MANSFIELD ON MANLINESS

Mansfield is famous for promoting his concept of manliness but his idea of it seems to reduce largely to what a psychologist would call assertiveness. Below is a report from a woman about what she could make of it. What men have traditionally admired in other men is of course a complex of traits rather than a single trait but drive, courage, determination in the face of adversity, a willingness to take risks, self-confidence and adherence to principle are also part of it. Mansfield is certainly right in calling the craven behaviour of Larry Sumers "unmanly". I would have called it "contemptible" but my own values are undoubtedly old-fashioned manly ones. And I am pleased at how well those values have served me in life

Defend yourself." That's the lesson Harvey Mansfield drew for Larry Summers the week before Harvard's president was forced to resign. Mr. Mansfield, a 73-year-old government professor and conservative elder statesman of the university, went on to suggest that Mr. Summers's capitulation to those he offended (when he said women might be biologically less inclined to succeed in the hard sciences) is not simply a craven kowtow to political correctness, but proof, also, of a character flaw. Indeed, Mr. Mansfield continued with a mischievous smile, "He has apologized so much that he looks unmanly." .....

Of all the enemies Mr. Mansfield has made, none has he more consistently provoked than feminists. It's been 20 years since he voted against the proposal for a women's studies major at Harvard (the only faculty member to do so), arguing that "it is not possible to study women except in relation to men." And he has not let up since.

"I've had a lifelong interest in women," Mr. Mansfield purrs in his smooth classical-radio-announcer voice when I ask why he decided to embark on his manliness project. Joking aside, he explains that "I always wanted to write a book on the woman question, and one reason, perhaps the main reason, I see is that we are embarked on a great experiment in our society, something very radical: to make the status of men and women equal, or, better to say, the same."

Mr. Mansfield's contention that women and men are not the same is now widely supported by social scientists. The core of his definition of manliness--"confidence in a risky situation"--is not so far from that of biologists and sociologists, who find men to be more abstract in their thinking and aggressive in their behavior than women, who are more contextual in their thinking and conciliatory in their behavior.

Science is good for confirming what "common sense" already tells us, Mr. Mansfield allows, but beyond that, he has little use for it: "Science is a particular enemy of manliness. Manliness asserts something you can't scientifically prove, namely the importance of human beings." Science simply sees people as just another part of the natural world. But what manly men assert, according to Mr. Mansfield, is that "they are important and that their party, their country, their society, their group, whatever it may be, is important." As examples, Mr. Mansfield offers Arnold Schwarzenegger (predictably, since he's no girly-man), Humphrey Bogart, Donald Rumsfeld and Margaret Thatcher--yes, women can occasionally be manly. (Both Clintons are manly in their own ways--Hillary is "formidable," while Bill is the "envy of vulgar men.")

Achilles, though, is Mr. Mansfield's model of a manly man. "He challenged his boss, Agamemnon, who had taken his girlfriend from him. He didn't so much make a complaint against him as to . . . say that what Agamemnon had done was the act of an inferior person, and that only true heroes, the men of virtue like Achilles, are fit to rule." In other words, Achilles raised the stakes and resolved to defend a cause larger than himself--the manly action par excellence.

Mr. Mansfield suggests that it is difficult to rid men of their tendency to seek out such battles. Yet he believes that the sexual revolution has been a surprisingly easy one. "Certainly," he notes, "there has been no massive resistance like the segregationists opposed to the civil-rights movement." He has been surprised by the extent to which men have adjusted to this current system, but believes the evidence that they will never do so completely is to be found all around us.

Take housework. Mr. Mansfield cites surveys that show that despite their now equal capacity to be hired for jobs outside the home, American women still do two-thirds of the housework. He argues that this is not simply a hangover from our former oppressive patriarchy. Rather, he writes, it is evidence of manliness. "Men look down on women's work . . . not because they think it is dirty or boring or insignificant, which is often true of men's work; they look down on it because it is women's work."

When it comes to the subject of housework, Mr. Mansfield has a decidedly different take from that of the late Betty Friedan. He accepts her point that keeping house in the modern era need not be a full-time job, and that boredom, or "the problem that has no name," is a natural byproduct of forcing educated women to remain in the home, even when there is not enough to keep them occupied mentally or physically. But he disapproves of her "demeaning of household work to . . . a necessary thing that you can't take any pride in." And though he doesn't accuse Friedan of doing so, Mr. Mansfield suggests that more radical feminists, like Simone de Beauvoir, built upon this notion "to demean motherhood as well."

But what does this have to do with manliness? In our conversation and in his book, Mr. Mansfield often seems to want to discuss women more than men. Ultimately, he concludes that it is OK for men and women to be treated similarly in the workplace; but in private life, "it should be recognized that men will be manly and sometimes a bit bossy . . . and that women will recognize manliness with a smile by checking it while giving it something to do or, on occasion, by urging it on."

Given what he hopes to achieve--more humoring of men by women--it may not be surprising that Mr. Mansfield writes that he wants to "convince skeptical readers--above all, educated women"--of his argument.

Such women might well wonder, as I did, what we have to gain from encouraging men to do less of the housework. But Mr. Mansfield believes that women do instinctually realize the value of respecting manliness. He offers the example of the police detective in the movie "Fargo." She performs her job "wonderfully," says Mr. Mansfield, but "she's careful to maintain the sensibilities of her husband . . ., an artist, who at the end of the movie succeeds in getting his drawing accepted for a two-cent postage stamp." "This is pitiful," he laughs, "but she makes a big thing of it."

Of course, Mr. Mansfield doesn't need to go to the movies to see how men and women behave today. He has the classroom for that. Though he thinks that his female students have become "more assertive than they used to be," he observes that "the very same women will be careful of the sensibilities of the men they wish to attract and not try to compete with them except in fun or ironically." "If not," his brow rises slightly, "I think they would have trouble getting married."

Mr. Mansfield's other observations about the dating scene at Harvard are no less provocative. At a speech to students a couple of years ago, he observed that the only "gentlemen" at Harvard were conservatives and gay men. Conservatives, he believes, realize something's been lost in the recent social revolution; and gay men "have a certain greater awareness and perspicacity than other men." (He doesn't get into the subject of homosexuality in his book, and when I press him on this, he says, "If I had, I might have said something unpleasing to homosexuals and I'm taking on enough critics as it is.")

"What you see today at Harvard and elsewhere are a lot of liberal males who are trying to make women happy by trying to treat them as if they weren't women." "And that," says the man who never misses the chance to open a door for a woman or help her put on her coat, "doesn't work very well." So why didn't he simply write a book on gentlemanliness? "Because before you're a gentleman, you have to be a man. Gentlemanliness is a refinement. It presupposes that you have a certain superiority over women, but teaches you how to exercise it. It also teaches you that women are superior in their ways."

Nine years ago, when Mr. Mansfield offered his first seminar on manliness, I barely managed to score a seat in the small classroom. So many campus feminists had crowded in that students were forced to sit on the floor. These women saw their opportunity, finally, to have it out with the conservative bogeyman.

But Mr. Mansfield got the best of them. He proceeded to talk for much of the next two hours about the ancient Greek notion of thumos, or spiritedness, an idea he believes is the precursor of modern-day manliness. The feminists were bored silly--almost none returned the following week.

Despite his statements outside the classroom, Mr. Mansfield sees his role of professor very differently from that of provocateur. His classes rarely descend into debates over current affairs. Arguments from Plato may not convince these "educated women" that he is right, but unlike Larry Summers, Mr. Mansfield has tenure.

Source



California Supreme Court Takes Step Backward on Children's Rights

The woman is NOT always right

The California Supreme Court took a step backward on children's rights Thursday by issuing a ruling that will make it more difficult for children of divorce to retain the loving bonds they share with both parents. In Brown vs. Yana the court ruled that Anthony Yana, who was trying to prevent his then 12 year-old son from being moved from San Luis Obispo to Las Vegas, did not merit an evidentiary hearing on how the move will affect his son. The decision creates another hurdle for noncustodial parents who are trying to prevent their children from being moved out of their lives.

Though the California Supreme Court's 1996 Burgess decision only involved a 40 mile move within the same county, it has been interpreted by California lower courts as granting custodial parents a presumptive and almost unfettered right to move children out of state or, in some cases, out of the country. As a result, damaging and unnecessary moves have become common

For example, in the LaMusga move-away case decided by the California Supreme Court in 2004, the mother sought to move her two boys from the Bay Area to Ohio because she wanted to attend a law school there, even though there are eight law schools in the Bay Area. When the courts blocked this, she moved to Arizona because, she claimed, her new husband needed work. His job? Selling cars.

Part of the problem is that current policies provide strong financial incentives for moving. California has a high child support guideline, a high cost of living, and high wages. Thus custodial parents can often live better by moving to states which have a lower cost of living, because they will still collect child support awards based on California wages and support guidelines. This is a terrible injustice to noncustodial parents, who often must stay behind to work to pay child support for children who have been moved out of their lives. Case law is stacked so heavily in favor of custodial parents that they often use threats of relocation as a way to extort unrelated concessions from noncustodial parents.

The California Supreme Court addressed the problem in LaMusga, affirming custodial parents' presumptive right to move but also making it clear that courts can prevent children from being moved when it is detrimental to their interests. Among the factors deemed important were the relationship between the child and the nonmoving parent, usually the father.

Fatherlessness is tightly correlated with rates of teen drug abuse, juvenile crime, and school dropouts. Yet in Brown vs. Yana the courts allowed Cameron Yana to be taken away from his father just as his teen years were beginning, substantially increasing the likelihood that he would fall victim to these pathologies.

The trial court decided that it had not heard prima facie evidence of the move's detriment and barred an evidentiary hearing. Had Yana been allowed one, he might well have been able to block the move. In overturning the trial court's decision, the Second District Court of Appeal wrote: "Cameron's attorney told the trial court that Cameron spoke about his ties to San Luis Obispo County, his reluctance to break those ties and his desire to live with his father. The wishes expressed by `mature enough' children are one of the factors cited by LaMusga that the court should consider...More importantly, Cameron told his attorney that there are problems in his mother's home. It may well be that.if any problems exist, they are insignificant. But without an evidentiary hearing the court is simply left to speculate...the gravity.[of the] decision mandates that the parties have a full opportunity to present, and the trial court have a full opportunity to consider, the relevant evidence."

After the move the boy rebelled against his mother, at one point refusing to board a plane to go back to Las Vegas after a visit with his father. The mother, who had moved to Las Vegas because her new husband was offered a new job there, has now allowed the boy to live with his dad. Cameron told the Santa Maria Times that the new Supreme Court decision is "bad for other kids like me who don't want to move.It's hard to leave your friends. And my dad missed all but one of my football games when I lived in Las Vegas."

The underlying problem is that in California the legal presumption on relocations points in the wrong direction. If a parent wants to move a child far away, he or she should bear the burden of showing that the move is not detrimental to the child. In this way many frivolous, selfish, or vindictive moves would be restricted, while still allowing for legitimate ones, such as in cases of abuse, dire economic need or when noncustodial parents show little interest in their children.

Brown vs. Yana is not an outrageous ruling, and Yana had harmed his case with slipshod legal work and erratic behavior. The decision is, however, sadly illustrative of a common mentality in family law which places a custodial parent's convenience above a child's love for his mother and father.

Source



LCD Rulez!

Post lifted from A Western Heart

No, it's not what you think if you thought this was going to be a paen of praise to technology. It's a minor rant about the nannying bastards who seek to control every aspect of the lives of their fellow citizens. About the way these people, in the name of "safety" or "sensitivity" or the dozens of other code-words they use succeed only in reducing us to the level of the Lowest Common Denominator of society.

Their solution to almost every problem--real or imagined--is to ban, control and regulate human behaviour. The abuse of recreational drugs must be controlled by banning the substance. (even to the point where heroin, for example, a peerless painkiller for the terminally ill can become almost impossible for a person dying in agony to obtain sufficient doses of) The excuse I've often heard for not prescribing an adequate dose of painkilling medication is that the poor bastard in pain "may become addicted". Right. Better to impose a "superior" morality than to alleviate suffering, after all.

Some people drive too fast for the conditions and their level of skill and as a result kill and maim others. The solution is better driver training and education, starting at an early age, right?

Not at all. The "solution" is to charge already over-taxed motorists huge amounts of money for travelling a mere 10 kmh over some abitrarily set speed limit. Regardless of road, weather and traffic conditions. To condemn and hector manufacturers for producing overly powerful and fast cars, as though cars themselves were capable of making the decisions that kill people. So we end up with anodyne swarms of rotten little "economical" tin cans travelling at a snail's pace in order to protect us all.

Some psycho beats his/her kids in a drunken rage? Well, the obvious answer to that is to ban smacking. As though responsible caring parents (the vast majority, whatever "child safety" advocates may suggest) aren't capable of making the judgement that a swift smack on the bum may teach a child more (and quicker) something that may keep that child safe from harm. These fools conveniently ignore the huge psychological damage that poor parenting can inflict for life--without leaving a bruise.

It's too hard, you see. Far easier to ban smacking and pat themselves on the back while they enjoy the warm self-righteous glow of the do-gooder. Most of this interference is justified on very specious grounds indeed--when in fact it's no more than the imposition of a tiny pressure group's moral judgements on the rest of us. As though they have some magical access to truths that are hidden from (or superior to) the rest of us.

Now I've just read what may be the ultimate piece of nannying drivel ever to come out of the Velvet Gulag known as New Zealand: The Advertising Standards Authority has banned an advertisement which shows a father and son sharing a swig from the same bottle of soft drink! The horror of it! A spokeswoman explains that this is because society has "moved on" and no longer regards such things as acceptable, given the risks associated with sharing saliva and meningococcal disease and yada yadayada.... Words almost fail.

Over a long, dangerous and sometimes irresponsible life this writer has developed an interest in observing the kind of creature that enjoys meddling in the lives of others. Through a mixture of loathing and fascination--like looking at dust mites through a microscope--I've learned to recognise some features common to almost all of them.

Mostly but by no means all they're female and past child-bearing age. Taking a second shot at motherhood by interfering in the lives of adults, mothering by proxy the children of others.

Secondly, they're almost exclusively lefties, obssessed with some Utopian vision of the Perfectly Safe Society. As though safety in life were the be all and end all of existence. Risk and adventure are to be minimised and if they can't be minimised then they should be simply banned. Made unrespectable. Hooligan behaviour. (eerie echoes of the Soviets there, where "hooliganism" was a serious crime against the State)

My message to these interfering, purse-lipped, disapproving, sanctimonious do-gooder nannies is only this: F*** off and leave me alone!