The original work was published by Charles Carrington in two volumes and printed in This is the most desirable of the reprints. Books 1 and 2 are in the public domain and are available on Gutenberg and Wikisource. Several publishers have produced ebook versions, notably Harper Collins in their Perpetual Classics series. Several modern printed editions have been produced with a variety of covers from Masquerade, Running Press, Nexus and others.
The first appearance of the additional two books were by Taurus Press of Wilmington, Delaware. In style it resembles the original with some of the same characters while introducing new victims for Jack. The numbering of the series depends on whether Vol 1 and Vol 2 which are usually published together in The Way of a Man with a Maid is counted as one or two books. Sometimes the 3 rd volume is referred to as Volume 2. Blue Moon have printed each volumes separately, with Books 1 and 2 in Volume 1, and also an omnibus editions with all four books.
The popularity of this classic tale has seen it published under different titles by various publishers. The earliest reprint was as The Sweet Surrender of Alice in Man with a Maid series This is one of the most famous flagellation novels originally published in the Edwardian period at the beginning of the twentieth century.
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.
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 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. 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. 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.
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! 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. 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. It wants men and women alike to pursue individual prosperity without special, gendered obligations or clearly defined sex roles. 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. 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 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.
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.
View all 5 comments. 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. 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.
Nov 27, Julia rated it did not like it. 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. View 2 comments. Jul 25, Stefan rated it did not like it. 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.
This book would be cash to a beggar, water to the dehydrated man, fire to the My first 1 star review 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.
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" Jan 11, Jake rated it it was 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.
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. 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 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.
Jan 12, Po Po rated it did not like it. Should have been titled The Way of Assholes. Pseudo-intellectual garbage. 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.
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.
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. May 04, B. All men should read this book. It explains the difference between being a good man and being good at being a man Whether you are progressive or a conservative, you should read this book-everyone has something to le All men should read this book.
Whether you are progressive or a conservative, you should read this book-everyone has something to learn from it. View all 3 comments. Mar 22, Diner Ismail rated it did not like it. 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. This book was 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. Jul 16, Chadwick rated it it was amazing. 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.
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 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. Mar 16, Alex rated it it was ok Shelves: philosophy , anthropology.
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. 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.
Shallow logic, analysis to fit the stereotype. What a waste of time. Oct 10, Halvor Raknes rated it really liked it Shelves: self-realization , psychology , n-american-lit-after , philosophy , masculinity.
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.
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 that 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 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. 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.
Apr 09, Troy rated it it was amazing. 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. 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. 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.
Jun 03, Vlad Calus rated it really liked it. 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. 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. Nov 21, Vatroslav Herceg rated it it was amazing. Greetings everyone! This is my second review in English and my second book that I read on my Kindle.
In that sense do forgive me for potential grammatical or other mistakes and do let me know of them in the comments so that I can improve. This is a short but a dangerous book. Why dangerous? Because it talks about manosphere topics, it talks about masculinity. The time we live in, contemporary zeitgeist, is purely gynocentric and feministic from the school system even here on the Balkans to the court system and law system.
Women this, women that. What about men? Well, thanks to books like this men are waking up. Knowledge is power.
That is the reason why not just this book as a whole is dangerous but also the title is very dangerous and charged. Donovan has a great core concept of two sides of the masculinity concept; one side is to be a good man and the other side is to be good in being a man.
Ancient Rome is the most cited source for the history and ontology of manhood. The concept of a gang as a core social unit of masculinity is the main subversive metapolitical concept. Donovan accurately connects the state with femininity while the concept of the gang is connected to masculinity. With all the feministic and transgender newspeak that phantom is creeping even more as we enter deeper into the Also, Donovan throw a nice parallel between chimpanzees and humans.
If you do not know there are two species of chimpanzees, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo chimpanzee. The common chimpanzee lives where gorillas do not live so they eat mostly meat because the gorillas do not let them to eat plants that they eat. So common chimpanzees eat more meat, hunt more, therefore common chimpanzees are more aggressive.
0コメント