I've seen some things around lately that suggest that men can't be men. I seriously mean this. Not the same mentality that "boys will be boys", but that men can't be masculine. What's even more disturbing is that men can't exhort boys to learn to become men. The expression, "Man up," is commonly used among adolescent boys to get those who aren't as physically mature or confident in their maturity to do something, whether it is stupid, dangerous, illegal, or difficult. But coming from a man - someone who has grown up and understands his role as a man - it can be either a motivating exhortation or an admonishing reprisal. The emphasis needs to be less on physicality and more on the all-encompassing masculine manliness that only men can have.
The website
Art of Manliness does a wonderful job of this. From articles on the stereotypical manly masculine manliness of manly activities such as knife throwing, butchering a rabbit, and escaping zip-ties to practical, everyone-needs-to-know-these-things articles on jumping a car and plunging a toilet to real issues that men deal with, like helping a grieving friend, a new dad's mindset, and how a boy can learn to become a gentleman.
I'll begin by explaining my beliefs about the differences between men and women as explained in the Bible. Then I'll talk about some aspects of what being a man means.
But first, I'm going to look at this concept of being a man from a slightly different viewpoint than what the gents (and ladies!) at Art of Manliness do. I'm going to begin my viewpoint with a different foundation - Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible, a very clear distinction is made between men and women. The account of Adam and Eve shows that there is a specific dynamic that God establishes within this first family. God created Adam out of the ground and gave him work to do - to tend the garden and to name all the creatures. But after giving the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." And then He goes and takes a rib from Adam to form Eve around. So, from the beginning, man is supposed to do work, and woman is supposed to help him do it.
Then, after the fall, God curses man and woman. The curse for the woman is pain in childbearing and a desire for her husband who will rule over her. And the curse for man is to work the ground for food and to toil all the days of his life. Again, man is supposed to do the work, and woman is supposed to help him and to carry children. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, considering that women have the womb designed to carry children. There is a dynamic that is supposed to be there of man working and providing for woman. (But this isn't to say that woman can't work outside the home or anything like that. I am simply saying that as husband and wife, the man should be providing for the woman and children, and the woman should be raising the children).
Fast forward 4000 years or so to Jesus, and in Mark 10, he affirms what was written in Genesis about God creating them male and female, and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife - affirming the traditional, biblical definition of marriage being one man and one woman for life. Fast forward a few years later, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, to Paul writing to the churches in Corinth and Ephesus. He makes clear to the Corinthians in chapter 11 of the first letter that, just as Christ is the head of the Church, so the husband is the head of his wife. This gets developed even further in Ephesians 5, where the comparison of Christ and the Church to husband and wife is made again. Women are indeed told to subordinate themselves to their husbands. You might think that is unfair, but the men really have the more difficult end of the bargain - shut up and die. Men are to love their wives so much that they take on all the burdens of this life, even and especially when it means the loss of life - his life, to be specific.
This is really pointing to the reality that Christ died on the cross and rose again from the dead on the third day for the justification of sinners by grace through faith.
Then there are the exhortations to fathers: do not exasperate your children, but instead bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Which, in regards to their sons, would mean to teach them this reality that men have a very important call with respect to the women in their life - to love and protect them. Not unconnected to this is the necessity of instruction in good, biblical doctrine, practical life skills, and a mentality about how to live as a man in their societal contexts.
This is where Art of Manliness comes in, at least for the 21st century boy looking to become a man, or a man who needs advice. And this is also where a different, but just as important, facet of manliness comes in - the difference between boys and men.
This distinction is almost always one of importance to males. In my personal experience, I'd have to say that much of a boy growing into a man is the process of discovering that being a man comes with more responsibility than it does privileges. It also involves the development of self-control in a wide range of emotions and actions - the kind of development that doesn't stop but must continue throughout your life.
In
this wonderful article, the Art of Manliness team examines some of what has made men men throughout time and space in different cultures. The important thing it recognizes is that gender roles are both instinctual and learned, and depends on a number of variables, the most dominant of which is the availability of resources. As resources become more available, the difference between gender roles decreases, and an emphasis on manhood also decreases.
This corresponds directly with what we've observed in the US over the past century, especially these last few years as we've slowly but surely come out of a recession - the difference between gender roles and even genders themselves have been shrunk. Because we can just go down the block, pay a few bucks, and get what we need, there has been no need for men to exhibit some of the defining characteristics of men -
providing,
procreating, and
protecting.
Without the need for men to be men, there have been fewer and fewer role models for boys to look up to to learn to become men. And so they go and do stupid, dangerous, illegal, and difficult things. And if they don't, they get called a wuss, sissy, or pussy and are told to be a man. Or when they need to express an emotion other than anger or joy, they are ridiculed and are told to be a man. I certainly have no issue with helping boys learn manhood, but it needs to come from a man (which I don't necessarily claim to be fully).
There is a need for boys to learn to be tougher. I know I needed it growing up. But it has to be a mental toughness that can acknowledge an emotion but stifle it for the time being for a purpose. It wouldn't do me or anyone else any good if I completely broke down upon hearing news that my parents had been killed in an accident and I now had responsibility for my younger siblings. It wouldn't do anyone any good if a sergeant leading a patrol shows his true fear during an ambush and runs. A physical, mental, and emotional toughness is necessary for manhood.
This does not, however, exclude showing emotion when it is necessary. I would probably let go of my grief eventually. The sergeant could break down once they are safely back from their patrol. But then I'd get up and go on. The sergeant would have to go on another patrol. Men need to be tough to fulfill their roles as provider, procreator, and protector. So telling a boy to toughen up and be a man is good for him and should be done...by a man.
Now, someone is probably going to read this last part and angrily comment something about how your biological sex does't define your gender or your sexual orientation. I necessarily contest that (see above argument from biblical texts). But there are reasons why I disagree with that worldview other than the clear word of the Bible. There is a growing body of research that males are anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically different from females. That first article from AoM does are marvelous job of analyzing some of the anthropological and historical reasons that men have always had to be different from women up to the present age.
But not only that, it just doesn't make any sense when we would not allow underage children to make any kind of life-altering decision except for changing a major way a person is identified. Your child could want a tattoo, and you can tell him no to prevent him from making a decision he will regret later, like getting a Pokemon or superhero tattoo that makes him look rather puerile in five years. Likewise, your son could tell you that he wants to be a girl now. The course of action that is becoming mainstream is to let him and support him doing it. I see these as really the same thing: he wants to make a decision that changes his life. Are young children mentally capable of making such decisions? Are they not easily persuaded and prone to make poor choices? When they turn 18, they can go and do as they wish: get a tattoo or change their lifestyle to live as the opposite gender. They are still prone to make really poor choices, but now the parents don't necessarily have any say in it.
I guess that my biggest objection to letting the lines between men and women blur is the locker room, especially in middle and high schools. A young boy may decide to live like a girl and he may not have any problems in elementary school, but then puberty and middle school PE happens. Some pretty serious differences are going to start to arise, especially when they have to change clothes. What happens when that pubescent boy masquerading as a girl gets an erection in the locker room? How does the school explain why there is a sexually aroused male in the girl's locker room when a girl complains to her parents? There are so many ways this could go wrong. It would also only get worse in high school.
So there it is. I know I'm probably going to get some serious flak for this, but it is important. The distinction between the abusive tendencies of adolescent boys when they use expressions like "Man up!" and the way a man exhorts a boy to be a man is one that cannot be overlooked. The distinctions between manhood and boyhood and manhood and womanhood are to important to be blurred. I in know way support bullying or discrimination on the basis of gender or sex, which is why I wrote this. In reality, telling men that they can't be men or help boys become men is bullying men. Men are men. Let them be men.
