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.