[quote]danmaftei wrote:
This would all be fine and dandy if that was what people consider metrosexual around here. There’s an interesting mentality behind many of T-Nation’s members that dicates that if you God forbid take a shower or use aftershave, you’re a metrosexual. That anyone who doesn’t strive to be 250 lbs of pure muscle, eating five lbs of steak a day, and crusading for traditional male values, is a stupid metrosexual not worthy of respect.
[/quote]
I’ve no doubt that there are a few of those around. Couple knee-jerk homophobes, too. I automatically tune out fringe wackos – or try to. Signal to noise ratio, y’know?
I think that the concept of the metrosexual equating with shallow values holds for most; a person defined by things ceases to have a definition. To that extent, yes, many a bodybuilder has fallen into a very similar trap.
Is there a female equivilant? Certainly. Our society is a foolishly materialistic one, and the insanity of gender role restrictions in the Victorian era pretty much relegated women to pursuing shallow, silly ends if they were to be socially ‘proper’. As a society, we’re still dealing with the massive dysfunction that Victorian ‘values’ inflicted upon us as a whole, and slowly growing out of it. It’s still far more acceptable for women to pursue the shallow ends of vanity – particularly in wealthier circles – whereas the trap for men lays in judgement through accrual. Both are equally shallow and (imho) reprehensible.
I think part of the backlash against the Metro comes from the shake-up of complacency. We accept certain behaviours not because they’re productive or proper, but simply because we’re used to them by tradition. When the image is reflected in the mirror, sometimes the faults become more clear. The Metro bothers people of a certain inclination, and so they pick the image apart to see what it is that irks them. They usually compile a list of minor things and then stop before they hit the true heart of the matter (though, for many I’m sure, it’s the small things that do the trick).
I think we’ve seen the same for women as attempts at equal rights have climbed into our society. It’s often been voiced as a complaint that women who enter the business world encounter a double standard: if they act like the men do, they’re labelled for it. The thing is, the behaviours that earn the label are usually reprehensible: treating employees like dirt, being a hardass when compassion or diplomacy would be a better route, etc.
Are such behaviours more accepted in men in the business world? Yes. That doesn’t validate them, however. The paradigm needs to be shifted; instead of using sexism as an excuse and validation, it should be looked at as a clear indicator that, in all likelihood, we’re just behaving in a damned stupid way. Some of the most successful business leaders have discovered that a shift away from the bullying behaviour has yielded better company moral, and greater productivity.
I think I’ll cut my blather off at this point. This is long-winded enough. 
