Man for Her, The

by Leo J. Kinsella

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

168 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1957

Reviews

[Michael David · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first time I read this book, I had just passed the licensure examination for physicians. As a general guide on how to be a man ideal for marriage, I thought the book was above average, even though it was a bit dated. I believe I bought it in a now-closed second-hand bookstore, and I kept it because it was quaint.

Over the past few years, I became a more competent general practitioner. I became familiar with the basics of medical practice, and could acceptably handle most emergencies. However, I never stopped reading. Before, I did not believe in rereading books. There were millions of unread books to be read, and I had believed that more information could be gleaned from new books than from rereading old ones: I had not understood then that people change as they matured. Rereading Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! and this book confirmed for myself that people's perspectives changed as they matured and got older.

I had reduced my rating by one star (from four to three) because I became more sensitive to the sexism rife in this book. Although what the book advised was acceptable during the 1950s (the Catholic Church gave the nihil obstat to this book, which meant it was consistent with Roman Catholic beliefs), my rereading exposed its obsolete perspective regarding women. For example,

"A man cannot begin to understand a woman unless he keeps in mind that she is designed by God to be a mother ... She never really arrives as a woman until she is a mother." (p. 59)

That is blatantly offensive to most women who have decided to pursue their passions or craft rather than marry and procreate.

I mean, what's this?

"A real woman wants to look up to her husband as her strength and her master." (p. 91)

Frankly, I disagree. I have many female friends who happen to be single because of their competence, and they don't need men to complete them.

There are other alarming statements that support dependency: "[I]t is an inexorable law of our natures that we attain happiness only through others." That seems as if the foundation built upon by Kierkegaard and Sartre did not exist in the first place.

In spite of the offensive sexism that this book possesses, however, it got one thing right, and that is that it doesn't believe in the double standards between men and women:

"Some young men are guilty of the hypocrisy of a double standard of morality - one for themselves and another for the ladies. The one for themselves is not too exacting. It allows for an escapade here and there. The one for the ladies is very exacting. It allows for no fooling around. Here all is serious business. What is sauce for the gander is not sauce for the goose ... For a sin of impurity she is regarded as a woman of the street. He is more kind in judging himself." (p. 151)

Therefore, I agree with the author's assessment of virtue:

"Because he has carried his fragile vessel with honor, he can stand before the altar with his bride a man confident that he comes well-tested and prepared for marriage, not a dissipated shadow of one." (p. 150)

Thus, in spite of this book's dated nature, there are still gems of wisdom within the book that most men can learn from. While it indeed is sexist, the fact that it expects men to also be virtuous, and not only women, makes it still a worthwhile read.

[Kathryn · Rating 1 out of 5]

A marriage guide from the 1950's that operates from the premise that all women are empty-headed idiots and must be patronized accordingly. The only points the author got right are that we shouldn't use a double standard between the sexes when it comes to their chastity and reputation, and that women desire sex just as much as men do. Other than that this book was quite useless and infuriating.