Why Scott Galloway Needs Me

Your Masculine Code Is Incomplete

At almost every workshop and talk I gave last month, I was asked about my thoughts on Scott Galloway’s new code of masculinity: protect, provide, procreate.

You’ve probably seen it. After all, he’s everywhere. His new book Notes on Being A Man has topped bestseller lists since it launched. 

But why him? He’s a professor of marketing and a compelling speaker, not a masculinities expert – but he’s a keen observer of trends and he’s even more keen on making his opinions known. 

This isn’t a bad thing, in fact, it’s good.

Not only is he bringing awareness to the issues facing boys and men, he is doing something around masculinity that most experts in my field have been hesitant to do: prescribing a clear code of masculinity that boys and men can aspire towards.

I believe this is long overdue, but as a sociologist who specializes in the social-emotional development and wellbeing of boys and men, there are significant limitations to his masculine code.

I don’t just say that because I have my own:

Build Safety, Show Up, Give a Damn

But because I want aspirational codes of masculinity to interrupt the status quo – and Scott’s is too tame.

The teenage boys I worked with last month said that they preferred my framework, but I know some will prefer Galloway’s–and that’s the point. This is not a competition, it’s an attempt at collaboration. There’s room for our areas of expertise to strengthen one another’s.

I’d like Galloway fans to consider my framework in addition to his. And I’d genuinely like to invite Galloway himself into the conversation.

---

Some Experts Resist a Code for Masculinity

So why are many experts uncomfortable with Scott, or anyone, prescribing a code for positive masculinity? There are two main reasons:

The first is that there are multiple ways to be a man and express your masculinity, therefore anytime there is a list there is a danger that that communicates there’s a right or wrong way to be a man.

The second reason is that many are concerned that promoting positive masculinity perpetuates the idea that human traits are gendered, and it would be much better to focus on promoting positive human qualities instead of positive masculinity.

---

I Still Support Aspirational Masculinities

There’s lots of validity to those arguments, but here’s why I support Scott in providing aspirational codes of masculinity:

Human beings form stronger identities when they are offered pathways on how to be, not just told how not to be. 

I know firsthand that the thousands of boys I’ve worked with this year hear far more messages about the types of boys they shouldn’t be like, and the type of masculinity to avoid, than they hear messages offering a healthy vision of what they or masculinity could be.

As such, there is a clear developmental need for aspirational guidance.

Relatedly, the lack of positive guidance has created a huge vacuum that the red-pilled ecosystem has capitalized on. They are very skilled at offering boys something tangible to cling on to—even though it’s extremely harmful, the clarity is compelling, especially for those in search of identity.

This is why I think Scott Galloway’s messages about masculinity are getting so much airtime—other than him being an excellent marketer and speaker—people are so eager and desperate for anything that isn’t from the far-right and yet tries to reconstruct something positive with masculinity instead of just deconstructing the harmful aspects.

---

The Limits of Galloway’s Framework

Although I strongly support what Scott is attempting, I have strong critiques of protect, provide, and procreate. First, they are simply too limiting.

(To be fair, Scott expands the definition of all these three words beyond how they are typically understood. For example, he explains that “providing” finances might also mean getting out of the way of your partner who might be able to earn more income than you).

It’s not that I’m against protection, provision, or procreation.The problem is that none of these three “p’s” offers anything unique for boys and men to aspire towards, nor does it address the core of the issues facing boys and men.

Here’s what I mean: Out of the thousands of boys and men I’ve worked with this year, virtually all of them already associate being a man with aspiring to protect, provide, and procreate. 

Many of them even feel intense pressure to try and achieve those three things. In fact, the pressure for boys and men to try and achieve each of those three things is well researched and is correlated to many negative psychological outcomes for boys and men. (Feel free to read my lit review of my PhD).

Again, Scott offers a wider definition of what those three things can mean as well as offers some practical advice on how to achieve some of those things, which will be valuable to some boys and men—but overall, his framework is far too tame. It’s not disruptive enough to truly shift the wellbeing of boys and men, or of society.

---

Why We Need Something More

A paradigm shift is needed—not just in content but in structure.

Masculinity needs to move away from being check-list driven to being process oriented. So less of a “to-do” list, and more of a “learning how to be” list.

Less proving yourself, more knowing yourself.

I say this because beliefs around masculinity, even well-intentioned ones, become harmful when focused on the outcome: If I do these things and these things, then I become a protector, a provider, a procreator—finally worthy, finally man enough.

---

My Masculinity Framework: A Process, Not a Checklist

So with that critique in mind, here is my prescription for a process-oriented “masculine code:”

1. Build Safety
   
2. Show Up
   
3. Give A Damn

---

1. Build Safety

Building safety refers to building safety within yourself, and for those around you. Of course, part of building safety for others can absolutely include physical protection or financial stability, but a much larger part of this is about providing emotional safety, for yourself and others.

Like all of these on my list, building safety is not about arriving at an end goal. Creating safety is an adaptive and an ongoing process that requires emotional intelligence because you must listen and pay attention to what actually creates safety.

And that can change.

For instance, sometimes building safety looks like me taking on more work so I can provide more financial security for my family, and sometimes building safety looks like me turning down opportunities for more work so I can be more physically and emotionally present with my family.

---

2. Show Up

“Showing up” means three things:

1. Living in integrity between your professed values and actions; following through on what you said you’d do.
2. Being dependable and service-oriented. In other words, literally showing up for your community and people in your life, even if inconvenient.
3. Showing up to face discomfort, especially the discomfort of accountability. So many men have been socialized to respond to their shame with anger or by withdrawing. Showing up in this context means resisting that reflex on either end of the continuum. It means being willing to look yourself in the mirror and see all the parts that exist inside of you. Even the conflicting parts.

---

3. Give a Damn

This last one is a bit different. You can think of it as fuel that motivates “building safety” and “showing up,” but most simply, it means to care. Care about yourself, about growth, about others, and about how your actions or inactions impact the world around you. 

This “pillar” is in response to the disengagement, aimlessness, numbness, and the culture of “it’s not that deep, bro” that many young men are living in these days.

Teachers, parents, and coaches consistently tell me that the most difficult boys to work with aren’t the angry ones, it’s the ones who seem to not care or engage with anything.

As my dad used to tell me, it’s easier to steer a car when it’s moving. And in the same way, growth requires movement, even if it’s imperfect or in the wrong direction. We can figure out direction later.

It’s really important to add a caveat that “not giving a damn” might be an adaptive trauma response. For instance, sometimes the reason why people appear to “not give a damn” is because there hasn’t been enough safety first; they learned that it was safer to disengage.

This is why the three items on my list are necessarily interconnected, because “Building Safety” might be required before you can “Give a Damn.”

---

Coming Full Circle

I could write an entire book on what practical skills and steps you could take to grow in each of these areas, and what is required on an individual and societal level in order for this to work, but let me try to bring this already lengthy post full circle:

In all honesty, I started writing this post being much more critical of Scott Galloway’s current takes on masculinity and gender issues—some of which I still think are reckless—but that tempered as I wrote.

It’s somewhat ironic that the skills required for my process-oriented list would likely lead to the outcomes that Scott Galloway cares about: protection, provision, and procreation.

For instance, having a high emotional intelligence (which is a skill that can be developed) is correlated to greater relationship success, not only with your partner but also higher satisfaction being a father. It’s also correlated to more success in the work force, and greater longevity. 

---

Open Invitation to Scott

So Scott, I love aspirational masculinity but the framing of it matters. I know many people are longing for a positive narrative of masculinity that doesn’t bypass harm, but also doesn’t bypass the good.

Thank you for putting forth a framework that offers direction, even though it’s imperfect–every “masculine code” will be imperfect, mine included. 

Your voice and the visibility you bring to this topic matters. I know you can learn from what I offer in this space, and I’m confident I could learn from you too. 

Despite the title of this post, I probably need you too.

My hope is that together, and with others in this space, we continue refining this conversation so it has greater transformative power.

I believe we share the same goal: a world where boys and men feel connected to a positive sense of purpose and hope, and where their relationships—with themselves, with others and with their communities—are strengthened and lead to greater flourishing for all.

I may not be Oprah, but let’s talk.

We need to build critical mass on this topic that results in change.