To suggest that the writer of :"In the event of an emergency, nobody runs to the guy who is screaming like a 12 year old girl and weeping; "because he is in touch with his emotions"" is naive because an emergency worker who is screaming and crying like a little girl: either man or woman, is not worth a flip and no one would want that in a situation of emergency is also naive and suggests antagonism. By no means do I suggest that a man or woman, with the right skills and temperment, are not able to perform the same tasks,
Agreed. Now take a deep breath and relax, brother. No one is trying to antagonize you. I would, however, ask you to thoughtfully reconsider your assumptions.
as illustrated by: "And on the other part of this: I would rather have my wife standing next to me in a fight; she used to be an upolsterer and is a pretty tough chick."
Another good point, dispelling another useless stereotype (that of the "helpless female").
But then...
In my honest opinion the term: metrosexual implies that this person is bi-sexual and is not really a man.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.
Let's start with the term "metrosexual". IMO, it's one of those silly linguistic contrivances that was meant to sound clever but never really made it past, well..., contrived. At any rate, according to the writer who actually coined the term, Mark Simpson, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, so let's get that part right. While it's undeniably true that gay men "provided the early prototype for the 'metrosexual'", it's a rather large jump to say that appearances are any kind of reliable indicator of sexual orientation. Don't you think?
Speaking of sexual orientation, your phrase "...bisexual and is not really a man..." is troubling. Do you really mean to suggest that homosexual or bi-sexual people are somehow not really men, or women? Really? If so, why? How is it that one single trait renders an individual "not a man" or "not a woman"?
He is incapable of defining himself by any other means then that of sexual orientation and thus has a character flaw, that just might show itself in a situation where someone without that flaw would be better suited and may cause this situation to become worse when that flaw comes out.
Really? So David Beckham, Simpson's "Metrosexual Poster Child", was "unsuited" to be one of the best, if not
the best, professional soccer player in the world, simply because of his particular taste in clothes and grooming accessories. Jeez, the guy wears nail polish and his wife's underwear, but he still managed to pull himself together and perform on an almost superhuman level out on the pitch.
We are defined by all of the things we think, do and say, and I can tell you, with some authority, that the things you seem to be focusing on have
nothing to do with a person's ability to function in an emergency, or in a soccer match, for that matter. Nothing. "Real" men (and women), the one's you would want to be there for you when you needed their particular talent, be that firefighter, paramedic, soldier, athlete, baker, teacher or
upholsterer, come in all colors, genders, religions, and yes, sexual orientations.
Character flaws? We
all have them, some more than others. I've known some pretty screwed up gays and lesbians. They don't hold a candle to some of the straight "train-wrecks" I've known, but then I don't know that many gays and lesbians. The point is that none of us, by virtue of our sexual orientation, is imbued with an inherently superior, or inferior, "character". Trust me, Brother. As someone who has seen enough of the best and worst examples of "character" to really know, I can tell you that both types come from someplace quite apart from that which makes us choose a particular type of clothing, hairstyle ...or partner.