Manliness of man

[Baashi]

Morning nomads and Salamu Calaykum dhamaantiin,

 

I had a time to watch a three hour program on C-Span2 called "IN DEPTH" where the presenter interviews notables especially authors in a living room-like setting. I always make time to watch this program whenever possible and so far I have never been disappointed. Anyways, last Sunday (4-day long wkend, btw) they had Harvey Mansfield on, author and a 40 year prof @ Harvard.

 

He has written many many books. I find the conversation between the presenter and the prof to be very interesting. Politics, philosophy, religion, and social issues among others have been discussed. And boom! the presenter, a woman, asked him about his upcoming major work on manliness He was blunt and to the point. I took a note and jot down the name of an article he's written for AEI, a conservative leaning thinktank.

 

Here it is...enjoy it: Manliness of man

[Viking]

Baashi,

Thanks sxb, it was an interesting article. What the author seems to be [rightfully] denouncing is androgyny which has been what many feminists have been vying for. Unfortunately, even Muslims aren't spared and some have fallen for this.

[NGONGE]

Can't access it, saaxib. Care to do a C&P job.

[Sky]

Here sxb:

 

The Manliness of Men

By Harvey Mansfield

 

 

Today the very word “manliness†seems obsolete.

 

 

 

There are other words, such as “courage,†“frankness,†or “confidence,†that convey the good side of manliness without naming a sex. But to use them in place of “manliness†begs the question of whether moral or psychological qualities specific to each sex exist. Our society today denies that such differences are real, and seeks to abolish all signs of such qualities in our language. To the extent that feminism recognizes gender differences at all, it presents them as bad, and as the fault of men.

 

 

 

The women’s revolution has succeeded to an amazing degree. Our society has adopted, quite without realizing the magnitude of the change, a practice of equality between the sexes never before known in human history. My intent is not to stand in the way of this change. Women are not going to be herded back into the kitchen by men. But we need to recognize that there have been both gains and losses in this revolution.

 

 

 

Manliness can be heroic. But it can also be vainly boastful, prone to meaningless scuffling, and unfriendly. It jeers at those who do not seem to measure up, and asks men to continually prove themselves. It defines turf and fights for it--sometimes to defend precious rights, sometimes for no good reason. Manliness has always been under a cloud of doubt--raised by men who may not have the time or taste for it.

 

 

 

But such doubts about manliness can hardly be found in today’s feminism. Contemporary feminists, and the women they influence, have essentially a single problem with manliness: that it excludes women. Betty Friedan’s feminist classic The Feminine Mystique is not an attack on manliness, but on femininity. It insists women should be strong and aggressive--like men.

 

 

 

Though the word is scarce in use, there is an abundance of manliness in action in America today. Young males still pick fights, often with deadly weapons.What we suffer from today, is a lack of intelligent criticism of manliness. Feminism has undermined, if not destroyed, the counterpart to manliness--femininity--and with it the basis on which half the population could be skeptical of the excesses of manliness.

 

 

 

Of course, women are still women. While they want men to be sensitive to women, they don’t necessarily want them to be sensitive in general. That’s why the traditional manly male--who is protective of women, but a sorry flop when it comes to sensitivity--is far from a disappearing species.

 

 

 

Manliness offers gallantry to women. But is gallantry fundamentally insincere because it always contains an element of disdain? The man who opens a door for a woman makes a show of being stronger than she, one could say. At the same time, the woman does go first. Manly men are romantic about women; unmanly men are sympathetic. Which is better for women?

 

 

 

The “sensitive male†who mimics many female emotions and interests, while discarding the small favors men have traditionally done for women, is mostly just a creation of contemporary feminists who are irritated with the ways of men, no longer tolerant of their foibles, and demanding new behavior that would pave the way for ambitious women. Feminists insist that men must work harder to appreciate women. Yet they never ask women to be more understanding of men.

 

 

 

Manliness is a quality that causes individuals to stand up for something. It is a quality that calls private persons into public life. In the past such people have been predominantly male, and it is no accident that those who possess this quality have often ended up as political rulers and leaders.

 

 

 

Manly men defend their turf, just as other male mammals do. The analogy to animals obviously suggests something animalistic about manliness. But manliness is specifically human as well. Manly men defend not just their turf but their country. Manliness is best shown in war, the defense of one’s country at its most difficult and dangerous. In Greek, the word for manliness, andreia, is also the word for courage.

 

 

 

For good and for ill, males impelled by their manliness have dominated all politics of which we know. Is there something inevitable about this domination or are we free to depart from it? With more and more countries moving toward democracy and peace, perhaps manliness will become less necessary.

 

 

 

Yet there might also be a democratic manliness. In democracies, Tocqueville said, a manly frankness prevails--an open and fearless stance of “man to man†in which all are equal. Does democracy, then, tend to produce, and require, manliness?

 

 

 

Feminists find all sexual roles objectionable. They are insulted by the idea that nature has determined different social parts and purposes for the sexes. They have largely forced the abandonment of any idea of sexual nature in favor of the feminist notion of “choice.†A woman today has the choice of every occupation that used to be reserved for men, plus traditional women’s roles. Inevitably, “choice†for women opens up choices for men too. What happens when men are no longer pressed to face the duties that used to go with being a man? Traditionally, the performance of a man’s duties has required him to protect and support his family. To be a man means to support dependents, not merely yourself.

 

 

 

But the modern woman above all does not want to be a dependent. She may not have thought about what her independence does to the manliness of men (it might make men more selfish). And she may not have considered carefully whether the protection she does without will be replaced by sensitivity, or by neglect. The statistics on male abandonment of their children in our day are not heart-warming.

 

 

 

According to feminists, any traditional notion that the different sexes complement each other serves merely to justify the inferiority of women. On its face, complementarity suggests real equality--each sex is superior in its place. But if you are sure that the best positions have been the men’s and that women have been the “second sex,†then in order to achieve equality you must go for full interchangeability of the sexes. You must deny any natural preponderance of one quality or another in men and women.

 

 

 

Do men and women have different natures that justify different social roles? Or are these natures just “socially constructed� If women can conclude that their roles have been designed artificially by society, then they are free to remake themselves without constraint. But the latest science suggests that being a man or a woman is much more than having certain bodily equipment (see the article below). Perhaps men and women are characterized more by how they think than by their sexual organs.

 

 

 

While maleness is partly just a fact of biology, in humans it is linked to thinking and reason in ways that make manliness something much more than mere aggression. In humans, masculinity is more than just defense of one’s own; it has been extended to require noble sacrifice for a cause beyond oneself.

 

 

 

Certainly, women reason and sacrifice too, and they are not devoid of aggressiveness. But their participation in these things is not “equal.†As Aristotle said, men find it easier to be courageous--and women find it easier to be moderate. Of course, you cannot avoid Aristotle’s qualifier, “for the most part.â€

 

 

 

For the most part, men will always have more manliness than women have, and it is up to both sexes to fashion this fact into something good.

[-Serenity-]

Frankness, confidence, courage are used in place of ‘manliness’ eh? So basically the author is equating the above traits with being a man? Fascinating. (ok, my sarcasm isn’t top-notch… so lemme just say BULL )

 

Oh those poor misguided Muslim women eh @ Viking. I suppose having a “choice†makes one androgynous. (I see you’re still upset from last nights programme. )

 

An Emory University study found that an alpha-male monkey had, as expected, high testosterone levels, but that placing him in an environment with hostile females lowered his testosterone levels to those of submissive males

[Viking]

lol@7,

I'm not upset dear, I visted the BBC site and vented my anger on the Have your say; not sure they will want to publish my rants though.

 

Where did you get the idea that I was against choice :confused: ? Do you think androgyny is a good thing?

[checkmate]

Interesting read.

[-Serenity-]

Viking, What I’ve deduced from your point is feminists are advocating for “choice†and denouncing socially constructed roles. In doing so, they are making men androgynous/loosing their manliness/become effiminate? Is that your point?

[Viking]

7,

I said many feminists support the notion of androgyny, and being a Muslim, I vehemently oppose androgyny (this has nothing to do with "loosing manliness" but is in contrast to what Islam teaches). I didn't mention the word choice at all dear (a strawman perhaps? ), I was just stating that they often reject the obvious differences that exist between sexes when adressing the opression of women in their societies.

[-Serenity-]

LoL@Strawman...its straw-woman. But no.

 

Its just that the article generally makes a reference to “choice†(led by raging feminists) as the cause.

 

Anyways, point taken.

[Baashi]

Checking back...

 

7 u r so predictable qallanjo . Time and again, u have rushed in to opine (in defence of feminism) when there is no need for it.

 

The author made the point that "manliness" is becoming obsolete in the modern world. He is not bashing feminism per say; all he's saying is that feminism is a factor in the decline of "manliness man" that we've clearly seen in last 60 odd years.

 

Now, u can disagree with the thesis but again that requires lil more than graemlins. Is "manliness" in decline? If the answer is affirmative, what caused this decline? If the answer is negative, how can one explain the rise of "girly men"?

 

Viking, anytime sxb. I think I'm on the same page with u on this one. Feminization of men is getting on my nerve nowadays. I just can't relate to so called "men who are in touch with their feminine side"

 

Il Capitano Ngonge, my man Sky has come through and did C&P for u. Many thanks Sky.

[Faarax-Brawn]

^^LOL@Baashi.Leave Dhuubo alone. Shes now the sole 'Modern woman' in the house.

 

Anyway,Caku you and your Smart topics. Now am forced to fake smartness and use silly words. ARGHH!!

 

Is "manliness" in decline? If the answer is affirmative, what caused this decline? If the answer is negative, how can one explain the rise of "girly men"?

 

Could it Be:

 

1.That there was never anything as "Manliness" to begin with in the first place.

 

2.That men just assumedthat title?

 

3.That many a man followed social trends,so as to be Manly?[To be accepted into society]

 

4.That the Modern woman[Feminist?] challenged this title,thus making the men "Girlie Men"?

 

4That,These men who were challenged ended up being 'Girlie Men'[bTW,How large of a group are these folks?] ?

 

Ps.Am basing my "Manly Observations on the below Quote:[

 

An Emory University study found that an alpha-male monkey had, as expected, high testosterone levels, but that placing him in an environment with hostile females lowered his testosterone levels to those of submissive males

 

NarrowMinded? You betcha! . Hey i fit right in to the main stream Solites[Elites?]

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Originally posted by Baashi:

Is "manliness" in decline? If the answer is affirmative, what caused this decline? If the answer is negative, how can one explain the rise of "girly men"?

Is "manliness" in decline?

Yes

 

If the answer is affirmative, what caused this decline?

LIBERALISM and the notion of Individualism.

 

What does Liberalism assert/Say?

 

>That 'TOLERANCE AND ACCEPTANCE' is the norm

 

Well, who indicates what to Tolerant and Accept?

>The SOCIETY, the Masses determine this through

 

Taboos i.e. This is not acceptable cause it look,

 

feels bad,sick, horrible etc. (Judgement based on

 

Personal Opinionation aka Xawa).

 

If you have Liberalism, then what is

 

RIGHT AND WRONG IS RELATIVE and SUBJECT TO CHANGE

 

So Values are not permanent...teachings are not

 

permanent....nothing is Permanent!!!

 

So if 'Society determines what is right and

 

wrong' then as long as it ain't 'HURTING' no

 

one, A man can become a Women, a WOmen can

 

become a Man, gay unions are possible...sex btwn

 

parent and child is possible (its a social taboo

 

now, but give it time!).....

 

Everything becomes Relativised and subject to

 

CHANGE.

 

So what does this lead to when What is Right

 

and Wrong depends on the 'PEOPLE',

 

THE Democractic Liberal Population???

 

Plain and Simple-CONFUSIONNNNN

 

What is True is a Lie and what is a Lie is

 

True !!!

 

Fi Amanillah

[Baashi]

Brown,

 

Your views are understandable given the fact that you are an open minded fella Remember on the SOL forum, anyone can have their opinion on anything. There is no wrong opinion just a different opinion. I figure the Admin. and Moderaters (bless their heart) understand and appreciate the diversity of opinions posted on this forum.

 

Having said that, I was expecting that you would qoute from the article in support of your open minded post. Actually that's not your fault for I posted a pdf file that is an exact copy of the magazine. As a snapshot scan there are two different article in tandem on the link. Now if u were not tailgating my good cyber acquintance Miss Athena, u would have at least paid attention to the details.

 

Nevertheless, let me engage you on ur own turf. U didn't realize, I suppose, that the qoute u have highlighted is from accredited school and have a whole lot of resource went in deducing the observation the author claims to have researched.

 

Be that as it may, the point and here I'm not defending the thesis is that the qualities that have traditionally attributed to "manliness man" are no more. From there the author is exploring what brought about the prevailing attitude toward masclunity and the forces that helped shape the current views on which qualities are desirable in "modern man".

 

Awoowe berrigaan yaraa gabdhaha si gaara yaa raxmad iyo gacallo loogu muujin jiray. Lalama tirsan jirin, hawsha adag iyo waxii culus waalaga ilaalin jiay, aflagaadada iyaga lala beegsadaa ma banaaneyn, fadhiga waa looga kici jiray oo iyagoo taagan nin ma fariisan jirin...wax badan baa is bedallay hadda. B*tch baa loogu yeeraa girlfriends-ka maanta kolay in the main stream rap music, xisaab foolxun, iyo dhaqan aan inna rag ku habooneyn baa maanta laga yqaan North America. Qoraagu halkaasu ka naqdiyay ee haweenka weerar kuma aha ee hiiluu ugu soo baxay.

[Baluug]

I didn't bother to read the article...I'm too manly for that....reading long,boring articles is for sissies!!