Meek or Macho?
I read an article in Details this week about manners. The premise of the article is that manners, for most men, have fallen by the wayside. Deference, courtesy, and awareness of others have been replaced by selfishness, bravado, and the tendency to be oblivious to our surroundings. But the writer challenges the assumption that tough and macho equal "manly".
There's another movement forming in America alongside this one, on the other end of the spectrum. This movement is one that shames men for being men. Apparently masculinity is out. Feminists have found success in berating men for exibiting masculine qualities, while encouraging women to adopt those same traits. This movement has even found its way into the church.
What did Jesus look like? I'm not really worried about race or national origin, but the rest of it. Was he fit or soft? Rugged or delicate? Manly or not? Traditionally Jesus is portrayed as a soft-skinned, gentle, delicate weakling. They don't say it that way, but that's how he comes off. And people use that image of Christ to say that men shouldn't be masculine.
But is that realistic? Think about the things Jesus did...teaching in the synagogues, rebuking storms and demons, clearing the temple. Do you think a soft man, a "nice guy" could clear seedy hustlers and con-men from a city square by himself? Of course not!
Jesus was a man. If I had to guess, I'd say he was a baritone...soothing, yet forceful. A heart for others that was consumed by zeal for the Father. It's true that the meek will inherit the earth, Jesus said so. But Christ's definition is one of humility and submission to God, not a lack of courage or spirit.
posted by Charles @ 3:08 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
In answer to the subject's question: both!
He was a carpenter, after all, and I don't know of many wimpy carpenters even today ;)
But true masculinity has been confused with so called toughness and grit. Are those attributes that real men often posses? Sure. But it's so incredibly short-sighted to define a man strictly by those few attributes.
A real man is one who seeks to follow Christ. Doing do includes boldness and courage, and meekness and humility.
What is "masculinity"? Who defines it? What generation gets to define it if it changes over time?
For instance, if you were 18th century English, true men would avoid "enthusiasm" which meant any form of emotional expression. Do you ascribe to this? Why or why not? I had an older man tell me last week that the young marine he was observing changing the diaper of a newborn would have been anathema in his day. "When I had children I didn't even interact with them at all until they were three. Men just didn't do that." What do you make of this? Why is gender apparently non-static?
Given these realities, are descriptions of manhood in American society universal? If not (and few of the traditional "male" traits are), why do you defend them as if they are sacred and God ordained? The Wodaabe Fulani of Niger have their men dress in makeup (and only the men), expensive clothes and an excess amount of jewelry to dance and woo the women who get to choose from among the most attractive. Is this "male" in your paradigm? Have you ever classified someone was "gay"--and therefore less manly--because you saw them dressed similarly in this country? What do you make of this?
Why do you feel it important to make Jesus into your image as you did at the end of your post? Generally speaking, why do you feel it important to defend your manhood? How is it threatened? What exactly is being stolen from you? Is what is being stolen something that God has mandated you defend because it is essential to your person? If not, what motivates you to do so? Why do conservatives especially feel their manhood is threatened and why/how do they associate manhood with their party of choice? Why is this necessary and is it healthy?
My general approach is non-polemical, please understand. I am just trying to raise what I believe are very important questions. As such, please don't feel I am trying to attack you. Yet I've probably asked enough questions so that you can pick the one or two you feel are most inflammatory and avoid the rest so I will stop talking now. But I would hope that you would reflect on them all--individually--before you answer.
And, no, I'm not gay. Married, 10 years.
Matt, I think you read a number of things into my post that weren't there. Of course, it may have just been some things that have been on your mind and flowed out in your writing.
First, I'm trying to base my idea of masculinity on Biblical ideals. That isn't entirely possible, since everything I know is America in the 20th and 21st centuries. You mention examples from 18th century England and mid-century America. I think those two examples are as off-base as the two I described in my original post.
Yes, an American dressed as you described would conjure up images of a flamboyant(not-regular) homosexual. But that's only because an American would be socialized similarly to myself. I don't have much to say about this example because it doesn't mention the personality and character traits that men are expected to have in that culture.
As far as my description of Jesus masculinity, I was just sharing my view. It's not absolute or definitive. Just some thoughts. But could you deny that he was both soothing and forceful? Or that his heart was both filled with love for others and zeal for the Father? Did he not do all of the things I mentioned? He did. The only real editorial comment I made is that he was a baritone. Maybe he wasn't; I'll concede that point.
Next, I'm not really defending my manhood. And I won't until someone attacks it. I was just talking about things I had read. Nothing is being stolen. I do believe that God created men and women with certain traits, and we (as a society) are doing our best to ignore that fact. Men are designed by God in a certain way. That creation has been distorted into all of the images that we have discussed here. I think that that creation is important to who I am as a man.
All that motivated me were the thoughts in my head after reading a magazine article and a newspaper article on different ends of the spectrum.
I think the reasons conservatives feel their manhood is being attacked are articles like this one, this one, and plenty of others, I'm sure. That being said, I'm not ascribing my image of masculinity to a party. I didn't even mention parties in this post. If anyone is playing up the Republican manliness business, it's liberal writers.
In the end, I tried to answer all of your questions. I will conclude by saying that I agree with Brittany: Jesus was both bold and passive, strong an unassuming, authoritative (in the sense of having and using authority in a responsible way) and humble. He is the King who gave it away to save his people. The homeless wanderer who changed lives everywhere. He is the Lion of Judah and the Passover Lamb. The perfect example of manhood.
Elmo, again, thanks for the response.
I'm not sure I was reading as much into your post as you suggested. I am a humanities PhD student, so critical race and gender theories are part of my courses. With the exception of reading Republican ideals of manhood into your post (which I wanted to get your opinion on), I think pretty much the rest was inherent in what you were arguing, and that was my attempt--to address them specifically. You equated tough, macho, baritone, whatever you meant by "masculinity" (that's culturally loaded, I suggested, and historically contingent), fit, rugged, with being a man and "nice guy", soft, delicate, soft-skinned, gentle, etc. You pretty much laid it out.
I will agree with you that feminists who teach women to be like this manliness are doing a great disservice to women. Yet I would add that this image of manliness is socially constructed and in no way represents even what is "Christianly". I would also add, having been friends with men who don't exhibit the manly qualities you praised...these men are still men. They just get put up against these stereotypes that you participate in here and get their assess kicked. Some have even been killed. And women who are less "feminine" (also generally socially constructed) are subject to the same form of violence and, what we call in the academy, "othering" (a form of exclusion for the purposes of identity formation).
I think that is deeply unchristian. Jesus was a man, yes. I could certainly say that he was soothing and forceful. But I don't think this is essential to his being a man. I think it is actually better attributed to his being Spirit-filled, an equipping to do the work that God sent him to do.
As such, these are also qualities I want to build into my (future) children, boys and girls. I want them to be like Jesus and I don't want to make it harder for my little girls to be so because I have made Jesus masculinity (as our culture continually attempts to reconstruct it as represented by this piece, originally published in 1920) an overly masculinized, 21st century style, Jesus, made in my personal image for my personal use and gain.
So I agree, then, with absolutely everything you said in your last paragraph in your response, above, except for this being representative of perfect manhood. I would have to challenge your intentions on that last part. That's not biblically emphasized or even mentioned.
Again, thanks for the great discussion.
"You equated tough, macho, baritone, whatever you meant by "masculinity" (that's culturally loaded, I suggested, and historically contingent), fit, rugged, with being a man and "nice guy", soft, delicate, soft-skinned, gentle, etc. You pretty much laid it out."
I didn't intend to endorse toughness or machismo to true masculinity, which I tried to use just to mean "male-ness". It's true it's a loaded term, but it also represents the fact that men and women are inherently different in some ways. because of socialization we can't be sure exactly what those ways are, but we can try to figure it out. that being said, I think that acting tough or macho is a poor type of masculinity.
I used baritone because it musically represents the two sides of the coin. It's both forceful, as a bass, and light, as a tenor. A blend of the two. It was more a metaphor for the combination of strength and vulnerability than an actual description of his voice.
When I said, "Traditionally Jesus is portrayed as a soft-skinned, gentle, delicate weakling," I was simply describing the image. None of those attributes is necessarily "unmanly", but that is the conventional Western image of Christ. I think that description is wrong for a couple of reasons.
1) Carpenters don't have soft hands. Especially carpenters without electricity. Jesus would have been physically fit based on his trade.
2) Jesus was generally homeless. This would have contributed to his (literally) thick skin.
3) Jesus led a group that had some very rough and seedy charachters. Now, it's possible that they would have followed someone who didn't exhibit all of their cultural expectations of a man, but he would have had to show some of them.
4) The people wanted him to lead an army against Rome.
That being said, I don't think he would fit into the John Wayne, James Bond, Dirty Harry kind of masculinity we see. I can't think of a modern example of how a man should be. I mean, I know people, but not major figures. It really is a shame. I don't see him that way either. But I also don't intend to downplay the assertive and strong aspects of his character.
Post a Comment
<< Home