In the 1987 cult classic The Princess Bride, a beautiful young woman named Buttercup is forced into non-consensual betrothal to a narcissistic buffoon of a prince named Humperdinck.
If men aren't supposed to cry then why did God give them tear ducts? Is God some sort of psychopath who wants men to hate themselves? That's the impression I get from guys like Walsh, and I am not kidding when I assert it is the single biggest thing that repels people from "traditional" Christianity.
Men "have a depth that women can't even begin to comprehend." Thanks for the comic relief Matt! And thank you, Kaeley, for sharing how truly asinine this man is.
Kaeley: "Let brave, bold, impassioned people of both sexes arise to do God’s work wherever He calls them to do it and without the confines of performative stereotypes that aren’t even biblical to begin with."
But a rather brilliant essay that I pretty much entirely agree with. As I was reading your elaborations on "Princess Bride" I was thinking "Stepford Wives" and was then pleasantly surprised to see your inclusion of that tale as well.
But I think your closing comment neatly summarizes the general "gender" problem, so to speak. Far too many people, Walsh in particular, seem to think that those personality stereotypes -- good, bad, or indifferent -- are essential parts of being a man or a woman, being a male or a female -- or neither. They are basically turning those categories into "immutable" identities which are more often straitjackets than not -- more likely to MAKE people crazy than restrain craziness.
Reminds me of a verse from Edward Fitzgerald's "The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám":
Thanks. 🙂 But such a complex issue, such a dog's breakfast, in fact. And that largely because every last man, woman, and otherkin has different and quite antithetical definitions for both "sex" and "gender", the latter in particular.
Kind of surprised, though pleasantly so, to see this here from "LaDonna Mack" which seems a particularly sensible position:
LDM: "My church says there are two genders and each one has a broad spectrum."
Some reason to argue -- as did the late Justice Scalia -- that "gender" basically boils down into personalities and personality types. The same way that "introvert" is a personality type, but many people possess that personality trait to a greater or lesser extent:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. . That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
So, "feminine" and "masculine" personalities and personality types -- a clear binary. But each of those types consists of a myriad of subtypes, a spectrum of them. Rather like the blueish and reddish ends of the colour spectrum, but each likewise with a myriad of colours included within them.
Suicide rates are greater for men than women everywhere in the world. It's probably just one of those hardwired statistical differences between the sexes, like height, upper body strength, or longevity. Men have a demonstrably greater predisposition to aggression and violence than women do; aggression and violence towards the self would seem to be a natural extension of that. This is not to say that culture can't, or doesn't, play a role in the frequency of self-termination, which does vary significantly between countries and cultures (although always in the direction of greater suicidality in men). As with many forms of behavior, suicidality probably results from a complicated mix of social and biological influences.
God sanction gender roles? It's probably crushing for Walsh and others to know that God has no problem using feminine qualities to describe Himself. I wonder what they think of this?
Matthew 23:37
King James Version
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
or this where He is described with masculine and feminine qualities:
Isaiah 42: 13 The Lord shall go forth like a mighty man;
He shall stir up His zeal like a man of war.
He shall cry out, yes, shout aloud;
He shall prevail against His enemies.
Promise of the Lord’s Help
14 “I have held My peace a long time,
I have been still and restrained Myself.
Now I will cry like a woman in [e]labor,
I will pant and gasp at once.
All one has to do is look at the Gospels to see that Jesus didn't even stick to performing masculinity. It cannot be true that God "sanctioned" men to be masculine and women feminine" if both are present in His character. I think it all boils down to men (that probably experienced powerlessness) needing to feel powerful so they hide behind "masculinity" and going as far to demand women behave a certain way. The horrible truth TO THEM is women do not owe men femininity. We aren't here for their stamp of approval. A woman rejecting femininity is dangerous to them because because of the bold statement she's making...namely, the male gaze is irrelevant.
I think you might be making the mistake of taking Matt Walsh both seriously and literally. If you follow his wife on social media you can see that she’s not the caricature of a Trad wife that you think Matt is recommending all women become, but a fierce, strong, independent woman with her own mind and opinions, who happens to be focused on her role as a mother at this time. And he clearly respects and adores her. He often uses exaggeration and irony to make his points and he can be quite subtle about it. If you spend some time listening to him, rather than just analyzing social media posts that are too brief to allow for nuance and subtlety, I think you might discern he is not quite the caricature of trad masculinity you think he is.
All this: “that it’s a problem that exists, in part, because of the regressive sex-role stereotypes he himself prescribes as the solution.”
The reason is so much deeper and began so much earlier- maybe take a look at Carl Truman's book, “Strange New World” or Nancy Pearcey’s, “The Toxic War on Masculinity”.
Deep waters here - I don’t think lumping people who instinctively know “there’s something wrong with all this” is helpful. They haven’t studied the history, perhaps, (and I agree that many believers haven’t studied this deeply) but they see young men and women being led by a Pied Piper philosophy.
“One thing I am desperate for more conservatives to understand is how much and how often we fuel the gender cult by bullying people into compliance with rigid gender norms. People and (especially) churches that try to force people into narrow definitions of superficial manliness etc. are a HUGE part of the problem. If you don’t let your sons play with kitchens or dolls because they’re “too girly,” you’re contributing to the mess. If you teach your daughters that godly women are largely silent, compliant women, again, this is part of the problem.
The extremes on the right say that only girls can like pink. The extremes on the left say that if you like pink, you must be a girl. The lies are connected. And Matt Walsh is actively, relentlessly peddling them.”
All of the above. I’m conservative. And a woman. And I hate pink (redhead). My church says there are two genders and each one has a broad spectrum. Men 1 from sensitive and artistic to athletically inclined, etc.
7 of 11 grandchildren here this weekend and all the boys played in the play kitchen, along with their girl cousin, when they weren’t swimming or hiking or screaming. Goodness, little kids scream a LOT. 😉
“ One thing I am desperate for more conservatives to understand is how much and how often we fuel the gender cult by bullying people into compliance with rigid gender norms.”
The books I suggested have strong statistical data.
The difficulty with providing stats for anything involving the gender cult is that its a relatively new phenomenon, so we just haven't had the time to compile the data yet. But I will tell you as someone who has been on the frontlines of this war for fully 8 years now, I've spoken to literally hundreds of people whose lives have been upended by it, and high percentages of them will tell you exactly what I've said here: the sex-role stereotypes and the fact that they did not personally measure up to them contributed to the problem.
I've contributed to a number of documentaries and parent support groups dedicated to tackling this issue. I can only tell you what I've seen.
I’m speaking for myself, my church, etc. It seemed a broad brush. (As far as Matt Walsh, maybe I should have been more careful reading his recent posts. - agree about crying, etc.). Referencing your statements, there are deeper reasons for the surge in gender confusion - ie, Truman's book. Expressive individualism, etc. Thank you for your response. I very much appreciate it. Don’t think I’ve commented before on this platform and didn’t really know if you would see it.
Full transparency for those who may be reading this, as well: I don't have quite as much time to devote to blogging as I wish I did. I have to squeeze my entries in between toddler naptime and getting my other work done, which, admittedly cuts into my research and fine tuning time. I don't claim to be an academic, and I can't always produce the depth of analysis or polished results my perfectionist tendencies would prefer, but I promise to do the best I can with the time alotted to me. :)
As I mentioned, I think you're one of a handful of honest interlocutors and commentators on the scene able to bridge the deepening divides in an increasingly polarized "body politic". Many people seem to be worshipping false idols of one sort or another, particularly in the arena of sex & gender.
Somewhat apropos of which, not sure if you saw Jesse Singal's largely bogus criticisms of Jonathan Stewart's views on gender. Stewart seems to have the higher moral and logical ground as he quite reasonably argues, as the photo shows, for gender as a range, as a spectrum of personality types, although I think he goes off the rails in suggesting that sex is likewise a spectrum:
LaDonna: "My church says there are two genders and each one has a broad spectrum."
A very sensible position to take. As I just put it in a comment to Kaeley here:
Some reason to argue -- as did the late Justice Scalia -- that "gender" basically boils down into personalities and personality types. The same way that "introvert" is a personality type, but many people possess that personality trait to a greater or lesser extent:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. . That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
So, "feminine" and "masculine" personalities and personality types -- a clear binary. But each of those types consists of a myriad of subtypes, a spectrum of them. Rather like the blueish and reddish ends of the colour spectrum, but each likewise with a myriad of colours included within them.
If men aren't supposed to cry then why did God give them tear ducts? Is God some sort of psychopath who wants men to hate themselves? That's the impression I get from guys like Walsh, and I am not kidding when I assert it is the single biggest thing that repels people from "traditional" Christianity.
Men "have a depth that women can't even begin to comprehend." Thanks for the comic relief Matt! And thank you, Kaeley, for sharing how truly asinine this man is.
The "depth" thing cooked my grits. He really does think we are vapid little playthings, eh?
Kaeley: "Let brave, bold, impassioned people of both sexes arise to do God’s work wherever He calls them to do it and without the confines of performative stereotypes that aren’t even biblical to begin with."
As you wish ... 😉🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niul8Hy-3wk
But a rather brilliant essay that I pretty much entirely agree with. As I was reading your elaborations on "Princess Bride" I was thinking "Stepford Wives" and was then pleasantly surprised to see your inclusion of that tale as well.
But I think your closing comment neatly summarizes the general "gender" problem, so to speak. Far too many people, Walsh in particular, seem to think that those personality stereotypes -- good, bad, or indifferent -- are essential parts of being a man or a woman, being a male or a female -- or neither. They are basically turning those categories into "immutable" identities which are more often straitjackets than not -- more likely to MAKE people crazy than restrain craziness.
Reminds me of a verse from Edward Fitzgerald's "The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám":
"For I remember stopping by the way
To watch a Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all-obliterated Tongue
It murmur'd—'Gently, Brother, gently, pray!' "
https://englishverse.com/poems/the_rubaiyat_of_omar_kayyam_5th_ed
I LOVE this!
Thanks. 🙂 But such a complex issue, such a dog's breakfast, in fact. And that largely because every last man, woman, and otherkin has different and quite antithetical definitions for both "sex" and "gender", the latter in particular.
Kind of surprised, though pleasantly so, to see this here from "LaDonna Mack" which seems a particularly sensible position:
LDM: "My church says there are two genders and each one has a broad spectrum."
Some reason to argue -- as did the late Justice Scalia -- that "gender" basically boils down into personalities and personality types. The same way that "introvert" is a personality type, but many people possess that personality trait to a greater or lesser extent:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. . That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
So, "feminine" and "masculine" personalities and personality types -- a clear binary. But each of those types consists of a myriad of subtypes, a spectrum of them. Rather like the blueish and reddish ends of the colour spectrum, but each likewise with a myriad of colours included within them.
Yes to every single word. Thank you
Thank you for this!
Amen!!!
Bravo 👏
Suicide rates are greater for men than women everywhere in the world. It's probably just one of those hardwired statistical differences between the sexes, like height, upper body strength, or longevity. Men have a demonstrably greater predisposition to aggression and violence than women do; aggression and violence towards the self would seem to be a natural extension of that. This is not to say that culture can't, or doesn't, play a role in the frequency of self-termination, which does vary significantly between countries and cultures (although always in the direction of greater suicidality in men). As with many forms of behavior, suicidality probably results from a complicated mix of social and biological influences.
God sanction gender roles? It's probably crushing for Walsh and others to know that God has no problem using feminine qualities to describe Himself. I wonder what they think of this?
Matthew 23:37
King James Version
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
or this where He is described with masculine and feminine qualities:
Isaiah 42: 13 The Lord shall go forth like a mighty man;
He shall stir up His zeal like a man of war.
He shall cry out, yes, shout aloud;
He shall prevail against His enemies.
Promise of the Lord’s Help
14 “I have held My peace a long time,
I have been still and restrained Myself.
Now I will cry like a woman in [e]labor,
I will pant and gasp at once.
All one has to do is look at the Gospels to see that Jesus didn't even stick to performing masculinity. It cannot be true that God "sanctioned" men to be masculine and women feminine" if both are present in His character. I think it all boils down to men (that probably experienced powerlessness) needing to feel powerful so they hide behind "masculinity" and going as far to demand women behave a certain way. The horrible truth TO THEM is women do not owe men femininity. We aren't here for their stamp of approval. A woman rejecting femininity is dangerous to them because because of the bold statement she's making...namely, the male gaze is irrelevant.
"...grotesquely immature prescriptions for masculinity." Excellent.
I think you might be making the mistake of taking Matt Walsh both seriously and literally. If you follow his wife on social media you can see that she’s not the caricature of a Trad wife that you think Matt is recommending all women become, but a fierce, strong, independent woman with her own mind and opinions, who happens to be focused on her role as a mother at this time. And he clearly respects and adores her. He often uses exaggeration and irony to make his points and he can be quite subtle about it. If you spend some time listening to him, rather than just analyzing social media posts that are too brief to allow for nuance and subtlety, I think you might discern he is not quite the caricature of trad masculinity you think he is.
Stats please?
Stats for what, specifically?
All this: “that it’s a problem that exists, in part, because of the regressive sex-role stereotypes he himself prescribes as the solution.”
The reason is so much deeper and began so much earlier- maybe take a look at Carl Truman's book, “Strange New World” or Nancy Pearcey’s, “The Toxic War on Masculinity”.
Deep waters here - I don’t think lumping people who instinctively know “there’s something wrong with all this” is helpful. They haven’t studied the history, perhaps, (and I agree that many believers haven’t studied this deeply) but they see young men and women being led by a Pied Piper philosophy.
“One thing I am desperate for more conservatives to understand is how much and how often we fuel the gender cult by bullying people into compliance with rigid gender norms. People and (especially) churches that try to force people into narrow definitions of superficial manliness etc. are a HUGE part of the problem. If you don’t let your sons play with kitchens or dolls because they’re “too girly,” you’re contributing to the mess. If you teach your daughters that godly women are largely silent, compliant women, again, this is part of the problem.
The extremes on the right say that only girls can like pink. The extremes on the left say that if you like pink, you must be a girl. The lies are connected. And Matt Walsh is actively, relentlessly peddling them.”
All of the above. I’m conservative. And a woman. And I hate pink (redhead). My church says there are two genders and each one has a broad spectrum. Men 1 from sensitive and artistic to athletically inclined, etc.
7 of 11 grandchildren here this weekend and all the boys played in the play kitchen, along with their girl cousin, when they weren’t swimming or hiking or screaming. Goodness, little kids scream a LOT. 😉
“ One thing I am desperate for more conservatives to understand is how much and how often we fuel the gender cult by bullying people into compliance with rigid gender norms.”
The books I suggested have strong statistical data.
I'm familiar with Nancy's work (spent the majority of the weekend defending it against her critics.)
Interestingly enough, when I offered this analysis about Walsh yesterday on Twitter, she is one of the very first people to respond agreeing with it. Her words were, "Spot on!" (https://twitter.com/NancyRPearcey/status/1678461817515810826?s=20)
The difficulty with providing stats for anything involving the gender cult is that its a relatively new phenomenon, so we just haven't had the time to compile the data yet. But I will tell you as someone who has been on the frontlines of this war for fully 8 years now, I've spoken to literally hundreds of people whose lives have been upended by it, and high percentages of them will tell you exactly what I've said here: the sex-role stereotypes and the fact that they did not personally measure up to them contributed to the problem.
I've contributed to a number of documentaries and parent support groups dedicated to tackling this issue. I can only tell you what I've seen.
I’m speaking for myself, my church, etc. It seemed a broad brush. (As far as Matt Walsh, maybe I should have been more careful reading his recent posts. - agree about crying, etc.). Referencing your statements, there are deeper reasons for the surge in gender confusion - ie, Truman's book. Expressive individualism, etc. Thank you for your response. I very much appreciate it. Don’t think I’ve commented before on this platform and didn’t really know if you would see it.
Trueman. Not Truman.
Full transparency for those who may be reading this, as well: I don't have quite as much time to devote to blogging as I wish I did. I have to squeeze my entries in between toddler naptime and getting my other work done, which, admittedly cuts into my research and fine tuning time. I don't claim to be an academic, and I can't always produce the depth of analysis or polished results my perfectionist tendencies would prefer, but I promise to do the best I can with the time alotted to me. :)
Subscribed, if that will help somewhat. 🙂
Bless you! That's very kind of you. I appreciate it.
👍 Credit where credit is due. 🙂
Speaking of which, Omar Khayyam again:
"Some for the Glories of This World; and some
Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come;
Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go,
Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum! ....
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my credit in this World much wrong:
Have drown'd my Glory in a shallow Cup,
And sold my reputation for a Song."
As I mentioned, I think you're one of a handful of honest interlocutors and commentators on the scene able to bridge the deepening divides in an increasingly polarized "body politic". Many people seem to be worshipping false idols of one sort or another, particularly in the arena of sex & gender.
Somewhat apropos of which, not sure if you saw Jesse Singal's largely bogus criticisms of Jonathan Stewart's views on gender. Stewart seems to have the higher moral and logical ground as he quite reasonably argues, as the photo shows, for gender as a range, as a spectrum of personality types, although I think he goes off the rails in suggesting that sex is likewise a spectrum:
https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-138-jon-stewart-and-john#details
What a dog's breakfast. Pretty much everyone riding madly off in all directions. Hardly conducive to any social progress at all.
LaDonna: "My church says there are two genders and each one has a broad spectrum."
A very sensible position to take. As I just put it in a comment to Kaeley here:
Some reason to argue -- as did the late Justice Scalia -- that "gender" basically boils down into personalities and personality types. The same way that "introvert" is a personality type, but many people possess that personality trait to a greater or lesser extent:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. . That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
So, "feminine" and "masculine" personalities and personality types -- a clear binary. But each of those types consists of a myriad of subtypes, a spectrum of them. Rather like the blueish and reddish ends of the colour spectrum, but each likewise with a myriad of colours included within them.