GQ Man

I am trying to draw some threads together for some of the models of masculinity that are prevalent in contemporary culture. One that I am particularly aware of through friends is that of GQ man.

I recently bought an issue of GQ at an airport. The strapline is "the men's magazine with an IQ", and it is a glossy, slickly presented product. I was very surprised by the content. In the 240 or so pages I found an appeal to somebody for whom the exterior image is hugely important. I counted the number of advertisements and placement within articles for men's cosmetics (both scents and products like hair thickening shampoo). There was also a huge reliance on brand images for watches, clothes and accessories (things like sunglasses or mp3 players).

Having read No Logo I am aware of the power of branding, but in GQ was really quite surprised by the extent to which cross branding has developed. I counted 10 ads for items such as a Chanel watch (what does somebody who can make a nice scent know abut making a complex timepiece?) or, rather bizarrely, Jaguar fragrances (I don't think cars smell very nice). Clearly brand is very important to GQ man as a badge demonstrating the sophistication of his choices.

The articles (the bit where I was looking for the IQ) were broadly disappointing. One good one was about a joutrnalist in Baghdad, but the rest were rather lame. They included an interview with Boris Becker (more concerned with the incident in a restaurant that led to the paternity suit against him than in his tennis), and an article about Gazza and the dentist's chair incident in a Hong Kong nightclub prior to Euro 96.

I was also struck by the portrayal of women in the magazine. There were no titillating shots, but plenty containing women in underclothes, and an article about women's attitudes to sex. One article warned against the desire of women to trap a man into marriage. There was also a photo article about the LA pornography industry and another about how sex is portrayed in the movies. Clearly GQ has a fairly simplistic view of womanhood.

It was interesting to compare the above with movies. In About A Boy and Vanilla Sky the leads are wealthy, brand astute men with a similar attitude to money and sex. Both films revolve around the impact that multiple relationships have upon the "playboy" lifestyle enjoyed at the start of the film.

Is this what being a man is all about? Surely not!

Comments

[rhys]

As always it could be worse - have you ever seen Nuts or Loaded.

[danniipinkshoes]

Am trying to write an essay discussing how masculinity is represented through advertising in men's magazines: a comparison between GQ and Nuts. Yes, an extremley long title, but hey. As I am not a guy (maybe the pink shoes gives it away) it would be interesting to gain an insight into how you male-types relate to the adverts you see in mags. Do the images you see impose a type of masculinity that you are 'a part of' or do you feel excluded. Examples would be good. Furthermore, as part of my dissertation I am proposing to create a fashion magazine aimed at men and women that will comprise 'high-brow' articles (i.e. no posh 'n' becks drama). Any thoughts... (Could you make your answers long, so I don't look like the only wally who has written a comment that has turned out to be the length of an essay.) Ta.

[Howard Jameson]

Dannii - thanks for stopping by.

As far as answering your questions goes that is another thing altogether. My thoughts are as follows...

Jungian psychologists suggest that there are various archetypes that we respond to/mimic/copy (I don't know the exact verb here). In terms of masculinity this is the case as well, and there are those who have written about Iron John and various other archetypes of masculinity. I am sure there is something in this, but care needs to be taken in terms of which archetypes one decides are real healthy ones. In terms of magazines like GQ, Nuts and Loaded (all of which I have looked at at least once) then I think a male archetype is projected that is not healthy.

Why do I think this? Several reasons...
The model that is put forward without any sense of critique is one in which the male is sexually active, and certainly from GQ the idea of a monogomous life-time relationship is depicted as a female trap. Thus looking at what is available, in terms of multiple images of girls in underwear, bikinis etc, is portrayed as no different from the window shopping one might do elsewhere.
There is also a substantial issue about how this model of masculinity represents a model of femininity. The idea I think GQ et al sell is that the girl just wants the same things as the boy, but there are differences between male and female that in my view are designed with a sense of complementarity. That doesn't mean that all boys do one thing and all girls do another, but within each relationship there is a sense of difference held within love, and that difference is cherished and nurtured.

Speaking as a Christian I think that I have an archetype for masculinity that I wish to follow, and that is the person of Jesus. Here I see a man who was not afraid to cry in public, to show tremendous empathy and care for vulnerable people without taking advantage etc. My concern is that these are portrayed in our society as "female" values, and so therefore being a Christian equates to being a bit soft or a wuss, whereas in my role as a priest I find tremendous liberty to visit hurt and bereaved people, and to put an arm round someone, to listen, to feel for them; a liberty that I think allows me to be a man as God made me to be, not somebody imprisoned in an artificial role, as GQ and others would have us behave.

Anybody else want to add something?