counter create hit The Way of Men - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

The Way of Men

Availability: Ready to download

The Way of Men answers the question: “What is Masculinity?” The so-called experts give the answers that suit their masters. They tell just-so stories to protect their ideology, their religion, their way of life. They look to women for a nod of approval before speaking. They give socially acceptable answers and half-truths. If what they have to say resonates with men, it is o The Way of Men answers the question: “What is Masculinity?” The so-called experts give the answers that suit their masters. They tell just-so stories to protect their ideology, their religion, their way of life. They look to women for a nod of approval before speaking. They give socially acceptable answers and half-truths. If what they have to say resonates with men, it is only because they manage to hint at the real answer. The real answer is that The Way of Men is The Way of The Gang. Manliness — being good at being a man — isn’t about impressing women. That’s a side effect of manliness. Manliness isn’t about being a good man. There are plenty of bad guys – real jerks –who are manlier than you are, and you know it. Manliness is about demonstrating to other men that you have what it takes to survive tough times. Manliness is about our primal nature. It’s about what men have always needed from each other if they wanted to win struggles against nature, and against other men. The Way of Men describes the four tactical virtues of the survival gang. The Way of Men explains what men want, and why they are rapidly disengaging from our child-proofed modern world. The Way of Men examines the alternatives, and sketches a path out of our “bonobo masturbation society” through a new Dark Age.


Compare

The Way of Men answers the question: “What is Masculinity?” The so-called experts give the answers that suit their masters. They tell just-so stories to protect their ideology, their religion, their way of life. They look to women for a nod of approval before speaking. They give socially acceptable answers and half-truths. If what they have to say resonates with men, it is o The Way of Men answers the question: “What is Masculinity?” The so-called experts give the answers that suit their masters. They tell just-so stories to protect their ideology, their religion, their way of life. They look to women for a nod of approval before speaking. They give socially acceptable answers and half-truths. If what they have to say resonates with men, it is only because they manage to hint at the real answer. The real answer is that The Way of Men is The Way of The Gang. Manliness — being good at being a man — isn’t about impressing women. That’s a side effect of manliness. Manliness isn’t about being a good man. There are plenty of bad guys – real jerks –who are manlier than you are, and you know it. Manliness is about demonstrating to other men that you have what it takes to survive tough times. Manliness is about our primal nature. It’s about what men have always needed from each other if they wanted to win struggles against nature, and against other men. The Way of Men describes the four tactical virtues of the survival gang. The Way of Men explains what men want, and why they are rapidly disengaging from our child-proofed modern world. The Way of Men examines the alternatives, and sketches a path out of our “bonobo masturbation society” through a new Dark Age.

30 review for The Way of Men

  1. 5 out of 5

    Jeff

    Jack Donovan is bluntly honest, very precise, but not accurate. I agree with a lot of concepts in this book, like the way men view men - manliness is made of strength, courage, mastery, and honor - etc. However, his conclusions are misguided and frankly disappointing. This book was written by a trucker, and his disconnect with politics and economics show (not trying to bash - but the last two chapters elucidate this and really ruin the book for me). Some abstractions are exaggerated - like women Jack Donovan is bluntly honest, very precise, but not accurate. I agree with a lot of concepts in this book, like the way men view men - manliness is made of strength, courage, mastery, and honor - etc. However, his conclusions are misguided and frankly disappointing. This book was written by a trucker, and his disconnect with politics and economics show (not trying to bash - but the last two chapters elucidate this and really ruin the book for me). Some abstractions are exaggerated - like women's lack of a role patriarchal society and manliness. Other chapters are incomplete - He talks about Rome and it's bellicose era of Romulus; disregarding the contrasting successor Noma or any understanding of the complexity of the Roman Empire. However, the Bonobo Masturbation Society chapter is a Must Read... the chapter hit home describing where manhood is in our culture right now, and why it's so frustrating. I'm just not satisfied with what he says in response as the conclusion, and therefor can't recommend the book - who wants to read a book with a huge caveat? Check it out if you're interested, but I'd rather read an excellent fiction with extractable truths.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Lord Falcon McSuave

    Horrible. This is what happens when a bro gets a thesaurus and learns about how to reference other authors. The first few chapters have some real insight, that's the only reason why I'm giving this book two stars. The rest of the book has some real jewels like the author's fear of capitalist-feminist world government conspiracy taking over, and how men should break up into self-sufficient gangs. I shit you not he says something like: why should men compete in politics if women can compete in it Horrible. This is what happens when a bro gets a thesaurus and learns about how to reference other authors. The first few chapters have some real insight, that's the only reason why I'm giving this book two stars. The rest of the book has some real jewels like the author's fear of capitalist-feminist world government conspiracy taking over, and how men should break up into self-sufficient gangs. I shit you not he says something like: why should men compete in politics if women can compete in it too, then men just compete to impress women, not each other. I recommend this book for anyone who likes to lift weights, and watch WWE with a tin foil hat on. In short, just any paranoid bro who feels like their masculinity is being threatened by equality and progress in general

  3. 5 out of 5

    Michael Kalb

    This book should take its place between the gun rack and self-defense books. While I will not give a full review, as I feel it should be read to full grasp this important piece, I will say that Mr. Donovan has once again hit many nails on the head with all the precision of a Bostitch pneumatic nail-gun. In this world of "politically correct" language and redundant male guilt, Jack not only slashes through the pervasive pantywastism, he gives a clear view in the difference between being a good m This book should take its place between the gun rack and self-defense books. While I will not give a full review, as I feel it should be read to full grasp this important piece, I will say that Mr. Donovan has once again hit many nails on the head with all the precision of a Bostitch pneumatic nail-gun. In this world of "politically correct" language and redundant male guilt, Jack not only slashes through the pervasive pantywastism, he gives a clear view in the difference between being a good man and being good AT being a man for starters. One of my favorites thus far is asking what is the Parameter. This book gives a solid and unencumbered view into a subject that would get a many-fold answer if the question was given to men on what it means to be a Man. Once again Jack Donovan is to be commended for his works on this vagina-forbidden topic in a world gone to a lavender hell, Mr. Donovan will be that guiding light to a pragmatic viewpoint on what it means to be a man. Do yourself a favor, purchase this book and really question your values as a male in this current and overt sea of unmitigated male bashing.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Zac Scy

    I try to read stuff that provokes me and challenges my assumptions. This is one of those books. I found so many things annoying about this. Mainly the notion that men perhaps should rule because it's in our nature. That allowing females to occupy spaces where men traditionally and evolutionarily have been the "best". I get that, for the longest time it's been that way and it has been beneficial for us as a species. Now, it's not been the best possible version of it because of, well, we've seen wha I try to read stuff that provokes me and challenges my assumptions. This is one of those books. I found so many things annoying about this. Mainly the notion that men perhaps should rule because it's in our nature. That allowing females to occupy spaces where men traditionally and evolutionarily have been the "best". I get that, for the longest time it's been that way and it has been beneficial for us as a species. Now, it's not been the best possible version of it because of, well, we've seen what's been done, right? That being said, I do agree to a certain extent with the author's views. I also feel that physically strong, perhaps less "intellectually inclined" men have been pushed aside. We've come to view hard manual labor and physical strength as somehow "lesser" than either academic or artistic pursuits. And that's really unfortunate. All people should have opportunities to have their skills put to the best possible use. The author mentions that this could be a possible reason for a part of the issue with criminality. He does make a point of stating that there needs to be balance between the different types of manliness. That's probably what I'll take as the main point. The reason I gave it 4 stars is that it fulfilled its intended purpose for me. Was it the best book I've read on the subject? No. Did it actually make me reconsider some of my prior beliefs? Yes. I feel that there are better and more productive ways of learning the same lessons. My first thought is Mike Rowe's concept of "Dirty Jobs". We really should find ways of balancing the different types of manliness because right now it really is kind of skewed. It's understandable though. Look at history. For the longest time the physical manliness has been disproportionately revered. Then came the intellectuals. After that the artistic. It seems that the scales always need to tip a little too far in each direction before we find ways of striking a semi-perfect balance. I know I felt a lot better back when I used to go fishing and exploring the woods with my manly man buddies. There was something really primally alluring about it. Now? I go hunting and fighting in games like "Borderlands", "GTA" or "Elder Scrolls". Emotionally it's the same kind of bonding but nothing beats catching & gutting a couple of perches, then building a fire and cooking it among friends. So, to anyone wanting to brush up on their manliness this is a good read. You'll be sighing out of frustration at some of the ideas while others actually help you understand the issue a little bit better. And that's what we all need. A little more understanding.

  5. 5 out of 5

    David Donhoff

    What an outstanding book! The entire time you'll simultaneously say to yourself; Geez... this is incredibly obvious & self-evident, and, Geez... why is nobody else writing/expressing this against the cacaphony of anti-male dicrimination!?!? It goes on the "must read" list for my son... What an outstanding book! The entire time you'll simultaneously say to yourself; Geez... this is incredibly obvious & self-evident, and, Geez... why is nobody else writing/expressing this against the cacaphony of anti-male dicrimination!?!? It goes on the "must read" list for my son...

  6. 5 out of 5

    Dave Johnson

    I debated what to rate this because I vacillated between love and hate with so many points in this book. At its core, it is an attempt to make an amoral analysis of masculinity, and ultimately fails to make a convincing argument. I LOVED parts of this book. His discussion of the "perimeter" and his explanation of his four "tactical virtues" (four amoral, universal traits of masculinity) were great. I also found his description of viewing the state of society and its history through a lens of ma I debated what to rate this because I vacillated between love and hate with so many points in this book. At its core, it is an attempt to make an amoral analysis of masculinity, and ultimately fails to make a convincing argument. I LOVED parts of this book. His discussion of the "perimeter" and his explanation of his four "tactical virtues" (four amoral, universal traits of masculinity) were great. I also found his description of viewing the state of society and its history through a lens of masculinity both fascinating and challenging. The biggest problem with this book is that it really can't commit to making amoral claims of masculinity without condoning immoral behaviors of men throughout history. Donovan tries to explain that men respond to four distinctly male virtues: courage, strength, mastery, and honor. And while I agree with him on these points, they seem incomplete. Frankly, it seems like there really needs to be 1-2 more virtues, one of them being a clear moral component. While Donovan doesn't sugar coat his explanation, it's clear that he won't commit to the logical conclusion of masculine amoral virtues: blatant exultation of immorality. Throughout history, one can think of dozens of examples of men behaving in their "best interest", e.g. rape, murder, pillaging, violence. He tries to back-peddle some by saying that women essentially tame men--another awful conclusion. The obvious reason this is flawed is that it's an easy out. Men's best interest isn't really all that bad stuff, because their best interest is what lies BEYOND the bad stuff, until he also makes the claim that peace and prosperity seem to be detrimental to masculine values too. He wants it both ways. He wants to talk about masculinity without being tied down to a moral code, but can't hide the elephant in the room of men's morality. One of his absolute worst explanations--which he seems to be really proud of--is his dichotomy of chimpanzee and bonobo behaviors, saying that chimpanzee behavior and social structure is more akin to the way of men, the ideal for masculinity, while bonobo ape behavior is apparently more like men of today, a neutered version of masculinity. While the contrast is intriguing, are we really going to look at the animal world for what is right and wrong? Do we need to discuss how many forms of animal behavior are patently immoral from a human point of view? Are we really going to say that chimps hold the standard for human masculinity? That is utterly absurd. Also, someone could come along and write a book about how bonobos are the evolution of human masculinity, making the same contrast, but in the reverse order. His argument seems to be built on sand. There are other points of contention that I have, like his seeming glorification of anarchy, though he tries to back-peddle here too. He randomly includes foul language in the book, which doesn't bother me in itself, but the way he uses it makes me dislike him and respect him less. There's also the fact that many people will see him as a bigot, homophobic, sexist Neanderthal. I wouldn't say that about him, but the topics in this book would lead many leftists to think that. Ultimately, this book was a good attempt, but falls so short. It's not consistent and feebly makes arguments that try to ignore morality altogether. It's clear that he is an atheist trying to make a case for objective values outside religion, but the points are incoherent. Parts of this book really resonated with me, but because he can't face the moral dilemma, it's just not a complete book. I think--and I hope--that Donovan makes a follow-up to this book that both clarifies and expands upon the points in this book.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Aurélien Thomas

    Drawing its stance from sociobiology, this book starts by a very strange and flawed assumption: that males define and judge themselves only in regard to what other males think. It's not untrue, but it's only part of the picture. Men's quest for status is also tied to what women want and desire. Behaviours of both genders are not isolated within their particular sex-group -they interact and impact each other. Nevertheless, his view is part true, so, putting its flaw aside, what do men within grou Drawing its stance from sociobiology, this book starts by a very strange and flawed assumption: that males define and judge themselves only in regard to what other males think. It's not untrue, but it's only part of the picture. Men's quest for status is also tied to what women want and desire. Behaviours of both genders are not isolated within their particular sex-group -they interact and impact each other. Nevertheless, his view is part true, so, putting its flaw aside, what do men within groups of men value which, to the author, would define what constitute manhood? He puts forward four core values -strength, courage, mastery, honour. He is right in claiming any particular group will expect a specific set of assets from its individual members, that members possessing those traits will be valued whereas those who don't will be outcasted or scorned. The thing is, we came a long way since we branched out from the chimps, and in our complex societies culture gained as much influence if not more than sole biology. Defining the assets in question, then, becomes particularly tricky, if not downright subjective. The author tries his best in defining the ones he sees as essential (and I agree with him on pointing to these particular four: strength, courage, mastery, honour). But, his definitions get muddled if not reductionists. Let's go through... Strength to him is simply about physical strength, meaning the big guys with big muscles and body mass. It makes perfect sense if your view is only focused on a group trying to survive in a hostile environment, but, in our modern world it's irrelevant -first, because it excludes those who generally don't have such bigger body mass due to their biology (women especially, but he excludes women throughout the book anyway...); then, because it denies strength as a spectrum (what about resilience? Women have a higher tolerance to pain than men, does it really make sense to define them as 'the weaker sex'?). He battles with defining courage. We can't blame him; ever since Aristotle the concept has been eluding many! The issue is that he reduces courage simply to the will to risk physical harm for the benefits of oneself or the group. Again, this makes perfect sense when focusing on groups living in hostile environments, where physical toughness and daring is crucial for survival. But it's negating a whole part of the picture. What about the will to risk, for example, your reputation? I agree with him in denying celebrities, and the rest of us, being called 'courageous' for battling illnesses or trauma -that's not 'courage' but resilience (strength), and it dilutes what courage truly is by negating its voluntary aspect. But risk doesn't have to be physical only. After all, etymologically, the word 'courage' comes from the Latin 'cor', meaning 'heart'. Courage, then, has always been as much about emotional than physical deeds, even to the Romans (which he ironically looks up to here) who recognised it as being also a civic and moral virtue. Not everything has to be martial to be manly. I agree with his view on mastery. Self-reliance and talent going beyond brute strength are worthy and valuable assets for sure, but here again he shoots himself in the leg by being too simplistic. His definition is, in fact, quite muddled. He seems to admit the importance of intelligence, creativity, at least craftiness (for lack of a better term) for better control over our environment; yet he, again, gets bogged down with this idea of physical strength as necessary for it: 'Masculinity can never be separated from its connection to violence, because it is through violence that we ultimately compete for status and wield power over other men.' It's a clumsy way to put it. Status and power are wielded primarily through assertiveness, and assertiveness doesn't have to be violent. It's not a specifically masculine trait either, and, moving on, this is where the book's main flaw starts to make the whole argument collapse. I understand he focuses only on group of men, and deal with what men only value and use as a yardstick to judge and rank each others. But, as I said right from the start, to claim manhood is defined solely by how men value is too simplistic, not least because it negates the impact of women's input. It becomes obvious with his definition of honour. Honour is about reputation and integrity, but reputation and integrity depends on what the whole group (including women, then) value, not only one specific sex within that group. To assert as he does that it has a meaning only 'within the context of an honour group comprised primarily of men' is too shallow, and doesn't stand. In fact, men also judge each other in regard to how they treat women. This is why, in our modern world in any case, abusers and rapists forfeit their right to be called men, a point which never crosses him since it involve moral, and Donovan denies manhood, at its core, to have anything to do with moral. This is, actually, one of the most bizarre take of this book: his attempt to separate masculinity from ethics. The author encourages men to be what he calls 'good at being a man', instead of being what he calls, in opposition, 'a good man'. What is that all about? A good man is chiefly concerned 'about morality, ethics, religion, and behaving productively'. Being good at being a man, on the contrary, 'isn't a quest for moral perfection, it's about fighting to survive'. Does it really matter, and why the difference? I am sorry, but, here, I have to say that the author doesn't know what he is talking about, and it has silly consequences. He worries that, if striving to be a good man surely is a worthy endeavour, it has nothing to do with manhood per se. It has everything to do with being a good person, and, so, doesn't reflects upon one's masculinity or lack thereof: 'Civilised virtue is about being a good person, a good citizen, a good member of a particular society. Manly virtues should be virtues directly related to manhood.' I can understand the concern, but he clearly hasn't made his homework. The traditional role of men across the ages and cultures has always been about procreating, providing, protecting. Here are the cores assets which make a man a man (the point has been made brilliantly by David Gilmore in Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity, a classic anthropological survey which is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic) and, if such assets have been redefined to suit the needs of our modern societies (e.g. women provide and protect too, as much as men can be nurturing) I have yet to see cowardice or being a bum features being valued both by men and women! Striving to be a good man, then, doesn't threaten manhood -far from that! It's an expansion of it. Missing this point is where his stance about manhood being fundamentally amoral reveals itself misguided, with silly consequences. Indeed, Jack Donovan has no issue claiming prisoners and suicide-bombers to be men, solely because of their aggressiveness, toughness, and courage. The point is silly. Such men may procreate, but they do not provide nor protect. They also are a burden to their groups (prisoners are kept apart in prisons to a cost, suicide-bombers self-destructiveness doesn't serve anybody but their selfish will to be martyr -he ought to read Thomas Aquinas on martyrdom, it's highly instructive even from a purely theological perspective). Prisoners and suicide-bombers, then, can not be admired as men; for they are outcasts contributing nothing. What of manhood then? Over and over, he seems obsessed with survival and physical strength. Again, such concerns make perfect sense when focusing on primitive societies facing hostile environments (including competing groups) but we came a long way since such Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA), and manhood itself evolved beyond such thuggish view to also embrace character. What about it? Not much. Not only does he claim being a good man bears nothing to masculinity, but he then goes on a full blown attack against what he perceives as the feminisation of society. There is a whole argument out there whereas empowering women has been a double-edge sword, in that it has also led to a supposedly repudiation of the traits men until then always had embodied. Toughness, courage, assertiveness, strength, ambition, ego battling for status, and risk-taking and else are all features which have contributed to move civilisations forwards; yet most of these traits now seem to some as being demonised as 'toxic', men being 'punished, pathologized, stigmatised from cradle to campus' should they embody them. It surely is a point when dealing with feminism as misandry, seeing in everything men do as a reflect of the so-called oppressive Patriarchy (I have met a few lunatic feminists too!) but I believe the point to be unfair. Women did not repudiate such traits. On the contrary, they embraced them! The point is not to repudiate, but to assuage them so they are not counter-productive -e.g. one can be protective without being abusively controlling, like one can be tough without being a stoned wall when it comes to feelings. Jack Donovan misses that, because he not only sees women as passive agents (again, his view that their will and behaviours contributes nothing to how men define manhood) but, as weak too. The triumph of feminism and men supporting feminism, then, to him contributes nothing but making men passive and weak as well. And this where he shoots at another wrong target: the Men's Rights Movement. 'The Men's Rights Movement... wants to relieve men of making sacrifices on the behalf of women. It wants men and women alike to pursue individual prosperity without special, gendered obligations or clearly defined sex roles.' He worries too much. Women might have embraced what were until now typically masculine traits so as to empower themselves and succeed within egalitarian societies (something he denies, claiming that, on the contrary, they repudiated them) and men might have toned down such traits to detoxify them. It doesn't mean that 'clearly defined sex roles' will disappear any time soon. With all due respect to radical social constructivists and political correctness gone mad, nature and biology cannot be completely eradicated. Yes, women can provide and protect too, and they surely do and rightly so! Yet, I still have to meet a majority of them happily doing it only to cater for bums and cowards. 'Being a man', even if as a supportive role, is not obsolete. And, yes, more and more men are campaigning to get empowered into their households, something which is still vastly denied to them so far (fathers' rights etc.). It doesn't mean women as the main nurse of the young is outdated (I might be an involved dad in many respects, no matter what: I don't get pregnant, I don't give birth, and I certainly don't breastfeed). Sex roles are not dying out, they are merely being reshaped. This is why, narrowing it all to manhood only, domesticity is not, as the author seems to think, somehow emasculating. It's another outlet for masculinity -men are still expected by women to procreate, provide, protect; just not on their own but alongside them as well. If, in our modern societies, they don't do as much as their forefathers, it's not due to the advance of feminism, but hyper-consumerism feeding immaturity (Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity is a nice read illustrating the point). There's is a striking irony in such argument, though. Donavan complains all throughout against the triumph of identity politics, whereas lobbying groups atomised societies by making available 'a la carte identities' all pulling for their own interest. And, indeed, there's a lot to say against identity politics and its bonkers social constructivism! Yet, dealing as he does with only one such identity (men) at the exclusion of others, and which he sees as a whole unified block to defend at all cost against competing identities out to supposedly repudiate its core assets is, bottom line, nothing but... doing identity politics! When it comes to gender issues, we should be better than that. All in all, then, The Way of Men is a flawed book. Its premise is bad -you cannot even think to start defining manhood without involving women's view, something Donovan doesn't (even males chimps behaviours is partly explained by females chimps behaviours; no sex is living in a vacuum). His focus on strength, courage, mastery and honour to shed lights on what could be typical masculine traits are relevant, but he shows himself too simplistic in his understanding of each to be of use. They also are too shallow, simply because there is nothing intrinsically manly about them. Let's not be harsh, though, for even the greatest philosophers have been battling with such concepts for centuries, and they constitute more a frame of thinking than anything else! His attempt to dissociate masculinity from ethics is a terrible blunder, and more serious. If moral had nothing to do with defining manhood, then manhood would be nothing else than simply having a penis. Men worth more than that, like masculinity is to aspire to more than that. We're not merely chimps, no matter how much you want to rely on sociobiology to make a point. Sadly, he then delves into an attack against a feminism he misunderstands (or is prejudiced against, not all feminists are plagued by misandry) to defend a view of manhood which is nothing but thuggish. Being a good man is not being feminised, and being good at being a man is not necessarily serving manhood -up to him to dedicate more pages to gangsters than productive fathers, but one can also argue that such men are not men in the traditional/ anthropological sense of the term. Again, masculinity and ethics cannot be separated. Here's an argument which has to be addressed. Nevertheless, it remains imprecise, faulty, and, even, unsound. The Way of Men is certainly not this way.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Matt

    This is an essential read for anyone cognizant of the unsustainability of the cheap oil, infinite credit, and infinite "progress" paradigm. If you see the end of that paradigm coming sooner rather than later then you need to get your hands on a copy of this book. On the other hand, If you believe the cultural and spiritual vacuum of modernity still has plenty of "life" left in it's undead corpse; and long for the day of it's demise (and would like to give it a push over the edge) than this book, This is an essential read for anyone cognizant of the unsustainability of the cheap oil, infinite credit, and infinite "progress" paradigm. If you see the end of that paradigm coming sooner rather than later then you need to get your hands on a copy of this book. On the other hand, If you believe the cultural and spiritual vacuum of modernity still has plenty of "life" left in it's undead corpse; and long for the day of it's demise (and would like to give it a push over the edge) than this book, is also, for you. "The Way of Men" is a philosophical treatise on traditional masculinity and a veracious argument for it's vindication, an indispensable piece-of-the-puzzle in diagnosing the source of the degeneracy of our age, and a plan of action to Start the World.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Jake

    Ok. This will be a hard review. On one hand, the ideas in this book were so so angry-boy-going -through-puberty with a love of philosophy as deep as the movies Fight Club and The Matrix (both good, but we all know that guy who thinks he's deep after watching). On the other hand, this dude was so outrageous and unapologetic that I had a couple of good laughs. Among these laughs was the chapter titled "The Bonobo Masturbation Society" which is basically just a big rant (and the rants seem to be Ja Ok. This will be a hard review. On one hand, the ideas in this book were so so angry-boy-going -through-puberty with a love of philosophy as deep as the movies Fight Club and The Matrix (both good, but we all know that guy who thinks he's deep after watching). On the other hand, this dude was so outrageous and unapologetic that I had a couple of good laughs. Among these laughs was the chapter titled "The Bonobo Masturbation Society" which is basically just a big rant (and the rants seem to be Jack Donovan's strength) about man in the modern world: playing video games, watching porn, being a good yes-man in their little colorless cubicle, etc. But still, the premise is this: we need to pretty much be cavemen again. I mean he literally said this. "The new Way of Women depends on prosperity, security, and globalism. Any return to the Way of Men and the eventual restoration of balance and harmony between the sexes will require the weakening of all three." And then, "If you want to push things toward the Way of Men and start the Interphase, create disappointment." (Sidenote: I suspect many of Jack's fan are quite good at disappointing people.) And maybe it's just me, but I was picking up a pretty homoerotic-village-people type vibe from this. To summarize, bad ideas with kinda fun execution, recommended for people who like crazy stuff like me, but keep it away from little internet troll type guys. I'll leave a couple more quotes to round out the ideas here. "I have no idea how people manage to be confused about something that simple and obvious, but I'm pretty sure our ancestors would have killed them and taken their stuff." "A man once said, "If I allow a man to steal my chickens, I might as well let him rape my daughters." That's reflexive honor."

  10. 4 out of 5

    Julia

    I tend to write shorter reviews of stuff I'm reading for my book group so I can share my opinions with real live people. I'm struggling to write a short review of this that expresses my vitriol at how moronic it is. (Deep breath) I see your entire book and raise you a single Wilfred Owen poem. I tend to write shorter reviews of stuff I'm reading for my book group so I can share my opinions with real live people. I'm struggling to write a short review of this that expresses my vitriol at how moronic it is. (Deep breath) I see your entire book and raise you a single Wilfred Owen poem.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Stefan

    My first 1 star review... This book infuriated me, it spews a load of bull crap about aggression, tribes and men working in packs to overthrow others by means of tribal war. Absolute bollocks, leadership is skewed, I highly doubt the author of the book even knows who Sophocles is, let alone what the cause of the Peloponnesian war was, not to mention the battle between Achilles & Hector or how Agamemnon abused his women. This book would be cash to a beggar, water to the dehydrated man, fire to the My first 1 star review... This book infuriated me, it spews a load of bull crap about aggression, tribes and men working in packs to overthrow others by means of tribal war. Absolute bollocks, leadership is skewed, I highly doubt the author of the book even knows who Sophocles is, let alone what the cause of the Peloponnesian war was, not to mention the battle between Achilles & Hector or how Agamemnon abused his women. This book would be cash to a beggar, water to the dehydrated man, fire to the Neanderthal; If we were still barbaric, savage blood thirsty non civilised "tribes." On a final note, good luck finding medical breakthroughs if everyones mindset is that of adopting Darwins survival of the fittest. Consider Nash equilibrium, previously Adam Smith heralded as the father of economics claimed selfish behaviour benefits the group, hmmm I wonder how that plays out, would we even have the internet? Nash came along and earthed us, equilibrium is what matters not this god awful joke of "dominance, aggression and sweaty brutes"

  12. 5 out of 5

    Diner Ismail

    Possibly one of the worst books I've ever read. Donovan has some very outdated thoughts on what a man should be, haven't learned anything useful from this. Possibly one of the worst books I've ever read. Donovan has some very outdated thoughts on what a man should be, haven't learned anything useful from this.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Po Po

    Should have been titled The Way of Assholes. Pseudo-intellectual garbage. He references Hobbes, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates in order to lend some credibility to his “arguments” but he only succeeds in confirming his idiocy. I’ll give him credit for being entertaining - like the morbid way a train wreck or a car crash with multiple fatalities is ...entertaining. Might even be seen as a call to arms or MANifesto for the whiny and insufferable man-child who feels so victimized he has to endure the Should have been titled The Way of Assholes. Pseudo-intellectual garbage. He references Hobbes, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates in order to lend some credibility to his “arguments” but he only succeeds in confirming his idiocy. I’ll give him credit for being entertaining - like the morbid way a train wreck or a car crash with multiple fatalities is ...entertaining. Might even be seen as a call to arms or MANifesto for the whiny and insufferable man-child who feels so victimized he has to endure the indignity of a crap job and in his time off alternates between playing video games and masturbating all damn day. Obviously this book is written for a very narrow audience. You’d better be an angry, white, heterosexual male, with low to average intellect, physically fit loin-cloth wearer who enjoys hunting, aggressive sports, brawling with other men, and beating females just to show them what’s what (one of the reasons he prefers chimps over bonobos). If you are a fat man, smart, or female, he basically thinks you are inferior and should content yourself to a role of submission in the tribe. He blames the Way of Women for the intellectualization of civilization. He believes intellectual pursuits are problematic because women can play the game just as well as men. He prefers activities that require brute force because men (typically) have more muscle and can overpower women. He wants a return to the Way of Men. For a big man he seems really threatened by a little woman. The most frustrating aspect of this book, however —aside from its misogyny, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, closed-mindedness, and advocacy of violence— is that he concludes his ideas are all common sense and that science and human history back him up.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Trent Sartain

    This book was...interesting. Though I thought there were some great insights into "The Way of Men", I found myself disagreeing with the author more and more. For every 1 or 2 sentences of brilliant insight, there were 2 or 3 of intolerant nonsense that would be better suited for a Trump rally. It's worth a read for sure, but I can't say I'd recommend it to many. This book was...interesting. Though I thought there were some great insights into "The Way of Men", I found myself disagreeing with the author more and more. For every 1 or 2 sentences of brilliant insight, there were 2 or 3 of intolerant nonsense that would be better suited for a Trump rally. It's worth a read for sure, but I can't say I'd recommend it to many.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Chadwick

    Simplified, Jack Donovan's book can be distilled down to two major points. The first half of the book explores the difference between being a good man and being good at being a man. When the circle of civilization is small, it is more important to be good at being a man and it is from these origins that manhood--in its most essential form--is derived. The author identifies four virtues that have defined masculinity and helped human civilization survive from its beginnings. Yes, he essentializes Simplified, Jack Donovan's book can be distilled down to two major points. The first half of the book explores the difference between being a good man and being good at being a man. When the circle of civilization is small, it is more important to be good at being a man and it is from these origins that manhood--in its most essential form--is derived. The author identifies four virtues that have defined masculinity and helped human civilization survive from its beginnings. Yes, he essentializes masculinity but whether or not you agree with the mutability of gender, it is hard to disagree with Donovan's argument that it is primarily men and their adoption of these virtues the world over that society has survived to the point that it has. The Way of Men has, historically, been the way of the gang and it is thanks to men and the "us versus them" outlook that has allowed us to thrive. While it is preferable to have good men, that "goodness" is for naught if men cannot implement violence in a way that allows them to master the world inside and outside of their circle. The latter chapters examine the motives of the ones who seek to redefine masculinity. This part of the book does get quite a bit more heated with language meant to inflame, but it is no thinly-veiled personal attack Donovan's intellectual enemies. Instead it is a call to action--a sort of window into our world of pointless modernity. The Bonobo Masturbation society as he calls it (and the title of the best chapter of the book) points out the fact that feminism's end-game (a movement that has been ironically co-opted by rich men) is primarily to make men and women replaceable cogs in a well-oiled and ultimately uncaring economic machine. In a feminized world, men have little to look forward to as society is stripped of challenge. At most, your future is filled with cheap sex and second-hand masculinity in the form of video games and sporting events. This Brave New World is fairly painless but offers little else other than implicit (or, worse, explicit) obedience to a corporatist and dehumanizing nation-state. I think Jack would agree with this sardonic quote from Dan Roodt: "The destiny of man is to be a shopper. Everything else is Nazism." If you don't believe the postmodern screed about the mutability of gender, this book will be your kick in the pants and inspire you to retake your rightful place in human endeavors. If you are of the feminist persuasion, read The Way of Men if only to show some intellectual honesty. Your "tolerance" will be served by entertaining the opposing viewpoint for a few pages and you'd be hard-pressed to find a more frank or straight-forward look at what it means to be a man.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Alex

    The Way of Men is probably the biggest letdown I've read this year. From its cover design to the subject matter to the title of the work and even the freaking name of the author, everything about it screams 'exciting'. I was fully prepared for it to be thoughtful, offensive, intense, but not - of all things - boring. The Way of Men suffers from the same problem as Might Is Right or The Ego and Its Own: Halfway into the book, you already feel like you have finished it, and yet it keeps dragging o The Way of Men is probably the biggest letdown I've read this year. From its cover design to the subject matter to the title of the work and even the freaking name of the author, everything about it screams 'exciting'. I was fully prepared for it to be thoughtful, offensive, intense, but not - of all things - boring. The Way of Men suffers from the same problem as Might Is Right or The Ego and Its Own: Halfway into the book, you already feel like you have finished it, and yet it keeps dragging on. What aggravates this problem is that the last four or five chapters all feel like the concluding remarks. I cannot quite pinpoint why this is so, but I suspect it's the writing style. I'm aware that not every book needs to be a fun ride, and I wouldn't have rated The Way of Men as low as I did only because it wasn't quite as entertaining as I had hoped. Sadly, not only is it not entertaining, it isn't very smart, either. The thoughts on male nature were decent, how they were suppressed (and also expressed) in modern society was at least interesting, but then it all went downhill with the ramblings on how dehumanizing the global economy is and how masculine primitive, xenophobic "gang"-lifestyles are. There's so much wrong with some of what he says that I don't know where exactly to start: Donovan doesn't so much as mention that the supposed courage of street gangs and tribes also comes from the fact that their members have little to lose. He doesn't see a contradiction in masculinity being about carrying your own weight and being able to survive and masculine lifestyles leading to an early death. He claims that men are not just soulless brutes, yet the majority of his examples for masculinity are gangsters, prisoners, bandits and tyrants, and the narrative that he spins is one of masculinity being about fighting and killing even when that is immoral, as in the tale of Romulus and Remus. These are just some oddities and inconsistencies. The Way of Men has some valuable insights to offer, the writing is very good at times, and the subject matter is quite important, I have to give it that. But none of it is enough for me to round it up to three starts, not when it falls so short of its ambition to be a serious treatise. It just isn't one; it's pop-philosophy at its finest, and not even very good one.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Јас Лично

    Shallow logic, analysis to fit the stereotype. What a waste of time.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Troy

    The Way of Men is chock full of ideas about masculinity and the modern man. I have to say that I would rather be celibate and live as a Buddhist monk than live the life of a physically average, average personality guy in a sexless marriage with an unpleasant woman that allows herself to physically dwindle -- and augment, per se -- all to hell. Nothing frightens me like the idea of living the standard beta American materialist life. Treeless suburb; overweight wife; unfulfilling career; kids that The Way of Men is chock full of ideas about masculinity and the modern man. I have to say that I would rather be celibate and live as a Buddhist monk than live the life of a physically average, average personality guy in a sexless marriage with an unpleasant woman that allows herself to physically dwindle -- and augment, per se -- all to hell. Nothing frightens me like the idea of living the standard beta American materialist life. Treeless suburb; overweight wife; unfulfilling career; kids that refuse to listen; 12 pack for Sunday football, no meaning beyond a bigger house or better car. Shoot me now, because I don't want that. The Way of Men might seem like a provocation of some sort, and it is. The average modern male is an emasculated mess, with enough adipose tissue to welcome high levels of aromatase. Donovan says that the more evolved and advanced a civilization becomes, the fewer opportunities there are for men to act in the way they have since time immemorial. When a culture exists in times of such peace and plenty as today, it has little use for men who are good at being men. How can modern man find fulfillment in an environment such as this? Donovan calls it "The Way of the Gang." Spending time in a small gang of men with a strong common bond provides exponentially more fulfillment for a man than blind loyalty to a massive state. Empires, countries, and cultures come and go, but The Way of the Gang is still as powerful today as it was when Cro-Magnon tribes set out to hunt so they could stay alive for one more day.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Vlad Calus

    I've started this book expecting to read on how to become a better man. Instead, I read about how to create a better community of men. Why is our nature different from the men in the primal era? Our activities now and then are totally different, which is completely alright. Unfortunately, it makes us weak. Men aren't getting more rational. They're getting more fearful. They're giving up more and more control. The technological progress made men less actionable, use technologies instead of huntin I've started this book expecting to read on how to become a better man. Instead, I read about how to create a better community of men. Why is our nature different from the men in the primal era? Our activities now and then are totally different, which is completely alright. Unfortunately, it makes us weak. Men aren't getting more rational. They're getting more fearful. They're giving up more and more control. The technological progress made men less actionable, use technologies instead of hunting and protecting the tribe, which we don't need today. It shaped the meaning of courage and honor. Now, physical power is the most associated picture of masculinity. We forgot about protection of the ones we love, do not encourage the ones we believe in, we keep ourselves detached from the others. Men want to be remembered, they want their tradition to survive. The only way out for men is The Way of the Gang. If you know some guys you can connect with, and who are on more or less the same page philosophically, make sure you make time for them. Men need activities that empower their masculinity. Go to the shooting range. Go hunting. Play paintball. Go to the gym. Take martial arts classes. Join a sports team. Take a workshop. Learn a useful skill. Fix something. Break something. Build something. Make something.

  20. 4 out of 5

    B.

    All men should read this book. It explains the difference between being a good man and being good at being a man....most times people are one or the other. We need to strive, especially in modern times, to be both because we are drifting towards what the author describes as “a masturbatory bonobo society” in which we don’t take anything seriously anymore, including sex and meaningful activities. Whether you are progressive or a conservative, you should read this book-everyone has something to le All men should read this book. It explains the difference between being a good man and being good at being a man....most times people are one or the other. We need to strive, especially in modern times, to be both because we are drifting towards what the author describes as “a masturbatory bonobo society” in which we don’t take anything seriously anymore, including sex and meaningful activities. Whether you are progressive or a conservative, you should read this book-everyone has something to learn from it.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Worn

    Men and women don't want the same things subconsciously or emotionally (just look at what they find as the most attractive sexual partner and how that's different from who they want to marry or spend there lives with) They might want the same thing rationally but allot of the human behavior is NOT a rational choice for example if someone upsets you or someone attracts you , most of that is not a rational choice.This book explores part of the "male" nature that is behind the rational mind but tha Men and women don't want the same things subconsciously or emotionally (just look at what they find as the most attractive sexual partner and how that's different from who they want to marry or spend there lives with) They might want the same thing rationally but allot of the human behavior is NOT a rational choice for example if someone upsets you or someone attracts you , most of that is not a rational choice.This book explores part of the "male" nature that is behind the rational mind but that drives us nevertheless and makes us happy or unhappy. I found surprising that the author does not find a great link between women and manhood(or masculinity).I would have imagined that women is an essential for manhood(and the other way around) but after reading this book i m not so sure anymore. Also i liked that the author makes a clear difference between being a good man and good at being a man (allot of people confused the two) . Manliness is outside good or evil(unlike being a good man) , i would argues that good and evil are a concept created by civilization and religion and that our human ancestors didn't see the world in those terms. This book asks questions like how much we loose and how much we gain in globalization. Is it really worth it ? What we really want ? We want more easier , more safer , more satisfaction etc ? I don't like the idea of going down that road, were would we stop... Allot of the human values are defined by opposition , they cant exist and don't have meaning if not in opposition. Unlike the author i do think that gender understanding and equality comes only from each other and rational understanding of what we want at a non rational level. I noticed how some female readers completely missed the point of the book(or the perspective) or toke it personal .That is because this book is not about men being human (what links us to women) is about men being men (and that by definition excludes women)so please try to read it with a open mind. An interesting book. Most often you will probably not agree with all of it (i didn't), or even most of it but it raises allot of issues and ask the questions including the author own perspective and i think that's valuable enough. Also i would recommend to read all the book if you completely disagree with the first chapters etc, you might find value later on.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Michal

    This is a short book, but about an important topic. I've encountered it couple of times recently that my female friends and colleagues never considered (and afterwards couldn't believe) that men can have different values, experiences, and activities that give them satisfactions. They were also really surprised by the kind of communication we use when no females are around (for example that we do not apologize to each other, that admission of a mistake/wrongdoing is enough etc.). I think this boo This is a short book, but about an important topic. I've encountered it couple of times recently that my female friends and colleagues never considered (and afterwards couldn't believe) that men can have different values, experiences, and activities that give them satisfactions. They were also really surprised by the kind of communication we use when no females are around (for example that we do not apologize to each other, that admission of a mistake/wrongdoing is enough etc.). I think this book might help female authors who would like to write from male perspective to increase the authenticity of their writing (at least in the HF genre that I am particularly fond of). It can also articulate intuitions of all the guys out there that are not satisfied with the repertoire of roles (and experiences) that current social situation offers...

  23. 4 out of 5

    Thomas Threlfo

    This four star rating is for the first 80% of the book, more or less, which had some fascinating theories about what men respect in other men, based off thousands of years of what we actually needed in other men to survive. He (almost always) does a great job of avoiding trying to draw any moral or value implications from this, and the few times he forgot to do that are what caused me to take away one star. I didn't like the last few chapters on the economy and so on, as they started to sound a l This four star rating is for the first 80% of the book, more or less, which had some fascinating theories about what men respect in other men, based off thousands of years of what we actually needed in other men to survive. He (almost always) does a great job of avoiding trying to draw any moral or value implications from this, and the few times he forgot to do that are what caused me to take away one star. I didn't like the last few chapters on the economy and so on, as they started to sound a little crazy. But apart from that, I left this book with a lot to think about.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Ryan

    I'm a bit disappointed given that The Art of Manliness speaks of it approvingly. The discussion about the manly virtues are good but the conclusions are wanting. The author's dependency on evolutionary theory in discussing what it means to be a man seems to restrain him to account the totality of what it means to be a man and contradicts the virtues that he extols in the first half of the book. I'm a bit disappointed given that The Art of Manliness speaks of it approvingly. The discussion about the manly virtues are good but the conclusions are wanting. The author's dependency on evolutionary theory in discussing what it means to be a man seems to restrain him to account the totality of what it means to be a man and contradicts the virtues that he extols in the first half of the book.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Victor Finn

    A seminal book for our times. The message is just as potent in 2019 as it was when this book was first released all the way back in 2012 and in many respects it is unrivalled. The Way of Men is, to this very day, THE ultimate manosphere text. I would dare anyone to say there is another book that matches it in succinctness and brilliance. The way Donovan book frames the crisis of masculinity as the push-pull between the wildness of the gang and the domesticity of the civilization is perfect. But A seminal book for our times. The message is just as potent in 2019 as it was when this book was first released all the way back in 2012 and in many respects it is unrivalled. The Way of Men is, to this very day, THE ultimate manosphere text. I would dare anyone to say there is another book that matches it in succinctness and brilliance. The way Donovan book frames the crisis of masculinity as the push-pull between the wildness of the gang and the domesticity of the civilization is perfect. But what really sets this book apart from other "manosphere books" is by bringing up the distinction between "being a good man" (i.e. being moral) with "being good at being a man". Masculinity like all things that emerged in Nature is essentially amoral, and few are brave enough to say this or even intelligent enough to notice. I also particularly enjoyed the chapter on Romulus and the founding of Rome, so much so that it spurred me to watch a 4-hour documentary series on Rome. What that chapter showed is that the splendor of Rome, which is with us to this day, is ultimatelty rooted in virile masculine competition, in violence, and in rape. The book anticipates many of the scathing critiques of more recent right-wing commentators by pointing out the essential connections between feminism and capitalism. You can see Donovan's ideas laying the seeds for all kinds of dissident right ideas in this wonderful and surprisingly short book. There are two aspects of the book I disagreed with. First, the list of what Donovan calls the virtues of the Gang - Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honour - is lacking a critical fifth characteristic: POWER. Seeking power, being expected to wield it, and understanding its nature have been critical aspects of being a man all throughout history. Anyone you consider to be a "Great Man" is most likely separated from the common men by whether or not they had power. This is a problem of his work because the consistent failure of contemporary people to understand THE NATURE OF POWER is a significant reason why dissident right-wing movements never gain any serious traction outside the internet. The other virtues that Donovan mentions as being critical to the maintenance of "securing the paremeter" to use his lingo, all culminate in the establishment of power. But as an apple can be considered separate from an apple tree though it grows out of it, power is a separate thing from strength, courage, mastery and honour though it grows out of them. Because power is something any man would want if they could have it, and because it is something not everyone call really have, it necessitates the establishment of hierarchies, rules, and obedience - something every gang has. My second problem with this book, and this is an insight I got from BRONZE AGE MINDSET ( a book released last year you should read if you enjoy Donovan ), is that there is a type of civilization that tries to actively prevent the domesticating and effeminizng effect of Civilization. Donovan argues that this effemenizing leading to broken and listless men is an inherent quality of civilization as such but I disagree. Part of this argument is that policemen and military-types are only engaged in "simulated masculinity" which I severely disagree with. I think their experiences are a sincere masculinity. Civilizations of higher type, that try to reconcile barbarity and culture, are known to us as Rome, Greece, the Scandinavia of the Vikings, the Japan of the Samurai, and many others... but how it is that such a reconciliation can be achieved would make most people very uncomfortable indeed. But my few qualms with this book are nothing compared to my great enjoyment of it. I will definitely be rereading this book for years to come. Highly, highly recommended.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Halvor (Raknes)

    This is an important book for any man concerned with preserving and developing manhood. It deals with the essential question of "how to be good at being a man" as opposed to the less controversial "how to be a good man". It analyses and lists the essential qualities that manhood can be broken into ('Strength', "Courage", "Mastery", "Honor"), virtues among many virtues which a man can have but which in contrast to many others define manhood. The book argues that the original Way of Men was and con This is an important book for any man concerned with preserving and developing manhood. It deals with the essential question of "how to be good at being a man" as opposed to the less controversial "how to be a good man". It analyses and lists the essential qualities that manhood can be broken into ('Strength', "Courage", "Mastery", "Honor"), virtues among many virtues which a man can have but which in contrast to many others define manhood. The book argues that the original Way of Men was and continues to be the Way of the Gang. It discusses how this is a threat to the globalist agenda which needs men's warrior aspects, men's inclination to competition, specifically for the respect of other men, is in direct conflict with the emergence of feminism which again is a construct designed to assist in the implementation of global governance. A parenthesis merely in the book, still it gave me a major Eureka moment, was the identification of 'courage' with 'will', making me realize the one can train one's will-power indirectly by training one's courage, which is quite feasible as opposed to bluntly training will-power. A few pages (147-9) was also of particular value to me making clear how the Men's Rights movement really isn't much concerned with The Way of Men, but limits itself to a last-ditch defense to preserve equal rights for men in the onslaught of misandrist feminism. The book lacked what I knew it was going to lack, viz. the transcending dimension of a New Way for Men which takes into account the metaphysics of Evola's Ride the Tiger (even as it eclipses Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra) and goes beyond that to the sharpening of the masculine archetype and redefining male sexuality that I have been working on for the past decade and a half. This (my work) brings God squarely to the center of existence and positions every Man in his (to be discovered) designated role in carrying forth Creation to its next pivotal stage: the Brahmanic in-breath.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Marc Rocket

    I didn’t want to like this book and yet some parts were worth reading twice. Is this book a one or a five? I’m not sure. The basic premise is that global forces are conspiring to eliminate the manly aspects of being male. I don’t agree. There is no conspiracy against men. The world is ever changing and societal roles that are becoming less gender specific. The author confuses what is with what should be. The author does not like change. There were many parts of this book though that I consider e I didn’t want to like this book and yet some parts were worth reading twice. Is this book a one or a five? I’m not sure. The basic premise is that global forces are conspiring to eliminate the manly aspects of being male. I don’t agree. There is no conspiracy against men. The world is ever changing and societal roles that are becoming less gender specific. The author confuses what is with what should be. The author does not like change. There were many parts of this book though that I consider essential reading. Many men fall into isolation as they become defined by their career and or family position. They no longer interact with other men in enjoyable ways. Society in general has lapsed into simulated activities that provide an approximation of satisfaction. As a young man leaves home and embarks on adulthood he would benefit from parts of this book, however he runs the risk of being seduced by the patriarchal ways of old.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Swann Polydor

    The Bonobo Masturbation Society chapter is well on point. I could not give it 5 stars because it's not a piece of art, but I came to agree with a lot of content from this book about the feminization of our society, and I surely plan to make my fair share of work toward building a more meaningful one. The Bonobo Masturbation Society chapter is well on point. I could not give it 5 stars because it's not a piece of art, but I came to agree with a lot of content from this book about the feminization of our society, and I surely plan to make my fair share of work toward building a more meaningful one.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Marquis

    I enjoyed the beginning of this book and certain parts of the later chapters. The explanation of manliness was insightful, but the connections were a bit far fetched imo. Overall an easy read with valid points on accepting "toxic masculinity" as something positive and the difference between being a man and being a good man. However, I wouldnt recommend to most.. reason being it can easily offend sensitive people. Also, there were some random misspelled words. I enjoyed the beginning of this book and certain parts of the later chapters. The explanation of manliness was insightful, but the connections were a bit far fetched imo. Overall an easy read with valid points on accepting "toxic masculinity" as something positive and the difference between being a man and being a good man. However, I wouldnt recommend to most.. reason being it can easily offend sensitive people. Also, there were some random misspelled words.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Nate Riggle

    Great book. The best men are good men. But also good at being a man. Addresses a lot of duplicity in modern views on what a man should be. Lots of complexity in certain parts. He gets into the weeds with a weird monkey analogy that I thought didn’t translate very well. Has a few statements that seem like they are there for shock value. This book is a great expose that you can not strip a man of what makes him a man and expect the world to not suffer in some way. Explains what many men fail to pu Great book. The best men are good men. But also good at being a man. Addresses a lot of duplicity in modern views on what a man should be. Lots of complexity in certain parts. He gets into the weeds with a weird monkey analogy that I thought didn’t translate very well. Has a few statements that seem like they are there for shock value. This book is a great expose that you can not strip a man of what makes him a man and expect the world to not suffer in some way. Explains what many men fail to put into words.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.