Article Directory
Alright, let's dive into this "crisis of masculinity" that Scott Galloway's been talking about. He's got a book out, "Notes on Being a Man," and he's been making the rounds, including an appearance on Fareed Zakaria's show. The core claim, as I understand it, is that young men are falling behind in education, work, and relationships. But is this a data-driven diagnosis, or just…vibes?
The Alleged Decline: Numbers or Narrative?
Galloway's a smart guy (MBA from Berkeley, marketing professor at NYU), so I'm assuming he's got some data backing this up. The problem is, the sound bites don't usually include the spreadsheets. So, what are the numbers? We need specifics. What metrics are we using to define "falling behind?" Are we talking college enrollment rates? Employment figures? Marriage rates? It's not enough to just say things are bad; we need to quantify the badness.
And even if the numbers do show a decline, correlation isn't causation. Are these trends unique to men, or are they part of broader societal shifts affecting everyone? Maybe everyone's struggling with education, work, and relationships in the 2020s (seems likely, given the state of the world). Is there a control group?
The Amazon Automation Angle
I’m seeing some interesting parallels here with the Amazon automation story. Galloway talks about how Amazon is automating away jobs, potentially displacing hundreds of thousands of workers. (Leaked documents apparently show a target of 600,000 jobs automated by 2033.) Now, that is a concrete data point. He even discussed Amazon's future on his podcast, as detailed in "Big Tech Stock Pick of 2026: Amazon".
But what if the "crisis of masculinity" is, in part, a crisis of employment for men in traditionally male-dominated fields? If Amazon is replacing warehouse workers (disproportionately men) with robots, and manufacturing is following suit, then maybe the problem isn't some inherent flaw in modern men, but a systemic shift in the labor market.
Here’s a thought leap: How are these “automation” numbers being calculated? Are they truly measuring a decrease in human labor hours, or are they just measuring a shift in types of labor? For example, fewer forklift drivers, but more robotics technicians?
The article mentions an MIT study finding that one robot reduces employment by six workers. That's a scary number, but it doesn't tell us who those six workers are, or what their demographics look like. Are they mostly men? Are they mostly younger men? That's the critical piece of the puzzle.
And this is the part of the analysis that I find genuinely puzzling. We have all this data about automation, job displacement, and the changing nature of work, but we're framing it as a crisis of masculinity? Isn't that a bit…reductive?
Beyond the Binary: A More Nuanced View
Look, I'm not saying there's no problem. Maybe there is a crisis of masculinity, in some sense. But framing it as a simple "men are falling behind" narrative ignores the complexities of the situation. It ignores the impact of automation, the changing labor market, and the broader societal shifts that are affecting everyone, regardless of gender.
And it ignores the fact that "masculinity" itself is a constantly evolving concept. What it meant to be a man in 1950 is very different from what it means to be a man in 2025. Maybe the "crisis" isn't that men are failing to live up to some outdated ideal, but that the ideal itself is no longer relevant.
A Crisis of Data, Not Masculinity
Galloway's a smart guy, and I'm sure his book has some interesting insights. But based on what I've seen so far, this "crisis of masculinity" feels more like a catchy narrative than a data-driven diagnosis. Show me the numbers, and show me that these numbers aren't just a symptom of larger economic and technological forces at play. Until then, I'm calling it a case of vibes over verifiable insights.