An Adjusted Feminism

Harvey Mansfield argues insightfully here for Sarah Palin over Simone de Beauvoir--he asserts that those who affirm sexual difference also support women being able to have public careers (as evidenced by conservatives embrace of Palin), while feminists who understand women to be the same as men are not, in fact, satisfied with giving women an equal opportunity at these jobs (as evidenced by their opposition to Palin): "Doesn't this suggest that feminism is not in behalf of the women's movement--but rather to promote radical adventures above and beyond its concern for women?" He concludes with his view that some sort of feminism was necessary to women moving into the public sphere, but that Beauvoir's feminism was misguided and misguiding, with it's hidden goals that were not actually beneficial to women's entrance into the public world.

What are the sexual differences that he points to? Palin having her man ("implying that she needed him, and that any woman needs a guy of her own") and Palin's unconditional love for her children ("as opposed to the conditional love that insists on a "wanted" child"). In other words, heterosexual marriage and family.

Even Beauvoir had "her guy," like Palin does. The implications of Mansfield mentioning this are that although Beauvoir wanted to establish herself as independent, was not completely able to do so.

Of course, everything bad comes back to birth control becoming the norm (or at least women's use of birth control to permit them to become "as predatory as the most wolfish men"), although that is implicit in Mansfield's article (he mentions abortion as a backup, presumably for when birth control fails), rather than explicit.

What is the implication of this? Interestingly, he sees not Sarah Palin, but the Palins--the couple--as a model for American women. Here he points to something interesting--that one cannot think about feminism without thinking about both men and women (I'm sure the same is true about his topic, manliness). He talks about love as a way to complementarity: "The trouble with love is that it narrows your options and endangers your independence. If you loved a man, you might actually want to put up with, or even admire, his ways." It is love, then, that pulls men and women into a proper respect for and dependence on each other.

Mansfield is obviously brilliant on this question. Not only is he brilliant, but he is also delightfully witty (from a NYTimes interview from a couple of years ago):

Q: So your generally left-leaning colleagues are willing to talk to you?
A: People listen to me, but they don't pay attention to what I say. I should punch them out, but I don't.

...

Q: I am beginning to wonder if you have ever spoken to a woman. Your ideas are so Victorian.
A: I have a young wife who grew up in the feminist revolution, and even though she is not a feminist, she wants to benefit from it. I wash the dishes, and I make the bed.
Q: How young is she, exactly?
A: She's 60. I'm 73.

...

Q (-ish): Physical advantages are practically meaningless now that men are no longer hunter-gatherers.
A: I disagree with that.
Q: When was the last time you did something that required physical strength?
A: It's true that nothing in my career requires physical strength, but in my relations with women, yes.
Q: : Such as?
A: Lifting things, opening things. My wife is quite small. (the best part is: he's quite small, too!)
Q: What do you lift?
A: Furniture. Not every night, but routinely.

It seems that he is emphasizing the differences between men and women particularly in their interactions with one another (for instance, in the interview he points out that Thatcher was a manly woman, but purportedly not in interactions with her husband). This adds a whole other layer to thinking about women in the public realm v. women in the private realm.