Is this worth reading? Is it a good redpill?

Is this worth reading? Is it a good redpill?

Absolutely. Will make you much more manly. Is real good stuff. Only for strong guys.

It's conjecture and retardation. I torrented it and deleted it after a few pages.

its a good start before you take the crimson pill

The cover depicts fucking skeleton soldiers and that is what level of intellectuality you can expect.

The guy that wrote this is gay.

Any text which seeks to expound on "masculinity" from the perspective of someone trying to "preserve" it is bound to fail. Masculinity in itself is a changing concept, a fashion which changes with the time and culture which produces it. Identifying this mythical thing called masculinity which must be preserved, then trying to arrive at a definition is putting the cart before the horse.

Tl;dr no read foucault

interesting proposition my dear friend. I have to ask though: Is there not at least some aspects of masculinity that are unchanging or at least resistance to change? If not, then what's the point of the definition?

As a man, I've never found men to be reliable, so how does having a gang of men improve that? They disappear once they get a gf, get shit on, then hangdog back. Total suckers.
So having read the blurb, I'd say this is a waste of time. Anyone who has been in the military should find this book laughable. Men are ego competitive shitbags often until middle age or later. So lets group them up for the win!

That's what I'm saying- there is no point to defining masculinity. "Masculinity" is nothing more than what is expected of men in any given place and time, and is therefore subject to the culture which creates it. There's no point to trying to "defend" masculinity. It's merely whats expected of men by society. We can argue for different cultural attitudes, but to say that there's this thing called "masculinity" which is in danger is silly at best.

The trick is you have to get a loyal gaggle of twinks you control by giving almost absurd amounts of LSD

Then I disagree then. There are definitely attributes that are immovable when it comes to masculinity. Even in a totally feminist society, you wouldn't label effeminate, emasculated men "masculine".

t. soyboy's opinion

Masculinity is clearly defined by evolutionary biology, culture's affects on it are marginal. Across various societies in the world and through history, even in observing other species, there are clear patterns males adopt. Even in our modern day it's obvious what masculinity is if you've ever bothered to try getting laid since women respond well to masculinity.

You might actually. It is just a word after all. Eunuchs can be very "masculine" in some senses though literally emasculated. When do the constraints imposed by masculinity or other constructs become burdens or worse obscure the path of our fate?

>associate biological attributes with a social construct and then trade that construct for empirical observations leaving yourself with an idealistic notion of what your identity should resemble
How bugman of you

>Totally feminist society
What the hell does this mean
>You wouldn't label them masculine
Masculinity unto itself is a product of the society that exists at that moment and place. It's merely the code of behavior expected of men in any given society. Numale bearded tattoo jackasses who say sorry every other word are masculine if that masculinity is what is expected from his society.

Evolutionary biology is fucking meaningless when talking about human behavior. Jesus Christ, you'd expect people on a literature board to have at least opened Foucault or whatever, but I guess not.
>Even in our modern day it's obvious what masculinity is if you've ever bothered to try getting laid since women respond well to masculinity.
How's that working out for you, bud?

>be in the numbers gang in S.A. prison
>pounding boipucci is the heigth of masculinity
I guess being a superhomo is manly now

Considering the Greeks and Romans, yeah.

Only if you're a retarded gay bear

>Masculinity in itself is a changing concept
nope. masculinity has always, from the stone age onwards, been associated with being a provider and a protector

History didn't begin in 1945 you moron. The idea of man as breadwinner didn't develop until postwar. Please, for the love of God, read anything written before the year 1945

The whole thing is that rather than recognizing that the oppression of men is directly the result of the confines put on them by the same system of patriarchal gender roles which feminists talk about, it instead chooses to double down on it.

I've read half of it. The author is a truck driver. It's not quantum physics and he has the guy from art of manliness in it, but I took away some useful bits from it.

He says that there is some mutability to masculinity, although the core qualities stem from the stone age (strength, honour, mastery, courage). He also talks about how morality or ethics come into it and defines the basic male virtues as morally neutral.

To me what he says makes a lot of sense and is consistent with some observations that made less sense before reading the book. Although I think you can maybe skip it if you just think about what the four virtues mean and how they make sense.

It beats the philosopher emperor IMO.

To be fair, Aurelius never meant for those writings to be published, it was just a journal he kept.

what the fuck are you even talking about
19th century literature always talk about how Man is the patriarch of his home and is supposed to take care of his wife
all of marriage is based on the fact that man is a provider, while a woman is a nurturer of children, even in medieval ages when marriage was a part of diplomacy between royalty

>mfw I realised the author is a faggot only after ordering it

bait

>Evolutionary biology is fucking meaningless when talking about human behavior
please be bait

Good, suck it you squeamish /pol/cuck.

What the fuck did I just read

Its a decent book, good for a reactionary reading list, although it is similar to Varg in that it's promotes tribalism over civilization.
Some of the concepts such as the "Bonobo Masturbation Society" are good redpills

8/10 for casual reading

I sense sarcasm

hard truth

I sort of agree, but there are some immutable characteristics to masculinity. Physical strength is considered a manly trait in every culture throughout all of recorded history.

Poe-s hard doesn't it

>if Foucault said that human nature doesn't exist then it must not exist
Can someone show me a copy of Foucault's degree in biology?

A modern masterpiece, and one of the final books I have to read before I'm ready for next novel November.

The author is a faggot. In one of his publicity photos he wears a "man boy love" patch on his vest. I'm not interested in anything he has to say.

Is nature related to biology ?

This. It's not all perfect, and I can't at all agree with the idea of tribalism over civilization en masse, but I can see the want for a quasi-tribe(?). Something like an honour group (which I think he talks about in BB or maybe it's in this) in modern society to help you excel and better yourself, and better each other. And if SHTF you'd have a group of good people to rely on.

Bonobo Masturbation Society is great.

Yes, read it OP, it' decent

Not that user, and listen I eat soy food. But still there are clear biological features of masculinity. Risk-taking for example.
And I liked some of the ideas of this book like having gangs of men. But otherwise I do think that there's a cultural part to masculinity.

Oh and if you know your evolutionary biology you should be aware of alternative strategies, whatever it is in mating or life history. So not all men are crafted the same.

Look up peace and war leaders.