There's no point if you see "real man" and terms like it and assume the whole thing is sexist schlock. You're looking at the intentional usage of outdated language as a styilistic choice and inferring things around it.

I don't see any way not to extrapolate it that way, since the concept of "real man" is inseparable from an attack on men who don't conform to the author's perceived requirements of "manliness", as somehow not being "real" men, or defectively masculine. I.e. not just old-fashioned language, but old-fashioned ideas better left buried.

You are wrong. You can read a few posts without preconceptions to see why. I'm not going to pollute the thread with this tangent any more.

edit: http://artofmanliness.com/faq/

"1. What makes you experts on manliness?

We’ve never said we’re experts. In fact, the idea that there’s such a thing as an “expert in manliness” is sort of silly. We’re just two people who are passionate about helping men become better men. We want to provide an alternative men’s magazine for men who are tired of the crap that’s put out for men by most media outlets. We see our role as researchers and writers who try to dig up the best information out there and make that info available to readers. I’m learning right along with everyone else."

http://artofmanliness.com/2010/05/16/what-is-manliness/

I did take a look around and taking a trial run on my RSS subscription reader, but as far as research goes, i still think many articles are just plain opinions.

I suspect if you replace 'man' with 'human' and 'manliness' with 'humanliness' it might an easier read for you. The original author in the thirties was was writing in the style which was deemed 'proper' at the time, and I am sure that if they were alive today they would agree that 'women' are just as susceptible to 'spectatoritis' as men are.

For the original book, yeah; the quotes from there don't really bother me, and I read 19th-c stuff pretty frequently. It's this blog which bothers me more; it seems to be going out of its way to inject phrases like "manly 'philosophy of leisure'" when just "philosophy of leisure" would do. But I suppose it is the raison d'etre of the blog...