Meritocracy (In Dating) Is a Myth

Pretending the left can get young men laid just exacerbates patriarchy.

Jordan Peterson; Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC

Last week, journalist Ian Dunt wrote a much-discussed essay in which he argued (accurately!) that the manosphere is a poisonous farrago of lies. He added (less convincingly, in my view) that the left needs to do more to support young men who want to get laid.

The progressive left seemingly has no opinion on men getting laid. It has opinions on everything else. It has opinions on women getting laid (good for them), it has opinions on toxic masculinity (bad) and it has opinions on gender equality (there should be more of it). But it is completely silent on the subject of men getting laid - which, generally speaking, they are very interested in doing, and will continue to be interested in regardless of whether progressives want to talk about it. So the stage has been left entirely clear for the far-right to set the narrative, which it has done with devastating effect, monopolising young men's obsession with sex to spread a vicious fictitious storyline about power and identity.

Dunt concludes that the left can help young (cishet) men get laid by explaining to them that being a good person who is not a misogynist is in fact the best way to meet and date women.

The key to real masculinity lies in the following point: It accomplishes social good. That sounds conscientious. It is. Proudly so. But it is also selfishly true. And these two things can coexist quite easily: your social conscience and your personal advantage.

The single most important masculine trait you can have is competence. Obviously, it isn't only men that have this trait and it isn't only women that find it attractive. But competence is much more often celebrated in masculinity than it is femininity. And, despite the fact that it is hardly ever mentioned in this type of discussion, it is probably the most desirable quality you can possess.

Dunt’s essay is lengthy and thoughtful and is I think a good faith effort to try to develop a progressive approach to masculinity and the supposed right wing radicalization of young men who want to get laid.

Unfortunately, I think Dunt’s analysis of the problem is confused, and his solution is misguided enough to verge on an outright lie. Since a lot of commenters on social media seem persuaded by Dunt’s discussion, I wanted to talk briefly about where I think he goes awry.

—
If I paywalled things, I would paywall it here. I hate paywalling though. So…if you find this piece valuable, and keep reading on from here, consider becoming a paid subscriber if you are not one? It’s $50/year, $5/month. Your support makes it possible for me to write ambitious pieces like this which I couldn’t publish anywhere else.

__

People don’t seek out the manosphere to get laid

Dunt points out that the manosphere is filled with nonsense, hate, and misdirection. The manosphere is based on a confused eugenic Darwinian approach to mating, in which there are high status men and low status men and (all) women are (unfailingly) attracted to high status. “The task for low status men” as Dunt explains, “is to either become, or to appear like, high status men. This makes up the vast majority of conversation on this topic online - a perpetual frenzied assessment of status.”

Dunt again accurately notes that the solutions are all bullshit. But he assumes that the motivation is sincere. That is, the guys who consume this content are looking to get laid. The influencers and assholes of the manosphere are, in turn, offering advice on how to get laid. It’s bad advice! But it’s aimed at fulfilling the stated need.

I think Dunt is in this instance not being sufficiently skeptical. Men who go to Jordan Peterson, for example, aren’t really interested in getting laid—and Peterson doesn’t really talk much, or even at all, about getting laid. Instead, he talks a lot about what men need to do to impress and dominate other men.

Peterson’s famously confused discourse on lobsters is all about male lobsters impressing each other by standing up straight. (Yes, I know lobsters have no skeletons. Does Peterson know that? Very unclear.) His rants about cleaning one’s room are about gaining status in the job market and/or about just being cool. He boasts about overpowering infants and indulges in bizarre fantasies about inflicting brutal physical violence on five year old boys. People don’t read Peterson to learn how to get laid. They read Peterson to learn how to be dominant powerful assholes/patriarchs.

That’s the case through a lot of the rest of the manosphere too. Negging (insulting women as an initial conversational gambit) is not in fact a good way to get women to date you. But it’s maybe a good way to perform dominance and assholery for yourself and for other men. Incels claim that they’re miserable because they haven’t slept with women…but what they’re really angry about is that they haven’t slept with the right kind of women—ie, women who are perceived as impressive by other men.

The manosphere is well named, and its relentless focus on status is not some sort of mistake or accident. Guys who fall into the manosphere or who find it validating and exciting are not in fact interested in having sex with women or in dating women—except as it relates to impressing other men or demonstrating status to other men. In fact, you could argue (as I do here) that masculinity is defined by this agonized desire to measure up—which means that masculinity is not in crisis, but is itself a perpetual, never-ending crisis.

In part because of a tendency to sympathize with men (what Kate Manne calls himpathy) and in part because heterosexuality is seen as a default and universal motivator, progressives who talk about the manosphere and about male loneliness tend to assume that people like Peterson are addressing an ideologically neutral need with ugly ideological tools. But that’s not really what’s happening. Young men (like old men) often find patriarchy attractive, and the manosphere is appealing not to a desire to get laid but to a desire to take one’s place as a powerful man in the patriarchy.

In fact, men will very often lie to other men about what they actually want sexually in order to gain status or be seen as a “real” man. Not all the men in the manosphere are repulsed by fat women or by Black women or by older women, for example; someone out there is watching all that porn with fat women and Black women and older women. But men will actively cock block themselves in the name of impressing male peers with their interest in the “right” kind of women. And they do this again because they are motivated primarily not by a desire to get laid but by a desire to be seen as “real” men by their male peers.

The manosphere is not a self-help network for guys who have trouble dating; it is not intended as a self-help network for guys who have trouble dating, and the men who participate in it are in fact aware that it is not meant to help them date. They are there to learn from each other how to be men by degrading women and other (queer, disabled, neurodivergent, fat, etc.) men. Progressives are not going to win these young men over with a better program for getting laid, because they are not primarily motivated by getting laid.

Also:

The left does not have some sort of key to getting laid

It is true that right wing assholes do not have a magic formula for getting laid. But progressives don’t have a magic formula for getting laid either. And I think that pretending we do, or that there is such a magic formula, unfortunately ends up reinforcing right wing narratives

Again, Dunt rejects right wing manosphere framing that there is one sort of high status man and that the goal is to be that guy and then women will come flocking. Instead he argues that “the things which men can do to make themselves more attractive are things which actually improve society.” He goes on:

The key to real masculinity lies in the following point: It accomplishes social good. That sounds conscientious. It is. Proudly so. But it is also selfishly true. And these two things can coexist quite easily: your social conscience and your personal advantage.

The single most important masculine trait you can have is competence. Obviously, it isn't only men that have this trait and it isn't only women that find it attractive. But competence is much more often celebrated in masculinity than it is femininity. And, despite the fact that it is hardly ever mentioned in this type of discussion, it is probably the most desirable quality you can possess.

Dunt, admirably, argues that competence does not have to mean competence at home improvement or sports. Different men are good at different things; he argues you should be the best version of yourself you can be. And he says, “treat [each woman] like a fucking human being. Just actually talk to them.” If you respect yourself and respect women, you will make the world a better place, and the dating and the sex will take care of themselves.

I adamantly agree that men should find satisfaction in things they are good at and in things that help the world. I also agree they should treat women with respect because that is a good and moral thing to do.

But will being a good person lead inevitably to fulfilling relationships and fulfilling sex? I am skeptical!

Dunt and the manosphere disagree about what men should do; they disagree about what it means to be a good man and a good person. But they agree on a more basic truth—which is that virtue is rewarded. If you do the right thing, if you behave the right way, if you have merit, you will get what you want—whether that be status or someone to date or sleep with. Dunt and Jordan Peterson offer opposed visions of merit, but they both buy into meritocracy—the basic ideology of self-help, which insists that people who are good and competent and work hard succeed, while people who are bad and incompetent and lazy fail.

Meritocracy is a very appealing ideology. People like to feel that their fate is in their hands; they like to feel that goodness, competence, and hard work are rewarded. They like to feel most of all that when they succeed, they have done so through their own efforts, rather than because of luck, or privilege, or some combination of those things. Meritocracy appeals to people in power, because it says their power is just. It appeals to people who are not in power because it tells them that if they only work a little harder, or find the right self help advice, they will succeed too.

But appealing as meritocracy is, it’s a lie. More, it’s a reactionary lie, which is why the left does not, in general, have a huge enthusiasm for self help literature, or for providing life hacks for men who are seeking relationship advice. Progressives are in general aware that success in careers, or in relationships, or in whatever, are largely dependent on structural factors and on luck, and telling people that they can “succeed” by doing x, y, or z is generally (a) untrue and (b) likely to contribute to the reactionary belief in neoliberal life hacks as a social program.

Specifically, in terms of Dunt’s dating advice, there just is no correlation between being a good person and being successful in heterosexual dating. There’s no correlation between being a bad person and dating success either (contra the manosphere). Horrible, misogynist men (and women, for that matter) often find partners; thoughtful, respectful guys (and women) often find partners. And sometimes horrible misogynist men (and women) don’t find partners, and sometimes good people don’t find partners.

Looks and lack of self consciousness can factor in sometimes…and sometimes not. It’s a crapshoot—not least because the definition of “success” in dating varies wildly from person to person. Some men might just be looking for sex. Some might really not want sex outside of a long term relationship. Some might not feel ready to date seriously in their teens; some might. For that matter, a fair number of men prefer dating men to dating women! Some men don’t want to date at all! And (this is key) different women want different things too; the fact that other humans besides yourself are involved in dating complicates things considerably. People are very different, which is why any advice (even advice like, “just be yourself and you will find a partner”) isn’t necessarily going to be that helpful.

So what can the left say about dating?

This doesn’t mean that the left has nothing to say about dating or relationships. I think the left has some really helpful things to say about dating and relationships. They just don’t fit into a neat self-help meritocratic individualist life hack framework.

First of all, I think it would be really helpful for men—and not just men!—to hear that meritocracy in dating is a myth. If you aren’t having dating success, that doesn’t mean you’re a bad person—because dating success isn’t correlated with being a good person. It just means you (whether you’re a man or woman, straight or gay) haven’t met the right person, whatever that means for you. That’s frustrating, but not a reason to hate yourself or engage in frantic self recrimination—or to engage in frantic recriminations directed at others either.

Self-help can feel sort of empowering, but it demands that that power be used in ever more vigorous and cruel self-policing. Acknowledging that your power is in fact very limited can be a huge relief. If you want to date, you should do all the obvious things—go on dating apps, find activities you enjoy where you’ll meet other people. But if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work; that’s the way things are sometimes. Try again…or, you know, give up for a while. There’s no shame in either.

Second, one important thing the left offers young cishet men—and again, not just young cishet men!—is sex positivity.

One reason dating is so fraught for many is that there is a huge amount of stigma around sexual release outside of a fairly proscribed litany of normative options. If you’re not having sex in a monogamous relationship and/or sex with the right kind of partner, the manosphere (and not just the manosphere) tells you that you should feel inadequate and should feel shame.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. There’s nothing wrong with masturbating, as just one example of a thing you’re not really supposed to talk about when you talk about realtionships. There’s nothing wrong with looking to sex workers either, whether that means watching porn, or paying to chat with someone, or paying for an in person sex worker.

Again, I’m not saying this is for everyone. But sex is really something you can do with yourself, or that you can pay someone for, and if we’re talking about people (not just cishet men!) wanting to get laid, it would be helpful to acknowledge that there are a range of ways to do that, and not all of them involve success in dating.

The right reliably, relentlessly, tries to ban and harass sex workers; the manosphere is certainly not interested in reminding men (or anyone) that masturbation is a thing you can do without shame if you are looking for sex. It’s been (at least portions of) the left that have encouraged people to explore their sexuality without shame; it’s the left in general that tries to show solidarity with sex workers and yes, even with clients of sex workers (who aren’t just men!) If we’re going to talk about what the left has to offer men who want to get laid, it seems worth pointing out that the left, unlike the right, does not want to take away porn.

Finally, I think progressives can help people who are lonely or having difficulty finding a partner by pointing out that these problems are in part not individual but structural.

I’ve talked about this before, but a big part of the reason that young people are having less sex probably has to do with the housing crunch and the skyrocketing costs of education. It’s difficult to find a partner and sleep with them if you are living in your parent’s basement. Things like UBI, free college, student debt forgiveness, and lowering the cost of housing—all progressive goals—would make it a lot easier for young people to be independent and have relationships.

Focusing on structural issues, though, inevitably means that you end up noticing that young white cishet men are not the people who face the most struggles with loneliness and relationships. The massive federal assault on queer people makes it difficult for them to exist in public, much less find fulfilling relationships. Our decades long effort to incarcerate as many Black men as possible has made it incredibly difficult for many Black women to find a partner, and has also isolated and immiserated Black men. There’s nothing quite as lonely as being in prison.

You can’t fight patriarchy with self help

Pointing out that people other than cishet men struggle with loneliness and dating and sex isn’t off topic. Yes, men vote for conservatives, and you’d like them to stop doing that. But queer people and women and men who aren’t white also vote, and also are looking for a political party to address their concerns and well-being. Hopefully, cishet guys looking to get laid will find it reassuring and/or hopeful that they are not alone, and will appreciate solutions and ideas that help everyone. And if they don’t…well, they were never going to join a progressive coalition of women, BIPOC, and queer people anyway.

I’m not saying we should just abandon cishet guys. I am a cishet guy. Some of my best friends are cishet guys. I think the left has a lot to offer cishet guys, including, as I’ve said, freedom from shame about failing to measure up, freedom from shame about sex, and material gains which make life and relationships easier for everyone.

But you can’t fight patriarchy by repackaging meritocracy, and you can’t advance a successful progressive vision by lying to people and telling them that they’ll be successful, in dating or in life, if they just become better men. Instead, I think we need to understand that we can only become better people by creating a better world. And we do that together, not through life hacks or through self-help, but through solidarity and working to make the world a more just and more pleasurable place for everyone, of whatever gender.