Men and Masculinities in Modern Britain is a consciously ambitious book. It seeks to write histories of masculinities which are, in the editors’ own words, “present-centred and politically engaged” (3). The editors have approached head on the persistent “crisis” in which modern men and masculinities are perceived to be in as well as the current anti-feminist “activism” which has now spread from the darkest corners of Reddit to mainstream politics and discourse. As such the book historicizes the various ways masculinities and men were conceptualized, challenged, and lived throughout the twentieth century. The book is also directly in conversation with Michael Roper and John Tosh's foundational text in study of British masculinities Manful Assertions (1991). As well as reflecting on how the discipline has changed in the decades since its publication both editors also appear in the book to reflect on the discipline both now and then.

Perhaps the only substantive critique of the book I can muster is that its ambition to present “a systematic overview” (8) of the topic, as opposed to the case studies which have been typical in the sub-discipline, would have been better achieved through a monograph (or even a multiauthored text) rather than the inherently case-study reliant format of an edited collection. That said, as an edited collection it is an excellent example of the genre. Clear care and consideration has gone into the selection of the included chapters. The book is split into four parts: “Institutions,” “Histories,” “Everyday lives,” and “Bodies.” The individual chapters cover many of the various identities and experiences which intersect with masculinity (for example class, sexuality, life stage, parenthood, race, and disability) to build as comprehensive overview of “masculinity” in the round as is possible in the format.

All of the chapters are of an excellent caliber, and it is difficult to pick out examples which stand out of the pack as exceptional, testament to how well they work as a collective whole. However, there are some which will perhaps be more useful than others in opening new avenues of thought and discussion. The opening chapter from Adrian Kane-Galbraith—“Male breadwinners of ‘doubtful sex’: Trans men and the welfare state, 1954–1970,” looking at the way trans men used state systems, specifically National Insurance, to gain validation of their gender—was genuinely innovative in its use of state records to look at lives which are historically more difficult to trace. Similarly, Ben Griffin's chapter, “Crisis and the history of masculinity,” is a useful methodological piece in the shift away from “crisis talk” to the idea of changing masculinities. Both of the chapters in the “Bodies” section—Ben Mechen's “Dirty magazines, clean consciences: men and pornography in the 1970s” and Katie Jones's “‘It's more what me and my partner feel comfortable with’: Gay masculinities, safer sex, and Project SIGMA, 1987–1996”—are exemplars of subtlety and care in approaching sensitive topics as well as in using source material carefully.

In addition to the substantive research chapters, each section of the book ends with a shorter reflective piece. Michael Roper and John Tosh's reflections (at the end of the “Histories” and “Everyday lives” section respectively) reflect on their editing of Manful Assertions and their hopes for the future of the discipline, both then and now. Their reflections are instructive and useful for any of us working in the discipline. But it was the other two reflections which will linger with me for longer. Hannah Charnock's reflection on doing the history of sexuality in the modern era—“Writing the history of male sexuality in the wake of Operation Yewtree and #MeToo”—was a genuinely useful invective to consider whose stories we tell and what questions we ask as well as recognizing the toll such questions and research can take on the researcher. However, if the reactions of Twitter and my female colleagues are any barometer, it is Charlotte Lydia Riley's “Male historians explain things to me: Masculinity, expertise, and the academy” which is the standout reflective piece. The piece covers the all too familiar experience for female historians of the “mansplainer” in their various guises. Every woman I spoke to recognized the experience Riley outlines suggesting this piece should be required reading for all men in, or entering, academia.

Men and Masculinities in Modern Britain, therefore, brings together a fascinating cross section of the high-quality research being undertaken examining historical masculinities as well as useful reflections on doing the research. Fundamentally, this book should be, and likely will be, a staple for those studying and researching masculinities in the past and in the present for a long time to come.