Manliness (book)

Manliness is an academic work written in 2006 by Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield. In it, he laments the decline of "manliness" in modern Western society, and singles out feminism as the key culprit in its disappearance.

Overview
Manliness evaluates the concept of "manliness" as it has evolved over the course of Western civilization, and presents a qualified defense of it. As Mansfield stated to NPR's Tom Ashbrook, "Some people say manliness doesn't exist. Others say it does exist and it's bad. I say it exists and it's good... and bad." Drawing on classical philosophy, literature, and science, Mansfield argues that manliness is a virtue primarily associated with the male sex which ought to be promoted in a world increasingly dominated by gender-neutral societal organization.

Beginning with appeals to modern scientific discoveries, Mansfield appropriates these insights to offer essentialist claims that innate biological realities exert a determining influence upon gender and the expression of traits related to that gender. Mansfield then proceeds to literature, drawing on Homer, Kipling, and Hemingway to support his thesis that "manliness" has been a perpetual component of the male psyche and behavior. Mansfield then offers an analysis of the historical forces in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, singling out Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Germaine Greer as the central villains in what he describes as the dismantling of manliness. In Mansfield's view, all these feminists shared two common insights that were derived from earlier philosophers: from Marx they drew the theory of economic exploitation, and from Nietzsche their flirtations with nihilism. Finally, Mansfield turns to Aristotle as the archetypal expounder of manliness to identify the quality of "philosophical courage," which Mansfield concludes is the ideal understanding of manliness.

Reception
The book garnered several press reviews, sharply polarized along political views.

From the conservative media, the Weekly Standard commissioned a positive review by Christina Hoff Sommers, a self-described equity feminist who has been considered by liberal feminists to be "antifeminist". In her book review she writes, "Mansfield's amusing, refreshing and outrageous observations must already be causing distress for his Harvard colleagues. But many readers will be grateful to him for his candor and bravado [...] Women would be foolish not to pay close attention to Mansfield's subtle and fascinating argument." Though Sommers admits that "his description of 'feminist nihilism' rides roughshod over many distinctions within feminist theory and the women's movement," she concluded that the work amounted to offering the "truth and wisdom" of an "elegant treatise."

On the whole, however, Mansfield's book was intensely criticized. Writing for the Boston Globe, Christopher Shea called Mansfield's definition of manliness "maddeningly imprecise," relying on "common stereotypes" long since exposed as erroneous by contemporary scholarship. Likewise, New York Times critic Walter Kirn dismissed Mansfield as "stuck in a semantic time warp" for his gross ignorance of modern culture, sweeping and anachronistic generalizations, and deliberate misinformation.

In his seminal piece, "The Demise of the American Male And Its Effect on National Security," Raphael De Plume succintly and pointedly links the growing problem between the unfair ramifications of a legal system gone horribly wrong and imbalanced, in favor of women versus men. De Plume discusses the statistics demonstrating how many women routinely lie and misrepresent in order to gain advantages over men with regards to alimony, child support and custody issues, and other monetary rewards in the context of Divorce and Domestic Relations diputes. This subconscious acceptance by men of their complete and total powerlessness in these disputes with women causes them to exhibit fear and distrust, and the inability or unwillingness to commit in relationships leading towards marriage, and encourages irresponsible and childish behavior by men in relationships. It also creates a male "feminine culture," whereby men with feminine characteristics and behavior patterns are vaulted and celebrated in the American culture, while decidely masculine behavior and character traits are stifled and muted. This causes a dearth in masculine popular culture, and leaves the United States open to destruction by America's detractors and enemies, both overseas and within.

And as was explained by William Renaurd, Jr. in his groundbreaking treatise "The Embattled American Male - Evaluation Of The Changing Concepts Of Masculinity," (Nutrition Health Review. Winter 1993), FindArticles.com. 03 Feb. 2008, Dr. Renaurd states "how is the embattled male able to deal with shifting sands beneath him? Most virtues associated with manhood are not obsolete. Courage, dependability, sense of duty, generosity and self-knowledge are always an integral part of a wholesome individual. It is an integral part of the masculine armor." He goes on to analyze how these very same qualities are now under attack in today's American culture, galvanized by rampant and out of control feminism.

The most trenchant and well-circulated analysis, however, was philosopher Martha Nussbaum's review, published in The New Republic. Nussbaum charges Mansfield with being wholly unconcerned with fact and openly hostile to logic. "Mansfield is horrendous when he reads feminist thinkers," Nussbaum writes, but soon reconsiders, "But never mind. It turns out that Mansfield is an equal opportunity misreader.  Male philosophers get the same slipshod treatment." Ultimately, Nussbaum comes to wonder: It seems appalling that Mansfield has spent decades teaching great philosophical texts to undergraduates who cannot easily tell a careful reading from a careless one, or low standards from high ones — especially when the teacher keeps portraying himself as the bold defender of standards. How did someone whose every paragraph is a stake in Socrates' heart come to be an exemplar of philosophical seriousness?