Toxic masculinity

Review: Man Up

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Man Up" by Cynthia Miller-Idriss

Man Up

Man Up, Cynthia Miller-Idriss. Princeton University Press (ISBN: 9780691257549) 2025.

Summary: The relationship of misogyny to various forms of violent extremism, the strategies men use to control women, and what can be done.

What are two factors associated with most incidents of violent extremism? The first is that men perpetrate most incidents. The second, and even less discussed, is that most of the men are misogynist in outlook and behavior. In fact, 60 percent of the mass shooters in the U.S. have documented histories of domestic or intimate partner violence. Cynthia Miller-Idriss studies violent extremism as founding director and chief vision officer of American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL). Yet she acknowledges discussions of violent extremism has been virtually silent about these two factors. And she admits she has been slow to come to this realization and the writing of this book.

Miller-Idriss sees misogyny not as a personal belief but a means of social policing, “a kind of control [that] defends and maintains patriarchy and the continued subordination of women and the dominance of men.” She includes in misogyny various forms of homophobic and transphobic behaviors.

After discussing misogyny and its link to various forms of violent extremism, the author offers five case studies that reflect strategies of control. She focuses a chapter on each of these:

  • Containment or the use of belittling remarks and dehumanizing work to keep women in their place.
  • Punishment, that is violent misogyny as articulated by incels, men’s rights, and male supremacist movements.
  • Exploitation, such as the #SaveTheChildren conspiracy, that both fuels violence and covers the real exploitation of women in domestic violence and human trafficking.
  • Erasure asserts traditional gendered supremacy through anti-LGBTQ+ efforts (“Don’t Say Gay”), cultivating fears about “grooming.”
  • Enabling, in which women join in supporting patriarchy and policing women, exemplified in “The White Baby Challenge.”

The final part of the book focuses on remedies. Apart from a good resource section at the end, I thought this the most disappointing part of the book. Part of the challenge is how mainstream misogynistic views are in the culture. The most substantive recommendation is modeling healthy masculinity with boys, neither preaching to nor shaming them (especially by women). Rather, she commends mentoring by teachers, coaches, and other adults. This part could have used more stories showing what has worked.

Additionally, while describing the manifestations and rise of misogynistic behaviors, the book doesn’t offer an account of the social factors contributing to misogyny. Also, the writer repeatedly discusses so many forms of misogyny and violence that I felt the account sometimes lost focus while overwhelming the reader.

However, the work is important for several reasons. Firstly, in breaking the silence about the connection between misogyny and violent extremism, the analysis offers tools for intervention. Secondly, by outlining strategies used by men to control women, she names these, bringing them out of the shadows. Finally, though brief, the resources offered gesture toward countering mainstream misogyny while making clear the challenge our society faces.

Review: Non-Toxic Masculinity

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Non-Toxic Masculinity, Zachary Wagner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023.

Summary: Focusing on the distortions of male sexuality coming out of the purity culture movement, charts what a healthy male sexuality might look like that is responsible, selfless, and loving.

“IT’S A CONFUSING TIME TO BE A MAN.”

These are the opening words in Zachary Wagner’s new book, Non-Toxic Masculinity. The book focuses particularly on the brand of male sexuality that has emerged out of the evangelical church’s purity movement culture that has been marked by scandals of sexual abuse and harassment in the church and unhealthy patterns of sexuality in many marriages. This also has resulted in male shame and body hatred. Wagner writes for men, reflecting on his own experiences growing up in purity culture, calling for men to be accountable both in owning the problem they have had and seeking the healing and vision of positive masculine sexuality that he believes may be found within the scriptures.

Wagner focuses the first part of the book on the Purity Movement of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, defining it as “the theological assumptions, discipleship materials, events, and rhetorical strategies used to promote traditional Christian sexual ethics in response to the sexual revolution.” He contends that the messaging of the movement led people to believe:

  1. Bodies are evil and sex is bad
  2. Abstinence will result in great sex later
  3. In sexual certainty in an uncertain world
  4. Sexual sin always had clear consequences
  5. Sex is at the center, it is a big deal
  6. Singleness is subhuman (and only temporary)
  7. Boys are dangerous (and so are girls)

These messages inculcated shame rather than a recognition of the gift of our sexuality and bodies, that men were out of control animals (and that women bore the burden of not arousing their desires), and also led to attitudes of male sexual entitlement in marriage. It also created ideals of masculinity that many men struggled to identify with, whether they were straight or gay. Wagner shows how these messages were dehumanizing for both men and women.

In the second part of the book, he seeks to articulate a vision for renewed male sexuality. He begins with the assumption that men are victims of their own desires that may result in shame, self-hatred, and may be the root of compulsive pornography use. He speaks of his own breakthrough of recognizing the wonder and beauty of being male and that desire, curiosity, and attraction reveal our longing for this deepest of human connections for which God made us. He also deal with biblical misconceptions, challenging expectations of marital sexuality, male desire being greater than female, that sexual frustration is a good reason to marry, and that wives owe husbands sex. Finally, he focuses on the male sexuality of Jesus, that as truly male and not androgynous, Jesus had a penis, modeled healthy relationships with both men and women, and the dignity of singleness. He rehumanized women who had been ill-treated.

In the last part of the book, Wagner explores what “grown up” male sexuality is like. He begins with the role of parents and significant adults in shaping the male sexuality of boys and protecting them from abuse, teaching them of the dignity of both boys and girls bodies. He challenges the “every man’s battle” narrative while offering a helpful critique of pornography use. He offers healthy alternatives for young men and their parents to the “I kissed dating good-bye” narrative. He discusses how we cultivate cultures of dignity, accountability, and friendship between men and women in the church, recognizing the failings of both complementarians and egalitarians. He punctures the overblown expectations of marital sexuality, talking honestly (with his wife’s explicit permission at the beginning of the book) about their own sexual struggles, and how marriage is a process of learning to love in all of life and in the bedroom.

Wagner also goes to a place I haven’t seen many books go. He talks about the connection between male sexuality and fatherhood, that this is one of the central purposes of men’s sexuality. He contends that this capacity teaches us that male sexuality is relational, cooperative, life-giving, responsible, nurturing, and self-sacrificial. What I so appreciate here is that Wagner frames male sexuality and fatherhood in broader issues of Christ-like character that extend far beyond our intimate relations.

I found this an important book to read to understand the fallout to the Purity Movement that I’ve encountered both in other books and in the experience of those raised within it. I appreciate both the analysis of the impact of that culture on young men (so much more has been written from female perspectives) and the effort to articulate healthy male sexuality within a traditional Christian sexual ethic without the messaging of purity culture. The frank discussions of pornography use and the underlying issues is an important aspect of this book. Wagner also manages, I think, to convey respect for LGBTQ+ persons while adhering to a traditional Christian sexual ethic, as well as to reflect upon the negative ways purity culture impacted LGBTQ+ persons.

There is only so much one book can cover. The book deals only tangentially with the sexual ethics of the wider culture. While speaking trenchantly against male sexual entitlement and patriarchy, there is an opposite extreme of male passivity that I have discussed with Christian leaders, both male and female. It is a confusing time for men, and declining male college enrollments and other measures suggest that as women advance in many areas, men are not advancing with them. Some of the qualities of healthy masculinity addressed in this book seem to bear on such questions and I hope Wagner will write more about this.

What Wagner has done is articulate a vision of masculinity that is humanizing for both men and women, that articulates the goodness of male sexuality and bodies within a biblical sexual ethic, and that is positive, life-affirming, and attractive. The church has been losing young men and women for lack of this, even while the culture offers nothing better. What I hope is that this will be a book that starts a conversation among Christian men that has been sorely lacking.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: Jesus and John Wayne

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Jesus and John Wayne, Kristen Kobes Du Mez. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2020.

Summary: A historical study of how the ideal of rugged masculinity typified by John Wayne influenced the evangelical embrace of authority, gender roles, and conservative, nationalist politics.

This is one of the most intensely discussed books in religious publishing over the past year. Kristen Kobes Du Mez, a Calvin University historian, offers a carefully documented account of the development of authoritarian, patriarchal and “muscular” models of masculinity which have invaded evangelical religious subculture and played a vital role in evangelical political engagement.

Her title is drawn from “Jesus and John Wayne,” a 1980’s Christian hit of the Gaither Vocal Band. She traces how Wayne’s muscular and sometimes violent form of masculinity supplanted the Jesus of the gospels as the evangelical model of masculinity. She traces the fascination with the square-jawed, passionate Billy Graham and the youth leader become family guru Bill Gothard as early figures in this trend, teachers like James Dobson and Tim LaHaye, media figures as diverse as Mel Gibson and Duck Dynasty, and military figures like Oliver North.

This is a movement not only about masculinity but patriarchal gender roles, supported oddly enough by women like Elizabeth Eliot, Phyllis Schlafly, and Marabel Morgan (remember The Total Woman?). Kobes Du Mez traces the influence of the Promise Keepers movement, John Eldredge’s books, Pastor Douglas Wilson, Mark Driscoll, and John Piper in upholding militant masculinity and male control of families. More troubling yet are the connections between this culture, purity teaching, and sexual abuse.

The book also traces the exploitation of this vision of masculinity by the conservative political movement from the presidencies of Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. The author challenges the argument advanced by some that only “unchurched” embrace these values. She shows studies that demonstrate high numbers of the most faithful have been equally supportive. She argues that Trump’s rough masculinity appealed to a subculture schooled for seventy years on “John Wayne” models of masculinity and helped explain their willingness to overlook his moral flaws and failings.

This is a deeply troubling account, especially since I’ve witnessed the damage of women abused and not protected by the church, and the thwarting of the gifts of women eager to use them to follow Christ. This is an important but uncomfortable book for men in church leadership to read and wrestle with. Many of us have been troubled by the political allegiance of large swaths of evangelicalism with one political party. What this book connected for me is the connection between these allegiances and flawed masculine and gender role ideals. I also found troubling the complicity of much of the Christian bookselling industry in promoting these views.

If I would have any objection, it is that the narrative does not offer counter-examples, including the Christian institution at which the author holds tenure. We hear of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood but there is no mention of the Council of Biblical Equality. We hear of scholars like Wayne Grudem and John Piper but not of Craig Keener and Aida Besancon Spencer and many others supportive of equal partnership between men and women in marriage and ministry. Nor do we hear of egalitarian churches and ministries, except a passing reference to Beth Moore. Although these movements have not achieved the political influence nor the rank and file embrace of many evangelicals, they offer a counter-narrative that may point the way forward. Many of these operate in what Ross Douthat calls “the evangelical penumbra” and may be increasingly uncomfortable with the identifier “evangelical” for reasons this book makes abundantly clear.

The challenge these groups face, underscored by this book, is to articulate a compelling vision for men and women following Christ, of Christian character and the fruit of the Spirit, lived out in both marriage and ministry partnerships, committed to pursuing the missio dei rather than political influence. Neither the culture of the 1950’s or the 2020’s can help us. Only the real Jesus of the Gospels.

Toxic Masculinity?

/ rtrube54 / 14 Comments

we believe the best men can be gillette short film youtube

Screen capture: Closing image of “The Best Men Can Be”, Film by Gillette via YouTube

The internet blew up this past week over a video Gillette released titled “The Best Men Can Be.” It may go down as a courageous effort and a bad business decision. As of this writing, the video has been disliked by nearly twice as many as liked it.

I find that reaction puzzling, understandable, and disturbing.

The video shows images of bullying, sexual harassment, condescending behavior toward women, and a row of men behind barbecue grills chanting mantra-like “boys will be boys.” as one child beats another up in front of them. It shifts to a multiple screen portrayal of media coverage of #MeToo, and then to a call for action, a challenge for men to be their best selves, to hold each other accountable to a higher standard in their treatment of women and to call each other out (“not cool”), to help each other resolve conflict peacefully, to intervene when witnessing bullying, to empower one’s children, and to be models to the next generation of men.

The reaction is puzzling. Do we really dislike the message that men should act with integrity, courage, respect, and as positive role models of the same to their sons and other boys? Can we really justify bullying, violence, disrespect of women under the catch-all justification “boys will be boys?”

The reaction is understandable. This has been the ideal of masculinity going around for a long time. I grew up with it. Men were supposed to be tough, and you showed it by picking on “weaklings,” or by pretending you were tough so that you wouldn’t get picked on. Women existed to gratify your pleasures. Real men don’t show feelings or weakness.

The reaction is disturbing. It tells me that this version of masculinity is alive and well. You lash out when criticism gets too close for comfort. And it appears there is a significant amount of that discomfort.

It troubles me when…

  • we confuse bullying with courage–the courage that goes into battle, that fights wrongs, that protects the vulnerable.
  • we teach that resorting to violence is better than the calm word, or knowing when to walk away.
  • we justify objectifying women with looks, catcalls, gropes, and more rather than respecting their dignity as unique and gifted persons capable of running companies, outrunning us in some cases, and perhaps saving our lives.

So we have a society where most of the perpetrators of gun violence are men, mostly young men. So we have a society where men’s stoical determination not to show weakness drives them to an early grave from hypertension, heart disease, and a host of other ills. So we have a society where far too many of those who father children are AWOL when it comes to helping raise them. All of this seems like “toxic” masculinity to me, not good for men or those around them.

Some of the reaction to the ad arises from a perceived “war against boys and men.” I get that, and if you only watched the first part of the Gillette ad, you might have the same reaction. If even half the claims of #MeToo are warranted (and I suspect the percentage is far higher) it is hard time to feel good about one’s gender if you identify as male.

What I appreciated about the ad is that it went beyond “these guys are bad” and”I’m not that guy” to affirm models of masculinity that show true strength rather than posturing. It models calling each other to higher standards of respect toward women, of father’s empowering their daughters, of acting with courage and decency in front of one’s son. What the critics of this commercial miss, in my view, is that none of the positive models are sissies but people who act with strength. It’s not a put down of men but a call for men to step up.

A number of those who read this blog are believing Christians, and some of you may disagree with me. The question I have is, do you think Jesus is a model of true masculinity?  I think of the incident where Jesus’s followers are “chest bumping” over who is the greatest among them–typical toxic masculinity. Jesus replies:

“…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,  and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.  For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:43b-45)

Do we consider Jesus weak because he defines greatness in terms of servanthood, and his own mission as one of serving? Jesus says this as he is walking to the city where he will be betrayed, arrested and killed. Do we not consider perhaps the ultimate show of courage to be when someone gives their life for another? Is this not great strength? Is not every other act of service willingly given to one’s partner, one’s children, one’s colleagues, one’s community, likewise an act of strength?

I think it is something like this that Gillette means when it speaks of “The Best Men Can Be.” The cynics just consider it an advertising stunt. If so, it is probably a failed one. I’d rather call it an instance of corporate responsibility as a purveyor of men’s products. I’ve been shaving with Gillette razors since I started sprouting facial hair. I have Gillette razors in my medicine cabinet. I have no plans to stop using them.