The political left often alienates young men by framing them as 'the problem,' while the far-right offers a regressive, misogynistic vision. This failure from both sides to constructively address the genuine challenges young men face leaves them vulnerable to extremist narratives that thrive in the resulting ideological vacuum.
While mainstream liberal politics often frames young men as 'the problem,' the far right has actively courted this disenfranchised group. This political vacuum allowed extremist ideologies to fill the void, capturing a significant and politically potent demographic by acknowledging their struggles.
The successful fight for women's equality has inadvertently created a blind spot for the growing problems facing men, such as higher suicide rates and lower college enrollment. This 'elite neglect' from the left has alienated male voters, who feel their problems are ignored or that they are seen as the problem.
Scott Galloway argues the far right recognized the crisis facing young men before the left. While their solutions were regressive—blaming women and minorities—their early diagnosis of the problem created a political vacuum they successfully filled, attracting a disenchanted male demographic.
Productive conversations about men's struggles are stifled by a societal "gag reflex." This is caused by the far-right co-opting the issue with regressive solutions and the far-left reframing it as men *being* the problem, leading to immediate accusations of misogyny.
While the right promotes a flawed version of masculinity, the left's common response is to suggest men adopt more feminine traits. Galloway argues this is ineffective because it fails to offer an aspirational, positive vision of masculinity, leaving many men feeling alienated and unrepresented.
The crisis among young men stems from a societal narrative that pathologizes their core biological impulses. Traits like aggression, dominance, and ambition, which are natural drivers, are now deemed toxic. This creates internal conflict and a sense of worthlessness, contributing to 'deaths of despair.'
Historically, men derived group identity from being "the default" within societal institutions. As these institutions lose their central hold, some men are experiencing a disorienting loss of power, leading them to form radical, grievance-based tribes to find a new sense of identity.
The struggles and pathologies seen in young men are not just an isolated gender issue. They are a leading indicator that the broader societal belief in upward mobility—'we can all do well'—is eroding. This group is the first to react when reliable paths to success seem blocked.
The crisis facing young men is fundamentally economic. Their declining viability as providers prevents family formation, a cornerstone of societal stability. This economic frustration leads to anger and radicalization, making the "lonely, broke young man" a uniquely destabilizing force in society.
The societal "gag reflex" against discussing men's struggles is rooted in the fact that early voices on the topic often conflated masculinity with coarseness and cruelty. This created a lasting, negative association that hinders productive conversation.