Not Joshing: Reflections on Masculinity, Femininity, and Humanity

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.

Hawley with Blood on His Hands

This is not the blog article I intended to post on January 10, but little did I know when I made my Jan. 5 post, partly about the end of the election season in the U.S., that it was going to end so violently.

Hawley, the Embarrassing Missouri Senator

In that Jan. 5 post I wrote, “Embarrassingly for many of us Missourians, last Wednesday Sen. Josh Hawley announced his intention to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college victory, which will lead to hours of debate tomorrow on what should be merely a routine matter.”

On Jan. 6, Hawley (b. 12/31/79) not only persisted in calling the presidential election into question, even after the insurrectionist mob stormed the Capitol, he cheered that mob on as DJT had done in his inflammatory speech at the “Save America” rally earlier in the day.

Here is the photo of Hawley taken early on Wednesday afternoon by Francis Chung, a photojournalist for E&E News:  

As Katie Bernard wrote for the Kansas City Star this morning, this image “seemed to crystallize Hawley’s week-long role as the face of the Electoral College challenge to Biden—and the chaos it unleashed.”

Again, this is highly embarrassing to many of us Missourians—and adds to our ongoing and deep disappointment that he defeated Claire McCaskill, the highly qualified incumbent, in the 2018 senatorial election.

Hawley, the Outspoken Evangelical Christian

Senator Hawley is also an embarrassment for those of us who identify as Christians—as is much of the conservative evangelicalism with which he has long associated.

As John Fea, a university professor and prolific blogger,  pointed out yesterday, “The U.S. Senators who objected to the Electoral College results were almost all evangelicals.”

Described as “a conservative, evangelical Presbyterian,” for many years Josh Hawley has been clear in his support of the issues most important to the Christian Right: a strong advocate for “religious freedom” and strong in his opposition to abortion and gay rights.

Back in 2015 at the beginning of his campaign to become the Attorney General of Missouri, he was lauded by Don Hinkle, the editor of The Pathway, Missouri’s conservative Southern Baptist newspaper.

As Hinkle pointed out, Hawley had worked on the Becket legal team that “won two of the most important religious liberty cases of our time.” One of those was the highly publicized Hobby Lobby case refusing to include abortion drugs in the insurance provided for their employees.

Hawley has also taught at Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a program seeking to train (conservative) Christian lawyers. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has labeled that organization “an extremist group.”

 Blackstone is an arm of Alliance Defending Freedom, which SPLC has designated as a hate group since 2016. That is largely because the “freedom” they defend is the freedom to discriminate against LGBTQ people and to block legal abortion activities.

Hawley, the Co-instigator of Sedition

It seems manifestly obvious that DJT instigated the insurrection of January 6. But more than anyone else, Hawley was the leading co-instigator.

On the afternoon of that fateful day, the editorial board of the Kansas City Star declared, “No one other than President Donald Trump himself is more responsible for Wednesday’s coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol other than one Joshua David Hawley.”

The headline for that editorial unequivocally stated their assessment of Hawley’s involvement in the chaos at the Capitol: “Assault on democracy: Sen. Josh Hawley has blood on his hands in Capitol coup attempt.”

Accordingly, Heather Cox Richardson wrote yesterday, Hawley “watched his star plummet today.” Former Senator John Danforth (R-MO), his key mentor, said supporting Hawley was the “worst mistake of my life.”*

In addition, one of Hawley’s major donors called him “an anti-democracy populist” who provoked the riots. And Simon & Schuster canceled Hawley’s new book contract.

What Hawley did, most probably intending it to greatly enhance his viability as the 2024 Republican candidate for the presidency, may, in stark contrast, have essentially ended his political career.

And perhaps the terrible events at the Capitol on January 6 will mark the beginning of the end of Trumpism and of the conservative evangelical Christian support of a very flawed President.

+++++

* Part of my 11/15/17 blog post was a positive assessment of former Senator Danforth. And here is what Fea posted this morning about Danforth and Hawley.