Of Mics and Men
Something Different
Taking something of a departure from our usual content. But in the spirit of writing whatever is on my mind and delivering 500 words a day of novel content here we go.
I recently listened to this podcast:
The entire episode was interesting and data-driven but there was a discussion at the end that I wanted to highlight here. tldr; emphasis mine.
EZRA KLEIN: …a question I’m very interested in was what a Jordan Peterson of the left looks like…
RICHARD REEVES:
…It’s the third element [not just toxic and transgressive]. It’s the extent to which Peterson or Tate and/or others are providing advice, honest conversation, feels like they’re just being candid in their writing, that’s the bit we should try and replace in a way that is still recognizably masculine.
…So the trick here is try and meet that part of the demand. And that, I think, is doable. I don’t know how. I don’t have a how yet, maybe you do…
And then another one is, I really just want some help. Like, how do I date? How do I navigate this world? What should I do — like advice, essentially, so the uncle, if you like, the advice column from the uncle, or brother, or cousin. And actually, I think the consumers of some of these people are depending on — especially if they’re older — are able to make some of those distinctions…
It’s the extent to which Peterson or Tate and/or others are providing advice, honest conversation, feels like they’re just being candid in their writing, that’s the bit we should try and replace in a way that is still recognizably masculine…
It is extremely individualistic in the way it responds to these problems — right, the famous Jordan Peterson “clean your room, make your bed” advice. But also, people live life as individuals. And they want to hear something they can do now.
I’ve sadly become much more aware of fringes of the manosphere as it seeps through the seams of culture on dating ,exercise, productivity, memes, and general social media amplified and propelled by unscrupulous actors and useful idiots.
I tend to agree with the diagnosis and prescription presented by Ezra and Reeves. There is a real problem. And I think it’s an interesting and lacking conversation what a viable alternative is to the current crop of toxic influencers. At the level of public figures, two contemporary inspirations spring to mind: Andrew Huberman and Nick Cave.
Andrew Huberman addresses a piece of the first by being a strongly-platformed, very masculine man— bearded, gravelly, imposing, hyper-motivated. And I think addresses some of the desire for a personal responsibility model but stripped of the misogyny and culture war baggage of figures like Tate and Petersen.
Nick Cave’s The Red Hand Files on the other side, I’m particularly thinking about this one presents some of the vulnerability, honesty, and unexpected depth. Here is a total non-expert dealing with emotion and pathos and whether the response is correct or incorrect really engaging at a very raw, emotional level with someone else’s experience and offering an empathetic, positive humanistic response.
Neither one of these role models is perfect.
Huberman is surprisingly able to present a good amount of vulnerability and empathy in his public persona. He has the walking the walk down as being an accomplished, dedicated role model has a different mission of science education. But, while that effort may occasionally touch on his own experiences, his main goal is communicating scientific knowledge for personal growth rather than providing a specific model and mentorship. You could use his information and personal asides to build a DIY model for certain aspects of rational, individual living but you’re building with lego and will need to fill the gaps yourself.
And, while I’m sure there is absolutely a small subset of young men who idolize Nick Cave, the extemporizing, emotionally raw, poetic soul perhaps lacks mainstream appeal. This message seems more resonate with an audience more seasoned and weathered by the time and tide of life with a preexisting proclivity towards a certain type of poetic prose.
So what does our synthesis look like?
Genuinely male perspective. While there may be a place for more general humanism our focus should be to address the prompt and provide a clearly targeted and recognizably masculine perspective and content. We’re not trying to outdo the competition on biceps, broads, and bravado but provide another model for living.
Candid and deep. While “nothing is off-limits” reeks of the tabloids this is exactly where we want to be. An effective counterweight to the PUA and manosphere is engaging with the messiness of gender, growth, and social navigation.
Individualistic and actionable. While no one loves process and systems thinking more than I do, I think it’s a fair critique that one of the places most classically liberal advice falls short is in presenting a framework for individual ownership and growth.
Empirical but inspirational. We want a perspective that remains grounded in reality, but we also wants something that speaks to subjective experience and real travails, and ideally it would be nice to be able to speak to some of the rich depth of subjective experience without an overt appeal to the numinous.
I don’t possess any particular qualification except having lived with middling success as a male, being willing to engage in honest introspection and exploration, and being the beneficiary of a robust group of peers I respect. But, this makes me wonder if there is a market for a podcast that presents a more humanistic alternative version of masculinity.
So what do you think about this idea? Other practitioners or role models that should be considered? Do you think this is a real problem in need of a solution? Do you think there’s a market for the kind of content suggested?
