Let me begin with a piece of wisdom I want you to keep in mind as you read. If masculinity is always in crisis then it is never in crisis. Devote 10 minutes of discursive meditation to this. Because it seems like, in every period and era, someone is whining about how masculinity is in crisis. With that said, here we go.
I was reading the Links on Naked Capitalism as I always do in the morning to get my news, and came across this bit entitled Men Are Lost by Christine Emba which is about the latest crisis in masculinity. Given that it is in the Washington-CIA-Bezos Post, I probably would have written it off as more PMC wokie garbage. However, the tag line in the Links read
The Jeff Bezos Daily Shopper is the last place I would look for coverage of this topic. Granted, I’m not sure where the first place would be; probably something fringe I don’t know about yet.’
I decided to give it a read after all. Given that I agree with the first sentiment (I don’t give a damn what the DC Wokie White Post has to say about anything), and Naked Capitalism still saw value in reading it, I decided it was worth a glance. As for the second sentiment about the fringe, I’ll circle back to that.
Masculinity In Crisis, As Usual
As I suspected, because Naked Capitalism rarely disappoints the article tured out to be worth reading. This is in part because I recently read John Michael Greer’s take on the subject here, and Ms. Emba’s piece dovetails nicely. So let us look at what she has to say after you read it. Go ahead and read it, I’ll be here when you get back.
Let us zero in on two points I found important. First, that the success of women in gaining the legal status of first class citizens (this used to be called feminism) has displaced the viability of traditional masculinity. She writes:
But millions of men lack access to that kind of power and success — and, downstream, cut loose from a stable identity as patriarchs deserving of respect, they feel demoralized and adrift. The data show it, but so does the general mood: Men find themselves lonely, depressed, anxious and directionless.
In the past, I have generally discounted this line of thinking. If a traditional concept of masculinity requires reducing women to a second class status with less rights than men and less opportunity (remember that women used to be barred from practicing in many professions), then traditional masculinity has to go. I despise the idea of an in-group living the life of Riley which depends on the suffering of an out-group. Or to put things more viscerally, I want my daughter to be able to choose her own path and not be confined to one because she is female.
But the point Ms. Emba makes is that there is something in the way we have raised up women that has had a high cost on men. That thing is a failure on the part of society to create a masculinity fit for this situation that actually serves the needs of men themselves. That italicized part is key; as Ms. Emba notes:
To the extent that any vision of “nontoxic” masculinity is proposed, it ends up sounding more like stereotypical femininity than anything else: Guys should learn to be more sensitive, quiet and socially apt, seemingly overnight. It’s the equivalent of “learn to code!” as a solution for those struggling to adjust to a new economy: simultaneously hectoring, dismissive and jejune.
Ms. Emba follows up with:
[Quoting Scott Gallowy]“Where I think this conversation has come off the tracks is where being a man is essentially trying to ignore all masculinity and act more like a woman. And even some women who say that — they don’t want to have sex with those guys. They may believe they’re right, and think it’s a good narrative, but they don’t want to partner with them.”
I, a heterosexual woman, cringed in recognition.
And there it is; the exact same point Mr. Greer made only I think Mr. Greer made the point better in his piece. And the point is this: the immediate post war period saw men remodeling the conception of what it means to be a woman from the perspective of what a man wants a woman to be.
but in the wake of the war, middle class women were expected to leave the workforce and stay isolated and bored in their suburban homes. Meanwhile saturation propaganda over the newly deployed medium of television pushed new definitions of womanhood at them—definitions that had been manufactured mostly by men, embodying masculine perspectives, without any input relevant to the actual lives that women led.
Long story short, women did not fit into the definition imposed on them and they threw that definition off. Rightly so. Mr. Greer continues by noting that what is happening now is the reverse. The dominant narrative has a definition of masculinity that is from the perspective of women without the input relevant to how actual men are. Thus men are beginning to rebel against the definition of masculinity imposed on them.
This makes sense. I was wrong to dismiss this. I thank Ms. Emba and Mr. Greer for changing my perspective.
So there is the first point, the left (to use the term entirely too loosely) failed to create a viable new narrative for masculinity that men actually wanted. Because I have a son as well as a daughter, I need to pay attention to this.
The second point from Ms. Emba’s piece is that the political right is offering a narrative for masculinity that men are interested in. However, being on the political left, Ms. Emba points out how this conservative masculinity relies in part on elements of traditional masculinity that were harmful to girls. (Actually, I am being kind here. Ms. Emba’s editorial often reads as though she thinks politically right masculinity offers nothing but a return to blatant racism, sexism, and homophobia. However, I think she has something important to say, so let’s giver her the benefit of the doubt for the moment.) Instead, she thinks (and rightly so) that the political left (or “the progressives” or whomever) needs a narrative of masculinity that is comparable with the reforms made by second wave feminism, but one that actual men also want.
Ms. Emba then admits that she has does not know what this narrative is, has no idea how to implement, and that gaining buy-in from actual men will be a long process. In short, she’s identified a problem but does not have even the outlines of a solution much less anything concrete for immediate use.
In short the political right has a program with an over-arching narrative ready to go, while some on the political left has nothing but the realization that there is a problem. But the thing is, you can rarely beat something with nothing.
On Jordan Peterson
Let me begin by saying I don’t get the hatred directed to Dr. Peterson by the so-called “progressive” Democrats. I am slightly familiar with his work, and while a bit on the traditionalist side for me, I don’t find anything particularly misogynistic about it. To the contrary, Dr. Peterson puts out fairly anodyne advice. Yet, as with Joe Rogan, the mere act of speaking his name sends “progressive” Democrats into fits.1 This information may prove important should you require some sort of repellent to get them to leave. But I digress.
Dr. Peterson’s overall philosophy is that life is hard, so value yourself, make a plan to do something, follow through with your plan, don’t be above your job, and deal with others honestly and ethically. He also recommends that you clean your room. This all sounds fine so far. You can watch him addressing the concerns of young people in this video. You can read a typically overwrought response here which boils down to the authors finding him too conservative for their tastes.
In fact, I think Ms. Emba may be overestimating the extent to which Dr. Peterson actually has a fleshed out program to raise boys into men. But Ms. Emba is correct that Dr. Peterson connects to older boys and young men by acknowledging their dissatisfaction with their present place in society. That acknowledgement is something; which is then followed up by something more which is some advice on what to do about it.
Again, you cannot beat something with nothing, so what does Ms. Emba or anyone on the “progressive” have on offer as an alternative? The answer is they have nothing.
A Progressive Masculinity?
I am being slightly unfair here, because Ms. Emba does offer the beginning of acknowledgement that the progressive narrative about males is one that males are rejecting. That is something. Also, her piece is one in which she acknowledges a problem, the considers the barriers to addressing this problem, and calls for devising solutions is made. The piece, then, is fair as a starting point. It would be nice if Ms. Emba provided some insight into what a progressive masculinity would entail, but I get the feeling that she has not yet developed those insights.
One big barrier to a progressive masculinty that she considers is that many or perhaps most progressives do not want to acknowldge the issue. The concern behind this is understatndable: that talking about masculinity risks taking focus away from the gains made by women. Fair enough. Yet just as women rebelled from the postwar conception of feminity imposed on them, it is likely men will likewise rebel against a masculinity imposed on them. Being able to define one’s self is human nature. But the point is that enough progressives will have to acknowledge the problem before working to devise a solution.
In the meanwhile, as progressives stumble towards their narrative about masculinity, they have only themselves to blame if more men embrace a conservative worldview. The progressives will need to get their shit together, and put something on offer. Perhaps they should heed Dr. Peterson’s advice to make a plan to do something and then follow through.
The Fringe and the Establishment Consensus
Which brings us back to where new ideas about masculinity will appear. Here, Naked Capitalism gets it right - the new ideas are going to come from the fringe. Why? Because the establishment consensus is only ever allows people to tweak establishment narrative. Anymore than tweaking the narrative will after all destroy the narrative, and the first job of the establishment is to remain the establishment. This also goes by the name of “power consedes nothing.”
Think of it this way, did the ideas behind first wave and second wave feminism come from the establishment or the fringes? Pat yourself on the back if you answered the fringes. Think about it. The idea of women owning property much less joining the professions was radical fringe stuff in the 1880s, but that is what first wave feminism demanded. Reproductive freedom and leadership roles in public institutions were fringe ideas until second wave feminism made them reality. None of those things were achieved without a struggle against the establishment.
If there is to be a progressive masculinity, it will also come from the fringes of the left. The establishment progressives, as the establishment, will offer tweaks but no substantive revision to the narrative. This of course will cede the field to the conservatives because you can’t beat something for nothing. But …
A Progressive Masculinty Is Not Coming
There will be no progressive narrative for masculinity. The barrier identified by Ms. Emba - the ability to talk about the problem - is insurmountable. That is, there is not enough willingness to acknowledge the problem much less discuss it. Progressives have become so infected with the woke mind virus2 that at this point they are no longer able change course. At this point, “progressives” have nothing on offer except preserving their own privilege as members of the PMC and pushing wokeism as a way to avoid any meaningful redistribution of power and wealth.
That is to say, progressivism has become a comically rigid orthodoxy which is incapable of answering any challenge much less allowing intorspection as to its flaws. Progressivism has become, to borrow Robin DiAngelo’s word, fragile. That is, the insistence by progressives that one must accept all of its tenents or else be labled some sort of reactionary, has left progressivism too weak to answer criticism. This is why whenever you argue with a progressive about their ideology, they respond by calling you a racist/sexist/homophobe/whathaveyou instead of engaging in discussion. It is alo why you see stupid shit like calling logic, argumentation, and debate “white supremacy.” This behavior is a result of progressive fragility.
It also means progressivism is nearing the end of its life cycle. This is OK because it is the fate of all ideologies. For progressivism, the calcification into a fragile orthodoxy is pretty much complete. So I regret to inform you, Ms. Emba and all progressives who still dare to think, that there will be no progressive answer to Jordan Peterson and his colleagues.
"“So What’s Your Solution, Smart Guy?”
This is a fair question given that I criticised Ms. Emba in part for not having one. I do not have a soution, but I have a couple of insights as to where we need to go.
The first is to look back to see what worked for men in past narratives of masculintiy. This is part of what Jordan Peterson is doing, going back to tradition and seeing what worked and why. I would add that we also need to think critically about the ways in which older forms of masculinty worked to disempower women. Clearly we want men to flourish, but not by keeping women down. Again, I have a son and a daughter and I want both of them to flourish.
The second insight is that whatever narratives we accept for both masculinity and feminity need to be loose and weak. On the one hand, we need to accept and respect that their are differences between men and women, and that these differences impact what will work as a societal narrative. For instance, treating men and women as interchangble will not work because there are a differences.3
Nonetheless, there is more variation between individuals than between men and women as a category. Whatever concessions we must make to differences between men and women, we must also make this narrative as loose as possible to avoid forcing individual people into stereotypes that don’t fit them. As Mr. Greer pointed out, this is what went wrong with postwar conceptions of femininity and contemprary conceptions of masculinity.
In short, the path forward are conceptions of masculinity and feminity that account for the differences between men and women, but are weak enough to avoid being overly constraining much less reducing individuals to their sex or gender.
The closest I could find to objectionable material is that Jordan Peterson expresses skepticism about climate change. Given that climate science is not his area of expertise, I’m not sure why anyone would really care what he has to say about it. But there is a tiresome and increasing tendency in “progressive” circles to label anyone who does not accept their dogma unquestioningly as some sort of Nazi.
Hat tip to Elon Musk for this phrase.
The extent to which this is biology versus socialization is beyond the scope of this essay. In the same vein, I will not dive into the fetid waters of biological sex versus gender identity here.
Thanks for writing this.
I had encountered Ms. Emba's essay (I subscribe to the Post) and didn't get past the first couple of paragraphs. Maybe I should give it read.
I'm a cautious fan of Jordan Peterson. I have some trepidations based on things I've heard, and some of his podcasts I've listened to. But I read and enjoyed Twelve Rules for Life and still listen to his YouTube podcasts (not as much as I used to, but I usually like them). The thing I like most about him is that at his best, he shows his work. He doesn't simply pronounce on things, he shows how he came to believe them in the first place.
I'm not sure what a good narrative for masculinity would be, either. But I like your idea that it should be "loose" (perhaps another term would be "open"?). One thing I would like such a narrative to have is a recognition that it's okay for straight men to feel frustrated if they don't have intimate partners or if they're rejected. (Note: I'm not saying men have the right to sex, just that they have the right to feel bad about not getting it.) That's a minor point in any narrative, and probably doesn't have much to do with the meatier concerns men (and women) face. But I thought I'd bring it up.