{"id":27323,"date":"2023-07-22T21:09:23","date_gmt":"2023-07-23T01:09:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mentordiscoverinspire.org\/?p=27323"},"modified":"2023-08-06T21:25:29","modified_gmt":"2023-08-07T01:25:29","slug":"does-masculinity-need-redefining","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mentordiscoverinspire.org\/does-masculinity-need-redefining\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Masculinity Need \u201cRedefining?”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Tim Goldich Is masculinity all washed up? In order to remain viable, is masculinity (i.e., \u201ctoxic masculinity\u201d) in need of re<\/em>defining for the new millennium and beyond?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the opening chapter of Plato\u2019s Republic<\/em>, three philosophers of the day rise to Socrates\u2019 challenge to define \u201cjustice.\u201d Each definition improves upon the last, yet each is revealed as woefully inadequate. It is difficult indeed to trap so high and elusive a concept as justice within an airtight verbal box. But this failure to define justice does not erode Plato\u2019s faith that justice is real<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, would we not be suspicious of any governmental committee whose stated goal was to re<\/em>-define justice? Redefine it how … to serve whose purposes? So, here\u2019s the distinction: Plato was attempting to define<\/em> justice, notre<\/em>define justice. Humans can ponder the meaning of justice, and attempt to better understand and capture that meaning in words, but according to Plato, the word “justice” refers to something real and eternal, and humans haven\u2019t the authority<\/em> to re<\/em>define it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So … is masculinity also something real?<\/em> Does this concept also<\/em> have some sort of independent meaning that lies outside the reach of human interference? <\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe that two million years of human evolution did indeed create something real<\/em>, something that we label \u201cfeminine\u201d and \u201cmasculine.\u201d As is true of justice, we struggle and largely fail to contain these concepts within tight verbal boxes called definitions, but that, in itself, should not erode our confidence in their reality. The question is, are our definitions of feminine and masculine accurate?<\/em> It seems to me that where gender is concerned, powerful psychic forces (including instinct, chivalry, Eros, sentiment, myths and mythos) tend to bias our perceptions and overpower reason. Masculine and feminine are real I think, but, at present, only imperfectly understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So I\u2019m all in with efforts to improve our imperfect definitions<\/em> of masculine and feminine, but I regard current efforts to re<\/em>define them (or deny their existence) with suspicion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Masculinity in particular is judged in the worst way. In some circles, masculine is synonymous with \u201cmacho\u201d and widely regarded as the source of all evil: destructive, violent, false, immature, inferior, unnecessary, redundant, even \u201cobsolete.\u201d The prestigious American Psychological Association has officially declared \u201ctraditional masculinity\u201d as \u201charmful\u201d and advocates \u201cRedefining Masculinity.\u201d \u201cRedefining Masculinity for the Modern Age\u201d<\/em> intones the Daily Beacon<\/strong>. The International Boys\u2019 Schools Coalition<\/strong> is all for \u201cRedefining Masculinity: Helping Boys to be Better Men.\u201d<\/em> Even the ManKind Project<\/strong> (an organization that I\u2019ve been part of since 2000) is on about \u201cRedefining Masculinity for the 21st Century.\u201d<\/em> With women rising and men in decline, the temptation to \u201cre<\/em>define\u201d and \u201cfix\u201d masculinity that it might better fit in with modern realities, is a temptation that runs deep. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But I resist that temptation for a number of reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First off, it would seem that every re<\/em>definition of masculinity heads in the same direction\u2014less masculine, more feminine. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But then, how could it be otherwise? There is only yin and yang, anima and animus, male and female; there is no third direction. If masculinity will undergo a shift, then where will it go; will men become more dolphin-like? One reason I\u2019m suspicious of re<\/em>defining masculinity is that I see nowhere else for the masculine to go but toward the feminine. I have no problem with men and women choosing to be balanced, but that has nothing to do with how we define masculine<\/em>. Is shifting our definition of masculine toward the feminine a step toward redefining<\/em> masculinity or a step toward negating<\/em> masculinity? Does feminizing masculinity create a sustainable model of masculinity for the future or does it only take us a further step down the road toward male \u201credundancy\u201d and \u201cobsolescence\u201d? <\/p>\n\n\n\n I find these questions troubling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another reason I\u2019m suspicious of re<\/em>defining masculinity is that it seems all too closely aligned with feminist agendas. I think if feminists had their way, they would redefine \u201cmasculine\u201d as safe, compliant, selfless, obsequious, sexless, and obeisant to every female complaint. As always, men would remain responsible for policing and succumbing to the dark side of the world and human nature. Men will perform those tasks most harsh and hazardous (battlefields, mining, sewers, firefighting, construction, etc.) Males will be 16 times as likely to die on the job, but men will ask for nothing. Men will have no perspectives of their own, claiming only feminist (i.e., \u201cfemale-ist\u201d) perspectives for themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, I happen to think that men have gone too far down that<\/em> road already! Maleness re<\/em>defined in a manner that best serves feminist purposes, that\u2019s what I\u2019d regard as the worst-case outcome here. You know, women everywhere look around them and insist, \u201cThere are no men!\u201d How feminized are men supposed to be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n A third reason to distrust \u201cre<\/em>defining\u201d masculinity is that I don\u2019t trust that humans are wise enough to take control of such a thing. Re<\/em>defining is not<\/em> defining; it is social engineering. And who do I trust to take charge of this social engineering? – nobody!<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n No human entity can be trusted to redefine “justice.” And no human entity can be trusted to redefine “masculinity.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lao Tzu, Jesus, Leonardo, Shakespeare, Bach, Einstein . . . how did we ever allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing that the masculine has no redeeming virtue? <\/p>\n\n\n\n A fourth reason to distrust \u201credefining masculinity\u201d is that it is born of misandry. It is born of seeing the masculine shadow, but not the masculine gold; and seeing the feminine gold, but not the feminine shadow. It is gender bias and bigotry. It is sexism. It is an outgrowth of the escalating notion that masculinity is a defective anachronism that is at fault and to blame for all things bad, but cannot be credited for anything good. The urge to redefine masculinity is an urge to purge<\/em> men of their masculinity, a \u201ctoxic masculinity\u201d that has already been<\/em> redefined in the worst way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fifth and final reason to distrust re<\/em>defining takes us back to where we started. I believe that, like the concept of justice, the concept of masculine has an independent reality. Unless or until we are prepared to alter human DNA, we can re<\/em>define the word<\/em> \u201cmasculinity\u201d as we please, but the truth<\/em> of masculinity will not be altered. We can defame and malign the masculine into ever greater levels of dysfunctional shame. We can undervalue the masculine contribution in parenting to the point that fatherless sons become the norm. Oh yes, we can certainly undermine<\/em> masculinity, but we cannot change what masculinity is<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Authentic<\/em> masculinity\u2019s not the problem. But how will fatherless boys learn authentic<\/em> masculinity? The true \u201cproblem\u201d with current masculinity is that it has been – and continues to be – undermined<\/em> by powerful cultural forces, forces that result in male academic and economic decline plus a generalized contempt of the masculine. Yes, women are rising and men are in decline, but those in the know, know that females are so advantaged and males so disadvantaged that it could not be otherwise. Sadly, however, it feels simpler and a whole lot safer<\/em> to lay all the blame on male defects than to respect woman enough to hold her accountable as equal partner in the human system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We don\u2019t need a re<\/em>definition of masculinity; we need an improved understanding of what masculinity truly<\/em> is<\/em> – an understanding truer perhaps than any prior understanding of masculinity – an understanding divested of stereotypes and misandry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What is authentic<\/em> masculinity? I would struggle to define it. But I believe that qualities such as drive, honor, obsession, fairness, wisdom, integrity and accountability live at its core. These qualities are timeless. They add up to a definition of masculinity that is sustainable into any future – a masculinity that can never<\/em> be rendered \u201cobsolete.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not the masculine re<\/em>defined as feminist doormat; this is a strong masculinity – a masculinity that demands … wait for it … justice!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe that the distinction between defining and re<\/em>defining masculinity is crucial. To define masculinity is to respect<\/em> masculinity as something real,<\/em> something that we are endeavoring to more deeply understand. To re<\/em>define masculinity is to assume that masculinity is purely a social construct with no reality and no meaning beyond what we arbitrarily assign to it. And therefore “masculinity” becomes a mere plaything for would-be sociologists, feminists, and special interest groups to re-<\/em>define<\/strong> at their whim. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So I\u2019m all in with efforts to improve our imperfect definition<\/em> of masculinity, but efforts to re<\/em>define masculinity are not to be trusted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tim Goldich<\/strong> is an author who has devoted the last thirty years to researching, pondering, and writing a four-book series on gender issues. The first book\u2014Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics<\/strong><\/em>\u2014was published in 2011 and is available on Amazon.com. The second book\u2014Equal Partners: The History of Gender Equality<\/strong><\/em>\u2014is due out in 2023. He has also created a series of YouTube videos under the umbrella title of \u201cMan Against the Wall.\u201d<\/strong> He is a board member of both The National Coalition For Men<\/strong> and of The ManKind Project<\/strong>, two organizations that variously support men politically and emotionally. He is NCFM<\/strong> Vice President and President of the Chicago chapter of NCFM. He was one of the editors of NCFM\u2019s Transitions: A Journal of Men\u2019s Perspectives<\/strong><\/em> (the longest running journal of its kind). Goldich facilitates the personal growth work of men on New Warrior Training Adventure<\/strong> weekends, and of men and women on personal growth weekends called Path To Spirit<\/strong>. Tim\u2019s primary focus is on Gender Equalism: Transforming gender political space for unity, fairness and forgiveness. Goldich is the author of – Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics<\/em><\/a>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Tim GoldichSpecial Guest Contributor Is masculinity all washed up? In order to remain viable, is masculinity (i.e., \u201ctoxic masculinity\u201d) in need of redefining for the new millennium and beyond? In the opening chapter of Plato\u2019s Republic, three philosophers of the day rise to Socrates\u2019 challenge to define \u201cjustice.\u201d Each definition improves upon the last, yet each is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":27482,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[99],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-state-of-masculinity"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Special Guest Contributor <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n> <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"