1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Saturday, March 25, 2006

    Manly Men and Women: I haven't read the Manliness book by Harvey Mansfield, but the reviews have ranged from funny to adoring. I bought this month's Oprah, but I'm still not certain what Mansfield means by "manliness." He says in the interview that manliness is the willingness to take risks, which I suppose it is to some extent. But it's much more than that. His American Enterprise essay is more revealing:

     
    Manliness can be heroic. But it can also be vainly boastful, prone to meaningless scuffling, and unfriendly. It jeers at those who do not seem to measure up, and asks men to continually prove themselves. It defines turf and fights for it--sometimes to defend precious rights, sometimes for no good reason. Manliness has always been under a cloud of doubt--raised by men who may not have the time or taste for it.

    Boastful, scuffling, unfriendly, jeering, turf fights - these are not the sole province of manliness, or men. Spend an afternoon in the company of women and you will see the feminine face of these characteristics. They are often lumped into one term - "bitchiness."

    Later in the essay, he gets more to the point. It is, in a way, an answer to the Maureen Dowds of the world who bemoan the dearth of men worthy of them:
     
     
    Of course, women are still women. While they want men to be sensitive to women, they don't necessarily want them to be sensitive in general. That's why the traditional manly male--who is protective of women, but a sorry flop when it comes to sensitivity--is far from a disappearing species.
     
    Manliness offers gallantry to women. But is gallantry fundamentally insincere because it always contains an element of disdain? The man who opens a door for a woman makes a show of being stronger than she, one could say. At the same time, the woman does go first. Manly men are romantic about women; unmanly men are sympathetic. Which is better for women?
     
    The "sensitive male" who mimics many female emotions and interests, while discarding the small favors men have traditionally done for women, is mostly just a creation of contemporary feminists who are irritated with the ways of men, no longer tolerant of their foibles, and demanding new behavior that would pave the way for ambitious women. Feminists insist that men must work harder to appreciate women. Yet they never ask women to be more understanding of men.


    There is something unmanly about those "sensitive" men as defined by Mansfield. But the reason they seem unmanly isn't that they've adopted female emotions and interests. It's that they so often come across as being "pseudo-sensitive" - adopting those emotions and interests because they think it's what others want or expect of them. Because it's the fashionable thing to do.

    Consider a tale of two men. One man is in a traditional marriage. he works full time while his wife stays home with the children. On his lunch hour he does the grocery shopping at the behest of his wife. At the stroke of 5PM, he drops everything and heads home. If he doesn't, he can expect a call from his wife reminding him that it's time to come home, regardless of how much work there may remain to be done. He does the dishes every night on his own, not because he thinks he should, but because his wife demands it. He bathes the children and generally takes over their management so his wife can have a respite. If he doesn't, he runs the risk of being accused of not caring enough. Of being a bad husband. He's constantly working hard to prove his worth to his family.

    The other man works from home while his wife spends her days in an office. He cares for the children, makes dinner, and generally keeps the family functioning smoothly. He does this because he wants to, not because it's expected of him. He gets flak from time to time from other men for his non-traditional role, but he's able to ignore it. He takes care of his children not because his wife expects it, but because he's their father and that's what fathers do. He makes dinner every night not because someone nags him to do it, or expects him to do it, but because his family depends on him to do it. He does it because it's the right thing to do. He's confident of his worth to his family.

    Which is the manlier man?
     
    That's why Mansfield veers off base when he tries to credit manliness to biology, but then steers back to the true essence:
     
    Do men and women have different natures that justify different social roles? Or are these natures just "socially constructed"? If women can conclude that their roles have been designed artificially by society, then they are free to remake themselves without constraint. But the latest science suggests that being a man or a woman is much more than having certain bodily equipment.... Perhaps men and women are characterized more by how they think than by their sexual organs.
     
    While maleness is partly just a fact of biology, in humans it is linked to thinking and reason in ways that make manliness something much more than mere aggression. In humans, masculinity is more than just defense of one's own; it has been extended to require noble sacrifice for a cause beyond oneself.


    If noble sacrifice for a cause beyond oneself is the definition of manliness, then manliness is a quality that not only transcends traditional gender roles, but transcends sex and biology as well. We should want our daughters to aspire to manliness as well as our sons. What a wonderful world it would be if we could all achieve Kipling's manliness.
     

    posted by Sydney on 3/25/2006 11:15:00 PM 3 comments

    3 Comments:

    Maybe we should just stop worrying about being manly or feminine and concentrate on being PEOPLE.. We in this day and age, we still our stuck on defining our actions and emotions by the type of sexual organs we may or may not possess is beyond me.. I have raised 5 children, with the help of a husband who stayed at home due to disability, and have some of both gender. They are each unique individuals. I didnt try to even begin to raise them within the boundries of their "sex". I let them be who they were.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:53 AM  

    You gave me an interesting idea. Thx.

    Steve @
    ProBuilder

    By Anonymous ProBuilder, at 5:39 PM  

    CALLING ALL MOMS! IS YOUR HOUSE RUN BY TESTOSTERONE? DOES YOUR HUSBAND WEAR THE PANTS OR DO YOUR SONS FORGET YOUR A WOMAN? ALSO, DO YOUR CHILDREN TAKE PART IN CONTACT SPORTS?

    IF SO, ABC AND WIFE SWAP WANT YOUR FAMILY FOR IT'S NEW SEASON, CASTING NOW.

    Applicants must be two-parents households with at least one child between
    the ages of 5 and 20. "Wife Swap" is the series where two moms switch houses
    for six days and live in the shoes of the other woman. A great experience
    for any open-minded mom!

    Families selected to appear on the show receive $20,000 from ABC Television.
    Any person who refers a featured family receives a $1,000 referral award.

    Since we have your attention...Don't forget to tell your friends about this
    opportunity.

    Please e-mail me photos and a description of your family.
    dominique.bouchard@rdfusa.com

    By Blogger dbouchard, at 5:36 PM  

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006