Avoiding the Toxic War on Toxic Masculinity

“[A]nd they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded” (1 Sam. 30:41)

“Jesus wept” (John 11:35).

“[W]hen he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.” (Luke 15:20)

“And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes’” (Luke 19:41).

“Weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15).

“Stop Lying About Our Boys!” the article said. It is a now-common refrain we hear as we conservatives react against the perceived attacks on masculinity. But from what I have seen, I have come often to question the honesty of crying “man-hater” every time a Gillette ad or other source says there is a problem with male behavior we should attend to. Didn’t the Bible already tell us this would be the case?

Doesn’t the Bible tell us that all men and women are fallen, and that men in this state will seek to dominate women? There is hardly a Christian who would deny such. In fact, the reality is so ingrained in creation, according to generic Christian teaching, that even unbelievers naturally see it and understand it. Why, then, have we become so touchy when someone simply points it out? (Is it because we Christians have become slow or negligent to do so—especially as a cultural-wide message—that we are embarrassed to have been outclassed?)

I learned of a very helpful and relevant article on this topic this morning, but the way I came across it was a bit disappointing. I did not encounter it merely out of curiosity or my own positive research. Rather, the conservative article appeared this morning in defense of “our boys,” opposing the alleged leftist attack on all things male.

I was interested by the extreme language used:

Boys are not bad. Boys do not need to be fixed. Boys do not need to be more like girls. And no matter how many lazy pieces of faux-journalism appear that shame our sons as inherently [my emphasis] toxic and expendable, we will fight to ensure that they know that the culture is lying to them.

It was made clear that the liberals are attacking males as males, and not merely for certain bad behaviors, standards, or culturally accepted offenses. No, it is said that they are attacking “our boys” as “inherently toxic,” “inherent brokenness,” “inherently bad,” and they “awfulize boys . . . simply because they are male.”

Having read enough of both sides in the “war on boys” and “toxic masculinity” genre, I was a little surprised that any substantial source, even if on the left, would be making the argument that maleness in itself is “inherently” any of those negative things. I rolled my pointer over the link and saw it was from The Atlantic. I decided to see just how radical the mainstream leftist source would actually be. I clicked.

As I began to read, my suspicions were not only confirmed, they began to give way to a deep disappointment. There was nothing anywhere in the article that argued men or boys, or “masculinity” was inherently toxic, or anything like that. It is actually a wonderful article in most respects: it details many case examples of how boys and young men are culturally pressured to suppress their emotions, following destructive norms that often involve sexual promiscuity and dominance, and which have many lasting personal and cultural consequences. In short, it is an important message, and it is all about behavior, choices, and culture . . . not at all about what is inherent to being a man or boy.

Much of the good article is nothing but the direct testimony of young men who have been shaped by the types of pressures found in male social hierarchies in universities and school locker rooms all across the nation. These testimonies one after another (in some studies, thousands) all exhibit the drive to prove your toughness or manhood through sexual prowess, dominance, performance, and numbers of sexual encounters, and to prove you’re not a “pussy,” i.e., showing emotion, empathy, care, art, tenderness, meekness, gentleness, etc. Young men who stand against this culture are often crushed and ridiculed, left friendless and without remedy for their soul.

This message is accurate and needed. As someone who grew up in the halls, functions, and locker rooms of public schools and secular society for some years, I can attest that this is all dead on. About the worst thing in the world you could have been called in the locker room was “pussy” or “fag.” It often led to a fight. I remember as early as fifth grade, boys were bragging about digital penetration of girls. In sixth, talk of oral sex and intercourse were not uncommon, as well claims to have done it. It only got worse through middle school.

(Later, when I was a youth pastor, we had one twelve-year old girl who was sexually active, and another, 13, who was pregnant; so, such talk among early teens and preteens was not all talk.)

When Trump dismissed his “grab them by the pu—y” comments as “locker room talk,” he was right about that much (though not to dismiss it). The question no one, at least on the right, seemed to progress to was, “Why is it OK to talk like that just because it’s in the locker room?”

Articles like this, and the “liberals” who are writing them, are the ones who are actually asking that question. They are not “men-haters” or blaming anything on inherent maleness. They are simply questioning certain behaviors that we conservatives should have been targeting all along.

Until we do so as effectively as these leftists do, I highly recommend everyone go read this piece. It is quite long, but it is well worth it. You may be a sheltered Christian. You may also be a knee-jerk conservative. But denial helps no one. Even in rural red states where churches dot every corner, the public schools still reign supreme and the universities only grow worse. Military men can tell all the same stories magnified as well. There are very few people out there influencing young men in a better way. Like it or not, what articles like this describe are, in fact, the cultural norm. They accurately describe the culture we live in and what that culture usually expects and demands of young men. Again, I highly recommend you read this.

Moreover, when young men wise up, have a conscience, or are trained differently, they are immediately faced with the decision to compromise and join the destructive trend, or buck the norm and risk all the social ridicule and ostracization that often comes with it. Few are prepared for this, and fewer have any support mechanisms in place to withstand it.

Without anywhere to turn to express their emotions and stress, and because we are far too embarrassed though cultural pressure to weep, or to weep with those who weep, many of these young men suffer mental health breakdowns, and many turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide.

Let me make this point loud and clear as well: some of these tough-talking, manliness or manhood ministries out there are the worst players in this game. They are the ones to whom young men should be able to turn and find an example of Christ-like empathy—weeping at destruction and weeping with them who weep. Instead, they get a baptized version of the secular standard of “man-up” doubled down and the condemnation trebled. These so-called ministries end up doing greater harm than the pagan perpetrators and thereby providing a cover for the worst offenders to operate with impunity.

In truth, they often end up doing more harm than good. In an attempt to draw sympathy for men, whom it deems to be under such dire attack, the conservative article lists several statistics. One of these notes that the suicide rate among men is 3.5 times higher than that of women. From this we are supposed in part to see just how worse off men actually have it today. But hold on.

When you look into the reasons for that disparity, despite the complexities of the issue, the obvious underlying theme through all of it is that men are culturally trained not to let out their emotions. Point to any other factor—stress, finances, breadwinning, work, social status, etc.—and beneath it you will find that other factor remains. We are trained not to crack, not to cry, not to whine, not to be vulnerable, and we don’t seek help. So, it turns out that one of the pieces of evidence such an article would use for support is instead evidence in favor of the point made by the alleged liberals.

There is no doubt that strength is a virtue, and men need to be strong. Boys need to be taught to be strong. As Scripture attests in so many places, however, strength does not mean suppressing one’s emotions, especially for ungodly reasons and social pressures. We see examples of some of the manliest warriors weeping, and weeping with or in front of other people: David, Jonathan, Jesus, Paul and others. Remember, it was when the Israelites started judging men by their power and prowess that they fell for the tyranny of Saul (the stud who was a physical specimen, a head taller than everyone else), and God called it a rejection of him (1 Sam. 8). God sent them another man even more heads taller—Goliath—to show them that the real hero would be the man after His own heart, David. Even godly Samuel had to be reminded of this truth (1 Sam. 16:7).

I can understand that people can make mistakes, but it does not seem plausible to me that mistaking needed correction of behavior for an all-out attack on maleness itself is merely a simple mistake. Why do we conservatives totally overreact like this?

There are very few explanations for this kind of disparity, and none of them speak well of us. Perhaps the most charitable explanation would be that we simply did not read the articles, or did not read closely, and launched into reaction based on negative assumptions. Apart from that, I cannot understand it unless some writers actually identify with the gross behavior described and are seeking to downplay it out of a guilty conscience, or else they have some deep-seated conspiracy mindset that makes them hear liberals saying something they are not merely because they are liberals. It could be, too, that some people are so sensitive to correction that they interpret any call for improvement as an attack upon their very identity.

Whatever it is, it needs to stop. You may think you are part of a crusade to reclaim the culture and reestablish true Christian virtue in the land. But if you are advancing this kind of blind excess and reckless interpretation of what other people say, then you are more a part of the problem than anything like a solution. You cannot correct problems with blatant and transparent falsehood.

I highly recommend you spend more time studying what Scripture says about emotions, honesty, and community; and start studying those Christian leaders who have a more sensitive and earnest approach to the real truth about our problems and the solutions to them. Find boys some godly leadership of men not afraid to promote character first and value emotional communication, and channels those to healthy social expressions. Find them some godly community of other boys with the same leadership and similar goals in life. This may take some soul-searching and lead to changes in life choices. In the meantime, avoid the type of knee-jerk drivel found on allegedly pro-conservative and pro-masculinity, good-to-be-a-man, etc. websites. They are ignorantly abetting the real enemy, and they provide no useful alternatives.