Manhood: Chapter 3 - Liberation for the Rest of Us
Published by Matt Glover October 2nd, 2005 in ManhoodThis chapter seemed to be a bit out of place in the order of things. I thought it would have made more sense to come before chapter two and probably be an extension of chapter one. Anyway, it stands here…
Biddulph revisits the battles of the women’s movements in more detail, describing how feminism lifted women out of the subservient roles that had been expected of them. (There’s a hilarious extract from an interview with Billy Connelly and Germaine Greer at this point!). What he is careful to point out though, is the assumption that men were happy in the roles of power that they had been given. If the current unhappiness of males is anything to go by, it would seem that men were just as unhappy, in equally life-sapping, subservient roles. The need was thus for liberating all people from the roles they had inherited from the 200 years or so before them. The women’s movement was, and is, good, but it leaves males as spectators and can ever only do half the job.
Biddulph describes the tradtional, tribal role of the male as one of connection with the family and community. The tribe worked, played and lived together in all aspects of life. Uncles and other males had important roles in the bringing up of children and there was a balance of female and male input into a child’s development. In the agricultural age, children saw their male role models working on the land and often joined them in the fileds. With the advent of the industrial age, however, men were taken off to work in factories and mines for long hours. Women became the sole carers of children, and the dislocation we experience now, began. The ideal man became one who was a provider, who knew how to do a job, who was loyal to the company and country, but one who was emotionally shallow and wooden, typified in the movies by John Wayne.
Ths phenomenon gave rise to what Biddulph calls “Father Hunger”, and is the topic for the next chapter.
Like I said, I thought the placement of this chapter was odd, and perhaps had already thought about much of what it contained. But something that struck me was how the changing face of maleness in society concided with the changing nature of the church.
Up until the 1900’s the church was generally at the center of town and village life, forming a vital part in the community. The highs and lows of life were shared together. What affected one family affected the whole community and survival was often dictated by the seasons. The church was run chiefly by men.
As the industrial age loomed and turned into the modern era, the men running our churches were themselves caught up in this dislocation from maleness and began to run the church in the same way that things were being run in the world around them. They knew no different, for this was the role that was created for them. Expressions of faith thus became shallow and wooden. And while nobody could say why, the church slowly became less relevant and less real. It didn’t seem to fill the longing that was within and it moved from the center of life toward the outskirts of town. Tall office buildings replaced the steeple and the church seemingly disappeared altogether, but for the hopeful, faithful few. (We could talk about the church’s efforts to attract people back, but that’s a discussion for another time!)
I’m excited about the ways church and mission are changing in my time, and even more excited about the rediscovery of who Jesus really is. But I am concerned that we don’t make the mistakes of the women’s movement by leaving masculinity out of new expressions of faith. I think we need to rediscover what it means to be a man of faith and celebrate everything that means. But I think this also means showing men how to re-engage with their families, put work in it’s proper place and ease the anxiety created by the “do better so you can have more” mentality. It will mean giving permission for men to cry when they see a child suffer, to get angry when they hear the story of Jesus death and to feel at ease in each others company, giving and receiving comfort and repsect.
It sounds a bit cliched as i type this, but I think Jesus offers us perhaps the best example of what that looks like. A man who had healthy relationships with both men and women of all ages, a good relationship with his parents, who was at ease with children, who knew how to laugh and cry, could express his anger, wasn’t worried about expectations of others, was skilled in a trade and could get a job done.
That’s what I reckon we need more of. And though my carpentary skills aren’t ever going to be much, I hope I can be the same.
Hi Matt
Recently came across ur site. Liked ur articles on “Manhood: …”
The book seems to be pretty good.
I also wanted to tell you that the link provided for Entries(RSS) and Comments(RSS) is of the form -
feed:http://www.mattglover.com/wordpress/wordpress/?feed=rss2
Wouldn’t it be better if you remove the initial “feed:” part ?
Vignesh.
G’day Vignesh,
Wouldn’t have a clue. Don’t even know what those things stand for yet! Still have a lot of learning to do…I’ve changed them as you suggest though.
Thanks for the advice.
Another comment on your wordpress setup Matt.
It looks to me like you have not put a title for your blog in the WordPress settings. If you follow blogs in an RSS feeder as I do (google desktop 2 for me), then new listings come up with the title (such as The End Times) but no web source to see who the author is.
Cheers
Jeff
Hi Matt,
Just a brief reflection on this theme;
My grandfather was killed in a collapse in one of the Scottish coal mines - sadly an all too common occurence. But I suppose it saved him a disease like blacklung, which was/is a more common fate of coal miners, and just as fatal.
Anyway, everytime I hear feminists talk about how their grandmothers didn’t have choices and had to spend all day washing and ironing, I think…”Lucky Granny!”
I’m glad that people have finally woken up to the fact that most men have been emprisoned by gender stereotypes as much as women.
Now I just have to wait for people to realize the critical issue of socio-economic status in all of this. I mean, it wasn’t as if my grandfather could have gone to university instead of down the mines. As it was, my father took a huge step up when he took up bricklaying.
How do YOU think WE can address the socio-economic status issue in our own communities Murray?
I think we’re getting there.
It’s coming through guys taking days off work “daddys day” to be with their kids as they share their working week with their wives. Sort of the I work 4 days, you work 3 and the grandparents mind them a few days to build relationship and allow us to achieve the ‘Aussie dream’ also.
Also in general with our society women are better educated by our schooling system which doesn’t exactly encourage guys who think with their hands rather than academically. This will, in future, lead to generally greater opportunities for women to advance careers.
I’m getting to the point - gradually.
Hopefully the point will be that the caring for the family role will become shared with fathers, mothers, grand parents and others (uncles, aunts, and friends) taking key roles.
This should reduce some of the guy pressure to perform and allow us to show more emotion because it’s not all riding on us. It will allow guys to take a lead in softer roles and be unafraid to kiss their sons and lead with integrity. I don’t have a fear of crying when hurt, I wear my heart a bit too much on my sleeve (maybe why I’m single…..)
Also one of the key “guy” struggles of the Western society is isolation and loneliness. In the village of the future the family element of everything is so important.
And why it’s such a tragedy our families are so often places of hurt and dysfunction. It’s not that family is the saviour on its own but you can see that a good family life is absolutely the ideal and shields guys from the nasty elements such as suicidal loneliness and lack of purpose.
Hi Matt,
You ask how we could address socio-economic issues in our own communities - but I’m afraid I have more questions than answers on that one.
At the very least I think it requires a far more “human” conception of employment - one in which employers don’t see workers as merely another resource in the system of production and in which workers don’t see employers as merely a source of revenue.
I think in all of this the idea of vocation could make a return. If we were to see employment as part of the fabric of our communities - as the place where people are able to contribute their gifting to the rest of us in return for having those gifts recognized in a meaningful way, then that would help, I think.
Here, “meaningful way” would include, without being limited to, payment. In the current scheme of things, however, the idea of “gift” and “meaningful way” are interpreted in purely fiscal terms. Which leads, I think, inevitably to dehuminisation of the economy and thus the workplace.