A Tale of Two Masculinities

As promised, I’m following-up on our two books on masculinity this week—Liz Plank’s “For the Love of Men” and Senator Hawley’s “Manhood.” It was both interesting and worthwhile to read these books side-by-side. There’s something very powerful to the practice of deliberate open-minded exposure to diverse ideas. This is especially true with ideas (or people) you might not agree with. As hard as it may be, really good things happen when you free yourself from the prison of your own narrow views and opinions.

I think both Plank and Hawley have important things to say and are offering up meaningful contributions to the dialogue about just what it means to be a good man today. Upon first glance, these two books seem to be set-up perfectly as two polar opposite camps in the fight over what it means to be a man today. Take, for instance, their views on the question of the meaning of gender. For Planck, while sex is biologically determined, she sees gender as purely a social construction. This is an idea that Hawley rejects completely. For him, there’s no distinction between biological sex and gender. Similarly, on the question of masculinity, you have Hawley’s conservative celebration of traditional ideas like strength, courage, and responsibility on the one hand. While on the other, you have Planck’s complete rejection of tradition in favor of an expansive new definition that gives men the space to identify with elements of both masculine and feminine ideals.

While there seems to be a pretty big conflict here, as you dive deeper into their arguments, you see quickly that it’s not so much about two views being in conflict but rather about where to draw the boundary lines in the definition of modern masculinity.

Plank and Hawley actually agree on quite a bit. For example, they both agree that masculine toxicity is essentially a function of selfish, narcissistic, and overly aggressive behavior. They disagree a little about where this comes from—for Hawley, toxic masculinity is purely a result of character failure at the individual level whereas Plank leaves space to place some of the blame on cultural and societal influences as well—but there’s no difference in how they characterize the problem. They also completely agree that men are in crisis around the world and particularly so in the West. In fact, they cite the exact same phenomena and data to make the point. Things like: studies on loneliness, depression, and porn addiction, high rates of suicide, drug abuse, and violence, and increasing disengagement from economic life.

They also both agree that the male crisis is largely a function of the changing economic landscape and the failure of our culture to adapt accordingly. Hawley places the blame on (supposedly) liberal policies, like trade with China, for hollowing out the middle class and taking jobs away from men. Planck cites the same data but says the problem is not that these jobs have gone away but rather that we’ve failed to give masculinity a broad enough definition to effectively deal with these changes. We haven’t given space, for example, for men to take on roles besides being a financial provider or to find fulfillment in fast-growing, much-needed service / caretaking roles.

At the core, they are both concerned with what Plank calls “precarious manhood,” the idea that our culture (unfairly) challenges men to feel that they must constantly prove themselves and their manhood. Hawley’s response is interesting. It’s basically the traditional “man up” kind of advice but because of his deep faith he presents this bravado response in noble terms. Hawley uses the Bible and the stories of Old Testament male figures to construct a vision of manhood based upon 6 traditional masculine archetypes—husband, father, builder, warrior, priest, and king. He exhorts men to rise to the challenges of life, commit to living a life of service, and to take responsibility not just for their lives but for their families and their communities. Much of this message resonates with me.

Plank offers something different. Without rejecting the path outlined by Hawley, she argues that men need to understand that there is simply more to it than this. In a world where we have allowed women to take on traditional masculine roles, like being a financial provider, we must allow men the same courtesy in the other direction. We have to create the space for the definition of masculinity to be more inclusive. Just as it was fair to allow women to take on new roles so should it be for men. The idea that a man is not a man if he doesn’t provide for his family is outdated in a world with mass female participation in the workforce. There should be nothing wrong with a man taking on the role of homemaker or to bear the primary responsibility for taking care of the kids. Similarly, there should be nothing wrong with men entering caretaker fields like nursing or teaching. Plank is essentially advocating for a more expansive and inclusive definition of masculinity that gives men adequate space to thrive in our rapidly world changing world. This is a message that also feels right to me.

As I was thinking about these two different takes on just what it means to be a man, I was struck by something. It’s so interesting that Hawley leaves out Jesus—literally the principal figure of his faith—from his definition of manhood. That seems like a pretty big oversight. Why? Because the vision for manhood that Jesus provides us is so very different than what we “normally” see. Jesus is someone who is both all the things Hawley praises—strong, responsible, courageous, hard-working, disciplined—but also, at the same time, someone who is kind, caring, emotional aware and expressive, compassionate, and loving. Jesus is, at once, the ultimate example of the “mindful masculine” that Plank is looking for and the traditional strong, responsible man that Hawley idealizes.

As is usually the case in our cultural battles, what’s needed is synthesis not more distinction or further separation. If there is something toxic about masculinity it’s a result of a failure of our collective imagination. A man should, as Plank argues, be able to be a caretaker, be a father, and express his emotions without the fear of seeming unmanly (whatever that means!). At the same time, a man should be able to play the role of protector and provider without the fear of being labeled unenlightened, so long as he leaves space for women to play the same kind of roles. 😎 

Like what you’re reading? Please forward to others and encourage to subscribe.

🙏 Thank you!