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.