Musings on Gender, Passion and the State of Retail

First, the good stuff. I'm on a quest to buy new khakis. Nothing fancy, just comfortable, low-rise, wide-legged khakis that are comfortable enough to lounge around in and nice enough to pick up off the floor and wear to work. A conversation between me and several retail stores:

Me: Why hello J. Crew. It's been so long but it's good to see that NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON YOUR END. You still seem to be designing delightfully overpriced goods for the Lily Pullizter set. Now, while I have on occasion emerged with a good purchase, the last time was before THOSE PEOPLE reelected THAT MAN to drive our country into the ground.

J.Crew: Hi shopper! Would you like some summer weight cotton khakis?

Me: I tried those. They are as Aunt Sue would say, "ill fitted."

J.Crew: How about this brushed cotton pair for the bargain price of $128?

Me: I'm leaving now

J.Crew: But wait! What about our seersucker and madras and cropped pants and 146 varieties of flip flops?

Me: I'm walking across the street to your -- and I admit this is hard -- stylistically inferior step cousin, the Gap.

Gap: Hello disgruntled shopper! Perhaps I can cheer you up with our new boyfriend trousers!

Me: No, no, I want something I can pick up off the floor and wear to work, not something that looks as though it's been on the floor, under my dog, since November

Gap: But we thought the wrinkles were hip!

Me: Sigh, you just don't get it. You never did. Goodbye.

Gap: (tear drips down the register)

Me: Hmmm.... do I dare wander into the Abercrombie & Fitch? It can't be that bad, can it?

A&F: Hey ya shopper! Aren't you impressed by our dim lights, sexy aroma and giant pictures of nearly naked 16 year olds everywhere?

Me: What? I can't hear you over the awful club music, and you smell like my the boys at my high school prom (which is NOT a good thing), and you seem to have a kiddy porn fetish

A&F: Uh.... How about these terry cloth booty shorts with #16 on the ass?

Me: Someone give me a match. And some lighter fluid. Now.


I am, needless to say, unfulfilled. But on to more substantive matters, I am in the middle of a book by George Mosse entitled "The Image of Man." Mosse's task is to document the emergence of the modern male stereotype and the countertypes against which it was defined (mostly Jews, homosexuals and women, making a Jewish lesbian the ultimate threat). The book is fascinating for me because Mosse devotes much of it to addressing the connection between modern masculinity and modern nationalism, and specifically the ways through which the latter co-opted the former for its construction of an idealized social order.

Mosse provides ample evidence that one of the characteristics most associated with the ideal modern man was his ambivalence toward sex. It was at best an incidental part of part of his character, something he did for procreation's sake. Sexual desire was thought to be a sign of poor self-restraint that led to deviance and detracted from a man's honor. This was of course contrasted with the the popular characterization of women as emotionally driven creatures whose appetite for sex could never be sated (thus explaining their inability to play a role in the responsible business of civil society).

Now, it takes no great cultural critic to see that our contemporary stereotypes about men and women's sexual appetites are exact opposites of those propagated in the 19th century. Images of the promiscuous women have been replaced with that of the prude; meanwhile, men have been excusing bad behavior for at least 30 years by appealing to their inability to control their penises. So, a question for the class: when do we think this shift in association occurred? And what factors were responsible for such a 180? And where can I find some damn khakis?

-Flooz