—this article contributed by The Professor—
 |
| Seriously. This is kind of advertisement is no longer unusual. |
It’s not unusual to be dismayed by the
Sunday paper; news is sometimes distressing, and always provocative. But every once in a while there comes along a
bit of trivia that should make a geezer stand up (slowly) and take notice.
In this Sunday’s Times of London it was
reported that men now average over 1700 pounds a year (about 2,300 dollars) on
beauty products. And it’s not just
beauty products: gender equity is catching up in areas like cosmetic surgery. American idol host Simon Cowell (granted, not
a role model for most geezers) states that “to me Botox is no more unusual than
toothpaste. Breasts aren’t the only
things being augmented either: requests for pectoral implants have risen
notably, and cosmetic surgeon Michael Progers offers: “Men want to enhance
their masculinity, so jawline enhancement is important. George Clooney looks attractive because of
his strong jawline.” Cosmetic
interventions such as eyebrow plucking and body waxing are now a common thing,
obtaining their own euphemistic description: “manscaping.”
One is tempted to be reasonable and say “so
what? To each their own”, and for a while I tried to stay in that camp. We are supposed to be non-judgemental about
things, aren’t we? But when did exercising
judgement get to be such a bad thing to do? And let’s face it: some of this
stuff is just ridiculous in a literal sense: it is "eminently worthy of
ridicule."
In thinking about what to do
in the face of this encroaching silliness, I am tempted to slightly alter
Edmund Burke’s well-known statement about evil and say: “All that is necessary
for the triumph of silliness is for good men to do nothing.” I think that doing nothing (and saying
nothing) as this social trend builds is at minimum ill-advised and at worst threatening to the life(style) of sensible, spoiled men —in whose company I place
myself.
Of the many advantages men have enjoyed over the years of patriarchy (perhaps unfairly), one of the most appreciated is
that we can more or less dress and present ourselves in a way of our own
choosing. As long as men stay relatively
neat and clean, with a minimum of body odour, we are have usually been allowed
to go about our sartorial business as we please. In this area there is a marked gender
contrast. Women have been consistently
victimized by a culture where, if they wished to be regarded seriously, a
certain adherence to fashion and cosmetic norms is expected.
One
rather obvious example: consider the comment, attention and distraction caused
by a woman choosing not to shave her legs. I’m not experienced in this area, but I would guess that most
professional women would consider not shaving their legs to be beyond a
reasonable possibility in a professional environment. The social/visual/grooming norm has been set,
and there is in this instance little a person can do but conform. To a lesser degree, these social norms
present themselves to women in the need to have hair regularly “done” and to
have it done in a relatively current fashion.
I would argue the same could be said for dress. I’m not ashamed to say
(although my wife says I should be) that I obtained my current job in 1987
after an interview to which I wore a conservative, cheap JC Penney suit which I
had purchased in 1968. Could a woman reasonably choose to show up for a job
interview in a twenty year old suit?
The results of such social norms being set
so strongly go beyond mere visual conformity.
Women’s clothes are far more expensive that men’s, and arguably of a
much lower quality (they are certainly less durable.) Women’s hair-cuts cost much more (but
this—amusingly—doesn’t stop increasing numbers of men from switching from the
cheap, sensible barber shop to the “hair salon.”) Put simply: unchecked social pressures—and
materialism—have contributed to establish social norms that significantly
diminish the choices many women can make when determining how to present
themselves in a professional environment.
 |
| These fellows need a little bit of gentle ridicule. We geezers owe it to them. How else will they realize their silliness? |
One can argue the forces behind all of
this. Many instinctively point to sexism and assume that men’s “gaze” is the
dominant propellant for these expectations.
I would argue that there is a lot of evidence to support the theory that
women dress and present themselves as much to impress other women as to impress
or attract men, but that’s for a separate essay. The bottom line is that, by buying fashion
magazines, by dressing their children a certain way, by actively noting the
choice of dress at public events, by commenting in the rest room on others’
fashion taste (or lack thereof) people create an environment that reinforces
certain body and dress expectations.
Men
have traditionally been relatively free from such socially-imposed
expectations. But with men spending
2,300 dollars on beauty products each year, can such expectations be far
behind? Can we prevent the day when a
manicure becomes a businessman’s essential preparation for an out of town
meeting, or when Botox injections become the antidote when a fifty-something man is labeled “behind the times?”
To my mind—and this will sound harsh—there
is only one prudent course of action to take: we must make fun of those men who
are contributing to the trend toward adoption of traditionally feminine beauty
techniques. The argument that it isn’t
any geezer’s business what a Metrosexual up-and-comer does has a certain
first-blush logic. But when one thinks
about how social expectations are formed, and how such expectations can come to
impose restrictions (and additional cost) upon men who wish to be considered “traditionalists,”
the issue isn’t quite so straightforward.
Can we count on the fact that we will always be able to show up in a
sensible suit and black wing-tips without being labelled “out-of-touch?” Clearly young men are searching for ways by
which they can project a sense of masculinity.
And if the reason young men look to fashion magazines and cosmetic surgery for solutions here because there are no older men close enough to them to
provide guidance is only one of many theories to explain some of these trends. But, really, would a
quiet word along the lines of “your bronze base looks good, but—really—men
don’t really need that kind of thing” be such a bad thing to offer someone who
is seemingly foundering in the complicated currents of gender identity and
projection?
They took Jason, and suggested that he
dye his hair and have his nails dealt with, and I said nothing; they took Josh
and convinced him that only Dior could possibly be acceptable, and I said
nothing; they took Jeremy and introduced him to defoliant, moisturizers and
filler, and I said nothing.
And then they came for me…
