March 20, 2025 - 7:00am
Gareth Southgate’s recent heartfelt plea on behalf of young men in his Richard Dimbleby Lecture paints a sorrowful picture. Young men, the former England manager suggested, are isolated and withdrawn. They are seduced by gaming, pornography, and gambling, and are prey to “callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”.
As they grapple with masculinity itself and their “broader place” in society, as well as the decline of real-world communities and mentors, Southgate claimed that young men need not only better role models but different measures of success. Real success, Southgate says, is the ability to look back and say: “I gave my best, I stayed true to myself, and I made a difference.” All very nice, but he needs to go much deeper than these lifestyle-tier platitudes. There’s no “self” to be true to without values, and values are relational and social: for young men to flourish, they need a world in which masculinity itself is tied to the good, and where being a good son, brother, husband, friend, worker and father is both possible and encouraged.
As for the problem of influencers, Southgate, like the recent hit show Adolescence, over-eggs it. Most masculinist influencers promote objectively healthy behaviour, such as staying fit, eating well and starting a family — Andrew Tate is an outlier even in the “manosphere”. Recent Tate posts on X include jokes about crimes he and his brother stand accused of: “I am sick and tired of every hot girl in the world coming up to me begging to be human trafficked I HAVE RETIRED!!!!!!!!!!” Most men do not wish to be (alleged) human traffickers, nor pimps, nor possess a harem. One pleasant woman with the possibility of a family will be more than sufficient.
Southgate is correct, of course, that character matters a great deal, but what matters more than silly men making money from unpleasant videos online is the context in which concepts such as “character” make sense. The ancient Greeks, for example, thought of character as an imprint on the soul, a kind of social training. In a country where almost one in five (and in the States, one in four) children grow up without a father at home, how are young men to develop the moral and social character they need to be good men?
Coupled with an economy that values service and post-industrial labour, and gives jobs to whoever can be paid the least, not to mention a culture which treats young white men as abject, it’s not surprising that some retreat into virtual or fantasy worlds in which they are not painted as the source of all evil. For good character to make sense, there would have to be meaningful roles for young men in the real world. There is little point in striving to improve if there is no work, no recognition, and little hope of marriage and a family. Character-formation is a social and material process, not a one-off decision or an identity.
Liberal individualism, and the sexual revolution in particular, promoted selfishness over duty, desire over fidelity, and pretended that men and women were far more alike than they actually ever could be. The cad — the man for whom consequences were irrelevant — triumphed, but at great cost to sons, daughters and wives everywhere. Many young men know this, and are seeking — in increasing numbers, through church attendance, self-discipline and a refusal to emulate the worst excesses of postwar culture — to avoid the traps and lures of a hedonic life.
Young men, like all of us, will make mistakes, and Southgate is right that not everyone will be a winner according to worldly values, but blaming social influencers is shallow when the rot goes much deeper. Restoring dignity to masculinity requires, among other things, positively revaluing fatherhood and celebrating virtue. Character can only flourish in a context in which there is meaning, social roles, recognition — and a future for young men beyond being the object of scorn.
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.
SubscribeWhy would anyone expect Gareth Southgate to have any expertise in this area ? He’s just a slightly better than average football manager with frequently demonstrated woke tendencies – including “taking the knee” to BLM. As the author suggests, we need real world perspectives – and these aren’t going to come from luvvies with little experience outside of the “bubble”.
Southgate has spent his entire career since his early teens around young men, predominantly working class. I’d say he has as good an understanding of them as many, and certainly better than most feminists.
Which doesn’t say alot seeing as his experience with young men is limited to a particular subset.
And teaching that subset to be woke achieves nothing.
Whilst i agree about his relative merits in the football sphere (having taken a very talented.bunch of players further than most, but ultimately falling short due to his own limitations) i watched his lecture and think the author of this piece is using him as a Straw Man.
In no sense did Southgate suggest anything other than what the author suggests should be happening for young men.
I think Gareth Southgate is part of the problem.
He has bought into it all the feminist/woke c**p and comes across as very “metrosexual”, but then again he has become very wealthy in the process.
He has been privileged for so long he does not have a good understanding of young men. He is certainly not not a role model.
The author lost me at “church attendance”.
Completely unnecessary, wasn’t it. As i commented earlier, he sets Southgate up as a Straw Man to further his own argument which, whilst it may have validity, also reveals an agenda by that inclusion you refer to.
I think you’ll find he is a she. The point about church attendance is factually correct, though the numbers involved are fairly small.
Yes, a female writer, my apologies. My point stands.
It is however a far cry from a childhood and adolescence in the ’60s and 70’s, where at a boy’s boarding school, it was assumed that everyone would be churchgoing Christians and were imbued with what was then known as ‘muscular Christianity’ built on solid Old Testament foundations. Now those who have Church choirs are almost exclusively either ageing adults (like me) or girls (who incidentally are very welcome). The boys are out playing football! Sadly there will be no boys to replace the men and the choral tradition will in all probability die out.
The point is that church attendance requires a different set of values including even self denial that the hedonism promoted in wider society offers young men. Whether better or not it stands in opposition, not conformity with the self fulfilment narrative.
Correct. I often meet young men who are sincere church-goers, many of whom were not brought up religious, but Adam’s point is what I meant: values outside of a shallow notion of the self. There is much more to church than this, but Christian values necessarily stand against the dominant liberal worldview, and are appealing to increasing numbers of young people for that reason.
How many young men in past generations would have even had a passing thought of assessing their self value?
It’s not that their position was secure in the past. The problem is with the Self.
If these young men of today went to church they should hear the Gospel message to take up the Cross. That is, to deny the Self. This is not putting off today a gain that can be had tomorrow. This is not self-denial as commonly thought. It has nothing in it about gaining ‘value’ – another goal of Selfism.
If the young men sit down and examine their dissatisfaction, they will become experts in it. Isn’t there something rather pathetic about men doing this?
I think that’s the first time I’ve seen an author engage with a comment on Unherd. Hats off to you for that.
I think there are many like myself who, while not religious, who still think your criticisms of society are valid.
If any of these young men went to their parish church they would find that it is as woke as anything on the outside. Both the clergy and laity practising what is essentially woke doctrine having supplanted Christianity.
A good piece, and unusual for Unherd in that it doesn’t see things solely from a feminist perspective. Things can be bad for boys and men, without that being turned into a narrative about girls and women.
Good point made on radio 4 this morning too – that we cannot ignore the fact that education is failing boys, and privileging girls, just because a few very rare men run most ftse100 companies.
More like this, with more depth please.
It’s womansplaining at its worst.
Here we have a woman with the audacity to tell a man he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he describes the problems that young men face.
Her contribution is unwelcome and unwanted. We’re not interested in her feminist opinions.
I assume this was a gender reversed parody – which few got
The most important role for any man is to support and raise the children that he helped bring into the world. Doing that alone goes a long way towards showing respect for the woman who bore those children. Nothing else comes close and many of the other role models for males – teacher and coaches – are an extension of fatherhood.
The question to ask is why the role of fathers have been diminished, when most or all studies show that fathers need to be present in the lives of their children for the benefit of the children.
It all goes back to that most weird time and place in human history, the Weimar Republic, 1920s Germany, between the Wars and the center of New art, music, philosophy, and weirdness. All Historical Norms were discredited and creativity exploded, but in a dark fashion. (think the Movie Cabaret and the Song ‘Welcome’)
The Frankfurt School – in the Gothe Center, formed. One based on Marx (and then Neo-Marx) Atheism, Existentialism, and Freud. The point was to destroy the Western World in effect. Two paths were there, Naz* and Communist, and they went the Socialist Nihilism direction. (and you know what else that time and place produced, it was a unique time and place, a dark one, but very creative; darkly)
Frankfurt School decided breaking the Family was the way to achieve the breaking of the West, and it was the direction they took… 1980 they moved to Columbia University USA and really took off, completely capturing the Education Industry from kindergarten to PhD very quickly, after laying ground work from 1950s.
This became the philosophy of Modernism, and the one now destroying us from inside, Postmodernism.
I know, I know, you think me a flake…. but I could elaborate endlessly, and I am sure will if I remain here – only this is the truth. Marx, ‘Frankfurt School’ Postmodernism….. look it up….
So….Destruction of the family to destroy the West, and to do it, the destruction of Male and Female, now almost done. We do not have our own children, and so import nonwestern masses instead – it is all to the plan.
I think “plan” is over-formalised. ‘Goal’ might be a better term; but, overall, I agree wholeheartedly!
“I know, I know, you think me a flake”
You’ve got some distance to go before I elevate you to the status of a flake. You are currently in the “complete nutter” category.
Very constructive comments; as usual.
As a retired teacher; I never came close to being a role model for my pupils. My sole purpose was to educate them to the best of my ability in my areas of expertise. It was hard enough bringing up my own two boys and I would never dream of taking on the responsibility of their parents.
“Southgate claimed that young men need not only better role models”
It’s hard to think of worse role models than footballers.
I think they are poor in a number of ways, though you are probably thinking of extreme materialism and crass behaviour.
But the skills of top athletes are extremely rare, and something similar is the case with celebs, though it’s less clear what it is. For the vast majority of kids this kind of success is unattainable. But they could all do better at school, become a good swimmer, learn a musical instrument or a language etc.
Agreed. I want our National Team to be excellent at sticking balls in the back of the net. I have not the tiniest jot of interest about their private lives nor personal opinions. I find it nauseating whenever anyone ‘uses their platform’ to lecture the public about anything outside their area of expertise. At least David Beckham simply looks at the camera with a gormless smile on his face while the money rolls in. He was good at taking set pieces and could deliver a good long ball; that’s it!
He was good at taking set pieces and could delivering a good long ball; that’s it!
.
Most of us can’t even do that
I delivered the odd ‘through ball’ to great effect!
Imagine a drug baron; a pimp; a thief; a murderer – not really very hard to think of them. I suspect that young footballers are better than these, although some may not be. Like the aristocrats of old, successful young footballers earn more money than most of us can dream of; and some go off the rails as a consequence. Southgate’s view on the matter is valuable, since he has had close contact with dozens, or even hundreds of young men.
Ok, Pedant Livreiro, I’ll rephrase:
“Among those groups that ordinary young men admire, it’s hard to think of worse role models than footballers.”
I’m sure some young psychopaths admire thieves, murderers and pimps, but they’re a small minority and nobody in the mainstream is proposing we venerate criminals.
nobody in the mainstream is proposing we venerate criminals.
.
I’m not sure, judging by the number of articles in MSM about criminals
Erstwhile, it is not hard at all. The slimmy scum sucking forever lying, whiney dog in the White House is the lowest of low.
Southgate may have an overly simplistic view of this but the fact he enters the discussion matters because of who he is and the attention it’ll receive. He strikes me as someone with the humility and insight to know he’s not an expert on all this but that he still appreciated the value and importance of him entering the discourse to get folks discussing the matter.
As a slight aside one of the things that strikes me most about my male grandchildren is their attitude towards alcohol. It’s a million miles better than my generation. Now of course I know they’ll have familiarity with substances unknown to my generation, even if they don’t partake, but one thing I would predict – they’ll be fewer alcoholics in the decades to come and that is a good thing. Our youngsters have plenty to teach us and respecting that too is important.
I think the main thing that needs to be dropped is the default negative view of men and masculinity. It completely undermines boys aspirations. And also the idea that men should improve – but only in ways that make things better for women and girls. We need to shift our focus. Men are worthwhile in themselves.
Southgate is still focussing on “toxicity”. If boys are drawn to Andrew Tate it’s because everything else they hear about men (that is about themselves) is negative.
“Men are worthwhile in themselves”
absolutely spot on
Agree wholeheartedly David. Kids at my school return from assemblies having been lectured about ‘Toxic Masculinity’. It’s appalling.
I don’t know, I think the women will take up the slack.
I’d like to add into all the negative forces mentioned in this piece another big one acting on young men today……it is one that I would label ‘androgyny syndrome’.
In the late 1980s, the chatteringclassosphere began to buzz with a new fashionable groupthink. The gist went something like this: the difference between men and women is not so much a case of their different biological and animal natures as something that is “socially constructed”. What’s more, these “socially constructed” “gender roles” are both unnecessary and undesirable. They are impediments to ‘Progress’. In politically-correctthink the sexuality of the 95% has been relativised as ‘straight’ or prefixed with ‘cis’….. just one option in a great ‘non-binary’ jamboree bag.
There are now very few Westerners who would demur from the idea of womanhood as being on an equal footing with manhood and 20th c. But these gains could surely have been secured though without the later joyless assault on normal sexuality that the above-quoted dysphoric blah blah represents.
Placing white men at the bottom of the pile in a zero sum game of Identity Politics appears to led to some disbenefits.
Who could see that one coming? Not the virtue signaling senior academics for one.
I don’t have any issue with Southgate joining the debate. He is, as others pointed out, a person who has had ever experience of working class boys (regardless of colour) throughout his football career.
Blaming ‘influencers’ is like blaming spots for measles.
Presumably Southgate’s primary concern is white male based racism and white male based misogyny. Not nonwhite male based illegal immigration, not nonwhite male based criminality. Not nonwhite male based welfare dependency.
Male character is largely based on protection and being able to nurture and provide for family, community and country. These character roles remain largely intact in conservative rural towns but are largely absent within multicultural inner cities.
I think he should spend more time in inner cities and encouraging fabulously wealthy footballers to part with some of their money to pay patronage to character building social enterprise schemes like the Jericho Foundation in Balsall Heath, Birmingham.
You are really obsessed with “nonwhite” people, aren’t you?
“These character roles remain largely intact in conservative rural towns but are largely absent within multicultural inner cities.”
Is this because of all these pesky “nonwhite” folks in the cities and the absence of them in rural areas?
Its not too hard to figure out what you are really saying, is it? I bet you love Tommy Robinson, don’t you?
True.
Thank you Nina Power for that.
Good piece! I can imagine the fuss, though, if a man suggested that some celebrity woman didn’t understand a problem with women!
I’m sure you can imagine it and you are very angry about this ting that never happened!
I’d like to add into all the negative forces mentioned in this piece another big one acting on young men today……it is one that I would label ‘androgyny syndrome’.
In the late 1980s, the chatteringclassosphere began to buzz with a new fashionable groupthink. The gist went something like this: the difference between men and women is not so much a case of their different biological and animal natures as something that is “socially constructed”. What’s more, these “socially constructed” “gender roles” are both unnecessary and undesirable. They are impediments to ‘Progress’. In politically-correctthink the sexuality of the 95% has been relativised as ‘straight’ or prefixed with ‘cis’….. just one option in a great ‘non-binary’ jamboree bag.
There are now very few Westerners who would demur from the idea of womanhood as being on an equal footing with manhood and 20th c. But these gains could surely have been secured though without the later joyless assault on normal sexuality that the above-quoted dysphoric blah blah represents.
Ah yes, the good old ‘everything was fine until the 1980s ruined it’ argument—because history before then was just a paradise of unchallenged gender roles and universal happiness. Nothing says ‘serious analysis’ like calling societal progress a ‘jamboree bag’ while lamenting the tragic downfall of… what, exactly? Masculinity? Normality? The good old days when people didn’t have to think too hard about identity? Truly a crisis for the ages.
I suspect Mary Whitehouse, the art teacher , would agree with all the article, and then sigh. She got a lot right despite being mocked.
If all these men changed their name to ‘Power’ perhaps they might feel, well, empowered. (A male friend of a friend actually did this a long time ago).
A headline that disagrees with Southgate. Followed by an article that mostly agrees with him. This is more like a BBC article than and Unherd one.
Also – an older man talking about the problems facing young men – commented upon, and added to by an older woman?
While I don’t expect the demographic in question to be on here adding their voice, isn’t it time we actually started giving them a platform to tell us what we could do to help, instead of pretending we all understand it and offering solutions from the outside?
depsite all the societal hate for men, the disadvantages for young men, it’s not men that are the problem, it’s young women who have lost their way. Young men are what they have always been, resourceful, a bit naughty, very creative and smart.
They are less likely to fall for the nonsense being pushed out, as we see time after time, women are far more susceptible to state Propaganda
How many young women lives are dictated either by social media, the lastest fashion , are clueless about how the world actually works or anything outside their small lives
Society has a problem with White men, because a lot of White men don’t bend, they are harder to control
Many (not all) young women have turned into blithering morons, they have become weak, stupid and shallow
Just take a cursory look at YT and what channel content each sex make , young women it will be vapid nonsense, makeup, clothes. young men a lot will be them making things, discussing complex subjects ,taking an interest in things of consequence some very nerdy
Men have that societal value, they build the buildings, make sure society operates, we don’t need more HR managers, PR , Marketing
Lets be honest if all Women stopped working, we would’nt notice, if Men did, we would be in the stone age by the weeks end
They hate young men, not because they are weak, it’s because they are not