The 'boys' debate does seem to have been rolling on for a very long time, but I guess that's a consequence of the very large change in role and expectation for them that society has been (rightly) undergoing. I get the sense though that every author seems to treat the problem as in some way novel, as if there were a point in time in the past when men/boys were mentally healthier. This certainly seems to be the implication from the right. But one look at suicide rates over time (as a very crude measure) will tell you men have long had issues. Just looking at my own cohort, largely middle-class blokes born in the late 70s, the percentage of my peers who have dealt with serious mental health issues seems incredibly high. I don't think eating quiche was the cause.
All that said, I welcome ideas for what we do about it. And I agree the burden probably falls on boys/men. Unfortunately, institutions that put grown men in charge of giving boys a moral education have a somewhat... checkered past. But we need some counter to the Andrew Tates and Jordan Petersons of the world. Can we give Harry Styles the job? Better him than Bear Grylls.
I don't understand what's wrong with Jordan Peterson as a role model? Before he was villianized in the media and molded his commentary to that antagonistic response, he was a good voice for lost young men. I don't forsee a politically leftwing public mentor whose capable of speaking to men without castigating them to be more feminist and more like girls.
No, before he was villainised in the media he was writing incredibly long works of eccentric theology conceptualising the feminine as "chaos" to which the masculine must bring "order" and arguing publicly that feminism had gone too far. The topline stuff from ten rules is fine and good (tidy your room, stand up straight, pet a cat), but the more sinister aspect has always been in him. Some of the criticism of him from the left has been too broad (Cathy Newman's interview was notably poor) but the left is not responsible for him dressing like the joker and buddying up to autocrats: he is, and the personal philosophy he espouses is entirely inimical to the kind of explanation you're reaching for.
I get what you mean here, I also found much of his philosophy irrating and reductionist when it came to gender (The hero journey is intended to be universal) I thought he was best off not speaking about women at all especially since it became clickbait. Meanwhile I found his criticism of corporate liberal feminism obnoxious because there was much to agree with I just wish it was a woman saying it! But in terms of speaking to men, the news media decided that its self was suspect, rightwing and not allowed. It was in the ether during that moment that as a whole men were bad and to say anything good about men as a group was forbidden.
"Feminism worked for women because women already had the deeply ingrained habit of looking after themselves, and each other. The more men acquire the same facility, the less, perhaps, we will need to talk about masculinity as a crisis."
The vegan murder death cult is WAY weirder than what's in The Independent. Their article barely dips its toes into those murky depths. https://open.substack.com/pub/maxread/p/the-zizians-and-the-rationalist-death That they are almost all men who identify as women ties it into the rest of this newsletter, doesn't it...
Just seen this one, not having been on Sarah's substack for a while. Really interesting article - thanks.
I think maybe you're a little unkind to Steve Biddulph. My ex-wife and I both read and liked his book when we were parents of two young boys 20+ years ago. What I remember taking from it was the importance of fathers doing their proper share of bringing up children, and particularly on ensuring that their sons showed respect and compassion to their mothers and other women, and being very firm with them when they didn't. (Of course this may reflect my concerns and preoccupations at the time as a newish dad...) I can see there is a side to Biddulph that can come across as anti-feminist (or at least non-feminist) but as I say that's not how I read it at the time.
The 'boys' debate does seem to have been rolling on for a very long time, but I guess that's a consequence of the very large change in role and expectation for them that society has been (rightly) undergoing. I get the sense though that every author seems to treat the problem as in some way novel, as if there were a point in time in the past when men/boys were mentally healthier. This certainly seems to be the implication from the right. But one look at suicide rates over time (as a very crude measure) will tell you men have long had issues. Just looking at my own cohort, largely middle-class blokes born in the late 70s, the percentage of my peers who have dealt with serious mental health issues seems incredibly high. I don't think eating quiche was the cause.
All that said, I welcome ideas for what we do about it. And I agree the burden probably falls on boys/men. Unfortunately, institutions that put grown men in charge of giving boys a moral education have a somewhat... checkered past. But we need some counter to the Andrew Tates and Jordan Petersons of the world. Can we give Harry Styles the job? Better him than Bear Grylls.
I don't understand what's wrong with Jordan Peterson as a role model? Before he was villianized in the media and molded his commentary to that antagonistic response, he was a good voice for lost young men. I don't forsee a politically leftwing public mentor whose capable of speaking to men without castigating them to be more feminist and more like girls.
No, before he was villainised in the media he was writing incredibly long works of eccentric theology conceptualising the feminine as "chaos" to which the masculine must bring "order" and arguing publicly that feminism had gone too far. The topline stuff from ten rules is fine and good (tidy your room, stand up straight, pet a cat), but the more sinister aspect has always been in him. Some of the criticism of him from the left has been too broad (Cathy Newman's interview was notably poor) but the left is not responsible for him dressing like the joker and buddying up to autocrats: he is, and the personal philosophy he espouses is entirely inimical to the kind of explanation you're reaching for.
I get what you mean here, I also found much of his philosophy irrating and reductionist when it came to gender (The hero journey is intended to be universal) I thought he was best off not speaking about women at all especially since it became clickbait. Meanwhile I found his criticism of corporate liberal feminism obnoxious because there was much to agree with I just wish it was a woman saying it! But in terms of speaking to men, the news media decided that its self was suspect, rightwing and not allowed. It was in the ether during that moment that as a whole men were bad and to say anything good about men as a group was forbidden.
"Feminism worked for women because women already had the deeply ingrained habit of looking after themselves, and each other. The more men acquire the same facility, the less, perhaps, we will need to talk about masculinity as a crisis."
Thank you for this!!! Such a crucial insight.
Glad to hear feminism worked.
I’m totally bemused by the name “Zizians”, considering what “zizi” means in French slang.
The vegan murder death cult is WAY weirder than what's in The Independent. Their article barely dips its toes into those murky depths. https://open.substack.com/pub/maxread/p/the-zizians-and-the-rationalist-death That they are almost all men who identify as women ties it into the rest of this newsletter, doesn't it...
Blocked & Reported podcast #247 goes all the way through the Zizians / Ziz story beyond what the Independent has, if you're looking for more on that.
Just seen this one, not having been on Sarah's substack for a while. Really interesting article - thanks.
I think maybe you're a little unkind to Steve Biddulph. My ex-wife and I both read and liked his book when we were parents of two young boys 20+ years ago. What I remember taking from it was the importance of fathers doing their proper share of bringing up children, and particularly on ensuring that their sons showed respect and compassion to their mothers and other women, and being very firm with them when they didn't. (Of course this may reflect my concerns and preoccupations at the time as a newish dad...) I can see there is a side to Biddulph that can come across as anti-feminist (or at least non-feminist) but as I say that's not how I read it at the time.