For starters, I'm not really sure I accept the premise that testosterone is what makes me a logical being. The author also doesn't do his thesis any favours when he assures us that men must "take charge and lead the way" so that "we can steer the way to a true equality between the sexes." A very ... special ... logical formulation in its own right.
 |
| Even at 99 cents this is not the Menaissance meal of choice. |
I can assure you that double whoppers are not the emblem of the modern man. Nor is a demand for "the ultimate respect," allegations that "women trade money for respect" or trading genuine respect for "being nice".
Predictably, Mr. Fitzgerald (I'm going to wager a guess and say no relation) isn't the only one to get it wrong. The marketing world, god help us all, dropped the ball on this one too:
Burger King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ
Even Barney Stinson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rbCzhUS5Y
All of these articles suggest, as our friend Mr. Fitzgerald did, that real men need to end this female oppression. They are rallying cries to throw off our chains and do exactly what we want to do! As long as what we want to do is eat, drink and act exactly as imaginary panels of our peers demand.
The more nuanced opinions on the phenomena are more appealing but still not what I'm looking for. This discourse is based on the "retrosexual" ala Don Draper from AMT's Mad Men. The narrative, at its worst, argues with the Burger King (Who are you?) that real men are men that do what they please and flaunt social norms, the only difference is they do it in classic cut suits. At its "best" (I use the term best loosely) it suggests that the new man is all about stepping beyond the "metrosexual" stereotype and drawing his inspiration from what was best about classical manliness.
The Guardian, The Toronto Star, and CNN Washington all embrace this view of Don Draper being representative of the ideal man and vanguard of the "retrosexual" cause in the battle against metrosexuality. They point to the way that men and women alike flock to his character and this should indicate that he is the new alpha male.
This argument is what keeps telling my testosterone (thanks Fitz') that we actually do need a Menaissance. I disagree with the idea that Donald Draper's appeal is a product of him being a perfect man. While I do like Don's drunken lurching into the future, I wouldn't call him the answer to what men should be. He is, more effectively, the question personified.
Masculinity may well be a drunken lurch, and not always forward, but the answer is not in a Texas Double Whopper, or a classic cut suit, or even in eating a Texas Double Whopper in a classic cut suit. Don, by the retrosexual standard, already has it all. He does what he wants ala Burger King, looks good in a suit ala The Guardian, but he is still a lost--and often broken-- man, and that is why he resonates.
If the two major arguments for what it is to be a man are caveman vs. 50's advertising executive then we definitely do need a Menaissance.
If it took the Renaissance to drag European civilization kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, then maybe a Menaissance is what it takes to move men beyond the idiot dad, Donald Draper, or knuckle dragger typographies which seem to be all we men have to work with.
If you want my guess, the Menaissance man looks something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnzyzsOqMOY
I could be wrong, but until the Menaissance maybe we should just do our own thing. Maybe we should worry less about AskMen, skinny ties, and six packs (of miller or otherwise) and just do our best with what we are.
I bet that when we do find out what it is to be a man it will have less to do with how men view ourselves, and a whole lot more to do with how we treat those around us.
No comments:
Post a Comment