How to Be a Man (1846 Versus 2015)

Here we have How to Be a Man (A Book for Boys Containing Useful Hints on the Formation of Character) written in 1846.

HN

Here we have How to Be a Man (and other illusions) written in 2015.

duff

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)

  1. 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!

    1. Very true.

      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.

  2. 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/

    1. “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.

      1. 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

      2. 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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s