Harry Styles and the Politics of Masculinity
By: Jacquie Rose
Tags: Feminism, Culture, Masculinity, Marxism, Society

Harry Styles and the Politics of Masculinity

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

The December issue of Vogue made history by featuring British pop star Harry Styles as the magazine’s first-ever solo male cover star. His outfit — a periwinkle gown paired with a tuxedo jacket — stirred controversy about masculinity and gendered dressing, particularly from conservative personalities.

“There is no society that can survive without strong men,” Candace Owens, a conservative commentator, tweeted to her followers on Saturday. “The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack.” Ben Shapiro voiced similar concerns about Styles’ masculinity.

At first, I hesitated to respond to their comments. Referring to Owens and Shapiro as “conservative commentators” is almost too generous. We should call them what they are — internet trolls. They are famous for their internet brawls with celebrities. They love conflict. They drink my liberal tears.

Plenty of people online chose to defend Styles by pointing out that David Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Kurt Cobain similarly wore dresses. Others have noted that fashion standards are fluid. Different cultures have varying standards for masculine dress, from kilts in Scotland to thawbs in Arab countries. Cultural standards even evolve over time. High-heeled shoes were first worn by 10th century Persian cavalry soldiers to keep their feet in their stirrups. Wearing high heels became an indication of wealth in Persia, and a Persian delegation introduced them to Europe in the 17th century. The first Europeans to wear high heels were men; the shoes emphasized the masculine shape of their calves and thighs.

The rules for fashion are made up. Why be bothered with them at all?

Styles — along with Billie Eilish, Lil Uzi Vert, Yungblud, and others —frequently makes non-binary fashion statements. Styles pairs collared shirts with pearl necklaces; he paints his fingernails. He is one of the most famous celebrities pioneering a new trend of gender-fluid fashion that is particularly popular among millennial and Gen-Z consumers. Vogue is targeting these same consumers with their fashion spread.

This leads me to my point — the consumers are speaking. Younger generations are increasingly shopping across gendered sections of their favorite clothing stores. They are voting with their dollars. This is not Marxism; this is consumer capitalism in action.

(Let me insert that Owens’s assertion that Marxism has anything to do with Styles wearing a dress is laughable. In short, Marxism is a sociopolitical philosophy that examines how capitalism affects labor, productivity, and development; Marx argues for workers to overthrow capitalism for communism. While Marx would argue that capitalism harms the family structure, he did not have much to say about men in dresses. It is almost as though Owens uses terms like “Marxism” to describe things she does not like.)

So-called proponents of capitalism should not be worried about what Styles’ fashion choices mean for masculinity. There is no capitalism without innovation — at least, according to capitalists — and with innovation comes change. This change also includes changes to “traditional” masculinity. Men have had certain responsibilities that they were expected to fulfill throughout history, but many of these roles have evolved. To the best of my knowledge, Shapiro did not build a house for his wife. He does not spend the long hours of the day tilling the fields or hunting for food that his wife will prepare. I doubt that Owens’ husband paid for her dowry with sheep and cows. If conservative commentators can stomach these changes to traditional masculinity, then they can surely accept fashion trends on a magazine cover as well.