Men Are the New Women Part 2

OK..

I had to regroup and really think about where I was actually heading with this train of thought. 

So I left off with the idea that in contrast to, or maybe even in response to, the increasing freedom of women to defy gender constructs in modern society, men have begun to rigidify the constructs of masculinity to almost unattainable standards even for the marlboro man.  This is especially prevalent in the gay community, where such behavior is ironically sought after.  Regardless of the fact that a man may be gay, the less perceptibly gay his behavior is, the higher his standing in the gay social hierarchy.  All I can think of is that this is really some specialized form of self-loathing.  Be what you are, but reject it at the same time. 

I speculate that "gay" behavior,  if there can be said to be such a thing, began as a way of sending signals.  In a world gone by, where homosexuality was less accepted, one needed ways of signifying to others that they were "on the same team," so to speak, without actually coming out and saying it; A flick of the wrist, an expression of taste, spring in the step.  It made sense to emulate more typically feminine behavior, I think, because the underlying idea is that a gay man, like a straight woman, share aspire to love men.  Today, of course, gay men are free to simply say so in most circumstances, and the behavior is no longer crucial.  However, it has become engrained in our culture, and continues to be pervasive.  But as with all social hierachies, one can't rise to the top without a scapegoat or way of putting others beneath you, and here enters the term "straight acting."  A badge of honor indicating that although a man might sleep with other men, he should by no means be associated with them.

My belief is that gender is an invention of the mind, or the collective consciousness, and therefore behavior or appearance, at any point on the spectrum, can't really be directly linked to biological sex.  You'll be who you are, physically, biologically, and socially, but the links between the three don't necessarily need to be as black and white as we've been led to believe.

So men have boxed themselves in, and women have a history of being viewed as objects.  But it turns out that the third gender is really capitalism.  We've been hearing for at least a couple of decades about the horrors of unrealistic body images being  used to manipulate women into fad diets, clothing, cosmetics, and just about everything else.  In the advent of all this recognition, and the damage it has done, someone sitting in a board room came up with a brilliant idea.  Something along the lines of, "Hey guys, we've been going about this all wrong! We've been using sex and allure to trick women into striving for an unattainable image and lifestyle.  That's bad, we get it.   But, we can equalize the playing field! This strategy has worked so well that it seems insane that we've only been using it on half the population!!"

Enter the Abercrombie and Fitch model.

So in the end, it turns out that the whole spectrum of gender, sexuality and appearance is essentially a marketing tool.  As we witness the emergence of a corporate American, nay global, aristocracy, it is  clear that such individuals are above all these constructs.  If you have enough money, all the rest falls away, you're in the club despite sex, color, or creed.  The rest is just a grand distraction.

Men are the New Women...Part I

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, and I certainly won't be the last.  Anyone with a decent education in art history (this is an assumption of course because I feel that I have a decent education in art history, despite the heroic attempts of massively overqualified mentors) has read John Berger's "Ways of Seeing," and is probably getting where I'm going with this already.  If you haven't or aren't, let me encourage you to read Berger before you waste your time with my crackpot theories.  The book changed my entire perception of art, gender, sexuality and the constructs in which they operate.  If you aren't sold yet, it is a fairly easy read, written for the most part in very accessible language, and will add points to your IQ simply by sitting magnificaently on a bookshelf, or lying next you on your beach towel.  Art geeks like myself will want to sleep with you. I promise.

The premise of the book in ten words or less is roughly this: Men look. At women (as sex objects).  For an encore it goes on to cite a great many works of art as expensive pornography, notes the absence of a socially permissible two-way street version of this phenomena, and decides (quite correctly I think) that we need to clean the lens through which we view a great many "monuments" of art.  The thing that hooked me was the presumption of a male viewer, because, and when you really step away and think about it, despite the fact that there has been a greater proliferation of objectified males in art in the last 200 years or so, it is still a very safe assumption that the viewer is still a man.

From this conclusion I extrapolate the following  :

1. When and if the male nude is eroticized, we can assume the viewer belongs to one of two groups; Gay men or Narcissistic men.  I think it's a fair assumption to assume that even pornography packaged up as if to present the appearance of being for women more likely than not finds itself in the hands of men.

2.  {Preamble to an actual point} Women have fought very hard for equality in all aspects of life and society, they have become freer to express themselves, be assertive, and defy the stereotypical constructs of femininity as mothers, wives, friends, and colleagues.  Think about the Donna Reed archetype of 50 years ago, cheerfully vacuuming the living room in a full face of makeup, pearls, and a sensible skirt from Bloomingdale's, all the while keeping an eye on the roast in the oven.  Like it or not, compared to her grandmother, she was a bad ass liberated woman. One who was allowed to disagree with her husband, have opinions, vote, drive a car, own property, have a career etc.  Ok, we all took that for granted even then, but think about how far women had come from a mere 100 years before. Just by virtue of existing, the Donna Reeds of the world kicked ass.  By modern standards however they would be proud defenders of the status quo, err, the status quo of the 50's...who by virtue of existence today would be seen to set the feminist movement backward.  The whole larger point of this spew is that women have come and incredibly long way in a very short time, historically speaking, and have much more liberty to decide exactly who they want to be, and how they wish to act and appear.
You've still got the marketing and entertainment industry pushing not only unrealistic but downright unattainable body image to today's women but, and here comes the {amble}..

As women have gained personal and political freedom in western culture, Men have reacted by placing such rigid constructs of masculinity upon themselves that I'm surprised we don't all walk around wearing chaps and dangling Marlboro's from the sides of our mouths.

More to come..