Galloway in London. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian
Steve Rose’s Guardian profile introduces us to Scott Galloway through the headline “I worry we are evolving a new breed of asexual, asocial males.” From there, Rose works to distinguish Galloway from the reactionary manosphere. He is portrayed as progressive, empathetic, data-driven, and self-aware. He assures readers he is not blaming women, insists that programs should uplift all young people, and claims the real divide is between liberal and illiberal forces, not genders.
The problem is not that Galloway lacks compassion. The problem is that he locates a profound social crisis almost entirely within individual psychology and gender identity, rather than within the economic and political structures that have devastated the material foundations of life for an entire generation.
This is not a personal failing of Galloway. It is the dominant lens through which media institutions prefer to discuss social breakdown. The narrative remains safely depoliticized. Structural causes are minimized or ignored. And the suffering produced by decades of neoliberal policy is reinterpreted as a crisis of masculinity rather than a crisis of power.
The Real Causes Are Structural, Not Personal
Galloway lists genuine indicators of distress among young men: loneliness, educational decline, unemployment, addiction, alienation. These are real problems with real consequences. But the framing reduces them to matters of identity, misaligned incentives, damaged role models, and poor romantic outcomes.
This is the move power systems rely on. They shift attention away from the forces that actually dismantled social life:
• the destruction of union power
• the offshoring of jobs
• forty years of stagnant wages
• the collapse of affordable housing
• the defunding of public education
• the privatization of healthcare
• the degradation of community institutions
• the rise of surveillance capitalism and algorithmic isolation
A society that atomizes people, strips away stability, commodifies relationships, and funnels wealth upward will inevitably produce despair among those with the least power. That despair is not a mystery and it is not a psychological defect in men. It is a predictable result of policy choices made by governments that serve capital first and people last.
Trump, Masculinity, and Manufactured Consent
Galloway suggests that ignoring men is why the country turned toward Trump. This reverses the causal chain. People turned to Trump because both political parties abandoned the economic base of the working class. Trump’s rhetoric did not solve this, but it gave language to grievances created by neoliberal policy. Blaming “a masculinity crisis” for his rise only obscures the real causes and helps maintain the conditions that allow demagogues to thrive.
Authoritarian movements flourish when economic security collapses, when communities are hollowed out, and when media ecosystems channel frustration toward scapegoats rather than the architects of the crisis. Telling men to “level up,” or to adopt more traditional roles, is not a solution. It is a way to keep the population focused on internal disputes instead of collective action.
The Gender Lens Is Too Narrow
Rose notes that Galloway has compelling points about generational wealth transfer and the commercialization of healthcare and higher education. These are structural insights. Yet Galloway’s framework still funnels everything back into male experience and the decline of role models. He interprets systemic collapse through metaphors of fatherhood and family dysfunction rather than class power, inequality, or political economy.
But the crisis afflicts women, men, queer people, and every demographic harmed by the economic redesign of society. Treating it primarily as a crisis of masculinity restricts our ability to understand what is actually happening.
The Human Story Is Real. The Diagnosis Is Incomplete.
Galloway’s personal story is moving. His experiences with abandonment, hardship, and emotional growth are meaningful. His vulnerability is admirable and helpful for many people. But the personal narrative cannot substitute for structural analysis.
When media outlets elevate individual experience above political context, they reproduce the dominant ideology: that the system is not the problem and that individuals must adapt themselves to it.
The Crisis Is One of Power, Not Manhood
The suffering of young men is real. The explanation lies in the breakdown of a functioning society:
• the erosion of public goods
• the collapse of stable employment
• the replacement of social bonds with digital isolation
• the political transfer of wealth upward
• the reduction of citizens to consumers
• the growing precarity of daily life
This is not a crisis of masculinity. It is a crisis of capitalism in its current form.
What a Real Solution Looks Like
A meaningful response would focus on rebuilding the conditions that make human flourishing possible. That includes:
• a living wage
• universal healthcare
• affordable housing
• free higher education and vocational pathways
• strong public unions
• democratic workplaces and cooperatives
• community-controlled media
• investment in public spaces and civic life
• taxes on concentrated wealth to fund public goods
• regulation of algorithmic systems that prey on loneliness and fear
These solutions do not target men or women. They target the machinery that has drained life from entire communities.
Men do not need a new code of conduct. They need a society that provides stable ground so they can participate as equal citizens rather than isolated market subjects.
The answer is solidarity, not self-help. The answer is building systems that allow people to support one another, not waiting for individuals to “level up” in the ruins of a predatory economy.
Tim Hjersted is the director and co-founder of Films For Action, a library dedicated to the people and movements creating a more free, regenerative and democratic society.
Subscribe on Substack for updates. You can contact the author here.