Category Archives: pagkalalake

Hindi dapat ganito: Mga bagay na maaaring sabihin sa atin ng bibliya tungkol sa labanan ng mga kasarian upang matulungan tayong wakasan ang digmaan.

Posted on by

Read this in English. 

Sa unang yugto sa aking bagong serye ng mga pagkalalake at maka-Diyos, tinutugunan natin ang isyu ng labanan ng mga kasarian. Ang sinumang gumugol ng anumang oras sa mundo ay alam ang pakikibaka na umiiral, sa maraming pagkakataon, sa pagitan ng mga lalaki at babae at sa pagitan ng mga mag-asawa. Napakakaraniwan na maaari nating itanong ang tanong na, “Normal ba ito? Wala bang mas magandang paraan?” Mayroon akong magandang balita para sa atin — hindi ito dapat maging ganito. Sa post na ito ay titingnan natin kung paano sinasabi sa atin ng Bibliya kung saan nagsimula ang lahat ng problema at kung ano ang magagawa natin tungkol dito.

Saan ba tayo nag simula?

May ilang bahagi lamang ng Bibliya na naglalarawan ng panahong walang kasamaan sa mundo. Isa sa mga ito ay ang mga huling kabanata ng Pahayag kapag ang lahat ng kasamaan ay inalis na. Ang isa pa ay ang pinakasimula ng Bibliya sa Genesis 1-2, kaya naman mahalagang magsimula doon. Ang pangunahing kaganapan sa dalawang kabanata na ito ay ang paglikha, kung saan nilikha ng Diyos ang lahat ng umiiral. Ang isang mahalagang bahagi ng paglikha na iyon ay ang paglikha ng sangkatauhan, na inilalarawan ng Diyos sa ganitong paraan: “Kaya nilikha ng Dios ang tao, lalaki at babae ayon sa wangis niya” (Genesis 1:27).

Tandaan na walang gaanong paglalarawan na ibinigay kung ano ang hitsura ng relasyong ito ng lalaki at babae. Sa susunod na kabanata, inilarawan si Eva gamit ang isang salita na kadalasang nauugnay sa Diyos: Ezer, na kung minsan ay isinasalin bilang “kasama na tutulong sa kanya.” Bagama’t maaari tayong matukso na bigyang-kahulugan ito bilang katulong ni Adan, sa katotohanan ito ay isang salita na kadalasang ginagamit upang ilarawan ang Diyos (Ex 18:4; De 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). Sa katunayan, sa dalawampu’t isang beses na ginamit ang salitang ito sa Lumang Tipan, apat na beses lamang itong hindi tumutukoy sa Diyos.

Ang isang tanyag na ilustrasyon ay binibigyang-pansin ang katotohanan na si Eba ay nagmula sa tadyang ni Adan, na nagpapahiwatig ng magkatabi na pagkakapantay-pantay, sa halip na mula sa paa, na nagpapahiwatig ng pagsunod, o mula sa ulo, na nagpapahiwatig ng pangingibabaw.

Bukod doon, maaari nating ipagpalagay na ang mga pangunahing biyolohikal na tungkulin na ginagampanan ng mga lalaki at babae sa paglilihi at panganganak ay umiral, ngunit higit pa doon ay wala tayong ideya. Walang sinasabi tungkol sa domestic arrangement, tungkol sa work-life balance, tungkol sa leadership o authority o submission o hierarchy. Ang alam lang natin ay magkasama sina Adan at Eva sa hardin at araw-araw silang nakikipag-usap at nakikisama sa Diyos tuwing gabi.

Maraming haka-haka ang umiiral, gayunpaman, na nakasentro sa pagkakaiba sa pagbigkas ng utos na ibinigay ng Diyos kay Adan at ang pag-alaala kay Eba — ang ilan ay lubos na naniniwala na idinagdag ni Eva ang pariralang “o humipo man lang” (Ge 3:3). Gayunpaman, hindi malinaw kung ito ay nagsasalita sa mga isyu ng awtoridad o sa mga isyu ng madalas na hindi tumpak na mga katangian ng sinasalitang wika? Sino ang nakakaalam?

Saan ba tayo ngayon? 

Sa kasamaang palad, ang mga bagay ay hindi nanatiling ganoon magpakailanman. Ang unang pagkakakilanlan bilang tao lamang ay maputik sa susunod na kabanata kapag nakita natin ang pagpasok ng kasamaan sa mundo. Maraming epekto ang kasamaang iyon sa paglikha, ngunit para sa ating mga layunin ngayon ay tututukan natin ang bagong relasyon na nagsimula sa pagitan ng mga lalaki at babae. Kapag tinatalakay ng Diyos ang epekto ng kasamaan kay Eva, idinagdag niya ang isang kawili-wiling pahayag sa Genesis 3:16 — “Pero sa kabila niyan, hahangarin mo pa rin ang iyong asawa at maghahari siya sa iyo.” Dito ipinakilala sa atin ang ubod ng labanan ng mga kasarian, katulad ng hahangarin ng babae para sa kanyang asawa at ang maghahari ng asawa sa kanyang asawa. Bagama’t ito ay madalas na binabanggit bilang biblikal na katwiran para sa patriarchy, ang katotohanan na ang pahayag na ito ay nangyayari pagkatapos ng Pagkahulog sa Kasalanan ay nangangahulugan na hindi ito ang orihinal na plano kung paano gagana ang mga relasyon. Sa halip, ito ay isang sistemang batay sa kasamaan.

Ano ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang “pagnanais” ng asawa ay higit na mauunawaan sa pamamagitan ng pagtingin sa isa pang gamit ng parehong salita. Nang harapin ng Diyos si Cain tungkol sa pagpatay niya kay Abel, sinabi niya ito sa Genesis 4:7, “Dahil kung hindi mabuti ang ginagawa mo, ang kasalanan ay maghahari sa iyo. Sapagkat ang kasalanan ay katulad ng mabagsik na hayop na nagbabantay sa iyo para tuklawin ka. Kaya kailangang talunin mo ito.” Pansinin ang pariralang iyon nagbabantay sa iyo para tuklawin ka? Sinasalin nito ang parehong salita. Sinasabi nito na ang relasyon ng mag-asawa ay mailalarawan sa pagnanais ng babae — ang uri ng pagnanais ng kasalanan para sa atin. Ang salitang ginagamit para sa mga lalaki, sa kabilang banda, ay paghahari. Hulaan kung saan lilitaw muli ang salitang ito? Oo, sa talakayan ng Diyos kay Cain tungkol sa kasalanan. Kung gusto ni Cain na salungatin ang pagnanais ng kasalanan para sa kanya, dapat niyang pagharian ito. Kawili-wili hindi ba? Kaya pagkatapos, ang parehong mga salita ay naglalarawan ng relasyon pagkatapos pumasok ang kasamaan sa mundo. Dahil dito, hindi natin maaaring gawin itong indikasyon ng esensyal na sangkatauhan kundi ng makasalanang sangkatauhan lamang. 

May pag-asa ba?

Ngunit mayroong pag-asa. Hindi kailangang mangibabaw ang kasamaan sa mundo. Isang kislap ng pag-asa ang ipinakita sa atin sa Kawikaan 31, na kadalasang ginagamit upang ilarawan ang babaeng may tapang. Gayunpaman, ang ilang mga talata ay nakatuon sa relasyon ng pag-aasawa na mayroon ang babaeng ito. Sinabi sa 31:11-12, “Lubos ang tiwala sa kanya ng kanyang asawa, at wala na itong mahihiling pa sa kanya. Kabutihan at hindi kasamaan ang ginagawa niya sa kanyang asawa habang siya ay nabubuhay.” Hindi ba ito ay isang mahusay na paglalarawan ng relasyon nina Adan at Eva bago pumasok ang kasamaan sa mundo? At hindi ba ito isang magandang pangitain kung ano ang maaaring mangyari dito sa lupa?

Ang mga huling kabanata ng bibliya ay bumabalot ng lahat ng mabuti. Muli nating nabasa ang tungkol sa isang relasyon sa pag-aasawa — ito sa pagitan ng mundo at ng Diyos. Ang relasyong ito ay inilarawan bilang perpekto, ang nobya ay ang pinakamahalagang bahagi ng paglikha at ang lalaking ikakasal at nobya ay magkakasamang umiiral. Isipin ang larawang ito mula sa Pahayag 21:22-27:

“Wala akong nakitang templo sa lungsod na iyon, dahil ang pinaka-templo ay walang iba kundi ang Panginoong Dios na makapangyarihan sa lahat at ang Tupa. Hindi na kailangan ang araw o ang buwan sa lungsod dahil ang kapangyarihan ng Dios ang nagbibigay ng liwanag, at ang Tupa ang ilaw doon. Ang ilaw ng lungsod na iyon ay magbibigay-liwanag sa mga bansa. At dadalhin doon ng mga hari sa mundo ang mga kayamanan nila. Palaging bukas ang mga pinto ng lungsod dahil wala nang gabi roon. Ang magaganda at mamahaling bagay ng mga bansa ay dadalhin din sa lungsod na iyon. Pero hindi makakapasok doon ang anumang bagay na marumi sa paningin ng Dios, ang mga gumagawa ng mga bagay na nakakahiya, at ang mga sinungaling. Ang mga makakapasok lang doon ay ang mga taong nakasulat ang pangalan sa aklat ng Tupa, na listahan ng mga taong binigyanng buhay na walang hanggan.”

Hindi ba’t isang magandang larawan iyon? Hindi ba nito tinatapos ang isyu nang napakaganda?

Paano tayo ngayon?

Kung totoo nga na ang mga lalaki at babae ay nagsimula bilang magkatabi, magkapantay, parehong huwarang tao, kung totoo rin na ang orihinal na sitwasyon ay napalitan ng labanan, kung totoo rin na ang epekto ng kasamaan sa relasyon ng mag-asawa ay malalampasan, paano natin ito magagawa? Ano ang kailangan nating gawin? Hindi mo ba malalaman pero nagbigay din ng sagot ang Diyos para diyan.Sa Efeso 5:21, binabasa natin, “Magpasakop kayo sa isaʼt isa bilang paggalang kay Cristo.” Kaya ayun. Kailangan nating mamuhay ngayon na parang hindi kailanman naapektuhan ng kasamaan ang mundo. Kailangan nating isipin ang ating sarili bilang pantay. Kailangan nating kilalanin na ang pagsusumite ay mutual. Na kapwa babae at lalaki ay maaaring kumilos nang may awtoridad sa bawat sitwasyon. Bakit natin ito gagawin? Dahil sa paggawa nito ay ipinapakita natin ang ating paggalang kay Kristo. At siyempre hindi tayo hinihiling ni Jesus na gawin ang anumang bagay na hindi pa niya nagawa. Siya ang pinakahuling halimbawa ng pagsuko ng lahat upang mangyari ang plano ng Diyos na pagalingin ang mundo ng kasamaan. Sa halip na maupo lang sa langit bilang kapantay ng Diyos umaasa lang na magiging maayos ang lahat, na “kahit na nasa kanya ang katangian ng Dios, hindi niya itinuring ang pagiging kapantay ng Dios bilang isang bagay na dapat panghawakan. Sa halip, ibinaba niya nang lubusan ang sarili niya sa pamamagitan ng pag-aanyong alipin. Naging tao siyang tulad natin. At sa pagiging tao niya, nagpakumbaba siya at naging masunurin sa Dios hanggang sa kamatayan, maging sa kamatayan sa krus” (Filipos 2:6-8). 

Tularan natin si Kristo at sikaping alisin ang impluwensya ng kasamaan sa mundo.

Ngayon napagtanto ko na ang lahat ng ito ay tila malinaw sa akin ngunit maaaring iniisip mo na may malalaking butas sa sinabi ko. Kung gayon, pakisabi sa akin sa mga komento sa ibaba!

Paki-click din ang Follow link sa ibaba para makuha ang mga susunod na installment ng seryeng ito sa napapanahong paraan.

Tandaan na ang pagbabahagi ay ginagawa ng mga kaibigan.

Larawan ni Artem Podrez sa Pexels.

It’s not supposed to be this way: Things the bible can tell us about the battle of the sexes to help us end the war. 

Posted on by

Basahin mo ito sa wikang Tagalog.

In this first installment in my new series on masculinities and religiosities, we address the issue of the battle of the sexes. Anyone who has spent any time in the world is aware of the struggle that exists, in many cases, between men and women and between husbands and wives. It’s so common that we may ask the question, “Is this normal? Isn’t there a better way?” I have good news for us — it isn’t supposed to be this way. In this post we will look at how the Bible tells us where the problem all began and what we can do about it.

Where did it all begin?

There are only a few parts of the Bible that describe a time without evil in the world. One of them is the final chapters of Revelation when all evil has been removed. Another is the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1-2, that’s why it’s important to start there. The key event of these two chapters is creation, where God created all that exists. One key part of that creation is the creation of humanity, that God describes in this way: “So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27). 

Note that there isn’t a lot of description given as to what this male & female human relationship looked like. In the next chapter Eve is described using a word that is often connected with God: Ezer, which is sometimes translated as “helpmeet” or “helper.” While we might be tempted to interpret this as meaning Adam’s servant, in reality it’s a word that is most often used to describe God (Ex 18:4; De 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). In fact, of the twenty-one times this word is used in the Old Testament, only four times it doesn’t refer to God.

A popular illustration pays attention to the fact that Eve came from Adam’s rib, implying a side-by-side equality, rather than from the foot, which would imply subservience, nor from the head, which would imply dominance. 

Apart from that, we can suppose that basic biological roles that men and women play in conception and childbirth existed, but beyond that we have absolutely no idea. Nothing is said about domestic arrangements, about work-life balance, about leadership or authority or submission or hierarchy. All we really know is that Adam and Eve were together in the garden and that they had daily conversation and communion with God every evening. 

Lots of speculation exists, however, largely centred around the different wording of the command God gave Adam and Eve’s recollection of that command — some make much of the fact that Eve adds the phrase “and you must not touch it” (Ge 3:3). However, it’s not clear if that speaks to issues of authority or to issues of the often non-precise nature of spoken language? Who knows? 

Where are we today? 

Unfortunately, things didn’t stay that way for ever. The initial identification as merely human gets muddied in the very next chapter when we see the entry of evil into the world. There are lots of effects of that evil on creation, but for our purposes today we will focus on the new relationship that began between men and women. When God is discussing evil’s effect on Eve, he adds an interesting statement in Genesis 3:16 — “… Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Here we are introduced to the core of the battle of the sexes, namely the “desire” of the woman for her husband and the “rule” of the husband over his wife. While this is often cited as being the biblical rationale for patriarchy, the fact that this statement happens after the fall means that it is not the original plan for how relationships would work. Rather it’s a system grounded in evil.

What does it mean? The wife’s “desire” can best be understood by looking at another use of the same term just a chapter later. When God confronts Cain about his killing of Abel, he makes this statement in Genesis 4:7, “if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Notice that word desire? It’s the same word. That tells us that husband-wife relationships with be characterised by desire on the part of the wife — the kind of desire that sin has over us. The word used for men, on the other hand, is rule. Guess where this word appears again? Yup, in God’s discussion of sin with Cain. If Cain wants to counteract the desire that sin has for him, he must in turn rule over it. Interesting isn’t it. So then, both terms describe relationship once evil has entered the world. As such, we can not make them indicative of essential humanity but merely of sinful humanity.

Is there hope?

But there is hope. Evil doesn’t have to dominate in the world. One glimmer of hope is presented to us in Proverbs 31, that is often used to describe the woman of valour. A couple of verses, however, focus on the marriage relationship that this woman has. It says in 31:11-12, “Her husband trusts her with ⌞all⌟ his heart, and he does not lack anything good. She helps him and never harms him all the days of her life.” Isn’t this a great illustration of what Adam and Eve’s relationship may have been like before evil entered the world? And isn’t it a great vision of what things can be like here on earth?

The final chapters of the bible wrap everything up nicely. Here we read once again of a marriage relationship — this one between the world and God. This relationship is described as perfect, the bride is the most valuable part of creation and the groom and bride co-exist. Image this picture from Revelation 21:22-27:

“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

Isn’t that a great picture? Doesn’t it wrap up the issue very nicely?

So, what should we do now?

If it is indeed true that men and women began as side-by-side partners, equals, both exemplary human beings, if it is also true that that original situation was replaced with a battle, if it is also true that evil’s effect on the husband-wife relationship can be overcome, how can we make that happen? What do we need to do? wouldn’t you know it but God also provided an answer for that. In Ephesians 5:21, we read, “Place yourselves under each other’s authority out of respect for Christ.” So that’s it. We need to live life today as if the evil had never impacted the world. We need to think of ourselves as being equal. We need to recognise that submission is mutual. That both women and men can act with authority in every situation. Why should we do this? Because in doing so we show our respect for Christ. And of course Jesus doesn’t ask us to do anything that he hasn’t already done. He is the ultimate example of giving up everything so that God’s plan to heal the world of evil would happen. Rather than just sitting up in heaven as God’s equal hoping things would work out alright, he “he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6-8). 

Let’s imitate Christ by working at removing evil’s influence in the world.

Now I realise that all of this seems pretty clear to me but you may be reading thinking that there are huge holes in what I have just said. If so, please let me know in the comments below!

Please also click the Follow link below to get the next instalments of this series in a timely manner.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Artem Podrez on Pexels.

Top 10 English Posts of 2022 on michaeljfast.com

Posted on by

It’s always interesting to look back on the past year and see how writing went. In 2022, I had a chance to write 44,200 words that 3881 people thought worthwhile to read. I have enjoyed interacting with many of you on here in this past year and look forward to seeing where 2023 takes us. Here is a countdown of the Top 10 posts that I wrote in English. As you may have noticed I also write in Tagalog. To see the Top 10 Tagalog posts of 2022, please click here.

10. How I learned that paying attention to social justice is discovering how to listen with God’s ears. Something puzzling has been popping up in my social media feeds in the past little while. There have been debates about the role that justice, or more particularly social justice plays in the lift of the church. It’s puzzling to me because for the past number of years social justice and related issues have been central to my life and ministry.  But I guess it hasn’t always been that way for me. I remember many years ago when I first heard the phrase social gospel wondering what it meant and why it was considered important to some and unimportant to others. This initial curiosity led me down a path towards developing practical theologies that help the church engage society. 

9. What does it mean to be a man, part 2? Masculinities in the Philippines. In a previous post, I introduced the idea of masculinities. In it I mentioned that masculinity should really be masculinities because there is not one standardized way to be a man. In this post I will expand on that in talking about how crossing cultures also increases the complexities surrounding the subject. Our specific focus will be on masculinities in the Philippines. 

8. My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the center of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library. Here are some of my thoughts about it.

7. Lucy Peppiatt’s Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. If you are like me certain things are important when making decisions. I like new ideas, especially new theological ideas. But one deal breaker for me is when new theological ideas have no basis in the bible. I want to see how the new idea interacts with the text before making my final decision on it. Here is a little about my journey through the thorny issue of men & women & the church. 

6. Is it ok to call my Pastor “Pas”? Pastor is a socially and culturally constructed word that means something different today than it did in the Bible times. In no place in the Bible are we commanded to call someone a “pastor.” In no place in the Bible in the role of pastor a professional role. (And while we’re at it let’s get rid of the notion that “the pastor is the highest calling.”)

5. My wife, Eva, is now blogging. I am pretty excited today because my wife’s new blog, Beneath My Shell, went live just a few moments ago. Eva blogs her thoughts about her life as a missionary midwife living in the Philippines. Please head on over a take a look at what Eva has to say. You will love her first story!

4. Did you know that Matthew 18’s instruction to “go, confront him when you are alone” isn’t the only Christian way to deal with conflict? Ask any Christian how to deal with conflict and they will pull out Matthew 18 because it lays out what many see as THE way for Christians to deal with interpersonal sin. For years the church has laid out the process of talk to the person individually, then if things don’t work out bring someone as a witness. Then, if things still don’t work out, bring the matter before the church and if that doesn’t work out then expel the person from the church. It’s pretty standard but what if I told you that this wasn’t the only biblical way that God’s people deal with sin? There are actually countless examples of other ways of doing the same thing that may be more relevant in other cultural contexts. 

3. What does it take to be a man? An introduction to masculinity studies. For the past year I have been promising some posts on masculinity. Masculinity is in its most basic sense the “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society.” While these definitions may seem simple at first, there is a lot to unpack. Here is an introduction to the topic.

2. 3 Types of Evil. Evil is much more complex than simply being personal. In fact there are three types of evil, or sin, that are discussed in the Bible: Personal evil, natural evil, and structural evil.

1. Emic vs Etic: Understanding how insider & outsider perspectives interact when doing theology. An example from the Philippines. There is a debate about the validity of using an emic approach in seeking to understand a culture on its own terms. In fact, this debate is behind the development of ethnoscience worldwide.  What is often missed in the debate is the reality that all forms of science are emic in that whatever frameworks or structures are developed are developed from the emic perspectives of a specific culture. They merely become etic once applied to another culture.  

Do you have a favourite post from 2022? Why not comment below and tell us why?

If you haven’t taken the chance to subscribe please do so using the links provided.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Ella Christenson on Unsplash.

Why the term “Toxic masculinity” is less an indictment against you as an individual, and is more a wakeup call to society as a whole. 

Posted on by

I responded to a question the other day on Twitter. I am trying to focus my engagement there to not be a knee-jerk response to everything that I disagree with because that tends to lead to me being quite negative in the rest of my life. So, I thought that since studying and discussing masculinities is my thing, that I would respond to this.

The interlocutor was asking questions about “toxic masculinity,” as follows: “Ok, so the text-book definition of “toxic masculinity” is actually just bad behavior whether you are a man or a woman. Correct?” The question came with a Poll that one could fill in as a way of answering the question.

“Yes, it is. Period.
No, you toxic … man!!!
Intern camp is awaiting
What is it? Food?”

The problem was, I didn’t see an answer that seemed to fit with how I understand the term. In fact, I am not sure I understood what some of them were referring to. Don’t worry, I find that I have a hard time understanding lots of polls and questionnaires. I also have to admit, reading the question and seeing the poll, I wondered if the questioner was trying to get rid of the idea of toxic masculinity by saying something along the lines of, “Oh. You know women are also toxic so why not just call people toxic. Why single out men?”

Rather than selecting of the questions in the poll, I replied, “Isn’t ‘toxic masculinity’ a type of masculinity that’s toxic? It’s just one of the variety of masculinities that exist in the world.” It was more of a feeler to see if we could get onto the same page.

The response was, “Correct, but the question was whether how we define toxic masculinity is just simply a bad behaving human regardless of gender? Therefore no need to have that term at all, right? Or are we going to have toxic femineity (sic) to go with it with the exact same definition otherwise?”

It seems that my first impressions were correct and that this was an attempt to paint all people with the same brush. It also indicated a concept of masculinity that is based on individual actions rather than societal norms.

Certainly, all people can be toxic and so on one level one could merely use that term to describe people’s actions. However, once we start talking gender, we move into a different realm because while individuals may believe and act in certain ways based on their own individual ideas, in reality gender is something that is societally defined. As I have said elsewhere, masculinity is “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” (OED) or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society” (Gilmore, 1990). It is a norm that is accepted at face value. Of course we know that there is more than one acceptable way of expressing gender but each of these ways is also determined by a society and not by individuals. The use of “masculinity” implies a societal norm that is modified by the word “toxic.” Thus, it’s the masculinity that’s toxic and not men per se. What it means when we tie it all together is that “toxic masculinity” is a way men can express their masculinity in toxic ways that are acceptable to society.

Toxic masculinity is therefore not merely men being toxic. Rather it’s men and women reflecting a way of being a man that is toxic. But it’s more than that — it’s expressing a harmful way of being a man that has become a norm in society. It includes such things as violence against women, boys will be boys, and patriarchy. So, on that level it’s not appropriate to simply remove the “masculinity” from the term and include both men and women, unless of course women also express their femininity in toxic ways. Which is itself and interesting question that I honestly don’t have an answer to. What would be an example of toxic femininity I wonder?

The term “toxic masculinity” is really a wakeup call for society to reconsider what we feel is normal. Toxic masculinity cannot be eliminated by merely removing the word from the phrase. The only way to eliminate it is to change what we as a society think is acceptable.

So, are you upset with the term “toxic masculinity” because it doesn’t reflect who you are as an individual? Great! It should make us upset. Want to make things better? Call out things like the normalisation of violence against women, boys will be boys, and patriarchy so that the toxicity can be made safe.

As always, I would like to hear your voice on this important topic. Does what I am saying make sense or have I missed the mark in some way. Please let me know in the comments below.

Like what you just read? Please click Like or Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next instalment.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by danilo.alvesd on Unsplash.

I went looking for masculinity in the Bible & this is what I found.

Posted on by

There has been a lot of discussion of late among the circles that I am involved in about what “Biblical Masculinity” is. We like things to be clearly defined, particularly areas that define how we are supposed to live. The assumption is often along the lines of “God has a plan for the way we are to live so if we can just figure out that plan then it will be easy for us to live it.” To that end, I went to the Bible to try and find out what it means to live as a man. Note that in this case I am not using the universal “man” to denote all humans but rather males specifically. Remember also that Masculinity is in its most basic sense the “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” (OED) or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society” (Gilmore, 1990).

In my search, I found myself in 2 Samuel 3, which is chock full of masculinity. Let’s see if we can extract a masculinity for us to emulate as faithful men of God. We also need to be reminded that the bible sometimes prescribes actions (stuff we are required to do) but more often describes actions (stuff other people did).

The man who fathers six children with six different women. Wait. What? Not the first example of biblical masculinity that I thought I would encounter. It actually flies in the face of contemporary Christian masculinity that champions fatherhood in the context of the nuclear family. What is interesting is that Absalom and Amnon have issues, that David is unwilling to work on, and as a result Absalom will eventually seek David’s throne and his life. Even though he fathered many children (and there are more besides these ones here), he clearly wasn’t always a very good father. Is a biblical man one who imitates David in this way?

The “Godless Fool“ who was so self-centred that his disrespect for others led to his own death (and whose wife was more honourable than he). We read about Nabal, whose name means Godless Fool, in 1 Samuel 25, where he is described as “harsh and mean,” and such “a worthless man that it’s useless to talk to him.” The reason he appears here is because David eventually married Nabal’s wife, Abigail, and it’s her son, Chileab, who is one of the six kids mentioned above. Is a biblical man a godless fool?

The man who faithfully serves his master’s family even in the face of open warfare. Abner was a good guy. Even though he appears on the wrong side of history, given that he supported Saul over David for the kingship, the Bible is very clear that he is honourable. And this honour was in the face of hand to hand combat. It’s quite the thing to face your enemy, grab him by the head, and stick your sword into his side — all while he is doing the same thing to you. If it was me I would probably run. What’s also interesting is that Abner remains loyal to Saul’s family even though he knows God has replaced him with David! That’s pretty strong resolve, isn’t it? Is a biblical man one who is a faithful servant?

The man who acts to defend his honour. Abner’s loyalty and faithfulness is then besmirched by Ishbosheth who falsely accuses him of raping one of Saul’s wives. We really have no context for this claim, other than what we read in this text, but Abner’s response is not unsurprising in someone falsely accused in this way. Is a biblical man one who defends his honour?

The man who wins his wife with 100 Philistine foreskins. If you are interested in this story, take a quick look at 1 Samuel 18, where we read that David doubled the required amount to 200, but that he also had help. What is involved in taking 200 Philistine foreskins? Killing 200 Philistines first because I can’t conceive of a situation where these would be willing turned over. Would you agree to those terms? How would that conversation go?

David: “Hey, bro, can you do me a solid and give me your foreskin so I can use it to get a wife?”

Random Philistine: “Over my dead body.”

David: “Okidoki.”

So, 100 Philistine foreskins = 100 dead Philistines. Obviously, winning a wife in this way requires a man capable to acquiring 100 foreskins. Is a biblical man someone capable of taking 100 foreskins? Is a biblical man someone who demands his wife back after she is already married to another?

The man who follows his wife down the road weeping because she is being taken back to her first husband. Paltiel, son of Laish wasn’t having a good day. He was squeezed between to fighting families and lost out in the end because he had to give up his wife. Michal, his wife, had originally been David’s wife — the one he paid 100 Philistine foreskins for. In 1 Samuel 25:44 we read that Saul had given Michal to Paltiel. He obviously loved her a lot to become so vulnerable in this way. Is a biblical man one who cries when his wife is taken from him?

The man who kills an honourable man as revenge for his slain brother. Joab and Abner were enemies from the day that Abner killed Joel’s brother Asahel. He had been awaiting this moment for quite some time. During those years in Israel, families were allowed to avenge deaths. If you accidentally killed someone you could flee to a city of refuge, where you would be safe until the death of the high priest. That ended anyone’s claim over your life. What is odd is that in this case, Joab killed Abner in Hebron, which was a city of refuge. Is a biblical man one who takes revenge on his enemies?

The man cursed to only be able to operate a spindle or to fall by the sword. David was upset over Joab’s revenge killing of Abner so he curses Joab’s family in an interesting way. Joab’s family would always have a man who would operate a spindle. A spindle was used for spinning and wasn’t apparently something commonly used by men in that in the only other usage in the Old Testament it is used by a woman. Death on the battlefield is a necessary part of warfare, but people’s preference is to live on the battlefield because that means that you have won. If your families always die, then they aren’t very successful. Is a biblical man one cursed like Joab’s?

The man who shows, through ritualistic mourning that he is innocent of another man’s blood. David expressed a lot of emotion during the funeral for Abner, including loud crying, singing, and not eating. He did not protect himself from shame or appearing weak, but rather put honouring Abner above his own interests. It was this vulnerability that caused the people to believe his innocence. Is a biblical man one who shows this kind of vulnerability?

Even though we can technically answer “Yes” to the question “Is a biblical man one who ______?” it is also obvious that not all of these men are to be emulated. It is also obvious that It seems as if there is not one universal masculinity expressed in this chapter. Men can also, apparently, express different masculinities in different situations. It leads us to ask, “Why are there so many examples of men in this chapter?” The answer is because rather than just one, universal masculinity, the world actually has a variety of masculinities. I have written about that here, here, and here.

What does this mean for Christian men today? There isn’t one, single, biblically defined version of manhood for us to emulate. We can express our manhood in a variety of ways, none of which are biblically prescribed. It also means that things are as clear as some are saying about what it means to be a Christian man. It takes the ability to interpret and understand the text of the Bible it a way that acknowledges its complexities.

What are your thought on masculinity? Why not leave a comment below?

If you liked what you read, please consider liking and following this blog.

Remember, sharing is what friends do.

Image by Alexander Nikitenko on Unsplash.

My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Posted on by

Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the centre of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library.

The publisher’s product description says, “Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with ‘a spiritual badass.’”

I like reading books because of where they take me and how they get my mind to go down trails that may or may not have been the intent of the author. This book is no different. What follows is not so much a critique as it is a train of thought brought about by the book.

I enjoyed this book immensely and highly recommend it. As is obvious from some of my previous posts, masculinities are an important part of my life and ministry. Du Mez presents a view of evangelical masculinity that is frankly disturbing. Rather than evangelicals having a carefully thought out theological argument for being men, what we discover is a political argument for being men that is then adopted by the evangelical church. Each paragraph is footnoted with sources so readers can double check what is said.

At this point I need to point out that while I was reading I did find it a bit like watching the neighbours through their living room window. I was born and raised in Canada and have spent almost half my life in Southeast Asia so the American context is largely someone else’s context. Any understanding of a necessary close connection between evangelical masculinity and politics escapes me. I really can’t for the life of me understand why my evangelical masculinity needs to be so closely connected with politics and political systems.

I will say this with regards to politics: I do believe that all people need to be involved in nationbuilding, Christians in particular. We need to tell people that Jesus is the best possible leader. We need to tell people that Jesus’ Kingdom has an unparalleled set of values. We also need to work at serving them. Finally we need to spend time together discovering the truth.

But beyond that, it is not a part of my framework to connect that with some kind of political system (which I think the Bible refers to as a wild animal rather than a lamb who was slain). So that’s the part that I don’t get. I guess it makes it even harder for me to believe it when I find out that some of the American presidential candidates most hated by evangelicals were in fact evangelicals themselves (and their most loved rivals were anything but). I just don’t get it but that may be because I am not from there.

I do know the names of the key players in the story because they are also of influence in the parts of the world with which I am more familiar. I have attended Promise Keeper’s rallies and seminars. I have been encouraged by Eldredge’s books. I have shown Dobson videos to my youth group. My best friend’s father was heavily into Gothard when I was a kid. So these are familiar names. I must say that it was disturbing to me to see how carefully the crafted a version of masculinity that was so politically motivated. It made be question the things that I had learned from them and wonder what shortcomings my own perspectives have.

I will tell you one thing: As I have written elsewhere (here, here, & here), I don’t hold to universal gender roles, much less God-appointed gender roles. Rarely do we find someone who lives out their theoretical framework (read “theology” in this context) perfectly in life. And rarely do we find a framework that exactly explains everything in the world. As Rorty says, “A + B = C, unless it doesn’t.” The same applies to gender roles. My wife handles our finances because she is better gifted at it — we would be quickly bankrupt if I were to take the reins. My wife is a better missionary than be because she seems to have the abilities to make connections and carry out plans while I struggle along. Both of us are involved in public ministry as our callings and giftings determine. We both cook at home because we both enjoy it. I suspect it’s the same with you.

My wife and I enjoy watching cooking shows — particularly contest shows. What surprises me is the predominance of men in professional cooking and the fact that the women who participate say that it’s a hard industry for them to enter. Wait a minute. I thought that cooking was supposed to be the realm of women? (I see a lot of references to sandwiches on Twitter). What happened? What happened was that the framework that we have been presented with is flawed. Patriarchy still rears its ugly head even in realms where we think that it doesn’t.

Du Mez emphasises one strain of masculinity in her book. At first I saw that as a limitation but then realised that Du Mez does periodically refer to other sides to the story but these are only in passing and in the context of having been rejected by the subjects of her book. She is in fact tracing a hegemonic form of masculinity through the evangelical church. If you don’t remember, hegemonic masculinity is a term developed by Connell to identify the form of masculinity that is the norm in the cultural psyche, even if this norm is not actually the normal masculinity when it comes to practice (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It does leave me with the question of whether there is there a range of masculinities among American evangelical men? Du Mez may have highlighted the hegemonic form but what about the other, perhaps more practiced, forms that exist? How can we champion those? Is it possible to affect change in the cultural psyche so that more harmful forms of masculinity become marginalised?

I also was surprised to see the inclusion of fundamentalists in the realm of evangelicals, since the fundamentalists that I know try to distinguish themselves from evangelicals. But that is really neither here nor there since the underlying theme tracing is hegemonic masculinity.

The book caused me to reflect on what I truly believe masculinities to be. It got me to examine my assumptions on a deeper level. What is masculinity for me? How does it differ from femininity? Is it even important to make a distinction? Am I, as a man, somehow specially prepared/gifted/enabled/called to something that perhaps a women isn’t? Or are those things determined by personality? How can I best use my manhood (if that’s even possible) for the furtherance of God’s kingdom here on earth?

My own masculinity research, where I talked with men in my community, tells me that some men see themselves sometimes as humans, with the same problems that all humans share. “Tao lang ako” [“I’m only human”] is a phrase often on the lips of the men when they describe their ability to be obedient to God. It encapsulates both their desire to do what is right but also gives them some leeway in their performance since “tao lang ako.” It reiterates their weakness and sets themselves apart from God, who wouldn’t have any problem being obedient.

But men are also men and as such need to become better people. They want to redefine themselves from the traditional ideas that men are violent or womanizers into something better. Knowing Christ has helped one of my friends overcome his hot headedness. He also said that in his opinion womanizers aren’t really true men because all that results is that their families are destroyed.

I don’t have many answers yet but Du Mez’ book has helped me deepen the process of discovery. It may help you as well. Why not pick it up and read it? It may cause you to reflect on your own situation as well.

Then again, maybe God has given you insight into these things. Please feel free to share in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please consider subscribing either via email or WordPress itself.

Image is a screen shot from the cover of the ebook I read and is copyright Liveright Publishing.

Imagining what the world is like: The usefulness of windows & doors in our worldviews

Posted on by

Imagine living in a room with no windows or doors. You are not alone. After a while you would develop a worldview limited by those four walls. Anything else would be speculation. Of course your other senses would work fine. You may hear things outside your room. You may smell things. You may feel vibrations. You may speculate as to what your senses were telling you but you wouldn’t be certain. The group would come up with an idea of reality. 

Then imagine that all of a sudden someone else appeared and installed a window. All of a sudden your world view would expand. Not only because the window expanded your view but because you also realised that other people existed outside of your room. 

We can then imagine the changes that would happen as windows were installed in each wall and as more and more of the world became visible. 

Now imagine that a door was installed and the installer invited you outside. What would change? Then imagine what would happen if you actually went outside. How would the group decide who would go? Would everyone go? What factors would contribute to whether people went or not?

What would happen when those who went out returned? Would their stories be clearly told? Would those who stayed behind believe them or not? Would more be convinced to leave or would decisions be made to close the doors & windows? 

Some more questions arise. What if you didn’t enjoy the view? What if what you saw was unbelievable? What if you didn’t want to go out the door? What if you didn’t trust your senses or trust the one inviting you outside? 

The examples could continue on into absurdity. What if the view out the windows wasn’t in fact direct but was an elaborate system of mirrors bringing you reflections of the world outside. What if (ala Plato’s allegory of the cave) all you could see was shadows of activities outside? What if the decision of the group was to tear the walls down and live together with those other people in the world?

How would the worldview change process work? What senses would you prioritise? What senses would you distrust more than others? 

A lesson from Men in Black.

In the classic 1997 movie Men in Black, James Darrell Edwards III is taken into a room with “the best of the best of the best.” As part of their testing before becoming one of the Men in Black, they are all taken into a shooting room full of graphical alien potential targets. They are supposed to shoot the dangerous targets and save the innocent ones. All the candidates go in guns blazing except for James, who carefully looks at each scary monster before calmly shooting the “little Tiffany” in the head. Let’s take a look at the script:

ZED: “May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?”

JAMES: “She was the only one who actually seemed dangerous. At the time.”

ZED: “And how did you come to that conclusion?”

JAMES: “Hook-head guy. You explain to me how he can think with a hook for a head. Answer; it’s not his head. His head is that butt-ugly bean-bag thing over there. ‘Cause if you look at the snarling beast-guy, he’s not snarling, he’s sneezing — he’s got tissues in his hand. No threat there, and anyhow, the girl’s books were way too advanced for an eight-year-old’s. And besides, from where I’m looking, she was the only one who appeared to have a motive. And I don’t appreciate your jumping down my throat about it. Or, uh — do I owe her an apology?”

James spent time carefully studying before going off guns blazing. He looked at the world around him to understand it so that understanding could better inform his actions.

The Windowless Room and Theologising.

It got me thinking about how much theology is done from the theologian’s office and how much from wandering about and observing? Which ends up being better? How important is listening to others’ analysis and evaluation as opposed to making your own? 

I love to read books. I particularly love escapist fiction because it draws me into a world that I can live in. I can dream while reading. I can imagine what life would be like if I were a character in the book. I enjoy people watching and trying to image their motivations for doing what they do. I also have a tendency to be shy. I prepare my sermons and lessons in isolation and them present them to people with real connections in the real world. But I realised after a while that my well was running dry. I had no more information to present and no way of finding a way forward into something new.

So I decided to study ways to better understand the world. That meant I had to study things like anthropology. I had to study about culture and society. Each of these fields has its own perspectives and theories that are useful in gaining understanding. Sometimes these theories offer criticisms of the current world. Sometimes they offer ways to better understand it. Sometimes they offer insights into how various and sundry parts of the world relate to each other. Sometimes they offer insights into how to interpret the world. It was great. It was like windows were being opened up for me to see out.

But more so than that, studying forced me to go out into the world and engage with it. I learned to observe people in the everyday environments and wonder why they did the things they did. I walked around my community trying to notice the things that I normally passed by. I learned to ask questions and listen for the answers. I talked to men on the street about their understandings of masculinity and religiosity. We talked about families. We talked about how to know the truth. We talked about their own ideas and perspectives. We developed deeper relationships with each other.

I certainly know that I gained more perspective once I got out into the real world. How do you maintain connections with the real world? How does that help develop your own perspectives and ideas? Please let me know in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please also consider subscribing to this blog either via email or WordPress itself.

Image by Arm Sarv on Unsplash.

What does it take to be a man, Part 3: How many masculinities is too many?

Posted on by

In a previous post, I discussed the idea of masculinities. In it I mentioned that masculinity should really be masculinities because there is not one standardized way to be a man. A followup post focussed on masculinities in the Philippines, an area of significance in my own life. In the comments, Mike Swalm and I chatted about the extent of these masculinities looking at the question of how many masculinities is too many? Mike pointed out a key issue with an infinite amount of masculinities and wisely says, “we move toward negation of corporate meaning. Why even talk about masculinity if it has such malleable and infinite meaning? Doesn’t that remove the very nature of the concept as something that is definable as a category, giving us no real ability to say it is “this” and not “that”?”

I thought I would take the opportunity of Mike’s question to discuss where masculinity studies is in this seemingly infinite continuum. As usual I will take a Bakhtinian approach.

Monologue. Revisiting Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity, we realise that even though there may be any number of variations on the masculinity theme within a given context, there is one that predominates the discussion so much that it drowns out the others. Interestingly enough the predominant theme doesn’t necessarily have the most supporters — it just predominates. Bakhtin called this “monologue.” Even though Connell’s insights have opened the door to other masculinities as being acceptable, masculinities more closely associated with patriarchy continue to predominate.

Dialogue. Obviously dialogue is better than monologue because it allows another voice to provide balance. We actually prefer a dialogic point of view because we enjoy dividing things up into to opposing parties. It is this recognition that leads from singular masculinity to plural mascuinities. In reality, however, things are rarely as black and white as we might like. In fact, they are often greyscale.

Heteroglossia. But there aren’t just two voices in dialogue — there are a multitude of voices, each seemingly clamouring for attention, each contributing to what it means to be a man. This moves us beyond greyscale into millions of colours. It’s actually this final idea that creates the question Mike asks because it seems to leave open the possibility of an infinite number of potential masculinities.

At the risk of oversimplification, on a practical level, there aren’t an infinite number of men in the world; the world is at least divided into males and females. That means that give or take 50% of the worlds population isn’t male. That means that the first line of demarcation is the male-female.[1]

A second line of demarcation is society itself. Society creates a framework for the conversations surrounding masculinity. Sometimes these societies are monologic in nature but quite often they provide limitations on the range of acceptable meanings within that society. For example, in a study I did in my community, where men had a variety of religious experiences and influences, I was surprised to discover that the conversation centred around only a couple of common themes. There is no limit to the horizons of epistemology in Bakhtin but the conversations still revolved around a few key clusters, including the importance of the wants, needs, and input of wives and families and seeing Christianity as central to their faith. Perhaps this means that cultures as a whole exert influence on the boundaries of dialogue that make it difficult for conversation to move beyond those points.

A final aspect of Bakhtin’s idea provides another level of demarcation. Bakhtin wasn’t really looking for that one unifying, universal answer to life. His purposes in developing his framework were not so that we could necessarily make sense of this crazy world we live in. Rather he seems to be giving us a way to recognise and embrace the messiness of this world we live in.

How does all of this work? Let me try an illustration from sports. For me, there is only one hockey team. When I refer to this team I will use the word “dynasty.” I will refer to their preponderance of Stanley Cup wins. I will refer to their aggressive style of play. Yup, you guessed it. My team is the Montreal Canadiens (How ’bout them Habs?). In many ways my allegiance to the Montreal Canadians is monologic. When we were kids we would argue about who we liked best. But through thick and thin it was Montreal for me. I know that other teams exist but what’s interesting is that I am not sure what you could do to convince me to cheer for another team.

But I do have to admit that Montreal is not the only team that exists. After all, they do need teams to beat 😉 The National Hockey League provides the fodder for the Montreal machine. It started with the Original Six (who some believe are the only real teams), then expanded to twelve in 1968, then to eighteen in 1974, twenty-two in 1992, and finally to the current thirty-two teams that take to the ice each week.

What also happened during these years is that hockey expanded internationally. What begun as an almost exclusively Canadian sport now has teams and players from all around the world. I remember watching a recreational team playing in the Philippines’ only ice rink a number of years ago. A friend was a part of a team in the United Arab Emirates around that time as well. Hockey has indeed become a heteroglossia.

What is interesting is that regardless of the level of the sport — from the NHL all the way down to shinny on the street in front of your house — the sport is still hockey. The nuance hasn’t changed that. What this has done for the sport is to make hockey better. I recall as a child reading about how Team Canada defeated some hapless international opponent 50-0. That wouldn’t happen today. In fact, international hockey is incredibly competitive, at both professional and amateur levels. The result is the reality that a team like the Montreal Canadiens cannot dominate the sport any more because other teams are able to join the conversation. Rather than a single dominant team, what we see is an entire sport that is played on an almost infinite number of levels. And the sport is better for it.

In a similar way, a deeper understanding of masculinities can only make those masculinities better. We need to move beyond the idea of a singular approved masculinity into a better set of masculinities.

What contribution are you making to the masculinity conversation? How are you making your voice heard? Please feel free to leave a note in the comments below to let us know.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Missed the previous posts on this subject? You can read them here: Part 1 and Part 2.

Notes:

[1] The 2SLGBTQ+ conversation is still going strong, and is still undergoing development. What started out as simply “straight” or “gay” has exploded into a seemingly infinite number of options as heteroglossia in that area develops. The male-female demarcation that I use here is not intended as a rejection of those voices but merely a recognition of the fact that, one, the voices are still sorting themselves out and, two, that I don’t understand them enough to place them into an easily-explained framework.

Image by Andrew Wulf on Unsplash.

What does it mean to be a man, part 2? Masculinities in the Philippines

Posted on by

In a previous post, I introduced the idea of masculinities. In it I mentioned that masculinity should really be masculinities because there is not one standardized way to be a man. In this post I will expand on that in talking about how crossing cultures also increases the complexities surrounding the subject. Our specific focus will be on masculinities in the Philippines.

Masculinity in Filipino Popular culture.

Filipinos love to make puns and while humour is used to make people laugh, there is generally a hidden truth behind the humour (Maggay 2002). What is interesting is that the majority of these puns define men based upon their relationships with others, primarily with their wives (see Angeles, 2001, pp. 2-3).[1]

Some of these terms, such as Padre de pamilya [“Father of the family”] and Haligi ng Tahanan [“Pillar of the home”] refer to the key strengthening roles that men play in the home. While men may provide the strength within the home, the mother, as ilaw ng tahanan [“light of the home”], provides the spiritual direction. Does this imply an inherent spiritual role that mothers play that isn’t considered a part of the father’s role?

Other terms clearly depict the struggle for power within husband and wife relationships: Ander de saya [“Under his wife’s skirt”] describes a henpecked husband. Kumander is a common term used by husbands to describe their wives. For example, when asked if he would like to do something, a man will often reply, “Di ako sure kung pwede ako. Magpaalam muna ako kay Kumander.” [“I’m not sure that I can do that. I need to get my Commander’s permission first.”] Machu-machunirin [“obedient to his wife”]. This is a play on words based on “macho” and “masunurin” [“obedient”]. Rubio and Green (2011) see these puns as evidence of the greater-than-equal status of women in Philippine cultures.

Others connect masculinity to the ability to perform various tasks or act in certain ways. When performing certain tasks, particularly where strength is required, men will often be told, “Nakasalalay ang pagkalalaki doon” [“Your masculinity depends upon you being able to complete this task”].

One of my professors recalls that her mother would ask, “Wala ka ba’ng bayag?” [“Don’t you have any balls?”] of her brothers when they acted afraid. On other occasions I have heard mothers telling their crying sons that, “Tumigil ka. Hindi umiiyak ang mga lalaki” [“Stop. Men don’t cry”]. This provides some evidence that mothers share in the responsibility in constructing the pagkalalake of their children.

Formal pagkalalake studies in the Philippines.

One of the first studies of pagkalalake in the Philippines was Santiago (1977), who studied men in a Philippine village in Bulacan. Santiago identifies three ideal measurements of pagkalalake: lalaking-lalaki [“manly man”], tunay na lalake [“real man”], and mabuting tao [“good person”]. Lalaking-lalake identifies those few who achieve the katangian [“characteristics”] of pagkalalake, tunay na lalake identifies those few men who achieve the kakayahan [“ability”] to do the things men do, and mabuting tao identifies those few men who achieve goodness as humans.

She identifies three categories of pagkalalaki, namely “mga katangiang panlalake;” [“male characteristics”], “kakayahan sa pagganap ng tungkulin na initas sa mga lalake o inaasahan ng lipunan ng kanilang gampanana” [“Ability for men to perform the roles that either they or society expects of them”]; and “mga kilos at ugaling sekswal” [“sexual activities and behaviour”] (p. 168).

Santiago divides the measurement of pagkalalake into four areas, namely “ang dapat mangyari, ang mangyayari, ang hindi dapat mangyari ngunit nangyayari, ang nangyayari noong araw ngunit hindi na umiiral.” [“Things that must happen, things that happen, things that shouldn’t happen but still do, and things that used to happen but don’t anymore”].

She identifies three categories to pagkalalake as follows: “Mga katangiang panlalake.” This includes those thoughts, actions and emotions that are not seen in women. “Kakayahan sa pagganap ng tungkilin na initas sa mga lalake o inaasahan ng lipunan ng kanilang gampanana” (p. 168). This includes the ability to perform tasks that either he identifies or society identifes as male tasks. “Mga kilos at ugaling sekswal” (p. 168). Santiago admits that she didn’t gather a lot of information about this aspect of pagkalalake. She identifies two possible reasons: because 1) she, as a woman, wasn’t able to gather this information, or because 2) she didn’t have enough time to devote to this aspect of pagkalalake. She suggests that a male researcher may be able to gather more information on this category because “higit na palagayang loob ng mga lalake sa kapwa lalake” [“it’s easier for a man to open up to a man”] (p. 168). Note that Santiago’s study does not delve into the area of religion or spirituality.

Tan (1989) identifies fathers in the Philippines as either procreators or dilettantes. Procreators neither enjoy nor spend much time at fathering because their understanding is primarily biological. Tan identifies this with the Philippine understanding that all children have utang-na-loob [“a debt of honor”] to their parents merely “for giving them life” (p. 34). Thus, siring children is enough. The dilettante, while having a positive fatherhood experience, is not very “active” as a father. Tan identifies OFW fathers as fitting into this “… supporting role to the main caretaker, usually the mother” (p. 30). Note that Tan’s study does not delve into the area of religion or spirituality.

de Castro (1995) follows the common gender discussion of distinguishing between sex (physically male) and gender (socially constructed) but also moves into the ethical aspect of the gender debate. According to de Castro “ang pagkalalaki … ay walang aspetong etikal. Wala itong kinakailangang implikasyon para sa dapat at hindi dapat; walang itinataguyod na tama o mali” [“masculinity … has no ethical aspects. It has no necessary implications for what should or shouldn’t be; nothing is right or wrong”] (p. 141). de Castro proposes introducing the term pagkamaginoo in order to achieve the ethics that are missing from the other terms. Ethics seems to mean proper interpersonal relationships between people, regardless of their gender: “ipinamamalas ng magulang na naghahanap-buhay, nagtitiyaga sa pag-aalaga ng kanyang mga anak, nagmamalasakit para sa kanilang kapakanan at nagpapakita ng katagan sa oras ng kagipitan o sakuna” [“this is demonstrated by both parents in working, they both patiently take care of their children, they both care for their interests and show stability during times of emergency or disaster”] (p. 141). While this does provide perhaps a glimpse into how maka- Diyos might fit, it is a primarily theoretical argument based upon imprecise data.[2] This study wants to find out what Filipinos actually believe rather than simply exploring possibilities of what they can believe. Note that de Castro’s study does not delve into the area of religion or spirituality.

Aquiling-Dalisay et al (1995) identify three categories of Filipino males, namely pagkalalaki [“manhood”], tunay na lalaki [“real man”], and ganap na lalaki [“perfect man”]. Note that Aquiling-Dalisay et al’s study does not delve into the area of religion or spirituality.

Pingol (2001) perhaps comes closest to identifying Filipino masculinities. In a series of fifty interviews in Ilocos in 1997, she develops a Filipino notion of male identity, which she categorizes as “Prominent,” “Ideal,” “Other,” and “Lesser extent.” Prominent among the responses were: the “Ability to provide for the family” and “Success in the workplace;” the Ideal responses included: “being a good leader with intelligence and expertise, being principled, being helpful, being decent, being law-abiding, being trustworthy, and being understanding;” while the Other” responses included: “virility, physical strength, and good looks; and the “Lesser extent” response was: “the capacity to take risks, as in gambling or illicit affairs, and yet remain responsible to one’s family.” (Pingol, 2001).

What is disappointing is that she then applies Connell’s (2005) concept of hegemonic masculinity to the Philippines rather than using definitions drawn from her interviews. Pingol does, however, go on to discuss two sub-aspects of Ilocano masculinity, namely kinalalaki and malalaki. Each is seen as a culturally legitimate way of gaining masculine power in society but kinalalaki does this by means of the “ideal typical traits of the responsible husband” while the malalaki does the same through “the machismo of rogues and daredevils or malalaki” (Pingol, 2001, p. 4).[3]

Filipino Male Spirituality.

While some studies have been conducted on Filipino masculinity very few if any have been conducted on the connection between masculinity and spirituality. “Ang Manifesto ng Tunay na Lalaki” [“The Manifesto of a Real Man”] declares that “ang tunay na lalaki ay hindi nagsisimba” [“a real man doesn’t go to church”] (Xyxo Loco, 2009).

Filipino Male Spirituality plays a rather small role in Pingol’s study. I was surprised to initially find a rather negative tone to her comments. At one point, after describing how she had to politely decline the religious advances of three “evangelists,” she commented, “I had to make them feel that their religious mission was as valid as that of others” (p. 23). Her conclusion, however, points to the help that some of her informants, both male and female, did receive from their religious beliefs as they sought to reshape their masculine identity. She does note, however, “[t]urning to the Bible is not something men in the locality automatically do in times of crisis” (p. 252). I was further puzzled by the discovery that when she did a similar study of female migrants in the Middle East that religiosity was front and centre in her study. Does this indicate that perhaps religiosity is not part of Filipino male identity but is a very large part of Filipina identity? Or perhaps it indicates a change in the researcher herself.

In spite of the dearth of information on male spirituality or religiosity, there were some evidences of husbands following a moral code that helped them cope with the departure of their wives. The men interviewed showed varying abilities to cope with the changes brought about by the migration of their wives. In her discussion on changes in the sexual dynamics of the relationship, Pingol refers to a “masculine code” that some of the men chose to keep that ensured the marriage bed would be kept pure (p. 228). She connects this “code” with the concept of kinalalaki (p. 105).

This distinction between two categories of masculinity, however, while not pointing directly to spirituality, at least hints at a kind of morality that makes behaving properly worthwhile. Is this perhaps a hint of Filipino male maka-Diyos?

Rubio and Green (2011) develop a psychological instrument for use among Filipino men called the “Filipino Adherence to Masculinity Expectations scale.” Based on a study of students at St. Louis University in Baguio City, their instrument “takes into account indigenous and non- Western conceptions of masculinity in the Philippines” (p. 78) To this end, they identify seven “Filipino masculine dimensions,” namely Responsibility; Family Orientedness; Respectful Deference to Spouse, Women, and the Elderly; Integrity; Intelligence and Academic Achievement; Strength; and Sense of Community (p. 82). Once again there was no component of this masculinity framework that included maka-Diyos.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you recognise the unique features of the masculinities within your own cultural milieu? If so, what do they look like? Please put them in the comment box below.

Remember, sharing is what friends do.

Read Part 1.

Notes:

1. There are several popular conceptualizations of pagkalalake in the Philippines. Both Aquiling-Dalisay et al (1995) and Rubio & Green (2011) provide good overviews of the discourse surrounding Philippine masculinity, both from the perspective of psychology.

2. de Castro has apparently no hard data to show that this is what Filipinos actually believe. See his use of “halimbawa” [“for example”] with no citation (p. 142). Even his use of “ayon sa ilan, tanda ng tunay na lalaki ang pagtupad sa pangako” [“according to some, the sign of a real man is carrying out his promises”] (p. 142) is supportive of a constructed masculinity that is at odds with what he is proposing.

3. There does not appear to be an equivalent Tagalog gloss for these two Ilocano words. The closest might be perhaps pagkamaginoo and macho.

References:

Angeles, L. C. (2001). The Filipino Male as “Macho-Machunurin”: Bringing Men and Masculinities in Gender and Development Studies. Kasarinlan Journal of Third World Issues, 16(1), 9-30.

Aquiling-Dalisay, G., Nepomuceno-Van Heugten, M. L., Sto. Domingo, M. R. (1995). Ang pagkalalaki ayon sa mga lalaki: Pag-aaral sa tatlong grupong kultural sa Pilipinas. Philippine Social Sciences Review, 52.

de Castro, L. D. (1995). “Pagiging lalaki, pagkalalaki, at pagkamaginoo.” Philippine Social Sciences Review, 52.

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. 2nd Ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Pingol, A. T. (2001). Remaking masculinities: identity, power, and gender dynamics in families with migrant wives and househusbands. Quezon City: UP Center for Women’s Studies.

Rubio, R. J. & Green, R. (2011). Filipino men’s roles and their correlates: Development of the Filipino adherence to masculinity expectations scale. Culture, Society & Masculinities, 3(2), 77–102. doi:10.3149/CSM.0302.77

Santiago, C. E. (1977). “Pakapa-kapa: Paglilinaw ng isang konsepto sa nayon.” In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohioyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit (pp. 161-170). QC: Surian ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Tan, A. L. (1989). Four meanings of fatherhood. Philippine Sociological Review, 22(1), pp. 27-39.

Image of Jose Rizal by Jim Stapleton on Unsplash.


What does it take to be a man? An introduction to masculinity studies.

Posted on by

For the past year I have been promising some posts on masculinity. Masculinity is in its most basic sense the “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” (OED) or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society” (Gilmore, 1990). While these definitions may seem simple at first, there is a lot to unpack.

As you may guess, the first issue arises with the two phrases: “traditionally associated” and “approved way.” Note that both phrases are preceded by the definite article: “The.” This implies that there is only 1 way to be a man. But is that true? I talk more about this below, but in reality, there are several different masculinities in any given society. We also need to ask who does the approving and who makes the associations referred to in these definitions?

The second issue arises with the phrase “in any given society.” This means that not only are there various masculinities within any given society, but also that the number of masculinities increases when one crosses cultures. For example, when I was a child in Canada I often heard it said that the husband was responsible for taking care of the finances of the family. I remember one new widow who had absolutely no idea about the family’s finances when her husband died — it was quite a learning curve for her to figure it all out. On the other hand, I would challenge you to find a family in the Philippines where this is the case! Rather, the husband brings his salary home to his wife who is responsible for budgeting and spending. I will talk a little about some cross-cultural features of masculinity in a subsequent post on Philippine masculinities.

Finally, we need to realise that when making definitions is that there are often 2 levels of rules, one Formal and the other non-formal. In her 1985 study of air traffic controllers in Los Angeles, Normita G. Recto noted that even a field as precise as air traffic control exhibited this two-level formal vs non-formal system. The same can be said of subjects such as masculinity.

How do these questions help shape our understanding of what it means to be a man? What follows is an attempt to introduce us to the complexities surrounding masculinities.

According to Mackie (2019), the field of gender studies is more complex than simply talking about men and women. There are layers of meanings encompassed in different pairs of words. On the simplest level, society has both men and women. Sometimes these people are categorized based upon their sex, which is either male or female, although those in the medical field also recognize that there are other types of biological sex identity such as hermaphroditism (F. D. M. Caube, personal communication, 15 November 2016). Sometimes these people are categorized by their gender, which moves into the realm of social and cultural construction and is characterized by words like masculinity and femininity. Gender can be expressed culturally, such as through “desirable models of dress, deportment, language, behavior, occupations” (Mackie, 2019). It can be expressed structurally, such as through gender relations order. It can also be expressed metaphorically, such as “a primary means of signifying relationships of power” (Mackie, 2019).

The fields of men’s studies and masculinity studies are subsets of gender studies (Mackie, 2019). In line with the constructed nature of gender, masculinity and femininity are also cultural constructs. This means that they are not natural but are acquired (Tylor, 1871). It also means that there are completing models of masculinity and femininity. Connell (2005) is a major contributor to the idea of plural masculinities as opposed to the traditional singular masculinity as a field of study (see also Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The model was developed in opposition to the concepts of gender traits and gender roles. She uses the term hegemonic to indicate the form of masculinity that is the norm in the cultural psyche, even if this norm is not actually the normal masculinity when it comes to practice (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).

Several have written about the intersection of religion and masculinities. The gender debate is not restricted to the world outside of the church. Gallagher & Wood (2005) talk about the variety of understandings of masculinity that came out in the 1990s among protestant evangelical Christians in the USA. Even a group that is known for seeing the Bible as the central authority has a variety of different ways of understanding gender in general and masculinity in particular. Gallagher and Wood discuss different approaches to masculinity in two movements in the Protestant Evangelical church in the United States, namely Promise Keepers, and John Eldredge’s bestselling Wild at Heart.

Promise Keepers was a men’s movement in the 1990s that focused on getting men to make and keep seven promises that would help them to be better men. The promises exhibit a “breadth of gender perspectives,” that include helping men have better communication and connection with their families, more vulnerability, participate in racial reconciliation, and be responsible in providing, loving, teaching, and protecting their families. Eldredge’s 2001 book emphasized a different approach that emphasizes the themes of “desire, passion, and following one’s heart” (Gallagher & Wood, 2005).

The authors draw several conclusions, including that there is a much broader range of both beliefs and ideas regarding gender – and understandings about those beliefs – in evangelical churches than one would assume. Additionally, it seems that evangelicals have two basic components to their epistemological system, “personal experience and the bible” (Gallagher & Wood, 2005). I was involved in the Promise Keepers movement when it first came out. I have also read and enjoyed several of John Eldredge’s books, including Wild at Heart. My experience supports Gallagher and Wood’s conclusions that there are a variety of perspectives on gender and masculinity within the evangelical church and that authority is practically measured both through the Bible and through one’s own evaluative efforts. I think it’s also important to point out that, while Promise Keepers and Wild at Heart might represent opposing perspectives, neither of these perspectives is monolithic. Areas of belief and practice like this are often eclectic in the evangelical church.

Gerber (2015) also talks about masculinity in the Evangelical Christian church, particularly among groups that belong to the so-called ex-gay movement. This movement seeks to change “sexual orientation through a mixture of therapeutic and devotional techniques.”

Gerber discusses godly masculinity rather than hegemonic masculinity as the key ideological factor among Evangelical Christians. Godly masculinity is defined as “idealized forms of masculinity that evangelicals use to articulate subculturally specific gender ideals, criticize hegemonic forms of masculinity, and vie for their own hegemonic positioning in the culture at large” (Gerber, 2015). It is similar to hegemonic masculinity in that it is both binary in orientation and sees masculinity as dominant. It differs in that “it operates by a different set of cultural rules and expectations, generating traits that can differ from those of hegemonic masculinity” including traits that fall into what Gerber calls “gender queerness.” Gerber identifies the specific differences between this new godly masculinity and hegemonic masculinity as “de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, inclusive masculinity, and homo-intimacy.”

The result is a more fluid understanding of what it means to be a man. Rather than emphasizing the characteristics that make up hegemonic masculinity as the definitive maleness, this godly masculinity that is created from ex-gay ministries allows for men to express their maleness using both masculine and feminine traits.

Lomas et al (2016) talk about the “positive hegemonic norms” associated with hegemonic masculinity, rather than simply focusing on possible negative aspects. Their study describes the impact of a different form of religious activity, namely meditation as practiced in Communities of Practice, on hegemonic masculinity in Southern England. While meditation is a part of many religions, meditation in this case refers primarily to Buddhist-style meditation. The study showed that involvement in these Communities of Practice impacted the masculinity options that men felt they had, including “interpersonal intimacy, abstinence, and a sense of connectedness through spirituality.” The men in the study also felt, however, that hegemonic masculinity influenced both practices inside and outside of the Communities of Practice they were involved in. there seemed to be something to the fact that the meditation was conducted in community and not just alone in helping the men embrace some of these new definitions of masculinity. The reality that the men faced about conflicts between their old and new Communities is illustrative of the fact that theory and practice don’t exist in discrete realms but that these realms are constantly interacting with each other.

The discussion of hegemonic masculinities seems centred on masculinity as defined in the West. Certainly, on the surface, some of the issues that these religious takes on masculinity seek to redefine don’t need redefinition in the Philippine context. For example, the subject of men and touch is much different in the Philippines than Canada where I grew up. While men touching each other may be strange in Canada, certainly in the Philippines touch between men is an accepted form of interaction. I wonder, too, if the term “hegemonic” in and of itself creates difficulties in communicating the theory because it automatically leads one toward the negative? Lomas et al do present a good overview of the potential positives of hegemonic masculinity, but of greater use for our study will be what kinds of hegemonic structures men in Pingkian construct when looking at masculinity and what aspects, if any, of other hegemonies they redefine?

I am curious about your thoughts on the topic of masculinities. Is it true that there is more than one way to be a man? What impact does this have on how we work at shaping a better world? Please leave your thoughts in the comment box below.

Remember, sharing is what friends do.

Read Part 2 and Part 3

References:

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. 2nd Ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & society, 19(6), 829-859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639

Gallagher, S. K., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Godly manhood going wild?: Transformations in conservative Protestant masculinity. Sociology of religion, 66(2), 135-159. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4153083

Gerber, L. (2015). Grit, guts, and vanilla beans: Godly masculinity in the ex-gay movement. Gender & Society, 29(1), 26-50. doi:10.1177/0891243214545682

Gilmore, 1990, Manhood in the making: cultural concepts of masculinity, Yale University Press.

Lomas, T., Cartwright, T., Edginton, T., & Ridge, D. (2016). New Ways of Being a Man: “Positive” Hegemonic Masculinity in Meditation-based Communities of Practice. Men and Masculinities, 19(3), 289-310. doi:10.1177/1097184X15578531

Mackie, V. (2019, February 13). Gender and sexuality studies: Asia-Pacific perspectives. Lecture presented at University of the Philippines Asian Center, Quezon City, Philippines.

Recto, N.G. (1985). Cultural analysis from a native-view perspective: An ethnographic study of air traffic controllers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom, Vol 1. London: John Murray.

Image by Stefano Pollio on Unsplash.