Scott Galloway is a marketing professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, as well as a podcast host, entrepreneur and author. He is also a devoted husband and a father to two boys. His latest book, “Notes on Being a Man,” was published in November of last year. Known for his provocative but thoughtfully formed ideas about society, politics and technology, among other things, he aligns with center-left politics to promote economic and political reform to address issues such as income inequality. His informed take on toxic masculinity is perhaps his most controversial argument yet.
For starters, he denies that “toxic masculinity” as it’s commonly understood, exists. He proposes a new way of framing the conversation, saying in an interview with Oprah, “I think there’s cruelty, there’s abuse of power, there’s violence, but masculinity is supposed to get in the way of those things.” He reiterates this point on the podcast Modern Wisdom, hosted by Chris Williamson; “[We’ve] conflated coarseness and cruelty with masculinity.” By Galloway’s estimate, true masculinity is designed to be a roadblock to destructive behavior and a proponent of continual personal improvement. Furthermore, he believes that when society starts loosely peddling the phrase toxic masculinity without thinking critically about the consequences, it creates a divide between men and women, nurturing an “us against them” mentality.
Galloway fleshes out this adversarial mentality further by addressing the impact that modern culture’s antipathy toward traditional gender roles has in fostering an unhealthy dynamic between men and women. He says that when generally masculine traits are elevated when observed in females and degraded when observed in males, that’s when society begins to polarize: “Being strong physically, being prone to taking risks, being more prone to action, being in some cases aggressive. Those are wonderful attributes that have served our nation and our society really well. And people born as men have an easier time leaning into those things. But those things are positioned as violence and reckless[ness]. Unless it’s a woman….She’s a leader. She’s a baller. She’s a bad***.” He reiterates that men and women generally have different natural talents, asserting that these natural inclinations do not undermine the opposite gender, nor do they imply that men can’t embrace feminine traits or that women can’t embrace masculine traits. “If I say at a conference that women have [demonstrated] a better bedside manner, [making] them better doctors, everyone politely claps and nods their heads…If I say that throughout history men have…needed to be more risk aggressive, either to fight wars or immediately pick up a spear and go hunt something to feed the tribe, and therefore men have an easier time making the leap of faith to be entrepreneurs and they’re more risk aggressive and start crazier ideas? There’s a very uncomfortable pause in the room.”
He adds that this fact in no way “tak[es] from [or insults] the non binary community.”
Interestingly, Williamson extrapolates on this perceived divide, saying it is in part a result of a subtle implication that traditionally masculine traits and behaviors should be viewed as desirable for women to adopt and excel in, something that inherently undermines traditionally feminine traits. He cites a study conducted to gauge the extent to which women engage in big game hunting, where the data had been tampered with and the study resulted in extremely biased results to make it appear as if the women engaged in big game hunting equally, if not more than, men and were just as successful. He says, “There was obviously an agenda to trying to put forward women as being able to do the thing that the men did just as well as the men, which implicitly derogates what the women can do that the men can’t do…That’s really judgmental and superbly patronizing to women…Whatever men do is seen as desirable for women to do. And implicit in that is so much [expletive] sexism.”
Galloway also holds that the reason toxic masculinity has become a hallmark of modern society is in part due to disproportionate blame put on young men for gender inequalities that they did not directly create. Acknowledging that women did not always have the same opportunities as men, he says, “I have had unfair advantage.” But he makes an important point: “The problem is, is that we are holding 19 year old men accountable for my privilege. They do not benefit from the same unfair advantage that I had.” For Galloway, whose research has informed his belief that “young men are on any metric really struggling,” this is crucial to concede when analyzing the current well-being of young men in America. He encourages women not to fall into a habit of dismissing the challenges facing their male counterparts simply because men have historically been given more avenues for upward success. Why? Because it’s women who “want economically and emotionally viable young men.” He says, “the alliance between men and women needs to be restored.”
To this end, Galloway talks about the importance of relationships to young men. “The reality is men need relationships more than women.” He says men’s interest in fostering romantic relationships needs to stop being “pathologized,” because “a man’s desire to be in a relationship…is fire. And that is it can be destructive…But that fire can also be captured in an engine and create tremendous progress.”
Galloway says there is data indicating that single young men are more likely to channel that energy into unproductive things–this is how men end up in their thirties, single, unemployed, and living in their parent’s basement. Women who aren’t in a relationship, on the other hand, are more likely to “pour that energy back into her friends and her professional life.” According to Galloway, this has led to a society in which “[women’s] ascent economically has not been matched by men’s ascent emotionally.” He says relationships encourage greater accountability, resilience, kindness, cleanliness, diligence, and confidence in young men, making relationships a vital motivator for men to pursue greatness since their focus is shifted onto someone outside of themselves.
To foster this kind of growth in the next generation, Galloway says men, particularly men who are fathers, need to take responsibility for modeling this positive behavior to young men. He says, “Women can’t raise men? Of course they can. But the research is clear. Boys need men, and there’s an absence of them in our society right now.” He addresses fathers by saying “[Your boys] will model you. You can tell them whatever you want. They’re just going to watch what you’re doing.” Galloway claims that if society wants young men to mature and enter healthy, secure relationships, men need to emulate what that looks like by providing for and protecting their families.
As a proud liberal, Galloway offers an especially unique perspective on toxic masculinity and the challenges facing young men in America since his arguments stand in opposition to popular progressive ideology. Whether you agree with his points or not, Galloway is an example of someone boldly going against the grain at a time when America needs honest dialogue surrounding controversial topics. •
