Masculinity: danger controlled, or danger-in-waiting?

[seekingsynthesis]

Make Yourself Dangerous - Order of Man

I like the idea, of this article, because I think it’s important as women to not try to fit the men in our lives into feminized, gentle boxes. (when the standard for boyfriends and husbands is just following the woman around doing whatever activities she wants, being so gentle and harmless, etc. - feminizing their personalities to avoid being labelled “toxic”. And I have guy friends that I see being totally emasculated by girlfriends and wives, losing their male friendships and hobbies, etc).
But I don’t know how to express this kind of idea to other women, because I think some women could be attracted to future abusers while explaining away true red flags around violence with this kind of thing.
I’m interested in how some of you might specifically nail down the difference between this kind of “potential to be dangerous but under control”, and straight up dangerous, volatile men? Because sometimes violent/abusive men can seem under control for a long time before the abuse starts.
What do people think?

 

[OddBird]

Ok, I’ll bite.

Maybe I’ll get in trouble for speaking my mind, but…

… to me this article is very… American. I think it shows a fascination with strength and power, and protecting what is one’s “own” (weird when that’s family members you’re talking about) which doesn’t resonate at all with my own culture. Particularly this :

I’ve done a lot of firearms training. I’ve been in the military. Situational awareness is huge. When I’m out to dinner with my family or society in general, I’m situationally aware. In fact, I’ve got a firearm with me 99% of the time.

I don’t like that “dangerous but under control” idea - because what happens when self-control is out of the window ? None of us can boast perfect, constant self-control and it would be delusional to think otherwise, and I for one wouldn’t want to share my life with someone who’d think being “masculine” means using assertiveness and communication tactics for coaxing me into doing what he wants, or who could inflict me severe bodily harm in a moment where he looses his cool.

Had it been formulated as “powerful but under control”, now, that would have had a different ring to me. I think Christian men should strive to be Christ-like, and I wouldn’t speak of Christ as “dangerous but under control”, but rather as “powerful but under control” – unless by “dangerous” you mean what the Old Testament tells us about the sheer, unmediated, undomesticated presence of God, whom no man can see and live. Christ didn’t have a firearm with him 99% of the time. He wasn’t a potential physical threat to people. His “situational awareness” consisted in allowing Himself to be arrested, put through an unfair trial, and executed, while forbidding His disciples to defend Him or harm His ennemies.

I don’t know… when I think of Christ-like men, I don’t think of dominance and brute strength. I think of saints like saint Francis of Assisi, or saint Francis of Sales, or the desert Fathers, who spent their whole lives “evangelizing” their passions and pulsions and trying to submit them to God’s will, not drawing upon them. That’s not weakness. That’s strength.

Maybe I’m reading it the wrong way, but the whole article seems to me to focus on getting men to be in charge and be in control in order to bring out the outcome they want. Well, I think that’s a delusion, for both sexes. The only one who is in charge and in control is God, and the great task of human life as I see it is trying to make one’s own will one with God’s will, releasing control into His hands, dying to oneself so that “Christ may live in me”.

I’d flee from a “dangerous” man, honestly, even if he thinks it’s “controlled”.

 

[Irishmom2]

@OddBird, maybe it is an “American thing.” I see what you are saying, but overall, I liked the podcast. I think there are young men with no guidance that could benefit from the ideas in the article. I think, as you say, that controlled would have been a better word, and yet, I get what he is saying.

My husband and one of my sons was in the military, and they both are like what this man is talking about, minus carrying a gun 99% of the time. I do think that is something that is learned in the service if they do not already have these qualities when they go in.

@RolandThompsonGunner, I would be interested in your thoughts on this podcast.

 

[OddBird]

Thanks for not flaming me down, @Irishmom2, and for trying to understand what I mean.

I think there are young men with no guidance that could benefit from the ideas in the article.

I see what you’re saying too, and you’ve got a point.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

@RolandThompsonGunner, I would be interested in your thoughts on this podcast.

I think, generally, stuff like this is good. Trying to wring the masculinity out of young men is not a good thing. You’ll either numb them with porn and video games, or that masculinity will come out in unhealthy ways. You need to channel that energy, not try to cut it off or neuter it.

Having said that, you have to be careful of the other extreme. Take, for example, the issue of violence. I think it’s perfectly fine to encourage young men to know how to safely handle a gun. It’s another thing to become one of those weirdos who treats going to the grocery store for milk like he’s landing on Omaha Beach. I’ve definitely met some gun owners who seemed almost eager for someone to try to mug them so they could shoot someone. That’s where it gets creepy. There’s being prudently prepared for violence, and then there’s walking around just hoping you get into a fight.

The other danger, I think, is to spend too much time ruminating on “masculinity.” The toughest guys I’ve ever met, usually Special Forces guys in the military, were also the least likely to engage in a lot of peacocking of their masculinity. They didn’t generally wear t-shirts advertising how tough they were, slap aggressive bumper stickers on their cars, or walk around mean mugging everyone hoping to get into a fight. They just had a quiet self-confidence, such that they didn’t need to constantly tell everyone how masculine and tough they were.

The guys who are hyper-sensitive to any possible affront to their masculinity (“That guy cut me off! I’m gonna follow him home and beat the hell out of him!” or “I’m not eating a salad! I ain’t gay!”) don’t come off as strong or confident. Just the opposite, in fact. They look like insecure men trying to compensate for something.

 

[seekingsynthesis]

Yes I think this could be a good verbal modification… For personal context, I do not live in the US, so when I say that I think this idea seems useful, the actual guns part of it is not a possibility. I’m talking more the mental attitude of not being against the use of physical force if ever necessary.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Trying to wring the masculinity out of young men is not a good thing.

I’m curious as to whether you see this as some kind of frequent problem in society?

Although I acknowledge the problem of absent fathers, including fathers who are involuntarily absent because they died or their exes are somehow denying them access to their children, and I appreciate men trying to provide more channels for young men to get advice, role models etc for those who may need it, I am not aware of any large movement towards “wringing the masculinity out of young men.” Yet there seem to be numerous bloggers who constantly harp on this and they often sound like a cross between Vince Lombardi and a military drill sergeant.

The women I know, including moms of boys and young men, would like their sons to be kind, polite, responsible, treat women with respect, and deal with situations in a nonviolent manner whenever possible. These things are not somehow contrary to “being a man”; in fact, the self-control they demonstrate is an essential part of mature manliness.

 

[Wesrock]

I think it’s important that young men feel like they can have opinions and preferences and even speak up for those preferences with their partners. I know what the OP was talking about in regards to men who just always do what their partner wants and give up on any solo hobbies they have.

Obviously there is the other extreme, but it’s probably the stereotype of that other extreme that some young men try to avoid such that they have no opinion at all and just leave everything up to their partner. It’s not even about “masculinity” as such so much as not feeling okay to know what one wants.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think there’s also some tendency for people to use their girlfriend/ boyfriend/ spouse as an excuse to get out of doing hobbies and activities and socialization that they were losing interest in anyway. It’s easier to say, “Oh, I can’t come over, I promised Tanya we’d go shopping at IKEA today” instead of saying, “Honestly I’m really tired of hanging around your house drinking and watching sports on the weekend, I have more fun with Tanya and I feel like I’m actually moving forward with my life while you guys continue to act like we’re still in college.”

 

[PaulinVA]

“Honestly I’m really tired of hanging around your house drinking and watching sports on the weekend, I have more fun with Tanya and I feel like I’m actually moving forward with my life while you guys continue to act like we’re still in college.”

LOL…

 

[seekingsynthesis]

Haha, this is a fair point

 

[seekingsynthesis]

The women I know, including moms of boys and young men, would like their sons to be kind, polite, responsible, treat women with respect, and deal with situations in a nonviolent manner whenever possible.

I can still picture all of these characteristics with the kind of masculinity I’m talking about. I think the general idea is, have those characteristics because of your character, because you’ve worked to grow in virtue, not just because it’s your natural personality. Because for some guys it is, and for some it isn’t. And I know guys who are naturally like this- sweet, respectful, etc… but who do not have the nceessary underlying “power” when it comes down to it.

One time in highschool I had a stalker (a male student at the school who I said no to a date with, and he proceeded to follow me and message me incessantly for months). I talked to multiple teachers about it, told them I was feeling unsafe, and they (including a male teacher) simply gave him a “talk”, communicated all of my feelings, and let him go on his way. The situation increased.
What it took to stop it was (FINALLY) one male teacher who pulled him into a room and gave him a bit of a scare, and male friends who finally pulled him aside and said that he’d have them to deal with if he didn’t back off. Both were also just a conversation, but they needed to have some sort of a threatening attitude, not just a talk about feelings. That was the kind of “power under control” that I needed to protect me at 16.

These were all men who were kind, respectful, etc- but there are more situations in life than just communication and gentleness can deal with. So I don’t think these two ideas should be mutually exclusive.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And I know guys who are naturally like this- sweet, respectful, etc… but who do not have the nceessary underlying “power” when it comes down to it.

With all due respect, unless you know a man very well, as in he’s your son, your brother, your dad, your long term relationship partner etc, you have no idea what kind of “power” or gift he has. You can’t judge based on externals. And I don’t think you should be going around judging people.

There are some men who appear to be very wimpy to the public eye or when the public standards of what constitutes “strong” or “forceful” are applied, but they’re incredibly strong in ways the world doesn’t see or appreciate.

If you don’t like or don’t want to date these guys you meet, fine, it’s a preference you have, but it doesn’t mean all men have to be the way you prefer in order for them to be men.

 

[seekingsynthesis]

ou have no idea what kind of “power” or gift he has.

I am, actually.

First of all, I mean the male teacher in the example I gave- the first one, who failed to protect a young girl who came to him for help.

I’m also thinking of my brother, who is extremely sweet and kind and respectful, but who let himself be emotionally and sometimes physically abused by an ex girlfriend for a year and a half because he had “be kind to girls, be gentle, etc” so drilled into his head without the idea that he could ever respond in defense (even verbally). We only found out much later on, and I wish he’d had the wisdom to know when enough was enough. He didn’t have to take that from her.

 

[seekingsynthesis]

If you don’t like or don’t want to date these guys you meet, fine, it’s a preference you have, but it doesn’t mean all men have to be the way you prefer in order for them to be men.

I’m honestly not talking about external characteristics. I’m talking based on examples of people I have dated, or teachers I’ve had, or my own siblings, who I think, in specific situations that called for more of a response, failed to act.

Just to clarify, that while my question may have seemed abstract, I am speaking from a certain level of experience.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Again, while I’m glad you got a male teacher to help you, there are a lot of aspects to that situation that make me understand why a teacher might not want to jump in the middle of it that have nothing to do with the teacher being manly or unmanly. I don’t know how they handle it in your culture, but in USA nowadays a stalker would be a school administration matter and a police matter and also your parents would be involved if you were a minor. It would probably not be appropriate or recommended for a teacher to tell the guy off, and I’m disturbed by how you seem to think it was the job of a man to do that. Women today don’t go around expecting a man to “save” them.

 

[seekingsynthesis]

I’m disturbed by how you seem to think it was the job of a man to do that. Women today don’t go around expecting a man to “save” them.

Well, I had tried many times to speak to him and it hadn’t helped, and I was feeling unsafe. I reached out for backup. It shouldn’t be a shameful thing to need that.

And I guess our schools are set up differently, but this teacher was also administration. Sometimes vice principals also teach a class here.

The second teacher who did help, threatened to call police. The first one didn’t. That’s what bothered me.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I’m curious as to whether you see this as some kind of frequent problem in society?

Huh? What’re you saying, punk?! You questioning me? You wanna take it outside? I’m not scared, I’ll throw down right now!

(Silently weeps in his truck watching unlikely animal friendship videos on YouTube)

 

[seekingsynthesis]

I’m gonna make a broad clarification to the type of (name removed by moderator)ut I was asking for here.

I’m interested in how some of you might specifically nail down the difference between this kind of “potential to be dangerous but under control”, and straight up dangerous, volatile men?

I came here looking for how to tell the difference between the two, (as in men who are also gentle, respectful, etc. vs men who truly are “toxically masculine”. ) So if you think that anything of the sort falls into the second category, this is probably not a productive thread for you. I’m asking this question based on the article, not asking for a debate of the article itself, or criticism of the help I’ve needed from men in the past. Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus was gentle, and masculine. He was unafraid of being gentle, humble, etc. He was in control, unimpressed and uninfluenced by the opinions of others. He stood up for and always did what was right. That’s a real man. Pride is the root of the self righteousness and superior attitude that causes us to want to dominate and exercise control over others abusively. There’s a cowardice and insecurity and fear to it though, because pride is based on wanting to be extra, to be God, really, to have no limitations, to be unsatisfied with the truth of who we are. It’s all about appearances, how we “look” to others, to fear their opinions, to hold power because we’re afraid of being wimps. And this world is a perfect breeding ground for that attitude because it’s dog-eat-dog, because it fails to love, which takes real courage.

We all operate under the idea that we’re not good enough in some manner or another, because pride is at the root of original sin, and pride, which Aquinas defined as inordinate self-love or an inordinate desire for ones own excellence, sets standards that we aren’t naturally equipped to fulfill. We try anyway, always driven by the shame that is pride’s offspring because shame is the downside, the result, the flip side, of not measuring up to the inordinate demands of pride; it’s the inferiority experienced when we fail to succeed at superiority. The point is that we’re often off balance, pulled in different directions or never quite truly attaining the position we want where we feel the control we want to have-because the standard is off kilter to begin with. Anger and frustration result. That’s my armchair theologian/ physcholigist take on it anyway.

Man needs God, to be willfully subjugated to Him in order to be who he really is, in order to be in balance, in order for justice and order and peace to reign in his heart so he’s not just cast about by the winds of whatever worldly value happens to push at him at the time.