The Way of Men, by Jack Donovan
The difference between a ‘good’ man, and good at being a ‘man.’
Blurb: 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.
About the author: Jack Donovan is an American author known for his writing on masculinity and for his criticisms of feminism and gay culture.
Donovan is currently a contributor to AlternativeRight.com, Counter-Currents, and anti-feminist, men’s rights blog The Spearhead.
Review by Gerry Burnie
When I first saw the title The Way of Men, by Jack Donovan [Dissonant Hum, April 10, 2012], I thought, “Oh dear … This is a mine field if ever I saw one,” for a topic like this can either be a rehashing of grievances against feminists, or brilliantly insightful, or someplace in between. In this case it’s a bit of all three.
Donovan’s thesis proposes that there is a (gaping) difference between being a ‘man’ and being a ‘masculine man,’ i.e. “A man who is more concerned with being a good man than being good at being a man makes a very well behaved slave.”
As a paradigm he goes back to the roots of masculine culture, whereby men travelled in well-defined cohorts for friendship, protection, and hunting, and although these proclivities have been discouraged in favour of domestication and gender-blurring, some traces still survive.
The bottom line is that innate gender differences do exist, have existed, and in spite of unprecedented and frequently insidious emasculation and feminization, will always exist.
The wider state does not escape Donovan’s looking glass, either. For, apart from times of war, it has a stake in maintaining the “well behaved slave.” Bonobo men are not inclined to fit comfortably into ‘le system’ or to give socially acceptable answers and half-truths, and so they are shunned as renegades and/or shit-disturbers.
If any of this rings a bell with you, you might want to grab a copy of Jack Donovan’s thought-provoking dissertation. Four bees.
Viewers of Gerry B’s Book Reviews – 71,580
Interested in Canadian history?
Want to know more? Then visit my new page: In Praise of Canadian History. It is a collection of people, facts and events in Canadian history, and includes a bibliography of interesting Canadian books as well. Latest post: CC1 and CC2 — British Columbia’s Submarine Fleet.
Visit my other blog, too: “Stop the Bull!”
Its a lively commentary on whatever happens to be current. Here’s an example:
|Notice to all those who have requested a book reviewThank you for your interest, and my apologies for not responding to your request individually. I’m getting there, but the numbers have been overwhelming. Please extend your patience just a bit longer.Thanks again!|
Thanks for dropping by! I’ll have another novel ready for next week, same URL, so drop back soon.
No comments yet.