As the author of the Dec 12 NYT essay that helped start this conversation, just wanted to say that I appreciate how you explore a lot of ideas that got cut from the NYT piece, including my English Department faculty supervisor telling me to "not include any male tears" in my annual perfromance review when I mentioned that NY publishers seem to focused more on the womens' experiences today.
Well… you knew Whitey Mann would have to weigh in. There are likely over a thousand publishing houses, and maybe a dozen among them that are actively open to publishing works by hetero males, SWMs. Until there are more and more, men will be limited to tying themselves into knots to please the feminist deciders, or just self-publishing on KDP, where their work will be considered (by the literati—review and book prizes) amateurish, juvenile racist, sexist, whatever.
BTW, yesterday I went to an Irish bar hosting a performance by a man singing Irish songs, solo. There were only six people in the place. The singer, the audience of one, myself, the bartender (female), and three young white women. The three women were in their twenties, tattooed up. All through the singer’s songs they kept their backs to him, loud-talking, yelling and screaming like the ignorant, entitled idiots they obviously were. The bartender ignored them. The singer and I endured (I was singing along), trying to be heard over the disrespectful drunken cackling.
What I've seen happen to arts organizations, and I'm going to include publishing in this: someone, or a group of people start it and work their asses off to create something great. Then other people complain that they're not inclusive. Or else there's some vague charge of sexism or racism. Then the organization has to devote all their time to making amends by intentionally centering and promoting whatever demographic they offended. I'm thinking about the hoopla involving American Dirt. Like there were all these complaints that it was written by a white woman. Okay, if somebody feels that some voices are not being heard, then they should start their own publishing company to give those people a voice, rather than demand an already established business become a vehicle for their agenda or cause. But that's not what happened.
I believe that talented writers who do not write about social justice issues, or who do not fit certain boxes (female, POC, progressive, etc) are considered unfashionable at this time.
The solution is for those who are currently being shut out to create their own publishing companies, their own media. And create good work rather than just bitch about being shut out (I've noticed often women and minorities who complain about being shut out often have little to talk about except complaining about being shut out). Then when they have established something great and the mob comes at their door demanding "inclusivity" and claiming they have a "diversity problem", or even claiming that they are "problematic"- these people making these charges are told to fuck off. Let them create their own thriving business instead of demanding to take over others. That is what should have happened in the first place but didn't.
The gripes were so petty. Given that the book clearly was sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants yet there are still a shit fit, I can't imagine the temper tantrum if somebody dare write a novel with an illegal immigrant character who was not sympathetic. Not a good person. It's impossible to imagine a book like that being published today by any mainstream publisher.
All I remember is that what stopped all the drama over this from dominating discussion was the spread of COVID. I guess that's one good thing about the COVID pandemic.
But essentially this is so much bigger than just the publishing industry. Boys aren’t reading. (Neither are girls, just not reading to a lesser degree than boys) and part of why is because there are not books for boys, and also partly because less and less people are reading in general.
There are so many causes and what you point out is definitely some of them, but this is also just a viscous spiral for all ages of readers: Boys don’t read, so books for boys aren’t profitable, so books for boys aren’t published, so boys don’t read, and on and on and on.
I have to admit that although I appreciate this take as more nuanced than the norm, I have come to find the terms of this discourse profoundly annoying, and it is frustrating to see a thoughtful writer capitulate to them. It’s not because I wouldn’t read a good book about this “Authentic Male Experience,” as I’ve read (and enjoyed) plenty of literature written by, and about, outright misogynists, and violent, resentful, struggling men in general. That’s truly absolutely fine by me.
It’s also not because I deny that certain aspects of the push for diversity make it difficult for white men to publish.
It’s also not because I like what’s being published now! At this point, I’ve come to understand that, with exceptions, the prevailing aesthetic and approach publishing takes isn’t one I fully like. Good things are being written by great writers, don’t get me wrong—and perhaps this is personal taste, but at this point, I’ve seen friends (women and/or POC writers as much as white men, honestly) go through the drafting process through agenting through editing, and the fact of the matter is, my favorite works don’t make it. If they do, my favorite parts of those works—the experimental, lyrical parts, for instance—don’t make it. And if they do make it, they don’t do well for whatever reason. Which is unbelievably frustrating, as someone who always saw themselves as keeping up with the latest spoken-about novels, but who usually finds themselves reaching to the (diverse!) authors of the past, instead, for artistic fulfillment.
It’s because of this weirdly relentless equation, deep in the sedimented foundation of this discussion, between misogyny and—despite your disclaimer, which says more than it realizes—“Authentic Maleness.” The upshot of a lot of these discussions is that women just need to tolerate overtly misogynistic thoughts on page so that men can be “authentically men,” and that this is only fair because, I don’t know, Sally Rooney is openly resentful of men at points.
Like Rooney’s resentment (which I find *deeply* unpalatable and frankly just don’t relate to, but is sometimes rendered well), I am willing to put up with all of that for a good cause, i.e., a piece of art that says something important, but frankly, I’m not going to do it just to allow people to vent their worst instincts and ideas on page—as if documenting those were important for its own sake, as if men weren’t everywhere venting such things on TikTok or whatever, and as if we all didn’t know perfectly well some men were thinking these thoughts and how. (The historians are not going to lack for knowledge of the interiority of violently-inclined, white male subjects with misogynistic tendencies, needless to say.) It’s fine to say you should be able to use these things as artistic material. I completely agree! I’m a hundred percent willing to read such literature. But make it worth my while, and stop assuming that is some sort of hotbed of true masculine experience—it is, frankly, misandrist of those of you who are equating them.
It’s misandrist and, frankly, it’s just bullshit. I look around at the straight men who are in my life, the ones I have deep closeness with and whose thoughts I know well, and I don’t think that their “authentic maleness” intrinsically characterized by misogyny. I also look around at my bookshelf, at all of the Old White Male writers I love, and I don’t think that their work is characterized by misogyny, either! Misogyny often *appears* in their work and can be central to it, but their work is just as often about homosocial bonds, or nature, or God, or the imagination, or philosophy, or their relationship with their dads, or their relationship with their children, or any number of other things, but no one is complaining they can’t talk about *those* things—the stuff that isn’t “potent, hyper-sexualized, taboo, muscular and brilliant.” There are many aspects of the hetero contemporary male experience that have nothing to do with those descriptors, and, though those of you who are not doing well in the
contemporary culture hate to hear this, many men are happily, natively “PC” and don’t particularly care about or relate to them.
And if what you’re saying is that, by virtue of the subject position they have, straight white male subjects are being dismissed from talking about such things (or anything, really) and they shouldn’t be, then that’s a much more interesting and truly important issue to bring up, but the complaint is persistently and tellingly that a *certain kind* of subject matter is taboo, and that the reason it shouldn’t be is because of its intrinsic “authenticity.”
Straightfacedly calling for “genuine male novels” (as though all men want to write these very specific taboo, hyper sexualized novels you’re calling for) is quite a thing to do, and judging by that disclaimer about gay men I think somewhere deep down you know it. For the love of god, please, ffs, interrogate to yourself, for the sake of this discourse, why you and others are framing it that way. And if you have other recommendations for *really good* potent, hyper-sexualized, etc. etc. novels you think people should read, I’d be quite happy to consider them lol.
Hi. Thanks for reading and for the detailed response. You articulate all of this quite well. I think you're misunderstanding something fundamental, though, at least when it comes to my specific essay. I wasn't saying anything about men wanting to be or celebrating misogyny. (Though I think there's a double-standard here since women gleefully engage in man-hate literary porn all the time.) All I was saying was that most American men are straight and, like women with other women, have general commonalities. We men talk about these things already online, amongst ourselves, etc. So in general there does seem to be a sort of 'universal' male experience. Yet we don't seem to see this experience refelected on the page anymore. Why? Well, my essay explores that. Men do have uncomfortable, even shocking or taboo thoughts sometimes. I think there's a place for that to be explored on the page. It's much more honest. But simply saying it's all in the name of 'misogyny' is hard to take seriously. This word has become a catchall phrase in the culture wars which is supposed to clamp down any dissent. If a man said it, it must be misogyny. I don't buy that. (Also I'm not necessarily saying you're using it that way but I see this as a problem generally.)
So, here’s the thing. I recognize that you are trying to detangle “authentic male experience” from misogyny. My argument is that you are, nonetheless, implicitly tying male expression of their “authentic experience” to their ability to say and do (specifically) progressive-woman-offending things. And this happens over and over again in these discussions. Those “shocking or taboo” thoughts you mentioned—WHY are they shocking or taboo? Care to elaborate? How are they especially shocking or taboo in a world that has already published and celebrated Hemingway, American Psycho, the incredibly well-regarded Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, etc.?
Whenever it comes to depicting the “authentic male experience,” men who want to write sensitive prose about the Alps never get touted as an example of what’s missing… even though that’s a time-honored trope for male authors throughout European history—one that goes back far further than the tropes you mentioned! And if the problem is straight male writer representation, generally, where are the articles claiming men should be able to write like Hölderlin again?
Again, as long as you pull it off, it should be fine to depict shocking or taboo or even misogynist thoughts, just like it’s fine to depict resentment against men. And again, it’s the naturalization of those thoughts as “universal male experience” that I object to. I have no doubt that men talk the way you describe amongst themselves, and that it is a strong pattern of behavior among certain circles, but I have enough straight male loved ones, and know enough straight male writers, to know that they find the assumption they are sitting around secretly participating in that or wanting to unspeakably eyeroll-worthy and dumb. They don’t secretly crave “taboo, muscular,” etc., fiction, any more than I as a female reader care about romance in my novels. What you’re describing is *a* male experience, one that could be worth exploring in the right hands! But that’s all. So don’t make the argument that the presence of the shocking/taboo/misogynistic subject matter=male writers thriving, because that’s ridiculous. Good art—which can include that subject matter, certainly!—is the sign of male writers thriving.
You just keep repeating your assertion that he ever said, or even implied, really, that misogynistic subject matter = male writers thriving. He never said such a thing. That's just something you keep saying he said. He already rather effectively refuted that contention on your part but you just keep trying to prop it back up, shot full of holes though it now is.
And a lot of men (maybe gay men like myself in particular) do, in fact, think "muscular, taboo" fiction would be eminently worth seeking out and delving into. Are you suggesting that's because we all crave more misogyny in our novels? Because it's actually, in large part, because still controversial, nuanced and too often ignored dynamics such as close friendships between men identifying as heterosexual who nevertheless contain elements of romantic affection or unexamined homoeroticism at times, are likely to remain the kinds of subject matter that won't be depicted in fiction that shrinks from the taboo and isn't "muscular" enough to bravely and boldly assert that such things happen - potentially leading, ironically, to sanitized, heteronormative "straightwashing" of characters who might have otherwise honestly reflected that sexual orientation is a spectrum and "bromances" aren't always things that should be laughed at and then summarily dismissed. That's just one example of subject matter I think readers are, and/or should be, adult enough to be able to wrestle with. Subject matter both taboo and muscular in its need for nuance, yet lacking any trace or insidious undertone of misogyny. And "misogyny" is far too often brandished as a means to completely shut down any talk of there being more outreach of any kind to men - in any arena, from mental health care, to the male loneliness epidemic, to efforts to get more men to enroll in college and enter into fields such as nursing, to the matter discussed here: outreach to men who have stopped reading novels rather than complaining that gynocentrism and sometimes cartoonishly misandrist portrayals of the average modern man are strictly enforced by the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, who seem to have decided they're going to use their position to force everyone who wants to enjoy fiction to become feminist whether they like it or not...even though feminism has never even successfully convinced a majority of WOMEN to be comfortable identifying as feminist. That's not because male authors are eaten up by misogyny. It's because feminists won't even disavow S.C.U.M (the Society for Cutting Up Men) and they have a habit of harassing and belittling those women who surely do think it's important for women to have a rights movement, but aren't sure that's something feminism qualifies as. We're talking about a movement that can't for the life of itself mobilize enough voters to propel a fully capable, smart, experienced female politician to the presidency, so it now resigns itself instead to consolation prizes like "at least we can keep white male authors from publishing any novels with balls".
As I’ve said quite a few times at this point, this is the *implication* of his, and other, posts, and it’s bolstered by the fact that he really does think there’s a Universal Male Experience that these novels should be able draw from.
In these essays, the examples of what sort of Universal Male novels are missing always follow a certain formula, and the rhetoric of the arguments always involve Universal Maleness needing to offend progressive sensibilities to be properly Universally Male. And that’s bullshit, for reasons that don’t involve me being offended in the slightest—for reasons that involve me correctly pointing out that many men don’t really have offensive or “shocking” inner monologues at all. They have other things going on! (And as if anyone is actually “shocked” by non-progressive male thinking in 2025 lol.)
He didn’t “shoot my argument full of holes.” In fact, he doubled down on the Universal Male aspect of things above. (And respectfully! Which I do really appreciate.) This is not about what people explicitly cop to—it’s implicit, since it is in fact an *implication*. ;)
The issues of male representation and literature and “shocking” male material are strictly, objectively separate, but always treated as identical in these essays, and for a reason—because these people are making assumptions about who men, in an essentialist sense, “truly” are.
As for your argument about subject matter: yes? What did I say that makes you think I object to any subject matter, at all, as long as it’s done well, when I’ve said the contrary many times? Where have you seen bromances decried by feminists, for that matter? That’s rather baffling.
As for your spontaneous rant on feminism, it’s really bad—did you know that other countries have equally powerful feminist movements, and have indeed had female heads of state??—but it doesn’t touch on anything I said. I’ll debate that another time.
I'm sorry, but I think you're misinterpreting the point of this essay as a discussion of subject matter rather than a discussion of anything that can even be mentioned. You describe the "Old White Male writers [you] love" in a way that makes me think that they wrote the type of books that this essay says is missing from modern publishing.
As for the natively PC men you reference, it seems like your mental model of them is just skewed. Your point seems to be that "the existence of these men proves that other men are just bad men," but a lot of them are more like a rough equivalent of NLOGs. You can often find them saying something along the lines of "it's not hard to just be nice to women" with the same meaning an NLOG might intend when saying "it's not hard to just be nice to men."
Alternatively, they might be men who you've already accepted as being who they are, but you might not think that that acceptance can carry over to other men- and indeed, it might be very hard to carry over, since each person is unique and they might be considerably outside the norm.
Also, I feel obligated to mention that there is a major difference in psychology between young men and older men. Older men are generally the ones you'd approve of, but being a younger man is not a failure to be an older man.
You're making a number of puzzling assumptions here.
- One, why are you suddenly denouncing the idea that men can be varied? A second ago, you seemed to agree that the very non-edgy-male subject matter I listed was legitimate, and indeed called for by the OP. I will note that all of that subject matter rests easily in a PC framework.
- Two, why do you assume that, by mentioning the fact that there are PC men who are happily and temperamentally that way, I'm setting up a good vs bad dichotomy? I sincerely have no idea what you're getting at with NLOGs, though I learned a new word today, so thanks for that.
My point is modest: the male experience really, really varies. And I have enough respect for males to take them at their word when they say they don't relate to this stuff. If your ideology is based on an assumption that you can read the minds of vast quantities of people and know who they are better than they do, it's probably pretty poorly reasoned. At very best, anyone who presumes "universal male experience" is making *far* more unwieldy claims than I'd dare to do.
- Most of the people I'm referring to--as in, the males whose psychology I'm confident in speaking for, my brothers and close friends--I came to know as young men, lol. In my daily life, young vs old has never really made a difference at all.
Oh, I agree completely that the male experience varies. Of course!! (My own male experience is quite varied. My wife is more traditionally "masculine" than me in some ways. I can be quite emotional. But I also have the other side, too.) Ditto with women and every other group. (There are a lot of anti-feminist women on Substack, for example.) Totally agree. But within those variations are some general, universal truths. These two concepts can exist at the same time. I think most men who claim they don't relate to "the general male experience," are either beta males who are a minority, or, frankly, are lying and trying to come off as one of the "good males" for women. If you trust men, then you should trust me when I share my experience and the experience of most men I've encountered. Some male writers are more reserved, for sure. But that doesn't mean they don't connect with what I'm saying. It's like saying that women have a maternal instinct. Ok, not EVERY woman has that. But in general, it's a Universal Female Experience. It has zero to do with misogyny or culture and 100% to do with biology, reality and evolution.
So first of all, thanks a lot for engaging in good faith here. I’m grateful for that and for your stab at a balanced take. These conversations need to be had and I’m truly glad we can seriously have them on substack.
Second of all, when I say I believe men and take them at their word, I mean I do so regarding *their own* inner subjectivity, of which they have epistemologically privileged information—not other people’s. Saying “I am willing to reasonably consider your experiences of yourself in good faith, because you have access to information about yourself that I don’t” is much more careful, defensible, and epistemologically conservative than what you’re proposing—to somehow have the statistical knowledge to say that men who don’t relate to you are “betas” or marginal, or to somehow have the frankly magical telepathic knowledge to know that a huge swath of them are lying.
I’m totally fine acknowledging the existence of anti-feminists, and women who are temperamentally suited to patriarchy, and it has zero impact on my conclusions. None of the claims I will make, ever, involve saying such women don’t “really” feel that way or don’t “really” exist or don’t count. My worldview is capacious enough to include them. Feminism gave up on a Universal Female Experience long ago (the 60s-70s class- and race-related reckoning they had)—the reasons why would be worth investigating to infuse some rigor into this conversation.
I really, really recommend you take an honest, open-minded tour through perfectly canonical Straight(ish) White Male literature since Chaucer. What you will find there, in terms of the vast majority, is not the Universal Male Experience you are trying to describe. At all. You will find plentiful information to the contrary, or you will have to decide that the Great White Straight Male Authors were all lying beta cucks. ;)
I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that muscular hypersexual et al subject matter is potentially tired out at all, but there are many other excellent observations on the forces at work here.
What I’m actually arguing is that the essay *claims* to be about a demographic that’s missing, but in reality links a certain “offensive” subject matter to that demographic’s output, which is absolutely characteristic of this often-very-tiring line of discourse.
As a retired male gynecologist, I watched women dominate my specialty in just one generation from 5% to over 90%. There were many reasons for this:
1) women began to populate ALL the medical specialties in increasing percentages;
2) there is a natural tendency for specific genders to seek the same gender when it comes to reproduction--more specifically, genitalia (e.g, men prefer a male urologist; women prefer a female OBGYN)--that is, there may be a "squeamish" factor of "private" areas;
3) it is felt a "kindred" gender will understand the trials and tribulations of pregnancy and women's pathology with better empathy.
Or, more likely,
4) the sea change in women being allowed to seek employment and vocations has finally caught up with a traditionally misogynistic tradition of breadwinners vs. homemakers, especially as filtered through a gender filter.
I remember being told by a woman she'd "never" go to me for her prenatal care because I was a man. (Never mind I had lived life with my wife through four problem pregnancies and lived every worry, pain, and complication when the woman physician she was going to had never even been pregnant: I bristled when she told me this.)
Everyone can whine about a gender bias (applicable here as men are felt to be poor renderers of woman-centric stories or emotions). That may be true FOR NOW, as capitalism sorts this out in real-time. But eventually, it will come down to the writing craft and the talent rendering it. (Like the science, skill, and art of the gynecology.)
Now that I'm retired (not because of my gender--important to say!) and writing full-time (the FRICTION SECTION on Substack), what I see now just evokes a "been there-done that" knee jerk. Consider this jerk already jerked. Go for the craft and the excellence. The marketplace, hopefully, will unfilter the gender bias so that excellence can rise to the top...until the next disruptor comes along.
Been pondering the same question. When my friends (female) recommend a new novel, it’s always one written by a woman. Most book reviews I read are of books by female authors. I have actually stopped reading novels now, a complete departure from my lifelong reading habits. Biographies, history, literary analysis/criticism, books about social, legal, or political issues - that’s all I read. The last novels I read? The Story of Edgar Sawtelle and The Storied Life of AJ Fikry. Nothing since has moved me to go beyond the first chapter.
Perhaps I’m too old and tired and jaded for the navel-gazing that seems to dominate contemporary literature.
As I’ve said quite a few times at this point, this is the *implication* of his, and other, posts, and it’s bolstered by the fact that he really does think there’s a Universal Male Experience that these novels should be able draw from.
In these essays, the examples of what sort of Universal Male novels are missing always follow a certain formula, and the rhetoric of the arguments always involve Universal Maleness needing to offend progressive sensibilities to be properly Universally Male. And that’s bullshit, for reasons that don’t involve me being offended in the slightest—for reasons that involve me correctly pointing out that many men don’t really have offensive or “shocking” inner monologues at all. They have other things going on! (And as if anyone is actually “shocked” by non-progressive male thinking in 2025 lol.)
He didn’t “shoot my argument full of holes.” In fact, he doubled down on the Universal Male aspect of things above. (And respectfully! Which I do really appreciate.) This is not about what people explicitly cop to—it’s implicit, since it is in fact an *implication*. ;)
As I’ll do with him shortly, I’ll direct you to this essay on male desire, which refutes Ross Barkin’s nearly identical assertion. (I also appreciate Barkin, for the record.) The issues of male representation and literature and “shocking” male material are strictly, objectively separate, but always treated as identical in these essays, and for a reason—because these people are making assumptions about who men, in an essentialist sense, “truly” are.
As for your argument about subject matter: yes? What did I say that makes you think I object to any subject matter, at all, as long as it’s done well, when I’ve said the contrary many times? Where have you seen bromances decried by feminists, for that matter? That’s rather baffling.
As for your spontaneous rant on feminism, it’s really bad—did you know that other countries have equally powerful feminist movements, and have indeed had female heads of state??—but it doesn’t touch on anything I said. I’ll debate that another time.
Thanks again so much for publishing my essay!
As the author of the Dec 12 NYT essay that helped start this conversation, just wanted to say that I appreciate how you explore a lot of ideas that got cut from the NYT piece, including my English Department faculty supervisor telling me to "not include any male tears" in my annual perfromance review when I mentioned that NY publishers seem to focused more on the womens' experiences today.
Hey hey! Thank you for reading and weighing in. Appreciate the important conversation starter!
Well… you knew Whitey Mann would have to weigh in. There are likely over a thousand publishing houses, and maybe a dozen among them that are actively open to publishing works by hetero males, SWMs. Until there are more and more, men will be limited to tying themselves into knots to please the feminist deciders, or just self-publishing on KDP, where their work will be considered (by the literati—review and book prizes) amateurish, juvenile racist, sexist, whatever.
BTW, yesterday I went to an Irish bar hosting a performance by a man singing Irish songs, solo. There were only six people in the place. The singer, the audience of one, myself, the bartender (female), and three young white women. The three women were in their twenties, tattooed up. All through the singer’s songs they kept their backs to him, loud-talking, yelling and screaming like the ignorant, entitled idiots they obviously were. The bartender ignored them. The singer and I endured (I was singing along), trying to be heard over the disrespectful drunken cackling.
Yes, women have arrived. Isn’t it wonderful?
What I've seen happen to arts organizations, and I'm going to include publishing in this: someone, or a group of people start it and work their asses off to create something great. Then other people complain that they're not inclusive. Or else there's some vague charge of sexism or racism. Then the organization has to devote all their time to making amends by intentionally centering and promoting whatever demographic they offended. I'm thinking about the hoopla involving American Dirt. Like there were all these complaints that it was written by a white woman. Okay, if somebody feels that some voices are not being heard, then they should start their own publishing company to give those people a voice, rather than demand an already established business become a vehicle for their agenda or cause. But that's not what happened.
I believe that talented writers who do not write about social justice issues, or who do not fit certain boxes (female, POC, progressive, etc) are considered unfashionable at this time.
The solution is for those who are currently being shut out to create their own publishing companies, their own media. And create good work rather than just bitch about being shut out (I've noticed often women and minorities who complain about being shut out often have little to talk about except complaining about being shut out). Then when they have established something great and the mob comes at their door demanding "inclusivity" and claiming they have a "diversity problem", or even claiming that they are "problematic"- these people making these charges are told to fuck off. Let them create their own thriving business instead of demanding to take over others. That is what should have happened in the first place but didn't.
Yes. Agree. And we're doing that on Substack. By the way: I LOVED American Dirt. Great book.
The gripes were so petty. Given that the book clearly was sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants yet there are still a shit fit, I can't imagine the temper tantrum if somebody dare write a novel with an illegal immigrant character who was not sympathetic. Not a good person. It's impossible to imagine a book like that being published today by any mainstream publisher.
All I remember is that what stopped all the drama over this from dominating discussion was the spread of COVID. I guess that's one good thing about the COVID pandemic.
I’ve been coming at this same question, but from a teaching perspective. https://open.substack.com/pub/bryancrumpley/p/why-read?r=9kvf3&utm_medium=ios
(Not just shameless self promoting)
But essentially this is so much bigger than just the publishing industry. Boys aren’t reading. (Neither are girls, just not reading to a lesser degree than boys) and part of why is because there are not books for boys, and also partly because less and less people are reading in general.
There are so many causes and what you point out is definitely some of them, but this is also just a viscous spiral for all ages of readers: Boys don’t read, so books for boys aren’t profitable, so books for boys aren’t published, so boys don’t read, and on and on and on.
And yes, this is a massive cultural problem.
Agree. 👍 Thanks for reading!
I have to admit that although I appreciate this take as more nuanced than the norm, I have come to find the terms of this discourse profoundly annoying, and it is frustrating to see a thoughtful writer capitulate to them. It’s not because I wouldn’t read a good book about this “Authentic Male Experience,” as I’ve read (and enjoyed) plenty of literature written by, and about, outright misogynists, and violent, resentful, struggling men in general. That’s truly absolutely fine by me.
It’s also not because I deny that certain aspects of the push for diversity make it difficult for white men to publish.
It’s also not because I like what’s being published now! At this point, I’ve come to understand that, with exceptions, the prevailing aesthetic and approach publishing takes isn’t one I fully like. Good things are being written by great writers, don’t get me wrong—and perhaps this is personal taste, but at this point, I’ve seen friends (women and/or POC writers as much as white men, honestly) go through the drafting process through agenting through editing, and the fact of the matter is, my favorite works don’t make it. If they do, my favorite parts of those works—the experimental, lyrical parts, for instance—don’t make it. And if they do make it, they don’t do well for whatever reason. Which is unbelievably frustrating, as someone who always saw themselves as keeping up with the latest spoken-about novels, but who usually finds themselves reaching to the (diverse!) authors of the past, instead, for artistic fulfillment.
It’s because of this weirdly relentless equation, deep in the sedimented foundation of this discussion, between misogyny and—despite your disclaimer, which says more than it realizes—“Authentic Maleness.” The upshot of a lot of these discussions is that women just need to tolerate overtly misogynistic thoughts on page so that men can be “authentically men,” and that this is only fair because, I don’t know, Sally Rooney is openly resentful of men at points.
Like Rooney’s resentment (which I find *deeply* unpalatable and frankly just don’t relate to, but is sometimes rendered well), I am willing to put up with all of that for a good cause, i.e., a piece of art that says something important, but frankly, I’m not going to do it just to allow people to vent their worst instincts and ideas on page—as if documenting those were important for its own sake, as if men weren’t everywhere venting such things on TikTok or whatever, and as if we all didn’t know perfectly well some men were thinking these thoughts and how. (The historians are not going to lack for knowledge of the interiority of violently-inclined, white male subjects with misogynistic tendencies, needless to say.) It’s fine to say you should be able to use these things as artistic material. I completely agree! I’m a hundred percent willing to read such literature. But make it worth my while, and stop assuming that is some sort of hotbed of true masculine experience—it is, frankly, misandrist of those of you who are equating them.
It’s misandrist and, frankly, it’s just bullshit. I look around at the straight men who are in my life, the ones I have deep closeness with and whose thoughts I know well, and I don’t think that their “authentic maleness” intrinsically characterized by misogyny. I also look around at my bookshelf, at all of the Old White Male writers I love, and I don’t think that their work is characterized by misogyny, either! Misogyny often *appears* in their work and can be central to it, but their work is just as often about homosocial bonds, or nature, or God, or the imagination, or philosophy, or their relationship with their dads, or their relationship with their children, or any number of other things, but no one is complaining they can’t talk about *those* things—the stuff that isn’t “potent, hyper-sexualized, taboo, muscular and brilliant.” There are many aspects of the hetero contemporary male experience that have nothing to do with those descriptors, and, though those of you who are not doing well in the
contemporary culture hate to hear this, many men are happily, natively “PC” and don’t particularly care about or relate to them.
And if what you’re saying is that, by virtue of the subject position they have, straight white male subjects are being dismissed from talking about such things (or anything, really) and they shouldn’t be, then that’s a much more interesting and truly important issue to bring up, but the complaint is persistently and tellingly that a *certain kind* of subject matter is taboo, and that the reason it shouldn’t be is because of its intrinsic “authenticity.”
Straightfacedly calling for “genuine male novels” (as though all men want to write these very specific taboo, hyper sexualized novels you’re calling for) is quite a thing to do, and judging by that disclaimer about gay men I think somewhere deep down you know it. For the love of god, please, ffs, interrogate to yourself, for the sake of this discourse, why you and others are framing it that way. And if you have other recommendations for *really good* potent, hyper-sexualized, etc. etc. novels you think people should read, I’d be quite happy to consider them lol.
Hi. Thanks for reading and for the detailed response. You articulate all of this quite well. I think you're misunderstanding something fundamental, though, at least when it comes to my specific essay. I wasn't saying anything about men wanting to be or celebrating misogyny. (Though I think there's a double-standard here since women gleefully engage in man-hate literary porn all the time.) All I was saying was that most American men are straight and, like women with other women, have general commonalities. We men talk about these things already online, amongst ourselves, etc. So in general there does seem to be a sort of 'universal' male experience. Yet we don't seem to see this experience refelected on the page anymore. Why? Well, my essay explores that. Men do have uncomfortable, even shocking or taboo thoughts sometimes. I think there's a place for that to be explored on the page. It's much more honest. But simply saying it's all in the name of 'misogyny' is hard to take seriously. This word has become a catchall phrase in the culture wars which is supposed to clamp down any dissent. If a man said it, it must be misogyny. I don't buy that. (Also I'm not necessarily saying you're using it that way but I see this as a problem generally.)
So, here’s the thing. I recognize that you are trying to detangle “authentic male experience” from misogyny. My argument is that you are, nonetheless, implicitly tying male expression of their “authentic experience” to their ability to say and do (specifically) progressive-woman-offending things. And this happens over and over again in these discussions. Those “shocking or taboo” thoughts you mentioned—WHY are they shocking or taboo? Care to elaborate? How are they especially shocking or taboo in a world that has already published and celebrated Hemingway, American Psycho, the incredibly well-regarded Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, etc.?
Whenever it comes to depicting the “authentic male experience,” men who want to write sensitive prose about the Alps never get touted as an example of what’s missing… even though that’s a time-honored trope for male authors throughout European history—one that goes back far further than the tropes you mentioned! And if the problem is straight male writer representation, generally, where are the articles claiming men should be able to write like Hölderlin again?
Again, as long as you pull it off, it should be fine to depict shocking or taboo or even misogynist thoughts, just like it’s fine to depict resentment against men. And again, it’s the naturalization of those thoughts as “universal male experience” that I object to. I have no doubt that men talk the way you describe amongst themselves, and that it is a strong pattern of behavior among certain circles, but I have enough straight male loved ones, and know enough straight male writers, to know that they find the assumption they are sitting around secretly participating in that or wanting to unspeakably eyeroll-worthy and dumb. They don’t secretly crave “taboo, muscular,” etc., fiction, any more than I as a female reader care about romance in my novels. What you’re describing is *a* male experience, one that could be worth exploring in the right hands! But that’s all. So don’t make the argument that the presence of the shocking/taboo/misogynistic subject matter=male writers thriving, because that’s ridiculous. Good art—which can include that subject matter, certainly!—is the sign of male writers thriving.
You just keep repeating your assertion that he ever said, or even implied, really, that misogynistic subject matter = male writers thriving. He never said such a thing. That's just something you keep saying he said. He already rather effectively refuted that contention on your part but you just keep trying to prop it back up, shot full of holes though it now is.
And a lot of men (maybe gay men like myself in particular) do, in fact, think "muscular, taboo" fiction would be eminently worth seeking out and delving into. Are you suggesting that's because we all crave more misogyny in our novels? Because it's actually, in large part, because still controversial, nuanced and too often ignored dynamics such as close friendships between men identifying as heterosexual who nevertheless contain elements of romantic affection or unexamined homoeroticism at times, are likely to remain the kinds of subject matter that won't be depicted in fiction that shrinks from the taboo and isn't "muscular" enough to bravely and boldly assert that such things happen - potentially leading, ironically, to sanitized, heteronormative "straightwashing" of characters who might have otherwise honestly reflected that sexual orientation is a spectrum and "bromances" aren't always things that should be laughed at and then summarily dismissed. That's just one example of subject matter I think readers are, and/or should be, adult enough to be able to wrestle with. Subject matter both taboo and muscular in its need for nuance, yet lacking any trace or insidious undertone of misogyny. And "misogyny" is far too often brandished as a means to completely shut down any talk of there being more outreach of any kind to men - in any arena, from mental health care, to the male loneliness epidemic, to efforts to get more men to enroll in college and enter into fields such as nursing, to the matter discussed here: outreach to men who have stopped reading novels rather than complaining that gynocentrism and sometimes cartoonishly misandrist portrayals of the average modern man are strictly enforced by the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, who seem to have decided they're going to use their position to force everyone who wants to enjoy fiction to become feminist whether they like it or not...even though feminism has never even successfully convinced a majority of WOMEN to be comfortable identifying as feminist. That's not because male authors are eaten up by misogyny. It's because feminists won't even disavow S.C.U.M (the Society for Cutting Up Men) and they have a habit of harassing and belittling those women who surely do think it's important for women to have a rights movement, but aren't sure that's something feminism qualifies as. We're talking about a movement that can't for the life of itself mobilize enough voters to propel a fully capable, smart, experienced female politician to the presidency, so it now resigns itself instead to consolation prizes like "at least we can keep white male authors from publishing any novels with balls".
As I’ve said quite a few times at this point, this is the *implication* of his, and other, posts, and it’s bolstered by the fact that he really does think there’s a Universal Male Experience that these novels should be able draw from.
In these essays, the examples of what sort of Universal Male novels are missing always follow a certain formula, and the rhetoric of the arguments always involve Universal Maleness needing to offend progressive sensibilities to be properly Universally Male. And that’s bullshit, for reasons that don’t involve me being offended in the slightest—for reasons that involve me correctly pointing out that many men don’t really have offensive or “shocking” inner monologues at all. They have other things going on! (And as if anyone is actually “shocked” by non-progressive male thinking in 2025 lol.)
He didn’t “shoot my argument full of holes.” In fact, he doubled down on the Universal Male aspect of things above. (And respectfully! Which I do really appreciate.) This is not about what people explicitly cop to—it’s implicit, since it is in fact an *implication*. ;)
As I’ll do with him shortly, I’ll direct you to this essay on male desire, which refutes Ross Barkin’s nearly identical assertion. (I also appreciate Barkin, for the record.) https://open.substack.com/pub/bradymp/p/is-there-room-for-male-desire-in?r=2wc1c&utm_medium=ios
The issues of male representation and literature and “shocking” male material are strictly, objectively separate, but always treated as identical in these essays, and for a reason—because these people are making assumptions about who men, in an essentialist sense, “truly” are.
As for your argument about subject matter: yes? What did I say that makes you think I object to any subject matter, at all, as long as it’s done well, when I’ve said the contrary many times? Where have you seen bromances decried by feminists, for that matter? That’s rather baffling.
As for your spontaneous rant on feminism, it’s really bad—did you know that other countries have equally powerful feminist movements, and have indeed had female heads of state??—but it doesn’t touch on anything I said. I’ll debate that another time.
I'm sorry, but I think you're misinterpreting the point of this essay as a discussion of subject matter rather than a discussion of anything that can even be mentioned. You describe the "Old White Male writers [you] love" in a way that makes me think that they wrote the type of books that this essay says is missing from modern publishing.
As for the natively PC men you reference, it seems like your mental model of them is just skewed. Your point seems to be that "the existence of these men proves that other men are just bad men," but a lot of them are more like a rough equivalent of NLOGs. You can often find them saying something along the lines of "it's not hard to just be nice to women" with the same meaning an NLOG might intend when saying "it's not hard to just be nice to men."
Alternatively, they might be men who you've already accepted as being who they are, but you might not think that that acceptance can carry over to other men- and indeed, it might be very hard to carry over, since each person is unique and they might be considerably outside the norm.
Also, I feel obligated to mention that there is a major difference in psychology between young men and older men. Older men are generally the ones you'd approve of, but being a younger man is not a failure to be an older man.
You're making a number of puzzling assumptions here.
- One, why are you suddenly denouncing the idea that men can be varied? A second ago, you seemed to agree that the very non-edgy-male subject matter I listed was legitimate, and indeed called for by the OP. I will note that all of that subject matter rests easily in a PC framework.
- Two, why do you assume that, by mentioning the fact that there are PC men who are happily and temperamentally that way, I'm setting up a good vs bad dichotomy? I sincerely have no idea what you're getting at with NLOGs, though I learned a new word today, so thanks for that.
My point is modest: the male experience really, really varies. And I have enough respect for males to take them at their word when they say they don't relate to this stuff. If your ideology is based on an assumption that you can read the minds of vast quantities of people and know who they are better than they do, it's probably pretty poorly reasoned. At very best, anyone who presumes "universal male experience" is making *far* more unwieldy claims than I'd dare to do.
- Most of the people I'm referring to--as in, the males whose psychology I'm confident in speaking for, my brothers and close friends--I came to know as young men, lol. In my daily life, young vs old has never really made a difference at all.
Oh, I agree completely that the male experience varies. Of course!! (My own male experience is quite varied. My wife is more traditionally "masculine" than me in some ways. I can be quite emotional. But I also have the other side, too.) Ditto with women and every other group. (There are a lot of anti-feminist women on Substack, for example.) Totally agree. But within those variations are some general, universal truths. These two concepts can exist at the same time. I think most men who claim they don't relate to "the general male experience," are either beta males who are a minority, or, frankly, are lying and trying to come off as one of the "good males" for women. If you trust men, then you should trust me when I share my experience and the experience of most men I've encountered. Some male writers are more reserved, for sure. But that doesn't mean they don't connect with what I'm saying. It's like saying that women have a maternal instinct. Ok, not EVERY woman has that. But in general, it's a Universal Female Experience. It has zero to do with misogyny or culture and 100% to do with biology, reality and evolution.
Make sense?
So first of all, thanks a lot for engaging in good faith here. I’m grateful for that and for your stab at a balanced take. These conversations need to be had and I’m truly glad we can seriously have them on substack.
Second of all, when I say I believe men and take them at their word, I mean I do so regarding *their own* inner subjectivity, of which they have epistemologically privileged information—not other people’s. Saying “I am willing to reasonably consider your experiences of yourself in good faith, because you have access to information about yourself that I don’t” is much more careful, defensible, and epistemologically conservative than what you’re proposing—to somehow have the statistical knowledge to say that men who don’t relate to you are “betas” or marginal, or to somehow have the frankly magical telepathic knowledge to know that a huge swath of them are lying.
I’m totally fine acknowledging the existence of anti-feminists, and women who are temperamentally suited to patriarchy, and it has zero impact on my conclusions. None of the claims I will make, ever, involve saying such women don’t “really” feel that way or don’t “really” exist or don’t count. My worldview is capacious enough to include them. Feminism gave up on a Universal Female Experience long ago (the 60s-70s class- and race-related reckoning they had)—the reasons why would be worth investigating to infuse some rigor into this conversation.
I really, really recommend you take an honest, open-minded tour through perfectly canonical Straight(ish) White Male literature since Chaucer. What you will find there, in terms of the vast majority, is not the Universal Male Experience you are trying to describe. At all. You will find plentiful information to the contrary, or you will have to decide that the Great White Straight Male Authors were all lying beta cucks. ;)
Finally, I’ll link the Male Desire essay I mentioned in another comment, because it gets at a lot of the points I’m trying to make: https://open.substack.com/pub/bradymp/p/is-there-room-for-male-desire-in?r=2wc1c&utm_medium=ios
I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that muscular hypersexual et al subject matter is potentially tired out at all, but there are many other excellent observations on the forces at work here.
What I’m actually arguing is that the essay *claims* to be about a demographic that’s missing, but in reality links a certain “offensive” subject matter to that demographic’s output, which is absolutely characteristic of this often-very-tiring line of discourse.
As a retired male gynecologist, I watched women dominate my specialty in just one generation from 5% to over 90%. There were many reasons for this:
1) women began to populate ALL the medical specialties in increasing percentages;
2) there is a natural tendency for specific genders to seek the same gender when it comes to reproduction--more specifically, genitalia (e.g, men prefer a male urologist; women prefer a female OBGYN)--that is, there may be a "squeamish" factor of "private" areas;
3) it is felt a "kindred" gender will understand the trials and tribulations of pregnancy and women's pathology with better empathy.
Or, more likely,
4) the sea change in women being allowed to seek employment and vocations has finally caught up with a traditionally misogynistic tradition of breadwinners vs. homemakers, especially as filtered through a gender filter.
I remember being told by a woman she'd "never" go to me for her prenatal care because I was a man. (Never mind I had lived life with my wife through four problem pregnancies and lived every worry, pain, and complication when the woman physician she was going to had never even been pregnant: I bristled when she told me this.)
Everyone can whine about a gender bias (applicable here as men are felt to be poor renderers of woman-centric stories or emotions). That may be true FOR NOW, as capitalism sorts this out in real-time. But eventually, it will come down to the writing craft and the talent rendering it. (Like the science, skill, and art of the gynecology.)
Now that I'm retired (not because of my gender--important to say!) and writing full-time (the FRICTION SECTION on Substack), what I see now just evokes a "been there-done that" knee jerk. Consider this jerk already jerked. Go for the craft and the excellence. The marketplace, hopefully, will unfilter the gender bias so that excellence can rise to the top...until the next disruptor comes along.
I love my male OBGYN and would never go to a female one.
Been pondering the same question. When my friends (female) recommend a new novel, it’s always one written by a woman. Most book reviews I read are of books by female authors. I have actually stopped reading novels now, a complete departure from my lifelong reading habits. Biographies, history, literary analysis/criticism, books about social, legal, or political issues - that’s all I read. The last novels I read? The Story of Edgar Sawtelle and The Storied Life of AJ Fikry. Nothing since has moved me to go beyond the first chapter.
Perhaps I’m too old and tired and jaded for the navel-gazing that seems to dominate contemporary literature.
You're not alone!
As I’ve said quite a few times at this point, this is the *implication* of his, and other, posts, and it’s bolstered by the fact that he really does think there’s a Universal Male Experience that these novels should be able draw from.
In these essays, the examples of what sort of Universal Male novels are missing always follow a certain formula, and the rhetoric of the arguments always involve Universal Maleness needing to offend progressive sensibilities to be properly Universally Male. And that’s bullshit, for reasons that don’t involve me being offended in the slightest—for reasons that involve me correctly pointing out that many men don’t really have offensive or “shocking” inner monologues at all. They have other things going on! (And as if anyone is actually “shocked” by non-progressive male thinking in 2025 lol.)
He didn’t “shoot my argument full of holes.” In fact, he doubled down on the Universal Male aspect of things above. (And respectfully! Which I do really appreciate.) This is not about what people explicitly cop to—it’s implicit, since it is in fact an *implication*. ;)
As I’ll do with him shortly, I’ll direct you to this essay on male desire, which refutes Ross Barkin’s nearly identical assertion. (I also appreciate Barkin, for the record.) The issues of male representation and literature and “shocking” male material are strictly, objectively separate, but always treated as identical in these essays, and for a reason—because these people are making assumptions about who men, in an essentialist sense, “truly” are.
As for your argument about subject matter: yes? What did I say that makes you think I object to any subject matter, at all, as long as it’s done well, when I’ve said the contrary many times? Where have you seen bromances decried by feminists, for that matter? That’s rather baffling.
As for your spontaneous rant on feminism, it’s really bad—did you know that other countries have equally powerful feminist movements, and have indeed had female heads of state??—but it doesn’t touch on anything I said. I’ll debate that another time.
Thank you. And yes: I know.