Men of the Future

Note from the author: This essay makes no policy proposal argument and should not be read in light of current events.

“Where am I when I’m not in reality or in my imagination? Here’s my new pact: it must be sunny at night and snowy in August. Great things end. Small things endure. Society must become united again instead of so disjointed. Just look at nature and you’ll see that life is simple. We must go back to where we were, to the point where we took the wrong turn. We must return to the fundamental principles of life without polluting the water. What kind of world is this if a madman tells you you must be ashamed of yourselves!”
— Andrei Tarkovsky’s ‘Nostalghia’ (1983)

For the vast majority of human history, masculinity was never a matter of debate. Countless wars have been fought by masculine men who would then be free to redefine the purpose of Man, but rarely the definition of masculinity. To the extent that a victor was able to redefine it, it was through his own people’s interpretation of his character. If you were promiscuous as a king, then your people could adopt a lustful understanding of masculinity.

A similar logic plays out in the great works of literature. In Homer’s epic The Iliad, the rivalry between Achilles and Hector can be seen as a direct or subconscious attempt to depict the archetypal masculine man. However, at no point do the characters argue about the subject itself; instead, it is through their actions—and ultimately, direct conflict—that the answer emerges. Most notably, neither of the characters led factions interested in proving the other wrong.

This is true of literature as well as history. The only way to redefine masculinity was to let masculinity compete. So why hasn’t the increasingly crowded online manosphere yet managed to crown a victor, given years of competition between its members?

We tend to think of online rivalries between men as competition, but male competition on social media is near impossible. As I pointed out in “No Honor Among Mutuals”, in which I look at how the nature of social media and its incentives are preventing character development among young men:

Because online confrontations lack the threat of physical violence, they cannot be “masculine”. In the realm of the virtual, the only way to escalate a confrontation is to engage in forms of essentially feminine violence: emotional bullying, innuendo, gossip, and group exclusion. This is why all online spaces eventually tend to manifest an anti-masculine dynamic.

The crisis of masculinity isn’t a direct result of social media. We are all aware of and recognize feminism as a major contributor to the problem, courtesy of the thousands of essays, books, YouTube videos, TikTok videos, podcast episodes, conferences, Twitter debates, podcast debates, and YouTube debates, all trying to nail the problem.

But what if that’s the problem?

The idea that an online debate can get us any closer to determining what makes a masculine man would be to assume that Dana White could direct the sequel to Pride and Prejudice. This doesn’t mean debate cannot involve two masculine men, but that no steps towards establishing a “reasonable” definition of masculinity can be accomplished in an environment that removes fundamental prerequisites for masculine competition.

The “Change My Mind” discussion format popular on US college campuses is counterintuitive to this effect. Conservatives often view it as an example of a civilized society. But the format is only civilized to the extent that it does not respond to real-life incentives. When the host sits down, he does so as a social media personality. Similarly, his opponent is looking for his 5 minutes of fame. The reason the discussion never devolves into a physical confrontation has little to do with mutual respect and more to do with the fact that the environment in which the confrontation is taking place is technically online. Consider how often the contenders mock each other: what’s civilized about two men berating each other for half an hour?

This is not an argument in favor of violence (that one will come later), nor for physical strength being the central element of healthy masculinity. If anything, it’s the opposite: verbal confrontations between men in the real world carry the risk of devolving into a physical confrontation. Hence, the incentive in real life is to find common ground. But online is the other way around, with no apparent repercussions:

If someone disagrees with you [on the timeline], you could try to de-escalate or talk in private, but that’s not how to farm engagement. The incentive is always to escalate—and not only to escalate, but to seek out disagreements in the first place.

Society’s obsession with Reason (or at least Reasonable society’s obsession with Reason) also prevents us from defining masculinity.

Stories play an essential role in shaping character, particularly in children. We tell stories to kids long before their prefrontal cortex is fully developed because, while they can’t yet wrestle with ideas, they can already grasp archetypes. A 7-year-old boy waving a sword in the backyard doesn’t understand the virtue of honor (i.e., he cannot make an argument for it), but he can still enact the role of a knight, the same way a daughter can’t articulate motherhood but can still play ‘house’.

Neither is ‘copying’ adults, however; to copy would be just to repeat words or mirror body language. What children do is a lot more sophisticated: they extract qualities such as bravery and care from observing adults or fictional characters without being taught how to do so, and begin incorporating them and even enacting them before understanding their value—in other words, before seeing a ‘reason’ to. This process continues well into adulthood and remains true for adults long after our brains are capable of reasoning.

This is where social media comes into play to screw everything up.

Few 12-year-olds today are given a sword to wave in their backyard. Instead, they can easily enter an online community of like-minded fans. When they do, they’re thrust into an environment that completely reverses the learning process. “10 Reasons Why Iron Man is stronger than Captain America.” The introduction of Reason into the subconscious process of character development trumps character development because intellect is tricky. Consider how intellectuals often assume that “objectivity” is the sole metric for evaluating morality, while rarely living up to it. It can be challenging to think critically, even when one is very self-aware. In other words, the likelihood that children can understand virtue and morality on YouTube more effectively than on their own is very low.

By the time a young man becomes interested in learning about manliness online, he becomes subject to influencers incentivized to accrue more followers. And what better way to lead the debate on masculinity than to point towards oneself? Young men’s natural capacity to extract and integrate archetypal representations of manliness is impeded by the influencers’ tendencies to point towards themselves, and themselves only, as role models. By doing so, the archetypal abstraction process in the listener is blocked, replaced by the collective “culture war” mindset of influencer culture.

The introduction of academics and intellectuals into the competition only exacerbates the situation. Conservative institutions have published countless symposiums over the past decade in an attempt to define masculinity. But the authors are typically middle-aged family men with academic backgrounds (no offense), and they are operating under the same incentives as the influencers. Thus, they tend to look down on masculinity gurus and resort to basic masculine qualities such as fatherhood or rationality. Once again: pointing towards themselves.

Lastly, once factions of young men are created online, they become subject to the same incentives as the influencers who initially drew them in. It’s not about learning anymore; it’s about competing with a different group to rise higher within the cult’s ranks. The natural process of character development through inspiration is thus overshadowed by an algorithm that rewards toxic feminine behavior in an inverted hierarchy, where genuine masculine competition is made nearly impossible, and the lessons from competition are lost in translation.

Ultimately, this is how you get the online manosphere: a movement led by self-obsessed influencers with legions of adolescent men fighting against each other like teenage girls in an attempt to define what makes a man, constantly looked down on an ecosystem of academics who wouldn’t defend their ideas against a drunk teenager, made even worse by the introduction of even more self-obsessed women (and gays) into the discussion—not to mention the wonderful contribution of gender-studies professors—all taking place in a reverse-engineered environment trumping character development.

Ever wondered why the longer we debate the crisis of masculinity, the deeper the crisis? Perhaps the reason is that reason doesn’t work. Who’s gonna win between [@]Achilles and [@]Hector? Neither, because Achilles and Hector didn’t have Twitter followings.

***

“True strength lies not in the arm but in the soul.’
— Yamamoto Tsunetomo

1. Practice phone calls over texting.

Men don’t like the word ‘vulnerability’ because it has become synonymous with being ‘emotional’, when it’s really all about being real: knowing who you are and being comfortable with it. Text-communication apps are the most effective anti-vulnerability tool ever devised. It is nearly impossible to be 100% vulnerable online, as by the time you’re done texting, the initial emotion your body language would have revealed in real life has been replaced by your desire to project an ideal version of yourself. One way to reverse this habit is to practice phone calls over texting, without giving your friends notice. Hint: A non-masculine person is unlikely to be comfortable with it. Think twice before becoming friends with them. They’re either insecure or manipulative, or both. Anything you want to communicate is faster via phone than via text, so if they pretend to be too busy every time, they’re lying. (They could also be shy, in which case, it’s only cute if it’s a girl. Or just hate phone calls?) Additionally, if you need to text, don’t use emojis. They’re silly and rarely convey your real reaction. Over time, you’ll forget how to be genuine. Ex: When’s the last time you used “lol” and were actually laughing out loud?

P.S. Of course, the ultimate goal is always to meet people in real life.

2. Never judge a man based on his political opinions.

Your political stances say little about your character and worth, as establishing a person’s morality from politics depends on their motivations. You can have two individuals with the same political opinions but with two completely different characters; do you love your country, or do you just hate the Left? Furthermore, as mentioned above, the more a person is inclined to think for a living, the more they can delude themselves into believing they are superior to others. This is not always the case, as thinking about questions involving morality obviously helps and is necessary to become a better person. But pay attention to how a person behaves. If he preaches “understanding” but spends his days criticizing everything and everyone, he’s likely motivated by envy or pride or both, rather than care. Character always trumps ideology, and until you have taken on significant responsibilities, such as starting a family, a business, or practicing what you preach in general, all you really have are opinions. Having a consistent set of ‘takes’ online can be a useful exercise, but nothing more than that if untested.

3. Stop reading self-help books.

Self-help can help, but it’s usually cheating. This varies depending on the book, but self-help often prescribes reverse psychology techniques rather than genuine character-building. The pick-up artist industry is the perfect example. Pick-up artists are generally incapable of charming a woman. All they learn, and then teach, is how to trick a woman into thinking she’s charmed via a set of premeditated rituals, such as the use of specific words and body language (pickup artists are the most confident, insecure people you’ll ever meet). Self-help books, in general, often operate under the same philosophy: they are less about learning to be vulnerable and more about convincing yourself and others that you are happy (happiness should be eliminated from your vocabulary; meaning, and joy that comes from meaning, is what you want). There are exceptions to this, but this is usually the rule in the self-help world: the “self” parts stand for ‘selfish’. Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung is not just a better alternative: he’s the antithesis of the self-help industry.

4. Learn to throw (and take) a punch.

This is less about learning to fight and more about testing yourself, as well as learning to develop mutual respect. The biggest character lessons you’ll ever learn as a young man will come as a result of a physical confrontation. You won’t be able to establish reasonable boundaries between yourself and another person until you’ve been in one, and you will always fail to be respected. This isn’t Tyler Durden philosophy (although Tyler Durden is undoubtedly a great antidote to the internet creature), it’s just 101 advice for boys. No man who has never been punched before will ever truly respect another man. I say this as someone who has lost most of the fights I’ve gotten into. Each taught me something very valuable, and in most cases, made me a better person, bringing me closer to my rival instead of further antagonizing them. The mutual respect comes from realizing where the boundaries are rather than from determining who’s physically superior, so it doesn’t work if you’re looking to start a fight (though I suppose it can be fun). It’s all about learning to stand up for yourself when the opportunity presents itself. Playing sports helps, as physical confrontation is par for the course.

5. Never order a Cosmopolitan.

As the bartender in Martin Scorsese’s The Departed puts it: “What, do you got your period?” Ordering a drink should be a manly exercise, too, no different than working out at the gym. Juicy, summer drinks are for women. Negronis are instead harder to get to the bottom of, and they mostly taste like shit. This is why I drink them—because even La Dolce Vita for a man needs a touch of bitterness to be enjoyable. Any Martini cocktail is better than a Long Island. They are also excellent digestives, whereas spirit mixers and refreshing drinks are for people who want to get drunk without experiencing pain. Also, please, never use a straw, especially for Negronis. And don’t order Vespers unless you’re a handsome British secret service agent with a supermodel waiting for you in your hotel room upstairs, okay? L-A-R-P.

P.S. This is also one of the central tenets of Christian Futurism (full manifesto coming soon).

P.P.S. You’re not taking this one too literally, are you?

6. Only buy furniture if you have a girlfriend.

Furniture in your apartment has the purpose of making your everyday environment more pleasing and comfortable for other people, not for yourself. If you don’t have a girlfriend, there’s no purpose in buying furniture. Just get a couple of chairs, a table, and a bed. It’s all you need. (No sofa, either.) The only acceptable exception is if you’re a genuine interior design enthusiast and use your furniture as a creative or aesthetic exercise. I know a few men who do. Or, if you work remotely, in which case you should definitely afford yourself a cocktail table for the single malt Scotch. But more than that? Gay. If your friends are regularly coming to visit you, they can sit on the floor. If you’re mum does, you can sit on the floor. Simple as that. (Also, not TV, of course). If you have books in your apartment, hide them from view when recording a podcast. They are for you, and no one believes you’ve actually read them anyway.

7. Dress well as a form of respect.

Don’t dress up for vanity or ambition. Dressing up should be a humbling exercise. If you’re going to get a drink at the Ritz Hotel, dress well, but do it as a form of respect to the great men of the past (I say “of the past,” because genuinely aristocratic people are hard to come across today.) ” Fake it until you make it” is also cheating because you’re not learning to be classy or aristocratic, you’re only mirroring the habits, rituals, and behaviors of your favorite TV series. Reflect on the environment you’re in, and observe people who are comfortable in it, much like a child abstracts virtues from watching or reading about fictional characters…