What are some good books about masculinity that you've read?

What are some good books about masculinity that you've read?
I guess there are lots of bad ones, hence the question.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Any Hemingway. Raw manliness without being insecure enough to bring it up.

Confessions of a Mask

Tampa

Esther Vilar - The Manipulated Man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man

Masculinity is a spook

Of course it's a spook. That doesn't answer OP's question though, user.

>implying it's a spook

"no"

>reading an entire book about gender
Boring desu

I know dude, it must be hard growing up without a father

Masculinity is literally the best example of what a spook is.

>Masculinity is literally the best example of what a spook is.

No, it isn't. An ideology like Communism is a good example of what a spook is, as is religion.

kek, you should try actually reading Stirner. Masculinity is the spookest of spooks

If you can explain why without shitposting you *might* have a point

You are falling into ideals that may not be your own or are completely influenced by outside sources.

That is a spook.

Manliness doesn't really exist, OP. There are different types of men and different ways to think about it. Am I more of a man than you because I personally enjoy going into the woods and living in the small cabin I built with my dog for extended periods of time? Maybe you don't like that but how does it make you any less of a man than me? Your hands are probably not as rough as mine but does that make you a woman? No.

I abhor bugs and don't like to touch them at all and avoid it. I also don't like wet hair or certain materials. Does that make me less of man? Does it matter anyway? I would think not, and I wouldn't care what others thought anyway.

Stop reading Art of Manliness.

hold on, im doing a Veeky Forums impression...,

I've read DFW I've read pynchon. that means I'm real smart. I actually believe in Marxism haha socialism totally works you guys. I'm a real sensitive guy, I like to get in touch with my femenine side. You know I was having anal sex with my boyfrend, my gay boyfriend, Jamal, he was drilling my ass so hard... nothing wrong with that, you know White Dude heteronormative masculinity is a spook XD. in fact that means i'm cool like all those french poets who also liked taking up the ass.

I have no impetus to make a "point" when you're this far off the mark. Read more faggot

>he doesnt understand how adhering to a set of principles built by society that limit his emotions, encourage him to act in a way that contradicts his self-interest, and generally prove to be more harmful than beneficial is the Spookiest of Spooks

>Am I more of a man
>Does that make me less of man?

spooky

You should really stick to /pol/ and /v/ if you get triggered this easily

You missed the part where i said it didn't matter.

But it DOES make you more a man, according to masculine standards. It's almost like you were trying to say:

>hey cheer up op youre still a man :))

>having this frail of an ego

wipe your tears away user. being this offended doesnt help you in your route to becoming a True Ubersmench Man©

Sorry then because my entire point was it didn't matter. I do things I enjoy and that is what matters to me.

>that is what matters to me

Spook

I'm surprised you say that being masculine (or the whole dichotomy of femininity vs masculinity) doesn't matter in this day, when genders and feminism is one of the hot topics of this decade.

If Stirner says it's bad, does it mean that it doesn't matter?
We don't live in a spooks-free society yet.

the way of men

it was pretty shite desu

"I read books about masculinity."

HELP I CANNOT BE UNSPOOKED

>Men act in specific ways
>Women act in specific ways

>this is a spook

I wish Stirnerfags would die. They don't even understand him at all.

A Night in a Moorish Harem

yeah, in the end stirnerfaggotry is an edgy packaging for the 'hip' nihilism being pushed by the establishment. muh feels tumblr nonesense and denial of biological truths

>Masculinity is simply the median way in which men behave

Think before you type simpleton

Yeah but the problem is that Stirner wasn't a nihilist at all. He was an egoist which is vastly different.

People don't seem to understand that his concept of a spook was an idea that you used to supplant your ego, which is why it was wrong, because he believed only you, the unique self was valuable, and that you would be as it were "chasing ghosts/spooks" if you didn't focus on yourself.

Seems to me only 1% of people who use Stirnermemes have even read the book.

Masculinity and human instinct aren't the same thing you fucking idiots.

>b-but men dont cry :((
>b-but men are supposed to be with women and not other men :((
>b-but i cant do that because REAL men dont do that :((

Please enlighten me how ANY of these are """"""""""""biological truths""""""""".

>Masculinity is simply the median way in which men behave

No, masculinity are ways of behaving that have natural and biological reasons for existing.

If you think a man who reacts with instinctual aggression against other men who harm women for example, does so because he has "spooks in his head" you're dead wrong.

>muh blank slate
>muh scientific illiteracy
>muh social constructivist theory of being

You're just illustrating how retarded you are tbqhfamalam.

Did you not read his post or are you just retarded?

M E I N
G O T T

>masculinity encompasses the traits which are commonly associated with human males

FTFY

>If you think a man who reacts with instinctual aggression against other men who harm women for example, does so because he has "spooks in his head" you're dead wrong.

So that's your argument? That we're just animals incapable of overcoming our biological instincts? You do realize that this isn't set in stone, that not every man will react towards men harming other women right? It relies on the society in which that man inhabits, what's your argument towards societies in which women are seen as nothing more than property which need be disciplined?

>ask for an explanation
>dont get one

really makes you think

Don't listen to the nu-males, OP, faggot.

>astrology for cucks

>what's your argument towards societies in which women are seen as nothing more than property which need be disciplined?

Makes absolute sense to me, if you imagine that humans, like all animals, live in a dominance-hierarchy, and in that dominance-hierarchy men have to compete with other men to win the best pussy, because women are the ones who choose who to mate with.

Now, if that is the case, it's not hard to imagine why humans would construct a form of cultural mythology where the ability of women to choose their mate naturally is denied, because it means men have more power to choose their destiny(in other words choose whether or not to have children).

>like all animals

wow user, so youre saying that humans are animals incapable of overcoming their biological instincts? thanks for the clarification, really cleared things up

masculinity is still a spook. if i was a caveman, then maybe i would rely on strength and dominance to ensure my survival, but in modern-day society, i don't HAVE to be a man. i don't HAVE to be strong, assertive, aggressive, and doing so because "it's what men do" is the spookiest of spooks.

...

Sorry, but you're wrong. A dominance-hierarchy doesn't magically disappear simply because you don't need to run around in the forest with a spear anymore.

too bad elliott spergo ruined the word but this is a great book on how to class up a joint

Not him, but if you can live a happier life without conforming your ego to fit into a dominance-heirarchy, that heirarchy is a spook, you're missing the point.

not user

Are you not interested in the opposite sex in the slightest?

Funny how avoiding spooks is not evolutionary advantageous desu

oh yes, the half baked PUA broscience school of evolutionary biology

durr
evoultion is a spook you nig

>>b-but men are supposed to be with women and not other men :((
>Please enlighten me how ANY of these are """"""""""""biological truths""""""""".

to the showers

>pressures of the environment are spooks
t. brainlet

What if you refuse to take part in that hierarchy? What if you prefer to live as a wandering nomad, a thief who lives off taking what he wants? What if I somehow made that society conform to my beliefs?

It is in my self-interest to survive, but if I'm capable of doing so under my own terms, then there is no need to agree with the methods of others.

>Are you not interested in the opposite sex in the slightest?

???
How exactly did you come to ask this question?

>not evolutionary advantageous

Another spook. Thinking that you HAVE to have kids, simply because it is what you were programmed to do is pretty spooky tbqh fampai.

You missed the key word.

>supposed to

Heterosexuality stems from a biological imperative to ensure that one can reproduce, because that is one's BIOLOGICAL instinct. We're not barbaric savages anymore. We've become aware of these instincts, we're under no obligation to reproduce if we don't want to, nor are we under any obligation to be with a member of the opposite sex.

>The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from the general reaction of the century against the materialistic positivism of the XIXth century. Anti-positivistic but positive; neither skeptical nor agnostic; neither pessimistic nor supinely optimistic as are, generally speaking, the doctrines (all negative) which place the center of life outside man; whereas, by the exercise of his free will, man can and must create his own world.
>-- wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind. Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual).
>This positive conception of life is obviously an ethical one. It invests the whole field of reality as well as the human activities which master it. No action is exempt from moral judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the value which a moral purpose confers on all things. Therefore life is serious, austere, and religious; all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities. A man disdains an “easy" life.
>This conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. "Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of regime fail to realize that -- is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought.

Only philosophy book you'll ever need

>How exactly did you come to ask this question?
Cause I know you thinking that you don't have to be a man tumbles down immediately if I were to juxtapose you with a Man in a scenario where socializing with women is involved.

If we're to assume ^ then your objection to not having to be a man, on the basis of it being a spook, is because you're lazy and you're just making excuses for yourself which seems like you are restricting yourself to an awkward predicament because of 'spooks' which to me seems spooky.
Though I could be wrong u gay?

How's Iron John?
A friend told me it was good, but it isn't straightforward and I shouldn't try to read it in one sitting.

>Cause I know you thinking that you don't have to be a man tumbles down immediately if I were to juxtapose you with a Man in a scenario where socializing with women is involved.

no it doesnt
how i socialize with women is no different how i socialize with men, the only difference would be if i was interested in this woman. if she was into macho bravo guys then theres a strong chance i wouldnt care about her in the first place. i dont think with my dick, im not one of those "hurr durr beta males are cucked not true alphas" type of people.

>If we're to assume ^ then your objection to not having to be a man, on the basis of it being a spook

You don't understand. I don't conform to masculinity because it goes AGAINST my self-interest.

>is because you're lazy and you're just making excuses for yourself

Excuses for what? Do you think I value men by how masculine they appear? It sounds like you're projecting here user.

>to an awkward predicament because of 'spooks' which to me seems spooky.

How would it be awkward? I'm not insecure, I don't stutter when I speak. I'm comfortable with myself, and forcing myself to be "more like a man" when it's not what I want sounds more uncomfortable than anything else.

>Though I could be wrong u gay?

nah

Yes it does you fucking retard. I can live the rest of my life without leaving my home if I so wished

Believing reproducing innately matters certainly is