Right and Left Get Traditional Masculinity Wrong
How we imagine the past affects how we live in the present
Republican Senator Josh Hawley, known for fist-pumping the January 6 crowd outside the Capital and then running away from them when inside the Capital, has recently written a book on men and masculinity. It is titled, with no apparent concern for the double entendre, Manhood.
Hawley isn’t the only person drawing attention to the plight of men. Nor is he the only one who believes the solution to problems disproportionately affecting men, such as suicide and lack of educational attainment, is a return to traditional masculinity.
According to a 2019 article in The Atlantic, what traditional masculinity means,
…depends on who’s talking about it. In science, the term refers to a specific set of traits and behaviors that are considered culturally appropriate for manhood.
There are many on both the left and right who imagine that in the past, there was an accepted version of masculinity. They believe this version of masculinity can be revealed by looking at ancient history and literature, such as the Bible. The left wants to replace this old version of masculinity with something new. The right wants to resuscitate this version of masculinity for the present. But in imagining a past with a clear prescription for masculinity, both left and right are making a fundamental error.
Hawley is one of many on the right who look to the Bible for their version of traditional masculinity.
…to become the servant of God the Bible says man is meant to be, each man must become what God’s call will demand of him. He must shape his soul. He must acquire the character of a husband and father, a warrior and builder, a priest and king…The Bible can inspire men today, guide them, and disclose new possibilities for their souls—new purpose, new strength. (Josh Hawley, Manhood, pp. 11-12)
The Bible carries with it the assumption of a religious ideal. And biblical literature offers a glimpse into how masculinity looked before the Enlightenment and feminism. The culture of the Bible is patriarchal—in the Bible, wives and children were legally dependent on their husbands and fathers. If, like Hawley, you want to shore up a vision for contemporary America that puts men in charge, it makes sense to look to the Bible for inspiration.
Still, it’s surprising to discover that according to Hawley and others, the Bible’s vision of ideal masculinity looks a lot like John Wayne: a provider and protector who is rugged, assertive, independent, physically intimidating, and emotionally stoic. There’s something audacious about telling men they should resemble a movie-star cowboy by quoting from a text that existed thousands of years before movies and cowboys.
On both the left and right, many people are content to accept this odd reading of the Bible. But the Bible continues to exert influence on our culture. We do ourselves a disservice by surrendering the Bible to those who marshal its power to achieve regressive ends. How we imagine the past affects how we live in the present.
Exegesis is the attempt to uncover what a text actually communicates. Eisegesis, on the other hand, is the act of reading your opinions into a text. Those who argue that the Bible’s masculine ideal is roughly identical to a 1950s American fantasy version of masculinity are, in my opinion, engaging in eisegesis.
One tell-tale sign of eisegesis is that those who cite the Bible to support the John Wayne ideal studiously avoid the Bible story that most starkly presents different versions of masculinity coming into conflict. I’m guessing this is because it’s clear from this story that despite its patriarchal culture, the Bible’s vision of masculinity is much more accepting and fluid than the vision peddled by Hawley and his ilk.
When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the outdoors; but Jacob was a mild man who stayed in camp. (Genesis 25:27)
Esau and Jacob are fraternal twins. Esau is hairy, a hunter, and his father’s favorite. Jacob is not hairy, stays close to home, and is a mamma’s boy; a “mild man.” When they were born, Jacob was the second to emerge. He was assisted in his trip through the birth canal by holding onto his brother’s heel. This pattern held as they grew up. Esau was a hard worker. Jacob was a freeloader.
Esau embodies the vision of traditional masculinity peddled by Hawley and others. But the Bible portrays him as a flawed character who sells his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew. Jacob is flawed as well. He conspires with his mother to deceive his father and steals a blessing meant for Esau. Esau responds to this deception in a fashion anticipated by a certain version of masculinity:
Esau said to himself, “Let the mourning period for my father come, and I will kill my brother Jacob.” (27:41)
When Jacob hears of Esau’s plans, he responds with a version of masculinity that Josh Hawley should appreciate; he runs away.
Years later, Jacob and Esau meet. But instead of attacking Jacob, Esau
…embraced him and…kissed him, and they wept. (Gen. 33:4)
When their father dies, the Bible tells us that,
…he was buried by his sons, Esau and Jacob. (35:28)
Although Jacob is more central to the story told by the rest of the Bible, there is no hint that this was either because of, or despite, his being a “mild man.” After pitting these two versions of masculinity against each other, the Bible doesn’t select one version over the other. Jacob, the cheating brother who runs away, chooses to meet his brother and face the consequences of his actions. Esau, the impulsive hunter who was cheated by his brother, forgives him. The story suggests that you are dealt the character cards you are dealt. The character trait the Bible prefers is the never-ending struggle to improve.
Both Jacob and Esau have flaws. And they both struggle with those flaws, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. Both become the progenitors of nations: the Edomites come from Esau; the Israelites come from Jacob. Jacob and Esau had a troubled relationship, but they overcame their differences and reconciled. “The hunter” and “the mild man” are both legitimate expressions of masculinity.
The Bible contains many examples of men behaving nobly and acting as protectors and providers. But these same men are also shown to be flawed. Moses was denied entrance into the Promised Land due to his leadership failures. Saul was a brave king who struggled with mental health and behaved erratically. David unified the kingdom but had a man sent to his death because he found the man’s wife attractive.
“Mild” Jacob has a son, Joseph, who shows a strong interest in fashion. Prophets are some of the Bible’s most important leaders. Their preferred way to communicate is through poetry. Those who idealize the John Wayne version of masculinity can find Bible stories to support their view. As can those who prefer to imagine men as poets and fashionistas. But more than any particular characteristic, the Bible appreciates people who face their shortcomings—regardless of gender.
The Bible doesn’t offer any clear answers on how to be a man or a woman. Rather, it provides insight into the human struggle to take advantage of our strengths while confronting our weaknesses. Learning to be a good person is an ongoing human project.
In a Washington Post article that has received a great deal of attention,
critiques the right-wing version of masculinity but also takes the left to task for not providing alternatives. She writes:I’m convinced that men are in a crisis. And I strongly suspect that ending it will require a positive vision of what masculinity entails that is particular — that is, neither neutral nor interchangeable with femininity.
In the U.S. in 2020, men earned just 40% of all graduate degrees given. And men in the U.S. comprise nearly 80% of suicides. If a gendered lens can help us diagnose problems and make improvements, then it’s useful. However, I’m not convinced, as Emba suggests, that the key to solving men’s difficulties is a “particular” vision of masculinity.
Emba warns that right-wing conservatives are providing responses to the current hunger for a masculinity rule book whereas left-wing liberals don’t want to engage in the conversation. Absent an alternative, she says, those struggling for guidance on what it means to be a man today will find their answers on the right. Emba writes:
The old script for masculinity might be on its way out. It’s time we replaced it with something better.
But which “old script” is she referring to? There are many “old scripts” of masculinity. Just look through the thousands of years of our history and literature. The John Wayne script is relatively recent. Emba on the left and Hawley on the right both make the mistake of imagining that the 1950s Hollywood version of masculinity is an accurate reflection of how masculinity has been understood for the last few thousand years. It’s not.
A “better script” for masculinity doesn’t pretend to have neatly packaged answers. Instead, this script helps us become comfortable living with the fact that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. And this is precisely what we find when we explore human history and culture. The “better script” is already on offer for those who look for it. The Bible, despite its age and patriarchal context, has something to add to the conversation. It tells us that “manliness” can take many different forms.
The Bible, and other works of art and literature, provide plenty of models of people who embody gender in disparate ways. However, these models offer inspiration, not a blueprint. None of the models can answer the question of how I can meet the challenges of being me in this particular moment. The answer to that question is one that everyone needs to discover for themselves.
There are no particular roles that all men, or all women, must play. And there never have been. Rather, there is the richness of a varied humanity and the common struggle we share to use our strengths well while doing our best to face, and overcome, our flaws.
If you like what you just read, please subscribe to this publication. As of this writing, my book Where Are You? A Beginner’s Guide to Advanced Spirituality, has a higher rating on Goodreads than Tolstoy’s War and Peace. Make of that what you will. Personally, I find it funny.
The story suggests that you are dealt the character cards you are dealt. The character trait the Bible prefers is the never-ending struggle to improve.
Yes. Understanding the variations in the ways of being a man is crucial. Knowing their strengths and perils gives us a guide for growth. And also a sense of compassion for the struggle.
Thank you.
The field of 'masculinities studies' (plural, yes, and there's a clue) shows us how, across time and space, there are more ways of being a boy, an adolescent, a young man, an elder man, than we might imagine. Mona Mona's philosophy newsletter on here recently published a great summary of a core theory in masculinity studies, which tells us that, always and everywhere, masculinity is in crisis. It goes with the gender. Baby boys are born from women, spend their earliest moments with women; and societies who want to run a binary gender system then have to work out how to take a child and turn them into a 'boy'.
This bibliography is a great resource -
Bibliography | www.xyonline.net https://share.google/dMePwYmtZFpnDv6pN
Thanks for a very thoughtful article for an audience who might not have had much opportunity to be exposed to the ways that masculinities vary, but who might have been over exposed to some very misguided rhetorics.