Rick, I don't know where this guy got his ideas, but to say that guys are more likely to harm themselves than women is kinda nuts. Not going to give details but l have been a victim, and I know what women experience. Turned it off very early...not interested in males seeking sympathy for being misogynists.
We have a problem because young men have a lot of problems. So stipulated.
Galloway makes a persuasive case for this, and trots out impressive-sounding statistics to support it. Again, so stipulated, I'm not going to doubt any of that.
What grinds my gears, though, is Galloway's statements of absolute cosmic certainties. The best way to sell bullshit is to deliver it in a truth sandwich. It makes it hard to parse out enough, fast enough, to refute. Galloway is a master of this.
Just a few vignettes:
1. "99.97% of office relationships are consensual". Do tell? I have it on excellent authority that the proper number is actually 99.8745%.
2. "If you don't pay for the date (in full), you will never have sex with them". I think he told his sons this. My experience is that women vary quite a bit on this (as they do on almost every other fucking thing on the planet), and will also do so over the course of a particular relationship, ante-coitus.
3. "...anybody advising young people to follow their passion is already rich." and "...do what you're good at...". Says the rich guy advising young people. Scott's never heard of Venn diagrams, there's a big fat one covering 'what you're good at' and something that might be a 'passion'. He burbles this shit after saying something counter to ideas of zero sum games. His point about the economics of sexy jobs and low payoffs is good, though.
4. At certain points, he goes all Manosphere socio-biology with valuable eggs and cheap sperm, to reinforce how very vital it is for men to be *manly* (per his list of characteristics). Other times he waxes poetic about many (most?) of the men he knows show dominant feminine attitudes and behaviors. He weasels around this by shrugging and saying something about "... but that's just what men must *code for*". Fuck you, Scott, that means nothing aside from "swing your dick around and pretend to be *Alpha*", which I do believe is being widely done.
5. There's plenty of pointless filler, like the sad apocryphal tale of the gorgeous fab woman who can't get men to approach her in a bar. I burst out laughing at that one. Girlfriend requires what she wants and, by definition, whoever approaches her is not a 'viable man'. Which is what she really means.
There's plenty of true stuff in the interview. Apprenticeships? Absolutely, all day long, but that idea is decades long in the tooth. Mike Row has been beating that drum until we're deaf. But none of his truthiness can be duct-taped into a coherent *solution* for what ails young men. It's build-up to no comprehensive delivery.
This schmuck is a tool selling his books. Why? Must be ego, because he already has more money than God (I'll take that for granted). His banal, world-weary delivery can be very effective for the unwary, but he reeks of snake oil.
I'm disappointed with either Rick or the booking staff, or both. This was just sickening.
Part of the problem here is that men are stuck in an outdated 'provider/protector' mindset which simply doesn't apply anymore, and they continue passing that mindset onto young men. Most women aren't looking for providers; they can provide for themselves very nicely, thank you very much. Likewise, women aren't looking for protectors, they would simply like not to be targets, again thank you very much. IOW, men need to define a role for themselves that doesn't involve looking on women as weaklings who need to be cared for, but instead teaches men how to be partners and equals. Continuing to push young men into gender roles that defined our grandparents' generation does them no good at all. Teaching young men how to be partners - co-equals, co-workers, co-parents - would be much healthier for them mentally and emotionally, and it would help them not to feel threatened by every advance made by women or men who don't fit the heteronormative model. Just my two cents.
Very well said Jane. While I hear what Scott Galloway is saying about not ignoring young men, the world view he's articulating is not the world anymore and to continue insisting that it is just exacerbates the problem. It's not the women want men to be more like women; we want men to work WITH us...and LISTEN to us. As you say, co-equals. I also think that as a society, we should encourage boys and girls to play more with each other as opposed to sex segregated activities. I played sports, and hence spent a lot of time as a teammate with boys. The majority of the boys on my teams were not jerks, and I think our interactions helped us both develop respect for each other across the gender divide. And as for "identity": white male is as much an "identity" as LGBTQ, Latino, Black, etc. And "white male" is the standard in things like medicine. How many drug trials factor for women? I think the topic of men feeling isolated and alone is worth talking about. I just don't think trying to recreate the "manly manness" of old is the answer.
Thanks, Susan. I'm not dismissing the distress young men feel in any way, but I do believe it's a disservice to them to continue pushing outdated 'gender roles' that haven't been operative in 40 years. Women were forced by circumstances to adapt the gender roles they'd been taught to a new reality when it was no longer possible for families to get by on a single income. Women also took the incoming for it, facing endless criticism for having to put their kids in daycare so they could go to work and 'letting strangers raise your kids'. But we learned to adapt and added co-provider to our resumes, and often sole provider, come to that. Men haven't been challenged to make the same adjustment, and it shows in the confusion, alienation and feelings of being left out or behind they're experiencing now. Your point of about co-ed sports is a good one. Learning to view women and girls as teammates, fellow students, friends and equals early in life would set up young men for better mental health later on. Great comment!
Sorry but nope, not Galloway. I understand the impulse and sure, men and boys could use some guidance and resources, but. I'm a longtime supporter of TLP, but. I've heard his pitch with an open mind, and find it unconvincing. Counterproductive even. I'll keep listening and reading; this is marketing data for future bookings.
Here's what too often gets overlooked in the 'gender roles' discussion: Times have changed. Two-income households have been the norm in the U.S. since the 1970s. Women's participation in the workforce has increased every year since then, with a brief decline during COVID. Why? Economics. Most families can't get by on one salary, and that's a fact of life. The male-as-provider paradigm hasn't been relevant for decades, yet it's still being pushed as if it applies. No wonder young men are confused. Men need to figure out a new role for themselves that doesn't depend on their relationship to someone else, namely women. And FTR, women had to figure this out a while ago - how to be the carer and the nurturer, but also the provider and the careerist.
Yes to the jobs training acts that Lyndon Johnson got passed in the 1960s. Probably getting people in a setting to learn job skills and have some successes (esp away from smart phones) could be an answer. Just for the record, 80 year old female retired lawyer here, men don't need to be Harvey Weinstein to behave badly--sexual harassment is real, and further, women are consistently discriminated against in all areas of work. Am I wrong to think that as the previously favored group, white men just haven't come to grips with not being automatically handed better jobs / better pay just for being born white and male? Entering a brand new law school building made for 1,000 students in 1969, (1) no women's bathrooms, except across from the secretary's station; (2) the women students I knew all worked and were able in those cheap days to pay their way, whereas many of the male students played cards in the afternoon before their (working) wives picked them up; (3) some professors made derogatory remarks about women as part of their standard classroom presentations. A male colleague griped to me that he would have gotten into a better law school except that "some Asian woman took my (his) place." Guess what we women students did? We ignored them all, got our degrees and went to work. Buckle up, boys. It's not going to change for you till you decide to take your lumps and do the scut work that women still do.
Galloway seems to not have any credentials that would support expertise in the status of men, women, men and women, or the loneliness epidemic in this country. It's actually just exactly the same ol' same ol', with a middle-aged white man expounding on something he is aware of, but doesn't actually have any research or expertise in, as if he has as much an informed opinion as psychologists, sociologists and people doing the actual work of examining the phenomenon and the potential contributors and possible solutions. He's repeating the manosphere perspectives without the violent language and overt hatred of women, but the misogyny remains the same, and he gets accolades and supporters who hear the softened tone over the content and he gets treated like an expert. The loneliness epidemic has been going on for more than twenty years, and boys and men have been in crisis for 30 plus years. Yes, it's not good, but until the culture - and men - are truly willing to change the status quo, and grow themselves, men and boys will be in crisis. Galloway's ideas of gender differences are straight out of his Marketing experience and history, and have nothing to do with biology, brain science or psychology. And, while Scott may decry men's likelihood to "hurt themselves" after a date, as of this year, 41% - almost half - of women will experience physical violence or stalking, and a full 50% of female homicide victims are killed by someone they love. Often by that loved one, after drinking that alcohol that this conversation seems to think is such a great elixir for lubricating social interactions. WTF. So, as Margaret Atwood said, "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, and women are afraid men will kill them". Because it's actually likely, Scott. Sorry, Rick, this conversation belongs at the bar; I'm sure it was fun for you guys, but it's moving nothing forward, it's a Saturday night, half-in-the-bag blowhard opinion-fest that needed a few women eavesdropping and then boisterously correcting you guys on a whole slew of issues.
Thank you, precisely what I came to say. I find Mr. Galloway's work interesting, & important, a needed voice to a degree - but the constant tossing off of percentages & statistics without context or any citing of sources sets my teeth on edge; they still sound like mansplaining to me.
The fact (if it is indeed one) that young men are more likely to hurt themselves, horrible as it is, doesn't do anything about the fact that the disconnect between so many men and their feelings can result in outer-directed rage, often at the women in their lives. It may be physically violent, which I have witnessed in my life & the lives of my friends, or emotionally violent, controlling, verbally abusive, etc. These have been around forever, & women & girls and children are still suffering as a result.
My main reason for writing is to express my shock over both these men, uncritically, giving casual credence to the proposition that young people should drink more alcohol. For god's sake, that is foolish & deeply irresponsible. And liver damage is not caused by social drinking, it's a result of years of serious alcohol addiction. Addiction is a horrific disease, it destroys health, well-being, families, lives. There is a strong genetic component to alcoholism, so it doesn't take much drinking as a young person to create a dependence that will cause unspeakable misery, stress, even death, to the alcoholic & scores of people around him, for decades. People can & will & should make their own decisions about drinking, but please, Rick, do not provide a platform for this position. If young men don't have the skills to socialize, maybe we should teach all our young people better, & give them healthy ways to practice people skills instead of encouraging them to drink.
I heard Scott acknowledging a lot of your points. I also heard him saying that both young men and women should be valued and mentored equally and effectively
Hey Rick! I grew up in Tally and will be back in FL (but at the beach) for Xmas - loved the conversation today. We have a 15 yr old son and am going to order the book. He’s got a crew of really good friends, but I still worry about the whole internet/AI girlfriend/anti social rabbit hole…. I’m early Gen X and feel totally out of my league regarding how the kids are growing up today!!!
Hi, I really need a video about the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair piece! What game is she playing there? I don’t believe a word of her denials, she knew exactly what she was doing. But I don’t see the end game.
Rick, I don't know where this guy got his ideas, but to say that guys are more likely to harm themselves than women is kinda nuts. Not going to give details but l have been a victim, and I know what women experience. Turned it off very early...not interested in males seeking sympathy for being misogynists.
We have a problem because young men have a lot of problems. So stipulated.
Galloway makes a persuasive case for this, and trots out impressive-sounding statistics to support it. Again, so stipulated, I'm not going to doubt any of that.
What grinds my gears, though, is Galloway's statements of absolute cosmic certainties. The best way to sell bullshit is to deliver it in a truth sandwich. It makes it hard to parse out enough, fast enough, to refute. Galloway is a master of this.
Just a few vignettes:
1. "99.97% of office relationships are consensual". Do tell? I have it on excellent authority that the proper number is actually 99.8745%.
2. "If you don't pay for the date (in full), you will never have sex with them". I think he told his sons this. My experience is that women vary quite a bit on this (as they do on almost every other fucking thing on the planet), and will also do so over the course of a particular relationship, ante-coitus.
3. "...anybody advising young people to follow their passion is already rich." and "...do what you're good at...". Says the rich guy advising young people. Scott's never heard of Venn diagrams, there's a big fat one covering 'what you're good at' and something that might be a 'passion'. He burbles this shit after saying something counter to ideas of zero sum games. His point about the economics of sexy jobs and low payoffs is good, though.
4. At certain points, he goes all Manosphere socio-biology with valuable eggs and cheap sperm, to reinforce how very vital it is for men to be *manly* (per his list of characteristics). Other times he waxes poetic about many (most?) of the men he knows show dominant feminine attitudes and behaviors. He weasels around this by shrugging and saying something about "... but that's just what men must *code for*". Fuck you, Scott, that means nothing aside from "swing your dick around and pretend to be *Alpha*", which I do believe is being widely done.
5. There's plenty of pointless filler, like the sad apocryphal tale of the gorgeous fab woman who can't get men to approach her in a bar. I burst out laughing at that one. Girlfriend requires what she wants and, by definition, whoever approaches her is not a 'viable man'. Which is what she really means.
There's plenty of true stuff in the interview. Apprenticeships? Absolutely, all day long, but that idea is decades long in the tooth. Mike Row has been beating that drum until we're deaf. But none of his truthiness can be duct-taped into a coherent *solution* for what ails young men. It's build-up to no comprehensive delivery.
This schmuck is a tool selling his books. Why? Must be ego, because he already has more money than God (I'll take that for granted). His banal, world-weary delivery can be very effective for the unwary, but he reeks of snake oil.
I'm disappointed with either Rick or the booking staff, or both. This was just sickening.
I see these young men daily. I’ve never seen such loneliness and lack of ability to communicate with others. In any way. So very sad.
Winter is coming.
https://thistleandmoss.com/p/winter-is-coming-only-this-time-it-s-elections
Part of the problem here is that men are stuck in an outdated 'provider/protector' mindset which simply doesn't apply anymore, and they continue passing that mindset onto young men. Most women aren't looking for providers; they can provide for themselves very nicely, thank you very much. Likewise, women aren't looking for protectors, they would simply like not to be targets, again thank you very much. IOW, men need to define a role for themselves that doesn't involve looking on women as weaklings who need to be cared for, but instead teaches men how to be partners and equals. Continuing to push young men into gender roles that defined our grandparents' generation does them no good at all. Teaching young men how to be partners - co-equals, co-workers, co-parents - would be much healthier for them mentally and emotionally, and it would help them not to feel threatened by every advance made by women or men who don't fit the heteronormative model. Just my two cents.
Very well said Jane. While I hear what Scott Galloway is saying about not ignoring young men, the world view he's articulating is not the world anymore and to continue insisting that it is just exacerbates the problem. It's not the women want men to be more like women; we want men to work WITH us...and LISTEN to us. As you say, co-equals. I also think that as a society, we should encourage boys and girls to play more with each other as opposed to sex segregated activities. I played sports, and hence spent a lot of time as a teammate with boys. The majority of the boys on my teams were not jerks, and I think our interactions helped us both develop respect for each other across the gender divide. And as for "identity": white male is as much an "identity" as LGBTQ, Latino, Black, etc. And "white male" is the standard in things like medicine. How many drug trials factor for women? I think the topic of men feeling isolated and alone is worth talking about. I just don't think trying to recreate the "manly manness" of old is the answer.
Thanks, Susan. I'm not dismissing the distress young men feel in any way, but I do believe it's a disservice to them to continue pushing outdated 'gender roles' that haven't been operative in 40 years. Women were forced by circumstances to adapt the gender roles they'd been taught to a new reality when it was no longer possible for families to get by on a single income. Women also took the incoming for it, facing endless criticism for having to put their kids in daycare so they could go to work and 'letting strangers raise your kids'. But we learned to adapt and added co-provider to our resumes, and often sole provider, come to that. Men haven't been challenged to make the same adjustment, and it shows in the confusion, alienation and feelings of being left out or behind they're experiencing now. Your point of about co-ed sports is a good one. Learning to view women and girls as teammates, fellow students, friends and equals early in life would set up young men for better mental health later on. Great comment!
https://youtu.be/IFKSNhXOvYw?si=zsGqePmJgBAtBkC2
FYI-
Sorry but nope, not Galloway. I understand the impulse and sure, men and boys could use some guidance and resources, but. I'm a longtime supporter of TLP, but. I've heard his pitch with an open mind, and find it unconvincing. Counterproductive even. I'll keep listening and reading; this is marketing data for future bookings.
Here's what too often gets overlooked in the 'gender roles' discussion: Times have changed. Two-income households have been the norm in the U.S. since the 1970s. Women's participation in the workforce has increased every year since then, with a brief decline during COVID. Why? Economics. Most families can't get by on one salary, and that's a fact of life. The male-as-provider paradigm hasn't been relevant for decades, yet it's still being pushed as if it applies. No wonder young men are confused. Men need to figure out a new role for themselves that doesn't depend on their relationship to someone else, namely women. And FTR, women had to figure this out a while ago - how to be the carer and the nurturer, but also the provider and the careerist.
Minimizing much?
Snark much?
Yes to the jobs training acts that Lyndon Johnson got passed in the 1960s. Probably getting people in a setting to learn job skills and have some successes (esp away from smart phones) could be an answer. Just for the record, 80 year old female retired lawyer here, men don't need to be Harvey Weinstein to behave badly--sexual harassment is real, and further, women are consistently discriminated against in all areas of work. Am I wrong to think that as the previously favored group, white men just haven't come to grips with not being automatically handed better jobs / better pay just for being born white and male? Entering a brand new law school building made for 1,000 students in 1969, (1) no women's bathrooms, except across from the secretary's station; (2) the women students I knew all worked and were able in those cheap days to pay their way, whereas many of the male students played cards in the afternoon before their (working) wives picked them up; (3) some professors made derogatory remarks about women as part of their standard classroom presentations. A male colleague griped to me that he would have gotten into a better law school except that "some Asian woman took my (his) place." Guess what we women students did? We ignored them all, got our degrees and went to work. Buckle up, boys. It's not going to change for you till you decide to take your lumps and do the scut work that women still do.
Galloway seems to not have any credentials that would support expertise in the status of men, women, men and women, or the loneliness epidemic in this country. It's actually just exactly the same ol' same ol', with a middle-aged white man expounding on something he is aware of, but doesn't actually have any research or expertise in, as if he has as much an informed opinion as psychologists, sociologists and people doing the actual work of examining the phenomenon and the potential contributors and possible solutions. He's repeating the manosphere perspectives without the violent language and overt hatred of women, but the misogyny remains the same, and he gets accolades and supporters who hear the softened tone over the content and he gets treated like an expert. The loneliness epidemic has been going on for more than twenty years, and boys and men have been in crisis for 30 plus years. Yes, it's not good, but until the culture - and men - are truly willing to change the status quo, and grow themselves, men and boys will be in crisis. Galloway's ideas of gender differences are straight out of his Marketing experience and history, and have nothing to do with biology, brain science or psychology. And, while Scott may decry men's likelihood to "hurt themselves" after a date, as of this year, 41% - almost half - of women will experience physical violence or stalking, and a full 50% of female homicide victims are killed by someone they love. Often by that loved one, after drinking that alcohol that this conversation seems to think is such a great elixir for lubricating social interactions. WTF. So, as Margaret Atwood said, "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, and women are afraid men will kill them". Because it's actually likely, Scott. Sorry, Rick, this conversation belongs at the bar; I'm sure it was fun for you guys, but it's moving nothing forward, it's a Saturday night, half-in-the-bag blowhard opinion-fest that needed a few women eavesdropping and then boisterously correcting you guys on a whole slew of issues.
Thank you, precisely what I came to say. I find Mr. Galloway's work interesting, & important, a needed voice to a degree - but the constant tossing off of percentages & statistics without context or any citing of sources sets my teeth on edge; they still sound like mansplaining to me.
The fact (if it is indeed one) that young men are more likely to hurt themselves, horrible as it is, doesn't do anything about the fact that the disconnect between so many men and their feelings can result in outer-directed rage, often at the women in their lives. It may be physically violent, which I have witnessed in my life & the lives of my friends, or emotionally violent, controlling, verbally abusive, etc. These have been around forever, & women & girls and children are still suffering as a result.
My main reason for writing is to express my shock over both these men, uncritically, giving casual credence to the proposition that young people should drink more alcohol. For god's sake, that is foolish & deeply irresponsible. And liver damage is not caused by social drinking, it's a result of years of serious alcohol addiction. Addiction is a horrific disease, it destroys health, well-being, families, lives. There is a strong genetic component to alcoholism, so it doesn't take much drinking as a young person to create a dependence that will cause unspeakable misery, stress, even death, to the alcoholic & scores of people around him, for decades. People can & will & should make their own decisions about drinking, but please, Rick, do not provide a platform for this position. If young men don't have the skills to socialize, maybe we should teach all our young people better, & give them healthy ways to practice people skills instead of encouraging them to drink.
Yes, Sulie, I clearly used a lot of words to not say "mansplaining" but that was exactly my experience of this chat between the guys.
Did you even listen to the whole interview?
I did, indeed, and replayed a good portion of it to be sure I was hearing what I thought I was hearing.
I heard Scott acknowledging a lot of your points. I also heard him saying that both young men and women should be valued and mentored equally and effectively
Tony, your comment is precisely what I described. Thank you.
Rick Wilson is the hardest working man in the business!
Thank you both for the nice comments and conversation!
Gentlemen you can procrate until age 110 yrs old that is a fact!
Perhaps a Comprehensive Employment Training Act just like the late President Carter when I was a young teenager!
Hey Rick! I grew up in Tally and will be back in FL (but at the beach) for Xmas - loved the conversation today. We have a 15 yr old son and am going to order the book. He’s got a crew of really good friends, but I still worry about the whole internet/AI girlfriend/anti social rabbit hole…. I’m early Gen X and feel totally out of my league regarding how the kids are growing up today!!!
Thanks again for having Scott on!
Yes, that is primary! Men and women and how they relate to each other is the core problem!
Hi, I really need a video about the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair piece! What game is she playing there? I don’t believe a word of her denials, she knew exactly what she was doing. But I don’t see the end game.
ETA: Ask and you shall receive…
https://www.lincolnsquare.media/p/susie-wiles-plea-deal-with-history
The told her to take a walk on the Wile side.
I think of it as an exit interview in reverse.
Agreed. She is smart and shrewd. There’s a game afoot methinks.