ARS on Twitter
RSS
Manliness?? Whats wrong with it?
Posted by Raven on March 31st, 2006
While I was visiting Michael’s house yesterday I read his take on some article he found in the WaPo…some bimbobytch wrote about the Bush Whitehouse and…manliness. I got to thinking about it and it’s a bunch of bulloney.
I have a new theory about what’s behind everything that’s wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.
What’s wrong with manliness?? This lady has issues. She needs a man in her life LOL.
“Manliness” is the unapologetic title of a new book by Harvey C. Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, which makes him a species as rare as a dissenting voice in the Bush White House. Mansfield’s thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as “confidence in the face of risk,” is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.
Manliness, he writes, “seeks and welcomes drama and prefers times of war, conflict, and risk.” It entails assertiveness, even stubbornness, and craves power and action. It explains why men, naturally inclined to assert that “our policy, our party, our regime is superior,” dominate in the political sphere.
I’ve ordered the book already. Sounds like a good read to me.
“The problem of manliness is not that it does not exist,” Mansfield concludes. “It does exist, but it is unemployed.” Well, um, excuse me, but I think – it’s just my opinion, now, maybe you disagree, and I’m sure we could work it out — Mansfield has it exactly backward. Manliness does exist. The problem is that it’s overemployed — nowhere more than in this administration.
Oh come on cow. I mean lady. Get a grip on yourself. (if you know how that is…lol) Is there some problem with men being…MEN?? What do you want- a bunch of Bill Clinton like (non)men- feminist males? You know the type…He who says “I feel your pain” with big fat fake tears in his eyes??
Think about it this way: Is a trait exemplified by reluctance to ask directions — “for it is out of manliness that men do not like to ask for directions when lost,” Mansfield writes — really what you want in a government deciding whether to take a country to war?
Umm cowbytch, have you read any of the books about President Bush and this war?? He did ask a lot of questions. More than I would have asked. He asked for direction and got it. Face the fact- you just don’t like the war. Admit it instead of being a dumb ass.
The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield’s vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too.) Bill Clinton’s would-be successor, Al Gore, was mocked for enlisting Naomi Wolf to help him emerge as an alpha male; after that, French-speaking John Kerry had to give up windsurfing and don hunting gear to prove he was a real man. And Bush’s father, of course, had to battle the Wimp Factor. Mansfield recalls Thatcher’s manly admonition to 41 on the eve of the Persian Gulf War: “Don’t go wobbly on me, George.”
Don’t even compare, humorously or otherwise, Bush to Clinton and Gore or Jean Francois Kerrie- they who are not real men at all but are real wimps in every sense of the word.
But the manliness of the Bush White House has a darker side that has proved more curse than advantage. The prime example is the war in Iraq: the administration’s assertion of the right to engage in preemptive and unilateral war; the resolute avoidance of debate about the “slam-dunk” intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; the determined lack of introspection or self-doubt about the course of the war; and the swaggering dismissal of dissenting views as the carping of those not on the team.
We’ve been attacked you moron. We are at war. Take your hormonal rages and go talk with Billy Bop or his tramp hop Shillary about this. The Whitehouse doesn’t have time for your sulking, whining estrogen-enhanced rants.
Mansfield writes that he wants to “convince skeptical readers — above all, educated women” — that “irrational manliness deserves to be endorsed by reason.” Sorry, professor: You lose. What this country could use is a little less manliness — and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.
These womanly feelings you speak of- were the very traits Bill Clinton had (yes I consider him to be very feminine and not at all a real MAN). These qualities, restraint, introspection, consensus wishy-washy BS, self doubt- all led many in this world to believe America was weak and vulnerable. It is the very LAST thing we need now.
We need real men to run the show- I don’t know how others feel but I sure of one thing: The US is far better off having Bush as President on 9-11 vs. having Gore.
I agree with Michael’s assessment of this womUm cow:
Now is this just another feminist whining bitch? I think so!
LOL. And here’s another review of the book.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:47 am
You gotta be shitting me. You guys make this too easy.
Bill Clinton is more manly than Bush on every level. Bush doesen’t drink, I don’t think he screws, and he doesen’t eat anything bad and excersizes constantly.
Clinton on the other hand was banging interns while eating a cheeseburger and smoking a stogie. The manliest thing Bush does is clear Brush.
I’d much rather get a BJ than clear out some stupid weeds on some lame ranch. Sounds a little brokeback mountain to me…
April 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pm
CLINTON?? Manly? Gag me to death. Talk about turning me right the hell off.
Give me a break Timmah. Bill Clinton is about as much a man as I am. He’s a wuss and a wimp; sure- he got a BJ but that wasn’t a very exciting woman who did that to him- it’s the best he can do? Bush on the other hand keeps these things private and doesn’t need to go outside his marriage. He clears brush in more ways than you would ever even know about.
Cowboys are real men, unlike how they are portrayed in that freaky movie you refer too. Cowboys aren’t afraid of much.
Give me a cowboy anyday over a famous (non) man like Clinton.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:22 am
Men. Do the right thing, have integrity, are the heads of their housholds, are strong in more ways than one and love only women.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/100-men.html
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Its said that men will never ask for directions. There is a lot of truth in this. They do tend – though variation is too great to make any conclusions about individuals – to be arrogant and unwilling to admit their mistakes and weaknesses. To admit mistake is to admit imperfection.
We could use more women in politics. At the top of politics too, not just local. I wouldn’t want almost-exclusivly women any more than almost-exclusively men, but the ratio currently is clearly off.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Of course more women should be in politics, but not because they are…WOMEN. That is sexist.
Women do offer a perspective men cannot, but it is often riddled with emotional BS vs. clear thinking. (I’m a woman and I know this)
If women can put aside their stoopid feminist ideals as well they would be far more respected.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Raven, Thanks for your honest and insiteful comment! Not many women have the courage to say that for fear of retribution from their peers. I would not rule out any person from a job or office if they could perform it. There are some jobs that do fit more with one gender than another. Women do have more cones than rods in their corneas and thus can discriminate colors more accurately. Men, however, having more rods, can see better in dim light. Some jobs and positions require quick, clear thinking, some have the luxury of time. I’ll visit again.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Dispite what the post suggests, I am no man-hating feminist :)
My point is that politics is traditionally a male-dominated field. Can you imagine if a women were to run for president? All other issues would be ignored, crushed under the sheer headline-grabbing value of such a novelty. Idealy, gender wouldn’t matter, and candidates would be judged purely on ability. If that were the case, there would be roughly equal numbers of men and women at all political levels. But this isn’t ideal – its a popularity contest.
April 4th, 2006 at 10:33 am
I still think giving women the right to vote was a mistake…too emotional.