“Sometimes you think you’re gettin’ food ‘cos there’s a coupla raisins in it, but it’s just a plate fulla horse apples.” Dewayne, or Dry Creek Wrangler School as he’s known to his 1.2 million YouTube subscribers, is dispensing life advice through his bushy grey beard. He’s wearing jeans and a Stetson, and in his left hand dangles a cigar. The advice in question: don’t confuse apples with manure. Trust your instincts, fellers, and don’t take no bull.
Dry Creek is one of many such content creators who — mainly in the manly haven of YouTube, shielded from TikTok’s distinct girliness — have become icons of Mountain Man straight-talkin’, tonics for city boys strung out by modern masculinity. His videos vary from day-to-day instructional content (“Three things I’ll never do to my horse again”) to the philosophical. In one, he discusses feminism. He regrets that modern women must “go out and lord it over men” with big-shot careers in order to be respected; he laments the way society “belittles” mothers, and how “men stopped being men and women stopped being women”. While a little dated, there is no straight-up toxicity in his philosophy: he’s a harmless old-timer, and his shtick is nostalgia, positing himself as a substitute gramps for deracinated young men.
But the longer one spends with the wild men of YouTube, the stranger and more extreme they become. Before long, you’ll happen upon Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen, a novelist and bushcrafter from Norway with nearly 700,000 subscribers. Similarly to Dry Creek, his format is based on vlogging time spent in the wilderness while offering philosophical titbits. But his titbits are made of much stronger stuff. Standing by a beautiful lake in the still-light middle of the night, Bull-Hansen tells us why so many men are single. Women are less attractive now because of “things such as obesity”; they have a “face covered in piercings, blue hair and a strong, independent woman attitude”. The incel alarm bells go off. “The high-value man will probably not be attracted by that.”
Bull-Hansen is dealing in a conceit which has been hugely successful in the manosphere in recent years: shoehorning redpill advice into content about rugged, natural masculinity. Of the marriage between the two, he says: “Nature is beautiful and brutal, but mostly beautiful. Everything here is as it should be, and as it has always been, and I like that.” In the mind of the anti-woke Mountain Man, the natural world is unapologetically aligned with the values of tribal patriarchy: it is a sphere where men can escape debilitating metrosexuality. Away from the deceptions of cities, this world is “real”. Standing pensively in the rain, Bull-Hansen denounces men “sitting looking at a screen, in a city apartment”. Being in the wilderness is a departure from Sodom, a return to the greatest and simplest conflicts not of man vs woman, but man vs nature, and sometimes man vs God.
It is not difficult to see how a casual viewer might become radicalised by such content. In one excruciating “comedy” video, he whittles a fake Covid passport out of wood. In another, he takes his son camping and rants about “disgusting” child custody arrangements controlled by vindictive mothers. He discusses how m-pox will provoke another worldwide lockdown, and has unsavoury takes on the UK riots. There are countless other creators doing similar things: one channel sees two men bro-ing out around a campfire, talking about “their masculine journey”; one gifts the other a knife and a waterproof Bible. Another channel urges men to “reject phone addiction and embrace nature” — but keep watching my videos, obviously — and to “train your body in the elements to mimic our ancestors”, with a clip of a hairy man screaming as he looks at the sky.
From where does this obsession with the wilderness, and the supposedly “sigma” philosophy of the Mountain Man, spring? The original Mountain Men were North American fur trappers — lone operatives or brigades venturing out west in the mid-1800s, setting up trading routes and dealing in lucrative beaver pelts to satisfy the desires of refined Europeans for fashionable waterproof hats. It was a tough life: they trekked about in hardened deer skins, setting their own broken bones and withstanding miserable winters. But there is a nobility in this suffering in the popular imagination, an almost Christ-like rejection of modern comforts, which persists in survivalist YouTubers of today. The Revenant (2015), in which Leonardo DiCaprio faces off with the Mountain Man’s great enemy — the Grizzly bear — is based on the experiences of the fur trapper Hugh Glass in 1823, and is shot through with Biblical themes of forgiveness (he is left for dead by his hunting party) and revival. In this sense, Mountain Men slot neatly in with fundamental visions of masculine virtue.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnyone interested in a real, latter-day mountain man might google Richard Proenneke. A true hermit who settled, about age 50 after an accident almost blinded him, next to a remote Alaskan lake. He built his own cabin from scratch and lived mostly off the land until his eighties. He received occasional visits from a friend with a float plane who brought luxuries such as sugar and coffee, and some adventurous tourists. Otherwise he lived alone right through the brutal winters. Anyone who thinks they can live that life without plenty of survival skills is a fool.
Here’s a youtube link for anyone who’s interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaBxxl6ZTTE
My husband was an English teacher who loved reading poetry. He was gentle and funny, and I guess the antithesis of a mountain man. However, once a year he and about eight or nine of his friends would pack up and disappear into Mexico for a week (with plenty of beer), I had no contact with him, and I worried myself sick. When he returned home, he had the beginnings of a mountain man’s burly beard. He was filthy and smelled, but he couldn’t stop smiling. When I asked him what he did, he would ignore me. Still smiling. I guess getting together with other men to have an adventure in the wilds of Mexico was exactly what he needed. He didn’t even read for a week.
Thanks. I’ll try that on MY wife next time I want to disappear for a week and don’t want to tell her why.
How ironic, as mentioned, that their audience is the men with their faces glued to their screens,
This was a great piece, Poppy. I took it as a piece about Viking Values vs Cowboy values which is probably the exact discussion dudes should be having. What are the differences?
For starters maybe. Of course the marauding era Vikings and trail driving true Cowboys were both nomads of a kind. When some of them, inevitably, became homesteaders or settled in town and started families, they’d prove better husbands and fathers if they could team their notions with those of the women folk, and even a few of the city slickers. I reckon so, anyhow. Even my stoic Nova Scotia grandfather, born 1905, needed one heck of a tough churchgoing, talkative wife to raise ten healthy children in Alberta.
The combination of Man+Woman is truly foundational to the success of the species. Innit?
Yup. On every level from basic procreation to societal institutions to fun parties.
I’m sure my perception of Vikings is based on historical fiction. But if we assume the portrayals are remotely accurate, the nomadic life of a Cowboy seemed much more temporary.
By far, Poppy Sowerby’s best article for Unherd.
She demonstrates a breadth and depth of research into her topic with a punchy lightness that nevertheless hits several nails bang on the head, culminating in a conclusion – around the difference between manliness and misogyny – which many men struggle with; a struggle which is frequently manifest in Unherd comments.
I’ve sometimes struggled to see how her particular interests could be of more general interest to an audience wider than her own peer group. With this article, she’s broken free from her very urban milieu and taken on the mountains and wide open spaces of all our lives and times.
Well said. I agree. There were a few tidbits in there that bridged the gap for me.
So says the Lancashire Lass.
Good journalists go out and meet / talk to the people they write about. I get the impression Poppy wrote the whole article from her desk.
When I try to imagine a ‘manosphere’ – one that would suit me better than either the suffocating androgynous metrosexuality of bien pensant 2024 or pseudo-Viking Youtuber 2024 – the nearest I can get – and do NOT laugh! – is something a bit like The Waltons. The Waltons was a kind of part-feminised version of the Western. Its storylines had, for example, a modicum of agonising about Social Justice. But they were not so engorged with it that you dared not feel good about your whiteness or maleness or sexual binariness – as would be the case today. It was a place where boy meets girl and starts a family; a place where self-reliance and stoicism was your code even if you did not entirely live up to it. For all its sugar-coated Hollywood fakery it was, at the end of the day, my kind of place. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
Yes, I agree with you there. Three generation of men with the same values.
What makes you think that you have to follow other people, whether the bien pensants or the pseudo-Vikings or the entirely fictional Waltons? Why don’t you just behave in whatever ways you think are good ways to behave? Presumably you’ll get some moderation from your family, friends, colleagues and so on.
It seems pretty obvious as to what GC personally thinks is a good way to behave, as you call it.
We are all inspired or demoralised by others around us. Like GC I find the Waltons very good role models and inspirational and encourage my kids to see that as a way to life. Sure they/we will do it our way but it is always good to have healthy exemplars.
Always wanted a little house on the prairie. But without the smells, tooth aches, vermin and humidity, just to name some old fashioned inconveniences. A vlogger in the wild is utterly ridiculous. That guy in the pictures had his chest and back waxed, armpits shaved, beard carefully groomed and any unevenness in his skin blurred out for the picture. Bet the shorts came frehs out of the package and the background is a stock photograph.
Completely missing the point of GCs comment.
The Waltons was an American tv show in the Seventies. It was about a close family during the Depression, and it took place in the mountains of Virginia. It wasn’t a Western. Is there a British show called The Waltons?
What exactly are you trying to say?
Poppy makes various moral claims in this essay: calling some behaviours “toxic”, labelling comments as “unsavoury”, or describing certain forms of masculinity as a “spreading poison”. It’s interesting to note that she uses medicalised, even gastronomic, language to make these claims. There’s no sense of virtue and vice, only whether she finds things gross, cringe, or hypocritical. I suppose, in that sense, this essay is useful: it’s a clear example of moralising while having no clear morals of its own. And she’s the one condemning others for hypocrisy! How cringe!
Indeed, this article seems to lack any worldview, beyond sardonic derision, that provides a foundation for making any of its judgments. Let’s look at the two instances when she uses the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
i) “There is something winkingly good-natured about these Western-flavoured content creators, a sense of fun.” A flippant comment. A flippant adverb applied beforehand to take the weight out of the moral judgment. Wouldn’t want anyone to think you had values now, would you? That would be so cringe!
ii) “a retreat from the swirling pressures of modernity is really not a bad thing” Another flippant sentence, with a weak adverb applied before the word ‘bad’. No indication as to why this, or indeed anything, is good or bad.
Poppy, what’s your basis for saying anything is right or wrong? Whether or not it makes you feel icky?
Does anyone now remember another English impostor Grey Owl who passed himself and his life philosophy as authentically Native American back in the 1930s but turn out to be from Hastings in Sussex. I bet there’s still a lot of fakery going on.
Grey Owl may have been a fraud, but he was quite successful in promoting conservation, when it wasn’t popular, and others would not have been listened to. Without him, the Canadian beaver might have become extinct, and a lot of natural forest would have been cut down for mere profit. He didn’t disguise himself in order to get rich.
Women really don’t like men going their own way.
So what? Just do your thing anyway… unless it’s too difficult for you?
People like to exert undue influence and control over others, both within and across the sexes. There are plenty of men who don’t much like to see women do their own thing either. Globally and historically that’s been a greater force of control, hasn’t it?
in the most general terms, I think men are both more inclined and more able to do their own thing. Rebellious originality is still likelier to lead to an uncomfortable sense of rejection, if not outcast status and outright physical unsafety, for women than for men as a whole.
Interesting and thoughtful piece, though when it strays beyond a discussion of the online sphere and into the “real” world, the writing seems a bit less sure-footed. Perhaps Poppy should just get out and talk to people more.
One criticism is that although the author refers to feminists in a tone which suggests she isn’t one, she does fall into their trap of representing male pursuits on an axis with “toxic” at one end and “quaintly trivial” at the other. I find it annoying when men do that about women stuff too. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy p**s-taking of course – on UnHerd, it’s something Kathleen Stock in particular has a talent for, without slipping into condescension.
Well observed. I enjoyed Ms Sowerby’s reflections overall but agree that she may need to get outside more, like many of us, male and female. Why would we menfolk have to choose from a collection of theatrical personas?
She does travel a bit deeper into the figurative woods than her two dimensional (screen or print) sources seem to take us on their own, but I think we can still pick and pull from a deeper pool of both real-world and fictionalized models. Or choose “none of the above”, with however many people guiding and helping us along seemingly solitary pathways.
… “disgusting” child custody arrangements controlled by vindictive mothers? Well, you do hear of them quite a lot, so why should complaining about them be a rant? And what is toxic masculinity? What is the feminine equivalent?
David Eades
Did you ever listen to Bull-Hansen? It’s all pretty rant-y. And he has this hound-dog sort of persona; I always felt sorry for him. I’m surprised he’s so successful at it.
The equivalent is Narcissistic Feminism.
“… dealing in a conceit which has been hugely successful in the manosphere in recent years.”
I stopped reading at this point. Most men are simply sick of feminism, which infuses this article. Venomous muliebrity.
he’s a harmless old-timer, and his shtick is nostalgia, positing himself as a substitute gramps for deracinated young men.
Is he now and is it a schtick? How’s laughing at it working out for young women like the author? TikTok has reams of professional 30ish women claiming through bitter tears how happy they are with their personally barren lives. Maybe these old-timers know a bit more about life and human nature than the digital natives who believe instant access to information is tantamount to instant knowledge.
From where does this obsession with the wilderness, and the supposedly “sigma” philosophy of the Mountain Man, spring?
Perhaps from a modernity that promises so much yet often delivers so little. Is there a sadder lot than those, men and women, whose worlds are in a 4×6 inch screen, people who cannot do so much as cross a parking lot without the aid of a digital diversion? I think Poppy protests a bit loudly because some of what these guys say is over the target and it strikes close to home for her.
“Unsavoury takes on the riots.” Egads, not that. To suggest that viewers are “radicalized” by such channels is comical. These videos find traction because they’re filling a void. Much like the videos of crying women speak to an unpleasant reality. But that’s okay; laugh at these dudes and their viewers. That will make things all better.
Totally silly. A perfect example of the forgotten wisdom: a wife sees right through her husband, but doesn’t understand a damn thing about him.
.
And yes, TikTok and Instagram women constantly demonstrate the attractiveness of their butts. And nothing but butts
Flacid moralizing from a city dweller who will never “get it”.