Manliness

by Harvey C. Mansfield

This book invites—no, demands—a response from its readers. It is impossible not to be drawn in to the provocative (often contentious) discussion that Harvey Mansfield sets before us. This is the first comprehensive study of manliness, a quality both bad and good, mostly male, often intolerant, irrational, and ambitious. Our “gender-neutral society” does not like it but cannot get rid of it.
Drawing from science, literature, and philosophy, Mansfield examines the layers of manliness, from vulgar aggression, to assertive manliness, to manliness as virtue, and to philosophical manliness. He shows that manliness seeks and welcomes drama, prefers times of war, conflict, and risk, and brings change or restores order at crucial moments. Manly men in their assertiveness raise issues, bring them to the fore, and make them public and political—as for example, the manliness of the women’s movement.
After a wide-ranging tour from stereotypes to Hemingway and Achilles, to Nietzsche, to feminism, and to Plato, the author returns to today’s problem of “unemployed manliness.” Formulating a reasoned defense of a quality hardly obedient to reason, he urges men, and especially women, to understand and accept manliness, and to give it honest and honorable employment.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Gender, Sociology, Psychology, Gender Studies

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Jr. is a Professor of Government at Harvard University.

He has held Guggenheim and NEH Fellowships and has been a Fellow at the National Humanities Center; he also received the National Humanities Medal in 2004 and delivered the Jefferson Lecture in 2007. He is a Carol G. Simon Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is notable for his generally conservative stance on political issues in his writings.

Mansfield is the author and co-translator of studies of and/or by major political philosophers such as Aristotle, Edmund Burke, Niccolò Machiavelli, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Hobbes, of Constitutional government, and of Manliness (2006).

Among his most notable former students are: Andrew Sullivan, Alan Keyes, Robert Kraynak, John Gibbons, William Kristol, Nathan Tarcov, Clifford Orwin, Mark Blitz, Paul Cantor, Delba Winthrop, Mark Lilla, Arthur Melzer, Jerry Weinberger, Francis Fukuyama, Shen Tong, and James Ceaser.

Reviews

[Russel Henderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Manliness suffers in the eyes of today's reviewers (see the litany of reviews castigating its "binariness") for the sin of having been written when the aperture of Overton's Window was in a different posture, which is remarkable considering it is barely a decade old. His is the Straussian (perhaps Bloomian) approach of marshaling literature and philosophy in service of an argument, namely that manliness properly understood is both "non-toxic" and essential. The book helps us appreciate manliness as it has been understood throughout history and across the Western Canon, rather than in its contemporary caricature. It's a serious, scholarly book that deserves to be engaged and appreciated accordingly.

[Brian Adams-THies · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is incredibly forthright in its gender bias. Mansfield has obviously been endowed by Harvard University to spew their usually conservative and elitist trash. He claims to be aware of gender studies and responding to that body of knowledge but he never truly engages any of the current theory or even ethnographic research. He ignores sexuality completely; he essentializes gender into two very specific and dichotomous categories; and he appears to celebrate/long for the "manly man" existant before Second Wave Feminism and that has very deep repercussions for women and supposed "non-manly men". The poor guy just seems to have been irritated by gender studies and decided to step out of his usual research on Machiavelli and indirect governance; or Edmund Burke. Essentially, this is an old, conservative Harvard professor paid to spew his idiocy and intellectual masturbation......if you enjoy being irritated with intellectual spooge in your eye this book is for you!

[Josh Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most will dismiss it without a careful reading. Mansfield is a precise and nuanced thinker. This is a great piece of challenging philosophy that true critical thinkers will appreciate.

[Benoit Lelièvre · Rating 1 out of 5]

I should've known.

This is not REALLY a book about masculinity. Mansfield's definition is ambiguous, heavily mediated and romanticized and, quite frankly, poor. This book is trying to reestablish the pre-feminism power dynamic between men and women.... and, quite frankly, it's doing a poor job at it. I don't care how academically decorated Harvey Mansfield is, it's dishonest and fallacious to base his arguments on the writing on John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who lived in the nineteenth and eighteenth century respectively. Mansfield disregards hundreds of years of social progress because it suits his argument.

More important, he denies that women and LGBTQ folks can have the same qualities that he attributes to manly men: courage under pressure, espousing a cause, confidence etc. Not only Mansfield's definition is deliberately imprecise, but it's not based on anything aside from cowboy movies, which espoused very rigid stereotypes.

After reading this book, my utmost sincere belief is that the manliest thing to do in 2020 is to hoist every marginalized community up and make it a fair race in every sphere of society. Because nothing is as unmanly as rigging the game for you to win. If you're confident, you're going to compete at equal forces.

This is not a good book.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Harvey Mansfield's "Manliness" is a thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating exploration of masculinity in contemporary society. Published in 2006, the book offers a comprehensive analysis of the concept of manliness, delving into its historical foundations, philosophical underpinnings, and its implications for individuals and society. In this academic book, we will critically examine Mansfield's arguments, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his approach, and discuss the book's relevance in the broader discourse on gender and identity.


"Manliness" presents a multidimensional exploration of masculinity, addressing its cultural, social, and political dimensions. Harvey Mansfield argues that manliness is a distinct virtue that embodies certain qualities, such as courage, assertiveness, and a willingness to take risks. Drawing from classical philosophy, political theory, and literary analysis, Mansfield explores the historical and philosophical foundations of manliness, tracing its development from ancient Greece to the modern era.


The book's central argument revolves around the idea that manliness is an essential characteristic that contributes to the vitality and success of individuals and societies. Mansfield contends that manliness fosters a sense of honor, responsibility, and self-reliance, and highlights its role in promoting civic virtues and political leadership. He further asserts that manliness has been marginalized in contemporary culture, with detrimental effects on the well-being of individuals and the stability of society.


Mansfield critically examines the challenges and criticisms faced by manliness in the modern era, particularly in the context of changing gender norms and the rise of feminism. He engages with feminist critiques of traditional masculinity, offering counterarguments that emphasize the positive aspects of manliness and its compatibility with gender equality. Mansfield also explores the tensions and complexities arising from the intersection of manliness with other identities, such as race, class, and sexuality.


Mansfield's "Manliness" presents a nuanced and complex analysis of masculinity, drawing from diverse disciplines to construct a compelling argument. The book's strength lies in its interdisciplinary approach, effectively integrating historical, philosophical, and sociopolitical perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of manliness. Mansfield's engagement with classical texts and his exploration of the intellectual foundations of masculinity enrich the book's scholarly rigor and depth.


Furthermore, Mansfield's ability to navigate controversial topics, such as feminism and gender equality, with intellectual honesty and reasoned arguments is commendable. He offers a robust defense of manliness while acknowledging the need for an inclusive understanding of gender and the challenges faced by marginalized groups. This balanced approach contributes to the book's credibility and fosters constructive dialogue on the complexities of masculinity in contemporary society.


However, it is essential to critically engage with Mansfield's conceptualization of manliness. The book's focus on traditional masculine virtues and its limited exploration of alternative models of masculinity may limit its relevance in a rapidly evolving sociocultural landscape. Additionally, some readers may find Mansfield's emphasis on gender binaries and his resistance to broader conceptions of gender limiting and exclusionary.


"Manliness" by Harvey Mansfield presents a thought-provoking exploration of masculinity, drawing on historical, philosophical, and sociopolitical perspectives. The book's interdisciplinary approach, nuanced analysis, and engagement with contemporary gender discourse contribute to its scholarly value. While Mansfield's defense of manliness offers valuable insights into the role of traditional masculinity, readers should critically evaluate its limitations and consider alternative perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of gender dynamics in today's society. "Manliness" serves as an important contribution to the broader conversation on gender and identity, inviting further academic inquiry and fostering constructive dialogue.

GPT

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Manliness, by the amusingly-named Harvey Mansfield, is not a self-discovery book, although it's shelved with them. Mansfield's thesis is that not much effort has been put into defining and characterizing manliness - both the positive and negative aspects of it. His approach passes the sniff test with regard to the inherent contradictions in the gender-neutral society, and several chapters are spent in a philosophical review of the philosophical underpinnings of feminism and its development. In truth, this is a book of philosophy. He makes a pretty coherent case that many of the approaches taken by those thinkers at the core of the feminist movement were less about changing the roles that men and women had and more about attacking the idea of roles at all - he shows the thread of will-to-power thinking from Nietzsche to de Beauvoir. One refreshing aspect of this book is that it serves as a refresher survey in a large number of philosophical approaches. I liked his concluding approach (based on John Stuart Mill) that the best way to address society in general on this topic is to increase the distance between public and private behavior and expectations. While his tone fluctuates from conversational to pedantic, I think this is still a pretty good book. He did make a connection that I hadn't thought of previously in a throwaway line - Darwinian evolution can be understood as a market-based approach to understanding speciation and diversity: neat!

[Donn Headley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is nearly impossible to review in a short space owing to the breadth of the author’s references and the complexity of his discussion. Just read. In essence, he argues quite convincingly that we—women and men—have ventured into a miasmic fog by denying that humans have a sexed nature that is fixed and impervious to social construction. Women will be, almost all the time, women, whether they’re at home nurturing children or out on the highway construction with a jackhammer. And men will be men in the same situations. Each of us thinks, acts, and speaks in the ways that our nature guides us. The sooner we understand that (and understand how the other sex responds to the slings and arrows—and the triumphs and glories—of life), the sooner we will shore up our civilization built from the woven fabric of both sexes.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

So what a guilt-inducing book. My teenage daughter saw the title, read the back cover and said, “Wait, isn’t this a humor book? I don’t get it. Is this guy serious?” Her response, of course, would be viewed as vindication by the author for how far things have gone. So too would have been my laughably unmanly decision to take off its cover when I read it at a local coffee shop so as to not draw attention to its risible title (risible in today’s world). I feel half-heartedly guilty for liking the book as much as I did because it’s wildly politically incorrect (which in my view warrants cautious praise.) But the greatest cause of my guilt is for not liking it more. Professor Mansfield’s genius and erudition are beyond dispute. The man would receive an unironic “A” even in his own graduate seminars! It’s no surprise that the book offers countless insights, especially in its respective interpretations of liberalism and the ancients.

What I found distressing about it, finally, was its departure from realism—a posture that Mansfield promotes as essential for appreciating manliness. Mansfield points out quite rightly that we human beings are wholes, and extraordinarily complex wholes. Moreover our nature (we do have one) is itself a standard that mingles with thought and human agency. The nature of our nature entails elements of freedom and ambivalence. His discussion of who we are is, to my mind, worth the price of admission; it’s fabulous. Mansfield excoriates social science and evolutionary biology for their intellectually violent reductivism. What’s lost in their respective approaches is human beings as we actually can know them. A powerful point for our consideration and an important argument for the ongoing necessity of philosophy and literature.

So it’s a little sad how reductionist Mansfield is in his approach to social science, evolutionary biology, and feminism. Time and again, I wondered how this learned man who surely knows far more than me on every point of discussion could be so badly oversimplifying (reducing) the subject and ignoring crucial counterexamples. He's smarter and better read than I, so his reductionism must be by design. I understand his book is a corrective to our thought (and also is designed itself to be boldy assertive—i.e. manly), but how effective is a corrective that devotes so much of its argument sketching a caricature? Perhaps the issue is not manliness quite as much as crotchetiness. It certainly read that way much of the time.

Mansfield also reduces the world in which we live to the world of thought, especially the thought of the greatest thinkers--and more often than not thinkers who lived well before the age of feminism. Mansfield examines who we are and how we live out our lives today not by observing our world nearly as much as taking us through an intellectual tour of great thinkers. Such an endeavor is always enjoyable and even rewarding, but I was never remotely persuaded that the feminists whom I encounter every day are somehow advancing a vulgarized and distorted version of Nietzsche’s thought, even unconsciously so, even mediated by third-rate thinkers. Nor is it true that evolution and social science can be disposed of by reducing them to their (disputable) core propositions and then cleverly revealing contradictions therein. I half-expected at some point for Mansfield to overturn leading and established theories of physics with a few clever sentences devoted to the metaphysics of Aristotle (who “never nods.”)

Mansfield rightly appeals to common sense in the book’s opening chapters, but that appeal is too brief and ultimately abandoned. The last few pages of the book return again to a view of life as we really experience it today, not life as depicted in argument by a select handful of rarified thinkers of our past. And these pages are lovely. But they are a sharp (if welcome) departure from the reductionist approach to feminism he advances throughout the rest of the book.

[Gary McCallister · Rating 1 out of 5]

I did not actually finish reading this book. It is superficial, redundant, and has nothing useful to say.
Methinks the man analyzes too much!

[Bill Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

A worthy read in the age of Trump. https://beingbeliefbehavior.blogspot....

[Kang · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are many ways to describe my problems with Mansfield's book, but the the most illustrative is to say that Mansfield's treatment of sex differences and by extension his treatment of nature is Hobbesian rather than Platonic. Mansfield constantly says things such as, "[women] are not as manly or as often manly as men" and then uses such observations as the basis for natural sex differences. This mode of argumentation was pioneered by Hobbes, who said that by nature fear of violent death is the strongest passion in men, b/c it is true for most men most of the time. Mansfield should have paid better attention to his teacher Strauss' criticism of that Hobbesian view of nature. Of course it's true that Manliness can and should be read on more than one level. It is also true, to alter a comment Strauss made regarding Machiavelli, that there is an irony beyond Mansfield's irony.

Although I only give this book two stars, I believe that this book should be read and even studied. Unfortunately, those who are most in need of reading this book will not read it. There are those who will dismiss Mansfield's argument without consideration. Time is scarce, and they have better things to do than to question what they already know. Of course, just because an opinion is unquestioned does not mean it is not questionable. As Socrates indicated by saying that he knew only that he knew nothing.

[thethousanderclub · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading a book called Manliness in public is a little awkward. At first glance it may look like a self-help book to help the unmanly become manly. Although Harvey C. Mansfield has a few things to say about that, Manliness is far more philosophical and academically esoteric than some would expect. In fact, who thinks about "manliness" from an intellectual perspective at all? Mansfield's book is fascinating and important but also a bit laborious.

Manliness attempts to define and re-enshrine manliness in what Mansfield calls a "gender-neutral" society. Is there a place in such a society for manliness, which the author defines in part as not "mere aggression; it is aggression that develops an assertion, a cause it espouses." One of the most interesting sections of the book is its exploration of feminism and its precarious relationship with manliness; it both seeks to eradicate it but also embrace it. Should men be less manly but women more so? Furthermore, is manliness a social construction or an outward expression of natural impulses? And even more fundamentally, are women and men truly different? Mansfield brings his cerebral prowess to bear on these questions and showcases a great deal more thoughtfulness on these questions than is sometimes exhibited.

Although it may seem odd, I am very interested in manliness as a subject of consideration and debate. From a personal standpoint, I feel attributes of manliness have been disparaged or shunned simply because we don't know how to comfortably fit manly behavior into a gender-neutral society. Reading a book like Gates of Fire or even canonical texts reminds one that manliness is not only a real thing but even desired. Of course not all manly behavior, just like not all compromise or all compassion, is inherently good nor should be accepted as beneficial without additional scrutiny. However, a great deal of manliness as a concept is rejected because it appears exclusionary. (And on some levels it is). I think this is a mistake, and I appreciate Mansfield's contribution to a topic I am personally interested in. I also realize I'm probably a part of a very small audience.

Where Mansfield stumbles is in his insistence on providing far more textual interpretation than is necessary. Mansfield has plenty to share and opine about without providing pages and pages of commentary on existing texts. I completely understand the value of establishing concepts and ideas and by doing so with ancient or modern texts. However, at a certain point the author should realize I'm reading his book for his original ideas and writings, not Aristotle's. As someone who loves to write and certainly loves to quote other more capable writers, I absolutely see the value in spring boarding from existing knowledge and precedence, but eventually your interpretation of another author's writing becomes much, much less interesting than your own perspectives and outlooks.

Manliness is a challenging book to read. It assumes (or maybe not) familiarity with a variety of authors that many readers may never have read before—myself included. I liked the book, and I love the contribution it makes to a topic I care about. The book's influence might be limited, but I learned a lot about the virtues and dangers of manliness and where it fits in our gender-neutral society.

http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/

[dahyung · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have heard of Harvey Mansfield from a 'classist' who has published the guidebook on classics. If that matters, the classist is Korean and also 'classical' Marxist - as opposed to all the Marxist who applies his analysis everywhere such as race, gender... wait isn't this Foucault who stole some ideas from Nietzsche? - who are focused on economics and hated Capitalism. Wait, isn't Mansfield a part of... Neocon? But that classist loves Plato. So does Mansfield.

Anyway, the point here is that I was expecting to read a very thoughtful book by another classist as well as having the knowledge of history of philosophy so he could apply all of his learnings to this 'manliness' or 'masculinity' because it matters more than ever.

However, the book was deeply confusing (maybe I lost the track of his thoughts) so a very few things that remained such as the definition of manliness should be based on 'assertion' and this type of 'assertive' attitude is deeply political, as a man wants to change (or adjust) the world as they assert - and Harvey Mansfield's main track is political philosophy.

I did pick up this book as I probably shared the concern of his starting point - so-called gender-neutral society - but ended up not gained that much except the reminder of the history of philosophy while it took a while to hit the last page. (skimmed some parts)

[Romina Flauers · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Fellas, is it gay to depise women but drool for manly men"

This was on me as I knew I was hare reading through this book. But a part of me was hoping to be proved wrong and to actually grasp some knowledge from this or a contrapoint that would challenge my beliefs.

God was I wrong... this was like 500 pages of some sort of naturalistic praise of manliness, which i get it, it's literally on the name of the book. But I was supposing a scholar would have already accepted the fact that those personality traits that we have claimed are masculine by nature are the result of years of social construction.

What impressed me the most is the pedantic air which Mansfield approach some feminist themes. Not only disregarding the work of great thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir, but openly saying that they're only emulating me thinkers (as this was not the result of years and years of the social sciences being dominated by men).

Also. WTF with his BAD interpretation of Nietzche. Like I felt I was reading the essay of a 16 year old who has encountered the theory of the Ubermensch for the first time. It was painful to read.

Fellas, like i understand the idea of traditional masculinity is "under fire" but God, please don't take this guy seriously

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mansfield approaches the topic of manliness from a perspective unique to the overall discussion, and I appreciated it. Overall, I would say that Mansfield's book is an exploration of the philosophy of manhood over time and from different cultures. He boils the ideal down to the concept of assertiveness, which I believe is an oversimplification. However, his book does an excellent job of showing what manliness meant at different times and in different cultures. He purposefully avoids engaging the metaphysical or divine purposes and thus reveals the mercurial challenge of defining something one can only observe.
In the end, the book makes some critical assertions. It asserts that manliness is a reality from which we cannot escape. It asserts that feminism is an attempt to erase manliness, or at least take its power from the hands of men. It asserts that liberal gender-neutral societies will eventually implode if they do not figure out the right outlet for manliness.
I appreciated the honesty of Mansfield, even if I didn't agree with some of his points or conclusion. As a person knee deep in a liberal, gender-neutral world, he was willing to say the quiet part out loud.

[Kathleen · Rating 1 out of 5]

A fatuous book full of woolly reasoning and unsupported assertions to the point where it's baffling that it ever made it past peer review at an academic press.

“Men can spit, cuss, tell dirty jokes, read porn, and drink beer. Modern women are doing their best to catch up with men in these attainments, and they do seem to have made modest progress in cussing, I say condescendingly. But they remain way behind men in natural, easy-going vulgarity.

Lacking as women are, comparatively, in aggression and assertiveness, it is no surprise that men have ruled over societies at almost all times” (64).

“We shall return to the possibility that being a sex object is not the worst fate in the world” (66).

“Is it possible to teach women manliness and thus to become more assertive? Or is that like teaching a cat to bark?” (67).

“Do women become shrill when they assert themselves and thus fail to impress others with their authority? In my experience it is difficult for a man who is attracted to a woman not to find her cute, rather than intimidating, when she gets angry” (69).

“Besides being weaker than men’s, women’s bodies are made to attract and to please men” (155).

[Kåre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jeg blev ikke færdig med bogen, idet det blev for kompliceret, uklart og jeg ikke fra starten var helt overbevist om, at jeg skulle læse bogen.
Det er et forsøg på at bestemme det mandige, som er en positiv størrelse. Der spilles op mod det kønsløse samfund, som er nutiden.
De biologiske forhold stilles op og de støtter heldivis common sense. Intet nyt i dette. Alt for meget modstand mod videnskab.
Der er flere spændende refferater og argumenter fra overraskende hold. Han har læst spændende bøger om emnet og giver dem godt fra sig.

[Christopher Paludi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is worth reading if only for its dense essay on Manly Virtue, wherein Professor Mansfield discusses, in Plato and Aristotle, aner and akuron, as well as thymos, in the family and the polity.

This is a bright mind and an entertaining writer. Although at times he indulges himself somewhat distractingly, I can forgive him that because often he does so amusingly—and as too many today forget, humor, like manliness, is a virtue.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book more than I did. Particularly because many of the negative reviews by women and unmanly males demonstrate that their authors do not understand Mansfield's points and are responding too emotionally to grasp his nuance. That said, this book should have been an essay, since he is too repetitive. You could profitably read just the introduction and conclusion and get almost all of the substance of this book.

[Jose Flores-Ugalde · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read investigating the characteristics of Manliness. It does an excellent job explaining why Manliness is viewed with suspicion by the gender neutral society advocates. It also touches upon manliness' meaning for women's interests and why the quality may not be so bad for women and society overall if employed correctly. The book amusingly explains the position of the poet, the scientists and various philosophers in regard to the goodness (or lack of) inherent in manliness. Worth reading.

[Shona Candlish · Rating 1 out of 5]

Long-winded.

[Judson Marvel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a history book on the idea of manliness from various perspectives, such as liberalism, feminism, and classical thought.

[Josh G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Historical sections regarding Nihilism and feminism were good. The chapter on stereotypes was very interesting. Everything else was a bit meh.

[Vera · Rating 1 out of 5]

Saai

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

bit of a weird work for Mansfield, not bad, just... weird

[Hom Sack · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is one of the most boring books I've read. I wish I had quit after the first 50 pages. The author was needlessly long winded, wordy, and obtuse. It drones on and on, uselessly banal, like a student tasked with writing a term paper that requires a minimal number of pages but only has enough material to fill a miniscule amount.

The front inside book cover challenges: "This book invites—no, demands—a response from its readers." What manly man would not respond? The book is not at all a "wide-ranging" and "comprehensive study of manliness". The was no mention or discussion, for example, of the Japanese Bushido Code.

Mansfield in the concluding chapter writes "I am not going to end this book by giving out pointers on how to live, though I supposed I could." I doubt that he could. Had he done so, it would have been a better book. He goes further, "My book is for thinkers, ..." Well, I suspect that manly men are more. They are doers as well. Come to think of it, what manly men would want to read a book like this?

He extols the manliness of actors and fictional characters like John Wayne instead of people like Audie Murphy. Both were actors, but unlike the former, whom others have criticized that in real life never served in the military, the latter was a highly decorated war hero.

In the use of fiction, Mansfield wants you to accept the fiction authors' creations to argue his point. Whereas in the use of non-fiction, he wants you to accept his interpretation of those authors' work. Did you happened to read all of cited works Nietzsche, Hobbes, Locke, etc. as he alleged had? I'm not even sure he knows any manly men. There were no reference in the book to any.

I didn't buy any of his arguments. I think Naomi Wolf didn't either (http://goo.gl/ud7S2E).

[Davina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the most interesting sentence was the last, "A free society cannot survive if we are so free that nothing is expected of us." I was hoping for a more clear definition of manliness. I left feeling that the author boils it down to assertiveness. Certainly that is an important part of manliness. I find myself following up on feminism. Is the radical feminism merely having women act like men? I'm not so sure. Certainly women sought to act more like men to move away from a passivity which seemed to define a lot of femininity going in to the 1960's. This book is work. It's not a simple read. I wasn't surprised to see in the author's bio that he was a contributor to the Weekly Standard. I do think his politics influences the book. That's neither good nor bad. I would call the author conservative and a critic of modern liberalism; however, I do appreciate his critique. Too often of late, conservative critiques of liberalism are overly simplistic and easily refuted. He offers more challenges. I do think his idea of the gender neutral state is an over simplification of an idea. I'm not sure there are many advocates for that. I do think we're in a transition period from how we defined the roles of men and women, and I do think it important to define both more clearly and with reference to both our natural inclinations, and to where we would like to be. Certainly this is a step in that journey.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting one...[and, updated after second reading, September '22]:

Still quite interesting. I changed my stars from 3 to 4 stars with the benefit of nine more years reading and life experience. I don't agree with all of Mansfield's analysis - but when is that the best standard for the quality of a book? If you read it carefully (an important caveat, not often followed), this book will make you think. Mansfield's basic thesis is that manliness is assertion, the insistence upon being noticed or respected - that quality that makes humans (the neutral term is intentional) assert their importance and meaning to those around them. As much, manliness is not an exclusively male trait, though it is a preponderantly male trait. And neither is it an unalloyed good or a pure evil - Mansfield is far too subtle for such a simplistic reading. Rather, this quality exists, and it must be understood and employed, not ignored.

[Danny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mansfield presents a number of historical examples that reveal the social and psychological costs of second wave feminism, like how the rights and privileges of men have become divorced from the responsibilities of men, and how that has hurt men, women, and children. It's a dense read and really too academic to be completely useful to the lay-reader. I'm looking out for a book that can apply these ideas to more contemporary examples. I think that would be more compelling, and more helpful to men, women, and teachers while remaining a tad provocative.

[Mike Horne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not as good as I hoped. Though I consider myself a Straussian (though I don't know what that means), and though I agree with much of what he says (though I don't know much about feminism)--I'd as soon read Allan Bloom. Mansfield's writing did not grip me (I am working on his translation of Tocqueville--that is heavy going too). Of course, I do have a series of trading cards called "Michael's Unmanly Traits Trading Cards" so what do I know.