March 8, 2006
HIS PAD IS VERY MESSY:
The Neutering of the American Male: a review of Manliness by Harvey Mansfield (James Bowman, March 7, 2006, The New York Sun)
[W]hat makes Manliness an exercise in manly assertion is that the book is as much about Professor Mansfield as it is about manliness. His assertion of what manliness is is thrillingly argued and never less than fascinating, but ultimately and inevitably it comes across as somewhat idiosyncratic. We can't help feeling that, by golly, the professor makes a great case, but it is his case. [...]Somewhat surprisingly, Professor Mansfield ends by accepting the gender-neutral society, with all its shortcomings and self-contradictions as inevitable. But in order to realize it, we need "to readopt the distinction between public and private that is characteristic of liberalism . . .Thus citizens should be defined in gender-neutral terms. But in the private sphere, in society, we should think of men and women really, not formally."
The liberal state, Professor Mansfield reminds us, "is neither male nor female." But "the gender-neutral society gives no respect to the liberal distinction between state and society." In other words, the personal should once again cease to be the political, as it was in pre-feminist times, so that "nature" -- and in particular the distinctive natures of men and women -- might be allowed to reassert itself.
I wish he had had more to say about why such an outcome would be more desirable, as well as more logical, than the gender-neutral society's status quo. For instance, though he mentions the threat to our liberal society from "Islamic fascism" and its rampant thumos, he doesn't insist on the need for a revived sense of manliness of our own to stand militarily against it.
What's really surprising is that he seems not to grasp why manliness matters so much to liberal democracy Posted by Orrin Judd at March 8, 2006 1:51 PM
"the gender-neutral society gives no respect to the liberal distinction between state and society." In other words, the personal should once again cease to be the political, as it was in pre-feminist times"
Exactly. I suspect the impulse for nanny-state smoking bans is ultimately traceable to leftwing feminist resentment of more conservative times when only men were allowed to smoke, and after dinner the ladies were segregated to the drawing room so their delicate lungs and ears would not be exposed to anything unfit for a lady's fragile nature.
Posted by: Carter at March 8, 2006 3:04 PMcarter, I understand your annoyance at the no smoking bans. I stopped smoking many years ago for various reasons, but I really liked to smoke and probably would still be at it all other things being equal.
That said, I think it's a real stretch to blame left-wing feminists (Lord knows they have plenty of other things to answer for) for spearheading no-smoking bans because they retroactively resented that women were forced to leave the dining room so men could smoke cigars and drink port ala 19th century English novels.
As a matter of fact, one of the most daring things earlier feminists in the roaring twenties could do was to smoke in public.
Posted by: erp at March 8, 2006 4:40 PMSmoking is just one of the tricks men have played on women, so that our average age at death is now converging.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2006 5:35 PMSmoking is a "trick"? Actually it's just a habit, good ,bad or otherwise. If it's a trick, then it's one done by the Indians against the white man. The biggest trick by men against women is abortion, but we got women to do the presentation.
Posted by: jdkelly at March 8, 2006 8:08 PMNo, it's not "another" good one. You imply moral equivalence. Abortion and smoking are quite different. Absolute evil verses sin. Venial verses mortal.
Posted by: jdkelly at March 8, 2006 9:01 PMIt's no more moral to kill yourself than another. Neither life belongs to you, but to God.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2006 9:30 PMAgreed, but it then becomes between you and God, not between you, OJ, and God. One of the endearing things about this place is your standards, but the moral certainty about automobiles, smoking and the like is only the predjudice of the proprietor. It's your house.
God bless
Posted by: jdkelly at March 8, 2006 10:06 PMjd: The blog is a smorgasbord. Hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 8, 2006 10:30 PMjd:
That's not what He told us. The Commandments aren't just interesting observations on His part. They're standards of behavior to be enforced rather harshly.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 7:32 AM"The world isn't that cut-and-dried."
"Sure it is."
"I find that surprising coming from you."
"The world's black and white, good and bad, no matter what you hear. The people who say it isn't have already chosen black."
-The Witchfinder, Loren D. Estleman
Posted by: Amos Walker at March 9, 2006 7:35 AMParaphrasing Iris Murdoch - 'at the moment of choice, most of the business of choosing has already been decided'.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 9, 2006 10:30 AM