Spectator Columnist Says The New York Times Is 'Late' to the Debate Over Masculinity Crisis

A column published in The American Spectator on Monday criticizes The New York Times for what the writer describes as a belated recognition of a so-called "masculinity crisis" and for advancing remedial proposals the columnist characterizes as more social engineering rather than a substantive course correction. The Spectator piece assesses a Times podcast that the columnist says acknowledges the decline of traditional masculinity but then proceeds to recommend interventions the writer views as likely to reproduce the same problems.

The Spectator columnist begins by noting a longstanding familiarity with The New York Times’ opinion pages and frames the podcast as a late response to cultural shifts the columnist attributes in part to ideas promoted by progressive intellectual currents. According to the column, the Times has only now discovered that masculinity is in crisis despite, the columnist contends, having spent years promoting concepts that contributed to what the writer calls "the demolition of masculinity." The columnist argues that many of the newspaper’s own editorial tendencies helped normalize theories and policies that undermined traditional male roles.

Describing the Times’ podcast, the Spectator article quotes one of the participants’ opening lines as a succinct example of the outlet’s framing: "I think the reality is that we’ve always had patriarchy at the intersection of capitalism and white supremacy, and how those things feast on one another and lift one another." The Spectator columnist uses that quotation to illustrate what he sees as an ideological starting point that will, in his view, lead to flawed conclusions about the causes and remedies for changes in masculine identity.

The Spectator piece also highlights another passage from the Times discussion in which a participant comments on the dynamics of dating and campus accusations, saying: “I think that black men are disproportionately accused of sexual violence by white women on college campuses, and often these accusations are found to be, if not unfounded, then very complex.” The columnist reports that this remark prompted incredulity and treated the example as indicative of the podcast’s broader emphasis on race and power in its analysis of masculinity.

While acknowledging that the Times’ podcast arrives at a diagnosis the columnist deems accurate about a crisis in masculinity, the Spectator writer rejects the solutions proposed in the discussion. The columnist contends that the podcast participants recommend renewed forms of social engineering—attempts to reshape behavior and institutions through policy or culture—that mirror the interventions the columnist blames for the current situation. Pointing to the potential for repeating past errors, the writer warns that if a majority followed the podcast’s advice, the newspaper might be running the same critical pieces again a decade hence.

The Spectator column further critiques what it characterizes as the intellectual foundations of some progressive theories, including the contention that sex is a social construct. The column includes the writer’s own retort to such views: "Anyone who catches me in the shower and sees my construct will immediately understand that it is not a construct." The columnist frames this retort as emblematic of a broader skepticism about efforts to reduce sex and gender to purely constructed categories without regard for biological or social realities.

Framing its broader argument, the Spectator piece accuses modern progressive journalism of being slow to report realities that are already widely apparent to the public, in contrast with the traditional role of the press to bring news to light. The columnist suggests that rather than acknowledging foundational errors in theory and policy, some outlets prefer to tinker with the same frameworks, pulling at threads of ideas that, in his view, remain internally inconsistent.

The article closes by reiterating the columnist’s central contention: that recognizing a problem is not the same as offering an effective remedy, and that the Times’ proposed responses to the so-called masculinity crisis risk perpetuating the conditions the columnist believes led to it. The Spectator writer urges a more fundamental reassessment of the assumptions underlying recent cultural and policy shifts instead of further rounds of social engineering.

The piece serves as a pointed example of the wider debate within U.S. media and public discourse over masculinity, race, and the role of journalism in diagnosing and prescribing social change. It underscores the divergent perspectives among publications about both the origins of cultural change and appropriate remedies, as well as the ongoing contest over which narratives will shape future policy and public opinion.