A Defense of Manliness
Here. Here.
My dad cordially invites you to play Risk. Or talk sports. Or just wear a stained t-shirt and eat meat.
Plagued with five daughters, he sought consolation in mandatory family nights, reading aloud “Danny, the Champion of the World,” “Tarzan,” and the “Lord of the Rings.” During a reading of “The Two Towers,” we sketched Gandalf with pastel pencils and dozed behind the couch. Although I didn’t always listen, his treasured classics exposed me to manliness worthy of respect.
The timeless literary heroes of those works didn’t attend Harvard, but our campus boasts more than a few good men. Our tendencies to harp on gender inequality, denounce final clubs, and reprimand male pride lead us to ignore manhood’s intrinsic good. We all believe in equal pay for equal work, but Harvard’s culture misrepresents and neglects manliness in a good-willed attempt to promote women.
Manliness is confidence in the face of risk, according to Professor Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 in “.” It stresses forthrightness, honor, and determination. Admiring the ideals that define manhood affirms the life codes exhibited by many Harvard men. I’ve met many courageous women, but in our quest to prove that women are equal we deny our men parallel recognition and the right to pride.
On Tuesday, Apr. 20, Harvard Men Against Rape invited Michael Kimmel, author of “,” to explore the “Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.” Ironically, at an event co-sponsored by a final club, fraternities, and the football team, Kimmel opposed men building a group identity. We’ve heard it before: Men are privileged megalomaniacs; male groups are arrogant and purposeless.
A more constructive discussion might acknowledge that the fundamental reason our world is so perilous for young men is our negative conception of manhood. Our culture emasculates men by stripping manhood of its corresponding virtues and reducing manliness to predatory sexuality. Instead of envisioning a gallant standard, Kimmel told the men to always “get consent” before continuing on their merry sexual ways. Consent is a miserable substitute for nobility, a legalistic detour around an incredibly personal situation. It doesn’t necessarily imply mutuality, and in fact, suggests that casual sex is an inherent intrusion where men act upon women.
If men enjoy asserting meaning and power, then give men dignified aspirations, so they don’t assert their power on the dance floor. Affirm male friendships, bonds that serve men by providing forums for respect and codes of honor. When we treat men like sexualized predators, men can cunningly take advantage of this constructed freedom from virtue. Maxims like “Just get consent” and “Follow the rules” are sterile abstractions that lack exhortations to reform character.
Men do not employ their determination and honor to woo girls with mandolins in House courtyards. But we no longer expect this. Instead, we call respect and chivalry patriarchal. Without affirming the virtues of manhood, we “empower” our women by delegitimizing manly pursuit and admiration. Chivalrous romance that animates the soul is outdated, but our rational modernity threatens our deepest fantasies.
Loading ...
Or you could just do this:
Yes, that’s me.
Why, oh why, must we stereotype based on gender? Why can’t people just be people? Why can’t human beings be allowed the full range of human emotions and behaviors? Why is “confidence in the face of risk” a MALE attribute? Why is it not okay for women to aspire to such nobility? Why aren’t men allowed to be primary caretakers of children without derision? When will we move past this limiting gender dichotomy where only “real” men are tough and protective and only “real” women are nurturing and submissive? ARGH.
Heidi,
Men and women are different. That’s a fact. There is no way to get around it. The only people who could possibly deny that fact are people whose brains have been addled by attendance at college. If you can seriously ask the question “Why can’t people just be people” I would have to guess that you’ve also attended graduate school. Such a rejection of common sense takes years of study.
I agree that there are biological differences between men and women at the macro level of generalizations. That is, men, as a group, tend to have certain characteristics and/or behaviors, and women, as a group, tend to have certain characteristics and/or behaviors. I disagree with the social meanings that are ascribed to these biological differences. Finally, although there may indeed be group-based differences, on an individual level, there will always be people who don’t fit the “ideal” of maleness or femaleness. I submit that the most mature and healthy individual is the one who is able to integrate the positive attributes traditionally assigned to both genders. Men AND women should be confident in the face of risk, emotionally responsive to, and responsible for, children, etc. Instead of trying to continue this ideology of biological determinism, we should encourage human beings to strive for the whole array of human experience.
I’m actually an attorney, thank you, so I do in fact have an advanced degree. The association between education and liberal ideas is interesting to me. Maybe “common sense” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, maybe an education is necessary to understand that not everyone is meant to be clones of one another. After all, it was once “common sense” that the earth was flat.
You’re an attorney, eh? Boy, can I call ’em. I bet you’ve deduced far less about me given my writings than I have deduced about you. (I’m an attorney too, or I was at any rate).
Nowadays, I stay home and take care of our three kids. My wife’s a doctor. I bet you that you would never have dreamed that to be true of me unless you read my bio on this site. So, considering my career choices, I think I know a thing or two about not fitting into stereotypes.
One thing that the experience of taking care of kids has taught me is the great differences between men and women. Suffice it to say that the way I take care of the kids is vastly different from how my wife does and how she would do it if she were in my position. I have also seen the vast differences (from birth) exhibited by little boys and little girls. They cannot be denied.
That being said, I think there is quite a lot to be said for acknowledging the differences between men and women. And I think there’s even more said to valuing those unique contributions that men make. As Fred Reed once said, if there were no men in the world, civilization would endure until the oil needed changing. I doubt he’s wrong.
Lastly, we cannot (successfully at least) “strive for the whole array of human experience.” It’s simply impossible to do. And why would you want to? Humanity has been in some pretty awful places and done some pretty awful things.
And let’s be honest, would you really like to uncritically spend time inside the mind of a redneck or (gasp) Sarah Palin? If you would not, then you yourself do not believe in striving for the whole array of human experience.
I’m not sure when it was common sense that the earth was flat, incidentally. I can show you 12th century documents attesting to the roundness of the Earth. Do you read Aramaic?
“As Fred Reed once said, if there were no men in the world, civilization would endure until the oil needed changing. I doubt he’s wrong.”
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! That is absolutely ridiculous. Women are just as capable of learning how to do tasks associated with men. They just haven’t been socialized to do so. And I suspect that the differences in your parenting styles are merely reflections of how you were socialized about the roles of mothers and fathers. If you had been raised in a society where men were primary caretakers, you would probably parent like a mother.
As for the vast differences between little boys and little girls, I’ve raised some kids myself. I have my own children and a small army of nieces and nephews. My two nephews were born within days of each other. One of them is a typical boy in his behaviors and interests, the other is more “feminine” in his. My biological daughter wanted to be a princess when she was young. My adopted daughter is a football player in training. Again, on a group level, you can make generalizations about gender. But on an individual level, children are who they are until they are told that “only boys like/do this” and “only girls like/do that.” Then they conform their individual identities (or try anyway) to the group norm to escape persecution from others. If only we could allow children and adults to just be who they are, regardless of gender. Maybe then we could value the contributions of PEOPLE, not just men and women.
Finally, you clearly misunderstood my comments about striving for the whole array of the human experience. I was not talking about spending time inside of the minds of morons, nor was I talking about evil or awful acts committed by humanity. Instead, I was simply making the point that although I am biologically female, I take pride in both my feminine and my masculine attributes. I enjoy caring for my children AND being the primary breadwinner of my family. My female partner, who incidentally appears more “masculine,” is the nurturing and more traditionally feminine parent in our family. She cooks, cleans, and runs the household (while also managing to practice law part-time). Myself, the more “feminine” in appearance, likes fixing things around the house, working full-time to support our family, and doing the jobs traditionally assigned to men. Because we are not trapped in gender role expectations, we are able to be the people and fulfill the roles that feel right for us. It sounds like you and your wife have figured that one out too, so why do you still insist on stereotypical gender norms?
Heidi,
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…
Brilliant response. Well done.
Heidi:
I quote Theodore Dalrymple:
“One of the greatest displeasures of living in the modern world—though there are compensatory pleasures, of course—is that one finds oneself constantly compelled to argue against ideas that are so foolish and shallow that they should be self-refuting.”
What aspects of your comment that are not self refuting are either irrelevant or are soon to be refuted by neuroscience. I really don’t see why what you wrote is worthy of a response.
ZZZZZZZZZZZ
Now THAT was a brilliant response, Arlemagne1. Thank you!