Despite the advancement women’s political, economic and social equality, the accumulating issue of sexual assault and gendered violence are instances in which discourses of power, produce the feminine body as violable, weak and silenced (Foucault, 1998). Hegemonic masculinity, men who satisfy societal standards, have dominantly resulted on the top of this power hierarchy, using violent and unhealthy behaviours to maintain control (Katz, 2018). Psychiatrist Dr. Terry Kupers, refers to the term ‘toxic’ as ‘regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence’ (Kupers 2005, p.714). Additionally, academics Mosher and Sirkin (1984), define the term ‘hyper’ as a direct relation to the notion of ‘exaggeration’, an emphasis on physical strength and aggression (Messerschmidt, 2018) against individuals situated at the bottom of the gender hierarchy.

This essay contends that in order to progress towards a gender-egalitarian world, a significant shift in including men within the conversation of gender equality is necessary (Flood, 2015). Thus, as part of the solution, this essay calls to question how clothing can be seen as an ‘antidote’ to toxic and hyper masculinity, defining ‘antidote’ as something that counteracts an unpleasant feeling or situation (Oxford Dictionary, 2021). The research focuses upon clothing as a strategy, through breaking down the fragility of men, unifying the segregated gendered barriers and ultimately aiding in the development of better self-expression through changing archetypes.

Multi-disciplinary artist, Daniel Crook, contends that in order to challenge patriarchal power, one must detach the ‘power of the truth’ from the ‘social form within which it operates in’ (Foucault, in Rabinow, 1991, p.75). Crook establishes nudity is a discourse that undermines and exposes men from their armored façade, worn to suppress their internal vulnerability and emotional fragility (Kohn, 2018). In his work titled ‘Precious Stones’ (2018), Crook invited cisgender and heterosexual men to pose in nude portrait sessions, during which he attempts, with their consent, to ‘deconstruct and rebuild their masculine identity in the hopes it’ll lead to healthier expressions of manhood’ (Kohn, 2018, para. 6). Thus, when strategically situated in the context of a consensual space, nakedness enabled men to to reconnect with their bodies, resisting and diffusing the dangerous weaponry they have been taught to see themselves as. At that point, men refute the projected image of themselves as the ‘powerful’, instead present as a person and nothing more.

Crooks methodology of strategically evading, subverting and contesting patriarchal power, (Gaventa, 2003, p.3), through unifying with the power source, is a systematic change that needs to occur within the fashion industry. In her publication ‘Men Can Take It’ (1939), Fashion Designer Elizabeth Hawes references J.C Flügel’s ‘Psychology of Clothes’ (1976), arguing that during the Great Male Renunciation in 1930, men began to avoid loud colours, decorative patterns, and deviate from the standard silhouette, as a deliberate mechanism in adverting any insinuation of homosexuality and femininity. Evident by the heavy suits, weighted shoes and constricting neckties worn on a daily basis, illustrated how men would opt discomfort for the sake of hiding their vulnerability (Calahan, 2015).

In 1967, Hawes exemplified this struggle against masculine fragility, through the introduction of the masculine skirt archetype. Hawes believed that the design would sanction free movement and remove rigid traditional masculine tropes, however, like Williams, she was met with public anger, shock and rage. Hawes’ skirt brought up the first questions around what masculine attire truly entails. Despite being adopted by designers such as Jean Paul Gaultier, Dries Van Noten, and Rick Owens, it calls upon more designers to challenge gender norms in the utilisation of stereotypical feminine archetypes for men, in an effort to deconstruct and rebuild the future of masculine identity.

The male body as ‘Fashion’

The rapid definition of the male body in fashion continues to globally transform, therefore it is imperative for the impact of standard body types and sizes to be acknowledged and questioned within menswear design. Dating back to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Polonius tells his son Laertes to dress well because ‘apparel oft proclaims the man’ (Hamlet, 2012), or now modernly expressed by Jones (1995) as ‘clothes maketh the man’. Despite playing a crucial role in the reflection of the self and identity, Peter Allan in his academic thesis titled ‘The Fabricated Man’, counteracts this viewpoint, and projects that in today’s society, it is ‘the ideal body [that] maketh the man’ (Allan, 2011, p.11), referring to the construction of the physical male body visually representing what it means to be masculine. In this sense, the male body has become the notion of fashion itself, and like clothing, it abides both on the surface and in depth the pressures, influences and repercussions that have brought it into being (Buchbinder, 2011).

Evident in ‘Masculinities’ (1995), theorist R.W Connell’s contends that masculinity is not biologically determined, but rather represented via discourses of appearance, such as emphasised muscles and solid physiques (Connell, 1995). Such depicted bodies assert themselves as ‘objects of spectacle’, displaying the desirable male figure as the set benchmark of masculinity (Edwards, 1997), propelling everyday men to analyse their own physiques, and scrutinize the differences between their bodies and the aspirational ideals they wish to emulate (Gill, Henwood, & McLean, 2000).