Nope, that's not true. If anything what I see on the Left is wanting to let people decide how to live their lives on their own. The idea of confirming to someone else's ideal is a very conservative idea.
A better question is why people need to have an ideal provided to them in the first place.
Nope, that's not true. If anything what I see on the Left is wanting to let people decide how to live their lives on their own. The idea of confirming to someone else's ideal is a very conservative idea.
A better question is why people need to have an ideal provided to them in the first place.
There's no liberal equivalent of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan because guys who talk to men in a normal way that doesn't involve a lot of scolding or shaming don't seem to exist there. Despite those two having overall pretty liberal points of view, they were essentially chased them into the arms of the right because men liked them and like a lot of other things men like, thinkpiece writing liberal journos decided they were too "right coded." This left wing hostility is why less than half of all the men who voted in the 2024 election voted for Harris.
It's not a conservative idea at all to want to have an ideal model of something to aspire to. Nobody is born in a vacuum, we are influenced by things and people around us. In a funny way, you're proving my point above by labeling this as "conservative" when in fact it's how humans have operated for thousands of years.
There are plenty of liberal podcasters and TV hosts, they just don't lecture folks on "masculinity". You have it backwards on who is doing the lecturing. If you think the liberal point of view is scolding you should consider your information diet.
Conservativism is, at its core, resistance to change. There was a time when pink was considered a "male" color and then that changed. If you go back farther, homosexuality was a large part of male existence in Rome. There is no definition of masculinity that hasn't changed, and so no legacy to hold onto.
It's one thing to have your own aspirations and ideals. It's another to apply those to other people and expect them to agree.
There are of course good voices from all political perspectives. I do think there are non-contentious benchmarks the left, the right and everyone else can agree on for healthy masculinity. Things like honesty, integrity, protecting women and children, etc should be universal ideals. Sexual preference doesn't impact this. We've seen what happens when we lose these things (generations of incels, toxic people like Andrew Tate gain attention etc). No one should want this.
I'm not talking about podcast hosts in general, I'm talking about people on the left who speak to young men in a way they're willing to listen. Because that doesn't seem to be happening considering 56% of 18-29 year old men voted for Trump and that Trump made gains in that demographic between 2020 and 2024.
Given that Peterson and Rogan are considered "right wing," by a lot of liberal/left types, who would a liberal/left leaning male be able to listen to as an alternative to those two for life advice geared towards young men? If the conservative space is the only one offering this kind of thing to young men, who obviously need it considering how popular a relatively un-charismatic guy like Jordan Peterson got, it seems like a pretty big oversight and seems to prove my point at least a little.
I think part of having goals and aspirations is having role models to look up to. Young people have always needed role models, and they do better when they have good ones they can look up to and say "I like how this person is, I want to be like that." Nobody is an island. It isn't about applying those to everyone and expecting them to agree, it's about giving young people SOMETHING, because what they have now is really a whole lot of table scraps.
Agree, also as one example Scott Galloway has done a good job as someone on the left speaking genuinely to young men and the issues they face. This talk was great for ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E
I'll check him out, thanks for the lead. I did some searching but didn't turn up much. That type of content doesn't seem too popular in liberal spaces.
That's not true, role models take on many forms. People choose lots of role models ranging from athletes, celebrities, academics, etc. I'm old enough to remember the Charles Barkley "I'm not a role model" ad campaign.
Young men did vote for Trump, but that had more to do with economics than social reasons. Worldwide there was a rejection of incumbent parties due to high inflation, in many countries with very different social ideas than we have here. Just 4 years ago the Dems won in a similar movement. We'll see what happens in another 4 years.
I reject the idea that men are pupils that need someone to speak to them and teach them what it means to be a man. That kind of infantilism is exactly the problem with these discussions of masculinity in general. Your definition might differ from mine and that's fine, everyone is welcome to have their own. The problem is when you start judging others by yours.
You can reject the idea, but it's slightly ironic that you would considering you're a mentor and coach, no? Seems like that aspect of your business would depend on people needing guidance and a good example. Good examples are one of the ways people learn. Maybe you're someone who's been able to figure out a lot of things on your own without any help, but not everybody is like that.
No, that's not how coaching works. Coaching is about helping people be their best selves, and no two leaders lead the same way.
Ironically you proved both my points. There is no single ideal that works for everyone, and you talk about it things you don't understand with confidence that isn't appropriate.
As for the election, there are always a lot of factors but the economic ones dominated. Reading a larger narrative into it is impossible.
Nope, that's not true. If anything what I see on the Left is wanting to let people decide how to live their lives on their own. The idea of confirming to someone else's ideal is a very conservative idea.
A better question is why people need to have an ideal provided to them in the first place.
There's no liberal equivalent of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan because guys who talk to men in a normal way that doesn't involve a lot of scolding or shaming don't seem to exist there. Despite those two having overall pretty liberal points of view, they were essentially chased them into the arms of the right because men liked them and like a lot of other things men like, thinkpiece writing liberal journos decided they were too "right coded." This left wing hostility is why less than half of all the men who voted in the 2024 election voted for Harris.
It's not a conservative idea at all to want to have an ideal model of something to aspire to. Nobody is born in a vacuum, we are influenced by things and people around us. In a funny way, you're proving my point above by labeling this as "conservative" when in fact it's how humans have operated for thousands of years.
There are plenty of liberal podcasters and TV hosts, they just don't lecture folks on "masculinity". You have it backwards on who is doing the lecturing. If you think the liberal point of view is scolding you should consider your information diet.
Conservativism is, at its core, resistance to change. There was a time when pink was considered a "male" color and then that changed. If you go back farther, homosexuality was a large part of male existence in Rome. There is no definition of masculinity that hasn't changed, and so no legacy to hold onto.
It's one thing to have your own aspirations and ideals. It's another to apply those to other people and expect them to agree.
There are of course good voices from all political perspectives. I do think there are non-contentious benchmarks the left, the right and everyone else can agree on for healthy masculinity. Things like honesty, integrity, protecting women and children, etc should be universal ideals. Sexual preference doesn't impact this. We've seen what happens when we lose these things (generations of incels, toxic people like Andrew Tate gain attention etc). No one should want this.
Yup, most religions I've studied agree on what it means to be a good person.
I'm not talking about podcast hosts in general, I'm talking about people on the left who speak to young men in a way they're willing to listen. Because that doesn't seem to be happening considering 56% of 18-29 year old men voted for Trump and that Trump made gains in that demographic between 2020 and 2024.
Given that Peterson and Rogan are considered "right wing," by a lot of liberal/left types, who would a liberal/left leaning male be able to listen to as an alternative to those two for life advice geared towards young men? If the conservative space is the only one offering this kind of thing to young men, who obviously need it considering how popular a relatively un-charismatic guy like Jordan Peterson got, it seems like a pretty big oversight and seems to prove my point at least a little.
I think part of having goals and aspirations is having role models to look up to. Young people have always needed role models, and they do better when they have good ones they can look up to and say "I like how this person is, I want to be like that." Nobody is an island. It isn't about applying those to everyone and expecting them to agree, it's about giving young people SOMETHING, because what they have now is really a whole lot of table scraps.
Agree, also as one example Scott Galloway has done a good job as someone on the left speaking genuinely to young men and the issues they face. This talk was great for ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E
I'll check him out, thanks for the lead. I did some searching but didn't turn up much. That type of content doesn't seem too popular in liberal spaces.
That's not true, role models take on many forms. People choose lots of role models ranging from athletes, celebrities, academics, etc. I'm old enough to remember the Charles Barkley "I'm not a role model" ad campaign.
Young men did vote for Trump, but that had more to do with economics than social reasons. Worldwide there was a rejection of incumbent parties due to high inflation, in many countries with very different social ideas than we have here. Just 4 years ago the Dems won in a similar movement. We'll see what happens in another 4 years.
I reject the idea that men are pupils that need someone to speak to them and teach them what it means to be a man. That kind of infantilism is exactly the problem with these discussions of masculinity in general. Your definition might differ from mine and that's fine, everyone is welcome to have their own. The problem is when you start judging others by yours.
You can reject the idea, but it's slightly ironic that you would considering you're a mentor and coach, no? Seems like that aspect of your business would depend on people needing guidance and a good example. Good examples are one of the ways people learn. Maybe you're someone who's been able to figure out a lot of things on your own without any help, but not everybody is like that.
And yes, economic reasons were among the reasons young men voted for Trump, but they weren't the only reasons: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4bf1123e-b88b-4387-832a-3d2527b30f61
Anyway, good discussion, cheers.
No, that's not how coaching works. Coaching is about helping people be their best selves, and no two leaders lead the same way.
Ironically you proved both my points. There is no single ideal that works for everyone, and you talk about it things you don't understand with confidence that isn't appropriate.
As for the election, there are always a lot of factors but the economic ones dominated. Reading a larger narrative into it is impossible.
If you say so.