Modern masculinity - is it the product of modernity or its arche? The saying "be a man" doesn't mean be a man, but appear to be a man. Appearance demands the performance of the ritualistic pantomimes of masculinity - chest pounding, womanizing, and above all else loud self-promotion. But is the metrosexual a better alternative? No, the appearance, even if "liberated" from the content of traditional masculinity, takes on the same vain and insecure form. The aesthetic judgment of the metrosexual may be far worse than the thoughtless brute expressions of the faux-man.
Being is not in appearance but in action. The ethos of masculinity has long been lost amidst the vanity of the modern subject. The question is: although resistance against patriarchy destablizes forms of domination, is the problem really one of domination? Isn't the problem precisely a perversed notion of masculinity? Are feminist studies not incomplete if they do not examine the decline of manhood within the modern context? The presumption that structures of domination are patriarchal is flawed.
The structures of domination foster adolescents who pose as men. Does this not follow from Hobbes? In the shadow of modernity, aren't the mass of men shaped into obedient beings; spoiled by privilege (freedoms guaranteed), but disempowered otherwise. Is it not more prudent to capitulate rather than act? To toady rather than lead? To live in the illusory norm rather than journey to the edge? The courageous conviction and bold creative impluse of the worldly man is indeed rare. What remains is the particularized, instrumental, obedient tool of rational progress; man alienated from his origins, in perpetual fear of Fortuna, submitting to a cause supposedly beyond himself.
