Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Way of Men Paperback – April 10, 2012
| Jack Donovan (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Enhance your purchase
- Print length192 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherDissonant Hum
- Publication dateApril 10, 2012
- Dimensions5.25 x 0.44 x 8 inches
- ISBN-100985452307
- ISBN-13978-0985452308
Frequently bought together

- +
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
A man who is more concerned with being a good man than being good at being a man makes a very well-behaved slave.Highlighted by 3,393 Kindle readers
It is not the strongest man who will necessarily lead, it is the man who takes the lead who will lead.Highlighted by 2,669 Kindle readers
Strength is the ability to exert one’s will over oneself, over nature and over other people.Highlighted by 1,898 Kindle readers
Editorial Reviews
Review
"A thought provoking read on what it means to be a man today in a world that's increasingly finding masculinity undesirable and un-needed. Donovan makes bold and unapologetic arguments on what The Way of Men needs to be in the future." - Brett McKay, The Art of Manliness, Manvotionals
"Absolutely love this book! I found Jack's comments on the underlying primal instincts that motivate men and what can generate unity within a group to be both thought provoking and spot on from a leadership perspective." - Chris Duffin, AAPF and APA record-holding competitive powerlifter, coach, and gym owner.
"Peering behind the layers of civility we indulge in as a matter of pretense, Donovan explores the primal relationship between tribal identity and masculinity, and emerges endorsing a type of Nietzschean struggle for significance through conflict" - Brett Stevens, Amerika.org
"I read Jack Donovan because he's one of the few men writing about male issues with the skill and passion of a Roxane Gay or Margaret Atwood." - Chuck Palahnuik. Author, "Fight Club" (Hollywood Reporter 2018)
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Dissonant Hum; 0 edition (April 10, 2012)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 192 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0985452307
- ISBN-13 : 978-0985452308
- Item Weight : 7.9 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.25 x 0.44 x 8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #13,891 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #15 in Men's Gender Studies
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Jack Donovan (1974-) is an American known for his writing on masculinity.
Follow Jack on Instagram @starttheworld.
Products related to this item
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on April 29, 2019
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
His theme is that men and women evolved to fulfill different roles in human society. We are a species of social animal that evolved in a dangerous world. Like our primate ancestors we depend on the group for our protection. Also like our primate ancestors the groups have tended to be male-dominated, and among the males there was a hierarchy.
The men depended on one another for mutual support in the defense of the tribe. Depending on one another as they did, they constantly sized one another up. They chose the strongest as the leaders. The qualities that they look for in a leader were:
• Strength
• Courage
• Mastery
• Honor
Strength and courage are self-explanatory. Mastery is the ability to do things. Much mastery is, or was, directly involved in the defense of the tribe. Masters were the ones who could make tools, conduct reconnaissance to figure out where the enemy was, concoct strategy and tactics to defeat the enemy. However, even in our Neolithic days mastery involved storytelling, singing, the arts and other social skills.
Honor embodies all of the above. It is the commitment to carry through on promises. Donovan draws the distinction between two concepts: being a good man, and being good at being a man. Being a good man is a moral quality. Being good at being a man is a question of manly virtues such as the four named above. The two do not necessarily coincide.
He gives as examples movie heroes such as Dirty Harry who are good at being man but so morally compromised as not to be good men. He cites the popularity of such movies as evidence of what our society values, regardless of what it claims. In this he echoes Roger Devlin writing about Cary Grant in Sexual Utopia in Power .
Donovan gives an evolutionary history of how we arrived at the current relationship between men and women. Prior to the dawn of agriculture they filled very different roles. Men were hunters and fighters. They hunted for proteins in the form of game and they defended against predators and other tribes. One of Donovan's recurrent themes is the need to defend the perimeter.
Donovan may underestimate the speed with which the human genome and certainly culture have evolved since the Neolithic. As Stephen Pinker writes in The Better Angels of our Nature , we had to become much less aggressive in order to live successfully in cities. As Harpending and Cochran write in The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution , we became measurably more intelligent and also weaker. Civilization allowed us to survive being poorer of eyesight, slower of foot, and having worse teeth.
Nonetheless, it is beyond dispute that until at least the dawn of the 20th century men and women filled different roles in just about every society. The jobs men did required physical strength, often courage, frequently tolerance of unpleasant situations, and usually that men depend on one another as they worked in teams. Women supported their men and their families. They may have done strenuous work as well – gardening and tending cows is not easy – but it was in support of a family unit.
These traits are visible in many societies today. Among my Vietnamese former in-laws the women still cooked and the men earned the money, drank and talked together, and philandered a bit. It was as it had always been. My second mother-in-law, a Japanese, rigorously defended her turf in the household. Though I am a good cook, I was not allowed in her kitchen until her dying moment. I add, happily, that my present Ukrainian mother-in-law is a peach. There is no "spending my grandchildren's inheritance" bumper sticker on her car! There is no car. She spends her time making sure that her young grandchildren are properly taken care of. That is how it should be… it is her genomic legacy.
Building houses for poor people in Nicaragua and Brazil with Habitat for Humanity I saw the same same-sex bonding. The women cooked and took care of the children – and children were a neighborhood project everywhere – and the men had the mastery required to help us build the houses. It was amusing to see how inept with their hands the Americans on my teams turned out to be. We were doing simple things like pick and shovel work, cutting and wiring reinforcing steel, and laying concrete block. These middle class Americans didn't know how to do that, and certainly did not know how to work as a team to get it done. Habitat had us there for goodwill. It boosts awareness of their projects in America, and besides that, volunteers on these teams had to pay their own way and make a contribution to the project. That was pretty much the sum total of our contribution. Our labor was incidental.
The divisions were even clearer in the time I spent among the Kayapó Indians in the Amazon. Although the men love the children – children are the greatest asset among groups in which warriors frequently die in battle, and this tribe was not settled on a reservation until 1967 – raising them was the women's job. The men's house in the middle of camp was the men's territory. They gathered in the evenings to decide on tribal affairs (about 80 people) and tell their tall tales. My contemporaries, men who had grown to adulthood prior to settling on the reservation, had a mastery of the forest. They knew how to hunt wild pigs with war clubs and how to catch fish with their bare hands. They knew what every vine in the forest was good for, as food, medicine, or water in a drought. It was shocking to note how little of this the younger generation was picking up. They could fish with fishing rods, hunt with shotguns, and go to the Brazilian nurse with her health problems. They sat around and played video games. There was no longer any demand for "being good at being a man." It presaged the situation of reservation Indians in the US and Canada.
The man's role has changed in Western Europe and America. The women have relentlessly abolished every uniquely male redoubt in our society. We do not have men's clubs. We do not have the Boy Scouts. The military is thoroughly feminized. Sports teams are integrated. The workplace has come to be dominated by feminine values. See this month's flap at Google over the firing of James Damore.
The women have invaded every aspect of the male world, one which is shrinking in any case. Our technology has reduced the need for traditional male virtues. Women make more docile cubicle rats than men. It is no wonder that video game usage, alcohol abuse, opioid abuse, philandering and other socially disruptive behaviors are on the rise. There is little way for a man to define himself as a man in today's world.
Men never were and do not want to be mothers. Another bit of news this week is that the number of "Mr. Moms" in America peaked at about 230,000 and is falling. Men simply do not want to be women.
Donovan goes into length about the difference between the chimpanzees and the bonobos. Chimpanzee society is male-dominated. It is very hierarchical. The dominant males have the best access to the females. Males form alliances to compete for dominance. Neighboring groups sometimes war with each other. Males sometimes beat the females to keep them in their place. The males tend to know who their sons are and establish something but patriarchy. Females may grow from group to group, but the males tend to stay with their male relatives.
Bonobos, on the other hand, are more female dominated. They mate rather indiscriminately, homosexually as well as heterosexually. Paternity is never certain. The females have the stronger bonds. It is the females who stay put and the males who go away to other groups.
And, Donovan notes, the bonobos enjoy a rich and protected world, rather like the first world society of today. They do not compete against gorillas like the common chimpanzee does. They have enough resources to stay fed year-round. There doesn't seem to be much to fight for.
The common chimpanzee has a territory about ten times as large as that of the bonobos, theirs but an arc of land south of a bend in the Congo River. Donovan would conclude that the common chimpanzee is a tougher competitor, and that the bonobos can only afford their California lifestyle due to the happy accident of their geography. He contends that the developed countries of the modern world are living in bonobo land, but the metaphorical river separating them from the rest of humanity is about to dry up.
Of the four masculine traits that Donovan discusses, strength and courage have been severely devalued. Honor has been so diluted by actions such as putting every student on the honor roll that the only thing left is mastery. The fact is that not every man has the talent to become a master. Even those of us who do – I am a master programmer – find ourselves sharing the workplace with women. Not only do we share the workplace, but find ourselves being dragged down wherever the evidence shows that we are dramatically more successful than women. We have no place to hide.
Donovan asks where this is leading. It appears to be heading toward collapse. Women dominate politics for the moment. They champion the nanny state, in which little boys are regarded as little more than defective girls. See The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men . Women's invasion of the workplace has reduced the number of men who are attractive marriage partners. Since women don't need them, the men don't feel much obligation to work. Childcare is a hassle.
The nanny state has promised all the protections that women want: police protection, socialized medicine, free education for their children, and pensions. At the same time society no longer holds motherhood in much esteem. Women regard workplace success as more important. The result is a dearth of children, especially among the more intelligent women. There is an impending demographic crisis as the baby boomer generation enters retirement. There are not enough young people to pay the generous pensions they have been promised. They are not numerous enough, and though Donovan does not go into it, they are predominately from the less educated and less capable strata of society.
How will society extricate itself from the situation? Donovan doesn't look for a solution in the political realm. He sees that it will collapse of its own weight. His advice is to prepare. Prepare yourself physically: stay strong, attain some mastery, force yourself to do things that will develop your courage, and seek honor among your peers. Build a circle of friends who will be your parameter in the coming hard times.
His idea of a perimeter could be better developed. Here is my attempt. In the Bethesda, Maryland neighborhood where I lived prior to my divorce everybody was working at some very important job for the powers that be. They were ambassadors, NIH doctors, World Bank economists and the like. We did not know each other. If the underclass from the other end of Washington had poured into the neighborhood attempting to burn it down, as I witnessed them burn Los Angeles in the riots of 1965, we would not have been able to mount any kind of defense. We did not know one another.
Conversely, the Ukrainians who surround me in Kyiv all know each other. They have useful skills. If their car breaks down, they know what to do. They have garden plots. They recognize each other as co-ethnics. And, lamentable as a progressive would find it to be, they definitely regard the Gypsies in our neighborhood as "other," and with no basis I can see attribute such petty crime as the stealing of the roses I had planted in front of our fence to the Gypsies. In any case, I think that this is as good as it gets for a perimeter. It would be nice to see a brotherhood such as was evident among the Kayapó Indians, but there is no way that could happen in the modern world.
That's the conclusion . Prepare yourself, and form your perimeter, because hard times are coming. A five-star effort. I include below a few especially valuable quotes.
==================================
"In 1994, Michael Kimmel wrote an essay which provocatively asserted that “homophobia is a central organizing principle of our cultural definition of manhood.” He went on to clarify that this homophobia had little or nothing to do with homosexual acts or an actual fear of homosexuals. He wrote, “Homophobia is the fear that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to the world that we do not measure up, that we are not real men. We are afraid to let other men see that fear.”
"At the primal level, flamboyant dishonor presents tactical problems for the group. By outwardly and theatrically rejecting the core masculine values, particularly strength and courage, the flamboyantly dishonorable male advertises weakness and a propensity for submission to outside watchers. Any honest student of human (and in many cases, primate) body language will be forced to recognize that the postures, gestures and intonations of males generally regarded as effeminate are in fact postures, gestures and intonations that communicate submissiveness. Humans are complicated, and when push comes to shove, stereotypically effeminate males are not always as submissive as their body language would seem to indicate. However, submissiveness is what they advertise."
"The man who flamboyantly rejects the honor codes of the group can obviously not be trusted to “snap to” in a state of emergency. Dishonor is disloyalty. A man who not only openly refuses to strive to be as strong, courageous and competent as he can, but who flaunts these codes theatrically for all to see is a weak link. He makes his peers seem more vulnerable for tolerating vulnerability, and more cowardly for tolerating cowardice. He brings shame on the group, and with shame comes danger, because public displays of weakness and cowardice invite attack."
"However, unless self-sacrifice and restraint are to be masculinity’s defining qualities—unless masculinity is to be an ascetic discipline and nothing more—there is a point somewhere down a road of diminishing returns that being a good man is no longer a good trade. There’s a point where a man who wants to “feel useful” ends up “feeling used.” When the system no longer offers men what they want, how long can you expect them to perform tricks for a pat on the head?"
"To protect and serve their own interests, the wealthy and privileged have used feminists and pacifists to promote a masculinity that has nothing to do with being good at being a man, and everything to do with being what they consider a “good man.” Their version of a good man is isolated from his peers, emotional, effectively impotent, easy to manage, and tactically inept."
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to find or establish a tribe now.
In many ways the book is also a sort of spiritual spin off to the movie, Fight Club, where bored, High IQ, suburbanites seek enlightenment by getting out of their safe, consumerist lifestyles by means of fighting. Just as with fight club, there is a cry against the soul destroying emptiness of the modern world in this book too. One can sense the frustration of many young men who look out at the safe, rule ridden modern world and ask is there more? Can one find more through valorous struggle?
The book is therefore like a primer on basic manhood for younger men who live in a well ordered society. Its focus is on the basics of warfare in a hunter-gatherer tribe which has an allure when the bills, and other chains of civilization seem to be heavy.
To this reviewer however, the book was a bit light on the spiritual substance and it ignored the fact that men must still operate in a civilization. This reviewer was in many regular school-yard fights as well as combat in Iraq and it is difficult to see that a return to a gang and fighting is some sort of path to enlightenment. I feel that my military decorations are just vanity-however hard won. While Donovan makes an excellent case that his study strips down manhood to its bare essentials, it seems that civilization is here to stay and navigating it as a man remains an important skill. Remember, we just had a severe financial downturn and terrible recession from 2007 to 2009 and the world didn't fill up with buckskin wearing Berserkers in world-restarting Mannerbunds. Even in my combat time I experienced only a short second of frenzied savagery and even then the normal bonds of civilization and order returned quite quickly. The four virtues of Freemasonry: Temperance, Prudence, Fortitude, & Justice thereby offer a different, more nuanced look at being good at being a man. While reading this book I was not able to get away from the idea that General Stanley A. McChrystal, very much a man who was good at "being a man" went on to teach a course about "managing failure" after he left the service. Not every challenge is protecting the tribe from wild animals, and not everything is one long successful march to "manliness."
In short, if you've done a large stretch of fighting the ideas seem a bit flat, although they are eloquently argued and deliberately simplified for effect. Essentially, this book needs to really be entry one of a multi volume work. Donovan needs to take his ability to simplify complex ideas and show how to continue to be good at being a man when one is not a youth on the far, savage frontier-but older-and navigating the corridors of civilization while carrying out deadly serious business in clean, well lit rooms where reasonable men don't bother to raise their voices.
Top reviews from other countries
basically, if you believe the kind of thing you imagine your ancestors believed, then you're on the right path. times may change but reality and nature's law remains a cold and cruel constant. 100 years of 'progressivism' and feminism and liberalism isnt gunna change hundred's of thousands, even millions of years of hard-wired evolutionary biology. we've become seperated from nature and her laws. we are doomed as a civilisation. time to man up and face the music. at the end of the day, we are still animals. but very strange and dangeroulsy deluded animals living in a butter-soft, dystopian, fantasy land that's collapsing all around us. the end is nigh, but the tv is still on and we have beer and pizza so who cares....
I didn’t really agree with all of what was said to be honest. The author compares bonobos and chimp societies, but I couldn’t help but think that his description of the former included a fair bit of “spin”. It’s difficult to compare the two anyway, they are different sizes and have different strengths and weaknesses, and therefore agenda, but the description of a large bonobos society where the males are placated by strong females is more a view than a fact. If you spin it another way, they live in a affluent society of mutual cooperation where the pack comes first, everyone is protected, and disputes do not threaten anyone’s safety or survival. It works well not because the males have been hen-pecked, but because it works for them and this wants and needs. You have to remember that monkeys do not force these issues like humans do, with governments and currency etc, things just fall into their natural order.
Overall a very different and useful book for men, and women come to think of it, and I applaud the author for not shying away from digging into the male psyche like most others nowadays.
Most of the content is already taught in schools in 5th to 8th grade – in biology, in literature, and in history, yet it often feels sadly twisted and distorted. To me it appeared as if common knowledge simply gets repackaged in a pamphlet like design that would be well fitting a Star Trek TV series about the Klingon Empire.
The book explains in much simpler (better: crude) terms the social roles of men and women, without providing, new views or any substantial knowledge and facts. It feels awkward reading about the “ever struggle of men in today’s world” – somehow depicting men as victim and women as (a) culprit.
The style is certainly very much directed to a certain group of people. People ready (and willing?) to be instrumentalized for another person’s agenda and purpose, easy to be manipulated. It is based on dangerous half-wit and seemingly created out of pain, insecurity and fear – which is why I continued reading for I wanted to seek out and understand the drive and motivation of the author.
After reading I found it very narrow minded and posing a threat. Moreover it is likely to reduce even more the chances and opportunities for people seeking guidance and direction. To me it renders them as victims, likely to isolate these men – rendering them incapable of becoming a viable member of our society. Given – that is after all – what the author aims for.
Starting off with over the first 30 pages with rattling the cage – toning done over the next 40 pages or so – just to culminate in the last part in explaining how to form a gang. Any person (men or woman) who experienced and understands friendship (and relationships in general) gets battered with hollow tips on how to form a gang. “Guidance”.
• MAN / VIR: The book explains that the Latin word “VIR” means “MAN”. And that is correct. But then, the author makes the connection to the word VIRTUE – with explanations that are both laughable and sad. So if the word VIR is part of VIRTUE – and MAN should claim that connection, then why no connection to VIRus or VIRgo? It’s as silly as connecting the word MAN to MANslaughter or MANdatory or MANipulation.
• Power: The book does not explain how power is created, granted, how it is used and how it is transcended.
• Leadership: The book does not elaborate on what leadership actually is, does not explain the roles and responsibilities of a leader and WHEN and WHY true leadership becomes a high demand. It fails to outline required interaction from leader to followers and neglects (ignores?) scientific facts of any social interaction.
• Courage: It displays courage as a practicality – in the book it is referred to as “virtue”. But it neglects to outline and elaborate much more on essential items on when and how courage is created (it leaves it to cavemen examples). It only touches the surface and does not elaborate, fails to describe courage in a holistic way. There is no courage without uncertainty, risk, emotional exposure, profound vulnerability and exposure to a risk, a danger or highly volatile and uncertain circumstances. Vulnerability is the path to courage. Courage is contagious to scale – hence the link to leadership and power, sadly missing.
• Uncertainty: The book does not address the fact of “growing to be a man”. It does not explain when, where, how and why uncertainty arises and how ill-minded and character weak people (with low emotional intelligence) weaponize uncertainty for their personal gain. It weaponizes uncertainty in a sneaky and malicious way – preying on people receptive to demagogues and lacking ability (or means) to check actual facts, history and relate to personal experiences.
• Respect: The book fails to address how power and courage go hand in hand with uncertainty and leadership (amongst others, but in sight of the book, I’ll leave it that these two). Without giving respect, there is no true power and no true leadership. Without giving respect, one will not receive respect – and by that will never be more than “acknowledged” and “used” by “talkers” (see further below). The book remains with crude explanations and oversimplifications. The book owes the answer to what respect is as much an explanation of to gain or how to lose it.
• Dependency: Although dependency is addressed, the book remains way too simple. Yes, not even the richest person is independent. Yes, there is the obvious dependency of a child to its parents. The co-dependency that is created when people enter intimate relationships. The inter-dependency that is existing since dawn of time – when men went hunting, woman guarded the cave. There is no good or bad about it – it just “is”. Yet it always feels as if the author tries to paint men as more noble and keeps glorifying “fighting and battling”. It’s sad to see that this basic anthropological fact is twisted for a glorified (and actually rather silly) image of men. To me this is both awkward and shaming – it would be laughable if it was not just plain dangerous.
• Evolution: Lots of what is writing in the book is based on pragmatic science. Yet it never addresses the fact that we have undergone changes in society for more than 200 000 years (probably many more). What was working in caves is no longer valid today – and the book fails to provide a look into how men can evolve (and have evolved, for that matter). Instead it leads backward – showing customs that are sold as tradition instead of what they were – necessities to survive. It promotes reluctance to change and adapt – rendering progress obsolete and putting people reading & believing this into weak positions leaving but a few options to lead a successful live.
• Success: Striving to be successful is a key driver of any men or women. Honor. Power. Leadership. Mystified yet unattainable. Why did the author not explain and elaborate on “success”? What is success in his eyes – what makes a man successful? Bringing back game from a hunt? Having a wife and children? Being a leader? Having a fancy car? Or let me ask it this way – are you successful when you have honor, are a leader, showed courage? The author is too crude, superficial and negligent in his book. He leaves essentials out and rides the wave of glory. It reads like a recruitment flyer – not like literature to be taken into serious consideration.
• Honor: The book speaks about honor like a blind person about color. Before honor is gained – it needs to be taught by parents and understood by children. Honor is not necessarily gained on a battlefield. It is not a glorified “thing” that only men have. Honor is taught from a father to his children (boys and girls alike). How to treat their mother and woman (people in general!) – with respect and kindness. Honor is taught from a mother to her children by keeping the word you gave, being true and honest. Honor starts with basic manners – how to sit on a table, how to greet a person, how to ask for help or offer support. If you have no manners – how can you understand what honor is? How could you be offended and “defend your honor” if one has no understanding because of a lacking frame of reference?
• Values: Leadership, courage, respect, power – all are founded on values given by mothers and fathers, the people around you – the society you live in. Values drive one’s action, behavior and convictions. The book utterly neglects to explain the term value in its essence. What values are rooted in, where they come from, how they are taught and how these transcend and project in leadership, courage, power and respect. Again – mere crude references are made to the dawn of mankind.
• Accountability: The book fails to iterate on the fact one (as of the age of 18) is not only responsible but actually accountable for any saying and doing. It shrouds that aspect in some mysterious description of honor. It fails to expose “talkers” (see further below) to take responsibility and be held accountable. The book excuses “talkers” for always finding other people and unfortunate circumstances to blame for situations they are in. A “real man” takes charge (like a “real woman” will do) to change fate, change a situation and take decisive actions to mitigate risks and create opportunities.
• Fear: The book does not take away fear – it creates and nourishes it. It describes today’s modern society as if women are out to cut a man’s balls and seeking to gain absolute power and leadership. Fear always was and always will be a bad teacher. How the fear is created? Simply by leaving readers without any guidance, examples or warnings. I worry for the self-proclaimed “real men” going out there and trying to find their way with other members of the society. Their way of covering fear and lacking social skills is simple: either act too cool or too aggressive. Neither is even close to be authentic.
• Decisions: The book in no way addresses what makes life of a men (and women, for that matter) very hard: taking decisions. It does not account for experience needed and pain endured – it keeps relishing on glorification of honor and describes “the struggle of men” as a battle. It does not answer questions, it does not provide guidance, it does not open minds. It keeps on a low level of half-truths and badly – out of context – cited famous people – trying to substantiate a moot point.
• Humility: The book fails to mention how to be humble yet pride. Instead it encourages projecting dismissive arrogance and ignorance “because that’s what men do, for they are entitled to it”. That is sad, for no successful man (or woman) became successful on his/her own – whether it is about acquiring knowledge and experience or learning from bad decisions and burned bridges. Everybody needs a helping hand – needs to be picked up in times of sadness and despair. And even more important – everybody needs to be encouraged in times of doubt and praised in times of success. Will “members of your gang” do that? Or will it be your parents, your friends, your wife or your husband?
• Ranking: The book gives some blurry tips on how to form a gang – your gang. Great – but what if I find a person that also read the book – and I want him in my ranks – under me? I mean – after all I am the alpha, right? I suppose I “battle” it out right there and then. Now all the slurry gang talk aside – let’s be honest: there is only one true GANG – and that is family. I doubt that any man, father, husband would reject his loved ones to be with his gang. Yes, I know – there are countless examples of exceptions. But these are a fraction – exceptions just to prove the point.
• Tactic & Strategy: I often got confused when the author – seemingly loosely – uses the words tactic and strategy. I like to think there is a deeper reason behind, which I fail to see. However – if applying the actual definitions, these words make no sense in the context they are being used. No explanation on what strategy is and how it is formed – no further elaboration on how you design fitting tactics supporting your strategy.
• The role of a mother: Without going further and too much into detail – the book in no way explains (even on high level) the role a mother has to play. It does not provide any understanding of the responsibility a mother has to raise a boy to be a successful man. The discrediting of women and the role of a mother is not only ignorant, it is dangerous and prevents any boy from becoming a “good man” and a valuable member of any society – regardless if it is a 1:1 intimate relationship with a girl (or another man) in a small team or large group.
• Fatherhood: For a son that means being taught how to be a man. In order to play the role of a man and a potential leader – one needs to be taught skills. That starts with acting and behaving, for oneself but moreover towards others. And it continues with teaching simple trades like how to drill a hole in a wall, how to use a saw and a screwdriver – for these are trades a man should have. It goes further to making a fire, going camping and building a tent, reading a compass and finding the way in uncharted terrain. Opening a bottle without opener, how to shave, how to apply perfume, how to dress for different occasions. Although these skills are mainly expected to be known by men, girls and women sure benefit from them equally. How to iron a shirt, how to set a tie properly fitting, how to order a beer or whisky, how to lead conversations and deal with criticism. Not teaching these skills are leaving the young boy in limbo – creating bad dependencies, causing fear and frustration – eventually alienating him from rests of the society. For all that the boy knows is how to project aggression and communicate with demand and expectation. The awkwardness of a boy growing into a man – lacking the skill to manage various social situations will leave him isolated. Although he will find support by like-minded people (e.g. saying “all woman are sluts and bitches – treat them as such”) – the feeling of utter failure will lead to incompatibility with other people on all levels.
• Being a father: A father teaches to identify and deal with people that I consider “talkers” or “windbags” or “wet towels”. Unreliable, however ever present in an obnoxious way. They interfere without reason to ensure their presence is noticed – not seeing that they create feelings of discomfort and stress. These talkers, they say a lot – speak of making things happen, making promises, telling about friends who can help – but nothing ever happens. Most of the time they manage to disguise lies in a mantle of selected truths severing their narrative. They manage to plant doubt and manipulate others for their own benefit and at costs of others. These people fear being ignored and losing control. But all these people have are their empty words, hollow promises and shallow excuses when being put to the test. Suffering are the boys of these men, without realizing it – yet being taught to blame other people and never to take and hold themselves responsible and accountable. And being a father means to be the man educating a son and a daughter about “talkers” and giving them means to defend and – if needed – to attack.
• Being a mentor for live: A father (like a mother too) desires the live of the child (boy and girl) to be better than his own. A father guides and supports to make sure the boy becomes a strong man – especially mentally. A daughter (any girl) should become a force to reckon with – not backing down to jerks, not giving in to gender inequality. Boys and girls should be raised with truths and not with false promises and obsolete and glorified images. Dedication, love, care and wisdom – that is what any parent should provide – especially the father as playing the role of the “stronger individuum”. A father is seen the default leader – teaching how to overcome obstacles and how to navigate in difficult times. But the mother plays no lesser role. Father and mother together provide a framework in their “typical roles”. A father encourages and leads by example – not with rather questionable propaganda and ideologies. A father ensures that the young boy will find his place in any society by equipping the child with everything he has to give and teach. A father ensures the success of his children. None of these essentials are addressed – none of these perks are even mentioned. As this point the book and it’s “teachings” disqualifies itself.
After reading this book – I see how the members of the main target audience meet in bars, over a romantic BBQ... Seeing how right the author is, applauding each other how smart they are for understanding it – agreeing to make an effort to change the world. They’ll show each other (and the world, of course) how tough they are. How they resist the system. Failing to see that (amongst other reasons) they are the very reason as to why rules were put in place, police forces trained to protect us (e.g. my family, my friends and myself) from THEM – the ones believing they need a gang to resist and invoke change.
I have yet to hear about serious wars being started by woman – the book finds a silly and weak excuse by stating “it is in nature of men to always seek competition” (paraphrased). Our society is not just. Even democratic parties are far from democratic. In several countries minorities are suppressed. Children are still exploited. People slaughtered. Yes, large conglomerates rule. But is forming a gang and “being good at being a man” the answer we seek? I am not happy with the world as it is – far from. But looking back at the dark ages (where the author makes a weird reference to saying “we should have a couple of years of dark ages again”) – we have vaccines. Giving birth is no longer a 50/50 chance of the mother dying. Travelling and educating oneself is a viable option for many of us. I’d prefer moving forward – doing my part for better future, instead of going back about 800 years to burn women on the stake for they know how to treat a wound or being able to read.
According to my wife, family and friends, I am a good man – and I am good at being a man 😉. I am glad I read the book – allowing me a glimpse into a world I knew only from hear saying, Steven Seagal movies and history lessons.









