Bradley's Website

Scott Galloway’s latest book, Notes On Being A Man, is not the commentary on masculinity that the marketing campaigns led me to believe it would be— it’s much better. It is not an unbearable or heavy-handed anthropological piece making universal laws about how all men and women should relate, nor is it a cocktail of misogyny served up by yet another dickhead trying to profit off the sobering state of modern males. Rather, Notes On Being A Man is Scott Galloway’s attempt at autobiography—or, perhaps, confessional—using his own experiences as launchpads for advice. And while there is a lot to disagree with, it’s patently unfair to suggest that Galloway’s latest book is meant to be prescriptive when in it is very clearly meant to be paternal. For this alone it deserves some flowers, and is undeserving of much of the criticism it has received.

Galloway’s “positive vision” of masculinity revolves around making men into three things: protectors, providers, and procreators. Ironically, three attributes that I immediately associate with my mom. Fortunately, Galloway stretches the definition of these terms to be more expansive than the tropes they seem on the surface. Protector does not mean just being strong, but it means being the guy that knows how to deescalate. Provider doesn’t mean that a man’s career is paramount, but means sometimes stepping aside and supporting a female partner in her career. Procreator isn’t just about having sex and babies, but taking an interest in the next generation through active fatherhood and mentorship.

However, the strength of the book is not its philosophy, it’s the shocking vulnerability that Galloway brings through story. Every chapter, although loosely revolving around a specific theme, is punctuated with anecdote after anecdote of Scott’s life from childhood to senior citizen. From childhood trauma to adult triumph (and a lot of vice versas), it’s all included. It’s a pretty impressive, not to mention unnecessary, level of disclosure for man of his stature. He doesn’t even try to frame himself as an “underdog” who overcame great odds to reach perfection. In fact, he makes it pretty clear that he is still working through things. Galloway’s almost paradoxical humility and sincere compassion are evident throughout. What will surprise most people is that the most consistent through-line for Galloway is the importance of relationships. He is unflinching in his insistence that people matter more than anything in life—full stop. Those, in my opinion, are the best parts.

The second best parts are the tiny bits of advice that, maybe not worthy of being elevated to “staples of masculinity”, nonetheless ring true. His chapter on manners, for instance, covers a range of advice from standing when you meet someone to caring about how you dress. I know this feels trite for many people and, perhaps, some women will find it pathetic that guys even need to be told this. But as someone who was fortunate enough to have many male figures in his life, there a number of gems in the book that, while not necessarily new to me, I can distinctly remember being told for the first time. If I didn’t have a father, brothers, or mentors in my life, I would have been grateful to learn a lot of these soft skills from Scott’s book.

The weakness of the book then is somewhat obvious. If you aren’t a man, don’t like Galloway (his personality is bold), or even just feel indifferent to him, this book will be one massive snooze-fest. You kinda have to have some investment in the guy as a pundit, since he intentionally avoids grounding his arguments in religion, metaphysics, or too much pseudoscience (thankfully, this is not Peterson’s 12 Rules For Life). Having listened to Galloway for a couple years, a lot of the stories and one-liners weren’t new to me and I even struggled to finish the book. Will I be giving it out to my younger friends? Probably not. But I also wouldn’t discourage them from reading it. And I know for certain that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of young men in less fortunate places than me who will read it and be better for it. For this, I am very glad and fully support.

I hope to write soon about the actual content of the book and debate some of the actual claims about masculinity made my Scott—and especially what I feel he left out. But for now, I wanted to leave this as a basic review. I recommend, but don’t go out of your way for it unless you have real purchase in the subject. Most of all, don’t believe the hate. It’s just not that deep.

(P.S. – I once wrote a bit on masculinity and the toxicity of the manosphere here, if you’re interested in reading!)