Conor Fitzgerald is now one of the most underrated observers of the scene today, and I highly recommend his essays at The Fitzstack. My favorite from August is when he returns to one of his favorite subjects, which is the attempt by progressives to deal with, portray, or embody an idea of nontoxic masculinity.

Naturally, he begins by talking about Scott Galloway, the liberal masculinity guru. But because Galloway is progressive, he cannot really cope with men except to see them as objects needing care from a technocracy that comprehends their hurts, wounds, and the unfairness they confront. Conor writes:

In talking about how he came to the conclusion that men needed help, Galloway mentions something that you often hear from Richard Reeves, which is that he engaged with the Democratic party and found that men were the one group who were not taken seriously as a special interest, and in fact that there was active resistance toward doing so. Reeves talks about his version of this here. So Galloway mentions going to the Democratic convention and hearing people talk about every slice of society as worthy of uplift and attention except men, who must be excluded because of their historic privilege and because of Patriarchy. It’s self-evident to him that the thing to do is to slot men into the progressive moral system in the same way as other groups. He........

© National Review