What's behind everything that's wrong w/bushWH: manliness

[katty]

(manliness?! more bullys and cowards!)

cont'd:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001416_pf.html

Man Overboard

By Ruth Marcus
Tuesday, March 21, 2006; A17



I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.

"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.

Though manliness is "the quality mostly of one sex," Mansfield allows that women can be manly, too, though the sole example he can seem to come up with, and deploys time and again, is Margaret Thatcher. "Is it possible to teach women manliness and thus to become more assertive?" he wonders, but not really. "Or is that like teaching a cat to bark?" Me-ow!

"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.

[electropop]

1. That definition of "manliness" sound more like sociopathology.

And in that sense, the professor is right. We have a gang of wannabe men, socipathic wimps in the WH.

[Kierkegaard]

2. I guess it's easy to mistake

a potent mixture of bravado and stupidity for manliness.

[JuniperLea]

3. You nailed it

n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. Yep - more like "fake" manliness. Little boys playing at being men.

n/t

[JuniperLea]

10. I agree

Real men don't lie; real men don't have to "act"; real men don't feel the need to do any of that pompous crap W pulls.

[katty]

6. yea, like a million hollywood action heroes

[BOSSHOG]

4. In March of 2003, this country was chock full of

Manly Chickenhawks, waving their flags and acting all macho and studly as they "supported" our troops. They didn't walk softly but they mistakenly thought their sticks were big.

And oh how quickly they became flaccid when offered a ride to the Army recruiting station by a retired veteran not amused with their antics. Manly indeed.

[PATRICK]

5. Mourning the loss of Jeff Gannon?

The WH just hasn't been the same.

[katty]

8. LOL-they need a gannon rave

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. Discussed on WJ this morning...

The callers were quite entertaining! :rofl:

First segment - watch here
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

discussion thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x716142

[yurbud]

11. as asinine as saying war is about Bush avenging attack on Dad

Oil companies and defense contractors wouldn't tolerate personal agendas like that if it didn't fit their agenda.

I like to make fun of Bush for his character disorders, retardation, substance abuse, and entertaining male prostitutes, but I have no illusions that those failings are driving GOP policy.

It's about the money, and everything else is just PR to get the rubes into the tent.

[necso]

12. Nice piece.

But I think that "macho" might be a better term than manliness in the original. (Or perhaps "overcompensation" might be even a better term.)

And with all due respect for the professor, I would prefer that he did not opine on the subject of what it means to be a man, since I happen to be one...

Returning to the subject of macho (and overcompensation), my first-order definition is as follows: dominating, domineering, selfish, insensitive, insensible, pigheaded, reckless; excessively-and-openly ambitious, egotistical, competitive, aggressive, sexually-charged (obsessed, driven); lacking in compassion, perception, understanding, empathy and anything else that might be seen by some (other) fool as being a sign of weakness; other overcompensation behavior typical of men who find some inadequacy in themselves.

Given this definition as a basis, and turning to the summation of "manliness" attributed to said professor, "confidence in the face of risk", this becomes something like: "pigheaded, egotistical and down-right delusional refusal to perceive the dangers in one's reckless course -- and/or to change one's foolhardy behavior".

This seems a fair summary of the essential method of operation of the whole "manliness" camp (that is, as it pertains to risk).