I honestly don’t see any future to a man’s movement that promotes better compliance instead of self-determination
Thing is, men today aren’t really saying how they want to be. Instead they just place their knot in tug war between a short sighted feminism and a neo-traditionalist manosphere
I really liked your book and have followed your interviews for a while. It seems like after you took the money from Melinda Gates' foundation the only role you see as wholly positive for men, and the only one you actively promote is men nurturing and in the home. Every time men working comes up you always find some reason it isn't fully positive, or at least less supportable than a traditionally female role. When it comes to women you do the exact opposite. Your work is actively pushing men into subordinate roles and providing norms to keep us there.
I agree! At the moment, negativity is amplified and it rarely reflects what I see and hear in my day to day. My sons at 19 & 25 are sensitive and deeply thinking beings who are certainly negatively effected in terms of self image by attitudes around maleness as having little value. I often find myself supporting them in their right to simply have normal feelings. There is often an issue of nuance. The difference between feelings and what actions one takes through words or deeds.
Our modern culture (through the lens of academia, media, and government) has abandoned the nature argument--the notion that male and female differences really do drive a lot of our hopes and desires. In so doing, modern institutions want to reconstruct what it means to be a man--which usually means being more feminine. It just doesn't work that way. Men are already caring, giving, protective, and a host of other great nurturing qualities. They just present it differently than women.
From what I've seen, modern, mature masculinity (a term that seems at odds with male nature) will rely too much on cultural constructs--which are limited--and will bypass male nature in order to promote a delicate archetype that is socially acceptable to the institutional class.
It will ignore necessary and real elements of masculinity. For instance, men will--in the aggregate--be willing to take on life-saving jobs, like firefighting, because they are built to do so. There are some who will become teachers, and we need those who are willing to do so to take the firefighter attitude to the classroom.
Male nature is wired differently than female nature and it operates on a male-brain spectrum, not to be confused with a female brain spectrum. Until we can exercise that first law, the cultural constructs will be impossible to achieve.
From what I see in your data, young men tend to be inclined towards traditional values, which are rooted in fundamental biology and a desire to be strong members of the community.
These values have served as a successful basis for humankind's evolution and development.
I see more of that discussion in right-leaning sources than left-leaning ones, which want to discard gender roles.
Our attention economy focuses on extremes, such as sound bites or clickbait, and the Manosphere is a cultural extreme. I think it is equally inflammatory and reactionary to extreme feminism (not to be confused with healthy feminism), which also feeds algorithms.
Neither extreme is representative of what it means to be a good human trying to do their best in an unkind world, regardless of political stance.
This is a thoughtful and necessary intervention. But perhaps the issue is not how we talk about young men, but what structures we’ve dismantled around them.
Modern masculinity is not under siege from bad ideas — it is adrift in formlessness. The rites, roles, and responsibilities that once scaffolded the transition from boy to man have been eroded, not replaced. Narratives alone cannot fill that void, no matter how empathetic or well-meaning.
To “be a man” may still mean providing, protecting, serving — but where are the coherent forms in which those functions are taught, demanded, honored?
In the absence of structure, young men seek signal. Some will find it in empathy. Others in echo chambers. But the crisis is not ideological. It is architectural.
Whaaa 😭. First it was Toxic Masculinity and now Manuspere?. But I want a label I can easily spout 😂😂. Thank you Richard. You once again provided what I feel is most important for our men today: Mentorship & Rights of Passage.
This survey/poll that Reeves ran, if you ran it 50-60 years ago the results would be the same. Providing for your family has always been the biggest driver of the majority of young/men. You can go across many cultures, this is one thing every male that I have come across has in common. That you need a confirmation of this very fact is astounding.
What gender role is outdated? I’m confused by the indictment of the past. Also what’s with the obsession with polling? Speak from your heart and experience once in a while.
Nice to see that most of Reeves' readers are onto him as a feminist hypocrite. I wonder how long it will take him to listen to the men who confront him rather than just banning them like any good Lying in a Room of One's Own gender bigot does. It's so easy for Reeves to shill swill for feminists in his world of elite Idiot Yet Intellectuals (see Nassim Taleb) or at least it WAS until the the Trumpster (a fairly sorry male specimen but one with a pleasing knack for blowing up the narrative of far sorrier female specimens) came along.
Amen. I can’t speak to what Gen Alpha thinks but my peers are all good husbands and devoted fathers. Sad that some think these examples of healthy masculinity are anomalous.
You might like this. https://nealshultz1.substack.com/p/you-dont-need-bs-to-have-a-lot-of?r=k7ywv
I honestly don’t see any future to a man’s movement that promotes better compliance instead of self-determination
Thing is, men today aren’t really saying how they want to be. Instead they just place their knot in tug war between a short sighted feminism and a neo-traditionalist manosphere
I really liked your book and have followed your interviews for a while. It seems like after you took the money from Melinda Gates' foundation the only role you see as wholly positive for men, and the only one you actively promote is men nurturing and in the home. Every time men working comes up you always find some reason it isn't fully positive, or at least less supportable than a traditionally female role. When it comes to women you do the exact opposite. Your work is actively pushing men into subordinate roles and providing norms to keep us there.
I agree! At the moment, negativity is amplified and it rarely reflects what I see and hear in my day to day. My sons at 19 & 25 are sensitive and deeply thinking beings who are certainly negatively effected in terms of self image by attitudes around maleness as having little value. I often find myself supporting them in their right to simply have normal feelings. There is often an issue of nuance. The difference between feelings and what actions one takes through words or deeds.
Our modern culture (through the lens of academia, media, and government) has abandoned the nature argument--the notion that male and female differences really do drive a lot of our hopes and desires. In so doing, modern institutions want to reconstruct what it means to be a man--which usually means being more feminine. It just doesn't work that way. Men are already caring, giving, protective, and a host of other great nurturing qualities. They just present it differently than women.
From what I've seen, modern, mature masculinity (a term that seems at odds with male nature) will rely too much on cultural constructs--which are limited--and will bypass male nature in order to promote a delicate archetype that is socially acceptable to the institutional class.
It will ignore necessary and real elements of masculinity. For instance, men will--in the aggregate--be willing to take on life-saving jobs, like firefighting, because they are built to do so. There are some who will become teachers, and we need those who are willing to do so to take the firefighter attitude to the classroom.
Male nature is wired differently than female nature and it operates on a male-brain spectrum, not to be confused with a female brain spectrum. Until we can exercise that first law, the cultural constructs will be impossible to achieve.
I am a little confused by your argument,
From what I see in your data, young men tend to be inclined towards traditional values, which are rooted in fundamental biology and a desire to be strong members of the community.
These values have served as a successful basis for humankind's evolution and development.
I see more of that discussion in right-leaning sources than left-leaning ones, which want to discard gender roles.
Our attention economy focuses on extremes, such as sound bites or clickbait, and the Manosphere is a cultural extreme. I think it is equally inflammatory and reactionary to extreme feminism (not to be confused with healthy feminism), which also feeds algorithms.
Neither extreme is representative of what it means to be a good human trying to do their best in an unkind world, regardless of political stance.
This is a thoughtful and necessary intervention. But perhaps the issue is not how we talk about young men, but what structures we’ve dismantled around them.
Modern masculinity is not under siege from bad ideas — it is adrift in formlessness. The rites, roles, and responsibilities that once scaffolded the transition from boy to man have been eroded, not replaced. Narratives alone cannot fill that void, no matter how empathetic or well-meaning.
To “be a man” may still mean providing, protecting, serving — but where are the coherent forms in which those functions are taught, demanded, honored?
In the absence of structure, young men seek signal. Some will find it in empathy. Others in echo chambers. But the crisis is not ideological. It is architectural.
—The Postliberal Cyborg
I like your take, Mr. Cyborg.
Richard’s book review is well-written, intelligent, and balanced. Definitely worth reading.
Hey Richard! Been trying to get in touch! What do you think of these proposals? https://getbettersoon.substack.com/p/what-we-should-do-to-help-men
Whaaa 😭. First it was Toxic Masculinity and now Manuspere?. But I want a label I can easily spout 😂😂. Thank you Richard. You once again provided what I feel is most important for our men today: Mentorship & Rights of Passage.
Manosphere is already being used in overly broad ways.
It's not uncommon to see fitness content being put under 'manosphere' and called 'right coded'
Good to see evidence that young men are not all lost and in need of saving.
This survey/poll that Reeves ran, if you ran it 50-60 years ago the results would be the same. Providing for your family has always been the biggest driver of the majority of young/men. You can go across many cultures, this is one thing every male that I have come across has in common. That you need a confirmation of this very fact is astounding.
https://open.substack.com/pub/archwinger/p/nothing-red-pills-you-like-a-woman?r=k7sg9&utm_medium=ios
What gender role is outdated? I’m confused by the indictment of the past. Also what’s with the obsession with polling? Speak from your heart and experience once in a while.
Nice to see that most of Reeves' readers are onto him as a feminist hypocrite. I wonder how long it will take him to listen to the men who confront him rather than just banning them like any good Lying in a Room of One's Own gender bigot does. It's so easy for Reeves to shill swill for feminists in his world of elite Idiot Yet Intellectuals (see Nassim Taleb) or at least it WAS until the the Trumpster (a fairly sorry male specimen but one with a pleasing knack for blowing up the narrative of far sorrier female specimens) came along.
Amen. I can’t speak to what Gen Alpha thinks but my peers are all good husbands and devoted fathers. Sad that some think these examples of healthy masculinity are anomalous.