"... that a man look a woman in the eye and tell her she is inferior"

The June 8, 2006 issue of the New York Review of Books is worth a purchase for many articles, one of the most compelling being the review by Gary Wills of Harvey C. Mansfield's Manliness, an anti-feminist (and anti-human) screed by a Harvard-enshrined lion of "neoconservative thought" (oxymoron understood).

Unfortunately, only a paragraph of the on-line version of the review is available for non-subscribers (you can purchase access to the entire review for $3.00), so some typing mistakes will surface in my attempt at minimally excerpting a long article that is well worth a read. As Gary Wills points out, the "reasoning" in Mansfield's book is irrational, and any intellectual content therein is decidedly anti-intellectual. But Mansfield's line of thinking is born of the same delusional thought patterns that got us into Iraq, that are pushing us into Iran, that are creating a hellish new totalitarianism here at home.

Harvey C. Mansfield, the neocon intellectual seems more mixed up than a dog's dinner. He is a seeming psycho, one to whom President Bush gave a medal. Give the entire alarming review a read, if you get a chance. Some excerpts (by no means the most bizarre) below.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=19052

Mousiness
By Garry Wills
Manliness
by Harvey C. Mansfield
Yale University Press, 289 pp., $27.50

I once described in these pages a meeting of the Women's Caucus of the American Bar Association at San Francisco in 1992. The woman presiding began by asking attendees to stand if they were the first woman to be an editor of her law school's journal--or the first woman to be made senior partner of her firm, to become a law school dean, to become a judge on her bench, and so forth. There were hundreds and hundreds of women standing by the time she went through her list. That scene is one of many things that bothers Harvey Mansfield--'the willingness of women to claim solidarity with other women.' He claims that 'a man's movement would be more divided against itself, each individual looking out for himself and caring less for the general cause of his sex.' He proves his point by writing a whole book promoting 'the general cause of his sex.' Mansfield objects to claims of women's victimhood by issuing his own lament for men's victimhood. People are trying to prevent him from using the very word 'manly.' It is enough to make a man cry.

Mansfield, the William R. Kenan Professor of Government at Harvard, is a translator of Machiavelli and Tocqueville. He is a Straussian guru in neoconservative circles and the mentor of William Kristol at Harvard. President Bush gave him the National Humanities Medal in 2004. He was the only member of Harvard's faculty to vote against establishing a program of women's studies, and he became one of the most strenuous defenders of Harvard's outgoing President Larry Summers when he suggested that women may be underrepresented in science and engineering in the academy because of intellectual inferiority. Mansfield's new book can be read as a scholarly gloss on the controversy over Summers's remark.
. . .
The book has a weird remoteness from the real world. Like many a professor, Mansfield sees nothing at work around him but theories. He thinks that the double standard in sex is disappearing because feminism "wants to create equality by lowering women's morality to the level of man's." Even if that were true of "feminism" - a term he usually equates with a few extreme theorists - it would not have had much effect on real women's lives but for a concatenation of the many real-world events.
. . .
Mansfield partly stumbles on a reason for not sequestering women exclusively for breeding and nurturing purposes. He says that feminism may be simply an expression of boredom: "For us, perhaps, an argument for women's equality merely adorns and conceals the fact that modern progress has not left much for women to do at home." That sentence shows, again, how little traffic he has with the real world.
. . .
Mansfield claims that manliness has respect for women, but for him this turns out to be a condescending respect, a chivalrous protection of the weak. "Most of the time the gentleman conceals his superiority with chivalric irony; he pretends to defer to his inferiors." This ironic gesture gave women a kind of equality - "the sort of equality that might result from being superior at home if inferior at work." But manly man, the gentleman, has now given way to the "sensitive male," who lets himself be intimidated by feminists. "As opposed to being manly, a defense of manliness requires that a man look a woman in the eye and tell her that she is inferior in important respects. Men cannot do that today." Mansfield yearns for the certitude of Spinoza, who equated might with right, and told women that, lacking the former, they had no claim on the latter: "Here is a man," Mansfield comments, "willing to look women in the eye and tell them what they deserve."
. . .
Mansfield is 100 percent against everything modern. He offers a caricature of the conservative who thinks nothing should change, when he says that patriarchy reigned in every time and culture and therefore should not be abandoned - feminists, after all, "do not explain why patriarchy held sway everywhere until now." He is the very type of the anti-intellectual intellectual and of the frightened "he-man."

He proves the latter point at the very end of the book. Conservative reviewers have praised Mansfield for his courage in facing up to raging women. Christina Hoff Summers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, describes him thus: "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." But after beating his chest for hundreds of pages of Manliness, shouting "Are we men or mice," he quietly slips over into the mousy ranks. Admitting that there is no way to reverse the equal rights movement, he says that we should cede the public sphere to women and try to retain some hold on private life. While knowing that women are not equal, we will just have to pretend they are in the public sphere, since "men are by nature more single-minded, hence more public-spirited, than women, but let's not say that in law." When it comes time to take his final stand, it is a stand for hypocrisy, for nonassertion.

Sorry to have to ask.

Seems like that nutjob wants women back in the stone age.

Sometimes I don't puzzle it out too well.

he must be trying to make up for his own feelings of being inferior and inadequate. I would guess he couldn't compete with a blue collar worker (male or female) that was only at 50% in a physical task. So he must ponder, think, ponder some more and write a nonsensical book.

and a Bush honoree.

He's got problems, all right. And he is one of our problems.

now maybe some men who have a hard time understanding this can get a glimmer of what its like in some places around some men.

That's exactly what I thought when I was reading it. I've never seen him but I'm picturing a flabby, pasty little dweeb who can't do one pullup. Maybe he's hoping the athletes who hazed him in his youth will let him hang with them now that he writes books about how to keep the wimmen in their place.

He wasn't particulary imposing, and Colbert served him for lunch.

My Dearest Husband could squash him with just a look.

mine was hallotosis... :shrug: but not so much manliness...

Cutlery arranged just so. A fine claret. Gitane cigarettes. Satin hanky. Collection of shoe horns in the closet. Sucking on an Anchor Steam in a corner bar would be as scary as eating hummus in Beirut.

:loveya:

Just look at manicured fusspot. Probably hasn't felt adequate since the day he discovered Hemingway :hi:

Poor bastard.:hi:

But ... who knows ...

I bet girls laughed at him in high school. I bet women laugh at him now. Hence, this drivel book. I bet I could kick his ass.

If you're gonna sing 'This is a Maaaaaan's World' then you better look like this

Here's a Man, I spell M...A chile'...Nnnnnnn!

No B....O chlie....Yyyyyyyy!

Colbert used his standard ploy of seeming to agree while pointing out the glaring inconsistancies on Mousefield's book and statements. The funniest was when he asked Mousie how much women should earn and how much time they should spend and housework and then asked Mousie how much his wife earned and how much time she spent on housework. Apparently the poor boy isn't even king of his own castle.

:hi:

yeah - I'm a girl and bet I could kick his ass too.... lol.... :)

You have hips, unlike us, which means you can hit harder (a well-thrown punch involves about 0 arm strength).

I'm sick of this bullshit. I'm sick of pale, timid, skinny milquetoast guys telling me that strong women are threatening my manhood. I dig strong girls. Even girls who spell it "grrrl", or "woman", or "wymyn". It's one thing for this jackass to convince other guys that they should get freaked out by a girl who sticks up for herself. That just leaves me the manliest man in most bars. It's quite another when he tries to persuade women to be shrinking violets. That I won't stand for, because I've no interest in dealing with that. I have 0 attraction to a woman who isn't strong and confident in herself. And I think quite low of men who do.

Strong men love strong women.

My mother is law taught her son that to attract a fine, strong, and wonderful woman, you have to be the a fine, strong and wonderful man. He is and I think he deserves me!

;)

LOL, that entire post was a turn-on!

My husband would completely agree with you.

She'd rip his lungs out.

There was a famous woman, I forget who, a long time ago who made a comment to the effect that if feminism was such a silly, erroneous concept that was incapable of overcoming the rock solid inevitibility of patriarchy as its detractors claimed, then why were so many of them so deathly afraid of it? I believe that TRUE manliness is strong enough to welcome women in the spirit of respect and equality and it will prevail in the end. Guys like Mansfield are whiny posers and throwbacks.

what Mr. Mansfield (by the way, what a manly name!) writes must have very little sense of themselves as individual humans, and need these kind crude stereotypes to try and fit their self-image into. How else could you not laugh at this stuff?

I like the way Wills points out how little this man must function in the real world. By all means, let him spend a month or so as a housewife. He'll be begging for mercy!

If squishy biscuit boy is a result of his mentoring, he's a failure as a guru of manliness.

thanks for finding this and making the effort to put it before us, swag. I mean it when I say that your erudition and that of many others here is a great gift to the rest of us.

The male member is ashamed by that association.

Seriously, we have to take back the rhetoric of manhood from these milquetoasts. These chickenhawks who struggle for nothing, give nothing, serve nothing, sacrifice nothing, yet expect Rosie the Riveter to go back to her kitchen.

I'm a big "men's movement" guy. I do all that. The Iron John drumming in the woods stuff. The hairy shirtless dancing around the campfire stuff. And one thing I know for certain:

Being masculist is not compatible with being anti-feminist. I am a man, and I love being a man. And I love women. I love the different way they often view time, and energy. I love how between the two of us, men and women seem to encompass the whole world. I love being a strong man next to a strong and independent woman. And I despise any man so base, so servile, so emasculated as to be threatened by a woman's expressing her rights, her opinions, herself.

What kind of man is that? I ask. What kind of man would require his mate to be a timid thing, some shrinking flower valued only for her alleged "purity"? (As if men were ever required to be pure.)

I'll not have it. I'll not have my sex shamed by the unmanly scribblings of these milquetoasts (to use a good word twice). If this jackass would not wish to have assertive and confident women, that's his loss... I can say from experience, there is no comparison :)

:)

:loveya:
Excellently said! Your post was the perfect antidote to the poisonous fumes of the non-prick!

Hekate

I'm glad you enjoyed the post.

when I read between the lines of Mansfield's disjointed, immature posturing, that he must have been produced by an incredibly painful childhood.

My empathy ends when I realize that this man's pathology, his inculcated misogyny and his fear-based assessments are taken seriously by some.

It's a freaky world, inhabited and formed by some freaky people.

And my response is always the same. "Fortunately for me, I do not need your approval."

(Oops. I read "The New Yorker" when I first read your post, which is what I was reading earlier, not the New York Review of Books. Either way, good articles in that too and I'm still in the mood to be enraged while I was not before.)

Here are my two "favorite" lines from the section you posted:
"Here is a man," Mansfield comments, "willing to look women in the eye and tell them what they deserve."

Yes, how noble of him to tend to the feeble like that. It must be exceedingly wearisome for the Noble Gentleman to not only carve out his own place in society, but also to determine my worth for me. And yet, he must carry on, heavy though the burden may be upon his brawny shoulders. :eyes:

And:

Admitting that there is no way to reverse the equal rights movement, he says that we should cede the public sphere to women and try to retain some hold on private life. While knowing that women are not equal, we will just have to pretend they are in the public sphere, since "men are by nature more single-minded, hence more public-spirited, than women, but let's not say that in law."

Oh! Sir, do not stoop so on my behalf! It's unbecoming on one as confident and secure as you. Do not live your life in the shadows when you so clearly tower above me, a mere woman. Do not place me on a pedestal in the public square and tip your hat to me in a show for the masses. It is a lie, and one that mars your otherwise spotless existence. I beg you, treat me as you must--as God intended when he plucked me from your rib. Show me my place and put me there. Paper the bedroom walls yellow and tell all you have done so. It is your right and your duty. :eyes:

I hope, at the very least, this charming fuckstick never gets laid again.

Edit: I can read! (Except for when I can't and have to edit my post when I realize I can't and didn't. If that makes sense.)

It's difficult to imagine how (if?) this charming fuckstick ever got laid to begin with.

by a caring, nurturing, attentive lover because this guy needs to chill the fuck out already. Perhaps that would be a good first step back on the road to sanity.

But he might want to see a doctor about his Erectile Dysfuntion instead of transferring his bitterness to women.
Look old man, sorry you can't get it up anymore, but it's not our fault.

I am a man. A manly man. A US Marine. If any would question my manhood, I would prove it in any way they would suggest, fists, pistols, or swords included (and I mean that).

I am dating a feminist. A real feminist. A no apologies feminist. A woman who knows she is woman enough to stand up for her rights and her liberty and her equality. A Molly Pitcher. An Elizabeth Cady Stanton. A Gloria Steinem. Only none of those, because she is herself.

I, as manly a man as I know, would consider myself "less of a man" if I were dating some shrinking violet, some servile girl, someone who did not roar.

I am a man, and I have no doubts or hesitations about that. Because of that, I know that nothing anyone else, male or female, can do will take that away from me. If this assnozzle is scared by women who stick up for themselves... well... that speaks to his manhood, not manhood in general.

If she weren't a worthy prey, there wouldn't be much point to the hunt, would there?

those who yell loudest about their manliness are those that have the least, from what i have seen. and not talking your post,..... you are referring to subject at hand

i was reading a dobson (minister in colorado spring) book and second paragraph of book he refers to self discription as a manly man. now.... what man has to declare his manliness. all my men around me are quite secure in their manliness without having to assure all they are manly men

our skirts", the Perfessor's gaze is not intended to win him the cheap thrill of the peeper, but only to confirm that our nether folds contain none of the sac-like qualities that could earn females equal access to his superior world. What a funny man.

I love Garry Wills and I don't come across his work often enough. Thanks for posting.

"but only to confirm that our nether folds contain none of the sac-like qualities that could earn females equal access to his superior world."

I am one big fan of this phraseology.

the symbol of the moon being ebb & flow, wisdom & emotion...but the sun would then need to embody, or symbolize reason, light, intellect, creativity...re-creation. my sense however is that this person is found somehow wanting.

too many professors, for that matter, are tainted with professorial disdain looking down their flared nostrils while suppressing boorish yawns glad in tweed coats with patches on the elbows...how sad, perhaps too sad

others seem bent on notoriety while being paid by the inch, as are too many of our journalists these days, enjoying so their words before them in marvel of just which pat on the head has brought them here by way of nurture v. nature, a great aunt or someone else's 'you can be whatever you want to be' mother perhaps

pablo made an observation once, a taurian man's man to the end known to make many cry man & woman alike, "never become a connoisseur of your own work..."

my further sense is that this individual is flat-out mesmerized by his own gobbledygook oh well

he eats his own refried poo for breakfast, as it were.

"each individual looking out for himself and caring less for the general cause of his sex."

Yeah, right. That's why there were worldwide protests against "The Da Vinci Code".

of 3' tall weeds with which he can be as "manly" as he would like. Then he can rake up afterwards and put out the green recycling can.

"Manly"...hummmmph.

Hand me that weed whacker and shut up. The dishes need to be put in the washer and the stove cleaned. Get the hell out of my way.

and if my spouse would have been content to look after the "feminine" stuff we could have been happy. But no, Spouse kept disagreeing and arguing, instead of just getting the job done.

There was chainsawing to do, as that was our only fuel, wood-chopping, farming, home maintenance, car maintenance, all that stuff that only I could do. So it would have made sense for my spouse to look after the housework, cooking and child-minding. But too much "liberation" had detroyed co-operation, and I had to do all that myself too.

I didn't even get any fun in the bedroom. Every second night spouse would have a "headache" and just want to sleep.

So I am totally against liberation for men. Let's keep all men chained to the house, looking after us women in every respect, and with proper respect. Then marriages such as mine will not founder on the rocks of wilful disobedience to the natural order.

(Btw, the story is true, but the conclusion was just put in for a laugh. I'd love for everyone to be able to learn to do and be able to do, whatever what they love doing. It's just that if there's wood to be chopped, I want the axe. ;-))

And it shows how easily you can turn the crap that he is spewing around. How much do you want to bet he'd just hurt himself wielding an axe?

The message coming through loud and clear is this one:

Oh NOOOO! Women can do anything and be anything! Eeep! They're making it hard for me to make it in today's world! Why can't we make them go back home to do all the scut work so I don't have to? Help! How do I prove I have a Y chromosome without pulling down my pants in public?

Poor little boy can't stand having to compete against girls. He's afraid that unless we females let him win, he will never get to experience victory.

His biggest fear is not that we're inferior, it's that we aren't and have been proving that every day we have fought back against patriarchy.

that he'll probably have to write another idiotic book to shore against his ruin.

that his ass is wider than his shoulders..... At least we have the birthin' babies excuse on our side......what's his?

:hi:

Really, these days some academics take the most stupid, extreme positions just so they can get a lot of attention and publish a book and line their nests for old age.

...this schmuck and his ilk are what the conservative movement is built upon. This schmuck and his ilk are why smart women NEVER, EVER vote Republican. Or, libertarian for that matter. Unless they like their pretty little feet riddled with bullets, that is.