By David Futrelle
Right-wingers really don’t like the idea of Pharrell Willians in a dress, huh?
Earlier this week, GQ magazine unveiled a special issue devoted to what it called the “new masculinity.” On the cover: pop music artiste Pharrell, wearing a gown, I guess, that looked vaguely like a sleeping bag for an octopus. Inside the magazine, Pharrell models an assortment of barely less-dramatic gender-bendy outfits and offers his thoughts on new models or masculinity in a long and rambling interview.
Naturally, the defenders of traditional masculinity were shocked and stunned. On Twitter, right-wing ideologues like Mike Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson sniffed their disapproval. “The New Masculinity looks pretty gay,” former Gamergate grifter Ethan Ralph opined.
You’d think that Mr. Ralph would be more open to a challenge to old-fashioned toxic masculinity, given that one of the former editors for his website literally stabbed his father to death in a rage (allegedly) in the midst of an argument over online conspiracy theories.
Other commenters on Twitter were a bit blunter:
Meanwhile, assorted right-wing rags offered more extended, er, critiques of the issue. The American Conservative declared that GQ had “emasculate[d]” itself by rounding up, and listening to, an assortment of writers, activists, comedians and others who weren’t all straight white men. (The horror!)
Spectator USA denounced what it saw as
a bunch of pouting narcissists in ugly €1,000 jackets talking down to men who struggle to improve themselves and build and sustain their families is disgusting. Frankly, they can roll their issue up and perch atop it.
But perhaps the most panicked reaction of the bunch came from Brandon Morse of RedState.com, clearly upset that GQ was, as per his headline, “Overtly Celebrat[ing] the Feminization of Men.”
Really putting the “his” in “histrionic,” Morse began his piece by announcing that “[o]ne of the largest projects being undertaken by the regressive left is the elimination of men.”
Morse devoted much of his article to a defense of “true masculinity” against the evil spectacle of men wearing dresses or “just ditching being a man altogether to embrace transgenderism.” The centerpiece of his argument? Wolves.
[I]t’s not femininity that’s been keeping the literal and proverbial wolves in the hills for thousands of years. When evil begins carrying out its purposes, it’s not people like Pharrell showing up in dresses that put it down. It’s not the “new masculinity” that’s going to charge into battle to protect those it loves at the risk of its own life.
Huh. I hate to break it to Morse, but there aren’t a lot of manly dudes out there wrestling literal wolves to protect the ladyfolk. Indeed, as our old friend Wikipedia notes,
There are few historical records or modern cases of wolf attacks in North America. In the half-century up to 2002, there were eight fatal attacks in Europe and Russia, three in North America, and more than 200 in south Asia
And back here in reality the “proverbial wolves” that “true masculine” men are supposedly so nobly protecting women from are overwhelmingly … other “true masculine” men.
In many case there is no protection to be found. Roughly a third of all women worldwide have been the victims of sexual violence. 50,000 women are murdered worldwide by their intimate partners or family members – that is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, by the very men who are supposedly protecting them from “wolves.” (Both of these stats are from the United Nations.)
That’s a big part of why we’re talking about developing a new model of masculinity in the first place.
While the right-wing attacks on GQ’s “new masculinity” are both hysterical and incoherent, Pharrell may not exactly be the ideal poster boy for this particular cause. Sure, he makes a fine model for the various outfits the folks at GQ handed him. But his thoughts on the subject of masculinity – while well-intentioned — are a mixture of trite cliché and baffling new-age babble. Over the course of this gas giant of an interview, Pharell serves up thousands of words of free-associational babble that only occasionally comes to the point.
I think the truest definition of masculinity is the essence of you that understands and respects that which isn’t masculine. If you ask me, when we talk about masculinity, it’s also very racial, this conversation. Because the dominant force on this planet right now is the older straight white male. And there’s a particular portion of them that senses a tanning effect. They sense a feminizing effect. They sense a nonbinary effect when it comes to gender.
Other time he seems to be prothletizing for the Church of Our Lady of the Bleeding Obvious:
You know, America was “created by our Founding Fathers”—not our Founding Mothers or our Founding Mother and Father. Right?
In one telling passage, he tries to empathize with trans folks, but in the end brings the converstation back around to himself:
Because think about it. What is happening to a transgender person? What are they going through? They feel like their body is not connected to their spirit. And what kind of toxic environment do we live in that they have to justify how they feel? That must feel incredibly insane. That is spiritual warfare. So I wanted to be in the conversation.
Well, sure, dude. Be in the conversation. But maybe not the center of it? There are a lot of other people out there with far more interesting things to say than the guy who’s only just getting around to apologizing for “Blurred Lines.”
Pharrell could perhaps learn a thing or two from some of the diverse assortment of other voices featured elsewhere in the magazine – especially lesbian comedian Hannah Gadsby, who had a few pointed suggestions for the men in the room.
“Hello, the men,” she began.
Here’s a thought experiment: What if you, the men, looked to traditional feminine traits and tried incorporating them into your masculinity?
Women are always being encouraged to stir masculine traits into their feminine recipe. We are told to “be bolder!” “Speak up in meetings.” “Exaggerate your skills.” All that Lean In sort of crap. So perhaps it’s time for you, the men, to be more ladylike. How about you scale back on your confidence? How about you try not to act in every situation? What if you tried to refrain from sharing your opinions or co-opting other people’s ideas?
Sometimes the best way for a man to contribute to a discussion is to shut up and just listen for a while. Or, in the case of the folks at RedState and The American Conservative and the rest of the right-wing critics, to shut their traps forever.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
My dogs would have enjoyed snuggling under that dress when we were out camping. I wonder if it comes in green.
Best. Concept. Ever.
I remember the meltdown in the States when Queen did their “I Want To Break Free” video in (le gasp) drag. Sheesh.
And it seems all these fragile guardians of ‘true’ masculinity seem to conflate it with being an asshole. If being masculine means being an asshole by those lights, then I’m all for more femininity. And guys, ‘feminine’ does not mean ‘weak’. You’re just shoving off all the traits you think are inferior onto women, but that doesn’t mean they are or that we have sole ownership of them.
Also, men protecting women from other men. A little like paying the mob their protection money, it seems. More than a little, really.
Actually, come to think of it, that…garment of Pharrell’s might be a good thing to have on in case of wolf attack. The wolf would bite all the puffy fabric and never get its teeth into your flesh. It’s like one of those padded suits they use to train attack dogs, but billowy!
I think the gentlemen from the “Manosphere” (which I am convinced is far from spherical, and is more a severely distorted cross between a pyramid and an oblate spheroid) are missing one vital, crucila point, at least in regards to the GQ cover photo.
The problem is not that the garment shown makes men appear feminine, or effeminate, or girly, or anything remotely within the categories implied by those terms.
The problem is that it makes men, or women, or any variant of the above look like an utter and total prat.
That’s not a dress. Nor is it a jacket, cloak, coat, frock, or robe. That’s am oven mitt for a Giant Kraken. Or possibly a severely mutated Beluga Whale. It is simply the most freakishly unattractive thing I have seen in my 60+ years.
You know, maybe we should stop worrying about misogyny and go after the real problem… Fashion designers. Because if we continue to let them guide our visuals on masculinity, femininity, and frankly humanity, we have nothing to look forwards to except as a species condemned to idiocy.
Let’s get back to high heels, tights, frilly blouses, and wigs, like manly men such as George Washington used to wear.
You should really think critically about things before using them as evidence in an article. This could have been a smear piece by a right-winger if some of the nouns were different. Think before you speak.
Interesting phrasing. I’ve found that hatred of fashion is, invariably, rooted in misogyny.
Well, I have the best Husband in the whole wide world, and I would never in a million years be where I am today without all his support. And when we first became a couple, he used to wear his nails long and painted and put on lipstick for a club night. Suck on that!
Sorta-kinda related to the subject of clothing: an article I recently saw posted on those ironic (sic) performative-sexist, “my spouse/partner is kind of an asshole and mostly incapable of comporting themselves in public in a manner befitting a grown adult but I love them anyway they are muh property uwu” T-shirts. I imagine those criticising the Pharrel image would be more comfortable with this kind of apparel.
@Luzbelitz
When I first read that line, the first thing that popped into my mind was Fahrenheit 451. Not sure if it’s a deliberate reference.
@Robert Haynie
It’s a circle. Specifically, a circlejerk.
@Dvärghundspossen
Your husband sounds like a great person. I’ve always seen that the best men are the ones who aren’t afraid to be feminine, because they’re more secure in themselves.
@Cat Mara
I’ve seen a lot of similar signs when traveling (in America they seem quite popular in shops, I never saw them in any other countries) and they never cease to frustrate me.
As for algorithmically generated shirts, a blog I follow is theworstthingsforsale.com. A large number of the bad products they feature are poorly made algorithmic shirts.
@ kupo
I think there have been legitimate criticisms of fashion since non functional clothing became a thing; there are references even from classical times.
Current criticisms though include: the classism, the consumerism, the impact on health, promoting slavery, and the environmental consequences; and that’s before we even get into the fur and leather side of things.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/good-socialists-wear-expensive-clothes
https://fashionista.com/2018/07/fashion-industry-modern-slavery-report-2018
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/victoire-dauxerre-model-anorexia-fashion-industry-speak-out-why-a7610036.html
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/jun/23/five-ways-fashion-damages-the-planet
I think it’s a cool outfit. It looks like something the future elders in Bill & Ted would wear.
I feel like this is codespeak for “those poor RedPillers, just trying to get laid in a hostile world”.
Celebrities can dress up as emergency airplane slides, but they’ll never be as ridiculous as a redditor with a mall sword on the wall boasting about how he built civilization.
You can do a Google search and find thousands of historical images of warriors doing battle in skirts, dresses, and togas.
We aren’t living in the stone age any more. These days, evil is carrying out its purpose on social media, cable news, hate radio, and in the halls of our highest institutions. Mocking and calling out Nazis doesn’t require any special garb.
I think I’ll take my chances with the wolves. They don’t subscribe to any of that alpha-beta nonsense.
You know what’s really unfair?
How my cat sticks his furry butt in my face like it’s the most natural thing in the world, but then acts all violated when I return the favour. I mean, what does that say about equality?
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Plus, many of us have tamed wolves in our homes that are much better than Red Pillers. Mine (see avatar image) sometimes misbehaves but AFAICT is never misogynistic or racist.
I honestly get a bit fed up as a cosplayer and someone interested in costume design when people kick off about something they have seen a man usually a man, wear on the catwalk and think for some reason that it’s what the illuminati/deepstate/joooze want them to wear in public.
Fashion shows are shows for god sake, this stuff is not intended to be worn on the street! Very little catwalk style actually filters down to make practical streetwear.
There is no gay agenda trying to force men to dress up in clown outfits as the designers are just showing off ideas, not brainwashing men to be feminine. A lot of these designers go on to work on feature films and movies where elaborate and outlandish looks are appreciated.
@ moggie
But you’d never see runway items on the street. Runway is about an experience, the story of the clothes. It’s the designer showing off their chops! It’s the designer showing you clothes relationship to movement and the world! It can be hard to “get” at first, but it’s really beautiful once you have the language.
Ready wear is what a person wears day to day. It can still be exciting, but this tends to be more focused in polish and practicality.
Seems to me that a lot of that haute-couture fashion serves the same purpose as those concept cars motor companies like to present at shows– often completely impractical and just an excuse for the designers to go hog-wild
@Cat Mara
It’s exactly that. A happy designer is a productive designer.
…are we talking about kink community or what
@ cat mara
You’re forgetting their invaluable contribution to fighting crime!
And a lot of the stuff we now take for granted on production models originated on concept cars. Although I do find it funny that manufacturers seem to have taken on board Homer Simpson’s thing about infinite cup-holders.
@Luzbelitx
Spoilers! If you know any young adults that want to read a book with a lesbian protagonist and this concept incorporated into it, I can recommend Cold Fire by Tamora Pierce.
@kupo
Do you mean the systemic misogyny in fashion leads to upset with the fashion industry on the part of the consumer? Or internal/external misogyny within the consumer leads to hatred of all things considered feminine, as fashion? I am not sure how you intended this statement.
@teabug
I tried licking mine in the face once after he licked me. He thought it was OK! I, on the other hand, had to wash out a mouthful of hair. Didn’t try it again.
@Big Titty Demon
I don’t have a cat (I’m allergic so I can’t have one ?), so I’ve never licked one, but I licked my dog by accident once. I had my mouth open and she jumped in front of me so I accidentally licked her side. Her fur didn’t taste very good.
What specifically did you have an issue with, and why?
Do you imagine that it’s a smear to point out the bigotry on the right? Because feel free to point to me some prominent right wingers who aren’t bigots. Good luck finding any.
@WWTH
I found his idea that could have been a smear piece “if some of the nouns were different” to be odd. Most things are different if the words are different. A psychology textbook could be a romance novel if the nouns, verbs, and adjectives are changed.
My money is on this being a dirtbag leftist/skidmarxist.