The Best Book Of 2012 For Men

The best book for men that I’ve read in 2012 is The Way Of Men by Jack Donovan. Nothing else perfectly encapsulates the problem that American men are facing today. Here is my original review

ISBN: 0985452307

The Way Of Men aims to explain the nature of man and masculinity, using both historical and present-day examples to paint a picture of what makes a man. Today, anyone with a penis is biologically considered a man, so the author delineates the difference between being a man and “being good at being a man.”

A man who is more concerned with being a good man than being good at being a man makes a very well-behaved slave.

In the past, you were a man through survival and warfare. If you were surviving or fighting in battle, you were a man. Today, any retard who can speak in complete sentences and push buttons on a smartphone will survive. Anyone who knows how to use a credit card can see the world in comfort. Even combat is becoming robotic and detached, like playing a video game.

In spite of modern progress, men still want to be men. Their attempts at masculinity come out in other forms, like bodybuilding, training in MMA, becoming a policeman or fireman, trying to bang a lot of women, and simply reading war histories or the biographies of great men. The Way Of Men explains how all of us seek a path to expressing our masculinity in a world that is trying to punish and control it.

Men are dropping out and disengaging from our slick, easy, safe world. For what may be the first time in history, the average guy can afford to be careless. Nothing he does really matters, and—what’s worse—there is a shrinking hope of any future where what he does will matter.

The book picked up steam in the second half where the author’s voice strengthened when talking about the damaging effects of modern culture on masculinity. One thought provoking question he asks is: what do men have to gain with a feminist utopia? You quickly realize there is almost no benefit to the pile of crap that the ism ideologies are trying to force upon you today (and don’t say easy sex, which I have debunked in the past). They’re not making you more of a man, they’re not making your family stronger, and they’re not increasing your happiness. The minute it takes a woman to show a man what it takes to be a man is when men stop being men. And that’s what’s happening now.

Aren’t most men today spoiled mamma’s boys without father figures, without hunting of fighting or brother-bonds, whose only masculine outlet is promiscuous sex?

This book was important to me because it described the why of my current existence (and likely yours as well). Why do I get satisfaction from collecting flags and notches? Why do I like sticking my dick in a lot of different vaginas? Because in today’s world it’s one of the easiest ways to express my masculinity. While I’m sure I possess some genetic features that pushed me towards this outcome, I’m a man of my environment. I would have probably had a different “hobby” if I was born a couple generations ago.

One of the great tragedies of modernity is the lack of opportunity for men to become what they are, to do what they were bred to do, what their bodies want to do.

This book should be required reading for all American men, containing brilliant insights I had not previously considered. It clearly shows how your masculinity is being muzzled in order to achieve an experimental result that doesn’t serve your interests. Highly recommended.

Learn More: Read “The Way Of Men” On Kindle Or Paperback

ISBN: 0985452307

47 thoughts on “The Best Book Of 2012 For Men”

  1. a decent enough book but yet just another thinly veiled white supremacist manifesto. i read it and by the end i was done with the us vs them stuff.

  2. Actually, the “us” could be any group of men, which is why the cover has skeletons and not Vikings. All men behave this way, and race isn’t the only thing that can define an “us,” although it is a major one.
    If I would have wanted to write a white supremacist manifesto, I would have written one and not “veiled” it. I say what I mean.

    1. I appreciate that but given the context, the comments i’ve read from many of your readers and the seeming infestation in the manosphere by white supremacists, you can see how it could be interpreted that way.
      I know your job is to sell books too, so keeping things ‘interpretive’ could also work to your advantage.
      nevertheless, if you say it isn’t, then i’ll take your word for it.
      what bothers me about a lot of manosphere writing these days is that it exalts things which are detrimental the group at large. and by doing that, it is endangering the very blood lines that writers wish to protect.
      let me put this another way – breaking off into gangs and reverting to hobbesian realities won’t help propagate one’s lineage. neither will being a MGTOW and not having a woman to procreate with. nor will simply banging sluts and never having kids.
      if these strategies are pursued they result in poor genetic outcomes. which means that they are temporal strategies designed to peter out and become non existent.
      i’m more interested in figure out ways to become the most genetically successful i can be.

      1. > blood lines … most genetically successful
        You are not a DNA machine; you’re a man. Your only responsibility is to live rightly.

        1. Still remember my blue pill days and when my father tried to instill red pill truth by saying : “the purpose of life on earth is proliferation”. Makes sense, sex drive is the most powerful force in a human being, we fight for survival, to spread our seed, be the best to have the best possible decendence.
          And if we do not proliferate and perpetuate our specie, what is the point of being alive on earth? Why not just be ghost floating around. Saves a lot of trouble, no eating, sleeping, suffering, no need for disciplie or work. Anyhows, good nght y all

      2. if we dont perpetuate our dna, then we cease to exist.
        what sort of thinking is it that leads you nonexistence?
        seems like it runs contrary to the point doesnt it?

      3. re: some of the manosphere’s WN roots. i just ignore the WN stuff and focus on what’s important to me. If a man can learn to take valuable information from anyone, both those he likes and he detests, he is apt to learn far more quickly, and adapt far more better, than if he filters his information first too readily.
        I for one don’t enjoy some of roosh’s commentary on multiculturalism, but that’s not going to stop me from taking valuable information from him, when he dishes it out.
        plus it’s true, in mono-ethnic cultures, (as far as applicable, ) women do tend to be more feminine, and it’s also true mainstream liberalism and ‘caring about everyone’s rights and entitlements’ has led to some ridiculous outcomes (fat acceptance, abuse being colourfully redefined to include anything and everything).
        As mentioned in the past, i’m of mixed parentage, but rather than getting all uppity with people who think i should or should not exist, i use my mocca skin colour and charm to get laid wherever i rest my hat for the night.

      4. If you are like most men, myself included, then you were raised to be a beta provider male to the female which means you were indoctrinated to marry, sire children with the woman, and provide for her and the children. Your parents were the most likely to raise you this way. Schools and the media did their best to propogandize you to be this way too. Unfortuneately, 1st world nations( Western European nations, Canada, New Zealand, Austrailia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) especially the USA have laws as well as social norms which are very inimical to you becoming a husband and father. I was born in 1968, and most of you here are younger. I lost before I was born the probability to be a good husband and good father, and so did you because of the changing family, marriage, child custody, divorce laws and social norms etc. which began to take shape over a century before I was born.
        Let me briefly illustrate. Most of know about the Violence Against Women Acts laws of the 1980s and 1990s as well as the no fault divorce laws of the 1960s and 1970s. Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce in the USA while 40% of first time marriages do in the USA today. Before no fault divorce, the divorce rates in the USA were never above 25% and were seldom above 10% in the early 20th and late 19th centuries. Before the 1850’s and 1860s, if there was a divorce, the man usually got the house and the children if he wanted them and the wife usually got told to leave and she usually didn’t have to pay child support. The only way for the woman to get the house, children and child support was if the man was deemed heinously bad which was hard to prove. The divorce rate was 1% before the 1860s, and it usually the man who filed in the courthouse for divorce first. After the 1860s, women filed for divorce first most of the time and usually got the house and children with the husbans paying child support and alimony under fault divorce laws. By 1900, the divorce rate was 10% under fault divorce. These women file for divorce 1st anywhere from 60-75% of the time in the USA.
        South Korea is another prime example, but the change was much more rapid to say the least. Up until 1990, the man usually got the house and children if he wanted them and he was usually the one to file for divorce first as well as there being a 1% divorce rate in South Korea while the wife usually got told to leave but usually did have have to pay child support. the husband and father in South Korea would usually have to be deemed extremely bad for him not to get the house and kids and for them to be handed over to the mother up until 1990. Then they changed the laws to be more like the USA in 1990 where the woman got the house and kids and he had to pay child support. I’m not sure, but I think South Korea still has fault divorce laws unlike the no fault divorce laws of the USA, and maybe someone esle can confirm or deny this to clarify South Korean divorce laws. By the year 2000 South Korean women filed for divorce first 65% of the time and there was a 45% divorce rate.
        Most 1st world nations’ women are harpies, emotionally damaged mindless sluts and unethical vicious golddigging whores who will destroy a marriage with children just because they’re not happy. This is a rhetorical question. Let’s see if you can answer it. Has our previous generations and our previous ruling elite along with the vast majority of people in 1st world nations left men anything else in life but to be hedonists using women as cum dumpsters?

      5. @anon1
        “plus it’s true, in mono-ethnic cultures, (as far as applicable, ) women do tend to be more feminine, and it’s also true mainstream liberalism and ‘caring about everyone’s rights and entitlements’ has led to some ridiculous outcomes (fat acceptance, abuse being colourfully redefined to include anything and everything).”
        Roosh is always talking about how feminine and sexy the women of Brazil and Colombia are, yet it’s hard to find more ethnically diverse countries than those. All of Latin America was built on immigration and everybody fucking everybody to make some nice sexy mixtures of peoples (and some hideous monsters as well).

      6. Multiculturalism does not necessarily have to predominate in a multi-ethnic, or even multi-racial society. Unfortunately, today in the West the two correspond. This is for the following reasons:
        1. The West no longer believes in its own culture. Although the philosophical antecedents for this date to the Kant/Rousseau era, World War I shattered Europe’s confidence in itself, and Vietnam did the same in the US to a lesser extent. A culture that doubts itself is more succeptible to outside influences.
        2. The West’s self-doubt manifests most through multicultural Leftism. The Left has a vested interest in making sure that all non-white ethnics identify more with their ethnicity than with their adopted homelands. The prior natural progression of immigrants gradually developing from hyphenated-Americans into simply Americans is therefore stunted by reassuring immigrants that retaining their status as a victim is more advantageous than adhering to and blending in with the culture of their new country.
        3. The large influex of relatively homogenous ethnic groups makes it even easier for immigrants to segregate themselves from the society at large. Hispanics from Mexico, El Salvador, and wherever else can easily congregate into the same neighborhoods (or even regions) and easily get by without speaking English. Ditto for the Middle-Easterners migrating into Europe (which is ultimately a much bigger problem, for as different as Hispanic and Anglo culture are, the differences between Islamic and European cultures is far greater, and the immigrants are more overtly hostile to their wimpy hosts).
        4. The Left, throught the efforts of 2., have succeeded in associating Western culture with “white.” Although whites developed and propagated the most successful societies ever known to man, any racial component of this is secondary at best. Blacks in Harlem one generation away from slavery were becoming doctors and engineers, exemplifying the American dream, whereas whites in the Occupy movement.will lead us straight to hell. Successful behaviors like succeeding academically or not having kids until marraige are seen as “white” behaviors, so those who engage in such behaviors are seen as traitors to their race. Never mind that Appalachian whites often ignore school and that blacks can and sometimes do excel here. Bringing yourself up by your bootstraps therefore directly insults your co-ethnics who cling to their victimhood in some slum.
        An incredible, succinct description of this phenomenon is Shelby Steele’s book “White Guilt”. It shows how the greatest society ever known to man is being swallowed up by its relatively minor flaws through Leftist manipulation.

    2. Is dissatisfaction with an autonomous, easy life of drudgery really a modern problem? The Rule of Saint Benedict is 1,500 years old and hundreds of thousands of men have chosen it, in one form or another.

  3. Yes, great book. Strips away the BS feminine-imperative version of masculinity that we get in the mainstream and gets to core principles.
    On a side note, I want to say so far this site is good. Return of Kings is an inspired name, you nailed that. I was envisioning a manospherian type of on-line magazine for a while and I’m glad you stepped up Roosh and are giving it a shot. I hope somehow it turns profitable. I’ve believed for years there was a market for this. Now convince Heartiste to chip in a few articles and you’re on your way (and Jack Donovan too).

  4. Excellent article, I look forward to reading the book. When I used to hunt and fish when I was younger, today I don’t have the time since most of the areas I used to go to have been urbanized to the exclusion of those activities. So my areas of expression of masculinity are promiscuous sex, and using business as a substitute for other types of male competition – and the government is working hard to shut down that avenue of expression in the US.

  5. I got a lot from “The Way of Men” and agree it has been the most important book I’ve bought in 2012. A good companion to this book if you can get it is Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women: What Big Sister Doesn’t Want You To Know.”
    While not about masculinity, it can help enhance your understanding of it by comparison to the negative characteristics of female psychology and behaviours which Sheppard describes in perhaps more detail than any other book on the subject

  6. I think there is a rumor going around the internet that Jack Donovan is gay, care to speak on that? Not that I give a fuck, but that would be interesting and somewhat counterintuitive that a gay man would write a book about masculinity. Any how, I’ve been content with Roosh’s book recommendations so I’ll definitely check this out at some point.

  7. “In the past, you were a man through survival and warfare. If you were surviving or fighting in battle, you were a man.”
    Well, if you want to be a man why don’t you sign up for Afghanistan then?
    Wait that’s right, you don’t want to die, and you don’t believe in what they’re fighting for. Well guess what, neither did the men fighting in the past, who were conscripted without a say.
    “War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put a man in front of himself in the alternative of life and death.”

  8. Agree wholeheartedly with this review—reading Donovan’s book was truly eye-opening. He is at least as subversive as Rollo Tomassi over at Rational Male.
    If you are red pill, this is required reading.

  9. @Ares, yes you’re right.
    I was thinking more of eastern europe in particular, but it’s true that there are some fascinating mixes in south america. (e.g. gisele bunchen and her german-brazilian ancestry, people like that)

  10. Brilliant book. Definitely my favourite title of 2012. This paragraph is key:
    “If you know some guys you can connect with, and who are on more or less the same page philosophically, make sure you make time for them. Set aside time to create that history and build that trust. Even women who are “like one of the guys” will have a chilling effect on that process. Men are not honest with each other in the same way when women are present, and establishing trust requires honesty. Men are going to want to have girlfriends and wives and families and other connections with women in their lives, and that is all well and good, but as I said, you can’t expect men who don’t really know you to help you through tough times. Put in the effort. Eating and drinking together is fine, but it makes more sense to plan tactically oriented outings. You need to learn how to read each other and work together as a group. Go to the shooting range. Go hunting. Play paintball. Go to the gym. Take martial arts classes. Join a sports team. Take a workshop. Learn a useful skill. Fix something. Build something. Make something. Get off your ass and do something.”
    The amount of time wasted in front of the computer screen is an important critique of the Manosphere (MOS) and Alt-Right-Nationalist communities. The challenge is to get men off their computer and networking and organising in real life.

  11. I’ve been a fan of Jack Donovan for a while, but only recently discovered Roosh (although Roosh’s writing has been incredibly illuminating so far). I’m happy to see him review this book. I’m glad that he’s obviously able to see the world outside the lens of banging bar sluts, unlike many social robot “pick up artist” types.
    Can you picture Roosh suggesting that you “validate” cunty behavior or cockblocking friends, like many dating gurus do, just because it may get you ahead in the short term? No, you cant. I hope that we continue to see game move away from that mentality, and move more towards a discussion about how to act like a man.
    Roosh V and Jack Donovan are two of the very few men who really get it. I think one reviewer called The Way of Men “A primer for a generation that doesn’t know it needs one”. I would extend that to Roosh’s body of work too. Both of them should be required reading for all men.

  12. White Nationalism’s mission, and the Manosphere’s mission, are enlivened by the same lie smashing spirit.
    The former concerned with crushing the lie of equalism, the latter feminism.

  13. I’m reading this right now after Roosh’s endorsement. All I can say that is that it is outstanding and that I have never read anything like it. It is truly unique. And it’s only $6 on Kindle, so why not?

  14. Mr. Donovan –
    I did try to read your book, and I got a few chapters in. I actually agreed with most of what you had to say; but in many cases it was your evaluation of the facts that I didn’t like. I recognize that gang behavior is the tendency of men (I’m a man myself), but I also don’t think this is necessarily good or even necessary, whereas the impression I got from your writing is that you believed it was both.
    What I most certainly DID agree with was your general ideas about how men evaluate other men. I also liked the distinctions you drew between good men and men good at being men, and pointed out that the former was highly desirable but the latter was necessary.
    So, basically, I don’t like your vision of the ideal, but I do generally agree with your facts.

  15. “No Man’s Land” is another good read from Donovan. Somewhat of a sequel to “The Way of Men.” Free Kindle version is available.

  16. The only completely whole ‘person’ (not man or woman) left in this modern world is a huntsman, fisherman or farmer who also knows how to cook and eat well. I’m an 82 year old retired medical doctor/professor with five children plus grandchildren who still knows how to lust and love. So what does that make me?

  17. So basically this is a book written by a childless middle aged white
    dude who has not been in any war (not even in the army) telling nowdays
    males that if you work in an office pushing a keyboard, dont have time
    to lift, have a wife, and prefer to spend time with your kids instead of
    with muscular sweaty dudes in a gym, you are a total fag.

    1. Provided that apparently the writer in question sucks cock.
      Who knows, children are said to tell the truth.

  18. So, all you guys good with taking masculinity advice from a homosexual? Granted, he is a homosexual who could beat the crap out of any of you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *