideological left.

    Misbehaving children in crumbling cities are a major reason why old ladies shouldn’t cross the street alone — why it can be dangerous for them to even leave their homes alone.

    The disco/plastic fork/latte comments reference the shallowness our culture has developed as a result of the diminishing influence of a strong, male mindset. It isn’t so much homophobic as it’s a statement about cultural effeminateness — a recognition that feminization of the culture without counterbalancing masculinization is not a positive state.

    I don’t know who is the ad agency for Levi Strauss — whether they meant this ad as a backhanded insult, as subtle ridicule, or an honest observation about men and our society; but whatever they intended, they hit several nails squarely on the head.

  • Dabir Dalton

    Re: I would say the video was pitched at about an 8th grade audience — which is fine for the Washington Post or CNN — but our demographic surveys show that the majority of MND’s readers are college graduates.
    __________

    Mike keep it simple as a college degree means little in this day and time when it comes to the actual intelligence of the average male and this includes those who read MND…Until the MRM and the FRM figure out a way to reach the man in the street (those men without college degrees our society relies upon to keep it humming along smoothly even as both women and men in suits spit on em) these movement’s will continue to stumble along and spin their wheels in the utter darkness of intellectual snobbish and bigotry…

    The man in the street has ample and well justified reasons for not trusting those men who have a college degree…While one of the many reasons I stopped supporting the MRM and the FRM is the near invisible undercurrent of tyranny (unless one knows where to look) along with the intolerance of dissent running just beneath the surface of not only the MRM and FRM but is also the defining hallmark of both political liberalism and conservatism…






Search