What do you think?
Rate this book
Before They Were Men: Essays on Manhood, Compassion, and What Went Wrong
Gender nonconforming thought leader and bestselling author Jacob Tobia offers a paradigm-shifting argument for fundamentally reframing how we think about men.
“A reckoning, a manifesto, a wellspring of curiosity, and an invitation to consider better ways of imagining masculinity.”—Amanda Montell, New York Times bestselling author of The Age of Magical Overthinking, Cultish, and Wordslut
The conversation about masculinity, patriarchy, and misogyny has never been so prominent or heated. Alarmed by a new generation of angry, broken young men, genderqueer writer Jacob Tobia sets out to explore what’s going on and comes to a shocking Emotionally and spiritually speaking, men and boys may be the ones suffering the most under the gender binary right now.
Tobia should know. For their gender-defying adolescent heart, the nonconsensual process of being “made a man” was crushing. After spending a lifetime fleeing manhood and masculinity, they dare to ask the What happens if we stop understanding men as categorical beneficiaries of patriarchal institutions and start understanding them for what they are—co-survivors of patriarchy itself?
In a series of personal and revolutionary essays, Before They Were Men argues that we must rewire much of our framework of feminism. Through this much-needed nonbinary intervention into a two-sided discourse gone stale, Tobia boldly posits compassion and empathy as the forces that will lead men—and us all—to a brighter future. Urgent, surprising, and counterintuitive, their book covers topics such as
the unspoken body image issues and dysmorphia confronting men and boys
the difficulty of challenging a world that glorifies war, aggression, and the violence of men
the case for rethinking, and ultimately retiring, counterproductive terms like “toxic masculinity” and “male privilege”
From exploring the abuse endured by men in the name of gender norms to addressing the myriad failures of feminist discourse in grappling with men’s suffering, this book calls everyone—men, women, and nonbinary people alike—back to the table.
“A reckoning, a manifesto, a wellspring of curiosity, and an invitation to consider better ways of imagining masculinity.”—Amanda Montell, New York Times bestselling author of The Age of Magical Overthinking, Cultish, and Wordslut
The conversation about masculinity, patriarchy, and misogyny has never been so prominent or heated. Alarmed by a new generation of angry, broken young men, genderqueer writer Jacob Tobia sets out to explore what’s going on and comes to a shocking Emotionally and spiritually speaking, men and boys may be the ones suffering the most under the gender binary right now.
Tobia should know. For their gender-defying adolescent heart, the nonconsensual process of being “made a man” was crushing. After spending a lifetime fleeing manhood and masculinity, they dare to ask the What happens if we stop understanding men as categorical beneficiaries of patriarchal institutions and start understanding them for what they are—co-survivors of patriarchy itself?
In a series of personal and revolutionary essays, Before They Were Men argues that we must rewire much of our framework of feminism. Through this much-needed nonbinary intervention into a two-sided discourse gone stale, Tobia boldly posits compassion and empathy as the forces that will lead men—and us all—to a brighter future. Urgent, surprising, and counterintuitive, their book covers topics such as
the unspoken body image issues and dysmorphia confronting men and boys
the difficulty of challenging a world that glorifies war, aggression, and the violence of men
the case for rethinking, and ultimately retiring, counterproductive terms like “toxic masculinity” and “male privilege”
From exploring the abuse endured by men in the name of gender norms to addressing the myriad failures of feminist discourse in grappling with men’s suffering, this book calls everyone—men, women, and nonbinary people alike—back to the table.
Audible Audio
Published August 26, 2025
12 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
About the author
Jacob Tobia
4 books165 followersJacob Tobia (they/them) is an actor, writer, producer, and author of the national bestselling memoir Sissy: A Coming-of-Gender Story. From running across the Brooklyn Bridge in high heels to giving Trevor Noah an on-air makeover on The Daily Show, Jacob helps others embrace the full complexity of their gender, even (and especially) when it’s messy as hell. In addition to adapting their book Sissy into a forthcoming TV series for Showtime, Jacob recently made their acting debut as the nonbinary character “Double Trouble” on Netflix’s She-Ra and The Princesses of Power. Originally from Raleigh, North Carolina, Jacob currently lives in Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
May 8, 2025
Thank you Harmony Marketing and NetGalley for the ARC.
I have to put this book away due to extreme discomfort. I was not expecting this at all and can no longer continue reading this. I was so excited to read a book by a queer, non-binary person about the current state of men in our society. It sounded so interesting and informative and urgent. The first half of the book was fun and interesting; I disagreed with many points but I was grateful for how much the book made me think. And then I got to a chapter called “Get Fucked.” Here’s a quote:
“I’m a firm believer that, on an existential level, EVERY man would benefit from being penetrated by a partner a few times in his life…If you aren’t sure whether or not you’ll enjoy it, that’s precisely the POINT…It’s an experience men should know…It’s ego death and vulnerability, on par with the most powerful psychedelic. It’s about understanding both HUMANITY and your body on a different level.” (emphasis added)
Nowhere in this chapter are ace folks mentioned. Nowhere in this chapter does the author say: “Of course, this only applies to allosexual people, or those interested in having sex.” Instead, anal sex is heralded as this other-worldly experience all men should experience at least once. Being ace, this sentiment is so frustrating and horrifying. Ace people are ALWAYS told: “how do you know you aren’t sexually attracted to people if you never tried having sex before?” Or on a similar note, lesbians are told: “how do you know you’re a lesbian if you’ve never had dick before?” Or gay men are told: “how do you know you’re gay if you’ve never been in pussy before?” And if you HAVE had that experience, then your queerness is more validated. “Ohh, you HAVE had experiences with a dick and didn’t like it? Okay, I guess you really are a lesbian then.”
I’m very upset that someone so educated, compassionate, and involved in many communities would write an entire chapter pressuring men to try anal sex, at least once in their lives.
Anyways, I will not continue reading this book and the following is a review of the first half:
Before They Were Men is a non-fiction book interposing sections of memoir/personal experiences, ways that society has failed to support men, and scenarios on how to bridge these gaps. I agree with the author’s assessments of men, their pain and suffering and isolation. Like how the military and other violent institutions must be overturned. I liked their humor and their writing style (very engaging and vulnerable). What I didn’t like was the blaming, in every single chapter, of the feminist movement for failing to protect men and for allowing men to get to the place they are now.
For example:
1. “We have worked tirelessly to protect women and girls from the violence that is all too prevalent in their lives but have said next to nothing about the violence facing men and boys.”
2. “Men have been ignored. They have been brutalized. They have been told that it is their job to do the policing and soldiering and brutalizing on behalf of us all. They have endured grave gender-based violence…”
3. “Why are we denying men’s anger when we should be helping them better articulate it.”
The author explains that the feminist movement has done so much, yet failed to address any problems men are facing. And that men suffer under the same patriarchal system as women, so why aren’t we helping them too? Okay but…why did the feminist movement start in the first place? Because women helped themselves. It’s the people who suffered who took things into their own hands. If men are feeling discontented and realizing that now, why place so much blame onto non-men? Why put all the work on “us” when we’re still struggling to survive ourselves?
Again, I totally agree that we need to open up conversations and spaces for men to be vulnerable and listened to. I just do not agree with placing all the work on “we.” On “us.” Why not “them” too? Wouldn’t it be more empowering, long-term wise, for men to achieve that vulnerability and community with other men? A movement, one that is compassionate and respectful, spearheaded by men? And yes, queer folks and women can definitely help. We all need to interact with one another and try to understand one another. I just felt really strange about the solutions or the “here’s where ‘we’ went wrong.”
This book feels very much catered to non-men (“we need to do this for men” not “men need to do this for themselves”). As the other reviewer said, I can’t really see straight cis men, the topic of the book, reading this. Especially because the focus on the book’s audience shifts from being mainly “you” “you” “you” (straight cis men) to “us” “us” “we” “we” (non-straight cis men).
Another chapter was about incels and the rise of incel culture. Here is a quote:
“Behind every incel spewing hateful misogyny on the internet is a broken person, someone like me who feels terminally ugly and needs help to find their way out…As a feminist movement, we owe it to ourselves to find a way to help young men escape incel ideology.”
I agree that yes, incels need to be helped. Men need to find community and safety, and places where they can be vulnerable. But AGAIN, I don’t agree with placing the blame and all the work on non-men. Because—at least in the first half of the book—intersectionality is never discussed or mentioned. The author claims they feel at ease for the future of women and the future of queer folks because those communities have the empathy and resources to find ways to survive. But what about intersectionality? What about Black trans women? What about Indigenous queer people? What about non-binary Asian folk? We still have so much more work to protect these marginalized communities. I can see how working on creating safe communities for men can lead to long-term healthy change. Getting men to open up and learn and unlearn can decrease violence against QTBIPOC women. I understand how groundbreaking and beautiful that would be. I just don’t know if that’s the correct approach, right now.
I’m nowhere near as educated or knowledgeable as the author. I’ve never done my own research on any of these topics. I have no accolades or writing experience. I am simply another queer person who works a boring 9-5 and reads in their free time. So take this all with a grain of salt. Ultimately, I am grateful for how much this book made me think about men and society and compassion, until I got to “Get Fucked.”
I have to put this book away due to extreme discomfort. I was not expecting this at all and can no longer continue reading this. I was so excited to read a book by a queer, non-binary person about the current state of men in our society. It sounded so interesting and informative and urgent. The first half of the book was fun and interesting; I disagreed with many points but I was grateful for how much the book made me think. And then I got to a chapter called “Get Fucked.” Here’s a quote:
“I’m a firm believer that, on an existential level, EVERY man would benefit from being penetrated by a partner a few times in his life…If you aren’t sure whether or not you’ll enjoy it, that’s precisely the POINT…It’s an experience men should know…It’s ego death and vulnerability, on par with the most powerful psychedelic. It’s about understanding both HUMANITY and your body on a different level.” (emphasis added)
Nowhere in this chapter are ace folks mentioned. Nowhere in this chapter does the author say: “Of course, this only applies to allosexual people, or those interested in having sex.” Instead, anal sex is heralded as this other-worldly experience all men should experience at least once. Being ace, this sentiment is so frustrating and horrifying. Ace people are ALWAYS told: “how do you know you aren’t sexually attracted to people if you never tried having sex before?” Or on a similar note, lesbians are told: “how do you know you’re a lesbian if you’ve never had dick before?” Or gay men are told: “how do you know you’re gay if you’ve never been in pussy before?” And if you HAVE had that experience, then your queerness is more validated. “Ohh, you HAVE had experiences with a dick and didn’t like it? Okay, I guess you really are a lesbian then.”
I’m very upset that someone so educated, compassionate, and involved in many communities would write an entire chapter pressuring men to try anal sex, at least once in their lives.
Anyways, I will not continue reading this book and the following is a review of the first half:
Before They Were Men is a non-fiction book interposing sections of memoir/personal experiences, ways that society has failed to support men, and scenarios on how to bridge these gaps. I agree with the author’s assessments of men, their pain and suffering and isolation. Like how the military and other violent institutions must be overturned. I liked their humor and their writing style (very engaging and vulnerable). What I didn’t like was the blaming, in every single chapter, of the feminist movement for failing to protect men and for allowing men to get to the place they are now.
For example:
1. “We have worked tirelessly to protect women and girls from the violence that is all too prevalent in their lives but have said next to nothing about the violence facing men and boys.”
2. “Men have been ignored. They have been brutalized. They have been told that it is their job to do the policing and soldiering and brutalizing on behalf of us all. They have endured grave gender-based violence…”
3. “Why are we denying men’s anger when we should be helping them better articulate it.”
The author explains that the feminist movement has done so much, yet failed to address any problems men are facing. And that men suffer under the same patriarchal system as women, so why aren’t we helping them too? Okay but…why did the feminist movement start in the first place? Because women helped themselves. It’s the people who suffered who took things into their own hands. If men are feeling discontented and realizing that now, why place so much blame onto non-men? Why put all the work on “us” when we’re still struggling to survive ourselves?
Again, I totally agree that we need to open up conversations and spaces for men to be vulnerable and listened to. I just do not agree with placing all the work on “we.” On “us.” Why not “them” too? Wouldn’t it be more empowering, long-term wise, for men to achieve that vulnerability and community with other men? A movement, one that is compassionate and respectful, spearheaded by men? And yes, queer folks and women can definitely help. We all need to interact with one another and try to understand one another. I just felt really strange about the solutions or the “here’s where ‘we’ went wrong.”
This book feels very much catered to non-men (“we need to do this for men” not “men need to do this for themselves”). As the other reviewer said, I can’t really see straight cis men, the topic of the book, reading this. Especially because the focus on the book’s audience shifts from being mainly “you” “you” “you” (straight cis men) to “us” “us” “we” “we” (non-straight cis men).
Another chapter was about incels and the rise of incel culture. Here is a quote:
“Behind every incel spewing hateful misogyny on the internet is a broken person, someone like me who feels terminally ugly and needs help to find their way out…As a feminist movement, we owe it to ourselves to find a way to help young men escape incel ideology.”
I agree that yes, incels need to be helped. Men need to find community and safety, and places where they can be vulnerable. But AGAIN, I don’t agree with placing the blame and all the work on non-men. Because—at least in the first half of the book—intersectionality is never discussed or mentioned. The author claims they feel at ease for the future of women and the future of queer folks because those communities have the empathy and resources to find ways to survive. But what about intersectionality? What about Black trans women? What about Indigenous queer people? What about non-binary Asian folk? We still have so much more work to protect these marginalized communities. I can see how working on creating safe communities for men can lead to long-term healthy change. Getting men to open up and learn and unlearn can decrease violence against QTBIPOC women. I understand how groundbreaking and beautiful that would be. I just don’t know if that’s the correct approach, right now.
I’m nowhere near as educated or knowledgeable as the author. I’ve never done my own research on any of these topics. I have no accolades or writing experience. I am simply another queer person who works a boring 9-5 and reads in their free time. So take this all with a grain of salt. Ultimately, I am grateful for how much this book made me think about men and society and compassion, until I got to “Get Fucked.”
October 12, 2025
I picked up this book and was excited to read it because I had specifically been thinking about modern men, compassion, masculinity, and where we are failing them.
For that reason alone this has been one of the most disappointing books I have read. Not only does this book not concern itself with masculinity- what it does offer is flat monolithic caricatures of masculinity, feminism, and everything in between. This book is ingratiatingly self serving. It is not a book for men, it is a book for Jacob Tobia. While I think Jacob’s experience is important, their experience seems to be the only thing that matters in this book. Further, their experience is not informative to understanding masculinity or manhood. The essays feel shallow or unresearched, relying primarily on Tobia’s assumptions about the male experience and what they need which is inappropriately reflective of their own struggles with gender.
On the actual subject of compassion there seem to be two camps in Tobia’s ontology: Us (gender non conforming people and women) and them (masculine presenting men). Compassion is something that needs to flow from us to them. It falls flat. Many of Tobia’s proposals are theoretical and hollow: offer conversation to incels, anal sex for all men, abolish the prison system in guise of reform. The weight of change is placed on us, but no concrete avenues for change are provided. Perhaps what men need is compassion for each other. Perhaps instead of centering Tobia’s authority as a non binary individual, men need change, compassion, and exemplars from other men.
I have so many qualms with this book, but I will end with this: this book despite its assumptions of progressivism, is deeply rooted in a lack of intersectionality. Like I mentioned before, it’s flat. The idea of feminism is reflective of one branch of white feminism, which yes is a harmful branch, but Tobia should acknowledge it is only a branch of feminism. How irresponsible is it to make broad strokes painting all feminism as one restrictive thing, ignoring the work of authors who came before you discussing this very thing ie bell hooks? This book also ignores the fact that the harms of masculinity are also bound up in class, race, and culture. This is one of the problems men suffer from: placing men into one big camp. We need more complexity in our discussions. Men need to be treated with respect to their differing identities.
Anyways, that was rambling, but I’m curious to see what Tobia’s first book is about. If it is specifically about their own experience I would imagine it is far more effective. Tobia has a rich story and voice, but has made a deeply flawed attempt as a voice of authority in advocacy for men. I would be much more interested in a Tobia book for and about Tobia, because that was what this book was.
EDIT:: I just watched an interview between Chris Voss and Jacob Tobia, and I think it highlighted the problems I have with this book. Chris Voss is the exact archetype Jacob is imagining this book catering to a hyper “masculine” man who feels he doesn’t deserve love and must crawl on his belly through the desert to deserve love. The conversation reminded me that Jacob and I do agree on many of the fundamental basics of this conversation. On the other hand it revealed two issues: one, there is a major disconnect between Jacob’s speech/rhetoric and men like Chris Voss, the narrative just doesn’t connect to them in a way that will penetrate or leave a lasting impression. For these “manly men” Jacob’s basic understandings of the world simply do not translate. And on the other hand this book was written to break down assumptions men like Chris Voss have BUT most young men these days are not exactly like Chris Voss. There is need but it’s far more complex than what this book offers.
For that reason alone this has been one of the most disappointing books I have read. Not only does this book not concern itself with masculinity- what it does offer is flat monolithic caricatures of masculinity, feminism, and everything in between. This book is ingratiatingly self serving. It is not a book for men, it is a book for Jacob Tobia. While I think Jacob’s experience is important, their experience seems to be the only thing that matters in this book. Further, their experience is not informative to understanding masculinity or manhood. The essays feel shallow or unresearched, relying primarily on Tobia’s assumptions about the male experience and what they need which is inappropriately reflective of their own struggles with gender.
On the actual subject of compassion there seem to be two camps in Tobia’s ontology: Us (gender non conforming people and women) and them (masculine presenting men). Compassion is something that needs to flow from us to them. It falls flat. Many of Tobia’s proposals are theoretical and hollow: offer conversation to incels, anal sex for all men, abolish the prison system in guise of reform. The weight of change is placed on us, but no concrete avenues for change are provided. Perhaps what men need is compassion for each other. Perhaps instead of centering Tobia’s authority as a non binary individual, men need change, compassion, and exemplars from other men.
I have so many qualms with this book, but I will end with this: this book despite its assumptions of progressivism, is deeply rooted in a lack of intersectionality. Like I mentioned before, it’s flat. The idea of feminism is reflective of one branch of white feminism, which yes is a harmful branch, but Tobia should acknowledge it is only a branch of feminism. How irresponsible is it to make broad strokes painting all feminism as one restrictive thing, ignoring the work of authors who came before you discussing this very thing ie bell hooks? This book also ignores the fact that the harms of masculinity are also bound up in class, race, and culture. This is one of the problems men suffer from: placing men into one big camp. We need more complexity in our discussions. Men need to be treated with respect to their differing identities.
Anyways, that was rambling, but I’m curious to see what Tobia’s first book is about. If it is specifically about their own experience I would imagine it is far more effective. Tobia has a rich story and voice, but has made a deeply flawed attempt as a voice of authority in advocacy for men. I would be much more interested in a Tobia book for and about Tobia, because that was what this book was.
EDIT:: I just watched an interview between Chris Voss and Jacob Tobia, and I think it highlighted the problems I have with this book. Chris Voss is the exact archetype Jacob is imagining this book catering to a hyper “masculine” man who feels he doesn’t deserve love and must crawl on his belly through the desert to deserve love. The conversation reminded me that Jacob and I do agree on many of the fundamental basics of this conversation. On the other hand it revealed two issues: one, there is a major disconnect between Jacob’s speech/rhetoric and men like Chris Voss, the narrative just doesn’t connect to them in a way that will penetrate or leave a lasting impression. For these “manly men” Jacob’s basic understandings of the world simply do not translate. And on the other hand this book was written to break down assumptions men like Chris Voss have BUT most young men these days are not exactly like Chris Voss. There is need but it’s far more complex than what this book offers.
October 22, 2025
Sigh.
I expected a lot more from this. My biggest book pet peeve is when marketing/title/etc makes a book sound like one thing and then the experience of reading it is completely different. I expected this to be made up of related essays talking about masculinity and the issues that social masculinization poses for society. Instead, it was a strange attempt at (humorous) memoir, criticism of modern feminist semantics, and sympathizing with some of the worst iterations of 'toxic masculinity' (including sympathizing w/ Harvey Weinstein and self-identified incels). I think the author was too caught up in trying to appeal to cis men and sacrificed various others (often the victims of the abuses of cis men) and erased the realities of how terrible 'men' can be to others in that attempt.
It is 85% y i k e s and thankfully improved near the end, but not enough to save the whole.
P. S. I am compassionate to the premise of the book that posits that "before they were men, they were children," but this idea did not follow through for me. It may be true that men were first children, but they aren't children anymore, and that reality does not seem to be grappled with by the author. If it was interrogated, I think a lot of the book's arguments would fall through.
I expected a lot more from this. My biggest book pet peeve is when marketing/title/etc makes a book sound like one thing and then the experience of reading it is completely different. I expected this to be made up of related essays talking about masculinity and the issues that social masculinization poses for society. Instead, it was a strange attempt at (humorous) memoir, criticism of modern feminist semantics, and sympathizing with some of the worst iterations of 'toxic masculinity' (including sympathizing w/ Harvey Weinstein and self-identified incels). I think the author was too caught up in trying to appeal to cis men and sacrificed various others (often the victims of the abuses of cis men) and erased the realities of how terrible 'men' can be to others in that attempt.
It is 85% y i k e s and thankfully improved near the end, but not enough to save the whole.
P. S. I am compassionate to the premise of the book that posits that "before they were men, they were children," but this idea did not follow through for me. It may be true that men were first children, but they aren't children anymore, and that reality does not seem to be grappled with by the author. If it was interrogated, I think a lot of the book's arguments would fall through.
August 12, 2025
As a genderqueer person, Jacob Tobia has been called everything under the sun, but it’s time we start calling them a gender revolutionary. In these essays on masculinity, Tobia goes above and beyond to explore the intersection of masculinity and feminism, and how both are the consequence of patriarchy. This book is deeply personal to Tobia’s lived experiences which serve as the genesis of their perspectives on masculinity. The arguments are thought-provoking and persuasive, and even if you don’t agree 100% with every single argument, the analytical part of your brain will get plenty to chew on. For example, Tobia’s argument that the term ‘privilege’ is counterproductive because “a rights-based framework—rather than a privilege-based framework—ensures that we are speaking with far greater moral clarity.”
I’ve read and loved many other feminist books on masculinity, and this one deserves to sit high up in those ranks. Tobia doesn’t condemn masculinity, nor excuse it. There are well-informed critiques of certain aspects of feminism, particularly views that inadvertently reinforce gendered binaries: “We are not speaking about what we lack that some men (sometimes, often rarely) have; we are speaking about the rights we all deserve. We are being clear that, as a feminist movement, we have no interest in a mutually exclusive game. That we have no interest in taking privileges from men, only in securing fundamental rights for ourselves, too.”
I couldn’t stop with my real and metaphorical highlighter, occasionally gasping at how on the nose Tobia was and even snapping my fingers in poetic appreciation. This book will absolutely be polarizing and won’t be for everyone, even if it should be; but if you approach with a nonbinary curiosity and a desire for a fresh take, this book will have you talking. And at the end of the day, that’s really Tobia’s goal: reframing how we think, and talk, about men.
Reviewed as part of #ARC from #NetGalley. Many thanks to Harmony / Rodale for the #gifted copy in exchange for an honest review.
Read this book if you like:
💬 gender justice conversations
🧠 expand-your-mind reads
♂ shifting the paradigm on masculinity
Follow me on Instagram for more book reviews!
I’ve read and loved many other feminist books on masculinity, and this one deserves to sit high up in those ranks. Tobia doesn’t condemn masculinity, nor excuse it. There are well-informed critiques of certain aspects of feminism, particularly views that inadvertently reinforce gendered binaries: “We are not speaking about what we lack that some men (sometimes, often rarely) have; we are speaking about the rights we all deserve. We are being clear that, as a feminist movement, we have no interest in a mutually exclusive game. That we have no interest in taking privileges from men, only in securing fundamental rights for ourselves, too.”
I couldn’t stop with my real and metaphorical highlighter, occasionally gasping at how on the nose Tobia was and even snapping my fingers in poetic appreciation. This book will absolutely be polarizing and won’t be for everyone, even if it should be; but if you approach with a nonbinary curiosity and a desire for a fresh take, this book will have you talking. And at the end of the day, that’s really Tobia’s goal: reframing how we think, and talk, about men.
Reviewed as part of #ARC from #NetGalley. Many thanks to Harmony / Rodale for the #gifted copy in exchange for an honest review.
Read this book if you like:
💬 gender justice conversations
🧠 expand-your-mind reads
♂ shifting the paradigm on masculinity
Follow me on Instagram for more book reviews!
December 2, 2025
The only reason this book is receiving so much hate is because neoliberal feminists are opening it hoping to receive further validation on how manhood and masculinity have corrupted their lives. Instead they are shown a mirror of how them and their “male tears” coffee mugs are perpetrators of gender violence and pushing men further into the arms of the alt right. Rather than embracing men as co-sufferers of a patriarchal society, feminists are constantly painting them as the enemy then wondering why we are losing good men to alt right propaganda. But before they were men looking for community, they were children. They were children who were given GI Joes, taught masculinity is inherently violent, and being groomed into soldiers. They were children who were told to hide their tears and now are shamed for not being able to cry. If we as feminists believe that the patriarchy affects everyone, why are we not comforting and extending empathy to men? Why are we leaving them to continually struggle with their own gender violence alone?
As a trans man, there are a lot of jokes made by me and those around me along the lines of “why would you choose to be a man?” While it can be good natured on the surface, it is also an acknowledgment of how feminists have written men off as the opponents in gender wars rather than fellow victims. In my decade of being trans, I have had to constantly reevaluate my masculinity and have been responsible for perpetuating toxic forms of it. Thankfully my years of living as a “woman” have made this process easier but I can’t imagine the trauma a young boy must feel when societal expectation of “masculinity” have been pushed on him for years only to be called toxic by a community allegedly pushing for equality. Tobia’s introduction of the term “safe masculinity” feels like a game changer and I hope is adopted by more feminists.
While I can’t say I agree with everything stated in this book from front to back (the entire privilege chapter can be skipped as it is a gross, purposeful misunderstanding of what privilege is and dismisses how the denial of it is harmful), I think Tobia is starting an important conversation and is speaking on what all of us have been afraid to acknowledge because we fear it will take away from focus on women’s suffering. On the contrary, it proves how far patriarchy reaches. No one is truly safe from it and we are only putting ourselves in more danger when we dismiss the gender trauma men experience. If you’re a feminist desperately clinging onto your anger at men for their existence, you’re not ready for this book
As a trans man, there are a lot of jokes made by me and those around me along the lines of “why would you choose to be a man?” While it can be good natured on the surface, it is also an acknowledgment of how feminists have written men off as the opponents in gender wars rather than fellow victims. In my decade of being trans, I have had to constantly reevaluate my masculinity and have been responsible for perpetuating toxic forms of it. Thankfully my years of living as a “woman” have made this process easier but I can’t imagine the trauma a young boy must feel when societal expectation of “masculinity” have been pushed on him for years only to be called toxic by a community allegedly pushing for equality. Tobia’s introduction of the term “safe masculinity” feels like a game changer and I hope is adopted by more feminists.
While I can’t say I agree with everything stated in this book from front to back (the entire privilege chapter can be skipped as it is a gross, purposeful misunderstanding of what privilege is and dismisses how the denial of it is harmful), I think Tobia is starting an important conversation and is speaking on what all of us have been afraid to acknowledge because we fear it will take away from focus on women’s suffering. On the contrary, it proves how far patriarchy reaches. No one is truly safe from it and we are only putting ourselves in more danger when we dismiss the gender trauma men experience. If you’re a feminist desperately clinging onto your anger at men for their existence, you’re not ready for this book
October 5, 2025
[English below]
Han slår i den här boken ett slag för att se den andres vinkel när man kommer upp mot deras känslor och börjar boken med en anekdot om hur den som utsätter dig för något: förtryck, taskigheter och våld är själva sitt första offer.
Sen förklarar han hur man som man blivit fostrad att hålla ihop och bära sin manlighet med en anekdot om att en riktig man plockar upp sina inälvor och bär dem med sig.
Han trycker även särskilt på att innan de var män så var det barn - och pekar här kanske på vad som blir fel? Om du fostras att inte tillstå dina sår eller känna några känslor så fastnar känslorna i barnstadiet?
Han visar även hur och när sårbarheten dör för män - hur den mobbas bort i klassrummen och att det där är en konstant fostran i manlighet som gör att du bitvis helt utplånar sårbarheten för att få tillhöra i gruppen "män".
- Jag tror den ilska vi ser från män nu handlar om det - inte om att få sätta dagordningen utan om att vara "utanför tillsammans" och att män inte känner sig förstådda i det.
Man har fostrats till det stoiska och fått offra mycket för det - och nu är det som att ingen tacksam - så de vänder sig till de som är det - det vill säga andra män. (Men tyvärr män som i slutändan vill utnyttja dem..)
Han menar att vi skurkifierat män samtidigt som ha menar att de lider mest av könsrollerna är just män.
Han menar att de är minst starka (-förutom fysiskt), minst fria (i deras rigida mansroll) och har minst verktyg till att kunna hantera sina könstrauman (-i och med utrotandet av deras känsloliv). Han menar att det är därför de slåss, sårar och stänger av (-med alkohol, droger, sex och spel).
Han menar dock att de som deserterar mansrollen straffas med våld, fattigdom eller döden - och han menar att alla män deltar i detta och förhåller sig "manligheten" även om de tar, som han uttrycker det, ett skrivbordsjobb i "armén av män".
Och han menar att alla män deltar i någon mån i att "göra våld" eller dominera.
Samtidigt menar han att när man mördar någon annan för att få äta så existerar inga vinnare (...) och när män mobbar varandra för att få delta i gruppen "män" så är självkänslan hos de som gör det redan låg.
Han illustrerar det med att hundar inte skäller för att de är arga utan för att de är rädda och vill markera en gräns.. - Men de skäller också på oss för att de ser oss som de som har makt och kontroll över hur deras liv ter sig..
Han menar att den enda vägen framåt i könskrigen är genom empati - inte för att män nödvändigtvis är värda det men för att det är den enda vägen framåt.
Han förklarar hur män är arga på honom som trans för att han bryter könsnormerna - de könsnormer många män har betalat så mycket för att få tillhöra.
Han menar att man sätter män i en Kafka-fälla med termer som "toxisk manlighet". - Det finns en manlighetsnorm som man fostrats till att följa för att få vara man - samtidigt som (de flesta) kvinnor inte uppskattar den manligheten nu.
- Motreaktionen blir från mäns sida att attackera kvinnor och säga att de bör få mindre att säga till om om de inte uppskattar den manlighet som är - det för att tillhörigheten i manligheten är viktigare än att behaga kvinnor i ett hierarkiskt samhälle - utifrån ovanstående orsaker.
Han talar även om armén och USA:s roll i världen. Om hur många soldater har gått ut i krig bara för att upptäcka att de inte alls slogs för "frihet" och "införandet av demokrati" utan kanske snarare för USA:s strikta ekonomiska intressen - och vad det gör för deras mående och självkänsla.
Han talar om hur vi genom kulturen har groomat män till att slåss i andra mäns krig genom att ha normaliserat våld - genom filmer och data-spel men även genom GI-Joe och andra krigsleksaker.
- I Amerika uppfostras fattiga pojkar till att kriga och rekryteras med sjukvårdsplan och chans till högre studier (om du överlever).
Han talar samtidigt om att krig förstör mäns kroppar! Och menar att krig är gender-based violence.
Dessutom blir män inte upplärda i hur de sedan ska hantera sina krigstrauman.
De fattar tillslut att de var där för att söndra och att det aldrig handlade om att skapa demokrati.
De blev lurade att behandla skuldlösa människor som de var terrorister och efter kriget förlorar veteraner många vänner till droger eller självmord.
Vi har uppfostrat våra söner till att njuta av våld i våra filmer och i våldsamma dataspel och lekar - att det är förväntat av dem. De och vi är groomade till det menar han samtidigt som han ifrågasätter det faktum att krig har man alltid råd med men inte välfärd.
Han talar vidare om hur även var 6:e man har utsatts för sexuella övergrepp och hur man kan lura en man att tro att "han ville det" genom att säga att män inte kan få stånd utan att vilja det.
Män kan få stånd av mekanisk stimulering och det lämnar nästintill oläkbara sår att tro att man ville ett övergrepp.
Han efterfrågar slutligen sympati för incels för att de är pojkar med dålig självkänsla som mår dåligt.
Kanske vet högergubbarna hur man systematiserar narcissism och därför har de nu fått ner mäns självförtroende, fått dem att spela en manlighet bara män tänder på, sett till att de inte har jobb samt boende och sen fått dem att rikta den ilskan mot oss - kvinnor och invandrare?
Dessutom pekar han på att om vi får bilden av att vi är attackerade så blir vi som folk även mer lydiga de ledare som vi tror kan skydda oss. Och att det är denna "siege mentality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_m...) som framkallas av media och troll på nätet.
Han tar upp att deal:en män går in i är en deal med djävulen - de vinner manliga privilegier men de förlorar så mycket mer?
Hans unika syn; Att vara man som lämnat sitt kön (trans) menar han ger honom en unik syn på manligheten och vad den innebär eftersom det han har gjort är att överge den.
Jag ÄLSKADE perspektivet i den här boken och den fick mig att inse många saker.. men den tappade rejält i slutet då han försöker ge lösningar för män och lösningen skulle vara att testa att bli penetrerad?!?
_________
English:
He makes a case in this book for seeing from the other person’s angle when you come up against their emotions, beginning with an anecdote about how the one who hurts you—through oppression, cruelty, or violence—is themselves their own first victim.
He then explains how men are raised to “hold themselves together” and carry their manhood, using an anecdote about how a “real man” picks up his own intestines and carries them with him.
He especially emphasizes that before they were men, they were children—and perhaps that’s where things go wrong. If you’re raised never to admit your wounds or feelings, your emotions get stuck in childhood.
He shows how and when men’s vulnerability dies—how it’s bullied out of them in classrooms—and that this constant social training in “manhood” gradually erases vulnerability altogether, just to belong to the group called “men.”
I think the anger we’re seeing from men today comes from that—not from a desire to set the agenda, but from being “outsiders together,” feeling misunderstood in that experience.
They’ve been trained into stoicism and sacrificed a lot for it—and now it’s as if no one’s grateful, so they turn to those who are: other men. (Unfortunately, often men who end up exploiting them.)
He argues that we’ve villainized men, while at the same time, they are the ones suffering the most under gender roles.
He says they are the least strong (except physically), the least free (trapped in rigid masculinity), and have the fewest tools to deal with their gender trauma (because their emotional lives have been wiped out). That’s why they fight, hurt, and shut down—perhaps with alcohol, drugs, sex, and gaming.
He also claims that men who desert the masculine role are punished—with violence, poverty, or death—and that all men participate in and relate to “manhood,” even if, as he puts it, they take a desk job in the “army of men.”
He says all men, to some degree, take part in doing violence or domination.
At the same time, he points out that when you kill another person to eat, there are no winners (...), and when men bully each other to belong to the group “men,” the self-esteem of those doing it is already at rock bottom.
He illustrates this with dogs: they don’t bark because they’re angry, but because they’re afraid and trying to set a boundary. They also bark because they see themselves as the ones with power and control.
He argues that the only way forward in the gender wars is through empathy—not because men necessarily deserve it, but because it’s the only way forward.
He describes how men get angry at him as a trans person because he breaks the gender norms—norms that many men have paid a heavy price to belong to.
He says we’ve put men in a Kafka trap with terms like “toxic masculinity.” There’s a masculine code men have been taught to follow to be accepted as men—and now (most) women no longer value that masculinity.
The backlash, then, is that men attack women, arguing that women should have less say if they don’t appreciate the masculinity that is, because belonging to manhood matters more in a hierarchical society, for all the reasons mentioned above.
He also talks about the military and America’s role in the world—how many soldiers went to war believing they fought for “freedom” and “democracy,” only to realize they were fighting for America’s economic interests—and what that realization does to their mental health.
He explores how violence has been normalized through culture—movies, video games, even war toys.
In America, poor boys are raised to fight, recruited with health insurance and a chance at higher education (if they survive).
He stresses that war destroys men’s bodies—and argues that war is gender-based violence.
Men also aren’t taught how to process their war trauma.
Eventually, they realize they were sent to destroy, not to create democracy.
They were tricked into treating innocent people as terrorists, and after the war, many veterans loses friends to drugs or suicide.
We’ve raised our sons to enjoy violence in films, games, and play. It’s expected of them.
He says we’ve all been groomed into this culture, even as he questions why we always have money for war but never for welfare.
He goes on to describe how one in six men has experienced sexual abuse, and how you can make a man believe he “wanted it” by saying that men can’t get an erection without consent.
But men can get an erection from mechanical stimulation, and it leaves nearly unhealable wounds to believe you wanted an assault.
Finally, he calls for sympathy for incels, arguing that they’re boys with low self-esteem who are in pain.
Maybe the far-right figures have systematized narcissism so effectively that they’ve managed to crush men’s confidence, made them perform a masculinity that only men desire, ensured they have no jobs or homes—and then redirected their anger toward us: women and immigrants.
He also points out that when we believe we’re under attack, we as a people become more obedient to leaders we think can protect us. This “siege mentality,” he says, is deliberately cultivated by media and online trolls.
He argues that the deal men make is a deal with the devil—they gain male privileges but lose so much more.
His unique perspective—as a man who has left his gender (trans)—gives him a rare insight into masculinity and what it means, precisely because he has chosen to abandon it.
I loved the perspective of this book(!)—it made me realize so many things! But it lost me at the end, when he tried to offer solutions for men, and his suggestion was... that they should try being penetrated?!
Han slår i den här boken ett slag för att se den andres vinkel när man kommer upp mot deras känslor och börjar boken med en anekdot om hur den som utsätter dig för något: förtryck, taskigheter och våld är själva sitt första offer.
Sen förklarar han hur man som man blivit fostrad att hålla ihop och bära sin manlighet med en anekdot om att en riktig man plockar upp sina inälvor och bär dem med sig.
Han trycker även särskilt på att innan de var män så var det barn - och pekar här kanske på vad som blir fel? Om du fostras att inte tillstå dina sår eller känna några känslor så fastnar känslorna i barnstadiet?
Han visar även hur och när sårbarheten dör för män - hur den mobbas bort i klassrummen och att det där är en konstant fostran i manlighet som gör att du bitvis helt utplånar sårbarheten för att få tillhöra i gruppen "män".
- Jag tror den ilska vi ser från män nu handlar om det - inte om att få sätta dagordningen utan om att vara "utanför tillsammans" och att män inte känner sig förstådda i det.
Man har fostrats till det stoiska och fått offra mycket för det - och nu är det som att ingen tacksam - så de vänder sig till de som är det - det vill säga andra män. (Men tyvärr män som i slutändan vill utnyttja dem..)
Han menar att vi skurkifierat män samtidigt som ha menar att de lider mest av könsrollerna är just män.
Han menar att de är minst starka (-förutom fysiskt), minst fria (i deras rigida mansroll) och har minst verktyg till att kunna hantera sina könstrauman (-i och med utrotandet av deras känsloliv). Han menar att det är därför de slåss, sårar och stänger av (-med alkohol, droger, sex och spel).
Han menar dock att de som deserterar mansrollen straffas med våld, fattigdom eller döden - och han menar att alla män deltar i detta och förhåller sig "manligheten" även om de tar, som han uttrycker det, ett skrivbordsjobb i "armén av män".
Och han menar att alla män deltar i någon mån i att "göra våld" eller dominera.
Samtidigt menar han att när man mördar någon annan för att få äta så existerar inga vinnare (...) och när män mobbar varandra för att få delta i gruppen "män" så är självkänslan hos de som gör det redan låg.
Han illustrerar det med att hundar inte skäller för att de är arga utan för att de är rädda och vill markera en gräns.. - Men de skäller också på oss för att de ser oss som de som har makt och kontroll över hur deras liv ter sig..
Han menar att den enda vägen framåt i könskrigen är genom empati - inte för att män nödvändigtvis är värda det men för att det är den enda vägen framåt.
Han förklarar hur män är arga på honom som trans för att han bryter könsnormerna - de könsnormer många män har betalat så mycket för att få tillhöra.
Han menar att man sätter män i en Kafka-fälla med termer som "toxisk manlighet". - Det finns en manlighetsnorm som man fostrats till att följa för att få vara man - samtidigt som (de flesta) kvinnor inte uppskattar den manligheten nu.
- Motreaktionen blir från mäns sida att attackera kvinnor och säga att de bör få mindre att säga till om om de inte uppskattar den manlighet som är - det för att tillhörigheten i manligheten är viktigare än att behaga kvinnor i ett hierarkiskt samhälle - utifrån ovanstående orsaker.
Han talar även om armén och USA:s roll i världen. Om hur många soldater har gått ut i krig bara för att upptäcka att de inte alls slogs för "frihet" och "införandet av demokrati" utan kanske snarare för USA:s strikta ekonomiska intressen - och vad det gör för deras mående och självkänsla.
Han talar om hur vi genom kulturen har groomat män till att slåss i andra mäns krig genom att ha normaliserat våld - genom filmer och data-spel men även genom GI-Joe och andra krigsleksaker.
- I Amerika uppfostras fattiga pojkar till att kriga och rekryteras med sjukvårdsplan och chans till högre studier (om du överlever).
Han talar samtidigt om att krig förstör mäns kroppar! Och menar att krig är gender-based violence.
Dessutom blir män inte upplärda i hur de sedan ska hantera sina krigstrauman.
De fattar tillslut att de var där för att söndra och att det aldrig handlade om att skapa demokrati.
De blev lurade att behandla skuldlösa människor som de var terrorister och efter kriget förlorar veteraner många vänner till droger eller självmord.
Vi har uppfostrat våra söner till att njuta av våld i våra filmer och i våldsamma dataspel och lekar - att det är förväntat av dem. De och vi är groomade till det menar han samtidigt som han ifrågasätter det faktum att krig har man alltid råd med men inte välfärd.
Han talar vidare om hur även var 6:e man har utsatts för sexuella övergrepp och hur man kan lura en man att tro att "han ville det" genom att säga att män inte kan få stånd utan att vilja det.
Män kan få stånd av mekanisk stimulering och det lämnar nästintill oläkbara sår att tro att man ville ett övergrepp.
Han efterfrågar slutligen sympati för incels för att de är pojkar med dålig självkänsla som mår dåligt.
Kanske vet högergubbarna hur man systematiserar narcissism och därför har de nu fått ner mäns självförtroende, fått dem att spela en manlighet bara män tänder på, sett till att de inte har jobb samt boende och sen fått dem att rikta den ilskan mot oss - kvinnor och invandrare?
Dessutom pekar han på att om vi får bilden av att vi är attackerade så blir vi som folk även mer lydiga de ledare som vi tror kan skydda oss. Och att det är denna "siege mentality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_m...) som framkallas av media och troll på nätet.
Han tar upp att deal:en män går in i är en deal med djävulen - de vinner manliga privilegier men de förlorar så mycket mer?
Hans unika syn; Att vara man som lämnat sitt kön (trans) menar han ger honom en unik syn på manligheten och vad den innebär eftersom det han har gjort är att överge den.
Jag ÄLSKADE perspektivet i den här boken och den fick mig att inse många saker.. men den tappade rejält i slutet då han försöker ge lösningar för män och lösningen skulle vara att testa att bli penetrerad?!?
_________
English:
He makes a case in this book for seeing from the other person’s angle when you come up against their emotions, beginning with an anecdote about how the one who hurts you—through oppression, cruelty, or violence—is themselves their own first victim.
He then explains how men are raised to “hold themselves together” and carry their manhood, using an anecdote about how a “real man” picks up his own intestines and carries them with him.
He especially emphasizes that before they were men, they were children—and perhaps that’s where things go wrong. If you’re raised never to admit your wounds or feelings, your emotions get stuck in childhood.
He shows how and when men’s vulnerability dies—how it’s bullied out of them in classrooms—and that this constant social training in “manhood” gradually erases vulnerability altogether, just to belong to the group called “men.”
I think the anger we’re seeing from men today comes from that—not from a desire to set the agenda, but from being “outsiders together,” feeling misunderstood in that experience.
They’ve been trained into stoicism and sacrificed a lot for it—and now it’s as if no one’s grateful, so they turn to those who are: other men. (Unfortunately, often men who end up exploiting them.)
He argues that we’ve villainized men, while at the same time, they are the ones suffering the most under gender roles.
He says they are the least strong (except physically), the least free (trapped in rigid masculinity), and have the fewest tools to deal with their gender trauma (because their emotional lives have been wiped out). That’s why they fight, hurt, and shut down—perhaps with alcohol, drugs, sex, and gaming.
He also claims that men who desert the masculine role are punished—with violence, poverty, or death—and that all men participate in and relate to “manhood,” even if, as he puts it, they take a desk job in the “army of men.”
He says all men, to some degree, take part in doing violence or domination.
At the same time, he points out that when you kill another person to eat, there are no winners (...), and when men bully each other to belong to the group “men,” the self-esteem of those doing it is already at rock bottom.
He illustrates this with dogs: they don’t bark because they’re angry, but because they’re afraid and trying to set a boundary. They also bark because they see themselves as the ones with power and control.
He argues that the only way forward in the gender wars is through empathy—not because men necessarily deserve it, but because it’s the only way forward.
He describes how men get angry at him as a trans person because he breaks the gender norms—norms that many men have paid a heavy price to belong to.
He says we’ve put men in a Kafka trap with terms like “toxic masculinity.” There’s a masculine code men have been taught to follow to be accepted as men—and now (most) women no longer value that masculinity.
The backlash, then, is that men attack women, arguing that women should have less say if they don’t appreciate the masculinity that is, because belonging to manhood matters more in a hierarchical society, for all the reasons mentioned above.
He also talks about the military and America’s role in the world—how many soldiers went to war believing they fought for “freedom” and “democracy,” only to realize they were fighting for America’s economic interests—and what that realization does to their mental health.
He explores how violence has been normalized through culture—movies, video games, even war toys.
In America, poor boys are raised to fight, recruited with health insurance and a chance at higher education (if they survive).
He stresses that war destroys men’s bodies—and argues that war is gender-based violence.
Men also aren’t taught how to process their war trauma.
Eventually, they realize they were sent to destroy, not to create democracy.
They were tricked into treating innocent people as terrorists, and after the war, many veterans loses friends to drugs or suicide.
We’ve raised our sons to enjoy violence in films, games, and play. It’s expected of them.
He says we’ve all been groomed into this culture, even as he questions why we always have money for war but never for welfare.
He goes on to describe how one in six men has experienced sexual abuse, and how you can make a man believe he “wanted it” by saying that men can’t get an erection without consent.
But men can get an erection from mechanical stimulation, and it leaves nearly unhealable wounds to believe you wanted an assault.
Finally, he calls for sympathy for incels, arguing that they’re boys with low self-esteem who are in pain.
Maybe the far-right figures have systematized narcissism so effectively that they’ve managed to crush men’s confidence, made them perform a masculinity that only men desire, ensured they have no jobs or homes—and then redirected their anger toward us: women and immigrants.
He also points out that when we believe we’re under attack, we as a people become more obedient to leaders we think can protect us. This “siege mentality,” he says, is deliberately cultivated by media and online trolls.
He argues that the deal men make is a deal with the devil—they gain male privileges but lose so much more.
His unique perspective—as a man who has left his gender (trans)—gives him a rare insight into masculinity and what it means, precisely because he has chosen to abandon it.
I loved the perspective of this book(!)—it made me realize so many things! But it lost me at the end, when he tried to offer solutions for men, and his suggestion was... that they should try being penetrated?!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 20, 2025
Thank you, NetGalley for the arc. This book aims to help dismantle the notion of toxic masculinity claiming an emphasis on protecting boys from sinister influences like the red pill-manosphere agenda. The previous claim was why I wanted to read it, however I was not expecting the heavy anecdotal narration, if this works for you then you will love it. I did find insightful the author’s take on rituals and penetration, but they rambled for a bit too long. Which brings me to my main question, who is the intended audience?, because I don’t think this was for me. Furthermore, I don’t see any man in my life going out of their way to read it. Women are a vital part of dismantling the patriarchy, but as the author said, only women telling men how to act wont lead us to the desire future.
January 10, 2026
Oh, what a disappointment! This books promises an investigation into masculinity, compassion, and systemic failure, but only delivers an extended exercise in self-regard. The universalization of perspective is PAINFUL to read, and the only reason I finished it was to write something about it.
If you want to read this book thinking, like me, that this will be an exploration on masculinity/ what went wrong, please stop. This is not a book about what went wrong with men. At most, it is a book about how the author feels about men, about masculinity, about pain, and more than ANYTHING else, it is about about themself and their experience. Every essay circles the same thing: me. ME. ME. me.
Personal anecdotes are presented as revelations, and whatever opinions and views they have as moral authority. But introspection is not diagnosis! There is almost no sustained engagement with history, material power, institutions, or competing frameworks of masculinity. The ideas seem insanely disconnected to reality (even though there is an effort to make them look culturally and socially connected, but only through personal experience).
Worse, the book universalizes a single subject position. This is the worst aspect of this book and it is present from beginning to end. The author's experiences are inflated into a general theory of male suffering. In all senses, this book is a perfect example of solipsism, and it makes me so uncomfortable.
The tone does a lot of the work the argument never does. Gentle language, earnest reflection, and moral urgency substitute for rigor. I understand need for empathy and also the urgency and seriousness of many of the issues pointed out, but it does not precludes deep analysis and complex point of views. Which also leads to one of the most absurd parts of the book to me: the solutions. The proposed "fixes", at best, amount to linguistic recalibration and emotional reframing (without ANY depth and social and cultural framing). This is done while criticizing similar points of views.
One of the book’s most intellectually dishonest moves is its reframing of privilege as something akin to “envy.” Privilege is not a projection of others’ resentment! It is a structural condition that confers material advantages, default credibility, and insulation from risk regardless of how anyone feels about it. The book then compounds this error by throwing the argument back at non-men, suggesting that if male privilege consists of forms of power, immunity, or license that are “bad,” then women/non-men simply shouldn’t want them (as if that were the issue). This is a misdirection (at BEST). Privilege is not a reward women are asking to claim. It is a set of permissions disproportionately granted to men. Saying “no one should want that” does nothing to address the fact that some people are nonetheless allowed it. The move reframes a structural asymmetry as a moral matter, and in that it implicitly criticizes women's misguided desire rather than a demand for equal constraints and equal accountability.
In the end, this is a book that wants credit for caring without doing the harder work of thinking. And what bothers me the most is that it establishes itself as analytical work with depth. (I would be ok if this was published as a memoire or something of a sort, it would bother me less than framing as almost sociological analysis but delivering NOTHING). This is a journal, at most. And not a good one.
If you are looking for sharp analysis, historical grounding, or a serious reckoning with gendered power, you will not find it here.
If you want to read this book thinking, like me, that this will be an exploration on masculinity/ what went wrong, please stop. This is not a book about what went wrong with men. At most, it is a book about how the author feels about men, about masculinity, about pain, and more than ANYTHING else, it is about about themself and their experience. Every essay circles the same thing: me. ME. ME. me.
Personal anecdotes are presented as revelations, and whatever opinions and views they have as moral authority. But introspection is not diagnosis! There is almost no sustained engagement with history, material power, institutions, or competing frameworks of masculinity. The ideas seem insanely disconnected to reality (even though there is an effort to make them look culturally and socially connected, but only through personal experience).
Worse, the book universalizes a single subject position. This is the worst aspect of this book and it is present from beginning to end. The author's experiences are inflated into a general theory of male suffering. In all senses, this book is a perfect example of solipsism, and it makes me so uncomfortable.
The tone does a lot of the work the argument never does. Gentle language, earnest reflection, and moral urgency substitute for rigor. I understand need for empathy and also the urgency and seriousness of many of the issues pointed out, but it does not precludes deep analysis and complex point of views. Which also leads to one of the most absurd parts of the book to me: the solutions. The proposed "fixes", at best, amount to linguistic recalibration and emotional reframing (without ANY depth and social and cultural framing). This is done while criticizing similar points of views.
One of the book’s most intellectually dishonest moves is its reframing of privilege as something akin to “envy.” Privilege is not a projection of others’ resentment! It is a structural condition that confers material advantages, default credibility, and insulation from risk regardless of how anyone feels about it. The book then compounds this error by throwing the argument back at non-men, suggesting that if male privilege consists of forms of power, immunity, or license that are “bad,” then women/non-men simply shouldn’t want them (as if that were the issue). This is a misdirection (at BEST). Privilege is not a reward women are asking to claim. It is a set of permissions disproportionately granted to men. Saying “no one should want that” does nothing to address the fact that some people are nonetheless allowed it. The move reframes a structural asymmetry as a moral matter, and in that it implicitly criticizes women's misguided desire rather than a demand for equal constraints and equal accountability.
In the end, this is a book that wants credit for caring without doing the harder work of thinking. And what bothers me the most is that it establishes itself as analytical work with depth. (I would be ok if this was published as a memoire or something of a sort, it would bother me less than framing as almost sociological analysis but delivering NOTHING). This is a journal, at most. And not a good one.
If you are looking for sharp analysis, historical grounding, or a serious reckoning with gendered power, you will not find it here.
July 16, 2025
I’ll start off by saying, I think this will be a very polarizing book. This collection of essays by Jacob Tobia digs into many concepts surrounding the idea of “manhood” and sets out to create a more compassionate space for men. They recommend reading the book in small bursts everyday to allow yourself time to stew on concepts, which is exactly what I did; partially to respect their request… also because I think it would’ve been difficult for me to read huge chunks of this book at a time. This book was dense and often on the rambling/repetitive side.
Tobia’s think pieces range from topics such as premature exposure to violence as indoctrination for the US military (probably my favorite essay in the collection) to sympathizing with incels. Throughout the book, Tobia asks us to open up our minds and reframe our way of thinking. They believe the only way to move forward to create a more empathetic and accepting world is through this compassion. Sometimes it felt as if Tobia was making the “it is everyone else’s responsibility to fix men” argument, however I think what they mean is “we all have a piece in this, including men.”
The first time I was fully lost was when Tobia discussed Harvey Weinstein requesting private dental care in prison due to his teeth rotting. While they were trying to turn this into an “extending empathy to him, as no one deserves to be harmed by America’s prison system” point, it came across as… Being a Harvey Weinstein apologist? Multiple times while reading this book I found myself questioning “is this the battle you really want to fight?” (I acknowledge the irony in my stance as I believe our prison systems are in dire need of reform). I could see the argument Tobia was making, but they’d offer something to bolster their point that ended of losing me.
Also, in addition to my questioning of intent, there is a lot of tonal points that I think will be misinterpreted. Tobia makes jokes throughout the book about certain things, but it makes you question what they believe is and is not okay to joke about? Also, some things that are jokes will likely be interpreted as fact and vice versa.
All this to say, there were a lot of points Tobia made that I agree with, I do think we are in need of a more compassionate world and we all have a part in that. Joking about and promoting certain male behaviors can continue a cycle leading to further issues in the future and they should be discussed. However, due to Tobia’s execution, I think a lot of their points may fall on deaf ears. Tobia made a few points that I also disagreed with. But, if you are looking for a book that makes you think and challenges you a bit, this may be worth looking at.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publishers for sending me a free ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review!
Tobia’s think pieces range from topics such as premature exposure to violence as indoctrination for the US military (probably my favorite essay in the collection) to sympathizing with incels. Throughout the book, Tobia asks us to open up our minds and reframe our way of thinking. They believe the only way to move forward to create a more empathetic and accepting world is through this compassion. Sometimes it felt as if Tobia was making the “it is everyone else’s responsibility to fix men” argument, however I think what they mean is “we all have a piece in this, including men.”
The first time I was fully lost was when Tobia discussed Harvey Weinstein requesting private dental care in prison due to his teeth rotting. While they were trying to turn this into an “extending empathy to him, as no one deserves to be harmed by America’s prison system” point, it came across as… Being a Harvey Weinstein apologist? Multiple times while reading this book I found myself questioning “is this the battle you really want to fight?” (I acknowledge the irony in my stance as I believe our prison systems are in dire need of reform). I could see the argument Tobia was making, but they’d offer something to bolster their point that ended of losing me.
Also, in addition to my questioning of intent, there is a lot of tonal points that I think will be misinterpreted. Tobia makes jokes throughout the book about certain things, but it makes you question what they believe is and is not okay to joke about? Also, some things that are jokes will likely be interpreted as fact and vice versa.
All this to say, there were a lot of points Tobia made that I agree with, I do think we are in need of a more compassionate world and we all have a part in that. Joking about and promoting certain male behaviors can continue a cycle leading to further issues in the future and they should be discussed. However, due to Tobia’s execution, I think a lot of their points may fall on deaf ears. Tobia made a few points that I also disagreed with. But, if you are looking for a book that makes you think and challenges you a bit, this may be worth looking at.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publishers for sending me a free ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review!
February 8, 2026
Still trying to figure out where I land overall on this one.
I admire Jacob & what I think they're trying to do here. There are some very valid critiques of mainstream / neoliberal / white feminism. There are reflections within the book that I've definitely sat with / been exploring. For example, I've seen the way that the disconnect between how a movement defines a term vs it's broader scale use and reception can sometimes backfire (e.g. the defensiveness and doubling down associated w 'toxic masculinity' + flippancy in throwing it / using it when it's difficult to communicate what you actually mean). So, I thought their discussion on retiring of certain terminology was interesting.
Again, I haven't fully fleshed out my thoughts here. But the presentation of some of the key concepts felt a bit like hollow modernizations of e.g. bell hooks (overarching thesis), Simone de Beauvoir (specifically the toy soldiers). There are some strokes too broad & I think often not adequate credit where is credit is due.
I do truly think there's an important thesis to this book. There is a broader phenomenon here happening that Jacob does speak to, that really hits home as we see the rise in inceldom and the manosphere, and wide-scale stripping of human rights. The increasing normalization of racist and sexist narratives in every day life. The current climate has 100% made me reflect on interactions with men in my own life, and how in certain ways, I've sometimes really failed in navigating discussions regarding systems of power.
However, there are so many ways in which I think the book falls flat. While trying to explore how patriarchy has impacted men, it struggles to hold some of the important nuance at hand and fails to navigate the harm being perpetrated by capital "M" men in a satisfying way. Sometimes the presentation of certain statistics tows into misrepresentation and undercuts the strength of the argument (e.g. men being more likely to commit suicide vs. women are more likely to attempt). That, I think, captures some of my general feelings about the book - that it sometimes overcorrects or continues to perpetrate narratives long presented by Men, without fully acknowledging why those narratives have been challenged or without exploring the necessary nuance.
Overall, there was a lot that did land, a lot that didn't.
I appreciate the swing - even if it was a bit of a stumble, it generates thought and reflection and discussion. Definitely more enjoyable through the lens of it being a memoir / authors own reflections on their relationship with these concepts. It very much reads as a work in progress - someone still musing and figuring out how to hold space for these complexities. I do appreciate and identify with that.
I admire Jacob & what I think they're trying to do here. There are some very valid critiques of mainstream / neoliberal / white feminism. There are reflections within the book that I've definitely sat with / been exploring. For example, I've seen the way that the disconnect between how a movement defines a term vs it's broader scale use and reception can sometimes backfire (e.g. the defensiveness and doubling down associated w 'toxic masculinity' + flippancy in throwing it / using it when it's difficult to communicate what you actually mean). So, I thought their discussion on retiring of certain terminology was interesting.
Again, I haven't fully fleshed out my thoughts here. But the presentation of some of the key concepts felt a bit like hollow modernizations of e.g. bell hooks (overarching thesis), Simone de Beauvoir (specifically the toy soldiers). There are some strokes too broad & I think often not adequate credit where is credit is due.
I do truly think there's an important thesis to this book. There is a broader phenomenon here happening that Jacob does speak to, that really hits home as we see the rise in inceldom and the manosphere, and wide-scale stripping of human rights. The increasing normalization of racist and sexist narratives in every day life. The current climate has 100% made me reflect on interactions with men in my own life, and how in certain ways, I've sometimes really failed in navigating discussions regarding systems of power.
However, there are so many ways in which I think the book falls flat. While trying to explore how patriarchy has impacted men, it struggles to hold some of the important nuance at hand and fails to navigate the harm being perpetrated by capital "M" men in a satisfying way. Sometimes the presentation of certain statistics tows into misrepresentation and undercuts the strength of the argument (e.g. men being more likely to commit suicide vs. women are more likely to attempt). That, I think, captures some of my general feelings about the book - that it sometimes overcorrects or continues to perpetrate narratives long presented by Men, without fully acknowledging why those narratives have been challenged or without exploring the necessary nuance.
Overall, there was a lot that did land, a lot that didn't.
I appreciate the swing - even if it was a bit of a stumble, it generates thought and reflection and discussion. Definitely more enjoyable through the lens of it being a memoir / authors own reflections on their relationship with these concepts. It very much reads as a work in progress - someone still musing and figuring out how to hold space for these complexities. I do appreciate and identify with that.
January 9, 2026
It will be a while before I figure out where I truly land with this one.
On the one hand, this book got me thinking deeply. Since this book is part-memoir and part-call to spend some time considering the perspective of cis het men, I couldn’t help but think about the best of the cis het men in my own life as I listened.
Considering this through the lens of “could I share this book with any of them and would it benefit them,” I lean towards: this book MAY do more good than harm, challenging as it is. The core tenant of this series of essays is that everyone could benefit from cis het men spending more time thinking about their gender and sexuality — meanwhile, the rest of us could give them some space to do this. There were some essays that felt particularly compelling to that end. The one about rituals comes to mind.
Also, Jacob made me guffaw on more than one occasion.
However, the way that Jacob approached certain elements of the topic felt off. For example, they talk about the injustice of the prison system by describing, in excruciating detail, the mistreatment of … Harvey Weinstein? I kind of got what they were going for — that we should rethink the “eye for an eye” approach to justice — but this example didn’t stick the landing for me.
I agree with others that if you skip “Get Fucked” you’ll likely have a better experience. But even if I had done that, I would struggle to give this book its full merits. That’s because Jacob wrote basically every essay from the perspective of someone who is completely oblivious to the fact that not everyone wants a robust romance and/or sex life. Come on, it’s not THAT hard to write in a way that makes it clear you know your experiences aren’t universal, and I find it hard to believe no one in Jacob’s circle pointed out this tendency to them. This was just one of several reasons this book was unnecessarily off-putting.
On the one hand, this book got me thinking deeply. Since this book is part-memoir and part-call to spend some time considering the perspective of cis het men, I couldn’t help but think about the best of the cis het men in my own life as I listened.
Considering this through the lens of “could I share this book with any of them and would it benefit them,” I lean towards: this book MAY do more good than harm, challenging as it is. The core tenant of this series of essays is that everyone could benefit from cis het men spending more time thinking about their gender and sexuality — meanwhile, the rest of us could give them some space to do this. There were some essays that felt particularly compelling to that end. The one about rituals comes to mind.
Also, Jacob made me guffaw on more than one occasion.
However, the way that Jacob approached certain elements of the topic felt off. For example, they talk about the injustice of the prison system by describing, in excruciating detail, the mistreatment of … Harvey Weinstein? I kind of got what they were going for — that we should rethink the “eye for an eye” approach to justice — but this example didn’t stick the landing for me.
I agree with others that if you skip “Get Fucked” you’ll likely have a better experience. But even if I had done that, I would struggle to give this book its full merits. That’s because Jacob wrote basically every essay from the perspective of someone who is completely oblivious to the fact that not everyone wants a robust romance and/or sex life. Come on, it’s not THAT hard to write in a way that makes it clear you know your experiences aren’t universal, and I find it hard to believe no one in Jacob’s circle pointed out this tendency to them. This was just one of several reasons this book was unnecessarily off-putting.
September 13, 2025
I have a lot of respect for Tobia here, because the foundational idea behind this is actually really sound and it challenges us to define the limits of our empathy. Who gets to benefit from it? Who in our lives do we hope will get grace from others, and what does that tell us about who deserves our grace? I don’t always agree with their conclusions, but it’s a worthwhile thought exercise.
We as feminists say all the time that patriarchy hurts everyone, and this book expands on that, sometimes in really radical and confronting ways. This is a book you read to have your preconceptions challenged. It asks hard questions. It gave me a lot to think about.
One point that I found a very massive weakness in there arguments Tobia presented: a persistent straw-manning approach to the concept of “male privilege”. This concept does not argue that men don’t suffer, or that they don’t experience hardship. It means their gender does not add an extra dimension to their struggles. They might be disadvantaged in other ways — maybe they’re poor, or queer, or racialized, or disabled — but a woman who is all those things is further disadvantaged by sexism in a way that the equivalent man is not.
Honestly this error is basic enough that it undermines Tobia’s credibility in some ways, which in most cases would drop the book to a 3-star read or even a DNF. But they’re not making this very 101-level mistake, their thinking is clear and interesting and original enough to earn them back another star.
Carl Sagan once said “we make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.” That’s how this book landed for me, all brave questions and mostly deep and thoughtful and searingly vulnerable answers.
We as feminists say all the time that patriarchy hurts everyone, and this book expands on that, sometimes in really radical and confronting ways. This is a book you read to have your preconceptions challenged. It asks hard questions. It gave me a lot to think about.
One point that I found a very massive weakness in there arguments Tobia presented: a persistent straw-manning approach to the concept of “male privilege”. This concept does not argue that men don’t suffer, or that they don’t experience hardship. It means their gender does not add an extra dimension to their struggles. They might be disadvantaged in other ways — maybe they’re poor, or queer, or racialized, or disabled — but a woman who is all those things is further disadvantaged by sexism in a way that the equivalent man is not.
Honestly this error is basic enough that it undermines Tobia’s credibility in some ways, which in most cases would drop the book to a 3-star read or even a DNF. But they’re not making this very 101-level mistake, their thinking is clear and interesting and original enough to earn them back another star.
Carl Sagan once said “we make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.” That’s how this book landed for me, all brave questions and mostly deep and thoughtful and searingly vulnerable answers.
December 24, 2025
As a trans/nonbinary AMAB person, the premise and the synopsis of this book alone is so wildly offensive that seeing this book in stores made me almost laugh.
There is not a shred of value in this book that hasn't already been covered in every conceivable manner by better, more informed writers with a larger source of life experience to pull from. Read bell hooks' Men, Masculinity, and Love instead.
While I can respect the author's desire to frame this tale as coming from someone who was socialized male (let's not even get into how wrong it is to utilize consent language in this), this falls into the most predictable trope possible: someone raised as and socialized as a man has done zero work to decenter themselves as the sole expert on a subject multitudes of women and other folks subject to gendered violence and oppression have been writing on for generations.
If a prison guard stubs their toe in the process of kicking an incarcerated person in the head - the guard's stubbed toe does not suddenly propel them to the top of the list of importance when assessing the most important parts of the damage done.
"Feminism is for everyone!" And "Patriarchy hurts men too!" are points that inherently address that gender norms and their societal enforcement do in fact hurt men and boys also, but the system causing that harm to men and boys is inherently perpetuated by men and boys continuing to benefit from the overall system as a class, not as individuals.
The author might do well to read something from Kate Bornstein at least on the subject of unlearning how to be so goddamn loud.
There is not a shred of value in this book that hasn't already been covered in every conceivable manner by better, more informed writers with a larger source of life experience to pull from. Read bell hooks' Men, Masculinity, and Love instead.
While I can respect the author's desire to frame this tale as coming from someone who was socialized male (let's not even get into how wrong it is to utilize consent language in this), this falls into the most predictable trope possible: someone raised as and socialized as a man has done zero work to decenter themselves as the sole expert on a subject multitudes of women and other folks subject to gendered violence and oppression have been writing on for generations.
If a prison guard stubs their toe in the process of kicking an incarcerated person in the head - the guard's stubbed toe does not suddenly propel them to the top of the list of importance when assessing the most important parts of the damage done.
"Feminism is for everyone!" And "Patriarchy hurts men too!" are points that inherently address that gender norms and their societal enforcement do in fact hurt men and boys also, but the system causing that harm to men and boys is inherently perpetuated by men and boys continuing to benefit from the overall system as a class, not as individuals.
The author might do well to read something from Kate Bornstein at least on the subject of unlearning how to be so goddamn loud.
January 26, 2026
As a trans man, I was looking forward to a book written by a fellow trans person, framing the way we look at masculinity and issues men face. Unfortunely, I was dissappointed by the end. The first half of this book was interesting and informative to read. The explanation of the definition of toxic masculinity evolving (“We went from understanding men as wielding a toxic substance to understanding men as a toxic substance.”) However, the more I read this book the more angry/pessimistic the author seemed to get, both towards the subject and towards other people (especially self-proclaimed feminists? Which felt odd). The author repeatedly points out feminism has done much work for helping women, but very little to help men, which I understand, but also, why is the work of fixing men’s problems (usually created by other men) expected to be done by women?
Also this book is marketed as a collection of essays, but it bleeds heavily into memoir territory (still in essay format).
Thank you to Rodale Inc and Netgalley for the review copy, all opinions are my own.
Also this book is marketed as a collection of essays, but it bleeds heavily into memoir territory (still in essay format).
Thank you to Rodale Inc and Netgalley for the review copy, all opinions are my own.
June 18, 2025
This book is getting review-bombed because people don't understand its intended audience isn't men AND they're offended by the word pegging?! Someone hold me back. There is no world where Jacob Tobia thinks they're going to throw their novel at every man in America and achieve world peace. This book is about having thoughtful conversations and opening up the table for everyone. Men included. It triggered great late-night talks with my partner, and he enjoyed the idea of promoting the term "safe masculinity" and redirecting our inner monologues. The next time someone's anger plagues you--I've stayed up late plenty of times, reliving the past, and so has Jacob Tobia--ask yourself what made them so afraid? And how do I make sure that fear doesn't become mine?
August 31, 2025
“I kept hoping to live in a world where I wouldn’t need to write this book. And honestly, I kept waiting for someone else to step up and do it. It’s profoundly embarrassing for the feminist movement that no one beat me to the punch.” Tobia’s interview with Indy Week.
bell hooks published The Will to Change, Men, Masculinity and Love, in 2004.
An excerpt: “Patriarchy, both creates the rage in boys, and then contains it for later use, making it a resource to exploit later on as boys become men. As a national product, this rage can be garnered to further imperialism, hatred, and oppression of women and men globally.”
Jacob Tobia’a work is standing atop decades of women’s labor.
bell hooks published The Will to Change, Men, Masculinity and Love, in 2004.
An excerpt: “Patriarchy, both creates the rage in boys, and then contains it for later use, making it a resource to exploit later on as boys become men. As a national product, this rage can be garnered to further imperialism, hatred, and oppression of women and men globally.”
Jacob Tobia’a work is standing atop decades of women’s labor.
October 5, 2025
Everyone needs to read this book. Especially feminists, and especially men who might not want to read it. I listened to the audiobook read by Jacob, and their candor is equally hilarious and emotional. I learned a lot about myself as an amab and now nonbinary person from the book, and also felt very seen by Jacob.
Jacob is just scratching the surface on maybe the most difficult task on Earth - asking us to treat men differently, and asking men to help in the work. I can't imagine a bigger rock to push, and I worry that unless readers continue this conversation en masse, it may not move ahead. I do have to admit that I don't fully agree with some of Jacob's solutions, but that's what keeping the conversation going is about. Otherwise, I couldn't recommend it more!
Jacob is just scratching the surface on maybe the most difficult task on Earth - asking us to treat men differently, and asking men to help in the work. I can't imagine a bigger rock to push, and I worry that unless readers continue this conversation en masse, it may not move ahead. I do have to admit that I don't fully agree with some of Jacob's solutions, but that's what keeping the conversation going is about. Otherwise, I couldn't recommend it more!
October 19, 2025
This book was challenging, informative, and accessible.
Challenging: Some of the topics broke my brain a bit, like questioning what true justice for oppressors looks like and how phrases like “male privilege” and “toxic masculinity” aren’t helpful descriptors.
Informative: now I know how blood flow into a penis works! There were lots of other new things for me to learn but that’s the most sensational.
Accessible: Jacob Tobia’s writing style is so conversational, which makes it easily understandable to me. Big words, yes, but surrounded by context and explanation. (I also sampled the audiobook, read by the author, and it is excellent!)
Thank you to NetGalley and to Rodale for an eARC of this book! This is my honest review.
Challenging: Some of the topics broke my brain a bit, like questioning what true justice for oppressors looks like and how phrases like “male privilege” and “toxic masculinity” aren’t helpful descriptors.
Informative: now I know how blood flow into a penis works! There were lots of other new things for me to learn but that’s the most sensational.
Accessible: Jacob Tobia’s writing style is so conversational, which makes it easily understandable to me. Big words, yes, but surrounded by context and explanation. (I also sampled the audiobook, read by the author, and it is excellent!)
Thank you to NetGalley and to Rodale for an eARC of this book! This is my honest review.
January 12, 2026
I was TRYING to get books on contemporary men's issues written by MEN, so grabbing this book by a self-described "non-binary lady" was a delightful mistake on my part. Raised as a boy and with all the scathing wit of an out-and-proud queer, Jacob Tobia offers a clear-eyed and vulnerable exploration of how some of the ways we talk about (and, often, to) men is honestly just really mean? And not as progressive as we like to pretend? And actively works against the changes we claim to want? I am now a convert, no more shall "toxic masculinity" and "male privilege" grace my vocabulary. A good reminder that not mocking other people's bodies includes dick jokes, and that the real enemy was capitalism all along. Men are just people too.
September 24, 2025
I loved Sissy and came into this book wanting to love it too, but I really struggled with the framing. The political right often leans on the “I belong to X marginalized group, but even I think they’ve gone too far!” trope to legitimize their own conservative narratives. I’m not saying this book fully falls into that trap—but at times it edges close enough that it made me uncomfortable (and not in a good ' I'm challenging my own beliefs kind of way').
There are definitely moments that shine, particularly around the redefinition of toxic masculinity, but for me those highlights weren’t frequent or strong enough to outweigh the overall tone.
There are definitely moments that shine, particularly around the redefinition of toxic masculinity, but for me those highlights weren’t frequent or strong enough to outweigh the overall tone.
December 6, 2025
This is one of the best books I've read all year. I may even like it more than "For a the Love of Men," by Liz Plank.... but ideally, you would read both. They are similar and better together. Every essay on this book was fantastic and reading it was an exercise in empathy. I would give it 10 stars if I could. It contains fresh ideas and 38 pages of worked cited suggests that it is also heavily grounded in research. This book has changed me, and if you choose to read it, I know it will change you, too.
September 24, 2025
Like any collection of essays - there were some great ones and some not great ones and some were just there. I got enough new insights to look past the essays I thought were a little overwrought and in bad need of a good editorial once over.
September 23, 2025
Required reading for anyone that’s alive right now
October 31, 2025
Essential reading for men and anyone who interacts with men.
August 27, 2025
I was really looking forward to Before They Were Men, but it ended up missing the mark for me. To start, I do think the sections where Tobia talks about their personal experiences as well as the "Child Soldiers" essay are the strongest points in the book. For the rest of the book, I ended up feeling frustrated by several different things.
I do think Before They Were Men needed more facts/statistics especially when talking about the #MeToo movement. Just saying the #MeToo Movement went too far without any examples and then vaguely jumping into the topic of carceral feminism will lose a lot of people. I also thought by focusing on reframing words like "toxic masculinity", Tobia lost an opportunity to talk about how manosphere people (Jordan Peterson/Andrew Tate/etc) twist feminist narratives to feed their audiences' grievances. I felt like they leaned way too much into their empathy, to the point it seemed deeply naive, when talking about Jordan Peterson's comment section as well as Tobia's imagined conversation with an incel.
Overall, there are some decent bits in here but I'd say skip this one or check it out from your library.
I do think Before They Were Men needed more facts/statistics especially when talking about the #MeToo movement. Just saying the #MeToo Movement went too far without any examples and then vaguely jumping into the topic of carceral feminism will lose a lot of people. I also thought by focusing on reframing words like "toxic masculinity", Tobia lost an opportunity to talk about how manosphere people (Jordan Peterson/Andrew Tate/etc) twist feminist narratives to feed their audiences' grievances. I felt like they leaned way too much into their empathy, to the point it seemed deeply naive, when talking about Jordan Peterson's comment section as well as Tobia's imagined conversation with an incel.
Overall, there are some decent bits in here but I'd say skip this one or check it out from your library.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews