Really appreciate this and will send it to some friends. For me, masculinity is holding my 2yo hand with her backpack strapped to my back. Being a good role model, teaching her about the world, and protecting her as much as possible.
Hotter take - masculine and feminine is irrelevant, the current debate is a trap by people mistaking the pointing finger for the moon.
The distinction, the only distinction that matters, is contribution vs consumption. This applies to feminine and masculine traits.
Either we live a contributive life or we are cattle. Much of your essay touches that theme yet focusing on masculinity muddles it. There is time for consumption but it must be thoughtful and it must not be the point of getting out of bed in the morning.
Let’s shift the debate to the meaning of contributive because it is much more than economic efficiency which is the prevailing lens.
Parts of this are fair although I don't think our sex is irrelevant. That's a very postmodern view of the world. We are different, and that's okay. Actual diversity in society isn't hitting quotas it's accepting this and everyone using their strengths.
A discussion of contribution picks up strengths and weaknesses of individuals. This is why the focus on gender/sex/masc or fem traits is unhelpful. It fails to get at the heart of what it means to live well.
Do you care about accurate labels or people living well, contributing to society/community, and making tomorrow better than today? I challenge that if you value the latter then my stance isn’t merely post modern. It’s constructive - more so than the last generation of debating labels.
I fully agree on the contribution mattering part, and of course many of these things I listed are applicable to both sexes. I also think there's probably a million narratives for women and very few for men (Fight Club, Dead Poet's Society, that's really it). So with that in mind was trying to write something today specifically for men, but certainly much of this can be applied to all - v fair.
I like this a lot. Men and women are different. One ain't better than the other they're just different. We lose sight of that simple fundamental truth at our peril.
In my opinion, having responsibilities and feeling the sense of accomplishment that comes with meeting those is something that figures into being considered a "man." But we live in a society where young people are encouraged to defer any responsibility as long as possible, and we celebrate the people who do so. We don't encourage young men to develop a code to live by, to figure out what their principles are, to join or form communities in real life, or to be consistent, and these are other things that give people in general some form of grounding that helps in many different aspects of life. We've traded away a lot of institutions that helped with these things in previous generations for things that are form over function, that don't help at all, or least don't help long term.
I'm not sure I'd be confident enough to say that it's on purpose that all of this is happening, but it's done a number on younger people whatever it is.
This is interesting, and the virtues you lay out are good/reasonable. Reminds me of the four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance).
However, nothing in this list, I'd argue, is the exclusive domain of men. I guess it doesn't have to be to apply to manliness, though.
"Put an end once for all to this discussion of what a good man should be, and be one."
Few off-the-cuff thoughts:
1. The crisis of modern masculinity is one of insecurity, imho. We're caught up in our fee fees (and that's a good thing!) and aren't sure how to navigate/manage. If we're constantly comparing ourselves to a fictional ideal of what a man is, and lack the tools to manage ourselves when we fall short, then we're in for a bad time.
2. W/r/t the Left v Right dichotomy, I actually think the left has a far better grasp on what it is to be a man in a modern world than the right. First, to center my perspective, I speak of "the left" post 2016, so a good deal of these folks would be considered center right before Trump. A lot of folks on the left (which I guess I count myself now) have been remarkably consistent in the principles they'd stand up for. Can't say the same for folks on the right as they actively contort themselves accept and/or ignore failures in leadership.
2a. I will say the right/far right have a far more effective messaging machine than the left does. Part of this, though, is probably what you alluded to earlier: it's easier to blame someone else for your faults rather than to take the time to reflect and wrestle with them yourself. If someone tells you it's someone else's fault, that's a great message for a receptive audience.
Powerful essay. There are so many “things” men can do that can define masculinity. Reading this, I thought of a conversation I had with my wife and me saying to her “our job as parents is to teach our children to adult”. To me doing that for our children is another form or definition of masculinity.
This is your definition, and you're welcome to it. It's not a truth, but it might be your truth.
Meanwhile, I remain concerned you think "globalists and NGOs" are who is lying to you. I'm concerned that you think the left is so far gone that the right is the only side with hope. I'm concerned that you completely lost sight of the center. Even if subtle, I don't think pushing conservative ideas like this is a good idea.
Both sides have issues, I said this, and I don't think anyone is beyond doing better. Also nothing I stated here should really be conservative or liberal, really, it's basic good morality for all men. And, last point, I've worked in PR for many years and been on that side of the trade seeing how the sausage is made. Lots of data stories are told to us that have an agenda to support things. It truly isn't a conspiracy, it's all just incentives. A lot of cases it's not outright lying just data spin etc. My old blog covered this sort of thing all the time, plenty of others do still, even mainstream media will on occasion (Jon Stewart did on old Daily Show and he's back, hooray).
If there's an answer to this, it will have to come from the right. Liberals and the left have been so openly hostile to anything with a whiff of masculinity for so long that a lot of young men have completely tuned them out.
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
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.
Really appreciate this and will send it to some friends. For me, masculinity is holding my 2yo hand with her backpack strapped to my back. Being a good role model, teaching her about the world, and protecting her as much as possible.
Excellent
Hotter take - masculine and feminine is irrelevant, the current debate is a trap by people mistaking the pointing finger for the moon.
The distinction, the only distinction that matters, is contribution vs consumption. This applies to feminine and masculine traits.
Either we live a contributive life or we are cattle. Much of your essay touches that theme yet focusing on masculinity muddles it. There is time for consumption but it must be thoughtful and it must not be the point of getting out of bed in the morning.
Let’s shift the debate to the meaning of contributive because it is much more than economic efficiency which is the prevailing lens.
Parts of this are fair although I don't think our sex is irrelevant. That's a very postmodern view of the world. We are different, and that's okay. Actual diversity in society isn't hitting quotas it's accepting this and everyone using their strengths.
A discussion of contribution picks up strengths and weaknesses of individuals. This is why the focus on gender/sex/masc or fem traits is unhelpful. It fails to get at the heart of what it means to live well.
Do you care about accurate labels or people living well, contributing to society/community, and making tomorrow better than today? I challenge that if you value the latter then my stance isn’t merely post modern. It’s constructive - more so than the last generation of debating labels.
I fully agree on the contribution mattering part, and of course many of these things I listed are applicable to both sexes. I also think there's probably a million narratives for women and very few for men (Fight Club, Dead Poet's Society, that's really it). So with that in mind was trying to write something today specifically for men, but certainly much of this can be applied to all - v fair.
I like this a lot. Men and women are different. One ain't better than the other they're just different. We lose sight of that simple fundamental truth at our peril.
Excellent piece man, really enjoyed it.
In my opinion, having responsibilities and feeling the sense of accomplishment that comes with meeting those is something that figures into being considered a "man." But we live in a society where young people are encouraged to defer any responsibility as long as possible, and we celebrate the people who do so. We don't encourage young men to develop a code to live by, to figure out what their principles are, to join or form communities in real life, or to be consistent, and these are other things that give people in general some form of grounding that helps in many different aspects of life. We've traded away a lot of institutions that helped with these things in previous generations for things that are form over function, that don't help at all, or least don't help long term.
I'm not sure I'd be confident enough to say that it's on purpose that all of this is happening, but it's done a number on younger people whatever it is.
Related video on the 'deferred adulthood' problem you might enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28URMM18zWI
This is interesting, and the virtues you lay out are good/reasonable. Reminds me of the four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance).
However, nothing in this list, I'd argue, is the exclusive domain of men. I guess it doesn't have to be to apply to manliness, though.
I'd recommend checking out Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (Stoicism, for you and me). You can find an open source translation here: https://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html
Here's an amuse bouche ;) :
"Put an end once for all to this discussion of what a good man should be, and be one."
Few off-the-cuff thoughts:
1. The crisis of modern masculinity is one of insecurity, imho. We're caught up in our fee fees (and that's a good thing!) and aren't sure how to navigate/manage. If we're constantly comparing ourselves to a fictional ideal of what a man is, and lack the tools to manage ourselves when we fall short, then we're in for a bad time.
2. W/r/t the Left v Right dichotomy, I actually think the left has a far better grasp on what it is to be a man in a modern world than the right. First, to center my perspective, I speak of "the left" post 2016, so a good deal of these folks would be considered center right before Trump. A lot of folks on the left (which I guess I count myself now) have been remarkably consistent in the principles they'd stand up for. Can't say the same for folks on the right as they actively contort themselves accept and/or ignore failures in leadership.
2a. I will say the right/far right have a far more effective messaging machine than the left does. Part of this, though, is probably what you alluded to earlier: it's easier to blame someone else for your faults rather than to take the time to reflect and wrestle with them yourself. If someone tells you it's someone else's fault, that's a great message for a receptive audience.
Might have more thoughts later.
OFC much here is applicable to women too, but I wouldn't try to write a post telling women what being one is. Imagine the pitchforks!
3. Forgot my Socrates! "The unexamined life is not worth living," is a nice little axiom/dictum to keep in mind from Socrates' Apologia (https://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil100/04.%20Apology.pdf).
Excellent post, Adam, and so well written. I fear that "passive masculinity" is one of our largest problems. Productive work would help.
Your words give me hope as articulation is the first step.
🙏
Powerful essay. There are so many “things” men can do that can define masculinity. Reading this, I thought of a conversation I had with my wife and me saying to her “our job as parents is to teach our children to adult”. To me doing that for our children is another form or definition of masculinity.
This is your definition, and you're welcome to it. It's not a truth, but it might be your truth.
Meanwhile, I remain concerned you think "globalists and NGOs" are who is lying to you. I'm concerned that you think the left is so far gone that the right is the only side with hope. I'm concerned that you completely lost sight of the center. Even if subtle, I don't think pushing conservative ideas like this is a good idea.
Both sides have issues, I said this, and I don't think anyone is beyond doing better. Also nothing I stated here should really be conservative or liberal, really, it's basic good morality for all men. And, last point, I've worked in PR for many years and been on that side of the trade seeing how the sausage is made. Lots of data stories are told to us that have an agenda to support things. It truly isn't a conspiracy, it's all just incentives. A lot of cases it's not outright lying just data spin etc. My old blog covered this sort of thing all the time, plenty of others do still, even mainstream media will on occasion (Jon Stewart did on old Daily Show and he's back, hooray).
If there's an answer to this, it will have to come from the right. Liberals and the left have been so openly hostile to anything with a whiff of masculinity for so long that a lot of young men have completely tuned them out.
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
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.