Buffy's Salon

A Vision of Manhood?

 
Bad Boy

On a trip to London recently I had the misfortune to sit close to four young men who passed the time drinking beer (before noon), shouting and singing loudly, and talking incessantly about sex and girls they knew in the crudest and most disrespectful manner, to the point that one of them phoned their girlfriend and asked her to if she would sleep with one of his friends for £10.  I assume (well, I hope) this was a joke.  I also hope she told him to take a jump off the nearest cliff the next time she saw him.  But who knows, maybe girls find this sort of talk entertaining these days?

Nobody on the train made any comment to the boys about their behaviour, although we all exchanged exasperated looks.  There seems to be a general consensus that this is a "stage" most boys go through.  And yet, as individuals these boys acted in a very different fashion.  They said "please" and "thank you" to people, they took their rubbish with them off the train and one of them phoned his mother and told her he loved her.  So how come when you get them in a group they regress to an animal state?

In her book "Authentic Beauty" Leslie Ludy includes some sections on manhood by her husband.  This is what he writes:

"young men in my generation have been shaped by a warped pattern of manhood.  It's no wonder that men today are so often referred to as jerks - the foundation of their manly behaviour is self-serving and self-gratifying.

Being a man, I'm well acquainted with the perversion process.  You see, we as young men desire to be "normal".  Whatever our culture defines as normal behaviour can very quickly become our manly pursuit.  I was told somewhere in my junior-high years that having sex on the brain was a normal boyhood-to-manhood issue.  I was told, even by women, that I, as a man, had only one thing on my mind...a fixation with the female body.  Well, if we as young men are interested in being normal, just hazard a guess as to what we are going to think about."

And the solution?

Men need someone to believe in them.  They need someone to tell them that they can rise above this mediocrity.  They need someone to tell them that they can have a lot more than "one thing" on their minds.  They need someone to raise the expectations of their manhood. 

A Gentleman...

Frederick Douglass Speaking in England on His Experiences as a Slave in the USA

A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

Frederick Douglass

The Definition of a Gentleman

Polite Gentleman Kindly Offers to Share His Umbrella with Some Young Ladies

The true gentleman ...carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast --- all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at his ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort; he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp saying for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.

If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits.

If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.

Cardinal Newman (emphasis my own)

Feminine or Masculine?

In my earlier post about gender I mentioned the fact that women and men appear to demonstrate differences other than the overt physical ones.  I thought it would be interesting to note some of the ways that psychologists have found that boys and girls do tend to display differences in behaviour and temperament.

• Women appear to be better at communicating.  By the age of 2 a female has a vocabulary twice as big as a male.  (Probably because of the different ways their brains are 'wired'.)
• Men show more aggressive tendencies than women, even from being toddlers.  (Probably because of greater levels of testosterone).  An experiment conducted by Lewis with one-year-old children to see how they would react to being separated from their mother by a barrier found that boys tried to knock the barrier down while the girls stood passively, crying for help
• Men have greater spatial awareness than women (brain wiring again)
• Male infants are generally more interested in objects than people, female infants respond more readily to a human voice than do male infants
• Fom being children, females are more likely to co-operate to achieve a goal whereas males are more likely to be competing with each other
• When looking for a life partner, men tend to focus on how attractive the woman is, women tend to be more interested in whether the man will be a good provider
• Men talking together talk about practical things, women talk about emotional things
• Various studies have shown women showing more empathy than men

And now some things that are not true!

• Men are not less 'romantic' than women - in an experiment Weiss found 67% of males believe in love at first sight compared to 54% of females.
• Man are not better drivers than women, in fact more accidents are caused by men.  They are just more confident drivers.

It should be noted that we are talking about general trends here.  Experiments that found women show more empathy then men are by no means saying all women are empathic and no men are, simply that a larger percentage of women showed empathy than men.

Both men and women display altruism but they tend to do so in different ways.  A man is more likely to risk his life at a moment's notice to save another person.  However, a woman is more likely to sacrifice months, or even years, to looking after a sick relative.  I think this is an excellent example of how, ethically and in many other ways, women and men are intrinsically different, but ultimately equal.

Leadership

I know that a lot is spoken about the breakdown of the traditional role of the sexes in the last 100 years or so and how this has impacted negatively on marriage as men and women struggle to understand their new roles for which there really seem to be very few rules except to bypass traditional and/or natural inclinations.

If we were to return to what are now considered to be the old-fashioned and rigid roles that were laid out in the Bible it would mean that we have a hierarchical role model (as oppose to the egalitarian one) which would entail the patriarch (i.e. the father) taking the role of head of the family with his wife coming under his authority and, of course, the children in turn coming under their mother's authority.

Many people have a knee-jerk reaction to this scenario because they see too much opportunity for abuse.  In other words, our immediate picture is of a tyrant.  In his book 20 Controversies that Almost Killed a Church Ganz writes:

It is unfortunately rare to find a marriage in which the husband recognizes that he bears the responsibility of headship and exercises it in humility and love rather than force and authoritarianism. While I too am against so much of what the feminist movement advocates, I understand why it has emerged. I believe that if Christian men had been the servant leaders in the home, rather than conceited chauvinists, the feminist movement would have died a quick and easy death.

So, if we move away from the idea of "tyrant" and women being forced into a relationship of abuse, in other words if women are free to choose, how would they come to choose a man who is their leader?

Of course, the issue is that there are several types of "leader" (not just in the family but in all walks of life).  In fact a bad leader is no leader, they are a dictator or that tyrant we were talking about earlier.  Below I humbly proffer my suggestions for the defining characteristics of a good leader, based on the idea of a "servant leader" as described above. Although I am using language about the family these characteristics will apply for the leader of a company, a church, a school etc.

• they seek what's best for their family before their own interests (for example, they are prepared to work extra hours to ensure their needs are met)
• they take responsibility for what their family does, if a child badly misbahaves they don't come up with some excuse about how they had very little to do with raising them
• their dominance is not "heavy handed"; their family are almost unaware that they are being directed
• everyone in the family trusts them with their life and feels they can go to them for a fair hearing
• they are aware of their family as individuals, know what each one's strengths and weaknesses are
• they help each member conquer their weaknesses and encourage them to explore their strengths to the full
• they hold each member accountable for the role they play and make sure that each knows how important their role within the family is
• they do not allow any one member of the family to dominate just because they have the strongest personality (or because they are the youngest)
• although they may have the final say on big decisions, they always listen to everyone's input without belittling what anyone has to say
• they give a lot of positive feedback and appreciation and they speak enthusastically about what the family can acheive as a team
• they are honest; their family never has a reason to doubt their word, and they are loyal, they don't run family members down
• they are strong; whatever happens their family can depend on them
• they are patient and are willing to explain something many times (including who the boss is)
• they can be convinved by good reasoning but not browbeaten
• they can admit it when they made a mistake and they take the responsiblity to fix it

Still struggling to understand male and female roles

We still struggle to understand what it means to be male and female.  Although one might be forgiven for thinking that most people are polarised between either wanting to return to very traditional roles or enjoying the "have it all" feminist culture I have found this not to be entirely the case. Various reports in mainstream media make it clear that we are still struggling to understand and question just how the gender divide should affect how we live our lives.

In the writings of successful, modern women who have had both children and career (sometimes, but not necessarily, at the same) there is a jumble of values in their writings which include derogatory remarks about full-time mothers and home-makers but also a strong drive to sacrifice elements of modern life in order to spend quality time with their children or invest time in domestic occupations. 

The BBC recently reported that we are heading towards a time when men will lose control of the household finances, as by 2030 40% of women will earn more than their husbands.  On the other hand another article argues that there are definitely fundamental differences between the sexes.  (This is an interesting article which looks at how the roles of men and women in providing for their families has changed over the years.)

Everything is not rosy for modern women.  A recent survey found that there has been a dramatic decline in creative activities by girls over the age of 14.  Alarmingly:

Although girls spend three times as long on creative activities than their male peers when aged eight to 10 years, by the time they reach their late teens, boys are outperforming girls and spending twice as much time on creative activity, including creating music from scratch using a PC or creating a ring tone.

Meanwhile the Guardian reports that women are now as likely as men to die of alcohol related disease, the number of women dying doubling in the last fifteen years.

So why are more women drinking more? 'Men and women have historically drunk in different ways, but that's changing, partly because of the equality issue,' believes Smith-Laing. 'Some women think, "men can do it, so we can do it." There's also more disposable income and when women do go out, there doesn't seem to be any inhibition.'

On the other hand it seems that men, no longer able to dominate the workforce, are trying to reassert their lost authority in a fight over roles at home.

'Fathers are challenging mothers' sphere of influence in the home because they feel it is the one area left in which they can assert themselves, exercise their power and define themselves in the home,'

Meanwhile not even one of the founders of Spare Rib thinks that feminism has achieved what it set out to do.  She writes:

Feminism, I always believed, made sense for both sexes. Wasn't it just as much of a trap for a man to be consigned to go to work every day of his life, earning the money to support his wife and children, as it was for a woman to be relegated to stay at home and look after them? Surely, men would welcome living in a more equal world, where childcare and breadwinning could be shared between parents?

Thirty-six years on, the answer is, sadly - and shockingly - no.

If you read this article be sure to read all the comments below.  They are even more enlightening because they are written by real people who are living through the gender revolution.

So this brave new world of gender equality in all areas is not reaping the dividends hoped. Is this because we were wrong to question the traditional roles in the first place or is it just the execution that is at fault?

Change the Way Young Men View Young Women

This post is part two in my series about how we can help make abortion a thing of the past.

In my previous post I wrote about how we need to change the way young women view themselves in order to reduce the likelihood of them feeling pressurised into having sex (often unprotected) with young men.

Despite the fact that women are supposedly now liberated, one can't help noticing a double standard still operates for many families who differentiate between their expectations of their teenage daughters and their sons.

Many is the father who watches his son go out clubbing with perhaps a conspiratorial wink and possibly a feeling of pride if his son is likely to 'pull' (the rascal).  Or else the father may draw a veil over the whole thing and prefer to keep out of his son's private affairs.  The same man lays down the law with his daughter, insisting she is back by a certain hour, she's not going wearing that skirt and if any boy lays a finger on her he's personally going to sort him out.

In other words we're quite happy for our sons to sow his wild oats with other people's daughters whilst attempting to protect our own from the same treatment.

This is entirely unacceptable.  Why should your daughter be accorded special treatment that you don't accord other young girls?

Both parents need to raise their boys to understand that every young woman is precious and worthy of the utmost respect (yes, even the ones that don't see it in themselves).

Now I know that the teenage years are troublesome times for boys because their hormones are going mad and the desire to procreate is upon them and the sexual images and values being thrown at them by the media are appalling.  It's up to the parents to steer them sensitively through this period without making them feel bad about their feelings.  Of course a lot of this has to do with self-control.  You might not be able to stop yourself feeling aroused by the sight of a pretty girl but that is a big step from actually manipulating and pressurising her to sleep with you.

I am, of course, aware that many girls don't need much pressuring, but just because a girl is willing to have sex with a young man, doesn't ergo mean he has to sleep with her.  If he likes her then he should get to know her really, really well before he even considers having sex; if he doesn't like her then the last thing he should do is sleep with her.  Doesn't he have any self-respect?

If you are a man reading this there are two more things you can do:

1. Never, never join in that sex-talk thing that a few men do when they're talking about how many women they've slept with; talk about cheapening women!
2. Mentor a younger man and help him understand about the proper place for sex in relationships.  Even if you slept around a bit when you were younger you can give him the benefit of your wisdom by explaining how meaningless sex without love and commitment was, and how it's worth waiting until you meet someone you really, really care for.

Timeless Advice on Marriage

 

So many women exhaust their artistic power in getting married, which is, after all, a comparatively easy business. It takes a perfect artist to remain married – married in the perfect sense of the term; but most of us have to be content to muddle through.  Introduction to Don'ts for Wives.

Two books published in 1913, Don'ts for Wives and Don'ts for Husbands, have been republished in abridged form this year.  Although some of the advice seem humorous (quite possibly it was intended to be at the time it was written) much of remains sound advice.

Wives are urged:

• Don’t be discontented and think your husband not “manly” because he happens to be short and thin, and not very strong. Manliness is not a purely physical quality
• Don’t be afraid of cold meat. A few cookery lessons, or even a good cookery book, with the use of a little intelligence, will make you mistress of delicious ways of serving up leftovers
• Don’t omit to pay your husband a compliment. If he looks nice dressed for the opera, tell him so. If he has been successful with his chickens, or his garden, compliment him
• Don’t say “I told you so” to your husband, however much you feel tempted to. It does no good, and he will be grateful to you for not saying it
• Don't flirt with other men in case you succeed better than you want to. It is like playing with tigers and edged tools and volcanoes all in one
• Don’t let him have to search the house for you after his day’s work.  Listen for his latchkey and meet him on the threshold.
• Don’t let your husband wear a violet tie with grass-green socks. If he is unhappily devoid of the colour sense, he must be forcibly restrained
• Women with ugly husbands should take comfort: Beauty is only skin-deep and the cleverest men are rarely the handsomest.

In turn husbands are given the following rules:

• Don’t sharpen pencils all over the house. It does not improve either the carpets or the servants’ tempers to find pencil sharpenings all over the floors.
• Don’t try to regulate every detail of your wife’s life. Even a wife is an individual, and must be allowed some scope.
• Don’t try to “drive” your wife. You will find it much easier to “lead” her .
• Don’t sneer at your wife’s cookery or bridge-playing or singing, or, in fact, anything that she does.
• Don’t increase the work of the house by leaving all your things lying about in different places. If you are not tidy by nature, at least be thoughtful for others.
• Don’t keep all your jokes for your men friends. Let your wife share them.
• Don’t ‘talk down’ to your wife. She has as much intelligence as your colleague at the office; she lacks only opportunity. Talk to her (explaining when necessary) of anything you would talk of to a man, and you will be surprised to find how she expands.
• Don’t say your wife wastes time in reading, even if she only reads fiction.
• Don't scoff if your wife says she wants to drive the car.

The Master - Advice for the late Victorian father on his duties

The Master - that is, the Husband, the Father, the Head of the House, the Bread-winner - is the responsible individual  whose name and power upholds the household.  The term "Master" is by some considered a little unfortunate, because it suggests arbitrariness.  In olden times the father of the family was the master, the despot, the tyrant.  His wife was probably his because he had carried her off by force, or exchanged her for marketable commodities; his slaves also have been bought for pieces of money.  He ruled with a rod of iron, and the members of his family trembled before him.  But in the new order under which we now live, love has cast out fear, and it seems offering an insult to love to speak as if it wished to command.

The greatest of teachers, however, once said that amongst His followers whosoever would be great should be the minister, and whosoever would be the chiefest should the be servant of all.  It is very much in this sense that the term "Master" is still given - willingly and lovingly given - to the husband and father of the household.  He is the chief, the most indispensable member thereof.  He holds the place of highest honour; he is the supporter and sustainer of the establishment.  Should difference of opinion arise amongst the members of the family, he is the determining authority; he decides what is best to be done, and his decision carries weight.  He stands in the thick of the fight; he bears the brunt of the conflict; and protects those whom he loves from danger and from harm.

But, more than this, he is the legal representative of the family.  He is the person who, under ordinary circumstances, would be responsible for all debts and liabilities.  In him is represented the political power - so far, at any rate, as representation in parliament is concerned.  It is in his name that servants are engaged and contracts made; and if any of the family were to get into difficulties, he would be the person at once called upon to answer for the same.  Also he has certain recognised legal obligations resting upon him, and occupies a certain position with regard to his wife, his children and his servants.

 Extract from Cassell's Book of the Household from 1900.

Secret Lives: Obedient Wives

Once in a while something quite radical appears on television and everyone immediately becomes polarized in their reactions.

Secret Lives: Obedient Wives was a programme about a handful of couples living lives that do not meet modern cultural norms.   They believed, in different ways, that marital harmony would result from the wife being (relatively) submissive and domesticated.  An additional two couples had marital problems which were addressed by using techniques from the book The Surrendered Wife.  It should be noted that all the wives, including the two who were trying 'surrendering' for the first time, were very positive about the results.

Because such a wide range of types of 'obedience' within marriage were on display, there was something for everyone to dislike.  Two extremes were the Thai wife who literally did everything domestic whilst holding down a full-time job while her husband (who was over twenty years older than she) played with his motorbikes.  And the young, devout Christian couple who believed that a wife submitting to her husband was the law of God.

But what sort of lessons could be learned by this documentary?

I have read a review of the programme that condemned the fact that one of the wives attempting 'surrendering' had to relinquish control of the finances, style her hair the way her husband wanted it, keep quiet more often and have sex with her husband at least once a week.

But the reality of this couple's life before the 'surrendering' was that she treated her husband like a naughty little boy.  When he had his hair cut she stood over him and told the hairdresser how to do his job!  She couldn't stop criticizing her husband and telling him what to do.  And she admitted he was much better at managing money that she was.  Her husband seemed depressed.  After she had learned to stop telling him how to do everything and tried to do things that were pleasing to him, surprisingly he got a bit of life back and seemed a much more interesting man.   

I think that in the great stampede towards equality women forgot that in a relationship they already have a lot of power.  When the wife in question was dominating her husband, he seemed pretty useless.  When she stopped trying to dominate him, and started to do things to please him, he was a changed man. 

If we accept that a relationship should work 50/50 as a starting point, that still leaves a lot of latitude about how the dynamics between two people could work.  Being the 'submissive' one doesn't necessarily mean you get to do all the work, although it is often perceived in that way.  There are a lot of women around who, having it all, also have all the work.  They bring home a wage along with their husband, then they look after their child, do most of the housework, arrange holidays, the social life etc.  Clearly these women are in charge, but the price they are to pay seems to be a relationship in which they are doing far more than their fair share of work.

So is this the choice women have?  Dominate your other half and end up doing all the work, or let go of the reins, let him make most of the decisions and seriously reduce your stress levels.  And is it ever really possible to have a marriage in which one of you is not in charge?