In earlier weblog postings I have
written of qualities of gentlemanliness
(see archives sidebar at the right) without laying a foundation of what it has traditionally meant to become
manly.
Manliness was, of course, a great
concern of my boyhood and young adolescence--and not mine alone. I remember hearing in a public meeting by a
great priesthood leader—not much younger than I—his boyhood experience of intentionally
going out onto a snow-covered Colorado mountain in shorts in the hope of by
thus being exposed to these severe elements it would contribute to growing hair
on his legs, and this he wanted because hairy legs were, he thought, ‘manly.’ Other
absurd ‘feats’ of gaining / proving manliness (or courage which has been recognized as the sin qua non of
manliness since ancient times) through the challenges of ‘dares’ were
undertaken by countless boys in this stage of ‘growing up to become a man.’
Lest the present young or more
‘sophisticated’ reader suppose that such types of behavior were or are
aberrations, anthropologist David D. Gilmore (Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts
of Masculinity, Yale University
Press, 1991) makes the point in one of his
primary research findings that the
concern for being manly, far from being a peculiarly modern phenomena or an
American obsession beotten of a frontier past, or a cultural quirk that
developed in a few pockets of the world, has instead been shared by nearly
every culture in the world, both past and present.
Three roles of
manliness
Gilmore makes the strong case that there
are three roles that the male must generally perform to be fully a man or
considered a ‘manly’ man: the protector,
the provider, the procreator. These three, over time and cross-culturally seem to be common imperatives or even moral
injunctions. They far transcend the appearances of manliness—hairiness, deep
or gruff voice, size, physical strength, aggressiveness, male-dominance over
females.
Within these three roles there seem
to be ideals, characteristics, or traits of ‘manliness’ that are valued by both
male and female genders that I will touch on.
Protector.
But men always take on the protector role in situations that are more physically high-risk—those that take physical strength or size and at least an equal willingness, as do women, of taking the position of an interposition between danger and those who need their protection. Protecting the home is a father’s greatest charge. Every father, regardless of his occupation, must be ready and able to face the wolf should he come prowling at the door. If something goes bump in the night, it will almost always be the man who is sent to investigate. Fearlessness is a fundamental expectation of a ‘manly’ man.
This quality is extended into the community and even the nation—to be ready, willing, and able, even to the extent to sacrifice his own life, if necessary, to protect the perimeter beyond which no foe should dare intrude. The composition of military and police forces worldwide and from time immemorial reflect this reality. It represents a moral commitment to defend the society and its core values against all odds. The essence of the injunction to protect is the need to establish and defend boundaries.
The boundaries a man protects extend past the physical variety to the line between honor and dishonor as well, both for his own reputation and that of his family and lineage. This sensitivity can, of course, be easily distorted as in a demand for ‘respect’ by many gangsters, but I sense that it entirely lacking in many young men in our time. For many, honor and dishonor mean nothing—especially in protecting his own body from the harmful effects of drugs, or doing things that can enable his addictions, or his treatment of women—his dishonoring them and using them and discarding them for his own pleasure or to escape responsibility.
For men who wish to fulfill the protector role, and find their place in the world, but cannot, I can imagine that this scenario would lead to feelings of isolation, worthlessness, a lack of purpose. Especially, I suspect, after a divorce, when they can’t even do the job of protecting their own family unit anymore.
Moreover, I wonder if this lack of defined group to actively participate in could be a critical reason for extreme acts of solitary violence, men who have been profoundly impacted by social isolation, men with no one to protect?
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the mass shooters of the last several years were all profoundly isolated and most were young men.
Someone has said that ‘manhood is the defeat of childish narcissism that is not only different from the adult role but antithetical to it.’ It is in this commitment that I sense that many young men in today’s society come up short. They do not even ‘man-up’ enough to take on the role of being a husband to a wife and a father to a child he has fathered or to be at least an independent provider for himself as a single man without depending seemingly endlessly on parents or others to cover for him in his protracted adolescence.
To the contrary of the above two paragraphs, manliness around the world has always meant a willingness to sacrifice one’s own comforts or even his life for the protection of others. In stark reality, the man is more expendable than the woman for the perpetuation of humanity.
I conclude today with the following scenario I have read elsewhere (and will continue in a subsequent posting with the other two roles of Provider and Procreator ):
Consider the following scene: Two dads are watching their boys play, say, baseball (soccer, whatever). One asks the other: “So what do you do (what mastery do you have? What skills do you bring to the perimeter)?” then follows up with: “Do you have other kids? (What will be your legacy? What will you fight and die for)?”
Being a protector is fundamental to being a ‘manly’ man.
