Liking these posts? Follow us on Twitter or fan us on Facebook — this is the edited version of what we’re reading! (We also Tweet if we hear about a good sale.)
- Yes, we’re making this a weekly pitch until voting ends: We are honored to have been nominated for the ABA’s Top 100 “Law Blawgs.” We would love it if you would vote for us! Click here to register (it’s free), and then click here to vote for us (in the “Lighter Fare” category).
-The WSJ advises on how to survive holiday parties: hint, it involves researching your Facebook’d colleagues. Meanwhile, Forbes advises what not to wear to one.
- SheFinds lays out the fashion math: those Louboutin pumps are cheap!
- Daily Candy suggests a new product to help runs in your stocking.
- Dockers has a new campaign, focusing on what a better world we all lived in when men wore the pants. Yes, seriously.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
The Dockers campaign is so incredibly offensive, I don’t even know where to start. I saw the ads in Penn Station and I almost couldn’t believe it. Here’s a sample “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.”
Talk about barely veiled homophobia, sexism, & revisionist history.
While I think these ads are douchey (and so are Dockers) – let’s be honest here – are they any worse than Paris Hilton eating a cheeseburger while she “washes a car”?
Those ads suck too. The crappiness of advertising is not zero sum.
Axe bodyspray. One of the worst, in my opinion.
I am actually SHOCKED by this!
Maybe it’s because I associate Dockers with general dorkiness, but I can’t say I am all that offended. It seems more goofy than sexist.
I might feel differently if the slogan was for Harley Davidson clothing, but the only thing I find shocking here is that Dockers is trying to claim some sort of archetypal, masculine mantle.
That is really offensive. My husband asked for casual khaki pants for Christmas . . . I guess he won’t be getting Dockers!
Jesus Christ, that is the most offensive thing I’ve heard in ages. The Dockers people are clearly taking all the wrong lessons from Mad Men.
Isn’t there a whole load of research showing a majority of working aged men in a couple simply don’t shop for clothing alone?
Based on that the ad campaign simply seems badly concieved and targeted.
C , your Forbes link takes me to the NYTimes story.
Wow. Dockers, your ad campaign to get noticed certainly worked–I won’t be buying Dockers for my husband anymore.
I have to say, I’m pretty jaded and my jaw very rarely literally drops open . . .
But that Docker’s ad did it. Who thought that was a good idea?
The best part about the docker’s campaign article?
“His partner on the campaign, Julie Scelzo, also a senior vice president and creative director at the agency, said the campaign was tested with women “to make sure it’s not sexist.”"
Maybe they tested it on the (apparently very small) sample of women like me who just aren’t really that bothered by it? :)
I’m with AIMS
Same.
I actually clicked on this thread to post that Dockers makes pretty decent work-appropriate slacks for women in the $30-40 price range.
I’m not worked up about it, but not because it’s not sexist (it is); I guess I’m just not that surprised. Still, I’m unlikely to buy dockers for my husband now, who, like most men, rarely shops for himself.
If you boycott Dockers, you have to boycott the entire Levi Strauss brand, because that is the company that runs the Dockers line and is behind the ads… (according to the article).
personally, I think it’s a dumb campaign but I’m not offended by it.
Well. No more Levi Strauss products for me, or anyone else I ever buy clothing for (which does not include my husband; he does his own shopping, but I’m sure I can get him to go along with this one).