Thanks for this Joseph. Our society doesn't understand men and doesn't want to. I will contribute a brief definition of masculinity to the conversation.
Masculinity is a social construct used to harness testosterone so that rather than destroying society it builds it. All civilizations have been built by the power of testosterone because there simply isn't any other earthly power that can build them. But testosterone not harnessed by masculinity becomes a hugely destructive force. Traditional societies are almost entirely built around teaching young men to control this awesome power that God has given them, power that can equally well defend their family from a mountain lion or shoot up a mall. This is the power that builds and flies aircraft and builds and launches missiles. It provides the ability to see what is directly in front of you with incredible clarity and makes it hard to see anything on the periphery. There are no great human accomplishments that were not made by this power and there is no substitute to be found in the natural world. Understanding these facts is a prerequisite to any conversation about masculinity and its potential toxicity.
I really appreciate these thoughts. I particularly appreciate your take that social constructs have a positive role to play. How do you feel about the suggestion that fatherhood needs to be an anchor in conversations about masculinity?
I wanted to add that a social construct is just something that people, society, has made. It should be judged like anything else i.e. by its purpose, whether or not it accomplishes its purpose, and by what the costs are. Though the modern world has imagined several replacements for masculinity none of them are so useful as the thing that they attempt to replace.
I don't believe that masculinity fell down from heaven, it is rather something that humans have grown and made more or less in accord with nature and nature's God, though only in its very best forms, as chivalry and some patriotism, at all in accord with the higher revelation. Masculinity is a great example of 'Chesterton's fence' where we shouldn't tear down a thing until we understand its purpose. Anyone attacking masculinity should state upfront what their intended plan to channel the immense power of the human male is. We may fairly say that no merely human power can thwart the power that builds pyramids and power plants but it must be directed so as to be useful rather than destructive. This is, to me, the lesson that should be learned from this generation of fatherless men that we have brought into being. They have never learned to use their God given power usefully and so it is shot out onto the ground staring stupidly at whores. May the Lord forgive us for the time and energy that we have wasted. The lesson is presented even more starkly in those who manipulate their hormones or neurochemistry and find themselves unable to control the beasts within that they unleash, going on shooting sprees and such. Did ever a sorceror summon some wilder more uncontrollable creature than we do with our pharmakeia?
Thanks again for all of this. And I’m again compelled by your suggestion that a) we need not deify gender constructs in order to consider them useful, and b) that we should not tear it down until we have a proposed new model. I’ll ponder this some more. Peace to you.
That is a tough question. I guess I would say that fatherhood is an obvious anchor but shouldn't be the only one. Christian masculinity may fairly be said to be extinct as a cultural phenomenon. This isn't to say that there are no masculine Christians but that as something which illuminates and directs our culture or as something which we have a common understanding or common experience of it no longer exists. We are all on 'fake it 'til you make it' with bits and pieces that we have put together out of scraps of text and memories of fathers and grandfathers.
Maybe I shouldn't say extinct but disintegrated, atomised. And so we have unfortunately not received any sort of an intact or holistic masculinity, certainly not an explicitly or particularly Christian one. But on the other hand we have the opportunity to create a Christian masculinity in an environment where there is essentially no competition. And I do think that that means we look to tie masculinity explicitly to the Gospel. If we are going to go to the trouble to learn and teach manhood let's learn and teach men to be men like Christ.
I haven't read the book that you reviewed so I don't know exactly what they were thinking. Fatherhood should obviously play a huge role in any Christian masculinity, the filial relationship after all is the root of Trinitarian thought as the spousal relationship is the root of ecclesiology. But what does that mean 'on the ground'? It means that we regard ourselves not as engineers or designers but as something more like witnesses. Trying to invent masculinity as we think it ought to be is a project for the Progressives or the Utopians, it is even transhumanist though in more of a sociological way than the technological transhumanism that we run into so much these days. Rather, our task is to unearth the masculinity of Creation and Redemption, not to create our own thing but to find our family's lost inheritance. And that must be the spirit in which we pass on what we find, not as if we are doing someone a favor or giving a gift but as restoring to men what is rightfully theirs and has been deceitfully kept from them.
It isn't hard for me to talk in grandiose generalities but what is the practical part? First, we must deny that masculinity as such is toxic. Masculinity is a power that can be used well or poorly but it is a necessary power.(I already wrote about that so I won't belabor the point.) As Western masculinity is fading we see the civilization at a deep ebb.
Second, we must honor the weaker vessel. It seems to me that a lot of our problems today stem from envy. Feminism has always been the attempt to take the things that were particular to men in the pre-feminist world and secure them for women. Some of these are legitimately particular to men and some were kept from women selfishly. 19th Feminism, like 19th century Socialism, was an attempt to redress largely legitimate grievances. But both of these movements 'grew up in a bad neighborhood' and by the time they became prominent had been hijacked and redirected to hurt the people that they were intended to help. Probably by the Creator's design and certainly by millenia of practice, women excel at multi-tasking. They are extremely good at doing 10 things at once and keeping organized when a task is frequently interrupted by other tasks, such as in a domestic environment. It's a fact. It is a grievous error that caring for the home and parenting were not accorded the proper respect or compensation that they deserved.(It is worth pointing out that they receive even less respect and no compensation now.) I don't know how to fix that but as we stand at the bottom of the slippery slope(I hope it doesn't go much further down), can we at last admit that 'we did not know the things that made for our peace', that we honored trivial, even harmful, garbage like managing a company or invading a neighbor and sneered at 'training up a child in the way that he should go' so that our fall was fairly inevitable and should have been obvious from a mile away?(So much of the other 'social justice' is likewise built on envy. There will never be a world without 'privilege' and as long as the privileged misuse their privilege all of society is living on borrowed time.) The legitimate complaints of women were the chink in the armor that led to the fall of our civilization. They opened the door that let the barbarians in.
Third, men must not be slaves to epistemology. The part of a man that explains, and proves, and verifies is not the best part of a man and the men who are best at explaining and proving and verifying are not the best men. It is to obvious to need proof that a man knows much more than he can prove, but Western men are drilled from birth not to say or act on anything without sufficient grounds. I don't think that intuition is legitimately the demesne of the female, but rather, Western man has been trained to squelch his intuition. I can't claim to any great insight at seeing the result that is now obvious to everyone, Men of honor and integrity are hamstrung while women and unscrupulous men run the show. We have selected for the worst men to rise to the top and we have gotten them. The man who knows what is right is sitting at the back waiting for sufficient evidence to prove himself right while the grifter stands up and leads us all down the path to Hell unchallenged. More generally, no person should be judged by something that is less than human, as precepts and codes and systems. The 'nation of laws not of men' is less than a nation of men, simply because men are greater than laws(even divine laws). Adam was given dominion over such things, and like its exemplar the Sabbath, the Law was made for man and not man for the Law. A man given freedom to judge rightly is capable of both justice and mercy. A law judging a man can only condemn or not condemn but is unable to bring legitimate justice or mercy. The truth of this can be seen by the simple observation that no model ever completely and perfectly captures the thing modeled. A more complicated and nuanced model is expected to perform better, but never actually does. Rather, as the model approaches reality enough to be mistaken for reality the predicted results move farther from the observed results-just as an idol which is indistinguishable from a man is more deceptive than a poorly made idol. Men, and women, must have their liberty to judge and act on their judgment restored. A masculinity which only benefits men is a travesty and not worthy of the name. As I said above, a society with more institutionalized scruples only binds scrupulous men and leaves the unscrupulous free to rise to the top.
Thanks for this Joseph. Our society doesn't understand men and doesn't want to. I will contribute a brief definition of masculinity to the conversation.
Masculinity is a social construct used to harness testosterone so that rather than destroying society it builds it. All civilizations have been built by the power of testosterone because there simply isn't any other earthly power that can build them. But testosterone not harnessed by masculinity becomes a hugely destructive force. Traditional societies are almost entirely built around teaching young men to control this awesome power that God has given them, power that can equally well defend their family from a mountain lion or shoot up a mall. This is the power that builds and flies aircraft and builds and launches missiles. It provides the ability to see what is directly in front of you with incredible clarity and makes it hard to see anything on the periphery. There are no great human accomplishments that were not made by this power and there is no substitute to be found in the natural world. Understanding these facts is a prerequisite to any conversation about masculinity and its potential toxicity.
I really appreciate these thoughts. I particularly appreciate your take that social constructs have a positive role to play. How do you feel about the suggestion that fatherhood needs to be an anchor in conversations about masculinity?
I wanted to add that a social construct is just something that people, society, has made. It should be judged like anything else i.e. by its purpose, whether or not it accomplishes its purpose, and by what the costs are. Though the modern world has imagined several replacements for masculinity none of them are so useful as the thing that they attempt to replace.
I don't believe that masculinity fell down from heaven, it is rather something that humans have grown and made more or less in accord with nature and nature's God, though only in its very best forms, as chivalry and some patriotism, at all in accord with the higher revelation. Masculinity is a great example of 'Chesterton's fence' where we shouldn't tear down a thing until we understand its purpose. Anyone attacking masculinity should state upfront what their intended plan to channel the immense power of the human male is. We may fairly say that no merely human power can thwart the power that builds pyramids and power plants but it must be directed so as to be useful rather than destructive. This is, to me, the lesson that should be learned from this generation of fatherless men that we have brought into being. They have never learned to use their God given power usefully and so it is shot out onto the ground staring stupidly at whores. May the Lord forgive us for the time and energy that we have wasted. The lesson is presented even more starkly in those who manipulate their hormones or neurochemistry and find themselves unable to control the beasts within that they unleash, going on shooting sprees and such. Did ever a sorceror summon some wilder more uncontrollable creature than we do with our pharmakeia?
Thanks again for all of this. And I’m again compelled by your suggestion that a) we need not deify gender constructs in order to consider them useful, and b) that we should not tear it down until we have a proposed new model. I’ll ponder this some more. Peace to you.
That is a tough question. I guess I would say that fatherhood is an obvious anchor but shouldn't be the only one. Christian masculinity may fairly be said to be extinct as a cultural phenomenon. This isn't to say that there are no masculine Christians but that as something which illuminates and directs our culture or as something which we have a common understanding or common experience of it no longer exists. We are all on 'fake it 'til you make it' with bits and pieces that we have put together out of scraps of text and memories of fathers and grandfathers.
Maybe I shouldn't say extinct but disintegrated, atomised. And so we have unfortunately not received any sort of an intact or holistic masculinity, certainly not an explicitly or particularly Christian one. But on the other hand we have the opportunity to create a Christian masculinity in an environment where there is essentially no competition. And I do think that that means we look to tie masculinity explicitly to the Gospel. If we are going to go to the trouble to learn and teach manhood let's learn and teach men to be men like Christ.
I haven't read the book that you reviewed so I don't know exactly what they were thinking. Fatherhood should obviously play a huge role in any Christian masculinity, the filial relationship after all is the root of Trinitarian thought as the spousal relationship is the root of ecclesiology. But what does that mean 'on the ground'? It means that we regard ourselves not as engineers or designers but as something more like witnesses. Trying to invent masculinity as we think it ought to be is a project for the Progressives or the Utopians, it is even transhumanist though in more of a sociological way than the technological transhumanism that we run into so much these days. Rather, our task is to unearth the masculinity of Creation and Redemption, not to create our own thing but to find our family's lost inheritance. And that must be the spirit in which we pass on what we find, not as if we are doing someone a favor or giving a gift but as restoring to men what is rightfully theirs and has been deceitfully kept from them.
It isn't hard for me to talk in grandiose generalities but what is the practical part? First, we must deny that masculinity as such is toxic. Masculinity is a power that can be used well or poorly but it is a necessary power.(I already wrote about that so I won't belabor the point.) As Western masculinity is fading we see the civilization at a deep ebb.
Second, we must honor the weaker vessel. It seems to me that a lot of our problems today stem from envy. Feminism has always been the attempt to take the things that were particular to men in the pre-feminist world and secure them for women. Some of these are legitimately particular to men and some were kept from women selfishly. 19th Feminism, like 19th century Socialism, was an attempt to redress largely legitimate grievances. But both of these movements 'grew up in a bad neighborhood' and by the time they became prominent had been hijacked and redirected to hurt the people that they were intended to help. Probably by the Creator's design and certainly by millenia of practice, women excel at multi-tasking. They are extremely good at doing 10 things at once and keeping organized when a task is frequently interrupted by other tasks, such as in a domestic environment. It's a fact. It is a grievous error that caring for the home and parenting were not accorded the proper respect or compensation that they deserved.(It is worth pointing out that they receive even less respect and no compensation now.) I don't know how to fix that but as we stand at the bottom of the slippery slope(I hope it doesn't go much further down), can we at last admit that 'we did not know the things that made for our peace', that we honored trivial, even harmful, garbage like managing a company or invading a neighbor and sneered at 'training up a child in the way that he should go' so that our fall was fairly inevitable and should have been obvious from a mile away?(So much of the other 'social justice' is likewise built on envy. There will never be a world without 'privilege' and as long as the privileged misuse their privilege all of society is living on borrowed time.) The legitimate complaints of women were the chink in the armor that led to the fall of our civilization. They opened the door that let the barbarians in.
Third, men must not be slaves to epistemology. The part of a man that explains, and proves, and verifies is not the best part of a man and the men who are best at explaining and proving and verifying are not the best men. It is to obvious to need proof that a man knows much more than he can prove, but Western men are drilled from birth not to say or act on anything without sufficient grounds. I don't think that intuition is legitimately the demesne of the female, but rather, Western man has been trained to squelch his intuition. I can't claim to any great insight at seeing the result that is now obvious to everyone, Men of honor and integrity are hamstrung while women and unscrupulous men run the show. We have selected for the worst men to rise to the top and we have gotten them. The man who knows what is right is sitting at the back waiting for sufficient evidence to prove himself right while the grifter stands up and leads us all down the path to Hell unchallenged. More generally, no person should be judged by something that is less than human, as precepts and codes and systems. The 'nation of laws not of men' is less than a nation of men, simply because men are greater than laws(even divine laws). Adam was given dominion over such things, and like its exemplar the Sabbath, the Law was made for man and not man for the Law. A man given freedom to judge rightly is capable of both justice and mercy. A law judging a man can only condemn or not condemn but is unable to bring legitimate justice or mercy. The truth of this can be seen by the simple observation that no model ever completely and perfectly captures the thing modeled. A more complicated and nuanced model is expected to perform better, but never actually does. Rather, as the model approaches reality enough to be mistaken for reality the predicted results move farther from the observed results-just as an idol which is indistinguishable from a man is more deceptive than a poorly made idol. Men, and women, must have their liberty to judge and act on their judgment restored. A masculinity which only benefits men is a travesty and not worthy of the name. As I said above, a society with more institutionalized scruples only binds scrupulous men and leaves the unscrupulous free to rise to the top.