Distinctively Masculine
Competing with online influencers requires an approach that's actually masculine
I have criticized David French for a number of things, but one area where he’s been right and was ahead of the curve is the problems facing men. While I disagree with some of his proposed solutions, he’s looking at the right problems, and, I believe, operates in good faith on this issue.
One of his recurring themes is a call to men to pursue virtue. I think this important, but incomplete, as I outlined in a previous interaction with French on the topic.
He returned to this theme in a recent column on how “The Atmosphere of the ‘Manosphere’ Is Toxic.”
He’s definitely right that the manosphere has a toxic atmosphere. There are some people in the online influencer world who aren’t per se manosphere that I believe are positive and constructive figures, Jocko Willink for example. French recognizes these distinctions and gradations.
But if anything the mainstream of the manosphere seems to have taken a darker turn. Once it was, if often focused on immoral ends, fun, irreverently funny, focused on self-improvement, mutually supportive, etc. Today, it has a stronger anti-woman streak, seems more mean-spirited, and various figures in it spend a lot of time attacking and trying to sabotage each other.
French acknowledges the appeal of these figures. His proposed solution, however, is to de-emphasize masculinity in favor of, again, a generic call to virtue.
One reason for this vacuum is that any discussion of the crisis among men almost immediately devolves into a debate over masculinity itself. Is traditional masculinity toxic? Or is it toxic to abandon traditionally masculine approaches to raising boys? What is traditional masculinity anyway? Is “masculinity” even a concept worth pursuing, or does it jam too many boys into stereotypical boxes, magnifying their misery?
After reading a new book, I’m wondering if there is another, better way. Can we sidestep the elite debate over masculinity by approaching the crisis with men via an appeal to universal values rather than to the distinctively male experience? In other words, is there a universal approach to shaping character that can have a disproportionately positive impact on our lost young men?
…
And what are these classical virtues? Benjamin Franklin’s list included temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquillity, chastity and humility. I prefer the shorter and simpler formulation in Aristotle’s four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and courage. None of these virtues is distinctly male, of course.
It’s interesting to see there that French denies that courage is a masculine virtue. Traditionally, it would have been considered a quintessential masculine virtue.
French’s view of this is similar to what I’ve observed in the church, and society in general. Masculinity has been drained of its positive elements, reducing it to two things: 1) a collection of “toxic” attributes and behaviors that need to be rejected or suppressed, and 2) the unique obligation for a man to sacrifice himself and his dreams in order to serve other people and their priorities.
It’s similar for women, by the way. There are not that many things that are seen as distinctively feminine either, although women are not attributed negative traits and there’s a greater willingness to say that women are superior in some areas.
Both the church and the world have a very thin anthropology of gender, something I plan to write a piece about soon, drawing on one my most controversial recent X posts.
We can easily imagine how this happens with the case of something like courage. A pastor gives a sermon that describes courage as a masculine virtue. Women in the pews get upset and say, “Can’t women be courageous too?” The pastor then says, “You’re right. We can’t say courage is a masculine virtue.”
We could apply the same logic to essentially every positive attribute of what it means to be a man.
The result is a masculinity that has been defined almost exclusively in terms that are not attractive to most actual men.
It is their willingness to articulate a distinctively masculine vision in a world that denies that to men that is part of why the manosphere has such a draw.
The manosphere is willing to defend the virtues of masculinity. For example, pagan masculinist Jack Donovan has an answer to the feminist objection to describing courage as a masculine virtue. He says that courage is a masculine virtue not because women can’t be courageous but because men and only men are judged on whether they are courageous.
A man who displays cowardice when he should display courage earns the contempt of his fellow men. He is viewed as deficient in masculinity. A woman who is courageous may be praised by others. But if she isn’t courageous, if she runs way, she’s not going to be judged as deficient in femininity. Donovan writes, “Both men and women can be game, but status for human females has rarely depended on a woman’s willingness to fight. Demure, polite, passive women are attractive to men and are generally well-liked by other women.”
It’s an example of how the manosphere deals with certain concepts in a more sophisticated way than mainstream figures.
The value system of the manosphere should be rejected. But if we want to compete with them, we have to base that competition on an authentic, compelling vision that is distinctively rooted in the masculine experience.
Again, I will return to this soon, but the place to start with the anthropology of manhood. A must read as a primer on this is David Gilmore’s book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity.
I would seriously love to see David French articulate his positive vision of masculinity in that way. From his perch, it could, if suitably compelling, actually have an influence in the marketplace.
"Universal virtues" are a way of running away from the hard work that Aristotle sets out in his Ethics. You're right about courage, Aaron, but Aristotle takes it even further. He would say that it is potentially a vice for a woman to charge a large man with a knife, as well as for a teenager, a physically weak man, an elderly man, or a man who is not mentally prepared to do whatever violence is necessary to neutralize the knife-wielder. The Golden Mean is a favorite catch-phrase by the well-fed Right, but few seldom stop and think about what is means: that there is an individual virtue for each and every individual person and situation. It is exactly the differences - male or female, age, height, personality, social status, and so forth which are the *most important* factors in determining what is virtuous. If we refuse to say what is appropriate to a man or woman, to a child, a teen, an adult, a senior, to a rich man or a poor man, to a natural leader, to a father, to a neighbor, to a friend, to a countryman, to a fellow Christian, then French's words are ultimately meaningless. He sounds good prattling on about virtue, but his virtues are entirely hollow, devoid of any real content.
I think this is a really good book that addresses this issue in an oblique way:
https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Rediscovery-Yoram-Hazony/dp/1684511097
The problem of asking what a "universal value" is, is that it falls back on a liberal motif that there are self-evident truths of reason that reveal virtue.
I think the author of this book does well to articulate how what it desires to instill into men (or women) is based not on abstract, self-evident truths, but they are formed by a believing community.
The problem with French's approach (and the manosphere) is that it treats the man as an individual who needs to seek certain virtues that will cause him to flourish. Every person, in a modern liberal sense, is intended to seek certain ideals so they can be the best version of themselves. It's very individualistic, even if (supposedly) the benefit will be to the social unit.
When you attack the problem of the individual within a community, however, you still focus on what is good for the individual but it is the family, the Church, the locality, etc. that places constraints on the individual. To properly form a man, not merely as a selfish person concerned ultimately with how I will embody universal values I consider self-evident, the man must be able to see his end not only for himself but what he is intended for. This cannot be answered abstractly, but according to how a community and its belief system encourages fathers, sons, elders, etc. to embody values that are both revealed and are discerned by generations.
I appreciate the articles you write that criticize that Pastors tend to crap on men for what they’re failing to do. The problem is not only that these Pastors are criticizing selfish behavior, but they have no vision for how the boy becomes a man not for himself but within a family, within a Church. This is not merely taught but “caught” by a believing community living out values that men can inhabit – not abstract, self-evident values but actual values being lived out.