We men are too “machista”: Why Pope Francis is both right and wrong

By Trevor York

The Argentine pope recently commented on the male-dominated turn out during his visit at a Catholic university in the Philippines by saying that "we men are too machista." The leader of the Catholic church responded to the crowd by claiming the importance of women’s perspectives, especially in decision-making. To many, it’s refreshing to hear more liberal sentiments from Christian leaders. However the noted male-dominated turnout brought attention to the real issue: a systemic and institutional patriarchy resulting in discrimination against women. That’s not something that can be fixed with the surface appeal of a silver tongue.

Consider that the Catholic church bans women from becoming priests. While this may at first seem to be an issue with the Catholic church in particular, if we look at other religions we can see that the roles and identities that men and women are supposed to take on are typically highly gendered. This has been the case in many world religions over time, reflecting a historical patriarchal order that permeates western society, and many other parts of the world as well. For example, it was only in the 1970's that women started serving as rabbis for the Jewish community. Looking eastward towards Asia, we find influences of patriarchy through Confucianism and even assigned gender identities in the dualism of Taoism. The Islamic community has in many cases encouraged traditional family roles for women, conservative dress, and traditional sexual identities for men and women.

The permeation of patriarchy has historically been evident in religion, politics, economics, science, education, philosophy, the organization of society and family; for our age, these things have reflected the patriarchy, often the “machista”. Seeing the symptoms of patriarchy in the Philippines merely reminds us of it’s global reach. Although it's easy to blame a particular religion, or even religion in general, for discrimination against women, history tells us patriarchy, male domination, is the typical order of most societies across history. It's a mistake for us to only prod religion in the advancement of women's rights, gender equality, and all relevant social justice causes. The machista Pope Francis refers to - what we might alternatively call hegemonic or toxic masculinity - is often perceived as the natural form of masculine identity. Yet, I contend that embracing this version of masculinity, one that necessarily seeks to subordinate women and also men who fail to meet its standards, is actually a form of weakness, for all it requires is to accept the status quo and all of the privileges that it confers. True strength can be found in the courage to challenge an unjust system and reject its false rewards.

The 20th century saw some great progress for gender equality, identity, and rights, but this is merely the beginning of a new age. Our time, and the future, I hope, will mark a shift from a general order of patriarchy to the creation of an at least incrementally more equitable gender order, perhaps even the establishment of a matriarchy. The process of creating such a new order necessarily provokes us to ask new questions about the roles and identities imposed onto us by the conditioning of the media, religion, education, and all other socializing institutions. Does it even make sense to associate sex and gender? Who profits from the patriarchy? What will future students of York University say about how we acted when they look back at us? Will they ask, "why didn't anyone speak up, or do anything at that time?"

The easiest way to fight the machista is to be yourself. We are naturally resistors of patriarchal society, the imposed hegemonic masculine norms, because in real life people are individuals who in most cases don't have inherent qualities that align neatly with the established gender order. Are men really fundamentally rational, dominant, and strong? Are women irrational, submissive, and weak? Of course not. A man has emotions, just as a woman does. Only by willfully suppressing and neglecting those attributes perceived to be "feminine" (sensitivity, emotions, intuition, passivity, etc.) do men cultivate and perform hegemonic masculinity at the expense of women, the exploitation of the planet and its natural resources, and, even, themselves.

The men who can acknowledge these problems, who can acknowledge we're not inherently restrained by assigned gender identities and characteristics, are the ones able to glimpse the creative potential of the future. For once, it can be up to us as individuals to construct our identity, instead of some element in society. For once, we can be in control of who we are. The men who take action, those who try to move society forward, are the are the ones who can help create a new vision for humanity. They are the ones who ask how rational it is to exploit and hurt others and the world around us.

Patriarchy has produced a number of illogical conclusions we've mistakenly taken on as norms. The most important thing we must all do is face up to the fact that the dualistic sex/gender system we have been taught is nothing more than an illusion. The reality is that we all exist beyond duality and have the potential for infinitely diverse forms of identity. Free yourself from the matrix of patriarchy.

It was once said we can live in a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. It's where you go from here, a choice I leave to you.

Evangelical Masculinity: On the Christian call to "Act Like Men"

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in Love” (1 Cor 16:13-14, ESV)

 

Mark Driscoll preaching at Mars Hill Church, set against a large backdrop that reads "Ten Commandments: set free to live free," 24 Oct. 2013.  Image via Ruthanne Reid and has been distributed under the terms of this license. It has not been modified.

In 2013, over six thousand men – and only men – gather in Hamilton, Ontario for the ‘Act Like Men’ conference. They’ve come to learn how to be real Christian men. To reclaim a sense of biblical masculinity. To be told that, to be strong, they must not act like women.

After all, the conference speakers preach, when God wants something done, He calls a man to do it.

I say preach because these speakers are the leaders of some of the largest, most expansive Evangelical networks in the US. Pastors and church planters like James MacDonald of the Harvest Bible Chapel, Eric Mason of the Epiphany Fellowship, and, most infamously, Mark Driscoll the (former) pastor of Mars Hill Church – though now he’s probably better known for his comments about the “pussified nation” or women as “penis homes.”

But this is still 2013, a year before Driscoll’s fall from grace. A year before he is disowned by the organizations he founded, and before his church has dissolved. And this year, on this stage, he is energized.

He is alive like lightning, casting sharp, electric, verbal bolts. A wave of nuclear frisson that moves through the crowd as he yells into his mic about Abraham and Abraham’s father -- about the generations of the godless before Abraham who are “stacked like kindling for the eternal fire.” Shaking his chains – he’s brought real metal chains on stage with him – making them look weightless though you can hear their heavy clanking through his mic. To him they are light. They weigh nothing compared to God’s judgment.

A real revivalist preacher, a ‘bro,’ and easily the most charismatic speaker here. A prophet shouting out in the desert of secularism, the spiritual desert of “pussified men,” of soy milk, and organic honey. And what is his prophecy?

It’s emblazoned on the banners lining the entrance to the stadium. The name of the conference: “Act Like Men.” Each banner outlines one of its four pillars. I open the booklet they gave me at registration and read.

Act Like Men Means:

1. Don’t Act Like A Woman

2. Don’t Act Like A Boy

3. Don’t Act Like An Animal

4. Don’t Act like A Superhero

Let’s leave aside, for now, the awkward association of femininity, immaturity, animality, and fiction. Focus on 1. What does it mean to tell men that to be real Christians they must not act like women?

Technically, pastors like Driscoll and MacDonald are complementarians. They hold to the idea that the Bible lays out that gender roles are separate, equal, and different. Equal dignity between the sexes is supposed to be emphasized in this theological view, though it’s hard to imagine that considering what “Don’t Act Like Women” seems to mean.

The speakers break it down: men don’t follow, they lead; men are not to be the weaker vessel; emotional self-control is a sign of real masculinity (insert joke about our wives crying at movies, followed by laughter). Therefore, we “don’t need birth control – we need self-control.” A piece of rhetoric that treats the reality of pregnancy as merely a way of attacking or defending men’s pride.

They emphasize, Driscoll especially, that God is the Father. The ultimate Father. Therefore, to act like a Christian is to act like a man, to act like a father. And in this move, far from the idea of equal dignity of the sexes, women are pushed out of their collective imagination. Pushed out of the public sphere (they don’t lead), out of agency in sexuality (don’t need birth control but self-control), out of the highest sense of spiritual communion (God is the Father – the Father – and he calls on his sons to act).

Fatherhood is an obsession at the conference. Or, maybe it’s more accurate to say that fatherlessness is. One of the speakers, Greg Laurie, puts it directly: modern society is suffering from an “epidemic of fatherlessness.” Almost every social ill, from divorce, to domestic violence, to substance abuse, to homosexuality, to atheism, is traced back to a lack of real fathers, real men, and real Christians.

Like the message “Act Like Men,” this sense of masculinity-under-assault is one of the first thing that greets you in the conference. A banner with the message, “Godly men are absolutely an endangered species” hangs at the entrance. To fix men is to fix society. To save men is to save society. To attack men, masculinity, and fatherhood is to attack society. It’s hard to see this rhetoric as gender ‘complementary.’

Driscoll leans on this idea too, emphasizing that men are called to be fathers within their family, and fathers (leaders) to a nation. In fact, the two are linked together. He yells at the crowd, as if to baptize them in spittle and passion, shaking his chains for emphasis, about the importance of lineage and biological legacy, about Abraham and his father, about Abraham and his many, many sons. Christians must beget Christians, each one a link in a chain of patriarchs. Every man comes from another man – and again, women disappear even from the fact of reproduction.

But many here are fatherless, if not literally then spiritually. Some are the first links in the chain – new Christians from faithless families. Others are broken links seeking repair, or the sons of broken links, the children of absent or abusive fathers. And for many what makes this call-to-masculinity so persuasive, so necessary, is the reality of toxic masculinity that they are intimately familiar with.

Driscoll speaks to this too, and from personal experience. He describes himself as the son of a wife-beating alcoholic from generations of wife-beating alcoholics. A different kind of legacy, but redeemed through his conversion. His faith converted his father. He yells into the mic, again and again, with the same fervor as when he talks about eternal damnation, his message of hope: “It does not matter who your father is as long as God is your father.”

This is what these men have come to hear, especially those who are as familiar with domestic violence as Driscoll. That they are not damned to a lack of manliness, a lack of self-control, to inevitable violence and abuse, as long as God is their father. As long as they become real fathers.

This is the softer edge of their message but it still cuts to their spiritual cores. Driscoll, Laurie, and Lacrae all talk about their absent/abusive fathers. Their struggles to break this chain of abuse and negligence, and remake their lives into something holy. Their commitment to a new non-violent kind of masculinity. In a sense a similar project to this blog -- an attempt to ‘rethink’ masculinity.

And this is where James Macdonald leans in. Almost as charismatic as Driscoll but taking a different approach. No chains, or readings from Genesis, or reminders of eternal fire. Instead, ending his sentences at times with ‘bro’ or ‘yo’ (“Don’t go out without your sword, yo” when reminding people to bring their Bibles). He reads out 1 Corinthians 16:13-14: “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.”

He leans on, repeats, reminds us that men are called to let all that we do “be done in love.” Reminds us that to act in godly love means to be communicative, patient, kind. Reminds us that godly men can hug too. Calls on us to eschew the violence, temper, and insensitivity that defined the upbringing of many men here. Calls on us to be better fathers than our fathers, to be something other than the wolf at the dinner table. Reminds us that to act in anger is not to act like men. And he cautions us against the false love of socialism, of pornography, of feminism, of permissive, secular culture. Reminds us that God has called men to act like men and not women. Cautions us against the spiritual weakness of letting women lead. Calls on us to act in love.

To genuinely rethink masculinity is a radical project, one that neither Driscoll or Macdonald – different as their styles are – are willing to undertake. It is not quite enough to be against violence – rarely are people actually pro-violence. Instead, it’s a call to the difficult work of questioning masculinity altogether, not simply trying to redeem it. Otherwise, we risk simply reproducing the same ideas that make gender-based violence both possible and invisible – all while attaching it to a rhetoric of anti-violence and biblical love.

Why we need to stop playing “the game”

By E. A.

Why are some men the aggressor when it comes to relationships? 

If we focus on the traditional male/female paradigm (this analysis is not meant to normalize or privilege heterosexual relations at the expense of homosexual relations, but merely to examine some of the dynamics in the former) we will see a common conception: the man must actively seek the woman. When it comes to dating, the illusion typically exists that there is a “game” that must be played. This illusion is one that both sexes play a part in, and no matter how “progressive” or “alternative” the individuals may be, both parties will almost always play along – even in the most minute ways – with this socially-entrenched model of behaviour. 

This can be seen in the example of a standard night at a popular nightclub. On such a night, men will approach the event intending to meet women and earn their favor. The game is what must be “played” to distinguish the characteristics of one individual from another; it is the stage set for competing individuals to successfully “win” the object of their desire, a prize, so to speak. 

It is in this realm that we see the man as active; he must seduce the women, pursue her, attempt to win her over, and further, do so in a way that renders the attempts of other men inferior. Now, this is done by engaging her senses; a man must perform a multitude of personalities to stand out from the competition. He must possess (or, as is most often the case, display that he possesses without any genuine substance) desirable traits that the woman looks for. He must be confident and charming, humourous and witty, physically and aesthetically pleasing, etc. Thus, in this realm, the man must play according to a predefined role. Not to say that there isn’t any room for creativity and innovation, but there is certainly a structure that must be adhered to if he aims for objective success. 

Women too play into this construct. When a woman goes for a “night out” she typically prepares herself by dressing in a way that is appealing (whether this be defined by terms like “sexy” or “flirty” is case specific, however, it is almost always in a way that renders preference to her male counterpart). This is done to improve her chances of being seen, to look more attractive than other women. This construct has permeated deep into popular culture, with women going to painful lengths just to achieve a specific look. The woman then presents herself through both her clothing and body language. Often, women will dance suggestively, embrace their friends provocatively, and exhibit coquettish body language. Although these are all active and completely conscious actions, the role of the woman within the structure of the game is still inherently passive. This is all done in an attempt to get a man to engage with her. Although it is acceptable for her to start the conversation, she must possess some degree of desirability, in the hopes of catching the attention of the man and stopping him from pursuing other women.    

Now, as you read this you may think that this model is based on tired stereotypes and a simplistic outlook on the dating scene. This is partly true. Nightclubs and “the game” represent a microcosm of human activity, but there is no doubt that it is a very real and very popular activity among young people. It is one that has become deeply entrenched in popular culture. We can look no further than popular music, most of which variously references “the club,” the activity of pursing and interacting with the opposite sex, and sexual activities. Further, television and other popular media regularly play into the conception of “the game;” advertisements that present male hygienic products as “rugged, “manly” or “smooth” (look no further than an old spice ad for deodorant) make shameless allusions to masculine characteristics that the stereotypical woman is supposed to like. Sitcoms often lampoon the dating scene and the popularity of Friends and How I Met You’re Mother, are a testament to the insidious acceptance of these codes. Both contain stock characters who embody the attributes of the dating scene; the former has Phoebe, absent-minded girl who lives for a good time, and the latter, Barney, a serial womanizer with little respect for women who inspires hope for legions of men. The point being made is that there is a real and well-understood social construct that dictates the relationships between men and women. It is widely accepted, albeit subconsciously, by the masses due to its insidious nature and ability to homogenize itself with almost every facet of modern culture. This is true so much so that non-hegemonic groups still pander to its structure; the LGBT community has the “butch” and “femme” and the “top” and “bottom”.  Some progressive cultures, such as polyamory, see sexuality as open, yet make no attempt to deconstruct the gender roles (although they do seem more open to varying viewpoints). Even feminists themselves have open debates regarding the role of masculinity in their own sexuality, with some fully embracing it and seeing it’s exploitation as a form of empowerment, and others fully rejecting it (yet this often plays into a masculine role, the “butch”).   

So let us return to the original question: why are some men the aggressors when it comes to relationships? Those who actively enjoy and embrace the structure of “the game” are quite susceptible to overt enthusiasm. It’s not a big leap to jump from confidence to power, and this can become quite domineering. As a man, I’ve heard numerous references to women as “kills,” “wins”, “scores,” and even “prey,” reducing them to the very object that “the game” holds them as. This creates contempt for women that some men find “easy,” as they do not correctly fulfill to their given role, or do so poorly, or haphazardly. It is not uncommon for men to diminish the personality of a promiscuous woman. Perhaps this can in part explain the actions of violence towards sex workers (something far more common than in domestic relationships, although that violence is a real issue in its own respect) and explains why there is a very real and socially-accepted culture of domination when it comes to the seduction of women. The Pick Up Artist, or PUA, culture is an extremely concerning community that seems to feed off this dynamic and they have, rightly, come under the criticism of feminists and intellectuals. Although not all men see women as inferior, there is a very real consciousness that sees them as playing a passive role, a role that is easily exploited and dominated by those who seek power through violence. 

But the issue of gender-based violence is obviously not that simplistic. Psychoanalytic and social scientific research shows us that the psyche of humans is extremely complex. Among the multitude of reasons that may drive a man to physically assault a woman, there are men who do so because they themselves have been dominated. Whether the culprits were other men, authority, or institutions, these individuals feel victimized and hurt. They may then seek violent power as a form of unconscious retribution. Further; they may see the passive role of women as something that can be easily subjugated.  These men, dealing with a variety of issues, may find the construction of dating and socializing as something they can easily comprehend. From here they may exploit this knowledge in an attempt to realize their own aggression. The man earns the trust of a woman but only to lower her defenses, thus attacking a vulnerable and easy target. 

These examples illustrate both the complex causes of gender-based violence and allow us to elucidate the effects it has on female survivors. The latter example emphasizes what a woman means when she says she feels victimized. For simply playing into an assigned role, she is degraded and violated. 

An awareness of these gender roles helps to understand not only the causes but also some of the responses to gender-based violence. Women who “dress like sluts” are not “asking for it,” they may simply be doing it to attract the attention of a particular person. Not all men are perverted, domineering predators, some may just be shy or introverted, or simply have been told to act in a certain way. The barriers of miscommunication and social constructs are what lead to a majority of the issues, and there must be much more open dialogue when it comes to addressing the void between genders (and their assigned social roles) in an attempt to secure empathy for one another. With consent becoming something of a buzz word in the media, let’s not forget what it really means: to give permission, to have the other see you as an equal, respect your wishes, and to share something with you. 

Consent, in short, creates the conditions for play between sexual partners; “the game is simply an exercise in violence and power. It’s time to start reimagining the games we play.

On Belief and Masculinity

By Tony Barone

As funny as it may sound, people believe what they believe because they are assuming that it is the truth.

To borrow from Socrates, ideas about gender differences, philosophy, religion, the nature of society, one’s own values, are all things worth revisiting and examining. Only by comparing her own ideas with those of others can a person be certain that at any given time she is making choices and decisions based on a true set of personal values.

A person can, of course, believe whatever he wants. It is, however, crucial to understand that there’s a difference between beliefs built on a foundation of truth, and beliefs based on the tenuous and fallible foundation of popular consensus or socialization. The idea that each of us could have been acting on faulty information for our entire lives is a difficult one to swallow.

In your life look around and notice how many of your friends and family still hold on to ideas about the world, about life, about themselves, which they learned or developed as children.  From there, recognize that you may have ideas that are similarly incorrect or incomplete, and that there’s no easy way to tell whether your ‘story’ is missing something.

It is incredibly difficult to picture a world in which these beliefs are incorrect. It would be like growing up implicitly trusting the morality of your oldest friend only to find out later in life that he had been engaging in gender-based violence for years. This would be an exceptionally difficult mental jump to make.

So, what does all this have to do with masculinity and gender-based violence? Why am I meditating on the nature of belief for the Men’s Team blog?

Well, belief has everything to do with masculinity. Christopher Ford has written that there is nothing natural about masculinity. Rather, it is a set of ideas – beliefs – about what it means to be a man. These beliefs must be taken very seriously because at times they have had and continue to have abhorrent consequences.

25 years ago, a gunman entered a school in Montreal and massacred 14 female students.  Why? He was enraged because he believed those women were involved in studies meant for men. 

Now, not all beliefs about the nature of masculinity have negative consequences. For example, some traditional ideas about courage and devotion to family are difficult to see as anything but honorable. Still, these more positive characteristics cannot be separated from a broader system of belief that men are taught to act and identify with. These beliefs have everything to do with placing value on strength and violence and emotional detachment at the expense of care, vulnerability, and affect, and the consequences are experienced by both women and men.

Men have adopted these traditional beliefs as truths, and those who diverge from them are ridiculed by their peers. From a young age, children, boys and girls, are socialized into an understanding of their gender by the adults who shape their lives. Let’s use the question of emotional vulnerability as an example. In most cases, boys learn that they shouldn’t discuss issues about emotional problems, as to do so is deemed to be “like a woman,” or “not manly.”

A boy who experiences this conditioning will then be discouraged from seeking emotional support and will become increasingly emotionally-distant in his dealings with other peers. In the long-term, the result is that men are more likely than women to have a greater difficulty in identifying and expressing their true emotions, their true beliefs.

This is just one example of the way in which a belief in the inherent value of masculinity learned in childhood informs the ways in which men live their lives.

Given the incredible harm men have caused to women (and other men) based on such collective beliefs in masculinity,  it is time we started to do the difficult work of looking within and reevaluating whether those beliefs serve the interests of others and ourselves.

We have the responsibility of socializing future generations of men. We need a new set of beliefs to teach them.

The Myths of Manhood — A Series

By Christopher Ford

Beginning today and continuing into next year, I will be writing periodically as a part of a new series of blog posts here at The Men’s Team Blog that I would like to call The Myths of Manhood. It’s something a little bit different from our regular posts discussing violence against women, since the focus of this series is, as you can probably tell, men and masculinity.

But that does not mean it will be disconnected from the subject. Many folks often forget that violence and violence against women is by and large a men’s issue — according to Statistics Canada, approximately 8 out of 10 cases completed in adult criminal courts in Canada (2012) involved a male accused, and approximately 97% and 91% of persons accused of sexual offences and weapons offences respectively were men.

Furthermore, the largest age group of criminal offenders in Canada is men between the ages of 18 and 24, with the second largest being men between 25 and 34.

And so I affirm: we need to stop talking about violence against women as if it is a women’s issue. We need to recognize the massive role that socialization has on the behaviour of men (and the way others view men) if we ever want to put a stop to violence against women (and violence in general).

This is where the idea for this new series came from. I thought that I could investigate some of the ideas about manhood that derive from the patriarchal society in which we live, and to try and refute them. I will start with one for today, and then pick up next time with three more.

Myth: ’Masculinity’ is natural/innate in men

This will be a good myth to start off with, since many other myths about manhood are contained within (and we will be able to talk more about them later on!). But, basically, one of the fundamental myths of manhood is that every man is endowed naturally with ‘masculine’ characteristics and behaviours — you may have heard this myth phrased in different ways, such as “boys will be boys” or “it’s in our nature to be XYZ (sexually aggressive, tough, etc).”

Let’s try to unpack this a little bit. First of all, what do we mean when we say ‘masculine?’ The term masculinity for us — and indeed for our society — means the equation of manhood with violence, dominance, lack of emotion, physical strength and toughness, an insatiable drive for sex (with women), and other similar characteristics.

Now, some folks are of the belief that these characteristics of manhood are genetically inherited by all men, or, to put it another way, that to be a man (read ‘to have a penis’) somehow means that you are predetermined to have character traits like those listed above. And at some level, yes, genes may play a role in the way we behave. However, behaviours that our society ascribes to ‘masculinity’ are very often the products of the socialization of men through culture — and very often the sheer power of socializing forces is altogether ignored.

I know — some of you may be shaking your head in disagreement. But consider the following study performed by Margaret Mead, one of the most influential anthropologists of our time.

In her book, entitled Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935), Mead studied three tribes in the region of modern-day Papua New Guinea. Although residing not too far away from one another, she found considerable differences in the ways men behaved, as well as the gender norms and roles for both men and women, between the tribes.

For the first tribe, the Arapesh people, she said that “both men and women were peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war” (although she does say that war did sometimes happen, but not very often). She also said that the Arapesh showed a considerable amount of egalitarianism, placing particular importance on egalitarian child-rearing.

Regarding the second, called the Mundugumor people, she said that “both men and women were warlike in temperament” — that is, violence was not something attributed to manhood or the nature of men, but it was a large part of the way their society functioned.

And, lastly, the third tribe, the Tchambuli, she said “were different from both. The men 'primped' and spent their time decorating themselves while the women worked and were the practical ones – the opposite of how it seemed in early 20th century America.” The Tchambuli men displayed many characteristics that we would associate with ‘femininity’ here in the West.

Yet, for all three of these tribes, men were not considered as any less masculine by the standards of any society but our own.

And so, in closing, I would like to say the following: we live in a culture that teaches men that they must be independent (i.e. like the protaganist in any American Western film, to not rely on anyone but themselves); that they have natural desires such as desires for sex and for violence that are insatiable (i.e. boys will be boys, or the myth that men think about sex every seven seconds); and that, in order to be a ‘real man,’ they have to be successful.

However, ‘to be successful’ as a man in our society often comes at the expense of others. According to our culture, the idea of success for a man living within it becomes conflated with the achievement of dominance over others, often either through physically overpowering another person or, as said by educator and entrepreneur Hamza Khan at White Ribbon’s What Makes a Man conference this November, through “having things.”

I will continue to unravel and overturn this myth and many others in later posts.

Stay tuned for the next Myth of Manhood — coming soon!