ed that he fails to go to the heart of the real issue, which is this declining role of Western masculinity AND the subsequent increase in societal ills, like divorce. His attempt to counter the observable trend of the declining role of masculinity in Western society by advocating that boys be encouraged to be risk-taking thrill-seekers is juvenile.

Mansfield is also painfully wrong on there being a surfeit of Muslim manly men (by his definition). He is right that there are Muslim manly men who have words like honour, respect, principled, and righteousness in their cultural lexicon. However, what he observes, but fails to understand is that they are manly men not because they are inclined to “extremist policies” but rather they are manly because they respect their women as wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Muslim men are manly because they place family and society above the self. They are manly because they detest risk, and avoid risk when they can, but they do act to decrease risk when they have to. Finally, they are manly men because they choose to be obedient to God. These attributes are not unique only to Muslims, of course. There are other Eastern cultures that place emphasis on the above manly attributes.

And when men do not fit into the above definition of manly men, then they would fit into Mansfield’s definition, which is that of the risk-taking thrill seeker without a care for security and peace. B

Men acting manly, says Harvard University professor Harvey Mansfield, are what this world needs more of. In his latest book, Manliness, Mansfield argues that men and women have been hurt by the notion of a gender-neutral society; a notion that was dreamt of by feminists. His overarching point is that men should be allowed to be men. And just what are men? He writes that men and women are innately different, and the stereotypical image we have of men has been proven by science. Men are aggressive and assertive, aren’t afraid to fight or kill, especially to protect the weak, they are determined, and they get things done. Most importantly, manly men have confidence in situations of risk. Situations of risk can be a question of impending danger, and it can also be a question where authority is contested. Manly confidence and manliness entails an ability to take charge or to be authoritative in that situation. Mansfield claims that while women also have confidence, they do not seek out situations of risk in the way manly men do, and therein lays the difference.

With this definition of manly men, Mansfield is not telling us anything new about men. His treatise on feminism and the disempowerment of manly men while intriguing is also nothing new. What Mansfield does say that is new (and controversial) is that there is a danger in the growing lack of manliness in the Western society. Boys in schools are not being taught to be men, and that is a danger for the Western political world because manly heroes are needed in the world of politics. He further states that manliness is at odds with modernity because the basic idea of modernism is the rational control of things. Mansfield says that modernism is the reduction of risk for the sake of greater security while manly men like risk, seek risk out, and they do not care for security. Manly men consider security “boring” (Harvey Mansfield Talks Manliness, Human Events: The National Conservative Weekly, Aug. 31, 2006).

He also suggests that the decline in manliness in Western political culture impairs the West’s understanding of the Middle East and the Arab world, where there is an excess of manly men abound. These manly Muslim men suffer because they lose out compared to the rest of the world, resulting in the extremist policies that Mansfield claims Muslims have enacted for over half a century. Therefore, efforts to democratize the Middle East will encounter obstacles because Islam with its consequent of manly men is contrary to democratic ideals. Not unlike what was claimed by Tocqueville.

Even the terrorists fit into Mansfield’s definition of manliness because terrorists are not afraid of death, seek out risk, and are unconcerned about the insecurity of their situation. Consequently, they are powerful manly men because they fear not what others do.

Mansfield’s argument on manly men is one that is convoluted and logically flawed. He states that manliness (by his definition) is contradictory to modernism because manly men are not about rational control. And yet, he advocates that there be more of manly men in society. That is akin to advocating that the West need to have more of uncontrolled men. The manly men that fit into his definition – i.e. manly men like risk, seek risk out, and they do not care for security – include men presently involved in the various bloody battles being waged in the world today. It would include men involved in The War on Terror, The War in Iraq, The War that was in Lebanon, The War Against Islamo-Facists and so on. There is no virtue in being one of Mansfield’s manly men – for even terrorists fit into his manly man criteria. Is that not reason enough to limit Mansfield enough of uncontrolled and irrational manly men in the world.

It is a far stretch to go from men being confident and authoritative in situations of risk to men actually seeking out and in thriving risky situations. It is almost as if Mansfield decided that his manly men should be those with the “thrill-seeker” personality type. The thrill-seeker seeks out situations of risk without a care for security, the aim being experiencing the thrill of the situation. The thrill seeker’s aim is not to reduce or eliminate risk or danger because that would mean the end of what he thrives on. When the aim is not the cessation of risk, rather to experience risk, then Mansfield’s man is not being manly. Instead, Mansfield’s man is just a thrill-seeker, an atypical type of man. Check out "Behavioral Expression and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking" by Marvin Zuckerman (Cambridge University Press, 1994) for more on this personality type. Would it be rational to have thrill-seeking men in politics?

Clearly it is not rational. Mansfield himself acknowledges that his manly men and modernism are at odds, which suggests that he is advocating the dismantling of modern society as we know it. In its place, he would have his Western manly men who are ready to do battle with the other manly (and threatening) men.

In Mansfield’s world, it is the Muslim manly men that “threaten” the Western world because the democratization attempts in the Mid-east will face obstacles. Mansfield is advocating that in order to face up to the so-called threat of Muslim manly men, the West should prepare the ground for its own manly men. This sort of thinking leads to nothing, but a repeat of humanity’s bloody history in the Crusades. Have we not learnt anything?

The issue Western society faces is not a lack of readiness to face danger, or experience risky situations (that is clearly not evident in today’s political climate). There is a real and observable decline in the role of masculinity in society. But Mansfield’s definition of manly men is so flawed that he fails to go to the heart of the real issue, which is this declining role of Western masculinity AND the subsequent increase in societal ills, like divorce. His attempt to counter the observable trend of the declining role of masculinity in Western society by advocating that boys be encouraged to be risk-taking thrill-seekers is juvenile.

Mansfield is also painfully wrong on there being a surfeit of Muslim manly men (by his definition). He is right that there are Muslim manly men who have words like honour, respect, principled, and righteousness in their cultural lexicon. However, what he observes, but fails to understand is that they are manly men not because they are inclined to “extremist policies” but rather they are manly because they respect their women as wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Muslim men are manly because they place family and society above the self. They are manly because they detest risk, and avoid risk when they can, but they do act to decrease risk when they have to. Finally, they are manly men because they choose to be obedient to God. These attributes are not unique only to Muslims, of course. There are other Eastern cultures that place emphasis on the above manly attributes.

And when men do not fit into the above definition of manly men, then they would fit into Mansfield’s definition, which is that of the risk-taking thrill seeker without a care for security and peace. Bu

en, and that is a danger for the Western political world because manly heroes are needed in the world of politics. He further states that manliness is at odds with modernity because the basic idea of modernism is the rational control of things. Mansfield says that modernism is the reduction of risk for the sake of greater security while manly men like risk, seek risk out, and they do not care for security. Manly men consider security “boring” (Harvey Mansfield Talks Manliness, Human Events: The National Conservative Weekly, Aug. 31, 2006).

He also suggests that the decline in manliness in Western political culture impairs the West’s understanding of the Middle East and the Arab world, where there is an excess of manly men abound. These manly Muslim men suffer because they lose out compared to the rest of the world, resulting in the extremist policies that Mansfield claims Muslims have enacted for over half a century. Therefore, efforts to democratize the Middle East will encounter obstacles because Islam with its consequent of manly men is contrary to democratic ideals. Not unlike what was claimed by Tocqueville.

Even the terrorists fit into Mansfield’s definition of manliness because terrorists are not afraid of death, seek out risk, and are unconcerned about the insecurity of their situation. Consequently, they are powerful manly men because they fear not what others do.

Mansfield’s argument on manly men is one that is convoluted and logically flawed. He states that manliness (by his definition) is contradictory to modernism because manly men are not about rational control. And yet, he advocates that there be more of manly men in society. That is akin to advocating that the West need to have more of uncontrolled men. The manly men that fit into his definition – i.e. manly men like risk, seek risk out, and they do not care for security – include men presently involved in the various bloody battles being waged in the world today. It would include men involved in The War on Terror, The War in Iraq, The War that was in Lebanon, The War Against Islamo-Facists and so on. There is no virtue in being one of Mansfield’s manly men – for even terrorists fit into his manly man criteria. Is that not reason enough to limit Mansfield enough of uncontrolled and irrational manly men in the world.

It is a far stretch to go from men being confident and authoritative in situations of risk to men actually seeking out and in thriving risky situations. It is almost as if Mansfield decided that his manly men should be those with the “thrill-seeker” personality type. The thrill-seeker seeks out situations of risk without a care for security, the aim being experiencing the thrill of the situation. The thrill seeker’s aim is not to reduce or eliminate risk or danger because that would mean the end of what he thrives on. When the aim is not the cessation of risk, rather to experience risk, then Mansfield’s man is not being manly. Instead, Mansfield’s man is just a thrill-seeker, an atypical type of man. Check out "Behavioral Expression and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking" by Marvin Zuckerman (Cambridge University Press, 1994) for more on this personality type. Would it be rational to have thrill-seeking men in politics?

Clearly it is not rational. Mansfield himself acknowledges that his manly men and modernism are at odds, which suggests that he is advocating the dismantling of modern society as we know it. In its place, he would have his Western manly men who are ready to do battle with the other manly (and threatening) men.

In Mansfield’s world, it is the Muslim manly men that “threaten” the Western world because the democratization attempts in the Mid-east will face obstacles. Mansfield is advocating that in order to face up to the so-called threat of Muslim manly men, the West should prepare the ground for its own manly men. This sort of thinking leads to nothing, but a repeat of humanity’s bloody history in the Crusades. Have we not learnt anything?

The issue Western society faces is not a lack of readiness to face danger, or experience risky situations (that is clearly not evident in today’s political climate). There is a real and observable decline in the role of masculinity in society. But Mansfield’s definition of manly men is so flawed that he fails to go to the heart of the real issue, which is this declining role of Western masculinity AND the subsequent increase in societal ills, like divorce. His attempt to counter the observable trend of the declining role of masculinity in Western society by advocating that boys be encouraged to be risk-taking thrill-seekers is juvenile.

Mansfield is also painfully wrong on there being a surfeit of Muslim manly men (by his definition). He is right that there are Muslim manly men who have words like honour, respect, principled, and righteousness in their cultural lexicon. However, what he observes, but fails to understand is that they are manly men not because they are inclined to “extremist policies” but rather they are manly because they respect their women as wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Muslim men are manly because they place family and society above the self. They are manly because they detest risk, and avoid risk when they can, but they do act to decrease risk when they have to. Finally, they are manly men because they choose to be obedient to God. These attributes are not unique only to Muslims, of course. There are other Eastern cultures that place emphasis on the above manly attributes.

And when men do not fit into the above definition of manly men, then they would fit into Mansfield’s definition, which is that of the risk-taking thrill seeker without a care for security and peace. B

is one that is convoluted and logically flawed. He states that manliness (by his definition) is contradictory to modernism because manly men are not about rational control. And yet, he advocates that there be more of manly men in society. That is akin to advocating that the West need to have more of uncontrolled men. The manly men that fit into his definition – i.e. manly men like risk, seek risk out, and they do not care for security – include men presently involved in the various bloody battles being waged in the world today. It would include men involved in The War on Terror, The War in Iraq, The War that was in Lebanon, The War Against Islamo-Facists and so on. There is no virtue in being one of Mansfield’s manly men – for even terrorists fit into his manly man criteria. Is that not reason enough to limit Mansfield enough of uncontrolled and irrational manly men in the world.

It is a far stretch to go from men being confident and authoritative in situations of risk to men actually seeking out and in thriving risky situations. It is almost as if Mansfield decided that his manly men should be those with the “thrill-seeker” personality type. The thrill-seeker seeks out situations of risk without a care for security, the aim being experiencing the thrill of the situation. The thrill seeker’s aim is not to reduce or eliminate risk or danger because that would mean the end of what he thrives on. When the aim is not the cessation of risk, rather to experience risk, then Mansfield’s man is not being manly. Instead, Mansfield’s man is just a thrill-seeker, an atypical type of man. Check out "Behavioral Expression and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking" by Marvin Zuckerman (Cambridge University Press, 1994) for more on this personality type. Would it be rational to have thrill-seeking men in politics?

Clearly it is not rational. Mansfield himself acknowledges that his manly men and modernism are at odds, which suggests that he is advocating the dismantling of modern society as we know it. In its place, he would have his Western manly men who are ready to do battle with the other manly (and threatening) men.

In Mansfield’s world, it is the Muslim manly men that “threaten” the Western world because the democratization attempts in the Mid-east will face obstacles. Mansfield is advocating that in order to face up to the so-called threat of Muslim manly men, the West should prepare the ground for its own manly men. This sort of thinking leads to nothing, but a repeat of humanity’s bloody history in the Crusades. Have we not learnt anything?

The issue Western society faces is not a lack of readiness to face danger, or experience risky situations (that is clearly not evident in today’s political climate). There is a real and observable decline in the role of masculinity in society. But Mansfield’s definition of manly men is so flawed that he fails to go to the heart of the real issue, which is this declining role of Western masculinity AND the subsequent increase in societal ills, like divorce. His attempt to counter the observable trend of the declining role of masculinity in Western society by advocating that boys be encouraged to be risk-taking thrill-seekers is juvenile.

Mansfield is also painfully wrong on there being a surfeit of Muslim manly men (by his definition). He is right that there are Muslim manly men who have words like honour, respect, principled, and righteousness in their cultural lexicon. However, what he observes, but fails to understand is that they are manly men not because they are inclined to “extremist policies” but rather they are manly because they respect their women as wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Muslim men are manly because they place family and society above the self. They are manly because they detest risk, and avoid risk when they can, but they do act to decrease risk when they have to. Finally, they are manly men because they choose to be obedient to God. These attributes are not unique only to Muslims, of course. There are other Eastern cultures that place emphasis on the above manly attributes.

And when men do not fit into the above definition of manly men, then they would fit into Mansfield’s definition, which is that of the risk-taking thrill seeker without a care for security and peace. B

essation of risk, rather to experience risk, then Mansfield’s man is not being manly. Instead, Mansfield’s man is just a thrill-seeker, an atypical type of man. Check out "Behavioral Expression and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking" by Marvin Zuckerman (Cambridge University Press, 1994) for more on this personality type. Would it be rational to have thrill-seeking men in politics?

Clearly it is not rational. Mansfield himself acknowledges that his manly men and modernism are at odds, which suggests that he is advocating the dismantling of modern society as we know it. In its place, he would have his Western manly men who are ready to do battle with the other manly (and threatening) men.

In Mansfield’s world, it is the Muslim manly men that “threaten” the Western world because the democratization attempts in the Mid-east will face obstacles. Mansfield is advocating that in order to face up to the so-called threat of Muslim manly men, the West should prepare the ground for its own manly men. This sort of thinking leads to nothing, but a repeat of humanity’s bloody history in the Crusades. Have we not learnt anything?

The issue Western society faces is not a lack of readiness to face danger, or experience risky situations (that is clearly not evident in today’s political climate). There is a real and observable decline in the role of masculinity in society. But Mansfield’s definition of manly men is so flawed that he fails to go to the heart of the real issue, which is this declining role of Western masculinity AND the subsequent increase in societal ills, like divorce. His attempt to counter the observable trend of the declining role of masculinity in Western society by advocating that boys be encouraged to be risk-taking thrill-seekers is juvenile.

Mansfield is also painfully wrong on there being a surfeit of Muslim manly men (by his definition). He is right that there are Muslim manly men who have words like honour, respect, principled, and righteousness in their cultural lexicon. However, what he observes, but fails to understand is that they are manly men not because they are inclined to “extremist policies” but rather they are manly because they respect their women as wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Muslim men are manly because they place family and society above the self. They are manly because they detest risk, and avoid risk when they can, but they do act to decrease risk when they have to. Finally, they are manly men because they choose to be obedient to God. These attributes are not unique only to Muslims, of course. There are other Eastern cultures that place emphasis on the above manly attributes.

And when men do not fit into the above definition of manly men, then they would fit into Mansfield’s definition, which is that of the risk-taking thrill seeker without a care for security and peace. B

ed that he fails to go to the heart of the real issue, which is this declining role of Western masculinity AND the subsequent increase in societal ills, like divorce. His attempt to counter the observable trend of the declining role of masculinity in Western society by advocating that boys be encouraged to be risk-taking thrill-seekers is juvenile.

Mansfield is also painfully wrong on there being a surfeit of Muslim manly men (by his definition). He is right that there are Muslim manly men who have words like honour, respect, principled, and righteousness in their cultural lexicon. However, what he observes, but fails to understand is that they are manly men not because they are inclined to “extremist policies” but rather they are manly because they respect their women as wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Muslim men are manly because they place family and society above the self. They are manly because they detest risk, and avoid risk when they can, but they do act to decrease risk when they have to. Finally, they are manly men because they choose to be obedient to God. These attributes are not unique only to Muslims, of course. There are other Eastern cultures that place emphasis on the above manly attributes.

And when men do not fit into the above definition of manly men, then they would fit into Mansfield’s definition, which is that of the risk-taking thrill seeker without a care for security and peace. But for humanity’s sake, let us leave such men to the fringes of society where they belong.