What Do Men Want?: Masculinity and Its Discontents

by Nina Power

Something is definitely up with men. From millions online who engage with the manosphere to the #metoo backlash, from Men's Rights activists and incels to spiralling suicide rates, it's easy to see that, while men still rule the world, masculinity is in crisis.

How can men and women live together in a world where capitalism and consumerism has replaced the values - family, religion, service and honour - that used to give our lives meaning? Feminism has gone some way towards dismantling the patriarchy, but how can we hold on to the best aspects of our metaphorical Father?

With illuminating writing from an original, big-picture perspective, Nina Power unlocks the secrets hidden in our culture to enable men and women to practise playfulness and forgiveness, and reach a true mutual understanding and a lifetime of love.

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Philosophy, Psychology, Politics, Gender, Cultural

250 pages, Paperback

First published February 3, 2022

About the author

Dr Nina Power is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Roehampton University. She is the co-editor of Alain Badiou's On Beckett (Clinamen), and the author of several articles on European Philosophy, atomism, pedagogy, art and politics.

Reviews

[Bob · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have a parasocial response to Nina Power as a regular listener of *The Lack* (where she is far and away the most versatile and engaging host with her wide-ranging philosophical interests, although I most often disagree with her crypto-Heideggerian paeans to or toward nature, harmony, freedom, and authenticity), so my concern trolling runs the risk of sinking this review before it begins. However, affection for Power’s work on *The Lack* and her first book (fondly but distantly remembered from the 2010s) *1 Dimensional Woman* may provide an interesting sympathy for *What Do Men Want? An Inquiry into Love, Sex, & Power* that left or liberal reviewers will understandably, even appropriately, lack.

At the risk of inappropriate psychoanalyzing of the book, as I read *What Do Men Want?*, the unconscious intention almost seems to be to produce as genial a book as possible yet one guaranteed to provoke left and liberal readers. The book asserts the fundamental reality of biological sex yet offers little argument for that controversial premise, which underlines much brutal state and private action against trans people, most recently in Texas. The book treats the concerns of men’s rights activists and other manosphere denizens with nuanced and sympathetic readings, but it mostly ignores the concerns of many trans-inclusive feminists. Interpretive charity is a virtue, of course, and virtue is necessarily selective, but the particular drift of the selection concerns. The book at certain points admits that many of these manosphere types are unlikely to give the book’s arguments a fair hearing. One wonders why then the book cannot turn its geniality and charity to a project closer to home and, perhaps, more likely to succeed. Why not attempt to heal this divide among feminism over sex and gender the writer feels herself a victim of? Why not explore if some accommodation, at least at the level of policy if not ontology, that the book could propose to allay ‘gender-critical’ feminist concerns while not throwing the interests of trans women under the bus? I say this not to affirm gender-critical or trans-exclusive feminism but to point to the selectivity the book’s geniality and charity: aimed at people the writer herself sees as divided from her by sex and politics yet neglectful of pressing debates within the writer’s own label.

Broadly, *What Do Men Want?* presents its purpose as a detente in the war of the sexes and enabling reasonable, playful, and respectful games in heterosexual relations. Perhaps a noble goal but one that seems far grander and far more unlikely than any mere project for political change that book dismisses as doubtful. At an unconscious level, the book takes healing the heterosexual sex divide as a metonymy for the left-right political divide in general. Both projects appear naive and unfortunately lend themselves to cliches about good faith on all sides and the need for mutual understanding.

The book’s main suggestion seems unlikely as it gestures toward a more traditional feminist end, reducing men’s violence against women and themselves, and suggests that men affirming a masculine identity offers a way for ‘good’ men to intervene against other men’s violence and to combat a perhaps specifically male alienation. My concern here may fairly be dismissed as too personal, but I do not enjoy identifying as a cis man and would like to lower, not raise, the salience of that feature of myself in society, something the book is sympathetic to given the book’s early criticism of the needless sexing of many features of contemporary life. After at least a decade of attempts to discourse about men’s identity, we know how this approach goes, and, frankly, it fucking sucks. We can see this fucking suckiness not just in the extremes rhetoric of some (probably many) parts of the manosphere and men’s rights advocacy and in occasional incel violence but in the absolute inanity of the liberal pablum that keeps ought under the auspices of *The Good Men Project* or of media conversations like Michael Ian Black’s wretched *New York Times* column on his male identity from a couple of years. As I dimly remember, a decade ago, a great freshman writer named Nina Power warned us about how so much liberal feminism was creating a horrifically 1 dimensional mode of femininity. It would be horrible if we allowed anyone, whether far right identitarians of masculinity or the liberal grifters that also profit the most from identity discourse in the media, to do the same with some wretched form of masculinism.

Given my use of ‘wild’, amateur psychoanalysis on this book yet my continued lean on personal views and feelings in the review, the writer or her defenders might will turn them back on me. Perhaps, I do all of this as a screen against the book because I am not willing to accept its radical proposals that go against the common grain of left sympathy for trans people or the book’s overtures to the right in the realm of recognition (and maybe policy as well, especially as it pertains to trans policy). But, I do not think so. I think I am just unconvinced.

Beyond recommending *1 Dimensional Woman* instead of this sophomore work, if readers want an against-the-grain feminist account of masculinity, the best two I have read are Laura Kipnis *Men: Notes from an Ongoing Investigation* and Kaja Silverman *Male Subjectivity at the Margins*.

[Mattjmjmjm · Rating 1 out of 5]

Same old takes on toxic masculinity, cancel culture, metoo blah blah blah. I have heard these topics talked about in the same way this book does a million times except here Nina tries to be sympathetic towards men and goes on about how men and women have to be understanding towards each other and how capitalism and social media distort the relationships between the sexes. For some reason she complains that people use the word 'gender' over 'sex' or something, I don't know. Nothing new is said here. I think just be a good person and don't worry about all this gender nonsense that the media and this mediocre book are trying to sell you, don't focus on being a "male" or "female", focus on being an individual. Isn't that the point of liberal democracies? Of western culture? And yet people spend so much time focusing on how race and gender define them, it's quite silly.

[Sebastian Štros · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite insightful view into my favorite contemporary sociological topic - modern masculinity.

The book is sadly too short (a very rare comment about a pop science book, usually they have one idea and they stretch it for far too long frequently causing me to give up on the book). The book should really be two books. One book would be descriptive the other normative. This book has both dimensions unfortunately not necessarily (except for the beginning and the ending) tidily separated. The book jumps from covering the statistics of the alienated depressed men. To educate you a bit these include things like:
Majority or vast majority of: prisoners, homeless people, murderers, murder victims, drug related crimes, suicides, school shooters are men.

There are other contemporary phenomena connected to men including the benefits stemming from patriarchy in the workplace. Covering all phenomena that is currently around men (there will definitely be differences based on cleavages within the group of men based on class, race age! and religion) takes more than 200 pages. And Power blended this descriptive sociological and somewhat philosophical topic (philosophy because what does it mean to be a man?) with normative stances.

Power's opinions are falling far from the 3rd or 4th wave feminist perspective. She is taking a more reconciliatory position towards men. Just because of that I would recommend anyone who claims to be a feminist to read this book. It is a much needed balance to the often men-hating feminist writing.

Power's position is very hard to summarise. I have found somewhere that she offers a 'left-wing defence of patriarchy'. I think that is not entirely fair. She does not want dispense with patriarchy altogether (and she definitely hates consumerist capitalism!!), but she condemns many aspects of patriarchy without condemning 'male virtues' (stoicism, responsibility taking for the well being and protection of others, serenity etc.). Clearly, her thought-provoking position is hard to articulate, so again 200 pages just won't cut it.

To sum up, probably the best easy to read source on the topic of modern masculinity. I strongly recommend it.

[Mansoor · Rating 3 out of 5]

ما در عصری زندگی می‌کنیم که تمایل روزافزونی دارد به بی‌اهمیت وانمودن تفاوت‌های جنسیتی. به گمانم ضروری است که دوباره بحث زن و مرد را در قالب "جنسیت" ببینیم و نه "هویت جنسی،" که تصوری است که دوست داریم دیگران از ما داشته باشند. قضیه این نیست که تصور دلخواه ما اهمیتی ندارد، بلکه اگر جنسیت را نادیده بگیریم، سر از جایی درمی‌آوریم که بدیهی‌ترین جوانب واقعیت مشترکی را که درش به سر می‌بریم، نادیده خواهیم گرفت. به نظر می‌آید در دوران اخیر نسبت مشترک ما با واقعیت بیولوژیکی کلا از هم پاشیده و جایش را "هویت جنسی" گرفته است. یعنی احساسی درونی که به آدم می‌گوید مرد است یا زن، هیچ‌کدام یا هردو، گاهی این و گاهی آن یا به‌کل چیز دیگری. و این که هیچ لزومی ندارد که این هویت ربطی به جنسیت بیولوژیکی داشته باشد. کشمکش میان دو جنس تبدیل شده به کشمکش بر سر جنسیت‌ها و هر که در این بحبوحه بیولوژی و واقعیت تفاوت‌های جنسیتی را محترم بشمارد، خطر تهدید به خشونت یا از دست دادن دوستان و کارش را به جان خریده؛ چون کمپین‌های اکتیویستی متعددی حاضر و آماده‌اند تا زنانِ (و نه فقط زنان) حامی حقوق جنسیت‌محور را سر جایشان بنشانند
در دهه‌ی 2000 مشکل پیش روی زنان نه زن‌ستیزی آشکار، که فرهنگ فرصت‌طلبی بود که درصدد حقنه کردن فمینیسم به زنان بود
...
When we look at the recent rise of self-help thinkers such as Jordan Peterson who appeal mainly to young men, we see, in part, something of a cultural need being filled for a father figure to the masses.
...
Feminism has never influenced me a great deal … It is truly one of the most advanced forms of ressentiment, which consists precisely in falling back on a demand for rights, “legitimate” and legal recrimination, whereas what is really at stake is symbolic power. And women have never lacked symbolic power.
—Jean Baudrillard
...
Our grandmothers were called sluts if they wanted anything other than missionary. Today’s young women risk being called frigid if they say no to the porn-soaked fantasies presented to them as freedom.
—Louise Perry
...
در سال‌های اخیر، واکنش مهم، ولو کوچکی، در مقابل وفور پرنوگرافی شکل گرفته. این ضدجنبش نه از جانب فمینیست‌های مخالف پرنوگرافی می‌آید و نه سازمان‌های مذهبی، بلکه مردان به آن شکل داده‌اند

[cryhard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Felt like a good overview of discussion of cis-men and cis-women in 2021, social arguments and changes which stem from feminism in it’s various incarnations, including the arrival of men’s rights activism in response. There were points I felt uninterested, but there are some pretty inspiring takes to be found here, all the while drawing from a large group of references (from bell hooks to Jordan B. Peterson).

Offers various critiques of capitalism (and the impatient, short-term oriented culture it’s bred) and its damage on female and male ‘togetherness’ and the family unit. Implores people to engage with values that are seemingly lost to the past at least en masse such as forgiveness, honesty, trust and loyalty. Offers critique of a focus on what could be called gender-essentialism (if you like cars you are a boy) and the ‘forgetting of sex’ that results.

Overall, encourages people to be attentive to one another and pursue grateful playfulness in their relationships with others. Some sections that resonated:

‘Austerity here is the turning away from distraction towards the things that really, ultimately matter: our affections and relations, our conversations, our difficulties and shared reality.’

‘A society that understood brokenness and the potential for violence might not be able to eliminate it completely, but it might do a better job of reintegrating those who stand on the brink by embracing and helping them to feel less alone.’

‘To forget about sexual difference entails not seeing how the world is different for men and women. We run the risk of entering into a murky and confused era in which the body simply becomes another commodity/possession, the all-or-nothing surface of an imagistic age. The collapse of the ability to think about the difference between men and women, and male and female forms of power, is, I suggest, symptomatic of a general collapse in the ability to think at all. ‘

‘For better or worse, the sexually liberated, egalitarian moment may have peaked. What does this mean for sex in the future? If sex is something to do with pleasure, and our ‘identity’ is something to do with our sexual being, then we are all reduced to walking declarations of desire. We live in an age in which the fusion of a certain kind of consumerism is perfectly compatible with the harnessing of this model of desire, which is to say, desire becomes nothing other than consumption. - crawling exclamations of desire, sucking at the teat of consumption.’

‘In the secular world, the toppling of God in the name of man, for all its progressive, modernist aspects, has rendered men and women unable, much of the time, to think about anything beyond themselves, about anything transcendent. Humanity has become the pinnacle and the measure of experience and desire, and so it follows that everything that we feel and want must be good simply because we feel and want (or believe that we want) it. This elimination of any reverence before the sacred is partly responsible for our romantic predicament: another person is supposed to be ‘everything’ to us, and yet they are in the same debased position we are. How can they be different enough for us to truly admire them? What love can be found among the ruins?’

‘Part of the answer to the question ‘what do men want?’ might well be: to have and to be fathers, where the definition of this term includes but goes beyond its biological meaning towards something approaching goodness – the stern but kind father, the father who knows things, who passes on wisdom. There are ways of relating to our own desire to have and to be the father, regardless of whether we are men or women, that are more or less subtle.
Our sibling society tells men and women to compete at the level of employment and sex, among other things. The father, actual, social, remains a permanent part of our being. We are often encouraged to pretend we are beyond fathers, in no need of boundaries, care, direction, protection: we are all individuals, unbounded by anything that might get in the way of our pleasure or particular identity.’

[Richard Burgess · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's neither stunningly new, or well written, or intricately supported by evidence. It's a blog post in book form.

[cami .✶ฺﾟ｡ · Rating 1 out of 5]

ouch. thought i’d give this another go, but i’m appalled… total rubbish.

[Tina Beattie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I reviewed this book for The Tablet. Here's my review:

As the gender juggernaut continues to roll through the linguistic and sexual conventions of modern culture, it takes courage to write a book which asks its readers to celebrate the fact that men and women are not the same. Nina Power exposes herself to attack from both sides of this polarised debate – from transgender activists for insisting on the non-negotiability of bodily sexual difference, and from gender-critical feminists for pleading on behalf of men. Yet if, as she suggests, our inability to think about sexual difference is ‘symptomatic of a general collapse in the ability to think at all’, then this thought-provoking book is both significant and timely.

Power focuses on the ways in which men suffer under the triple whammy of feminist demonisation, the reductionist entrapments of capitalism, and the loss of traditional virtues and role models. She uses the term ‘heterosociality’ to appeal for a new appreciation of sexual difference based not on conflict, antipathy and commodification, but on friendship, trust and mutual respect between the sexes. The last two sentences offer an eloquent summary of the book’s main argument: ‘To imagine that men and women can be better, and are fated most wonderfully to sometimes be together is, in the end, to respect the strange marvel of human existence as a whole.’

The book is written, says Power, in a spirit of ‘graceful playfulness’. A chapter is devoted to the games we play in our social and sexual encounters. The quest to remove all risk and vulnerability from relationships between the sexes by imposing strict rules of consent and accountability is a price too high to pay, for it eliminates those aspects of playfulness, flirtation and erotic exchange which are fundamental to the development of sexual love, and which require trust, vulnerability and risk. The sexual liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s have been replaced by pornographic and masturbatory online cultures, with young people having less rather than more sex as their desires for the risky and complex realities of vulnerable bodily relationships are sapped by over-exposure to pornography and voyeurism.

For Power, our values and relationships have been so corroded by consumerism, the commodification of desire and the impact of social media, that we cannot meaningfully speak of what it means to be good unless we struggle free of the annihilating effects of capitalist individualism. This means reclaiming the wisdom offered by past traditions: suffering, virtue, goodness, forgiveness, responsibility, the dangers as well as the seductions of desire, commitment, trust, loyalty, the importance of family life – a list which is implicitly if not explicitly Christian. The observations on suffering are particularly insightful and sharply focused. Power argues that in a commodified culture, the quantification of pain and the competition for victimhood risk inuring us to the universality of suffering and the need to minimize it whatever form it takes. Forgiveness is essential to the task of repairing our broken relationships.

The book skirts around issues of God and religion, but many of the questions it raises invite theological reflection. Does the loss of faith in the fatherhood of God result in a culture of multiplying sibling rivalries? Has society sacrificed the transcendence that would enable people to navigate complex identities and relationships without making the human the pinnacle and measure of everything? Does the modern idea of boundless self-ownership constitute ‘Locke without God’?

All this is filtered through an exploration of the crisis in masculinity – or, possibly, the realization that ‘masculinity is crisis’. Men are victims as well as perpetrators of violence and they are more likely to die violently than women, though women are at greater risk of sexual violence. Suicide is the most common cause of death among men under forty-five. If patriarchy is a source of suffering, then men also suffer under patriarchy. Indeed, says Power, ‘To be a man today is, in great part … to suffer’.

Many of the shibboleths of feminist rhetoric come under scrutiny. Incels (involuntary celibates) are notorious for their misogyny and occasional acts of violence but, argues Power, most are poor young men with few future prospects who share a deeply human desire to be loved. She challenges the term ‘toxic masculinity’ for suggesting that men are spreading a poison through society. She asks if the popularity of ‘strong-seeming men’ like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump might be attributed to an unmet need for authoritative father figures. Without necessarily endorsing his methods and ideas, she asks why a figure such as Jordan Peterson has such a following among young men. She appeals for greater respect for parental authority figures, fathers as well as mothers, and asks if the lack of father figures contributes to the crisis in men’s identities and roles.

As I was reading this book, two contrasting images of strong masculinity were filling the world stage: President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and President Putin of Russia. Power quotes Phil Christman’s definition of masculinity as ‘an abstract rage to protect’ – a definition which links ‘anger and care in the same breath’. Maybe Zelenskyy and Putin are examples of such protective masculinity at its best and its worst. I think this whole book can be read as a comparison between these two forms of masculinity, and it makes such good sense when read in that way.

Some critics will undoubtedly see Power’s position as a capitulation to conservatism, though I do not think she is so easily pigeon-holed. Others (myself included) might ask if she takes seriously enough the extent to which women and girls still suffer multiple injustices and abuses attributable to the androcentric values of our societies and institutions. Victims might ask if forgiveness is possible without genuine repentance and remorse. Wherever one stands in relation to these and other legitimate questions, Power invites reflection on fundamental issues of human goodness, desire and suffering which go beyond the culture wars. Indeed, she suggests that the capitalist terrain on which these wars are being waged is unfit for human habitation, and that seems to me to be a question we all need to be asking in these times of crisis.

[Matthew Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing to see Power denigrate and generalise concerns from minority groups in an attempt to simplify the range of complex issues experienced.

For a more comprehensive understanding of masculinity, try Grayson Perry's The Descent of Man.

[Brad · Rating 1 out of 5]

150 pages of someone getting mad at Tweets.

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 3 out of 5]

For a more complete review that addresses Power's flawed gender politics directly, see Dominic Fox's review (https://thelastinstance.com/posts/do_...). I will limit myself to a reflection on what I take to be the point where her argument goes off the rails.

First, I want to start with what's right about this book. Power is clearly brilliant, and her readings of texts by masculinist writers are uniformly sensitive and thoughtful. Most importantly, the text is saturated with a profound humanism, full of reminders that we can all be idiots sometimes but that this need not prevent us from coexisting with people that rub us the wrong way. Her reading of Freud is another highlight, and I think she's right to emphasize that the combination of universal bisexuality and the non-functionality of sexual object choice is a necessary rejoinder to neo-essentialism of all flavors. I also want to note that the book is often laugh out loud funny, Power writes with acerbic wit about contemporary oddities of gender like cake, bubble-baths and body pillows.

Others have already pointed out the issues with respect to her fixation on there being two sexes. I want to suggest that the root of many of these mistakes is her left-wing defence of patriarchy. Power is convinced that our society has lost its sense of responsibility. In her narrative, this is a result of the decline of paternal authority, and the rise of a narcissistic and infantilizing horizontality. A consequence of this is that men can no longer be initiated into the symbolic order, leaving men constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss. The main authority backing up this claim is Christopher Lasch. This argument shouldn't surprise us - psychoanalysis has been used for culturally conservative ends since its inception (we could cite the history of this appropriation from Bernays' invention of PR to analysts arguing against gay marriage on the basis of the sacred Name of the Father).

What's novel about Power's argument in particular is her focus on regression as the main symptom of this failure of responsibility. This kind of argument has deep roots in critical theory, going back at least as far Nietzsche's assault on the degeneration of heroic values, by way of Adorno's investigation of the regressive nature of mass culture. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater - personal responsibility isn't a stupid idea and it's crucial that we can defend a concept of responsibility that wouldn't just be motivated by a nostalgia for the good old days when Daddy knew best. If Power's book had instead been an exploration of a left-wing concept of responsibility, a book she would have written beautifully, we could avoid a number of headaches. The issue is that Power seems to have forgotten that insisting on the abdication of responsibility is not a subversive attack on culturally dominant values, but is itself the dominant ideology in a neoliberal organization of the capital/labor relation. The deeper problem, in my view, is that Power has retreated from the radical insight that adulthood depends on a bourgeois reality principle. This is not to say we ought to eliminate the reality principle, only that we can't forget that adaptation is necessarily an adaptation to a profoundly unjust reality as long as we are still enmeshed in relations of exploitation and impersonal domination. Power could have cited Firestone for this insight, if she had wanted to frame her argument in radical feminist terms, but since she is trying to pass for a mass market it makes sense why she tries not to scare off her potential readers. A similar argument can be found in Freud's The Future of an Illusion. Responding to an imaginary critic inquiring why we should care about providing reasons given that men overwhelmingly only follow their instincts, Freud gives an argument that is still radical almost 100 years later:

"It is true that men are like this; but have you asked yourself whether they must be like this, whether their innermost nature necessitates it? ... Think of the depressing contrast between the radiant intelligence of a healthy child and the feeble intellectual powers of the average adult. Can we be quite certain that it is not precisely religious education which bears a large share of the blame for this relative atrophy?"

Instead of attacking a culture that reduces us to infantile dependence, we might instead contrast the regression we currently face (call this the Disneyfication of culture) with another libidinal politics that undoes the surplus repression imposed by democratic totalitarianism (=capitalist realism). This would essentially be an extension of Marcuse's approach in Eros and Civilization, with a twist. Power insists that the sexual revolution is over - if we want to reply that there is still life in the student uprisings that started in the 60s, we can draw on Fisher's unfinished manuscript on Acid Communism. I want to emphasize that this suggestion might still be compatible with Power's project - Power has drifted right, clearly, but fidelity towards her friendship with Fisher still seems to motivate her concerns in this book. Without psychoanalyzing her too much, one wonders if the constant reflections on male suicide are a way of mourning his passing. If this suggestion holds water, it's not implausible that she had to forget about the sexual revolution in order to process her mourning. Perhaps she will eventually remember it.

***

Take two. I want to say something about soft patriarchy. Part of what Power gets right is that the authority of all-male jurisprudence doesn't become better by virtue of presenting a human face. If our defense of men turns into an apology for a specifically masculine quality of gentleness, we are not as different from the masculinists Power addresses as we like to imagine. Salvaging soft masculinity is difficult as a result of our habitual suspicion of rationalization masquerading as reason. It would also be a mistake to frame a certain virtue (bravery, magnanimity, you name it) as essentially masculine. The masculinity I care about isn't sexy. The point of it isn't to be sexy. What I care about is the idea that one can be a mensch, a good man, while displaying distinctively feminine patterns of speech and behvavior. Power is right that there are good men; the paradox is that many of the best men are lesbians.

[Maia Mindel · Rating 3 out of 5]

the book manages to be very thought provoking when it touches on the issues of men (loneliness, suicide, alienation, etc) and how they manifest in support of "men's rights activist" groups like MGTOW, pick-up artists, or NoFap. it manages to be astoundingly stupid in the first chapter or two, where the author seems to explain that terms like mansplaining, toxic masculinity, or gender identity are correct, but people use them to annoy her on X the Everything app. i recommend skipping every paragraph that mentions twitter for a better reading experience. the major shortcoming isn't on the what and the how, but on the why - why are people lonely? why is culture so alienating and infantilizing? why is the workplace "feminized"? (a stupid construct in the abstract and somewhat less stupid in the author's telling).

[JJ]

Look, I like Nina Power, a lot—and maybe because I'm acquainted with her work I'm not the right audience for this book. I agree with everything she writes here but I'm also gay so for my life it really doesn't matter what I think about heterosocial or heterosexual relations. Feels a bit rote, I guess. I think, and it's pretty explicit in the book, that this is intended to be read by an audience unfamiliar with Power and be a book in conversation with the glut of self-help books in the vein of Peterson, aiming to be smarter and potentially elevate those pop discourses. Was primed to love this but ultimately found myself bored.

[David Maywald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Her writing displays deep empathy and understanding of men. The book’s conclusion draws on playfulness as well as the Christian teaching of forgiveness (not just women forgiving men, but forgiveness in general):

“How can men and women live together in a world where capitalism and consumerism has replaced the values – family, religion, service and honour – that used to give our lives meaning?... Nina Power unlocks the secrets hidden in our culture to enable men and women to practice playfulness and forgiveness, and reach a true mutual understanding and a lifetime of love… We would do well to revisit old values and virtues – honour, loyalty, courage – in the name of reconciliation.”

“I have tried to suggest that being a man today could instead be about being ‘strong’ again in various ways: courageous, kind, good, responsible, a reliable father… And yet we are often encouraged to pretend we are beyond fathers, in no need of boundaries, care, direction, protection: we are all individuals, unbounded by anything that might get in the way of our pleasure or particular identity… It is often said that there are not enough male role models, particularly in primary schools and in family settings, the absence of which has had a particularly negative impact on young men.”

“In reality, it is hard to see where ‘male privilege’ is supposed to lie, particularly when looking at the life chances of poor and working-class men… There is also nothing progressive about encouraging a cynical, oppositional attitude between the sexes, or about blaming either sex for the misfortune and suffering of the other.”

Some aggressive feminist agendas have driven deep wedges between men and women, framing gender differences as a battle or as a zero-sum game… This couldn’t be further from the truth, with men and women being symbiotic and the best marriages having harnessed these yin and yang partnerships:

“I increasingly think that we need to think less in terms of structures (and patriarchy would be one such structure), and much more in terms of mutual respect. About how we get along day-to-day rather than in terms of vast, oppressive systems, whose image only makes us all more powerless.”

“It has become very easy to speak cynically and dismissively of a group of people on the basis of taking minor examples and acting as if they apply to everyone included... There are, furthermore, in the current understanding of the world, some groups one is ‘allowed’ to denigrate, and others it is forbidden to criticize… There exists today a whole industry dedicated to attempting to tell men what they should want… Whatever we think of the masculinity industry, the current demonization of men is a negative situation for everyone. It breeds massive amounts of resentment on both sides and closes off certain possibilities for, among other things, a more generous, understanding and playful relation between the sexes.”

She questions the direction of the feminist movement, and the extent of feminist “victories” over men:

“There are strands of feminism that concern the inclusion of women in typically male spheres and that see women’s economic advancement as the ultimate victory for feminism, proof of its commitment to equality. However, this kind of liberal feminism has proved extremely compatible with the demands of capitalism in its indifference towards the sex of labourers, particular in factory and service economies. It is not at all clear that this situation truly liberates women from the shackles of the past. Winning a bad game is a Pyrrhic victory.”

“The main way to encourage virtue in men for the benefit of all would be not only to encourage relationships of male mentorship and education but also to celebrate the existence and benefits of male friendship as they exist today.”

Power has listened very carefully to lots of men, and has considered the evidence dispassionately:

“Men are 67 per cent more likely to die of cancer than women when sex-specific forms of the disease are excluded… Nine out of ten people who die during or after police custody are men. Figures from the UK Home Office Homicide Index for the year ending March 2017 show that 74 per cent of murder victims were male”

“It is not a surprise that many men’s rights activists often approvingly quote Fight Club’s Tyler Durden: ‘We’re a generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another women is really the answer we need.’”

Here is a conversation on the book between Nina Power and Louise Perry, from the Maiden Mother Matriarch podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gXD1...

As an aside, Juliet Bourke writes about diversity and inclusive leadership in Which Two Heads Are Better Than One? She talks about superficial/representational diversity in terms of “diversity of perspective” (which includes gender diversity). These aspects of diversity are an important factor, but also need to be accompanied by varied educational backgrounds and different functional experience, as well as different approaches to solving problems and thinking styles. We are early in the application of DEI, with much more work to unpeel these layers: “functional as well as educational diversity provides a group with access to distinct thinking worlds”.

Nina Power has insightfully written about gender relations, with grace and balance. I’d highly recommend What Do Men Want? for both men and women, there is a lot to learn from a careful reading. She maps some positive paths forwards, and provides much needed hope/optimism.

[Rodrigo Rangel-Gutiérrez · Rating 3 out of 5]

It had a couple of sharp observations, especially in the few moments when Power asked who stands to benefit from men and women competing against each other. At the end, her analysis of suicide and the “fatherhood” men yearn for is very suggestive. Unfortunately, I read that men and women should have playful relationships, value each other, find joy in each other, and recognize how they are more alike than not, one too many times. In this book, Power is sometimes generic, repetitive, and bland, and easy to read from beginning to end.

[Danae · Rating 3 out of 5]

Muy buena crítica de las ideologías contemporáneas. Me hubiera gustado que la autora se extendiera más sobre culturas de la masculinidad actuales como sugiere el título.

[Summer Bohannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love a good anti-Enlightenment book.

[Dany Gontes · Rating 1 out of 5]

lo compré en un museo para leer algo porque estoy de viaje, solo es alguien que ve el #metoo como un ataque hacia los hombres y que piensa que los hombres no son tan malos porque en su experiencia todos los hombres han sido buenos. idk genuinamente alguien que vive en una burbuja de privilegio gigante y piensa que el hombre es el que más sufre actualmente porque ahora los queman en redes sociales si acosan a alguien. toca el tema de género muy levemente pero da a entender que no está de acuerdo con la teoría del género y defiende a jk rowling por sus tuits transfobicos. tiene muyyy pocas cosas rescatables (prácticamente nada), literally don’t bother.

[Rowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My thoughts going into this book was that it was going to be some sort of misandrist drivel that aims to downplay the lived experiences of billions of individuals in some sort of lame attempt to assert some insecurity-driven superiority for the fairer sex. Boy, was I wrong.

To my surprise, "What Do Men Want" by Nina Power, which I can only assume to be a pseudonym, is a rather insightful, hopeful piece of literature looking to bridge the gap of misunderstanding between the sexes.

In fact, one of the first things she acknowledges is the vital nature of the differences between men and women, why we must recognize them, and how it isn't in any way "harmful", as some might have you believe. In an interview discussing her book, she made the point that a female led world wouldn't be better, it would simply be worse in different ways than a male led world, reflecting again that neither is definitively better than the other, just merely different. She claims a disturbance that mass media propaganda had pushed, seemingly sowing the seeds of division between the sexes by the day. "I feel that men and women have had their lives reduced to generalizations" she tells us, and that in the case of men, it's become detrimental due to the fact that the modern landscape doesn't allow for them to "be" victims. Essentially, because they don't belong to some minority group, because there is a quantitative limit to the amount of suffering that can go around apparently, there must also be a limit on the sympathy that can be garnered, and so men's suffering is discounted. They have no recourse for disgruntled feelings. She goes on to express frustration that the internet and the culture its created has done away with risk and chance in people's lives. She outlines the problem with a quote from Brave New World: "But I don't want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin... I'm claiming the right to be unhappy". And so we outline one of the greatest errs in the modern world: the total lack of distinction between perfect happiness and pleasure. By eliminating the necessary antithesis to the former, the modern society has seemingly totally replaced the former with the latter, and now consequences ensue. We need to be able to be unhappy, because remember: it is sporadic sorrow which makes the smile sweet.

"We are not the same. It is pointless and ultimately more damaging to act as if we are: this does not mean, though, that we cannot do and love many of the same things, and each other." Power does a good job of reaching across the aisle here, I must say. Because she doesn't just call out those who hate on masculinity, but also those who prey upon the need for it. She speaks of masculinity as a big industry, with ads and influencers targeting men telling you "how to be a real man". It's very refreshing to see this called out, because for every man hating feminist I see, I see just as many boys being steered in the exact opposite direction. "No emotions, bro. Women are objects, use them. Take steroids, disappear, stop sleeping. Be freaking unrecognizable, bro". It's become parody at this point.

She speaks on Jordan Peterson as a cultural phenomena momentarily, and how there seems to be no female version, despite women needing as much guidance. Its argued that a female Jordan Peterson is too busy mothering, and so the proposed solution would be to platform more grannies.

She moves on to the problem of (typically) male violence against women. There seems to be a divide here. Most men in the #metoo era have become too scared to meaningfully interact with women for fear of being called a predator, meanwhile actual violence stays an issue. Power brings up something which I've been saying over in over in the political sphere, which in this case is that we all agree that we must prevent male violence, and that we all agree, but we just need a collective decision on how to achieve it.

She moves on to the transgender issue, taking a middling opinion, I would say. She doesn't out right support or negate transitioners, but says that "sex has a historical as well as a biological reality. It is destructive to everyone to pretend that this isn't true". She suggests, however, that she doesn't care which sex people choose to present themselves as. Her main point here seems to be that in her time growing up, a more sane time I'm sure she feels it to be, you didn't need to be a boy to like boy things, or vice versa. It becomes very sexist and, as she describes it, a "forgetting of sex" to then imply and assign these roles on to people. It seems insane that the same people crusading for women's independence in decades past can now look at a male child who likes to cook and clean and say "you're a girl now". It's a denial of true feminism in my personal opinion, and a deluded mind frame that has slowly poisoned the world.

One thing I notice throughout this book about Nina Power is that she comes off to me as one of those "return to sanity" liberals. She seems to me to be the type of liberal who wants to do away with the insanity that has manifested itself within her base and infected her ideology, instead returning to the common sense ideas she believed it to once hold. I could be wrong, but she seems to be one of those now moderate liberals calling out her own side for how it's lost itself, which is something I can always commend. The book is like what "Of Boys and Men" could have been, were the author not kneeling to his side of the aisle in fear.

There is one short paragraph, about a third of the way through, which I think perfectly encapsulates what Power wants to convey with this book: "It is not necessarily sexist or essentialist to say that men and women are different in interestingly compatible ways. Together we civilize each other. We curb each other's worst excesses. The graceful dance of men and women, regardless of their sexuality, is the stuff of culture. It makes us who we are, collectively.

She at times flirts with the idea of religiosity, without quite making the leap. This would probably be my biggest gripe, that she seems to dance around the idea that things like Christianity offer solutions, but won't go as far as to say that the religion itself is of the utmost importance. She speaks on forgiveness, for example, when talking about mistakes of the sexes. "Have you yourself done something wrong, even something wrong in a similar way? Wouldn't you want also to be forgiven? To live in an unforgiving society is to live in fear." Too true, if only she could close the gap here, though.

She at times also speaks on pornography and hookup culture. I don't find this to be integral to her arguments, but there are some interesting excerpts nonetheless:

"There are a lack of good stories today for either men and women - particularly concerning intimacy. Masturbation with pornography creates a particular kind of loop, one that by definition excludes the other: are we, then, in a relationship only with ourselves? Even if we 'match' with another via an app, we might simply end up mediating our masturbation through the body of the other. What is specific and unique about our encounters disappears if everything is formulated in advance."

"all pornography reveals what philosopher John Locke realized but hoped he could hold off with the promise of God. He argued that our bodies are our 'own'... but we should avoid treating them badly because they are also the property of God".

She does away with the idea that we must abandon traditional virtues, that we don't "need" men, attributing this in part to the perverse nature of consumerist capitalism. "There is no limit to the absurd and self-destructive behavior that capitalism permits, all the while telling you that this is the best you've ever had it, and that this is what you want. But some of the older virtues, particularly those most associated with men, might be precisely what we all need today". Now, I do agree with her point, but I take partial issue with the attributing this to capitalism. I think that a lot of this has to do with statist, market controlled "capitalism", or corporatism as the laymen may call it, that essentially wants the populace docile, but (and I know this sounds reddit-esque), that isn't "true" capitalism so far as I'm concerned.

Towards the end, I think Power struggles a bit to tie together an overarching solution apart from the generic "be kind, we all have differences and its a good thing". And sure, this is good to note, but there seems to be something lacking in terms of actionable steps to achieve peace and prosperity between the sexes. That being said, her approach to the issue is very diverse, and I have a deep appreciation for the way she weaves her opinions here. I think that it does a good job of uncovering the roots of our differences, and perhaps that leaves it to us to find our own solutions given this new information. Overall, I'd like to give it somewhere in the ballpark of a high B- or a low B, and I'd be curious of any works of hers down the line.

[Elyssa · Rating 5 out of 5]

“We should be extremely wary of anyone selling us the kind of life that involves indifference to each other, whether it be an existence that privileges sex but not sex with somebody, or a culture that suggests that the best way to deal with difficult emotions such as regret, sadness and anger, is to look outside for an explanation rather than seeking to analyse one’s own thoughts and feelings first.”

[Klára Salcmanová · Rating 1 out of 5]

I finished this book just so that I'd be able to write this review and say how much I didn't like it. A lot. I didn't like it a LOT.
It is a very strange book about the war between sexes trying to claim that it's time to bury the hatchet. There is no real thesis, there are no real arguments, just quotes and wild claims.
I don't know. I really don't like this book and the way it's written. This is the reason I don't like it, when people give me books that are not on the list pre-approved by me.

[Kia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly one of the best analyses of contemporary gender politics I’ve ever read, I didn’t know there were people who’d reached the same conclusions as me too, I’d like to lend this to everyone I know

[Doro · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is written in a language which is not difficult to read, but may not be easily digestible to many people, as it does not echo pop culture's opinions surrounding men, masculinity, and its attitudes towards them. Nowadays, the more sympathy a person seems to openly offer toward men, the more hatred or disdain they may be met with (from others, maybe not the men). I was reading this book on and off for a long while, and I won't hide, I have many pages dog-eared, many quotes highlighted, and many question marks raised by some passages - but, as I neared the final pages, the picture Power was painting became clearer and clearer.

"Instead, it seems designed, perversely, to keep things exactly as they are, in a kind of stalemate of the sexes." (p7).

Contemporary society is becoming more and more polarised, due to many things - Power recognises the 'sibling rivarly' inspired and promoted by capitalism, for one - and there is little to no understanding of the 'other'. In so many ways, so many minority groups are fighting for the recognition they deserve, and in so many ways, they are further being villainised by the majority, and further villainising the majority. Power emphasises this with every passage, as she insists that what we may need is a bit more empathy and understanding to reach peace between the two sexes. This reminds of a passage in Marquadt's "The New Nomands", in which he ushered his readers to invite people with opposite views (e.g. Liberals & Conservatives) to their dinner tables and to talk about, and to discuss social issues, as it would provide them with mutual understanding. Power's argument is very similar, and although it seems like such a simple thing, I do believe that simple discussion is lost on today's impatient society. Many people are now in an 'all or nothing' mindset, where if they do not agree with someone, they will ostracise them from their inner circle, instead of communicating their issues with them, tending to villainise them.

Power does exactly what Marquadt wrote about; in writing about men in a sympathetic way, she invites the so-called 'other' to her dinner table, and discusses. She may do so in an overly-sympathetic manner, at times, (or maybe I am too heartless?), but it is the first step in attempting to understand. What would be most helpful here is to look any kind of identity politics, and theories of politics of recognition to understand why this stalemate of the sexes is so agressive and so polarising, and it may be one of the aspects that I found was lacking here, as it may help in the sociological analysis of the masculine/feminine discourse that permeates our society.

The main issue some people may have, and it came to my minid multiple times when reading this book, is that the abundant sympathy toward men may downplay the many advancements of feminism and feminist discourse, and there may be a fear that if one was to agree with all of this, it may invalidate womens' hardship. The more we believe in a black-and-white divide in society, the more we will see the other sex as the oppressor, in this case, mainly men.

I believe that socially, there is still a long way to go for gender stereotypes to be dismantled, and for the domestic expectations put on women to be completely diminished, but, this cannot be achieved by the villainisation of modern men, not all of them, anyway. The next step is to discuss, and to redefine what both masculinity and femininity means to them, and to find an equal ground on which we can all stand. This is what Power's book has inspired in me, and I hope that it would inspire that in others.

Overall, even if you do not agree with Power, I think this book is worth the read. If not to nod in agressive agreement, then to form your own opinion and discuss why you disagree.

[George L · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nina Power's writings encapsulates the precept to understand, without judgment, before seeking to be understood.
Her arguments recognize that desire - what men AND women want, do not exist outside of a totality and as if in a pure state - and argues that much of that totality is shaped by faceless uncaring forces quite outside of our individual control, though the book doesn't dwell on the hard P politics for long (though as in her previous book 'One Dimensional Woman' the 'forces' are often associated neoliberal economics and their associated structuring of subjectivities). Here, she questions whether we are satisfied with the childishness of our times, where we're presented with the case of limitless choice, a prediliction toward instant gratification and away from commitment and responsibility, and the rivalries that creates. I think she raises a really good point.
What happens to friendships, between and within sexes, when we're all used to looking out for only our own interests and find responsiblity toward others repressive? What happens to relationships between men when male comraderie is thought of with suspicion (the dreadful possibilities of 'locker room talk'). What happens to the relationship between the sexes when these are such prevalent values? When casual sex without any notion of responsibility toward the other is encouraged (or at the very least, not discouraged), and 'sex is in the air' - or at least on instagram, tiktok, tinder, telvision, which we are in constant close proximity to, what of the opportunity cost for genuine friendships between the sexes? Surely that requires some sense of integrity that precludes any possibility of sexual desire? We all lose out when women can't trust men to be 'just friends'. There is a narrowing of the possibilities of different relationships there.
Yet, Power makes the case that we often seek meaning outside the narrow confines of our own desires. She recognises that figures like Jordan Peterson arise quite threateningly out of the debris of our old disciplinarian societies precisely because young men often yearn for such a caring relationship to each other and to the older and wiser - the simulatenously caring, investing, and commandering face of patriarchy.
Power's ability to speak compassionately about Incels, MGTOW's, even Jordan Peterson and his acolytes, makes her an incisive commentator and someone to look to to further such discussions. It allows her to make controversial points like that there is a difference between sexes, that repression is sometimes a good thing, and to battle against the closing in of public and private life. There is a humanitarian ethos binding such arguments; men, like women, also want to be strong, to be responsible to others and themselves, to seek beyond meaning beyond the confines of their own (often manipulated) sense of desire.
I give it 4 stars because while it does a great job at directing our attention at such fraught issues with gentle dexterity, it only lays the groundwork of understanding upon which upon which more radical political imagination has to be directed.

[Conor · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, I want to say that I did enjoy this book, so it's three stars with a smile. Unfortunately, what let it down is I felt like this was the equivalent of literary Snakes and Ladders.

As a man who knows nothing about the manosphere, it was fascinating to read about online forums and concepts for men interpreted through the lens of Nina Power. She genuinely seems to look at these ideas with charitable eyes, planning to bring the sexes together.

The primary thing I found jarring was the constant mention of socialism or living in capitalism in the same way that hippie narcissist does who says they are socialists but means your stuff goes to them. Or mentioning capitalism in a way that is as useful as adding earth to the end of your address?

Power doesn't explain how socialist concepts help? If there is such a thing? She doesn't clarify why capitalism specifically causes specific behaviour when it doesn't take much effort to realise most of the things she's talking about is ubiquitous across all kinds of cultures? It's incredibly jarring, lazy and smacks of academic cap tipping.

My other criticism would be the Cowardly nature of specific topics dodged. Given that 30% of the book is references, I imagine the Powers community is academic. This book was either edited down to oblivion on specific topics or wholly avoided because of the perceived and real danger.

For example, the Red Pill, actually all the pills were described through the lens of one individual? If I understand anything about the manosphere, it's the misrepresented red pill concept, so I have to assume many other things are too? Power reduces the idea of hypergamy to the antidotes of her friends not self-reporting as being influenced by Hypergamy.

As I understand, the Red Pill concept could be reduced to, don't listen to what people/women have to say, observe what they do! We, especially men, are constantly lied to, and red pilling is becoming aware of those lies and replacing them with something closer to the truth, or at least attempting to discover it. Power skips by this fairly significant manosphere concept that is arguably the root of many other concepts.

[Utkarsh Mankar · Rating 2 out of 5]

coming from someone with no dog in the Left-Right fight:
the Book is just full of half hearted measures. its neither a deep philosophical analysis, nor a practical analysis, it's a mish mash of topics, held together with the authors genuine intention to contribute positively to Man-Woman relationship. You'll find a little mention of something, then she goes on rants about things she already talked about. it's a very short read, but feels like things repeated 4-5 times already. other than importance of literal & cultural fatherhood, she doesn't have much on the topic. There are 6 chapters and a conclusion, none feel like coherent analysis on that particular topic. it's a waste, considering the topics on paper had potential to be full of controversial yet important takes. For Left-extreme views, there's enough to vilify the book, to actual people who wish to benefit from the topic, it's really shallow. To women wanting to understand men using the book, it might look like a confusing mess- because it is, there are no clear opinions, just "Umm...maybe they should do No-fap, or MGTOW"- with no commitment or any hard evidence for or against anything. To men who wish to be understood and are dying to find one woman who 'get's it', it's endlessly disappointing. If an expert such as Power- with years of active interest in, an economic incentive in and with endless evidence in 'understanding men' has such scarcity of clear understanding on Men, what could they expect from a regular Jane?

[Antony Monir · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is definitely a stream of feminism I didn’t know existed! It’s honestly a very unique and relatively refreshing perspective to read. But it does veer a bit too much towards the side of victim blaming and TEF (no R because this isn’t “radical”). My reading experience as a man was very strange. I would be reading a paragraph that empathizes with men’s struggle with mental health and their inability to find their value in “liberated” society and then suddenly the author insists that gender isn’t as important as sex in social relations. If we take sex as a biological reality and gender as cultural and performative one, it’s easy to see why the author’s argument falls flat. Regardless, this is a deeply philosophical work and focuses a lot of energy on understanding why the online manosphere exists and what purpose it serves. What it doesn’t do enough is condemn grifters and manosphere characters that end up harming men rather than helping them. Overall, this is a mixed bag for me. I like some of the author’s arguments and I can tell that she deeply cares about reconciliation between the sexes/genders but some philosophical underpinnings are simply harmful to marginalized groups. If you want to read this (and you should), beware the trans erasure and essentialism. 3/5

[Cecilie Hjort · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title seems to be clickbait - Power briefly mentions that you can't conclude anything on what men want because they're all different, and that's that on that. The rest is standard terf talking points: Men and transphobes are the most persecuted demographics today, poor innocent J. K. Rowling, the concept of patriarchy is a conspiracy theory, sex is real and gender is made up, the author hasn't been hurt by men so it doesn't happen, feminists think men are born bad but actually they can be good, etc.

I didn't make it through the whole book, but for at least the first 40 pages, Power doesn't actually start phrasing her own thoughts about the reality immediately around her, but stays addressing other people's theories and opinions (feminism bad, marginalized people selfish, trans people not as oppressed as they say, and so on). She doesn't flesh out those theories and opinions either, but criticizes the straw man versions of them which can only be found in alt-right retellings. So you probably have to already agree with her (or have no preexisting knowledge about any of the themes of the book) for it to be interesting reading.

[Wyatt Ryder · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty accessible and easy reading writing focusing on a lack of meaning for men in modern society.

First half didn't have me sold, but really enjoyed the second half exploring capitalism, online gender-based communities, self improvement gurus, porn, suicide and how everybody has become a sibling to rival against.

It starts fairly reactionary, with mentions of cancel culture and single sex bathrooms, but once Power gets over this and to the core of the issue the books is much more engaging.

[Bruno · Rating 2 out of 5]

À terceira tentativa consegui acabar o livro. Sinto que valeu a pena, se bem que a escrita não é a mais fluída, nem os parágrafos os melhores conseguidos.
Os pontos tocados pela autora podem não ser os mais profundos (ou até os mais compreensivos) em diversos assuntos, mas mantém a ideia principal de que somos um ecossistema e temos de aprender a viver em conjunto, remando sempre para o mesmo lado. Este foi o take principal que tirei do livro, os demais (talvez aqueles que não condordei) escaparam-se-me no vazio de ler este livro de 140 páginas em 3 anos.