MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

On “Manliness”

• Posted by Beth on March 21st, 2006 filed in General, Journalism, Stupid    

If you haven’t yet heard about Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield’s book Manliness get ready for it. I haven’t read the book (and in all honesty, probably won’t), but judging from the press it’s getting, it sounds interesting, if nothing else. Just look at the reviews at Amazon alone for an idea of what it says.

In a nutshell (no pun intended), what I’m getting out of it is Mansfield’s assertion that men and women ARE different, and that one shouldn’t pretend otherwise. In particular, he posits that men are more confident and assertive than women, if not more aggressive. You may even be reminded of another Harvard professor who dared to have a politically incorrect opinion. Or as Ruth Marcus says in the Washington Post,

“Manliness” is the unapologetic title of a new book by Harvey C. Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, which makes him a species as rare as a dissenting voice in the Bush White House. Mansfield’s thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as “confidence in the face of risk,” is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.

Catch that Bush dig? Of course you did. They never miss a convoluted opportunity. In fact, Marcus’ whole piece is a Bush-deranged screed:

I have a new theory about what’s behind everything that’s wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.

Oh, for the days when Slick Willie was in office, being so sensitive and in touch with his feminine interns side. Or Jean-Francois Kerry, that Fwench sophisticate with the fake tan and brassy Eurotrash wife who dropped the “Kerry” when it was no longer a campaign issue.

The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield’s vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too.) Bill Clinton’s would-be successor, Al Gore, was mocked for enlisting Naomi Wolf to help him emerge as an alpha male; after that, French-speaking John Kerry had to give up windsurfing and don hunting gear to prove he was a real man. And Bush’s father, of course, had to battle the Wimp Factor. Mansfield recalls Thatcher’s manly admonition to 41 on the eve of the Persian Gulf War: “Don’t go wobbly on me, George.”

And being a man is a bad thing? Confidence in the face of risk, versus what? Wavering in the face of polls? Bush ‘41 did go wobbly, at least with regard to taxes, and God knows Clinton/Gore/Kerry are the pinup girls poster children for vacillation. Moral strength is such an icky manly thing, I guess.

No wimpiness worries now. This is an administration headed by a cowboy boot-wearing brush-clearer, backstopped by a quail-shooting fly fisherman comfortable with long stretches of manly silence — very “Brokeback Mountain,” except this crowd considers itself too manly for such PC Hollywood fare. “I would be glad to talk about ranchin’, but I haven’t seen the movie,” Bush told a questioner.

Brokeback Mountain? I think she’s indulging in a bit of wishful thinking–maybe THAT will soften them up enough for you, eh?

And she blathers on, attributing the QUAGMIRE to the presence of poisonous testosterone! And Katrina! And Social Security! And the “resolute avoidance of debate!” (Maybe, Ruth, the bile spewing from your yap just isn’t worth taking seriously.) In other words, you’ve heard it before. A dime-store quack psychoanalysis of the Bush administration, basically straying from her original statement that manliness is “confidence in the face of risk,” in favor of Bush manliness being something more like overconfident swagger. Maybe even toughness. Well, I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather have the most powerful man in the world have “swagger” than some lispy wanker getting hysterical about global warming and crying–shrieking–years after he lost the Miss America pageant. Confidence is good. I would go further to say that “manly” men have moral and emotional strength, as opposed to a man (or a woman) with constant self-doubt and sagging confidence, which is just a total pain in the ass. It’s weakness. I’ve got no use for weepy, weak-kneed men like that in real life or in public office, and I’d be shocked if Marcus herself said she appreciates a weak man.

But this is the crown jewel in this mess:

Mansfield writes that he wants to “convince skeptical readers — above all, educated women” — that “irrational manliness deserves to be endorsed by reason.” Sorry, professor: You lose. What this country could use is a little less manliness — and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.

But that’s just my view.

Well, I’m sorry Ruth Marcus has self doubt and is somewhat submissive. I’m sorry she feels that’s the way women–and in fact, all Americans–are supposed to be. We didn’t get to our place in the world by being weak and submissive, though–but then people like her don’t appreciate America’s place in the world. I, for one, have no interest in a White House like that, and I’m sure Condoleezza Rice doesn’t either. Or Mrs. Bill Clinton, for that matter. But something tells me that a little “manliness” in these women (well, at least with Hillary) if they were President would be extolled as a virtue to emulate. We had a President with those “womanly qualities,” and Jimmy Carter was an abject failure in the job. At any time, but especially during a war against psychotic terrorists, we need someone with steely resolve.

That’s not “just my view,” that is my opinion. Deal with it.

Tags: Manliness, Harvey Mansfield, books, WaPo, BDS