In her new book The Toxic War on Masculinity, evangelical scholar Nancy R. Pearcey provides a thoughtful and factually grounded rebuttal to popular narratives about manhood.
A key theme in the book is the juxtaposition of two archetypes for manhood: the Good Man and the “Real” Man. The Good Man is identified by universal moral virtues, summarized in the broader categories of responsibility and generosity. The “Real” Man, in contrast, is identified by attributes of machismo, not virtue.
Pearcey proposes that Christians ought not reject masculinity, as some in our culture would have us do. Instead, we ought to embrace the model of the virtuous Good Man, not a normative model of the too-often-vicious “Real” Man. When men sin, the problem is not their masculinity (as culture around us would have us believe), it is their sin.
Unfortunately, she notes, many voices today argue that the sins of men are the result of masculinity itself. Because of this, popular voices often neglect to observe that men are doing worse than women on various metrics including education, life expectancy, mental illness, drug addiction, incarceration, and suicide. Instead of seeking to address these issues, many people continue to villainize men.
Pearcey also addresses how men and women relate to the biblical metanarrative of Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Scripture teaches that men and women are created different from each other, yet both are created in the image of God and called to fulfill the cultural mandate. The Fall has hindered our ability to live this out, but through God’s redemption, men and women can live in accordance with God’s original design.
Pearcey divides the majority of the book into three parts. In Part One, she examines social science data and biblical principles, arguing against the popular narrative that Christian teaching about gender roles is necessarily oppressive or abusive. The biblical vision is more positive, she says, and Christians today are embodying this vision.
Pearcey suggests anti-Christian narratives about men neglect a key factor: the difference between devout and nominal Christians. According to the data cited by Pearcey, devout Christian men on average have the happiest and healthiest marriages and families. Nominal Christian men, however, have higher divorce and domestic violence rates than both devout Christian and secular men.
Why might this be? “Many nominal men hang around the fringes of the Christian world just enough to hear the language of headship and submission but not enough to learn the biblical meaning of those terms,” Pearcey suggests.
In contrast, devout Christian men often have a high view of the family, are emotionally engaged with their wives and children, and regularly attend church. Pearcey does not spend much time examining why men possess these attributes, but she indicates that a life renewed by Christ is a key factor. An additional factor is a right understanding of Scripture, which defies stereotypes of strong, nearly emotionless “Real” Men.
Christianity was originally countercultural for its understanding of gender, Pearcey notes, as it elevated women amidst ancient cultures which denigrated them. She also characterizes the controversial idea of male headship in marriage as an issue of responsibility, not mere power. A husband, instead of commanding his wife and children to fulfill his desires, has a responsibility to selflessly lead the family towards their good.
Part Two is a historical account of how the ideal of the “Real” Man became popularized contra the more biblical ideal of the Good Man.
Pearcey highlights the Industrial Revolution as a major turning point in the public perception of manhood. Before the Industrial Revolution, men often operated businesses at home. Pearcey commends this model of work-family balance, as it promotes vocational and familial unity between husband and wife, allowing both to have economically productive lives while being present for their children.
The Industrial Revolution, however, took men out of the home. Though they still worked for their families, they no longer worked with their families in the same way. The attention and behavior of men became increasingly divided, Pearcey suggests. Public work life was driven by reason, productivity, and efficiency. Private home life was driven by the emotional needs of a wife and children.
Morality became primarily associated with the home, with women seen as the primary agents of moral good in society – necessary to civilize men accustomed to the coarse and hardened workplace. Pearcey proposes this view began to perpetuate the negative stereotype of men as rough and lacking in virtue, a stereotype later strengthened by the rise of Social Darwinist theory.
Though this led to an idealized view of the independent man free from the limitations of domestic life, Pearcey notes that Adam began alone and God created Eve as a companion for him, commanding them to be fruitful and multiply. Men are not designed for independence, they are designed for relationship.
Men’s children are also designed for relationship. Pearcey outlines the mutual benefits of active fathers, noting both psychological benefits of fatherhood and the negative outcomes of many children without an involved father. She thus argues it is imperative that men find ways to restructure their work, recommending men take advantage of new technologies which allow working from home and spending more time with their family.
Part Three describes what happens “when Christian men absorb the secular script” for manhood, focusing on abuse. Pearcey warns against pride and anger, which may not be abusive in themselves but are certainly not healthy and can lead to abuse. She emphasizes the importance of relational intimacy as a ward against abuse, intimacy both with their families and other male friends. Many abusive men also did not have good relationships with their fathers.
Pearcey also outlines how Christians ought to respond when abuse does occur. She especially warns against blaming victims for their abuse, which occurs too frequently and only amplifies the hurt of the situation.
In The Toxic War on Masculinity, Pearcey presents a robust case for the renewal of a positive vision for masculinity – not merely a negative reaction against anti-man rhetoric. The book is topically wide-ranging, but clear in its overarching arguments. Pearcey refreshingly refuses to pander to audiences on her right or left, instead presenting a thoughtful integration of biblical and extrabiblical truth.
Ultimately, Pearcey’s argument is also compelling. Our families and communities will not be strengthened and renewed by an emphasis on merely stereotypical men. They must be led by men of virtue, responsibility, and love.
No comments yet
