I went into this article thinking the title was overly ambitious and it seemed unlikely it could meaningfully tackle such a big topic in a few thousand words.
But this was great. Really great. I've had to piece together what my own sense of masculinity is, from various role models and fictional characters and ideals... and this article sums up most of the principles that I fundamentally live by. I've never even tried to put it all into words, but this covers most of it.
I particularly love the Campground Rule. And I agree that sexuality, though seemingly constrained to the bedroom, does in fact have consequences that reach further. Through subsequent relationships and the aura that your relationships create. To leave one better off is what it means to be a man. To leave women more trusting of men, not less, is the mark of a good sexual partner. And romantic partner. (And that also applies to gay relationships.)
A man who has chosen no principles is no man at all. He hasn't grown up yet.
I'm going to leave this in my saved folder, because I may end up referencing it at some point.
This article reminded me so much of Chuck Palahniuk's talk about "The second father." The second father is always a coach or teacher that a person picks up after kinda outgrowing their own parents. The second father is there to push and not just nurture but to really evolve the student. Second fathers (Coaches, teachers, priests, preachers) are slowly going away because of the modern stigma around them. So many of them are abusive to the point of being illegal. Wonderful second fathers don't want to be associated with that. The second father is critical because these role models can determine a person's adult life course for years if not for a lifetime.
Unfortunately, the second father can also be a gang member, a rapist, or some aggressive and angry Uncle that drinks beer with you on the weekends and shows the child how to mutilate animals. Choose carefully.
I brought up part of this article at dinner last night... just asking two of the kids what they thought about masculinity and role models.
It was more than a little disheartening. They don't have any idea or care about either. It evolved into a discussion about how borders don't really exist, or genders and that the friend groups you define mean more than family.
It's like in trying to raise them as radically open minded and encouraging them to fully be themselves also gave them... permission I guess.. to reject all structural templates that allow people to figure out how they fit in the world. I can't imagine how hard it must be to live that way.
It was a really important discussion to have and for us to continue to have.
Thank you for continuing to put yourself out there.
That's a really fascinating observation. Thank you for sharing — I had similar attitudes when I was younger, and it is only as I've gotten older that I've realized the need for structure.
Hi Stephen, I haven’t been using substack for a long time but I’m glad I read this in my email. It’s such an excellent, considered, thoughtful summation of your ideas and you really have a great heart. (Also wanted to add I’m completely with you on your view of sexuality and virtue, but then I’m not a traditionalist so I guess that makes sense.)
Good stuff! Would you mind commenting on how you found (or formed) your community of accountability? Something like that can be powerfully helpful, but also seems fraught with risk of damage.
Oh man. Excellent question. Might require a post unto itself. I will have to think about this, especially since I've kind of fallen into accountability by accident.
I don't often pay so much heed to my sex drive. It doesn't serve me other than as a medical practice to stave off prostrate cancer, really. (I do a very well known cam site, and I do pay, just like the few times in life I have engaged with sex I made the situation transactional).
But, yeah. We, each of us, need a bar by which to measure ourselves in order to seek some of the varied forms of human social and practical value. I am of many religions, and yet a member of the entirely irreligious Illuminati. I am, by training, practice, and trade, an all source intelligence specialist (being on the ASD scale helps, seriously). My personal penultimate man is Thomas Paine. I have many feminine role models, as well.
As usual, you produced a thought provoking piece which will stick with me for some time to come, sir. Thank you. (no, I din't forget about Medium. i had the misfortune of not getting an apartment and am in financial straights quite constrictive, but have budgeted the gift back for the March compensation period lol)
Act only by the maxim as such that you would will it to become universal law--and so act WRT to humanity (as to yourself or any other) such that they are an end and never a means.
In a Theory of Justice, Rawls argues (to simplify) that the only way to get justice is if the rules are set blindly--blindly with respect to what your position in the new order will be, not knowing if you will be rich or poor or male or female or whatever.
Such a situation is, of course, impossible, but it points the way.
As is usually the case, these things are easy to say and often very hard to actually do.
More succinctly and clearly: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is perhaps the best general guideline to virtue that is reasonably attainable and understandable.
EVERYONE is a person before they are anything else.
To go further--more specifically what makes a good man. It is a man that strives to follow the above and that holds others to that standard. That delivers dignity and respect and also demands dignity and respect.
To push back against the bit about compartmentalization, I kinda feel like if men are inevitably hypocritical on that front, then it means the standard is bad. Goals should fundamentally obtainable, and I’m not sure that particular goal is
Thanks for sharing! I think there is a difference here between goals and values. Goals should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.) Ethics and values are what guide those goals, and I don’t believe that there is ever a point at which we become fully enlightened or ascended to moral purity. It’s a project of a lifetime. Just because that’s the case does not mean we should not strive for it.
Two thoughts, neither of which are original to me, but I'm unable to track down my original sources...
I ran across a quote along the lines of "Ideals you can live up to aren't ideals worth having." The context was a discussion of religious hypocrites when it comes to sexual morality, and it seemed a fair criticism to me. There's an assumption in secular thought that what is right and good should be achievable, and secular folks don't realize it's the water they're swimming in, whereas Christianity in particular rather explicitly views true rightness and goodness as outside the grasp of mere humans.
Then there's the idea that real hypocrisy isn't so much doing what you condemn (see above) but rather only condemning things you wouldn't do. It's the greedy condemning the lustful while celebrating greed, and the lustful condemning greed while celebrating lust. (Not to get into politics, but I think that particular example shows up a lot in politics.)
So many people in this world construct their moral and ethical worldview around what is easy for them, then puff themselves up with their own righteousness. I try to keep the above thoughts in mind, to avoid that trap.
Wow: Then there's the idea that real hypocrisy isn't so much doing what you condemn (see above) but rather only condemning things you wouldn't do. It's the greedy condemning the lustful while celebrating greed, and the lustful condemning greed while celebrating lust. (Not to get into politics, but I think that particular example shows up a lot in politics.)
This was an interesting read. Theres a point here, the one about accountability, that I've seen in so many musings on manhood but that It's quite difficult for me to understand.
Why would men usually argue that they need another (usually man, or god, or something like that) to hold them to a high standard? Why they cannot just, don't do harm, help whenever they can and just go through life peacefully, as another comment say here just treating people and the world as they would like to be treated?
This line of thinking took me back to catholic school, where I used to argue with the nuns, and the priests, and the teachers, and anyone who would talk to me (i was a child who loved to debate, needless to say adults didn't enjoy it that much), so back to my point here, I used to ask, are you truly good if you need constant surveillance (and the threat of punishment or godly wrath) to act good? What would you do if no one is watching? judging? keeping you on track?
With this I don't mean that you cannot have a bad day, or be petty on occasions (I know I am) or even quite evil sometimes, but just as a general rule, can't you just... don't know... have your own rules to live by and strive for? It just doesn't sit right with me, seems like it's always somebody else's responsibility but men.
Maybe it's because I'm a woman, or at least thats what society told me to be, whatever that means. And maybe, it's because we have always been policed, and been taught to police ourselves, and take responsibility for our actions, and also mens' actions, that this needing of an external censoring team seems bonkers.
PS: this is is meant to be a sincere question, my native language is not english and I hope this post is not misinterpreted
It’s a very good question. The answer is that it is not one or the other: both an internal compass and external accountability are needed, and they are both shaped by the other. This doesn’t mean that a man is not responsible for his own actions — he certainly is (and that’s the subtext of the entire article — men are responsible for the harm they cause.) It is rather that accountability aids them in being a better human and in taking responsibility. So I see it as the opposite of what you describe here. Seeking accountability, for me, is an attempt to take responsibility.
This is fairly obvious to me, because the difference is night and day in my own life when I have someone to answer to. Because I am accountable to my husband, for example, I am much less likely to cut myself (see previous article about cutting.) I am much less likely to make small indiscretions that I am in the habit of doing; I am much less likely to indulge in addictions, bad habits, and small white lies if I have people who know me well to call me on my bullshit.
There’s a sizable body of research that bears this out. People in general tend to behave more ethically when they are held to account by communities. This isn’t to say that they would be rapists and criminals if left to their own devices, but it does mean they are often morally mediocre without support. I think this is just an ugly fact of human nature, and it’s one I’ve come to accept.
This is a really interesting question, and I might write a full article about it eventually.
The accountability my own husband provides me isn't even something explicitly expressed; I'm not even sure it's something he realizes is happening. It's one thing when my sins only disappoint myself or people I don't care about (and I try to be honest about who I don't care about--that's a whole other discussion.) But disappointing someone I love is just so much worse.
Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, I don't know, but calling it a failure to hold myself to a high standard doesn't seem quite right. It's more just, he makes me want to be a better person. Love makes us want to be better people.
Totally fair! Thanks for sharing. I think what some people balk at is the intentionality I'm describing, and I find that really interesting. Might be worth digging into in another post.
Thanks for your answer! This made me think that this need for external accountability police varies a loooot between cultures, identities and how you been socialize. I do get the point about society itself being a huge regulator, being the family posibly the flrst regulation structure. I belive that is a semi universal experience. I also belive there are many flavors for this need, for example: are you a man? A woman? A child? Poor? Rich? White? Brown? Etc. Maybe is in this flavors that the seed for my thought was born. As someone with different experiences, part of the group thats asked to take other responsabilities but your own (culturally) it always rubs the wrong way when (usually men, usually in english) write about this need for external rulling. This was interesting exchange and made me think about our biases.
Hmm, I think the fundamental difference here is the term "police." I wouldn't describe the healthy accountability I have as policing. It is rather relationship, love, camaraderie, interdependence. It is the outward, relational manifestation of inner discipline.
100% agree with you that this will look different for different types of people in different settings, and it's also been fascinating to hear how it rubs you the wrong way when men in English speak about it. It never occurred to me that it would be seen as abdicating one's inner responsibilities, so it's been really helpful to read your perspective.
I went into this article thinking the title was overly ambitious and it seemed unlikely it could meaningfully tackle such a big topic in a few thousand words.
But this was great. Really great. I've had to piece together what my own sense of masculinity is, from various role models and fictional characters and ideals... and this article sums up most of the principles that I fundamentally live by. I've never even tried to put it all into words, but this covers most of it.
I particularly love the Campground Rule. And I agree that sexuality, though seemingly constrained to the bedroom, does in fact have consequences that reach further. Through subsequent relationships and the aura that your relationships create. To leave one better off is what it means to be a man. To leave women more trusting of men, not less, is the mark of a good sexual partner. And romantic partner. (And that also applies to gay relationships.)
A man who has chosen no principles is no man at all. He hasn't grown up yet.
I'm going to leave this in my saved folder, because I may end up referencing it at some point.
Thank you for sharing. Really great read.
Thanks so much for the kind words, Justin! I'm delighted that the article exceeded your expectations.
I agree: discovering one's principles is a crucial part of becoming a man. I think a lot of men are struggling in this regard.
You make so many important points that no one talks about. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for reading!
This article reminded me so much of Chuck Palahniuk's talk about "The second father." The second father is always a coach or teacher that a person picks up after kinda outgrowing their own parents. The second father is there to push and not just nurture but to really evolve the student. Second fathers (Coaches, teachers, priests, preachers) are slowly going away because of the modern stigma around them. So many of them are abusive to the point of being illegal. Wonderful second fathers don't want to be associated with that. The second father is critical because these role models can determine a person's adult life course for years if not for a lifetime.
Unfortunately, the second father can also be a gang member, a rapist, or some aggressive and angry Uncle that drinks beer with you on the weekends and shows the child how to mutilate animals. Choose carefully.
I love that. I’m grateful to have had some second fathers.
Me too! Chuck Palahniuk helped save my life. Thank god for great teachers and good men!
I brought up part of this article at dinner last night... just asking two of the kids what they thought about masculinity and role models.
It was more than a little disheartening. They don't have any idea or care about either. It evolved into a discussion about how borders don't really exist, or genders and that the friend groups you define mean more than family.
It's like in trying to raise them as radically open minded and encouraging them to fully be themselves also gave them... permission I guess.. to reject all structural templates that allow people to figure out how they fit in the world. I can't imagine how hard it must be to live that way.
It was a really important discussion to have and for us to continue to have.
Thank you for continuing to put yourself out there.
That's a really fascinating observation. Thank you for sharing — I had similar attitudes when I was younger, and it is only as I've gotten older that I've realized the need for structure.
Hi Stephen, I haven’t been using substack for a long time but I’m glad I read this in my email. It’s such an excellent, considered, thoughtful summation of your ideas and you really have a great heart. (Also wanted to add I’m completely with you on your view of sexuality and virtue, but then I’m not a traditionalist so I guess that makes sense.)
Thank you so much for reading, Shay, and I appreciate the kind words.
Good stuff! Would you mind commenting on how you found (or formed) your community of accountability? Something like that can be powerfully helpful, but also seems fraught with risk of damage.
Oh man. Excellent question. Might require a post unto itself. I will have to think about this, especially since I've kind of fallen into accountability by accident.
I don't often pay so much heed to my sex drive. It doesn't serve me other than as a medical practice to stave off prostrate cancer, really. (I do a very well known cam site, and I do pay, just like the few times in life I have engaged with sex I made the situation transactional).
But, yeah. We, each of us, need a bar by which to measure ourselves in order to seek some of the varied forms of human social and practical value. I am of many religions, and yet a member of the entirely irreligious Illuminati. I am, by training, practice, and trade, an all source intelligence specialist (being on the ASD scale helps, seriously). My personal penultimate man is Thomas Paine. I have many feminine role models, as well.
As usual, you produced a thought provoking piece which will stick with me for some time to come, sir. Thank you. (no, I din't forget about Medium. i had the misfortune of not getting an apartment and am in financial straights quite constrictive, but have budgeted the gift back for the March compensation period lol)
Thank you so much for sharing — Thomas Paine is a good exemplar.
No worries or pressure about Medium! I'm just glad you're here
I have to go with Kant, here:
Act only by the maxim as such that you would will it to become universal law--and so act WRT to humanity (as to yourself or any other) such that they are an end and never a means.
In a Theory of Justice, Rawls argues (to simplify) that the only way to get justice is if the rules are set blindly--blindly with respect to what your position in the new order will be, not knowing if you will be rich or poor or male or female or whatever.
Such a situation is, of course, impossible, but it points the way.
As is usually the case, these things are easy to say and often very hard to actually do.
More succinctly and clearly: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is perhaps the best general guideline to virtue that is reasonably attainable and understandable.
EVERYONE is a person before they are anything else.
To go further--more specifically what makes a good man. It is a man that strives to follow the above and that holds others to that standard. That delivers dignity and respect and also demands dignity and respect.
And teaches same by direct teaching and example.
I love all of this, and it’s an excellent insight. Thank you for sharing
Great article generally.
To push back against the bit about compartmentalization, I kinda feel like if men are inevitably hypocritical on that front, then it means the standard is bad. Goals should fundamentally obtainable, and I’m not sure that particular goal is
Thanks for sharing! I think there is a difference here between goals and values. Goals should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.) Ethics and values are what guide those goals, and I don’t believe that there is ever a point at which we become fully enlightened or ascended to moral purity. It’s a project of a lifetime. Just because that’s the case does not mean we should not strive for it.
Two thoughts, neither of which are original to me, but I'm unable to track down my original sources...
I ran across a quote along the lines of "Ideals you can live up to aren't ideals worth having." The context was a discussion of religious hypocrites when it comes to sexual morality, and it seemed a fair criticism to me. There's an assumption in secular thought that what is right and good should be achievable, and secular folks don't realize it's the water they're swimming in, whereas Christianity in particular rather explicitly views true rightness and goodness as outside the grasp of mere humans.
Then there's the idea that real hypocrisy isn't so much doing what you condemn (see above) but rather only condemning things you wouldn't do. It's the greedy condemning the lustful while celebrating greed, and the lustful condemning greed while celebrating lust. (Not to get into politics, but I think that particular example shows up a lot in politics.)
So many people in this world construct their moral and ethical worldview around what is easy for them, then puff themselves up with their own righteousness. I try to keep the above thoughts in mind, to avoid that trap.
Really excellent thoughts; thank you so much for sharing.
Wow: Then there's the idea that real hypocrisy isn't so much doing what you condemn (see above) but rather only condemning things you wouldn't do. It's the greedy condemning the lustful while celebrating greed, and the lustful condemning greed while celebrating lust. (Not to get into politics, but I think that particular example shows up a lot in politics.)
The punchline is you should forgive them all!
This was an interesting read. Theres a point here, the one about accountability, that I've seen in so many musings on manhood but that It's quite difficult for me to understand.
Why would men usually argue that they need another (usually man, or god, or something like that) to hold them to a high standard? Why they cannot just, don't do harm, help whenever they can and just go through life peacefully, as another comment say here just treating people and the world as they would like to be treated?
This line of thinking took me back to catholic school, where I used to argue with the nuns, and the priests, and the teachers, and anyone who would talk to me (i was a child who loved to debate, needless to say adults didn't enjoy it that much), so back to my point here, I used to ask, are you truly good if you need constant surveillance (and the threat of punishment or godly wrath) to act good? What would you do if no one is watching? judging? keeping you on track?
With this I don't mean that you cannot have a bad day, or be petty on occasions (I know I am) or even quite evil sometimes, but just as a general rule, can't you just... don't know... have your own rules to live by and strive for? It just doesn't sit right with me, seems like it's always somebody else's responsibility but men.
Maybe it's because I'm a woman, or at least thats what society told me to be, whatever that means. And maybe, it's because we have always been policed, and been taught to police ourselves, and take responsibility for our actions, and also mens' actions, that this needing of an external censoring team seems bonkers.
PS: this is is meant to be a sincere question, my native language is not english and I hope this post is not misinterpreted
It’s a very good question. The answer is that it is not one or the other: both an internal compass and external accountability are needed, and they are both shaped by the other. This doesn’t mean that a man is not responsible for his own actions — he certainly is (and that’s the subtext of the entire article — men are responsible for the harm they cause.) It is rather that accountability aids them in being a better human and in taking responsibility. So I see it as the opposite of what you describe here. Seeking accountability, for me, is an attempt to take responsibility.
This is fairly obvious to me, because the difference is night and day in my own life when I have someone to answer to. Because I am accountable to my husband, for example, I am much less likely to cut myself (see previous article about cutting.) I am much less likely to make small indiscretions that I am in the habit of doing; I am much less likely to indulge in addictions, bad habits, and small white lies if I have people who know me well to call me on my bullshit.
There’s a sizable body of research that bears this out. People in general tend to behave more ethically when they are held to account by communities. This isn’t to say that they would be rapists and criminals if left to their own devices, but it does mean they are often morally mediocre without support. I think this is just an ugly fact of human nature, and it’s one I’ve come to accept.
This is a really interesting question, and I might write a full article about it eventually.
The accountability my own husband provides me isn't even something explicitly expressed; I'm not even sure it's something he realizes is happening. It's one thing when my sins only disappoint myself or people I don't care about (and I try to be honest about who I don't care about--that's a whole other discussion.) But disappointing someone I love is just so much worse.
Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, I don't know, but calling it a failure to hold myself to a high standard doesn't seem quite right. It's more just, he makes me want to be a better person. Love makes us want to be better people.
Totally fair! Thanks for sharing. I think what some people balk at is the intentionality I'm describing, and I find that really interesting. Might be worth digging into in another post.
Thanks for your answer! This made me think that this need for external accountability police varies a loooot between cultures, identities and how you been socialize. I do get the point about society itself being a huge regulator, being the family posibly the flrst regulation structure. I belive that is a semi universal experience. I also belive there are many flavors for this need, for example: are you a man? A woman? A child? Poor? Rich? White? Brown? Etc. Maybe is in this flavors that the seed for my thought was born. As someone with different experiences, part of the group thats asked to take other responsabilities but your own (culturally) it always rubs the wrong way when (usually men, usually in english) write about this need for external rulling. This was interesting exchange and made me think about our biases.
Hmm, I think the fundamental difference here is the term "police." I wouldn't describe the healthy accountability I have as policing. It is rather relationship, love, camaraderie, interdependence. It is the outward, relational manifestation of inner discipline.
100% agree with you that this will look different for different types of people in different settings, and it's also been fascinating to hear how it rubs you the wrong way when men in English speak about it. It never occurred to me that it would be seen as abdicating one's inner responsibilities, so it's been really helpful to read your perspective.