Sticking It to the Men

“But you are the man,” responds the bewildered dweeb assistant to the debonair CEO after the boss boasts he is “sticking it to the man.” It is only a popular TV ad but the boss is hardly the only one today sticking it to the man and jabbing himself instead.

One shrinks from even repeating today’s headlines although this appeared in the prestigious Washington Post, in its “Science and Health” section. “Oral Sex Prevalent Among Teens: Majority of Those 15-19 Engage in Practice, U.S. Study Finds.” The conclusion of the National Center for Health Statistics study: “Slightly more than half of American teenagers ages 15-19 have engaged in oral sex, with females and males reporting similar levels of experience.” By age 18, 70 percent were engaged in such acts.

To quote another classic ad, “You’ve come a long way baby.” Yet, the reaction even in this very progressive newspaper was not to rejoice over the new sexual freedom. University of California San Francisco pediatrics professor, Claire Brindis, saw some advantage in that this was better than intercourse, although there were “risks” with oral sex too, she averred. She apparently was unaware that the same U.S. Center had reported earlier that girls also had higher rates of intercourse and one night stands than boys.

Professor Brindis did note that “oral sex is far less intimate than intercourse. It is a different kind of relationship,” but omitted saying directly that studies show almost all women desire more intimate relationships. The chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Joe McIllhaney, was more direct. “I question how much girls enjoy oral sex. I’d like to know a whole lot more about the pressure boys put on girls.”

Feminists have increasingly been sticking it to men at least since Simone de Beauvior’s The Second Sex in 1949. But who has been hit, considering high divorce rates and subsequent lower income, abuse in unmarried relationships, increased sexual disease, and fewer second marriages? With the politically incorrect title of “Manliness,” Harvard University government professor Harvey C. Mansfield’s new book notes the uncomfortable fact that after 60 years of women moving into the workplace at rates similar to men’s, little has changed. In the other half of life, women do two-thirds of the work at home and men one-third, with no change between 1955 and 2002. Worse, men still bring in two-thirds of the family income and hold most top jobs and public offices.

While one can still fault sexism, why is the male variety successful in the face of laws against it and women still the victims with government support? Women find certain occupations “unwelcoming” but why do men not expect open arms at work, although many do seem to avoid occupations dominated by women? Today, women even obtain more formal education than men and have doubled their rates in high status/income fields like law and medicine. Yet, women still only represent one-third in these professions, and work many fewer hours, receiving less pay. Mansfield explains that manliness is the answer. There are manly women, and he cites Margaret Thatcher as an example, but she is the exception that proves the rule. Women did win liberation with no open opposition other than from conservative women led by Phyllis Schlafly (another exception). Men seem to have approved of the sexual revolution, including the extra income and the increased sexual freedom for themselves. Certainly, there are few complaints about the service from the teen-aged boys.

While no man will claim publicly to be manly these days, they will say privately to the boys that they distain women’s work and women’s ways and they generally are more aggressive and assertive than most women. Men’s greater muscle, size and agility are still admired and represent important sources of greater male achievement. Women have greater dexterity, delicacy and endurance, requiring them to be indirect, persuasive and contextual, which allow them to be successful too, only generally somewhat less so than men outside the home. Mansfield finds manly assertion the characteristic attribute of manliness, the source of their demand to be taken seriously and the engine for their preeminence in business, science, philosophy, education, the arts and economic life generally. The best asserters succeed and look down on the others, including less assertive males. Manliness’ less attractive consequence is its boastfulness and blundering into situations men cannot control, and much greater use of violence.

Mansfield finds all of the major sexual stereotypes confirmed by science with men generally on top, for good or ill. After a revival of manliness in the late 19th century under Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, William James and other progressives, the more radical Frederick Nietzsche—inspired by Charles Darwin’s evolution undermining any certainties in nature—directly declared all non-manly values and all gods dead. Manliness became unrestrained by any outside forces or ideals. Decent progressives did not abuse the license available to them but they could not say why not. But nihilist aggressors in two hot and one cold war were not reluctant to draw the consequences, including murdering millions of their own peoples. Beauvoir adapted Nietzsche’s nihilism to the second sex, specifically rejecting early feminists Mary Wollstonecraft and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s acceptance of a distinct female role. Sexual warfare evolved so that women too could transcend all natural limits, including marriage and children.

With sex, however, once one transcends all limits, there are no women left, only human beings. Yet, many women, including rather radical ones, refuse to drop a sexual identity. But one cannot both have a sexual identity and argue there is no sexual difference. Mansfield says there are two alternatives. “Liberalism” unifies male and female under the idea of individual human rights that are equally available to all. All, including men and women, are free to choose a role or not as one wishes. The other solution is to reclaim the classical ideal of nature and virtue, which is the perfection of human nature. What is natural, however, is not obvious and must be determined by reason. Reason recognizes the need for courage to defend society and, thus, the need for manliness but also for femininity to control it. The philosopher reasons there are essential sex roles but without narrowly restricting them. Since reason is both manly assertion and essential to control manliness’ excesses, the philosopher is the most manly man.

Given Mansfield’s tutelage under the great philosopher Leo Strauss, one is prepared for a classical resolution of manliness guided by his immortal Plato. Surprise, this Straussian turns against Straussianism and chooses “liberalism,” or more precisely Alexis de Tocqueville and classical liberalism, or what Americans call conservatism. Plato, he says, only comes to “rival” solutions in The Republic and the Statesman. He does claim that the “conservative” solution is to force the traditional roles but every real conservative would come to his conclusion: neutral employment rules to keep the government out of the business of defining sex roles in the workplace, and allowing and even encouraging traditional sex roles in family and social life, and not being surprised if men do better at work considering its greater importance for them. While himself offering a dual solution, Mansfield continues the Straussian misinterpretation of America’s preeminent philosopher, John Locke, whose synthesis of reason and revelation actually supplies the philosophical underpinnings justifying public liberty based upon private virtue rooted in a created nature. Still, by promoting de Tocqueville as the solution, Mansfield has softly conceded the matter.

But forget the academic gobblygook in the background and rejoice in the result. Not only has one very manly man rescued natural manliness from modern nihilism, feminist and otherwise, he has backhandedly revitalized the Lockean liberal-conservative message in a most engaging and clever way. Never has the Straussian noble lie been better utilized against its own orthodoxy. Mansfield has prepared the way for both sexes to stop sticking it to each and start living together in a more vibrant social life of both virtue and liberty. And that deserves a manly cheer.

Donald Devine is the editor of Conservative Battleline Online and a professor of political science at Bellevue University.

Back to front page

Email the Editor