What do you think?
Rate this book
No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men
It’s time to end the apology tour for traditional masculinity. A generation of young men and boys are being raised in self-loathing, taught that the core of their identity as men is not only abhorrent, but the fountainhead of humanity’s ills.
In No Apologies, veteran author and professor, Anthony Esolen, issues a powerful defense of the virtues of masculine strength. From the thankless brute force that erected buildings, paved roads, and cleared ground, to the boundless energy of youth that compelled centuries of global exploration, to the father’s embodied authority as protector, director, and exemplar of law and justice, Esolen shows how civilization has rested upon the strength of men.
Wizened, accessible, and powerfully articulated, Esolen draws on two millennia of historical thought, citing giants like Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Twain, Solzhenitsyn, and others in a vigorous and timely defense of the masculine ethos.
In No Apologies, veteran author and professor, Anthony Esolen, issues a powerful defense of the virtues of masculine strength. From the thankless brute force that erected buildings, paved roads, and cleared ground, to the boundless energy of youth that compelled centuries of global exploration, to the father’s embodied authority as protector, director, and exemplar of law and justice, Esolen shows how civilization has rested upon the strength of men.
Wizened, accessible, and powerfully articulated, Esolen draws on two millennia of historical thought, citing giants like Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Twain, Solzhenitsyn, and others in a vigorous and timely defense of the masculine ethos.
204 pages, Hardcover
Published May 24, 2022
64 people are currently reading
981 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Esolen
60 books482 followersAnthony Esolen is the author of over twenty-five books and over 1,000 articles in both scholarly and general interest journals. A senior editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, Esolen is known for his elegant essays on the faith and for his clear social commentaries. His articles appear regularly in Touchstone, Crisis, First Things, Public Discourse, The Catholic Thing, Chronicles, Inside the Vatican, and Magnificat, among others. An accomplished poet in his own right, Esolen is known for his widely acclaimed three-volume verse translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy (Modern Library). His Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child has been described as "a worthy successor to C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man." And its sequel, Life Under Compulsion, has been called "essential reading for parents, educators, and anyone who is concerned to rescue children from the tedious and vacuous thing childhood has become." His recent books of social commentary include Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture, Nostalgia: Going Home in a Homeless World, and the forthcoming, No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends upon the Strength of Men.
Anthony Esolen has been writing his own poetry for decades, but until recently most of his published poetry has appeared in his verse translations of the great poets, Dante, Tasso, and Lucretius. More than a hundred of his own poems have appeared in such venues as Fine Madness, The Plains Poetry Journal, and Modern Age. After studying and teaching great poetry for nearly thirty years, Professor Esolen set out to write a book-length unified poem of his own, a project which he hopes will show that serious and significant long poetic works can still be written in our time. The result of his effort is The Hundredfold: Songs for the Lord, a book-length single poem composed of 100 parts -- short lyrics, dramatic monologues, and hymns -- centered on the life of Christ. He is working now on a second such long poem, The Twelve-Gated City, a collection of 144 interrelated poems centered on the parable of the prodigal son.
The grandson of Italian immigrants to America, Anthony Esolen was born and raised in the coal-mining country of Northeastern Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. from Princeton University, and his Ph. D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Fellow. He is the 2020 recipient of the CIRCE Institute's Russel Kirk Prize, awarded each year to a writer and scholar "in honor of a lifetime dedicated to the cultivation of wisdom and virtue." He is writer-in-residence at Magdalen College in Warner, NH.
For more from the mind and pen of Anthony Esolen, visit his online magazine called Word and Song, at https://anthonyesolen.substack.com
Anthony Esolen has been writing his own poetry for decades, but until recently most of his published poetry has appeared in his verse translations of the great poets, Dante, Tasso, and Lucretius. More than a hundred of his own poems have appeared in such venues as Fine Madness, The Plains Poetry Journal, and Modern Age. After studying and teaching great poetry for nearly thirty years, Professor Esolen set out to write a book-length unified poem of his own, a project which he hopes will show that serious and significant long poetic works can still be written in our time. The result of his effort is The Hundredfold: Songs for the Lord, a book-length single poem composed of 100 parts -- short lyrics, dramatic monologues, and hymns -- centered on the life of Christ. He is working now on a second such long poem, The Twelve-Gated City, a collection of 144 interrelated poems centered on the parable of the prodigal son.
The grandson of Italian immigrants to America, Anthony Esolen was born and raised in the coal-mining country of Northeastern Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. from Princeton University, and his Ph. D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Fellow. He is the 2020 recipient of the CIRCE Institute's Russel Kirk Prize, awarded each year to a writer and scholar "in honor of a lifetime dedicated to the cultivation of wisdom and virtue." He is writer-in-residence at Magdalen College in Warner, NH.
For more from the mind and pen of Anthony Esolen, visit his online magazine called Word and Song, at https://anthonyesolen.substack.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
October 14, 2022
A great book on how the world we know came about because of men. What sets Esolen apart from other writers in this genre is his knowledge, as well as his word craft. He has an extended section on Roman aqueducts that is spell binding while at the same time building his case. He has so much insight into how men function. Just a great book and a delight to read.
June 23, 2022
A few years ago, the American Psychological Association stated that "traditional masculinity - marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression is undermining men's well-being." In order to rid men, and the rest of society, of this toxin, manliness - defined as "a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence" needs to be reformed, if not eliminated. And who better to lead that charge than the self-appointed gatekeepers of the nation's mental health?
Some wondered if the APA, which used these rather tendentious definitions to develop new guidelines for dealing with male patients, skipped a couple of steps. For instance, might achievement, stoicism, competitiveness, or even aggression at least occasionally work to the benefit of not only men, but also women and society as a whole? Might mitigating the appearance of weakness or being willing to ignore risk be a beneficial, and sometimes even necessary, masculine attribute? Since these questions don't conform nicely to the programmatic denunciation of "toxic masculinity" that our increasingly ridiculous culture demands, they weren't answered or even seriously considered.
This incident is just one example of the modern assault on men and boys, and Anthony Esolen is having none of it. In No Apologies he explains why, far from being condemned, masculinity should be celebrated for the necessary, creative, and protective force it is. The question that presses on Esolen is what becomes of a civilization if, in a fit of ideological rage, it denies the masculine virtues that led to its existence? He is especially concerned, and rightly so, that an entire generation of boys is being brought up to despise their nature. The APA might not be concerned about what will happen if the traditional ways that masculinity has been both channeled and controlled are stopped up, but Esolen is.
To take just one example, Esolen writes that the teaching of boys to be stoic - a practice repeated in culture after culture over the vast span of time - has a purpose, and that the failure to teach that lesson has consequences. He explains, "When boys are told that they should let themselves cry – not just in the extraordinary situations that justify male weeping, such as grief for close kin - they are not really (whatever the psychologists and our psychologized world may tell us) being given leave to feel emotions that they would otherwise prevent themselves from feeling. They are sapped. They are being given leave not to experience what they otherwise might experience: conquest over passion..." What could it hurt to teach boys to indulge their feelings? Well, quite a bit, Esolen argues. "Go to the most dysfunctional regions of our society, and you will behold boys and men who express their feelings quite freely: feelings of wrath, vengeance, lust, cruelty, delight in destruction. Before we tell men that they should express their feelings all the time, we might ask first what those feelings are likely to be."
The refusal to train boys to be men does not result in a lack of masculinity, but ironically a toxic manifestation of it which produces "unattached and unaccountable males who take a dismal pleasure in doing nothing or a ferocious pleasure in destroying things - or sometimes alternate between one and then the other." And since Esolen sees men as the builders and protectors of home, out of a love that grows from family to community and community to nation, that develops from the desire to provide for loved ones to the willingness to sacrifice for the common good, a lack of strong men cannot fail to produce social disorder and civilizational decline, to the ultimate detriment of even the supposedly put-upon groups who currently profess oppression and victimhood at the hands not merely of men, but of manhood itself.
Therefore as a group, Esolen argues, men have nothing to apologize for. Manliness has historically been a force for good, and if this good has not been unqualified the fact remains that without the efforts of men the civilized world would not have come into being. Men performed the physical and intellectual feats necessary to build the world we inhabit, and if a modern malcontent grumbles that this was not so of necessity, nevertheless it was so. And it is further true that in performing these functions men were doing what came naturally to them as men.
If it would seem that the feminist, in this view, comes across as a smidge ungrateful, that's not by accident. In fact, ungrateful would be a charitable description for Esolen's view of feminists. Envious is a better term. Envy, he writes, "is the spiritual poison for feminists who see what healthy men and women enjoy, do not themselves enjoy it, and therefore want to ruin it for everyone else." This includes not only the happy relationships produced by men and women who understand their distinct natures, but also the enjoyment of civilization's riches that have been produced by men - not only men, mind you, but predominately men. What kind of woman forbids herself the enjoyment of such an inheritance on the grounds that it comes from men? Esolen answers, "the weak woman - not the strong woman! - turns with a sour eye against a greatness she can neither attain nor love," and adds that "Weak men would do the same, but they would be ashamed to confess to it in the presence of other men.”
Esolen is unapologetic in stating that men and women are not only different by nature, but are by nature complementary and made for each other. In this way both masculinity and femininity are necessary attributes, and it matters further which of the sexes expresses which of the attributes. This, at a time when the very possibility of distinguishing between men and women is called into question, makes No Apologies highly offensive to modern sensibilities. But on this point Esolen brooks no compromise, and for him the differences between men and women are not merely physical. It's not only that men are the physically stronger of the two sexes, but that they have different outlooks, different habits of mind, and even different passions and intensity of passions. Should we be surprised if, when groups view and interact with the world differently, they also take different roles in shaping it?
Here he hedges his bets just a bit, stating that he is appealing in these arguments to the "general case," or the way things usually are. In other words, certain traits tend to be expressed by one or the other sex, but there are cases in which women may take the role usually reserved to men (the case of Jael comes to mind, and even makes an appearance towards the end of the book). But it is necessary, Esolen adds, that "human institutions and customs must address the general case." An individual woman may infrequently be stronger than an individual man, but the general superiority (or even equality) of women in terms of physical strength is an obviously untrue postulate. It would be absurd, then, to formulate policy and expectations (putting women in military positions requiring the same strength as a man, for instance, or permitting a man masquerading as a woman to compete in sporting events against women) around the special case, and not the general one. "Some people are immune to poison ivy," Esolen writes, "but I wouldn’t cut it up for salad."
Still, one wonders if Esolen doesn't occasionally overstate his case on the differences between men and women. He states repeatedly, for instance, that boys are notorious game-creators, which is a cast of mind that he believes gives them a unique ability, as men, to create other types of "games" - constitutions, public works, and the like. And while the point is well-enough taken, as the father of daughters (and a son), I can report that girls engage in game-creation as readily as boys, though not always in the same way. Similarly, a dispassionate, logical approach to problem-solving may tend toward the masculine, but it and its converse are attributes that are more equally distributed between the sexes than Esolen lets on. The reader is reminded again of the caution to consider the general and not the special case, though we must also be cautious to avoid generalities that might cause us to overlook the capabilities of individuals.
Whatever the case, the crux of Esolen's argument remains sound: there are real differences between men and women, and those differences tend to create unique roles and functions within families and societies. Deny a man his nature, or a woman hers for that matter, and you are creating frustrations that may be difficult for individuals to describe precisely, but which will spill out into private and public life with regularity, the consequences of which will be dire and far-reaching. To say that society needs men to be men is by no means to diminish the importance of women. Indeed, Esolen makes the case that masculine virtues have historically been employed for the primary benefit of others, especially women. This suggests that women in particular, and not just society in general, need masculine men in order to thrive. Women's historical grievances may have been, to a considerable degree, justified, but an honest view of our current predicament brings new grievances into view. We have to wonder if the attempt to blur the lines between the sexes, to diminish the virtues of masculinity in favor of an effeminate (not feminine) substitute really works to the benefit of women.
Three-quarters of a century ago, Richard Weaver suggested that it was the decay of manliness, in its purest sense, which has harmed women the most. "Perhaps it was the decay of chivalry in men that proved too much," Weaver wrote, too much for women to resist the false promises of the modern world. "No longer protected, the woman now has her career, in which she makes a drab pilgrimage from two-room apartment to job to divorce court."
Such sentiments are deeply unpopular today, but they are deeply unpopular because they are deeply unsettling, whether people will admit it or not. Without undertaking to strictly delimit roles for men and women, we might allow ourselves the intellectual honesty and curiosity to ask a few questions. Are men happier by being emasculated? Are women happier by being surrounded by effeminate men, much less by being told that their highest achievement is be to become a kind of facsimile of this mediocre manhood? Are people really satisfied by the novel archetypes of the dominant woman and the doughy, submissive man, or do men and women, deep down, have truer natures that they desire to fulfill? And does the frustration of these desires pose problems for their relations, and for the continuity of civilization?
These would appear to be urgent questions, yet they seem to be on very few minds, and even fewer lips. Esolen begins No Apologies by saying that a book explaining the value of masculinity should not have to be written. One need not agree with every point Esolen makes to be grateful that he did, and to be simultaneously mortified at the implications of the subject matter.
Some wondered if the APA, which used these rather tendentious definitions to develop new guidelines for dealing with male patients, skipped a couple of steps. For instance, might achievement, stoicism, competitiveness, or even aggression at least occasionally work to the benefit of not only men, but also women and society as a whole? Might mitigating the appearance of weakness or being willing to ignore risk be a beneficial, and sometimes even necessary, masculine attribute? Since these questions don't conform nicely to the programmatic denunciation of "toxic masculinity" that our increasingly ridiculous culture demands, they weren't answered or even seriously considered.
This incident is just one example of the modern assault on men and boys, and Anthony Esolen is having none of it. In No Apologies he explains why, far from being condemned, masculinity should be celebrated for the necessary, creative, and protective force it is. The question that presses on Esolen is what becomes of a civilization if, in a fit of ideological rage, it denies the masculine virtues that led to its existence? He is especially concerned, and rightly so, that an entire generation of boys is being brought up to despise their nature. The APA might not be concerned about what will happen if the traditional ways that masculinity has been both channeled and controlled are stopped up, but Esolen is.
To take just one example, Esolen writes that the teaching of boys to be stoic - a practice repeated in culture after culture over the vast span of time - has a purpose, and that the failure to teach that lesson has consequences. He explains, "When boys are told that they should let themselves cry – not just in the extraordinary situations that justify male weeping, such as grief for close kin - they are not really (whatever the psychologists and our psychologized world may tell us) being given leave to feel emotions that they would otherwise prevent themselves from feeling. They are sapped. They are being given leave not to experience what they otherwise might experience: conquest over passion..." What could it hurt to teach boys to indulge their feelings? Well, quite a bit, Esolen argues. "Go to the most dysfunctional regions of our society, and you will behold boys and men who express their feelings quite freely: feelings of wrath, vengeance, lust, cruelty, delight in destruction. Before we tell men that they should express their feelings all the time, we might ask first what those feelings are likely to be."
The refusal to train boys to be men does not result in a lack of masculinity, but ironically a toxic manifestation of it which produces "unattached and unaccountable males who take a dismal pleasure in doing nothing or a ferocious pleasure in destroying things - or sometimes alternate between one and then the other." And since Esolen sees men as the builders and protectors of home, out of a love that grows from family to community and community to nation, that develops from the desire to provide for loved ones to the willingness to sacrifice for the common good, a lack of strong men cannot fail to produce social disorder and civilizational decline, to the ultimate detriment of even the supposedly put-upon groups who currently profess oppression and victimhood at the hands not merely of men, but of manhood itself.
Therefore as a group, Esolen argues, men have nothing to apologize for. Manliness has historically been a force for good, and if this good has not been unqualified the fact remains that without the efforts of men the civilized world would not have come into being. Men performed the physical and intellectual feats necessary to build the world we inhabit, and if a modern malcontent grumbles that this was not so of necessity, nevertheless it was so. And it is further true that in performing these functions men were doing what came naturally to them as men.
If it would seem that the feminist, in this view, comes across as a smidge ungrateful, that's not by accident. In fact, ungrateful would be a charitable description for Esolen's view of feminists. Envious is a better term. Envy, he writes, "is the spiritual poison for feminists who see what healthy men and women enjoy, do not themselves enjoy it, and therefore want to ruin it for everyone else." This includes not only the happy relationships produced by men and women who understand their distinct natures, but also the enjoyment of civilization's riches that have been produced by men - not only men, mind you, but predominately men. What kind of woman forbids herself the enjoyment of such an inheritance on the grounds that it comes from men? Esolen answers, "the weak woman - not the strong woman! - turns with a sour eye against a greatness she can neither attain nor love," and adds that "Weak men would do the same, but they would be ashamed to confess to it in the presence of other men.”
Esolen is unapologetic in stating that men and women are not only different by nature, but are by nature complementary and made for each other. In this way both masculinity and femininity are necessary attributes, and it matters further which of the sexes expresses which of the attributes. This, at a time when the very possibility of distinguishing between men and women is called into question, makes No Apologies highly offensive to modern sensibilities. But on this point Esolen brooks no compromise, and for him the differences between men and women are not merely physical. It's not only that men are the physically stronger of the two sexes, but that they have different outlooks, different habits of mind, and even different passions and intensity of passions. Should we be surprised if, when groups view and interact with the world differently, they also take different roles in shaping it?
Here he hedges his bets just a bit, stating that he is appealing in these arguments to the "general case," or the way things usually are. In other words, certain traits tend to be expressed by one or the other sex, but there are cases in which women may take the role usually reserved to men (the case of Jael comes to mind, and even makes an appearance towards the end of the book). But it is necessary, Esolen adds, that "human institutions and customs must address the general case." An individual woman may infrequently be stronger than an individual man, but the general superiority (or even equality) of women in terms of physical strength is an obviously untrue postulate. It would be absurd, then, to formulate policy and expectations (putting women in military positions requiring the same strength as a man, for instance, or permitting a man masquerading as a woman to compete in sporting events against women) around the special case, and not the general one. "Some people are immune to poison ivy," Esolen writes, "but I wouldn’t cut it up for salad."
Still, one wonders if Esolen doesn't occasionally overstate his case on the differences between men and women. He states repeatedly, for instance, that boys are notorious game-creators, which is a cast of mind that he believes gives them a unique ability, as men, to create other types of "games" - constitutions, public works, and the like. And while the point is well-enough taken, as the father of daughters (and a son), I can report that girls engage in game-creation as readily as boys, though not always in the same way. Similarly, a dispassionate, logical approach to problem-solving may tend toward the masculine, but it and its converse are attributes that are more equally distributed between the sexes than Esolen lets on. The reader is reminded again of the caution to consider the general and not the special case, though we must also be cautious to avoid generalities that might cause us to overlook the capabilities of individuals.
Whatever the case, the crux of Esolen's argument remains sound: there are real differences between men and women, and those differences tend to create unique roles and functions within families and societies. Deny a man his nature, or a woman hers for that matter, and you are creating frustrations that may be difficult for individuals to describe precisely, but which will spill out into private and public life with regularity, the consequences of which will be dire and far-reaching. To say that society needs men to be men is by no means to diminish the importance of women. Indeed, Esolen makes the case that masculine virtues have historically been employed for the primary benefit of others, especially women. This suggests that women in particular, and not just society in general, need masculine men in order to thrive. Women's historical grievances may have been, to a considerable degree, justified, but an honest view of our current predicament brings new grievances into view. We have to wonder if the attempt to blur the lines between the sexes, to diminish the virtues of masculinity in favor of an effeminate (not feminine) substitute really works to the benefit of women.
Three-quarters of a century ago, Richard Weaver suggested that it was the decay of manliness, in its purest sense, which has harmed women the most. "Perhaps it was the decay of chivalry in men that proved too much," Weaver wrote, too much for women to resist the false promises of the modern world. "No longer protected, the woman now has her career, in which she makes a drab pilgrimage from two-room apartment to job to divorce court."
Such sentiments are deeply unpopular today, but they are deeply unpopular because they are deeply unsettling, whether people will admit it or not. Without undertaking to strictly delimit roles for men and women, we might allow ourselves the intellectual honesty and curiosity to ask a few questions. Are men happier by being emasculated? Are women happier by being surrounded by effeminate men, much less by being told that their highest achievement is be to become a kind of facsimile of this mediocre manhood? Are people really satisfied by the novel archetypes of the dominant woman and the doughy, submissive man, or do men and women, deep down, have truer natures that they desire to fulfill? And does the frustration of these desires pose problems for their relations, and for the continuity of civilization?
These would appear to be urgent questions, yet they seem to be on very few minds, and even fewer lips. Esolen begins No Apologies by saying that a book explaining the value of masculinity should not have to be written. One need not agree with every point Esolen makes to be grateful that he did, and to be simultaneously mortified at the implications of the subject matter.
Want to read
July 23, 2021I'm a simple woman, I see a new Anthony Esolen book, I hit Want-to-Read.
July 16, 2022
“A manly religion acknowledges what is sacred, what is not to be touched with profane hands, and in the light of that respect for sacred space, women and men both can flourish; but an effeminate religion loses the sense of the sacred, will not discipline itself, flees from suffering, grows flabby and sickly, and then dies. It is no great triumph for women that a female pastor should preside over a corpse.”
July 27, 2022
Here is the smell of burning marshwiggle piercing through the stupefying haze of feminism all around us. I could do without the excurses on etymology, and no doubt there will be carping from Esolen’s ideological opponents about this or that point, but he has achieved the main thing: a cri du coeur against the hypocrisy and wickedness of a society that hates the very masculinity that made society possible.
July 13, 2022
What a fantastic book. Highly recommended for Christian women who believe that God’s design for men and women, as plainly taught in the Holy Scriptures, is very good. And especially recommended for moms of boys!
November 25, 2024
Reading again and just superb. Pure gold.
January 19, 2023
"We are at liberty to pretend that men and boys are not what they are. We are at liberty to do a lot of foolish things, and to pay for the folly. We may step out of the window of a twenty-story building, believing ourselves to be supermen. Do not blame gravity if it declines to play along."
No Apologies is a treatise on masculinity. Esolen, who is an author, social commentator, and professor, wrote this book in 2022. His voice sounds quite frankly, a little ticked off, but simultaneously inspired to convince the reader of his thoughts which cover everything from the literal strength of men (think building the aqueducts) to men in the family, church, politics; working as a team, and having agency.
A book like this is important for all - for men because it will, just for a moment, dispel the wrongness and unacceptability of being a male in 2023. It's important for women because Esolen is just so dang honest, and many times, women are just so dang clueless when it comes to men. Did I agree with everything Esolen wrote? No, of course not. Was that the point? Nope. A lot of my thinking was challenged, and challenged from all sides. After reading No Apologies, I checked out a book by Hillary Clinton and the next day almost threw a book written by a well-known Christian author across the room. No Apolgies is a shake-up to say the least.
My favorite chapter was on men and the family, although I did find the entire book to be absolutely riveting. Esolen's comments on a diminishing patriarchy due to the industrial age is something that I've said in conversation before and been put off, so it was nice to see it on the page. From there, the discussion about the involvement of the state is a natural next step (see: Hillary Clinton mention above), and of course, I was there for that. He also discusses how feminism decrying patriarchy as "toxic masculinity," has horrible economic implications, specifically for the already destitute.
Read it! Discuss it! There is much to consider here - and the whole of it of dire importance. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
No Apologies is a treatise on masculinity. Esolen, who is an author, social commentator, and professor, wrote this book in 2022. His voice sounds quite frankly, a little ticked off, but simultaneously inspired to convince the reader of his thoughts which cover everything from the literal strength of men (think building the aqueducts) to men in the family, church, politics; working as a team, and having agency.
A book like this is important for all - for men because it will, just for a moment, dispel the wrongness and unacceptability of being a male in 2023. It's important for women because Esolen is just so dang honest, and many times, women are just so dang clueless when it comes to men. Did I agree with everything Esolen wrote? No, of course not. Was that the point? Nope. A lot of my thinking was challenged, and challenged from all sides. After reading No Apologies, I checked out a book by Hillary Clinton and the next day almost threw a book written by a well-known Christian author across the room. No Apolgies is a shake-up to say the least.
My favorite chapter was on men and the family, although I did find the entire book to be absolutely riveting. Esolen's comments on a diminishing patriarchy due to the industrial age is something that I've said in conversation before and been put off, so it was nice to see it on the page. From there, the discussion about the involvement of the state is a natural next step (see: Hillary Clinton mention above), and of course, I was there for that. He also discusses how feminism decrying patriarchy as "toxic masculinity," has horrible economic implications, specifically for the already destitute.
Read it! Discuss it! There is much to consider here - and the whole of it of dire importance. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Want to read
May 23, 2023Here are several pertinent points regarding classical education, from this source:
"The canon is overwhelmingly masculine for the same reason the NFL is. If you would like a really bracing read along these lines, I would highly recommend the book No Apologies by Anthony Esolen. The subtitle is 'Why Civilization Depends Upon the Strength of Men.' To bring his point to bear on the issue we are discussing here, we should inquire into why the classical canon depends upon the strength of men. In other words, I am disputing the feminist premise that men and women need to be equitably represented in every human endeavor."
"[One would be hard pressed] to mount [a] case for equal representation of women in the canon, using only medieval sources . . . . [We] can only make that case by appealing to our current egalitarian vibe—which is compelling only to those who have not been classically educated."
"Men and women have different roles to play in the building of civilization. There are exceptions here and there, and we can all be glad for the historical presence of Deborah the judge of Israel, and Queen Elizabeth I, and Joan of Arc. We budget for them. But if you start with the expectation that you need equal representation of male and female engineers on the Apollo moon landing project, what you will end up with is no moon landing. If you demand an equal number of women who are stone masons in the building of Yorkminster, what you will have at the end of the day is no cathedral. If you require a priori that half the troops that hit Normandy beach be women, what you will win for your pains is a Nazi-occupied Europe."
"I grant that if you were to subtract the contribution of the women from our corporate life together, the results would be equally disastrous . . . but still different. It would be a different disaster. You lose the sanity and the grounding that the women provide—as Lewis saw, and also Chesterton, and every other sensible man in the history of the world. You also lose one of the main reasons men have for accomplishing what they do."
"There is a certain kind of big tent approach to classical education which is healthy and wise. What do you get when you foster debate between those who favor Recovering the Lost Tools and those who favor Wisdom and Eloquence? You get iron sharpening iron. What do you get when you debate the best time to introduce the teaching of Latin? You get more iron sharpening iron. What do you get when you work through when would be the best time for teaching formal logic? You get productive ideas, that's what. What do you get when you make room for feminist sensibilities? For woke nonsense? You get the death of a movement."
"The canon is overwhelmingly masculine for the same reason the NFL is. If you would like a really bracing read along these lines, I would highly recommend the book No Apologies by Anthony Esolen. The subtitle is 'Why Civilization Depends Upon the Strength of Men.' To bring his point to bear on the issue we are discussing here, we should inquire into why the classical canon depends upon the strength of men. In other words, I am disputing the feminist premise that men and women need to be equitably represented in every human endeavor."
"[One would be hard pressed] to mount [a] case for equal representation of women in the canon, using only medieval sources . . . . [We] can only make that case by appealing to our current egalitarian vibe—which is compelling only to those who have not been classically educated."
"Men and women have different roles to play in the building of civilization. There are exceptions here and there, and we can all be glad for the historical presence of Deborah the judge of Israel, and Queen Elizabeth I, and Joan of Arc. We budget for them. But if you start with the expectation that you need equal representation of male and female engineers on the Apollo moon landing project, what you will end up with is no moon landing. If you demand an equal number of women who are stone masons in the building of Yorkminster, what you will have at the end of the day is no cathedral. If you require a priori that half the troops that hit Normandy beach be women, what you will win for your pains is a Nazi-occupied Europe."
"I grant that if you were to subtract the contribution of the women from our corporate life together, the results would be equally disastrous . . . but still different. It would be a different disaster. You lose the sanity and the grounding that the women provide—as Lewis saw, and also Chesterton, and every other sensible man in the history of the world. You also lose one of the main reasons men have for accomplishing what they do."
"There is a certain kind of big tent approach to classical education which is healthy and wise. What do you get when you foster debate between those who favor Recovering the Lost Tools and those who favor Wisdom and Eloquence? You get iron sharpening iron. What do you get when you debate the best time to introduce the teaching of Latin? You get more iron sharpening iron. What do you get when you work through when would be the best time for teaching formal logic? You get productive ideas, that's what. What do you get when you make room for feminist sensibilities? For woke nonsense? You get the death of a movement."
December 8, 2023
Esolen. Gold as usual
March 2, 2025
This was very good. Less a tightly-knit argument for traditional masculinity and more a demonstration/celebration of the role masculinity has played in shaping civilization as we know it today. Lots of good insights, though not always organized as neatly as I'd like (there were a few places where I remember thinking, "How did he get on this subject again?"). Esolen is also an inspiring writer, describing the glory of both sexes in a straightforward, not-holding-back-punches kind of way (which is what I'd expect from a book titled No Apologies). Very much enjoyed this one.
June 30, 2023
We are at liberty to pretend that men and boys are not what they are. We are at liberty to do a lot of foolish things, and to pay for the folly. We may step out of the window of a twenty-story building, believing ourselves to be superman. Do not blame gravity if it declines to play along.
In his book, Anthony Esolen posits that masculinity is nothing for men to apologize for, and certainly nothing to fear. He views men as the foundation of civilization, building up and protecting the home and country.
His view on women may sound unflattering; he states at the very beginning he may sound disparaging towards women. This is because he is defending men, masculinity, and in a hyper-sensitive and overly-feminist world we may not be used to hearing such facts as those he puts forward. I may not have agreed with everything he said, but I am impressed by how unapologetically he defended masculinity.
Man, encouraged in his inherent nature, uses his power for the common good of all. Esolen points out the irony that feminists can easily say they don't need men, only because of the strong men who have come before them in history to create the civilization and culture they now live in. Here is a man fed up with the lies forced on little boys and forever altering their course. If civilization is to thrive, Esolen states men must understand 'their worth as men and to give to boys the noble aim of manliness, an aim which is their due by right'.
A must read for all, and I would say especially for women who seek to understand the differences between them and men, and those who want to raise boys to become men.
In his book, Anthony Esolen posits that masculinity is nothing for men to apologize for, and certainly nothing to fear. He views men as the foundation of civilization, building up and protecting the home and country.
His view on women may sound unflattering; he states at the very beginning he may sound disparaging towards women. This is because he is defending men, masculinity, and in a hyper-sensitive and overly-feminist world we may not be used to hearing such facts as those he puts forward. I may not have agreed with everything he said, but I am impressed by how unapologetically he defended masculinity.
Man, encouraged in his inherent nature, uses his power for the common good of all. Esolen points out the irony that feminists can easily say they don't need men, only because of the strong men who have come before them in history to create the civilization and culture they now live in. Here is a man fed up with the lies forced on little boys and forever altering their course. If civilization is to thrive, Esolen states men must understand 'their worth as men and to give to boys the noble aim of manliness, an aim which is their due by right'.
A must read for all, and I would say especially for women who seek to understand the differences between them and men, and those who want to raise boys to become men.
November 8, 2024
2.5 stars [Anthropology]
(W 2.9 | U 2.25 | T 2.66)
Exact rating: 2.60
Despite the rich prose, the book was practically a rant. Statements were too self-satisfied, overgeneralizations were too frequent. (Characterization of many things were "absurd," "makes no sense," 'no one [verbs] this or that'; this isn't the register expected in serious arguments.)
End of Chapter 3 on Climate Change and COVID lockdowns was an element of [T: 3.33]. There was a nice bit on food, music, and gardening in Chapter 4.
Esolen imagined the normal reader likes medieval and Renaissance poetry way more than they do. I actually like that sort of thing—peppering non-fiction with apt literary quotations—and I still thought it was overbearing in Chapter 5. It was so dense I thought about stopping the book after completing 80% of it!
I like Esolen and agree with much of his thesis, so I was sorry to see this land so poorly. But land poorly it did.
//W lex 3.63, syn 2.78, sem 2.97, pac 2.92, dyn 2.57, l&o 2.5
(W 2.9 | U 2.25 | T 2.66)
Exact rating: 2.60
Despite the rich prose, the book was practically a rant. Statements were too self-satisfied, overgeneralizations were too frequent. (Characterization of many things were "absurd," "makes no sense," 'no one [verbs] this or that'; this isn't the register expected in serious arguments.)
End of Chapter 3 on Climate Change and COVID lockdowns was an element of [T: 3.33]. There was a nice bit on food, music, and gardening in Chapter 4.
Esolen imagined the normal reader likes medieval and Renaissance poetry way more than they do. I actually like that sort of thing—peppering non-fiction with apt literary quotations—and I still thought it was overbearing in Chapter 5. It was so dense I thought about stopping the book after completing 80% of it!
I like Esolen and agree with much of his thesis, so I was sorry to see this land so poorly. But land poorly it did.
//W lex 3.63, syn 2.78, sem 2.97, pac 2.92, dyn 2.57, l&o 2.5
July 10, 2024
Just so good. Esolen is a master at explaining intrinsic truths.
February 20, 2024
[Read and reviewed for a college class in the context of Abigail Favale's Genesis of Gender, Bavinck's The Christian Family, and Allan Carlson's Natural Family]
Anthony Esolen’s No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men lays out a clear foundation for a truly embodied masculinity, which is more than can be said about Abigail Favale’s splashing new book The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory. While both are Roman Catholics (scholars who far outweigh Protestants when it comes to rigorous intellectual works on sexuality), the latter is surprisingly aloof to the work already done within her own tradition. This comes as no surprise when her backstory is understood: a former soft evangelical who received her philosophical training under postmodern feminism, only to recently convert to the faith. Praise God for this, but unfortunately, she still carries feminist baggage.
I should be careful in my critiques of her book. There is quite a lot to cheer on: her tracing of feminism’s intellectual genealogy, her critiques of contraception, her insider’s knowledge to the “gender paradigm”, and her address of the irrationality of transgenderism, are just a few of them. She does very well to show the importance of an embodied anthropology and humanity — but herein lies her problem. Despite demonstrating humans as body-and-soul, her vision appears quite unsexed. Despite her take-downs of the gender theorist’s rejection of nature, her book doesn’t give her readers a vision of distinctly masculine and feminine natures.
Despite the irrationality of a man becoming a woman, her definitions ultimately don’t go any farther than “a man has a penis” and “a woman has a womb.” What it means to be a man or a woman, is essentially left to ‘if you do it with a womb, then it’s feminine’ (and vice-versa). She gives away her biases when, in a strong argument against gender confusion, she asks: “Am I bigender simply because I am a breadwinner (stereotypically male role) and a mom who does lots of laundry (stereotypically female role)? Is my husband bigender because he is a stay-at-home parent (female role) and mows our lawn (male role)?” To conclude her chapters on defining “sex” and “gender,” she describes a moment where she swam in a sex-segregated section of the Sea of Galilee: “We weren’t doing anything consciously feminine… This was a space set aside just for existing as women.” But what does it mean to “exist as women”?
To ask the begged question, what does it mean to “exist as men”? Because if one only read her book, they wouldn’t have a clue what it means to be — that is, to live and to act as — a man, other than being a human with male genitalia who does stuff. For a “Christian Theory” of gender, her book is an especially female-centric vision of sexuality. To be a Christian man ends up looking very similar to being a Christian woman. Favale is very good and cutting down many of the philosophical issues, but she fails to see the root issues (I believe due to her still retaining feminist views of “gender roles”, and not being ready to give these up), and fails to envision a truly sexed — female and male — humanity. Her picture is incomplete.
This is why Esolen’s book is so refreshing and clarifying to read in tandem. Favale wants us to understand ourselves, understand our masculinity and femininity, in order to rightly act and live in the world and in communion with each other. Esolen shows us what it means for men to live as men, and why it is important for an unapologetic manhood to be recovered. Civilization depends on the strength of men. It doesn’t appear Favale is willing to say this. To be clear, his book is on manhood and it is for men. To find a fleshed out vision of womanhood, readers will still need to go elsewhere from Favale.
Esolen states the purpose of the book is “to return to men a sense of their worth as men, and to give boys the noble aim of manliness, an aim which is their due by right.” He begins with a scene from Paradise Lost between Adam and Raphael. Adam waxes poetic on the great splendor of Eve, calling her more beautiful than wisdom. Raphael warns Adam to not give over his headship, to rightly see his own worth, and “Of that skill the more thou know’st / The more she will acknowledge thee her Head.” Esolen asks, is this true? If men and women were both unapologetic about their true worth, would we be happier? Unapologetic masculinity wouldn’t boast or swagger, nor cringe and cower — “it would be shy to hurt, but would refuse to lie.”
He goes on to narrate all the specifically masculine accomplishments which have built the world: whale hunting, roads, sewer systems, buildings, power plants, oil rigs, technological advancement. All this rests on the shoulders of men. There’s more to manhood than the physical force men possess, but it isn’t less than that. He writes to remind men of their powers as men, and to show what this strength accomplishes for the common good. This defense of men doesn’t mean the disparagement of women, despite what feminists say.
In fact, they are the truly hateful ones. The claim that “women don’t need men” is a colossal admission of an unseen failure: they admit to lovelessness and ingratitude. They have no idea the things men have done and continue doing to allow them the ability to whine on social media and in the classroom. A good leader loves those he leads, and desires their good. To suggest half the human race is unneeded is to confess you do not love them nor seek their welfare, and therefore you are incapable of representing them and furthering their interests.
His final introductory note is on boys. Those who are already grown men can “take the heat.” But boys, and future men, cannot. They are vulnerable. To call masculinity “toxic” reveals more than they intend. To insist that girls are like boys or can and should do what boys do, or to insist on something being wrong with boys as boys is poisonous. They want our boys to be weak, to hate their own sex, and to doubt their natural inclination. “When you can’t persuade the men, you go for the little boys confined to the classroom. Enough.”
This heart for our growing boys is very much in tandem with and the mirror to Favale’s heart for young girls in her sixth chapter “Artifice,” on the rise of girls seeking to identify as boys. In that chapter, she shows how the destruction to femininity and womanhood in our culture (hyper-sexualization, devaluation, etc) has led to little girls, upon hitting puberty, hating their own bodies. While we teach boys to hate themselves for being boys, we teach our girls to hate themselves for being girls.
Esolen first discusses the strength of men. Very simply and to the point, he says “nature never meant for women to wrestle hogs or work on pile drivers or hang from the mast of a ship,” for while men’s bodies are clearly designed in this direction (towards the protection and provision for women and children), women’s bodies are designed towards power in childrearing. What advantage is there to put a woman on an oil rig? Huge blocks of stone care not for democracy. This telos of a man’s body, to have the strength to endure extreme danger, indicates the direction of masculine feelings: in check and out of the way of the demands of duty. This is why a man must be bold: he seeks the safety of others at the risk of himself. This includes intellectual boldness, and the battle of minds. This is why men are the greatest intellectuals, and why most women don’t relish a debate. He unpacks the meaning of “effete” — literally, out of offspring. Men without potency, women without fertility. If we “geld the men and spay the women, [we] bid farewell to the future.”
His second theme is that of the arrow. The old alchemical symbol for Mercury also symbolizes the masculine: a circle with an arrow pointing outward. He says “there is something about masculine action and intelligence that has an arrow to it, and arrows pierce.” Though different cultures will manifest boyish and girlish behaviors from place to place, you will still recognize them as you would the joy of laughter or the pain of tears. Boys are fascinated with machines, because they aid in the restlessness of masculine activity: changing the face of the earth. Man’s curse is to have his labor made difficult. “If nature does not come humbly with her gifts, compel her to comply.” He goes on to discuss the intricacies of what makes a city run, such as the invention of the aqueducts of Rome. The world is not run on magic. It runs on the blood and sweat of the men digging trenches and installing pipelines. Feminists have never thought to ask, “where does the water come from?” Boys languish in school because they find no arrow there. They have been given targets that mean nothing to them. The arrow is the restless question of “what make thing go?” It is the masculine obsessiveness to drive forward, undeterred by resistance, and conquer the hill.
In discussing man’s sociability, he writes on both the team and the family as distinct and necessary relationships. The band of brothers doesn’t form in the abstract, but is built upon camaraderie, masculine affection, and a shared arrow. This must be hierarchical, there must be direction and coordination and division of labor, or else you get confusion and breakdown rather than an arrow firmly planted on target. And there is a foundation of equality, of shared brotherhood. This is the purpose of games, and thus sports, which is why those are inherently masculine. They are practice for the real thing. Here he claims that the art of government is the ultimate “game,” and why institutions are built by and run effectively with men in charge.
On the family, he discusses the importance of fatherhood and patriarchy, of household economics and interconnected families, and the education of children. He gets into the effects of the industrial revolution and modern economies a la Allan C. Carlson’s work. He urges a return to society built upon the family rather than individuals. And while mothers protect and nurture their own, fathers are looking outwards, for the direction of his own and for society at large.
This only scratches the surface. Esolen goes on to sketch a vision of society led by men, and concludes with a discussion of the Father in Heaven. Any attack on men, women, and the home is an attack on God Himself. The answer, he says, is to step forward unapologetic and saying, “I shall arise, and go to my father” (Luke 15:18).
Anthony Esolen’s No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men lays out a clear foundation for a truly embodied masculinity, which is more than can be said about Abigail Favale’s splashing new book The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory. While both are Roman Catholics (scholars who far outweigh Protestants when it comes to rigorous intellectual works on sexuality), the latter is surprisingly aloof to the work already done within her own tradition. This comes as no surprise when her backstory is understood: a former soft evangelical who received her philosophical training under postmodern feminism, only to recently convert to the faith. Praise God for this, but unfortunately, she still carries feminist baggage.
I should be careful in my critiques of her book. There is quite a lot to cheer on: her tracing of feminism’s intellectual genealogy, her critiques of contraception, her insider’s knowledge to the “gender paradigm”, and her address of the irrationality of transgenderism, are just a few of them. She does very well to show the importance of an embodied anthropology and humanity — but herein lies her problem. Despite demonstrating humans as body-and-soul, her vision appears quite unsexed. Despite her take-downs of the gender theorist’s rejection of nature, her book doesn’t give her readers a vision of distinctly masculine and feminine natures.
Despite the irrationality of a man becoming a woman, her definitions ultimately don’t go any farther than “a man has a penis” and “a woman has a womb.” What it means to be a man or a woman, is essentially left to ‘if you do it with a womb, then it’s feminine’ (and vice-versa). She gives away her biases when, in a strong argument against gender confusion, she asks: “Am I bigender simply because I am a breadwinner (stereotypically male role) and a mom who does lots of laundry (stereotypically female role)? Is my husband bigender because he is a stay-at-home parent (female role) and mows our lawn (male role)?” To conclude her chapters on defining “sex” and “gender,” she describes a moment where she swam in a sex-segregated section of the Sea of Galilee: “We weren’t doing anything consciously feminine… This was a space set aside just for existing as women.” But what does it mean to “exist as women”?
To ask the begged question, what does it mean to “exist as men”? Because if one only read her book, they wouldn’t have a clue what it means to be — that is, to live and to act as — a man, other than being a human with male genitalia who does stuff. For a “Christian Theory” of gender, her book is an especially female-centric vision of sexuality. To be a Christian man ends up looking very similar to being a Christian woman. Favale is very good and cutting down many of the philosophical issues, but she fails to see the root issues (I believe due to her still retaining feminist views of “gender roles”, and not being ready to give these up), and fails to envision a truly sexed — female and male — humanity. Her picture is incomplete.
This is why Esolen’s book is so refreshing and clarifying to read in tandem. Favale wants us to understand ourselves, understand our masculinity and femininity, in order to rightly act and live in the world and in communion with each other. Esolen shows us what it means for men to live as men, and why it is important for an unapologetic manhood to be recovered. Civilization depends on the strength of men. It doesn’t appear Favale is willing to say this. To be clear, his book is on manhood and it is for men. To find a fleshed out vision of womanhood, readers will still need to go elsewhere from Favale.
Esolen states the purpose of the book is “to return to men a sense of their worth as men, and to give boys the noble aim of manliness, an aim which is their due by right.” He begins with a scene from Paradise Lost between Adam and Raphael. Adam waxes poetic on the great splendor of Eve, calling her more beautiful than wisdom. Raphael warns Adam to not give over his headship, to rightly see his own worth, and “Of that skill the more thou know’st / The more she will acknowledge thee her Head.” Esolen asks, is this true? If men and women were both unapologetic about their true worth, would we be happier? Unapologetic masculinity wouldn’t boast or swagger, nor cringe and cower — “it would be shy to hurt, but would refuse to lie.”
He goes on to narrate all the specifically masculine accomplishments which have built the world: whale hunting, roads, sewer systems, buildings, power plants, oil rigs, technological advancement. All this rests on the shoulders of men. There’s more to manhood than the physical force men possess, but it isn’t less than that. He writes to remind men of their powers as men, and to show what this strength accomplishes for the common good. This defense of men doesn’t mean the disparagement of women, despite what feminists say.
In fact, they are the truly hateful ones. The claim that “women don’t need men” is a colossal admission of an unseen failure: they admit to lovelessness and ingratitude. They have no idea the things men have done and continue doing to allow them the ability to whine on social media and in the classroom. A good leader loves those he leads, and desires their good. To suggest half the human race is unneeded is to confess you do not love them nor seek their welfare, and therefore you are incapable of representing them and furthering their interests.
His final introductory note is on boys. Those who are already grown men can “take the heat.” But boys, and future men, cannot. They are vulnerable. To call masculinity “toxic” reveals more than they intend. To insist that girls are like boys or can and should do what boys do, or to insist on something being wrong with boys as boys is poisonous. They want our boys to be weak, to hate their own sex, and to doubt their natural inclination. “When you can’t persuade the men, you go for the little boys confined to the classroom. Enough.”
This heart for our growing boys is very much in tandem with and the mirror to Favale’s heart for young girls in her sixth chapter “Artifice,” on the rise of girls seeking to identify as boys. In that chapter, she shows how the destruction to femininity and womanhood in our culture (hyper-sexualization, devaluation, etc) has led to little girls, upon hitting puberty, hating their own bodies. While we teach boys to hate themselves for being boys, we teach our girls to hate themselves for being girls.
Esolen first discusses the strength of men. Very simply and to the point, he says “nature never meant for women to wrestle hogs or work on pile drivers or hang from the mast of a ship,” for while men’s bodies are clearly designed in this direction (towards the protection and provision for women and children), women’s bodies are designed towards power in childrearing. What advantage is there to put a woman on an oil rig? Huge blocks of stone care not for democracy. This telos of a man’s body, to have the strength to endure extreme danger, indicates the direction of masculine feelings: in check and out of the way of the demands of duty. This is why a man must be bold: he seeks the safety of others at the risk of himself. This includes intellectual boldness, and the battle of minds. This is why men are the greatest intellectuals, and why most women don’t relish a debate. He unpacks the meaning of “effete” — literally, out of offspring. Men without potency, women without fertility. If we “geld the men and spay the women, [we] bid farewell to the future.”
His second theme is that of the arrow. The old alchemical symbol for Mercury also symbolizes the masculine: a circle with an arrow pointing outward. He says “there is something about masculine action and intelligence that has an arrow to it, and arrows pierce.” Though different cultures will manifest boyish and girlish behaviors from place to place, you will still recognize them as you would the joy of laughter or the pain of tears. Boys are fascinated with machines, because they aid in the restlessness of masculine activity: changing the face of the earth. Man’s curse is to have his labor made difficult. “If nature does not come humbly with her gifts, compel her to comply.” He goes on to discuss the intricacies of what makes a city run, such as the invention of the aqueducts of Rome. The world is not run on magic. It runs on the blood and sweat of the men digging trenches and installing pipelines. Feminists have never thought to ask, “where does the water come from?” Boys languish in school because they find no arrow there. They have been given targets that mean nothing to them. The arrow is the restless question of “what make thing go?” It is the masculine obsessiveness to drive forward, undeterred by resistance, and conquer the hill.
In discussing man’s sociability, he writes on both the team and the family as distinct and necessary relationships. The band of brothers doesn’t form in the abstract, but is built upon camaraderie, masculine affection, and a shared arrow. This must be hierarchical, there must be direction and coordination and division of labor, or else you get confusion and breakdown rather than an arrow firmly planted on target. And there is a foundation of equality, of shared brotherhood. This is the purpose of games, and thus sports, which is why those are inherently masculine. They are practice for the real thing. Here he claims that the art of government is the ultimate “game,” and why institutions are built by and run effectively with men in charge.
On the family, he discusses the importance of fatherhood and patriarchy, of household economics and interconnected families, and the education of children. He gets into the effects of the industrial revolution and modern economies a la Allan C. Carlson’s work. He urges a return to society built upon the family rather than individuals. And while mothers protect and nurture their own, fathers are looking outwards, for the direction of his own and for society at large.
This only scratches the surface. Esolen goes on to sketch a vision of society led by men, and concludes with a discussion of the Father in Heaven. Any attack on men, women, and the home is an attack on God Himself. The answer, he says, is to step forward unapologetic and saying, “I shall arise, and go to my father” (Luke 15:18).
June 7, 2022
Some of the reviews I've seen of this book online are a perfect showing of what the conservatives do when one of their own shows any convictions. They don't want to win, and they'll only attack people who want to do so. Can't get your bowties dirty!
Historically, a book like this would've only been superfluous. Everything these days is just about perfectly destroyed by equalitarianism, so it serves a purpose. Who would've thought books like this, and the Tim Gordon one, would need to be written to defend the uniquely male roles in society, yet here we are. Peter Helland basically expressed the same views when he found out about The Case for Patriarchy.
On a couple points, I disagree with the author, but they're not important for our purposes. I don't think women should say "Jesus is my boyfriend", for example. But, that's not why any of us are here, so it doesn't affect the rating.
Historically, a book like this would've only been superfluous. Everything these days is just about perfectly destroyed by equalitarianism, so it serves a purpose. Who would've thought books like this, and the Tim Gordon one, would need to be written to defend the uniquely male roles in society, yet here we are. Peter Helland basically expressed the same views when he found out about The Case for Patriarchy.
On a couple points, I disagree with the author, but they're not important for our purposes. I don't think women should say "Jesus is my boyfriend", for example. But, that's not why any of us are here, so it doesn't affect the rating.
November 30, 2022
"I am writing a book that should not have to be written, to return to men a sense of their worth as men, and to give to boys the noble aim of manliness, an aim which is their due by right."- Anonthy Esolen
I would say that the author achieved his goal, at least for this reader.
Esolen is one of those authors that has a way of stirring my soul while educating my mind and challenging me to see life from a higher vista. Here he tackles the issue of manhood, defending it and highlighting the essential need for men and their masculine soul in modern society. The masculine is not only necessary for life, it's beautiful. And in this day and age of ubiquitous misandry, this book will no doubt ruffle a lot of feathers but its message is desperately needed if the culture is to survive and thrive. (I don't mean to sound dramatic, but...well...read the book and you may see what I mean).
I wish this book had been in the running for Goodreads Choice Awards. It would have gotten my vote for book of the year.
A few quotes to whet one's appetite for this book -
"I do not want to encourage pride, the sin. But a just self-esteem is not pride. And it is high time that men be reminded not only that they have powers as men, but also that those powers were given them to be used for the common good—for everyone, men and women and children all." (X)
"A grown man is big enough and strong enough to roll his eyes at the falsehoods about his sex that the world tries to press upon him. But boys are not. Boys are vulnerable. Think of the phrase toxic masculinity. It is an offense against manhood to talk so. You can have bad men, as you can have bad women, but manliness is a virtue, as is womanliness, nor is there anything toxic at all about either the masculine or the feminine, except inasmuch as bad men or bad women make use of their faculties to hurt other people, to spread lies, or to undermine the common good." (XII)
"We Americans, and maybe the whole rest of the exhausted Western world, are now in a strange place. Iron niceness rules the land. Not moral virtue, but niceness—a soft and fluffy cover for vindictiveness, resentment, and hatred." (24)
"Consider the difference between city officials and city fathers. A city official can be an enemy of the most human things in life. The official abstracts himself from the persons he governs. He is padded around with the comfortable fat of officialdom, of in direction, of bureaucracy. But the city father is not so. The father is one with the citizens he governs in flesh and blood, in aspiration and a light, in watchful care and in striving toward a noble end. He does not want them to remain little children or to be mere subject of regulation. He wants them to be grown up, and strong, and energetic and confident. He will make others safe in part by demanding no safety at all for himself. That is what fathers do. What do men who fail or refuse fatherhood do? They dissipate their strength in empty pursuits or they make others insecure for their own power in pleasure making for a world where it is, so to speak, unsafe, to be unsafe. You have to choose. You can have patriarchy or not. If not, you will either suffer anarchy—moral, intellectual, and civic—or you will suffer tyranny in your attempt to keep the anarchy from ruining everything, tyranny in the form of the dismal and unproductive safety of the averted eyes and the locked gate. You can have fathers who govern, or else you can have unattached and unaccountable males who take a dismal pleasure in doing nothing or a ferocious pleasure in destroying things—or sometimes alternate between one and then the other. As always, I speak of the general case. But as always, I insist that human institutions and customs must address the general case. Some people are immune to poison ivy, but I wouldn’t cut it up for salad. Some people are color-blind, but I do not therefore limit my painting to gray." (124)
I would say that the author achieved his goal, at least for this reader.
Esolen is one of those authors that has a way of stirring my soul while educating my mind and challenging me to see life from a higher vista. Here he tackles the issue of manhood, defending it and highlighting the essential need for men and their masculine soul in modern society. The masculine is not only necessary for life, it's beautiful. And in this day and age of ubiquitous misandry, this book will no doubt ruffle a lot of feathers but its message is desperately needed if the culture is to survive and thrive. (I don't mean to sound dramatic, but...well...read the book and you may see what I mean).
I wish this book had been in the running for Goodreads Choice Awards. It would have gotten my vote for book of the year.
A few quotes to whet one's appetite for this book -
"I do not want to encourage pride, the sin. But a just self-esteem is not pride. And it is high time that men be reminded not only that they have powers as men, but also that those powers were given them to be used for the common good—for everyone, men and women and children all." (X)
"A grown man is big enough and strong enough to roll his eyes at the falsehoods about his sex that the world tries to press upon him. But boys are not. Boys are vulnerable. Think of the phrase toxic masculinity. It is an offense against manhood to talk so. You can have bad men, as you can have bad women, but manliness is a virtue, as is womanliness, nor is there anything toxic at all about either the masculine or the feminine, except inasmuch as bad men or bad women make use of their faculties to hurt other people, to spread lies, or to undermine the common good." (XII)
"We Americans, and maybe the whole rest of the exhausted Western world, are now in a strange place. Iron niceness rules the land. Not moral virtue, but niceness—a soft and fluffy cover for vindictiveness, resentment, and hatred." (24)
"Consider the difference between city officials and city fathers. A city official can be an enemy of the most human things in life. The official abstracts himself from the persons he governs. He is padded around with the comfortable fat of officialdom, of in direction, of bureaucracy. But the city father is not so. The father is one with the citizens he governs in flesh and blood, in aspiration and a light, in watchful care and in striving toward a noble end. He does not want them to remain little children or to be mere subject of regulation. He wants them to be grown up, and strong, and energetic and confident. He will make others safe in part by demanding no safety at all for himself. That is what fathers do. What do men who fail or refuse fatherhood do? They dissipate their strength in empty pursuits or they make others insecure for their own power in pleasure making for a world where it is, so to speak, unsafe, to be unsafe. You have to choose. You can have patriarchy or not. If not, you will either suffer anarchy—moral, intellectual, and civic—or you will suffer tyranny in your attempt to keep the anarchy from ruining everything, tyranny in the form of the dismal and unproductive safety of the averted eyes and the locked gate. You can have fathers who govern, or else you can have unattached and unaccountable males who take a dismal pleasure in doing nothing or a ferocious pleasure in destroying things—or sometimes alternate between one and then the other. As always, I speak of the general case. But as always, I insist that human institutions and customs must address the general case. Some people are immune to poison ivy, but I wouldn’t cut it up for salad. Some people are color-blind, but I do not therefore limit my painting to gray." (124)
November 9, 2025
Awesome. 4 stars since he’s a Catholic so I disagreed with his interpretation on certain biblical passages he brought up. Regardless…probably the best book you will find on how masculinity shows itself positive in history, classical literature, and the world around you.
Before you cast off the book because of its subtitle…no, Anthony Esolen, a Catholic literature & classics professor, isn’t some misogynist that thinks society can survive without women. He’s married and has a family. Much to the contrary, society doesn’t even exist without women by virtue of the fact that they are mothers, but also they are indispensable in their own right.
The argument that he makes is the same one that history, observing the world God designed, and classical literature makes: men and women each have their own different roles and God has assigned the back-breaking burden of upholding, advancing, and establishing society to fall on the shoulders of men, with women called to nurture that advancement and establishment alongside men.
But make no mistake—it is both natural and biblical for man to take the lead (you even see this biblically when Deborah rebukes Barak for having her lead, instead of him) and this shows itself time and again.
It’s baked into DNA of the world that God designed and trying to steer from that is part of the current postmodern chaos of the world we live in.
In short, just like traditional femininity is not toxic neither is traditional masculinity, despite what the media would have you think. And though sinners exist in either category, hence why God’s law exists in the first place in order to convict and restrain evil, the abuse of a thing does not negate the use of a thing. We don’t let exceptions become the rule in our reasoning and bias.
In other words :
- if you’re not a feminist, this book is for you
- if you’re a feminist, this book is for you
Before you cast off the book because of its subtitle…no, Anthony Esolen, a Catholic literature & classics professor, isn’t some misogynist that thinks society can survive without women. He’s married and has a family. Much to the contrary, society doesn’t even exist without women by virtue of the fact that they are mothers, but also they are indispensable in their own right.
The argument that he makes is the same one that history, observing the world God designed, and classical literature makes: men and women each have their own different roles and God has assigned the back-breaking burden of upholding, advancing, and establishing society to fall on the shoulders of men, with women called to nurture that advancement and establishment alongside men.
But make no mistake—it is both natural and biblical for man to take the lead (you even see this biblically when Deborah rebukes Barak for having her lead, instead of him) and this shows itself time and again.
It’s baked into DNA of the world that God designed and trying to steer from that is part of the current postmodern chaos of the world we live in.
In short, just like traditional femininity is not toxic neither is traditional masculinity, despite what the media would have you think. And though sinners exist in either category, hence why God’s law exists in the first place in order to convict and restrain evil, the abuse of a thing does not negate the use of a thing. We don’t let exceptions become the rule in our reasoning and bias.
In other words :
- if you’re not a feminist, this book is for you
- if you’re a feminist, this book is for you
August 11, 2025
I'm starting to think men and woman are actually different... (lol)
Three quotes that contribute to the core message:
"Forming such a thing as a school is simply one of the things that men do, just as they form armies, oriented not toward their good as a sex apart from women--for there is no such thing, as the interests of men and women are inextricably entwined with one another-- but toward the common good." Pg 87
"When the patriarchs are missing, what you get from boys is either aggressive disobedience or underachievement and waste." Pg 102
"Since we are embodied souls, and since the union of man and woman in marriage is indeed a great mystery, figuring forth the marriage of Christ and the Church, any disorder between the sexes will be mirrored in a disorder between man and God. No order in the household, no order in the soul, no order in the church." Pg 181
Esolen puts forth a number of profound yet commonsense assertions regarding the inherent strengths and realities of masculinity. This is not a rebuke of femininity, but a push back against the feminist notion that masculinity is itself toxic. He argues for male only spaces, ordered and productive households, gender distinction, involved fathers, and male teams. When men thrive, women thrive.
I greatly appreciated his thoughts on the effects of the industrial revolution on the productive household, the strength of homeschooling, the tradeoff that new technologies bring, the limits of philosophy, and the need for ruling families.
Three quotes that contribute to the core message:
"Forming such a thing as a school is simply one of the things that men do, just as they form armies, oriented not toward their good as a sex apart from women--for there is no such thing, as the interests of men and women are inextricably entwined with one another-- but toward the common good." Pg 87
"When the patriarchs are missing, what you get from boys is either aggressive disobedience or underachievement and waste." Pg 102
"Since we are embodied souls, and since the union of man and woman in marriage is indeed a great mystery, figuring forth the marriage of Christ and the Church, any disorder between the sexes will be mirrored in a disorder between man and God. No order in the household, no order in the soul, no order in the church." Pg 181
Esolen puts forth a number of profound yet commonsense assertions regarding the inherent strengths and realities of masculinity. This is not a rebuke of femininity, but a push back against the feminist notion that masculinity is itself toxic. He argues for male only spaces, ordered and productive households, gender distinction, involved fathers, and male teams. When men thrive, women thrive.
I greatly appreciated his thoughts on the effects of the industrial revolution on the productive household, the strength of homeschooling, the tradeoff that new technologies bring, the limits of philosophy, and the need for ruling families.
December 7, 2022
Started off strong in the first third, then I found myself skimming through the remainder.
May 4, 2023
Anthony Esolen is one of the clearest and most concise commentators of our cultural moment. The fact that he is reviled in so many quarters shows just how far off course we as a nation and culture have veered. In this book, the author brings full bore his laser sharp intellect, crystal clear analysis and prophetic wit to the immense problem of what is expected and what has happened to men. We have been declawed, defanged and placed in a corner and told to be quiet. The result of this is patently obvious, male characteristics don't just go away, they get displayed in ways that are personally and culturally destructive. Men are not broken girls.
I few months ago, Rep. Ostacio-Cortez stirred the waters by saying this nation hates women. While I disagree with her premise that the nation would never vote for a woman (frankly I think the nation is so desperate for intelligent, thoughtful leadership that we would vote for a Martian if they fit that bill) segments of the culture do indeed hate women (how many more biological men need to be named "woman of the year"?). And these same people hate men. If you took away their mirrors, who would they love?
Anthony Esolen is a national treasure. Grab anything of his you can and read it. This book is no exception.
I few months ago, Rep. Ostacio-Cortez stirred the waters by saying this nation hates women. While I disagree with her premise that the nation would never vote for a woman (frankly I think the nation is so desperate for intelligent, thoughtful leadership that we would vote for a Martian if they fit that bill) segments of the culture do indeed hate women (how many more biological men need to be named "woman of the year"?). And these same people hate men. If you took away their mirrors, who would they love?
Anthony Esolen is a national treasure. Grab anything of his you can and read it. This book is no exception.
September 14, 2022
Excellent examples which aren't followed by scientific citations, but by anecdotal evidence and bible verses. I would've much preferred some scientific citations
August 24, 2023
This work is full of modern cultural analysis and rich historical social commentary. In a refreshing way it celebrates the unique value and honorable power of specifically men, which we desperately need to champion in today’s society. It displays the importance of both men and women in God’s world and provides a study and theology of Biblical manhood and womanhood.
I didn’t much care for all the Greek mythology stuff; I realize it served a role as a literary comparison tool, just not my preference!
Some important points:
“The Miracle of culture and civilization is the miracle of the transformation and redirection of masculine energy from the willful self to the team, the work crew, the school, and the army, for the sake of the home and the women at the center of the home. And in the end for the sake of the city and the nation.”
“A strange world; wherein motherhood is considered a sacrifice, and not a glory….to bring into the world an immortal soul, another human life, another being that is more beautiful and more complex than all the physical universe besides - that is a trivial thing?”
“Where the rule by fathers is at ebb liberty languishes because the engines of government must come in to deal with the chaos that always results.”
I didn’t much care for all the Greek mythology stuff; I realize it served a role as a literary comparison tool, just not my preference!
Some important points:
“The Miracle of culture and civilization is the miracle of the transformation and redirection of masculine energy from the willful self to the team, the work crew, the school, and the army, for the sake of the home and the women at the center of the home. And in the end for the sake of the city and the nation.”
“A strange world; wherein motherhood is considered a sacrifice, and not a glory….to bring into the world an immortal soul, another human life, another being that is more beautiful and more complex than all the physical universe besides - that is a trivial thing?”
“Where the rule by fathers is at ebb liberty languishes because the engines of government must come in to deal with the chaos that always results.”
July 23, 2025
Probably would have been more helpful if I myself were a man or were raising boys, but still worth reading. Perhaps I'll come back to it when I have some young ruffians running around my house. (Honestly the above doesn't relate to the quality of the book; only my experience reading it as a teenage girl. I mostly write these reviews for my future self.)
Read
March 19, 2023Provocative and challenging, as always. Some good reminders and encouragements as I continue to raise three boys.
January 23, 2026
The author makes a good argument for why civilization was originally built on masculinity (protect, provide).
It got long at the end.
It got long at the end.
March 14, 2023
Excellent.
November 17, 2023
A good book for all to read. An even better book for women raising young boys or men/boys trying to come to grasp with who they really are.
Men and women have different drives and vision of the future. Different thought patterns and emotional ties. This book takes a step through history to show how these differences moved all of us forward.
Men and women have different drives and vision of the future. Different thought patterns and emotional ties. This book takes a step through history to show how these differences moved all of us forward.
April 30, 2024
I wish I had read this book years ago to help me understand the men in my life better. Esolen opens with the differences in strength between men and women. He does not denigrate women but lifts up the unique roles of childbearing and nurturance and inspiration of men (except for feminists). He openly states that his goal is to encourage boys and men in their understanding and view of manhood.
His second chapter uses a description of the difficulty and precision required to bring water to Rome from the springs several miles away in 400 B.C. is fascinating. And it was men's ways of thinking, working, and forming teams for the good of the civilization that accomplished the feat. His other chapters include men's teamwork in daily life, a man's role in the family, men's vision, and the Heavenly Father.
Esolen's writing reminds me of a cross between C.S. Lewis and Victor Davis Hanson's. His knowledge of history and philosophy offer an ease of reading. He strengthens his arguments with pertinent anecdotes and references.
As the grandmother of seven boys, I think we've needed books to build up our young men for a long time. I enjoyed this book thoroughly and plan to read more of his books.
His second chapter uses a description of the difficulty and precision required to bring water to Rome from the springs several miles away in 400 B.C. is fascinating. And it was men's ways of thinking, working, and forming teams for the good of the civilization that accomplished the feat. His other chapters include men's teamwork in daily life, a man's role in the family, men's vision, and the Heavenly Father.
Esolen's writing reminds me of a cross between C.S. Lewis and Victor Davis Hanson's. His knowledge of history and philosophy offer an ease of reading. He strengthens his arguments with pertinent anecdotes and references.
As the grandmother of seven boys, I think we've needed books to build up our young men for a long time. I enjoyed this book thoroughly and plan to read more of his books.
March 22, 2023
I wanted to give this 5 stars because I am a BIG FAN of any writer attempting to cheerlead for the men of our day…but it had some parts that bored me - such as the explanation of building the aqueduct in Rome - and overall it did not feel like a page-turner type book with new and interesting information and insights on every page.
But it made so many wonderful points and I am glad I read it. Kevin DeYoung had highly recommended it on his podcast.
Some REALLY good points from the book…
- like a symphony, order implies subordination…or you have all the same notes at the same loudness at the same time yielding nothing meaningful, but a chaos of equality.
- The entry of women into politics has not had the ennobling and elevating influence the early feminists promised. Politics is as bloody as ever - rewarding the shrew at the expense of the lady. It was useful to have half of the rational adult population not involved, not embroiled, so as to protect the realm of personal life that political life should serve.
- if you walk down a street of any city in the world where family life has broken down, you will be in danger from unattached and irresponsible males. You can have patriarchy or suffer anarchy which yields tyranny to keep anarchy from destroying everything. The state grows by family failure. The ideologies that make for an all-competent state demand family failure and call it “freedom.” The state is a jealous god and so are the ideologies that aim their gunsights at the father-headed family.
- women’s study programs are predicated on the falsehood that the interests of men and women are severable.
- women as priests reduces our faith to kindness and following along with the latest socially-approved attitudes…what difference does it make to a neutered God whether people live together before marriage or have sex with their same gender? The female priest is there to provide comfort and good feeling.
- the Jews were unique in not having a goddess of any kind in their history - not a hint of one. Nor did they have priestesses. Yet women play a far greater and more significant part of their sacred history than women do in Greece, Rome, etc… Think Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, Jael with the tent-peg, Ruth, Esther…the Jewish mother was always a force to be reckoned with.
- when Jesus called God, “Father,” he was not indulging a metaphor, but using a name and commanding his followers to use it in turn. God is not like a human father, the fatherhood of God is primary. Human fatherhood is derived from God’s fatherhood of us all and reflects in a sinful and shadowy way God’s fatherhood of us.
- if our idea of God is all love and no awe, we end up with “Moral Therapeutic Deism.” A deity of comfort, a universal huddle, a hug and kiss and a “Don’t worry about your sin. You have tried.” It is men who guard the the holy.
My takeaway from the book is that it is the men in a culture through the history of time who want to see their kids struggle out of a love that wants them to be strong and responsible and independent adults. Men challenge each other and need all men-spaces where it is safe to do so without having to protect women the entire time. The souls of men and women alike need the tough love and example of men.
But it made so many wonderful points and I am glad I read it. Kevin DeYoung had highly recommended it on his podcast.
Some REALLY good points from the book…
- like a symphony, order implies subordination…or you have all the same notes at the same loudness at the same time yielding nothing meaningful, but a chaos of equality.
- The entry of women into politics has not had the ennobling and elevating influence the early feminists promised. Politics is as bloody as ever - rewarding the shrew at the expense of the lady. It was useful to have half of the rational adult population not involved, not embroiled, so as to protect the realm of personal life that political life should serve.
- if you walk down a street of any city in the world where family life has broken down, you will be in danger from unattached and irresponsible males. You can have patriarchy or suffer anarchy which yields tyranny to keep anarchy from destroying everything. The state grows by family failure. The ideologies that make for an all-competent state demand family failure and call it “freedom.” The state is a jealous god and so are the ideologies that aim their gunsights at the father-headed family.
- women’s study programs are predicated on the falsehood that the interests of men and women are severable.
- women as priests reduces our faith to kindness and following along with the latest socially-approved attitudes…what difference does it make to a neutered God whether people live together before marriage or have sex with their same gender? The female priest is there to provide comfort and good feeling.
- the Jews were unique in not having a goddess of any kind in their history - not a hint of one. Nor did they have priestesses. Yet women play a far greater and more significant part of their sacred history than women do in Greece, Rome, etc… Think Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, Jael with the tent-peg, Ruth, Esther…the Jewish mother was always a force to be reckoned with.
- when Jesus called God, “Father,” he was not indulging a metaphor, but using a name and commanding his followers to use it in turn. God is not like a human father, the fatherhood of God is primary. Human fatherhood is derived from God’s fatherhood of us all and reflects in a sinful and shadowy way God’s fatherhood of us.
- if our idea of God is all love and no awe, we end up with “Moral Therapeutic Deism.” A deity of comfort, a universal huddle, a hug and kiss and a “Don’t worry about your sin. You have tried.” It is men who guard the the holy.
My takeaway from the book is that it is the men in a culture through the history of time who want to see their kids struggle out of a love that wants them to be strong and responsible and independent adults. Men challenge each other and need all men-spaces where it is safe to do so without having to protect women the entire time. The souls of men and women alike need the tough love and example of men.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews