Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men

by Michael S. Kimmel

One of the most eminent scholars and writers on men and masculinity and the author of the critically acclaimed Manhood in America turns his attention to the culture of guys, aged 16 to 26: their attitudes, their relationships, their rules, and their rituals.

“Kimmel is our seasoned guide into a world that, unless we are guys, we barely know exists. As he walks with us through dark territories, he points out the significant and reflects on its meaning.”—Mary Pipher, Ph.D., author of Reviving Ophelia

The passage from adolescence to adulthood was once clear. Today, growing up has become more complex and confusing, as young men drift casually through college and beyond—hanging out, partying, playing with tech toys, watching sports. But beneath the appearance of a simple extended boyhood, a more dangerous social world has developed, far away from the traditional signposts and cultural signals that once helped boys navigate their way to manhood—a territory Michael Kimmel has identified as "Guyland."

In mapping the troubling social world where men are now made, Kimmel offers a view into the minds and times of America's sons, brothers, and boyfriends, and he works toward redefining what it means to be a man today—and tomorrow. Only by understanding this world and this life stage can we enable young men to chart their own paths, stay true to themselves, and emerge safely from Guyland as responsible and fully formed male adults.

 

 

 

 

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Feminism, Gender, Psychology, Gender Studies, Parenting

352 pages, Hardcover

First published August 26, 2008

About the author

Michael Scott Kimmel is an American sociologist, specializing in gender studies. He is among the leading researchers and writers on men and masculinity in the world today. The author or editor of more than twenty volumes, his books include The Politics of Manhood, and The History of Men (2005).

His documentary history, "Against the Tide: Pro-Feminist Men in the United States, 1776-1990" (Beacon, 1992), chronicled men who supported women’s equality since the founding of the country. His book, Manhood in America: A Cultural History (1996) was hailed as the definitive work on the subject. Reviewers called the book "wide-ranging, level headed, human and deeply interesting," "superb...thorough, impressive and fascinating."

His most recent book, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (2008) is a best-selling investigation of young people’s lives today, based on interviews with more than 400 young men, ages 16-26. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem said that "Michael Kimmel's Guyland could save the humanity of many young men – and the sanity of their friends and parents."

Kimmel holds the position of Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in New York, and is a spokesperson of NOMAS (The National Organization For Men Against Sexism).

He lives in Brooklyn, New York with his family.

Reviews

[Whitney Atkinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was mediocre, mostly just because I already know that college-aged straight white dudes are generally the worst. Nothing was particularly bad about this book, but nothing was extremely impressing either. If anything, I'm just more disturbed and angry at the white guy culture, and I wish this book touched more on how girls can help other than being a mother and teaching future generations to do better. (Which isn't happening because haha. Me with kids? nah.)

[Tiny Pants · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't want to out and out trash this book, because there are glimmers of brilliance in it. Unfortunately, most of those insights last all of a paragraph, and then we're back with the meat of the book, which I would describe most uncharitably as: A rehash of arguments from Manhood in America and The Gendered Society dumbed-down and cuted-up to a "this'd better get me on the Today Show level." Sorry, but no one is going to start calling a life stage "Guyland," no matter how many times you diss Jeffrey Jensen Arnett's "emerging adulthood." I felt like Rachel McAdams in Mean Girls while I was reading this: "Stop trying to make fetch Guyland happen." I always want to like Kimmel's books more than I actually wind up liking them, and this was no exception.

What was my problem with it? Wellll, there were a bunch. A key one is that in spite of gestures at inclusiveness (which were good), this book really focuses on a smaller demographic than "all guys 18 to 26." It's actually about white, college-bound or college-educated, middle or higher-class, native-born, secular, heterosexual men who live either in a) major cities or b) serious college towns. Even though -- like I said -- Kimmel discusses places where race, ethnicity, and class come into the picture (though mostly the first of those), he doesn't do it enough, and he easily lapses into describing phenomena that are relatively circumscribed as if they affected all American men within that age group. Umm, they don't.

Similarly, even though he's perfectly capable of demonstrating gender as a social construction -- he does it well enough in The Gendered Society (which one of the classes I TA for regularly uses as a textbook) to give even my students who are biology majors pause -- he doesn't really bother to do it here. With his focus on young men and the Today Show level of the language, this easily turns into what he has criticized elsewhere as the "interplanetary view of gender." This comes off especially oddly given that some of the phenomena he describes (for example, young adults moving back home after college, drifting aimlessly in crappy jobs with high aspirations and no clue how to achieve them) are hardly limited to young men. In particular, his chapter on "hooking up" takes a "battle of the sexes" view that I find particularly unpalatable. But let's save that for another time so I don't wind up on a massive tangent. Suffice to say, I worry here that he takes the easy route a lot in this book, even when he claims he's confronting the hard questions.

Another big problem for me: Where was the research? There were so many easy, low-hanging citations that he could have (and should have) just grabbed -- it would have been very little effort. Even worse though was Kimmel's claim that this book was based on "approximately four hundred" interviews with young men across the country. If he talked to that many guys, then why on earth are so many of the quotes he gives from other people's research? Even more dismaying, when you read the notes, you realize there's even more of this going on than you thought, because some he only attributes back there in the fine print. I am never, ever comfortable with this practice (even when it is acknowledged in the main body of the text). I would completely freak out if I saw someone quoting one of my interviewees, even if they were acknowledging my work. I was even more uncomfortable here because there were several authors whose work I felt he mischaracterized (particularly Boswell and Spade on fraternities and sexual assault) and others he seemed dismissive toward (especially the fantastic C.J. Pascoe's book).

Last -- and this is probably less Kimmel's issue and more one for fact-checking -- but by god people. I know we're academics. I know we're all getting older and a bit more removed from youth culture. I know we can be out of touch. But seriously, sentences like this: "And when we leave home, we take this media with us in our laptops, iPods, MP3s, Gameboys, and portable DVD players" (p. 145) -- should not be allowed to exist. This book was published in 2008 for goodness' sake! Gameboys!? Let's try the PSP or the Nintendo DS. Portable DVD players?! You've already said "laptop" in the sentence, which for most people is their portable DVD player. It's two-thousand-and-freakin'-eight. Don't say "MP3s" in a list of hardware as if that's a parallel item. Later, there's a mention of heroines of Nickelodeon shows that includes Zoey from Zoey 101 (cancelled) and Carly from iCarly (a Disney show). How can someone with a nine-year-old (at the time of writing) be that out of touch with kids' stuff?!

I know I am a way, way more critical reader than most folks, and I am probably setting myself up in a poor way karma-wise for when I eventually try to publish my dissertation, but this kind of stuff just kills me. You know, even though I've complained about it a bunch here (because I thought it was transparent pandering), there are many worse things than academics trying to get popular attention. It would certainly be good for sociological ideas to travel further into the public sphere -- particularly, in my opinion, ones that might make people question or challenge commonsense understandings of how gender works. But nothing makes a young, non-sociologist reader throw out the baby with the bath water like a sentence about Gameboys and MP3s! I see it all the time teaching undergrads, and it really bummed me out to see it here.

So why did I even give this book two stars? Well, it was very readable. Kimmel is easy reading, and he explains concepts well (like I said above, one of his earlier books has been a very effective textbook for me). He can get you through upsetting material (e.g. the chapter dealing with sexual assault) without making you have to get out. In all I think I made it through this book in two or three sittings. And like I said, I really wanted to like it. I do think his heart is mostly in the right place, I just felt that -- as a sociologist (whew! that feels pretentious!) -- I wanted a lot more scholarly rigor, even if this was from a non-academic publisher.

[Stetson · Rating 1 out of 5]

In the end we need to develop a new model of masculinity. Young men must understand on a deep level that being a real man isn't going along with what you know in your heart to be cruel, inhumane, stupid, humiliating, and dangerous. Being a real man means doing the right thing, standing up to immorality and injustice when you see it, and expressing compassion, not contempt, for those who are less fortunate. In other words, it's about being courageous. So much of Guyland encourages cowardice—being a passive bystander, going along with what seems to be the crowd's consensus

This is a progressive academic's polemic-disguised-as-sociology. It is addressed to the problem of young (white, middle class) men today. The "today" in question was the world of the mid-to-late aughts, which was decidedly less politically correct, or, if you prefer, less "feminized" than contemporary culture (e.g. GGW, The Man Show, Howard Stern, etc), though there really is no longer a mainstream culture that everyone participates in so you can live in a radical feminist/LGBTQ+ (e.g. bell hooks, Judith Butler, Susan Faludi, Jessica Valenti, Jill Filipovic, Rebecca Solnit, etc) or Manospheric (e.g. Myron Gaines, Andrew Tate, Dan Bilzerian, Adin Ross, Sneako, etc) bubble.

I have not checked on Michael S. Kimmel's latest work (though he's retired), but I'm confident he would still be singing the same tune today and that is despite his own #MeToo scandal (https://www.theguardian.com/global-de...). We'll leave the delicious irony of that out of this review, but IYKYK when it comes to "male feminists."

There are a number of reasons why this book is a disaster, and I knew it would be going in. We should have put the kibosh on the publication of pseudo-academic books in mainstream presses based entirely on a cohort of interviews (the sociologists have the temerity to call it fieldwork...) and cherrypicked, misinterpreted survey data and population statistics. If podcasts like "If Books Could Kill" had any integrity, books like this one would be their main fare, but, alas, we cannot expect that from "journalists" especially ones like Michael Hobbes. Anyway, I have to defend why I even bothered to pick up and read a book like this...

So, I read Guyland because Kimmel was someone I was often assigned or saw referenced in college IN ENGLISH LITERATURE courses. Plus, it is always a good idea to actually know the arguments of ideological opponents, and I generally oppose the ideas of most gender studies profs, which is largely because they're deeply ignorant of or misinformed about the biology of sex differences. These differences are both physical and psychological and are clear, meaningful, and adaptive. Now that we covered why I bothered to read this book, let's circle back to why it's such a feeble piece of work.

Kimmel both fails to diagnosis the origins of the problems facing young men in the 2000s nor does her properly analyze the behavior he describes, specifically in terms of its social utility or its impact on the young men in question, and, finally, Kimmel's combined missteps lead to prescriptions that are either trite in their non-objectionability and vagueness or concerned with gelding the cultural output of masculinity, which almost certainly would not benefit men. Kimmel's primary claim is that lengthening life histories (often called extended adolescence) fosters a "Guyland" environment for young men (16-26) and this strongly male-male social environment promotes behaviors that are labeled as "toxic masculinity" today. Kimmel doesn't actually use this ridiculous term, which is almost never contrasted with "honorable masculinity" or some non-pejorative variant, as it didn't exist at the time. But he is no less myopically moralizing than more contemporary commentators who have. He still provides a litany of issues, intended to be shocking and appalling, that "Guyland" exacerbates, including misogyny, sexual aggression, homophobia, and internalized stress about one's own performance of masculinity.

Apparently uninterested in the origins of longer life histories (or how there is a similar pattern among young women), he really trains focus on the dynamics he believes feed into his litany of identified "Guyland" excesses: dominance seeking, status seeking, bonding, and maturation. He doesn't speak abstractly about these concepts so much as look askance at the male-male behavior modern social environments host towards these ends: fighting and sports glorification, hazing, drinking/physical risk taking, and performative exploitation of women. It certainly isn't difficult to find bad behavior among young males, but this is a species universal. Are the men who comprise America's male majority really historical outliers on this front? Kimmel doesn't even stop to consider this. Where's is his attempt to contextualize the size and scope of the issue? Not only does Kimmel neglect the basics of defining the problem, simply begging the question, but he also shows no genuine interest in its deep origins. He glibly attributes it entirely to cultural beliefs concerning masculinity (as he understand them) and the perennial dynamics of male-only social groups. Even if these entirely accounted for male misbehavior, he doesn't stop to consider whether these apparent costs of male-male socialization and maturation may have valuable social functions for men. If they didn't accord some value to these men, why do they participate in these social phenomena at all? Kimmel never considers that young men may be responding rationally to their social environments.

As an aside, to show how superficial Kimmel's think is, let's look at his commentary on initiation rites. These comments total maybe 10 to 15 pages at most of the book despite their being central to male socialization. We are treated to no survey of the anthropological literature of male initiation rituals nor any peek at the literature from cultural evolution work on what function these rituals may serve. More broadly, social institutions that compel obligations from young men, say marriage, are not systematically assessed in any way. Kimmel apparently cannot bring himself to examine what initiation rites are meant to achieve and how they may be structured if we are to hope for something different from men today. In his perfunctory coverage, he conflates the distinctions between initiation rites meant to test a man mettle versus those that are meant to bind him to a particular group versus those that are meant to honor him (Ewww, this is too close to icky "entitlement" for Kimmel; men can't have anything they want.). The details of these rituals matter, but Kimmel can't bring himself to think too closely about this.

But I really think it's important that Kimmel hasn't thought enough about what he wants from male-male socialization besides for men to protect and support the goals of women. In his view, what are men actually supposed to strive for and do? What happens when they strive for and want different things? Or, what is what they want is unfettered sexual access to as many women as possible without responsibility or obligation? Is this okay with Kimmel? Well, he never really is clear about this. In fact, when he covers this topic, again briefly in his book, he wastes time on the purported social pressure to hook up and perform potently in bed while lamenting the "orgasm gap" between the men and women who do participate in and report upon their casual encounters. Kimmel's book should be asking what level and type of male-male socialization is optimal for a flourishing society, i.e. the kind that harnesses dark drives for social constructive ends and rewards men who can both tame and maintain their edge. Kimmel never reaches this central question and couches concern about young men in a therapeutic frame that assumes they would all be happier as sensitive softies mainly concerned with the pursuit of progressive political policy and the social priorities of women.

The obvious problem with Kimmel's central claim is that longer life histories and other trends that started well before the aughts but were ongoing through them have actually associated with less cultural misogyny (women's social and economic power has been on an unbroken linear trajectory upwards since the 70s), less aggression of any kind (e.g. falling violent crime rates), and broader acceptance of alternative sexual practices (e.g. marriage equality movement was building momentum all through Obama presidency and now trans activism is prevalent). Additionally, the much more notable and historically unprecedented phenomenon of extended life histories has been women staying single into their 30s. Sex and the City and Girls are both widely regarded by these same academics as important cultural indicators, which strongly signal female defection from traditional social institutions, namely marriage and parenthood, which themselves were brokered deals between ancestral matriarchy and ancestral patriarchy necessary for the flourishing of the species. Apparently, these compromises are no longer good enough and now we're left with the cultural fallout: sex-based polarization, falling fertility, and swelling ranks of unmarried and undateable men.

Kimmel doesn't really have any solutions on offer for his misdiagnosis either. He basically sends up a signal hoping for some pious (read soyified) male mentors and leaders to materialize and guide males out of the already culturally tamed but otherwise natural intrasexual dynamics that he finds so undesirable. The problem is, when it come to male-male bonding, there isn't some safe way to do it. Conflict will have casualties, resolving conflicts will instantiate hierarchies of dominance and competence. These have high stakes. The traditional solutions, which cultural leftist and technology allied together to degrade, were probably the optimal ones for the median human. Instead, we've shaped our modern sociosexual roles for the top third to top fifth of the population, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves in the wilderness (Reminds me of Lanthimos' The Lobster). This is why we get inundated with endless dating and genderslop discourse. Types like Kimmel just refuse to learn.

[Elevate Difference · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guyland is less of a place than an attitude, a realm of existence. Occupied by young, single, white men, its main demographic is middle class kids who are college-bound, college co-eds, or recent graduates in the United States. They live in communal housing with fraternity brothers or other recent grads. They work entry-level jobs but act aimless. They have plenty of time to party like they did in college and subsist on pizza, beer, and a visual diet of cartoons, sports, and porn. They hook up with women, but rarely form meaningful relationships. Sociologist Michael Kimmel might sound like he’s stereotyping, but years of research confirm what many of us already know: Guyland, as described in the book of the same name, is a world occupied by a specific type of privileged, entitled, young, white male, one who probably watches The Man Show on SpikeTV and listens to gangsta rap with no hint of irony.

Kimmel has written extensively about this culture with no name, a culture that appears so ubiquitous on large, public U.S. university campuses, it can seem redundant to label it at all. Yet in Guyland, Kimmel deconstructs the many problems associated with this lifestyle, and perhaps most importantly, how it can stunt the growth of young men (and women) with true potential.

The critique of Guyland includes a laundry list of offensive behaviors and attitudes. Crude male bonding encourages a specific type of homosocial behavior that dictates strict masculinity, which makes gay baiting a common practice. Women who reject Guyland lads are suspected lesbians, and female friends are treated as accessories or potential “friends with benefits,” assuming they don the required baseball cap and oversized sweatshirt so as not to unnecessarily tempt their male buddies. This gender policing also exists in athletics, where even when cross-racial bonding occurs, you still prove yourself “guy or gay.” The “jockocracy” ends up extending into many facets of young men’s lives, making violent athletic culture norms everyday experiences, cultivating competition, silence, and fear.

Men in Guyland watch pornography in large groups, not to get off, but to discuss humiliating the women to whom they feel entitled. Binge drinking and partying all weekend are common behaviors, both in college and beyond. No one acts particularly interested in committed relationships, though many men interviewed assume they will one day marry and have children. The contradictions continue throughout the entire book, as entitled young men voice to Kimmel their desires without introspection about how to reach them.

While thorough, the main problem with Kimmel’s assessment is that in trying to be fair, he ends up excusing behavior. While individuals and their actions are clearly different from the harmful whole of Guyland’s influence, continuously explaining that most young men are good and harmless reinforces the privilege associated with men who defend the actions of other men. There may not be any efficient way to draw a line between violent offenders and naïve college guys who get caught up in a culture of complicit silence, but defending them is demeaning and deeply offensive to those who are hurt by their actions.

Kimmel also spends much time explaining that the men he writes about are generally middle class and white, yet never once is the phrase “white privilege” used. Perhaps I’m taking issue where some see none, but in order to fully address a problem, it must be named. To constantly skirt around the issue, to name race without defining the system that holds its power in place, does a disservice to the problem at hand, as well as the author’s otherwise insightful analysis. This truth may be difficult for the population at large to swallow, but in omitting key elements from his text, Kimmel failed the groups his book could otherwise benefit: women, people of color, and people who identify as LGBTQI.

Guyland should come with a warning for those who have lived – personally or indirectly – through the trauma that can go hand in hand with a violent male culture: those who have survived assault, those who have done permanent damage from binge drinking, and those who have lost their identities trying to keep up with the expectations of men. The statistics and stories recounted in Guyland are often terrorizing, and despite helpful suggestions for turning things around, this isn’t always a narrative of hopeful rehabilitation.

Despite its flaws, Guyland is highly informative, especially for those who haven’t been living in the midst of young white guy culture for the last decade. It picks up where books like Stiffed and Female Chauvinist Pigs left off, exploring the nuances of male bonding, sports culture, and hazing. It credits feminism for helping men bounce back from their time in a pornified wasteland and offers hope that, as a culture, we can begin turning things around for young men, beginning as early as middle school. It isn’t light reading to pair with a Glamor magazine, but it does take a necessary look at an increasingly pervasive part of our culture and names ways we can all begin to change the status quo.

Review by Brittany Shoot

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Couldn't finish this. It's an important topic, but this treatment is marred by a far too narrow focus (upper middle class spoiled white boys) and Kimmel's completely obnoxious writing style. The whole thing could boil easily down to "stop raising your kids like they are owed the world, elite people!" but Kimmel is quick to exculpate individuals ("this isn't about bad parenting!" he says regarding boys who...rape and assault; "these aren't a bunch of raving psychotics!" he assures us regarding boys who...gang rape and violently assault) and blame SOCIETY! However one must beg the question: who IS this "SOCIETY" which is to blame for all of these problems, if not a mass of individuals including parents, who may not be doing the most spectacular job of raising responsible, decent young people?

I also tired of his rhetorical tic of "a friend confided in me." And it's always something horrible they confide. Maybe Kimmel would be less grim if he got some new friends.

Kimmel makes it sound like these misguided youth generate spontaneously from passive factors like "the economy" and "peers" and "macho" but this just makes the book all the more depressing. He paints a fairly accurate picture of what is wrong with males on and around college campuses (I started to wonder, on the other hand, if Kimmel had ever met a person who WASN'T in college or working for one) but since nobody can be blamed, it just kinda happens, there's apparently nothing to be done but be depressed. Whee.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to give this 5 stars but ultimately did not because his case studies and examples are a little too narrow. He makes a good case using statistics that the culture of fraternities filled with white men is overwhelmingly toxic on many college campuses. He then asserts that similar problems exist with other white men of the same age who didn't go to college but provides little evidence for it. So I really liked what he says, and it rings true to me from my own experience, but I think the evidence he uses for a broader critique outside of college life is weak.

The basic assertion here is that partly due to a lack of adult influence and guidance, and partly due to petulance and childishness, a large number of whilte guys are opting out of becoming responsible adults, choosing instead to stay perpetually free but juvenile, and have a developed a toxic, self-reinforcing idea of what being a guy is all about, and strongly policing all behaviors that would shatter that illusion and reveal them as sad, angry, selfish boys. You can kinda tell from my language here that this conforms with my observations of reality.

But I agree that there is such a thing as guyland, and to me it feels like it's the 22 year old version of what 1st grade males told each other about how things were. When I was in 1st grade, it was widely known that sex was about boys peeing into girls. Absent adult education at this point, we had come up with our own definition of what it must be, and we were pretty damn confident about it. After all, my good friend on the playground had confided this secret, he knew lots of stuff I didn't, surely this was trustworthy information? Well, guyland to me is a lot like 1st grade. There are a wide variety of rules about what "being a man" means which include but are not limited to:

drinking a lot
sleeping with a lot of women
not pussy-whipped (i.e. agree with girls when they have a difference of opinion with the young gods known as men)
not crying (except at sports)
not having emotions in general other than anger
enjoying porn and strip clubs (I was just last night castigated by a good friend for have the opinion that strip clubs were not a remotely healthy environment for anyone involved)

But this list comes from the same "authoritative" place as it did in 1st grade. A bunch of guys who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's a made-up ridiculous culture with no outside adult influence to say that they really don't know what they're talking about. They genuinely don't know what growing up means (and fear that it's probably a ball and chain on their happiness and freedom) and no one is giving them any hints at all.

I think what gets people's back up about this critique is most people look at this list (or better ones, I'm sure I left something important out) and say "well, no one I know even fits half of those" but that's kind of the point. Most guys I've ever met in my life including myself have hang-ups on at least ONE of those things, usually a lot more, and even one of those things can keep you from becoming a fully realized human being. For instance, if you think being a man is just about sleeping around with as many women as possible, you get frustrated after a while because you don't feel satisfied doing that. Of course, as any guy who's gotten past guyland can tell them, of course that doesn't make you happy. What makes you happy or at least happier and more fulfilled is having an emotionally intimate relationship with another human being, and once you've got that, sex with that person starts to get really good. But not one of their peers gets this so there's no help to be found there, and there aren't enough adults with connections into these groups of overgrown children to model it for them. There's also a culture of silence and intimidation that tries to shut down the conversation when anyone tries to bring it up.

I'm not sure that the problem with guyland has any easy solution. If you confront them with anger and bluntness I want to use they'll probably just get defensive and no learning will occur. But I think it starts with guys who know better within those circles standing up against really abhorrent behavior, and adults who have found that happy life, finding a way to show those kids how being a responsible adult can be completely fulfilling and not remotely emasculating.

I think largely what I'm taking away from this is I'm not going to shut up about it anymore. If you display an unwarranted sense of male entitlement and especially if you're over, oh say 25, you're going to hear about it from me (hopefully). It's time to grow up kids. I promise it doesn't hurt as much as you think it will.

[N · Rating 4 out of 5]

The traditional markers of reaching manhood have long ago been eroded: most males are in their late-twenties/early-thirties before they have a “real” job, a marriage, kids or their own home. Michael Kimmel examines the wasteland that exists after adolescence, where males are not men, just “guys”.

These 18-25-year-old guys tend to be overeducated but underemployed, with a sense of entitlement that does not align with the privilege that they don’t receive. “Hooking up” with girls is just another sport to discuss with their (male) friends. They’ve been socialized to feel that anger is the only acceptable emotion, and all life’s worries can be papered over with the pronouncement that “it’s all good”.

I’m a total geek for Gender & Women’s Studies, but even I was surprised by how much I loved this book. I happened to start reading another GWS/Sociology book soon after I finished this one and the difference between them is immense – there’s none of the usual dry academia-speak in Guyland; Kimmel writes with the easy panache of a magazine writer.

If there’s an expert in the field of teenage masculinity, it’s probably Kimmel (and, okay, people aren’t exactly lining up to take that crown from him ;). That depth of knowledge and academic experience really elevates the book. I’ve found Kimmel borderline-annoying in previous journal articles on similar subjects, but here he is almost unerringly thoughtful and objective. Guyland is well divided up into easy-to-digest segments, but its overarching themes always remain clear. It’s an extremely compelling read.

Though compelling, Guyland is not always an easy book to deal with. I found the chapter on “party rape” very tough to get through. Kimmel also overcooks it a little with his “advice” – that communication and nurture are necessary for males even after they’ve “flown the nest” are worthy comments, but Kimmel pounds his points into the ground a little too hard.

Nonetheless, Guyland is definitely a book I would recommend. Kimmel’s sense that he doesn’t want his young son to grow into a rudderless, amoral “guy” is palpable. It’s hard to change society, but being able to spot its faults is an important first step. I should note that it’s not just a book about guys – there was plenty of stuff that I, as a 24-year-old non-guy could relate to. In fact, I found it comforting in a “well, at least I’m not alone” sort of way.

[lp · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read that this book was like a male version of "Reviving Ophelia", and it was not, which was disappointing. Kimmel sort of writes about guyland as if he has never met a guy before in his life? Maybe he just treats the subject too sociolog-ey. "Watch as the interesting creatures submit to the barbaric ritual they refer to as 'POWER. HOUR.'" (I'm paraphrasing.) Or maybe it's because I went to a frat heavy college, so I wasn't surprised to hear about POWER. HOUR and KEG. STANDS. And since I'm a girl, or a person under the age of 80, I already know that nobody dates anymore. So thanks Michael Kimmel, for telling me a lot of stuff I already know but saying it in a totally unattached, sterile manner that makes you sound like you're some sort of genius. I guess I'm being too hard on it, though. I read the whole thing, and it kind of got me thinking. Guys have it hard. Girls have it hard. We all have it so hard.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

How do I describe the mixed feelings I had about this book?

On the one hand, Michael Kimmel takes on some questions that need be answered. Why are young men waiting longer to settle down, get married, and become responsible adults? How do we explain and understand the culture of "hooking up" that has transplanted dating in college-aged youth? What can we do to help boys make the transition to manhood in a culture that offers few positive definitions of what this transition even means? Kimmel delves into all these questions in a way that really got me thinking--a lot. He offers a thorough presentation of the various problems affecting young men today, and even offers a couple solutions.

On the other hand, Kimmel's scholarship is terrible, and halfway through the book I decided I didn't trust most of what he said. The biggest problem is in how he supports his points. In some cases he makes good use of surveys and statistics. But in most instances he makes sweeping generalizations which he supports with anecdotal evidence, or in some case no evidence at all. "Take my word for it, I'm a gender studies professor" seems to be his attitude. In one truly off-the-wall moment he tries to say that baptism for the early Christian church represented a rite of passage in which a young man would leave the world of women and enter the world of men. (He was trying to throw in Christian baptism as another piece of evidence to support his theory about rites of passage across multiple cultures and religions.) The only evidence he gave to support his claim was that baptisms were performed exclusively by men. Really? That's it? Since it was only performed by men it must conveniently have the same meaning as all other male rites of passage and nicely fit the point you're trying to make? No need to present any other evidence, like actual research about what the people of the time, oh, I don't know, actually said baptism meant to them? No need to explain why, if baptism was about leaving the world of women and entering the world of men, women also went through baptism? Were the women also leaving the world of women? Sadly, a lot of Kimmel's evidence feels just like this. A hasty example slapped on to an over-broad theory. In addition, he somehow manages to find the three or four most awful examples of abuse for every topic and presents them as though they are representative of every day experience. That alone made the book a frequently horrifying and thoroughly depressing read.

Again, there was some interesting stuff here, and it did get me thinking, but I'm definitely glad to be done reading this one.

[Denis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Being the demographic about whom Kimmel is writing (except not heterosexual), I felt I needed to read this. Feeling the listlessness and aimlessness he ascribes to males 16-26 who graduate college fit me quite well.

Unfortunately, I did not connect to the text as I thought, as being gay, this was a world I did not live in, and being a feminist already, many of the arguments were ones I'd read elsewhere, for a different audience, and with different intents.

The style with which Kimmel writes about many of these topics quickly told me the book was not written for me, which makes sense, as he seems to largely direct his writing toward parents of these boys; to figures who can act as parents, mentors, et cetera. However, it also seemed he shoehorned some of his arguments in to fit a point he wanted to make, such as videogames and rap allowing for males to appropriate a symbolic blackface. This would be a point that might be worth exploring, if more videogames actually had black protagonists, but his one example, GTA III: San Andreas, is not indicative of the videogame libraries in most of these fraternities and apartments.

In large part, it reads, as others have commented, as a removed anthropological study that is aggravating and shows Kimmel's own biases and the generational gap with which he is dealing. While I applaud his effort to expand the study of masculinity, I also feel that he often misses some points to give some earth-shattering example, which he then does not fully explicate in terms of intersectionality.

Again and again I had to remind myself that his only focus was on middle class, college-educated white males--which explained a lot of the privilege and entitlement these males were feeling. This was a point I never felt he explicated well, just assuming the entitlement was purely based on their manhood.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guyland is an observation of the "macho" culture that pervades high school and college. It's written in a very anecdotal voice, which is accessible, though it leads Kimmel to paint in sometimes too-broad strokes. The book's message is one of male privilege and power, how that power perpetuates itself, and the fact that many males are uncomfortable with such, even though they perform such actions because it's how they "should" be.

For me, this book put into words everything I found so disgusting about the typical guy culture in which I was raised. It was a relief to learn that my hesitancy to engage in such a culture is normal, and to have themes and thoughts tacked on to descriptions of such gave depth to my simple revulsion. It made me happy to read that I did okay by avoiding this culture.

However, this book is not perfect, and I think that it would be easy to be turned off by the subject matter. First of all, Guyland is largely an observation of fraternity culture. While it's easy to be dismissive of that ("I've never been at a party where a bunch of bros gang-raped somebody,") I also think it serves as an apt subject matter because frat culture contains the most highly-concentrated "guy"-ness. So, while not all aspects of the book will ring true (gang-rape, homoerotic ritualization,) they frame seemingly lesser issues within a larger context.

Also, Kimmel occasionally takes a sanctimonious, condescending tone. While his description of drinking as "obliterating one's brain" (or some such; I'm paraphrasing) is objectively true, it comes across like a cranky dad. I doubt that will win him many supporters.

The book does not seek to resolve any of those issues, which is frustrating. I would like to read about successful strategies of coping with or ending such behavior, as the current format feels open-ended. However, it also ensures the book remains within its scope, which is a description of upper-middle class American male culture.

I'd recommend this for any male who feels sensitive or out of place in mainstream culture. It's a refreshing read.

[Robert Rosenthal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written, well-researched. Not what everyone wants to hear, but so what? Truth can be tough, and sometimes challenging. As a psychotherapist dealing with couples' issues, Guyland helps explain why so many men today have so much trouble identifying what they're feeling and skillfully expressing it in an intimate partnership.

[Adena · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting look at how in our society, boys stay boys for much longer than is healthy, and how their rituals and group behaviors are detrimental to true manhood and society. Very interesting.

[Petty Lisbon · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're already a feminist or participate and read about the socialization of gender, this won't be anything new, but it's a decent book that puts together different parts of how 16-26 year old men are obnoxious and why it hurts them as well as us. Sports, entertainment, porn, dating- all of these issues are examined for how the masculine facade can turn something as simple as watching the big game into a messy experience. Personally, I could've gone without some of the quotes from questionable people (ie- "Feminism and teaching girls they can do anything makes boys do badly in school! Someone think of the poor menfolkz :(" style quotes ) or the general "a REAL man always acts with respect, and 95% of frat boys are being held hostage against their vibe, they're the real victims" kinds of attitudes because it feels like they're trying too hard to appeal to jocks and frat people and their parents, but I guess you catch more flies with honey.
I really loved how he talked about how the general theory is that men basically are reacting to "other" groups (ie- POC, women, the LGBT community, etc) getting more rights and that's why they double down on messiness and stupidity and they view treating other people with respect as a loss of their own rights because that's pretty much it. He seemed to put a little too much faith that things can change, but I guess he couldn't be a complete downer.

I'd like to see him discuss "nice guys" or jock mentality in guys who are "nerdy". I feel like some of the worse experiences I had in high school were from people who were "closer" to me on the social totem pole, whereas people on varsity sports teams were in their own world.

[Carolyn Fitzpatrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has been on my list for a while and it did not disappoint. The author's goal is to explain the bro culture that young men find themselves immersed in from roughly ages 15-25, with lingering effects afterward. This culture promotes "real men" as violent, sexually competitive, and hedonistic, while also justifying a prolonged childhood of staying unattached and avoiding responsibilities or self-improvement. The culture of "Guyland" is driven mostly by white, middle class, straight guys. Men who are racial minorities and/or gay are less likely to get sucked in by it, although many at least pretend to act the part to achieve social goals. Kimmel is careful to state that many white young men successfully resist Guyland, but nevertheless are faced with it daily.

The book is arranged topically with lots of interviews and stats to back up arguments. Guys are taking part in dangerous hazing rituals, drinking to excess, spending all their time playing video games and watching sports, sponging off parents rather than taking a job they think is beneath them, hooking up with girls they aren't attracted to just to prove something to their friends, believing that porn is real, believing that everyone is hooking up more than them, and believing the talk radio hosts who say that they are being oppressed by stuck-up women and PC police. Basically there is a lot of rage here, and a lot of sour grapes.

All of the blame comes in the last chapter. Part of the blame for this situation is laid upon parents, but not in the way you might think. Spoiled boys are usually blamed on overindulgent mothers, but Kimmel puts more of the blame on uninvolved or openly encouraging fathers. In his interviews with parents about the actions of their sons, the mothers were horrified but the dads were jealous. It seems like the only time that the dads saw their sons' behavior as a problem is when they moved back home. Another part of the blame is given to the college administrations, when they prioritize getting the best athletic recruits over the safety of women on campus. Another part of the blame is given to alumni, who kick up a fuss when college administrations actually do try to implement policies to curb date rape and excessive drinking. And finally, local police departments (who often have hazing practices of their own) are blamed for being reluctant to respond to reports of hazing or rape.

An easy solution to the Guyland culture is not presented. There really isn't an easy fix. Kimmel's goal is to education parents, alumni, college administrations, and police, so that they can appropriately respond to crimes when they happen. But there is very little here in the way of prevention, other than a few indirect comments about the poor state of sex education in US high schools. Porn, violent video games, and gangsta rap are emphasized as symptoms, not causes. The underlying cause of Guyland is teen boys losing confidence in themselves, and feeling like they have to create a "real man" facade. They need less helicoptering in middle school and high school, and more realistic conversations with adults (especially men) who don't shy away from difficult subjects like dating, personal integrity, and acknowledging their emotions. They need to be made aware of media that doesn't show male adulthood as choice between "bros before hos" or being a dim-witted husband in a sexless marriage.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit too US centric and after a promising start repetitions are many

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am giving this 3 instead of 4 stars due to it being about the U.S, where I am not. Therefore I feel like there are gaps in information.

I was worried going into this as my friend said there was difficult material. That is an understatement.

At the beginning of reading I did not hold high hopes as the author seemed to be focusing on how hard "guys" lives are and seemed to be blaming it on their fathers. It's currently 2015 and the economic situation is crappy for everyone, including young people, not just "guys". High school is a shitty place where peers look to each other for validation - definitely not just a "guy" problem. Young boys act differently in front of their friends than they do their parents. Not a boy/guy problem.

Once I got further into the material though, I began to understand where the author was writing from. There were some insights of information and I actually *gasp* found myself agreeing with and understanding some of it, such as the sports chapter.

But some of the quotes from guys he uses throughout the book - oh man, it almost caused me to stop reading. Not because I wholeheartedly disagreed with what these guys were saying, or because I was unsure of where the author was going with the quotes (validation? sticking up for these types of thoughts?) But because some were so awful that I was becoming paranoid of walking down the damn street!

But after taking a short break and coming back to the material I remembered the following:
this is a small sample size and I am not walking near a campus.
I think this is more reflective of U.S. attitudes than what I encountered on my Canadian campus.
This book is about middle class WHITE guys. I message I took from this book is that "guys" are overwhelmingly white. So yay for ethnicity.

After finishing the book I still have a few problems with it. Mostly that much of what he talks about can be applied to girls/women as well for example the high school and economic factors.

I also wish he had spent a bit more time summing up how we might begin to change these attitudes and specifically this sense of entitlement the "guys" have. That word "entitlement" really irks me and I would like to see the author address it...perhaps a short follow up book is in order? He mentions in passing that communities and women have to help these guys by changing the perception of what manhood and masculinity is. I would like to see him explore that more thoroughly. Let's start a new and better list of what manhood is. While we are at it, let's move the definition away from sex, and sex with women entirely. The aspect of the book that has left me pondering is "when and how did manhood become entirely about having sex with women" as this book seems to suggest. Following that logic I am not a woman as I have not been pregnant/given birth yet, as that is what sex is for....right? ;)

I am also left puzzling some of the arguments that include: being around his mother feminizes a boy. If the adage is a girl learns how to be treated by her father, how is a boy supposed to learn how to treat a woman if he doesn't learn that respect from his mother?

I could go on, but you should read the book for yourself and form your own opinion. Then come back and let's talk.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not scientific. I was not sure whether I was reading an opinion larded with anecdotes, or facts. The author uses "many" and "often" liberally without substantiation, with no statistics given except for a few places.
Very often, I wrote in the margin: "any proof for this?" The guy who wrote this has strung stories together to create plausibility. It is how fake news works. The one chapter where the book finally becomes close to scientific is chapter 9, about hooking-up, because that is based on the College Social Life Survey.
The actual cases in the book, however, with names, places and dates (and court references) were interesting though some upset me.

The author's logic is flawed at places, biased and self contradictory too. I wish I could have explored guyland without his misguided voice-over that supposed to be analysis, but had causal flaws the size of black holes. Jumping to conclusions.
The most problematic of these repeated unfounded assertions, imho, was that the problematic behavior was a response to the new loss of entitlement that white males feel, as the source of this misbehavior. That assertion is logically flawed as well, because, later on, the author demonstrates how older guys (the dads) are jealous of their sons ease of getting laid. Apparently in their days they were not this entitled at all.

Online life, in this book, hardly exists, apart from gaming. "Likes" are all RL likes. Dissing is all RL dissing. Is this really possible?

Almost 173 pages in, one learns that he is talking only about far-right-wing white boys on campuses in Greek fraternities. Not even all white boys between 16 and 26. Given that statistics are not his forte its hard to discern how many of all American guys this book about. And further on, he talks indiscriminately again, in a way that - if I were to use quotes of this book - it would seem that what he says is about all guys. Now and then he is specific: black, hispanic, gay and other guys are not part of his. Hardly behave like that. That nice. It also make the title a fraud (Guyland. The perilous world where boys become man. Understanding the critical years between 16 and 26). After finishing the book, I'd say a more appropriate title is: "Behaviors of some entitled, white, middle-class college guys in Greek fraternities.". That of course does not sell half as well. So maybe call it "Criminal behaviors of some .... etc".

Reading this while at the same time reading Rough State (William Blum) that details how white US males have misbehaved decades long, worldwide, to keep third world nations from getting their own opinions about democracy, gives a whole new perspective of what uncontrolled entitled white men can do in the wide world.

This book could be used in classes to help student distinguish fake news from real substantiated news, because it would help student distinguish between facts and assumptions.

[Katherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK, i agree that this is predominately a "sociology for the masses" book, along the lines of "pledged." nothing wrong with that at all, except for the fact that this study gives us over 250 pages of really disturbing and frankly just sad data and then provides a disproportionate seven pages of "what we can do to help our men." i recognize that this is not a behavioral workbook or a self-help book, but still, after reading so much disheartening and upsetting material, i'd like to have at least a sense that as a woman, my desire to shift both perceptions and actions of young men could be both relevant and effective. also, this is really more of a study of "bro" culture: mainly white frat guys. the study acknowledges this bias in the preface, but the title should be updated for 2012. it's a survey of bro culture, not exactly "pledged" for guys, but the study does cover mainly college interactions like hazing, hooking up, fraternal homoeroticism, etc. it also addresses the ideas of delaying adulthood and the sense that men hold that women are there to force them to grow up, man up, and provide for the family. the study is well-written and impeccably researched, but as a woman reading this i felt majorly depressed at times. first of all, not all guys are like those represented here: i actually know only a handful of "preppy" types, and it sucked to actually wonder if my more "sensitive type" guy friends were also harboring similar sentiments about women and the "intrusion" of feminism into their lives. makes me question the motives and honesty of my guy friends, which i'm not sure is fair or accurate, but may in fact be very necessary if unpleasant. there are a lot of topics covered here, so not everything is as developed as we'd like it to be, which is understandable, so we get a great overview. but this book rouses a lot more contempt in me and my understanding of guys than it does pity. i feel more marginilized, disrespected, sexualized, used, and mistreated by men having read the book than i did before. the book does a good job of successfuly invalidating relationships and interactions with men that i gave a lot of credit to. now i'm not so sure. a good read as a lady if you want to really challenge yourself and your role and presence in perpetuating and participating in "bro culture," which, although i'm admittedly distant from, i think runs across more sectors of male societies and personalities than this study may let on. very thought provoking, but wow, very depressing.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suppose most perceptive people of really all generations can tell you that kids aren't the same today that they were years ago. Whether or not there's disgust, jealousy or a disapproving head shake probably depends upon what generation you find yourself. Then again, every generation can and will say that about the ones that follow.

To say that there are men today in their twenties and thirties who refuse to grow up is indeed an understatement. But then again, you might not see it as such depending upon your perspective and/or age. Thus we have Kimmel's thesis: Men today in the aforementioned age cohort are more likely to either:

Live at home with their parents after age 22;
Not finish college, or;
If they finish college to be underemployed/unemployed;
Devote extraordinary amounts of time to video games;
Devote extraordinary amounts of time to pornography;
View women and girls as sex objects above and beyond all else;
Not be interested in relationships with said women other than sexually;
Delay marriage indefinitely;
Continue a partying college lifestyle even after college.
I could go on and on. You get the gist of Kimmel's thesis.

While all this is true about much of the men in those age groups. What's troubling about Kimmel's conclusions are that they seem to concentrate solely on how today's young men and boys are emasculated by the concurrent rise of young women and girls the past 25 years in the U.S.
Kimmel thinks that the excessive porn watching, hookup mania on college campi, constant video game playing, boys falling behind girls academically, and the refusal to grow up among the young men can all be traced back to women taking greater and more numerous roles in society and scholastic athletics.
As a slight sidebar, he mentions the death of the solid working class job in America for causation as well.

Kimmel, citing his sources, notes that it is mainly white men and boys who fall into this Guyland category, which I find slightly dubious. Black and Hispanic boys play video games as well. (sarcasm)

The book is a quick and interesting read. Those of you with sons might be able to relate to a lot of what Kimmel writes.
I was hoping to read in the book about today's helicopter parenting and some relation to this Guyland phenomena, but did not.

[A.J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m all over the place about this book. I learned some things, but overall it lacked focus and many of the quotes seemed contrived.

I thought the intro was all over the map and the promotional quotes on the back didn’t really describe the content of the book. As for the chapters, the author brings up important topics which are for the most part well organized. But as soon as he gets on a subject he throws out an extreme quote to back up what he’s saying and then uses sweeping generalizations to wrap up his points. I think the topics in the book are very important and need to be brought to people’s attention, but as far as pop psych/soc books go, it was heavy on the “pop.” The thing that got me was the quotes. They were so extreme they made the people seem like caricatures. I understand having extreme points, but sprinkle in some middle of the road ones to give your ideas more depth rather than a super generality. Maybe I’m just used to reading dull sociology books that are a bit more subtle.

Like I said, the issues are important. I am keeping this book for some references and it’s a okay place to start, but I will need to search a little more for a good men’s studies book.

Also, I gave this a neutral star rating because I did skip chapters 4,5, and 6. Not that the topics aren’t important, my research just doesn’t rest as strongly in those areas. I will likely return to the book and read them later.

[Diana · Rating 1 out of 5]

Within just ten pages of Guyland Kimmel discredits himself with conjectures about gender..and even basic facts. Here's where this first pops up: "Most guys are not predators, not criminals, and neither so consumed with adolescent rage nor so caught in the thrall of masculine entitlement that they are likely to end up with a rap sheet instead of a college transcript. But most guys know other guys who are chronic substance abusers, who have sexually assaulted their classmates (6)." This comes with no citations and it contradicts itself. If most guys know another guy who has assaulted someone else, doesn't that mathematically imply that many men are indeed predators? Or is he basing this off his 400 interviewees who somehow all know the same handful of predators?
So at page 6 we are already off to a bad start (or maybe we were off to a bad start when Kimmel wouldn't stop using the term "Guyland"). Six pages later Kimmel brings up girls and their role in this "Guyland", but their roles are framed only in the point of view of the men of Guyland, and yet again, basic assumptions about how these women interact with and are viewed by the men. He doesn't include any quotes from the men he interviewed to support that this is how the women are seen.
I hate leaving books unfinished, in part because I tend to feel that it's unfair to judge a book without considering how it stands as a whole. Kimmel's personal assumptions with little basis leave the book with no value.

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was another book that I read for my intro to women's and gender studies class and on the whole, I really enjoyed it. This book is all about the world that white, upper-middle class American boys grow up in. I think that this is a particularly important book for college students and parents.

Kimmel's writing is not overly dense, but he definitely still sounds intelligent and this book is still very well researched on the whole. It's hard to write a review of this book, because it's a book one reads to become more well-informed. However, this definitely wrought some real emotions of me, and made me want to change the guyland which Kimmel talks about so much throughout the novel.

My one complaint is that Kimmel did not address racial minorities or those of a lower socioeconomic status in this book. Otherwise, I think that this is a great read. It inspired me to pick up a lot of the books which Kimmel referenced in here. I will definitely be checking out more of his work.

[Ari · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, it's nice when the end page number is 300-something, but 30 pages of that is endnotes/references.

Most importantly: this book reminds me why I love sociology and sociological texts. Not all school books are boring and dry, for sure. The best thing about books like Guyland is that they are easily read/understood, interesting, and so applicable to our individual lives it's almost painful at times. Half the things Kimmel explains this book, I previously hadn't thought of but once they were pointed out, it was hard not to think of examples I had encountered in my life without realizing it at the time.

So the question is: are you looking for an insightful book to help you gain some knowledge?
Answer 1: Yes
Response 1: Come see me - you can borrow my copy of this book and then we can discuss it.
Answer 2: No
Response 2: Wrong choice - see answer 1.

[Amelia · Rating 4 out of 5]

You know how parents read parenting books? This should be a must-read for all individuals who need to interact with 16-26 year old men daily. Seriously, there is no harm in studying the person you will have to be dealing with intimately, especially since it's unlikely they have the reflectiveness to know that this is what's going on with them. It's a great book that actually made me feel better about my brothers and my boyfriend sometimes being complete turds. It does tend to focus mostly on men in collegiate settings, but it was still very applicable.

Also if you are critical (read: hate) Donald Trump there's some good shit in here on the culture of silence and other misogynistic ideals he has brought into the Ultimate Boys Club (Read: White House) because he truly never aged past 16.

[Natalie]

I have this theory that the reason that contemporary men are stuck in permanent adolescence is because American culture does not have a "boy becomes man" ritual that many other cultures do. Women have their menarche, as shamed as we still are in many ways for our own biological processes, but boys have no real gateway at all into manhood. I'm hoping that this book bears out my theory. At the very least, I'm hoping that it doesn't make me vomit in the way I think it might.

[Christine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't read Kimmel's other works, so I don't know if the reviews that state this is somewhat a rehash are correct.

That said the best review I can give is - Well, it explains much. I will also point out that this review says it best.

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Phew. This took me forever to get through. It has some good information and some interesting insights. However, it really dragged for me because the author repeated the same themes over and over. I think this book could have been about 1/3 as long as it is with the same information being communicated.

[TheTruth · Rating 1 out of 5]

Kimmel's methodology is greatly suspect. He makes no clear case for why his anecdotal evidence is generalizable. Even for a sociologist, his use of fieldwork as a methodological tool to draw conclusions is suspect.

[Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Guyland by Michael Kimmel is a fascinating book about the transition from being an adolescent male teenager to being a man. Kimmel wrote this book to help guide the audience to understand what social pressures and expectations young men face. After informing the audience on those social pressures, he aims to make people think critically about current day gender norms, and ultimately steer society away from them. He calls for a less aggressive, more accepting society. This is a young adult book, so I would not recommend this book to younger children, but it is a very good read for older teenagers and younger adults.
In the book, Kimmel first goes into the definition of what “Guyland” is. He describes Guyland as the transition from being adolescent teens to being adults, describing a couple of behaviors that younger college kids and teens indulge in, including things like throwing slurs at homosexuals. Then Kimmel dives deeper into the details of Guyland talking about how Guyland envelopes things like cultural expectations, delving into things like competitiveness, resistance to authority, indulging in risk-taking behavior, gender dynamics, talking about things like masculinity expectations in men as well as emotional suppression of cultural expectations He finishes off talking about the consequences, which include consequences of sexual immorality and alcohol abuse. He delves deeper into all of these topics, giving specific details and examples of all of them. This book did a very good job of informing me on what I could expect to see in the beginning years of college, as well as to show the pressures young men face and the process they are forced to face to make a name for themselves, making it very successful in its purpose. It also has a persuasive call to action at the end of the book, essentially telling people to let men be their true selves, adding more success in establishing the purpose.
Kimmel makes use of hyperbole by using phrases to emphasize masculinity. He says things like “go hard or go home” to express how masculinity is commonly shown by men. He also uses informal diction to express things such as language on risk-taking, saying things like, “YOLO” to show people how many college kids choose to live on the edge, ignoring all the consequences they could face. He uses specific diction to express other things too, like homophobic behaviors. He does this by including multiple accounts about how some young men casually use slurs in conversations. His explanation for this is so the people using them feel more masculine than the others involved in the conversation.
This book has lots of value in the sense that it gives insights into gender dynamics. It helps give insights into how men should act versus how women should act as they are entering their adult years. These insights show how things like behavior can be affected by these stereotypical ideals. I enjoyed the beginning of the book, where Kimmel introduces Guyland to people. I also enjoy chapter 10 of the book where Kimmel talks about the understanding the differentiation of consenual sex and rape. I enjoy this because it is a very well-known issue, but the psychology of why it happens almost always goes unnoticed. Many of the men interviewed in this chapter did not seem to know the line between rape and consensual sex. This is very interesting to me because it makes me think- in how many cases heard about on the news did the young man know he was crossing lines that should not be crossed? Towards the end of the chapter, Kimmel also talks about programs implemented forcing men to ask consent for every step leading up to intercourse. He then goes on to talk about the implementation of these programs assumes all men are predators and, unless a case is taken to the police by the woman, the man will always get away with it. On top of that, it gives the idea that no man will say anything if they witness sexual assault happening. This part intrigues me because it sheds light on how many people think. Even though the reality of things are much different from that description, as long as many people have the same idea on men new things or programs will be implemented depicting all men as sex-driven monsters. This book helps give insights into why some of the bad things that happen actually do happen.