There is No Such Thing As The 'Modern Manly Man'

In a recent article for the Telegraph, Kate Mulvey laid out ‘the nine archetypes of the Modern Manly Male’ - a deeply ironic proposition considering that nearly all of them seem to describe a Stanley Kowalski-esque character who would fit neatly into the emotionally stunted box from which ‘modern’ men are currently escaping.

The article in question was written in response to the image of Harry Styles wearing a gorgeous Gucci gown that will grace the cover of this month’s Vogue (if you haven’t seen it, you should, it’s magnificent). Mulvey isn’t the first woman to come forward and denounce Harry’s feminine self-expression, in fact in her article she quotes conservative commentator Candace Owens, seconding the idea that the world is becoming short of ‘manly men’.

Enter ‘archetypes’ one through nine, each equally as dated as the last and accompanied by detailed descriptions almost more infuriating than the commandments themselves. From ‘he doesn’t declare that he is a feminist’ to ‘he will never cry in public’, many of her requests are vastly problematic. However, the issue isn’t necessarily the type of man whom Mulvey is describing, but the fact that she has quite literally provided instructions for what she believes a man should be. While I’m sure that there are many decent guys who exist within the margins of Mulvey’s description, there will be millions who do not and it is not their duty to contort themselves into an outdated stereotype in order to satisfy a romantic fantasy. 

I struggle to grasp exactly why Owens and Mulvey are so deeply opposed to men such as Styles, and instead favour an imagined idea of masculinity. They make it clear that they like their men boorish, unrealistic and perhaps toeing the line of what many would deem to be the bare minimum when it comes to respect. In her article, Mulvey refers to the ‘foppish wimps’ that she has dated, criticising one in particular who apologised for accidentally brushing her arm. In a world where issues such as systemic racism and violence against the trans community are ever prevalent, a man daring to apologise for accidentally and nonconsensually touching his date hardly seems like a great tragedy, and certainly not an indicator of the ‘extinction’ of masculinity. The truth is that masculinity in its conventional form is a thing of the past. While many men still choose to perform it in this way, we no longer live in a world where it is a requirement. As women, we should be wholeheartedly embracing this new era of male self-expression. Considering that we have all encountered (some to a far greater degree than others) the discriminatory confines of thin, white, cisgendered ‘prettiness’, to thrust a similar mentality of entrapment onto others should feel inherently wrong. 

In reality, gender as we know it has been disintegrating for years, whether people like Owens and Mulvey have been paying attention or not. The fashion industry is perhaps one of the greatest indicators of this fact. The women’s clothing which we now see in mainstream media has been given a facelift thanks to social media ‘it-girls’ who have been leaning into oversized, masculine looks for years. Netflix’s recent guilty-pleasure project, Emily in Paris, was even criticised for its protagonist’s outdated wardrobe. Vogue called for a style update in the second season, pleading for Emily to take on the modern ‘cool-girl’ uniform of an oversized suit and dad trainers while citing stilettos as a thing of the past.

So why has Harry Styles donning a dress for the camera caused such a stir? Male femininity in fashion isn’t a new concept and Styles certainly isn’t the first male musician to sport women’s clothing. Perhaps it is the drastic development of his character which is causing unnecessary controversy. Styles stepped into the public eye in 2010 as the perfect, floppy-haired heart-throb and was immediately portrayed by X-Factor producers as a ‘womaniser’ of sorts, despite only being 16 at the time. 10 years later Harry has established himself as a formidable solo artist and notable face in fashion. Long gone is the boyband blue-print, replaced by what we can only assume is a far truer representation of his character - shouldn’t we be celebrating this? Are those who criticise him simply frustrated by this change? During his One Direction days Harry was a figurehead of conventional, societally celebrated ‘attractiveness’, but his celebrity status doesn’t allow us to feel a sense of entitlement towards him, or in any way robbed of this previous persona. Surely the thing of greatest importance is the happiness and freedom-of-expression of the individual whose character is being critiqued; the clothes through which they reveal themselves rarely have genuine implications on the lives of others. In other words, next time a man wears a dress ask yourself if you are in a position to condemn him for it. Spoiler alert: unless he is appropriating your culture, the answer is no. 

As for Mulvey’s desperate search for a partner who oozes ‘sweaty testosterone’ and refuses to cry, I’m afraid she’s 50 years too late. ‘Modern’ men have become disillusioned to the cunningly crafted lie of masculinity and won’t be cornered back into that hole by people who are yet to catch up. They know that no one should be left to stew in their own suppressed identity and are instead embracing the fact that self-expression has become more varied and liberated than ever before.