Abercrombie & Fitch, what hath
thou wrought? The pretty boys on the frat-house clothier's shopping bags taught
a
generation
of
heterosexual
men to shave their
chests. Then Maxim, the aggressively hetero men's
magazine, extended its brand with . . . hair coloring. "Metrosexuality,"
the press dubbed it — a cultural movement led by urban
men
eager to embrace
their "feminine
sides" through
grooming
and shopping! The New York Times published an article titled "Metrosexuals
Come
Out." Queer Eye for
the
Straight
Guy became a TV hit and a seeming cultural mandate. Last month,
presidential hopeful Howard Dean tried to seize the Banana Republican vote by
declaring himself metrosexual; the next day, he discreetly
retracted the statement, confessing that he didn't know what
it meant.
Howie, we're with ya. But before we could reach for some
ipecac
and
collectively
purge ourselves of this concept, Da Capo Press released The Metrosexual
Guide to Style: A Handbook for the Modern Man by
Michael Flocker. To recap: it's a book about a trend that doesn't really exist
and
a label
that
means nothing.
Fittingly, for
a
book
that
bills
itself
as
a "Guide
to Style," it's rather lazy in that department. (A typical revelation: "From
tuxedoes to T-shirts, Armani provides consistent quality pieces.") Elsewhere,
passages on what wine goes with which food and how to determine the best hairstyle
for your face are interspersed with didactic tutorials on art and travel
that read like emails from your know-nothing, know-it-all friend: "There is a
commonly held misconception that Parisians are always very rude to Americans
visiting their city. This notion has been perpetuated over the years, but is
not always the case." Amazing.
|
Like hand-me-down Drakkar Noir, the odor of
status anxiety wafts
from
these
pages.
|
That the book would have the intellectual gravity of Marcus Schenkenburg in a
wind
tunnel
is
no
surprise. Like its similarly designed
shelf-mate, The
Hipster Handbook, The
Metrosexual Guide is a crass attempt to cash in on a trend manufactured
by style writers for glossy magazines. we've never met anyone who described himself — or
anyone else — as a "metrosexual" or a "hipster," yet
somehow these demographically ideal lifestyle specimens crawl out of the woodwork
just long enough to go on
the record before morphing into the next new, new thing.
As the term "yuppie" was to the '80s or "hipster" was
to the late '90s, "metrosexual" has 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. But like those earlier terms that
warped into
epithets, "metrosexual" doesn't
say anything about the person being referred to, but plenty about
the person making the reference.
The odor of
status anxiety wafts
from
these
pages like hand-me-down Drakkar Noir. Here's Flocker
on etiquette, for example: "To some, the rules of etiquette may seem outdated,
stuffy, and unnecessary, but the fact remains that they serve as a sort of social
weed-whacker eliminating unsavory growths from popping up in the world's finer
gardens." Or his justification for the metrosexual man's fixation on clothing: "For
centuries, pharaohs, kings, and czars bedecked themselves in furs and jewels
while the underclasses toiled hopelessly clad in dull flea-bitten rags." (Now
that's what I call historical significance!)
This anxiety reminds me of all those articles about
the Decline of the White Male that were published at the tail end of the early
'90s. Much sociological ink was spilled explaining how feminism, affirmative
action
and gay rights were lowering the esteem of white men. Perhaps the rise of the
metrosexual can be seen as a grasping for relevance cultural, sexual, and (with
Dr. Dean joining ranks), political by these forgotten white shadows. By stealing
plays from the gay playbook (assuming, of course, that things like "shopping"
and "grooming" are inherently "gay"), maybe
the
metrosexual
male
can
retake
the
field
of
American culture!
That's why Flocker's book and the whole metrosexual
moment is so devious. It pretends to be about breaking down barriers, about
embracing diversity and stretching gender roles, yet in the end it supports the
same
old
thing.
A
cursory
glance at
men's magazines from the late '50s and early '60s reveals fear and dread of the
breakdown of traditional hierarchies in articles like "You Have to Horsewhip
Your Wife" (Jem, January 1957) and "Women Don't Want Equality" (The
New High, March 1959).
If the anxiety ain't new, neither is the vanity. Whether
they were called Beau Brummels, fops, dandies, fancy lads, Teddy boys, mods or
pimps, certain men have always been willing to spend inordinate amounts of money
and time on self-maintenance. One need look no further than Muhammad Ali (an
African-American style
icon ignored — like most black culture — in this lily-white book) pronouncing
himself "So pretty!" to
find a non-'90s example of this. Or what about Warren Beatty in Shampoo as
the
flounciest
heterosexual hairdresser in Beverly Hills? Or John Travolta in Saturday Night
Fever complaining to his working-class dad: "Would ya just watch the hair!
Ya know, I spend a long time on my hair!" Pick up any old issue of Esquire and
you'll find ads for After Six tuxedoes, which "kind of make [you] feel part
of the upper crust" and Kanon skin products for "the care and preservation of
the male body for living, loving and enjoying life to its fullest."
|
What's missing is any awareness of how real people
live and what real people do.
|
There's really no need for a "guide" to this "new male ideal" (as the back cover
calls it),
since it's not new and it's far from ideal. Any trend that's solely predicated
on buying
shit should be regarded with the utmost skepticism by anyone over the age of
thirteen. But
self-identified metrosexuals like Flocker not only buy the shit, they actually
buy
the
trend
as
well.
And
here's
where The Metrosexual Guide's
biggest failure is evident: what's missing is any awareness of how real people
live and what real people do. For example,
I live in a city. I shave with a bowl and brush. I smear on Kiehl's aftershave.
But
I
also
wear the same shoes I've had since college and rake leaves in paint-splattered
pants.
I'm not a paper doll waiting to be outfitted with a lifestyle. The metrosexual,
despite his numerous hairstyle and accessories options, is a one-dimensional
being.
Maybe that's why this book — and the term that inspired
it — feels
so
flat.
(Last
month,
Mark Simpson, the
writer
who
coined "metrosexual" in 1994, pronounced it dead. And apologized. So can
we let it go? Please?) With
all of its definitions and graphics, the Metrosexual Guide reads like
Flocker's attempt to shape metrosexual mythology the way Dick Hebdige did for
mods, rockers,
punks,
and skinheads in his seminal Subculture: The Meaning of Style in 1979.
Problem is, the metrosexual myth-spinners don't know dick, and it shows. n°
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR: |
 |
Matt Haber has written for Spin, Entertainment Weekly, New York, Salon.com, and Wired. He lives in Brooklyn and writes for http://www.lowculture.com |
©2003 Matt Haber and Nerve.com
|
Commentarium (57 Comments)
1
1
1
Thank you.
Man Blamed for the 'Metrosexual' Says 'Sorry' - and Outs Himself As 'Lesbosexual'
Great write up. It doesn't end there.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031118/nytu186_1.html
Very nice! As Freud would have said, sometimes a good haircut is just a good haircut -- not a demographic marker, lifestyle statement or exercise in personal branding. C'mon, you can buy American Crew products at Target people...
Right on. Well put, well written, well articulated.
F_$k ! All I like to do is wear nice clothes, shoes and look nice and now I am a "metrosexual" ?!??!! Die so I can get on with my life and not be labeled!!!! DIE DIE DIE!!!!
This would have been remotely entertaining if it had been written 2 months ago like all the other anti-metrosexual articles.
since i live in france i wasn't aware of this ridiculous term until my friend from NY used it. i thought it was pretty dumb then and now that i understand it better after reading the article, i think its even dumber.
Finally, a voice of reason.
Except for the fact that the term "metrosexual" is like so five minutes ago and therefore stupid (like the trucker hats or Paper Denim of yesteryear), this article manages to say absolutely nothing accurate about anything important. Metrosexuality is very much something NEW. Metrosexuals are not dandies. Read "A Rebours" by Huysmans if you want to know what a dandy is, who peeps like Brummel modeled themselves after. Dandyism is bound up with Decadence (see Baudelaire, Nordau). Metrosexuality is perhaps a form of decadence (lower-case) but it is no aristocratic or bohemian affectation. It's a new social phenomenon, uniquely consumerist; it has as much to do with the accessibility of Kiehl's products as with vanity itself--whereas dandyism was bespoke, metrosexuality is over-the-counter. Metrosexuality can happen only a time when any economic status shops at Target, Ikea, and families are no longer associated with department stores (Macy's, Barney's) stratified by income level. Furthermore, metrosexuality is deeply involved with the breaking down of items previously considered taboo to heterosexuals. E.g., waxing eyebrows, trimming body hair. This is not simply grooming. It's a form of grooming traditionally associated with homosexuality and femininity. That's the key. It is a kind of grooming that is inherently homoerotic -- and this is why Bruce Weber's photography is so relevant. Nude male bodies are as celebrated as females. In some sense metrosexuality is a form of androgyny. The acceptance of homosexuality in everyday life, from things like girls appreciating gay pr0n to the homosexual archetype (gym-buffed and waxed) as a model of desirability for straight women are all bound up with this phenomenon. The drugged out rockstar archetype is no longer as sexy as the Yoga-vegetarian dude. It is something /peculiarly/ new. As a side note, I don't like the term metrosexual because it implies that all of this stuff, from appreciating the homoerotic, to androgyny, to having good taste (in clothing, etc.) is accessible to everyone. It isn't. Money doesn't buy taste, nor a progressive outlook that challenges gender stereotypes. But then I'm an elitist.
PS - Freud never said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", that's a popular misconception.
I think this term was coined as a marketing gimmick to sell goods that are traditionally used by females (nice clothes, moisterizers, etc) to men. And of course the mainstream of straight-male culture are so terrified of being perceived in any way as being "feminine" or "gay" that the term "meterosexual" was created (which non coincidentally rhymes with "heterosexual") to reassure the male consumer that they aren't a "sissy" or "gay" for consuming these products. The "metero" is suppose to convey a sense of urban sophistication to further this ideal. The fact that such a term would even NEED to be invented is a sad commentary on how closed minded society is towards the male (mainly straight male) stepping outside of the traditional norm of masculanity. Of course in my opinion guys (including straight guys) should feel free to wear skirts and make-up in public without anyone even batting an eye. Unfortunately there are too many intolerant people for this to be a reality in the forseeable future.
The clown who coined the term should be sorry. Hell, I came up with a sarcastic term in the late 70s, "Cosmo-sophistos", referring to snooty, polyestered men and women who hung out in discos, night after night. As did the disco guys on Sat Night Live then. God, what a pity to bear seeing gays telling straight men how to dress. Did Peter Jennings have to go to some homo to learn how to be a great dresser? Let the metrosexuals sip their Cosmo drinks and the latest swill, "Pit Bulls", Red Bull and that awful German herbal liquor, Jaegermeister.
I like calling OTHER people "metrosexual." It's like calling someone "yuppie" which to many people is not used as a nice term anymore. Ever hear someone say "Oh, I met this cute guy, and he's a total yuppie!"
Then again, people generally refuse to call themselves by labels imposed on them by others.
Try this for size: gaysexual -- curious straight/asexual men.
nk,
I serious hope, for the sake of not being accusing of having your head ever-so-slightly stuck up your ass, that you are not equating metrosexuality (METRO, not metero) with egalitarianism.
the metero/metro correction was to jb.
Oscar Wilde called himself a Dandy but i
Ordinarily I love this writer's work, but this piece was weak and clueless.
Thank you! You have no idea what you've done for this anti-fop gal.
As a resident of Williamsburg [Brooklyn], I'm privvy to the inundation of "hipsterdom" (a word used often, contrary to what the article states...) and other brief movements that come and go as this generation, like any other, attempts to find their niche....
Whatever term(s) are used to describe a movement, whether its the donning of a trucker hat or the attentive grooming of the priviledged class - does it REALLY matter? Do we really have this much time on our hands to debate the vernacular of what we're calling the current fads?
I get what the article is trying to state, it just seems like it represents exactly what is negative in the "hipster" and "metrosexual" cultures: boredom, emptiness and excessive judgement.
Metrosexuality is not egalitarianism, I didn't mean to imply that. I gave a account of metrosexuality as a class phenomenon... To restate: metrosexuality is only possible when there is no longer any stratified class consciousness. This is a way in which it differs from dandyism, the mods/rockers/teddy boys of the 60s, etc. That all shop at Target regardless of income level testifies to a break down in class consciousness, not that there are no classes. Extreme Makeover is an example of this: you have ABC operating like a New Deal public works project, helping the ugly to plastic surgery "previously" accessible only to wealthy elites in Beverly Hills. The egalitarianism is a postulate of metrosexuality but it is a lie, of course. In consumerist capitalism freedom is implicitly understood as the freedom to purchase. Forms of oppression like alienation and sublimation cease to be conceptualized because they have no market value. The status symbols of class are things that can be bought, and since credit cards make all things within the range of everyone (more or less), you might be fooled into thinking that you are free. But you aren't; the forms of oppression are rampant (not to mention the cliche claim that credit-card debt is a kind of slavery to corporate capitalism). The Simple Life is yet another example of this. Paris Hilton is bourgeois if the word has any meaning but we no longer see ourselves as different from her, we can watch her on television, her life and freedom, in short her being becomes a spectacle we can consume. It is so apropros that the show is packaged in a kind of self-consciously banal way--the "simple" life, i.e., the non-bourgeois life, implicitly claiming (falsely) the classes no longer exist. I don't know about you butu the sex tape illustrated to me that despite that I'm middle class I f\ck as good as her.
woah, i thought that the hipster handbook was a kitschy, tongue-in-cheek piece that ridiculed the dreadful williamsburg culture. hell, you claim to be from brooklyn AND you write pretty well. you should have known that! i mean, i only read parts of it from a non-conformist non-corporate book store in park slope so i could be wrong. yeesh!
A brilliantly cynical, lucid, and amusing commentary on one of the most ridiculous terms for ordinary life. Reasonable grooming and standards seem to attract such tag-lines as these, but they are, in all sense, utterly superfluous. Well worth a re-read when society starts branding you for being normal!!
What a hoot!
Who is dick?
Finally, someone with the balls to call out this ridiculous phenomenon and show it for what it is, crap. It's just common sense that some men who live in urban areas will pick up a little style along the way since they see it around them every day. Especially those of us in San Francisco, who are tired of living in the cultural shadow of our gay friends and neighbors. The simple fact that some men are sick of being labeled as slobs and start to take a little pride in their appearance hardly constitutes a cultural movement, or fosters the need for a specific term to describe them. Good job Matt!
The Hipster Handbook was supposed to be in any way serious???
Who cares? Maybe it's time we all got a real life!
It's a fucking joke term that's fun to rib your better-groomed friends with! Getting all uppity about some cash-in book is like getting righteous about commercializing pet rocks.
This article makes a lot of good points. But one thing it is not doing is seeing the trend/mouvement/target metrosexual as a symptom to the male identity crisis that has been going on for over 20 years. Men no longer have positive role models, but not only that, they are being protrayed in tv sitcoms as being stupid and childish (Everybody loves Raymond, According to Jim, and the one with John Ritter, etc). The fact that the male body is being exploited the way women's bodies were (and still are), doesn't seem to worry anyone. It wasn't right to treat women as objects, why would it be right to do it to men? Aren't we suppose to be evolving and getting closer to equality? Metrosexuality is only a target term for corporations to focus on men's weaknesses, the way they have done it to women and young girls. Now they found a word to stick on a file that I'm sure you can find in marketing departments of most major corporations promoting luxury products.
Good work man.
matt haber, you are exquisitely hot. this is just a sidenote to what i really wanted to voice: you know whenever someone writes a book dedicated exclusively to any offset of pop culture (i.e. the hipster with the hipster handbook) you know the trend is dead.
Badly-written, cliche-stuffed book for people who need someone to tell them who they are.
Metrosexual=narcissist. Nuff said. But thanks for saying it.
Now if we can just get the "scenesters"...
I am happy to see this. Finally someone said it, Thank you. I have had a trend of dating and hanging out these boys, and it can be a little much. I have given up give me a guy that has a huge beard and does not care what he looks like please.
I don't see anything wrong with being "metrosexual". For me its nothing about acting gay without actually being gay. It's just taking care of yourself and looking good for the public. I consider myself metrosexual, even though I may not be full out metrosexual. I enjoy looking good and getting the attention for it. You can still be a man and be able to look good at the same time.
Also....I really dont like the buzzword metrosexual. But hey I'd rather have it called that then "Guys who act gay and are not really gay". Or just say "I like to present myself well to the public".
In my opinion this handbook is horrible yeah I went to B&N to check it out and really after reading the book and not buying it. I think it is about common sense and just being yourself. As for being a "metrosexual" that word was done before it even started just like most fads "carb diet" just another thing to BS people and make money.
Yes, sure, I like it, Interesting and educational. Please continue to write more interesting post in your website.
hi man wazzup? I just wanted to say that my internet explorer is freezing when I try double click on the pics… are you using some non standard scripts or something?
Man, you wrote a long post.
Looks like, trackback doesn't work. Can I ping your text?
That's very thought-provoking point of view. I intend to return to this site very soon.
NK came pretty close to explaining what's going on. But, Metro-sexual is equalitarian. They are not Aristocratic. Aristocrats were of the world where men were men and women were women ... it's just that Aristocrats were well dressed men of a patriarchal society who wore classic, quality clothing. Metro-sexuals are non-men of the modern matriarchal society who are into fashion - just like women were of previous patriarchal societies.
1
Now you say something