Throughout nature the male side of the species is often seen as the most decorated, the one that makes the most effort to attract a mate.  Examples include the Peacock, Robin, Lion, Guerilla to name but a few.

In terms of human males, many eras saw the male – dressing up, making the effort to stand out and be more attractive, the Egyptians, Romans, and more recently in the 18th Century men made sure they where a cut above the rest.  Adorning themselves in long, curled, powdered wig, white makeup, rouge, silk stockings these were all key to maintaining a powerful appearance in aristocratic circles throughout England and France. These elaborate fashions were worn by kings, dukes and nobles – the most powerful men in society.  These guys meant business!

But then slowly the male peacock became a part of society that died away.  If you try to find the reason why this happened, there isn’t too much on the subject, but I have a theory … and it is only a theory based on some thought, a little guess work based on a rudimentary understanding of historical events and some other stuff.  Some may ask why bother wondering?  The answer is quite simple from a sociological perspective and understanding the way humans are similar to our Guerilla cousins – the concept of dress down male simply doesn’t make sense.  The male of the species is designed to pro-create with as many females as possible, have a harem almost, not necessarily to be locked into one relationship.  Before I get all kinds of stuff thrown at me about monogamy etc, this isn’t about the structure of relationships its about what men naturally are primevally designed to do and be – attractive as a mate(s)

American fashion designer Marc Jacobs in a skirt

Today the female of the human species especially in Western cultured has evolved to be almost burdened with the concept of beauty and being attractive, big this small that, brighter, more bling, you name it women of all classes are in search of beauty.  Some may say they do it for themselves and yes they perhaps do, but really, do they? Are they not following the primary function of the human species to pro-create to get themselves a partner, and not just to get themselves a partner but to keep the one partner they attract.  This post could ramble off into a massive sociological debate and perhaps should in the future, but its true women are now the peacocks fighting for the attention of a trapped and constrained male culture, all of them more or less to scared to step outside the tight constraints of homogenised maleness.  YET!  I often hear women say, make up on a man or even a man in a skirt really does something for them!  But men are too scared to step outside their pack for risk of being beaten up, stigmatised or worse – why because the men don’t know how to do it any more, they would rather be part of the male tribe than be a lone warrior and be seen as the new bread of male peacock.

So why did men stop being the Peacock?

My reasons are war, industrialisation and empire.  The systematic slaughter and industrial incarceration of namely men at the hands of their lorded counter parts, sent in their thousands if not tens of thousands to either die in battle or be worked hard in the new industrial hubs. The way of the male peacock was slowly being butchered from time. This from a sociological perspective also changed the way of life across all people, but for men and eventually women it transformed society.  As Britain became more industrial and more men died in battle the workforce became short handed, so women where drafted in – women eventually kicked back but the male peacock died.  If its time hadn’t come prior to World War 1 then by the end of this most bloody battle the male peacock was surely dead and buried.  In World War 1 alone we Brits sent 1,000,000 men to death, Germany lost 2,000,000 and France 1,400,000, that is a total loss of almost 4.6 million men DEAD!  That doesn’t count the wounded and the fall out they brought back to society.  To understand this number based on the total British population (and sorry if my maths are wrong) – the total population in Britain at the time was about 45 million, lets say half where male and half female – this means a total of 4.5% of males where dead and another 8% where wounded – by any sociological perspective surely that’s a lot.  To make matters worse for society only 25 years later World War 2 resulted in a further 750,000 men where killed, injured or lost.  The fall out from both these wars across the entire golbe never mind in the tiny UK or men women and children has made such a difference in more ways than one.

So what of the women after World War 1, less men = greater competition.  Get out the make-up, shorten the skirts, if you where female you really had to WORK IT!  How did this all impact on men, well I would imagine they didn’t need to try as hard for a partner, they could be tempted away more easily, the need to dress up and make an effort gone. Everything was tipped upside down!  Then came World War 2 and the memories of the male Peacock had gone.  In 100 years the whole way men and women dress, interact and attract had been changed.  The image on the left shows top male fashion only 100 years prior to World War 1.  Note the man – red coat, knee length boots, orange tights or pants, and is that a little make-up?

Compare and contrast the image on the left to the one on the right from the 1920’s – the peacock has gone.  Men looking ‘uniform’ sticking together happy with the comradery of similarity – safe and secure, the same, a band of brothers dwindled in number and needed more than ever.

Next take a look back at the woman on the left, demure, chaste almost, but very feminine – compare her to the woman on the right.  Equally as feminine but sexualised, ‘working it’ to get the cream of the crop (what was left).  In 100 years both genders had changed beyond belief.

So what of today?  The gender split in the current UK population looks almost 50/50 male and female, with 30 million males and 31 million females but it’s not quite so simple it still means there is 96 women per every male.  So are men right to stick to the ways of 1920’s Britain and should women feel the need to ‘work it’ more than ever.  I personally feel its a big no on all counts.  Women are more autonomous today than they ever where, they can afford to be choosy, I personally believe that in many areas of life women are the dominant side of the species and men are still flailing around for some form of ‘real’ gender identity, either that or they have locked themselves tighter in to what has become an unwritten ‘male way’ of not needing to try so hard in terms of presentation and avoid being the peacock more than ever, preferring to show muscle and brawn over brains and wit.  Truth is modern women has had to learn quickly and in the main has, but yet I feel even women equally wonder about their true gender identity and role today,  wondering really ‘what is it all about’.  I say no matter at least women more than ever embrace Two Spirit and cross over the divide to embrace and exploit their masculine side – which I feel can only be a good thing.

I don’t know if the human peacock will ever return, I dont know if natures balance will recover – personally I doubt it.  But I fear men in general are becoming a dying breed a sub class of grey and navy blue, an homogenised mass, lets face it men don’t given themselves a great press, and women don’t really encourage men and draw them out.  There are many reasons behind why men are like they are today generally, but I do fear for their existence.  On hearing the following line, one that rang alarm bells in my mind, that if this really does represents the zeitgeist of the population then men are doomed, the line is –

“Men are only good for one thing, and they aren’t even good at that”

I have one message for men out there – ‘work it’ guys before it’s too late, embrace a little of your Two Spirit, work hard and catch up before you die out!