Masculinity, Redefined (Successfully)

There has been an intensifying discussion forming around masculinity as it stands today, particularly with feminism in mind. Some have deemed this the Post-Feminism Era, but others see that, in fact, feminism is not disappearing, it is simply expanding its focus from where it began in the '60s.

However, as the definition of feminism fluctuates, we must realize that masculinity is also affected. I believe a Feministing blogger, Marc, said it best: "If feminism is about empowering women with choices, the new masculinity, (and it should be included within feminis[m]), must be about equipping men with the emotional tools to honor women's choices."

For this reason, I was inspired by the ideas expressed in Details magazine's article, "Gentlemen of the World, Unite!" This article uncovered the new definition of masculinity as being a modern gentleman. My other source of interest is the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Manning Up." I was glad to find this article did not involve masculinity advice from football star Peyton Manning.

I'll start by clarifying a few key points about the enlightened masculinity I hope will solidify itself in our culture. The Inquirer has come up with the title of "retrosexual" (not to be confused with Facebook's completely unrelated definition of this word). This is far departed from the "metrosexual," the manicured, pampered guy that continues to make men today uncomfortable.

Moreover, retrosexual applies both to the man's fashion sense and his state of mind.

Since fashion is cyclical in nature, it is not surprising that the retrosexual dresses much like the men of the '50s and '60s. The AMC series Mad Men's protagonist, Don Draper, comes to mind. But worry not, feminists. Only the fashion sense is coming back, not Don's alcoholic tendencies or his "womanizing ways," the Inquirer explains. The sexism, homophobia and lack of emotional expression of that era's gentleman is not part of the package now, nor is the patriarchal attitude.

Co-writer of The Modern Gentleman: A Guide to Essential Manners, Savvy & Vice Jason Tesauro told Details, “You carry yourself a little differently when you’re wearing pinstripes as opposed to sweatpants.” So we are looking at a man who takes pride in his appearance. He has moved on from the "jeans and a button-down" to something more sophisticated.

Moreover, the retrosexual, or modern gentleman, manages to be rugged and strong while also remaining a caretaker for his family. As Jennifer Sey, vice president of global marketing at Dockers, said in the Inquirer, this movement "celebrates men who can change a tire and a diaper." After all, the women of today are career-oriented while fullfilling their roles as mothers. No reason men cannot perform both roles.

In the context of behavior and self-image, a thought from Nashville writer and columnist John Bridges in Details: "I have found that the boor, the person who tries to barge through everything and get his way, is someone people don’t like. If you try to be civil, it puts you in a negotiating stance with people, and you get places a lot more easily. Being a gentleman gives you the tools to know how to get your way without everybody hating you.” Now that's a man that will command respect without having to demand it.

For a few more references, Details named actors Edward Norton, George Clooney and John Legend as "guys anachronistically committed to upholding high standards in their work and in their personal conduct." But being a gentleman does not demand that you be of a particular social or financial standing. Although a suit can do great things for one's image, this new masculinity is not about owning the most expensive anything.

Instead, it is about a man's ability to appear polished, intelligent and strong without feeling the need to throw it in anyone's face. He is in no way downtrodden; instead, he confidently accepts the changing tides of culture. In his enlightened masculinity, he accepts (and possibly even joins) the feminist movement, rather than attempting to discredit it.

So here's to the modern gentleman. We would be proud to have you by our side.

Photo credits: Rebekah Roy @ fashion-stylist.net, Mad Men Shrugged blog

The Runway is Back

I must confess, I love Project Runway. Heidi Klum is a funny host and Tim Gunn is precious. Plus, you have all the fabulous-ness and creativity of the fashion world as a backdrop and that makes for great TV. The series premiered for it's 6th season last night on Lifetime, after quite a tug-of-war between previous network Bravo, and of course, I watched.

The cast of designers is one of the reasons that I like this show so much. Not only are they highly talented, but each batch of designers is definitely diverse. This season we have Christopher, 30, who is a visual merchandiser from Minnesota who has never had a lick of formal training in fashion design. Ari, 26, is a designer from Missouri who does her best work as she meditates and sees no need to sketch. And there is Epperson, a visual window designer and a father who is the oldest in the pack at 50.

While there is a long list of negatives about the fashion world and its effect on women, I feel that project Runway goes in the plus category. It shows the hard work, creativity and the real people behind the clothing that goes into making great art. It's interesting to see how the clothing that people wear every day goes from an idea in a designer's head to the new sweater on your back. Plus the fact that Project Runways seems to make an effort to get a diverse array of both designers and models gives it more reason to be a positive TV watching experience. I'll definitely be tuning in next week.

Photo courtesy of jack dorsey on flikr.com

Only Ugly Women are Feminists

You know what? Feminists have tried pretty hard to trick the world into thinking that we're not ugly, vengeful manhaters. Thankfully, Karl Lagerfeld has been able see through our act.

Evidently, while channeling Chanel in a recent interview (explain that one to me), Lagerfeld said that "I was never a feminist because I was never ugly enough."

It's not like this comment has got me running to a mirror to see if I am indeed ugly, because I don't need an old, robotic man telling me that I am beautiful or not. I just think this is dumb. This is seriously one of the most tired anti-feminist arguments ever. Women don't engage in feminism out of rejection by men....

It doesn't even make an sense to characterize people who believe in a specific ideology or movement as being attractive or unattractive. It's not like we say that all Communists are sexy, for example. Maybe feminists are characterized by attractiveness because they are women? And, maybe this whole mess is reflective of the place women have occupied in society throughout history?

Photo Courtesy of Daniel Morrison on Flickr

Sotomayor, Suits, Sexism

Cross-posted with Princeton University's Equal Writes blog.

I can't wait for the day when an accomplished, powerful woman appears is made completely irrelevant by the contents of her brain and of her résumé.

I thus find Robin Givhan's article in the Washington Post yesterday - in which she accused the SCOTUS nominee of exhibiting little obvious femininity and of dressing "in the manner of a 1980s lady power broker" - disturbing. Not only do I believe Sotomayor's fashion choices were completely unobjectionable, I'm left wondering why Givhan even cares.

The justice's ensembles reflect her awareness of the climate of her hearing. Racism and sexism - from implications that her Puerto Rican heritage would hinder her ability to make decisions to bogus controversy over her involvement in the Belizean Grove - were obvious players in the questioning and surrounding media speculation, but Sotomayor remained calm and unshaken. Aware of our nation's ever-present biases against Latinos and against women (and especially against Latina women), she was careful not to let her demeanor or statements give the committee any reason to doubt her level-headedness or her "fidelity to the law."

It makes sense, then, that she chose "simple and bold" colors and "virtually no visible jewelry." I'm not alarmed that she wore "sheer black pantyhose." I understand why her nails gave "no hint of the cherry-red manicure that she has, on occasion, worn." In Givhan's own words, she was trying to "leave [her] gender at the door" and let the hearing focus on her accomplishments, knowledge, and experience.

If she "embraced that period in fashion when femininity had no place in the executive suite," as Givhan asserted, she was being careful not to offend the Senators of the Judiciary Committee (of which 17 out of the 19 members are white males) who haven't yet come to terms with the possibility of an assertive, intelligent Latina woman.

But aside from this article's unwarranted criticism of her fashion choices, I'm concerned with why the criticism is being doled out in the first place. Women should wear whatever they want, period. Whether or not Sotomayor chose to abide by what Givhan calls the "new gospel of women's power dressing" that encourages wearing accessories, ditching the pantyhose, and favoring sheath dresses over shoulder-padded suits, her fashion sense has nothing to do with how she's going to perform on the bench.

Givhan's article thus elevates a superficial and should-be unimportant issue: the clothes that a strong and intelligent woman just happens to be wearing.

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/talkradionews.

On the Runway: Fashion's Favorite Body

I know, I know...the issue of Women and Body Image might appear to be over-beaten and a bit hackneyed--But as I flip through the latest fashion magazines, I notice that the faces, outfits, and styles may change, but the unrealistic body sizes rarely (not as often as I would like) do.

I understand that art doesn't have to be realistic, and fashion is certainly an art form. However, I don't understand the disproportional relationship of the diversity of the clothing lines and the body shapes used to display the clothes. Shirts come in every variety: long, short, tight, wide. Possibilities are endless, not only for the shirt but for who will wear the shirt. Why, then, does the person wearing the shirt in the advertisement or on the runway have to be shaped a certain way to make it work?

I mean, check out the size of the models in Vogue's Guide to Fall 2009. The fashion is as diverse as you can get...the size of the models? Not so much.

With the healthy body image movement growing and multiplying (Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, Love Your Body, The Belly Project, Mind on the Media, Real Women Project), I think that the high fashion industry is under-utilizing who is available to show off clothes: not everyone watching the runways and not everyone reading Vogue are shaped like the models. Do many of them probably want to wear the clothing?--Of course, but they only see it showcased on people of a certain size.

Fashion is not only for people of a certain size, it's for everyone. It's disturbing that so much of popular fashion advertising seems to disagree.