Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/04/07/manliness_after_patriarchy.php

Manliness After Patriarchy

Friday, April 7, 2006

In an era of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, pastel-pink clothing, moisturizer for men, and “manscaping,” the American man has become increasingly “in touch with his feminine side.” It seems that a man cannot flex his preverbal muscles without being shunned for having “too much testosterone.” In the media forum, either manly men become caricatures of manliness (see Chuck Norris or Keifer Sutherland), or the manly man is tempered by weakness, such as mob-boss Tony Soprano suffering recurring panic attacks. In both the private and public spheres, explicit manliness has become an antiquated phenomenon, replaced by a predominant unisexism.

Enter the fittingly named Harvey C. Mansfield. Having recently debated the virtue of manliness in modern society against Dartmouth’s own Prof. Peter Travis last fall (see TDR 10/21/05), Mansfield articulates why manliness is a virtue and necessary to rescue the failings of our current “gender-neutral society.” The concept of manliness as a virtue originated with the Greeks. Both Plato and Aristotle put forth the concept of thumos, a trait that linked men with animals. A basic component of all people, but most strikingly in men, thumos is the “part of the human soul that performs…defensiveness.” The thumos kicks in when one feels an injustice being done, and seeks to right the wrong. While a primal component of the human soul, both saw this facet of humanity as necessary to upholding society. Without the part of the human being that focuses on self-preservation and defense, society would crumble.

According to Mansfield, being “manly” is to be aggressive, assertive, strong, courageous and risk-seeking, as well as boastful, territorial, and often irrational. Effective leaders embody manliness by taking risk and being assertive when others are in doubt. While Mansfield concedes that manliness in its extreme form is detrimental, such as in genocide or a senseless bar brawl, manliness is also a virtue in its own right. Mansfield uses the example of war, which he believes to be the purest form of manliness, where manly risk and manly camaraderie are at their highest. While we abhor the perverse manliness of the Nazis, we revere the manliness of the brave souls who stormed Normandy beach. Just as there are two sides of violent conflict, so are there two sides to manliness, but the manly willingness to sacrifice for a just cause is necessary to an effective society.

Not surprisingly, Mansfield argues that men possess a greater degree of manliness than women. This stems not from a social construct of male dominance, as those in the dream-world of political correctness would like you to believe, but rather, because men and women are indeed fundamentally different. Men, being manly, are naturally more assertive, territorial, boastful, and physically stronger than women, while women are naturally more womanly, and display the traits of morality, cunning, nurturing, and durability to a greater degree than men. This is why men have been in positions of power throughout every society across time. While there is no clear advantage to either sex, each has different inclinations that lend themselves to different roles. While men are more naturally suited for leadership positions with their brazen self-confidence and desire for recognition, women succeed in positions where nurturing and verbal skill are more important than manly assertiveness. Even now, when women are believed to fill equal roles in positions suited for the rugged male, men still make up the vast majority of soldiers, professional athletes, truckers, and construction workers, and women tend to be teachers, nurses, and stay-at-home parents. Even though we are constantly barraged with information to the contrary, men and women tend to enter traditional professions that they have for many years prior. Because people tend to do what they are naturally geared for, it is only logical that men and women would enter the marketplace in jobs suited for their respective sex. However, current society ignores the basic principle that men and women are fundamentally different. By forcing men and women to forfeit their gender differences and try and act in an identical manner, neither sex has the freedom to perform the roles that are inherently suited for their respective sex. Women believe that they have to become a lawyer or a doctor, while more and more men have embraced the concept of the “metrosexual.”

Mansfield attributes the shift to gender-neutrality to the feminist movements of the 60s and 70s, where typical sex roles began to be questioned. Feminist authors urged women to start acting like, of all things, men. Mansfield even has the, shall we say, balls to argue that the feminist movement itself was a movement of manliness. The feminists, led by Betty Friedan and later Simone de Beauvoir, used manly assertive tactics, imitating the men in power to rise to power themselves.

But instead of improving society by fostering the inherent abilities of women, such as higher moral character and cool-headedness, the feminists decided to lower women through the adoption of lesser manly traits. Indeed, there are many women who have manly traits, but manliness amongst women is not the norm (who would have thought?). There are a few exceptions, such as Margaret Thatcher, Joan of Arc, and Amelia Earhart, each of whom embody the manly traits of assertiveness, determination, and steadfast belief in a cause. No, these women don’t crush beer cans on their foreheads or grow bushy beards, but they still embody the manly determination that is typical of male heroes. Still, the majority of women are suited for, and, according to Mansfield, desire to be, mothers, teachers, nurses and homemakers. However, with the feminist propaganda onslaught, these typically female occupations lost their desirability. That’s not to say that women should be barred from male-dominated professionalism – far from it. Mansfield’s book serves as a response to the encroaching ambiguousness of gender roles, almost as if to assure the reader that, yes, it’s still okay to embrace traditional roles, and in some—perhaps most— cases even beneficial. There’s just nothing wrong with being a woman, and conversely, being a man.

Mansfield directed many pages of his work towards women, and indeed his intended audience is “educated women.” It is strange that the target audience for a book entitled “Manliness” would be women, but his attempt to convince the most steadfast anti-manliness group is a valiant one. Mansfield’s hard-hitting, concise prose fits perfectly as he explains what should be obvious, but has been clouded by PC propaganda. While Mansfield is a history professor, and an expert in Tocqueville (who gets frequent mention throughout the book), among his strongest sections are those regarding science and psychology of men and women, wherein he “tells it like it is” free from the unisex filter.

Mansfield presents his work not as a “let-me-help-you self-help book,” but rather a book for thinkers. Thus, instead of making inflated comments about the virtues of manliness that would satisfy his core supporters (namely men), he takes an Arnoldian approach and references the best that’s been thought and said. Mansfield cites Darwin, Nietzsche, Kipling, Plato, Aristotle, and Mill to name a few, finding what each had to say about manliness, often pitting opposing ideologies in a comparative venue.

This is where Mansfield oversteps. By citing a plethora of authors and frequently going off on circuitous tangents regarding each of their philosophies, much of the chapters on Manly Nihilism and Womanly Nihilism are little more than plot summary and disjointed arguments loosely relating to manliness. At the end of each chapter Mansfield effectively brings his points together, but only after trudging through pages of literary rehash. Perhaps if Mansfield had taken a cue from perhaps the most manly of authors, Hemingway, one he spotlights in the book, Mansfield’s arguments could been more concise, more effective, and above all, more manly.

Mansfield argues that manliness is currently “unemployed” and hopes that one day manliness will resurge as an accepted virtue through better education about sex differences. However, even though manliness is not accepted in namesake (replaced by the term “masculinity,” if referenced at all), manliness continues to have a place in society, and when pressed, it seems that Americans still accept euphemized manliness. President George W. Bush prides himself for being a manly man and used this fact to paint Senator Kerry as “soft.” It worked. Minnesota and California elected Governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura and Governator Schwarzenegger respectively over feebler opponents. In positions of power, Americans embrace the manly man to protect their interests.

Manliness is criticized by the defenders of gender-neutrality, who argue that Mansfield is removed, or even obsolete in a society that has become “too good” for the acknowledgement of sex differences. While, admittedly, men are no longer needed in the same capacity to provide for the family as they were decades ago, the politically correct upholders of the genitalia-free Ken doll status quo neglect to acknowledge the folly of phasing out manly traits. Simply put: men like to be men. Men like fast cars, fart jokes, and large explosions. So what? Men are good at being men. They have been for years. Let’s take a tip from Mansfield and stop trying to emasculate every man who wants to do something that uses his latent testosterone.

But let the same be true for women as well. Yes, women should be permitted to enter a manly profession if they so desire, but let’s not look down on women for desiring positions typically geared for people of the female persuasion. The idea of the “Desperate Housewife” has taken root in America, even though many women still embrace the role of homemaker. Full-time mothers, nurses, teachers – these occupations are necessary for a functioning society and are respectable jobs in their own right. We need nurturing mothers to raise our youth, just as we need females to be nurses and kindergarten teachers because most men don’t have the desire or patience to fill those roles. Perhaps instead of forcing women to make a stake in the “man’s world,” the current feminist movement should do as the original feminist movement intended— raise the prestige of the traditional female role to that of the traditional male role.

Currently, as Mansfield clearly states, both sexes are repressing their respective natural inclinations in the attempt to conform to this androgynous society by trying to be more sensitive men and more power-hungry women. This has led to a widespread confusion over what it means to be a woman or what it means to be a man. Men are now unsure whether to open the door for a woman, for example, because either women see the gesture as a sign of their weakness, or conversely, are offended when the male does not open the door as a sign of courtesy. Far more similar sex-role conundrums exist for the generation embroiled in the artificial “gender-neutral society,” conundrums that won’t go resolved until a miraculous ability to reproduce independently enters the gene pool, or until we start explicitly acknowledging inherent sex differences. While it sounds contrived to use the expression “be yourself,” that is precisely what Mansfield is pushing for. Let men be manly and women be womanly.