December 11, 2005

since we've mentioned Harvey Mansfield...

I am in his government tutorial, required for all Harvard sophomores studying government. He translated Alexis deTocqueville's Democracy in America, which reads:

One can easily conceive that in striving to equalize one sex with the other, one degrades them both; and that from this coarse mixture of nature's works, only weak men and disreputable women can ever emerge. (574)
I have a few comments, and feel free to add yours:
1. What the F&#*!?!?!
2. All that he is saying is that traits acceptable in men would destroy the reputation of a woman, and that traits acceptable in women would destroy the strength of a man. This is not an argument! This is just accepting all stereotypes and being totally sexist!! (obviously, but I guess I haven't seen it so blatant in my college readings before)
3. How can he even talk about equality of the sexes when he sees this many fundamental differences in them, and is totally conforming to stereotypes?

17 comments:

icarus said...

i fucked harvey in the butt. it was fun. i think he understands feminism better now.

wannatakethisoutside said...

Clearly, the goal of all progressive work is to equalize one person for another. We all want to become cogs in a machine and be completely interchangeable. I just hate it when we say feminists are about wanting to make women and men the same.

I mean, valuing people equally and making them the same is different.

It's weird knowing that some people can study gender for so long and still see women as people who would become "disreputable" by doing things men are allowed to do. I mean, how can you not see this as gender oppression, when people can't express themselves because of these constraining labels.

The Mirrorball Man said...

Also recognize Harvey's general philosophy on the issue. He recently wrote a book on Manliness (forthcoming). And as you might already know, he feels science has proven that men and women are innately different. Men are more aggressive, assertive, driven (a.k.a. Manly) than women. But with manliness often comes dishonestly, cheating, etc. which are only countered by the "sensitive man" and "gentlemanliness".

So yeah, if that's your framework for the world, then of course women will bring men down from manly strength and men will bring women up into dishonesty and disrepute. Women must maintain their sexiness.

As he says concerning the feminist movement: "Gone, or at least forgotten, are the feminine qualities of loyalty, tenderness, loving, mothering, and sexiness - all of which presuppose a certain withdrawal from petty career ambition." As if women are supposed to be loyal, tender, and loving to a man (a.k.a. his subordinate). As if mothering is her only calling in life. And she must fulfill man's need for a sexy wife.

But WORK?! God forbid! How dare they worry about petty career ambition, which he conveniently writes earlier in the peace as being the main problem with the Hippies (he blames them for not understanding the important value of work, thus making him a bonafide hypocrite).

Yeah, from this lens, Harvey is CRAZY.

James Chang said...

For some reason I just couldn't take you guys seriously. Come on, Professor Mansfield is (oh I'm sorry, it should be "was") a nuanced guy. Well that's an understatement. Have you read any of his scholarly work anyways? The depth of his thought is far beyond any college sophomore. So why don't you first humble yourself a bit, go to Barnes and Noble, pick up one of his books, read it, and then come back and we can then talk.

The post by icarus is particularly pathetically vulgar. If this is how Harvard students' brains function, I would rather leave this place.

icarus said...

guys, i wrote something vulgar.
that's really not very ladylike at all, is it?

and apparently, we are all (even the 30 year olds) college sophomores. refreshing, eh?

i'll leave the flame war/troll baiting to em0, as i trust her skillz.

icarus said...

and speaking of vulgar, i would like to direct our attentions to my recent post about republican porn. maybe Harvey could get in on the trend.

if that's how the Right Wing's brains function, i would rather they leave our government alone.

wannatakethisoutside said...

Wait, butfucking is vulgar?

Where was I when that was decided? I think it's decidedly sweet and friendly.

I'm sorry that you would like to leave Harvard because of us. Professor Mansfield sometimes makes me want to leave Harvard.

Also, if you are implying that quench is not particularly well-read on issues of gender and sexuality, I think you must be making some strange assumptions. My guess is that this is a pretty well-read bunch of people on that topic.

(for the record, I also disagree with much of what Mansfield says about race both explicitly and implicitly.)

James Chang said...

Herein lies the hypocrisy of you guys. I don't care if icarus is a woman or a man, all I care is she obviously falsely claimed that she fucked Professor Mansfield in his asshole, claiming that it's sweet and harmless.

Here's the hypocritical part. What if I claim that icarus ought to be -beep- in her -beep-. Obviously all of you would jump on me, telling me what a terrible person I am. A few of you probably would report this to the office of student conduct or the Cambridge police.

If icarus truly believe that "buttfucking" someone is a sweet expression, I am sure she will not be offended by anyone who employs the same expression with respect to her private life.

And who care if you're lady-like icarus. In my first post I was claiming that not only had your failure to act in ways becoming of scholars rendered yourself impossible to be taken seriously, but also that through your refusal to recognize the dignity of Prof. Mansfield as a human individual you have forfeited your own humanity.

I am not going to get bogged down by any Kantian discussion at this point, but I do confess that your lack of respect for Prof. Mansfield and anyone who holds beliefs different from your own disgusts me. Now who's intolerant?

You know, this is it. Prof. Mansfield made one point that you disagree and you threaten to rape him in his butt. How very civilized and tolerant. What if you guys were able to establish a Progressive Dictatorship one day? Aren't you gonna send dissidents like Mansfield and I to the scaffold? Isn't that precisely what Progressives and "modern liberals" are good at? Sending people to scaffolds and gulags? And character-assassinate them if it's just not quite possible to fuck them in their butt literally?

emily0 said...

um establish a "Progressive Dictatorship" (sic)? HA HA HA!

OMG we are unhappy with people who say we should stand barefoot in the kitchen dropping babies!

OMG he works his whole life on denigrating women and minorities as human beings and we're the ones denigrating his humanity!

quick, it's the next "war on christmas"! call faux news!

fucking law students.

James Chang said...

Nice. You guys are so tolerant that you won't persecute people who hold viewpoints different from your own. How wonderful. It fills my heart with warmth.

Now why don't you look at how the Office of Student Conduct throughout the nation persecute college kids for PC reasons? Eh? Why don't you go read for yourself speech codes places like Stanford and Penn enacted years ago? Why don't you tell me why Eden Jacobowitz, a college freshman, had to suffer the ordeal of being harassed by the jelly-spined college authorities in the now infamous "Water Buffalo" case?

So now what do you say? I'll tell you this much. Speech codes, regulations, complex litigation, punitive damages, pseudo-"civil rights" laws, takings, 1st Amendment infringements, religious persecutions. These are precisely the things you like and Professor Mansfield hates.

Back to your fallacious logic. So just because someone says something wrong (for the sake of argument let's just suppose that Mansfield is indeed a fucking sexist). Does this give you the license to rape him in his butt? If he's wrong. Say it. You don't have to denigrate his humanity. Even the war criminals in WW2 deserved due process and a fair trial. But then according to your logic the Jews and the Gypsies should be entitled to lynch Hermann Goering and Co.

Prof Mansfield deserves respect for the simple fact that he is a human individual. Period. This dignity of his is not conditioned on any outward circumstance.

So insulting him is per se wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

This is precisely where "modern liberals" err. You refuse to respect the human individual as individual. You think you know better than everyone else and are thus entitled to overrule everyone else. And you treat people according to how their ideologies appeal to you.

Now if this ain't People's Democratic Dictatorship, what is? We've seen it in Russia 80 years ago.

emily0 said...

Once you mention Nazis, the conversation has Officially Ended.

Don't you know the basic rules of discussion?

gromphus said...

For the clarification of those bystanders who haven't experienced the delight of icarus's company, it is most unreasonable to assume that icarus has ever believed in non-consentual or even non-intensely-pleasurable buttfucking. A reasonable interpretation of icarus's statement might be that exceptionally good and intimate sex (such as buttfucking well done) might have the power to transform even a Mansfield into a humanist.

James Chang said...

My friend posted a reply on my own blog questioning my rather intense loathing for you guys.

I think the reason why I found all of you quite despicable is because you tend to impose your viewpoints on other people in your attempts to enforce the orthodoxy of political correctness.

By thus failing to recognize the autonomy of your fellow human beings you forfeit your own humanity. As such you also become enemies of humanity.

P.S. Grompus, or whatever you call yourself--in my opinion you have been very disingenious in your last comment. I feel sorry for you. You probably won't feel sorry for yourself, since you couldn't even distinguish your right hand from your left. I have met Mansfield in person and he seemed to have at least better taste in the beautiful and the sublime than you, who do seem to have a taste in the crude and the base.

wannatakethisoutside said...

1. I don't know why you think we haven't met mansfield in person. If you read the zine which this website is all about, you would know tha tis not true.

2. On this same page, you say that we are the PC police, trying to enforce speech codes and that we are vulgar for talking about sex.

Maybe you're used to critisizing what you see as the left for being too PC but it's hard for me to imagine anything about quench as being the PC police.

prince eric said...

I believe that some confusion may have arisen from gromphus’s expression that we might, by whatever means, convert Mansfield into a “humanist.” I would actually suspect that those of us at quench would prefer to see him as a feminist—not even in the political sense, necessarily, but rather in the theoretically-informed, post-structuralist sense. I would suggest that Mansfield, in fact, already is a humanist—and therefore encumbered with all the phallocentric, logocentric, and essentialist metaphysical trappings that old-fashioned humanism entails. I am referring to the humanism that declared, back in the Renaissance (the Renaissance!) that “Man is the measure of all things,” and meant just that. “Man.” Not people. Capitalized, normativized, patriarchal “Man.”

(“the beautiful and the sublime”—a lot has happened in critical theory since Coleridge, Jorms Chorng, or whatever you call yourself.)

gromphus said...

sorry, prince eric, yeah. didn't mean that kind of humanism.

icarus said...

yo.

Hitler Rule.

see above.

< / buttfucking thread >