How to prescribe manhood
...without it sounding like some 1950s fantasy
This piece is about the political left vs. right’s conception of manhood, and how I hope it evolves. Christine Emba wrote a viral oped in the Washington Post about men reclaiming masculinity, and then did an interview with Vox where she makes the following points:
The political left’s prescription for manhood is “just be a good guy.”
Young men are looking for clear roadmaps for how to act as men. “Just be a good guy” is vague and unhelpful as a roadmap.
The right has always been more clear about gender roles, and so when young men look for prescriptions for what being a man looks like, they get answers from the right much more than the left.
The prescriptions for manhood that are gaining traction among young men have issues. They glorify money and acting tough above all else.
First off, I think Christine makes excellent points. Where Christine’s article and interview leave off is the question: how can we concoct a better prescription? It’s fraught territory, but I do think we could use some more shots on goal answering this question - especially from men.1 This post is my attempt at summarizing what I feel is the status quo for “here’s what a man should be” takes, and how I want those takes to evolve.
The modern, popular conception of what a man should be
Let’s start with the more right leaning archetypes. TikTok and Instagram definitely peddle a masculinity centered around Ferraris and acting like tough guy dickheads - but most dudes aren’t about that. I think a more honest opinion of how a modern, center-right dude feels about manhood is David Deida’s 1997 book “The Way of the Superior Man.” It is one of the most popular books on manhood in the modern era. Tony Robbins and Marianne Williamson are on the book cover giving glowing reviews, and it became a favorite book of spiritual and personal development influencers. A lot of the online debate around manhood, especially in conservative forums, feels like a repackaged version of his tenets. The book is 51 prescriptions about how men should act and focuses on romantic relationships with women. Here’s my attempt to summarize the prescriptions into a few buckets:
Stand up for yourself in the face of conflict
Engage and make decisions, don’t postpone or withdraw
Be intense about your interests
Seek and embrace polarity, not sameness, with your loved one
Some of the rules Deida mentions are phrased in a way liberals in 2023 can get behind:
“Live as if your father were dead” (Don’t live in fear of your dad’s approval)
“Stop hoping for completion of anything in life” (Don’t wait for things to get better. Do what you need to do and love to do now)
“You are responsible for the growth in intimacy” (Intimacy is a masculine gift, so give it)
Some of the rules are phrased in a way that would make your average 2023 liberal uncomfortable, because they focus on gender roles:
“Tolerating her leads to resenting her” (If she’s moody and self destructive and you tolerate it, your attitude focuses on wanting to escape instead of reshaping that energy with love)
“Don’t force the feminine to make decisions” (Being clear and decisive is a masculine gift, so give it and don’t force her to become more like you)
“She wants the killer in you” (Kill the cockroach and check out the creepy noise at night - men should transcend fear for the sake of love)
The quotations are his chapter headlines. The parenthetical descriptions are my summaries of the chapter. Hopefully it’s clear that despite the edgier sounding headlines, Deida’s reasonings resonate with a pretty broad swath of men and women. In my opinion, what makes it appealing to more right leaning than left leaning men is the focus on embracing an “inner” masculinity as a way to become “superior” versions of one’s self.
Plenty of Deida’s rules resonate with me as well, but they still feel incomplete as an aspiration. I don’t think Deida meant his advice to be taken this way, but my main issue with the book’s rules is that it’s easy to read them and become focused on “dominating.” If the goal is becoming a “superior” man through intensity, risk taking, and even open-mindedness, then I’m liable to lose the plot. My pursuit of leadership becomes the need for domination, and to paraphrase feminist author bell hooks, this leads to a world of patriarchal pain. All of the traits Deida highlights are good traits in my opinion, but I need a different goal than being a “superior man” to keep them in check.
Finding a better goal
I get that “domination” has been a fixture of dudes doing things since recorded history, but it hasn’t been the socially accepted goal. To my knowledge, every major dude in every major religion has hammered home the importance of living a life of service to one’s community. More recent male icons like Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. have emphasized the same. And yet “service,” in my judgement, is just not a major part of what men talk about outside of faith communities. I don’t hear much about it in podcasts, social media, or privately between friends. “Service” has not been secularized as the goal.
And I totally believe it can be. A recent interview with folklorist Manchán Magan discussed how obsessed pre-modern societies were with hospitality. Magan has visited “traditional” and indigenous communities in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia. He relates one folk story that I find particularly funny. A giant travels from the end of earth and finds himself in an Irish village. The giant is so big the entire sky fits between his legs. The village folk are terrified for one reason: they can’t figure out how they’re gonna feed this big guy. Luckily the giant gives them three sacred trees to feed himself and everyone else and all live happily ever after. I find this funny because the story relates just how great the anxiety was of not being able to feed a guest - even if that guest could crush you with his pinky.
The political left, in my opinion, would love to make service a part of masculine identity. But how to do this on a day to day, interpersonal level is tricky. What does being a good community member look like? Telling someone “be a better person, ” or “do better” is not just vague, it’s boring. If my tombstone read “he was a really nice guy” I’d be sad as hell about it. I need a more specific and aspirational archetype than “good guy.”
Time for a hot take
What’s a male archetype or energy whose main vibe is being hospitable? I’d say restaurant owner energy.2 My Disney cartoon conception of restaurant owners is them going table to table, saying stuff like “How are we doing here? Let me get you some more water.” If they’re feeling frisky they might throw in a “this one’s on the house” as they surprise you with desert and a whimsical smile. Their whole schtick is to make you feel comfortable and special.
Related energies include but are not limited to: hotel manager energy, personal trainer energy, and dude-who-knows-a-guy energy. If I were to teach an ethics class for men, these are the archetypes I’d throw on the wall. Homework would be pretending you’re as useful as they are for a week.
Not to say I know what I’m talking about here. My personal hospitality game is abysmal. I have zero snacks on standby. I am liable to disappear for several minutes during a party I’m hosting to look for that thing I misplaced. I blame all this on atheism, capitalism, and a general lack of restaurant owners in my life. But I firmly believe every man has a restaurant owner inside of him, and I’ll be damned if I can’t find mine.
While men have been panicking about masculinity since day 1 of American history, most modern takes on the state of men, especially young men, are written by women. For example, in the last month, Washington Post has 3 articles on masculinity and Politico had “Masculinity Issue” - all articles had female authors. My hunch is that while feminism gave women a language and willingness to describe gender issues, men remain uncomfortable talking about this stuff. I hope more dudes can get more comfortable talking about this stuff as a result, even if it’s uncomfortable for everyone else (other men included).
I first heard the term “restaurant owner energy” from Internet man Sam Parr talking about how he would embody it to pick up women. I’m talking about the same energy here, but it’s a whole damn life goal, not a means to an end.
Also my girlfriend, who’s worked in way more restaurants than I have, informs me this is more maître d or manager energy than owner energy. Owners are more liable to sit in the corner with their friends and drink up the alcohol profits. “Restaurant manager” energy doesn’t stir the loins for me though so I’m sticking with restaurant owner.