Sexist midcentury ads re-created, flipping gender roles


Originally published at:


Nice! I think the ‘boy around the house’ is my favorite, though the Hoover on is pretty sweet, with those cute jammies.


I am so cool with these. The reimagined VanHeusen ad is pretty much what I want out of life.


I dunno, I think if I were to drive home the satire, I’d use less model looking men. Several of those men look more effeminate than masculine, which I think echos the problems with the original ads. That certain “types” are suited for certain rolls. Having someone who looks like they work with their hands for a living opening ketchup or receiving a new vacuum plays on the dichotomy better. At least that is my 2 cents of art criticism. Though I do like the concept.


Flipping gender roles?



The Christmas morning ad looks like an outtake from a Pee Wee Herman bit. Also, I do like that the woman in beach ad is holding a cat litter scoop.



The van heusen one is SAF imo.


These are hilariously great and really drives home the demeaning offensiveness of these ads - not only in imagery but copy as well. Oh those Ad Men!

But why stop at the mid-century. Lets flip the roles on some contemporary ads to see if we’ve really gotten beyond any of this. Carl’s Jr. for example? Pretty much any beer ad? How about Ford Truck?


nauseatingly-sexist (and 100% real) midcentury ads

Needn’t travel in time, they can just go to Boing Boing’s ad feed…

I don’t know if they’re strictly sexist, mostly just insulting.


I find myself strangely aroused . . .


In a way I think these are undermined by the look of the guy. I think it would work better if he looked more “Marlboro Man”.


That ‘original’ Hardee’s add refers to their food as ‘Sloppy and hastily prepared.’ Am I misreading or was that add a parody in the first place?


I think it has to be, because Hardees didn’t have the star in the logo until it was bought by Carls Jr.

The original image must be from another vintage ad.


I was going to make a proper intellectual comment, but the hell with it…


I think you make a good point, but it’s worth noting that most women don’t fit that representation femininity either, which is a big part of the absurdity.

Even in the fifties women didn’t kick one of their stilettoed feet up while leaning over a sink of dishes, or delicately raise their eyebrows in consternation over ketchup lids.


It’s a cute idea, but it fails as satire for a couple reasons… First because of male privilege, these aren’t going to be seen as jarring, threatening, or thought-provoking, but, rather, farcical.

Secondly, these role reversals will actually turn on a large part of the audience (men) that it’s trying to scold… as some of the replies here have betrayed.


Try this with same-sex couples. That’d sure shake up some folks :smiley:


I’ll second or third (or maybe fourth?) the idea that maybe they could have picked ‘regular looking’ guys rather than these too-polished metrosexuals. A bit of dad bod, ill-fitting shirts or pants, slovenly, a dirty or ripped/frayed hoodie? A more post-modern take.

The head with pelt sure looks like a cow hide to me (pretty meta!). And what sort of moron eats breakfast in bed with his work shirt and tie on? derp


I dunno. Looking back, I should have been glad to do the stay-in-the-house homeguy gig if it allowed me to avoid decades of “corporate culture.” Upping my coffee-game for my wife would have been well worth a sane, purposeful life where I actually did meaningful things around the house and for the family…instead of shlepping into various bizzaro-world daily grinds.

I wouldn’t have taken much to that metrosexual look though. Not slim enough.