I'm reminded of of Ehrenreich's, _Hearts of Men_, specifically the chapter on the early politics and posturing in Playboy. E argues that Playboy can be read as a sign that men rebelled against the breadwinner/homemaker norm long before Betty Friedan cast a critical eye on the problem that had no name or the anonymous Hayden-King memo was "buked" and "scorned" for raising the unimportant "woman question."
Part of what was going on, says E, was a kind of resistance to the bonds of wage-labor. Working in gray flannel suits wasn't all it was cracked up to be, so men wanted to reclaim the home from which they'd been banished. Once Kings of the Castle, now they were relegated to the outdoor BBQ grill and the basement, so they thought. Playboy encouraged them to take back the indoors: appreciate art, fine food, wine and spirits, and dress well. No more was fashion something that signified queer, but something hetmen enjoy. The aggressive heterosexuality of Playboy ensured they could do so without being judged fags or misogynists. After all, as Ehrenreich remarks, the images in Playboy assured everyone that it wasn't that the Playboy hated women, they just hated wives. Playboy could get away with the aesthetic because, unlike the Beats (who Enrenreich examined in the previous chapter) they weren't interested in dropping out of the workforce altogether, nor were they rejecting consumerism. They just rejected the social controls that had kept working men in line: to be a man is to be a worker who supports a wife and children. For Playboy, they just dropped the wives and kids for babes, brandy, and Rimbaud.
Are today's male slobs rejecting, not just women's desires, but perhaps trying, in part, to reappropriate a space for their selves--an identity--that hasn't been captured by the demands of work *and* leisure? I'm not going to dress in socially acceptable ways or shave because I'm sick of having to conform in order to get anywhere in life? I already conform at work, so at home I'm just not gonna, so there!
Kelley