Gucci has inserted itself into the culture war by releasing a weirdly dowdy dress for men at the low, low price of $2600 a pop. The dress, more a publicity stunt for the brand than an actual product anyone will ever buy, is said to be a challenge to “toxic masculinity.”
And it sort of is, in that its drawn an assortment of toxic men out from the shadows to indignantly protest against this alleged insult to their brand of masculinity. I found a few of these guys (and a couple of sympathetic women) posting about the dress on Twitter:
The reactions were more intense over on my second-favorite hive of toxic masculinity, the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit. (On my first-favorite hive, Incels.co, the regulars seem not to have noticed the new dress yet.)
Some suggested that any man wearing the dress would deserve a beating.
“Anyone wearing this is pretty much asking to get beat up,” suggested melkiorr.
“The only thing that will be fluid would be the nose of anyone dumb enough to wear this in public,” joked ppkoto7.
My_name_jeff2 pulled out the t-word.
Now, you can be a tr*nny without being mentally ill! For only £1699.99
Some lashed out at the model himself in homophobic ways.
“That n***a look like a bitch!” wrote HaywoodJabBitch.
“Behold the eternal virgin!” wrote EnvironmentalRest4. “Getting boned by guys doesn’t count, not in this case.”
Throwawayham1971 mocked any man who would go out and buy the dress.
There is a totally gay dude at Gucci laughing his ass off knowing damn well some fucking loser will buy this to try and get laid.
Rocko20002 tried to retroactively claim Kurt Cobain as an ally in bigotry.
Kurt Cobain might have been a feminist simp, but I’m convinced that if he saw this “grunge inspired” monstrosity sold for I’m guessing the equivalent of US $2000, he would blow his brains out again.
Cobain might have been offended by the price tag but he definitely had no problem with men wearing dresses, which he occasionally sported himself as a challenge to precisely that same toxic masculinity that Gucci is supposedly critiquing.
Luciano700 wrote that
If a man wants to cross dress. Fine that’s his problem not mine
But to shove this down our throats when it is clearly not at the preference of most? That’s going a little too far
It’s not clear how a designer selling a dress that no one is obligated to buy counts as shoving anything down anyone’s throat.
Other commenters saw the dress as a legitimate threat to their kind of masculinity.
“They want you neutered and then they’ll laugh at you” wrote ThrowawayGhostGuy1.
Vijaya_Narayana agreed:
They just want to pander to all of the people and organisations that seek to demonise and ostracize REAL masculinity, the world is changing, not for our benefit.
Monkonajourney challenged the very notion of “tocix masculinity” even as his colleagues in the MGTOW subreddit exhibited it all around him.
Fuck these bullshit societal brainwashing propaganda advertisements. Being a man is not toxic. Wearing masculine clothes is not toxic. Getting angry in the right situations is not toxic. Fighting for yourself and your loved ones is not toxic. Competition is not toxic. Standing up for yourself is not toxic. Not taking shit from anyone is not toxic. Growing a beard, building your physique is not toxic. If it intimidates certain snowflakes, that is their fucking problem. Stop trying to feminize men.
Well, if you make your definition of “toxic masculinity” a series of straw men, you’re only going to succeed in pissing yourself off. No, toxic masculinity isn’t any of those things, from wearing “masculine clothes” to growing a beard. Masculinity in itself is not toxic. Toxic masculinity involves a rigid adherence to an exaggerated version of masculinity that’s socially maladaptive and at times dangerous to people of all genders.
Truly righteous anger is not the problem; a man using anger and implied or real violence to control his wife is an example of masculinity gone toxic. Similarly, suggesting that gender-nonconforming men — say, men in dresses — should be beaten up is toxic masculinity.
Say what you will about Gucci’s ugly man-dress, but it certainly brought out the toxic men in droves, exposing their toxic masculinity in their own words.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
You think that the MRAs are freaked about men wearing dresses?
Wait til they find out about the CellMate – a locking “male chastity device” with no physical key or escape mechanism designed to be controlled by your partner’s cell phone.
Turns out it can be hacked. WHOOPS. More fun with the story at my blog but this seems like a story David should cover for its own sake. I can’t imagine the MRAs won’t be up hot & bothered over a story like this.
As with the previous complaint about pumpkin spice lattes, this seems to boil down to “Products exist that I don’t personally want to buy! It’s hellish oppression, I tell you!”
(I agree that there are far-more-attractive, better-priced dresses out there)
@Ginger: Utilikilts are great!
I have no desire to wear a dress, but would be all over unikilts if they showed up at the cheap places I shop.
I agree strongly with this sentiment.
Well of course it was wearing pants that resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire…
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/trousers-pants-roman-history-banned-trajan
Funny. The other day I noticed that Fenty plus sized male thing and thought “Huh, when was the last time I saw a dweeby skinny male model like me?”
So I just have to say thank you Gucci, for representing guys like… $2,600?!?!?
(Yes, yes, I am aware that there are probably plenty of scuzzy looking male models who are skinnier than female runway models out there, way more than plus sized models. I just don’t pay attention.)
@Crip Dyke
All joking aside, having no manual unlock function seems like poor design.
I don’t know what the market for chastity devices is, but I’d imagine it’s fairly niche. As a result, I’m not sure if MRAs will take notice of this one in particular. Unless someone wants to go undercover to r/MensRights and post about it…
The story about lockable chastity belt have circulated a lot, so they could have taken note indeed.
My first thought is that the hackable devices are probably worth a premium for the added thrill. “Will I need to go to the hospital so they can bolter-cut my belt ?”. Sarcasm aside, that’s actually something some people can want. (fantasm of loss of control all that)
The MRAs meanwhile would probably whine that they will soon be forced to wear that, I guess.
$2600 and it looks like something a child would wear in the fifties. FFS
@Ohlmann, @Battering Lamb
Me three. But, uh. This ad. Are Gucci actually trying to sell this? Do they want it to fail?
Also why are we still doing this abusive “models should be rail thin” rubbish in the year 2020? This guy doesn’t look as starved as some female models I’ve seen, but he sure don’t look too healthy either.
I don’t like Gucci to start with, so the hideousness didn’t jump at me considering where it came from. Plus, points for efforts.
As for the model, I have seen a lot of geeks who seemed just as thin. I mean, based on a single picture he just seem “naturally” thin, while female models often make me go “do she really have meal other than cocaine ?”. I get the complaint, and he was cast probably because he was very thin, but it don’t look unhealthy yet to me given what I see.
(whether we can see his rib bones when shirtless could easily sway my opinion)
Ever seen the price of a kilt?
The price of a traditional custom-made kilt makes sense. It’s made to measure, it involves a good quantity of high quality fabric, and then there’s the hand-sewn pleating and the leather straps. It’s an heirloom piece that can be passed down the generations. It also has resale value.
I like the Gucci dress more than most people here (I love orange), but my mom could sew something like that in an afternoon.
@LindsayIrene
On the British Sewing Bee this year, they made children’s kilts, or an analogue of one anyway, and even for little kids it uses at least a couple of yards of fabric. For and adult it must be a lot more. I have heard that modern kilts developed from a sort of skirted cloak garment that needed to be big enough to wrap up in completely for sleeping outdoors, but I’m not sure how true that is. I know the modern kilt and tartans are a modernish invention of the 18th and 19th centuries, but not much more.
I have seen utilikilts, they look rather good, very practical. But ooh, brambles to the calves! That would be painful.
Besides whether the chest area would fit right or not, most dresses lack pockets, or worse have fake ones.
@Cyborgette
I get the feeling not, given the price which they know most people can’t afford.
I’d guess they either did this performatively or it was some designer’s idea of a spree day that they never planned to sell.
@Nequam
That’s an issue I have with dresses in general. I like dresses but I also like having pockets, and I would like to see more dresses with pockets.
@naglfar
Tempting, but I’d have to create a reddit account.
Quite.
@Crip Dyke
I’ve got one that I never use. Should I do the honors?
@ cyborgette
An evening out in Hoxton would seem to indicate yes. If you know where to go you can pick up runway stuff for a lot less than book price though. There was a great stall in the old Spitalfields market that used to sell it; and it was a great place to pick up one-off designs. They’re pretty much only in one standard size though.
But fashion shows work a bit like Formula 1 or those concept cars you see at auto shows. It’s where designers can experiment with avant garde ideas and innovative tech, like traction control or central locking; and that eventually finds its way into regular cars.
Similarly, toned down versions of high concept fashion soon end up in high street stores.
I can’t help being struck by how pathetic their notions of manhood are. It’s like a child’s conception of what it means to be a grown-up, except it’s less cute when coming from a 40 year old.
Completely OT, but I see that 2 women have received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry?
Countdown to manospherean outrage in 4…3…2…
@ obsidjag
They can get 25% annoyed at this too
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/ghez/facts/
@Lukas Xavier
Come on, few children are anywhere near as obnoxious as manospherians.
@ObSidJag
I’d imagine they’re already not fans of the Nobel Prize seeing as over 20% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish.
Okay, I object to that dress on the grounds that it is hideous( because I hate fake plaids as a general rule),and orange simply is not his color. I would have gone for more jewel tones or perhaps for a more subdued autumn look.
Also, Billy Porter rocks dresses all the time and does it very very well.
There really isn’t anything stopping men from wearing dresses (like they used to) beyond just plain old sexism. I mean men used to wear heels before women didi, as well as dresses, wigs, and stockings (I too like a good turn of calf!) and I kinda wish they would again.
@Nahlfar
Someone else addressed the fit issues, but the thing I wonder is if said dress line will be crappier quality? I personally would find it hilarious in a very unfair, schadenfreude-y way, because women’s clothing modeled from men’s clothing is universally made from cheaper, thinner materials that wear out faster. When buying suits, for example, at least as of five years ago if the suit did not have the marker “menswear quality” on it, it would be a cheap suit. Babydoll Ts are always thinner than unisex or men’s Ts, as are women’s shirts in general. I just don’t even buy women’s jeans anymore because I can’t find a pair that can hold up to what I need them to for more than 6 months (it’s not a lot, it was just walking a few miles in a day, before the plague times).
Would men’s dresses follow the same pattern, and be cheap quality unless tagged “womenswear quality”? Somehow I suspect not, but it would be accurate to the historical fashion developments trying to be reflected.
@Big Titty Demon
I rather doubt that a line of men’s dresses would be lower quality, given the price and given that it’s being made for men in a patriarchal society. If anything it would probably be better for that reason.
What we could see is some sort of inverse of the pink tax (the blue tax?) where men’s dresses would, like this one, cost far more than women’s equivalent garments. Since there would be lower demand, I anticipate costs would be higher and production lower unless there is a major fashion shift (which could happen but I doubt it).