meekia

The Meek(ia) Modern Man.

You vain young man!

You care about grooming!

You love the mirror!

You care about style and fashion, and know they are really two different things!

You metrosexual?

No,

You consumer.

With its rejections of patriarchal prescriptions of masculinity, and its embrace of mainstream body imagery, the “Metrosexual movement” appears to draw strength and inspiration from elements in Third Wave feminism. This essay however, seeks to discuss a different deconstructivist reality.

Is the “Metrosexual man,” a seductive superfluous label perpetuated by capitalist consumer culture to encourage commercial consumption; a ploy to socialize men in an exploitative and limiting manner for the purpose of transforming them into well-functioning components of the capitalist economic machine; a side product of Third Wave feminism? Or a pop culture phenomenon that will eventually fade and languish as a stereotype?

Will we see a growing acceptance of the androgynous, the blurring of gender lines and the increasing common ground in body cultures between men and women as a result of metrosexuality? Will the mythical war and the genuine power struggle between men and women finally see light at the end of tunnel?

We will share our tweezers, unisex jeans and Body Shop lotions…

And live happily ever after?

In his article “Die Metrosexual Die!” Matt Haber describes how the term "metrosexual" has simply become “a lazy catch-all, something you can call any guy who manages to shave himself properly or who falls short of John Wayne in the rugged-masculinity department” (2003). He also adds that the "metrosexual" label “doesn't say anything about the person being referred to, but plenty about the person making the reference” (2003).

Indeed, the “Metrosexual” tag has become a convenient stereotype and a handy marketing tool. Cultural practices that might formerly be frowned upon by male consumers and stereotyped as “sissy,” might now be celebrated as a benchmark of style and substance once the “metrosexual” tag is slapped on. Cultural artefacts previously confined to feminine domains and female consumption now have a new market in men.

Strong and silent? Or stylish and savvy? Authors and academics alike, have suggested that many in the urban male population have become lost because of the conflicting ideologies between new and old schools of thoughts about masculinity and a man’s essential role in society.

The “metrosexual movement” as popular culture phenomenon and cultural text is intriguing because it seems to provide easily digestible answers, hints at liberation and appears to provide resolutions to some age-old struggles. Emancipation everyone, is an expensive hair-cut plus a wardrobe revamp away!

The “Metrosexual” man embraces and understands the associated powers that come with looking (and consuming!) like David Beckham – a footballer turned celebrity oft upheld as the quintessential icon of the Metrosexual movement.

From nail polish to expensive hair-does, David Beckham subverts traditional notions of masculinity with haute couture consumption. What his actions represent, are the Metrosexual man’s indulgent pursuit of physical beauty as defined by popular culture’s ideal male imagery. This celebration of mass media prescribed physical perfection is not dissimilar to how Third Wave feminists from the “lipstick school of thought” celebrate their cleavages and mini-skirts with vigor.

Third Wave feminists rejected the Second Wavers' trivialization of their bras, their sexy dresses, and other “girlie” items. Third Wave feminists did not define their appearances narrowly, singularly, and simplistically as projections of male sexual objectification. To “Lipstick Third Wavers”, the potency of their sexuality and femininity was to be embraced. Instead of running away from typecasts by the mainstream media phallus, lipstick feminists wielded stereotyped ideal female imagery as tools of power.

Likewise, the Metrosexual does not reject popular culture’s prescription of male physical perfection. From defined musculature to matching footwear, the “preponderance of visual images in consumer culture” has given “the ‘look’ of the body, its demeanor, clothing and adornment “ (Baldwin et al 1999, p. 304) a rising importance amongst the male urban population. S.N.A.G v. 2.0 (as in Vainity 2wice as much) it appears, is about rejecting “himbo” anxieties and literally “buying” into the notion that joy and self-identity can come with the consumption of lifestyle goods from fashion to furniture.

The deconstructivist reality of course, is that the Metrosexual being might simply be nothing more than a male consumer seduced by the ideologies and aspirations packaged, marketed and sold to him in shopping malls. But tragically, rather than believe he is a victim of capitalist consumerist hegemony, the Metrosexual man probably convinces himself that he is an evolved, emancipated individual and a symbol of postmodernist ideals.

As described aptly by Haber (2003), “[t]he metrosexual, despite his numerous hairstyle and accessories options, is a one-dimensional being.” His resistance to the patriarchal hegemony is through superficial, superfluous consumption.

As much as they would like to think they are liberated players of the ideology game and dexterous wielders of ideal physical imagery, the Metrosexual man and his Third Wave feminist counterpart are PRETTY much still easy prey for the fallacies of consumer culture.

Seidler (1991) wrote that “people often fail to appreciate how deeply forms of masculinity are tied into the very organization of production in both capitalist and socialist societies.” The Metrosexual movement merely opens up more avenues for marketing to the consumer. The inherent patriarchal oppressions were never removed. They have simply been re-tooled and re-packaged in Armani suits.

The words of Dr. Nirmala Purushotam capture the oppressive limitations placed upon us by patriarchal thinking (Kon, 2000). These oppressive limitations will not be dispelled by the metrosexual myth, and they will continue to haunt us:

I live in a patriarchal society and in such a society, we have a sense of things being divided into two. This splits our selves both as men and women - our potentials become reduced by this split. In a patriarchal society, it's not just that men are different from women, but certain activities, qualities and domains are seen to be privy only to men while other activities, qualities and domains are seen only to be privy to women. I'm not saying that it's so hard and fast. But generally, one side then loses the possibilities allowed by the other side. And both suffer.

1036 words

posted by audaciousjoy @ 7:59 PM