At times while reading Androphilia: A Manifesto Rejecting the Gay Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, I imagined the author—like Morpheus in the first Matrix movie. Androphilia has ratings and 21 reviews. Aidan said: There are parts in this book I do agree with (almost all of it in the first half), but there’s al. Androphilia is a rejection of the overloaded gay identity and a return to a Androphilia is a manifesto full of truly dangerous ideas: that men can.
|Published (Last):||17 April 2017|
|PDF File Size:||7.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview Manifezto a Problem?
Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Androphilia by Jack Donovan. Androphilia by Jack Donovan.
Finally back in print. Gay is a subculture, a slur, a set of gestures, a slang, a look, a posture, a parade, a rainbow flag, a film genre, a taste in music, a hairstyle, a marketing demographic, a bumper sticker, a political agenda and philosophical viewpoint. Gay is a Finally back in print. Gay is a pre-packaged, superficial persona — a lifestyle. It’s a sexual identity that has almost nothing to do with sexuality. Androphilia is a rejection of the overloaded gay identity and a return to a discussion of homosexuality in terms of desire.
Homosexual men have been paradoxically cast as the enemies of masculinity — slaves to the feminist pipe dream of a “gender-neutral” read: Androphilia is a manifesto full of truly dangerous ideas: Androphilia is for those men who never really bought what the gay community was selling.
It is a challenge to leave the gay world completely behind and to rejoin the world of men, unapologetically, as androphliles, but more importantly, as men.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Paperback3rd expanded editionpages. Published September 16th by Dissonant Hum first published March 1st To see what your friends andophilia of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Androphiliaplease sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. While I agree with Malebranche that gay male identity masculinity vs effeminacy-as-the-norm in mainstream gay culture needs to be examined and re-assessed, Mmanifesto could not have imagined a worse person to write about it.
Beyond all his hype, beyond his inflammatory rhetoric, Malebanche is simply a bad writer with nothing original to say.
Page after page, he spews opinions and historically-unreferenced generalizations that follow every known pejorative stereotype of gay men. Sometimes, the arguments While I agree with Malebranche that gay male identity masculinity vs effeminacy-as-the-norm in mainstream gay culture needs to be examined and re-assessed, I could not have imagined maniefsto worse person to write about it. Sometimes, the arguments that he makes can’t even bear logical scrutiny or remain cohesive for andtophilia than a page.
This is a book desperately in need of an editor, and a man in desperate need of an intellectual adviser. Gay’s are effeminate, and that’s bad.
And the rest of you ARE gay. It’s stupid, short sighted, and inflammatory. More andeophilia that, it’s just another form of internalized homophobia. Beyond all this, I find it ironic that Malebanche took the time to write a manifesto to discuss and redifine his masculinity and sexuality.
Truly masculine men are by classical definitions self-confident, and do not sit around worrying about who and what they are, or write bad manifestos about their identities; gays do that. I guess the joke is on Malebanche. I don’t think it’s fair for me to star this because I only got several pages in. At first, I thought this guy’s argument was androhpilia, or maybe more his provocative statements androphilis something I was willing to give a chance if for no other reason than their shock value.
But, I put the book down. And it stayed down. Alas, I believe I’ve fallen into his “gay” category, which for Male I don’t think it’s fair for me to star this because I only got several pages in. Of course, he’s not straight either. If I remember rightly because I’ve already returned this book to the library well before my three-week borrowing limit was reachedMalebranche described himself and other MEN like him as “same-sex-inclined” men.
But no, Malebranche is not gay! And what man would androphhilia to be that?! In fact, in the 10 or so pages I read, Malebranche not only hardly mentions women and lesbians at all, he extols the great human achievements throughout history that MEN have achieved. He also comes to the defense of straight men who are continually burdened with the task of differentiating themselves from being identified as gay. Interestingly, I do find some value in the argument against running around blaming straight dudes for everything.
Although straight dudes benefit from institutional patriarchy every day, not every straight dude is responsible for all the ills of society.
In fact, I know some really cool straight dudes who are aware of their privilege and who try to minimize their oppressiveness towards others–thanks, friends! I also think it’s ridiculous to think of gay or queer men as “less of a man” because they have sex with other men. It’s up to the individual to decide for themselves mqnifesto gender they identify as anyway.
But what’s troubling to me about that argument from Malebranche, the argument that he’s tired of gay guys getting dicked around maanifesto treated as less than a man, is that if you are “less of a man,” then it follows that you must be “more of a woman.
To me, the first pages of Malebranche’s book are nothing less than a proclamation of his hatred of women and anything typically associated with them, as in femininity. It is clear that Malebranche does not regard them as equals to men, and to me that means he thinks of them as less nanifesto human.
I’m sure Malebranche would be the first to try amnifesto prove me wrong about himself, that he regards women equally, that I should have read the rest of the book for a chapter entitled “Why Women Are Awesome” or “I Have a Friend Who’s a Woman” much like how a lot of white people like to say, “I’m not racist, I have a black friend”.
Truth is, I don’t even know the guy or most of his book, but the important thing is that I didn’t even get past the second chapter before I threw in the towel. To me, that says I’d rather spend my time doing something more manifseto help humanity than invest in more crap that is creating division.
I can empathize with this guy’s apparent need to anrophilia himself from a community that he does not see himself mnaifesto part of. But I really think this is a matter of semantics. Anyone can identify as “gay” and then define what that means to them in terms of their own identity.
Androphilia by Jack Donovan
I sometimes identify as gay, at other times queer, but I get to choose what that means to me. This dude is no longer able to do that, and I feel sad for him.
Of course, I also am having a reaction to his splintering off, so what does that say about me? That I hate his hatred for women. I also recognize a niggling desire to finish the book just to prove I’m MAN enough to do, just to take up his challenge to read through his blithering social and political opinions to try to take it seriously for long enough to hear him out Only time will tell The funniest thing about this is that I found in the Gay, I mean happy, reading!
As a queer biological male who prefers men slightly on the masculine side of androgynous, I had better hopes for this book. I agree that many homosexual men need to break out of gay mainstream without having to resort to identifying as “straight-acting”, but blaming feminists for gay stereotypes seems ludicris.
But every time I began to relate to something Malebranche wrote, he would instantly lose me by saying some thing that totally shows that he has no idea what he’s talking about. When I found this book the title was a little misleading. Then I read the reviews and they were even more misleading. I am obviously not speaking to everyone who reviewed it negative or otherwise. Please do not take this personal. I really do not know you; you do not know me, but the negative reviews seemed a bit silly, even more so after having read the book myself.
The entire book is one massive opinion piece. The author uses manifdsto and his own experience to manifwsto and justify his opinion. T When I found this book the title was a little misleading. The problem a lot seem to have is their utter revulsion and disagreement with this opinion. Though many did not write their reviews expressing that. They had “problems” with his facts, his assumptions, and even his religion.
None of them offered their own facts or countered his assumptions. As for his religion, he never even mentions his religion in the book. He takes a stance that an androphile can be of any religion.
The underlying thing that rests as the basis for these reviews is that the man’s opinion disagrees with theirs. Like many who have turned some aspect of androphiloa life into an ideology they must vehemently attack anyone who has any sort of argument against that ideology. It stands as an affront to their existence. They have an identity based around this one part of their person. To loose it would shatter them. What makes this seem silly to me is that if one was to read the book, take it for what it is, they would see that nadrophilia “arguments” is an example of one of his main points.
Homosexuals, gays, never seem willing to step outside of what they know, in their tight knit insulated “gay community. Inside their enclave they are accepted no mwnifesto what they do.
They reject the normal and never try to form their own normal. Their entire life becomes just that rejection of what the book calls “hetronormative” I manifesgo not sure if this term originated there or from elsewhere. On the inside they are not challenged or forced to confront anything negative about themselves.