On men's grooming

A couple days ago, I wrote an entry in response to a pair of articles I read on Townhall.com.1 I pointed Andrius at this entry because it deals with the State Department, and he instigated a further look at it on my part. Specifically, I found what I am fairly sure is the article that Ms. Mona Charen was writing about. Both articles at least partly miss-characterize the article in question. I think, reading them again today, that I disagree with Andrius that Ms. Charen's article was an irresponsible miss-characterization.

Polemical writing has its place in political debate. While rightly considered a lesser form of debate, it is never the less a tool that can be effectively used to stir people to act on a topic of importance where a more reasoned approach would bore the listeners. In that respect it is much like satire. So I am not too upset about Ms. Charen's reporting. I do take the hint that I need to be a little bit more credulous when reading about organizations (such as the State Department) about which I am inclined to dislike anyway.

My overall point however is not undermined by the reality of the article. It is entirely possible to look at the move towards dressier clothing and better grooming, if such exists (I have my doubts), entirely separately from the metrosexual disorder. Consider how long the devolution of men's' fashion has been going on to reach its present point. The tux of the present day was the standard formal wear of the past. The three piece suit, now relatively rarely seen, was standard means' wear for anyone with a "white collar" job. Even the "blue collar" worker would have worn a suit coat away in many settings, away from his actual employment. He would certainly have often worn a button down shirt. Note that this held true at times and in places where women were far more strictly restricted from the workplace than has been the case in decades.

Similarly, the great architects of the past have been men, and often men with skill in engineering. Some of them have been artists as well. While the Aristocracy of the 17Th Century is often labeled effeminate, you still see numerous other examples of the value of being dressed well in history. The well tailored suit never really stopped being critical for the lawyer in the courtroom for example, and the oriental cultures provide an example of one where personal grooming has been considered important without as much blurring of the genders.

So it is clearly bias that causes the Hi magazine article to refer to what they call "Fashionable Men" as being the result of an influx of women in the workplace, and an adoption of women's values and women's practices. As such, my comments that this is highly objectionable fare for our State Department to be funding remains entirely accurate.