The word ‘role’ is often associated with something one assumes, or plays or acts, say, in a theatrical production. In this case, one’s role is generally voluntary (unless we’re talking about a school play where Mrs. Peterson gives you the part for the tree or daisy in the background who has no lines, when you really wanted to be the main hero or heroine.) The good thing about roles of this kind is that they’re temporary; they can be dropped after a brief time, and the person can go on about their daily lives ‘as they truly are’. Although their act may have been a traumatic or exciting experience, those emotions are short-lived and one can go back to being plain ol’ Heather or Justin whenever they wish. Role playing can be fun, too, as many Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts can tell you. Indeed, playing a different character or creature (such as that of an Elf or Dwarf or Wizard) in such a game arguably may be considered a healthy exercise. A close friend of mine, who is also one of the most intelligent people I know, once said that role playing as a kid helped him expand his intelligence by cultivating the imagination.

Unfortunately, our gender is something we’re stuck with - forever. With each gender comes a role, and they share almost nothing in common with the more expansive, imagination-growing aspects of a game nor do they carry a temporary title which can be changed or redesigned. One does not audition for their role before they’re born, and therefore cannot opt out of the play that is called life, or the drama or pain or abuse associated with being in that role. Pressure from all sides - family, schoolmates, peers and adults, the workplace, the nation, society as a whole - determines how one plays their part, and sometimes it seems the rule book has been torched or put on a censorship list, because it’s up to the individual to figure out what it means to be a man or a woman. In examining, therefore, the role played by men in society, it may be safe to say that this role, though played, is something that is often forced, coerced or guilted into action.

So what assumed role for men is probably the most prominent in our society? Tough it out. That’s right; men are expected to be tough. No matter how many consciousness-raising, Sundance Film Festival movies or Barbara Walters or Dr. Phil broadcasts we watch, no matter how many articles we read, men are still stuck with this role, and it will take more than TV or movies or well-written and well-intended commentaries to change that trend. From boyhood on, most males are treated differently from females in this way. A girl breaks a nail, and it’s tragic. A boy gets cut or bruised or skinned on the knee, and he’s expected to ‘tough it out’. Males are trained to disregard physical injury while growing up, for the most part (not to mention the whole taboo of crying), and to pay attention to activities that are, largely, physically risky (e.g. Football, Hockey, Skate Boarding, etc.) Is it any wonder that males, generally speaking, have a less-developed sense of hygiene, have more difficulty expressing emotion, seem not to care when they develop a beer gut or pattern baldness, etc.? Men are trained not to be concerned about their physical bodies as much as women are. This concept may be expanded to apply to the role men have in the military, and how, since the beginning of our culture (more or less), men’s lives were expendable, and roughly translate into our society’s version of human sacrifice for the greater good - but I’ll save that for another time. Instead, I’d like talk about a personal critique I have concerning being male.

I want to focus on a male-role phenomenon that is probably the most overlooked: Men’s clothes. Let’s face it, men’s clothes are boring. Their options for expression can be summarized as having two parts: the shirt and the pant. If one were to look honestly at a man’s choice of clothing in, say, a catalogue or in a boutique (there are so few of these for men anyway), one would discover that their clothes are pretty much all variations of a theme. The colors men can choose from are not as diverse as women, nor can they ‘accessorize’ like a woman can. Men’s clothes are meant to be practical and useful, not flamboyant or unnecessary. But what does that really matter anyway? I mean, what MAN would want to have a mauve, silk scarf with frills, white leather, open-toed pumps and a matching clutch? The truthful answer is: probably more than you’d expect. However, the real issue is not the item specifically. The real issue is variety and creative expression. Like a painter’s palette, one’s creativity is often limited by the choices that are available. Men’s choice in clothing (and accessories) are also a part of the more apparent, obvious issue: the devaluation of the male body. Yes, I just said that. With much of the media’s attention focused on women’s rights and their value in society, we often take for granted the critical issue of men’s roles, and how they are valued. I mean, what are men valued for? Their earning potential? Their strength in battle? Their wittiness in conversation? Their leadership? How good they are in bed? All of these things for which a man is valued and appreciated are periphery traits or abilities. What about the male body itself?

These are all questions men and women should be asking. It’s important for men to see the power they have to transform the roles handed down to them for generations by wearing, and demanding, more creative clothing styles. Think about it: the beginning of a revolution that will change men’s roles forever may be as simple as changing clothes.