Retailers welcome the new male consumer -

Retailers welcome the new male consumer

He’s hooked on designer sneakers, fashion and grooming. And he’s reframing masculinity.


Photograph by Jennifer Roberts; location courtesy of Holt Renfrew and Kiehl’s

Andrew Grella is enthusing about the benefit of eyeliner for men—and it has nothing to do with mimicking “guyliner” pioneers David Bowie and Russell Brand. The 22-year-old founder of ManUp, a Mississauga, Ont.-based line of men’s cosmetics, skincare and fragrances, recommends men dust the $20 “Eye Chalk” lightly on the lower lid. “It makes the white of the eye pop,” he says. “If you’re wearing it properly, no one will know.”

Grella, who incorporated ManUp in 2010 while studying commerce at Ryerson University, is on the vanguard of a retail moment, one focused on the rise of a new male consumer who’s an advance man of sorts for seismic social and economic shifts. He arrives on a road paved with “manscaping,” Manxx “shapewear” and “mantyhose,” all evidence—along with the rise of “manoxeria,” the dismissive term for male eating disorders—that consumer pressures are now genderless. And now, we’re watching the dismantling of the last taboo: male makeup. This fall, designer Marc Jacobs launched unisex beauty products. Last month, designer Tom Ford, the best-groomed man on the planet, added a men’s beauty line backed by Estée Lauder that includes concealer, bronzing gel and $150 “skin-revitalizing concentrate.” It’s forecast to ring in $2.5 million in its first year.

ManUp, which sells online and moved into its first Toronto storefront this month, isn’t in the same league—at least not yet. Grella saw an untapped market after his skin broke out before his Grade 12 prom. He finally agreed to his mother’s offer to cover it with makeup and was amazed by the result. It inspired his “all natural” line, which is packaged in glossy black with playful macho names—“Eye grenade” mascara, “Jackhammer” cleanser.

Tom Ford also tries to neutralize any girly associations: “It’s not a feminizing product,” he has said. “It’s designed to make your skin look better.” Ford wants men’s makeup out of the closet: “I know so many guys—gay, straight, whatever—who steal a woman’s concealer and dab a little on their fingers when no one is looking.” A recent British survey similarly found 10 per cent of men borrowed women’s products. And a recent “state of men” survey of 1,000 men in the U.S. and Britain conducted by advertising giant JWT revealed shifting tolerances: 60 per cent approved of skincare products for men; 18 per cent approved of foundation; 12 per cent accepted eyeliner. Grella, who counts James Bond and the actor Andrew Garfield as fashion role models, embodies the new attitude. He wears ManUp’s “No Shine” camouflage powder and “Cover Stick.” “I still break out,” he says. He’s conscious of his appearance, reporting that he dropped 35 lb. one summer: “I felt people won’t take me seriously if I was overweight.” The JWT report also found men struggle with the destabilizing concerns that fuel female consumerism: 79 per cent felt under pressure to be in shape; top worries included “man boobs,” “beer belly” and “height.”

Blurred gender lines are becoming manifest on store floors, literally. In January Holt Renfrew officially launches its pilot “Holt’s Common”—a unisex department boasting such fashionable brands Rag + Bone, Zadig & Voltaire, Comme des Garçons and the Kooples. The concept reflects “a redefinition of the contemporary world today,” says Barbara Atkin, Holt’s vice-president of fashion direction: “More and more, shopping is a social activity, a hub of interaction between genders.” Barriers still exist, Atkin notes: women have no problem raiding the men’s department, but men won’t do the reverse. Men tell her: “We’re skinny guys and we can’t find jeans skinny enough. But they then reject her suggestion to try on women’s J Brand jeans. But that stigma is disappearing, she says. “Men are embracing self-expression—as they did in the ’60s.” Only today it’s not counterculture: it’s self-branding.

“Men are the new women,” says Bret Pittman, director of J. Crew’s the Ludlow Shop, a New York City-based chain of men’s stores. Pittman attributes the shift in part to the Internet: “Men are now exposed to lifestyle and street-style blogs. They can be as educated as women.” But gender fluidity on the shop floor also reflects a redefinition of men and women’s social roles: “I have two kids,” Pittman says. “And I spend a lot more time in a traditional mom role than my dad did.” He sees men’s interest in style as a “virus” that taps into the male territorial imperative: “Certain men start dressing better and you start to notice it and then it becomes a competition.” The 2011 movie Crazy Stupid Love starring Ryan Gosling and Steve Carell provides a template, he says: “You saw a cool young guy tutoring the older slob. Basically that’s happening on a national scale.” The Ludlow Shop, which sells suits cut in the fashionable slim silhouette championed by designers Hedi Slimane and Thom Browne, is a beneficiary: its pilot store opened in New York City in 2011; the suits are now available at dozens of locations.

Men are the new frontier for retailers: Harry Rosen, Holt Renfrew and the Bay have all expanded their men’s departments and offerings. And it’s a market poised for growth, says Sandy Silva, a fashion industry analyst at the NPD Group. Women’s clothing sales are down, she says, but the market catering to 20- to 35-year-old men is up 18 per cent over a year ago, or almost $400 million, with the greatest growth in the “smart casual” category—suits, dress shirts, pants, separates, outerwear. Pittman explains: “It’s wearing a suit when you don’t have to.”

Terms once limited to women’s wear, such as “day to evening” —clothing worn to work then adapted for later—have infiltrated the men’s market, Silva says. So have high-end shoe brands once exclusive to women, like Jimmy Choo and Christian Louboutin.

That latter development signals a profound shift in sensibility, says fashion historian Elizabeth Semmelhack, senior curator of Toronto’s Bata Shoe Museum: “That men are willing to wear brands so associated with sexualized femininity is groundbreaking. Seepage from female culture into male culture is very rare.”

As Semmelhack sees it, the “sneakerfication” of male style, witnessed on red carpets —Robert Downey Jr. in a suit and Gucci runners, Justin Bieber in a tux and Lanvin kicks—has given rise not only to the new male consumer but a new definition of masculinity. It’s a theme explored in the museum’s current exhibit, “Out of the Box: The Rise of Sneaker Culture.” Men can be “shopaholics” about sneakers without any stigma, Semmelhack says: “They can collect and lust after them with no perceived loss of masculinity.” Brand choice—from Air Jordans, vintage, Adidas superstars, Converse high tops—has come to signal identity in a way business brogues cannot. Bonnie Brooks, president of the Hudson’s Bay Company, agrees, noting that the company’s expanded men’s shoe department is on fire: “Shoes are a gateway drug for men.”

The upshot? Nothing less than the slow dismantling of traditional patriarchy: “The suited Bay St. banker has been usurped as a masculine role model by Internet boy geniuses, musicians, actors,” Semmelhack says. “It’s a model focused on youth, success and insane amounts of money. It’s linked to what Jay Z says: ‘I’m not a businessman, I’m a business, man.’ ”

And in the end, it’s about business and economics. Genderless consumption is grounded in the growing gap between rich and poor, Semmelhack says: “In a world where you have ‘wealth’ and ‘everyone else,’ it behooves the makers to create as big, and as fractured and fragmented a market as possible.” As they have: Tom Ford’s women’s concealer sells for $60, his men’s concealer, available at a separate men’s counter, costs half that. So it appears the rise of the male consumer is ripe with hidden opportunities for women as well.


Retailers welcome the new male consumer

  1. a) So you’d think there’d be a lot of beards and moustaches to ‘counter’ this.

    b) Men have a long way to go to match the silk stockings, lace, high heels and wigs of previous centuries.

    c) Julius Caesar wore a skirt.

    • “A long way to go” ????

      I guess you missed the winning float in the last taxpayer subsidized parade.

      The NDP/Liberal Party Special carrying 15 “corseted swooning Elton Johnnies.”

      • Jealous, eh?

        • Jealous of you Emilechka?
          Not even on my lowest day!

          • Yup, you’re jealous.

          • Emilechka you’re confused about that skirt business, Item (c)

            That wasn’t Gaius Julius Caesar, the Roman Emperor, that was Goopy Julia Trudeau, Sultan of the Liberal Party. His mother likes him to wear a skirt on those special occasions when he has his toenails done.

          • Very jealous in fact.

          • Should I, then, become jealous that you’re squandering your attentions on another, Emily, instead of trying to insult me?

            I don’t think it’s worth my time and effort, though.

          • LOL I wish the pair of you, and the other juvie hotshots on here would find another site altogether…..and leave this one for serious commenters.

          • Hush freak, the adults are talking.

          • Why some people waste time saying stupid things to me on here, no one knows.

          • Because you are a h0m0 and its fun to pick on you

          • Fraid not dude, so you’re wasting your stupid.

            Is this the best you can think of to do with your life?

          • It’s Canadian altruism Emilechka, a strong sense of charity. No one wants you to feel that you’re all alone.

          • You should be thrilled. If your skinny jeans get too tight, you can just throw on a skirt. :)

        • Hardly, the market for REAL men is booming. Not all women like feminine men.

          • LOL define ‘real men’ Dave. It ain’t Davy Crockett…sorry.

          • A working definition is this:
            “Anyone with longer vocal chords than a little Kevin.”

          • Do us all a favor, and don’t post again until you’re sober.

    • Scots did too.

      • They still do.

  2. Metrosexuals or hipsters? You decide.

  3. Yawn. Another light-touch sneak attack on men, perpetrated by a sly feminist. Yup – Anne Kingston and the academic community that helped her refine this packaging stand by to help men discover New Ways to be even more masculine by being less masculine… so the deconstructed-then-reconstructed fellas can assume their rightful place as the wind beneath some superwoman’s wings.

    When Kingston leaps with “But gender fluidity on the shop floor also reflects a redefinition of men and women’s social roles” and summarizes with, “The upshot? Nothing less than the slow dismantling of traditional patriarchy” — you best believe that’s the whole point here. This isn’t an article about fashion at all, and it wasn’t intended to be.

    • Men have to liberate themselves from the old roles….and Hollywood gunk. Yes, what you think of as ‘traditional patriachy’ has to go.

    • The mantyhose is to strangle you with, Lastango, if you don’t agree to wear it.

    • Lastango you said it.
      Nothing more than an attempt by a leftist feminist to try & help the desperate homo agenda try to dismantle real manhood.

      As dave777 says below, this is a misguided fad & nothing more-real men need to stand together because most of the real women out there still want us & NEED us to be men…guys that have wrinkles, disappearing hairlines but aren’t afraid to be MEN.
      Guys who can renovate & lay down sod that aren’t afraid of chipping their manicures.

      This pathetic wave will pass & I predict the opposite to all the nancies interviewed in the article-the natural order of REAL men will survive-in fact it is anyway-this is just some isolated drivel from TO that the lamestream leftist media prints.

      • LOL the preceding was a clip from ‘The Last Stand in Eden’

      • Manhood as laying sod? [Rolls eyes]

        • You’ve been found out Emilechka. The ride of the 300 pound NDP/Liberal Party kindergarten teacher is almost over.

          • No more eggnog for you John.

          • You’re dreaming Emilechka. The writing is on the wall.
            The parasite has outgrown its host.

        • EmilyOne,
          It’s okay if you don’t comprehend the abstract notions of analogies & drawing parallels-feminism, liberalism & lesbianism are antagonistic to the mind which slowly convert the sensibilities of those so afflicted into a sort of ranting lunatic…

          Personally, I’m not sure why everyone entertains you to such a degree with continued responses but I suspect it’s for sport to see just how unhinged you really are.
          Not bad logic; after all, the more diversion you focus on by posting 100’s of responses/day on all these pages, the less damage you’ll inflict in the real world.

          • It’s okay if you want to play the ass on here….just don’t do it with me.

            PS…this IS the real world

          • Not a bad comeback for a ranting lunatic

      • Where does it say that a guy that works a manual job, can lay sod, insulate and plasterboard a garage and shovel snow has to smell like a$$, look like a slob and act like a pig to women when he’s not doing those things?
        The idiots who think that are just as bad as those they claim to oppose.
        Pride in your appearance is not a sign of anything other than taking pride in your appearance.
        It’s the insecure knuckle draggers who seem to have issues and insist that women should value the great smell of a two day unwashed body, stale booze on one’s breath and a wardrobe that wasn’t updated from the 1970s. If they don’t then it’s their problem and they must be lesbians etc.
        Personal hygiene isn’t a fad or a sign of swinging any particular way, it’s good manners in a civilised society.

        • Whoa there hairball.
          Having a daily shower & wearing up to date clothing is a far cry from wearing makeup & mantyhose.

          In other words, the fops are addicted to effeminate appearances at the expense of being men & most of the normal females I know find those püssy types very unattractive.

          • If up to date clothing and style means make-up then your argument fails. I’ve worn tights when playing sports in the snow and cold and would not hesitate to wear them should I have to spend long hours in the cold again. They are a pain in the butt with regard to snagging leg hairs, but they work.
            I’ve no problems with a guy who likes a bit of eyeliner to show off their assets, whatever flicks your switch when you are socialising. in fact Eddie Izzard is well known as a guy who does this and very few folk I have met find him in anyway off-putting or would describe him as a püssy either. To me the word püssy was always used to refer to a coward and if one has the guts to put oneself out there like this, that would be the last term I’d apply to them given the response of the majority towards them.
            The püssies in this case would be the gang of “real” men who beat them up in an alleyway to show how macho they are.

          • My last reply disappeared
            It appears it’s the definition of “man” that appears to be causing issues here. It also appears that there is a list of characteristics that a person has to have to be a “real” man and list that means one is not a “real” man.
            My first question would be who compiles these lists and what makes them the boss of manhood? That sounds pretty narcissistic not to mention an extremely vain outlook.
            As to your insistence that makeup and pantyhose are a far cry from up to date clothing – where does my kilt wearing fit on your spectrum of manliness? Are clean shaven men less manly because they have no beard? Are guys who “manscape” less manly because of it?
            A few years ago women liked (accepted?) hairy men, now body hair has a huge “ewww factor” that any guy younger than 30 who isn’t smooth and shiney is at a distinct disadvantage. Some might say that shaving off your body hair is effeminate and they would have an historically validated point.
            To be honest with you the labour of love is tough enough without people introducing arbitrary rules whipped out of their butts.
            If a guy wants to wear make-up, tights, a plaid lumberjack shirt or a kilt who cares? Whatever flicks your switch. If you are confident and comfortable then go for it.
            It won’t change the fact that you are a man. It might freak others out, but that’s their problem

          • Actually there is a fundamental distinction between the term man & male.
            You (& many others) use them interchangeably like you comment:
            ‘it won’t change the fact that you are a man’ which is incorrect.
            Clothing aside, the effeminate ‘males’ that primp & paint themselves are not men, even tho they still belong to the male species.

            One only needs to reflect on common terms such as:
            ‘The measure of a man’, ‘Be a man’ or ‘Man up’ to know that most people know that a man is something of substance that the püssy boys just don’t possess.

          • Who measures a man and how?
            Man up, is a terrible statement. It is meaningless in so far all it indicates is that “I don’t like you unless you behave the way I think you should.” “Be a man” falls into the same category of childish rubbish. If you gauge your manliness by how you conform to the wishes of others via a verbal threat. I’m not sure you are manning up, strictly speaking.
            It wasn’t that long ago that racial terms were “common” in our vocabulary, but they were shorthand for stereotyping those who weren’t in the majority. I’ve a funny feeling the use of the word Man in the above common terms might fall into that category too. I’ve yet to see what is manly about a gang of conventionally dressed males beating up an unconventionally attired male but then maybe manly means something different to me.

  4. Why do we report on fads like this when the USD and CAD are at new world record lows against the largest currency, the Asian Yuan?

    While high heals and feminine hair for men did occur in the medieval ages, fads come and go. Is Macleans going the way of “Entertainment Tonight” or going to report real news?

    • It’s not a news site Dave….it’s a blog.

      • Emily, you’re dear to my heart, but please be more discriminating… in your vocabulary.
        For example, the way men dress may be socially conditioned… but only up to a point. The valuing of vanity, narcisism, and superficial decoration is historically female, not male. Men’s scorn for foppery is ancient, not recent.

        The word Fop was on everyone’s lips … not in the macho 1950s, but in the 17th century. It described a vain and effeminized aristocrat, not an ordinary man, and, I have to point out, he did NO WORK AT ALL. In other words, he played little of any social role except to ride to hounds and amuse the ladies.

        • Actually, humans went by what they saw in nature….males were all ablaze in colour and style….females were beigey and invisible.

          Fops were around in the 1400s, and considered excessive…but only to the average man in that era who dressed far more dashingly than anything known today.

          Aristocrats btw were wealthy nobility….which is why they didn’t dig ditches. They ran estates, rode to hounds, attended at court.

          Beau Brummel 1778–1840 was the one to set men on their recent. dull course.

          If you’re going to post ‘history’…..don’t rewrite it.

          • Fops were around long before 1400. Foppery is the male vice of being obsessed with clothing, rather than masculine charm. The well-dressed man is a man before he’s a set of clothes. Not quite so for women.

            Costume for men was a display of wealth and rank, not fashion. That display was mostly an issue for military men. The whole male rapport with costume is unrelated to the female one, which is always a desire to decorate oneself. Embrace it, it’s your biological inheritance… but not mine.

          • I think you need to do some browsing on Google….you have it assbackwards.


            So either you’re stupid, uneducated….or both.

          • Anyone who gets her wisdom from –cough– Wikipedia is a fool.

          • Better than getting it from your source….out of your ass.

          • Lofty and probative words.

            Well you and your girlfriends could actually write the stuff in Wikipedia, couldn’t you?

          • You have no source at all….and YOU are complaining about Wiki…..when at the bottom of every Wiki entry…..are all the citations for the Wiki overview!?

            Your brains are sub-fabuloso, dude. LOL

          • I actually have much of the credentials myself to comment on this matter…but that’s not the issue.

            In case you are sincere in what you’ve written you need this explanation: Wiki is not a validated source of any expert knowledge or consensus of wisdom. Wiki is a selection of opinions written up by unknown persons and supported by citatations… which are there to support the opinions, period. Wiki is an echo chamber created by anonymous echoers. Nobody who has a real name in the academic world certifies anything. They don’t certify that the citations or the sample of opinions are representative of any consensus. But the articles tend to favor one school of thought over another… and that’s the give-away.

            You like it because it flatters your cherished opinions.
            Happy Christmas and don’t hit any man for at least a week.

          • No, you don’t have any credentials, and Wiki has the same error rate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

            The posters aren’t anonymous, and the sources are at the bottom of the page.

            If there is any complaint of bias in the write-up, you are informed at the top of the page….and it’s argued out.

            It doesn’t flatter my opinion dude….I don’t have one on Beau Brummell. In fact you’d be hard put to find anyone who knows who he was….much less has an opinion on the man.

            Christmas is over with, I don’t celebrate it anyway…..and you need to open your closet door and admit some things to yourself.

          • Oh now she has me in a closet!

            Give me the names — the ones on the birth certificates — of the writers of the words on those pages you linked to from Wikipedia.

          • Misogynists are closeted gays.

            All the names are on the Wiki site dude….always have been. As are the names of anyone altering the page

          • Emily, emily what are we going to do with these hoary clichés.

            “misogynists” are closeted gays. But isn’t it also true that man-haters are identity-clenched, self-denying lesbians?

            As for the names, get a grip. The ESSENCE of Wiki is that it is written and “massaged” by people who use aliases.

          • I’m sorry, sub-fabuloso……but your red herring is dead.

            <*(((—< . . . . .

            And now you've just agreed with me.

          • Next 24 December, consider going back to Christianity. I wish you peace in the new year.

          • I will never consider believing in fairy tales, but thank you for your good wishes.

          • You’re overusing this insult. Maybe Wiki has some other options for you.

          • Maybe you could go stick a sock in it.

          • Telling people to shut up is another one you could cut down on.

          • I only do it to people who need to be told.

          • Way to go Emilechka, give us old Beau Brummell, a powdered up loser who lived off his father and died broke.

          • You’re wearing the results of his life.

          • Why is it Emilechka, that all the left wing wackos accuse others of doing what they consistently do themselves? In this case telling fabuloso not to rewrite history.

            Up there in that photo is some poor little thing having his eyebrows plucked. Well let me tell you, great builders of America like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford didn’t spend a lot of time being powdered up. Nor did any of the any of the great British military leaders like Marlborough and Wellington.

            For successful men it’s always been the same:
            – Don’t touch my woman
            – Don’t steal my horse
            – Don’t ever draw a gun or a sword on me.

            And that Emilechka, is why you’re fighting a losing battle by going into 300 pound feminista kindergarten teacher mode and trying to peddle your malarkey.

            I see you down below here screaming at fabuloso your standard line that he’s either “stupid or uneducated.” I’ve watched you scream that at folks a hundred times and have always figured you must be looking at yourself in a mirror when you do it.

          • Well you’ve certainly proved the old saying about ‘fooling the people’. You’ve bought into the male myth big-time.

            You must have spent your youth watching Hollywood movies.

          • Ah Emilechka!. Being the daughter of Gerda Munsinger has left you bereft of rational thought.

            You proved it my satisfaction when you went out at 50 years of age, spiked your hair green and signed up as a Riot Grrrl groupie.

            Booga Wooga

          • Post to someone else for a change John, you’re boring the hell out of me.

            PS I suggest you take your meds first.

        • if the word fop has been around for centuries and possibly millenia, then that must mean that guys have been dressing up, being vain and narcissistic for that amount of time too. So it isn’t anything to be too concerned about.
          As for work, well a lot of the best dressed Romans and Greeks were some of the very founders of Western culture as well as being pretty decent with weapons on the battle field. Alexander the Great being an example of a very flamboyant warrior and over achiever. I guess the one reason nobody called him the Greek equivalent of a fop was because he would have killed them, another would have been that they all were fops back then.
          The derision of well dressed, perfumed men probably has lot to do with the rise of the christian church in Europe and the defining of roles based on sex. The introduction of protestantism and its dislike of excess and anything that involved fun, frivolity and non-conventional behaviour probably cemented such an approach too. Aestheticism has always found favour amongst the most pious after all.

          • Good lord, how many classmates does Emily have in here??

            Ok Hairball, just a few pointers.
            – To call someone a ‘fop’ is not a physical descriptor. It’s a value judgement. One can dress elaborately but not be called a fop. Look up words before you post an answer.
            Because being a ‘fop’ is a judgement, then it follows that using the term (or early equivalents) means making the same value judgement. Eureka, men were condemned or scorned for being fops — long ago.

            – The Roman comedy Miles Gloriosus (Braggard Soldier) was written in the 2nd century BC. It is a send-up of a ‘fop’ soldier. Furthermore, Miles Gloriosus is a remake into Latin of a Greek play which, of course, predates it. Therefore, the literature of anti-male-foppishness is at least 2300 years old. In fact, it’s much older.

            Don’t come to class without better preparation. Ciao.

          • I realise that you and Emily having been playing in the kindergarten for a bit now and that might have coloured your interpretation of my comment.
            But as a lot of Greeks were made up and foppsihly behaved in those days by our standards, has it occurred to you that what was defined as foppish in those days might have been different to what is called foppish throughout history. Back in the 60’s guys were getting the snot kicked out of them by “real” men for having long hair – The guys doing it wouldn’t have been so foppish to use the word fop that would probably have made them look faggish in front of their mates. Now long hair isn’t such a big deal, make-up and tights are.
            As for Miles Gloriosus, this is not the best example you could have chosen as the play is more about the wiley slave than the captain. And rather than apply the term fop to the captain it would be more appropriate to use the the term conceited and possibly stupid. It is obvious that the Captain was very definitely a ladies man and full of pride, but I would never have thought of him as a classic fop. For one reason he put a lot of effort into his machinations and certainly didn’t come across as someone who put his appearance before all else as his willingness to pursue the neighbour in order to marry her illustrates.
            Just a thought for the classicist in you.

          • Were you an actual reader, rather than a tendentious cipher on the Internet, you’d have not written the above.

            For example “the play is more about the wiley slave…” you say, therefore, my description of the master is wrong. Take that one again. The play is about a mouse; therefore my description of the cat is wrong.

            Oh my. And then all that creative dipsydoodle about ladies men and relativistic non-foppery. And the stock phrases dragged in from 1970s Queer theory+agitation, ‘faggy’ ‘long hair’ ‘getting beaten up’, etc etc, having zero to do with the topic, which is whether the female desire to dress boys as girls is a good thing…for the boys. And you forgetting that hair length doesn’t evolve in a straight line, doesn’t have a slider that makes boys less short and less boys, and thus moves them to their inner girlishness; and that’s not going to work, since long hair is ancient and short hair is contemporary, so your Long evolutionary march Away from the Short Brute is going in the wrong direction but will skitter back soon.

            You have a great career ahead of you, but you’ll have some running to do to catch Emily.

          • hmm
            it appears that you have real issues when someone might have read your source citation, not to mention the other issues the rest of your comment revealed.

            The captain was still not a fop by any definition of the word except for a personal one. Arrogant, a brute, self serving even a bully but really… not a fop.

            After that it descends into a word vomit that probably tells me more about you than I really needed to know. As to whom your class mate is, I have no idea, but I hope it’s a happy time for both of you.

          • Marybell, you have no reading skills. Neither for Miles Gloriosus nor for what I’ve written in my reply. In fact, Miles is no more a ‘brute’ than any of the copies he inspired in literature… but I guess “brute” is the term that you feel authorized to use, by your misandric tutoresses… as it’s the most gender-specific. At any rate, my point is not that he is a “fop” in terms of the stock character of a fop, but that his dressing up is foppish in its cultural and historical context. In fact, the foolishness of his dress is what his audience would have found most striking.

            You barely know how to read English; all you have are feminist talking points.

          • wow you really have your hate on.
            I’ve no idea what happened to you in a past life but your opinion of women appears to be a text-book case of MRA angst. Anybody who interprets a piece of literature in any other way than you must be an enemy. At first I thought it might be a chat about a classical piece of literature, but it appears that the poor boy with an unrequited Oedipus complex is throwing all his toys out of the pram in a hissy fit. I’m not too sure you would fit your definition of man given the whining and histrionics on display.

          • all the dismissive buzz-words to avoid the debate, eh? “hate” “MRA” “poor boy” Oedipus (!!) “toy” “pram” …

            What blog do you and Emily put out– I’d like to read it.

          • I doubt it as you have not read anything written so far.
            You’ve assumed I’m something I’m not and acted on that basis.
            As for debate, you aren’t interested in that clearly, you’re interested in demonising anyone who disagrees with you. That ain’t debate.

    • “high heals”???

      • For shoes that give you blisters. LOL

        • Just so…

    • That would be the Chinese Yuan.

      An article on social mores might seem frivolous to you, but opening up the remaining 50% of untapped buying power on earth is pretty big news to Revlon etc.

  5. Sorry kids, but I have to say it, This fad for “men” is just gay. There I said it.

    • Well, if men are just a passing fad, who will women marry instead?

      • I don’t think the men depicted in this article worry much about women anyway.

        • If you had read the thread you’d know that men used to wear wigs, make-up, lace, silk stockings, high heels…..and still managed to build an empire.

          Men of today and skin cream are minor stuff.

          Your gender is determined at birth….cloth, cream….and other fashion…..doesn’t change it.

          Julius Caesar wore a skirt. So does Sean Connery…007

          So does the pope….and judges….and the House of Lords.

          • Get a grip, Emmie! You’re not here to regurgitate your Fem 101 papers.

            “Skin cream” is not a synonym for “cover makeup.” Men don’t walk around mooning about their “blemishes,” unless they’re feminized at birth.

            Speaking of ‘birth’, you’re contradicting even what your private typing project, Wikipedia, says. How are you going to ‘manage’, that page, when you’re here typing “Your gender is determined at birth…”

            A person’s sex is determined at birth for 99.9% of the population. So-called “gender” is a postmodern term meaning sexual identity. Sexual identity is consciousness, not biology; from the perspective of male-female dichotomy, it is there before the age of 3, but is subtle. For example, it exists in the area of color recognition and color preference — that relates to “clothing” and that has been scientifically tested. Sexual identity begins to grow as hormones emerge, but is nourished by a variety of components, including biology, culture, and nurturing.

            Julie Caesar was not a cross-dresser. He wore a toga which is not a ‘skirt’. The Polynesians can be said to wear the modern concept of a “skirt” made of grasses. The Ancients of Greece and Rome knew the difference between ‘male’ and ‘female’ clothing. The man adorned the woman — not vice-versa. The post-Renaissance wig for men is an aristocratic detail from Europe. You’re completely lost in your glossy and lesbian fantasy.

          • LOL well at least this answer was funnier than your last one. Still as wrong….but funnier.

            When women first switched to wearing pants, I’m sure they rolled their eyes at hearing the same shocked comments.

            PS Julius Caesar was a soldier. He did not ride horse or fight in a robe. He wore the soldier’s skirt…..the same as the rest of the entire Roman army.

          • Your group, Club Wikipedia, is careful to hint that J. Caesar was bisexual… just to please the palate of gender-theory profs who read and recommend Wiki.

            The history of the pantaloon is too complex to reproduce here.. and possibly too subtle for you. Have a great Carnival month but don’t pull any bank heists in drag.

          • The entire Roman army wore short skirts, fab….


          • Roman society had a different view of sex than we do today. The man of the house was just that the Lord of his home. He could do anything to anything that he owned and that included slaves. that included homosexual sex.
            It did change later after the christian faith became dominant, but during Julius Caesar’s time a man could use his property as he wished

  6. It will help the unfortunate in the look department to compete with other who doesn’t needed.

  7. They don’t look like they’d last very long out past where the sidewalks end.

    Effeminate behavior cannot create “a new definition of masculinity.” The writer is very confused.

  8. Roman males of the aristocratic and military classes didn’t shave, they were de-haired all over by slaves using clam shells; gladiators too. Roman ladies didn’t like hairy men

  9. I’ve been reading the same story since at least the late 60s

  10. “They can be as educated as women.” Seriously? I know bikers with long beards wearing redneck clothing, that are more educated than the average Joe and Jane. They even know fashion trends, but they wear what is comfortable for them. This article is just media spin and has no relevance to the majority of the male population. Hats up for the guy finding a niche market, but don’t assume this will be a lasting trend. We had the same in the eighties, makeup and Miami vice. Where are they now?

  11. The last paragraph about rising in come inequality makes no sense. How is it related to the rest of the article? Looks like the author just tacked it on to sound intelligent. Probably read something in the Economist. Stick to fashion.