How can I make this point? Need advice on the language.

[AG31]

Scott Galloway writes books and makes the rounds of cable TV talking about the plight of young men, citing statistics about how they've fallen behind in education and employment and self-worth.

I'm especially ambivalent about a couple of his points:

1 - Boys should aspire to be providers.

2 - We (society) should affirm the masculine sex drive to counteract the message that their sex drive is "toxic masculinity."

I'm ambivalent for obvious reasons. Point 1 can be the start of a slippery slope to "the man is the head of the househoud." Galloway tries to put the breaks on by saying, "and sometimes that means getting out of the way so your partner can bring in the money." Point 2 ignores the entitlement men have felt to use women as they will. Here, too, Galloway nods to the truth behind "toxic masculinity."

So I've articulated my response to Galloway to be this: "All people should aspire to care for others. And all human sexuality should be celebrated."

My problem, the point of this post, is that we can't celebrate "all" human sexuality. We can only celebrate it when it doesn't harm others. But caveats don't work with battle cries. Any suggestions on how I can phrase my response to Galloway, a way that's sound-bit snappy?

Edit: His latest book is the top seller on Amazon.

 

[StillStunned]

Any suggestions on how I can phrase my response to Galloway?

"The Stone Age is that way."

Sorry to be glib, but - not knowing this Scott Galloway - I find that people like who express such opinions generally aren't really receptive to reasonable arguments.

 

[Bazzle]

If exams are marked on coursework, girls do better.
If exams are marked purely on exams boys do slightly better
If exams are marked on both, girls do better.

Liberals like both, conservatives like exams.

 

[AG31]

"The Stone Age is that way."

Sorry to be glib, but - not knowing this Scott Galloway - I find that people like who express such opinions generally aren't really receptive to reasonable arguments.

I doubt that he would ever hear my argument. Point of interest, his latest book is the top seller on Amazon.

 

[Britva415]

we can't celebrate "all" human sexuality.

The sexuality of all humans can be celebrated, though.

Making it about generic persons and not about any harmful brand of "sexuality" is what saves us from having to thumbs-up the things you're wary of.

The right to be sexual is inalienable. The right to take advantage of others sexually is not.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Liberals like both, conservatives like exams.

Gender aside, with the rise of AI, pen and paper exams are coming back in a big way.

 

[PennyThompson]

i am extremely confident that this will be a productive and unproblematic discussion

 

[TheRedChamber]

Presumably this is a version of the old Futurama 'Don't Date Robots' bit.

Billy isn't getting a paper round to have enough money to take Susie to the pictures where he may or not get up the courage to put a hand round her shoulders.

He's staying at home watching triple penetration interracial cuck porn.

Society crumbles.

 

[Djmac1031]

i am extremely confident that this will be a productive and unproblematic discussion

Oh for sure. Popcorn...?

 

[MrHereWriting]

Scott Galloway writes books and makes the rounds of cable TV talking about the plight of young men, citing statistics about how they've fallen behind in education and employment and self-worth.

I'm especially ambivalent about a couple of his points:

1 - Boys should aspire to be providers.

2 - We (society) should affirm the masculine sex drive to counteract the message that their sex drive is "toxic masculinity."

I'm ambivalent for obvious reasons. Point 1 can be the start of a slippery slope to "the man is the head of the househoud." Galloway tries to put the breaks on by saying, "and sometimes that means getting out of the way so your partner can bring in the money." Point 2 ignores the entitlement men have felt to use women as they will. Here, too, Galloway nods to the truth behind "toxic masculinity."

So I've articulated my response to Galloway to be this: "All people should aspire to care for others. And all human sexuality should be celebrated."

My problem, the point of this post, is that we can't celebrate "all" human sexuality. We can only celebrate it when it doesn't harm others. But caveats don't work with battle cries. Any suggestions on how I can phrase my response to Galloway, a way that's sound-bit snappy?

Edit: His latest book is the top seller on Amazon.

1 - Boys should aspire to be providers.
What is a provider? Someone who can provide for others all the necessities they need to live.
A provider would most likely be financially stable, have a successful career and familial relationship, which would bring them confidence, less stress, a bit of happiness and that should translate to providing that same for those he provides for.

Aspiring to be a provider means 'to be good at life.'

2 - We (society) should affirm the masculine sex drive to counteract the message that their sex drive is "toxic masculinity."
Affirming a man's sex drive doesn't condone abuse. It means 'you don't have to be ashamed for wanting sex.'

I don't know who Scott Galloway is, but "Scott Galloway writes books and makes the rounds of cable TV talking about the plight of young men, citing statistics about how they've fallen behind in education and employment and self-worth."

It sounds to me like he's trying to reach a group of men who feel the like they have no place in the world. Unless he's telling them to rule the world and everyone else doesn't matter and they must conquer everyone who stands in their way, this is more like a pep talk meant to give a group of people who feel disenfranchised hope.

Unless you have actual quotes from his book that point to sinister motivations, this is nothing more than motivational speaking. Imagine someone telling poor people from some third world country that there is hope and they have value and then someone else comes in and says "No, you don't, you have the same value as everyone else so stop looking for reasons to better your life because your life is as good as anyone else's."

That's not helpful. Some people and groups of people need to be spoken to on a more personal level. They need to feel seen.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Scott Galloway writes books and makes the rounds of cable TV talking about the plight of young men, citing statistics about how they've fallen behind in education and employment and self-worth.

I'm especially ambivalent about a couple of his points:

1 - Boys should aspire to be providers.

2 - We (society) should affirm the masculine sex drive to counteract the message that their sex drive is "toxic masculinity."

I'm ambivalent for obvious reasons. Point 1 can be the start of a slippery slope to "the man is the head of the househoud." Galloway tries to put the breaks on by saying, "and sometimes that means getting out of the way so your partner can bring in the money." Point 2 ignores the entitlement men have felt to use women as they will. Here, too, Galloway nods to the truth behind "toxic masculinity."

So I've articulated my response to Galloway to be this: "All people should aspire to care for others. And all human sexuality should be celebrated."

My problem, the point of this post, is that we can't celebrate "all" human sexuality. We can only celebrate it when it doesn't harm others. But caveats don't work with battle cries. Any suggestions on how I can phrase my response to Galloway, a way that's sound-bit snappy?

I think you're mostly there already: the big problem with point 2 as given here is the implicit assumption that there is a definitive "masculine sex drive".

There are about four billion boys and men in the world and they don't all experience sexual attraction in the same way. There are straight men, gay men, bi men, asexual men; there are men who deal with their sexual urges responsibly (e.g. seeking out a consenting partner in a way that's not obnoxious to others) and there are men who don't. So, which of those four billion versions are we supposed to be affirming?

I'm not familiar with Galloway's material so I don't know whether this applies to him, but in rhetoric this kind of vagueness is often intentional because it allows for a lot of bait-and-switch. Should young men be shamed for being attracted to women? Obviously not. So we agree that "the masculine sex drive" should be affirmed! Should a middle-aged man be shamed for coercing a teenage girl into sex? Well, that's just "the masculine sex drive" at work, and we already agreed that was okay...

The other bit of smoke-and-mirrors there in point 2 is the conflation of a drive with an action in response to that drive. It's like if I said "cannibalism is bad" and somebody popped up to say "actually it's perfectly normal for people to feel hunger and we shouldn't shame them for it". IME the term "toxic masculinity" is almost always used to refer to patterns of behaviour, or pronouncements about how people should behave ("boys don't cry" etc.). I don't think I've ever heard anybody say that it's "toxic masculinity" merely for a guy to be attracted to somebody, only for what they do with that attraction.

 

[AG31]

The sexuality of all humans can be celebrated, though.

Making it about generic persons and not about any harmful brand of "sexuality" is what saves us from having to thumbs-up the things you're wary of.

The right to be sexual is inalienable. The right to take advantage of others sexually is not.

Thanks! I think that works pretty well.
But I don't want to pre-empt other ideas!! Suggest away!

 

[AG31]

After some overnight reflection, here's my latest response to Galloway.

'It's not helpful for people to define their identity by some group they belong to. Boys and girls should be taught how to be caring human beings, not caring males or females. Celerate the sexuality of all humans. The differences are myriad and can be left to take care of themselves.' (Thanks to @Britva415 for a subtlety here.)

 

[TheRedChamber]

After some overnight reflection, here's my latest response to Galloway.

'It's not helpful for people to define their identity by some group they belong to. Boys and girls should be taught how to be caring human beings, not caring males or females. Celerate the sexuality of all humans. The differences are myriad and can be left to take care of themselves.' (Thanks to @Britva415 for a subtlety here.)

I'm going to come and say this bluntly, but I think this is wrong in nearly every important aspect - or, at least, if not wrong, not at all helpful and possibly detrimental to boys. Nominally, the purpose here is to help boys falling behind in education, employment and self-worth. I tend to think that if you sort out self-worth, the other two will follow, to a degree, and developing self-worth is, in essence, reliant on having a clear and positive vision of one's own identity.

Identity can be internal, as with secret sexualities, but is usually healthier when it is expressed openly. While people are adamant for good reason that sexuality and gender identity can only be defined by the person in question, not by anyone else, the majority of identities are strengthened and often defined by relationships with other people and with society. You can't be a husband if you don't have a wife. You can't be a doctor if you aren't recognised by the appropriate professional organisation in your country. You can be a musician in your bedroom, but it is potentially much more rewarding to get out and perform in front of people and potentially with other people. Group identity is pretty fundamental to human happiness and finding a place in the world.

It's interesting that you've chosen 'caring' as the sole virtue in your reply. It's not wrong, obviously, but you could have said 'upright', 'just', 'responsible' and so on. Behaviour in the 21st century falls into two main categories - 'toxic masculinity' and 'approved unisexulinity*' which, from the way it is often described, ends up sounding like a lot like modern femininity. We've had about a decade of articles claiming that we need to 'redefine masculinity for the twenty-first century.' Increasingly, people seem to be giving up on that as a bit too tough and just deciding to go with a one-size-fits-all approach. Andrew Tate became popular because, however repugnant a lot of his schtick was, he offered boys a version of something they were looking for.

(*Shakespeare was good at coining new words for the English language, myself probably less so)

And that might work for some people. I was never particularly good with 'traditional masculinity' being short on sporting-prowess to name just one attribute. However it is dressed up in school though, some boys are aware that they are in the social group of 'men' and are going to try and make sense of that. Being told that the differences will largely take care of themselves, isn't particularly helpful for someone just shaping their identity nor is telling people that their identity should be entirely internal and is entirely up to them.

We've been talking about celebrating sexuality. The truth is all societies need to both celebrate and repress certain aspects of sexuality. Western society has tended more and more towards celebrating rather than repressing since the 1960s. And while 'repression' sounds bad, as @Bramblethorn points out, there are plenty of bad activities and behaviours we do want to repress. There is always going to be a whole bunch of 'this is okay, this is not okay' rules. I don't know what Galloway means by 'celebrate male sexuality' means. Presumably he doesn't mean to green light sexual assault. Possibly he thinks that one guy turning to another and saying 'It's Friday night, lets go out and (try to) get laid.' is something that was more common in days of yore and boys are now saying to each other 'Lets stay in and play Fortnight' and not even daring to admit to each other that they'd like to be out chasing girls. Honestly, I'm too old to know exactly where the needle is and which way it needs to move.

 

[Statius]

Simple.

Treat everyone you meet as a human being first. Not male/female/ trans. Just a human being. Not black, white, brown. A human being. Not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, pagan. Just a human being. Not a sexual being, just a fucking human being. Have a conversation. With a human being.

Simple.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Simple.

Treat everyone you meet as a human being first. Not male/female/ trans. Just a human being. Not black, white, brown. A human being. Not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, pagan. Just a human being. Not a sexual being, just a fucking human being. Have a conversation. With a human being.

Simple.

I don't think anyone is arguing against treating human beings like human beings. Some people enjoy having shoot-the-breeze, aimless conversations, and indeed keeping maintaining friendships into the hundreds. Some don't. I'm not really sure what it's got to do with the question at hand, except that it might be good for young men to leave their bedroom occasionally.

 

[Statius]

The point is most straight males meet a woman and the first thought isn't, this is a human being, it's this is a woman. Different from them. It's actually rare for anyone to meet someone who is different from them and think this is another human being. It's what makes them different from me. And no, it isn't just straight males, but that is the topic and (probably) where the biggest problem lies, at least here in the US, it's mostly straight white males.

 

[DeMont]

Scott Galloway writes books and makes the rounds of cable TV talking about the plight of young men, citing statistics about how they've fallen behind in education and employment and self-worth.

I'm especially ambivalent about a couple of his points:

1 - Boys should aspire to be providers.

2 - We (society) should affirm the masculine sex drive to counteract the message that their sex drive is "toxic masculinity."

I'm ambivalent for obvious reasons. Point 1 can be the start of a slippery slope to "the man is the head of the househoud." Galloway tries to put the breaks on by saying, "and sometimes that means getting out of the way so your partner can bring in the money." Point 2 ignores the entitlement men have felt to use women as they will. Here, too, Galloway nods to the truth behind "toxic masculinity."

So I've articulated my response to Galloway to be this: "All people should aspire to care for others. And all human sexuality should be celebrated."

My problem, the point of this post, is that we can't celebrate "all" human sexuality. We can only celebrate it when it doesn't harm others. But caveats don't work with battle cries. Any suggestions on how I can phrase my response to Galloway, a way that's sound-bit snappy?

Edit: His latest book is the top seller on Amazon.

@AG31, et al,
I'm not sure how many of you read John Gray's book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" but, at the time, it addressed the same sort of considerations but in a less specific manner.

quote;

"Men are motivated when they feel needed while women are motivated when they feel cherished".
"Men need to remember that women talk about problems to get close and not necessarily to get solutions".
"When a man can listen to a woman's feelings without getting angry and frustrated, he gives her a wonderful gift".
"Men want space while women want understanding"

It derives the differences based on emotional requirements, not physicality, economy or societal pressures and expectations. I came to the United States (ex patriot) in 2013 and I found something entirely different in the sub-culture/cultural divide between people, not just men and women, than I had ever seen before. I became aware of the fierce competitiveness in the male of the species and a fierce independence in the female of the species. drive those two, competitiveness headlong into independence, what do you get?

It sounds to me like Mr. Galloway is trying to toss the proverbial cat among the pidgeons. The thing I find disturbing about that is that he is obviously, in some measure, succeeding.
Respectfully, always,
D.

 

[TheRedChamber]

The point is most straight males meet a woman and the first thought isn't, this is a human being, it's this is a woman. Different from them. It's actually rare for anyone to meet someone who is different from them and think this is another human being. It's what makes them different from me. And no, it isn't just straight males, but that is the topic and (probably) where the biggest problem lies, at least here in the US, it's mostly straight white males.

Taken partway that's good advice about just relaxing around the opposite sex, and enjoying other people's company. I get the impression that the apparent 'male loneliness epidemic' is also about a lot of guys just not being good at making friends generally. (When people say that they want men to treat women as human beings, I do wonder if those men also treat other men as 'human beings')

Taken too far and does seem to be another way of 'shaming male sexuality' The borish won't care anyway, but for the nervous guys already struggling, being paranoid about letting any signs of attraction show probably isn't going to help them win friends or lovers. There's obviously a process of meeting someone, finding them attractive, recieving signals that they find you equally attractive and then making appropriate moves towards a relationship that isn't easy for everyone and young hormonal boys are going to mess up constantly.

I'm curious why you think it is particularly a white problem, most of the British Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish guys I knew at university were not noticeably more comfortable around women (although that was probably more a 'my friend-group' problem)

 

[AG31]

I'm going to come and say this bluntly, but I think this is wrong in nearly every important aspect - or, at least, if not wrong, not at all helpful and possibly detrimental to boys. Nominally, the purpose here is to help boys falling behind in education, employment and self-worth. I tend to think that if you sort out self-worth, the other two will follow, to a degree, and developing self-worth is, in essence, reliant on having a clear and positive vision of one's own identity.

So far I think I agree. Do you see this as showing how my position is "wrong?"

Identity can be internal, as with secret sexualities, but is usually healthier when it is expressed openly. While people are adamant for good reason that sexuality and gender identity can only be defined by the person in question, not by anyone else, the majority of identities are strengthened and often defined by relationships with other people and with society. You can't be a husband if you don't have a wife. You can't be a doctor if you aren't recognised by the appropriate professional organisation in your country. You can be a musician in your bedroom, but it is potentially much more rewarding to get out and perform in front of people and potentially with other people. Group identity is pretty fundamental to human happiness and finding a place in the world.

True, but we can belong to many groups. Thus it's tricky to pick one to define us.

It's interesting that you've chosen 'caring' as the sole virtue in your reply. It's not wrong, obviously, but you could have said 'upright', 'just', 'responsible' and so on.

Of course. But I was trying to find something snappy and repeatable. That's the problem with reality. It doesn't condense well.

Behaviour in the 21st century falls into two main categories - 'toxic masculinity' and 'approved unisexulinity*' which, from the way it is often described, ends up sounding like a lot like modern femininity. We've had about a decade of articles claiming that we need to 'redefine masculinity for the twenty-first century.' Increasingly, people seem to be giving up on that as a bit too tough and just deciding to go with a one-size-fits-all approach. Andrew Tate became popular because, however repugnant a lot of his schtick was, he offered boys a version of something they were looking for.

Precisely why I think using "masculinity," however it is defined, as a means of identity is not helpful.

(*Shakespeare was good at coining new words for the English language, myself probably less so)

And that might work for some people. I was never particularly good with 'traditional masculinity' being short on sporting-prowess to name just one attribute. However it is dressed up in school though, some boys are aware that they are in the social group of 'men' and are going to try and make sense of that. Being told that the differences will largely take care of themselves, isn't particularly helpful for someone just shaping their identity

You're right, if their identity is allowed to be tied up in their masculinity.

nor is telling people that their identity should be entirely internal and is entirely up to them.

Not left entirely up to them, but guided by mentors and society for them to recognize their unique human qualities.

We've been talking about celebrating sexuality. The truth is all societies need to both celebrate and repress certain aspects of sexuality.

Yeah, that's precisely what got me started on this post. Reality/truth is just too damn complicated to talk about in a snappy fashion.

Western society has tended more and more towards celebrating rather than repressing since the 1960s. And while 'repression' sounds bad, as @Bramblethorn points out, there are plenty of bad activities and behaviours we do want to repress. There is always going to be a whole bunch of 'this is okay, this is not okay' rules. I don't know what Galloway means by 'celebrate male sexuality' means. Presumably he doesn't mean to green light sexual assault. Possibly he thinks that one guy turning to another and saying 'It's Friday night, lets go out and (try to) get laid.' is something that was more common in days of yore and boys are now saying to each other 'Lets stay in and play Fortnight' and not even daring to admit to each other that they'd like to be out chasing girls. Honestly, I'm too old to know exactly where the needle is and which way it needs to move.

Ditto

 

[Pabiporffor]

Perhaps they're falling behind in education because the Internet is teaching them everything they're learning at school is a government lie, and only some guy on youtube can be trusted to tell the truth.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Scott Galloway is mainly a marketing guru. He's found ways to make money from anything and everything he does. I'm not sure that everything he does isn't aimed directly at a specific market to cash in and make money. Therefore, I contend he's shooting square at the forehead of men who feel disenfranchised by the attack on the toxic male syndrome in the world. This doesn't mean he has any points that are either good or bad; he's just hitting his market, so conclusions are drawn to satisfy his market, not to effect change one way or another. He's a snake oil huckster.

 

[TheRedChamber]

@AG31

It's good that the range of identities has expanded to including things like 'gay, 'asexual', 'non-binary' By the time a boy has reached 'straight sexual male' they are probably going to be asking a few basic questions - 'How do girls see me? What kind of girls do I like? How can I make myself more attractive to (the kinds of) girls (I like)? What kinds of relationships do I want to have and when?' - This is also all going on at the same time as they are starting to make decisions about careers and possibly widening their hobbies and social life from the things they got up to as kids. The answer to those questions are probably going to make up their answer to what 'masculinity' means to them.

There's a whole range of places they can get answers from - their immediate family and friends, school, fictional media, news media and so on (and indeed these days YouTube which is a law unto itself). It's also not really clear that it's anyone's job in particular to sort people out - in many ways I'd prefer that schools stick to the alphabet, sum and a certain amount of the birds and bees rather than social engineering of any ideology.

Still, the answers to what to expect in romantic life is constantly changing -traditionally it meant a swift monogamous marriage. For those returning from World War 2, they at least could rely on their service record as a basis for any 'masculinity'. By the 1960s, you started to have the permissive society and masculinity was defined (at least in the extreme hippy circles) as free-love, experimentation and open-mindedness and arguably refusing the Vietnam draft was as masculine as accepting it. I don't think the punks of the late 1970s were ever particularly good at attracting women en-mass although there were some female punks, but their brand of anarchy was, at least, very male. By the 1980s thing were simple - money and a filofax brought you cocaine and women.

During all these periods, not many people were actually living on Haight-Ashbury or had a Wall Street Office, but for better or worse there was a zeitgeist. By the time I was of dating age in the 1990s, we were in the middle of the Lad and Laddette culture, at least in the UK. Go out and get drunk every night in your twenties, the time said, and something will happen, even if neither you or her particularly remember what it was. Then settle down once you hit your thirties.

This seems like pretty low bar socially, but it seems like the new generation isn't even hitting that. I'm not really sure what the dominant social movement image for the 2020s if it's not 'incels' The problem with saying that there are a million identites go and figure your out, is that it seems like a lot of guys aren't managing to do that. At least from what I read on-line, which is probably overblown to a certain degree.

(Sorry, life interrupting, so will post this now...)

 

[TheRedChamber]

Perhaps they're falling behind in education because the Internet is teaching them everything they're learning at school is a government lie, and only some guy on youtube can be trusted to tell the truth.

Quite possibly. Boys have always played truant at much higher rates than girls.

That boys are spending more and more time playing video games could be due to a) video games getting really really good at around the same time the outside world started getting really really shit or b) the woke agenda. Impossible to say really...

 

[DeMont]

Scott Galloway is mainly a marketing guru. He's found ways to make money from anything and everything he does. I'm not sure that everything he does isn't aimed directly at a specific market to cash in and make money. Therefore, I contend he's shooting square at the forehead of men who feel disenfranchised by the attack on the toxic male syndrome in the world. This doesn't mean he has any points that are either good or bad; he's just hitting his market, so conclusions are drawn to satisfy his market, not to effect change one way or another. He's a snake oil huckster.

@MillieDynamite,
My dear colleague, I do like the way you have of cutting through the blurb and hitting the nail square on.
I wonder, if, as an ex-patriot now residing in the U.S. I could write a book about everything that's wrong here and make a squillion off it?
Nahhhh... pipe dream!

Deeply respectful, always,
D.