The dearth of men on What Not to Wear

After watching What Not to Wear obsessively for the better part of a week, I began to reflect once again on the dearth of episodes that feature male style victims. Despite the profusion of poorly dressed men in the U.S., in nine seasons of WNTW I know of only two episodes where men get style make-overs. Why is this?

Well, let's look at Stacy and Clinton's arguments for why their guests should care about what they wear:
1) like it or not, other people judge you based on what you look like, so you might as well take some control over the image you are projecting;
2) dressing well shows self-respect & self-acceptance;
3) looking good feels good: it boosts self-confidence;
4) dressing appropriately shows respect for those around you;
5) it's important to be beautiful for one's romantic partner so s/he feels lucky;
6) it's an important part of being a good role model for the kids.

All these reasons are interrelated, of course. If you portray self-respect and self-acceptance and feel more self-confident, people will perceive you differently and will treat you differently ("differently" read: "better"). If you know you look good, it will be easier to treat yourself with respect and acceptance and to ask others to do the same. And if you feel good and respect and accept yourself, then your kids will pick up on that and will learn self-respect and self-acceptance too.

But isn't it important for men to have self-confidence, self-respect and self-acceptance? To show respect for others? Isn't it important for them to be desirable to their romantic partners? To set a good example for the kids and teach them how to have healthy self-esteem?

Let's assume that the producers did not make a conscious decision to exclude men from WNTW. Let us assume instead that either a) not very many men are nominated for the show; and/or b) men who are nominated choose not to participate. Why then aren't men nominated and/or why do they choose not to participate?

Perhaps men's and women's self-confidence is shaped differently. For several months I dated a gorgeous man who not only had broad shoulders and muscles but also a beautiful face and beautiful skin. If he had supplemented his natural good looks with clothing that flattered him, he would have been entirely irresistible. One day I asked him whether he thought he was handsome, and he said yes. I asked him to describe what made him handsome, and he talked about his strength and his muscles. That was all. Nothing about his skin, hair or eyes. Nothing about the symmetry of his face or his beautiful mouth.

I think of the men I know who would make fun of other men who dress well or groom themselves.

I think of the episode of House where the Aussie doctor was called out for having a manicure and having his eyebrows waxed (neither of which would have raised any suspicion had he been a woman).

I think of the term "metrosexual" to describe a straight man who devotes resources to personal grooming and clothing.

I think of the scene from Fight Club where Edward Norton and Brad Pitt scoff at the image of a beautiful man in an underwear ad, saying "Is that what a real man looks like?" Meanwhile their own faces and bodies show bruises and dried blood from their participation in fighting matches. They prize strength and prowess above physical attractiveness.

I think of the credit card commercial where a fairly unattractive, plainly dressed man is about to buy an engagement ring for his long-legged, red-haired fiancée, who is dressed for the runway.

Or of the fast food commercial where the man comes home to find his well-dressed, well-groomed and very jealous girlfriend waiting for him. Meanwhile he is dressed in work clothes but his hair is slightly mussed, his shirt too big, his facial hair in need of grooming; in short, he is presented in such a way as to minimize his attractiveness.

Resulting hypotheses:
1) Women have a responsibility in life to meet others' need for beauty; the same is not true for men.
2) Men are instead supposed to be strong and capable; if a man attends too much to his appearance, his priorities seem misplaced, and he is perceived as unmanly.
3) There are not more men on WNTW because men do not need to be beautiful--indeed perhaps should not be beautiful--because their responsibility is to provide physical protection and financial security, and that is where their self-respect, self-confidence and role model potential should come from.

I, for one, would be grateful if more men met my need for beauty. If they spent more time, energy and money on personal grooming (especially when there is a uni-brow or copious amounts of back hair involved) and on dressing themselves well. I don't see why men should be exempt from looking good. Because I do think that dressing well shows a modicum of respect for others. It says, "Hey, I care that I am out in public and you have to look at me, so I'm going to make an effort to be worth looking at." European men get it. Why should U.S. men get to go around all slovenly?

But if it is an issue of men in this society not having been taught how to take care of their physical appearance and look good, why then we are back to a role that What Not to Wear could play but is not. I would very much like to see the show devote an entire season to men's make-overs. After over 250 episodes featuring women, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for 22 that feature men.

Fill in the blank

How is it that I used to find something nearly every day to blog about when I was in Europe, but now when I think about blogging I am overcome by a blankness mind and a vague sense of dread?

I remember sitting on an uncomfortable Spanish mattress in a tiny Spanish bedroom, legs outstretched beneath rough sheets and thin blankets that belonged to someone else. Each day I'd sit there and stare at my computer screen, at the cursor blinking in the blank text box, until something came to me to write about. I had so much more time then. Time and energy both. I worked less, looked around more, and took more naps. God I miss taking naps every day.

And now I'm faced with another blank text box, and my mind has gone blank in response. I've put a lot of pressure on myself to do deep, reflective thinking here and to bare parts of my Self that have long lain dormant, curled up tightly in the darkness, hidden even from me. Do I think every blog entry from now on must be a well-crafted, well-argued mini-manifesto? Or that each new entry must reveal some deep insight into life, love, and the pursuit of happiness? Yes. Ridiculousness.

Almost as soon as I announced that I want to be and express my whole true self, a mild embarrassment crept up on me. At the age of 33, shouldn't I know who I am? Shouldn't I know how to take care of myself? But I do not. So there is embarrassment to admit this, anger at not having been taught before now, and fear that I won't be understood. The blankness of mind is an unconscious repression of all the thoughts and feelings I am embarrassed to share.

I've had dozens of ideas for blog posts in the last few days. The ideas have been slavering and growling, crawling over one another to be the first out into the world. My mind isn't actually blank. But when I reach in to pick out an idea with which to fill this blank box, I encounter a blank. The camera zooms up to an aerial view. I am looking down on my mind, and I can see that the blank is actually a white wall. On one side is this heaving, slithering, clawing mass of ideas: desperate and dark. On the other side is an endless, sterile expanse of white. The wall was erected to keep the monsters in. To protect you from them. To protect me from your horror and disdain.

"Bring forth what is within you"

Diane, a friend of mine from work who knows quite a bit about my mental and emotional journeys of the past couple of years, wrote this quote inside my birthday card last month:

"If you bring forth what is within you,
what you have will save you.
If you do not bring forth what is within you,
what you don't bring forth will kill you."
--attributed to Jesus in The Gospel according to Thomas

A few days after receiving that card, I began reading Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotions, one of my bucket-list books. It's written by a social psychologist who spent many years researching confession and inhibition. The basic premise of this book is that "excessive holding back of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors can place people at risk for both major and minor diseases" while, on the other hand, "confronting our deepest thoughts and feelings can have remarkable short- and long-term health benefits. [...] Not disclosing our thoughts and feelings can be unhealthy. Divulging them can be healthy" (p. 2).

These influences only serve to reinforce the work I was already determined to do: learn to be and express my whole, true self without fear or shame.

Redefining "travel" (again)

The first time I went to Spain, as a senior in college in 2001, I kept in regular contact with a group of friends and family via email. I wrote a mass email almost every weekday for four months and pushed it out to all those who had expressed interest (or who had at least not expressed disinterest).

The second time I went to Spain I started this blog. I liked the idea that people could choose whether and how often to keep up on my travels without my having to clutter up anyone's inbox. I used the blog to communicate not only about where I was going and what I was seeing & doing, but also how I was feeling and thinking. In looking back, many of my posts were just as much about my inner life as they were about traveling abroad.

When I got back, the blog went dead for a while until my dad pointed out that travel to the Oregon coast is still travel. I'd gotten it in my head that the only travel worth writing about was travel abroad, but Dad had a point.

And now I am reconsidering my definition of "travel" once again. Sure, I might journey to different places a couple times a year, but most of the journeys I take are in my head. And I take a lot of them.

No, I am not talking about tripping out on drugs. I'm talking about thought experiments, new ways of thinking about the world, new "places" I'm discovering in my mind through reading and conversations.

This birth year, for example, I have decided to read 10 "bucket list" books. You know, books "everyone" should read at some point in their lives. I polled my FB friends and have come up with this list (in no particular order):

1. The Book of Revelations (from the Bible)
2. Civilization and Its Discontents - Freud
3. Femininity - Brownmiller
4. The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde
5. Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Freire
6. The Communist Manifesto - Marx
7. The Power of Partnership - Eisler
8. East of Eden - Steinbeck
9. Invisible Man - Ellison
10. Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotions - Pennebaker

Some of these books I have chosen simply because people recommended them and I had heard of them. Wilde I chose because I am attracted to his philosophy and want to finish reading his essays (I've actually read everything else). And others I've chosen because I think they will help me work toward a larger goal that I've had for several years but have only recently been able to articulate:
I want to learn how to be and express my whole, true self without fear or shame. Or, as my friend Diane put it: I want to learn how to set myself free.
And so I have decided to repurpose this blog. I will still write about trips I take to other cities, states and countries, but I also want to use it to communicate about the books I'm reading; the new ways I'm learning to think, see and be; and the actions I'm taking and habits of mind I'm forming in order to set myself free.