Here’s My Business Card

One of the words on my business card is ‘Gerontology.’ 

 

Interestingly, to me, is the fact that I don’t think I have ever been asked about that ‘qualification.’  I don’t know whether people do not know what the word means, or whether they think it is some spurious attribution or pseudo-science, or whether it conjures up some negative inevitability they would rather not think about. 

 

I do, indeed, have a certificate in gerontology from my nationally accredited university that certifies that I have successfully fulfilled the course requirements, field work, and practicum associated with the study of aging.  I’m glad I took the course of classes even though I have never pursued a career or remunerative work in the field. It will (and already has) prepare me for my future much more than pediatrics ever will. 

   

Gerontology (broadly) addresses the normal aging processes—biological, sociological, and psychological; geriatric medicine, by contrast, deals with the abnormal—illnesses, diseases, and treatment.  The goal of gerontology is ‘To add life to years—not just years to life.’ (Gerontological Society of America) 

Why did I choose to undertake such a subject?  Since I, like you, am aging I was curious about what I was getting into.  Like many things, there is a need to understand how and why we age, and why we die, and what, if anything can we do about it.  In case you have missed it, thoughtful people have observed that we are in an extraordinary growth of aging populations throughout the world.  If the trend continues, and if we are unprepared for it, we may have a calamity on our hands. The political, ethical, social, psychological, and familial implications of aging are enormous.  We no longer have the luxury of ignorance on this issue.

Our changing demography necessitates we have an informed public.  And you and I are part of that.  Perhaps I should have put that on my card: ‘Part of the aging public.’

Think about it.

Making Intelligent Decisions

All of us are constantly required to make decisions and, of course, we want them to be right.  Here are a few guidelines that have worked for me that I have learned from life, from the scriptures, and from others who have been successful.  The recent reading of President George W. Bush’s book Decision Points has stimulated my recent thinking on this topic.  President Bush’s approach to decision making was strongly influenced by a book he read, Memoirs, by President Ulysses S. Grant, which book was recommended to him by more than one historian.  A few other ideas, or validation of my own ideas, came from a recent broadcast of a Leon Panetta Lecture Series roundtable discussion by a panel of former chiefs-of-staff of our four most recent presidents. 

•   Marshal the Facts.   Study the issue out in your mind.  For many, once they have got all the facts (or have spent a reasonable amount of time gathering them) and then have put them in good order, the problem usually solves itself.  I have heard that in the military, leaders are trained to draw up what is called an ‘Estimate of the Situation.’  The decision maker must know his objective and then consider alternative means of attaining that objective.  You then line up the pros and cons of each alternative as far as you can see them.  Get help in gathering data and seek out advice or counsel you can trust and consider it carefully.  Then sleep on it if you can.  In other words, give it some time.  Don’t just let a quick or shallow emotional response drive your decision.

•  Timing.  Many of our most important decisions should not be ‘made,’ but allowed to ripen.  Facts accumulate and feelings begin to distill upon us and begin to jell.  Again, where you can, give complicated situations a chance to work themselves out.  Let the problem stew in its own juice for a while. Consciously postponing a decision is not the same as indecision.  It will probably contribute to making a good decision.  Decide that you will decide when the time is right. 

•  Be Flexible.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “We have to do the best we know how at the moment.”  Sometimes that is true, but more often I think it is better to be flexible only within the parameters of established principles.  When we can’t take the time to follow the advice given in points 1 and 2, above, and we are still in doubt say ‘no.’  It’s a lot easier to change a no to a yes, than vice versa. 

• Consult your feelings.  ‘Your’ feelings may, indeed, be tempered by inspiration from your conscience and by ‘sudden strokes of ideas,’ or inspiration or revelation that come from outside yourself:  “Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter?  What greater witness can you have than from God?,” the Lord asked of an early Church leader.  We can usually tell when a decision accords with our better nature or by the good that which could come to that within the sphere of our influence by the enormous sense of relief that it brings.  When we have decided ‘against the grain,’ we often increase our mental tension.  Big decisions, correctly made, leave us exhilarated and charged with confidence. Big decisions, correctly made, usually come about by sincere prayer. 

• Finally, Make the Decision With Courage.  “One man with courage makes a majority,” said President Andrew Jackson.  President George W. Bush said, “You have to do what you believe is right and accept the consequences,” and “[on every major decision] I did what I believed was in the best interests of our country.”  But be sure to set out what you believe would be the consequences of the decision if it is right or if it is wrong.  I believe that is a key point.  Every decision we make should be made with most consideration being given to those beyond ourselves who will be impacted by that decision.  I believe we need never to make a really bad decision if we are guided by the Holy Spirit and are privileged to see the long view of how it will turn out in the end.  

A Religious Basis for a ‘Manly’ Man

It never hurts to start at the beginning.

 In the beginning God created the earth, and God declared it “good.” God then placed a man upon the earth, and the man, too, was “good.” But he was incomplete. “And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten, that it was not good that the man should be alone; wherefore, I will make an help meet for him” (Moses 3:18).  “Meet” means ‘appropriate.’   If man was to achieve “a fullness of joy” he could not remain alone.  To be alone is to be without life-creating power—the power for which the earth itself was created. 

 

Although God had created animals to share earth with the man, and they too were “good,” they were not of the man kind or the god kind.  The man could not become one with them; he was worthy of a companion whose attributes and powers were like his own—of his own species—but  whose attributes and powers would compliment his and would complete his.  The help “meet” for the man was a woman—a female compliment of the man.  Her creation was the crowning act of The Creation.  The woman was given by God to man as his companion.  Both of these perfect (when joined, as they were by God) people in the Garden reflected their unique qualifications and temperaments. But they needed each other to be “one.”

I envision Adam being fully and in every good way ‘manly,’ and Eve, his wife, being the archetype of beautiful and complimentary womanhood.  Both, from the beginning, were fully equipped for their roles, and would provide the pattern for us in our roles as men and women.

Procreate—Provide—Protect

A careful reading of the scriptures shows that the woman and the family were to be under the constant protection and guidance of the priesthood that Adam held. Priesthood, properly bestowed and used, is the authority of God delegated to men to act in God’s stead for the blessing of mankind.  This first couple, man and wife, were commanded to procreate:  “multiply and replenish (fill) the earth: 

“So God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.  And God blessed them (married them) and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion…over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:27-28).

   

Adam (man) was Eve’s (woman’s) steward to love, provide for, and protect.  He was to “rule over” (lead with love and care—or preside if the priesthood was held) his wife and they were to have a family and work together in unity.  (See Genesis 3:16).  As pertaining to priesthood authority (and as a guide to any man’s appropriate role as a man relative to any other human being) it is written: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness and pure knowledge which shall greatly enlarge the soul (of both the one leading by ‘persuasion’ and by the one being guided and, hopefully ‘persuaded’) without hypocrisy, and without guile . . . that he (or she) may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death” (Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 121:41-44).

Regarding the manly role of providing, the New Testament apostle Paul said: “Provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Romans 12:17).  He further said: “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8).  Book of Mormon king Benjamin also gave us the pattern of his example: “…to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me…that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.  Ought ye not to labor to serve one another?” (The Book of Mormon: Mosiah 2: 11, 17).

As far as protecting or defending, the scripture reads: 

[God’s people] “were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children…yea, for their rites of worship and their church.  And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, (i.e., first turn your cheek and try to resolve the issue, but if you cannot) ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.  And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed” (The Book of Mormon:  Alma 43: 45-47). 

    

To me, my charge as a man is clear: Protect, Provide, Procreate. A man does what he can as long as he is able. 

Manliness—(part 3, Procreate)

Remember, in this article as in the two that preceded it, we are talking about perceptions of manliness—a qualitative evaluation of what has been a core component—an imperative—of manhood since recorded history.  Filtered through my worldview it will not be hard to see where I stand on the matter, but I will try to confine that to the end of the article. 

 

This traditional descriptive aspect of manliness—that it has been a duty of man to try to procreate children—cross-culturally and over time is probably most at variance with modern Western culture and it probably has the least resonance with the hedonistic viewpoint of many late 20^th and early 21^st century men (and women).  Simply put, in our society, especially in the last two generations, it is inconvenient to have children; it requires commitment to something beyond self; and it costs money.  This runs against the grain of the last half-century mantra: do-your-own-thing;  I’m-accountable-to-no-one.

 Having a ‘procreative’ leg on the three-legged stool also contributes, of course, to population growth, and many  feel that the world has too many people already (but of course they are glad they, themselves, are here and are glad that their mothers did not believe in abortion or birth-control in their case.  Oops, I only made it to the end of this paragraph).

 And those men (or their women) who may be infertile may feel or take umbrage to have it thought of them that the male in the couple be considered less than manly, and so to eliminate this perceptual discomfort they take biological parenthood out of the equation or discussion.  But of course in even a normal heterosexual relationship having or not having children is certainly not entirely within a man’s control.   

And I guess that among homosexual men at least one of them must comparatively consider himself manly (for certainly the ‘female’ role in such relationships, according to Gilmore and other anthropologists, historically has been considered the least manly of all human behaviors); or perhaps neither of the ‘partners’ gives a thought to the notion of manliness: manliness does not seem to rank highly in their value system.  

More and more the concept of manliness ranks less and less in any ‘modern’ value system save what I have seen in the distortions of the red-neck counter-culture or America’s ‘cowboy culture’ so often disparaged by  Europeans and our Middle-Eastern critics. 

Traditionally procreation has been thought of as a civic duty—a social function that impacts society at large in a positive way.   For millennia,  a large family strengthened society by giving it numbers to survive by providing boys who would grow up to provide the protective and providing functions for the home and community.  But in our time the generalized protective function has been largely out-sourced, and women have chosen (or found it a necessity) to work out of the home so the value of boys and now even men has been devalued 

Where We Now Stand

Although many now, especially men, contrary to the positive historical view of procreation, do not want children, they cannot escape, nor do they want to escape, the biologically driven process by which children come about.  Though hormonally-driven men usually take the initiative in sex, appropriately or far too often by force, Author Brett McKay in his blog says, “Much of the risks men take, the wealth they try to accumulate, and the showy things they do, are, at their core, attempts to impress women, who have traditionally acted as the gatekeepers to sex. Women don’t just serve as passive enticements either, and may actively goad the men into demonstrations of manhood” (The Art of Manliness, March 2014).  Sex, which is of course the method by which procreation comes about, has become recreational rather than generational.

And so, sadly, many women, too, are finding now that their ‘real’ capital has diminished in value.  Without demanding and maintaining their virtue be earned by a man who must demonstrate the first two ‘pillars’ to win them over, they have ‘shot themselves in the foot,’ so to speak.  They demand less of a man, and that is exactly what they get. 

“In ‘the sexual marketplace,’ the male demand for sex has remained the same, but its ‘price’ has dropped dramatically; there’s no need to slay a dragon, just buy a lady dinner and invite her back to your place. The modern ‘cheapness’ of sex, some theorize, accounts for the way many young men are resisting commitment and floundering in other areas of their lives such as academics or career responsibilities.” (McKay)

 Many young men, in this generation, have found sublimations to get them through their years without conquest or responsibility.  Televised sports and video games, beer or marijuana, an enabling parent (or crime to support their substitutions for earned manliness), pornography and cheap sex are getting many young men through the day (or through life) though not in any satisfactory way for themselves or for society. 

Viewing ‘earned’ and ‘learned’ manliness in our time as a now-irrelevant cultural construct, (wrongly viewed, I believe, in case any reader has missed my point) has contributed to the terrible aberrations and atrocities we have experienced by males (mostly) acting out with bombings, school shootings and crimes against women and children.  I truly believe these conflicted males who have not been taught how to appropriately be a man—a gentleman—are acting out their frustrations and all of society is suffering because of it.  

A boy is taught how to be a man by being with a man who enjoys a proper relationship with a woman.  In other words, a boy needs a dad and a mother in a proper husband-and-wife-led family for him to become a man with all the tools and modeling needed for life success. 

With the huge social shift in the past half-century contributed to greatly by the birth-control pill and an increasingly larger population of women out of the home and permanently in the workplace and in higher education, all three of the three pillars of the triad: Protect – Provide – Procreate are becoming emasculated.  This, I believe, is the inevitable outcome of embracing what is more and more becoming a gender-neutral world. 

  

Manliness, for the first time in history, seems to be on its way out.  Or, as my wife pointed out, has taken an ‘about-face’ and is currently marching in the opposite direction. 

[I had not planned a fourth treatment of this topic, but I see I must do at least a short article explaining my religiously-driven basis for my conclusions.  This will be my next weblog.]