Category Archives: Men

Over 100 Students Attend TLR’s Porn Discussion

Over 100 students packed out “Pornography: A Neuroscience Perspective” last night in Harvard Hall. We received a lot of positive feedback from those who enjoyed Dr. Hilton’s presentation on how pornography relates to masculinity, the human brain, and addiction. We’ll be posting some follow-up information later this week for those who requested to learn more about the intersection between porn and the brain.

Read the Harvard Crimson’s coverage here.

Tagged ,

The Social Costs of Pornography

Do you know about the Witherspoon Institute’s The Social Costs of Pornography: A Statement of Findings and Recommendations?

It might not be the most spirited of holiday presents, but we’d encourage you to check out the project’s site. The project began with a conference at Princeton hosted in 2008 by the Witherspoon Institute that sought to gather leading experts in several fields, including economics, psychology, sociology, and law, to present a rigorously argued overview of pornography in today’s society.

The debate regarding porn use is one that has massive consequences for the mental, emotional, and physical health of families and individuals. As Jean Bethke Elshtain (Professor of Social and Political Ethics, University of Chicago, and Thomas and Dorothy Leavy Chair in the Foundations of American Freedom, Georgetown University) puts it,

I used to be much more of a “live and let live” person on this issue, years ago, in part because some of those who pushed for the censorship of pornography were so authoritarian. But the new technology has sent me in another direction…. I hope the analyses, the data, the arguments, and the images that flow forth from the pages of The Social Costs of Pornography will assist the reader in the future to avoid the pitfalls of unrestrained libertarianism, on the one hand, and unrestrained, top-down censoriousness, on the other. The “moral” need not be the cramped and cribbed “moralistic.” The point to be considered is: What sort of community is this? Is it reasonably decent and kind? Is it a fit place for human habitation, especially for the young? What happens to the most vulnerable among us? How do we ill-dignify the human body, and how do we forestall such affronts? These questions are not easy, but this learned volume helps push the debate forward in discerning ways.

These questions – “What sort of community is this? Is it reasonably decent and kind? Is it a fit place for human habitation, especially for the young? What happens to the most vulnerable among us? How do we ill-dignify the human body, and how do we forestall such affronts?” – are largely the topic of Harvard’s anti-porn week in February.

If you’d like to help organize anti-porn week in February, contact us at

Tagged ,

Chivalry and Dependency in Twilight

The media debate on Twilight rages on – does it promote abstinence? Is it a positive or negative depiction of relationships?

This video features Jason Evert speaking on why Twilight is so popular with girls. He argues that Twilight’s main character Edward Cullen is attractive to girls who yearn to be protected and to meet a man who “yearns for the good of his beloved”. Cullen takes leadership and initiative in the relationship, creating a fan base of girls who cannot find examples of strong “manly” leadership in modern culture.

The problem lies in the obsession that ensues and in heroine Bella Swan’s loss of her identity in her attraction to Cullen (…and the issue that Cullen is a monster). Watch Evert talk about Twilight’s redeeming qualities of chivalry and strength and leadership and deeper problems of emotional dependency.

Tagged , , ,

Father Absence

Every child in the United States deserves a mother and a father. Currently, father absence affects the lives of 24 million American children.

Unfortunately, circumstances arise that inhibit this, but we must make a demonstrable effort to connect children with their mothers and fathers as we face an overwhelming number of fatherless families, especially in low income communities. Male role models are necessary and often provide children with needed support, but the bottom line is that every child deserves a dad and mom.

President Obama has been a leader in stressing the importance of fatherhood, giving a particularly encouraging speech this summer. The White House posted both the video and the text of his speech online.

We can all agree that we’ve got too many mothers out there forced to do everything all by themselves.  They’re doing a heroic job, often under trying circumstances.  They deserve a lot of credit for that.  But they shouldn’t have to do it alone.  The work of raising our children is the most important job in this country, and it’s all of our responsibilities — mothers and fathers.  (Applause.)

Now, I can’t legislate fatherhood — I can’t force anybody to love a child.  But what we can do is send a clear message to our fathers that there is no excuse for failing to meet their obligations.  What we can do is make it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid those choices.  What we can do is come together and support fathers who are willing to step up and be good partners and parents and providers.

And that’s why today we’re launching the next phase of our work to promote responsible fatherhood — a new, nationwide Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative.  This is a call to action with cities and states, with individuals and organizations across the country — from the NFL Players Association to the National PTA, to everyday moms and dads — we’re raising awareness about responsible fatherhood and working to re-engage absent fathers with their families.

As part of this effort, we’ve proposed a new and expanded Fatherhood, Marriage and Families Innovation Fund.  And we plan to seek out and support the very best, most successful initiatives in our states and communities — those that are offering services like job training, or parenting skills classes, domestic violence prevention — all which help provide the kind of network of support for men, particularly those in vulnerable communities.

We’re also going to help dads who get caught up — we want to make sure that they’re caught up on child support payments and that we re-engage them in their children’s lives.  We’re going to support efforts to build healthy relationships between parents as well — because we know that children benefit not just from loving mothers and loving fathers, but from strong and loving marriages as well.  (Applause.)

We’re also launching a new transitional jobs initiative for ex-offenders and low-income, non-custodial fathers –(applause) — because these are men who often face serious barriers to finding work and keeping work.  We’ll help them develop the skills and experience they need to move into full-time, long-term employment, so they can meet their child support obligations and help provide for their families.

We’ve also been surfing the National Fatherhood Initiative website today, which highlights many problematic effects of father absence.

Why Do Dads Matter?

When dad doesn’t get involved, his children are two to three times more likely to:

  • Engage in drugs, alcohol, violent crimes, and other harmful behaviors
  • Drop out of school
  • Live in poverty
  • Face teenage pregnancy
  • Struggle with depression and even commit suicide

Father Factor in Poverty

  • Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In 2002, 7.8 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 38.4 percent of children in female-householder families.
    Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, P200-547, Table C8. Washington D.C.: GPO, 2003. 

  • During the year before their babies were born, 43% of unmarried mothers received welfare or food stamps, 21% received some type of housing subsidy, and 9% received another type of government transfer (unemployment insurance etc.). For women who have another child, the proportion who receive welfare or food stamps rises to 54%.
    Source: McLanahan, Sara. The Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study: Baseline National Report. Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Well-being, 2003: 13. 

  • A child with a nonresident father is 54 percent more likely to be poorer than his or her father.
    Source: Sorenson, Elaine and Chava Zibman. “Getting to Know Poor Fathers Who Do Not Pay Child Support.” Social Service Review 75 (September 2001): 420-434.
  • When compared by family structure, 45.9% of poor single-parent families reported material hardship compared to 38.6% of poor two parent families. For unpoor families who did not experience material hardship, 23.3% were single-parent families compared to 41.2% of two-parent families.
    Source: Beverly, Sondra G., “Material hardship in the United States: Evidence from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.” Social Work Research 25 (September 2001): 143-151.3

Father Factor in Maternal and Infant Health

  • Infant mortality rates are 1.8 times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers.
    Source: Matthews, T.J., Sally C. Curtin, and Marian F. MacDorman. Infant Mortality Statistics from the 1998 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.
  • Based on birth and death data for 217,798 children born in Georgia in 1989 and 1990, infants without a father’s name on their birth certificate (17.9 percent of the total) were 2.3 times more likely to die in the first year of life compared to infants with a father’s name on their birth certificate.
    Source: Gaudino, Jr., James A., Bill Jenkins, and Foger W. Rochat. “No Fathers’ Names: A Risk Factor for Infant Mortality in the State of Georgia, USA.” Social Science and Medicine 48 (1999): 253-265.
  • Unmarried mothers are less likely to obtain prenatal care and more likely to have a low birth-weight baby. Researchers find that these negative effects persist even when they take into account factors, such as parental education, that often distinguish single-parent from two-parent families.
    Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Hyattsville, MD (Sept. 1995): 12.
  • A study of 3,400 middle schoolers indicated that not living with both biological parents quadruples the risk of having an affective disorder.
    Source: Cuffe, Steven P., Robert E. McKeown, Cheryl L. Addy, and Carol Z. Garrison. “Family Psychosocial Risk Factors in a Longitudinal Epidemiological Study of Adolescents.” Journal of American Academic Child Adolescent Psychiatry 44 (February 2005): 121-129.
  • Children who live apart from their fathers are more likely to be diagnosed with asthma and experience an asthma-related emergency even after taking into account demographic and socioeconomic conditions. Unmarried, cohabiting parents and unmarried parents living apart are 1.76 and 2.61 times, respectively, more likely to have their child diagnosed with asthma. Marital disruption after birth is associated with a 6-fold increase in the likelihood a children will require an emergency room visit and 5-fold increase of an asthma-related emergency.
    Source: Harknett, Kristin. Children’s Elevated Risk of Asthma in Unmarried Families: Underlying Structural and Behavioral Mechanisms. Working Paper #2005-01-FF. Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Well-being, 2005: 19-27.

Father Factor in Education

  • Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
    Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993.
  • Father involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of a student getting mostly A’s. This was true for fathers in biological parent families, for stepfathers, and for fathers heading single-parent families.
    Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in Their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.
  • Students living in father-absent homes are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school; 10 percent of children living with both parents have ever repeated a grade, compared to 20 percent of children in stepfather families and 18 percent in mother-only families.
    Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in Their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.

Father Factor in Child Abuse

  • Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.
    Source: America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Table SPECIAL1. Washington, D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1997.
  • The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.
    Source: America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Table SPECIAL1. Washington, D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1997.

Father Factor in Teen Pregnancy

  • Being raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree.
    Source: Teachman, Jay D. “The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the Characteristics of Their Marriages.” Journal of Family Issues 25 (January 2004): 86-111. 

  • Separation or frequent changes increase a woman’s risk of early menarche, sexual activity and pregnancy. Women whose parents separated between birth and six years old experienced twice the risk of early menstruation, more than four times the risk of early sexual intercourse, and two and a half times higher risk of early pregnancy when compared to women in intact families. The longer a woman lived with both parents, the lower her risk of early reproductive development. Women who experienced three or more changes in her family environment exhibited similar risks but were five times more likely to have an early pregnancy.
    Source: Quinlan, Robert J. “Father absence, parental care, and female reproductive development.” Evolution and Human Behavior 24 (November 2003): 376-390. 

  • Researchers using a pool from both the U.S. and New Zealand found strong evidence that father absence has an effect on early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. Teens without fathers were twice as likely to be involved in early sexual activity and seven times more likely to get pregnant as an adolescent.
    Source: Ellis, Bruce J., John E. Bates, Kenneth A. Dodge, David M. Ferguson, L. John Horwood, Gregory S. Pettit, and Lianne Woodward. “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy.” Child Development 74 (May/June 2003): 801-821.

Father Factor in Crime

  • A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.
    Source: Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis. “Differences in Empathy Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000): 467-478.
  • Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk.
    Source: Anderson, Amy L. “Individual and contextual influences on delinquency: the role of the single-parent family.” Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (November 2002): 575-587.
Tagged , ,

Happy Father’s Day!

In anticipation of Father’s Day, Matthew Gilbert at the Boston Globe picks out “Memorable TV Dads” from the past and present, ranging from Bill Cosby’s Cliff Huxtable to the questionable Tony Soprano to Mash’s Col. Sherman T. Potter to Coach Taylor in Friday Night Lights.

But, of course, the most memorable fathers are our own. To our dads: Happy Father’s Day this Sunday!


Manliness – More points worth noting

Comments on the article A Defense of Manliness:

From a Lowellian:

“[Rachel] never said that nobility was strictly for men only. Instead she said that expecting men to be that way is not farfetched. She advocated holding men to a higher standard. This is something I have been pushing for the last few years, but most people do not see the value. This article is not about women. It’s about the declining nobility of men. It was out of her scope to discuss women as well in such a short article.

… Kimmel could have encouraged men to shoot higher. Instead, he dumbs it down, in a bro type way, “just get consent”. That’s a slap in the face if you considered the valuable teachable moment he had in his hands at that time. …[It may be that Kimmel] would agree that a shift in dominant culture/perceptions would have a significant effect on men’s actions.”

From another Lowellian:

“I do not think that either the article [was] stating that consent is bad, but rather that men are held to a very minimal standard. That is, the implication of consent, particularly in the context of Kimmel’s “you hold the power to stop rape in your hands” comment, is that it should be assumed that all men act exclusively as sexual predators. In such a context, consent is good, and enthusiastic consent is better, because if men are sexual predators not at all interested in the woman or anything beyond the act of sex, it is for the best if at least they don’t rape anyone in their single-minded pursuit of sex. From a women’s perspective, this is a big plus, because if all men asked for consent their would be no rape. However, for men this is an absolute minimum standard of what it means to respect women. For example, a man can be trying to get a woman to have sex with him because he only wants to have sex, while not at all caring about her. He may ask for consent because he does not want to be charged with rape, and give up when consent is denied, but in spite of asking for consent, he is still a jerk without any respect for women. In this way, having mere consent as the only standard of male action towards women is a bare legal minimum, and it implies that men are not capable and should not be held responsible for actually respecting women, that the only standard they can abide by is not to rape women. It would be a higher standard to expect men to respect women as thinking and feeling people as themselves, to see them as intellectual equals, not to leave right after, to actually call back the next day, to focus their attentions on a woman towards whom they have feelings rather than going for whatever they can get, or to understand that for the woman sex may fit into the larger context of an actual relationship. Consent as a standard implies that men are only interested in casual sex, and that there is no better way to respect women than only to ask permission first. That is, consent is sexy in that it is the minimal condition for sexy. However, the author of the article is saying it would be way sexier if men actively worked to respect women as human beings instead of only trying to have sex with whoever was willing.

As for the definition of manliness, I don’t think that the author is stating that manliness is something inherent to men, which women do not posses, and which differentiates men from women. For instance, if manliness were inherent, then without the higher cultural standards for which the author is asking, men would be equally as manly as with them. Instead, the idea of manliness seems to be that some traits should be culturally expected of men but not expected of women, although women would be equally capable. This can be seen functioning in our society, where a man is expected to be courageous, and although women are equally capable of courage, they are not expected to be equally courageous. The difference would be that women displaying courage would be applauded as going beyond cultural requirements, while courageous men would be only affirmed as meeting requirements. This has the correlative that a man who does not act courageously in a situation requiring courage would be open to cultural censure, while a woman in the same situation would not. Furthermore, as for chivalry, it does not seem to be depicted as something like courage of which men and women are equally capable. Chivalry is not a personal virtue such as courage, but a set of cultural mores. As chivalry is based on the ideals of courtly love, it has at its base the idea that it is a code for the treatment of women by men, particularly in the realm of courtship. As this code of behaviors is limited to the courting of women, only persons pursuing courtship with women would be able to be chivalrous. It would be allowable that women pursuing women could do so chivalrously, but chivalry is, if not specific to men as the agent, is at least specific to women as the object. This is not to say that women are less capable than men in any way, only that the existing cultural framework of chivalry exists as specifically a mode of action towards women.

This seems to be the problem in my experience. Chivalry as a code is in many ways outmoded, as it often sees the woman as passive, and many other reasons for which chivalry was overthrown as a dominant cultural value by the women’s liberation movement. Unfortunately, chivalry, which for all its faults did establish a very high standard for the treatment of women by men, was replaced only by the idea of mere consent, which as shown before holds men to a very low standard, and does not provide a culturally sanctioned or codified way for men to be more respectful of women. Instead, rather than having codes for the proper treatment of women existing as a way for men to prove their manliness, the only culturally sanctioned way for men to be manly is draw pictures of lumberjacks throwing sharks:
Or make fun of men doing things deemed “unmanly”:
or to fulfill the only remaining cultural idea of male treatment towards women, that is, by being a successful sexual predator. The point of the article seems to be, as [other Lowellian] pointed out, that Kimmel wasted a teachable moment. Although he supports the idea of establishing new cultural standards for men that both are higher than mere consent but not as restrictive to women as chivalry, he did not seem to judge his audience as capable enough. Instead of stating that men should seek a noble standard, and rise above the idea of manliness as sexual predation and homophobia, that the most the audience could understand and execute is to not rape anyone. If all male Harvard students can understand about this topic is that they shouldn’t rape people, then our cultural situation is serious indeed. It is not to say that there is anything is wrong with consent, but consent is a minimal standard and should be taken as a given rather than the highest goal to which men can aspire.”

Another Lowellian:

“The way that I read it, Rachel was arguing for something like enthusastic consent, only better (even if she talked about it only from the guy’s point of view).  This might be easier to see if you include the sentence directly following what [someone] quoted:

“Consent is a miserable substitute for nobility, a legalistic detour around an incredibly personal situation. It doesn’t necessarily imply mutuality, and in fact, suggests that casual sex is an inherent intrusion where men act upon women.”

Reading the entire quote, I don’t see how anybody would interpret this as claiming that a “woman should have no reason to say no”.  What Rachel’s advocating is that we step away from the whole idea of consent as a moral indicator (which ostensibly boils down to guy asking/insinuating/hinting at the sexual act and girl saying yes or no).  She’s saying that framing sexual relations in terms of consent does less to protect females than it does to drag down male behavior through the assumptions made, and creating an implicit acceptance that doing “just enough” to get consent is not to be frowned on.  A system that explicitly requires both components (a question and an answer) in this way ends up being a “legalistic detour” because nobody bothers to still ask what the guy’s intentions are (they are assumed to be those of a “sexualized predator”).  Instead, all that matters is what the girl responds (and as the linked article to enthusiastic consent mentions, it leaves the door open to victim-blaming in the cases where silence is supposed to mean “no”).  Although she probably wouldn’t expect a guy’s track-record of chivalry to outweigh a girl’s “no” in a rape case, Rachel’s point is that we shouldn’t think of all our interactions as rape-cases-averted.

I don’t think [another Lowellian] is claiming that chivalry is a strictly manly quality.  Strengths of character that we aspire to still require situations in which they can be built up and affirmed.  The article seems to be saying that these kinds of situations are becoming harder to find for young men.”

Not a Lowellian:

Given: both sexes should aspire to virtue.

There are some specific traits that are often attributed to manhood, and often valued by men, (often there is a different sort of courage exhibited by men and women, also a different way to pursue things, also a different type of communication — this does not mean that either method is better than the other) and by not recognizing the good in seeking these traits, we lose our ability to provoke men to act nobly.

I know it’s debated on campus, but it’s worth noting that men are (sometimes very) different from women in the way they think, act, and feel. Ask most men. Ask biologists, psychologists, the list goes on – all these fields find distinct differences between men and women. Since there are differences, and since we want all people to strive for virtue, I think we should build self-esteem in the way many (not all) men find value and affirm manliness. The fact is that many men do identify with these traits, and we should legitimize that, not constantly deconstruct and relegate everything to “human values”. We have a double standard in our beloved empowerment theory.

Applying the concept that men and women are identical is a stereotype that I would combat to the death, and it’s a stereotype that’s pushed onto people at Harvard because it’s a popular construction – at best – that’s risen out of the feminist movement. Most people are not actually cool with the academic trend to “de-genderfy” human life.  Indeed, manhood is biologically driven and socially cultivated. Most people understand that stating there are differences between men and women is a common-sense claim. (Of course, we all must speak in generalities.)

Men have positive traits, and reinforcing positive traits yields better results than simply telling men to get consent and not rape women. This is a far less sexist message than the Guyland author’s, who claimed men in this generation are predators and women are victims.

Regardless of your views on the differences between the sexes, men are certainly better people than what many modern “feminists” caricaturize men as. Every man on campus should be affirmed and respected, not grouped into a pool of ignored or berated people.

It’s hard to appeal to everyone, but I talked with a lot of guys who put forward these thoughts after being disheartened at Kimmel’s lecture. And I think in a discussion about sexism, grouping guys into a category of sex, violence, and video games is very destructive. Putting forth character traits that define what men often aspire to in no way puts down women.

Kimmel’s account of manhood dismisses manliness as sexist. He concluded his talk by urging all men to gain consent before they continue on their merry sexual ways. There is no excuse for predatory sexual behavior, but refusing to promote noble conceptions of manliness out of concern for sexism does not hold men to a standard or give them meaning. Many men do respect traits of “manliness” – that should be honored.

Of course, I’m all about affirming women as well, but in 2010, we’re obviously doing a pretty good job at that.

A Defense of Manliness

Rachel Wagley writes A Defense of Manliness in the Harvard Crimson.

Here’s an excerpt:

…Manliness is confidence in the face of risk, according to Professor Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 in “Manliness.” It stresses forthrightness, honor, and determination. Admiring the ideals that define manhood affirms the life codes exhibited by many Harvard men. I’ve met many courageous women, but in our quest to prove that women are equal we deny our men parallel recognition and the right to pride.

On Tuesday, Apr. 20, Harvard Men Against Rape invited Michael Kimmel, author of “Guyland,” to explore the “Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.” Ironically, at an event co-sponsored by a final club, fraternities, and the football team, Kimmel opposed men building a group identity. We’ve heard it before: Men are privileged megalomaniacs; male groups are arrogant and purposeless.

A more constructive discussion might acknowledge that the fundamental reason our world is so perilous for young men is our negative conception of manhood. Our culture emasculates men by stripping manhood of its corresponding virtues and reducing manliness to predatory sexuality. Instead of envisioning a gallant standard, Kimmel told the men to always “get consent” before continuing on their merry sexual ways. Consent is a miserable substitute for nobility, a legalistic detour around an incredibly personal situation. It doesn’t necessarily imply mutuality, and in fact, suggests that casual sex is an inherent intrusion where men act upon women.

If men enjoy asserting meaning and power, then give men dignified aspirations, so they don’t assert their power on the dance floor. Affirm male friendships, bonds that serve men by providing forums for respect and codes of honor. When we treat men like sexualized predators, men can cunningly take advantage of this constructed freedom from virtue. Maxims like “Just get consent” and “Follow the rules” are sterile abstractions that lack exhortations to reform character….

…To Harvard men: you are worthy of honor and respect.

Tagged ,

Wear the Pants, commands Dockers

New Docker’s ad calls on men to “Wear the Pants”:

“Once upon a time, Men Wore the Pants. And Wore them Well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never had to cross the street alone. And Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed Men…

Men were stripped of their khaki’s and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, and cities misbehave and little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need Heroes. We need Grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It’s time to get your hands dirty. It’s time to answer the call of manhood. It’s time to WEAR THE PANTS.”

Dockers endorses traditional values? How much can we read into this?

Tagged ,