Masculinity and Femininity, and the Danger of Putting the Cart before the Horse.

Masculinity leads, and Femininity follows.

When masculinity leads, emotions are secondary. When masculinity leads, the declaration is this: “I will be happy when I find out the truth, whether I think I like the truth or not.” Masculinity puts aside feelings not as if feelings are irrelevant, but in the sense that the person is fulfilled only after discovering the truth, not putting the cart before the horse.
 
Femininity reinforces and stabilizes society during the journey, as it were, empowered to do so by masculine, decisive truth. Where masculinity puts truth on the forefront, femininity puts feeling on the forefront, using the empowerment of truth to focus directly on the comfort of people.
 
To put the cart before the horse–when femininity leads masculinity–the statement is, “I will seek my happiness first, because if I’m happy, I must have found the truth.” The benefit of truth is happiness, for sure, but when femininity leads it attempts to put truth in subordination to feelings.
 
In the modern world, this can be seen in society and is rampant in church culture as well as the secular world; the priority is not “finding the truth,” but “tolerance.” In the extreme case of the secular world, modern ideology supposes that wildly opposing beliefs on morality must submit to the happiness of society. Christian culture has adopted this attitude, that keeping peace between people is more important than the correctness of beliefs; we must “agree to disagree” if that’s what it takes to keep the primary purpose, being the comfort of people, achieved–supposing that that’s what it means to be “loving.”
 
To be loving means to desire the well-being of others. When we acknowledge that the truth exists, we know that others are loved when they are directed to the life-giving truth and it is indeed quite loving to be insistent on truth (masculinity), not excluding the personal touch of ministering to others in ways that are palatable (that is, they are able to receive it) to them (femininity).
 
Masculinity leads to the truth, cultivates the impersonal elements, to draw strength from that which is outside society and outside of the person and outside of comfort, in the form of seeking power. Masculinity then ministers that power to femininity–which MUST follow behind as secondary–and femininity puts back into society by ministering comfort to it (nurturing), having received the power to do so by masculinity.
 
Femininity in the lead says that all truth must submit to my feelings. Femininity in submission draws power from the truth outside of the person and then ministers to the person. Masculinity in the lead trusts that pursuit of the truth will lead to happiness and puts the agenda of happiness aside to that end. Masculinity in submission is crippled from being able to lead into the wilderness to find truth and then provide its benefits to femininity.
 
Once again, the masculine/feminine interaction is nowhere near as simple as a biological male and female. Men and women both are feminine–i.e. submissive–to the entirely masculine God (as the bride of Christ) who provides power to mankind when mankind is submissive; of course men are to be completely submissive/feminine to God in order to receive that power for the sake of life and comfort. When men minister those benefits to women similarly, women echo the benefits back to men with abilities to maximize human comfort and therefore keep society healthy. Both on the individual level (marriage, most notably) or in general, hence a few notes in Scripture that women are to be submissive in manner to men in general. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 of course refers to women learning in “full submission” to male teachers, ultimately, and can minister a masculine/feminine interaction among themselves. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, at heart, notes the supportive nature of women relative to men in general. Put under a magnifying glass and blown out of proportion, it might appear that women do nothing for men at all after men (including those not their husbands) yet the abundant remainder of Scripture’s discussion with regards to how believers serve each other spiritually does not constantly place male/female parameters on interactions.
 
To approach the matter of how male and female interact, there is that which–I believe–is simply expected to occur naturally when “men are men” and “women are women” when the principles therein are understood. For one thing, Scripture clearly indicates that men and women both are submissive to other men as is apparent with the arrangements of male teachers and elders. In more common interactions I believe this occurs to lesser degrees, Fathers to daughters, brothers and sisters, in common biological family, and of course we are called to treat one another as such in the spiritual family as “brothers and sisters” (1 Timothy 5:1-2). How this works out in practice may open long and complicated discussions, but this is how interactions work.

What I find clear is that masculinity and femininity struggle to put each other to good use in this culture, socially. Men can be caught in a sort of machismo, not knowing their need for the nurturing of femininity; pastors–spiritual leaders, a masculine interaction to the feminine submission–are to be strong at all times, not needing the support of those to whom they lead. When the leader stumbles, people often think little of supporting the leader, and instead criticize without becoming a part of the solution.

Without the feminine support, the masculine gets burnt out, as unfortunately happens so often to those in leadership positions.

At the same time, as I often talk about, there are probably twenty words of criticism toward men from women for every one word involving women looking to be part of the solution to men’s problems; men, whom women simply expect to be strong. The deception then goes two ways in this interaction: masculine forgets its use for feminine support and gets exhausted in its machismo, and femininity forgets how to do anything for the masculine other than take the benefits without giving anything in return.

I pray for restored interactions in what God designed beautifully in total submission to Him.

Advertisements

Christian MGTOW? Some of My Reactions . . . 

My writing here, on this blog, represents getting a lot of my thoughts down on the matter of men’s personal fulfillment. Christian mainstream culture is darkly polluted with misandry: a constant railing against men for their duties and responsibilities without an element of compassion with regard to the actual situations of men. Men are human, and that means two things for the sake of the discussion: we have the same innate value as women, and we can’t function without being taken care of as such (whether we do so on our own or with help).

 
To answer the question of the article’s title, I would say “almost.” Defining MGTOW is something of a paradox, because it has no definition except that a man MAKES his own definition for the course of his life, after identifying a misandric culture which means to use and exploit him. That said, there are a number of tendencies that I feel can be addressed.
 
First, I’ll speak about my disagreements with the MGTOW approach, if they are in fact real disagreements. The end goal of a man should include a give-and-take relationship with the Body of Christ which currently makes a habit of ignoring men’s issues, and is thus simply not a viable option for a man currently; my advice is to keep that at a safe distance and keep your guard up. “Christian” culture must get the message, in my opinion, that wanting things from men is fine–in fact, complaining about men is fine–but not without some serious legwork on the part of those who want to reap from men, that “love your neighbor as yourself” stuff.
 
In terms of men, they sow with their effort sparingly, and fail to realize that they ought to expect to reap sparingly. (2 Corinthians 9:6) But all they know how to do, for the most part, is to keep on complaining about what men do or don’t do, slog on the “duty” and “responsibility.” Such entities deserve nothing from men and can expect not to receive anything, not because men ought to outright spite others–do not hear me wrong–but because we need to take care of ourselves so as to be capable of having something to offer. The Body of Christ was meant to interact with and take care of itself, or it cannot expect its members to function.
 
So I agree with the necessity of MGTOW. We are called to be free, to be loved, and to give generously. Another phrase going around out there is “men on strike,” which I also feel is misleading, because in all reality, it’s the mainstream society that went on strike on men first. The proposed scenarios–not the least of which being the unacceptable legal/societal/cultural conditions for marriage–for men are simply no longer even doable. But again, my end goal is to see a restored, healthy interaction between people. Perhaps other MGTOWs believe similarly, but I am not so clear on this point.
 
Another matter is the MGTOW approach to women. Where I agree is that men must–absolutely must–know how to preserve themselves from women in a world fixated on protecting women from men but has very little interest on protecting men from women; in today’s society it is simply too easy for a man to become an abandoned victim of a woman (investigate Men’s Rights resources for a LONG run-down of how that happens). Effectively, we have men white-knighting Jezebels and slaughtering one another, among other problems. This matter is the doing of the mainstream–that is to say, men and women both–but I believe the exceptionally rare case of a woman who demonstrates fully capable of recognizing a man’s equal personhood ought to be recognized and SUPPORTED by men. A woman who is demonstrably on the same side as men? Precious–and no, for the ignorant, being married to a man is not automatic proof. But I believe if the MGTOW movement wants to be thoroughly credible, part of its modus operandi ought to be supporting such women. Men must make room for them, rare as they may be, in the discussion with full appreciation.
 
Dear MGTOWs: friendly fire upon women who actually have compassion for men as equally human is absolutely the worst. They too are precious human beings with value unto themselves, and have much to offer the world, just as men, should they so choose. To me, the institution of marriage (that is, of the 21st century) is unsafe because of the legal and cultural context, but that is not the fault of the woman who desires to be part of a solution and not part of the problem and she does NOT deserve to be a casualty of MGTOW. Negative effects on her are every bit as unacceptable as negative effects on men. Men can demonstrate support of such women and that can be a huge factor in its success in changing our greater culture.
 
Oh, and then there are the PUAs. Misguided to say the least, PUAs are the opposite of self-respecting, degrading their bodies on sexual immorality. MGTOW PUAs are of course cynical in women’s abilities to offer a loving relationship, but they go after sexuality alone. The nature of lust, people, is idolatry, which means saying “come to life” to that which does not have life on its own: if a woman does not love you, but you think her body can, then it’s only your vain imagination at work saying “come to life” to her body in your heart. If a woman truly does not love you, such as a prostitute (see Proverbs 6:26) then you REALLY degrade yourself by being reduced to a “piece of bread.” You sin against your body (1 Corinthians 6:18), by joining it with that which does not love you. Women are not “prizes,” but can potentially offer loving relationships or people involved in sexual immorality are simply reducing themselves to objects.
 
MGTOW is what we had coming. And frankly, for the most part it’s an absolutely necessary movement provided that it takes productive steps forward. Men are achieving what the mainstream does not want them to achieve: self-awareness, a recognition for their value as individuals and the futility of our current culture that wants to take from men without paying attention to their needs. Men are becoming aware and, as I titled this blog: “self-defensive.”