'There are two kinds of men - the good and the bad. If you've got the first, buy him a copy of Esquire. If he's the second, there's help at hand.' (Lee Eisenberg, Editor-in-Chief, Esquire magazine).
Have you noticed something happening on the middle shelves in newsagents recently? Men's 'style' magazines have arrived in numbers, aimed at the 'maverick', the 'rebel' or perhaps just the plain conformist in every man who wants an A-Z of living in a man's world. For all the advertising fanfares announcing their arrival, they have met with suspicion, derision and an overall sense of deja vu; seeking a better title for a man? Aren't we all. So what's new?
| Seeking a better title for a man? Aren't we all. So what's new? |
What is new is where these magazines are coming from and their curious relationship to both feminism and the men's antisexist magazines such as Achilles Heel. Discussion of masculinity is not confined to explicitly feminist or antisexist magazines. Magazines espousing an antisexist politics - of which Achilles Heel is just one example - are part of a long tradition of writing by women and men which has sought to question constructions of fatherhood, male sexuality, authority, economic power and so on. In recent years a recognition of the importance of the depiction of men within popular culture has become more central to a political engagement with masculinity. Yet if feminists have for some time sought to question the ideas of femininity and female sexuality which are to be found in popular women's magazines, the depiction of masculinity in those magazines aimed exclusively at men - with the possible exception of top shelf pornography - has not received such attention. Prompted in part by the UK launch of the US magazine Esquire, it is now time for a reassessment of these magazines - GQ, Arena, Esquire, For Him etc. - of the images of masculinity they contain, and their relation to feminism and antisexist politics generally.
What these 'new men's glossies' share with a magazine like Achilles Heel are certain assumptions about the existence of 'new men' who have in some way been influenced by feminist ideas and are sympathetic to a notion of masculinity far removed from the traditional 'male chauvinist pig' variety. The new men's magazines both explicitly and implicitly presume the existence of a 'new man' constituency which shares with the magazines certain assumptions about work and sexuality. There are two types of men, the 'new' and the 'old'. Lee Eisenberg, former Editor-in-Chief of Esquire, makes explicit reference to this notion in his claim that Esquire might develop, somehow modernise, your outmoded masculinity. So which are you? Good or bad, a new or an old man? The media have been engaged in a long-running debate on the issues for many years now, most frequently on The Guardian's women's page; recently, confusing matters still further, we find the 'new lad' has been created to provide yet more journalistic fodder for the young male chronicler of the life and times of masculinity.
Let's be clear about this - the 'new man' - born in the 1970s and subject to successive reincarnations since - is socio-economically, sexually and racially specific. Generally he is professional, usually white, heterosexual and between 25 and an indeterminate middle-age. He is also having something of an identity crisis as his girlfriend(s) discover feminism and, in some cases, green politics and non-penetrative sex. As sociologists of masculinity such as Corrigan, Connell and Lee (1985) have made clear, the men who might consider themselves to be somehow 'new' are most likely to be tertiary educated and middle class; it is these men who are, in the language of the men's liberation advocates, 'cut off from their feelings'. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the tone of much media writing on new man is often light-hearted and mocking: 'It could only have happened in Islington - home of bean eating, knit your own yoghurt, and the CRE (Consciousness Raising Exercise)... The woman with the shampoo and set and fishnet tights turned out to be a builder from Clapham called Greg.' (Today newspaper, 1987 reporting a Marxism Today 'Men For Change' event).
The idea of a 'new' man, as opposed to an 'old', presumes that men are liable to change. Yet on closer examination the masculinism of the new men's magazines involves two simultaneous and contradictory developments. On the one hand we have a rewriting of an old, familiar and traditional masculinity; and alongside this, notably with regard to work, sexuality and fatherhood, the development of a masculinity which, in some respects, rejects out-and-out sexism and seeks instead progressive, non-oppressive relations with women, children and other men.
For the, if not millions, then thousands of men who read the new men's magazines an immediate tension arises: after all, how many of us could really afford the suits, watches and accessories which seem such a routine part of the lives of the men in these magazines? We might not look like the bronzed tall dark stranger modelling the Yves St. Laurent suit, but surely we could at least aspire to wear his clothes, and some of his charm might rub off? Are the (generally young) men who pervade the pages of the magazines not preferable heterosexual role models to the stereotypical antisexist male-the baby-holding, bearded inoffensive wallflower, sensitive, softly-spoken, worthy and so very, very dull (and curiously asexual?) Do the men in the new men's glossies, enmeshed in the trappings of phallic potency, not at least look like they have just emerged from, or are about to embark on, a carnal encounter of a satisfying kind?
| Do the men in the new men's glossies, enmeshed in the trappings of phallic potency, not at least look like they have just emerged from a carnal encounter? |
There are some men who read both Achilles Heel and GQ, if only to compare and contrast the images of masculinity that each hold out as desirable. On an initial browse through the new men's magazines the purportedly antisexist male might easily conclude that they are trivial compared to the explicitly political and established antisexist Men Against Sexism newsletter or Achilles Heel. Of course we see through the above images and realise how far removed from our own lives they are. However to dismiss these magazines in this way is not simply to misunderstand their appeal and, importantly, the power of the images they contain. It is also to overestimate the theoretical coherence of the antisexist literature. Moreover, on a closer look the new men's glossies and the antisexist literature have much more in common than might at first seem.
Magazines aimed at an audience of women tend to present a mix of 'information, help and fun', while men's magazines tend to settle for one or the other: 'entertainment' ('girlie/soft porn magazines') or 'information' (all the hobby journals). However what is significant about the 'new' men's magazines is that there has occurred a blurring of this divide. Traditionally, based on women's hidden labour, men have been able to be more singular about their activities: they are either at work or at leisure. In the new men's magazines the two spheres of leisure and work have become blurred - for the men at whom the new glossies are aimed, men who would appear to live and breathe their working lives, also have other concerns: how you work, how you dress, talk and arrange your emotional affairs, would seem to be as important as the nature of your work (though the organising assumption of the magazines is that you are 'in business' in some form). You are ambitious, successful, and you cope with stress. You order your life - not presumably with the now unfashionable Filofax but with the personal notebook computer. However, you also have a private life - sexuality, friends, parents, perhaps even children: and it is here, in the realm of affective relations that the coherence of working family man the magazines contain begins to fall apart.
In discussions of masculinity from the 1950s through to the 1990s three consistent themes have recurred: work, sexuality and fatherhood. These have become key concerns for critical studies of masculinity. I will deal with each of these in turn in relation to the new men's magazines.
From the Esquire and Playboy of the 1950s through to the GQ, Arena and revamped Esquire of the 1990s material success and economic power remain fundamental to the dominant form of masculinity on offer by the magazines: the common drift has '...been to legitimate a consumerist personality for men... liberation as cocktails and Picasso prints in a bachelor apartment, liberation as tie-dyed shirts and fine wine, or as $60 running shoes and Adidas shirts. And, if this movement has had a sustaining sense of indignation, it has more often been directed against women rather than against the corporate manipulators of tastes and dictators of the work routine.' (Ehrenreich, The Hearts of Men, 1983: p.171).
While the 1990s variant would be more likely to possess Rolex watches, Armani suits, Calvin Klein cologne and an Apple Macintosh, the point is well taken. Without doubt, the 'new' magazines of the early 1990s continue this legitimation of the 'consumerist personality' developing and drawing on the lifestyle politics of the late 1980's. Pervaded by blatant socio-economic assumptions, the magazines address the urban, affluent, male of the capital city.
'How will your girlfriend get on with your cleaning lady? No, they are not all the same... What you will need to assess is how your cleaning lady will get on with your girlfriend, particularly if you have had the treasure for some time.' (GQ, March 1991, p132) The ethos of the magazines is that of the corporate business world. The same issue of GQ features pieces on the Hong Kong business community and the usual, and unrelenting, adverts for suits. Indeed, on one level, for the young man aspiring to the corporate lifestyle - the young lawyer, accountant, banker - these magazines should be compulsory reading. The readership profile of the magazines bears this out and is derived from the occasional reader questionnaires: in the case of GQ, an average age of 3l, with 71% ambitious for wealth, thinking about sex 15 times a day on average, and among whom 60% buy condoms regularly. ('Are you man enough?' GQ, February 1991, p81)
However it is important to note that this celebration of material gain is not entirely unproblematic. In as much as the magazines do address the emotional structuring of men's relationships with other men, women and children, there emerges a tension in relation to the worlds of work and the promotion of material gain which is otherwise celebrated in the magazines. There exists a recognition that the 'male career mode' and competitive masculinity brings with it its own problems in men's emotional relationships. Thus, the constant striving to succeed '...prepares men to accept all sorts of hardships, to fight the good fight on the playing field, in the boardroom or in battle, in order to attain success with all its glittering symbols.' (GQ, February 1991)
The 'glittering symbols', it might be added, which fill the pages of GQ.
In the depiction of male sexuality there are both similarities and differences between the new men's and women's popular magazines. They are different in so much as magazines aimed at women - for example Cosmopolitan, New Woman, She, Company etc. - are consistently more upfront, explicit, humorous and critical than their male counterparts. In 1992, perhaps prompted by the launch of the 'top shelf' magazine For Women, these magazines have become increasingly explicit in their discussion of sex; we have seen representations of men's penises (flaccid, of course) and positions for sexual intercourse in recent months. In Cosmopolitan (March 1991) 'great sex' is considered to be 'crazy positions, silly noises, odd odours and other undignified things' (in the men's magazines the scenario is much more calculated and rational, a scenario of sexual congress which echoes the erection/penetration orgasm narrative of pornography). Certainly, men are objectified in the women's magazines ('Men: The Ultimate User's Guide', New Woman Jan 1991); however, they regularly touch on subjects - for example, male impotence - which the male counterparts have tended to evade.
| 'Great sex' is considered to be 'crazy positions, silly noises, odd odours, and other undignified things' |
What the women's magazines share with the men's glossies is a deep ambiguity about male sexuality. Male sexuality is simultaneously vulnerable but also power a contradiction which is evident in the men's anti-sexist writings from the 1970's to the present day. If one browses through back issues of Achilles Heel or the recent collected reader by Vic Seidler (1992) it becomes clear how competing ideas of male sexuality as all-powerful/oppressive and yet also fragile and to be celebrated (albeit in a non-oppressive, non-penetrative form) have informed debates about sexual politics among the men's antisexist movement.
Drawing on both (a) the tensions in a construction of male sexuality as simultaneously fragile and powerful and (b) mirroring the positive interest in men as sex objects of the new women's magazines, the men's popular glossies of late have increasingly resorted to images of women which draw on the genre of 'soft' pornography. The idea that sexual desire involves objectification has been traditionally eschewed by the men's antisexist tradition. Unlike the often guilt-ridden tone of much men against sexism writings, in which male heterosexuality is often considered to be problematic and objectifying per se, the tone taken by the new men's magazines is perhaps above all celebratory of the masculinity of the readers. 'Don't get us wrong: sensitivity is fine in it's place, but sometimes a man's just got to do what a man's got to do. This month GQ explores what it is.' (GQ, February 1991)
What this covers, judging from the same issue, would appear to involve paternity, father-son relationships, 'sexual ethics', work, alcohol, risk and, of course (bearing in mind those advertising revenues), fashion. The general tone is suspicious of feminism: 'Heterosexuality, as you may have noticed, is a celebration of difference. Any additional foreignness is therefore welcome... She's [the oriental girl] the last refuge of the roue; there when you need shore-leave from angry feminist seas.' (GQ, October 1990, p158)
This repositioning of the new man in these pages is marked by a more explicit sexuality and purported 'celebration' of womanhood ('There's a Girl in My Suit!', GQ February 1991), with the singling out of models/actresses for photography/profiles. Arena have discussed 'Girls! Arena's 100 Favourite Women (and 20 belles from hell),' while GQ had earlier presented a piece on 'Oriental Girls' (the page before addressing the question 'Who armed Iraq?'). The eclectism is suitably post-modem. In March 1991, GQ ran a feature 'Girl Talk: What They Really Think', between an eclectic array of features on the fall of the Ceausescu, test-driving the Mazda RX-7 and the sexual appeal of Kevin Costner. Readers are also advised on 'girls favourite foods' (strawberries, avocado, oysters, pasta, French Patisserie...) and least favourites (brains, jellied eels, black pudding, mushy peas, haggis...). The 'girls' (or at least the girlfriend) must be well-educated, well-off and have predictable culinary tastes; Lee Eisenberg is clear, that 'We want to love women in a way that doesn't condescend. We don't just love bimbos.'
However GQ's depiction of the 'Perfect Blond' 'bimbo' ('amoral, irresponsible and gorgeous') has been described by Geraldine Bedell as: '...another unashamed exposition of an allegedly common male fantasy - that of the selfish, self-obsessed, trouble-some female. This is the woman who could never hold down a job; and in fact, in the piece, she can't even hold down a life: she ends up committing suicide. If this kind of victim-behaviour is what it takes to excite a man, the majority of women would probably stay celibate.'
The Editor of Arena (the magazine 'For the Maverick in Every Man') would disagree: 'I do think we can be gratuitous occasionally with shots of sexy women, if it's done in a tasteful manner.' (Quoted by Bedell, 1990).
Whereas 'the new man felt discomfited by any suspicion that he might be regarding women as objects' (Bedell, 1990), the 'new' new man of the magazines would appear to have accepted sexuality as part of life. The problem for the new men's magazines however is that in this celebration of heterosexual masculinity they are beginning to walk an uneasy path: go too far and they might lose their place on the current affairs/style magazine rack and the AB readership which attracts the advertising revenues. The Editor of GQ recognises this confusion between appearing to be sexist and the recognition of heterosexual desire as a legitimate subject for discussion and the selling of the magazines: '...it has become custom to become po-faced and worthy, for fear of offending... There's nothing wrong with saying men want to look at women, but men have suffered decades of being stamped on if they make any remark at all about women's physical appearance.'
If the idea that men have 'suffered' for decades is questionable this nonetheless points to a real tension in the men's antisexist tradition treatment of heterosexual masculinity: if heterosexual objectification is problematic is it also to be denied?
The political economy of contemporary fatherhood has not been addressed in popular culture in ways which can be understood as pro-feminist - from Three Men and a Baby to Athena prints of man/boychild (with just a glimpse of the penis), reproductive images which draw on ideas of sexuality, reproductive capacity and fatherhood have served to politically benefit a father's rights movement (e.g. such groups as Families Need Fathers, Dads After Divorce) which has sought to reduce legally women's autonomy and control over childcare. Yet whatever the high media profile of the 'new fatherhood' - the proliferation of images of men with babies, films about men as fathers and discussion of fathers denied contact with their children through the rigours of the law - the actual existence of this 'new father' is questionable when it remains the case that women continue to be primarily responsible for childcare. The image conflicts with the reality of contemporary parenting.
| 'New fatherhood' ideas become no more than emotive buzzwords in the rhetoric of lifestyle politics... |
It is therefore perhaps not surprising that these confusions and contradictions in the relation between the ideology of the new fatherhood and the practical realities of shared parenting are reproduced in the pages of both the women's and men's popular magazines. In both, whilst advocates of the father's rights movement are an occasional presence, the 'selling of the new father' has been treated suspiciously. Arena (Dec/Jan 9O/91) in the same issue which listed the '100 Favourite Women' - has also discussed the 'montage baby', the baby as male fashion accessory. Yet the irony is that browsing on a few pages we find that this very image of man and baby - the object of critique - features heavily in the advertising of the magazines, be it for clothes, perfumes, cars or suits. GQ asks 'Are you Men Enough to Change a Nappy?' opposite the full page photography of man and baby holding hands. Here 'the great challenge for modern man is to get to know his children better.' Yet it would seem, judging from the pages of the new men's magazines and as discussed above in relation to work, that the new father is also reluctant to give up the privilege, hierarchy and material benefits which accrue to him as a man.
Ultimately the economically 'successful' masculinity on offer in the magazines is incompatible with the sort of changes in childcare that the 'reconstituted' men who read them would ostensibly desire; that is, shared parenting is incompatible with the masculinity offered by the men's magazines in as much as that joint responsibilities, a shorter working week - the structural basis on which such parenting might take place - are fundamentally incompatible with the materialistic ideology and breadwinner masculinity held out at the same time as the new fatherhood is celebrated and advocated. In a sense this is equivalent to the dilemmas of the working mother recounted in the women's magazines: the relationship between work and parenthood is psychologised and individualised so it becomes a matter of personal choice, of how you as an individual make the balance between work/home, career/private life. The wider structural dimension becomes lost and the 'good father'/'new fatherhood' ideas become no more than emotive buzzwords in the rhetoric of lifestyle politics in which the popular magazines trade.
Far from the 'contemporary crisis' of masculinity which some antisexist men and advocates of 'men's liberation' would espouse, the introspective dilemmas of men and their masculinities continue to take priority over wider questions of social change. To seek 'good father' status without addressing the wider structural context in which parenting takes place is really trying to square the circle. Issues which have been identified by feminists as fundamental to women's oppression, for example around shared parenting, coercive heterosexuality and male violence are addressed by the popular magazines but in a manner which is double-edged. There is a tension in the new men's magazines depiction of masculinity; they have been informed by currents in both feminism and the antisexist men's movement, but in the end both the failure to address the need for structural social change and their own reliance on the higher earning advertising revenue which promotes a primarily consumerist-defined masculinity results in little more than an updated version of the 'old man'. However this is not to say that the magazines should be seen as promoting out and out sexism. The rediscovered interest in women as sex objects mirrors the new women's magazines depiction of men and increasingly explicit sexual imagery; it thus touches complex questions of sexuality, popular culture and the meanings of 'antisexism' arguably better than many 'academic' journals.
| Coercive heterosexuality and male violence are addressed by the popular magazines but in a manner which is double-edged |
In short, there has occurred a transition in masculinity at the level of cultural images aimed at a specific social milieu in the case of the new men's magazines, a professional middle class readership. But existing (and cross-class) tensions around sexuality, work and fatherhood continue. Representations of masculinity in this area of popular culture are not necessarily consistent: they overlap, accord, contradict and translate in different ways and in different contexts. Yet the masculine authority the magazines bemoan - responsibility, being cut off from children, the emotional impoverishment of work dedicated to status, visible success and material gain - is fundamental to the material economic power which accrues to men as men. In a sense, the new men's magazines want to have their cake and eat it - to 'celebrate women and yet to continue to address a 'new man' antisexist constituency. Bedell (1990) puts the point succinctly: 'Poor sensitive, magazine reading men: they can't win. But then, with all those looks, and clothes, and cars, and all that power, they should worry.'
The images of masculinity in the men's magazines discussed above remain uniformly heterosexual. They embody a masculinity which confines emotion and vulnerability to heterosexual; familial relations, which valorizes calculative rationality and a sexual potency fixated on a genital sexuality. Perhaps above all they celebrate a competitive economic individualism which is in the end destructive of men's relationships with both women, other men and the children they so rarely see. If that is 'a better title for a man' then we would be better off without it.
Seidler, V (1992) (Editor) Men, Sex and Relationships: Writings From Achilles Heel
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
If you've enjoyed reading this article on-line please consider subscribing to the magazine.
