From: Concordia TheoBLOGical Seminary
Masculinty and Femininity: What does this mean?
Here is another insightful post from Anthony Esolen over at Touchstone’s blog Mere Comments. Esolen is one of the great defenders and saviors of masculinity in our culture. He constantly maintains the premise that men and women are different and this is good, as our God has told us in his creation of the world. His singular purpose seems to be that manliness isn’t just living outside, riding a horse, having leathery chunks of meat for hands, and smoking a cigarette. Masculinity is not defined by Hollywood but in many respects by the great literature of the past. The heroes aren’t so much just brute men, but strong men who have emotions of anger, sympathy, empathy, and faith. The heroes wish they weren’t heroes at all but wish they were like every other normal guy out there-they have humility. These traits aren’t seen as manly, and because they aren’t you either end up with brutish beasts or impish wimps. Neither of these capture what true manliness is.
True manliness is complicated, not simple. What I mean is that it isn’t boiled down to one trait, one virtue. It is a combination of virtues that make a man a man. Courage is one to be sure, but courage is not a lack of fear, but rather moving forward in faith despite fear. Empathy and sympathy rank high. A man, if indeed he is a man, needs to be able to suffer with people and suffer for them. A man, if he is a man, gets the job done. He doesn’t look to others why it isn’t done and complain, but does something about it. He strives not to let the changes and chances of this world dictate his actions-he is proactive, forward-thinking, and innovative. Yet he is mindful of the past, of where he’s been and what he’s done: he is not historically ignorant. That means he reads, and he reads not only the books that give him joy but also the books that give joy to others. This is wisdom for he thereby has made himself knowledgeable and interested in others, not just himself. In other words, a man, if indeed he is a man, is not selfish, but he loves and he demonstrates this not simply in words but in deeds. He shows it by taking an interest in those around and outside of him.
Jesus Christ our Lord is this man, true man indeed. He is model and we are the image of him. May we be transformed so that our lives may reflect the model more clearly in reality.
Read more, including his ideas on femininity here: Concordia TheoBLOGical Seminary
Related posts:
- Brewing the Perfect Cup of Coffee | The Art of Manliness Brewing the Perfect Cup of Coffee | The Art of...
- The Petrellis’ Jesus On last night’s episode of Heroes, Peter Petrelli, the on-and-of-again...
- Books, books, books incarnatus est: Books, books, books Wider and wider they spread,...
- Hypocrite? GetReligion: November 13, 2006 What’s so interesting about this story...
- Townhall.com :: Columns :: Christ as commodity Townhall.com :: Columns :: Christ as commodity by Nathanael Blake...
I can’t decide if this is misogyny, fear, or just good old fashioned repression by misogynistic men who are afraid of women. Women are courageous, empathetic, and sympathetic. They suffer with and for others (and have been forced to do so for as long as anyone knows by men). I can go on making the parallels, but he takes care of that himself in his delightfully sexist and ignorant post. He says that men and women complement each other, and are not truly opposites — so that strong men don’t have “weak” women, no — they are complimented by “submissive” women. I particularly like this part of his post: “So here’s what I posit. My ideal woman, or the one whom I picture as embodying the ideal of femininity is the Italian woman. She is extremely feminine. She’s domestic and family-oriented but also business-minded. She’s strong but submissive. She’s beautiful and intelligent. She loves to be taken care of and yet completely able to take care of herself. These are just some of my thoughts and observations. How would you describe masculinity and femininity so as to reclaim them from our culture?”
This is less than a step away from being a KKK creed. Stanley Kubrick made a career out of making fun of people who hold these beliefs to be true. And I love that he uses even more stereotypes to back up his stereotypes! Oh, the humanity. I’m sorry — oh, the lack of humanity.
Hi Jason,
I’m not sure how you understood misogyny and fear in my post, but I’m very sorry that my point was inarticulate and by your standards ignorant.
Also, if you wish to critique the argument please be faithful to the author’s wording. I wrote: “you might say submissive.” I used the word ‘might’ because it doesn’t quite capture anything feminine. Men, too, submit as one of the preceding paragraphs on masculinity demonstrates without using the word.
I guess I’m unsure what you’re on about and why you have so blatantly taken what I’ve written out of context. Are you arguing that there is no inherent difference between the sexes, or between masculinity and femininity? Or are you simply taking issue with my description of the Italian woman analogy–imperfect as it may be? (This analogy, incidentally, came from my own wife.) Help me understand what your issue is outside of your own stereotypical broad strokes on what my argument is (e.g., a step away from being a KKK creed, misogynistic, fear, lack of humanity).
Finally, I have no corner market on what masculinity and femininity are. Clearly you would agree. I would really like to know, it is a topic I see young men and women wrestle with all the time. They are told that there is nothing different between boys and girls and yet they don’t experience life in this way. There is some truth to a stereotype or else they aren’t truly typical. So what’s the truth in them and what isn’t. Our culture is bereft of talking about these distinctions because of fear for being hated as a mysogynist. I look forward to your reply.
Fraternally yours,
+JB
Braaten,
Just so you know, as a woman I didn’t feel hated, feared or repressed by your post. I thought your ideal woman (do they exist outside of Italy?:) sounded vaguely like the virtuous wife of Proverbs 31.
First of all, I have no corner on the market on what masculinity and femininity are either, but I believe it is ignorant to use stereotypes like the “Italian Woman” to make a point about the difference between the sexes. Your use of an Italian stereotype — which I know you did not use maliciously — reminds me of the kind of stereotypes my older, racist, Christian relatives use about Mexican workers in kitchens and “he was black, but he was very nice” people. They do not use them maliciously, either, but it does not make them A) true or B) ok.
My problem with what you wrote has more to do with “othering” than anything else. Your paragraph about femininity is almost an afterthought, and by calling men “courageous,” “empathetic,” and “sympathetic,” you are, whether you know it or not, saying women are *not* that. And then you go on to say that women are not opposites — femininity is not opposite of masculinity — but even in your explanation you enforce the good old fashioned idea of submission to men, rather than a joint submission to one another.
I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me answer your questions directly.
“I’m not sure how you understood misogyny and fear in my post, but I’m very sorry that my point was inarticulate and by your standards ignorant.”
– I understand misogyny as a hatred of women, or, maybe, as a distrust of women (which is veiled hatred). You say, directly, “you might say submissive because it does take strength and dedication to submit your will to that of another.” I see your point — you did not say they ARE submissive, but you did not say they aren’t, either, and you leave that up to the audience to decide. So, I’ve decided. You seem to think that submission by a woman is necessary, and it somehow defines femininity. “She’s strong but submissive.” Why can’t she just be “strong”? Doesn’t being strong mean being able to submit when necessary? My overall feeling in your post is the inability to accept that, yes, there are differences between men and women, but it is impossible, and extremely ignorant, to stereotype them completely. When people say these things it gives me the feeling that they need to create boundaries because they are threatened by differences. Of course masculinity and femininity exist, but do they matter? I think the thing we’ll have to agree to disagree with is that I am as much of a man as you are despite the fact that I also want to be “beautiful and intelligent,” and “I love to be taken care of.” The boundaries you have created stink of misogyny to me, whether you intended it or not.
“Also, if you wish to critique the argument please be faithful to the author’s wording. I wrote: “you might say submissive.†I used the word ‘might’ because it doesn’t quite capture anything feminine. Men, too, submit as one of the preceding paragraphs on masculinity demonstrates without using the word.”
–You’re right, and I apologize. But don’t you believe that women are intended to submit to the will of men in a marriage? Aren’t men the head of the household in marriage, according to you and the wishes of your post? So, therefore, aren’t you saying, “might” or not, that femininity has some bit of submission involved? And, whether you used the word or not, submission for men, in your post, is “not [being] selfish, but he loves and demonstrates this not simply in words but in deeds. He shows it by taking an interest in those around and outside of him.” But that seems less of a commitment than submitting one’s will to the will of another — that is more of an observation, a good listener’s trait — and, it is, to be sure, a good trait. Maybe even a feminine one. The point is this: the man is still in control in this scenario, moving, with his free will, outside of his normal, selfish persona, and seeing others with empathy and sympathy. They are still in control, however. So, yes, submission is a part of both men and women, but it seems like men submit to the world in general while women submit to the men in their lives and then submit to the world in general because that’s what the men do. Again, this is just my reading of your post.
“I guess I’m unsure what you’re on about and why you have so blatantly taken what I’ve written out of context. Are you arguing that there is no inherent difference between the sexes, or between masculinity and femininity? Or are you simply taking issue with my description of the Italian woman analogy–imperfect as it may be? (This analogy, incidentally, came from my own wife.) Help me understand what your issue is outside of your own stereotypical broad strokes on what my argument is (e.g., a step away from being a KKK creed, misogynistic, fear, lack of humanity).”
– There, of course, are differences between the sexes. We have different reproductive organs. We also follow historical roles that have been passed down through thousands of generations of oppression. What irks me about your post is that it ignores the fact that women are people and men are people. It uses stereotypical arguments when talking about what men are and what women are, and ignores the fact that all of us are human. Really, I get it — and I recognize differences and I question what is and what is not real about these differences. The KKK example was extreme, to be sure, and I know you’re not a member nor would you condone stereotyping a large group of people and then, by rote, oppressing them or thinking that they are of a lower class of human than you. But using an Italian stereotype to describe the kind of woman you think is ideal is shaky at best and smacks of sexism. Real sexism, not the kind people use to get money out of their corporations.
I believe that ideas about masculinity and femininity have too much weight in our culture. Men and women have different biological batteries that, of course, make them act and feel different — but everyone, every single individual, also has a different biological battery that makes them feel different, too. So we pick teams — we’re men, we’re women, we’re Christians, we’re academics, we’re sports fans, we’re guitar players, etc. But we’re all people, and we’re all individuals, and we all have different feelings. We can talk to other boys and find out if we share those feelings and then compare them to what the girls feel and find out that maybe we aren’t that different. If we go too far into any of those teams we become bigots, sexists, hateful people who only want to know the difference rather than the similarities. I, personally, have never struggles with my masculinity because, well, I just don’t care that much. I’m a man. I have a penis, a wife, a mortgage, etc. My female friends are women. My male friends who are gay are still men. My female friends who are gay are still women. I have my own ideas of what is masculine and feminine but it is all, in my opinion, rather moot. What I worry about is fairness. Is it fair to subjugate women? No. Is it fair to subjugate men? No. It’s not fair to stereotype either.
I agree — stereotypes do contain truth, but they are not the whole truth. My beef with your post is that it reinforces stereotypes of both men and women but masks these as ruminations on masculinity and femininity. And, frankly, it doesn’t seem fair to me — it seems like women get the short end of the stick here, and, for my money, that’s misogyny.
I think we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the post and for having your own ideas about these things. I apologize if my first post was a bit broad and, of course, if you thought I was taking you out of context.
JG
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your reply.
I will only challenge you on one assertion. I do not see masculinity and femininity as antithetical to humanity, only two splendidly unique versions of humanity. I do not see a misogyny in this understanding, rather a philogyny. From my perspective, looking at what is unique in the that which is other is to look at what is proper to that thing alone, which takes that thing seriously as something other, as something that can be prized for its uniqueness.
Whereas the opposite position, what I understand to be your point, I see a boiling down to similarities, which only understands that other insofar as it relates to me or is like me. That, to me, seems to be the height of your definition of misogyny–it has a certain androgynous flavor to it. So, women in this view are only understandable or worthwhile insofar as they are like men, which doesn’t treat them as a woman, as something other, as something splendidly unique.
Sexual equality is not the issue here. The issue is social interchangeability. Men and women, to be sure, are equal, but they aren’t interchangeable. They each have a unique role within society that oftentimes totally differs and complements each other. Trying to wrap our heads around that uniqueness is what will truly show love for woman in her womannness and for man in his mannness.
Fraternally yours,
+JB
Thanks, Anne. Lauren was struck by the image of the Italian woman during our stay in Italy a few years back while I did the Westfield House gig. One of our favorite things to do was eat lunch and people watch to observe how the Italians lived. And Lauren one day pointed out the interchanges between the Italian men and women. It was remarkable, and it has sort of stuck with us. She always talks about sitting down to write about what she learned about femininity from her travels in Italy. I encourage her to do it, but I, and the world, are still waiting. Someday, I hope, I’ll be reading that rough draft over a coffee or a cup of tea after the chillin’s are in bed.
Do they exist outside of Italy? I’d like to think that I’m married to one.
+JB
So, this is sort of related. Realize that I had this post e-mailed to me, and that my responses will be off the cuff. But I recently read an article in the Summer 2007 Christian Scholars Review called “A Sword Between the Sexes: C. S. Lewis’s Long Journey to Gender Equality.” I love C. S. Lewis, but I hate his portrayal of women in book after book after book. (I get annoyed in Screwtape, The Great Divorce, parts of the Narnia books, and definitely and absolutely in That Hideous Strength, where (and this is the quote with which Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen starts the above-mentioned article), Ransom tells Jane, “Your trouble has been what the old poets called Daungier. We call it pride. You are offended by the masculine itself: the loud, irruptive, possessive thing. The male you could have escaped, for it exists only on the biological level. But the masculine none of us can escape. What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it.”
“You mean I shall have to become a Christian?” said Jane.
“It looks like it,” said the Director.
Well, if *this* is the Christian view of gender, it’s clearly problematic, isn’t it? (We are all feminine, and masulinity is better). But Van Leeuwen makes a lot of good points about what’s going on with Lewis (who is much better on the woman question in _A Grief Observed_, about the loss of his wife, Joy). There’s a lot going on in gender roles in the history of Christianity, and a lot of it isn’t good. Van Leeuwen points out that a lot of Lewis’s views, at any rate, were very much influenced by Aristotle and other Greeks, as well as England’s all male-education system. She quotes Nahum M. Sarna in order to try to help us remember where the differences between Paganism and Christianity lie: “[In Paganism], the sex element existed before the cosmos came into being and all the gods themselves were creatures of sex. On the other hand, the Creator in Genesis is uniquely without any female counterpart and the very association of sex with God is utterly alien to the religion of the Bible” (qtd in 405).
Van Leeuwen also makes the point that Lewis’s complicated view of gender can hardly be called “merely Christian”: “We have seen that Lewis’s complex theory of gender relations drew in large measure on classical mythology and philosophy and, to a lesser degree, on Jungian notions of archetypes functioning within a cumulative, collective human unconscious. Since most of this goes well beyond both the biblical record and the basic creeds of the church, how did Lewis justify speaking with such authority as if it were _all_ part of ‘mere’–that is, basic–Christian belief?” (403)
So you can go find the article if you want to read more on this.
The idea of masculinity *is* confusing. I enjoy reading about all the Victorian angst over “muscular Christianity” (when I don’t get too annoyed). But I think people need to consider where their ideas of gender are coming from. I also think it may not be the best idea to look to Christ with the goal of finding the supreme example of masculinity. Yes, men should model themselves after him, but he’s women’s role model too. (It’s interesting that studies have shown that both Muslim and Christian women often choose male religious role models. I think there are just plain out more to pick from).
But if we think of God AND Christ in their maleness rather than in their “God-ness” and “humanity,” I think we set ourselves up to prolong confusion and to cause a lot of hurt.
“[B]ut only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:42).
Jason I am glad that you haven’t had struggles with your masculinity because, well, you just don’t care that much.
You even say men and women have different biological batteries that, of course, make them act and feel different — but everyone, every single individual, also has a different biological battery that makes them feel different, too. I agree.
However, I notice many people can not accept their female biology or male biology. Why is that? For some this is rebelling against their creator or their biological birth. For others this is because of harm brought on them as children and misinformation by our post-modern culture.
I believe instead of (traditional) ideas about masculinity and femininity having too much weight in our culture, the opposite is true. Some even go as far as saying we can be either sex despite our biology and we should be able to marry whom we please (same sex) even though that is not how we were created. As a Christian, I feel this goes against God’s creation or intentions for his people to marry the opposite sex and have the possibility of reproducing or to not marry.
However, I also feel many positive and negative traits are unfairly assigned to one sex by different cultures. When a person has traits usually assigned by a culture to the opposite sex, they are sometimes unfairly labeled as feminine or masculine. This can lead to rejecting their own sex and/or self-hate. I guess this is my and others explanation for homosexuality. It happens, but homosexuality is not biological.
Some of the Biblical male female roles are assigned, not biologically, but biological differences are considered. Male and female are equal in God’s sight. We are to all love one another as Christ loves us.
Incidentally, I once shocked an Italian man at a conference in England by asking our whole table if anyone wanted more orange juice–and then getting up to get everyone some. In Italy, he said, women make the men get them the drinks. But I don’t think I’ll let him stand for the whole country, and I’ll keep on getting people orange juice–irrespective of gender.
Sharin,
Thank you for that. This is one of the things that struck us. The men were exactly as you described, but not in a strange reversal of roles, but in love and respect wanted to serve and dote on the women. It was chivalry. It was beautiful and moving. Yet, the women loved to dote on the men as well. Again, it was beautiful.
+JB
So, I guess my opinion is just that we shouldn’t worry about roles or role reversals but simply about doing unto others as we would have done unto us. And, well, *I* would have liked orange juice!
[...] yesterday’s post Masculinity and Femininity that generated significant comments, I thought I ought to stir the pot a bit more. In discussions [...]
Sharin and Pam and Braaten and Ann–
Hello (especially to Sharin, Pam, and Ann)! It has been quite awhile, I believe.
Let me put the Devil’s Advocate hat back on…
Ah, me and my constant misunderstandings. First of all, thinking about it over night made me remember how hard it was growing up. How ideas of sexuality, fitting in, doing boy things rather than girl things, how all of this seemed to mean so much. My parents, God bless them, encouraged me to branch out and do things that society might consider non-masculine — choir, theater, etc. (as opposed to band, football). I felt good doing those things and was young enough to not realize that they were, as a whole, not masculine in a modern sense. As high school came on and (please pardon the expressions here) “Choir Fags,” “Drama Fags,” and the like were routinely joked about in the cafeteria I never once felt threatened.
I realize that this was a blessing for me. And I feel that it empowered me to always pounce upon instances where name calling and objectification seemed to be taking place.
Perhaps my issues with Braaten’s post — what really made me lash out and not check my work, make horrible accusations, be extreme for attention’s sake — go back to those experiences of, well, feeling bad for those being picked on. The Italian woman stereotype, for example, really hit me over the head. My travels to Italy have led me to believe that women there are much like women everywhere else that I’ve seen, only they have access to different beaches, cheaper and more delicious espresso, and a historically rich landscape. Of course there are social customs that come into play but no one is bound by those.
Anyway, I’m babbling. It occurs to me that any argument I put forth past this will be taken to a level that cannot be argued anymore since I happen to believe homosexuality is biological — in my head it is not a choice, it is not only brought on because of child abuse, it is not something that society pressure anyone into doing. Just the opposite, in fact. On top of this, I would consider myself a feminist, and a very liberal feminist at that. On top of all of this I believe, first and foremost, in do unto others as we would have done to us, and I would prefer not to be stereotyped, I would prefer to be allowed my personal freedoms as long as they do not interfere with the beliefs or happiness of others (these include the right to debate within a friend’s blog — :-) ), and I would prefer to be loved, unconditionally, as long as I’m following those rules, too.
I realize that all of us do not share the beliefs above… so I will continue to be the liberal black sheep who pops my head up to cause trouble in here once in awhile.
Nice talking with you all.
Jason,
Good to hear from you too, by the way. It HAS been awhile. Tell your parents hi if you think to. I thought of your dad last Christmas when I was helping out with the children’s program and one of the seven-year-olds ate her script! She had told me she was hungry . . .
And I don’t think they ever all turned the same way!
I don’t normally spend much time on blogs, but gender issues really interest me, and it’s a struggle for me to find out what is cultural and what just “is.” So I do hope to do my best to reach people where they are as individuals in teaching, friendships, etc.
Thanks, all, for the posts.
To Sharin and everyone, too (especially those who know my dad). I have to say that I get my “contrary” streak from my mom, but definitely get my stubbornness from my dad. He stubbornly made it through prostate surgery last week and the pathology report yesterday says he is cancer-free now. I know this is public and stuff but in case you know him, he’s doing well and thanks you for your thoughts.
Thanks for the update, Jason. I’m really glad to know your dad is doing well.