Why Masculinity Is a Sham

For those of you who aren't Christians, you ought to know that there's a big movement in the church about how men aren't men because of x and need to start doing y so they can become men. Those of you who are educated may immediately see some flaws in that (for example: Whether or not someone is a man is, in fact, determined by  xs and ys, but not in the way described above) but the 20th century church was never one to balk at carrying out a worldview simply because it lacked any logical coherency, and like a bully-prone child who's been selected to run with the Olympic Torch, we've carried that proud tradition into the new millennium. "I don't support my beliefs with reason or evidence and I am proud of it!" bellowed Uncle Sam from the roof of his modern, distinctly non-church-y church, but that's neither here nor there (I swear I love the American church, really I do).

Here's the truth about a "real" man: It doesn't exist. The reason is that when you get right down to it, the distinction between a "boy" and a "man" is this: An arbitrary label. That's it. That's all there is to it. One day someone decides that you are no longer a boy and you are a man. People like John Eldredge call this one generation empowering the next. I won't say what I call it - at least not publicly. A boy who seeks his definition in being told he's a man is essentially the equivalent of a girl who seeks her definition in being told she's beautiful - they're both miserable, and instead of helping them, the people around them decide that it's an opportunity for them to make buckets of money selling trucks and make-up instead.

I don't mean to sound cynical (really, I don't), but when you stop and think about it, look at where we're drawing all our definitions of masculinity from. Real men drive either big trucks or fast cars... Say the automobile companies. Real men drink beer... Say the breweries. Real men are crazy about sex... Says the porn industry. Real men watch sports... Says TSN. Real men drive big trucks, drink beer while watching sports, and can't stop thinking about sex while fighting with their wacky families... Says the sitcom industry, who by the way is profiting off stereotypes that others have already laid down. Real men are ready to give their lives for their country... says the ruling body, just before they send another group of young men off to sacrifice themselves for unknown reasons in another fruitless excursion in one desert country or another. But now we're getting political. Bad Ryan.

But you know what? The church is just as bad. The church says that real men volunteer. Real men get involved. Real men build into the next generation because we've got our youth weekend retreat coming up and we haven't got enough leaders, darn it! Real men get married, have families, have a career that doesn't draw them away from their families, and are a significant part of the local church.

The problem with all of this should be obvious right now: It's just one big, fat equivocation fallacy. Specifically, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, laid out by Anthony Flew:

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing.""


Interesting, isn't it? Take the "Scots" out of Scotsman and you essentially have both Christian and secular approaches to gender definition. And you know what? I actually agree with a lot of the things that the church says about what men should be. Or, more accurately, I agree with it in principle. Sure, there's always a few bits of insanity floating around out there, like "Real men get married in their early 20s," or "real men pick one major/career and stick with it," rhetoric which kind of makes you want to check their medical history for sustained head trauma, but for the most part, it's pretty solid stuff. Guys should take marriage seriously. They should love their wife. They should spend time with their kids. They should actively build into the community around them. They should contribute instead of just existing. These are all statements that are common in the church's conception of what men should be and are all things that I can get behind. 


You see, my criticism doesn't lie with the ideas themselves so much with the methodology. The problem comes when people start making it about distinguishing between "boys" and "men," i.e. pointing to one behaviour and saying it makes someone a boy but saying that if they were to change it they would become a man. It's manipulative. It's basically treating people like horses. You dangle a big carrot labelled "Real Man" in front of them and beat them with a big wooden stick marked "Guilt" whenever they stop chasing after it. It is unethical, it is anti-intellectual, and it diminishes a man's value as an individual.


Here's my dream: In a perfect world, the church would, instead of guilt-tripping guys to become who they want them to become, provide coherent, well-reasoned arguments as to why their opinions on the role of a man are the most valid. They would not say "Man up and do x." They would not say "Only little boys act like y." They would not say "If you are z, you are not fulfilling the role God has created you to fill." Now I get why some people do that. When you don't support a statement, when you simply throw it out there and move on, it makes it seem like an incontrovertible fact. It's a common, if perhaps dishonest, rhetorical strategy, one which just about all of us (myself included) are probably guilty of at one point or another. But, especially in this circumstance, it's extraordinarily unhelpful. You are essentially telling people what to do and what they are if they don't do it without bothering to explain to them the most important question: Why. Now, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the attitude of a lot of non-Christians towards the church is that it's just one big indoctrination party. People are told what to believe because they don't want to figure it out for themselves. Now, I know that's not necessarily an accurate reflection, but this "Shut up and be the man I tell you to be" attitude isn't really helping our image, now is it?


Here's what to do with all this in an imperfect world. Masculinity is - and now we've come full circle - nothing more than an arbitrary label. So stop worrying about it. Maybe I've been reading too much Kierkegaard and Camus, but my take on it is this: Work out your worldview. Develop a system of beliefs that is rationally coherent, something you can get behind. Then live your life according to this. Pursue your calling (or lack thereof, if you're a nihilist - just kidding!). Engage your passions. Do what is necessary. And let other people argue over whether you're a "real man" or not. Because at the end of the day, what will that profit you? What is there to being a "real man" beyond a petty distinction?


Absolutely nothing.




PS: I've started using Google Chrome and it has an automatic spell-check which I thought would be useful but it's actually just annoying as it tells me that words like "balk," "worldview," and "automobile" don't exist. It's like having a pedant constantly looking over your shoulder.


PPS: I know that there's actually no such thing as a distinct "sitcom industry" but it's kind of a neat concept. It would explain a lot, anyway.