Your point about zero-sum games is particularly interesting to me. The typical argument in the circles I run in is that we’re better off spending our resources on eliminating patriarchy, because it’s the major cause of masculine issues. The general theory of change there is that patriarchy creates a system that lies to men about things they’re entitled to (power, respect, sexual partners) but can never actually deliver on those promises; weakening patriarchy comes with a period of upheaval & reaction (we are here) where men struggle to adjust their expectations. If true, higher rates of male despair & dereliction occur because coming to terms with this betrayal is emotionally difficult. (FWIW, I am presenting this view in neutral terms but I generally believe it).
I also don’t believe that my ideal future genders terms like ‘courage’, just as much as it doesn’t gender terms like ‘care’. This just seems antithetical to removing those barriers. But I am on the extreme end of gender abolition, so I don’t want to revolve my point around this.
In particular, this world model contends that attempts at ‘positive masculinity’ have to compete with people who can just lie. These kinds of grifters survive in the market because (a) there are always new grifters with untested track records and (b) there are always new young men who haven’t learned not to trust them. Any attempt at positive masculinity therefore must promise things to men that grifters can’t also claim, which, in these terms, is to reveal that they have been betrayed by patriarchy and that they should work on dismantling that system rather than climbing or withdrawing from it.
I don’t like Scott Galloway’s take on this in particular, because he just says ‘someone should do something about this’—but without getting your hands dirty, you won’t realise that the reason there aren’t ‘positive masculine’ role models is because they keep getting outcompeted in the market by liars.
Believers of this world model would advocate for two things to happen in the world:
‘Positive masculinity’ types to focus more on helping men adapt to and cope with this betrayal
To continue to weaken & dismantle patriarchy and focus on debunking these kinds of lies
For anyone interested in following this more, I really like Shaun’s 40-minute video on the topic. I feel like, for me, it hit these points with an unusual clarity.
A really interesting comment, you’ve obviously had some experience thinking about this from a different angle to me, but nice to see we agree on the positive masculinity types.
Patriarchy: Strangely enough the idea of patriarchy didn’t even occur to me while writing this, which is a bit of an admission, as it’s obviously relevant! I hadn’t conceived of a male-initiated down-with-the-patriarchy movement, but it makes sense, when you point to the way in which patriarchy manipulates the expectations of young men, which inevitably leaves them disappointed and vulnerable to radicalisation.
Gendering ideas: I tend to agree with you, and it was a concern while writing. My reason for going along with the gendering of courage (although I do at three points mention that women also have these attributes) was that I am trying to get at the issue of men who find their masculinity very important, and perceive that it’s being denied them, or stripped away, outlawed. By recognising the positive aspects of masculinity, and not denying it I hope not to alienate those who I most want to reach.
Getting outcompeted by liars: I hear you. I may be yelling into the wind, but hopefully if enough of spout enough sense we can drown out the anti-social voices. Or perhaps, if we keep discussing these things we’ll come up with more effective argument and convince them with reason… (wishful thinking I know).
Thanks for your critique, I appreciate you helping me hone my ideas and bringing other important pieces to the puzzle. I will check out that video :)
Your point about zero-sum games is particularly interesting to me. The typical argument in the circles I run in is that we’re better off spending our resources on eliminating patriarchy, because it’s the major cause of masculine issues. The general theory of change there is that patriarchy creates a system that lies to men about things they’re entitled to (power, respect, sexual partners) but can never actually deliver on those promises; weakening patriarchy comes with a period of upheaval & reaction (we are here) where men struggle to adjust their expectations. If true, higher rates of male despair & dereliction occur because coming to terms with this betrayal is emotionally difficult. (FWIW, I am presenting this view in neutral terms but I generally believe it).
I also don’t believe that my ideal future genders terms like ‘courage’, just as much as it doesn’t gender terms like ‘care’. This just seems antithetical to removing those barriers. But I am on the extreme end of gender abolition, so I don’t want to revolve my point around this.
In particular, this world model contends that attempts at ‘positive masculinity’ have to compete with people who can just lie. These kinds of grifters survive in the market because (a) there are always new grifters with untested track records and (b) there are always new young men who haven’t learned not to trust them. Any attempt at positive masculinity therefore must promise things to men that grifters can’t also claim, which, in these terms, is to reveal that they have been betrayed by patriarchy and that they should work on dismantling that system rather than climbing or withdrawing from it.
I don’t like Scott Galloway’s take on this in particular, because he just says ‘someone should do something about this’—but without getting your hands dirty, you won’t realise that the reason there aren’t ‘positive masculine’ role models is because they keep getting outcompeted in the market by liars.
Believers of this world model would advocate for two things to happen in the world:
‘Positive masculinity’ types to focus more on helping men adapt to and cope with this betrayal
To continue to weaken & dismantle patriarchy and focus on debunking these kinds of lies
For anyone interested in following this more, I really like Shaun’s 40-minute video on the topic. I feel like, for me, it hit these points with an unusual clarity.
A really interesting comment, you’ve obviously had some experience thinking about this from a different angle to me, but nice to see we agree on the positive masculinity types.
Patriarchy: Strangely enough the idea of patriarchy didn’t even occur to me while writing this, which is a bit of an admission, as it’s obviously relevant! I hadn’t conceived of a male-initiated down-with-the-patriarchy movement, but it makes sense, when you point to the way in which patriarchy manipulates the expectations of young men, which inevitably leaves them disappointed and vulnerable to radicalisation.
Gendering ideas: I tend to agree with you, and it was a concern while writing. My reason for going along with the gendering of courage (although I do at three points mention that women also have these attributes) was that I am trying to get at the issue of men who find their masculinity very important, and perceive that it’s being denied them, or stripped away, outlawed. By recognising the positive aspects of masculinity, and not denying it I hope not to alienate those who I most want to reach.
Getting outcompeted by liars: I hear you. I may be yelling into the wind, but hopefully if enough of spout enough sense we can drown out the anti-social voices. Or perhaps, if we keep discussing these things we’ll come up with more effective argument and convince them with reason… (wishful thinking I know).
Thanks for your critique, I appreciate you helping me hone my ideas and bringing other important pieces to the puzzle. I will check out that video :)