The feminine mistake: the criminalisation of masculinity
To open the door or not to open the door – for a lot of men that really is the question.
Personally I love it when men open the door for me and that’s not just because I have small children and I’m usually struggling to push an impossibly wide two seater pram through narrow doorways, but because it is a really chivalrous thing to do.
But chivalry, I hear you say, isn’t that a thing of the past? Don’t women hate it when men open doors for them? Didn’t feminism shout out to men that women can open doors for themselves?
Maybe it did. But feminism caused a lot of confusion –and still does actually – so much so that the simple act of opening a door for a woman could lead to either a polite and grateful ‘thank you’ or a half-hour lecture on the fact that women do know how to open doors for themselves.
Radical feminism revisited
There are three waves of feminism that we need to consider when we discuss feminism. The first wave was that of the suffragettes who campaigned for gender equality, votes for women and so forth and certainly, this was and is necessary. We are created equal in God’s eyes and our laws should reflect that. In a similar way, the third wave of feminism also known as ‘new feminism’ as promoted by Pope Benedict XVI, promotes the equality and complementarity of the sexes as espoused beautifully in the late John Paul II”s ‘Theology of the Body’.
Second wave – or radical – feminism however, was born of out a group of women in the 1970s with Marxist ideologies who were disillusioned by what they saw as the continual oppression of women by their male counterpart. They believed that the only way for the two sexes to be truly equal was to remove or ignore the very characteristics of masculinity and femininity as given to us by God. In essence, by creating a genderless society, radical feminists are seeking to become, not equal to men but like men.
Helen Alvare, a family law professor from America explains that radical feminism ‘drew upon the worst features of male behavior for its prescriptions. Thus was the feminist woman urged to be a sexually adventurous, marriage-and children- spurning, money and career driven, creature. Feminism urged women to imitate the male version of original sin – domination – to attain equality and happiness.
So in order to free women from the so-called shackles that still bound them (maternity) they needed to become like men and so contraception and abortion were soon championed as rights for women because obviously, maternity and motherhood were not holding men back from living their lives and having successful careers. Now women could focus on their own careers, breaking through the glass ceiling, and engage in casual sex without fear of pregnancy.
As a result, women became more masculine, but in doing so they emasculated men by taking away their role as protector and provider by saying that they do not need men to make them happy or to provide for them.
Howard S. Schwartz is the author of ‘The Revolt of the Primitive: An inquiry into the roots of political correctness’ and a professor of organisational behaviour who argues that feminism morphed from a realistic – and overdue – ideal of gender equality into a war between the sexes.
He argues that radical feminism attacks the very root of masculinity and has, consequentially, made it a crime for men to exhibit any masculine behaviour. Masculine roles such as that of protector of women and children are considered anti-woman and sexist.
Casualty of war: masculinity
‘The Feminine Mystique’ is just one text that highlights the ideas championed by the radical feminist movement. The premise behind Betty Freidan’s classic text that women were suffering from an identity crisis that saw them place their husband and children at the centre of their lives and as such, they lost their ‘self’ and they needed to fight this current and protect their ‘self’.
Further to this concept is the idea that gender roles – like housewife or men as the primary breadwinner – are socially constructed and there is no biological reason behind them. Thus, women were socially conditioned by men (as their oppressor) to accept that their role as a women was geared towards the home.
So basically, it’s all men’s fault and every semblance of masculinity is a crime against women and equality of the sexes! Men who open doors are committing a crime, and so are: men who are primary breadwinners while their wives are at home, men who want to protect women, strong men, successful men and confident men.
What we’re left with are submissive (and rightly, confused) men and dominant women – the complete reverse of what we had before. And of course, we’re still not happy. The unequal balance has just reversed not levelled out.
The ‘Twilight’ effect
You might be wondering how I could link the current fictional phenomenon of ‘Twilight’ in with this crisis of masculinity and frankly, it really all has to do with the character of Edward.
And no, I’m not one of the legions of females swooning over Robert Pattinson, however, I like so many others was bemused as to why these novels and subsequent movies are so popular. But it seems, in amongst all of the vampirism and relationship drama, is a truth about masculinity. Real masculinity.
Jason Evert, an American Catholic man leading a chastity revolution, explains it this way: ‘[‘Twilight’] reveals a crisis of masculinity in our culture. There aren’t a lot of chivalrous guys out there and so when you portray one in a fictitious story the girls are like: that’s what I want. I want a guy who protects me. I want a guy who wants what’s best for me.’
In essence then, Evert argues that Edward is a predator who becomes Bella’s protector which is the opposite of teenage guys today (in many instances but not necessarily all) who can be described as protectors who become predators by using their girlfriends for their own gratification.
This is not meant to be a damning indictment on teenage guys but demonstrate that generally, women (teenage girls included) feel attracted to men who take on the role of their protector – precisely what radical feminism revolted against.
So why is it that the very thing feminism revolted against –masculinity and chivalry- is what women really want or need men to possess?
Back to the beginning
For those not familiar with the late Pope John Paul II”s ‘Theology of the Body’, the understanding of human sexuality begins with the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis. Certainly, we all know the story of Adam and Eve, but these chapters reveal many truths about our human sexuality and why we are the way we are.
First of all, the fundamental truth is that God made us in his image and chose to make us male and female. He made us equal and complementary, so that we could be made one flesh through the intimate union of marriage.
It is through our coming together as male and female that we discover the real image of God. Therefore it is not just in our individuality that we are made in God’s image, but also in our union. As we become one body, one flesh, in marriage we reveal God’s image and likeness in a more complete way. We are one body made up of two parts, masculinity and femininity.
When we talk about masculinity and femininity in relation to the one body, or one flesh, we assign to each part a particular image. For masculinity it is the head, and femininity the heart.
The reason we do so is that in each of the sexes there is a primacy of either the head: representing a more analytical and rational based decision-making process, or the heart: representing a more emotional based decision-making process.
Masculinity: primacy of the head
Men are, in general, more rational and analytical than the so-called ‘fairer’ sex. They tend to see things in black and white and can make objective decisions. They are called to action, leadership and self-sacrificial love. In fact, they’re called to lay down their lives for their wives (cf. Ephesians 25)
He is called to be the head of the household, the authority figure and disciplinarian because he can be rational and fair and is less swayed by emotions. Men are also called to be the breadwinners as opposed to the homemakers once again because of their being less in tune with their emotions they cannot fulfill the role of nurturer in the way that women can.
There are four archetypes of masculinity highlighted by Pope John Paul II in his ‘Theology of the Body’.
These archetypes, explains Catholic psychotherapist Dr Philip Mango, are the ‘foundation for the ultimate masculine identity of priest, prophet and king in identification with Christ.’
The archetypes of king, warrior, lover and counselor each reveal a truth about masculinity. The king represents an authority figure that creates order and encourages and blesses those subject to him.
The warrior is ready and willing to defend and protect those whom he loves. Dr Mango adds that this includes protecting his dependants ‘physically, psychologically, spiritually and economically.’
The lover is the epitome of responsible spousal love. He is not sentimental but his love is true and pure. He is always there for his wife and is both quick to forgive and to ask forgiveness.
Finally, the counselor is able to share and pass on spiritual knowledge and advice. He is a trusted and wise guide whom many turn to for advice.
At the root of each of these archetypes is a quality that can be argued as being a masculine quality necessary both in a marriage and family and perhaps sadly lacking in some areas today: authority figure, defender and protector, lover and counselor.
Femininity: primacy of the heart
Certainly, there would be none who would argue the fact that women are more attuned to their emotions.
They are more sensitive to matters of the heart, more romantic and easily persuaded by emotions.
Women are called to be mothers, not just biologically speaking, but also by the qualities they have in nurturing and self-sacrificing love. Women have a special ‘openness’ to the new person created by marital intimacy (cf. On the Dignity and Vocation of Women, John Paul II). Her part in procreation is certainly the more demanding but by her very nature, her very femininity, she has a greater capacity for the self-sacrificing love and charity this role requires.
She is called to be the homemaker, though this does not prevent her from being in the workforce should she so desire. Just as the man is the head of the family, the authority figure and disciplinarian, the woman is the heart of the household.
She is the one who carries many of the emotional burdens of the family and whilst she too shares in the disciplining of their children, she is more prone to emotional responses which sometimes limit the effectiveness of her discipline.
She is the shoulder on which the members of her family cry on, when they need someone to listen to them.
So in reality men are the head and women the heart but what radical feminism has done is reverse that so that women have usurped the head and men by default, are left with the heart.
The resurgence of chivalry
So once we understand that we are biologically geared to feel or need certain things, there is a particular challenge here for men. In order to realign the balance of gender equality you need to rediscover, and practice, chivalry.
I don’t mean chivalry as in a specific list of dating how-to’s like: give your date your jacket if she looks cold, or open the car door for her but rather as a code of honour or behaviour.
Chivalry is ‘a male phenomenon which helps define the role of men in their given societies. It defines their manners, their responsibilities, their relationships to women, and even to God… It is the impulse to do good, to behave well, to live according to one’s higher instincts in harmony with others’ (www.chivarlynow.net)
Men are meant to be assertive, confrontational, action-orientated and masculine! They are meant to be full of integrity and treat all others with respect. That is what chivalry means – it’s a code of behaviour where all people and all things are treated with the respect and dignity they have as a result of being made in God’s image.
Women are respected, not objectified and considered as equals not subjects. And certainly not tools for self gratification. Women and children – as well as all that is good and pure – must be defended and protected.
In fact, there are websites dedicated to the restoration of chivalry and masculinity in our contemporary society. I recommend visiting www.chivalrynow.net and downloading a copy of the 12 trusts which are virtue-based and provide a great structure for leading a chivalrous life.
Whilst radical feminism claims to know what will make women happy, their ideals fall short of the mark. Women need men to be masculine, just as men need women to be feminine. We can’t complement each other as God intended if we don’t understand or appreciate these inherent truths about our sexuality and gender.
So, not only do we need a ‘new feminism’ but perhaps a ‘new masculinism’ as well. And yes, apparently, that is a real term…
Originally posted 2013-11-19 08:46:53.