Scan barcode
drjoannehill's review against another edition
2.0
That it took me two years to read this book tells me that I couldn't quire engage with the popular nonfiction writing style of this book. It's not written for academics but a lay audience and as such to me seems superficial and more concerned with headlines than research and complexity. However there were times when the stories resonated with my own experiences or what I saw of others' experiences at university. And I did like the final chapter where Kimmel turns to recommendations for addressing guy culture at university and in families. Ultimately this sort of "what can we do differently" is a better focus than blaming guys and the suggestions for programmes or just ways of talking to young people were helpful.
aeazel's review against another edition
3.0
Being the demographic about whom Kimmel is writing (except not heterosexual), I felt I needed to read this. Feeling the listlessness and aimlessness he ascribes to males 16-26 who graduate college fit me quite well.
Unfortunately, I did not connect to the text as I thought, as being gay, this was a world I did not live in, and being a feminist already, many of the arguments were ones I'd read elsewhere, for a different audience, and with different intents.
The style with which Kimmel writes about many of these topics quickly told me the book was not written for me, which makes sense, as he seems to largely direct his writing toward parents of these boys; to figures who can act as parents, mentors, et cetera. However, it also seemed he shoehorned some of his arguments in to fit a point he wanted to make, such as videogames and rap allowing for males to appropriate a symbolic blackface. This would be a point that might be worth exploring, if more videogames actually had black protagonists, but his one example, GTA III: San Andreas, is not indicative of the videogame libraries in most of these fraternities and apartments.
In large part, it reads, as others have commented, as a removed anthropological study that is aggravating and shows Kimmel's own biases and the generational gap with which he is dealing. While I applaud his effort to expand the study of masculinity, I also feel that he often misses some points to give some earth-shattering example, which he then does not fully explicate in terms of intersectionality.
Again and again I had to remind myself that his only focus was on middle class, college-educated white males--which explained a lot of the privilege and entitlement these males were feeling. This was a point I never felt he explicated well, just assuming the entitlement was purely based on their manhood.
Unfortunately, I did not connect to the text as I thought, as being gay, this was a world I did not live in, and being a feminist already, many of the arguments were ones I'd read elsewhere, for a different audience, and with different intents.
The style with which Kimmel writes about many of these topics quickly told me the book was not written for me, which makes sense, as he seems to largely direct his writing toward parents of these boys; to figures who can act as parents, mentors, et cetera. However, it also seemed he shoehorned some of his arguments in to fit a point he wanted to make, such as videogames and rap allowing for males to appropriate a symbolic blackface. This would be a point that might be worth exploring, if more videogames actually had black protagonists, but his one example, GTA III: San Andreas, is not indicative of the videogame libraries in most of these fraternities and apartments.
In large part, it reads, as others have commented, as a removed anthropological study that is aggravating and shows Kimmel's own biases and the generational gap with which he is dealing. While I applaud his effort to expand the study of masculinity, I also feel that he often misses some points to give some earth-shattering example, which he then does not fully explicate in terms of intersectionality.
Again and again I had to remind myself that his only focus was on middle class, college-educated white males--which explained a lot of the privilege and entitlement these males were feeling. This was a point I never felt he explicated well, just assuming the entitlement was purely based on their manhood.
jsisco's review against another edition
3.0
Original review from Dec. 2008:
Easily one of the best nonfiction books I've ever read. Kimmel tackles every aspect of a modern young male's life with interest and fervor, and leaves no stone unturned in his wake. His boldly thoughtful work on men in America, aged 16-26, reverberates in so many ways, as he brings insight to everything from the quarter life crisis to the constantly competitive world we live in. A truly compelling thesis structures the book, arguing that America is still a highly patriarchal society, and all men must compete with each other not only to prove their own masculinity, but to denigrate women and homosexuals as inferior.
He is to modern male gender roles what Barrett Seaman is to the modern college student. Everyone, male and female, must read this book.
Second review from Mar. 2011:
I was surprised by his naivety in what he expected from young men in our culture. Interestingly enough, there's almost a victim-blaming that occurs here, as he spends so much time appalled at the behavior of young men and a disproportionately low amount of time on accountability and root causes. There is also a dearth of discussion of gender roles, homophobia, and how both relate to male treatment of women in culture. He hints at and sometimes directly addresses all three, but it definitely should have been a larger piece of the work at large. This is a book that does not stand up to a second viewing.
Easily one of the best nonfiction books I've ever read. Kimmel tackles every aspect of a modern young male's life with interest and fervor, and leaves no stone unturned in his wake. His boldly thoughtful work on men in America, aged 16-26, reverberates in so many ways, as he brings insight to everything from the quarter life crisis to the constantly competitive world we live in. A truly compelling thesis structures the book, arguing that America is still a highly patriarchal society, and all men must compete with each other not only to prove their own masculinity, but to denigrate women and homosexuals as inferior.
He is to modern male gender roles what Barrett Seaman is to the modern college student. Everyone, male and female, must read this book.
Second review from Mar. 2011:
I was surprised by his naivety in what he expected from young men in our culture. Interestingly enough, there's almost a victim-blaming that occurs here, as he spends so much time appalled at the behavior of young men and a disproportionately low amount of time on accountability and root causes. There is also a dearth of discussion of gender roles, homophobia, and how both relate to male treatment of women in culture. He hints at and sometimes directly addresses all three, but it definitely should have been a larger piece of the work at large. This is a book that does not stand up to a second viewing.
jackalackin's review against another edition
3.0
I was interested in this book because I work with adolescents and young adults, and have been looking for texts to help me better understand young men's attitudes and experiences from their own perspective. Unfortunately, this book misses the mark by focusing almost exclusively on a very narrow demographic and then insisting that whatever is true for that group is basically true for all young men, with a few minor deviations. I also feel like even though it was written in 2008, it hasn't really aged well with the culture, and I'm not sure it rings true anymore for Gen Z.
ari__s's review against another edition
5.0
First, it's nice when the end page number is 300-something, but 30 pages of that is endnotes/references.
Most importantly: this book reminds me why I love sociology and sociological texts. Not all school books are boring and dry, for sure. The best thing about books like Guyland is that they are easily read/understood, interesting, and so applicable to our individual lives it's almost painful at times. Half the things Kimmel explains this book, I previously hadn't thought of but once they were pointed out, it was hard not to think of examples I had encountered in my life without realizing it at the time.
So the question is: are you looking for an insightful book to help you gain some knowledge?
Answer 1: Yes
Response 1: Come see me - you can borrow my copy of this book and then we can discuss it.
Answer 2: No
Response 2: Wrong choice - see answer 1.
Most importantly: this book reminds me why I love sociology and sociological texts. Not all school books are boring and dry, for sure. The best thing about books like Guyland is that they are easily read/understood, interesting, and so applicable to our individual lives it's almost painful at times. Half the things Kimmel explains this book, I previously hadn't thought of but once they were pointed out, it was hard not to think of examples I had encountered in my life without realizing it at the time.
So the question is: are you looking for an insightful book to help you gain some knowledge?
Answer 1: Yes
Response 1: Come see me - you can borrow my copy of this book and then we can discuss it.
Answer 2: No
Response 2: Wrong choice - see answer 1.
jameshaus's review against another edition
4.0
I wanted to give this 5 stars but ultimately did not because his case studies and examples are a little too narrow. He makes a good case using statistics that the culture of fraternities filled with white men is overwhelmingly toxic on many college campuses. He then asserts that similar problems exist with other white men of the same age who didn't go to college but provides little evidence for it. So I really liked what he says, and it rings true to me from my own experience, but I think the evidence he uses for a broader critique outside of college life is weak.
The basic assertion here is that partly due to a lack of adult influence and guidance, and partly due to petulance and childishness, a large number of whilte guys are opting out of becoming responsible adults, choosing instead to stay perpetually free but juvenile, and have a developed a toxic, self-reinforcing idea of what being a guy is all about, and strongly policing all behaviors that would shatter that illusion and reveal them as sad, angry, selfish boys. You can kinda tell from my language here that this conforms with my observations of reality.
But I agree that there is such a thing as guyland, and to me it feels like it's the 22 year old version of what 1st grade males told each other about how things were. When I was in 1st grade, it was widely known that sex was about boys peeing into girls. Absent adult education at this point, we had come up with our own definition of what it must be, and we were pretty damn confident about it. After all, my good friend on the playground had confided this secret, he knew lots of stuff I didn't, surely this was trustworthy information? Well, guyland to me is a lot like 1st grade. There are a wide variety of rules about what "being a man" means which include but are not limited to:
drinking a lot
sleeping with a lot of women
not pussy-whipped (i.e. agree with girls when they have a difference of opinion with the young gods known as men)
not crying (except at sports)
not having emotions in general other than anger
enjoying porn and strip clubs (I was just last night castigated by a good friend for have the opinion that strip clubs were not a remotely healthy environment for anyone involved)
But this list comes from the same "authoritative" place as it did in 1st grade. A bunch of guys who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's a made-up ridiculous culture with no outside adult influence to say that they really don't know what they're talking about. They genuinely don't know what growing up means (and fear that it's probably a ball and chain on their happiness and freedom) and no one is giving them any hints at all.
I think what gets people's back up about this critique is most people look at this list (or better ones, I'm sure I left something important out) and say "well, no one I know even fits half of those" but that's kind of the point. Most guys I've ever met in my life including myself have hang-ups on at least ONE of those things, usually a lot more, and even one of those things can keep you from becoming a fully realized human being. For instance, if you think being a man is just about sleeping around with as many women as possible, you get frustrated after a while because you don't feel satisfied doing that. Of course, as any guy who's gotten past guyland can tell them, of course that doesn't make you happy. What makes you happy or at least happier and more fulfilled is having an emotionally intimate relationship with another human being, and once you've got that, sex with that person starts to get really good. But not one of their peers gets this so there's no help to be found there, and there aren't enough adults with connections into these groups of overgrown children to model it for them. There's also a culture of silence and intimidation that tries to shut down the conversation when anyone tries to bring it up.
I'm not sure that the problem with guyland has any easy solution. If you confront them with anger and bluntness I want to use they'll probably just get defensive and no learning will occur. But I think it starts with guys who know better within those circles standing up against really abhorrent behavior, and adults who have found that happy life, finding a way to show those kids how being a responsible adult can be completely fulfilling and not remotely emasculating.
I think largely what I'm taking away from this is I'm not going to shut up about it anymore. If you display an unwarranted sense of male entitlement and especially if you're over, oh say 25, you're going to hear about it from me (hopefully). It's time to grow up kids. I promise it doesn't hurt as much as you think it will.
The basic assertion here is that partly due to a lack of adult influence and guidance, and partly due to petulance and childishness, a large number of whilte guys are opting out of becoming responsible adults, choosing instead to stay perpetually free but juvenile, and have a developed a toxic, self-reinforcing idea of what being a guy is all about, and strongly policing all behaviors that would shatter that illusion and reveal them as sad, angry, selfish boys. You can kinda tell from my language here that this conforms with my observations of reality.
But I agree that there is such a thing as guyland, and to me it feels like it's the 22 year old version of what 1st grade males told each other about how things were. When I was in 1st grade, it was widely known that sex was about boys peeing into girls. Absent adult education at this point, we had come up with our own definition of what it must be, and we were pretty damn confident about it. After all, my good friend on the playground had confided this secret, he knew lots of stuff I didn't, surely this was trustworthy information? Well, guyland to me is a lot like 1st grade. There are a wide variety of rules about what "being a man" means which include but are not limited to:
drinking a lot
sleeping with a lot of women
not pussy-whipped (i.e. agree with girls when they have a difference of opinion with the young gods known as men)
not crying (except at sports)
not having emotions in general other than anger
enjoying porn and strip clubs (I was just last night castigated by a good friend for have the opinion that strip clubs were not a remotely healthy environment for anyone involved)
But this list comes from the same "authoritative" place as it did in 1st grade. A bunch of guys who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's a made-up ridiculous culture with no outside adult influence to say that they really don't know what they're talking about. They genuinely don't know what growing up means (and fear that it's probably a ball and chain on their happiness and freedom) and no one is giving them any hints at all.
I think what gets people's back up about this critique is most people look at this list (or better ones, I'm sure I left something important out) and say "well, no one I know even fits half of those" but that's kind of the point. Most guys I've ever met in my life including myself have hang-ups on at least ONE of those things, usually a lot more, and even one of those things can keep you from becoming a fully realized human being. For instance, if you think being a man is just about sleeping around with as many women as possible, you get frustrated after a while because you don't feel satisfied doing that. Of course, as any guy who's gotten past guyland can tell them, of course that doesn't make you happy. What makes you happy or at least happier and more fulfilled is having an emotionally intimate relationship with another human being, and once you've got that, sex with that person starts to get really good. But not one of their peers gets this so there's no help to be found there, and there aren't enough adults with connections into these groups of overgrown children to model it for them. There's also a culture of silence and intimidation that tries to shut down the conversation when anyone tries to bring it up.
I'm not sure that the problem with guyland has any easy solution. If you confront them with anger and bluntness I want to use they'll probably just get defensive and no learning will occur. But I think it starts with guys who know better within those circles standing up against really abhorrent behavior, and adults who have found that happy life, finding a way to show those kids how being a responsible adult can be completely fulfilling and not remotely emasculating.
I think largely what I'm taking away from this is I'm not going to shut up about it anymore. If you display an unwarranted sense of male entitlement and especially if you're over, oh say 25, you're going to hear about it from me (hopefully). It's time to grow up kids. I promise it doesn't hurt as much as you think it will.
andicaro7's review against another edition
3.0
I liked the ideas of this book. It brought up some very good points, but I had an issue with the writing. It seemed like he was writing from the perspective of Guyland, which I think is fine but if it is true it should have been specified. There were many a times when what he stated about women took away their agency.
ally_hall's review against another edition
3.0
Read for a sociology class. Easy to read, nicely organized. No new information if you’ve ever come in contact with a man. Terrifying and disheartening nonetheless.
briannanicolereads's review against another edition
4.0
I read this for a class on human sexuality. Very interesting read if you're interested in sociology and human interactions. I Also it would a good read if you are raising a son.