> What sorts of institutions offer “second fathers” to young men now?

Must it be institutionalized? Can't this be encouraged without some one-sized-fits-all framework? I learned from a lot of guys in church related groups, yet with so much garbage messaging it made me hate myself. Also encountered some very good guys in school, forums, and LAN gaming, and without the religious strings attached.

Institutions are “stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior.”

Institutions encourage “second fatherhood” as a means of passing in the patterns of behavior.

That behavior might be killing opposing militaries, educating future generations, or religious worship.

So I think there’s a strong obvious link between institutions and second fathers.

I wholly agree with "second fathers."

I am Gen X, and I think one of the social institutions which has quietly vanished before I could quite get to it was the old Roman concept of "patronage." Without understanding I was doing it until embarrassingly late, I spent a lot of time looking for those second fathers, the mentors, the patrons. What broke it for me was someone who was clearly suited for the role, and had benefited from it himself, but was simply too self-involved to pay it forward, as it were. I realized that the Boomers as a trend just weren't thinking patronage or even the idea of planting trees they wouldn't see grown.

So, no mentors for me. Nor am I, sadly, in the position to be much of one myself. I can at last see myself doing it and cut that off at the pass.

If the "wrong" groups have something to offer in the way of second fathers, maybe their values aren't as bad as expected. Nobody wants to even consider that. If only The Bad Guys are making sense about some issues, what else might they be correct on?

> If the "wrong" groups have something to offer in the way of second fathers, maybe their values aren't as bad as expected. Nobody wants to even consider that. If only The Bad Guys are making sense about some issues, what else might they be correct on?

Some of those “wrong groups” are just flat out scammers and charlatans though - see those “alpha male” influencers hawking their courses or whatever. They are taking advantage of a need in others to enrich themselves without really giving a damn about their charges.

Two examples immediately spring to mind, Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson.

I’m sure both have had some moderately useful things to say at some stage of their life for some folks, but a quick look at their Twitter profile tells you everything you really need to know now.

To be fair, several years ago Jordan Peterson seemed quite genuine and earnest about wanting to do good in the world...and then his Benzos coma happened, and he was out cold for several months in Russia or something bizarre, an it's very, very obvious that he has never recovered from that.

Like, we're talking some amount of genuine brain damage damage which he's just stuck with now.

Twitter was also just not a good place for him at all. Some people just get sucked into that sort of stuff, even though it's terrible for their public image, and even though there is so much more they could be doing. Anyone remember how people made fun of eg. Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson for being obnoxiously atheistic on Twitter? Yeah, it's a bit like that.

I think social media influencers should be excluded from the “second father” category.

This is an in person relationship.

Sadly a lot of folks form parasocial relationships with influencers.

I would point out that most of your examples are only allowed to hold significant sway over a boy after they've become a young man, in the teen years and further. I'm also speaking to young childhood through the early teen years, when children are mostly going to be limited to their home and neighborhood. There are cultures where they'll regularly come into contact with "second fathers", who will have discipline privileges over/responsibility for them, over the course of their daily activities. This is not the case in America; the norm is the buck stopping with one's resident parents, and others have little authority or responsibility. So I understand if it's hard to conceptualize; we simply don't have much lived experience with it.

You're thinking institutions, when I mean uncles and grandparents who live down the street, or even with the family; trusted neighbors (perhaps distant relatives); teachers who can afford to live in the same neighborhood; local workers and entrepreneurs who are included in neighborhood life; and so on.