Androphilia

by Jack Donovan

Gay is a subculture, a slur, a set of gestures, a slang, a look, a posture, a parade, a rainbow flag, a film genre, a taste in music, a hairstyle, a marketing demographic, a bumper sticker, a political agenda and philosophical viewpoint. Gay is a pre-packaged, superficial persona--a lifestyle. It's a sexual identity that has almost nothing to do with sexuality. Androphilia is a rejection of the overloaded gay identity and a return to a discussion of homosexuality in terms of desire. Homosexual men have been paradoxically cast as the enemies of masculinity--slaves to the feminist pipe dream of a "gender-neutral" (read: anti-male, pro-female) world. Androphilia is a manifesto full of truly dangerous ideas: that men can have sex with men and retain their manhood, that homosexuality can be about championing a masculine ideal rather than attacking it, and that the "oppressive construct of masculinity," despised by the gay community could actually enrich and improve the lives of homosexual and bisexual men. Androphilia is for those men who never really bought what the gay community was selling. It is a challenge to leave the gay world completely behind and to rejoin the world of men, unapologetically, as androphiles, but more importantly, as men.

Genres: Nonfiction, Essays, Academic, Philosophy, Self Help, History, Sexuality

252 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 2007

About the author

Jack 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.

Reviews

[Drew · Rating 1 out of 5]

While I agree with Malebranche that gay male identity (masculinity vs effeminacy-as-the-norm in mainstream gay culture) needs to be examined and re-assessed, I could not have imagined a worse person to write about it. Beyond all his hype, beyond his inflammatory rhetoric, Malebanche is simply a bad writer with nothing original to say.

Page after page, he spews opinions and historically-unreferenced generalizations that follow every known pejorative stereotype of gay men. Sometimes, the arguments that he makes can't even bear logical scrutiny or remain cohesive for more than a page. More than that, he never has anything captivating to say, and never really introduces anything insightful or original to the notion of male / masculine identity. This is a book desperately in need of an editor, and a man in desperate need of an intellectual adviser.

The only reason Malebanche is getting attention is because he's saying "I'm not GAY. Gay's are effeminate, and that's bad. I'm masculine. I'm this OTHER kind of gay - an androphile - and that's good. And the rest of you ARE gay. Ew!" I'd compare it to an African American who might write about mainstream black culture in the US and call everyone in it niggers. It's stupid, short sighted, and inflammatory. More than that, it's just another form of internalized homophobia.

Beyond all this, I find it ironic that Malebanche took the time to write a manifesto to discuss and redifine his masculinity and sexuality. Truly masculine men are by classical definitions self-confident, and do not sit around worrying about who and what they are, or write bad manifestos about their identities; gays do that. I guess the joke is on Malebanche.

[Maol Mhuire O'Duinnin]

I don't think it's fair for me to star this because I only got several pages in.

At first, I thought this guy's argument was intriguing, or maybe more his provocative statements were something I was willing to give a chance if for no other reason than their shock value.

But, I put the book down. And it stayed down.

Despite my desire to prove Malebranche wrong, that I DID give his book a try, I WAS man enough to do it!...I could not.

Alas, I believe I've fallen into his "gay" category, which for Malebranche unequivocally means "feminine," "effeminate," and/ or "female."

But Malebranche will never be gay again!

Of course, he's not straight either.

If I remember rightly (because I've already returned this book to the library well before my three-week borrowing limit was reached), Malebranche described himself and other MEN like him as "same-sex-inclined" men. Inclined to what? Have sex with? Oh well then, YOU'RE GAY.

But no, Malebranche is not gay! He has spent some years in the gay world, that hyper-liberal, drag/ queen infested cesspool of limp wrists and glitter, which we all know is the depth and scope entirely of what it means to be gay. No, Malebranche is no longer gay, because to be gay=to be a woman. And what man would want to be that?!

In fact, in the 10 or so pages I read, Malebranche not only hardly mentions women and lesbians at all, he extols the great human achievements throughout history that MEN have achieved. He is so proud of MASCULINE men that he just wants to fuck the shit out of all of them and leave the women of the world to fuck off. He also comes to the defense of straight men who are continually burdened with the task of differentiating themselves from being identified as gay.

Interestingly, I do find some value in the argument against running around blaming straight dudes for everything. Although straight dudes benefit from institutional patriarchy every day, not every straight dude is responsible for all the ills of society. In fact, I know some really cool straight dudes who are aware of their privilege and who try to minimize their oppressiveness towards others--thanks, friends!

I also think it's ridiculous to think of gay or queer men as "less of a man" because they have sex with other men. It's up to the individual to decide for themselves what gender they identify as anyway.

But what's troubling to me about that argument from Malebranche, the argument that he's tired of gay guys getting dicked around and treated as less than a man, is that if you are "less of a man," then it follows that you must be "more of a woman." That's not necessarily a problem for me, but it is for Malebranche and I would imagine for his league of manly non-gay men followers, and that's what bothers me. To me, the first pages of Malebranche's book are nothing less than a proclamation of his hatred of women and anything typically associated with them, as in femininity. It is clear that Malebranche does not regard them as equals to men, and to me that means he thinks of them as less than human.

I'm sure Malebranche would be the first to try to prove me wrong about himself, that he regards women equally, that I should have read the rest of the book for a chapter entitled "Why Women Are Awesome" or "I Have a Friend Who's a Woman" (much like how a lot of white people like to say, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend"). Truth is, I don't even know the guy or most of his book, but the important thing is that I didn't even get past the second chapter before I threw in the towel. To me, that says I'd rather spend my time doing something more to help humanity than invest in more crap that is creating division.

I can empathize with this guy's apparent need to separate himself from a community that he does not see himself a part of. But I really think this is a matter of semantics. Anyone can identify as "gay" and then define what that means to them in terms of their own identity. I sometimes identify as gay, at other times queer, but I get to choose what that means to me. This dude is no longer able to do that, and I feel sad for him. Of course, I also am having a reaction to his splintering off, so what does that say about me?

That I hate his hatred for women.

I also recognize a niggling desire to finish the book just to prove I'm MAN enough to do, just to take up his challenge to read through his blithering social and political opinions to try to take it seriously for long enough to hear him out....

Only time will tell....

The funniest thing about this is that I found in the...you guessed it....Lesbian, GAY, Bisexual, and Transgender section of the library! Lulz!

Gay, I mean happy, reading!

[Damien · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a queer biological male who prefers men slightly on the masculine side of androgynous, I had better hopes for this book. I agree that many homosexual men need to break out of gay mainstream without having to resort to identifying as "straight-acting", but blaming feminists for gay stereotypes seems ludicris. But every time I began to relate to something Malebranche wrote, he would instantly lose me by saying some thing that totally shows that he has no idea what he's talking about.

[Vance · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I found this book the title was a little misleading. Then I read the reviews and they were even more misleading. I am obviously not speaking to everyone who reviewed it (negative or otherwise). Please do not take this personal. I really do not know you; you do not know me, but the negative reviews seemed a bit silly, even more so after having read the book myself.

The entire book is one massive opinion piece. The author uses facts and his own experience to clarify and justify his opinion. The problem a lot seem to have is their utter revulsion and disagreement with this opinion. Though many did not write their reviews expressing that. They had "problems" with his facts, his assumptions, and even his religion. None of them offered their own facts or countered his assumptions. As for his religion, he never even mentions his religion in the book. Quite the opposite. He takes a stance that an androphile can be of any religion. The underlying thing that rests as the basis for these reviews is that the man's opinion disagrees with theirs.

Like many who have turned some aspect of their life into an ideology they must vehemently attack anyone who has any sort of argument against that ideology. It stands as an affront to their existence. They have an identity based around this one part of their person. To loose it would shatter them. What makes this seem silly to me is that if one was to read the book, take it for what it is, they would see that their "arguments" is an example of one of his main points.

Homosexuals, gays, never seem willing to step outside of what they know, in their tight knit insulated "gay community." They are against anything outside that community and the lessons they learned there. Inside their enclave they are accepted no matter what they do. They reject the normal and never try to form their own normal. Their entire life becomes just that rejection of what the book calls "hetronormative" (I am not sure if this term originated there or from elsewhere). On the inside they are not challenged or forced to confront anything negative about themselves. Judgement is something straights do. Then this book comes out and challenges them- Read some of the reviews. It is a study in just how right he was.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. if you did not like the book, fine. You don't even have to tell me why. My problem comes from people trying to sound smart and who think they are expertly dissecting it with some weird obscure fact, a single line they personally found to be untruthful, given their own experience, or some mention of his religion. Your opinion does not trump his. Sorry. That is life. My opinion is not better than yours, but I will never claim that mine is fact. Right now, right here, in this sentence I will let you know all of what you read is just that, my opinion. It is not gospel, the word of Moses, or a declaration that has come down from on high.

I liked the book. I enjoyed a lot of what he had to say. It was a bit dry in places and nicely wet in others. You could chock this up to me sharing a lot of the same experiences that he has had or the fact that I find the gay community a tad nutty. However you take it, I don't care. This is what I think and that is it. In the end if it was not for all the negative reviews I might not have read it. I saw enough to make me think this guy had something serious to say. So thanks for that.

[Michael Kalb · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was often asked why I had read this book, especially since I'm a 'white hetro-breeder' and I would think the sub-title would have made it clear. There I go again thinking. For me, part of wanting to read this was what seemed to me the preponderance of weenie-queeny types I kept seeing in the media, yet all my homosexual pals were a "Man's-man" and they preferred Clint Eastwood types over the preening party kind of men. The other part wanted to know how Mr. Jack Donovan (Malabranche, his pen-name) perceived this pervasive posturing as a man who likes and enjoys other men.
The further I read this wonderful book, the more I had felt that my instincts had proven to be right all along. It's not that Mr. Donovan is against feminine types, he just detests the posturing that all men who love the company of males (whether in the bed room or in the bar) need to act like a drama queen. He also puts his pitchfork to the various reasons as to why this behavior is so prevalent in the gay community. His honesty and his razor sharp wit and insight only add to the beauty of this much needed book.
Lets face it, in our long ago past, admiration between strong male archetypes was not only indelibly linked in our distant culture, it was to the point that some had refused admittance of women.
So the validity of this book cannot be overlooked, even at the admonishment of the gay community.
As always, modern people try to overcome nature...and usually to the detriment of their own selves.
The nature of men is masculine and nature will always will out!

M. Kalb

[Matthew W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malebranche's manifesto is basically to encourage your average mainstream gay to grow a pair of balls and act like a man. Instead of being called gay, Malebranche prefers the title "Androphilia."

I read this book for two reasons: The author is a priest in the Church of Satan and he rejects mainstream gay power organizations (which I am against). As a straight male, I found Malebranche's arguments and ideas to be good for the betterment of social relations between straight/gay men. Malebranche believes that "gay power" organizations and lobbies have given the "typical gay man" a bad name which I believe as well. Gay organizations have made gay men no longer men but like another gender. Androphilia shows how although gay organizations often declare people "close minded," they like to fit all Gays into one very negative effeminate stereotype.

Malebranche makes no lie that his "manifesto" is more like a rant. It's a fairly short read and worth reading for those that are really getting fed up with the mainstream manufactured "gay agenda."

[Chris Schwartz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Homosexual Matrix
Review by Chris Schwartz

Every once in a while a book like this comes along, disputing old assumptions, and challenging readers to reconsider their sense of self and place in the world. At times while reading Androphilia: A Manifesto Rejecting the Gay Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, I imagined the author—like Morpheus in the first Matrix movie, sporting sunglasses and black leather trench coat—offering his readers a choice between a pink pill and a blue pill.

Enter the gay world by taking the pink pill—or is it a Jell-O shot served in a fuchsia-colored condom? Malebranche describes gay culture as providing a "just-add-vodka instant lifestyle" complete with social group, musical tastes, affected behaviors, anti-male feminism, victim mentality, leftist politics, diva worship, fruitcake symbolism, and fixation on superficial features like looks and fashion (p. 108). Readers who are involved in gay culture outside of bars, circuit parties and pride parades, will likely raise objections that Malebranche portrays the most stereotypical facets as representative of the whole. And at times it seems as if the author has set up a straw man by pitting gay clichés against the hardiest aspects of idealized masculinity. But the further one reads, the more Malebranche's appraisals of gay culture ring true; and his dislike for its emasculating influence is palpable.

The author sketches a brief historical outline examining how the stigma of effeminacy that's been applied to homosexuals since ancient times was actually embraced by some of the early gay rights pioneers who were infatuated with the notion of urnings, women's minds trapped in men's bodies, indicating a "hermaphroditism of the soul" (p. 60). A self-described "unrepentant masculinist," Malebranche rejects not only gay identity and culture, but also the Jungian pop psychology which insists that while everybody has both masculine and feminine sides, a guy who’s into other guys is allegedly more in touch with the girl within (p. 19). And even though Malebranche credits the gay rights movement with the relative tolerance and freedom from oppression that homosexuals in the West enjoy today, he encourages men who love men to discard gay identity and its effeminate affectations in order to lighten the load so that they can fully embody the masculinity that many gays regard as a burden.

Or take the blue pill. And become a . . . . Well, actually, becoming a man is nowhere near as easy as ingesting a pill. Thanks in large part to the influence of the feminist movement, 'masculinity' is often regarded by many gays as some kind of 'straight-jacket’: a set of sexist, stifling expectations about how men are supposed to dress and walk and talk. Malebranche, however, is concerned about more than mere appearances. His presentation of masculinity is rooted in the physical and essential aspects which he claims all men share, and includes cultural ideals for men to strive after: values like self-reliance, accountability, courage, integrity, achievement, and honor. Becoming a man requires effort, dedication and discipline; it means proving oneself time and again by being "Mr. Make-It-Happen" (p. 71).

Malebranche defines androphilia as apolitical desire, but it will probably resonate more with men who are conservative, libertarian, and/or independent than with liberals, progressives, or radicals. Those readers who peer through the lavender-and-rose-colored glasses of feminist-influenced queer theory will automatically denounce the author’s white male privilege and dismiss him with descriptions like 'self-loathing,' 'assimilationist,' ‘misogynist,' ‘homophobe,’ perhaps even 'femiphobe.' But 'phobe' means 'fear'; and Malebranche isn't afraid of femininity. Clearly he regards effeminacy in males not only as distasteful, but also potentially harmful to self and society. Without a code of masculine values, Malebranche observes, many men tend to run wild, driven solely by pursuit of their desires. In light of this, Malebranche anticipates the charges of his queer critics by contending that "the real internalized homophobia is the belief that you can’t truly be a man simply because you love other men” (p. 63). As a result, he encourages androphiles to forge strong bonds of friendship and affinity with straight men instead of allowing differences in sexuality to alienate and segregate.

Leave it to a Satanist to take something that’s been as demonized as masculinity and present it as an appealing, revitalized focus of devotion. Androphilia: A Manifesto is a temple to manliness where the sacred cows of gay culture are slaughtered as offerings before the stern gods of masculine idealism. Malebranche is one of the high priests defending the temple against platoons of rainbow-flag-waving queers and feather-boa-bedecked drag queens goose-stepping to anthems by The Village People. The author's frank, aggressive tone will rebuff some readers and inspire others who will applaud his scathing attacks on gay herd mentality. Malebranche opposes the anything-goes nonjudgmentalism and the go-right-ahead-jump-on-our-bandwagon hyper-inclusivity that characterizes the gay community, ". . . which today seems to include almost anybody who doesn't have husband-on-wife sex in the missionary position with the lights out" (p. 18). He criticizes the “born gay” dogma as a shirking of personal responsibility, and rejects the gay self-help you’re-OK-as-you-are-just-accept-yourself-and-blame-the-world approach in favor of a focus on self-actualization and constructive criticism. His do-it-yourself attitude has greater appeal than a prepackaged identity marketed to homos by what Camille Paglia has called The Gay Party (p. 33).

As a bonus, the book includes an additional essay "Agreements Between Men" which presents Malebranche's arguments against two men getting married. The author understands marriage as a form of “institutionalized social control” designed to support and protect women and children (p. 127). He also regards the feminine trappings of traditional wedding ceremonies as indicating that other alternatives would best reflect the distinctive character of male-male intimate relationships.

Malebranche isn’t out to transform gay culture, and he certainly doesn’t want androphile to become an A in the burgeoning GLBTQQI alphabet soup. Besides, he’s focused instead on revering masculinity and reveling in male culture. With Androphilia: A Manifesto, Malebranche has issued a poignant, impassioned call for men who love men to stand on their own two feet, live by masculine ideals, and work toward accomplishments that will generate genuine self-esteem, not the “synthetic opiate of 'gay pride'” (p. 87). Not only is this manifesto about masculinity, but it's tone, the way the arguments are presented, is itself incredibly masculine: an assertive, straighforward, principled, pragmatic cut-through-the-bullshit style worth emulating. Towards the end of the book, the author presents some excellent “basic principles and catalysts for self exploration" for men interested in reclaiming masculinity (p. 110). Even men who have no intention of abandoning gay identity could benefit by trying out some of these suggestions.

[Aidan · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are parts in this book I do agree with (almost all of it in the first half), but there's also a lot of trash. He generalizes on gay men a lot, and not necessarily with justification, in my opinion. Then the last three chapters are nothing but one long diatribe.

Mr. Donovan has taken it upon himself to speak for a lot of gay men. He claims to know how many are in legitimate relationships, he claims to know what those gay men think of marriage, what they think of gender, whether they prefer male or female friends, and on and on on a number of things. I don't buy it. He is not the one to speak for other men. He can only speak for himself. And he should keep that in mind, next time he picks up a pen.

I don't buy his approximations and generalizations on gay men, even though I know there is some degree of truth in them for some. This is one of the worst things about this book. To have him go on and on about everything that's wrong with gay men, when it's obvious his generalizations are simply badly made and one-dimensional, holding up to little more than his own perception of how things are.

While Donovan isn't an unintelligent man, even his logic isn't sound at all times. The arguments he presents against gay marriage, in fact, have little to do with same-sex marriage in particular, and more to do with the institution of marriage in general. Why they've been presented as arguments against same-sex marriage specifically is unclear. None of it comes off convincing, and in the end it looks as if the root of the problem of marriage for Donovan is that it's a ''chick thing''.


So, he's against same-sex marriage but in favor of repealing 'don't ask don't tell'. Apparently, the Western civilization is coming to an end, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because that will destroy families and reduce birth rate (I'm not making this up, Donovan makes such arguments in this book). But gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military in order to ''enlist them in the service of the Western Civilization''. This guy is a wack.


Donovan ends up attempting to tell everyone exactly what kind of a man they should be, and what kind of masculinity is right. But that in itself is completely wrong.

Eventually, I grew tired of his preaching and lecturing. The book that started out quite okay, disintegrated in the latter half entirely. The second half of Androphilia is a joke and not worth the read. It's all downhill toward the end.

Another important facet is that I can't take this author seriously. Having learned about what he's like in real life and what he's involved with, puts a completely different perspective on everything written in here. He's lost his credibility as a person. And the book has lost its credibility along with him.

[Alan Hughes · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had read and enjoyed Jack Donovan's book "The Way of Men" and when I came across Androphilia, while browsing the net, I decided to give it a try. I was probably not the author's target demographic as he describes his book as a 'rant' and 'manifesto' for homosexual men to encourage them to throw of the chains of the gay culture and to rediscover masculinity. That being said, only half of the book is about the gay culture and gay identity, about half is also concerned with the nature of masculinity itself.

I suppose it should be no surprise that someone who has found his desire is directed towards other men would have thought about masculinity and have useful and interesting insights into the nature of 'manliness'. This is not a minor point as Mr Donovan points out :-

"Being male is the fundamental source of identity for every male—before race, class or creed—and being a man affects virtually every aspect of a man’s life"

However, despite the importance of the topic maleness and masculinity receive scant attention in current culture. Indeed, when it is addressed it is more usually in terms of the problems of masculinity rather than consideration of its essence and utility. This unfortunately leaves men, both heterosexual and homosexual, with little opportunity to discuss how to live a life of a good man. Masculine virtues tend not to be recognised and we have a regrettable tendency to pathologize boyish behavioural patterns. He argues we need to try and re-find the masculine codes of behaviour, and this seems pertinent to all men.

"What I’ve suggested here is a loose code of masculine honor, based on values like self-reliance, independence, personal responsibility, integrity, self-respect and respect for other men, that have resonated with males throughout the ages. These values have been common themes in many codes of masculinity, and they’ve inspired countless males to be better men"

The other half of the book concerns the gay culture and I am really unable to appraise this aspect as easily. I share his belief that "Men should be defined by what they do, not who they screw. " but I am less certain that gay culture tends to have deleterious effects :-

"The word gay describes a whole cultural and political movement that promotes anti-male feminism, victim mentality, and leftist politics."
"In response, I believe gay culture is a reproach to manly men. Gay culture critiques, stifles, and qualifies masculinity. It encourages effeminate affectations and effeminate interests."

Though his arguments sound logical and coherent I have no idea how many gay men reject the effeminate aspects of this culture, nor how many share his appreciation of manliness. But I would agree that "The gay community makes sexuality a complete lifestyle, instead of merely a part of life." is a dangerous strategy, a dangerous strategy also promoted by other identity groups.
He can be very scathing in this area, as righteous as only an ex-sinner can be, but sometimes in these, more rant heavy passages, his writing does reveal his humour and wit more clearly.

"It has always seemed like some profoundly ironic cosmic joke to me that the culture of men who love men is a culture that deifies women and celebrates effeminacy."

I'd recommend the book to anyone interested in the subject of masculinity, whatever direction their libido takes, there is a lot of meat in this short book. The present kindle version also include a few essays as appendices which are a pleasant addition, especially his rebuttal of same-sex marriage (or perhaps just marriage) which shows a fresh viewpoint on the subject.

[Pablo Roman · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I picked this book up after hearing a radio interview the author gave, discussing his views on same-sex marriage. For the most part I agreed with his views on same sex marriage. I really can't say the same for the views he expresses in this book. I did sympathise with some of his criticisms of modern gay culture as well as the caricature of masculinity, but otherwise the rest just comes across as one angry man's diatribe.
For one he hates feminist and from what I glean women generally (obvious given that he calls himself an androphile). However I found his overall discussion on historical masculinity and modern masculinity lacklustre and poorly developed. His arguments would potentially have greater strength if he was able to demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the ancient cultures he draws from. However in answer to this his argument that this book is his manifesto and his opinion, as if this relieves him from doing a little more research than just skewing the evidence for his own purposes.
One or my main issues with this book is despite his continual harping on about masculinity and what it means to be a "man" Donovan never actually DEFINES what he sees as masculinity. Instead he rather vaguely relies on the the fact that "masculinity is universally understood." But his arguments and positions he posits I find are flawed and inconsistent. For example on one hand he will posit that masculinity is essential to the male experience, differentiating men and women to the core. Then he goes on to say how masculinity needs to be earned and demonstrated . Surely if masculinity is essential to the male lived experience, it need not be demonstrated on a constant basis, but simple just IS.
What is more infuriating is the manner in which he criticises the stereotypical "sissy" gay yet then encourages gays to be the manly men (that is universally understood of course), by using other stereotypes as examples! This is a crock of shit. This is where the book is at its most disappointing, because it doesn't add anything new to a conversation about how today's man that happens to be gay should live. The hypothetical life he sketches is just as bad as the gay culture he so vehemently criticises in the book. Further the values he promotes towards the end of the book as being "masculine ideals" are universal human traits that everyone and anyone can display regardless of sexuality or gender.
On another note the author comes across as a complete douche bag, that is anti-feminist, and anti-intellectual. It was only upon discovering that he is one of those rare right wing homosexuals after I finished reading the book, that everything made sense. The only reason why I gave it 3 stars (should really be 2.5) is because it made me angry and made me think, fortifying my ideas of what being a "man" actually is. Thankfully it has nothing to do with the dribble that this guy writes about.

[Noah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Careful with this book - Jack Donovan has a deceptively convincing prose that attempts to present a world view of unfettered masculinity free from cultural limitations and social construct in which men can be true men. It is, in fact, a dangerous rant from a man who is so threatened by masculinity in more than one form that he felt the need to write a manifesto. He is an unapologetic misogynist who espouses nationalist views that are divisive and misinformed. He cherry picks history in such an obviously blatant way to promote some warrior fantasy he thinks all men need to embrace in order to be part of "the religion of men". His violent rhetoric is on display from beginning to end. His use of language is aggressive and should be seen as insulting to any man who values the people in his life. Look up Donovan before you read this book, even to have a sense of who he works with and identifies as. He surrounds himself with hateful groups led by white nationalists, and should be held accountable for a message that inspires violent attitudes towards most citizens of our society.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

Misogynistic crap. The dude seems to be trying to justify his existence as a 'real man' gay male and putting down other gay males - and women while he's at it. The chapters are repetitive and the author engages in pages of self-aggrandizing. There is little or no data supporting any of his conclusions.

Not worth the calories.

[Nic]

Being someone who is interested in sexuality and identity I picked up this book assuming it would be a celebration of masculinity and an intelligent critique of gay culture. Boy was I wrong.
This is a truly bizarre rant written by an ultra conservative man who is clearly dealing with some serious internalised misogyny and homophobia despite being a gay man himself.
The book reeks of the privelege of someone who has avoided the routine discrimination, harrassment and violence experienced by many gays because he presents as traditionally masculine and can pass as straight. The author seems to really despise anything he deems to be 'effeminate' and seeks to distance himself from being associated with the disgusting label 'gay'.
The book displays a clear lack of understanding when it comes to sexuality and the nuances of gender expression and lacks empathy or solidarity with gays that have experienced oppression. It was a tedious and disappointing read, but I guess I am just one of those in support of 'the feminist dogma often favoured by lesbians'.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I do not agree with everything Jack Malebranche has to say, but this man deals with man-on-man love in a way that I find very very appealing.

I can't say I've ever struggled with my own sexual identity (things have always been fairly obvious as they have come to me), but I've long struggled with what my choices and instincts in love and sex might mean for my place in the world.

Here the author provides a manifesto (with a whole lot of strongly-worded opinions) for men who love men and manly stuff. This book made me proud to be a man and brought sharper definition to my ideas of manliness.

Gender-benders and queens beware: this book may be thoroughly offensive to you.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Really resonated with me on so many levels. Well thought out concepts and arguments and well written. I found it hard to put down. Also a great segue-way into one of his next books The Way of Men.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally. Someone else who is willing to break the chains that the 'LGB' community has shackled us with. I recommend this book to anyone that thinks there sexuality might lie outside the norm.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing and misogynistic.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

... because gay men can't be masculine because... you know...

The muscle brain jock telling it how it is.

[Sir Nicho · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be honest I have no idea what to rate this. I picked it up because I've read all of his other published works, why not this one too?

There are definitely ideas in here that were precursors to what he put down in The Way of Men. After reading both you can tell why he choose to focus more on the state of masculinity in his later works.

I have no frame of reference for his prognostications regarding gay culture. Suffice to say his opinions on it are his own and I'm sure there are many that are part of that scene that disagree with him or have their own ideas regarding it's pro and cons.

Again, I'm not sure what to rate this as I'm not the target audience and read it out of curiosity and to pretentiously say to anyone who cares (no one does) that I've read all his books.

The parts I did like were the ideas he fleshed out much more thoroughly in The Way of Men. As for the gay identity question, I would suggest reading it whether you agree with his opinions or not, just to challenge yourself or perhaps to look at something in a way you haven't thought of before.

[Beto Laso · Rating 5 out of 5]

Donovan señala al elefante en la habitación dentro de la homosexualidad masculina, no seguir lo que decía Rhom: "Hombre homosexual, recupere y siéntase orgulloso de su virilidad"; podría ser perfectamente el resumen. El ensayo es realmente un manifiesto desde su orientación para todos los gays perdidos y expone el uso que hacen terceros sin buscar el verdadero beneficio para ellos. A su vez platea la adelfopoiesis y otras formas de homosexualidad perenne como alternativa real a la idea de esos mismos terceros sobre como tiene que ser (desde su unilateralidad mental).

[Frederick Hammill · Rating 1 out of 5]

As homophobic as it is boring.

[Ross Johnson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just didn't agree with a lot of the philosophy.

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

First half is a Good read

The first part was a breath of fresh air. I loved it. It echoes since of what I've said about the nature of masculinity. Good stuff and anyone wanting to know about such should read.

What I disagree with:
Effeminate = no good. Gay men are under effeminate and lose all ability to get anything done. It's as if women, kind and nurturing and NOT masculine, never promoted science or art or sport. Androphilesc are not to be drag queens, catty and bitchy, and victims, but REAL men, strong and purposeful. The hyper masculine caricature is said to be that, but better to try to be that than let ANY effeminate traits exist. This entire portion seems like a reaction, a pendulum swing away from his "gay club" days. I understand. After dealing with innefective green party progressives, unable to buy a damn coffee pot in under 3 meetings, I got tired of spineless relativism and went to the Republican side for a while. I get it.

His argument against gay marriage is weak. Basically it boils down this: since a very small minority of gay mean can have a long term relationship, and a small number of then would want children, and most of them would perpetuate effeminate values, be to keep marriage a hetero-only deal. Oh, and the REAL reason of marriage is to have kids. Breeders only. So there.

Again, first half of this was great. Second half was weak.

[Travis W · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't agree with everything Mr. Donovan has to say. Particularly with regard to his issues surrounding marriage (despite it not being something I am interested in for myself). But I will say this. I appreciate his approach to masculinity and share his belief that I have often not seen myself in the more effeminate presentations by many of the LGBTQ community. I never had a problem with these presentations, except when I was criticized as being "self hating" or having internalized homophobia for not wanting to do drag, not idolizing the scene, ect. So I appreciated what the book had to say. My personal politics likely differ greatly from Mr. Donovan's, but the book was a wake up call to me, and one that I could see myself utilizing in parts. So for that, I gave it four stars.

[Bruno Farias · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the main problem that caused this sense of non belonging to the gay community on Jack Donovan, which led him to try to create a whole new identity, is that the community really pushes manly men out. There's no place for them. A man can't be a manly gay without being called heteronormative or straight-acting and they are like that because the old society expects that from them. But what if that is just his truth? Can't a man be "manly"? Not only on the looks, but the interests, the culture, everything? The book isn't deep enough but it feels like it's a great starting point.

[Danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

It certainly made me think. The author has his opinions, and these are made very clear. I would have liked to see more historical references to masculine-oriented homosexual men throughout history (i.e., Sparta, samurai, etc.)

Overall, while I understand and agree with the author's overriding point, that gay culture celebrates effeminacy, I find his views on the importance of gay marriage from a political and societal acceptance standpoint to be poorly constructed.

[Charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a wonderful counterbalance to our frequently unexamined and almost-always destructive assumptions about what it means to be a member of the gay community. Jack Malebranche is definitely generalizing in a lot of cases, but his ideas are certainly provocative in the best of ways. Read it as an intriguing polemic, not academic scholarship.

[Christopher · Rating 1 out of 5]

Here are a few select great ideas about taking to task feminism and the gay establishment backed up with absurd rightest theory and 'social darwinsim'. I wanted to like this book so bad. I was taken with it initially, but ultimately the positions it takes are ludicrous.