by Dale Fincher
Someone tell Mr. Lion that masculinity does not mean power and control.
I’ve been speaking a lot to men this last year. Ever since Jonalyn wrote Ruby Slippers, they’ve been asking for my Ruby Slippers for Men. Well, I’m not yet up to the task. But I’ve been crafting talks on the modern myths of masculinity.
I am often asked after a talk, “Are men and women the same or different?”
When you reveal false ideas in a worldview, like exposing masculine myths, the mind scrambles for coherance to patch up the missing holes. Sometimes removing one idea can topple a lot of others, like Jenga. This happens when we face our prejudices in the classroom and on the therapist couch. We forget how shocking college was when so many of our ideas were undone and replaced with better ones. This is why many students, arriving home from college to share their new wisdom, are met with resistance. The family never thought about that before and it might mean hard work of shifting how we do things.
If you believe all birds fly and someone shows you an ostrich for the first time, your first inclination will likely be to say the ostrich isn’t a bird. But that would be incorrect. And after a short explanation, you may ask, “Do you even believe in birds? Do you think they are the same as other ground creatures, like zebras?”
Shifting a worldview is painfully hard work, especially about things that matter, like God’s existence and gender identity. But if we care about truth, we have no alternative.
Manhood matters and sits in a crisis of question marks… for a few decades now. In fact, the crisis showed up when second-wave feminism emerged in the 70s with a vengeance (first-wave feminism was a hundred years prior, led by Christians). The early 90s brought the secular men’s movement followed by the Christian men’s movement which relied on the information from the secular men’s movement but baptized it with Bible verses and Christian character.
Don’t believe me? Robert Bly was a big voice in the secular men’s movement. Read Iron John. Then read the leading voice in the Christian men’s movement, John Eldridge. Read Wild at Heart. Notice how often Eldridge relies on Bly to make his case.
Men are wild and untamable. They have wounds. Part of their wounding comes from domestication from women. Boys need to separate from their mothers who emasculate them. Boys need initiation rights to be declared men and go into the woods and shoot guns and have adventures and Bar Mitzvahs and and medieval knighting and stuff.
For many, the masculine narrative has been this: “Evil feminism has feminized men and feminized the church and created a crisis… we need to take back ground and return women to their place.”
Not only is this insulting to women at its very root, but, on my view, feminism did not create a masculine crisis. It revealed it.
The power brokers of our culture, namely white men, did not ask of themselves the questions that feminists asked of women. What does it mean to be gendered and what is my place in this world and how should I use my abilities to better the world? Men had not asked themselves that question in a long time. And when it came to defining women, men usually defined them in lesser terms, those who do “women’s work” (with demeaning tone) and were concerned very little with a female point of view or the female experience in community. As far back as Aristotle, people believed women were as opposite from men as darkness is from light.
So in the modern men’s movement, men had to fumble around for a speedy definition of themselves. They looked back into history and, for the most part, baptized fallen forms of manhood. When I ask male students what it means to be a man, I get two popular answers: men urinate standing up and men do not give birth. Some will say men don’t cry, that men are leaders, that men are bread-winners, that men protect.
Women had a head start in understanding their femaleness. Women’s studies are found at every major university in the country. Men’s studies departments have recently emerged and playing catch up. We have more answers today of what it means to be a woman than what it means to be a man, because women had a head start. Just like in the times of slavery, the oppressed ask the right questions before the oppressors do. Their freedom is at stake.
Photo Credit: ageless marketing
very refreshing! i’ve been waiting for the men’s side of things to better understand my “brothers”, and other men in my life!
Thanks, Lori… one of the struggles of gender discussion is how often each gender follows their “scripts.” That is, we do what we’re supposed to do. Many men and women don’t even understand themselves, so it’s hard for them to share how others can understand them too. Much work has been done… much still to be done yet.
Thanks for this, Dale! I like how you end stating that the oppressed ask the right questions before the oppressors do. I would say that that is not just true in the time of slavery, but that it continues to happen today when sexism and racism is much more covert but still very active.
When I first entered into the conversation of power and privilege, I began to see these truths in terms of gender (I’m a woman) much more quickly than in terms of race (I’m White).
But you are totally right, because women have been marginalized/oppressed, we had asked questions and done the work to find out who we are. Because men are privileged and “the norm”, they haven’t had to ask those hard questions.
Can’t say enough how much I appreciate what you do, Dale!
Alicia, thanks. And I agree, it happens in sexism and racism today. And it happens anytime someone feels abused by a person or a system: emotionally, physically, spiritually. The abused seek after freedom from abuse, from being dehumanized. Artists understand this too. So do saints.
My desire is to see more of the power brokers speak up (white males in white communities, black males in black communities, etc). In a manner of speaking, we, men, have nothing to gain by giving up our privileged status. This is why men must take a stand in this area, because they will be better heard than women (who have everything to gain by men losing their privilege). The church can be taking that stand, even now, but much of the power brokering in the church is done by men who would rather beat up other men for not taking power than pointing out abuse in our very view of men and women (much less the abuse manifested in bad behaviors).
I think (hope) you’ll like Part 2 tomorrow.
Hey Dale,
In one sense, men are experiencing a loss by giving up their power – but I also think men have MUCH to gain by giving up their power. I think that those of us who are privileged (whether by race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc) are also kept in bondage because of our privilege. My White privilege has blinded me to so much of life.
When there are more diverse voices at the table that share power, we see God in new and enriching ways that ultimately more accurately reflects His Kingdom here on earth. When we hold onto our power we have a much more narrow view of the Kingdom.
Thanks for this.
I am sure you know that the KJV tells us that men “pisseth against a wall” which is another way of saying urinating standing up. And of course, it also tells us that women give birth and nurse a baby and a man can impregnate a woman. And some behaviors can derive from these basics.
But most behaviors are simply HUMAN behaviors, perhaps more of one gender do some activity than the other, but we can also ask what are the possible reasons for this difference.
Don, thanks. Asking for “reasons” for a text moves you into waters many are not comfortable with… They just want the words on the page, not the intentions of the words. I’m with you, though. We have to ask “Why?”
David’s idiom in 1 Sam 25 about men peeing on walls is a funny one. Of course it doesn’t mean men must always pee on walls nor that men must pee standing up. Nor that women cannot pee on walls. But it is referring to males in that verse as David condemns them.
And I also agree with you that so many commands and references in Scripture refer to both men and women, but that usually gets ignored and left out of marriage talks because people want specifics about “marriage.”. It’s a hard thing not to bring our expectations and agendas to the text!
It is refreshing to read this discourse on “roles” versus “identity in Christ”.
I do take issue with what seems to be a mis-characterization of John Eldredge’s “Wild At Heart”. I’ve found that in that book, as well as in the corresponding book “Captivating”, there is an emphasis on identity in Christ first then an exploration of what it means to be a man or a woman. Not once, in any of the studies or retreats, have I encountered a desire to put one gender above the other.
This specifically is the quote I am having trouble with:
Men are wild and untamable. They have wounds. Part of their wounding comes from domestication from women. Boys need to separate from their mothers who emasculate them. Boys need initiation rights to be declared men and go into the woods and shoot guns and have adventures and Bar Mitzvahs and and medieval knighting and stuff.
For many, the masculine narrative has been this: “Evil feminism has feminized men and feminized the church and created a crisis… we need to take back ground and return women to their place.”
Not only is this insulting to women at its very root, but, on my view, feminism did not create a masculine crisis. It revealed it.
I hope you are not referring to Eldredge’s works when you are speaking about the problem being men experiencing domestication by women. Or that Eldredge puts for a false and premature separation of young boys and their mothers. I would call that a shocking misreading of his works.
I have encountered the attitude you write about in my fundamentalist, baptist upbringing as well as in more recent books like “Why Some Men Don’t Like Church” by Coughlin.
Thanks for Part 1 and Part 2 of this post. It has been encouraging.
LB
Hey Ladybug, thanks for your comment.
My posts are not about identity in Christ (whatever that happens to mean). Rather, about a myth of manhood in the culture and the church about male superiority and our language that we want to keep even when it’s hollow in content.
Eldridge’s view of gender is the mythopoetic psychological view. Do some research in it. I don’t have Wild at Heart on me at the moment, but look at his opening chapters where he says man was created in the wild but then woman began to domesticate him in the Garden. Read his section how a woman wants to avoid guns to keep her boys safe. Read the many quotes from Robert Bly.
This is not to mention the other poor descriptions of the “essence” of male and female in Wild at Heart and Captivating. Eldridge has a lot of good things to say, but his views on gender simply started the conversation in the church. It’s a start. But a little more digging will reveal how off-kilter it is (unless you favor mythopoetic psychology) in modern research. In my travels, I meet many men and women who have felt isolated by the Eldridge view of gender. We need views that include everyone, which the Bible does.
Thanks for posting up!
p.s. Silly me, I forgot to add that Eldridge’s second point about rescuing beauties is a male superiority idea from the start (repeated in Captivating). That women need rescuing (as opposed to men) is the first bad idea. That men are the ones capable of rescuing them is the second. ~df~
Thanks for this, Dale. I remember reading with absolution fascination this part of Jonalyn’s “Ruby Slippers” talking about how people assumed women are naturally better able to be “sensitive”, and after doing a study showed that when the woman was in the position of power, the men just as quickly learned to read her cues and perceive her moods and adjust themselves. I know this isn’t exactly on the main point of what you are writing about here, but it struck a cord with me in changing my own thinking and better understanding my husband’s gentleness and sensitivity when previously I was sometimes critical of him for it. Shame on me. It’s not just the men who perpetuate the fallen models we live with, it’s also women like me who were raised in homes with domineering, chauvinistic fathers. I used to see God that way, too, but now I don’t. Thank you for the work you’re doing!!!!!
Mandy, awesome! I also found that study fascinating. Our social conditioning is amazing. And there is much about ourselves we do not know until we put ourselves in new situations.
The Bible cannot contradict real life. We must examine both and growth healthy in both in order to reconcile them.
Are you familiar with the “manosphere”?
I am now.
Does it have some bearing here?
I was just wondering what you thought, given that they are holding a conversation about how to be a man (admittedly from a mythopoetic standpoint), and they seem to be the only group that is taking seriously the idea that men need to have an identity beyond mere physiology, or not being women. And while I think that much of what they have to say, in terms of how one ought to behave, is immoral, I do think that they make some really interesting, and really valid observations of our culture.
Sort of tangentially, I am curious what you think of this article. Just some of your impressions.
Joseph, the link isn’t working. Got another?
Here is just the url.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
I might have screwed up the html on the other one, so just copy and paste, I guess.
Thanks, Joseph… I had seen that but hadn’t looked at it in depth. I just read some portions of it. It’s interesting material, though not all the links directly support his argument… for example, in the Univ Florida study about dating violence, it designated any physical action a woman had with a man, even grabbing his arm to get his attention if he’s being out of line, actions that would not be considered a threat to a woman. What is more, men should not take it as an assault against men when women learn to stand up for themselves.
And the article doesn’t cite that the World Health Organization said the number one threat to the health of women in the world at large is…. domestic violence (as cited by Jaxon Katz). And journalistic discourse and days of awareness of “Violence against women” conspicuously leaves out who is committing such violence: men.
The article’s Grounding the initial argument in chimps and “primitive humans” was weird. Anytime someone uses descriptions (like sociology and anthropology) to speak of prescriptions or universal statements, we are alerted of a bad argument.
I do think no-fault divorces are a problem in general. Not all states have them.
No doubt men have suffered reverse prejudice, just as caucasians people have suffering reverse racism. But from all I’ve seen in our culture, men are still running the show. More CEOs are men, more presidents are men, more generals are men. More women stay at home than men. In male culture in general, you are considered less “manly” if you a) are not primary bread winner or b) are a stay at home dad. The whole “alpha” and “beta” male thing in the article was also weird to me.
And in the church, where some folks are decrying that not enough men come to church, 9 out of 10 evangelical churches are run by male leadership (says Jim Henderson in his new book, the Resignation of Eve).
I’m sure, if we dig hard enough, we can find alarming statistics to justify any particular view.
But women still make less money. Women are the victims in 99.9% reported domestic violence in our country (again, Jaxon Katz), women are still majority victims in sex trafficking, porn, etc.
Overall, men in general objectify women more than women do men and have the power to enforce the stereotypes. Examples in the links said men and women suffered the same hardship historically, and men suffered more because they caught in wars. But that doesn’t reflect on how, in most of history, women were considered property of the man, women could not own property, women were traded by their fathers for dowries, etc. The list can go on and on and on. But in short, women were considered less human than men. Ancient sexuality in Greece often involved men having sex with boys because it was symbolic of having sex with an equal (learned that from a Plato scholar).
What we have not seen very often is men and women linking arms. Until we see men lifting up women, so they are not always having to fight for themselves, we won’t see a mutual respect between the sexes. It took a very tall white man in a top hat to help put an end to the injustice of extreme racism (slavery) in our country.
Men do not typically stand up for women’s equality. It’s refreshing and stands out when they do. It’s the exception rather than the rule.
Men need to encourage more men to speak up.
Just some thoughts.
Also, for the record, I am not arguing for, or against, anything. I am looking for truth. And part of doing that is examining evidence that makes me uncomfortable.
The high school football player who can’t read but who gets into college on scholarship is like the male patriarchy. Why should be bother to learn to read (or ask questions of his genderedness) if he’s sitting pretty being told how awesome he is by everyone around him? It is good that there are men seeking to answer these questions, and I hope a community of faith can understand that men will come to different points of understanding for themselves.
Neither my husband nor I can tolerate the writing of Eldrege. His suppositions do not ring true to us; which does not make us any less masculine or feminine. It means we see ourselves as beyond the knight in shining armor and the damsel in distress. It’s even kind of a joke at our house.
These are good things for men and women to be discussing. And anyone won to a new understanding will be a hard wrought victory.
Great reply, Jennifer. I’m glad you and your husband can joke about these things. Shifting a view on sex/gender is like shifting a worldview. It takes a lot of work and a genuine desire to be open to reality at all costs.