A Racist Sock?
by Latoya Peterson
Y’all know this job gets to me sometimes, right? Everyday, I get an email inbox and a del.icio.us inbox full of racist goodies from here and around the world.
But I was really about to pack it in when I got an email about a sock.
A sock?
A fucking sock?
How are they going to make a racist sock? I’m used to racist tee-shirts, but a sock just crosses the line!
Then I re-read the email, and found out it wasn’t the sock that was racist, it was the marketing of said sock.
Reader Tennille writes:
Old Navy is now selling what they call border patrol socks for baby in sizes 0-6 months through 5T. Here’s the description and the link: “Fun socks feature military inspired embroidery sure to have your little man transforming everything he can get his hands on into an aerial assault vehicle capable of unstoppable fire power only to be used in the defense of the defenseless [...] The racist, xenophobic, and gendered messages in these socks are amazingly obvious and saddening to me. I thought this might make good fodder for a posting.”
Tennille sent me the email August 26th. I checked the link, saw it was as she stated, and the socks were called “Border Patrol.” Fail, Old Navy, Fail.
Now that I am prepping this post (a hot three weeks later), I notice some changes have been made.
The socks are now called “Military Graphic Socks for Baby,” and the description has changed:
Get his feet in fighting shape! Cute cartoonish graphics of helicopters and jets suit his adventurous spirit.
Well, they got rid of the racism and xenophobia – two out of three. I’m glad someone finally noticed and caught on.
But the original link still stands testament to what was there:
http://www.oldnavy.com/browse/product.do?pid=581576022&userSearchText=border+patrol&searchCID=26519&vid=1
Hmm…well, I’m glad they did change it after all. I wonder who is responsible for writing the website text for this kind of stuff anyway?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Cynthia wrote:
The socks are cute. Should’ve just called them “military graphic socks” or “helicopter socks.”
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
sockless wrote:
Whhhhhaaaat?! I would be curious to know if Old Navy has released a statement or acknowledged this beyond just changing their website.
Am I the only one who has no idea what “Urban Dwelling Gray” means?
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 12:22 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
I’m with Cynthia – couldn’t they have just called them “helicopter socks”? I mean, what kind of a 6 month old is even able to say “military graphic” anyways?
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 12:44 pm ¶
ms four wrote:
Old Navy is super gendered, so that doesn’t surprise me.
I almost wonder if “border patrol” was someone’s clueless play on the sock’s colorful border. That copy was so absurd–almost like someone wrote it as a joke.
But if they really published it on their website, which it sounds like they did, then it’s really not funny.
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶
Mandy B. wrote:
Ha-ha, did you guys see how the text on the sole days “Little stinker”? What?
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 1:30 pm ¶
ZizeksPet wrote:
You mean gendered like Victorias Secret?
I think even in the West its still exceptable to acknowledge “boys” clothes and “girls” clothes.
As far as the sock, the original link takes you to the updated version so I can’t comment on the racism part.
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶
krissy wrote:
sure, ZizeksPet, gendered like Victoria’s Secret, which is for adult women. children of this age do not have physical reasons for wearing differently-shaped clothing.
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
occhiblu wrote:
I actually recently (like, a few months ago) saw a job posting for a website copywriter for Old Navy, so I’m guessing — well, maybe hoping — that this was either a newbie mistake or a parting “Fuck You” shot from a fired writer, rather than some sort of fully approved copy.
Which doesn’t make the writing any less racist, sexist, or xenophobic, of course.
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 7:07 pm ¶
Myles wrote:
Yeah! It’s never too early to teach boys that the entire point of their lives is to fight, and kill and provide.
At least until you’re too old to be drafted. And lets not forget that all of your feelings should be sublimated into militaristic rage. Free thinking? Only if you are one of those woman sissy boys.
Having said that, I’m going to vomit in my mouth and cry, in an extremely manly way.
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 7:52 pm ¶
Cheezwizard wrote:
Wait a minute. The fact that the socks are called “Border Patrol” and have a picture of a helicopter is ipso facto racist?
I understand that we’re supposed to infer the United States border from this, and it’s a touchy subject. But I must be missing something. Is the ambiguous remark about “the defense of the defenseless” some sort of dig at Mexicans?
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 9:07 pm ¶
sandy wrote:
Helicopter socks, yay. My girls had train socks.
But why does it have to be “military” anything? Why must we soldierize our babies? they’re BABIES.
I’m with Myles.
I don’t even like seeing little kids in camouflage. Gives me the creeps.
Also I wouldn’t put my child in anything that calls them a “lil stinker,” even if it is barely readable…
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 10:08 pm ¶
Kelly wrote:
I work at Old Navy and the entire selection of clothes for boys and girls, from toddlers through middle schoolers, is horribly gendered. It irritates me to no end and I have spend many hours of company time railing against the sexist implications.
I wish I wasn’t a broke college student working retail until I can graduate.
No retail environment around here is going to be feminist-friendly.
Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 11:27 pm ¶
Meranda wrote:
@ myles
right on! I hate the gendered nature of fashion for children. Before they are physically able to fit into “womens” or “mens” clothes.
This should come as no suprise, fascism is coming into the United States at full speed , we are in a war with a pro-military bend, of course they are advertising war in clothing.
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 1:43 am ¶
nezua wrote:
wait. why is it cool to militarize infant clothing anyway??? i hate the militarization creeping into kids’ clothing and catelogs. sick programming going on here. more plasma needed to fuel the overlords’ sofas. let the proles dive in headfirst, let them program their babies to die for the war machine. hey kids, war is cooool! yeah! blow up some fuckin skulls! awesome! listen to the screaming mother as she wails for her family! cooool!
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 6:06 am ¶
Muse wrote:
Cheezwizard, it’s the name of the product, and the written description.
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 10:11 am ¶
Brian Johnson wrote:
It’s interesting to look back at children’s clothing of the 18th century and earlier – boys were dressed in the same dress-like garments as girls until age 5, or so. I would hypothesize that it was the industrial revolution, and the transformation of garments into a mass-produced commodity, that led to the explicit gendering of children’s clothes – by creating the impression that children needed to be socialized according to sex, manufacturers could sell more articles of clothing to each family.
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Brian, you’re probably right, and it probably goes even deeper (although crass commercialism and profit may just be the bottom line reason):
One of the anxieties of the industrial revolution involves class and gender roles and anxieties.
With mechanized labor in urban areas and the rise of huge factories, you get great numbers of people, higher levels of immigration from countries w/ different cultural an gender role standards, higher level of anonymity, a working class/union class in tension with the bosses/owners, etc. You also get the post-Victorian middle class that aspires to gendered roles that are less rigid by necessity in the poorer working classes. I.e. your daughter wears heels and ruffled skirts and mary janes, to prove that she’s not Rosie Riveter or a factory girl (not that there’s anything wrong with that). No matter the real home life, the outward presentation is of highly gendered social norms, that Normal Rockwell ideal…
And when I walk through BabiesRUs or Target, I get the sense that equality movements be damned, we haven’t gotten very far if you judge us by our apparel.
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 1:35 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>One of the anxieties of the industrial revolution involves class and gender roles and anxieties.
Blah – cross out that last “and anxieties.”
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 1:36 pm ¶
Cheezwizard wrote:
Muse, I read the name of the product, and I read the written description, and I still have no idea what the problem is.
Posted 16 Sep 2008 at 8:38 pm ¶
Mina wrote:
I know who wrote this copy… “occhiblu” is on the right path. This won’t be happening again.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse, Cheezwizard?
Let me break it down:
>border patrol socks for baby in sizes 0-6 months through 5T.
Says baby, but later specifies “he,” “little man,” etc. Boys = helicopters/military, girls, what, no helicopters or military for them? => sexist.
>embroidery sure to have your little man transforming everything he can get his hands on into an aerial assault vehicle
the socks will inspire toddler/preschool age boys to pretend that other toys are “assault” vehicles. Yay? And who would those targets be? Oh yeah, the socks are called “border patrol.” Therefore, targeting presumedly illegal immigrants. Since the rhetoric around immigration, legal or otherwise, focuses exclusively on brown folks, usually from the southern borders, arriving by vehicle or on foot (as opposed to all the other option), it is a not-subtle dig on those brown folks. It also implies that the wearer of those socks, and those who buy them, are NOT in that category. =>racist, xenophobic, ethnically biased, or at the very least, short sighted and making fun of an unfunny issue. People may be dying for real in the desert, but *hahhah* litle Johnny pretended to shoot them down with a military assault vehicle! Ain’t he cute?
>capable of unstoppable fire power
violent imagery – yay? => boys are supposed to be/embrace violence and explosions => culture of death, lack of empathy, sexism, anti-humanism
>only to be used in the defense of the defenseless
Right. Because nothing says “defense” like the word “ASSAULT.”
Clear enough for you?
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶
Free wrote:
See Dude Where’s My Manhood …
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 10:26 pm ¶