Menaissance

[EJFan]

i was reading the sunday paper's book review section the other day and there was an article about this "menaissance" thing.

in skimming it, i gathered that the author of whatever book they were talking about decided that it's time for men to be men again... that men have become too feminized, touchy-feely, compassionate, what have you... and that this is all contradictory to what women are biologically programed to seek out. women want men who can hunt and change a tire rather than men who empathize and comfort.

what did it mean to be a man? what does it mean now? what do women want? what do women need? discuss.

 

[pleasteasme]

what do women want?

If you could figure this out, you would be a gazillionaire!

 

[EJFan]

If you could figure this out, you would be a gazillionaire!

true.

i think what i'm really asking is what do women THINK they want... compared and contrasted with what they REALLY want. how do those two things differ? how has society compelled women to think they want something different from what they really want and how has society turned men into something other than what they are naturally and which is contradictory to what women (supposedly) want?

 

[midwestyankee]

The problem with this whole idea is that someone (dare I presume that this was a group of men?) has decided on behalf of women that they don't know what they want. Hello? Where's the evidence of this ignorance? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case with any of the mature women that I know

 

[EJFan]

The problem with this whole idea is that someone (dare I presume that this was a group of men?) has decided on behalf of women that they don't know what they want. Hello? Where's the evidence of this ignorance? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case with any of the mature women that I know

i think that "not knowing what we want" is something that plagues everyone. there are very few people who are so self-aware to have a clear vision of what they want from many different things... attributes of a mate being just one of those.

i'm asking this question in the context of women's view of men and relationships because that was the nature of this column. i do believe that the nature of being a man has changed. i don't know if it's for better or worse but it does seem as though we've morphed into something other than what we are naturally and what women desire naturally... at least to an extent.

 

[pleasteasme]

true.

i think what i'm really asking is what do women THINK they want... compared and contrasted with what they REALLY want. how do those two things differ? how has society compelled women to think they want something different from what they really want and how has society turned men into something other than what they are naturally and which is contradictory to what women (supposedly) want?

I'm so not the person to answer this.

 

[Eilan]

It's kinda what we were talking about on the "AskMen" thread from a few weeks ago.

I don't see why a man can't change a tire or hunt or do whatever manly thing there is and also be affectionate. My hubby's compassionate and maybe a bit touchy-feely (he certainly doesn't shy away from PDA's), but he's not feminized. Not even remotely. And he's shot someone before!

 

[EJFan]

It's kinda what we were talking about on the "AskMen" thread from a few weeks ago.

I don't see why a man can't change a tire or hunt or do whatever manly thing there is and also be affectionate. My hubby's compassionate and maybe a bit touchy-feely (he certainly doesn't shy away from PDA's), but he's not feminized. Not even remotely. And he's shot someone before!

before what? dinner?

 

[Eilan]

before what? dinner?

Did I commit the most grievous and foul sin of ending a sentence with a preposition?

No. Not before dinner. Before the asshat could shoot his troopers.

 

[LadyJeanne]

i think that "not knowing what we want" is something that plagues everyone. there are very few people who are so self-aware to have a clear vision of what they want from many different things... attributes of a mate being just one of those.

i'm asking this question in the context of women's view of men and relationships because that was the nature of this column. i do believe that the nature of being a man has changed. i don't know if it's for better or worse but it does seem as though we've morphed into something other than what we are naturally and what women desire naturally... at least to an extent.

I think the hierarchy of needs thing plays a big part in the changes. Where survival and procreation used to be the big needs, now we want our emotional and intellectual needs fulfilled, as well as physical, by our relationships.

Women's ascension into the workplace has changed personal relationship dynamics more recently. Women now don't 'need' men's names or salaries for a place in society and a roof over their heads. This allows them to select mates based on other needs - again, focusing on the emotional, intellectual, and sexual needs, rather than survival.

 

[scbigdog65]

Hell, I don't even know what I want, let alone her

 

[kiwichyck]

Ok I'll bite

Firstly though, I'll happily admit I am probably in the minority, so I will in no way speak for any other woman than myself!

I despise the SNAG. Yup, there - I said it.

We have a very traditional relationship. I am a kept woman . I am a stay at home mum to our four kids, and I have only ever had one fulltime job very early in our relationship.

My husband goes to work day in and day out and brings home all the income. He does a very physical job and he works long hours. My job is the house, kids, finances - basically everything else. When he comes home I do not expect him to lift a finger unless he wants to.

Now, if he was to rush in the door, change the baby, do the dishes and make dinner that would get old really fast.
Plus, there is no need. Truth be told I get quite bored during the day while the older kids are at school. I did some study for a few years, got swamped and pressured with it all, so gave it up at the beginning of this year. Bad idea! I'm gonna get back to it next semester.

Anyhoo........I take pride in my job. If I honestly believed that he could do the same quality as I do, it would be a huge blow to my self esteem. Sure, he can help around the house no problem, but there is no need. If I was working too, then different story. I would expect some help from him, but I would still need to do the majority of the chores.

The other thing is, it is a much bigger deal when he does something for me. Like if I have to go out, and when I come back he's made dinner. He glows with a sense of achievement like he's just climbed Everest, and I feel really special because even though he's already done a full days worth of climbing up and down gullies, he was considerate enough to take the time to save me rushing around when I get home.

In the sense of men showing emotion and being touchy feely, well, I don't like touchy feely stuff from anyone. I'm not one of these woman that kiss her friends. We're not big on PDA's which is fine with me. If he was hugging his friends, that would be weird. But I think that your family is a different kettle of fish. I expect the most macho man to be affectionate with his family. That is part of being a good provider. You don't just provide cash in the bank and think that's all there is to being a man.

I also think it is normal and healthy for the most manly man to be emotional and talk about his feelings with his family and perhaps closest friends. But theres a line. If he cries because his mother died, I'm ok with that. If he cries because he broke a nail and screwed up his manicure......I think you get the picture.

Meh, thats all. I feel a ramble coming on. Must stop while I'm ahead.

 

[EJFan]

thanks for the post kiwi... that's a lot to think about and it sounds like you're both very happy together.

it reminds me of something that perpetually happens in my family. my grandmother (and some other relatives) constantly bash her sister's husband. they did so behind his back when he was alive and they continue to do so now that he's been dead for 30 years.

apparently he was a lazy ass who talked a big game but never did or had anything to speak of. i don't think anyone disputes that. but my grandmother criticizes her sister for loving him and everyone wonders what she saw in him. i just figure that they loved one another and as long as that's the case, who cares, right? different things make different people happy.... why bash someone's contentment?

i don't mean that to sound like it's parallel to your clearly happy marriage... it just reminded me of it.

 

[kiwichyck]

Yup true.

See it's all about different strokes for different folks. In terms of mens work and womans work, I think thats all total bullshit. I in no way see my relationship as being I'm the woman therefore I should stay home with the kids while the MAN goes out and hunts bison or whatever. In fact we recently considered doing a role swap due to circumstances.

See, if you're both working a full time job I think that household chores should be shared equally. I'll never bash someone in that situation. I will think less of a couple in that situation where man sits on his ass when he gets home while woman is still expected to do everything around the house.

By the same token it REALLY irritates me when stay at home mums expect that the man comes home from work just to give her a break from the kids. In fact, that MORE than irritates me. That makes me freaking angry. I'm thinking to myself FFS - stand up and be a MAN! Sure, he needs to spend time with the kids, and support his partner, but at least give the guy half an hour to get off his feet and have a beer or whatever.

We had a friend years ago who used to work a 12 hour day, then he'd come home from work, take over looking after the baby, and cook dinner. I thought his partner was a lazy nasty bitch, and I thought he was a limp rag. He'd just do what she said to keep the peace. I despised him for that. You'd watch him standing in the kitchen cooking, baby on his hip, almost falling down from exhaustion, and I'd just want to slap him silly.

I will happily and with no resentment whatsoever work through the exhaustion barrier to get my jobs done, before I will ask for help from a husband that has already done his share. I will also happily go without something non-essential if the budget doesn't stretch to buying something for me as well as something for him. He has a lot of responsibility on his shoulders, and works very hard both at work and at home to provide for us. As far as I'm concerned it's the least I can do to show my appreciation.

 

[kiwichyck]

Bummmer, I was hoping that this thread had got some more replies overnight!

Looks like it's almost a one-woman thread.

I had some more thoughts about this. Now I realise what an old-fashioned kinda girl I am.

I want my man to be able to catch fish, clean em, fillet em and get em ready for me to cook
I want my man to be able to use a rifle, hunt down a deer, skin it, gut it, and cut 'er up ready for me to cook.
I want my man to be able to kill a sheep, skin it, gut it, cut 'er up, and cure the sheepskin.
Why? Because life is uncertain. Because I don't like to be trapped into a lifestyle where I am dependant on someone else for my family's food.
He also needs to be able to build a shelter of sorts, chop firewood all day, be physically strong and fit.

I have all of these things. This means that I never need to worry about my family being safe, warm and well fed. If the worst happens, and we end up in a scenario like any one of a hundred zombie movies (28 Days Later comes to mind! - yeah I know - silly) then our family will be much more likely to survive intact.

Truth be told, I can actually do most of that myself. But he'd definately do a neater job and be able to go longer. Having thought on it though, I wonder if my expectations come from my upbringing and lifestyle. I've always lived close to the land, and my Dad can do all the same things. Actually, if the worst comes to the worst, our extended family should get together, and we'd have a fully functioning village in about half a day!

Brings to mind an episode of survivor (or something similar) that I watched a few years ago. Some guy was required to kill a chicken for their dinner. Everybody was having a big cry about it. We were sitting in front of the tv at home, yelling at the screen "check out those stupid fucking PUSSIES! OMG! It's only a freaking CHICKEN! This is pathetic - just chop its bloody head off already!"

So yep. That's pretty much what I think about that.

 

[V_Faulkon]

Personally, whoever wants 'men to act like men' again is a quack, no matter what he meant. No one group should act in only one way, especially not now. We're living in an age where there's more equality between the two genders than ever before, and with technology being where it is, we as a people are beginning to grow connected on a global level. Now is a time of new things, of learning and adaptability, not returning to our roots.

Besides, look at the flip-side of it. What if someone asked for women all over the country to act like women again? How do you think most women would respond to that? I know if I tried saying that with my mother and sister nearby, they would literally beat me to a pulp.

What a 'man' is has rarely ever been clear, and nowadays it's more confused than ever. I'm not saying no man should ever act like that (depending on what their perception of manhood is), but expecting us all to do that seems socially detrimental. Not men act like men, and not all women like men who act like men. I say it's time we just threw out the stereotypical conceptions of masculinity and femininity and just act like ourselves, however that may be.

Besides, if an insect larger than a fly fell on me from the ceiling or something right now, I would scream. 50% chance that it would be a high-pitched falsetto scream. I don't think I'm gonna be the next Grizzly Adams anytime soon.


Just my $.02.

 

[Eilan]

Kiwichyck, it seems that we have a few things in common (stay-at-home mom, four children), though things have changed pretty significantly around our house since my hubby retired last July.

I'm lucky that I was able to choose to stay at home with my kids for the past three years. I've considered going back to my job in the fall (I was asked to come back), but I'm probably not going to do so right now.

Unfortunately, I'm very much a product of my upbringing, and that affects how our household gets run. Because I grew up in a household in which my mother was physically and mentally abused and forced to stay home because "a woman's place is in the home," I tend to rebel against the things that I'm "expected" to do. And I won't do it all by myself. I spent too many years watching my mother slave away while my father did whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

My husband's a friendly, affectionate guy, particularly with his family and close friends. He hugged some old classmates at a reunion last year--male and female--and I didn't think twice about it. It's who he is.

However, for 27 years, he had a job in which it was necessary for him to suppress his emotions almost to the point of apparent callousness, even in situations that the majority of us would not handle well. Sometimes he'd come home and cry a little; even now, he might tear up talking about something particularly nasty, even though it happened 20 years ago.

Just happening to be born with a set of XY chromosomes doesn't earn one respect. Not in my eyes, anyway.

 

[kiwichyck]

Kiwichyck, it seems that we have a few things in common (stay-at-home mom, four children), though things have changed pretty significantly around our house since my hubby retired last July.

Ha! I knew I liked you for some reason

Unfortunately, I'm very much a product of my upbringing, and that affects how our household gets run. Because I grew up in a household in which my mother was physically and mentally abused and forced to stay home because "a woman's place is in the home," I tend to rebel against the things that I'm "expected" to do. And I won't do it all by myself. I spent too many years watching my mother slave away while my father did whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

Yeah, my grandmothers relationship was like that. I had awesome role models in my parents. I am one of the few people I know that had a picture perfect childhood. My Dad was a Dairy Farmer, and my Mum stayed at home with us. Her thing was sewing. Dad used to jokingly complain that he was the only guy he knew who came home for lunch to get a new shirt instead! My Dad never did much around the house, but Mum tells me he was very actively helpful when us kids were little. By the time I got old enough to remember, he pretty much napped on the couch when he was home.
I would never be a stay-at-home Mum because I was "expected" to. I do it because I think it is the most important role I can fulfill at this time. Once my kids are all at school, I will develop a career because I want to.

My husband's a friendly, affectionate guy, particularly with his family and close friends. He hugged some old classmates at a reunion last year--male and female--and I didn't think twice about it. It's who he is.

However, for 27 years, he had a job in which it was necessary for him to suppress his emotions almost to the point of apparent callousness, even in situations that the majority of us would not handle well. Sometimes he'd come home and cry a little; even now, he might tear up talking about something particularly nasty, even though it happened 20 years ago.

Yup. Men have feelings too. It is very sad how it has often been seen as a sign of weakness for men to show emotion. I just think it's a thing of degrees. Maybe it's just me/us, but an overtly emotional man turns me right off. I'm ok with PDA's with family and close friends (although for us it doesn't happen often), but it creeps me out when you meet someone for the first time and they insist on kissing you or hugging you. I can deal with it myself between women (it seems to be a cultural thing with Maori especially), but it just makes my skin crawl with men. Actually I don't think I've ever seen it. On my Mum's birthday last year, my DH got her a special gift and she gave him a kiss before she left, for the first time ever - and that was pretty weird for him. But then my family have never really been that affectionate. I actually think that Mum is making this effort to show affection, all of a sudden she started hugging me a couple of years back.

Seeing a man cry is very difficult for me. I've only ever seen my father cry twice. The first time was when my brother died of SIDS (I was about 6). The second time was when he lost his job, and he was classified as too old to continue in the same career by every prospective employer. My DH is not quite so reserved, but almost. I think the first time I saw him cry was when our first child was born. I still think that crying is something that is reserved for exceptional circumstances. But that's not necessarily a gender thing. I cry very rarely myself. Weepy people always make me raise an eyebrow and think to myself "oh..........riiiiiiight". Again, a matter of degrees.

Just happening to be born with a set of XY chromosomes doesn't earn one respect. Not in my eyes, anyway.

I completely agree. Respect has to be earned, no matter what your gender. If my husband was being disrespectful toward me in any way my feelings would be completely different. I take great pleasure and satisfaction from 'serving' him because I am secure, appreciated, happy and loved.

 

[Eilan]

I had awesome role models in my parents. I am one of the few people I know that had a picture perfect childhood. My Dad was a Dairy Farmer, and my Mum stayed at home with us.

You're so lucky! I always felt that my mom resented being at home with us. She seemed so angry all the time.

I really wish my parents had split up when I was a kid instead of waiting until I was a senior in high school. Of course, they ended up getting back together. . .

I would never be a stay-at-home Mum because I was "expected" to. I do it because I think it is the most important role I can fulfill at this time. Once my kids are all at school, I will develop a career because I want to.

My husband and I talked about it when I was pregnant with my 2 1/2 year old, and he left the final decision up to me. He didn't want me to feel like I had to work, nor did he want me to feel like I had to stay home.

I toyed around with going back to work this fall, but I decided that the costs of child care (my two oldest kids are in school) and gas outweighed the financial benefits of working.

 

[Guest]

 

[rcuhljr]

I could certainly see a little more chivalry in this world, but I don't think we need any more macho men.

On the contrary, less competition for me if there's more of them.

 

[kiwichyck]

my wife was a stay-at-home mom when our kids were young. when they all were school age, she worked part time jobs with "mother's hours" and with summers of to be home with the kids. during these years she did most of the housework (cooking and cleaning) while I did the financial and home repair stuff (and oh yeah, I've always cleaned the bathrooms)

after 20 years of that she has recently returned to the field in which she worked before we had kids. she usually works 30 to 32 hours in 3 days/week, so I have taken the responsibility of cooking on those days (is this supposed to make me less manly? ) geez, I thought stepping up to the responsibility was the manly thing to do.

As to affection, I have no problem with PDA.

I could certainly see a little more chivalry in this world, but I don't think we need any more macho men.

Somewhere along the way I think the definition of being a manly man got confused or lost. I think a manly man is the old-style gentleman. Y'know, tough as nails in the public eye, but soft as silk with his woman and family. So, doing household chores to take the pressure off your wife is completely manly. But doing household chores so your wife will give you a BJ is being a jerk. And doing household chores because your wife threatens/bribes/yells/withholds sex is being a pussy (if you've worked a 40 hour week, just walked in the door, and her place of employment is the home).

It seems to me that a bunch of macho jerks have given strong men a bad name. Kinda like a bunch of noisy butch feminists made feminism and lesbanism essentially the same thing for a number of years (no offense ok, it's just an example). Stereotypes that make people jump to conclusions. Stereotypes like
well groomed man = gay
tattoos = biker
feminist = lesbian

And I just had another thought. It's like men are starting to have to live up to the same kind of physical beauty standards that women face. You know, the one that says young and perky is the only way to be. I hate it soooo much how just about every poster guy in our society is as hairless as a 12 year old boy. I mean, I want a MAN. I admit I don't like excessively hairy guys, but at least let me see a little hair on the body so I know he's fully grown. Screw the manicures. I like the sight and feeling of a work roughened hand on my body. I'm not saying that men should just let it all hang out, I'm just saying that I think that the things that make the sexes different are almost being eliminated. At this point, most of the man in the media that qualify as 'the sexiest' would make reasonably attractive women given a makeover by a quality stylist.

 

[amutantman]

i disagree with everything kiwichyck has said about me. truth be told i am actually a real asshole and a complete wanker..


hahahahahaha

 

[Mr. Mann]

If I've done my google-fu correctly, the book in question was Manliness by Harvey C. Mansfield.

Sounds like an interesting read. The following book review has piqued my interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sourcelink: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12041

Being a Man
Harvey Mansfield ponders the male of the species.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
04/10/2006, Volume 011, Issue 28


Manliness
by Harvey C. Mansfield
Yale, 304 pp., $27.50

ONE OF THE LEAST VISITED memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle "women and children first."

The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by "the women of America" in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. . . . They gave their lives that women and children might be saved."

Today, almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak its name.

In Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield seeks to persuade skeptical readers, especially educated women, to reconsider the merits of male protectiveness and assertiveness. It is in no way a defense of male privilege, but many will be offended by its old-fashioned claim that the virtues of men and women are different and complementary. Women would be foolish not to pay close attention to Mansfield's subtle and fascinating argument.

Mansfield offers what he calls a modest defense of manliness. It is modest, not because its claims are cautious--Mansfield courts wrath and indignation on almost every page--but because, as he says, "Most good things, like French wine, are mostly good and accidentally bad. Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad. . . . This is what I mean by a modest defense."

"Manliness," he says, "is a quality that causes individuals to stand for something." The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in abundance, and sometimes in excess. The manly man is not satisfied to let things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic; but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Achilles, Brutus, and Sir Lancelot exemplify the glory of manliness, but also its darker sides. Theodore Roosevelt was manly; so was Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Manly men are confident in risky situations. Manliness can be pathological, as in gangsters and terrorists.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits: "War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its highest expression.

Women can be manly--Margaret Thatcher is an example--but manliness is the "quality mostly of one sex." This creates problems for a society such as ours that likes to think of itself as "gender neutral," egalitarian, and sensitive. Manliness is not sensitive. Today, we mainly cope with it by politely changing the subject. The very word is deemed quaint and outmoded. Gender experts in our universities teach as fact that the sex difference is an illusion--a discredited construct, like the earth being flat or the sun revolving around the earth.

And yet, the complex range of behavior that "manliness" characterizes persists. It is still mostly men who embody it. We have succeeded in bringing the language to account, but we have not managed to exorcise masculine thumos.

After almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And--fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny--men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men: "Manliness is still around, and we still find it attractive," says Mansfield.

Mansfield's amusing, refreshing, and outrageous observations must already be causing distress for his Harvard colleagues. But many readers will be grateful to him for his candor and bravado. Today, when scholars acknowledge sex differences, they do it timorously. They follow every assertion of difference with a list of exceptions, qualifications, and caveats. Into this world strides Professor Mansfield, loaded for bear, and lethally armed with all the powerful stereotypes thought to be banished from bien pensant society. And he deploys them without apology in shocker after shocker:

[Women] shun risk more than men and they perceive risk more readily; they fear spiders. . . .

Women seem to desire more than men to make a nest and to take responsibility for making it. To do this, they sometimes need the help of their men, and they nag them responsibly and more or less charmingly according to their skill. . . .

In my experience, it is difficult for a man who is attracted to a woman not to find her cute, rather than intimidating, when she gets angry.

Mansfield reminds us that philosophers and poets were worried about manliness long before contemporary feminists began to anguish over it. He presents a magisterial survey of the role played by manliness in the thought of the great philosophers.

From the Greeks to Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, philosophers have extolled or deplored manliness--but mostly they looked for ways to control it. No one, says Mansfield, understood the vices and virtues of manliness better than Aristotle and Plato. They gave it its due while "remaining wary of its dangers."

Unfortunately, few modern philosophers have followed their example. The ancients well understood that too much--or too little--manliness is a bad thing. Too much is dangerous, but too little is fatal to a society's prospects for greatness--or even for its survival. Modern philosophers err on the side of wariness and suspicion and, according to Mansfield, "the entire project of modernity can be understood as a project to keep manliness unemployed."

The entire project of modernity? This says, in effect, that modern philosophy has been engaged in making wimps out of men. As Mansfield sees it, since the dawn of the modern era, philosophers have conspired against manly thumos. Hobbes, for example, ignored the higher forms of heroic and philosophical manliness: He reduced it to a simple aggressive drive that leads to a "war of all against all." It had to be broken--not accommodated--by handing over power and rights to an absolute sovereign.

Hobbes placed self-preservation at the center of his theory. But, says Mansfield, manly men do not merely want to survive: They seek glory for themselves and their causes. For Mansfield, Hobbes is the extreme--but still typical--example of modern philosophers' disdain for manliness: "Liberalism is unmanly in setting down self-preservation as the end of man, as do Hobbes and John Locke."

Mansfield himself does not mind being a loner. For years, he has fought a forlorn battle at Harvard in defense of high standards. He was the only member of the faculty to vote against establishing a women's studies major. All the same, one would have expected him to find a few defenders of manliness somewhere in the annals of modern philosophy. But he does not cite any. With the possible exceptions of Baruch Spinoza and Edmund Burke, he complains that philosophers of modernity just don't get it when it comes to understanding and valuing male spiritedness: "Modern thinking does not want to cooperate with manliness, and does not care for thumos."

In place of the heroic, but rationally controlled, conception of manliness offered us by the ancients, modern thinkers give us a pallid, cautious, risk-averse bourgeois manliness--a world of Babbitts, rather than Achilles.

But this perspective is badly skewed. Surely Mansfield would not deny that the "bourgeois" male denizens of modernity have been responsible for some of the most prodigious displays of genius in art, literature, and music. They invented science, the free market, and liberal government, and they refined the art of war, magnifying its lethality a thousandfold. It would appear that Mansfield systematically underestimates the manliness of modern man, and of philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Francis Bacon, and René Descartes who helped create him.

His discussion of Nietzsche's powerful influence on contemporary feminism shows Mansfield at his philosophical best and manly worst. Here, more than elsewhere, Mansfield dazzles us with the aptness of his insights, while being recklessly inattentive to nuance, exceptions, and complexity. He has no doubts about Nietzsche's manliness. He sets up a dramatic contrast between the manly ideal favored by Plato and Aristotle and the unrestrained masculinity promoted by Nietzsche.

Both Plato and Aristotle developed a conception of ethical manliness based on courage, tying manliness to protectiveness and reason. Manly men (and women) are the guardians of Plato's Republic; they are the noble gentlemen in Aristotle's polis. Both maintained that philosophers, not warriors, are the manliest of all.

By contrast, Nietzsche, a classicist by training, idealized the pre-Socratic Homeric age. He preferred the warrior to the philosopher, exalting Achilles over Socrates. He criticized Plato and Aristotle for putting reason above passion. For Nietzsche, says Mansfield, "Humanity is not to be found in reason but rather in the spark of life--the assertion of each man's life by that man." Nietzsche has burdened modernity with an exceptionally dangerous philosophy that Mansfield calls "manly nihilism." Where Plato and Aristotle place severe constraints on manly expression, Nietzsche gives us a manliness unrestrained by anything outside itself. Says Mansfield: "Manly assertiveness feeds on itself alone, and does not serve to protect and defend a cause greater than itself."

So where did contemporary feminists turn for philosophical inspiration? They had their pick of any number of the polite, sensible, and sensitive thinkers of modernity. John Stuart Mill would have been perfectly suitable. But no, says Mansfield, they turned down this nice guy--"a wimp when you come down to it"--and "went mad for crazy manly Nietzsche."

Nietzsche is hardly the philosopher one would expect to emerge as the muse for modern feminism. Not only did he valorize unrestrained male assertion, his contempt for women was famously explicit:

The true man wants two things, danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexually.

In another context, he said women were for the "recreation of the warrior." His advice to men on the subject of women: "Forget not thy whip." Why, then, did Nietzsche's point of view appeal so strongly to intellectual feminists?

"In the 1970s," says Mansfield, "nihilism came to American women. . . . What interested [feminists] in Nietzsche was the nihilism he proclaimed as fact--God is Dead--and the possibility of creating a new order in its place." Of course, most American women were not reading Nietzsche. But many did read Simone de Beauvoir, and she was the herald of the new nihilism. In Mansfield's words, she was "Nietzsche in drag." Far from being critical of Nietzsche's hypermasculine fantasies, his "will to power," and his rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic--she embraced it all and urged women to emulate it.

Beauvoir famously said, "One is not born, but becomes a woman." She rejected the idea that there is anything like human nature or any other source of an authoritative moral order. When she said that women must seek "transcendence," she meant that they should reject all the inducements of nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir condemned marriage and family as a "tragedy" for women; both are traps that are incompatible with female subjectivity and freedom. She described the pregnant woman as "a stockpile of colloids, an incubator for an egg." She compared childbearing and nurturing to slavery.

Mansfield reminds readers how far Beauvoir's "womanly nihilism" strayed from the classical feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft and American suffragists. The early feminists questioned the rigidity of sex roles, but they never doubted that there was such a thing as human nature, and that women had distinctive roles to play in the family and society. Simone de Beauvoir wanted women to be free of all roles. Toward what end? She did not specify. Beauvoir's womanly nihilism inspired apostles like Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone, Kate Millett, and (to a lesser extent) Betty Friedan. In the decades following the sixties, it became official feminist doctrine.

Of course, as Mansfield observes, women are not men, and so inevitably they are less effective at being true Nietzscheans. Unlike radicals in other social movements, the feminist revolutionaries of the 1970s and '80s never engaged in violence. None went to jail. So how did they succeed in changing American society?

As Mansfield explains, they "relied on womanly devices." They formed "consciousness raising" groups and enrolled in "assertiveness training" workshops. Pronoun policewomen went to work cleansing the language of sexism. Tantalized by the Nietzschean idea that knowledge was a form of power, and not the result of disinterested inquiry, feminist scholars went on a rampage "reinventing" knowledge. In the academy, women took full advantage of manly men's gentlemanly reluctance publicly to oppose and thwart women.

Is Mansfield being fair to feminism? Is Nietzsche its main guiding spirit? Not really. His description of "feminist nihilism" rides roughshod over many distinctions within feminist theory and the women's movement. Alongside the reckless feminism of Beauvoir, Firestone, Greer, and company, there was a quieter, more reasonable, eminently sane version (inspired by those "wimps" Locke, Mill, and David Hume) working its way through American society and bringing needed reforms. Mansfield is aware of, and appreciates the achievements of, this moderate wing, but Manliness gives the impression that Second Wave feminism was one long Nietzschean production. It was more than that.

But one forgives Mansfield his imprecision and hyperbole because so much of what he says is profoundly true. Not all of contemporary feminism is a playing out of Nietzschean themes, but a great deal of it is. He is also right when he points out that many feminist leaders emulate some of the cruder and unappealing qualities of manliness.

An example (not given by Mansfield) is Eve Ensler's male-averse play The Vagina Monologues. This is loosely based on interviews with more than 200 women on the subject of their intimate anatomy. Its more serious preoccupation is exposing male insensitivity and violence. Pathological male thumos is everywhere: The play is a rogues' gallery of male oafs, losers, brutes, batterers, rapists, child molesters, and vile little boys. It is as if honorable manliness never existed.

Mansfield's analysis of women's nihilism gives us the lens to understand these developments as caricatures of the feminist will to "empowerment." It is a form of manly assertiveness unmoderated by Aristotelian ideals. Here we have an example of women imitating masculinity in its lower range. It is the dark side of the "gender neutral society" in which we now live.

The women who champion Eve Ensler's production are rightly concerned about the problem of male violence. But the known solution is to teach boys (and men) to be gentlemen. "A gentleman," says Mansfield, "is a man who is gentle out of policy, not weakness; he can be depended upon not to snarl or attack a woman when he has the advantage or feels threatened." And any gentlewoman or "lady" is naturally more suited for the task of civilizing a vulgar, barbarous male than a whole army of gender warriors.

What would Mansfield have us do? His book is primarily a conceptual analysis of manliness. It is not a self-help book. But it should surprise no one that this bossy, opinionated, and intrepid male thinker has a lot of advice to dispense. Women who like manly men will want to pay close attention. He says a lot of useful things your women's studies professors probably forgot to mention.

First of all, he thinks we should clearly distinguish between the public realm and private life. In public we should pursue, as best we can, a policy of gender neutrality. He firmly believes that the law should guarantee equal opportunity to men and women. However, "our expectations should be that men will grasp the opportunity more readily and more wholeheartedly than women."

Though he mentions it only in passing, it follows from his position that our schools should be more respectful and accepting of male spiritedness; they must stop trying to feminize boys. A healthy society should not war against human nature. It should, he says, "reemploy masculinity." That means it has to civilize it and give it things to do. No civilization can achieve greatness if it does not allow room for obstreperous males.

In the private sphere, his advice is vivé la difference! A woman should not expect a manly man to be as committed to domesticity as she is; nor should she assume that he is as emotionally adept as her female friends. Manly men are romantic rather than sensitive. They need a lot of help from females to ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood, and Mansfield urges women to encourage them in ways respectful of their male pride.

Men, for their part, need to be gallant to women and respectful. Above all, they must listen to them. Mansfield offers this advice to young men:

Women want to be taken seriously almost as much as they want to be loved. To take women seriously you must first take yourself seriously and after that ask them what they think. And when they tell you, try to listen.

He is not suggesting that women accept a subordinate role; on the contrary, he compares women to philosophers. They are, on the whole, less assertive, but that makes it easier for them to be observant, reflective, and calmly judgmental: "It should be expected that men will be manly and sometimes a bit bossy and that women will be impressed with them or skeptical."

The world of gender studies has never before had to confront anyone quite like this solitary rogue male professor of politics. Critics will rail against his excesses and feminists will be indignant and offended. But many women will be charmed by his effrontery, and grateful for the truth and wisdom in Mansfield's elegant treatise.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The War Against Boys and coauthor of One Nation Under Therapy.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

 

[kiwichyck]

ONE OF THE LEAST VISITED memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle "women and children first."

The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by "the women of America" in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. . . . They gave their lives that women and children might be saved."

Today, almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak its name.

I wonder, is this something that would still happen? If the Titanic sunk in 2006, would there be any gallant men left? Or would everyone have died because it was an 'everyone for themselves' situation. I imagine the kids would still be first. But I can also imagine some women and men standing on the deck arguing about who was going on the lifeboat. Man....'you get in the boat, I'll be fine' Woman....'what? Are you calling me weak/inferior? You get in the boat. I am CEO of a world wide company! I can look after myself!' And how many men and women would just run over the top of anyone in their way just to save themselves?

In Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield seeks to persuade skeptical readers, especially educated women, to reconsider the merits of male protectiveness and assertiveness. It is in no way a defense of male privilege, but many will be offended by its old-fashioned claim that the virtues of men and women are different and complementary. Women would be foolish not to pay close attention to Mansfield's subtle and fascinating argument.

Yes. I believe that we should celebrate and embrace our differences. It seems that the whole 'equality of the sexes' thing has gone a little too far. Sure, we are equal and have the same basic rights and responsibilities, but where is the fun in a society that seems to be heading toward 'sameness.' We were made different, what is this fascination with the sexes each trying to prove that they can behave the same and do the same things as the other?

"Manliness," he says, "is a quality that causes individuals to stand for something."

The manly man is not satisfied to let things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits: "War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its highest expression.

YES That's what I'm talking about! A man who has convictions and principles to the point where he is not afraid to assert his masculinity or throw his weight around a little. I find that hot .

The women who champion Eve Ensler's production are rightly concerned about the problem of male violence. But the known solution is to teach boys (and men) to be gentlemen. "A gentleman," says Mansfield, "is a man who is gentle out of policy, not weakness; he can be depended upon not to snarl or attack a woman when he has the advantage or feels threatened." And any gentlewoman or "lady" is naturally more suited for the task of civilizing a vulgar, barbarous male than a whole army of gender warriors.

First of all, he thinks we should clearly distinguish between the public realm and private life. In public we should pursue, as best we can, a policy of gender neutrality. He firmly believes that the law should guarantee equal opportunity to men and women. However, "our expectations should be that men will grasp the opportunity more readily and more wholeheartedly than women."

Though he mentions it only in passing, it follows from his position that our schools should be more respectful and accepting of male spiritedness; they must stop trying to feminize boys. A healthy society should not war against human nature. It should, he says, "reemploy masculinity." That means it has to civilize it and give it things to do. No civilization can achieve greatness if it does not allow room for obstreperous males.

In the private sphere, his advice is vivé la difference! A woman should not expect a manly man to be as committed to domesticity as she is; nor should she assume that he is as emotionally adept as her female friends. Manly men are romantic rather than sensitive. They need a lot of help from females to ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood, and Mansfield urges women to encourage them in ways respectful of their male pride.

Men, for their part, need to be gallant to women and respectful. Above all, they must listen to them. Mansfield offers this advice to young men:

Women want to be taken seriously almost as much as they want to be loved. To take women seriously you must first take yourself seriously and after that ask them what they think. And when they tell you, try to listen.

He is not suggesting that women accept a subordinate role; on the contrary, he compares women to philosophers. They are, on the whole, less assertive, but that makes it easier for them to be observant, reflective, and calmly judgmental: "It should be expected that men will be manly and sometimes a bit bossy and that women will be impressed with them or skeptical.".

What can I say? This is what I was ineptly trying to get across as my opinion yesterday when I posted.