Podcast Summary: "If Books Could Kill" Episode: Josh Hawley's "Manhood" [TEASER]
Hosts: Michael Hobbes & Peter Shamshiri
Release Date: March 31, 2025
Duration Covered: 00:00 – 53:03

Introduction to the Episode

In this episode of "If Books Could Kill," hosts Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri delve into Senator Josh Hawley's perspectives on masculinity as presented in his book titled "Manhood." The discussion critically examines Hawley's portrayal of traditional masculinity, his rhetoric against liberal ideologies, and the broader implications of his viewpoints on American society.

Characterizing Josh Hawley

[00:00 – 01:15]

Michael and Peter open the conversation by attempting to describe Josh Hawley without resorting to derogatory terms. Peter reminisces about a video of Hawley during January 6th, portraying him as lacking true masculinity.

Peter [00:17]: "I still remember that video of him jogging away on January six... Masculinity. Whatever. You guys are pussies."

Michael [00:36]: "Too many pussies out here. We need more real men like me."

The hosts establish a critical tone towards Hawley's views on manhood, setting the stage for a deeper analysis.

Hawley's stance on Masculinity

[02:03 – 05:34]

The discussion shifts to how Josh Hawley has positioned himself as a defender of traditional masculinity. Michael references Hawley's 2021 speech where he argues that "manhood is under attack." They highlight Hawley's assertion that liberal ideologies are undermining American men by promoting what he terms as "toxic masculinity."

Josh Hawley [02:32]: "The left want to define traditional masculinity as toxic... They have had alarming success."

Peter mocks Hawley's references to gender studies and political correctness, suggesting Hawley is misrepresenting academic discourse to fit his narrative.

Critique of Hawley's Use of Academic Sources

[07:09 – 09:23]

Michael and Peter critique Hawley's selective use of academic and cultural references to bolster his arguments. They argue that Hawley cherry-picks quotes and misrepresents sources to paint a negative picture of modern masculinity and liberalism.

Michael [07:09]: "I don't think it's a particularly good op ed... It's just a random ass blog post by this Random ass guy."

They emphasize that Hawley's approach oversimplifies complex societal issues, reducing them to binary conflicts between traditional masculinity and liberal ideologies.

Analysis of Hawley's Book "Manhood"

[09:23 – 13:29]

Hawley's book is scrutinized for its lack of depth and overreliance on religious texts. The hosts point out that much of the book consists of Biblical references, which they find unengaging and unoriginal.

Peter [09:34]: "All is not well with men in America. And that spells trouble for the American republic."

They argue that Hawley's narrative mirrors that of Richard Reeves and men's rights activists, focusing on perceived declines in male societal roles without offering substantial solutions.

Anthropological Perspectives on Manhood

[11:31 – 19:24]

The hosts discuss Hawley's exploration of manhood across various cultures. They highlight Hawley's examination of traditional rituals and gender roles in different societies, such as the Kalahari Bushmen and Papua New Guinea, to argue that rigid masculinity norms are a global phenomenon rooted in societal needs.

Michael [13:29]: "Every society is just like, I know it when I see it."

Peter and Michael critique the anthropological examples as either exaggerated or misrepresented, mocking the notion that global masculinity norms are as rigid and oppressive as Hawley suggests.

Dissection of APA Guidelines Misrepresentation

[35:14 – 44:52]

A significant portion of the conversation centers around Hawley's purported misrepresentation of the American Psychological Association's (APA) guidelines on masculinity. The hosts argue that Hawley takes quotes out of context to portray the APA as antagonistic towards traditional masculinity.

Peter [40:18]: "Boys and men are diverse with respect to their race, ethnicity... They are also demonstrating disproportionate rates of receiving harsh discipline, academic challenges, mental health issues..."

Michael emphasizes that the APA's intent was to address genuine issues faced by men, not to denounce masculinity itself.

Michael [43:18]: "He’s essentially making the same case as Richard Reeves... acknowledging all of the problems you want them to acknowledge."

The hosts assert that Hawley's portrayal ignores the nuanced approach of the APA, which seeks to improve men's health and societal roles rather than attack their masculinity.

Societal Impact and Political Rhetoric

[44:02 – 48:41]

Michael and Peter explore how Hawley's rhetoric fits into a broader political strategy of identifying and vilifying the left as the source of men's societal issues. They argue that this tactic diverts attention from providing tangible solutions to problems like male suicide rates and educational challenges.

Peter [47:37]: "Any attempt to actually engage in a good faith conversation with them is a waste of fucking time."

The discussion suggests that Hawley's approach fosters division by framing societal problems as assaults by liberal ideologies rather than addressing underlying systemic issues.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

[48:41 – 53:03]

In the concluding segments, the hosts continue their critique of Hawley's book, highlighting its superficial treatment of male roles in society. They mock Hawley's arguments against modern leisure activities, such as excessive screen time and pornography, suggesting that these are misattributed as solely detrimental consequences of declining masculinity.

Peter [52:10]: "I quit my job to jack off more."

Michael and Peter stress the importance of addressing men's issues through comprehensive discussions rather than reductive blaming of political ideologies. They advocate for a more balanced conversation that recognizes both the challenges men face and the positive aspects of masculinity.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Peter [00:17]: "I still remember that video of him jogging away on January six... Masculinity. Whatever. You guys are pussies."
• Josh Hawley [02:32]: "The left want to define traditional masculinity as toxic... They have had alarming success."
• Peter [07:09]: "It's just a random ass blog post by this Random ass guy."
• Michael [13:29]: "Every society is just like, I know it when I see it."
• Peter [40:18]: "Boys and men are diverse with respect to their race, ethnicity... They are also demonstrating disproportionate rates of receiving harsh discipline, academic challenges, mental health issues..."
• Peter [47:37]: "Any attempt to actually engage in a good faith conversation with them is a waste of fucking time."
• Peter [52:10]: "I quit my job to jack off more."

Key Takeaways

• Critical Examination of Traditional Masculinity: The hosts challenge Josh Hawley's portrayal of traditional masculinity as under attack, arguing that his approach is overly simplistic and misrepresents academic and societal discussions.

• Misrepresentation of Sources: Michael and Peter highlight Hawley's tendency to cherry-pick and misinterpret academic sources, particularly the APA's guidelines, to fit his narrative against liberal ideologies.

• Political Divisiveness: The discussion underscores how Hawley's rhetoric contributes to societal polarization by positioning the left as adversaries of men's issues, thereby hindering constructive dialogue and solutions.

• Cultural and Anthropological Insights: While Hawley attempts to back his arguments with anthropological examples of masculinity across cultures, the hosts find these representations exaggerated or irrelevant to contemporary American society.

• Importance of Nuanced Discussions: The episode emphasizes the need for comprehensive conversations about men's roles and challenges that go beyond binary political blame-shifting, advocating for balanced perspectives that acknowledge both strengths and areas for improvement in traditional masculinity.

Note: This summary is based solely on the provided transcript excerpt up to 53:03 and may not encompass the entirety of the episode's content.