By: Rosemary Dewar
Men have been presented in the most unfavorable and distasteful light in the past few months. Scores of men cast out of social favor in the realms of politics and cultural entertainment. Within the whirlwind of the accusations, there seems to be no man innocent of the allegations. Culture has no problem determining what male behavior is most unbecoming. However, it does have a great problem defining what men ought to be. Without the traditional roles for which men are created, e.g., provision, leadership and self-sacrifice, the use for men is unceremoniously snuffed out.
When one reads in The Washington Post: “And in this broken system, anyone who isn’t with us is against us. Particularly, and especially, men,” the chance for the social redemption of men is near zero.
Or when in The Guardian they assert that, “Perhaps it’s an extreme version of masculinity that has always been with us in a culture that gives men more power and privilege.” Attributing ill behavior to only one sex is in itself sexist.
Observing that certain behaviors are more apparent in one gender demands the acknowledgement that there are fundamental differences between the sexes. If the sexes are indeed different, what would be the benefit in allowing them to switch at will? Not much. Should a woman decide to live her life in a more masculine way, does that mean she is devolving because of toxic masculinity? These contentions are pointless. They are the evidence of a moral and intellectual wasteland, a no man’s land. It’s a true manifestation of utopia.
Men have a purpose and are of noble worth to society. They are the husbands who protect their wives. They are the fathers who provide for their children. They are the leaders who sacrifice for their communities. Any man or woman who would dare to spitefully discount the worth of men is responsible for the squandering of humanity at large.
The Judeo-Christian worldview presents esteemed men as humble leaders, loyal husbands, and caring fathers. Any deviation from the given prescription for honorable manhood was a direct grievance to God. Such men were met with scorn and ruin.
The premise of a successful sexual relationship was exclusively defined by marriage. Instead of being intimate with every viable counterpart, a man was to commit himself to a woman in marriage. In a consensual exchange for companionship and physical protection the two agreed to forsake adultery. There is nothing controversial about this premise unless one or both break their loyalty. In reference to this structure, it is hard to conjure a better situation for women and a society.
Such traditions are frowned upon in our current culture, yet we wonder why our society is in quite an unraveled state. I do not see how men and women can reach their full potential without acknowledging one another’s unique fortés. Once culture reconciles the honorable roles of womanhood and manhood, it has a higher probability of succeeding.
Should culture continue its wholesale tearing down of the standards to which men and women are to hold themselves, the more we will see them torn apart by one another’s vying for self-focused pleasure. The consequences of such recklessness will create greater societal terrors.
Psychologist Carl Jung stated that, “The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” When in the pursuit of unbridled pleasure, mankind is usually living in a hell of his own making. There should be no shock when the things that can hurt you the most actually do.
Men hold a heftier weight of responsibility when it comes to leading a family or leading a community. Compromising the standard for temporary pleasure, fame, or power will have detrimental consequences on society that will take more time to correct than it took to utilize for any advancement. If the aim is to purposefully create a societal disadvantage, dismantle the standard for manhood.
By: Rosemary Dewar
