Over at Intellectuelle, Bonnie has posted the following:
Which kind of man would you prefer...ladies? Which kind of man would be worthier of emulation, you men of upright character?
The one who might be considered "feminized," who is actually kind, considerate, honest, open, appreciative, and generous, or the kind of man who is "arrogant, ruthless, bullying, overly-aggressive," and other things...like Eliot Spitzer?
Now, if Bonnie's reference to "feminized" has to do with my posts on culturally feminized men, then her characterization of the un-feminized man is completely off base.
Bonnie, you've done nothing more than stack the deck, defining "feminized" as having noble qualities, and then comparing such qualities with their opposite, ignoble traits (and, in the process, implying that those are the "masculinized" qualities). While you don't specifically state that those men who are arrogant, ruthless, bullying, and overly-aggressive are "masculinized" men, you contrast it with those men who, if considered to be "feminized", are actually kind, considerate, honest, open, appreciative, and generous.
In my opinion, the masculinized man is the one who is kind, considerate, honest, open, appreciative, generous... and upright, courageous, spiritual, strong, loving, and honorable. Such noble attributes and strong character traits, as expressed within the male gender, are the true measure of a gentleman and... a man. Note: this is not to say that a woman is incapable of possessing any of these traits (such a notion would be absurd).
By contrast, the culturally feminized man is one who has shirked away from courage, who dwells, excessively, on notions of sensitivity, empathy, and understanding - distinctly feminine qualities. Consider this excerpt from The Feminization of the Church, Biola Magazine Spring 2006,
Another turn-off for men is touchy-feely sermons. Pearcey said the modern church stresses emotions and inner spiritual experiences while neglecting the intellectual side of the faith.
“The more traditionally masculine side of Christianity enjoys crossing swords with hostile secular worldviews. So, as long as Christianity appeals to the emotional, therapeutic, interpersonal, relational areas, it’s not going to appeal to men as much as to women,” Pearcey said.
Churches should engage men’s intellects to help them see the relevance of Christianity to the “real” world of politics, industry and business, Pearcey said.
“We have to recover the notion that Christianity is true on all levels, not just for your emotional life or repairing relationships, as important as those things are,” she said.
Or, from a secular point of view, Mark Steyn's comments on girlie-men,
But in an odd way this distinction does encapsulate the choice in November. If we revert to Arnie’s terms, Bush is a terminator: he terminated Saddam and he terminated the Taleban, and if he’s re-elected there’ll likely be a couple more before he’s through. John F. Kerry, on the other hand, is a girlie man. I don’t mean because his extraordinarily luxurious lifestyle is funded by the gazillions his missus inherited from her first husband, nor because of that limp-wristed ceremonial first pitch he threw out at the Red Sox-Yankees game in Boston on Sunday. No, I think Kerry is a girlie man because of his two-decade aversion to the projection of American military power, and his total lack of interest in formulating any alternative approach. On Monday night at the convention, Bill Clinton remarked that ‘strength and wisdom are not opposing values’ — i.e., Kerry can be just as macho as Bush, but his butchness will be informed by his tremendous Swiss-finishing-school braininess. But the reality is that Kerry shows few signs of either strength or wisdom. His foreign policy is passive and reactive, and notable for its finger-in-the-windiness. He says George Bush ‘didn’t do Iraq right’, but he never says what he’d have done differently. Those snotty intellectuals who say that Bush is ‘uncurious’ ought to display a little more curiosity about Kerry’s enervated approach to these issues.
It's certainly not politically correct to mention the notion of girlie-men, much less that of the culturally feminized man.
But, in my opinion, that doesn't take away from its reality.
Recent Comments