Three decades ago, I studied all the interviews with business executives that appeared throughout 1994 in the ‘quality’ UK Sunday papers and in Management Today. Some of these interviews, particularly with the small number of featured female executives, would acknowledge the importance of teamwork and work/life balance. For almost all the male executives, though, there was a consistent theme. They viewed themselves, and wanted to be viewed, as individuals heroically and single-mindedly pursuing their vision. Business success, they suggested, is all about the individual qualities of the manager, and nothing to do with the collective effort of the workforce. How these executives saw themselves as men influenced the policies they pursued, particularly their pursuit of cost reduction and shareholder value at the expense of their workforce and their families. We, the readers, were urged to be impressed by their achievements and to ignore the contribution of those who worked for them and the suffering of those they sacked.
“Hero myths play a pivotal role in these male executive narratives, and their promotion influences how we perceive the labour process. They foster, and continually reinforce, an illusion that business success is all about the individual qualities of the manager, and nothing to do with the collective effort of the workforce.”
(The Manager as Hero, 13th International Labour Process conference, 1995)
The Diary of a CEO
I came across The Diary of a CEO recently when I was writing about longevity-obsessed tech billionaire Bryan Johnson. This podcast has over 5 million subscribers on YouTube, and is hosted by a young media-savvy British multi-millionaire entrepreneur, Steven Bartlett. Bartlett regularly interviews other entrepreneurs, together with assorted health and fitness gurus, psychologists, etc, and he has distilled some of what he has learnt from these interviews in a Sunday Times bestseller book with the same title.
Like the interviewees I studied in 1994, Bartlett’s interviewees ooze self-promotion. Unlike them there’s much emphasis on team work, and on being flexible enough to respect team members’ caring responsibilities.. “I’ve never seen anyone build a great company, project or organisation without a group of people,” writes Bartlett, “and I’ve never seen anyone reach personal greatness without the support of great people.” Although most of Bartlett’s interviewees are male, on the whole a slightly softer version of masculinity is on display than was apparent three decades ago.
Needless to say, Bartlett monitors his sleep performance, works out, and watches videos about longevity and AI. At the same time, though, he seems to have some interest in what a less stereotypical masculinity might look like. It’s a concern that emerges particularly clearly in two interviews, in October 2022 and October 2023, with entrepreneur, podcaster, author and lecturer Scott Galloway. What emerges from those interviews, though, is more a reworking of the stereotype than an overthrow of it.
Scott Galloway
Galloway is a Professor of Marketing, but he is described for one of the interviews as ‘The Relationships Professor’. He is, apparently, soon to add Masculinity to his plethora of book titles (writing on this, he admits, is “a commercial opportunity.”)
What’s going wrong for men?
At the start of the October 2023 interview, Bartlett asks what’s going wrong for men in our society. Galloway’s immediate response is that we are not giving them the compassion they deserve.
“This is a group that’s struggling, and we need to stop using terms like accountability and somehow blaming them for their own problems here. A 19-year-old male should not pay for the sins of his father or grandfather.”
That last sentence is fair enough. But by the age of 19 far too many males are actively involved in objectifying and sexually abusing females (either online or face-to-face). They are not to blame for the actions of their fathers or grandfathers, but they are old enough to be held to account for their own behaviour. In part, their actions spring from the male entitlement they have been trained to expect. So, one might imagine, having compassion might include helping them understand the oppressive nature of these patriarchal structures, and the benefits, for them as well as for females, of seeking greater equality between the sexes.
That is not Galloway’s conclusion. He believes that young males lack male role models, and, unbelievably, that they are actively discriminated against - “They are biologically behind women, they have an education system biased against them, and we have economic policies that have created a great deal of shame and rage.”
This supposed discrimination against males is reinforced, Galloway believes, by dating apps. Young women, he suggests, only want to date from a limited pool of men they think are worth dating. Most men get ignored, and this fuels their feelings of worthlessness - “We have a group of the most dangerous persons in the world,” he proclaims. “We’re producing millions of them, and that is a lonely, young, broke male.”
AI, sex bots, and pornography
Galloway believes that young men will become less dangerous if they are shown how to develop attributes that will make them more attractive to potential partners. This sounds suspiciously like dumping the responsibility for civilising men onto women. Even more worrying, though, is his suggestion that “Young men should be more aggressive.” This is a theme Galloway returns to many times in the interviews. Being aggressive “in a thoughtful way” is, he insists, different to harassment. But Galloway is unaware that what he calls ‘thoughtful aggression’ might often be the initial phase of grooming, a process whose end goal is abuse.
Galloway is particularly concerned about what AI and sex bots will do to men:
“I think that AI, in combination with sex bots, is going to create an industry where men start having relationships with algorithms and dolls … We’re going to have men having relationships with machines and dolls, as opposed to other humans.”
Pornography is not something Galloway is bothered about. He thinks there’s no research on its effects (has he not heard of Gail Dines?). The main problem with consuming porn, he argues, is that it takes so much time. Nothing is said about how it distorts sexual relationships from an early age, and how it damages girls in particular. He thinks it ridiculous to tell young men not to engage in porn. Instead, he suggests, they should be encouraged to moderate their consumption, to free time for making money or seeking a relationship.
Galloway’s inability to acknowledge the corrupting impact of pornography is revealed by his suggested counter to the threat to human relationships posed by AI and sex bots. He thinks that Her (the 2013 movie) should be required viewing for every teen male. As film analyst Alline Cornier demonstrates, Her is a movie which normalises men owning artificial ‘females’, and it dehumanises women. Does Galloway really believe that teen boys, already addicted to porn on their smartphones, will view this propaganda and not see women as less than human? Galloway’s recommended viewing is just another weapon reinforcing the patriarchal objectification of women. And far from thwarting the integration of humans and AI, it softens us up for it.
Andrew Tate Lite?
Bartlett asks Galloway, in both the interviews, what he thinks of Andrew Tate. (Tate is the misogynist ‘influencer’ who remains under charge in Romania for human trafficking and rape). In the October 2022 interview, Galloway’s response is that “mostly it’s a grift.” A year later, he is more forthcoming, and more accepting - “The majority of what Andrew Tate says is probably positive. It starts from a really good place - take accountability for your actions, be in good shape.” It’s only the last 10-20% of Tate’s influence that Galloway thinks is ugly. His alternative guidance for young men is to start as Tate recommends, but instead of trying to signal your attractiveness with luxury consumption, or speculating in crypto currency, you should spend less, and invest what you have saved in the stock market. This way “you can develop an army of people who are killing it, killing people, invading the earth while you’re in your sleep.”
It’s tempting to make allowances for Galloway’s violent language, and assume he doesn’t mean this literally. But his suggested investment strategy is all about maximising income, regardless of how it is obtained. Where Tate encourages young men to exploit women directly, Galloway advises them to employ others to exploit for them, giving them the financial status that will improve their dating prospects
Modern masculinity - a ‘new vision’?
The marketing mix is supposed to be made up of 4 Ps (product, price, place, and promotion). So we should not be surprised that a Professor of Marketing comes up with 3 Ps to distil the “new vision for modern masculinity” that he thinks we need - Protector, Provider, and Procreator. Given Galloway’s 80-90% endorsement of Andrew Tate, we should not be surprised, either, that his ‘new vision’ is distinctly patriarchal.
Protector
The modern vision of protection, Galloway suggests, “needs some nuance.” But the example of nuance he gives, that men should understand ‘the trans community’, is truly astounding. Men, he suggests, should accept it when a doctor decides “that a 15-year-old should have surgery and go through transition with hormones”. Far from protecting children from those who would mutilate their bodies, Galloway believes that the correct nuanced response for men is to go along with it.
Provider
A provider, Galloway suggests, is someone who cares - for himself, for his family, and especially for others. The ultimate expression of masculinity, for him, is getting involved in the development of a child, particularly by acting as a mentor to adolescent boys. He complains that ‘’the Catholic Church and Michael Jackson have fucked it up for all of us. 99.99% of love that men want to display and get involved in a young man’s life is positive. Society has taught us to be suspect of those men. It’s a real shame.” So only 0.01% of adult men are a risk to children? Really? This is from an academic who constantly exhorts us to “look at the data.” Galloway’s ignorance of relevant research, and his disregard of safeguarding concerns, are staggering.
Procreator
Here Galloway’s endorsement of patriarchal attitudes is particularly stark. Men, he believes, need to feel OK again about aggressively initiating a sexual relationship. We have become too risk averse - “I worry that we have too little teen pregnancy”. Really?? Galloway sees declining birth rates as a problem, rather than part of the degrowth that will be needed to protect the living planet. Perhaps it’s fortunate that there’s no mention in these interviews of surrogacy as a new profit opportunity for male entitlement, female subordination, and procreation. Or is he saving that for his forthcoming book on masculinity?
‘Big dick energy’
Galloway celebrates his use of words that convey “profanity and vulgarity’’, and he sees this as integral to taking back masculinity. The political left, he suggests, needs to follow his example, and admit that it’s OK to ba a man. “It’s OK to be aggressive,” he writes (again). “When Russians pour over the border into Ukraine, you want some of that big dick energy.”
This is problematic on so many levels. Is Galloway unaware how often armies employ rape as a weapon of war? He cannot be supporting that as part of the procreator role, can he? So what is he endorsing when he invokes ‘big dick energy’?
Maybe this is just another example of his using language insensitively, and what he is getting at is that physical aggression needs a determined response. But the appropriate determined response is not always a violent one.
A different perspective is offered by a more reliable commenter on masculinity, Robert Jensen. Reflecting in 2008 on American responses to 9/11 in popular music, Jensen noted that military responses to aggression inevitably kill innocent people, and that they are often counter-productive. Violent retaliation should not be the automatic reflex.
“Let’s never forget that around the world people suffer 9/11 levels of violence on a regular basis. If the violence continues - the visible violence of war, the quiet violence of economic inequality, and the deeper violence against the living world - it’s not clear there will be a world left, at least not a world we would want to leave to our children.”
(Robert Jensen, Arrogance, Ignorance, and Cowardice, MR online Sep 2008)
Victoria Smith concludes her recent critique of male entitlement with a question - “Who wants to spend their whole life being a dick?” Exploring their answer to this simple question would, I suspect, be more helpful for young men than pursuing Galloway’s 3 Ps. It would certainly lead to better social outcomes.