What's Wrong With Men?
Added 2023-06-05 23:15:34 +0000 UTC"Many men in this country are in crisis, and their ranks are swelling," Missouri Senator Josh Hawley said at the National Conservatism conference in 2021. "And that's not just a crisis for men. It's a crisis for the republic."
Some version of this sentiment — that men are in trouble, adrift, or falling behind — is shared by writers and thinkers across the political spectrum. It's nearly impossible to open a magazine without finding an article about the state of manhood in America. Brookings Institution scholar Richard Reeves' 2022 book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It is a best-seller. Figures like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate attract huge audiences, serving as reactionary self-help gurus for young people eager to be told what a man is and how he should behave. One doesn't have to accept the right's framing of the problem — nor any kind of gender essentialism — to acknowledge the statistics: boys and men are falling behind in education, in work-force participation, and succumbing to drugs, alcoholism, and suicide.
Hawley — apparently having stewed on the topic for two years — has just released a book on "manhood," which advises a revival of biblical virtues to guide the aimless young men of 21st century America. To pair with Hawley, we read Harvey Mansfield's 2006 book on "manliness." Putting Hawley's evangelical Christian preaching in conversation with Mansfield's Straussian philosophical playfulness proved very constructive. Along the way, we talk about our own relationship to manhood and try to decide which (if any) of the virtues associated with maleness are worth preserving, defending, or even advising young men to embrace.
Further reading:
Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness, Yale University Press, 2006.
Joshua Hawley, Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs, Regnery, 2023.
Joshua Hawley, "America's Epicurean Liberalism," National Affairs, Fall 2010.
Becca Rothfeld, "How to be a man? Josh Hawley has the (incoherent) answers," The Washington Post, May 18, 2023.
Phil Christman, "What Is It Like to Be a Man?" Hedgehog Review, Summer 2018.
Martin Amis, "Return of the Male," London Review of Books, Dec 5, 1991.
Martha Nussbaum, "Man Overboard," New Republic, June 22, 2006.
Idrees Kahloon, "What's the Matter With Men?" The New Yorker, Jan 23, 2023.
Zoë Heller, "How Toxic Is Masculinity?" The New Yorker, Aug 1, 2022.
Lisa Miller, "Tate-Pilled What a generation of boys have found in Andrew Tate’s extreme male gospel." New York Magazine, Mar 14, 2023.
Comments
For reasons I can't explain, while re-listening to this episode a vision came to me of Matt dressed for Halloween as that AI-generated photo of the Pope decked out in Balenciaga. It's a thought I can't keep to myself. My apologies.
Mike Pearl
2023-08-30 14:45:34 +0000 UTCJust seeing this now, but wanted to say I love that book and I think we're likely to do an episode on it. I never met Carey but he was Patrick Deneen's mentor, and Carey's daughter is herself a brilliant political theorist (who I edited at Commonweal). And funnily enough, early in graduate school I was thinking about possibly changing programs and focusing on American political thought. I emailed Mansfield to ask for his advice, and he told I should go study with McWilliams! Anyway, more soon. (Matt)
Know Your Enemy
2023-06-29 23:34:43 +0000 UTCGreat episode. The segment at the end on male friendship seems like a great segue to a follow-up episode on that topic, perhaps using The Idea of Fraternity in America by Harvey Mansfield's friend Wilson Carey McWilliams as a referent (or at least some part of it given it's heft). 50th anniversary edition just came out a few days ago. It's not crazy to think Mansfield would have been better served by a closer reading of McWilliams and a little less time spent with Machiavelli.
Russell Bixler
2023-06-19 22:21:20 +0000 UTCThat’s helpful, thanks! I haven’t read any Deida myself but kept seeing him mentioned in the book and was uncomfortable reading about him online, so that’s good to hear. I’ll check out the video.
Liam
2023-06-17 19:09:19 +0000 UTCThanks for this episode! I especially enjoyed listening to y’all’s personal identity construction of masculinity. Interestingly, Matt’s explanation of “doing gender” as showing up for/supporting his friends really resonated for me because I think that same way-of-being is pretty central to how I “do gender”, but that I identify that as being a woman. Although, I will say I’ve never fit into the “woman gender role” as prescribed by evangelicalism, so this is an interesting data point that doesn’t make me question my gender as much as fascinates me about the ways each individual expresses gender and frames one’s identities depending on the context.
Camille Tinnin
2023-06-17 16:39:22 +0000 UTCSee, for example: https://youtu.be/wSfhcXyZqh8
JimJim5122
2023-06-17 06:27:12 +0000 UTCThat said, I think Wineland improves upon the (problematic) work of David Deida - and is the most useful discussion of masculinity and femininity that I’ve found. I actually find Wineland’s teaching partner Kendra Cunov far more helpful - but she doesn’t focus as closely on gender as Wineland does (and she hasn’t written a book). One of her points, though, is that our resistance to clearly distinguishing masculinity and femininity often results in masking gender essentialism and misogyny.
JimJim5122
2023-06-17 06:23:58 +0000 UTCI’m actually fairly lukewarm on Wineland’s work; just mentioned him because the episode mentioned not knowing any non-right-wing figures.
JimJim5122
2023-06-17 06:16:40 +0000 UTCWould you mind explaining a bit about the appeal of John Wineland (to you or others)? I was gifted a copy of his book by my girlfriend’s father, read it recently and didn’t find it particularly insightful. To be fair, I come at all of this from an “inclusive orthodox” Christian perspective and am put off a bit by the New Age speak. There’s certainly some truth to the ideas of mindfulness and being present, but a lot of the book just seemed like older patterns of masculinity dressed up in liberatory, mystical language. Books I have found helpful were, from a secular perspective, bell hooks’ The Will to Change and, from a Christian perspective, Henri Nouwen’s writings, which aren’t specifically about masculinity.
Liam
2023-06-13 22:44:54 +0000 UTC“There’s absolutely a difference between Manhood as a socially-constructed concept in any of various forms in different societies and throughout history and the biological/zoological concept of sexual dimorphism, and conflating the two is part of that insidious ideology of gender to begin with.” (from a comrade) The above example is different than saying, ‘gender is a construct and therefore moot, nothing further to interrogate here.’ Which is what a lot of liberals and leftists sound like, exhibiting special discomfort around masculinity. To engage the problematic in good faith is anathema to the liberal impulse of tolerance (distance), which is then conflated with solidarity. This sidestep critique is then offered in lieu of an honest (re)definition of the gender construct in question, as more than an empty signifier. The left is too often over invested in negation, with little to offer in its wake beyond abstractions of virtue.
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-13 18:15:30 +0000 UTCNusssbaum also has a critique of the stoic philosophers, but I’m not expecting the joy tactic lads to dive into that level of thing I think they have other things to do. I think joy tactics should be allowed to produce a ChatGPT summary, but I expect know your enemy to read one of nussbaums longer books on Hellenism
Michael Mannix
2023-06-11 14:54:29 +0000 UTCI think you should do a crossover episode with joy tactics on Marcus Aurelius meditations
Michael Mannix
2023-06-11 14:52:28 +0000 UTCThank you, this episode was especially gratifying since I tend to listen while doing the dishes (as a man). “Epicurean” (rendered as “apikoros”) is an age- old epithet in Jewish tradition for a heretic or nonbeliever; some communities still use it today. Maybe Hawley has been hanging out in Boro Park?
Tzvi Mackson
2023-06-11 12:52:55 +0000 UTCYes, the segment on Mansfield and "confidence in the face of risk" made me think of Stephen Colbert's 2006 White House Correspondence Dinner comedy monologue sending up this posture.
Rachel
2023-06-10 16:10:01 +0000 UTCThanks for this. I really appreciated it. And though I, too, roll my eyes whenever I hear someone bring up masculinity in a political context and assume there's nothing for me there but the justification to be a shitty person, I found myself very moved by where you both landed suggesting pretty directly that I care a lot more about this than my eyerolls suggest. So, thanks again.
Ryan Erickson
2023-06-10 13:59:16 +0000 UTCYou make a perfect case study: You are answering a different question than the one at hand—namely: ‘What meaning resides in the construct of manliness?’ To sidestep this question and simply define solidarity (though solidarity hopefully belongs in the answer) misses the heart of the matter. Your conclusion that the question has no bearing presumes to answer for a lot of people—all of whom can’t be written off as conservative (though being so shouldn’t exactly merit a dismissal). Someone mentioned the working class… In a society ridden by patriarchy, cis men have wrestled with the question a very long time. And lest we forget, manliness is an issue of real magnitude for trans men and others on the gender spectrum. Are we really to posture answering their experience with platitudes of utopian relativism?
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-10 07:01:32 +0000 UTCIn reading some replies to this, I think some people are showing how cut off they are from the lives of real working class men. In some ideal world, sure all progressives would be accepting of everyone’s portrayal of masculine, so long as they are non-toxic. The problem is that in real life what is defined as toxic and non-toxic is subjective, even on the left. The difference is that on the right, they’re comfortable making that point and standing behind it. On the left, it seems like we’re only okay with pointing out what we think is toxic but never what we think is non-toxic, precisely for the reasons you stated: we’re uncomfortable prescribing what is a “good” lifestyle to people. Furthermore, I like your point about being comfortable discussing masculinity and manhood as being identities that carry their own set of problems for those who identify as such and to avoid the oppressive olympics. I think the left used to strive for that kind of ideal but over time we’ve because afraid to say those types of things because we are trying so hard to fight against historical structural advantages for some groups over others. So we never really took the time to define masculinity but have a very well defined (and funded) vocabulary and institutions to define, describe and understand feminity, except in terms of when it’s toxic.
David Haller
2023-06-10 05:46:25 +0000 UTCLong time listener, first time caller. The discussion around how “hard” it is for the left to talk about manliness was very grating. Conservatives moan constantly about how men should do this and that - that both of you expertly disentangle - but then you both seem utterly befuddled when trying to prescribe something yourselves. It was like listening to two middle aged men try to find their keys to open a door that’s already unlocked. Part of the joy of the left is our answer (and freedom) from this question!! You want to be a ‘traditional’ stoic man, great – have solidarity for others & treat women (and men) with respect; you want to be a meek keyboard worker, great have solidarity for others & treat women (and men) with respect. “Can be boil down maleness into a specific thing” is a red herring from the right; we can be anything and its joyous!! It feels like you both already know this but somehow haven’t put it together? Either way, love the show & loved the ending. Thanks.
Ap
2023-06-10 02:44:19 +0000 UTCThis is kind of where I ended up with this episode as well. Sam seems to indicate that it’s not a satisfying answer and doesn’t sell to the masses like a Jungian archetype, but it sits really well with me. My aim is always less philosophical satisfaction and more “how do we pitch this?” And while nuance is always a hard political sell, I feel like explaining maleness as “find your community and be useful to it in whatever way your talents allow” feels right. It doesn’t address specifically “masculine” traits and I don’t think it should because as we have all agreed they are a construct. It’s only an unsatisfactory answer if we cede the assertion that there’s something inherently male other than a nutsack.
DJM
2023-06-09 17:30:14 +0000 UTCYeah I loved the discussion as per the usual. Something I've been thinking about lately, as someone with a college degree but never got a job using it and kind of landed in the trades, is how structural all of the insecurities about masculinity are. How globalization kind of created a rift between old men and young men in the sense that we literally could not follow in our fathers footsteps because the jobs were gone. The different skill sets required to live in a techno-global economy based mainly on service industry jobs created literally a new kind of masculinity that I think is still struggling to be born (haha weird metaphor for this topic), doesn't get recognized as legitimate by many older men, and I think is the reason why many younger men myself included are kind of ambivalent about the whole topic. There is a softening happening to men that right wingers are so idiotically drowning on about but it is largely beyond our control (and honestly its a good thing because industrial masculinity was terrible) and the efforts for men to kind of self discipline and toughen up on their own has just resulted with a bunch of dicks driving trucks lol.
Kevin Spicer
2023-06-09 11:15:51 +0000 UTCThis is interview with Brett Goldstein, reflecting upon his Ted Lasso chatacter, is a great discussion of "manliness" and the discussion emotions. He has a fun theory that this is the prime function of sports spectatorship, in the course of which men can be emotionally vulnerable together without the burden of meeting the other's gaze, because their eyes are on the action. I see the same thing on bass boats! https://www.npr.org/2023/03/27/1166260078/ted-lasso-actor-brett-goldstein
Rick Perlstein
2023-06-09 10:19:27 +0000 UTCAs someone who’s very familiar with Bly’s work as a poet, and figure in anti war, men’s and women’s movements I’m always shocked at how many people refer to him as some kind of proto Peterson. Who is this Bly? Is there anyone directly associated with Bly who turned out to be fascist or something? I noted this in the Freud ep too. What am I missing? Did he say at some late point that iron John written to be explicitly anti women?
Dan
2023-06-09 03:02:53 +0000 UTCNot to be an awful nerd, but I am almost certain Mansfield's "gentleman" thing is a reference to Xeonophon's Oeconomicus. Been a while since I read it but the question of what it means to be a gentleman (literally translated from greek as "beautiful and good") dominates that dialogue. Nobody loves Xenophon more than a Straussian so I'd be pretty surprised if Mansfield didn't know what he was doing there.
thomas heiden
2023-06-09 02:14:43 +0000 UTCPerhaps this says more about the men in my personal life than anything else. But, to me, masculinity is primarily about coming to terms with one's own disposability in society. Men who are soldiers, deadbeats, abusers, cops, risk-seekers, businessmen and fathers are all enacting strategies for coping with this.
David Ferguson
2023-06-08 22:28:51 +0000 UTCI think the problem here is the presumption of ‘we’.
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-08 20:33:34 +0000 UTCIt’s impossible to take the nostalgia for old forms of life as useful without acknowledging the irony of it. What manhood used to be conceived of seems backwards and ironic because we’ve moved through it. We’ve moved beyond those old forms of life, and now masculinity is simply what? Sensitivity? Protecting those who we love? I would say those are desirable qualities but they don’t strictly come from the form of life that is traditionally referred to as manhood. I think the boys really failed, much like the two authors to address manhood by not addressing who the we is that has moved beyond this form of life, because to do that there would be some element of historicism and that can be offensive and triggering to those who can’t see the irony of the pragmatism of the past.
Dan
2023-06-08 20:30:46 +0000 UTCI'm not against it myself. I'm just simple enough that sometimes I can't tell between with and against. And a great deal of what I follow on the web, in the world of genre fiction, features (mostly) men citing Heinlein approvingly as an honored thinker.
pixlaw
2023-06-08 20:28:37 +0000 UTCRegarding Heinlin, I’m rather fond of ironic/reappropriative quoting. The ‘reading with’ inside of the ‘reading against’. It makes for a subtle overcoming of axiomatic ideology. That there are shared values to be reframed inside the enemy’s armor—seems to be an ethos of this podcast.
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-08 20:07:31 +0000 UTCThree points: 1) I can't tell if "Burt Humburg's" post above is ironic or not. Heinlein is such a fetishistic figure to many on the right wing in the science fiction community that it's hard to take any un-explicated Heinlein quote seriously, given that Heinlein, born in 1907, never fought in a war and got more weirdly libertarian over his life, demonstrating an apparent enthusiasm for breeding programs and a dislike for any governmental regulation, including food safety laws. I frankly don't know how to set a bone. And any building I designed would collapse. Heinlein's predilection for tying everything he considered to the skillset a man needed in 1907 Missouri renders his opinions laughable and/or useless. 2) It needs to be pointed out that this 'masculinity in crisis' trope has been around since the late 19th century. T Roosevelt kept complaining about how American men weren't masculine enough. In many ways, this is just the same old bullshit. 3) Recently I've found myself troubled by the fact that the right wing seems to rely so heavily on guys who have been dead for at least 20 to 30 centuries. The Hebrew Bible, Socrates and his ilk, the New Testament. Returning, like Hawley, to the thoughts of a bunch of poor nomadic herders periodically terrorized and oppressed in the Middle East, or by philosophers living in a slave-owning society rent by wars and oppression. Whether it's Hawley, Allan Bloom or the Claremont crowd, they all love to tie their oppressive ideas to the thought of a buncha dead guys who arguably have almost nothing to do with today's problems and the challenges men now face.
pixlaw
2023-06-08 18:46:16 +0000 UTCGreat breakdown of the "men crisis." It also made me think of the divergent ideological paths of Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel. They co-hosted "The Man Show" in the early 2000s. Kimmel went on to become a kind of Resistance Lib (with emotional monologues on things like healthcare and gun control) while Carolla has chosen rail on cancel culture and wokeism as the chief threats to society. The Man Show was a generic beer swilling, man cave schtick and every episode ended with bikini clad women jumping on trampolines so I find it interesting the hosts went is such different directions as the years passed. And lest we forget, the latter years featured Joe Rogan as a host.
Adam Swift
2023-06-08 14:23:04 +0000 UTCFraming the problems and solutions as specific to men and not humanity is the real issue and a contributing factor to liberals ceding the field of play on this “issue”.
nat gunter
2023-06-08 13:05:15 +0000 UTCDoes part of the left’s discomfort around masculinity stem from an inadvertent tendency to confront inequality by erasing difference?
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-08 05:38:29 +0000 UTCLeft-of-center thinkers on men & masculinity: John Wineland & Robert Augustus Masters. As a man who was raised in a progressive context, I felt always out of place, with no good models for manhood. It wasn’t until I was nearly thirty years old that I found what had been so sorely lacking in my disembodied, intellectuallized upbringing: an experience of healthy, affective/embodied masculinity. It felt like a core nutrient I’d been starved of for 30 years, between the desert of the Left and the plethora of unhealthy models on the Right/Center/mainstream society. So, I agree that the Left generally does a terrible job in this discourse, because we’re so addicted to our comfortably sensible ideas about gender that our physical/affective/spiritual experiences of gender get left in the dust.
JimJim5122
2023-06-08 04:47:21 +0000 UTCAnother fantastic episode, thank you for the continued insights!
Brendan Kane
2023-06-08 02:23:31 +0000 UTCAlso, Gary Wills’ ‘John Wayne’s America’ draws out and decodes the subtext of manliness apologists better than anything. Another great KYE book recommendation!
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-08 01:56:14 +0000 UTCYes, manliness is like the Christian doctrine of conditional security. We can lose our salvation/manliness depending on how we perform its rites for one another.
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-08 01:49:06 +0000 UTCLike other right-wing thinkers, Hawley and Mansfield root their ideas of manhood and manliness in nature, whether biological or divine. Either ground allows them to claim that "manliness" is something unitary, distinct, and immutable. Liberals, epicurean and otherwise, are a threat in this way of thinking because they seek to thwart men's "natural" impulses to the detriment of men, women, and society. But what if "manliness" isn't unitary, distinct, and immutable? Men and women are different from one another and some of those differences are likely rooted in biology. But what are the differences, how great are they, and how important are they? Hawley and Mansfield claim that nature sets men apart from women ways that are important for a well functioning individual and society. Yet, none of the manly virtues they describe are unique to men. I recognize all those traits in women I know, even if expressed differently than a man might. Men and women are far more alike than they are different. But that does not fit with the larger conservative political and social project that Hawley and Mansfield seek to advance. So they tell a story about men and manliness that fits the project. To shore up their story and protect it from competing claims, they root it in nature to make manliness unitary and unchanging across time. But what if neither of those things is true? Men can be many different things, and they will never all share a set of traits or virtues unless they are so broadly defined as to be meaningless. Although I have not studied this history, I suspect that ideas of manliness have changed over time, as is true for most of cultural ideas. That manliness is neither unitary or unchanging is the real problem for the left in challenging the right-wing narrative. The left has to tell a more open-ended story that does cannot offer the (false) comfort of the story the right tells. One last thought. Hawley and Mansfield seem to speak in abstractions rather than concrete terms about what it means to live each day as a manly man. My experience of manliness has been that it is inherently unstable. You're always in danger of falling short, of losing your manliness if you behave in ways incompatible with it. And its not always clear what is, or is not, manly or manly enough, in a particular situation. Manliness must proven continually.
Paul Smolinsky
2023-06-07 20:51:57 +0000 UTCI'm really curious about the concept Sam and Matt spoke about of the lack of will among the progressive left to prescribe behaviors onto men, contrasted with the right's obsession in the opposite. I have some admittedly not-thought-out thoughts: A) Progressive, environmentalist, racial justice, LGBTQ rights, and labor storytelling is arife with examples of sacrifice and protection - traditional masculine ideals - but the unwillingness to prescribe to men seems to undermine our progressive storytelling, making it harder for some impressionable men to see themselves as a part of that story compared to the extremely vile and crude versions of history presented by the right. This is amplified as capitalism cannibalizes and dislocates proletariat men. B) Progressives DO prescribe behaviors to individuals, though we don't typically like to dwell in that space. Bahaviors like valuing leisure, spending time with your community and in nature, feeling and valuing peace and justice - these and others are all critical to a healthy progressive movement, but we don't do a good job "prescribing" how to get there. For leisure and family/friend/alone time, join a union and unplug more often; for nature and outdoors time, work to defend our public spaces and environment; for inner peace, develop healthy counseling and emotional habits; etc. Pro-social work is and maybe ought to be prescriptive, lest we risk losing folks who feel lost and unimportant and unworthy to the temptation of baser chauvinism. Anyway, great episode! Love this community 💕
Chris P
2023-06-07 17:37:48 +0000 UTCI should say also that maybe relevant to the last part of the episode, the figure of the “union man” as one that has all the markings of traditional masculinity but also stands as an ideal that embodies solidarity with all its difficulties and obligations, is an interesting one to explore in this context. Anyway thanks for this as always great and thought provoking episode :)
Amir Zeidani
2023-06-07 17:28:29 +0000 UTCSam’s description of his father fits in my view a very Jewish masculine ideal of the Mensch, literally “Man”, as a protective, reliable man of substance and depth but not one of an aggressive or domineering figure. Coming from an Israeli context, it presents itself as a very diasporic ideal which the Zionist project aggressively sought to replace with the militaristic, blood and soil ideal of the gun & shovel wielding sabra. There’s a whole debate to be had of course on the role of the reclaiming of Jewish masculinity through the reclaiming of ancestral lands in the Zionist imaginary, but the fact that the Mensch is an ideal that originates from a socially marginalized position, whereas the Hawley/Sabra ideals operate from a position of dominance, as well as domination, is in itself quite revealing.
Amir Zeidani
2023-06-07 17:17:54 +0000 UTCExcellent episode, made me revisit some old essays from the late great barbara ehrenreich on manhood in which she talks about the lost social goal of equality among men
Nick Cleveland-Stout
2023-06-07 17:09:44 +0000 UTCExcellent episode! Love you guys!! (Can't wait to hear your thoughts on Deneen's new one...)
Where there’s a Wills there’s a Way
2023-06-07 12:52:56 +0000 UTCA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. — Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
Burt Humburg
2023-06-07 07:55:35 +0000 UTCI really love this episode. Sometimes I'm lucky enough to have time to listen twice... Shared with all my most important people
Dan Anderson
2023-06-07 05:24:10 +0000 UTCLearned a lot here, thanks! I resonate with the view of what is admirable in masculinity being centered around a rage to protect and sacrifice for something. I've seen that be put to work for leftist ends in a huge way, and yet I don't know how to phrase what is being done in that kind of protection that separates it from the kind that also claims a right to dominate the protected. "Solidarity" somehow doesn't quite seem enough, the right will often phrase their reinforcement of rigid gender norms as a kind of solidarity too. Apart from shitting on immigrants, it seems to be their main "community-building" activity, really. When we talk about a leftist vision for the future, gender isn't typically discussed except to say that it must not be a basis for oppression. We don't have a lot of ways to talk about how gender might play important and useful roles. The suspicion of that kind of talk is warranted, but I think many find a future vision in which gender plays no role to be a bit... bland.
Hannah
2023-06-07 02:03:24 +0000 UTCSo grateful for the discussion and the vulnerable places you take it. I relate to Sam’s anecdote about his father. My dad has never been ‘manly’ and I didn’t fully appreciate his gentleness until adulthood. As a 39 year old very sensitive cis man, it has indeed been a learning curve figuring out how to ‘perform myself’ authentically. Self-affirmation is trial and error—without accountability from others you can inadvertently reaffirm the old toxic trappings as containers for good yearnings. Phil Christman’s ‘How to Be Normal’ was a revelation, one my top reads of the year!
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-06-06 23:59:36 +0000 UTCIf I ever see "Epicurean Liberal" in a Twitter bio I know it is time to logoff forever
David
2023-06-06 23:46:25 +0000 UTCImagining some poor schmuck reading all Hawley's ranting about Epicurianism and thinking the guy just really hates foodies for some reason
J Mars
2023-06-06 19:29:56 +0000 UTCEscapes a lot of the “soupiness” you talked abt, I think bc Alex is non-binary — feels like trans understandings of masculinity and manliness have the kind of rigor/sense of solid ground that don’t rely on right-wing logic
Sam
2023-06-06 16:20:46 +0000 UTCI really recommend Alex Manley’s “The New Masculnity,” a quick and very funny left-wing exploration of this crisis.
Sam
2023-06-06 16:15:54 +0000 UTCYou can’t interpret manhood as a cultural institution without some irony. You have to see that maleness as a definition has had its uses throughout history. Some definitions were good some were bad. It’s a kind of form of life, which you can’t delete but only build upon. That’s where the irony comes in, that’s why people like Sam Adler Bell and Jordan Peterson equally can’t understand someone like Robert Bly. That’s why so many people can’t understand him, because that sense of pragmatism around how we view our selves and the contingencies of our self definition are wain as the simple solidarity between people breaks down. Don’t do another episode until you tackle Richard Rorty. I think it’s critical to really flush out what you mean by sensitivity.
Dan
2023-06-06 15:40:19 +0000 UTCStruck by the section about 25 mins in on Mansfield’s pitch about the need for manliness to protect from the excesses of manliness esp in liberal society, and how 9/11 sort of reinvigorated societal deference towards manliness. In particular, it gave me a new angle to think about that infamous Thomas Friedman interview on Charlie Rose where he says that we invaded Iraq “because we could” and, even more revealingly, says: “You don't think we care about our open society[…]? Well, suck. on. this.” The Mansfield angle really helps put the psychosexual aspects of that mindset in sharper relief.
allison brown
2023-06-06 14:24:30 +0000 UTCI usually roll my eyes when this brought up, but I agree stories about what is to be a man is important. The right, as you pointed out should not own this. As someone who did not experience this in their own family (very very bad parenting), good parenting matters and I could by the way to spoke about this subject that your parents did a good job of it.
giulietta karras
2023-06-06 13:09:46 +0000 UTCI relistened to the Patrick Blanchfield episode on gunpower after finishing this one and the impulse to protect feels critically important to violence in general and gun violence in particular. Good episode!
Darren Bauler
2023-06-06 09:56:15 +0000 UTCThis was a really enjoyable episode, thank you both for engaging with this. I do think there is a critique to be made here though regarding the idea that the left has no conception of masculinity, which is that many women on the left have expressed in personal, academic, and all the spaces in-between what they expect of men on the left. While that may be uncomfortable for men, it is worth engaging with seriously in part because we are comrades. If solidarity means meeting our comrades where they are, I think it also means engaging with our comrades asking us to rise to a standard of behavior that allows people to not only navigate political/cultural spaces without fear, but feel truly comfortable and supported in their contributions. Also, I think it’s worth engaging with negotiations of masculinity by both trans men and butch women/Enbies. Since masculinity is developed via a dialogue with the world in which it is formed, we can expand that dialogue to others who have navigated similar dialogues from different perspectives. Tbc cis men still have a place in the development of a conception of masculinity on the left, of course. I just think that the reality is that cis men do not exist on a sequestered island, so to forge a masculinity without considering those around us risks repeating some of the same harmful components as seen in bankrupt neoliberal conceptions of masculinity.
Elowyn
2023-06-06 05:05:18 +0000 UTCThe senator could find a very good male role model in the New Testament.
Adam Lewis
2023-06-06 01:17:26 +0000 UTCSeconding the Christman rec, which was one of the best/most helpful things I've ever read on the subject coming from a similar background to Matt.
Andy
2023-06-05 23:23:17 +0000 UTC
