Be a Man not a Mama's Boy
By Prof. Erik S. Root
In Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant makes a connection between war and chivalry. Of course, Kant despises all of this because he dislikes war. He loathes war to such an extent he wants to stamp it out completely, along with valor and chivalry. However, a part of eliminating the reality of war means making men unmanly in spirit. While we might disagree with Kant's Utopian idea, he seems to understand that there is something about chivalry and valor that is manly (properly understood). Is there something about military valor that encourages and trains men to be chivalrous? Women on the left disdain anything that smacks of a distinction between the sexes—such is their desire for complete equality. Feminists are sometimes more manly than men. However, more troubling, is that the so called Christian right is increasingly adopting such leftist thought—they hate manly displays of valor, and, yet, long for a chivalrous male. They cannot have both. In effect, many men are becoming effeminate and sensitive and the effect of inculcating those traits in men could spell doom for the Union.
In one of Plato's forgotten dialogues, Laches, wefind a discussion on courage, or manliness. Of course,like many of the Platonic works, we do not actuallyarrive at a conclusion, or a definitive answer as towhat it is. However, we are struck by the reason forthe debate: there are some who ridicule the practiceof men who engage in armored fighting or combat.Two of the characters in the dialogue, Lysimachus andMelesias, are distraught because they are ashamedtheir fathers let them live a "soft life." According toLysimachus, there is something "noble for a youth tolearn fighting in armor." The discussion turns quicklyto education and its role in developing courageousmen. Another interlocutor, Nicias, asserts that gymnastics and horsemanship benefits "free" men becauseit instructs them in matters of contest and war, defending oneself, and finally in the "noble study" of "ordersand battle." Nicias then sums up the benefits of thistraining: " • r ^ " T • • !
We shall further attribute to it no small addition: this knowledge would make every man in war not a little more confident
and more courageous than himself. And let us not consider it dishonorable to say—even if to someone it seems to be a rather small thing—that the man will also appear more graceful and where at the same time he will appear more terrible to the enemies through his gracefulness.
This passage is even more important when we consider that in the Greek, avopeiog, the word for courageous (which appears for the first time in the dialogue), comes from the word avrp meaning man. The meaning of the word avSpeta may be rendered manliness. Somehow, then, there is a relationship between courage and manliness. Furthermore, Socrates' interlocutors seem to agree that courage is one of the most prominent public virtues. As Socrates is ever wont to do, he inconspicuously directs his interlocutors to a consideration of higher things. The discussion of the Laches thus proceeds to a discussion of the soul—and courage is apart of a well ordered soul.
As the discussion moves into this realm of utmost importance, the characters of the dialogue begin to utter several oaths—"By Zeus," "by the gods," etc. When we are considering the whole, the gods are invoked and reason and the divine come together. Could it be that the divine supplements or completes our reason? Nevertheless, Socrates seems to affirm that the education of armor fighting provides an avenue in which young men might learn courage. Of course, Socrates is interested in the isness of courage, and it appears that:
He who does fitting things concerning human beings would do just things; and concerning gods, pious things; and he who does just and pious things must of necessity be just and pious. These things are so. And indeed, of necessity, courageous as well. For it is not the part of moderate man either to pursue or flee things that are not fitting, but to flee and to pursue what he ought—affairs, human beings, pleasures, and pains—and to abide and be steadfast whenever he ought.
In order to cut to the chase, the Laches affirms that the courageous man fights and stays in the ranks; he places a high value on duty to the city and the fatherland. Ultimately, ridicule and disgrace, nay, femininity in men, is more terrible than the risk of death. We need courage to defend the just and pious things. If this virtue is not installed in men, they will not have the character to defend the country when the need is most necessary. If we are to have courageous men in war—in anything—we must educate and train them to be courageous in peace.
In The Republic, Plato fixes the spirited (Su^oc;) part of our nature to courage. While spiritedness may be the seat of anger, Socrates seems to want to make it a "loyal ally of reason" and he "rebukes" the "irrationally spirited." It is true that spiritedness may be savage or tame, yet Socrates tries to find a way to harmonize the extremes in order to moderate man. Specifically, if spiritedness may be employed in service of reason, then it may be properly moderated. Nevertheless, courage is one of the qualities a city needs for its health, and for its survival.
The genuine confusion over what it means to be courageous has bewildered many Christians who feel uneasy about the war against those who supported the terrible acts of 9/11. This trepidation might not bode well for the Union. Leo Strauss, assessing Machia-velli, asserted that Christians were weak in this world. Men were ready to die for salvation than to do the same for justice. Christianity not only led to an undermining of loyalty to country, but it often lead to a non-resistance of evil. Rousseau agreed. Christianity preached servitude and he thought that it had a favorable disposition to tyranny. As a result, he concluded that "Christians are made to be slaves." If there was one area where Machiavelli found Christianity not lacking, it was in pious cruelty. Christian spiritedness flourished in this one area—and it lead to theocratic despotism. Machiavelli seems correct in one sense: the Inquisition and other examples of religious persecution have existed in Christendom. Is Machiavelli right? Is Christianity of the same variety it was in his day? Can Christianity support political liberty, and can it moderate its own particular spiritedness?
America has a rich history of Christian support for liberty and this was most evident at the Founding. Protestants embraced a warlike manliness and "regarded reason no less than revelation as-a gift of God." Failure to cultivate both leads to disaster as it did for Nicias who trusted divination more than his manly spirit thus leading to military defeat. According to the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides, the reason for the Jewish captivity was the sin of their turning
to astrology which taught them that their "fate was dependent on the heavens rather than on studying and practicing the art of war." In contrast, Protestantism found its heft from a type of manliness. It took much courage to stand up against the Catholic church.
Perhaps a sampling of a few sermons from the Founding era would suffice to demonstrate that a manly Christianity did exist. Nathaniel Whittaker preached in 1777:
Every soldier...pray for those he endeavors to destroy, and wish them their best, their eternal good. These are no more inconsistent in a soldier, engaging in a battle and doing his best to kill his enemies, than they are in a judge and executioner, who take away a murderer from the earth...How absurd then is the pretense that the gospel of Jesus Christ forbids us to take up arms to defend ourselves!
Or how about this from Samuel Davies in 1758:
When [our enemies] would enslave the freeborn mind and compel us meanly to cringe to usurpation and arbitrary power; ...what is then the will of God? Must peace then be maintained? Maintained at the expense of property, liberty, life, and everything dear and valuable?...No; in such time even the God of Peace proclaims by His providence, 'To arms!' Then the sword is, as it were, consecrated to God; and the art of war becomes a part of our religion.
Several more examples could be added here, but the selections ought to weigh on us. How was it that Christians were able to speak like this from the pulpit? Part of the reason these sermons have fallen out of fashion results from the modern rejection of the enlightenment; many Christians consider it to be too secular, or too atheistic, to be trusted. While leftists reject the enlightenment because of their post-modern proclivities, the Christian right rejects it because it does not sufficiently invoke revelation. In that both groups reject the reasonableness of man, they are allies. However, even Aquinas trusted our God given abilities. He sanctioned just wars and the right to revolution. The enlightenment of the Founders found in Protestantism a manly Christianity worth preserving. The result of their heroic efforts set about making the Union the first nation that was founded in explicit opposition to Machiavellian principles. If we utilize all of our God-given abilities, we might be able to reason about this together. We might note that we face challenges in the Christian community and that those challenges do affect the character of our men and of our nation. There are some things we must overcome, however, to stem the modern tide.
The modern male seems to have two characteristics. He is either a barbarian or a wimp. Barbaric boys are quite crude. They wear the same type of clothes in all situations, curse in public and expect to be lauded for it, talk loudly, and have off-color names for girls, etc. They are over confrontational and they might like to fight too much. They are consumed by spiritedness; their 6^(^05 is undirected by reason.
Wimps have none of these problems. They are in some ways men without chests. They lack Sufioc; and shriek at self-assertion. They are not ambitious and they are in need of confidence. They lack the strength to act and when they do act, it is not in a manly way. If they have a problem with someone, another man for instance, they do not confront that man, but retreat from confrontation, or they find another more passive avenue to effect some end or right some perceived wrong.
The manly male is opposed to mere aggression. His chivalry seeks honor by being protective of women, and the fairer sex feels respected when they are protected; Manly men more properly respect women who properly understand, and desire, chivalry. How does this translate into national politics? Americans defend their country because they respect it. America is respectable because, even today, America's Founding, and her people, generally understand there is such a thing as good and evil, and that good is worth protecting while evil is not. Manly men, then, demonstrate courage when they are defending something worth defending. However, the sensitive male does not think about protection and defense in this sense. The sensitive man must see things from the woman's perspective. How many times have we heard supposed men exclaim that we ought not to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but should "understand" our enemy—as if that would stay future violence from the party of terror?
The chivalrous, and gallant, male opens the door for women, which is a show of strength, but the wom-
an goes in first. This order might say something about the true nature of the relationship—the man is the head but the woman is the neck—but women only get that treatment from manly men. The sexes are complimentary under these conditions. Women, though, will not find a sensitive man being chivalrous, but the women will be "understood" by the sensitive man. Manly men are "romantic about women," but the unmanly men are merely "sensitive" about women: "which is better? which is better for women?" The sensitive, and wimpy, male, then, is the unnatural male; he is the unmale. He has nothing of manly value to offer the true woman (a woman who either left or right is not trying to exert something like The Feminine Mystique upon all those who surround her). Aristotle believes that, for the most part, men are courageous and women are moderate. It is up to both, as complimentary beings in society, to fashion it into a quality that is virtuous.
Women may not understand men, all their silly expressions, and their "battles in armor," but a properly ordered manliness is what the country needs to defend itself, and to defend the orthodox understanding of marriage. If marriage is to survive, there needs to be a celebrated difference in the genders. Emasculated men and masculine women (however passive their masculinity) are unnatural beings. Ultimately, attempts to change the nature of men will lead to a few men (perhaps more) being thoroughly confused. Others will be completely lost. Yet not all men will accept such blatant feebleness: "But the sensitive male can also be chivalrous, in a perverted way, by seeking honor in refusing to honor and by protecting (from chivalrous males) women who say they do not want to be protected. It's another case of throwing nature out the front door only to have it return through the back." The political lesson is that we cannot change nature. The reasonable Christian has God to thank for that.
In Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant makes a connection between war and chivalry. Of course, Kant despises all of this because he dislikes war. He loathes war to such an extent he wants to stamp it out completely, along with valor and chivalry. However, a part of eliminating the reality of war means making men unmanly in spirit. While we might disagree with Kant's Utopian idea, he seems to understand that there is something about chivalry and valor that is manly (properly understood). Is there something about military valor that encourages and trains men to be chivalrous? Women on the left disdain anything that smacks of a distinction between the sexes—such is their desire for complete equality. Feminists are sometimes more manly than men. However, more troubling, is that the so called Christian right is increasingly adopting such leftist thought—they hate manly displays of valor, and, yet, long for a chivalrous male. They cannot have both. In effect, many men are becoming effeminate and sensitive and the effect of inculcating those traits in men could spell doom for the Union.
In one of Plato's forgotten dialogues, Laches, wefind a discussion on courage, or manliness. Of course,like many of the Platonic works, we do not actuallyarrive at a conclusion, or a definitive answer as towhat it is. However, we are struck by the reason forthe debate: there are some who ridicule the practiceof men who engage in armored fighting or combat.Two of the characters in the dialogue, Lysimachus andMelesias, are distraught because they are ashamedtheir fathers let them live a "soft life." According toLysimachus, there is something "noble for a youth tolearn fighting in armor." The discussion turns quicklyto education and its role in developing courageousmen. Another interlocutor, Nicias, asserts that gymnastics and horsemanship benefits "free" men becauseit instructs them in matters of contest and war, defending oneself, and finally in the "noble study" of "ordersand battle." Nicias then sums up the benefits of thistraining: " • r ^ " T • • !
We shall further attribute to it no small addition: this knowledge would make every man in war not a little more confident
and more courageous than himself. And let us not consider it dishonorable to say—even if to someone it seems to be a rather small thing—that the man will also appear more graceful and where at the same time he will appear more terrible to the enemies through his gracefulness.
This passage is even more important when we consider that in the Greek, avopeiog, the word for courageous (which appears for the first time in the dialogue), comes from the word avrp meaning man. The meaning of the word avSpeta may be rendered manliness. Somehow, then, there is a relationship between courage and manliness. Furthermore, Socrates' interlocutors seem to agree that courage is one of the most prominent public virtues. As Socrates is ever wont to do, he inconspicuously directs his interlocutors to a consideration of higher things. The discussion of the Laches thus proceeds to a discussion of the soul—and courage is apart of a well ordered soul.
As the discussion moves into this realm of utmost importance, the characters of the dialogue begin to utter several oaths—"By Zeus," "by the gods," etc. When we are considering the whole, the gods are invoked and reason and the divine come together. Could it be that the divine supplements or completes our reason? Nevertheless, Socrates seems to affirm that the education of armor fighting provides an avenue in which young men might learn courage. Of course, Socrates is interested in the isness of courage, and it appears that:
He who does fitting things concerning human beings would do just things; and concerning gods, pious things; and he who does just and pious things must of necessity be just and pious. These things are so. And indeed, of necessity, courageous as well. For it is not the part of moderate man either to pursue or flee things that are not fitting, but to flee and to pursue what he ought—affairs, human beings, pleasures, and pains—and to abide and be steadfast whenever he ought.
In order to cut to the chase, the Laches affirms that the courageous man fights and stays in the ranks; he places a high value on duty to the city and the fatherland. Ultimately, ridicule and disgrace, nay, femininity in men, is more terrible than the risk of death. We need courage to defend the just and pious things. If this virtue is not installed in men, they will not have the character to defend the country when the need is most necessary. If we are to have courageous men in war—in anything—we must educate and train them to be courageous in peace.
In The Republic, Plato fixes the spirited (Su^oc;) part of our nature to courage. While spiritedness may be the seat of anger, Socrates seems to want to make it a "loyal ally of reason" and he "rebukes" the "irrationally spirited." It is true that spiritedness may be savage or tame, yet Socrates tries to find a way to harmonize the extremes in order to moderate man. Specifically, if spiritedness may be employed in service of reason, then it may be properly moderated. Nevertheless, courage is one of the qualities a city needs for its health, and for its survival.
The genuine confusion over what it means to be courageous has bewildered many Christians who feel uneasy about the war against those who supported the terrible acts of 9/11. This trepidation might not bode well for the Union. Leo Strauss, assessing Machia-velli, asserted that Christians were weak in this world. Men were ready to die for salvation than to do the same for justice. Christianity not only led to an undermining of loyalty to country, but it often lead to a non-resistance of evil. Rousseau agreed. Christianity preached servitude and he thought that it had a favorable disposition to tyranny. As a result, he concluded that "Christians are made to be slaves." If there was one area where Machiavelli found Christianity not lacking, it was in pious cruelty. Christian spiritedness flourished in this one area—and it lead to theocratic despotism. Machiavelli seems correct in one sense: the Inquisition and other examples of religious persecution have existed in Christendom. Is Machiavelli right? Is Christianity of the same variety it was in his day? Can Christianity support political liberty, and can it moderate its own particular spiritedness?
America has a rich history of Christian support for liberty and this was most evident at the Founding. Protestants embraced a warlike manliness and "regarded reason no less than revelation as-a gift of God." Failure to cultivate both leads to disaster as it did for Nicias who trusted divination more than his manly spirit thus leading to military defeat. According to the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides, the reason for the Jewish captivity was the sin of their turning
to astrology which taught them that their "fate was dependent on the heavens rather than on studying and practicing the art of war." In contrast, Protestantism found its heft from a type of manliness. It took much courage to stand up against the Catholic church.
Perhaps a sampling of a few sermons from the Founding era would suffice to demonstrate that a manly Christianity did exist. Nathaniel Whittaker preached in 1777:
Every soldier...pray for those he endeavors to destroy, and wish them their best, their eternal good. These are no more inconsistent in a soldier, engaging in a battle and doing his best to kill his enemies, than they are in a judge and executioner, who take away a murderer from the earth...How absurd then is the pretense that the gospel of Jesus Christ forbids us to take up arms to defend ourselves!
Or how about this from Samuel Davies in 1758:
When [our enemies] would enslave the freeborn mind and compel us meanly to cringe to usurpation and arbitrary power; ...what is then the will of God? Must peace then be maintained? Maintained at the expense of property, liberty, life, and everything dear and valuable?...No; in such time even the God of Peace proclaims by His providence, 'To arms!' Then the sword is, as it were, consecrated to God; and the art of war becomes a part of our religion.
Several more examples could be added here, but the selections ought to weigh on us. How was it that Christians were able to speak like this from the pulpit? Part of the reason these sermons have fallen out of fashion results from the modern rejection of the enlightenment; many Christians consider it to be too secular, or too atheistic, to be trusted. While leftists reject the enlightenment because of their post-modern proclivities, the Christian right rejects it because it does not sufficiently invoke revelation. In that both groups reject the reasonableness of man, they are allies. However, even Aquinas trusted our God given abilities. He sanctioned just wars and the right to revolution. The enlightenment of the Founders found in Protestantism a manly Christianity worth preserving. The result of their heroic efforts set about making the Union the first nation that was founded in explicit opposition to Machiavellian principles. If we utilize all of our God-given abilities, we might be able to reason about this together. We might note that we face challenges in the Christian community and that those challenges do affect the character of our men and of our nation. There are some things we must overcome, however, to stem the modern tide.
The modern male seems to have two characteristics. He is either a barbarian or a wimp. Barbaric boys are quite crude. They wear the same type of clothes in all situations, curse in public and expect to be lauded for it, talk loudly, and have off-color names for girls, etc. They are over confrontational and they might like to fight too much. They are consumed by spiritedness; their 6^(^05 is undirected by reason.
Wimps have none of these problems. They are in some ways men without chests. They lack Sufioc; and shriek at self-assertion. They are not ambitious and they are in need of confidence. They lack the strength to act and when they do act, it is not in a manly way. If they have a problem with someone, another man for instance, they do not confront that man, but retreat from confrontation, or they find another more passive avenue to effect some end or right some perceived wrong.
The manly male is opposed to mere aggression. His chivalry seeks honor by being protective of women, and the fairer sex feels respected when they are protected; Manly men more properly respect women who properly understand, and desire, chivalry. How does this translate into national politics? Americans defend their country because they respect it. America is respectable because, even today, America's Founding, and her people, generally understand there is such a thing as good and evil, and that good is worth protecting while evil is not. Manly men, then, demonstrate courage when they are defending something worth defending. However, the sensitive male does not think about protection and defense in this sense. The sensitive man must see things from the woman's perspective. How many times have we heard supposed men exclaim that we ought not to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but should "understand" our enemy—as if that would stay future violence from the party of terror?
The chivalrous, and gallant, male opens the door for women, which is a show of strength, but the wom-
an goes in first. This order might say something about the true nature of the relationship—the man is the head but the woman is the neck—but women only get that treatment from manly men. The sexes are complimentary under these conditions. Women, though, will not find a sensitive man being chivalrous, but the women will be "understood" by the sensitive man. Manly men are "romantic about women," but the unmanly men are merely "sensitive" about women: "which is better? which is better for women?" The sensitive, and wimpy, male, then, is the unnatural male; he is the unmale. He has nothing of manly value to offer the true woman (a woman who either left or right is not trying to exert something like The Feminine Mystique upon all those who surround her). Aristotle believes that, for the most part, men are courageous and women are moderate. It is up to both, as complimentary beings in society, to fashion it into a quality that is virtuous.
Women may not understand men, all their silly expressions, and their "battles in armor," but a properly ordered manliness is what the country needs to defend itself, and to defend the orthodox understanding of marriage. If marriage is to survive, there needs to be a celebrated difference in the genders. Emasculated men and masculine women (however passive their masculinity) are unnatural beings. Ultimately, attempts to change the nature of men will lead to a few men (perhaps more) being thoroughly confused. Others will be completely lost. Yet not all men will accept such blatant feebleness: "But the sensitive male can also be chivalrous, in a perverted way, by seeking honor in refusing to honor and by protecting (from chivalrous males) women who say they do not want to be protected. It's another case of throwing nature out the front door only to have it return through the back." The political lesson is that we cannot change nature. The reasonable Christian has God to thank for that.
posted by Tim Hoskins at 10:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home