( By John Katz, The American Dossier & Mark Houck,The King's Men)
We live in a world overwhelmed by efforts of # movements in social media whether we like it or not. And with that comes much banter over whom holds absolute truth. Kind of like Sandlot dominance you would find in a schoolyard.
In writing this I would like to introduce a principle regardless whether one believes in God or not. When in heat battle or disagreement there is a need to practice F.A.I.T.H-(Find Agreement In the Heat of battle)
Finding agreement in heat of battle simply means to agree to disagree and have dialog and respect in differences of opinion. It does not mean selling out ones personal beliefs or perspective for the sake of being "trendy. It is the very principle and freedom that unlike other countries we do have.
Unfortunately the danger in # movement or any movement is that they can become very caught up in absoluteness with no room for dialog...much like the Pharisees of biblical times.
As a society we seem to be forgetting that we can agree to disagree rather than choosing a path of absoluteness which can lead to violence and misguided persecution.
In recent weeks we saw some of this persecution in the debate over who should host the Oscars. Even after apologizing profusely Kevin Hart was then labeled profusely without complete fact from several # movements.
Recently while driving home I heard on the radio and as reported in Breitbart that “The American Psychological Association (APA) has released guidelines that teach psychologists working with men and boys that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful” The APA specifically goes on to say that their guidelines teach that traditional masculinity, “marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.”
It seems that in this statement they are failing to balance their equation with what defines positive aspects of traditional masculinity. Clearly much of their argument is based on more modern view a adopting the ideology of gender identity and gender fluidity that leads to the topic (for another time and article) of gender reassignment.
Yes it is time that we address as human species we have evolved from perspective of social conscienceless of bullying and harmful aggression, however both sexes can equally contribute qualities.
But we must not lose focus on the distinct essence men and women have. # movements are indeed a good thing however they must be careful to not get lost in their translation and understand that being a man is not a mental condition. This week Gillete just released a commercial addressing “Toxic Masuclinity”
The video had many positive aspects. However there is danger and misguidance in labeling manhood or even womanhood as “toxic”.
We live in a time in which Baby boomers, The Alphabet Generations(X, Y, and Z) a millennial overlap and have to exist. And because of modern technology we can learn from and mentor each other.
From a Generation X and prior perspective, stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression also are important and positive qualities of not only of manhood but of womanhood as well.
Namely Susan B Anthony who championed the women’s suffrage and the right to vote. Helen Keller who was both blind and deaf had to in her own way be aggressive at times.
Let us look at the reality of World War II where women worked to support the troops thru working in assembly lines according to modern day standards supporting toxic masculinity. And I can go on an on.
There are moments in American History that were “toxic” but in continuing making amends we must pay homage to namely the Civil War and the world wide atrocity of the Holocaust that we must urgently and aggressively imbed in the minds of future generations must never again occur. Lest we forget. We must focus on living in the present and grooming not only mankind but humanity as Servant leaders.
Long before the dawn of the APA and # movements there were grass roots organizations who sought to bring clarity in regards to manhood and the role of Servant leadership, Servant leadership is indeed a Christian principle but certainly can be followed by any faith even atheists. It is the principle of living in society as leader, protector and provider which greatly compliments the roles of be male and female. namely I have asked Mark Houck from the King’s Men to bear some perspective on the above mentioned:
"Perhaps it makes sense to quality the terms “traditional masculinity” versus “authentic masculinity”. Traditional masculinity, as it is loosely being thrown around with the APA and other trending movements, appears to me to support the characteristics of misogyny, particularly the overemphasis on dominance and aggression. However, I submit when these two attributes are rightfully called upon in wartime or when a violent intruder enters a home and threatens a family, these aforementioned “harmful” marks of manhood are absolutely essential and necessary.
I agree that a misogynistic view on masculinity should rightfully be rejected. Men who are upholding their proper nature as men are not harmful to women, children or society, rather, they are vitally instrumental to the healthy development and prosperity of the fundamental cell in society—the human family. These men seek only to live out their roles as leaders, protectors and providers, which are the true hallmarks of authentic masculinity. Authentically masculine men are servants of others, especially in regards the care of women and children. They seek always to protect society and uphold the common good.
I further submit to this dialogue that the type of man that is authentically masculine is the same man who ran into the blazing Twin Towers on 9/11. He possesses the makeup of the million men who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D Day. And he has the same capacity and competitive spirit to bravely explore uncharted territories and new worlds. I believe the APA would qualify these men/heroes under the category of “traditional masculinity.
While the APA is only proposing guidelines for the psychologist and therapists working with boys and men, it appears that authentic masculinity as I am presenting here would be viewed as harmful. If this is in fact the case, then the APA’s guidance and # movement’s rejection of said manly attributes are “on the whole harmful” to the development and initiation of boys and the encouragement of men to use their male potencies for the benefit of society.
If accepted, what this nonsense from the APA will do is encourage and instruct a generation of men to ignore their true nature as men. If such happens, all men should reject the modern amenities and comforts that other “traditional men” have provided the world through their courageous, competitive, albeit at times dominant and aggressive tendencies, and essentially go back to living in caves.
Without men of courage, aggression and a dominant spirit, that is exactly where we would still be. "
So in closing going back to the thought that we live in a time period of multi-generations that closely overlap. Perhaps instead of callng to end “Toxic Manhood” we should be calling all to embrace Servant Leadership. And remember when in heat battle or disagreement there is a need to practice F.A.I.T.H-(Find Agreement In the Heat of battle) and regardless of faith, men need to embrace the role of Servant Leadership which also means willingness to repent and forgive for past transgressions.
ความคิดเห็น