I didn't know where else to post this, but another issue that is worth viewing throughout the class that coincides with 'questioning Darwin's Theory. If humankind is the odd species out for women to possess the physically attractive characteristics (in contrast to the Peacock's feathers) and if women have chosen their men based on what they can sustain them with, what occurs when in recent decades, esspecially with the 'dawn' of metrosexuality, men (openly) prep themselves in much the same manner, and how does this affect the female's choice, and if it does affect it, how does this affect Darwin's Theory?Questioning Darwin? Now, how brave is that?
Regarding metrosexuality, look forward to a truly astonishing video "find" in Monday's lecture ...
2 comments:
Furthermore, after raising the debate at work (a downtown retail store) of all places, one client responded with the example that men used to pretty themselves much (if not more) than women did during the Elizabethan Period, with frock neck outfits, and long curly wigs, along with a great deal of powder and makeup. As the Industrial Revolution perhaps most predominantly marks the shift away from this to the modern 20th century man, how does the emergence of the new-age 'metro' man compare, differ, and if so, how did the men of the earlier period challenge or agree with Darwin's Theories? Questions for the masses.
We might want to keep in mind that men from the Elizabethan or Restoration age who prettied themselves as much as women were probably in an aristocratic or priveleged position--thus their 'frilly' appearances would have been markers for thier class (See John Malkovich's ritualistic transformation in the film Dangerous Liasons as exemplary). In my opinion, the recent idea of the 'metro' man is a similar. For example, those who sport the 'haute urban' look are more than likely well- off and showing it off (think Edward Norton's character before fight club or Christian Bale's character in American Psycho--though thier 'style' includes possesions on top of personal appearance).
Another thought: I think we can extend this idea of men concerned about thier appearances beyond men just 'prettying' themselves. For example, the habit of working out to be buff is just as much a cosmetic ritual than applying powder, hair gel, cologne or donning a frilly wig. As well, I would argue that some men's choice to be unconcerned with fashion is just as much an image-concerned habit or trend in itself. Exemplary of this are some of my guy friends who purposely avoid decoration and primping so as to appear 'more masculine.'
In regards to men challenging or agreeing with Darwin's theories, I'm not sure. But I would say that if we are looking to Darwin and 'nature,' we might justify this primping based on the notion that the male species of animals tend to be the most extravagently coloured or decorated. If I'm not mistaken, the male species of birds are more coloured and the male species of mammals tend to have more distinct physical features--do they not?
Frills for thought, I suppose... ;)
Post a Comment