Here we have How to Be a Man (A Book for Boys Containing Useful Hints on the Formation of Character) written in 1846.
Here we have How to Be a Man (and other illusions) written in 2015.
In 1846, the teenager has a definition of manhood; in 2015, he’s told that it’s an illusion. In 1846, the teenager has a road map on the Highway of Life; in 2015, the road is covered in fog.
How can you arrive at a distant location without a map? How can you learn a trade without a teacher? How can you become a man without a mentor?
The crisis of the modern man, illustrated in one juxtaposition.
See Related Article: Why Did Bill Nye Become a Feminist?
17 thoughts on “How to Be a Man (1846 Versus 2015)”
Very true, Ame.
We are getting to the point in the U.K. now where being called man or boy is not acceptable especially in schools. However it’s the same for woman or girl. But the LGBT lobby now have the media by the throat and extreme feminists are undoubtedly better labelled as feminazis!
On a related note, Harvey Newcomb (author of the 1846 version) also wrote a book called “How to Be a Lady”. Can you imagine how the feminist crowd would react to such a title? I don’t think he could get that published today, since we are supposed to be “empowering” women: i.e. letting them know that any rebellious and self-destructive action is acceptable.
You can actually flick through it here https://archive.org/details/howtobemanbookfo00newcrich Fascinating stuff
Oh nice! Thank you for the link.
I was fascinated by your thoughts and would ask what you would think of this
Check out this post via emmanuellove356165818.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/how-to-be-a-man-even-when-you-are-different/
Thank you for the response…I just saw it (darn thing got lost in my bin). I will check out your post for sure.
Even if written in 1846 that book is likely to be complete shit. The author being a yankee and all
“How to Be a Man” had a religious theme throughout, telling the young boy how to become a moral family man. However, it could be argued that it was more applicable in the 1900s that the current times: i.e. a man who followed that advice to day would, very likely, find it difficult to interact with the Judaized feminist of the modern world.
Following moral advice from a yankee is always a bad idea
Without reading the book I guessed it was a fairly progressive affair. Those people were et up with secular progressivism by that point.
If he wrote in 1746 maybe the book would be worth the time 1846 is way to late into their moral corruption
SFC, out of curiosity, are you British?
LOL if you go back to 1610 or so on my mother’s side
Got it. 🙂 Just curious.
LOL it’s allowed. Father and mothers people come from the border lands so a mix of Scots, English and all the other various out laws that made up border reivers on both sides of the Tweede