What this book offers is a fascinating mix of interviews, observations, and the author's seemingly omniscient opinion. What it lacks is science, statistics, rigor, and everything us dullards who work in psychology like to see.

I am not really interested in the condescending pontifications of Kimmel. If I wanted that, I would talk to any number of my friends. All of them think they are absolutely on target, and all of them lack any semblance of objectivity. What is most dreadfully lacking in this book is a rich theoretical perspective that can EXPLAIN the behavior. Sadly, Kimmel eschews the one perspective capable of shedding positive (not normative) light on the issue that he is discussing, viz. evolutionary psychology. Not only can this persepective shed light, it can be used to create original hypotheses that are testable.

Statements such as "men act they way they do because deep down inside they feel empty and hollow," do not count as falsifiable scientific statements! My favorite: "guys sleep around because they fear their own impotence." Really? How would anyone know this?

You can't subject the above to rigorous testing, therefore, while acceptable as cocktail party opinion, they are not explanations. It is doubly ironic, then, that Kimmel should so lambast evolutionary theory as post hoc chicanery when that is exactly what this book is from front to back.

Sans the lack of rigor, the book is very well written, contains illuminating vignettes, and provides qualitative data which could be used by others in a more scientific way.

Really, if you want to understand Guyland, read David C. Geary's Male/Female. It is science at its best.

What this book offers is a fascinating mix of interviews, observations, and the author's seemingly omniscient opinion. What it lacks is science, statistics, rigor, and everything us dullards who work in psychology like to see.

I am not really interested the condescending pontifications of Kimmel. If I wanted that, I would talk to any number of my friends. Both think they are absolutely on target, and both lack all semblance of objectivity. What is dreadfully lacking in this book is a rich theoretical perspective that can EXPLAIN the behavior. Sadly, Kimmel eschews the one perspective capable of shedding positive (not normative) light on the issue that he is discussing, viz. evolutionary psychology. Not only can this persepective shed light, it can be used to create original hypotheses that are testable.

Statements such as "men act they way they do because deep down inside they feel empty and hollow," do not count as falsifiable scientific statements! My favorite: "guys sleep around because they fear their own impotence." Really? How would anyone know this?

You can't subject the above to rigorous testing, therefore, while acceptable as cocktail party opinion, they are not explanations. It is doubly ironic, then, that Kimmel should so lambast evolutionary theory as post hoc chicanery when that is exactly what this book is from front to back.

Sans the lack of rigor, the book is very well written, contains illuminating vignettes, and provides qualitative data which could be used by others in a more scientific way.

Really, if you want to understand Guyland, read David C. Geary's Male/Female. It is science at its best.

Reading this book I admit there are some valid points to the world of "Guyland", but Micheal Kimmel presents his arguments in a condescending, patronising "holier than thou" mindset which basically insults all the young men I have known. This book was written by a man who wanted to appeal to a female audience to satisfy there supposed sense of superiority over the opposite gender- namely women bashing men becuae we don't do what they want us to do all the time!

If Michael Kimmel doesn't like being a man, then why doesn't he get surgery to become a woman? That way he can bash men as much as he wants ( and ignore the shortcomings and problems of HER OWN Gender!!!)

I can;t wait for someone to write "Girlland" to highlight all the problems with the young females, but that wouldn't be politically correct now would it?

I purchased "Guyland" because of a wonderful review of it in the NY Times.
Despite its difficult and loaded content, the NY Time reviewer noted that it was a "good read."
And it is - like a can opener digging deeply into your brain and memory to elict your responses to "What is a man?" Being older, I am way out of touch with today's male world, but Kimmel unlocked several secrets of how men live today: single 35-year-olds living together and the lack of commitment in all of the Appatow comedy films and TV comedies; young boys who endlessly watch a video screen, no matter what it shows; young guy's many hours of "hanging out" and listening to the angry talk radio shows or playing video games, rather than connecting with humanity or facing the responsibility of what they should "be" when they grow up. I was not expecting so many topics - which end up all being pieces of today's "Guyland."
I cannot tell you how many conversations I have had since reading this book with my wife, my children, my male friends. There are those who have criticised the book but I am not certain what they were looking for. A definitive description of a "Man?" A dry and scholarly treatise on "How a man is different from a woman?" Those are "grey" areas already and are shifting and changing as I write this.
I had a wonderful time with the book and thank Mr. Kimmel from getting me away from my electronic addictions. And connecting with other people.

One of the two books I ordered had a wrecked cover. It was a book I was
donating to a library and unacceptable.

The employee who sent it should be talked to. HN

In Guyland, a professor of sociology examines the culture of (mostly) white males from high school to age thirty or so. This book's intended audience may have been parents of sons, but as a thirty-something female I found this book fascinating. Boys are physically developing into men faster than their grandparents, but emotionally they are developing much later: I know a number of young men about my age who still behave as though they are in college, and that is the type of guy that this book addresses.

Kimmel does spend some time sympathetically addressing the pressure that young men face, but the majority of chapters focus on undesirable behaviors (rape, binge drinking, hazing) and somewhat normal behaviors taken to testosterone driven extremes (consumerism, pornography, sports fandom.) Although many of the examples are from the media and certainly not representative of most guys, the author does make a convincing case that complicity only helps perpetuate such behaviors. These chapters were fascinating, particularly some of the candid quotations shared with the author. Unfortunately these were fewer than I would have liked.

The final two chapters, which focus on how young women's behavior contributes to the problems of Guyland and suggestions for reforming Guyland are the weakest. The former didn't seem to have a place in this book as there are already far more insightful books written about young women, and the latter had little in terms of concrete suggestions. Instead the author calls for parents and society to be supportive of young men so that they can develop boy scout like values... unfortunately this is easier said than done, and the type of parents and citizens that need to read this book certainly won't.

Despite its faults, this is worth reading if only because there are so few addressing this subject. Though intended for parents of boys, parents of young women would be wise to give this book to their daughters as well, especially if the daughter is planning to join a sorority!

Dr. Kimmel, in this book, provides a troubling but important analysis of what is happening with young men today. Read it if you care about the fate of men in this society.

It doesn't surprise me that some are going to rip this book to shreds. I don't read to agree with everything the author has to say. I read books like this to push myself to learn, react and discuss with others. I judge books on their ability to make me think about a topic. I also recognize that when an author tries to take on a topic like this there is NO way they are going to cover everything... the book would be 1000's of pages long if they did.

A few of my observations are listed below:

1. As a social-science researcher I, too, wish that Kimmel would have been more specific in detailing his methodology. Those criticizing his research design, lack of comments about about Human Subjects committees, etc, could make the same claim for MANY other research-based books that don't want to bore the average reader this information. It is quite common for those conducting sociological research in more unexplored areas to use qualitative designs - those that just provide observations on a particular group of people. This doesn't make them unscientific, however we should be careful not to generalize these findings to all groups of young men. Kimmel does state early on that most of his observations were about young white middle-class men. Some readers and social-science researchers might like to know a little more about what he actually did. The book in many ways is a phenomenological study that has some limitations, but also much to consider. The "mapping" he has produced is a good starting point for further research.

2. Although this book might describe the majority of white young men, there was little noted about the exceptions to the problems. There are young men out there who live differently...who aren't getting drunk every weekend, hooking up with a different sorority girl each weeknight, or playing video games until 4 in the morning. How do we explain what's going on with them? Probably beyond the scope of the book but readers shouldn't give up complete hope on young men...there are some who are making different choices than those described in the book.

3. Some may criticize the fact that the book lacked Solutions. However, I don't think this was the intent of Kimmel's book. Actually, I would have been disappointed if Kimmel's last chapter was something to the effect of - "Kimmel's 10 steps to better manhood." This is a complex sociological, psychological, economic, educational, family, and dare I suggest, spiritual problem. Solutions won't come from one man or woman, but rather groups of interested parties who are willing to put their jobs and reputations on the line to push for changes in how we interact with boys and young men.

As a 30-something guy who has experienced much of what Kimmel wrote about, I found the book a little spooky. Were his observations about today's young men or did he pull out some data from the years I was in college? At moments, I wondered if Kimmel was writing about my experiences as a fraternity member and college athlete in the early 90's. His observations are not just about today's generation... much of this has been happening for decades. However, the "conspiracy of silence" Kimmel talks has kept many men in the closet about what we experienced or in denial... defensive and pissed off when someone attempts to provide a different understanding of the experience.

Potential readers should be warned. If you think everything is great in Guyland - that American young men are in perfect shape (emotionally, spiritually and physically) with no need to change and you aren't open to reading about patterns of behavior, that are troubling in the least, then don't bother reading this book.

However, if you're like me, someone who's trying to make sense of the young men in your lives - personally or professionally - then this is a must read. More importantly, I think this is a book that people should read with their spouses, colleagues and in the classroom as a way to promote discussion on a very important topic.

If as an undergraduate I had turned in a term paper of the quality of Guyland, it would have been returned to me. Statistics are cited without sources. (Some are some aren't.) Works cited posing as current are sometimes twenty-five years old, presented alongside current research. The assumption is evidently that the reader will not go to the line notes at the back, caught up in the snazzy, cool rhetoric of the writing. Most sources are popular press articles. Masquerading as research and scholarly work, it is hard to know what readership Professor Kimmel has in mind with this book. This is a work misandry (man-hating). (The word misandry does appear in the Oxford English Dictionary.) Its methodology is not clearly defined. His several hundred interviews with "guys" (defined as males between age 16 and 26), which are apparently the sources of his "data," were gathered while on invited college campus visits throughout the country. Yes, there are references to other, non-college students interviewed, but the book is essentially based on chats with undergraduates. But under what conditions? What are the research controls? Quoted directly, did the sources give consent? Professor Kimmel claims that males who have been subjected to the "boy code" (a term from successful popular works on boyhood) are here heirs to the "guy code," a catch phrase Professor Kimmel must hope will make him as famous as the "boy code" authors. A profeminist who is the editor of a widely used anthology for "gender studies" courses and a journal on men and masculinity, he has has written a book for fans of the view that harsh, destructive males are still everywhere at large, now complaining about their loss of status since the second wave of feminism in the United States. Young college men are, on the basis of what they said have to Professor Kimmel, dim-witted witnesses to their own depravity, especially in the area of continuing bad behavior toward women. Given the interview material, which is provided at great length, Professor Kimmel must have transcribed his interlocutor's comments at great speed. Were the conversations recorded? This we do not know. This is mediocre journalism. There is nothing in the author's disparaging portrait of young men about their experience. Only behavior is recorded. Here and there is a bit of speculation at the level of the daytime television talk show about the psychological motivations for the behavior described. The account of "guys" is acidic generalization, determined to envision all young males in this newly "discovered" age period (Professor Kimmel's "finding") as just reincarnations of the countless generations of white males who have, according to Professor Kimmel, made life miserable for women and continue demean them. There is a great deal of mileage to be had from exploiting this new theme. But why the misandry by one of the world's authorities on men and masculinity? Another, R.W. Connell, so hated masculinity that after 60 years undertook transformation to being a woman. Professor Kimmel writes about his love of sports but repeatedly makes young men who play sports into goons, rum-soaked, woman-exploiting ruffians. The solution? A return to the white middle class marriage and family. This is the result of decades of study by a prominent sociologist. And the readers? Parents? The "guys" themselves, perhaps to see if they were quoted? To laugh at the caricature of them? School administrators? This is not clear. It's an odd tirade. Better to tune in to online chat rooms and read the same sort of "conversation" as this work of "social science" offers up to the daytime TV reading public.

Michael's idea of adulthood is where the broken children live. Look at president Bush, Donald Trump, or Tom Cruise. Do they seem like men to you?

At least the so-called "Guys" Michael talks about can smell a rat. If you want to know why young men resist "adulthood", it's best described in Robert Blys' book "Iron John." Michael's idea of adulthood lacks the elements that develop a male into a man. "Modern adulthood" is where the children live. Going to war, over-populating the planet, and oppressing others is not what real men do. So when a young man refuses to conform he is labeled a guy in Guyland?

Maybe the author should look in the mirror and try to figure out what elements define man-hood. Start with love and compassion.

I will admit I have not read the entire book as of yet; though being one who in some way was compelled to give it a shot as there is some (not much, but some) truth to the theme, upon reading enough, I was lead to the conclusion Kimmel is either using this book as some sort of political tool (notice, this book does not just contain research, it also has a "guide to manhood") or he just simply is of the Bill OReily/Laura Schlessinger camp; self appointed moral rolemodels espousing their venom feuled by jealousy while having suspect personal private lives or past. The author does plenty of concluding this generation of guys is a sad state of affairs, yet other then offering a guide as to how to be on track to becoming a model male citizen, he fails to identify the core of the problem, WHY this is becoming more the norm with todays males. Being one that fits into this catagory, I was compelled to read. Has he even explored the possibility it might not be the young men themself, but the parents fault? When does one officially "grow up"? In my opinion, when they are totally independant, and realize paying bills, reporting to work, balancing a checkbook takes work and effort, and thus, time for video games, cruising bars for mutual hookups and getting drunk seem to vanish. Perhaps the parents are putting them up in apartments, depositing money in the accounts or simply paying their way, leaving them in a situation where they will not experience having to stand on their own two feet, and achieve true independence, much like their grandparents did as immegrants. Or perhaps, why do the parents do this is a fairer thesis, the wealth generated by their generation of 2 parents working households, and even more so now, todays economy and horrific job market has forced the parents to have no choice but to still support their offspring until they get a "real job". (I am 27, my friends are all mid to upper 20s, all but 2 of them [out of a vast amount] do not have a job, or were offered one that pays more then 40,000 a year; which is considered poverty in any city in the United States by todays standards). Maybe when a generation is left to think the only way to getting a "dream, career" is by getting a doctorate degree (which can take till one is 30) perhaps they rightfully so will fall into the college lifestyle.
It is true 25 is the new 21, 40 is the new 25. The author could have put a more daring spin on his research and maybe concluded his sample space was not only the problem, but maybe a reflection of a larger one; when one sees the divorce rate of 67% (thats just the people who actually GET the divorce nonetheless) maybe they have reason to wait. He does not state many people do in fact grow up not because they want to, but because they have to, as maybe he should have interviewed guys age 40, who upon realizing if they do ever want to be a father and have a family of their own, they must give into the pressure of their female counterpart/age who realize its then or never. Or maybe he just flat out should have accept the fact that marrage simply is not for everyone. -A more interesting read would have been the hippie generation, who at last became the very thing they spoke out against, discovering in order to be independent and self sufficient must wear the neck tie and keep a 9-5 work schedule.
Those WW2 generation'ers, rejoice! this book is for you the next time a whippersnapper cuts you off on the highway. Those that want rational explinations and more then just banter, pass it on (I suggest "A problem that has no name" a classic about personal unease during the 1950s in regards to conformity and lifestyle)

Kimmel's book is important because of its exploration NOT into morality, or individual failings, but rather of our culture: a cultural space he calls "Guyland." He explains this space not as a failing of individual young men. Guyland, Kimmel argues, can be understood in light of contemporary changes in the job culture (postponement of careers), technology (we live longer - what's the hurry?), family (postponement of marriage) and masculinity (what it means to be a man). This is not an exposé on what individuals are doing right or wrong, but a reflection on social and cultural shifts that explain what is often perceived as normal; "boys will be boys."

I did read this book already realizing that I largely disagree with Dr. Kimmel and his agenda. I am in the core group focussed on in the book. Largely lost in the analysis was addressing the elephant in the room, and that is how this country and the west have socially and institutionally treated boys and boyhood as a pathology. He fails to address both sides of the effeminized education system, the disparate funding for educational opportunities, social services/health, and recognize that boys like myself have been subjected to a family court system that is dominated by misandry and feminist jurisprudence. We have been stimatized by female teachers as second class citizens and either drugged or indoctrinated into compliance that we are inherently rapists and sexual offenders in need of being cured. He did make some correct conclusions, we see marriage as a zero sum game. But he failed to deliver with academic and inetellectual honesty as to why. More of blame boys for all the evils; and of course we are responsible for all of the childish acts of our female counterparts- the elephant is the duplicity and the unwillingeness to share the accountability and recognize that this country has stopped educating, promoting, engendering self-esteem, and encouraging boys. We simply have disengaged and tuned out the mantra of the Oprah mind-set, Single Mothers who told us we didn't need a dad etc. Our lack of investment is a statement- we reject this society- we don't care that much about its well being and health, because the way baby boomers like Dr. Kimmel measure the well being and health of society has nothing to do and excludes us. The truth of the issue he addresses though is it does have a negative impact on us, and society. But until false platitudes like Married Men are happier- as Dr. Kimmel incorrectly stated are continued the discussion is dead. For the record Dr. Kimmel, the most recent research shows that single, never been married men, are happier than their married counterparts- a trip down to the family court in your local jurisdiction should prove this to you. Also, I would agree with him that we do need to take more responsibility, but not to achieve the same goals he envisions- it is his goals that are the problem, we need to challenge them more actively.