Elizabeth Fideler argues that her latest book Men Still at Work has been written as a ‘companion volume’ to her 2012 piece on women still in employment after the age of 60. In the introduction to Men Still at Work, she comments that men approached her as soon as the book launch for Women Still at Work, wondering when an equivalent book on men's experiences would be on her research agenda. Given that her book on women highlighted the invisibility of women over 60 (Steil Reference Steil2013), it appears these men may have missed (or ignored) the valuable take-home message of the first book. Although Men Still at Work continues with much the same format and style as Women Still at Work, it becomes quite clear that this is a book not about invisibility, or difficulty, but about privilege.

Drawing on data generated from 156 surveys and 33 in-depth interviews with male professionals over 60, Men Still at Work is written in a readable and engaging style. Each of the ten chapters generally follows the same pattern of a blend of demographics, various claims about the working lives of men and then a number of profiles of the men who were interviewed. These men were recruited through her existing social networks, and include men such as her doctoral supervisor, her friends and even her husband. By far, the bulk of each chapter is devoted to these profiles, which detail the experiences of one man at a time, apparently gleaned from her interviews with them. The interviews themselves are visible within the text, but much of the information we are given about the men's lives is presented as case studies in a realist, descriptive manner. By this I mean that the interviews have been treated as windows into these men's lives, with limited analytical work done by the author and certainly no great sense that the author has developed themes that cross her data corpus beyond the ‘topics’ of each chapter.

My impression is that Men at Work has been written for an extremely broad audience, and as such it does lack some of the depth I might expect from an academic text. It is very light on literature for a book of this length, and seems to draw largely from newspaper articles and demographic data sources rather than strongly locating it within a particular academic field. Perhaps as a consequence, the text also comes across quite ‘theory-lite’. Many of the analytics of cultural studies, masculinities studies and ageing studies go unrecognised throughout. Certainly there is little theorisation of the social organisation of male privilege, theory that could make this text much more powerful than it is currently. Further, the demographic statistics within the text are also used in a somewhat jarring fashion. One common feature of many of the chapters is Fideler reasonably highlighting the difficulties for older men generally (both in work, and financially) in the current context, but then shifting immediately to the ‘many and varied success stories of professionals still on the job’ (p. 76) – a very select group whose lives do not seem to match on to the difficulties she described earlier at all. Within her survey group (that the interviewed men were likely drawn from), 94 per cent had a minimum of a bachelor's degree, and 75 per cent had a master's or a doctorate, with the vast majority of the participants earning over US $80,000 per annum. This is hardly a snapshot of all men over 60! Throughout the book it reads as if she is justifying the positions of power and influence many of her participants seem to be holding on to, and speaking indirectly to critiques of male baby-boomers unwilling to share their privilege. Although there is much scope for questioning these (often simplistic) critiques, drawing on the lives of men who seem to fulfil the stereotype is perhaps not the best way to do it. This is only compounded by Fideler's uncritical and heavy reliance on the neoliberal language of ‘choice’, ‘hard work’ and ‘success’ to explain the life experiences of the men she has interviewed.

For me, this book began with some promise, but very quickly lost impetus. It does contain some of the in-depth, textured insight into (certain) older men's working lives that drew me to the book in the first place, but lacks the necessary criticality surrounding privilege and status that could have made it a much better book. A more analytical tone with a much deeper appreciation for the literature base within critical gerontology, masculinities studies and other social sciences would have enhanced its scope and value significantly, as too would a focus beyond the select group of men upon whom she focuses.