It's rare to see men discussing masculinity beyond the glib, one-liner cliches we've become so familiar with, and instead exploring the complexity and also uncertainty that so many feel when trying to understand masculinity in 2025. In the end you nailed down a good set of core principles: stoicism and directness governed by strong values, ones that serve not only self (which leads to the hedonism wall) but also leaves the world a better place. Top shelf men's discussion, thank you.
Thank you for this stellar conversation gentlemen. Two great MEN both of whom will undoubtably leave the world a better place. I feel the same way about Argentinian President Milei. He is the only President in HIS-tory to my knowledge who has even dared to acknowledge MEN'S RIGHTS as a thing... let alone he further elaborates that MEN'S lives are given LESS value than w0e-MEN'S! Paul, you have an eagle's eye for other stellar MEN. I see Shah as I do the apostle Paul. He persecuted Christians and then became one. Maybe another video about how Shah got into child support enforcement? And then had remorse about persecuting MEN? In keeping with the theme of masculinity leaving the world a better place: I would vote for President Milei as a better example of masculinity then white night simp President Trump. LONG LIVE PRESIDENT MILEI
I dunno, Tom. This discussion left me frustrated and almost angry. It wasn't because either you or Shah [who last name I can't find] is boring. Both of you are very articulate and every insightful. But the topic itself is a wilderness of competing (or conflicting) philosophies, traditions, stereotypes and perceptions. (One of you said that "men" are self-sacrificial, noting also the common perception that women, too, are sacrificial. But the examples cited were trivial. The fact is that gestation was a very dangerous matter of life and death for women until very recently. Fulfilling their function meant dying young and therefore sacrificing themselves for the common good no less than men did). In short, the conversation was confusing. It went around in circles.
I always make a point of providing historical and anthropological evidence in any discussion of men in relation to women (which usually reduce everything to trendy theories). And yet I think that neither history nor anthropology provide any substantial foundation for our current conflict (which is due to both ignorance and ideology). Nor does religion, because not all religious traditions agree on what the ideal man or woman is, should be, or could be.
According to rabbinic lore, for example, the traditional Jewish ideal of manhood (what we would now call its definition of "masculinity") says little about stoicism (although it does affirm stoicism, indirectly, in both men and women). At the heart of Jewish manhood is something very different. It's what we would call intellectuality: studying and interpreting Torah by relying not only on knowledge of traditional commentaries on the Torah but also on the use of reason in debate. This is not an end in itself, however, but the means to an end that is both personal and collective: access to holiness. Along with becoming fathers, this is what men do specifically as men.
Women have other vital (sacred) functions. These include not only giving birth and caring for infants but also managing households according to sacred law (such as the applying complex laws that govern the ways in which food is prepared consumed). Some women administer servants, moreover, and others bring in money by managing shops in the market (while their husbands are studying or praying in the synagogue). If they can no longer resist tyranny, ideal women, like ideal men, will accept martyrdom (as distinct from victimhood).
Many years ago, anthropologists Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog published Life Is with People: The Culture of the Shtetl. They interviewed religious Jews on the Lower East Side, people who had been born and brought up in the villages of eastern Europe. Zborowski had no access to the women, so Herzog interviewed them. Some of her questions were about sex. Apart from anything else, Herzog wanted to know what made a man attractive--that is, sexy. The women told her that the most attractive men looked pale and thin, as if they spent their days in the synagogue studying. They had always wanted to marry rabbis, men with the highest status.
But Judaism is by no means the only tradition that raises questions about current (and fervently held) notions of masculinity. My point here is only that traditional cultures have differed widely on how they understand both masculinity and femininity--except in connection with their foundations in nature: fatherhood and motherhood. It seems unlikely that modern people are going to adopt masculinity as understood by traditional Jews or Christians, let alone by the Semai of Malaysia or the Zuni of New Mexico. Modernity (including secularity but also historiography, anthropology and new technologies) have presented us with the fact that there never has been and never can be any universal understanding of masculinity or femininity--except for elaborating on whatever distinctive skills that men and women can bring to the task of communal (or civilizational) endurance.
I'm glad that you mentioned the importance of "contributing" to family or community. That lies at the very heart of my own theory about identity. Every human needs a healthy identity as either a man or a woman (or perhaps several identities in connection additional features such as ethnicity, religion, language, religion and so forth). And to have a healthy one, I suggest, means the ability to make at least one contribution to family and/or community that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. Historically and cross-culturally, both men and women could attain one or the other, because each sex contributed something that was obviously distinctive, necessary and publicly valued. Today, when both the "nanny state" and modern technologies have made men almost obsolete, the old balance is, well, out of balance. Women can do everything that men can do--except become fathers (although many feminists trivialize that as assistant motherhood at best). But there's one thing that women can do that men cannot (yet) do: become mothers. From this, it follows that we must argue cogently and often that fatherhood is the key to communal survival (let alone to the personal fulfillment of individual men and to the well-being of their own children).
Gender (masculinity or femininity), refers to cultural patterns. It is an abstraction of no particular use to anyone. But sex (maleness or femaleness) is a biological given and therefore matters to everyone. I see nothing to be gained by arguing that we should settle on this or that definition of masculinity or femininity (with our without respect for other definitions). Your discussion with Shah was mainly about the vague perceptions, double standards and manipulation that most people associate with being a "real man" or a "real woman." Those are distractions. Instead, we must do what we can with maleness and femaleness, which are by no means either inherently "fluid" (as transgender ideologues claim) or innately in conflict (as some feminists claim). All that matters in the long-term interest of society is the will to foster both fatherhood and motherhood. In addition to any personal features, the ideal man is and always has been a father (either literally or metaphorically). In addition to any personal features, the ideal woman is and always has been a mother (either literally or metaphorically).
Your post is laced with a little bit of gyno-centrism. MEN will NEVER be obsolete... and NO w0e-MAN can NOT do everything a MAN can do. We see that with the pandemic of plane crashes. Not to mention ship crashes. As far as w0e-MEN sacrificing their lives to give birth and gestation being very dangerous and dying young: Sounds like MEN'S lives during that period as well? NO, the ideal MAN doesn't have to be a father. John the Baptist wasn't a father and Jesus called him "the greatest prophet who ever lived" The Apostle Paul wasn't a father either. I agree with shah & Paul. Leaving the world a better place is a good barometer for a MAN to judge his own masculinity
I didn't say that men are obsolete. That's the public perception of men. And more than a few men either agree with it or don't know enough to disagree with it. That's a troubling reality, not a gynocentric fantasy.
I did say that women have historically sacrificed themselves for the community, just as men have. No gynocentrism there.
I did say that the ideal man of every society has been a father (in addition to other things), moreover, but I added that some men have done so in symbolic ways. Most societies allow some men to become priests, after all, who are metaphorical fathers--and are often called "fathers."
I don't know what plane crashes have to do with any of this.
It's rare to see men discussing masculinity beyond the glib, one-liner cliches we've become so familiar with, and instead exploring the complexity and also uncertainty that so many feel when trying to understand masculinity in 2025. In the end you nailed down a good set of core principles: stoicism and directness governed by strong values, ones that serve not only self (which leads to the hedonism wall) but also leaves the world a better place. Top shelf men's discussion, thank you.
Thank you for this stellar conversation gentlemen. Two great MEN both of whom will undoubtably leave the world a better place. I feel the same way about Argentinian President Milei. He is the only President in HIS-tory to my knowledge who has even dared to acknowledge MEN'S RIGHTS as a thing... let alone he further elaborates that MEN'S lives are given LESS value than w0e-MEN'S! Paul, you have an eagle's eye for other stellar MEN. I see Shah as I do the apostle Paul. He persecuted Christians and then became one. Maybe another video about how Shah got into child support enforcement? And then had remorse about persecuting MEN? In keeping with the theme of masculinity leaving the world a better place: I would vote for President Milei as a better example of masculinity then white night simp President Trump. LONG LIVE PRESIDENT MILEI
Thanks for the kind words and I totally agree about Shah. I hope he gets a lot of traction in the future. The men's movement needs him.
I dunno, Tom. This discussion left me frustrated and almost angry. It wasn't because either you or Shah [who last name I can't find] is boring. Both of you are very articulate and every insightful. But the topic itself is a wilderness of competing (or conflicting) philosophies, traditions, stereotypes and perceptions. (One of you said that "men" are self-sacrificial, noting also the common perception that women, too, are sacrificial. But the examples cited were trivial. The fact is that gestation was a very dangerous matter of life and death for women until very recently. Fulfilling their function meant dying young and therefore sacrificing themselves for the common good no less than men did). In short, the conversation was confusing. It went around in circles.
I always make a point of providing historical and anthropological evidence in any discussion of men in relation to women (which usually reduce everything to trendy theories). And yet I think that neither history nor anthropology provide any substantial foundation for our current conflict (which is due to both ignorance and ideology). Nor does religion, because not all religious traditions agree on what the ideal man or woman is, should be, or could be.
According to rabbinic lore, for example, the traditional Jewish ideal of manhood (what we would now call its definition of "masculinity") says little about stoicism (although it does affirm stoicism, indirectly, in both men and women). At the heart of Jewish manhood is something very different. It's what we would call intellectuality: studying and interpreting Torah by relying not only on knowledge of traditional commentaries on the Torah but also on the use of reason in debate. This is not an end in itself, however, but the means to an end that is both personal and collective: access to holiness. Along with becoming fathers, this is what men do specifically as men.
Women have other vital (sacred) functions. These include not only giving birth and caring for infants but also managing households according to sacred law (such as the applying complex laws that govern the ways in which food is prepared consumed). Some women administer servants, moreover, and others bring in money by managing shops in the market (while their husbands are studying or praying in the synagogue). If they can no longer resist tyranny, ideal women, like ideal men, will accept martyrdom (as distinct from victimhood).
Many years ago, anthropologists Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog published Life Is with People: The Culture of the Shtetl. They interviewed religious Jews on the Lower East Side, people who had been born and brought up in the villages of eastern Europe. Zborowski had no access to the women, so Herzog interviewed them. Some of her questions were about sex. Apart from anything else, Herzog wanted to know what made a man attractive--that is, sexy. The women told her that the most attractive men looked pale and thin, as if they spent their days in the synagogue studying. They had always wanted to marry rabbis, men with the highest status.
But Judaism is by no means the only tradition that raises questions about current (and fervently held) notions of masculinity. My point here is only that traditional cultures have differed widely on how they understand both masculinity and femininity--except in connection with their foundations in nature: fatherhood and motherhood. It seems unlikely that modern people are going to adopt masculinity as understood by traditional Jews or Christians, let alone by the Semai of Malaysia or the Zuni of New Mexico. Modernity (including secularity but also historiography, anthropology and new technologies) have presented us with the fact that there never has been and never can be any universal understanding of masculinity or femininity--except for elaborating on whatever distinctive skills that men and women can bring to the task of communal (or civilizational) endurance.
I'm glad that you mentioned the importance of "contributing" to family or community. That lies at the very heart of my own theory about identity. Every human needs a healthy identity as either a man or a woman (or perhaps several identities in connection additional features such as ethnicity, religion, language, religion and so forth). And to have a healthy one, I suggest, means the ability to make at least one contribution to family and/or community that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. Historically and cross-culturally, both men and women could attain one or the other, because each sex contributed something that was obviously distinctive, necessary and publicly valued. Today, when both the "nanny state" and modern technologies have made men almost obsolete, the old balance is, well, out of balance. Women can do everything that men can do--except become fathers (although many feminists trivialize that as assistant motherhood at best). But there's one thing that women can do that men cannot (yet) do: become mothers. From this, it follows that we must argue cogently and often that fatherhood is the key to communal survival (let alone to the personal fulfillment of individual men and to the well-being of their own children).
Gender (masculinity or femininity), refers to cultural patterns. It is an abstraction of no particular use to anyone. But sex (maleness or femaleness) is a biological given and therefore matters to everyone. I see nothing to be gained by arguing that we should settle on this or that definition of masculinity or femininity (with our without respect for other definitions). Your discussion with Shah was mainly about the vague perceptions, double standards and manipulation that most people associate with being a "real man" or a "real woman." Those are distractions. Instead, we must do what we can with maleness and femaleness, which are by no means either inherently "fluid" (as transgender ideologues claim) or innately in conflict (as some feminists claim). All that matters in the long-term interest of society is the will to foster both fatherhood and motherhood. In addition to any personal features, the ideal man is and always has been a father (either literally or metaphorically). In addition to any personal features, the ideal woman is and always has been a mother (either literally or metaphorically).
Your post is laced with a little bit of gyno-centrism. MEN will NEVER be obsolete... and NO w0e-MAN can NOT do everything a MAN can do. We see that with the pandemic of plane crashes. Not to mention ship crashes. As far as w0e-MEN sacrificing their lives to give birth and gestation being very dangerous and dying young: Sounds like MEN'S lives during that period as well? NO, the ideal MAN doesn't have to be a father. John the Baptist wasn't a father and Jesus called him "the greatest prophet who ever lived" The Apostle Paul wasn't a father either. I agree with shah & Paul. Leaving the world a better place is a good barometer for a MAN to judge his own masculinity
I didn't say that men are obsolete. That's the public perception of men. And more than a few men either agree with it or don't know enough to disagree with it. That's a troubling reality, not a gynocentric fantasy.
I did say that women have historically sacrificed themselves for the community, just as men have. No gynocentrism there.
I did say that the ideal man of every society has been a father (in addition to other things), moreover, but I added that some men have done so in symbolic ways. Most societies allow some men to become priests, after all, who are metaphorical fathers--and are often called "fathers."
I don't know what plane crashes have to do with any of this.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Great talk. Thanks.
I agree with the contrast between the micro and the macro.
Masculinity being about a mix of "I am going to the gym and F the world", and responsibility to a cause/society/group.
In my experience, the core might just be problem solving.