What do you think?
Rate this book
No Man's Land
The following three-chapter arc was originally intended to be part of a book project called “The Way of Men.” The Way of Men is not about feminism, but most popular writing about masculinity is written by feminists, or men who have accepted a handful of feminist assumptions. My intent here was to locate my own understanding of masculinity within the context of a larger discussion about men that has been happening for the past several decades. I wanted to engage the arguments of others in a comprehensive way and extract common themes. I wanted to “show my work.”
Together, these chapters form a short book about the way that masculinity has been maligned, re-imagined and mis-represented by others.
I have decided to make this book No Man’s Land available for free online, because I hope that this material will be useful to other men who are writing about masculinity, feminism, the men’s movement and conflicts between masculinity and civilization. While I have a stack of books on masculinity that come from the establishment—from university presses and from writers approved by the mainstream media—the most interesting writing about masculinity is happening online. You can cite a book, but you can’t quite link to it—not exactly, anyway.
- Jack Donovan
Together, these chapters form a short book about the way that masculinity has been maligned, re-imagined and mis-represented by others.
I have decided to make this book No Man’s Land available for free online, because I hope that this material will be useful to other men who are writing about masculinity, feminism, the men’s movement and conflicts between masculinity and civilization. While I have a stack of books on masculinity that come from the establishment—from university presses and from writers approved by the mainstream media—the most interesting writing about masculinity is happening online. You can cite a book, but you can’t quite link to it—not exactly, anyway.
- Jack Donovan
37 pages, ebook
First published November 11, 2011
5 people are currently reading
339 people want to read
About the author
Jack Donovan
7 books483 followersJack Donovan has been writing and speaking about masculinity, masculine philosophy and spirituality for over a decade. His foundational book, The Way of Men, has sold over 100,000 copies worldwide and has been translated into French, German, Portuguese, Spanish and Polish.
Donovan is an occasional speaker and often appears on podcasts to discuss masculinity and the challenges faced by men who want to live masculine lives in the 21st Century.
He lives in the Pacific Northwest, where he has constructed an “experimental pagan ritual space” called “Waldgang,” somewhere in the hinterlands.
Donovan is an occasional speaker and often appears on podcasts to discuss masculinity and the challenges faced by men who want to live masculine lives in the 21st Century.
He lives in the Pacific Northwest, where he has constructed an “experimental pagan ritual space” called “Waldgang,” somewhere in the hinterlands.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 27, 2015
Good dose of perspective taking.
While some radical feminists, queer theorists, transgendered persons and others have argued for the eradication of gender stereotypes and a move beyond perceiving people as being either masculine or feminine, the fact remains that biologically speaking about half of humans are male and the other half female. Most people seem to be willing to accept the idea that males and females are at least somewhat different. Men and women still maintain and prefer distinct sexual identities.
The problem with the new way of women is that it relies on a transfer of power and opportunity from men, and if this power exchange is to last, men will have to be taught to downgrade their expectations, even as women are taught to expect the world.
Sensing that men are pacing their concrete cages, the reimaginers of masculinity have attempted to redecorate man’s pound with questing narratives and talk of wildness. But a spiritual journey is just a story about thinking. You don’t actually go anywhere. The inner warrior never knows what it means to face death head on, or to see the life leave the eyes of his vanquished foe. His victories are petty and his defeats are trivial. The weekend initiate to manhood never feels the earth on his knees, the urgency of hunger or the warmth of fresh blood on his forehead. And the man who denies his own will to power so that others may thrive makes himself a slave.
The flaws in Mead’s research had not been fully revealed at the time Brannon wrote The Forty-Nine Percent Majority. However, like Mead, Brannon’s theories relied on wishful thinking. Mead’s research was embraced because it told certain people—people like Brannon—what they wanted to hear about human nature and gender. Brannon’s depiction of the male sex role and the idea that its script can be re-written completely builds on Mead’s wishful thinking, and appeals to feminists because it is essential to their concept of a gender-neutral society.
Most anthropologists are quick to acknowledge the historical importance of Mead’s pioneering work and her contributions to the field of anthropology, but it is clear that she did not succeed in finding a “negative instance” with regard to sex roles. No one else has, either. Donald Brown’s list of Human Universals[19] identifies the following as norms for males:
Cross-Cultural Norms for Males in Human Societies
Male and female and adult and child seen as having different natures.
Males dominate public/political realm.
Males engage in more coalitional violence.
Males more aggressive.
Males more prone to lethal violence.
Males more prone to theft.
Males, on average, travel greater distances over lifetime.
Exposing a “vulnerability,” to men, is like rolling over and offering your belly to anyone who would take it. It’s not a positive. It’s something you would do only around someone whom you trust completely. Women have a habit of throwing men’s exposed emotional vulnerabilities back at them in heated arguments, and many men have been burned for baring their souls. Even in the context of a private relationship, many men have good reasons to avoid showing women or men the things that really get to them.
If you look at vulnerability from the perspective of a group hierarchy, it becomes obvious why men don’t want to expose their vulnerabilities publicly, and why men distance themselves from men who are obviously vulnerable. Crying is perfectly natural. It’s a perfectly natural admission of defeat, emotional exhaustion, fear or powerlessness. A man who is “vulnerable” is a weak link. He’s shown that he is going to break under pressure, or that he is prone to manipulation. Tactically, this is a problem for the group, and as a result he is going to lose status within the group. Men who appear to be unflappable, however, make the group look watertight. It makes perfect sense for men to want to ally themselves with strong men who can pull their weight, and who don’t dishonor the group. From a primal perspective, dishonor is danger. It should be obvious why a group of men competing with other groups of men for survival would want to appear to be strong, courageous and competent.
This drive to castrate and discredit the hero-alpha-father is an abstract attempt by low status males to increase or regain status via intellectual means. The sensitive, bookish outcast screams “Your manhood is false, and you are a fraud!” and then runs into the arms of sympathetic women who tend his emotional wounds and deftly exploit his exposed vulnerabilities, or into a ghetto of other outcast men.
A man’s status as a man, his masculine identity—his honor—has been so critical to his sense of self-worth that throughout human history innumerable men and women have worked to shape the “Form” of masculinity to reflect their interests and values. Manly pride can be a man’s greatest asset and his greatest weakness. People use a man’s sense of himself to manipulate him. Sometimes “man up” simply means “do what I want.”
The likes of Brannon play an interesting game. They know that men are concerned with their reputations as men. They know that men want to be seen as strong, so they taunt them and tell them that it is their desire for strength that makes them weak. The reimaginers tell men to reimagine strength.
Is either abandoning his concern with strength or reimagining strength in a man’s best interest?
It depends on the man and the context. The answer is philosophical, subjective and uncertain. What is certain is that by abandoning his concern with strength or by reimagining strength he will be serving the interests of those who ask him to change.
While some radical feminists, queer theorists, transgendered persons and others have argued for the eradication of gender stereotypes and a move beyond perceiving people as being either masculine or feminine, the fact remains that biologically speaking about half of humans are male and the other half female. Most people seem to be willing to accept the idea that males and females are at least somewhat different. Men and women still maintain and prefer distinct sexual identities.
The problem with the new way of women is that it relies on a transfer of power and opportunity from men, and if this power exchange is to last, men will have to be taught to downgrade their expectations, even as women are taught to expect the world.
Sensing that men are pacing their concrete cages, the reimaginers of masculinity have attempted to redecorate man’s pound with questing narratives and talk of wildness. But a spiritual journey is just a story about thinking. You don’t actually go anywhere. The inner warrior never knows what it means to face death head on, or to see the life leave the eyes of his vanquished foe. His victories are petty and his defeats are trivial. The weekend initiate to manhood never feels the earth on his knees, the urgency of hunger or the warmth of fresh blood on his forehead. And the man who denies his own will to power so that others may thrive makes himself a slave.
The flaws in Mead’s research had not been fully revealed at the time Brannon wrote The Forty-Nine Percent Majority. However, like Mead, Brannon’s theories relied on wishful thinking. Mead’s research was embraced because it told certain people—people like Brannon—what they wanted to hear about human nature and gender. Brannon’s depiction of the male sex role and the idea that its script can be re-written completely builds on Mead’s wishful thinking, and appeals to feminists because it is essential to their concept of a gender-neutral society.
Most anthropologists are quick to acknowledge the historical importance of Mead’s pioneering work and her contributions to the field of anthropology, but it is clear that she did not succeed in finding a “negative instance” with regard to sex roles. No one else has, either. Donald Brown’s list of Human Universals[19] identifies the following as norms for males:
Cross-Cultural Norms for Males in Human Societies
Male and female and adult and child seen as having different natures.
Males dominate public/political realm.
Males engage in more coalitional violence.
Males more aggressive.
Males more prone to lethal violence.
Males more prone to theft.
Males, on average, travel greater distances over lifetime.
Exposing a “vulnerability,” to men, is like rolling over and offering your belly to anyone who would take it. It’s not a positive. It’s something you would do only around someone whom you trust completely. Women have a habit of throwing men’s exposed emotional vulnerabilities back at them in heated arguments, and many men have been burned for baring their souls. Even in the context of a private relationship, many men have good reasons to avoid showing women or men the things that really get to them.
If you look at vulnerability from the perspective of a group hierarchy, it becomes obvious why men don’t want to expose their vulnerabilities publicly, and why men distance themselves from men who are obviously vulnerable. Crying is perfectly natural. It’s a perfectly natural admission of defeat, emotional exhaustion, fear or powerlessness. A man who is “vulnerable” is a weak link. He’s shown that he is going to break under pressure, or that he is prone to manipulation. Tactically, this is a problem for the group, and as a result he is going to lose status within the group. Men who appear to be unflappable, however, make the group look watertight. It makes perfect sense for men to want to ally themselves with strong men who can pull their weight, and who don’t dishonor the group. From a primal perspective, dishonor is danger. It should be obvious why a group of men competing with other groups of men for survival would want to appear to be strong, courageous and competent.
This drive to castrate and discredit the hero-alpha-father is an abstract attempt by low status males to increase or regain status via intellectual means. The sensitive, bookish outcast screams “Your manhood is false, and you are a fraud!” and then runs into the arms of sympathetic women who tend his emotional wounds and deftly exploit his exposed vulnerabilities, or into a ghetto of other outcast men.
A man’s status as a man, his masculine identity—his honor—has been so critical to his sense of self-worth that throughout human history innumerable men and women have worked to shape the “Form” of masculinity to reflect their interests and values. Manly pride can be a man’s greatest asset and his greatest weakness. People use a man’s sense of himself to manipulate him. Sometimes “man up” simply means “do what I want.”
The likes of Brannon play an interesting game. They know that men are concerned with their reputations as men. They know that men want to be seen as strong, so they taunt them and tell them that it is their desire for strength that makes them weak. The reimaginers tell men to reimagine strength.
Is either abandoning his concern with strength or reimagining strength in a man’s best interest?
It depends on the man and the context. The answer is philosophical, subjective and uncertain. What is certain is that by abandoning his concern with strength or by reimagining strength he will be serving the interests of those who ask him to change.
March 16, 2014
A very good supplement to The Way of Men.
March 9, 2020
Mr. Donovan offers a complimentary analysis on how the Way of Man is affected by those who go against it.
The book presents interesting concerns about what happens when men and women start looking for more "gender equality" but it ends up being focus only on the women's side, putting men aside, and thus transforming the point of view to a more feminine standpoint, in which men have no say.
What follows is an "open attack" toward masculinity, along with a more increasing bias on what manhood truly is, and hence making it impossible for men to develop full manhood, making manliness a myth or an 0ld-archetypical story that is in time to be forgotten.
There is still more to say about the relationship between man and woman, and how both can grow together but a the same time in continual union and mutual support, and ultimately in a real covenant, in which both parts help each other to develop to its full capacity.
The book presents interesting concerns about what happens when men and women start looking for more "gender equality" but it ends up being focus only on the women's side, putting men aside, and thus transforming the point of view to a more feminine standpoint, in which men have no say.
What follows is an "open attack" toward masculinity, along with a more increasing bias on what manhood truly is, and hence making it impossible for men to develop full manhood, making manliness a myth or an 0ld-archetypical story that is in time to be forgotten.
There is still more to say about the relationship between man and woman, and how both can grow together but a the same time in continual union and mutual support, and ultimately in a real covenant, in which both parts help each other to develop to its full capacity.
September 11, 2020
A very interesting look at masculinity.
There’s not much more for me to say here. It’s well argued, and isn’t fuelled by the anger I find in texts similar to these. It doesn’t talk down to its reader, instead providing concrete arguments that highlight the issues behind the ignorance of thinking that men and women aren’t inherently different. For anyone that bears an interest in masculinity and it’s relationship with modern society, this may prove to give you some much needed strength to combat adversity.
7/10
There’s not much more for me to say here. It’s well argued, and isn’t fuelled by the anger I find in texts similar to these. It doesn’t talk down to its reader, instead providing concrete arguments that highlight the issues behind the ignorance of thinking that men and women aren’t inherently different. For anyone that bears an interest in masculinity and it’s relationship with modern society, this may prove to give you some much needed strength to combat adversity.
7/10
February 14, 2023
It's an intro/complement to The way of men, and it's denser with good references and literature review.
There is useful stuff here for whom can stay rational:
* text mostly goes over a historical research and explains why it fails and shows its motivated reasoning
* provides a few different lists of the characteristics of the manliness from both camps
* compares the definition of real fairness and asks why not?
* slightly analyzes the impact of tech (quotes Taleb, the opposite of manliness isn't cowardice, it's tech)
There is useful stuff here for whom can stay rational:
* text mostly goes over a historical research and explains why it fails and shows its motivated reasoning
* provides a few different lists of the characteristics of the manliness from both camps
* compares the definition of real fairness and asks why not?
* slightly analyzes the impact of tech (quotes Taleb, the opposite of manliness isn't cowardice, it's tech)
Read
January 28, 2018My thoughts on this are pretty much the same as my thoughts on The Way of Men, except that these missing chapters to that book are a bit more petulant or combative, than anything else in that book--more about what Donovan thinks is wrong with modern feminism than what he thinks manhood is. I can see why he left it out of the main book.
Of course, none of this is to say there aren't any worthwhile insights or observations here.
Of course, none of this is to say there aren't any worthwhile insights or observations here.
June 11, 2019
I should have read a brief description and I would have known that this book is mostly a defense of masculinity against the likes of radical feminism.
Biggest thing to think about from this book is the idea that traditional masculinity can be sometimes seen as superficial or as a weakness, and that men can be encouraged to grow more in the traditionally more female characteristics.
Biggest thing to think about from this book is the idea that traditional masculinity can be sometimes seen as superficial or as a weakness, and that men can be encouraged to grow more in the traditionally more female characteristics.
October 12, 2017
Complemento de The way of men, do mesmo autor. Analisa o tratamento dado à masculinidade por teóricos do feminismo. Considerado mais político do que científico, o tratamento não é elogiado.
October 14, 2017
As others have already stated, this is a good supplement to The Way of Men.
December 19, 2020
Interesting essay
March 12, 2022
Hard to read, but it explains the current reality we live in today.
December 24, 2018
Short sober companion piece to The Way of Men.
Sensing that men are pacing their concrete cages, the reimaginers of masculinity have attempted to redecorate man’s pound with questing narratives and talk of wildness. But a spiritual journey is just a story about thinking. You don’t actually go anywhere.
The inner warrior never knows what it means to face death head on, or to see the life leave the eyes of his vanquished foe. His victories are petty and his defeats are trivial. The weekend initiate to manhood never feels the earth on his knees, the urgency of hunger or the warmth of fresh blood on his forehead. And the man who denies his own will to power so that others may thrive makes himself a slave.
|
The argument from failure is to some extent an example of the “perfect solution fallacy,” in which the “perfect” is made the enemy of the “good.” The argument from failure presupposes that for a role to be good, someone somewhere has to be able to live up to that role all the time. It’s a little like telling Christians they shouldn’t bother trying to be more Christ-like, because they will never actually be Christ.
For Christians, Christ is a perfect Form in the Platonic sense. He is the embodiment of what they’ve identified as ideal qualities. They do not expect to become Christ, but feel that by imitating him as best they can, they become better people.
One may agree or disagree with the values that they attribute to Christ, or disbelieve in Christ, but the basic concept of bettering oneself through imperfect imitation is what matters here, because men are essentially imitating what they believe to be the perfect Form of Man.
All men accumulate a tally of “sins”, shortcomings and near-misses. Feelings get hurt along the way because all men are not equally able to imitate this perfect Form. These facts are not valid criticisms of the manly virtues themselves. We could call this “The Fallacy of the Impossible Form.”
|
The likes of Brannon play an interesting game. They know that men are concerned with their reputations as men. They know that men want to be seen as strong, so they taunt them and tell them that it is their desire for strength that makes them weak. The reimaginers tell men to reimagine strength.
Is either abandoning his concern with strength or reimagining strength in a man’s best interest? It depends on the man and the context. The answer is philosophical, subjective and uncertain. What is certain is that by abandoning his concern with strength or by reimagining strength, he will be serving the interests of those who ask him to change.
Sensing that men are pacing their concrete cages, the reimaginers of masculinity have attempted to redecorate man’s pound with questing narratives and talk of wildness. But a spiritual journey is just a story about thinking. You don’t actually go anywhere.
The inner warrior never knows what it means to face death head on, or to see the life leave the eyes of his vanquished foe. His victories are petty and his defeats are trivial. The weekend initiate to manhood never feels the earth on his knees, the urgency of hunger or the warmth of fresh blood on his forehead. And the man who denies his own will to power so that others may thrive makes himself a slave.
|
The argument from failure is to some extent an example of the “perfect solution fallacy,” in which the “perfect” is made the enemy of the “good.” The argument from failure presupposes that for a role to be good, someone somewhere has to be able to live up to that role all the time. It’s a little like telling Christians they shouldn’t bother trying to be more Christ-like, because they will never actually be Christ.
For Christians, Christ is a perfect Form in the Platonic sense. He is the embodiment of what they’ve identified as ideal qualities. They do not expect to become Christ, but feel that by imitating him as best they can, they become better people.
One may agree or disagree with the values that they attribute to Christ, or disbelieve in Christ, but the basic concept of bettering oneself through imperfect imitation is what matters here, because men are essentially imitating what they believe to be the perfect Form of Man.
All men accumulate a tally of “sins”, shortcomings and near-misses. Feelings get hurt along the way because all men are not equally able to imitate this perfect Form. These facts are not valid criticisms of the manly virtues themselves. We could call this “The Fallacy of the Impossible Form.”
|
The likes of Brannon play an interesting game. They know that men are concerned with their reputations as men. They know that men want to be seen as strong, so they taunt them and tell them that it is their desire for strength that makes them weak. The reimaginers tell men to reimagine strength.
Is either abandoning his concern with strength or reimagining strength in a man’s best interest? It depends on the man and the context. The answer is philosophical, subjective and uncertain. What is certain is that by abandoning his concern with strength or by reimagining strength, he will be serving the interests of those who ask him to change.
March 10, 2014
It's a good read!
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews