These 4 theses on masculinity are sure to provoke people one way or the other. These thoughts were prompted by the APA report on masculinity, discussions of toxic masculinity, my church having a panel on masculinity last week (which was amazing), 15 years of raising 2 boys, etc.
Just trying get my thoughts out (see my newsletter for other links). I’d love to hear yours thoughts.
(Resources at the bottom)
Outline: (but be sure to read the explanations)
1) Natural – Men are physio-biologically and neuro-psychologically different from women.
2) Cultural – The Industrial Revolution, and then the Sexual Revolution, transformed the relationship of men and women setting up opportunity for “toxic” masculinity to grow.
3) Theological – Men, and therefore, masculinity at large, are fallen creations, enslaved to sin individually and captured by sin collectively.
4) Redemptive – In a fallen world facing tremendous cultural change, the only true guide for men is to learn their masculinity from Jesus.
The Four Theses:
1) Natural – Men are physio-biologically and neuro-psychologically different from women (even amid the great similarities as human beings).
Whether you account for this through evolutionary adaptation or by God’s design, men and women are physically different (and not just in the reproductive sense, but definitely connected to this). This is not an absolute statement, and certainly not a value statement. Men are not better than woman because they are generally bigger or stronger. And women are not better than men because they bear life (children). And I’m not saying a man’s way and woman’s way of life are incommensurate or in opposition. But they are different and the differences should not be reduced or marginalized.
Therefore, sex and gender are not totally distinct and separable. For some, sex is defined as the biological aspect of being male or female. And gender is the psychological, social, and cultural experience & expression of being male or female. Some would suggest that being biologically male has no bearing on the gendered expression or experience of being masculine. But this is more an ideological statement (or a hope) than one based in science. Masculinity, or male gender performance, is not merely received through (or in violation of) socialization. Nature (neurobiology) bears on nurture (sociology).
However, the confusion, slippage, or confrontation between male sex and masculine gender expression highlights the situation of our current cultural transition and transformation—a transformation not 50 years in the making, but more like 250 years (see next thesis).
2) Cultural – The Industrial Revolution, and then the Sexual Revolution, transformed the relationship of men and women from basic survival to baseline fulfillment.
These transformation—which destroyed “traditional” masculinity as was known for thousands of years across various cultures—gave rise to a far greater disparity between masculine and feminine, creating the opportunity for toxic (or failed) masculinity to flourish in developed countries.
Before industrialization, men worked from home (or close to home), share childrearing responsibilities, and had close friendships with other men in a stable, local community. Their masculine identity was as the head of a family just as much as it was to create and protect the material resources for the family. Man as protector and provider was balanced by man as lover and nurturer. With industrialization, men were pulled away from the home and taught to think of themselves in solely economic terms (breadwinner) or patriotic terms (soldier/warrior). The roles of lover and nurturer fell from masculinity and migrated to women as an extra dose to the feminine.
After the Sexual Revolution, women ripped up the strict division of labor between men and women created by the Industrial Revolution—that men make money in the workplace and women make babies in the home. But the transition in roles has not extended to men such that either 1) men over-embrace the desire to protect and provide (and pursue) in a toxic manner, or 2) they are left without roles, purpose, or direction resulting in the “failure to launch” phenomena among young men worldwide.
These cultural transitions have disproportionally affected dominant (or majority) culture men in the West (i.e. white men), with minority culture men holding on to traditional aspects to an greater extent (greater emotional intelligence, integration of household and workplace values, honoring of community over the individual).
Therefore, the crisis in masculinity has nothing to be with waking up to the need to transition from a traditional to a more progressive masculinity. Rather this crisis is of more recent vintage where women’s roles have been allowed—even encouraged—to change, while men’s roles have been pressed into the same old framework of the early Industrial Revolution. Solutions to this “crisis” would do well to look outside of developed countries or back behind the Industrial Revolution.
However, the shift from mere survival to fulfillment should not be considered a loss for masculinity. It is rather an opportunity to continue developing and explore what being made in God’s image means for a man in God’s infinity creativity. I.e. this second thesis is not a cause for past nostalgia, just a better understanding of the present situation.
3) Theological – Men, and therefore, masculinity at large, are fallen creations, enslaved to sin individually and captured by sin collectively.
Sin is disconnection with God and with others, and disintegration of the self. Sinful masculinity seeks to overcome the deficiencies of the self through “shadow” strategies seeking to reintegrate the self and reconnect with others.
These distorted “shadow” strategies often seek some sort of 1) power over others (or the inverted abdication of all responsibility to/for others) rather than the flourishing of those around them, 2) pull all resources toward themselves (physical, financial, emotional, relational) rather than using their resource for the benefit of others.
Therefore, there is no straight-forward expression of “being male”, or masculinity, that is not tainted—individually, corporately, and culture—by the distortions of sin. Any claim to “what” being male means must always be aware of the sinful distortion that even a true definition can create.
However, sin does not mean that being male or female is totally up for grabs or totally opaque. Just because things aren’t perfectly clear doesn’t mean there is nothing to see.
4) Redemptive – In a fallen world facing tremendous cultural change, the only true guide for men is to learn their masculinity from Jesus.
Jesus is the model and goal of masculinity because he is 1) fully God and therefore knows who we are and how we are to live, and 2) the one who is fully human and therefore shows us in human form who we are and how we are to live.
As for all human beings, the question of how we use our power and resources (however defined, which is different for men and women) is of fundamental importances. Jesus’ use of his power and resources (even emotional resources) is always for others—even his enemies. He would rather die for his enemies than kill them. How that may be translated into practical action for men is obviously up for debate between the peace and non-peace church tradition. But the example of Jesus’ use of power for others is our baseline for masculinity in a fallen world.
Therefore, amid our cultural transformations of masculinity (between traditional and toxic), and within our fallen nature, Jesus is the our example and the goal (the Way and the Truth).
Resources (no particular order):
The Boy Crisis – Warren Farrell
Living With Men – E. James Wilder
The Wonder of Boys – Michael Gurian
Fathered by God – John Eldredge
Adam’s Return – Richard Rohr