Polemic monologue. An academic/philosopher's take on the then "current" gender definitions/roles. Somewhat acerbic and occasionally brilliant observations on being manly. I read this book years ago, some of it's "flavour" has stayed with me. Not for everyone.

Somewhat difficult to parse through; Mansfield is a brilliant thinker if at times inconsistent. His insistence on the idea of 'manliness' will irk many, but his gendered readings and projections of literary and philosophical figures and ideas aim to inspire.

Mansfield approaches the topic of manliness from a perspective unique to the overall discussion, and I appreciated it. Overall, I would say that Mansfield's book is an exploration of the philosophy of manhood over time and from different cultures. He boils the ideal down to the concept of assertiveness, which I believe is an oversimplification. However, his book does an excellent job of showing what manliness meant at different times and in different cultures. He purposefully avoids engaging the metaphysical or divine purposes and thus reveals the mercurial challenge of defining something one can only observe.
In the end, the book makes some critical assertions. It asserts that manliness is a reality from which we cannot escape. It asserts that feminism is an attempt to erase manliness, or at least take its power from the hands of men. It asserts that liberal gender-neutral societies will eventually implode if they do not figure out the right outlet for manliness.
I appreciated the honesty of Mansfield, even if I didn't agree with some of his points or conclusion. As a person knee deep in a liberal, gender-neutral world, he was willing to say the quiet part out loud.

So what a guilt-inducing book. My teenage daughter saw the title, read the back cover and said, “Wait, isn’t this a humor book? I don’t get it. Is this guy serious?” Her response, of course, would be viewed as vindication by the author for how far things have gone. So too would have been my laughably unmanly decision to take off its cover when I read it at a local coffee shop so as to not draw attention to its risible title (risible in today’s world). I feel half-heartedly guilty for liking the book as much as I did because it’s wildly politically incorrect (which in my view warrants cautious praise.) But the greatest cause of my guilt is for not liking it more. Professor Mansfield’s genius and erudition are beyond dispute. The man would receive an unironic “A” even in his own graduate seminars! It’s no surprise that the book offers countless insights, especially in its respective interpretations of liberalism and the ancients.

What I found distressing about it, finally, was its departure from realism—a posture that Mansfield promotes as essential for appreciating manliness. Mansfield points out quite rightly that we human beings are wholes, and extraordinarily complex wholes. Moreover our nature (we do have one) is itself a standard that mingles with thought and human agency. The nature of our nature entails elements of freedom and ambivalence. His discussion of who we are is, to my mind, worth the price of admission; it’s fabulous. Mansfield excoriates social science and evolutionary biology for their intellectually violent reductivism. What’s lost in their respective approaches is human beings as we actually can know them. A powerful point for our consideration and an important argument for the ongoing necessity of philosophy and literature.

So it’s a little sad how reductionist Mansfield is in his approach to social science, evolutionary biology, and feminism. Time and again, I wondered how this learned man who surely knows far more than me on every point of discussion could be so badly oversimplifying (reducing) the subject and ignoring crucial counterexamples. He's smarter and better read than I, so his reductionism must be by design. I understand his book is a corrective to our thought (and also is designed itself to be boldy assertive—i.e. manly), but how effective is a corrective that devotes so much of its argument sketching a caricature? Perhaps the issue is not manliness quite as much as crotchetiness. It certainly read that way much of the time.

Mansfield also reduces the world in which we live to the world of thought, especially the thought of the greatest thinkers--and more often than not thinkers who lived well before the age of feminism. Mansfield examines who we are and how we live out our lives today not by observing our world nearly as much as taking us through an intellectual tour of great thinkers. Such an endeavor is always enjoyable and even rewarding, but I was never remotely persuaded that the feminists whom I encounter every day are somehow advancing a vulgarized and distorted version of Nietzsche’s thought, even unconsciously so, even mediated by third-rate thinkers. Nor is it true that evolution and social science can be disposed of by reducing them to their (disputable) core propositions and then cleverly revealing contradictions therein. I half-expected at some point for Mansfield to overturn leading and established theories of physics with a few clever sentences devoted to the metaphysics of Aristotle (who “never nods.”)

Mansfield rightly appeals to common sense in the book’s opening chapters, but that appeal is too brief and ultimately abandoned. The last few pages of the book return again to a view of life as we really experience it today, not life as depicted in argument by a select handful of rarified thinkers of our past. And these pages are lovely. But they are a sharp (if welcome) departure from the reductionist approach to feminism he advances throughout the rest of the book.

This book is nearly impossible to review in a short space owing to the breadth of the author’s references and the complexity of his discussion. Just read. In essence, he argues quite convincingly that we—women and men—have ventured into a miasmic fog by denying that humans have a sexed nature that is fixed and impervious to social construction. Women will be, almost all the time, women, whether they’re at home nurturing children or out on the highway construction with a jackhammer. And men will be men in the same situations. Each of us thinks, acts, and speaks in the ways that our nature guides us. The sooner we understand that (and understand how the other sex responds to the slings and arrows—and the triumphs and glories—of life), the sooner we will shore up our civilization built from the woven fabric of both sexes.

Harvey Mansfield's "Manliness" is a thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating exploration of masculinity in contemporary society. Published in 2006, the book offers a comprehensive analysis of the concept of manliness, delving into its historical foundations, philosophical underpinnings, and its implications for individuals and society. In this academic book, we will critically examine Mansfield's arguments, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his approach, and discuss the book's relevance in the broader discourse on gender and identity.


"Manliness" presents a multidimensional exploration of masculinity, addressing its cultural, social, and political dimensions. Harvey Mansfield argues that manliness is a distinct virtue that embodies certain qualities, such as courage, assertiveness, and a willingness to take risks. Drawing from classical philosophy, political theory, and literary analysis, Mansfield explores the historical and philosophical foundations of manliness, tracing its development from ancient Greece to the modern era.

The book's central argument revolves around the idea that manliness is an essential characteristic that contributes to the vitality and success of individuals and societies. Mansfield contends that manliness fosters a sense of honor, responsibility, and self-reliance, and highlights its role in promoting civic virtues and political leadership. He further asserts that manliness has been marginalized in contemporary culture, with detrimental effects on the well-being of individuals and the stability of society.

Mansfield critically examines the challenges and criticisms faced by manliness in the modern era, particularly in the context of changing gender norms and the rise of feminism. He engages with feminist critiques of traditional masculinity, offering counterarguments that emphasize the positive aspects of manliness and its compatibility with gender equality. Mansfield also explores the tensions and complexities arising from the intersection of manliness with other identities, such as race, class, and sexuality.


Mansfield's "Manliness" presents a nuanced and complex analysis of masculinity, drawing from diverse disciplines to construct a compelling argument. The book's strength lies in its interdisciplinary approach, effectively integrating historical, philosophical, and sociopolitical perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of manliness. Mansfield's engagement with classical texts and his exploration of the intellectual foundations of masculinity enrich the book's scholarly rigor and depth.

Furthermore, Mansfield's ability to navigate controversial topics, such as feminism and gender equality, with intellectual honesty and reasoned arguments is commendable. He offers a robust defense of manliness while acknowledging the need for an inclusive understanding of gender and the challenges faced by marginalized groups. This balanced approach contributes to the book's credibility and fosters constructive dialogue on the complexities of masculinity in contemporary society.

However, it is essential to critically engage with Mansfield's conceptualization of manliness. The book's focus on traditional masculine virtues and its limited exploration of alternative models of masculinity may limit its relevance in a rapidly evolving sociocultural landscape. Additionally, some readers may find Mansfield's emphasis on gender binaries and his resistance to broader conceptions of gender limiting and exclusionary.


"Manliness" by Harvey Mansfield presents a thought-provoking exploration of masculinity, drawing on historical, philosophical, and sociopolitical perspectives. The book's interdisciplinary approach, nuanced analysis, and engagement with contemporary gender discourse contribute to its scholarly value. While Mansfield's defense of manliness offers valuable insights into the role of traditional masculinity, readers should critically evaluate its limitations and consider alternative perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of gender dynamics in today's society. "Manliness" serves as an important contribution to the broader conversation on gender and identity, inviting further academic inquiry and fostering constructive dialogue.

GPT