In spring a young man's fancy

Up close and personal, our garden's first crocus of spring (x 5) -- with a nod to Georgia O'Keefe -- opens to greet the vernal equinox -- "the point at which the sun appears to cross the celestial equator from south to north" -- which occured in the Northern Hemisphere yesterday at 6:26 p.m. We hadn't realized before googling that "the dates on which day and night are each 12 hours occur a few days before (spring) and after (fall) the equinoxes." Check out the U.S. Naval Observatory's website for details.

"Science is a particular enemy of manliness. Manliness asserts something you can't scientifically prove, namely the importance of human beings," conservative Harvard gadfly Harvey Mansfield -- promoting his new book "Manliness" -- told Naomi Schaefer Riley in a manfully focussed Opinion Journal interview a couple of weeks back. We disagree re science as the enemy, but here's the professor's argument, which gets it right for the most part:

"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." ['Wish he'd chosen another word. "Superior" is so tendentious, guaranteed to get the hackles rising. How about "difference," as in Vive la différence!]

Science is good for confirming what "common sense" already tells us, Mr. Mansfield allows, but beyond that, he has little use for it . . . "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."

It depends upon what your definition of "just" is, as in "just another part of the natural world." From our own libertarian Darwinian viewpoint, both women and men harbor evolutionarily-honed imperatives to be noticed by their chosen peers. Science is your friend, professor. The important question is "whom do we select as our peers." He continues:

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.

He's obviously never seen Tiny in action. There is no fiercer defender of her turf than she. The interesting thing from our observations is that she will defend tooth and nail her own backyard but becomes submissive when we visit Goomp's. Her brother Baby, on the other hand, is confrontative with Goomp's cats. We think it's a girl-boy thing, supported by a British study we learned of in our Design School days, where it was discovered that male cats have a larger home range than female cats. Mommy vs. Daddy imperatives. Each will defend to the death, but their priorities differ. For both the importance of being noticed is where it's at. 'Sounds scientific and even Mansfieldian. More from the good professor:

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.

Looking at the geopolitical landscape out there, we'd be inclined to say Professor Mansfield's definition of manliness is expansive enough to include all creatures great and small, female and male, from bower birds and peacocks to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf -- the new President of Liberia who sat proudly with the Leader of the Free World in the Oval Office this afternoon -- to the Muslim woman word warriors like Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who are just saying no to those who would put them in their place.

Mansfield puts thymos at the center of his argument about what it is to be a man, highlighted in David Brooks's subscription-only op ed in the Sunday Times [via Travis Kavula at Red Ivy]. Answers has a good definition:

Thymos, one element of Plato's tripartite division of the soul -- the other two being reason and desire (eros) -- can be translated as spiritedness. It is the location of such feelings as pride, shame, indignation, and the need for recognition for oneself and for others.

Thymos can overrule both reason and basic animal instincts and propel one into a duel over an insult, or into a burning building to save a child, or into a war for a cause one finds just. According to Hegel, humanity is at its peak when it thymotically risks its life for the sake of a greater good. On the other hand, it is also what drives suicide bombers and other terrorists.

Exactly what we've been saying forever. The importance of shedding shame and capturing honor.

Comments

[Teresa]

"Science is a particular enemy of manliness. Manliness asserts something you can't scientifically prove, namely the importance of human beings,"

It seems that Mr. Mansfield is (like many people) wrong about science. Science attempts to tell us about "man" the physical being. The building blocks that make him and how they interweave to form a whole functioning physical being.

If he is talking about the social sciences (then he is being imprecise calling it "science"), those attempt to categorize behavior and how that works in regard to man and living his life.

But I don't know of a science that attempts to explain the soul. That is the part he is talking about when he talks about manliness. That indefinable soul.

Just as science can tell us about all the elements of a building - from the atom to the steel beams, to the electricity that lights it up... it is the soul of the architect that gives us the beauty of the finished product. That is not explainable through science.

Personally I think when the world is unbalanced in favor of women - this is when manliness is threatened. Men and women both contribute to the well being of the whole - when one side has all the power - the other side loses out... thus we all lose. This is most apparent in the strict Muslim law that does not allow women any say in life...and to a far lesser extent, the current fashion of man bashing by the feminists in the Western world.

[Scott]

I think "superior" is a strong word too, but would it bother you as much if someone described women as being "superior nurturers", "superior empathizers", or "superior communicators"?

People have been running scared from the notion of male pride since the 60s, and this has shown itself in almost every discussion of male/female issues that I can remember being a part of.

By and large people seem comfortable with both praising women and denigrating men - you can't say anything too nice about women or too mean about men. Women will bask and preen, and men will smile and shrug - this is just how it is. Everyone knows that. Ironically the woman praising and man bashing has itself become a kind of social activity where men and women have expected roles and can find comfort therein - to me this is just as odious as the wink/nudge sexual BS prevalent in the 40s and 50s.

But I think not far under the surface many if not most of us, unconsciously if not consciously, think quite a bit on the subject of what our gender means to us, and on how we prefer to interact with family, friends, acquaintances and the world at large. Since the 60s we have all but been forbidden to even think about gender outside of the above lopsided model, and which I feel leaves many more than a little uncertain about their role in social matters.

I'll come out and say it - I think home ec classes were a cool thing and it's a shame they're no longer offered. I think they should be open to all, but don't consider it coercion or sexism to primarily advertize them as a female activity any more than I think advertizing football as a primarily male activity is sexist. That's just one example - really there is so much room for change in our culture but we're not supposed to talk plainly about it.

Probably the biggest challenge to sexual equality is actually having an honest conversation about whether gender should be addressed as a well rounded concept i.e. both sexes have various strengths and yes weaknesses, or if we want to carry on steady as she goes with the androgynous-except-that-women-rule-and-men-suck attitude that currently seems to rule our thinking.

If we decide it's to be the former, then we can grow as a culture. If not, we remain hostage to the PC stranglehold on progress with gender issues that is currently in place.

In the meantime, we compensate by overdoing it in the one area that is not totally verboten - sex appeal. People (both sexes) seem to just keep getting sluttier and sluttier, acting trashy, practically sticking their junk in eachother's faces (Janet being a posterchild) - and they're doing it younger and younger. This is what comes of trying to force a lopsided model of gender on the public - rather than turning the public androgynous it just leaves people clueless and trashy, and it's really getting out of control.

[Scott]

"This is most apparent in the strict Muslim law that does not allow women any say in life...and to a far lesser extent, the current fashion of man bashing by the feminists in the Western world."

Teresa, you said it better than me.

[goomp]

It seems that the thymos factor was weak in my outlook. As long as my family approved of me and my actions, I don't think I attached undue importance to what people in general thought. My attitude was who are they to judge. They all have their faults and weaknesses. Of course it is easier and more pleasant to be liked than disliked so one would not antagonize needlessly and avoid those who were distasteful. However, the need to be loved by others than my family was missing. Maybe that is a defensive reaction.