Post by: mtnbkr on June 08, 2005, 11:38:01 AM
PARIS (AFP) - Macho man is an endangered species, with today's male more likely to opt for a pink flowered shirt and swingers' clubs than the traditional role as family super-hero, fashion industry insiders say.
A study along these lines led by French marketing and style consultants Nelly Rodi was unveiled to Fashion Group International during a seminar Tuesday on future strategy for the fashion industry in Europe.
"The masculine ideal is being completely modified. All the traditional male values of authority, infallibility, virility and strength are being completely overturned," said Pierre Francois Le Louet, the agency's managing director.
Instead today's males are turning more towards "creativity, sensitivity and multiplicity," as seen already in recent seasons on the catwalks of Paris and Milan.
Arnold Schwarznegger and Sylvester Stallone are being replaced by the 21st-century man who "no longer wants to be the family super-hero", but instead has the guts to be himself, to test his own limits.
"We are watching the birth of a hybrid man. ... Why not put on a pink-flowered shirt and try out a partner-swapping club?" asked Le Louet, stressing that the study had focused on men aged between 20 and 35.
Sociologists and other experts spent three months analyzing some 150 magazines and books and 146 Internet sites, as well as interviewing a dozen experts from Europe, the United States and China.
The traditional man still exists in China, Le Louet said, and "is not ready to go". But in Europe and the United States, a new species is emerging, apparently unafraid of anything.
"He is looking for a more radical affirmation of who he is, and wants to test out all the barbarity of modern life" including in the sexual domain, said Le Louet, adding that Reebok with its "I am what I am" campaign had perfectly tapped into this current trend.
The emergence of this new male beast who wants to look and feel good, and who will also have an impact on the role of women, presages a new potentially lucrative market for the European fashion industry.
"All those labels which have adapted to this freedom of expression are on the up, all those which are too rigid will suffer in the future," Le Louet said, pointing to the growing success of sports and casual wear manufacturers.
Europe's economic downturn and stiff competition from China have left the industry -- which accounts for 7.0 percent of employment across the European Union or some 2.7 million jobs with an annual turnover of 230 billion euros -- in the doldrums.
The EU has already stepped in with new initiatives and with an aid package to support small and medium enterprises, particularly in the field of technical textiles.
But the search for new markets is also driving research to profile the new European consumer -- the theme of the debate held by Fashion Group, which unites some 6,000 fashion industry professionals.
The answer is not simple, as culture and changing demographics make it hard to pin down the typical European, especially with the growing population of elderly.
But even though society is changing, Jean-Pierre Fourcat, a director with consultants Sociovision specialising in discerning social trends, believes there are some common threads.
"There is an increasing desire for people to be in charge of their own lives, and an intolerance for any lack of autonomy," he told the debate.
"We are also moving into a different situation. We no longer need what we are used to, rather we need what is new. But a motorway without any signs is total panic. So we need some beacons ... and we need a little bit of fun."
Today's consumer wants to feel pampered, but also to be able to take time out, feel good and feel alive.
"We have to help people to create their own look. And we absolutely must help people to dream, and if we help people to dream perhaps the world will be a little bit better," he said.
################
Where's my puking smiley...
Chris
Post by: Fjolnirsson on June 08, 2005, 11:52:20 AM
Post by: stevelyn on June 08, 2005, 12:13:55 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 08, 2005, 12:56:34 PM
Quote
A study along these lines led by French marketing and style consultants
Oh, no wonder...Brad
Post by: Sean Smith on June 08, 2005, 01:00:03 PM
Post by: yesterdaysyouth on June 08, 2005, 01:06:09 PM
Post by: Guest on June 08, 2005, 01:20:36 PM
Bwahahah!
(Sheesh..why can't people just be who they are, without having to define themselves according to what anyone else thinks? And for the love of all that is holy, why does anyone listen to the French about anything??)
Post by: Guest on June 08, 2005, 01:24:57 PM
Post by: jefnvk on June 08, 2005, 01:28:44 PM
Post by: ...has left the building. on June 08, 2005, 01:39:28 PM
Quote
The traditional man still exists in China, Le Louet said, and "is not ready to go". But in Europe and the United States, a new species is emerging, apparently unafraid of anything.
That is a ridiculous statement. Being a 23 year old male, the people I have met that fit their description of the "new man" are afraid of EVERYTHING. Everything to driving a fast car to light boxing to commitment in a relationship frightens them...but for some reason they are able to push the boundaries of society sexually, morally, and politically. Instead of testing themselves on a daily basis, they test other people's tolerance. That is the only thing they're "unafraid" to do.
Post by: Standing Wolf on June 08, 2005, 01:43:28 PM
Quote
We have to help people to create their own look. And we absolutely must help people to dream, and if we help people to dream perhaps the world will be a little bit better.
Sounds like a government fashion plan to me.
Post by: Justin on June 08, 2005, 01:43:56 PM
Post by: ...has left the building. on June 08, 2005, 01:48:06 PM
Yeah but do you have the courage to wear a pink shirt yet?
Post by: wasrjoe on June 08, 2005, 01:50:23 PM
Post by: Preacherman on June 08, 2005, 02:00:15 PM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 08, 2005, 02:21:28 PM
Women of the Armed Polite Society,
is this the kind of man you desire? If so, well, I guess I'm just meant to be single.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 08, 2005, 02:47:20 PM
Post by: jefnvk on June 08, 2005, 02:58:57 PM
Quote
Just don't let your anger at this nonsense spill over onto those men who practice hygiene and like looking good and don't watch Nascar.
I'll let you know that I enjoy NASCAR quite a bit. And if the French look down their nose at it, it can't be bad. Just because you find a sport boring, doesn't mean everyone does. I can prove that point by myself not liking baseball, soccer or football.Time to go start a thread on NASCAR and all that they do for shooting rights that other sports don't, methinks.
Post by: Cesiumsponge on June 08, 2005, 03:19:59 PM
The Northwest is a hotbed for the the advent and subsequent growing minority of the "metrosexual", which has been a long time coming. Its now cool to take after the stereotypical image of the dainty gay portrayed in popular media. I see a lot of people my age and younger starting to fall into this category. I've noticed the trend long before this published article came to light. My views might sound misogynist in nature, but I think the long standing identity of a strong masculinity is being watered down and traded in for a more feminized, subdued world of shaving legs, pastel colors, blonde highlights, coffee dates, and clubbing.
I grew up with action heros like Arnold schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone (as mentioned in the article), Bruce Willis, Mr T, and to a lesser extent, Van Damme, Seagal. I watched McGuyver, the A-Team, and action movies that were in no short supply.
I stuck firecrackers in GI Joes and played in the mud and sand. I ate grass and bugs and played dodge ball. I didnt grow up in an era with muscle cars (save the Pontiac GNX) but I have a love for Mopar, hemis, and the cuda.
Before my generation, you had the Burt Reynolds, Steve McQueen, John Waynes, and other action greats, plus the muscle car era.
Now we have&Keanu Reeves, Orlando Bloom, Vin Diesel, Pokemon. We have people putting chrome rims and low profile tires on trucks&large fartpipe mufflers, and blinking lights on stock engined 4 cylinder noisemakers that attract attention from moths and young, vacuous women.
What happened to men telling dirty jokes at work, hanging pinups (even bikini-clad women), and being men in general? Now we're finding the all-too-common "I was offended by that" lawsuit.
People get suspended from school for plastic toy gun keychains whereas kids used to roughhouse it on the playground and schools had rifle clubs. Teachers can no longer instill discipline and can only ask again nicely if someone fails to do as theyre told.
Everyone and everything is a subject of litigious lawsuits. Everyone is offended by what they see, hear, eat, or smell. Feminists complain of unequal rights even though there are MANY double standards in THEIR favor that they dont bother trying to equalize. People medicate their children on prozac rather than dealing with them.
I thought women wanted a strong role model, a slight "bad boy" attitude from a man who can get things done and check that bump-in-the-night...a man they can challenge and not have them back down. Now we're being told that men should be compassionate, understanding, nonconfrontational, docile, and domesticated, and that we're supposed to change. Yet, I hear all these women complaining that all they can find is poindexter or nice guys that get boring after they change for their girlfriend, and that there are no edgy guys out there anymore. Gee, I wonder why!
I can continue to rant about this but it'd be far too much to digest in one sitting. I'm sorry, but I won't take tips out of Vogue, dye my hair red, and go watch Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants with a bucket of Hagen Das.
As one of my favorite radio hosts coined the phrase..."it is the gradual pussification of America .
Post by: LawDog on June 08, 2005, 04:33:17 PM
I could take any of a dozen deputies around here, dress him in shined boots, pressed blue jeans and a leather jacket, have him pull up outside the "Fashion Group International" seminar on a Harley, walk into the seminar and drawl, "Howdy, Ah'm from Texas, and Ah do some cow-punching when Ah'm not ketchin' bad guys. Want to see the scars?"
75% of the women, and half the men, in the seminar would be batting their eyelashes at him before he got done with the sentence.
It may be trendy to proclaim the supremacy of the Sensitive Type, but Mother Nature wrote the coding on the human species. And Mother Nature isn't real impressed with wimps.
LawDog
Post by: Guest on June 08, 2005, 05:07:06 PM
I'm done here.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 08, 2005, 05:17:07 PM
Post by: Sean Smith on June 08, 2005, 05:40:34 PM
(I'm part French, incidentally)
Lately you've got more women doing traditionally male things (making money, exercising power), and some are trying to get men to act more like women used to, while still often viscerally rejecting men who are wimpy. You've got men trying to get women (a very male thing to do) by doing stereotypically female things (obsessing over personal grooming, being sissies), and getting mistaken for gay guys who aren't interested in women at all in the process. And you've got women going after men of one type, then trying to get those men to change so they no longer have the characteristics that attracted them in the first place.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...
Now, women have been civilizing/feminizing men, and simultaneously rejecting overly civilized/feminized men, basically forever. And older men have been complaining about the younger generation of men "going queer" just as long. All of this is quite well documented in the historical record. But this all can't be true, otherwise the human race would have died 1,000 years ago from too much gayness.
There is an upside to this. Women have been confusing the crap out of men for millenia. So get back at them by doing both stereotypes at once. This is easy now that everything is at least partially acceptable anyway. "Sweetie, can I read you my poetry after I clean my guns and cook what I killed for dinner?"
Post by: Ben on June 08, 2005, 06:12:50 PM
Quote
We must not have gotten the notice yet.
I got the notice, I just went ahead and shot the messenger. Problem solved.
Post by: jefnvk on June 08, 2005, 07:36:04 PM
Post by: Strings on June 08, 2005, 09:48:24 PM
But how, really, to change that?
Post by: Guest on June 08, 2005, 11:19:08 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
But I DO have to agree with a lot of the things that article had to say. Men ARE being "pussified"...
But how, really, to change that?
Do you really want to change it? More whiny girly-men just reduces the competition for the rest of us in anything. It means that i dont have to worry so much about getting in a fight at a bar, and despite common belief girls actually still like men.
But how, really, to change that?
Post by: mhdishere on June 09, 2005, 05:01:28 AM
He'd had dyed my hair back to its natural, medium brown color using something he shovelled up from the yard after the dog was out. He'd have cleaned his hands on the flowery scarf, and asked me if I was moving to Venice to pole gondolas in that shirt. He'd have then pulled up on the suspenders, thereby teaching me that there's a REASON why there are two straps on the front of men's suspenders.....
Post by: Unisaw on June 09, 2005, 07:22:53 AM
Priceless!
Post by: LadySmith on June 10, 2005, 03:34:55 AM
The male desert skink would go through 3 basic behavioral changes with each generation.
1st generation: Moderate, average behavior. Female skinks had no problem with them. Skink society was stable.
2nd generation: Hostile, would attack & drive off the 1st generation. Female skinks were aggressively pursued. Skink society was in turmoil; females would become defensive or go into hiding.
3rd generation: Sneaky, would act like female skinks, lure the 2nd generation males away, then double back & mate with the females while 2nd generation skinks were searching or fighting amongst themselves. Skink society was confused & untrusting.
And then the 1st generation type would return and the the cycle would start over again.
But we humans are more evolved, right?
Post by: Brrlgrrl on June 10, 2005, 05:27:25 AM
On the idea that men are being "pussified", I would generally agree. However, I think it has less to do with society, and more to do with parenting or lack thereof.
Post by: charby on June 10, 2005, 05:45:05 AM
Charby
Post by: Nightfall on June 10, 2005, 06:19:52 AM
Quote
"We are watching the birth of a hybrid man. ... Why not put on a pink-flowered shirt and try out a partner-swapping club?" asked Le Louet, stressing that the study had focused on men aged between 20 and 35.
Yeesh, count me the &%#$ out of this hybrid man stuff! 
Post by: Cesiumsponge on June 10, 2005, 10:15:11 AM
Not only is man moving towards femininity, females are moving towards masculinity.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101517/site/newsweek/
There is a running nickname here given to men who try to get a certain female they're after, but instead end up as the "best friend" type role. They commonly get referred to as the "gay friend" even if they're not.
As for the "affair as an excuse", I believe that there are those who have it as a legitimate excuse, and those who purposely get bored of the relationship and set up situations where it forces the wife to do so. Though, I would hope one cannot deny that courts are in general are in favor of the female gender when it comes to allegations of domestic abuse and divorce proceedings.
However, that being said, it is harder for a more traditional male to find a traditional woman...one that will cook, clean, love, and have the time and energy to properly raise a child, in exchange for a nice chunk of the husband's paycheck (afterall, she IS working), his company, his protection, and his love. At least, in my part of the woods. Most women here are feminists or single mothers looking to hook someone (the single mothers, not the feminists). I am by no means a conservative Christian Republican (in fact I'd be a semi-conservative Atheist Libertarian (that has never engaged in a recreational drug)) but I feel the above traditionalism has proven itself a working model over centuries of existance.
Instead of happy marriages, I hear a lot of marriages where the woman who marries, refuses to go into the workplace, likewise refuses to work in the homestead, and says "you have two hands, do it yourself" to dinner and bed. Being men in general are driven by a libido, physical interaction, and physical appearance...and women are in general driven by emotional and verbal interaction, and security, the lack of these traits dooms a marriage in most cases.
In gender dynamics of a couple's situation, many dyadic arguments can be summarized using this template:
Men have an inherent fight or flight response. Men in general are in control of their emotions and usually go from a mild state to full anger with relatively little transition in between. Most either try to escape or, if pushed over the edge, commit physical violence, or "verbal abuse" whatever that means.
Women in an argument will verbally hound someone until they either escape (and the woman might try going after them to continue hounding) or hound them with verbal abuse until it pushes the man over the edge. In general, a woman is more in touch with her emotions, and in result, more easily to call upon them and loose control of them subsequently.
Most people seem to neglect the mentioned general facts as how men and women are different, and somehow expect their methods of communication and affection-showing is identical to their partner's. Men seem to be constantly nagging for sex from a female's perspective but they don't understand that is how they show affection. Men are always complaining about how women want to talk their heads off about their day, emotions, etc and don't realize that is how a woman shows her affection.
A lot of times, When it comes to domestic abuse, physical violence seems to be initiated often by a woman (such as throwing of plates, slapping, etc). This in turn can escalate an otherwise non-confrontational man to explode in anger and return physical violence. Keep in mind I never claim -all-. In result, when police arrive, a lot of men neglect to make a big deal about being slapped or hit, or have objects thrown at him AND say that it injured him in fear of being seen as a sissy by this signifigant other, his peers, the police, or his ego.
In fact, it's been recommended by a pro-male, pro-father, domestic abuse/divorce court lawyer (who is a woman) locally here in an interview that if a man gets in a domestic abuse situation, and is actually being physically abused, he must stay on the phone the entire time with 911, and then make the explicit statement to law enforcement that the physical abuse from the woman had in fact hurt him. Otherwise, the police will likely arrest the male as they are required to arrest one party in a domestic abuse call--it's almost an engrained "norm". In fact, one person stated that he was clear of the charges and the police were going to take his wife to jail for a few nights, but made the offer of him being able to take her place!
If such events lead to divorce (and it usually does), then alimony and child support go to the female a majority of the time. Yes, I know...these two individuals shouldn't have married to begin with, but with marriage resembling a short-term automobile lease (hey this car looks cute, lets try it for a few years) rather than a lifelong attempt at commitment, its no wonder divorce rates are so high. Shoulda woulda coulda.
Likewise, an alternative and equally popular family blueprint consists of two working parents and a child who doesn't get the critical benefits of being raised fulltime by at least one of the parents...thats another can of worms.
I feel that some traditional roles are naturally engrained in us and that it would be insane to discard them. Females are seen as the loving, nurturing role in a family, and males are seen as the protector and provider. Next time a signifigant other tells you to make your own sandwich, tell her to go out by herself into the dark and check out that bump-in-the-night.
Post by: Strings on June 10, 2005, 11:39:59 AM
Post by: Guest on June 11, 2005, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Huh... I must be lucky: my wife is my partner. We both take care of cooking and cleaning, do our own laundry, and investigate any bump in the night together...
Being a woman isnt about doing dishes anymore than being a man is about NOT doing dishes.
Post by: Guest on June 11, 2005, 12:33:23 AM
Post by: garyk/nm on June 11, 2005, 06:30:40 AM
Re: "that" photo; if I were to encounter such a person, I might have to beat "him" to a pulp just on general principles.
Post by: El Tejon on June 11, 2005, 06:48:40 AM
Post by: Guest on June 11, 2005, 11:31:44 AM
Just no.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 11, 2005, 03:39:34 PM
Quote from: Blackburn
...as it will appear to them that I am wearing the bottom half of a wookie suit with the crotch cut out.
I need something sharp to poke out my minds eye.Chris
Post by: garyk/nm on June 11, 2005, 07:08:43 PM
Waaaaaaaay too much information!
Chris, when you're done with that sharp object, please share.
Post by: Guest on June 11, 2005, 11:22:04 PM
Quote from: El Tejon
So, it's finally O.K. for me to admit that I have my back waxed?
I think that one still needs to stay in the closet for awhile
Post by: wasrjoe on June 11, 2005, 11:30:27 PM
Post by: grampster on June 12, 2005, 04:25:36 PM
Post by: Justin on June 12, 2005, 06:06:29 PM
Quote
Yeah but do you have the courage to wear a pink shirt yet? wink
Bah. It takes a real man to wear pink. Besides, nobody expects you to be carrying a pistol under a pink shirt./doesn't actually own any pink shirts.
Post by: Strings on June 12, 2005, 07:34:39 PM
Post by: Bemidjiblade on June 12, 2005, 07:53:45 PM
That being said, I think the article is wrong and I must respectfully disagree w/ y'all as well.
Every time that I hear someone talk about how feminine something is, or how macho something else isn't, I see red.
I happen to BE homosexual, but because I liked a certain kind of clothes I was bullied, beat up, and labeled as a 'fag' for a few years before I cared about sex in any fashion. You'd laugh at someone who might lisp, but Tecumseh was pronounced Tecumtheh (the anglos changed the name because they thought it sounded too feminine). And if you think something feminine looking or sounding counts, well... the dude ate his enemies' hearts (while they were still beating).
But there are a lot of guys who just aren't "macho" who are perfectly straight etc. And I think it's just as bad to traumatize, mock, or exclude them 'cause they do something that doesn't meet up with your standards. I know of too many guys whose dads wrote them off and didn't have anything to do with them because they weren't MACHO enough. They didn't hunt or fish so they weren't worth their parent's love.
I loved music, dancing, and at 16 on a dare I told went through the number of ways I knew how to kill someone unarmed and gave my friends nightmares.
I think it's as pathetic to push a certain fashion as "needed" as it is to bash someone just 'cause they're different than you.
It certainly doesn't seem to be taking the High Road. Instead it seems like we're playing right into the hands of all the lib idiots who think that because we believe in individual liberty, we're knuckle-dragging neanderthals.
Post by: Strings on June 13, 2005, 12:53:02 PM
My comment of "the pussification of the American male" is aimed at something a little more nebulous, harder to define. Boils down to men not acting like "men". And sexual preferance, clothing choice, or chosen recreations have NOTHING to do with it...
Post by: jefnvk on June 13, 2005, 12:57:20 PM
Quote
It takes a real man to wear pink.
Or a dumb college kid who decided it would be a good idea to wash whites and reds together.
Post by: Sean Smith on June 13, 2005, 01:18:32 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
My comment of "the pussification of the American male" is aimed at something a little more nebulous, harder to define. Boils down to men not acting like "men". And sexual preferance, clothing choice, or chosen recreations have NOTHING to do with it...
Here is my take on it:The real problem, insofar as there is a real problem, isn't men doing traditionally feminine things. Nothing really fundamentally important happens if I decide to cook quiche instead of chili, except that it would be silly since I don't actually like quiche. Yeah, chili manly, quiche not, but who cares?
It is more a case of more men seeming to embody negative female stereotypes concerning weakness of character that is troublesome. More women embracing traditionally "male" virtues of strength, courage, and so forth might scare some people with small pee-pees, but is ultimately admirable... a virtue is a virtue, after all. Even in more sexist times this was accepted to an extent; Queen Elizabeth I of England comes to mind here, who practically had a modern cult of personality built on the contrast between her femininity and her power.
Quote
I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you.
On the other hand, men who adopt stereotpyically female vices of passivity, timidity and indecision have always been universally scorned by everyone... a vice is a vice, after all. Just because women have been unfairly painted as all having such characteristics, does not mean that having them is good for anybody in 2005 AD, anymore than it was in 10,000 BC.
Post by: Guest on June 13, 2005, 02:40:12 PM
I consider it a failing in myself, because I don't fit any molds myself, but there you go. I'm an anti-wimp bigot.
'Course I'm also annoyed by shallow chest-beating jerks who think any man who has never gnawed through a beer can is a homer-seshual and any woman who doesn't beg them to change a tire for her wants to be a man.
Post by: Anna G. on June 14, 2005, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: Barbara
I'd 3,000 times more want to investigate my own scary squirrel noises than deal with the moron that wrote that article.
Well said. If I had to chose between the man on the picture and the one who wrote the article I'd take the former without any hesitation.Burt Raynolds type being pushed away in the pop culture by Orlando Bloom type? Great! What I need is a partner in life with whom we'd deal with problems together, not a big macho to take care of me and in return require from me to be a quiet sweet little wifey. The initial article isn't very smartly written, but they are right about that. What they aren't right about, as Barbara said in her second post, is that they want to just build another stereotype.
I won't torture my brain to formulate a post any further, since everything seems to have been said. Just write up my vote into the column "Be a honorable person, do what you want to do and don't pay attention to the machos or the fashion experts".