There was a recently published Opinion piece in The New York Times by Professor David J. Morris called “The Disappearance of Literary Men Should Worry Everyone,” in which Morris discusses the steep decline of male writers and readers. Indeed, eighty percent of fiction sales consist of female readers. The same can be said for female writers, who make up sixty percent of Morris’s creative writing program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas with occasional classes almost entirely dominated by women. Yet while Morris mainly attributes this gender discrepancy to the recent underrepresentation of male authors (an idea I’m not sure I agree with), I see it more as an up-and-coming obsession with money. English, History, Political Science, Language, all have become “risky” fields – ones that do not guarantee a six figure income straight out of college. Indeed, per the Census Bureau American Community Survey in 2017, 23- to 25-year-olds who held a Computer Science or Engineering degree earned a median annual salary of $61,744 versus History and Social Science majors who made on average $45,032. And yes, financial stability has always been a matter of concern, but within the past twenty years, these worries have multiplied and propagated. As Morris states, “When I was a graduate student in [the creative writing program] about 20 years ago, the cohorts were split fairly evenly by gender.” Now, as mentioned, the female-to-male split in non-STEM studies has become worryingly disproportionate.
So, where exactly have these money-crazed sentiments arisen from? I (and Morris) say social media (I know, I know) – apps which have given a wide-reaching platform to chauvinistic, “hyper-masculine,” pseudo-entrepreneurial influencers such as Andrew Tate. Within these YouTubers, young men find not only self-affirmation, but also simplicity. Why push yourself to think critically about the history of sexuality, when you can listen to a ten-minute podcast by the Tate brothers saying gay is bad and straight is good? The same can be said for money. “Bro-fluencers” dilute life to a shortlist of criteria. On a podcast Andrew Tate relayed the “four ways to gain money”: “You trade information for money. You give a product or a service for money. Or you put something to work for money.” The Tate listener is indoctrinated by the idea that life is ruled by money, and the path to said money is easy. Don’t bother thinking critically about capitalism; don’t bother reading Marx (or reading at all).
Additionally, when asked if he had any advice for directionless 21-year-olds, Tristan Tate said: “If you don’t know what to do, don’t go to university. If you know what you want to do and you need university to do it, then obviously pursue that. If you don’t know what you want to do, going to university is going to burn through three to four years of your time and likely get you into a bunch of debt.” Summarizing Andrew and Tristan’s dictums, intellectualism and critical thinking takes time and brainpower, so why subject yourself to so much grief when the path to wealth is composed of three simple steps per the ones laid out by Andrew? This is where we encounter the ‘Illiterate Man.’ He either rejects higher education altogether under the belief that whatever he may learn at college – whatever ways his worldviews may be reshaped – are worthless in comparison to owning a Lamborghini by age twenty, or he goes to school but only if he studies something that ensures a good paycheck. Unfortunately, a field like linguistics is unlikely to offer that security in the same way engineering might. In short, money becomes the goal, reading becomes a chore. Empathy, creativity, understanding – all “soft” skills – are sacrificed in the name of “success.” Additionally, as the Humanities become more and more female dominated, it is likely that men have begun to directly associate these studies with femininity. Here, the Humanities lose their value; they now appear less “useful” or “real.”
It must be noted, however, that there are those who seek financial safety because they are first generation or come from low income households. They therefore may not have the luxury to “take their chances” on a more literary path. In the same vein, some merely cannot afford (and perhaps rightfully, due to their circumstances, do not find it necessary) to sacrifice money in exchange for the college experience and intellectual dynamism of a liberal arts education, especially if they are Undecided or unsure about their interests. But for the well-off male, the same reasoning cannot be dispensed. In the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas (and please take this with a grain of salt), Solanas states that money “supplies the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable[s] him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self.” And while I am not calling all men grotesque, Solanas brings up a fascinating point: do men neglect the Humanities – attach themselves to misogynists like the Tate Brothers and worship the “grindset” (money making) – so that they can avoid introspection? Is money a tool that shields men from recognizing weakness that may have otherwise been rooted out should they have read modern philosophical thinkers?
It is important now, more than ever, that young men abandon individualistic thought and invest their time in growing emotionally and intellectually, not just financially. Fascism leeches off the uneducated and the selfish, those who would rather give their vote to the candidate that will supposedly line their pockets than to the champion of democracy (of course, there are a million nuances to the MAGA mindset – but that’s for another article). In fact, 80% of voters who considered the economy to be the most crucial issue facing our country voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election (NBC News, National Election Pool). I’m not saying financial consciousness is insignificant, but in this political climate I fear there are much larger issues to tackle. It is frighteningly clear that an infatuation for ease, comfort, and wealth has overtaken critical thinking and scholarship. A literate population – one that reads books, that finds values in History and Philosophy – is the most potent weapon against tyranny and dictatorship.