Book Review: "The Descent of Man" by Grayson Perry

Well, I'm back to reading random books. The Descent of Man is one of those books I have never heard of at all, and I even refrained from looking at the blurb. I got it as my free book on a 'buy three get one free' deal and though it's quite short, it has a lot to say about the state of masculinity. This book has been read and reviewed by quite a lot of people so I'm kind of wondering how I missed it when it first came out in 2016. But, as always, Penguin Nonfiction never seems to disappoint - so let's take a look at where Grayson Perry stands on the state of modern masculinity and the ways in which men can improve their relation to their own gender and hopefully, the way in which they interact with the opposite gender.

He starts the book by discussing how he is going to approach the narrative. He makes it quite clear that the book isn't going to be about man-hating and yet, it is going to be about looking at the ways in which modern masculinity isn't actually that compatible with the ever-changing world. The entitlement and lack of accountability that is often synonymous with more 'masculine' identities in our day seems to be one of the key components to driving women away from them and yet, this is only slightly addressed. Grayson Perry makes it clear that if men are to survive in this new world, they must learn to not be so vile and repelled against showing traditionally feminine traits. All the best men, in my opinion, have some feminine traits.

He goes on to write about the 'Default Man' looking at how the white, middle-class, middle-aged corporate man runs the world by default and plays the game of life on easy mode. This is probably very true - if we look at the billionaires of the world, there are far too many of them who played the game on easy mode. But another thing is that the men who work in the corporate world are actually ironically quite ignorant about other people. As we know that the Wall Street types lack empathy for others, another thing they lack is self-awareness and Perry shows how.

He states that these Default Men often all think they are 'stand-outs' from the pack, they believe that they 'think differently' and have a mindset that is out of the box. They often think they are the smartest person in the room and therefore, display the textbook behaviours of perhaps being the most submissive people in society whilst ironically, holding the belief that women should be submissive in their nature. Honestly, you cannot make this shit up. I loved the illustrations that would often explain things like 'Default Man' with funny Barbie-magazine-ad-esque language.

The central question is basically asking why men of today seem so hell-bent on destroying the lives of the women they are around. Why are they so angry and bitter? Why are they so incompatible with the modern world even though research states that for millennial men and afterwards at least, it has never been easier to be a man. On the flip side though, men are paying a heavy price for gender expectations that they themselves created. The author states that masculinity has changed yes, but society has changed much faster and masculinity has had trouble adapting to it. The defensive performance usually associated with online pundits of the gender is therefore a misguided grasp on a dying form of it. Honestly, I could not agree more. There's nothing more repellant than a 'masculinity coach'. You definitely don't see that for women and if you do, nobody listens to her.

The author makes the interesting claim that destructive male behaviours are driven by shame and not by aggression. Unlike women, who are often socialised to internalise shame, men are taught to deflect it outward through anger, blame, or withdrawal. He argues that many acts of violence, misogyny, and defensiveness stem from an inability to tolerate feelings of inadequacy. I think we can all see that from the terrifying online world in which again, men are hell-bent on destroying the lives of women who simply want to exist.

The author also argues that men, especially younger men, are particularly bad at taking criticism - seeing it as an existential attack rather than a chance to learn and grow. This helps explain phenomena ranging from online trolling to domestic abuse. As a woman I have definitely got my fair share of stories of men who are particularly aggressive and now, thinking about it as shame rather than aggression has helped me understand that perhaps it is not the rejection of adaptation towards the modern world but rather the incapability to (thus, it becomes projection). There are many men who quietly get on with themselves just fine, but then again the stupidest people have the loudest voices. There's a shame in not being able to adapt which comes out as violence, aggression and basically a tantrum.

Traditional masculinity defines worth through power, success, sexual conquest, and dominance and these metrics that guarantee winners and losers. The author argues that this zero-sum model breeds insecurity and resentment, especially in a world where economic and social changes have destabilised traditional male roles. Again, the 'adapt or die' comes into play. I believe that there are many men around who get on with their lives and don't particularly care about those at the bottom and they shouldn't. But you will find that it is those at the bottom, the losers, who cannot adapt and thus, resent the idea that the zero-sum game they created and perpetuate concludes them to be the most inadequate.

It's quite a shocking philosophy when you really think about it. If you imagine you are playing a game of monopoly and you practically throw your money away and then you get mad at yourself for losing the game. You choose the path and perpetuated the cycle consciously - and yet, you're still resentful. It's several layers of completely stupid and though it isn't applicable to all men, it is definitely applicable to those who spend the majority of their time chronically online.

The topic of male sexuality is an interesting one in the text because the author tends to make the argument that men are raised by society (basically other men) to have 'sexual conquests' though they may have next to no sexual prospects and on top of this, to have a separation between emotion and sexual behaviour. This is traditionally masculine and it is by far, the biggest sexual repellant for the modern woman. It also leaves many men emotionally unprepared for real relationships, leading to frustration, entitlement, or confusion. Again, this comes out as shame in adequacy and then everyone around them is in danger of violence. On top of this, to see men who are actually successful in this creates a deeper sense of shame since men value sexual relationships far more than women do. A healthier masculinity would integrate desire with empathy and self-awareness, rather than treating sex as proof of worth.

I won't sit here and take you through everything because we're up to about 1200 or so words and you're probably getting bored. But with sections on how violence is inherently gendered towards being perpetrated by men (and that means violence of all kinds towards anyone - even other men), we learn that men are taught that their anger should be controlled by others in the room, not themselves. There's also a whole section on how men misunderstand feminism because it suits the narrative that they have created in their own heads - that they are inadequate in comparison to the average man and therefore, it is the fault of women for not choosing to submit to them rather than the problems present within themselves. Basically, it is everyone else's problem.

I thought this book was very insightful and it also proves something that I have been saying for a long time. It isn't men that are the problem, but the fact that many men who are chronically online tend to blame others for their problems. They are the stupidest people with the loudest voices.