What do you think?
Rate this book
The Male Machine
Drawing upon personal insights and experiences, the author explores myths about masculinity and their destructive impact on society
225 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 1974
6 people are currently reading
223 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 10, 2025
A MAN ANALYZES STEREOTYPES, MALE/FEMALE BEHAVIOR, AND MORE
Gloria Steinem wrote in her Introduction to this 1974 book, “[This book] may be the beginning of a whole new wave of both theory and activism… The goals of the feminist revolution cannot be achieved without a humanization of BOTH sex roles… Most important, this book is practical. And it becomes so largely because the author has not only lived or tried to live these basic changes, but because his motive has been healthy self-interest not self-sacrifice… This book is a complement to the feminist revolution, yet it is one no woman could write. It is the revolution’s other half… women can never relax efforts to overthrow the structures of patriarchal power. But there will be male allies like this one; men who also want a world in which we can shed the crippling stereotypes of sex or race, and become the unique individuals we were born to be.”
Author Marc Fasteau begins Chapter 1 with the statement, “The male machine is a special kind of being, different from women, children, and men who don’t measure up. He is functional, designed mainly for work. He is programmed to tackle jobs, override obstacles, attack problems, overcome difficulties, and always seize the offensive… his most important positive reinforcement is victory… His relationship with other male machines is one of respect but not intimacy; it is difficult for him to connect his internal circuits to those of others. In fact, his internal circuitry is something of a mystery to him and is maintained primarily by humans of the opposite sex. These delightful creatures service him with love and devotion induced by [their] recognition of his superior design and the importance of his functions…” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “Of course, the male machine is not a real person, but a stereotype, an ideal image of masculinity shared, with minor variations, by nearly every male in America. No one fully conforms to it… but it is the most fundamental standard, the yardstick against which we measure ourselves as men. To the extent that we fail to meet its injunctions, even by deliberate choice, we are likely to see ourselves, at least at times, as inadequate.” (Pg. 2)
He observes, “Men get together to conduct business, to drink, to play games and sports, to re-establish contact after long absences, to participate in heterosexual social occasions---circumstances in which neither person is responsible for actually wanting to see the other. Men are particularly comfortable seeing each other in groups. The group situation defuses any possible assumptions about the intensity of feeling between particular men and provides the safety of numbers—‘All the guys are here.’ It makes personal communication… more difficult and offers an excuse for avoiding this dangerous territory. And it provides what is most sought after in men’s friendships: mutual reassurance of masculinity.” (Pg. 17)
He notes, “Men devalue the work that women are allowed to do simply by labeling it ‘feminine’---or, more accurately, they devalue the woman doing the work. Women who are good at organization, follow-up, and detail are assumed to have ONLY that ability and are described as having compulsive, tidy, and therefore limited minds; the same abilities in a man make him a prime candidate for controller of the company. On the other hand, inattention to detail, an indication of creativity in men, is only a sign of flightiness and lack of staying power in a woman… A gift for blunt, articulate analyses gives a man the valuable reputation of having a mind like a steel trap; it turns a woman into a pushy broad.” (Pg. 55)
He states, “In the realm of emotional support, husbands, for the most part, do not give what they get. First, a woman is more likely to be open about her feelings, so the man doesn’t have to work at prying them out. More important, he is less likely to make an effort to understand her feelings and needs. Such an effort would require a conscious expenditure of his own emotional energy… This is something men have never learned to do.” (Pg. 81)
He asks, “Why structure amateur sport… so that many of the participants and would-be participants lose rather than gain from the experience? … Amateur sport, if designed more for the broad range of ability and commitment of potential participants and made an opportunity rather than compulsion, could build a lot more character than it does today. But that would require the coaches, and their various publics, to care more about this than about sending their football team to the Cotton Bowl.” (Pg. 107-108)
He acknowledges, “It is usually when men are in their forties that they recognize that their ambitions are not going to be fully realized: they will not be president of the corporation, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, a partner in a major law firm, a famous politician, wealthy entrepreneur—whatever they have been striving for. The reaction of many at this point is to feel depressed and worthless… After a period of turmoil, the crisis is generally resolved in one of two ways: either the men plod onward in the same track… more or less embittered and drained of hope; or their values and the direction of their commitments change.” (Pg. 137)
He says, “It is fair to ask whether the need to dominate and win in every confrontation situation isn’t likely to be characteristic of anyone, male or female, who climbs to the highest ranks of government in our competitive society. The answer is a complicated no. Most women are not as personally threatened as most men by the suggestion that they are not tough enough… In the past women who did make it were able to do so only by adopting male values; it seems unlikely that these women would have done a better job on Vietnam, or the arms race.” (Pg. 186-187)
He suggests, “Perhaps in the future, our lives will be shaped by a view of personality which will not assign fixed ways of behaving to individuals on the basis of sex. Instead, it would acknowledge that each person has the potential to be---depending on the circumstances---both assertive AND yielding, independent AND dependent, job- AND people-oriented, strong AND gentle, in short, both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’; that the most effective and happy individuals are likely to be those who have accepted and developed both these ‘sides’ of themselves; and that to deny either is to mutilate and deform; that human beings, in other words, are naturally androgynous.” (Pg. 196)
This book, though more than 50 years old, will still be of some interest to those studying the male psyche, etc.
Gloria Steinem wrote in her Introduction to this 1974 book, “[This book] may be the beginning of a whole new wave of both theory and activism… The goals of the feminist revolution cannot be achieved without a humanization of BOTH sex roles… Most important, this book is practical. And it becomes so largely because the author has not only lived or tried to live these basic changes, but because his motive has been healthy self-interest not self-sacrifice… This book is a complement to the feminist revolution, yet it is one no woman could write. It is the revolution’s other half… women can never relax efforts to overthrow the structures of patriarchal power. But there will be male allies like this one; men who also want a world in which we can shed the crippling stereotypes of sex or race, and become the unique individuals we were born to be.”
Author Marc Fasteau begins Chapter 1 with the statement, “The male machine is a special kind of being, different from women, children, and men who don’t measure up. He is functional, designed mainly for work. He is programmed to tackle jobs, override obstacles, attack problems, overcome difficulties, and always seize the offensive… his most important positive reinforcement is victory… His relationship with other male machines is one of respect but not intimacy; it is difficult for him to connect his internal circuits to those of others. In fact, his internal circuitry is something of a mystery to him and is maintained primarily by humans of the opposite sex. These delightful creatures service him with love and devotion induced by [their] recognition of his superior design and the importance of his functions…” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “Of course, the male machine is not a real person, but a stereotype, an ideal image of masculinity shared, with minor variations, by nearly every male in America. No one fully conforms to it… but it is the most fundamental standard, the yardstick against which we measure ourselves as men. To the extent that we fail to meet its injunctions, even by deliberate choice, we are likely to see ourselves, at least at times, as inadequate.” (Pg. 2)
He observes, “Men get together to conduct business, to drink, to play games and sports, to re-establish contact after long absences, to participate in heterosexual social occasions---circumstances in which neither person is responsible for actually wanting to see the other. Men are particularly comfortable seeing each other in groups. The group situation defuses any possible assumptions about the intensity of feeling between particular men and provides the safety of numbers—‘All the guys are here.’ It makes personal communication… more difficult and offers an excuse for avoiding this dangerous territory. And it provides what is most sought after in men’s friendships: mutual reassurance of masculinity.” (Pg. 17)
He notes, “Men devalue the work that women are allowed to do simply by labeling it ‘feminine’---or, more accurately, they devalue the woman doing the work. Women who are good at organization, follow-up, and detail are assumed to have ONLY that ability and are described as having compulsive, tidy, and therefore limited minds; the same abilities in a man make him a prime candidate for controller of the company. On the other hand, inattention to detail, an indication of creativity in men, is only a sign of flightiness and lack of staying power in a woman… A gift for blunt, articulate analyses gives a man the valuable reputation of having a mind like a steel trap; it turns a woman into a pushy broad.” (Pg. 55)
He states, “In the realm of emotional support, husbands, for the most part, do not give what they get. First, a woman is more likely to be open about her feelings, so the man doesn’t have to work at prying them out. More important, he is less likely to make an effort to understand her feelings and needs. Such an effort would require a conscious expenditure of his own emotional energy… This is something men have never learned to do.” (Pg. 81)
He asks, “Why structure amateur sport… so that many of the participants and would-be participants lose rather than gain from the experience? … Amateur sport, if designed more for the broad range of ability and commitment of potential participants and made an opportunity rather than compulsion, could build a lot more character than it does today. But that would require the coaches, and their various publics, to care more about this than about sending their football team to the Cotton Bowl.” (Pg. 107-108)
He acknowledges, “It is usually when men are in their forties that they recognize that their ambitions are not going to be fully realized: they will not be president of the corporation, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, a partner in a major law firm, a famous politician, wealthy entrepreneur—whatever they have been striving for. The reaction of many at this point is to feel depressed and worthless… After a period of turmoil, the crisis is generally resolved in one of two ways: either the men plod onward in the same track… more or less embittered and drained of hope; or their values and the direction of their commitments change.” (Pg. 137)
He says, “It is fair to ask whether the need to dominate and win in every confrontation situation isn’t likely to be characteristic of anyone, male or female, who climbs to the highest ranks of government in our competitive society. The answer is a complicated no. Most women are not as personally threatened as most men by the suggestion that they are not tough enough… In the past women who did make it were able to do so only by adopting male values; it seems unlikely that these women would have done a better job on Vietnam, or the arms race.” (Pg. 186-187)
He suggests, “Perhaps in the future, our lives will be shaped by a view of personality which will not assign fixed ways of behaving to individuals on the basis of sex. Instead, it would acknowledge that each person has the potential to be---depending on the circumstances---both assertive AND yielding, independent AND dependent, job- AND people-oriented, strong AND gentle, in short, both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’; that the most effective and happy individuals are likely to be those who have accepted and developed both these ‘sides’ of themselves; and that to deny either is to mutilate and deform; that human beings, in other words, are naturally androgynous.” (Pg. 196)
This book, though more than 50 years old, will still be of some interest to those studying the male psyche, etc.
January 24, 2025
A must read for anyone who’s wanting to know more about why men are “like that.” Despite being written in the 1970’s, everything the author writes still applies today and I could picture certain politicians in my head when the author outlined why masculinity is so fragile *cough cough Donald Trump Elon Musk**. This book is almost a masculine counterpart to The Feminine Mystique. 1000/10. Found myself underlining lines every few pages.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews