America is facing a crisis of masculinity. Dealing with economic downturn, addiction, social exclusion, and diminished prospects, disillusioned men are looking for answers.
Scott Galloway is an articulate, successful and confident commentator who has positioned himself as the voice of this growing demographic.
By coining new terms like “aspirational masculinity,” Galloway exploits the crisis rather than offering a deeper, more original understanding of it.
Raised by a single mother, Galloway is no stranger to adversity, and his rise to fame lends credence to his call for resilience and self-improvement. He offers solid advice to men. Save money, develop a strong work ethic, find and commit to a skill or technique, exercise, and don't numb yourself with porn. All of these tips are laudable and necessary, but they can't be called revolutionary.
This is Galloway's paradox. His advice is practical and important, but it often feels like repackaged common sense. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Sometimes people need to be reminded of the basics. But it is the authority with which he states the obvious that allows him to slip into less favorable ideas.
common sense like a trojan horse
It's hard to argue with Galloway's emphasis on basic principles like saving money and staying fit. These are universal truths that can improve your life, especially for young men looking for direction.
But such advice is neither new nor unique to him. That's what fathers, coaches and mentors have been telling young people for generations. This lack of depth doesn't completely discredit Galloway, but it does raise the question of why he appeals to audiences so much.
I think the answer lies in his ability to use this mundane foundation as a Trojan horse to smuggle more damaging narratives.
Recently discussion Galloway, along with comedian Theo Fung, argued that masculinity is a social construct, a statement that undermines the very crisis he claims to be addressing.
Masculinity is not a construct. It is rooted in biology and evolution. Testosterone promotes traits such as risk-taking, competitiveness, and dominance. These traits have been essential for survival and resource acquisition for thousands of years.
Cultural norms influence how masculinity is expressed, but the underlying biological framework cannot be denied. Across cultures, men have been leaders, protectors, and providers, not because society arbitrarily determined them to be so, but because these traits were adaptive.
However, the narrative of masculinity as a mere social construct has been shaped and defended by universities. As a professor himself, Galloway is both a product and a participant in this academic culture. We'll get to his mission and its implications later, but by framing masculinity as a construct, he risks alienating the very audience he's trying to empower. Moreover, he dilutes the urgency to address the real challenges facing men today.
Anger against machines?
Galloway is incredibly in love with his voice and likes to promote himself as a rebellious truth-teller who isn't afraid to challenge society's narrative.
However, 60 years old also employee New York University is a university that has strived for many years. Nonsense and quite harmful storyincluding the scourge of “toxic masculinity.” omnipresent presence About “white privilege.” In other words, Galloway is not an outsider taking on the system. He's just part of it.
For years, New York University and institutions like it have carried out unapologetic and unforgivable abuses against American men, especially white men. These universities have fostered a culture that denigrates traditional masculinity and imposes ideological conformity. All in the name of progress, of course.
Galloway's association with such institutions calls into question his credibility as a champion of men, and his critiques have been criticized for their permissiveness as defined by the very systems he claims to be criticizing. It raises the uncomfortable possibility that it has been carefully curated to fit within the range of possible discourses. He's more Judith Butler than Jordan Peterson.
ambitious masculinity
Galloway recently started promote The concept is “Aspirational masculinity”.
While not as blatantly nonsensical as “toxic masculinity,” it makes the same fundamental mistake. There is no such thing as aspirational masculinity, just as there is no such thing as toxic masculinity.
We have masculinity and femininity. These are biological realities shaped by evolution. Just as there are toxic traits such as cowardice and cruelty, there are ambitious qualities men can embrace, such as courage, discipline, and resilience. However, these qualities exist separately from masculinity itself.
Masculinity is neither inherently good nor bad. It simply is. Attempting to redefine it with modifiers like “ambitious” and “toxic” risks confusing the conversation and further alienating the very men Galloway claims to support.
One might wonder if Galloway, as a professor of marketing, is wise enough to use the phrase “aspirational masculinity” as a clever branding tool to promote his upcoming book on the subject. No, but he made that clear in a recent interview with Von.
Here his critique becomes more of a commercial pitch. By coining new terms like “aspirational masculinity,” Galloway exploits the crisis rather than offering a deeper, more original understanding of it.
Plant-based pandering
Another questionable aspect of Galloway's advice is that his promotion A plant-based diet.
To be clear, this does not mean that you need to eat five chickens and three cows every day to achieve true manliness. However, proper diet is the foundation of good health, and without good health no one, or any human being, can aspire to be the best version of themselves.
A plant-based diet that completely eliminates meat-based proteins is dangerous and destructive to your health. The guy who survives on avocado toast and lentil soup is not the guy you call when the proverbial shit hits the fan. Meat provides essential nutrients such as high-quality protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, which are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate with plant-based alternatives.
Moderation and balance are important, but Galloway's promotion of such a dietary ideology seems more in line with a trending health movement than with the practical advice he advocates.
The need for better role models
Galloway's willingness to insert feminist-friendly narratives, highlight LGBTQ issues, promote plant-based diets, and invent new terms like “aspirational masculinity” creates contradictory and sometimes incoherent messages. Masu.
Why should straight men, already suffering from disillusionment and isolation, turn to movements and ideologies that belittle or denigrate traditional masculinity? Including these points feels more like a strategic attempt to avoid controversy than to seriously address the issue at hand.
The crisis of masculinity cannot be resolved by undermining its biological foundations or conflating it with ideologies that often run counter to traditional male experience. Men no longer need to feel guilty or forced to adopt a narrative that ignores their lived reality. They need role models who celebrate their strengths and offer practical solutions without compromising their identity.
True role models will reject the notion that masculinity is a social construct and instead celebrate the biological and evolutionary traits that have shaped men for centuries. They will focus on fostering purpose, resilience, and accountability without straying into unnecessary ideological territory.
Galloway's upcoming book on the crisis of masculinity may offer insightful insights, but I have my doubts. Unless he reveals his meandering message, it will never reach the hearts of the people he claims to represent.
Sure, he'll probably get glowing reviews from CNN, where he's a regular guest, and the New York Times. there's no secret It shows his disdain for the average American man.
And that's the real problem. Galloway pretends to be speaking to American men, but he's actually preaching to the same machine he's a part of, a machine that has ground masculinity into the ground for far too long. That's what I'm doing.
