 |
posted by Adam on Sunday September 28, @01:55PM
from the You-tell-'em! dept.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt writes "This article condemns "metrosexuality". No surprise it was off-linked from msn.com's Hotmail opening page.
I submitted a comment as written here, and also sent it to the author of this lovely little tract whose e-mail address is found at the bottom of the article she wrote.
----------------
For decades men have been scolded to be more like women. Some have become that way, and now they are condemned for it?
The underlying phnomenon here is this: When a man stops living to serve women, he is condemned. If he takes care of himself and/or acts as "self-absorbed" as the average woman does, he is also condemned for it. Women want the right of self-absorption and self-care to themseleves. They would rather sit safely on the bleachers watching men hurt themseleves in sports like football for their own entertainment than watch a man be happy and healthy and care for himself. There is nothing wrong with a man taking care of himself as he sees fit.
The mistake men have been making for a long time is that they have been too much taking their cues about what they ought to be from women. Of course if you live for anyone else's opinion of you, you are bound to get caught in a cycle of pleasing/not pleasing that leads to no one's happiness. You must live life the way you think is right for you, and not for anyone else. To not do so is to allow oneself to get caught in a kind of co-dependency, and that is not good because the results are rarely satisfying.
I say this: individual men should be the way they want to be, act as they want to, and live for their own goals. If those include playing football and not 'doing their hair', so be it. If they include spending $1,000/month+ at the spa, so be that, too.
Men should have as much CHOICE as women have in every area that they have it.
Ms. Pressman needs to update her notions of "equality of the sexes" to include men."
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 28, @03:21PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Read the article,Matt, but couldn't find your comment for some reason.
Anyway, this IS an important issue. In to-days employment, appearance equals power. It is vital in getting getting jobs and in securing advancement in a job. Women understand this full well.
The traditional restrictions on men's usage of cosmetic products,for example, is contributing to their second class citizenship. The feminists understand this and will use the weapon of ridicule to prevent men getting equality in this area. It is one example of feminists selectively supporting "traditional male conduct" when that conduct enhances womens power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the article myself, but wasn't sure whether to classify it as pro- or anti-masculinity. My uncertainty stemmed from awareness that there is a constituency among men's advocates who would agree wholeheartedly with her - what I call the "viva le difference!" folk (such as Fred Reed), who cling joyously to the "Beauty and the Beast" definition of the gender equation.
I'll readily admit that lots of men and women substantiate the old-fashioned stereotypes, but I also believe that, for many of us, it is too narrow a definition. I'm not a proponent of vanity, but some men are vain - just naturally vain. And if it's natural, then let them be. And if you're going to let women get away with it, then let the boys get away with it, too. Or at least denounce all the vain people equally.
I think the author's sentiments mirror a lot of supposedly "liberated" women's, including some that I know. It is perfectly fine and recommended for Beauty to aspire to resources beyond mere looks, but the Beast should stay contentedly put in his furry roughness.
I was also chaffed at a remark she made late in the article. I don't have the exact quote, but it was something to the effect that if men are going to emulate women, they should emulate more virtuous feminine qualities such as nurturing and breastfeeding. "At least you'd be helping us out," I believe she said to punctuate. I don't deny the brunt women bear in bearing and raising children, but there's something in her tone that implies that is the only brunt there is in the world, and only women bear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 28, @03:35PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of bunk. It boils down to this: "Hey, that guy is spending money on himself when he could be spending it on ME!"
What a bunch of crap.
That, plus he probably sleeps or flirts his way past her in promotions at work just like every other attractive woman in this country.
Ah well. I don't dress for the sake of the ladies. But they do like it anyways...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What a bunch of bunk. It boils down to this: "Hey, that guy is spending money on himself when he could be spending it on ME!" "
Actually my response to the article is that she wrote it for ESPN and not Ms Magazine. I believe the issue is more related to having men spend their money on beer, pizza, chicken wings and next weeks football pool. Instead of course on gel, hairspray, $50 haircuts and clothes that will be out of style in 15 minutes.
I do agree with your point on how women like well dressed men. However each women to her own likings I guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, guys, the URL for comments is in fact here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story? page=mailformmetrosexual
I submitted the wrong link; mea culpa.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
