Skip to main content

Regarding Toxic Masculinity

I've tried to ignore the subject so far, perfectly aware that this is an issue where balance and level-headedness are rare and difficult, but I'm going against my better judgment and giving it a shot.  Here are my thoughts on toxic masculinity.   Please bear in mind that they are coming from an evangelical Christian perspective.

1) If you think that toxic masculinity (or perverted masculinity or corrupted masculinity...call it what you will) doesn't exist, you're blind or have been very fortunate.

2) If you believe that toxic masculinity exists, but deny that toxic femininity (or toxic feminism) exists, you're blind and a hypocrite.

3) If you equivocate toxic masculinity with masculinity, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

4) If you don't believe that the woman is the weaker vessel, you are not a Bible-believing Christian, nor have you watched the WNBA (I can't blame you for that).

5) If you think that women being the weaker vessel is a license for men to abuse them, you didn't actually read 1 Peter 3:7 and you don't understand who Jesus is.

6) If you think that women being the weaker vessel means that men are better or more significant than women, you're a fool.

7) If you think that true masculinity is brute, insensitive force, your view of masculinity is based more on 80's action movies than the Bible.

8) If you derive your views of masculinity/femininity from the culture around you, you're more American (or any other respective nationality) than Christian.

9) If you blame all men for the abuse perpetrated upon you by your father, ex-lover, or some other man, you are pitiable, but are nonetheless overreacting unproductively (if understandably).

10) If a commercial for a personal care product causes you to change your life in some fundamental way, you're a sad human being.

11) If you think that vitriolically demonizing an entire gender, whether male or female, is the solution to the social issues plaguing our nation, you're not helping.

12) If you think that the "traditional" family is the problem, you're obviously not paying attention.

13) If you think that a man opening a door for you, or in some other way attempting to assist you physically, is his accusing you of being weak or unable to do it yourself, you just need to chill. 

14) If you think that using creative labels for sin will help humanity evolve past it, you're going to be severely disappointed.

15) If you were offended by that WNBA reference, well, I'm not sure what I can do for you.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...