The Code of Man: Love Courage Pride Family Country

by Waller R. Newell

"In many ways," Waller R. Newell writes, "young men today are in deep spiritual trouble. But they are also yearning for a way back to the noblest ideals of American manhood." The Code of Man is a deep and thought-provoking effort to help guide contemporary men back to those ideals, embodied in what Newell calls the five paths to love, courage, pride, family, and country. He argues that at the dawn of the twenty-first century, our society has grown so concerned about the roles of sex and violence that we have forgotten to seek inspiration from the traditional virtues of the romance and eros, courage and patriotism, and the blend of love and bravery that ittakes to raise a family. Contrasting such time-honored lessons from the voices of William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Austen, and Teddy Roosevelt with the chaotic signals emanating from Western culture today, Newell offers a clarion call to recapture our traditions, preserve our character as a society ... and avoid catastrophe.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Self Help, Psychology, Gender, Relationships, Social Science

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[Drew Reilly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This author has some problematic views of manliness and manhood. Some of his statements are transphobic, some are anti-feminist, some are apologist for toxic masculinity, and he takes a weird turn at the end in saying that Israel is the "canary in the coal mine" for democracy.

This isn't to say that the whole book was bad, or that there was not anything of value in it. I just find it hard to trust someone's view of manhood that is so limited to an ideology based in the "what ever happened to the good old days" mentality.

[Philipp · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had to change my rating from an already generous two stars to a 1. I also tried to write a detailed and coherent review of this book, and ultimately failed because this book is neither. The author claims to be unbiased, then proceeds to lump homosexuality, bdsm and paedophilia into the same category a few pages later, insists that it is impossible for one gender to oppress another, and generally seems to experience the modern world entirely through movies.

He is at his most informative when describing a historically idealised version of manhood based on poems and plays, which, while entirely fictional and thus a most questionable source, sustain his entire narrative. it's entertaining, at least compared to his original thoughts, which are few and range from creepy (in the chapter on love) to painfully ignorant of the real world. His endless droning about 9/11 and focus on the USA and the founding fathers make the book dry if the reader is not american, and even here he displays great talent, bordering on historical revisionism by omission, to regurgitate right wing talking points.

I was looking forward to this book very much. Shortly after getting started, I realised that the author and I disagree a great deal, but I wanted to read it nonetheless to hear the 'other side' of the argument. When I realised that he has no compelling argument to make, I finished the book out of principle. The conclusion was so painful I skimmed it in 20 minutes or less.

2 / 10 do not recommend.

[Cristian · Rating 3 out of 5]

It feels like holding on to traditional views means I'm breaking PC standards, so I'm trying to figure out what traditional values I can maintain while maintaining a standard for today's generation. I thought I'd try this out and see what I can learn.

In light of the author's assertions and foul language within the first few pages, it's understandable why there are such polarized reviews. However, when you get past such an off-putting introduction, you begin to see where the author finds himself as soon as you read a few more pages. I believe the first chapter, which is about "love," should've been handled with a bit more maturity. However, his point was a comparison to today's society that views sex as something less than a genuine connection. Instead, it is done for fun or as a selling point for ads, music videos, etc. This is the only time two curse words are used throughout the entirety of the book. In summary, the author claims that love is something that is earned and not something that should be freely given. As a consequence, he suggests that men should rarely express their feelings. Especially at the beginning of a romantic relationship. He also lays out a”type of woman” a man should look for: Secure & Supportive (a given for both genders).

The next chapter is “courage”. From this chapter I concluded that men should always take the lead. Face your fears and always take the initiative. With that said, take risks as well! Never be afraid to try something out of fear of failing or whatever outcome you believe stands in your way, just go for it.

This is followed by "pride.". In this chapter, the author makes it clear that we shouldn't take pride in things we were born into, but to be proud of how we reached our goals. He says it's more proud to have earned one's way to the top than it is to have been given it. In other words, work hard for long-term success. Understand the difficulty of your goal, decide to do what you can, and set your sights on a long-term victory. You will go farther than you can imagine once you realize life is difficult and you are capable of it, and that's something to be proud of.

"Family", a retouch on leadership. Be the head of the family. As the woman takes care of the household, the man makes all the decisions. This man must be someone who is respected and looked up to. References/comparisons to The Godfather, Goodfellas, and any gangster film where the Don is in charge and not only takes care of his own family but also his mobsters. This seemed silly to me, but I understand what he was saying: be the boss.

The last chapter is "country", which is the slowest. We must fight to safeguard our country since it has supported us and it should be treated like our home. It wasn't so much, "go to war to fight for your country", but more like, "go to war to defend your home, beliefs, and way of life." Subtle, but it was equally true.

The mention of men having to suppress their natural urges caught my attention. Rough housing/fighting, climbing trees as high as you can, being assertive and authoritative were all included. When men are deprived of their natural behavior at such a young age, they develop a mixed behavior of not knowing how to act around both men and women, leading to uncontrolled emotions and ADHD-like symptoms. It's not that I agree but it was an interesting topic to think about because I am always uncomfortable around people in general and more of a pleaser than most men are. Probably came from being told how to act like a real man - by women.

My perception among different groups of friends has changed as a result of putting some of this work into use. Also, I have discussed some of these points with other colleagues, and they have agreed with a lot of these conservative views. Again, this is interesting, but still confusing given most are liberals. I will just go with whatever image I have of a real man. I know who I want to be and will work towards that person.

Oh yeah, last take away- read Ulysses. This man was obsessed with it and had more than 5 references to it per chapter. On my list, but not for another year or two.

[Michael Lunsford · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this book confusing and indecisive. He claims to be a man of faith, but talks like an atheist. The opening chapter was overly offensive with multiple slang terms and f-bombs (remember, he claims piety.)

The entire book was a rambling of political correctness and revisionist history. I lost interest on page 199 when the author claimed that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. He even quoted the United Stated Declaration of Independence and then proceeded to revise and re-interpret. When the document says "that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," it doesn't mean "God" but some humanist god of the enlightenment period (whatever that means).

The good parts had to do with how a man can only find true life fulfillment through his family: by taking a wife and educating sons. Lots of good examples from history, letters, etc. Of course, if you happen to not have sons, you're left without fulfillment (or this author's guide to it, anyway). Well, unless you happened to fall into his political correct propaganda "excepted" class. Like I said, indecisive.

In summary: this milquetoast is a complete waste of time. A much better investment is Brad Miner and his book "The Compleat Gentleman."

[Martin Klekner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book on the topic of manliness, with fascinating introduction and hopeful conclusion. The main text is more of an exploration than a definite statement of what manliness really is - that can be both positive or negative for you, depending on whether you rather think about your own conclusion or get them served on a silver plate. I thoroughly enjoyed Code of Man.

[Robert Morton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A most excellent take on what it means to be a well rounded man and a member of society. Newell outlines a path of virtues with shining examples from classic philosophy, respected writers, statesmen, and America’s greatest leaders. I highly recommend this book for anyone who likes history and philosophy.

[Jeff Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

as manliness becomes androgyny, there is a call for men to become men again. this is a great book recommended by "the art of manliness". good read of MEN throughout history, from both Christian perspectives and non-Christian.

[Joshua Key · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not entirely what I thought it was going to be, but that's probably a good thing.

[Mason Frierson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was lent me by a friend; I started to read it and within ten minutes my nose began twitching; I sensed something was seriously wrong. My skepticism aroused, I abandoned a straight reading and began skimming paragraphs, trying to put my finger on the problem. I came back to the book several times, trying to get a fresh perspective. I cannot claim to have read the book straight through, and thus my evaluation is flawed. However, I hope that I can provide some insights for the potential buyer.

My nose-twitching began when I read his nasty rejection of other points of view. He has strong opinions -- not a bad thing -- but those opinions of others are often phrased in pejorative terms. I do not deny that he presents reasoned arguments against the ideas he opposes. My complaint is that, by taking pot shots at those with whom he disagrees, he reduces his own credibility.

But much worse is the limited basis on which he bases his case. His arguments are buttressed solely by Western literature and a cherry-picked collection of sociological studies. I do not deny the cumulative wisdom of Western literature -- but basing an analysis of manhood solely on Western literature will surely lead to distortions. And even in Western literature he falls short. For example, his discussion of the relationship between fathers and sons glows with the warmth of fatherly love and filial respect. What a crock! There's no mention of Oedipus or any of the conflict between father and son scattered through Western literature. Where's Mordred versus Arthur, or the subtler symbolisms of "Culhwch and Olwen"? Newell's presentation of the relationship between fathers and sons is shallow.

Consider his discussion of courage as a manly virtue. He declares that war comes naturally to men, and courage in war is fundamental to manhood. But his notion of war is narrowly Western. Anthropologists tell us that in hunter-gatherer societies war is very different, mostly a matter of raiding and punitive attacks. Newell's notions of courage in defense of one's country are inconsistent with these older and more fundamental concepts of war.

If Newell had referred to psychology, he would have found the studies that show that men in modern war fight primarily to avoid losing the esteem of their comrades. Yet Newell would have us believe that men fight to protect their countries. An appreciation of psychology would also have helped Newell avoid his saccharine view of the relationship between fathers and sons.

I was also unimpressed with Newell's single foray into linguistics. On page 56 he tells us that the Latin term for man (vir) provides the basis for the word for virtue (virtus). This in itself is true, but the relationship is violated in most other languages: Greek (anthropos vs areti); French (homme vs vertu); German (Mann vs Tugend); Italian (marito vs virtu). And he suggests that the Greek word for courage (aner) is somehow cognate with the Spanish word for man (hombre). This is incorrect; the Indo-European root of hombre is ghdhem "earth" (I'm not sure of the IE root of aner, but it's certainly not ghdhem).

I will also fault Newell for his narrowly Western point of view on manhood. Granted, he is writing for a Western audience, but if he wishes to teach us the fundamentals of manhood, he should at least have examined the elements that are universal across cultures. And some basic evolutionary psychology would have done wonders for the book.

All in all, I find this book to be lacking in substance. It is a set of opinions from one man who is not very well educated. Sadly, I have not read any of its competitors so I cannot recommend an alternative.

[Vlad Calus · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've made an impression, like the author speaks in ideas that we are usually debating, but never gives an argument to sustain his point of view.

[Tiago "Salvador" Souza · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book overall for most chapters, it is written mostly for Americans though and as such suffers quite a bit with old style American dualism of good versus evil, specially on the politics field, a simplistic narrative used to bolster and justify certain behaviours throughout history, like everything ever done by America in the international politics sphere should be deemed as "good" and for the progress of the free world against the tyranny, the peoples of countries that have had right-wing dictatorships coups supported by the American government should say "thank you for saving us from those evil red, all other deaths were justified". In a bizarre contradiction, Waller complains about the lack of historical basis in today's discussions while at the same time asking for the return of a "moral historical narrative", like the study of history needs to be adjusted to not take facts into account and different views into account, but be made as a narrative to bolster a young man's sense for pride and country. I can certainly understand Waller's goal, but there should be better ways for one to be proud of his own country that doesn't require the historical white-washing of said country's history. The United States of America as a great player and an important country for many reasons, it should not require its people to support it blindly with simple moral narratives of us versus them which the author criticises at the beginning of the book in other spheres.

With that out of the way, do not let this be a deterrent, but a warning. With the exception of the almost the whole chapter 5 (Patriotism) and a good share of Waller's conclusions, it is a worthwhile book. I strongly recommend that people read it through, specially the chapters on love and education.