The Man Question | #ForTheBoys #1
Men are at a crossroads, and society is considering 辻斬り(crossroads killing)
What the fuck is up with men?
Pedants, pundits, politicians: all three agree there is a problem with young men right now. Rarely is there such universal consensus even in the identification of a problem. In America in 2025, our only common ground is that people — and boys, specifically — are going through it.
I agree, but how do we even begin to solve The Man Question? When dealing with massive topics like sex relations and gender roles — especially in America — it is important not to paint with too broad a brush, nor overlook preparing the paints. Addressing both the current landscape and functional definitions for key terms will bring our painting to life and, like good art, give us keener insights into the world around us.
Starting off my inquiry, I did a quick database search for “young men” versus “young women.” It probably won’t surprise you that there were half a million more results — mere mentions — of young men than there were of young women. I figured this would be the case; however, I was shocked that even though both men and women were mentioned over 1,000,000 times, the disparity between the two was almost 500,000.
I will, throughout this series, define terms that are necessary for us to proceed in our analysis. Our decaying social order thrives on mystification; we combat this with precise language and direct opposition to bad ideas.
As soon as any critical thinker questions the established norms of our patriarchal, male-dominated society, in unison, cries of “NOT ALL MEN!” echo from all across the political spectrum. Debunking this kind of talking point is far from trite at this stage in the game; this familiar, resurgent ideology boils down to “I’m not actively committing a sexual assault right now, therefore, gender equality has been achieved, also I deserve praise and sex.1” According to the reactions of many men online, bare minimums of human decency should guarantee incels unlimited access to sex and sentimentality. Anything other than this is unsatisfactory and warrants violence against those who perpetuate these ‘unfair’ paradigms, i.e., women, minorities, and, this month, frozen eggs.2
I can’t stand this drivel as much as the next thinking person, but declaring fatwa against the incel population of the world only further entrenches those extremists who have fled far afield already.
What about the ‘normal male,’ though?3 Is he faring any better in this tumult?
An anecdote from my creative writing class can serve as a departure point for this investigation:
A sophomore describing her childhood friend’s personality landed on the phrases “small-minded” and “boring.” Her verdict: “basic as fuck.” Chief among her concerns was her friend’s lack of curiosity and wonder: he was mainly content with life in his small town and did not seem interested in broadening his horizons.
Now, I know both of these students well, and to hear her criticism jarred me a little bit — I mean, it’s not as if she’s knocking down the door to get to class! Despite her current grade, she actively seeks answers to questions that she is curious about, even if they are somewhat foundational and she should probably know by now.4 Our political-economy has changed since the days of the lunch-pail manufacturing job, but our understanding of the role of masculinity in society has not changed one bit.
The idea of ‘normal guys’ already is problematic: the typified ‘normal guy’ in America is generally seen as a white, middle-class male who is disaffected by modern life. However, this elides the differences between white male socialization and other American cultures, like justifiably-insular immigrant communities or continually colonized Black neighborhoods. While I have no personal experience as a member of these communities, I will say that the methods of young male radicalization can be drastically different between communities.
Because a lot of the discourse has focused on the disaffected white male youth,5 that is whom I’ll mainly be focusing on today, but my solution is naturally a COMPREHENSIVE approach that addresses the loneliness and alienation that all people are feeling because of the circumstances of our social reality. (Hint: I’m going to talk about capitalism!)
My goal is that my investigation can serve as a magnifying glass into the effects of alienation on white men specifically in order to serve as an example more generally about the broader societal effects of capitalist exploitation.
Acknowledging this section’s subheading, I want to make it clear: we are in this place of masculine morass because of our literal forefathers. I will agree with the dumbest quote of all time in this particular instance: weak men, such as Reagan, Clinton, Carter, H.W. Bush, Paul Volker, and the increasingly frail, architect of evil Joe Biden, brought us the economic circumstances we now define, like Dickens, as Hard Times. Deliberate choices influenced and guided the socio-political upheavals characteristic of capitalism in a way to destabilized the American working class (once, of course, dominated by men), leading to both the initial shift rightward of working class men and our current masculinity maelstrom.
The question should not be ‘The Man Question,’ it should be the ‘Political-Economy Question.’
Where am I coming from?
I think it is indicative that, despite my willingness to blab on about almost anything, it is tough for me to think through this piece. Masculinity and male identity and men’s roles and happiness(es) are things I have been thinking about for a long time, as I hope many men have, at least superficially. The key influences and experiences that shape my understanding of these concepts are as follows:
My parents were middle-of-the-road conservative when I was young, so I was not heavily indoctrinated like my mom now wished I had been, but there were clear boundaries: these colors are for girls, these activities are for boys, boys act like this, boys don’t cry.
I have two sisters, 50% of which are not talking with me right now. I might get into that in another post later down the line. But the importance of Kelbey and Annika on my worldview can be seen in my feminist approach to… well, everything. Seeing the expectations and tribulations that my sisters had to go through just for being girls may have contributed to some of my early radicalization against conservatism.
Formative in this process was my experience in a fraternity in college. Any single member of the frat was liable, willing, or likely to demonstrate incredible degradation and casual misogyny, perhaps without even realizing the severity of their rhetoric or actions. One of the final straws that shaped my decision to leave (besides the $500 dues) was the practice of referring to girls that were invited to the night’s party as “hole.” Despite my loneliness at the time, I found it tough to attend the function when half of the attendees were considered subhuman objects.
Most importantly, the influence of my partner, Sarah, on my persona, my actions, and my ethos cannot be overstated. I am constantly learning from her how to be a more loving and responsible person. I would not be the person I am today without her, and I may not have ever become a person at all.
I explain these influences in order to help undergird my argument: I am working from real principles that I have developed over the course of authentic connections in the same time period we are all currently existing in. Not to flex that I am some relationship-understander; on the contrary, my argument is that if even I can fucking figure out some of the basics, then almost anyone can, with patience, dedication, and good intentions.
My interest now in creating a healthier masculinity is not purely self-motivated, as maybe it was when I first started thinking through these questions. Now, as a rapidly-aging-out young man,6 as a critic of political-economy, as a teacher of many a wayward young man, and, above all, as a male feminist, I want to investigate these problems more productively. Hence, this series I’m calling For the Boys — an interrogation into American masculinity.
I have several topics in the works, but feel free to comment suggestions about particularly abusive or buoyant voices that you feel should be subject to ruthless criticism!
Where are we?
Even before the most recent election, pundits across the political spectrum have speculated on the impotence and waywardness of the American male: much of this discourse centers on the way that men and boys relate to others, from family to significant others. My experience with this kind of socialization colors my analysis, so forgive me if I am overlooking a missing perspective. As I relearn how to relate to the world — which is essential if you are to kill the patriarch in your head — I am constantly trying to decenter my perspective in favor of a myriad of analyses which address the inherent shortcomings of my preconceived perceptions. The power of a dialectical framework is its immanent growth and development; a materialist framework is doubly powerful in analyzing social relations. In keeping with this spirit, please earnestly comment and disagree or editorialize. Healthy discourse can be beneficial to developing thought, in moderation.
Virtual ink has drenched digital pages in recent years to decry the pathetic state of the Western Man, to such an extent that “Which Way Western Man?” is itself a meme, portraying the choice between fascism and liberalism as aesthetically antithetical endpoints on the same road.7
While I agree that these two ideologies are two sides of the same coin, I heartily disagree with the notion that those are the only choices offered to a Western male. Instead of aligning with destructive or reactionary tendencies, the current strand of masculinity can be ameliorated, detoxified, and channeled to a restorative and healthy politics. The answer, of course, is socialism.
I will be continually writing about these questions, examining these concepts and ideas of masculinity and speculating on what a positive masculinity could look like. As of now, the future is grim. The most popular male voice in the country is Joe Rogan, a 2nd stage Pokémon bridging the gap between homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis. Our president is a credibly-accused sexual predator (x25). States in our country are banning abortion formally after having had it de facto inaccessible for years. Two weeks ago, a fucking anti-natalist bombed an IVF clinic because of a braindead reddit ideology. Look, I am as depressed as the next guy, and I tell my mom I didn’t ask to be born for shock value, but the line must be drawn here! No further!
Also, while I may not be the best representative for the entire gender (if anyone could be), I feel as though my unique mind palace is well-furnished to host this kind of gala of horror shows. Who else you know could source this kind of combination of forces for a poetic analysis? On deck today we’ve got Octavio Paz and the inimitable $uicideBoy$.
What is manhood?
In the poem “Brotherhood,” Octavio Paz speaks from and to the soul, elucidating a key desire I believe is something that many men will never realize eats away at them: a deeply-held desire to be truly known. Because the poem is short, I will include an English translation of it here:
Brotherhood by Octavio Paz
Homage to Claudius Ptolemy
I am a man: little do I last
and the night is enormous.
But I look up:
the stars write.
Unknowing I understand:
I too am written,
and at this very moment
someone spells me out.
After I blink the tears from my eyes, I recognize myself. The man in today’s world yearns to be “spell[ed]… out,” understood in the most intimate of ways. The “enormous” night can represent an increasingly enlarging world of content, figures, and the insignificance of a single voice in the sea of darkness. Speaking as a formerly incredibly depressed non-sex-haver,8 this feeling is a very real feeling. However, it is not a feeling unique to men: this sinking feeling we are all experiencing at an increased clip is called “alienation.”
Under contemporary political-economy, capitalist relations of production inherently produce alienation: from the productive sphere to the service industry. A chicken packer and a schoolteacher, a tomato harvester and a Boeing engineer. All of these jobs to a certain extent alienate the people employed in those industries. As Marx theorizes, both confronting the produced goods and services “as alien object[s] exercising power over” workers, and confronting the social reality of our own labor as “activity which is turned against us,” subject the worker to alienation, a deprivation of the essential autonomy and will that define our humanity.
This also returns to the origin point of part of the problem: there are endless streams of rhetoric which feed into the destructive masculine ideological pipeline. The analogy that comes to mind is also from Marx’s “Estranged Labor”, where “the more man9 puts into God, the less he retains in himself;” here, now, the Firmament has been replaced by the Manosphere.
The lack of subjectivity, either due to the incomprehensibility of modern life or the degradation of the self so significantly from the mires of modern working life, echoes through the line “Unknowing I understand: I too am written.” The speaker, a man, cannot intellectually conceive of their subjectivity, but knows that “at this moment,” someone “spells [them] out,” or defines them. The poem leaves it ambiguous whether or not the speaker is happy with how they are “written,” but in the end, the “spell[ing] out” is still done by someone else.
And is this not the classic relationship with or depiction of a man that most of us feel? Trying to constantly “spell [them] out,” hoping that one day you will know of their inner thoughts, their emotions, their struggles, and waiting in vain. If someone is “Unknowing,” but “understand[ing],” then how can they make someone else know what they feel?
What is love?
“I too am written,
and at this very moment
someone spells me out.”
I recognize, here, love; bell hooks’ conception of love from M. Scott Pecks’ 1978 definition is “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” The extension of self. The commitment to the spiritual growth of another.
The man in the poem is not even aware of his nature until someone else writes him. The act of writing, an incredibly personal and individual act, presumably by his lover, or a very close family member, is the only way by which the man in the poem can access any form of self-understanding.
This is the one-sided relationship that characterizes many heterosexual relationships in Western countries: a woman committed to her husband’s spiritual growth — whether she is aware of Peck’s definition of love or not — and a husband who literally does not even know what the emotions he is feeling are called or why he is feeling them.
The Freudian paradigm that plays itself out in so many modern relationships stems from this fundamental imbalance that prioritizes male self-development at the expense of EVERY facet of feminine life, personal, spiritual, professional, etc., ad infinitum. And bafflingly, so many men straight up want to be taken care of by wife-mothers who treat them like the man-children they are.
Here’s where the $uicideBoy$ come in.
Is the best we can offer men a ‘trauma bond’?
The song that made me into a fan of the $uicideBoy$, an eclectic rap duo whose songs are definitely not for everyone, is “Are You Going to See the Rose in the Vase or the Dust on the Table?” With a title like that, I was immediately hooked. Then the song kicks on and the first verse is strangely deep and incisive into so many different things, like reflections on childhood, addiction masculinity, and the promises of success, and I knew that I would need to write about it at some point. And I think it dovetails nicely with Brotherhood, and also connects to a lot of what bell hooks writes about in ‘All About Love: New Visions,’ a treatise about the icky topic of loving someone, where I first encountered Peck’s definition of love.
As Scrim admits in “Rose,” instead of love, the “best [he] can do is a trauma bond” for a woman who wants to “get his love.” Love, even here, is the modern, diseased, capitalist concept: a concrete, discrete, transactable thing that can be obtained from someone else. Not a process that applies to the self. Not an action or process that must be actively maintained.
Unfortunately for Scrim, his “inner child” has “been dead since five,” which has prevented him from achieving any kind of real emotional or spiritual growth. How can he provide even facile love — much less “spiritual growth for [himself] or another” — when he cannot heal his aching spirit?
I think Peck’s conception of love is incredibly powerful, because it emphasizes the multifaceted nature of love, and like any good psychology concept, links back to other concepts in psychology — namely, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
What do we need?
Spiritual growth, or self-actualization, is the highest piece of the pyramid. This means that in order for love to be truly given or received, every other piece of the pyramid must be taken care of. Are most men in the world capable of providing all of these requirements by themselves?
Obviously not, and the fact that the speaker keeps “reaching out for help” shows that inadequacy. One single individual cannot be every block of someone else’s Maslow’s pyramid: things like “prestige,” “friendships”10 and “achieving creative potential” cannot be realized in a single, one-to-one relationship. Humans are social creatures, and if society is dysfunctional, unfulfilling, and actually actively corrosive, then these higher-order needs are unattainable, even if you have “access” to the amount of sex that you “need.”11
Scrim’s poignant line speaks to what many men learn from a young age — “I was always told that boys don’t cry,” following up with how many men feel their entire lives due to these expectations: “Why am I so broke inside?” The inability to spiritually grow, that stifling of childhood emotion that is unique to young males, precludes the extension of the self; to extend outward is to risk hurt. The fully feeling self, we are told, is something to bury and hide away, hiding behind “Percocet amnesia” — the modern alcoholism analogue — to dispel the pain of (self-)rejection. Allowable “emotions” are rage, mirth, horny, hungry. Anything else? Bottle it up.
When there’s no self there originally, it’s impossible to extend one’s self as a cultivator of spiritual growth. All that can be achieved is blind rage or a shared pain that can’t be ever addressed.
Where are we going? Where should we go?
For this section, when I say “you,” I am directly talking to any person who identifies as with or upholds the power of the male gender in Western capitalist countries. If the “you” does not apply to you directly, feel free to let me know what you think about my analysis. If it does apply to you, then please read this as a generic prescription to consider your roles, actions, behaviors, relationships, and assumptions. As Marx said, “shame is a revolution in itself;” once you begin to examine the contradictions in your own life, you will begin
I don’t think that starting your journey to a stronger self has to begin internally. It also doesn’t necessarily need to begin from a political radicalization, but that can be a strong starting point, especially because strong moral convictions that you identify with can be more powerful than even social shaming in causing behavioral changes. But, I digress: my
However, that cannot be the end of the process. Your self should be the first vertex in the development matrix, but should always be returned to.
The goal, following Peck’s definition of love, is to be able to “will” yourself to “extend [your] self” to “nurture” yours “or another’s spiritual growth.” That spiritual growth doesn’t appear spontaneously like Athena from Zeus. It must be cultivated through honest self-reflection, dedicated practice, and curious study.
If I can encourage one thing — to everyone — it would be to resurrect that “inner child.” Wonder again. Why aren’t things better? Why aren’t we nice to each other? How can we build a better world?
You should not retreat back into yourself, cut yourself off, or entrench yourself further into stagnant, deleterious mental and behavioral patterns. Numbing yourself off to the possibility of growth, which is frequently painful, can be a potent shield against external assaults from an uncaring world. But your soul will still fester.
Fear not, the world is changing because it always has, always will.
So should you.
-hanz hanon
Further exploration:
“Estranged labor”, Karl Marx (treatise, 1844) - absolutely essential prerequisite to understanding the modern, capitalist-colonized psyche. Marx outlines the material processes that contribute to the psychological and subconscious degradation of the modern subject.
“The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” Gabriel García Márquez (short story, 1968) - study this society: this is how we should live. How can we make our world better for the ones we love?
Mashle: Magic and Muscles, Hajime Kōmoto (manga/anime 2020-2023/23-?) - through the layers of Harry Potter parody and silliness, the main character, Mash, evinces an overwhelming violence to crush the system that seeks to exterminate people like him. Compared to the liberal, Naruto, Mashle represents a revolutionary critique of society, particularly commenting on disability rights. Violence, here, is as Fanon describes in The Wretched of the Earth, the only means of communication that the colonizer/oppressor respects.
Thanks for reading, stay tuned for more next week!
I appreciate all of the encouragement!! Since I started writing more frequently, I have noticed I am thinking clearly again. I almost forgot I taught my students this 8 months ago: writing is a tool for thinking and vice versa.
This summer, I intend to dedicate even more of my time to writing. Once again, I am so grateful for anyone that made it this far (and even if you just made it here 3 months from when I published it)!
in solidarity,
-hanson
We will deal with this piece next week. If you’d like to read ahead, however, the thesis of “Men Aren’t Assholes…” is that literally women should frequently, more often than they would like to, “give access” to sex to their male partners, if men are “attentive” in return. Despite the inanity, there is a serious contingent of men who believe things like this or worse. It’s not full-on ‘the Stacies and Chads want to hoard all the sex,’ but it’s too close for any degree of comfort.
Eliot Roger’s massacre was infamous, but he was not the only one. Many have expressed violently misogynist worldviews, including the recent IVF clinic bomber. Almost all mass shooters expressly state misanthropic worldviews, a notable exception being the recent Israeli Embassy shooting, which was allegedly done in protest of Israel’s genocide.
When discussing feminist theory, especially the concept of misogyny, which is a structural phenomenon that the normal male upholds if not consciously acting in pro-feminist ways, I draw on Manne’s Down Girl: The Logic of Feminism (2019), but critiquing her original lens by centering an explicitly Marxist analytical framework. I highly recommend Foley’s Marxist Literary Criticism Today (2019) for its deceptively practical descriptions and applications of Marxist critical frameworks to various non-literary contexts.
For example, this same student asked me to explain to her ‘where does all the trash go?’
Whether it is because they are the avatars of the white-male owners of society, or it is because they are the most likely next Hitler Youth, media and academic inquiry focused on them more significantly than perhaps any other demographic in terms of their potential for “radicalization” or “disaffection.”
27 counts as young still, right??
The meme’s question comes from the title of a 1978 white supremacist book of the same name… cool!
I don’t think the now-overused appellation of ‘incel’ applied to me; generally this signals some kind of noxious or reactionary political alignment, which, despite everything, I managed to escape.
“man (sic)”; “he (sic)”; “himself (sic)”; so as not to clog the quote, I’ll place this here. Marx has been critiqued by modern and contemporary philosophers such as Silvia Federici, among others, for his lack of consideration of women’s contributions to labor movements, and frequently categorized their labor alongside that of children that should paternalistically be regulated more significantly than that of ‘men’s’ labor, whatever that means. Other complications of Marx’s work include his treatment of ‘Asiatic modes of production,’ but I digress. He is still the preeminent political-economic theorist in regards to the capitalist system and its continued effects on human society.
In April, Dick Suckerberg said on a podcast that the average American has a “demand” for 15 friends, which someone (I think J.P. Hill from New Means, but I’m not 100%) said was very striking: the now 2nd richest man in the world describing interpersonal relationships in the context of supply/demand. Revolting! Quote source.
This rape-y language around sex — that women need to “give men access to sex” — comes from “Men Aren’t Assholes, They Just Need Sex,” the subject of criticism for next week’s For The Boys. Do not read this psychotic essay unless you have a strong tolerance for