The emergence of the metrosexual: producing acceptable forms of feminine masculinities

by Sherianne Kramer

Traditional constructions of men evoke images of wealth, strength, psychological and physical power, aggression, lack of emotion, patriarchy and virility. Young boys are presumably socialised into sex roles that embrace these characteristics. Moreover, the media has historically drawn on these constructions to demonstrate traditional representations of masculinity as a desirable point of reference for men. These images most usually imply wealth, power and status as opposed to the traditional representation of women as weak or ‘sexy’.

Traditional cultural definitions of gender equate femininity with passivity and objectification while masculinity is associated with activity and the subjectification. Additionally, men’s authority in knowledge-making practices rests on their capacity to objectify others while remaining invisible or disembodied. As such, traditionally, men are meant to be uninterested in ‘superficial’ and ‘feminine’ things such as appearance or emotions and those men who are overly focused on their appearance have historically been accused of being weak or homosexual.

During the 1990s the term ‘metrosexual’ was utilised as an ironic reference to heterosexual men who had an inordinate interest in grooming and appearance. Metrosexuality did not align to the circulated discursive practices about what it means to be a ‘real’ man. Women (traditionally constructed as falling somewhere along the madonna-whore spectrum) were the only images offered up for the desiring gaze- women were portrayed as sexy, as housewives, as fashionable and elegant and as desirable objects. While images of masculinity did exist, these were not commodofied in the same way as their feminine counterparts.

During the twenty-first century the media took up the image of the metrosexual as a new type of masculinity that could be objectified and commodofied. The media used the term as a new tool for marketing various products for men which has resulted in the emergence of a metrosexual cohort of masculine identities. In fact the metrosexual man can be defined as, “a commodity fetishist: a collector of fantasies about the male sold to him by advertising”[i]. He arose in the 80s, grew in the 90s and achieved monumental popularity in media, popular culture, and marketing by 2000. While the term has a number of connotations, Flocker’s definition broadly outlines the primary aspects of the metrosexual – he is a twenty-first century male trendsetter straight, urban man with a heightened aesthetic sense[ii]. He spends time and money on appearance and shopping and is willing to embrace his feminine side.


The metrosexual, according to Anderson, has materialised through four distinct areas of commodification[iii]:

1. Fashion: He is a trendsetter, fashion conscious, young, urban male concerned with his appearance and he accessorises. He chooses aesthetic home décor and shops at designer stores.

2. Food and Beverage: He is health conscious, eats only at the best restaurants and is often known for hosting dinner parties.

3. Grooming: He uses the ‘best’ available products for better skin, hair, and nails. He practices hair removal, shaving, and styling. He is concerned with fitness and will work out or undergo surgery to achieve the ‘perfect’ body.

4. Emotions:    He is ‘in touch with his emotions’ and is not afraid to allow others to see that.

Metrosexuality, by virtue of its characteristically feminine traits, is seemingly a potential threat to the hegemonic and traditional productions of masculinity. However, despite this threat, metrosexuality is not only produced and reproduced through the media but it is also consumed by a large number of men who regard themselves as masculine subjects. Furthermore, the production of metrosexual images in the media has resulted in the traditionally male subject being transformed into a commodofied object of the gaze- a space most often reserved for female subjects.

The production of metrosexuality has therefore resulted in a socially acceptable as well as desirable feminine male subject. For example, male commodification in the media 30 years ago would have been shunned and rejected however, in 2011, we barely react to these images. Additionally, men frequently shop, visit spas and spend hours grooming. Thirty years ago this type of behaviour was reserved for women or homosexuals only. Most significantly, ‘sexy’ and desirable images of men are available as objects for everyone’s consumption – as desirable objects for homosexual men and heterosexual women and as role-models and points of identification for heterosexual men. As indicated by Simpson, “metrosexuality is such an integral part of a mediatised and consumerist world…the metrosexual trend, whereby the male body is transformed (‘transfigured’ if you work in the fashion industry) into an aesthetic commodity, is apparently irreversible[iv].” In other words, a recoding of the masculine body has taken place whereby the masculine subject is constructed and reconstructed according to historical and sociological shifts in the public consciousness. This has implications for body politics, hegemonic masculinity and the apparent divide between hetero and

homosexuality.

In terms of body politics, metrosexuality threatens the very definition of the male body. For example, if the male body is the foundation for the definition of masculinity, can any male-sexed body exerting any behaviour be defined as masculine? Grooming the body versus the body in a wrestling match encompass two very different versions of masculinity. Meterosexuality therefore demonstrates that the body is not as reliable in defining sex, gender and sexuality as we are constructed to believe. Traditional constructions imply that sex role differences are presumably based upon ‘natural’ body

differences. However, the metrosexual body inverts sex roles. Accordingly, the metrosexual body clearly demonstrates that an entrenched ontology of gender exists and that gender can and often does surpass naturalised norms and discursive practices. However, this said, metrosexual masculinity is just one of the many types of multiple and competing forms of masculinities that together surface gender fluidity.

Meterosexulity also has implications for patriarchal hegemony. Hegemony, in this sense, should be understood with regards to the institutionalisation of power and its ability to silently relay knowledge through socially constructed and accepted discourse. That is, male power is not simply held by individual men but rather, it is institutionalised in social structures and ideologies that support the gender order in favour of men. In fact, it may be that very few men actually occupy the hegemonic position. Additionally, men are not only organised hierarchically in relation to women, but also to each other in relations of marginalisation and subordination. This said, all men receive a patriarchal dividend, even if they are excluded from the dominant definitions of masculinity. This, in turn, allows for resistance on the part of men who are subordinated or marginalised by the hegemonic form. For example, metrosexual men have a subordinate relationship to hegemonic models of masculinity in some societies, but have exercised social power to resist their marginalisation and to claim a legitimate social and political space.

Finally, meterosexuality may threaten the divide between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Traditionally, homosociality; relations between heterosexual men regulated by fear of homosexuality; has characterised male relationships. However metrosexuals demonstrate that gay and straight men may not be as different as homosociality implies. Metrosexuality therefore demonstrates that changes to men’s embodiment and social practices challenge ‘traditional’ notions of heterosexual masculinity. This is significant as heteronormativity, which is sustained by definitions of masculinity (and relations between men) that are based on homosexuality as the ‘other’, becomes threatened in the face of the metrosexual.

In conclusion then, meterosexuality can be treated as a gender deconstruction tool that challenges the binaries which limit our understanding of gender and sexuality (man/woman, male/female, heterosexual/homosexual, subject/object). Metrosexuality provides a model example of how the body and the practices of embodiment are performative of multiple and competing masculinities. It therefore seems that while a gendered ontology exists, body performances and practices often negate this ontology, thus demonstrating the existence of fluid gender forms. Identity is therefore dynamic and malleable whilst simultaneously a product of social, historical and cultural forces.

Notes

[i] Simpson, Mark (2006, 3 October). Here Comes the Mirror Men. The Independent. Retrieved July 25, 2011 from Mark Simpson Website:

http://www.marksimpson.com/pages/journalism/mirror_men.html

[ii] Flocker, M. (2003). The Metrosexual Guide to Style: A Handbook for the Modern Man. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

[iii] Anderson, K. L. (2008). From meterosexual to reterosexual: The importance of the shifting male gender role to feminism. Thinking Gender Papers, UCLA Center for the Study of Women, UC Los Angeles.

[iv] Simpson, (2006, 3 October)

---