What do you think?
Rate this book
Manthropolgy: The science of the inadequate modern male
Men had no clue, women liked to think they knew and now the scientific verdict is in - every man in history, back to the dawn of our species, did everything better, faster, stronger and smarter than any man alive today.
Anthropologist Peter McAllister has gathered the evidence from archaeology, evolutionary psychology and ancient history to confirm the unpleasant truth: modern man is sadly inadequate. McAllister proves that:
- Any Neandertal woman could have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an armwrestle.
- Injury rates in modern Ultimate Fighting are a fraction of those in ancient Greek pankration.
- Metrosexual icon David Beckham wouldn't even get an audition for the gerewol, the male beauty parade of the Nigerian Wodaabe.
- Even modern 'New Age' dads are put to shame by Aka Pygmy fathers of the Congo rainforest, who sometimes grew breasts to suckle their infants!
Anthropologist Peter McAllister has gathered the evidence from archaeology, evolutionary psychology and ancient history to confirm the unpleasant truth: modern man is sadly inadequate. McAllister proves that:
- Any Neandertal woman could have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an armwrestle.
- Injury rates in modern Ultimate Fighting are a fraction of those in ancient Greek pankration.
- Metrosexual icon David Beckham wouldn't even get an audition for the gerewol, the male beauty parade of the Nigerian Wodaabe.
- Even modern 'New Age' dads are put to shame by Aka Pygmy fathers of the Congo rainforest, who sometimes grew breasts to suckle their infants!
345 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 15, 2010
31 people are currently reading
327 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
July 29, 2012
Given the lack of accurate information recorded in today's times about war etc, to base an entire book on random "facts" from thousands of years ago, seems like a stretch.
As an example, the majority of north koreans will tell you that Kim Jong Il scored 6 holes in one in his first full round of golf (a myth-building story he spread widely). In 500 years, it will be easy to find many primary documents that all agree that KJI did this... But to assume that makes it true, is a joke. So all of the passages about how they "found a rock weighing thousands of pounds with an inscription that claims it was lifted by so and so" are simply laughable. I'm forced to assume that the author takes bathroom graffiti seriously too.
Also, his addressing of MMA shows a serious lack of knowledge. The UFC has fought hard (since it was purchased) to become a legitimate sport (ie NOT have debilitating injury be a daily occurrence). His argument "it's not ultimate enough" implies that he didn't get further than the title of the entire league in his "research". Using this logic would have you take issue with the NBA and NHL as failing for not being confined to one nation and other utterly stupid conclusions.
Most of the book is pure stupidity. Don't waste your time
As an example, the majority of north koreans will tell you that Kim Jong Il scored 6 holes in one in his first full round of golf (a myth-building story he spread widely). In 500 years, it will be easy to find many primary documents that all agree that KJI did this... But to assume that makes it true, is a joke. So all of the passages about how they "found a rock weighing thousands of pounds with an inscription that claims it was lifted by so and so" are simply laughable. I'm forced to assume that the author takes bathroom graffiti seriously too.
Also, his addressing of MMA shows a serious lack of knowledge. The UFC has fought hard (since it was purchased) to become a legitimate sport (ie NOT have debilitating injury be a daily occurrence). His argument "it's not ultimate enough" implies that he didn't get further than the title of the entire league in his "research". Using this logic would have you take issue with the NBA and NHL as failing for not being confined to one nation and other utterly stupid conclusions.
Most of the book is pure stupidity. Don't waste your time
November 30, 2016
Just how I like my education: totally entertaining.
October 24, 2019
Fabulous look at the physical prowess of “modern” versus antiquarian man and both compared to the physical prowess of Neanderthal woman (Neanderthal man was too strong for comparison). I particularly enjoyed the historical evidence of races and events provided by the author and the contrast with modern athletes. We haven’t progressed - and this book is filled with amusing commentary that makes it a wonderful evening read.
November 3, 2022
"I was a dam builder
Across the river deep and wide
Where steel and water did collide
A place called Boulder on the wild Colorado
I slipped and fell into the wet concrete below
They buried me in that great tomb that knows no sound
But I am still around"
A fun little book of curiosities about whats mostly the prowess - physical but not only - of ancient men and males in native societies. Most of it you just have to take it for granted and accept as fundamentally unserious. Of course, if any classic Olympian would compete in modern sports following the strict rules of said sports, they would be massacred by all male modern competitors and many of the female as well. On the same vein, the supposed genetic superiority of natives in farsightedness or jumping have not translated into Olympic monopolies, with a few exceptions (the people living in that area along Ethiopia, Northern Kenya and Eritrea when it comes to long distance running, for example).
Similarly, the arguments regarding pain, war and pillage are just humorous, but counter-intuitive. One would argue that not shoving flaming coals into the open wounds of captives is actually a good thing, masculinity be damned. Furthermore, when needed be, the modern man can still put himself through amazing feats of endurance in war and conflict - as exemplified by the Burmese death marches, the Kokoda trek, and the retreat of the Czech brigades eastward during the Bolshevik revolution.
In fact, exceptional modern men and some women have engaged in amazing feats of natural Conquest - see Sarah Marquis, who trekked alone across the Gobi Desert, Siberia and China carrying a 54 kg cart. Or Amyr Klink, crossing the Atlantic ocean alone on a paddleboat. Or the many men who conquered the before believed to be unconquerable Himalaian peaks.
Thats all nice and done, but there is argument thats ignored. It might well be true that EXCEPTIONAL men are more exceptional than ever, but what about your Average Joe? For decades now, men have seen weird signs of biological dysfunctionality manifested by shrinking jawlines, an epidemy of overbites, falling testerone levels, decreasing sperm count, lower bone density and higher rates of obesity even in normal conditions and nobody can really explain why. Guesses go from microplastics in the air and water (my favourite one), seed oils, inseticides, chemicals in the water that make the freaking frogs gay, eating too much meat, not eating enough meat and so forth.
It does seem that your regular men today - present company included - would be unable to do what a regular Greek or Roman warrior could do in classical time: Marching dozens of kilometers a day, carrying heavy iron armor on our back in rugged terrain, and still have stamina to fight against Persian hordes at night. We do seem a sorry bunch and most of us only participate in what was seen as the realm of masculinity (war, hard labour, epic poetry) through poor proxies (contact sports, weight lifting, action movies). There is nearly no impulse for adventuring nor overcoming challenges, much less for self sacrifice. Again, i dont remove myself from the equation - Id rather watch Netflix on my bed than die on a siege with the French Foreign Legion. Yet these are also the results of cultural/social changes that muting the shaming factors that encourage individuals to be daring. The infantilization of our culture - again, men and women included - is well known and do not requires further elaboration.
The good side of this is, by not being a complete waste of breath you are already shot up to the highest eschelons of masculinity in 2022. Theoretically, any non disabled man should be able to deadlift their own body weight (women too). In reality, very few actually do. This is just an example of a very silly thing that, as I mentioned before, is merely a poor proxy to the backbraking hard labour our ancestors were made to suffer daily. Imagine what it means to actually encapsulate the martial, social and civic virtues of the past. Truly it has never been so easy to be exceptional.
Across the river deep and wide
Where steel and water did collide
A place called Boulder on the wild Colorado
I slipped and fell into the wet concrete below
They buried me in that great tomb that knows no sound
But I am still around"
A fun little book of curiosities about whats mostly the prowess - physical but not only - of ancient men and males in native societies. Most of it you just have to take it for granted and accept as fundamentally unserious. Of course, if any classic Olympian would compete in modern sports following the strict rules of said sports, they would be massacred by all male modern competitors and many of the female as well. On the same vein, the supposed genetic superiority of natives in farsightedness or jumping have not translated into Olympic monopolies, with a few exceptions (the people living in that area along Ethiopia, Northern Kenya and Eritrea when it comes to long distance running, for example).
Similarly, the arguments regarding pain, war and pillage are just humorous, but counter-intuitive. One would argue that not shoving flaming coals into the open wounds of captives is actually a good thing, masculinity be damned. Furthermore, when needed be, the modern man can still put himself through amazing feats of endurance in war and conflict - as exemplified by the Burmese death marches, the Kokoda trek, and the retreat of the Czech brigades eastward during the Bolshevik revolution.
In fact, exceptional modern men and some women have engaged in amazing feats of natural Conquest - see Sarah Marquis, who trekked alone across the Gobi Desert, Siberia and China carrying a 54 kg cart. Or Amyr Klink, crossing the Atlantic ocean alone on a paddleboat. Or the many men who conquered the before believed to be unconquerable Himalaian peaks.
Thats all nice and done, but there is argument thats ignored. It might well be true that EXCEPTIONAL men are more exceptional than ever, but what about your Average Joe? For decades now, men have seen weird signs of biological dysfunctionality manifested by shrinking jawlines, an epidemy of overbites, falling testerone levels, decreasing sperm count, lower bone density and higher rates of obesity even in normal conditions and nobody can really explain why. Guesses go from microplastics in the air and water (my favourite one), seed oils, inseticides, chemicals in the water that make the freaking frogs gay, eating too much meat, not eating enough meat and so forth.
It does seem that your regular men today - present company included - would be unable to do what a regular Greek or Roman warrior could do in classical time: Marching dozens of kilometers a day, carrying heavy iron armor on our back in rugged terrain, and still have stamina to fight against Persian hordes at night. We do seem a sorry bunch and most of us only participate in what was seen as the realm of masculinity (war, hard labour, epic poetry) through poor proxies (contact sports, weight lifting, action movies). There is nearly no impulse for adventuring nor overcoming challenges, much less for self sacrifice. Again, i dont remove myself from the equation - Id rather watch Netflix on my bed than die on a siege with the French Foreign Legion. Yet these are also the results of cultural/social changes that muting the shaming factors that encourage individuals to be daring. The infantilization of our culture - again, men and women included - is well known and do not requires further elaboration.
The good side of this is, by not being a complete waste of breath you are already shot up to the highest eschelons of masculinity in 2022. Theoretically, any non disabled man should be able to deadlift their own body weight (women too). In reality, very few actually do. This is just an example of a very silly thing that, as I mentioned before, is merely a poor proxy to the backbraking hard labour our ancestors were made to suffer daily. Imagine what it means to actually encapsulate the martial, social and civic virtues of the past. Truly it has never been so easy to be exceptional.
May 15, 2025
Manthropology puts forward a compelling idea: that modern men may be physically and perhaps culturally diminished compared to their ancient ancestors. I actually think there’s some truth to that. But the way McAllister tries to prove it is where the book falters.
Rather than defining the problem clearly and following the evidence, the book feels reverse-engineered — the conclusion comes first, and the rest is cherry-picked to support it. Selective comparisons, narrow framing, and a lack of nuance make the argument feel more like a rhetorical exercise than a serious inquiry. There’s a good deal of confirmation bias at play, and the logic often veers into circular reasoning.
To make matters worse, the core idea just doesn’t need 290 pages. By page 200, I felt the book had run out of fresh material and was just circling the same point with new anecdotes.
Readable? Sure. Thought-provoking? At times. But rigorous? Not really. A tighter, more balanced treatment would have made for a stronger book — and a more convincing case.
Rather than defining the problem clearly and following the evidence, the book feels reverse-engineered — the conclusion comes first, and the rest is cherry-picked to support it. Selective comparisons, narrow framing, and a lack of nuance make the argument feel more like a rhetorical exercise than a serious inquiry. There’s a good deal of confirmation bias at play, and the logic often veers into circular reasoning.
To make matters worse, the core idea just doesn’t need 290 pages. By page 200, I felt the book had run out of fresh material and was just circling the same point with new anecdotes.
Readable? Sure. Thought-provoking? At times. But rigorous? Not really. A tighter, more balanced treatment would have made for a stronger book — and a more convincing case.
July 16, 2024
It ran out of steam about halfway through. I tried to fact-check some of the claims and most of them seem legit, but a good chunk of them weren't, or at least not available on the internet (the sum of human knowledge). I doubt Mcallister was trying to deliberately mislead, and I'm sure the claims were made in the places they were cited, but that's a lot of legwork for a pop-psy book, and not a whole lot of payoff.
It was too cute by half. I get what he was doing by picking on 50 Cent and David Beckham, but it read as weird and bitter.
The first time I read this, in 2009, I loved it, and I realize now it's because it was my first experience with an evolutionary bio/psych book. I have since read... well, definitely dozens, probably close to a hundred, that was my genre for a while. It put this one in perspective.
It was too cute by half. I get what he was doing by picking on 50 Cent and David Beckham, but it read as weird and bitter.
The first time I read this, in 2009, I loved it, and I realize now it's because it was my first experience with an evolutionary bio/psych book. I have since read... well, definitely dozens, probably close to a hundred, that was my genre for a while. It put this one in perspective.
May 25, 2019
An entertaining book, but not particularly the pinnacle of popular science. I liked the sardonic tone and found the writing to be witty, but the content bothered me for a few reasons. Firstly, McAllister lends too much credibility to ancient legends, which seems strange, given that he's a professional. Secondly, I'm troubled by the decision to censor expletives, like F&%$, but not racial slurs... in the same sentence. I'm not sure what editor made that decision but it's really strange seeing the n-word uncensored right next to a censored yet less offensive term. Not sure what to think of that. What I did enjoy about the book was McAllister's ability to make the science of anthropology accessible to non-anthropologists, and his inclusion of several non-industrial societies.
February 19, 2022
This was a really fun book and I had a lot of arguments with friends about some of the stuff in it. Maybe a better way to describe the book than saying that we are less than we used to be is to say that we are completely middling and bland compared to how we used to be. In the second half this book is full of examples that we aren't as egalitarian as people in the past or as bad, we're not as nice or mean, we're just the watered down plain unsalted version of humans now. I didn't really like the cute running theme of modern vs historical man in a competition with rounds, and I think a lot of the examples from the past are too hard to verify to have been used, but this was a really entertaining, enlightening book. Lots of highlights of stuff I want to go back later and read again because some of the anecdotes are so insane.
October 31, 2016
McAllister tells of some very amazing men throughout civilization's history, but fails to really accomplish anything with this book. Sadly, I don't feel like any more of a man for having read the book, nor do I feel like I can't measure up to the standards set by men in other eras or civilizations (which is what the book aims to do).
November 5, 2017
Divertente, arguto, scorrevole. Interessante il principio (l'uomo moderno è il migliore che sia mai esistito) e la fine (l'uomo moderno è una pippa, qualsiasi campo venga preso in considerazione). Un filino truculente le descrizioni, pure inevitabili, delle "bravate".
Nel complesso piacevole.
Nel complesso piacevole.
April 2, 2020
An absolute must for guys who are on the soft side of resolve. It will give you a presentation on your level of effort needed to complete your goals in life.
September 26, 2022
A bit boring honestly! The first couple chapters are good, then its all the same.
January 8, 2017
Intriguing book showcasing the male cultures that exist across the world. The major flaw is the comparisons against history where the author is overly credulous about legends.
April 10, 2013
I purchased this book for my husband who has a science degree in anthropology, archaeology and earth science. He really enjoyed it, although felt that some of the supporting arguments were a bit tenuous. I, however, didn’t have any preconceptions or scientific knowledge and so read it in order to learn something I may not have known before. One of the cover blurbs described MANTHROPOLOGY as "…smart, informative, surprising, and entertaining…" and it certainly is all of those things. Far from being so highbrow that I would have had no idea what was being said; I found it easy to read, full of tongue-in-cheek humour and chock a block full of titbits to bring out around the dinner table when guests are in. The titles of the chapters all start with the letter ‘B’ - brawn, bravado, battle, balls, bards, beauty, babies, and babes. There are some gruesome bits in it and acts of cruelty retold; but that is the reality of our history and cannot be avoided. The basic thrust of the book is to prove that the men of today are not quite the magnificent specimens that they were in the past; and is more acceptable because a man wrote it – imagine if a woman had of written it? The average man of the ancient world could generally do what only our super trained sports and military men do today – the average man on the street has lost the edge. There are tribes today where the men look prettier and can parent better than the women. But a Neanderthal woman could beat our toughest man in an arm wrestling match if such a competition could be arranged. The US Army requires a basic training graduate to run 12 miles in 4 hours. This is compared with the Imperial Guard of the Yuan Dynasty of China who were all expected to run 56 miles in 4 hours! Even Barbie’s plastic mate Ken has the bulk that would not of looked out of place 20 centuries ago, but can only be reached by around 1 in 50 men in today’s world – and then only with the help of an intense training scheme; and steroids. This is not a book to sit down and read in one sitting. I dipped in and out of it for a few weeks and found myself to be much better educated in what might make the men in my life tick, and be more compassionate now I understand what they have lost.
July 22, 2013
This book was a perfect case of an interesting enough theory with pretty awful execution. I stuck with it until the end, hoping McAllister's rambling attempts and cleverness and pick-and-choose anecdotes parading as evidence would amount to something, but it really didn't. At least, not very much. McAllister's basic theory is stated right there in the subtitle - the modern male is not the man he used to be. Ok, so what does that mean? In this case, it means nearly 300 pages of cherry-picked anecdotes to "prove" that ancient/ancestral men were more masculine than their modern day counterparts, besting them in feats of love, athletics, parenting, strength, pretty much every category you can imagine. That's all well and good, but this book suffers from a severe lack of any real evidence to show any sort of trend. While I can't dispute the examples he gives, in a book purporting a pretty big overarching statement of mankind, I'd like more than "neanderthals were stronger", "so-and-so is a good athlete, but Greek boxers blah blah", especially when the primary sources may not be reliable for hard scientific data.
Also virtually nonexistent (or at least glossed over) in this book is a real examination of *why* modern men aren't as "macho" as they were. The easy answer that Mcallister probably purposefully ignores is that they don't have to be. Changing environments and lifestyles don't require us to run a marathon every day to hunt for food, and so on. It's an easy answer, but not one that would stop the right person from writing a book discussing the things here. Unfortunately Mcallister isn't that - he's more concerned with being lighthearted and sarcastic and spouting random anecdates that really exploring the cans of worms he opens up. In short, I pretty much had the same issue with this book that I did with "Sex At Dawn" - interesting topic, poor and distracting writing. While Sex At Dawn did redeeem itself in parts, though, this did not. I wouldn't really recommend this to anyone, and I'm pretty excited to be done with it.
Also virtually nonexistent (or at least glossed over) in this book is a real examination of *why* modern men aren't as "macho" as they were. The easy answer that Mcallister probably purposefully ignores is that they don't have to be. Changing environments and lifestyles don't require us to run a marathon every day to hunt for food, and so on. It's an easy answer, but not one that would stop the right person from writing a book discussing the things here. Unfortunately Mcallister isn't that - he's more concerned with being lighthearted and sarcastic and spouting random anecdates that really exploring the cans of worms he opens up. In short, I pretty much had the same issue with this book that I did with "Sex At Dawn" - interesting topic, poor and distracting writing. While Sex At Dawn did redeeem itself in parts, though, this did not. I wouldn't really recommend this to anyone, and I'm pretty excited to be done with it.
June 25, 2012
The information in the book is interesting.
The jist of how he frames the information, however, is somewhat disingenuous. Every chapter is set up as "modern man" v. "historical man" with modern man losing in every respect. Which is fine. But in some chapters he is drawing from individual aspects of 10 or 20 different cultures to declare "modern man" losing - however not all of those 10 to 20 different cultures have all the attributes - so he takes 10 cultures, each having a different attribute, piles 'em up and says "they beat modern man". Sure, just like a 10 on 1 game of basketball!
Another example was his chapter on how men interact with women. He says Wilt Chamberlain's claim of 20,000 women is a lie and manages to say it was probably 10,000. Fair enough, he is probably exaggerating, but how can you claim 10,000 is correct? He does a lot of SWAGing that doesn't always make sense.
Likewise with the pick-up artists he states they are crap because they are twisting words to generate attraction, not doing actual things people did historically (like build a hut, write a poem, etc.), but he's missing the point, the point of PUA's is generating attraction via sociology/communication (read Roissy/Heartiste for scientific studies on attraction and their implementation in Game) which likewise were the ways the ancients communicated, just using different means.
Some very interesting facts and cultural information, a great collection of facts and interesting stories, I just feel his presentation method is flawed.
The jist of how he frames the information, however, is somewhat disingenuous. Every chapter is set up as "modern man" v. "historical man" with modern man losing in every respect. Which is fine. But in some chapters he is drawing from individual aspects of 10 or 20 different cultures to declare "modern man" losing - however not all of those 10 to 20 different cultures have all the attributes - so he takes 10 cultures, each having a different attribute, piles 'em up and says "they beat modern man". Sure, just like a 10 on 1 game of basketball!
Another example was his chapter on how men interact with women. He says Wilt Chamberlain's claim of 20,000 women is a lie and manages to say it was probably 10,000. Fair enough, he is probably exaggerating, but how can you claim 10,000 is correct? He does a lot of SWAGing that doesn't always make sense.
Likewise with the pick-up artists he states they are crap because they are twisting words to generate attraction, not doing actual things people did historically (like build a hut, write a poem, etc.), but he's missing the point, the point of PUA's is generating attraction via sociology/communication (read Roissy/Heartiste for scientific studies on attraction and their implementation in Game) which likewise were the ways the ancients communicated, just using different means.
Some very interesting facts and cultural information, a great collection of facts and interesting stories, I just feel his presentation method is flawed.
August 20, 2014
Clearly, modern day man has declined far when compared against his ancient ancestors, at least physically. This book does a good job of supporting this argument with a wide range of sources, but there are definitely some head scratching factual inaccuracies that detract from the enjoyment. Nothing major, at least as far as I can tell, but lots of small details that, if you catch them, give you some niggling doubts as to the overall soundness of the book. Cat muscle is the strongest in the animal kingdom? (Not even close). Aurochs were seven times larger than the cattle of today? (Even less close). Calling a Kusari Gama a Shinbo Gama, a term that I've never heard of, and that no knowledgeable practitioner of the art in question has ever used either? And for that matter, misidentifying completely the origins of said martial art? And then there's the section of argumentation about how most modern soldiers never fire their weapons, citing the book by Marshall as his evidence - a book and statistic that's been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked at this point that it's surprising he didn't know about it. And that's just a sampling. Don't even get me started on some of the boneheaded mistakes with basic statistics. All in all, it's a decent enough book to pass some time, but take what you read with a grain of salt.
January 13, 2018
Nice treat, but pictures would've been better
As the title implies- this book is all about the inadequacies of the modern males.
Forget the fluoride in the water, or the lowering of testosterone, or men not wanting to leave the nest, even modern Olympic athletes are shamed with anthropological anecdotes. It got be scratching my head..I mean, could the ancient men be that awesome? Summersaulting over angry bulls, hitting targets with arrows two times further than the modern men, playing simple game of soccer with pig bladder until ribs or skulls of opponents are cracked? Nothing awesome about violence or daring acts but only that it was a requirement in the olden times to keep the tribe safe. The whole thing seems made up, but he has pages and pages or references backing up the inadequacy of modern male. The only thing the book is missing are pictures.
As the title implies- this book is all about the inadequacies of the modern males.
Forget the fluoride in the water, or the lowering of testosterone, or men not wanting to leave the nest, even modern Olympic athletes are shamed with anthropological anecdotes. It got be scratching my head..I mean, could the ancient men be that awesome? Summersaulting over angry bulls, hitting targets with arrows two times further than the modern men, playing simple game of soccer with pig bladder until ribs or skulls of opponents are cracked? Nothing awesome about violence or daring acts but only that it was a requirement in the olden times to keep the tribe safe. The whole thing seems made up, but he has pages and pages or references backing up the inadequacy of modern male. The only thing the book is missing are pictures.
March 11, 2012
There were some interesting factoids and practices taken from a wide range of time periods, locations and cultures. The main problem was that the central conceit--that modern man doesn't stack up to earlier man when it comes to bravery, toughness, etc.--didn't support a book-length piece. And the author never considered the possibility, along the lines of Steven Pinker's recent book (I forget the title) that possibly things are just getting better. E.g., this book basically takes the position that the fact we aren't as violent as men in other times is a sign that men today are lacking. I will give him the author one thing--if this book is taken as a sign of the current literary level then men sure don't write as well as they used to.
September 12, 2011
I have always been curious about the dubious claims of the postmodern male to manhood in light of what I have studied of man throughout history in literature and the many accounts, archeological, historical, anthropological, etc. of the deeds of prowess in a multiplicity of roles that those who came before us achieved. An interesting and humorous study, if a bit sad. Following on my review of Robert Bly's "Iron John" this weekend, experiencing the breadth of reporting on what constitutes "manhood" across ancient time and through space is a worthwhile endeavor, I believe.
March 14, 2016
All the history is very interesting but I couldn't stand the way he related it to modern humans. It was like telling your grandpa about your day "school was tough today grandpa" "well back in my day we had to fight nazis to go to school. And we read by candle light. And ate stake crackers for lunch. Don't tell me about how tough school is"
I didn't check his sources but some of his 'facts' seem a little off. 'The modern man can jump 5 ft.' "It's written on a stone tablet that the smallest gladiator could jump 30 feet with full armor"
I didn't check his sources but some of his 'facts' seem a little off. 'The modern man can jump 5 ft.' "It's written on a stone tablet that the smallest gladiator could jump 30 feet with full armor"
September 4, 2011
Excellent read, and Mcallister is quick to point out the possible flaws in his research (the sort of honesty in research that is typically avoided). Quirky, witty, vivid and interesting topic. He's not a man-basher... more than is necessary.
Intriguing, and a great non-fiction piece for a typically fiction reader. (Sucks to be a traditional Korean man, though. :| Eek.)
Intriguing, and a great non-fiction piece for a typically fiction reader. (Sucks to be a traditional Korean man, though. :| Eek.)
September 9, 2012
I am currently reading this book and I find it very amusing. It seems like a lot of research has gone into this don't know how accurate it is but it's so damn funny that I keep reading. Some of it is pretty brutal but laced with humor. Maybe it's funny to me because I'm a woman, and it does not threaten my masculinity, just a guess but the reviews I have seen kind of seem like it.
December 10, 2010
not bad--but sadly, another book that read like an extended GQ article. my big takeaway: for their own sake, i should probably make sure my future (male) children have to hunt lions before they turn 14.
April 7, 2012
Had a hard time getting through this. It lacked any real organization among the sections se facts were interesting but they most were mentioned in passing and lacked depth and foundation. I was excited to read this and ultimately found myself disappointed.
January 19, 2013
Men had no clue, women liked to think they know and now the scientific verdict is in - every man in history, back to the dawn of our species, did everything better, faster,stronger and smarter than any man alive today.
December 5, 2010
Not serious but entertaining comparison of modern man to the ancients.
April 10, 2011
Not very scientific, but enjoyable
February 25, 2011
A pedestrian look at modern man compared to ancient man. Not a lot of actual science, but enjoyable to read for it's broad scope of our society vs. Old time civilizations.
March 31, 2014
Ok book, fun factoids and information throughout. Sometimes the comparisons were very tenuous and seemed disjointed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews