On October 31, Senator Josh Hawley spoke at the National Conservatism Conference, which met in Orlando, Fla. His keynote address was titled “The Future of the American Man.” In that talk, he criticized the Left’s attacks on masculinity. But what does it mean to be masculine—or feminine? More importantly, what does it mean to be human?
Sen. Hawley is Not Joshing
Even though I am a Missourian, as you know or could easily guess, I am
not a fan of Missouri’s junior Senator, Josh Hawley. My most widely read blog
article of 2021 is “Hawley with Blood on His Hands,” posted on January 8. And his
political statements/actions since then have been consistently bad.
It is sometimes hard to distinguish what politicians really think or
believe from what they say to attract voters. Because of his possible candidacy
for POTUS in 2024, or later, Sen. Hawley—as well as Sens. Cruz of Texas and
Cotton of Arkansas—may say things to gain the attention of Trumpists.
Sen. Hawley seems not to be joshing, though, when he criticizes the
Left for abetting the loss of masculinity among USAmerican males. Listen to his
26-minute speech (here)
or read it (here)
and see what you think.
In that speech, Hawley disingenuously declares, “The
Left want to define traditional masculinity as toxic. They want to define the
traditional masculine virtues—things like courage, and independence, and
assertiveness—as a danger to society.”
Prof. Du Mez is Not Joshing
An opposite viewpoint is presented by Kristin Kobes
Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and the author of the bestselling
book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and
Fractured a Nation (2021).
Prof. Du Mez is not joshing when she declares
early in her book that conservative evangelical Christians have often “replaced
the Jesus of the Gospels with a vengeful warrior Christ.”
Accordingly, “evangelical support for Trump
was no aberration, nor was it merely a pragmatic choice. It was, rather, the
culmination of evangelicals’ embrace of militant masculinity, an ideology that
enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at
home and abroad.”
Although she doesn’t use the words “toxic
masculinity,” a widely-used term since early in 2019, Du Mez’s book speaks to
the same perceived problem.
A 1/22/19 NYTimes article “What is
Toxic Masculinity?” explains: “Toxic masculinity is what can come of
teaching boys that they can’t express emotion openly; that they have to be ‘tough
all the time’; that anything other than that makes them ‘feminine’ or weak.
(No, it doesn’t mean that all men are inherently toxic.)”
In her writing about militant masculinity, though,
Du Mez embraces most of the same ideas. And she is not joshing in her rejection
of that as a Christian ideal—or in her rejection of what she sees in White conservative
evangelicalism’s emphasis on “submissive femininity.”
I am Not Joshing
Rather than emphasizing masculinity or femininity, I strongly believe
in placing stress upon humanity—and I am defining humanity in a slightly
different way than usual.
If masculinity/femininity is as Dictionary.com
says, “the quality or condition of being masculine/feminine” then perhaps it is
not a stretch to say that humanity is primarily the quality or condition of
being human.
Being human is more important than men being
masculine or women being feminine.
Being human is more important than being male
or female (or “x,” which is now a passport option for gender).
Being human is more important than being White
or BIPOC.
Being human is more important than being
straight or LGBTQ.
According to Genesis 1:27, “God created
humanity in God’s own image” (CEB). In spite of gender differences, or any
other differences, all people are primarily, and most importantly, human
beings, equally created in the image of God.
This doesn’t mean differences should be
denied, but those differences should be kept secondary. Regardless of their differences,
all human beings are created as persons of equal worth.
So, yes, I am not joshing when I agree that
toxic or militant masculinity is bad for everyone—as are toxic politicians such
as Sen. Hawley.
.jpg)
The first comments received this morning (before 6 a.m.) were from local Thinking Friend Bruce Morgan, who succinctly wrote,
ReplyDelete"Amen. Josh Hawley is among the most toxic personalities in today’s political scene, and is a poor example of both masculinity and humanity."
And just now, these comments from another local Thinking Friend (and Missourian) Sue Wright:
ReplyDelete"Great blog. What makes me sad, is you and I know the 'Joshing' going on, but many don’t and are just looking for an excuse to continue being he-men and traditional she’s."
Here are comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard, who long lived in the Kansas City area before moving to Chicago where he now lives:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your previous comments about Woodrow Wilson and your current ones about Josh Hawley.
"The legacy of Woodrow Wilson raises the issue of whether Wilson’s flaws outweigh his good deeds. He was clearly a racist, but he also promoted a vision for an international order in which conflicts are resolved peacefully. It’s a tough question that applies to all of our leaders, past and present, as no one is perfect.
"Josh Hawley is also clearly not perfect. He is either a cynical opportunist or an idiot, but, as with so many well-educated right-wing politicians, the moniker of 'cynical opportunist' is much more likely. (His cynicism seems particularly exceptional.) As for his twisted view of masculinity, I agree with your comments."
Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson, originally from Missouri, shares these pertinent comments:
ReplyDelete"Right on, Leroy! Sometimes I wish I had developed a blog like yours; there is so much we need to address in our culture. Hawley cheered on the mob who threatened our Democracy January 6. I’ll never forget that fist of his raised in the air. Surely there are enough thinking Missourians to oust him from the Senate."
Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson. I would like to agree with your final sentence, but I don't think I can. At this point, I would expect him to be re-elected with overwhelming support from rural Missourians.
DeleteAs you and other readers of this blog may or may not know, last month Sen. Hawley and his wife started posting weekly podcasts under the title "This is Living with Josh and Erin Hawley." I have just listened to the first one, and it is an impressive expression of their conservative religious piety. They make much of Jesus' words in John 10:10. Evangelical Christians all across Missouri who hear those podcasts will most likely be eager to support such a "godly" man for the Senate.
Just as with Pres. Wilson, I see Sen. Hawley (and most politicians) as a mixture of good and bad. But conservative Christians who hear the podcasts of Hawley and his wife, and who are generally supporters of the complementarian view of gender relationships, will be glad to support the Senator's re-election, even if they do not like some of the things he has done or said.
Here are comments from another Missourian, Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield.
ReplyDelete"I once told a friend that ‘I am strong like a bull!’ when we were talking about gender characteristics. Obviously, that was not a nuanced philosophical pronouncement. It came in a conversation about how people judge us when we are artistic, or interested in things like antiques, or sympathize with women who have a forceful character. Our species seems to prefer clear gender lines that limit personal growth and discovery outside our hormone restrictions. I celebrate either sex in sports excellence ... I admire artists regardless of their gender ... I see in God's love and grace opportunities to be, discover, and become whole. My position is respect for an individual without artificial social stratification. Seems like so many of our modern pronouncements point us back to ‘cave man’ times.’ No thank you!"
Thinking Friend Lonnie Buerge, whom I see weekly in our church's worship services, shares these brief comments.
ReplyDelete"Amen. I'm so glad to hear voices like yours, Leroy. If only they could be heard by the evangelicals."
Thanks for reading and commenting, Lonnie. I have many (former?) friends who are evangelicals, but I am afraid most of them think that much of what I write is a target for criticism rather than something worth serious thought and consideration.
DeleteGood blog, Leroy! I don't see how any sensible person could disagree with it. But, then, there are a lot of insensible people. Josh Hawley is not one of them, although many who vote for him are, I'm sure. Hawley is not the buffoon trump is. Unfortunately, he's smart, articulate, without scruples, and politically ambitious. In my view, America's white evangelicals are the greatest threat to democracy and an open society this country has seen probably since the formation of the Confederate States of America. My best guess now is that they along with their allies among single-issue anti-abortion Catholics, white supremacists, single-issue gun rights advocates, and the large group of uninformed/misinformed whites anxious about the changing demographics of a multi-ethnic/racial society are going to triumph, at least for the next generation or two. I would love to be wrong about this.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Anton. As you know, I have from time to time accused one of our mutual friends of being too optimistic. But now, I think you are too pessimistic. Realistically speaking, I think you are probably right that the people you wrote about are probably going to triumph--in the near future. But I think it is too pessimistic to see that as the likely scenario "for the next generation or two." The pendulum will surely swing in the other direction much sooner than that.
DeleteThis morning, one of my local Thinking Friends wrote, "Hawley does not seem manly to me."
ReplyDeleteBut that is beside the point. I was not writing about Hawley's masculinity or lack thereof. I am not concerned about his manliness; rather, I troubled by his political and religious ideas that are questionable--troubled because I think those ideas are wrongheaded.
Many of Hawley's critics, though, have used his 10/31 speech to attack his sexuality. I think that is unfortunate, and I basically agree with the editorial that appeared in the Kansas City Star (newspaper) today--and the Star is certainly not a Hawley supporter. Here is the link to that article by the Star's editorial board:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article255676716.html#storylink=hpdigest_opinion
Another local Thinking Friend commented: "Good treatment of the subject. I only add that physically humans are either male or female. To change that takes radical surgery. To your identity issues, I want to add that humans are a mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics. It would take a psychological analysis to determine whether Harley struggles with the balance of these in his thinking."
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed in these comments also, for I wasn't writing about physical or psychological characteristics of men or women. My point was that people are first and foremost human, regardless of what physical or psychological characteristics they might have. And, again, I am not concerned about Hawley's sexuality.
DeleteThe problem, which perhaps I needed to describe better, is Hawley's attack on "the Left" for causing widespread problems for men because of their (the Left's) emphasis on gender equality, among other things.
Prof. Du Mez was recently highlighted in the CBF's Fall 2021 fellowship! magazine that featured an excerpt from a podcast she did with CBF that is available at: www.cbf.net/dumez
ReplyDeleteMy favorite word from the interview is "post-evangelical!" Perhaps someday political debates will be about how much to tax and spend instead of who is a traitor. In the meantime, we have to fight monsters where we find them. Somehow this is tough when your weapon is truth, while Q-Anon adjacent politicians get to invent the battlefield where their armies of lies are deployed. Still, we have the advice of Martin Luther on our side, "The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him."
Thanks for your comments, Craig, and for linking to one of the many podcasts and videos featuring Prof. Du Mez. If you just keyboard her name into the YouTube website, you will find numerous interviews etc. there. One is under the title "Kristin Kobes Du Mez: Christianity, Masculinity, & The Soul of Evangelicalism."
DeleteProf. Du Mez is just one of many who now regularly use the term "post-evangelical." A similar but less widely used term is "exvangelical," and there is even a Wikipedia article under that name.
Coincidentally, Kristin Kobes Du Mez was interviewed on this morning's NPR Morning Edition show and asked specifically about Sen. Josh Hawley's speech. I have been following Du Mez's via Twitter since I reviewed her book, Jesus and John Wayne, last December. My review is a little longer than usual because it includes an outline of the book's contents that I prepared for use during an adult Sunday school Zoom meeting in which we discussed the book.
ReplyDelete