Don't tell me to man up.
You can tell me to step up, or buck up, or cheer up, but don't you dare tell me to man up. And here's why.
1. The term "man up" is often used in correlation with things a lot of society or the church has deemed masculine. "Just man up and ask her out" or "man up and get your hands dirty" or "man up and take charge!" It reinforces the typical stereotypes that all men must be sports-loving, aggressive, action-oriented, visual, Bob-the-Builder type handymen that just go at it and lead all the time. Not that men can't love sports or fix things or be action-oriented. But in pairing those qualities with the phrase "man up," it implies that they are actual requirements of being a man and attaining true manhood.
2. Furthermore, masculinity is not something that can be lost, it's not something that fluctuates. "Man up" implies the need to do something in order to keep or further your masculinity. Like, in order to be a man, you've got to take one more step up and ask the girl out. Or initiate the first kiss. Or fix that leaking drain pipe without complaining. As Sarah Sumner says, "The challenge 'Be a man!' doesn't rattle a woman, but it grips the very soul of a man. Even in the church, it is not a given for men to feel like men just because they are men. Yet I know it's not from God when men fall into the trap of wanting desperately to prove themselves as men on worldly terms."* If manhood truly does go up and down that much, if it's really a roller coaster that can be lost or gained or proved in a heartbeat, then I have no desire to step on board. Count me out of that wild thing.
3. You never hear anyone telling any girls to "woman up." Why? Because if we used the same logic that people use when carelessly throwing out "man up," it'd go something like this. "Come on! Woman up and make me that sandwich!" or "just woman up and follow!" or "woman up and let your emotions run wild!" The stereotypes for women include their roles as housewives, babymakers, followers, overly emotional crybabies, and gentle, relational beings. And by boxing off little cardboard molds for men and women based on these shifting standards, it creates absolute chaos if one of the genders tries to step out of his or her box. So, if the man decides to stay home and raise the kids while the woman works to provide for the family, according to these conditions, they would be losing a part of their masculinity or femininity and gaining a part of the other. Talk about an identity crisis.
4. In conclusion, if masculinity and femininity truly do fluctuate as much as we say they do, then I don't want it. Instead, I'll take the identity I've found in Christ. With this new identity, I don't strive after true, tough, aggressive manhood, or even biblical manhood. I strive to be like Christ, to imitate him in everything I do. I fully believe that if that happens, if we surrender our entire being to God and allow him to shine through us, true manhood or womanhood will emerge. It's not based off of our likes or interests or gifts or how well we lead or how often we cry. True identity is rooted in the character of Christ and the aggressive and gentle, logical and emotional, action-packed and radically relational life he's called us to live as Christians. "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children" (Ephesians 5:1).
So don't tell me to man up.
You can tell me to step up, or buck up, or cheer up, but don't you dare tell me to man up. There's why.
*Sumner, Sarah. Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership. 2003. InterVarsity Press.
---
Click here to check out the first chapter of my work-in-progress novel, Yellowtree!
This is a great, a very interesting perspective. What do you think the difference between biblical manhood and imitating Christ is?
ReplyDeleteThanks Abi! I think the problem I have is people treating biblical manhood like it's this very developed and clear biblical concept. In actuality, biblical manhood or womanhood is never mentioned in the Bible. Men are never commanded to strive after "biblical manhood." Same goes for women. Rather, we are commanded to strive after Christ. But a lot of Christians have created these distinct roles for men and women. The men often get the role of protecting, leading and providing, while the women are the nurturing, relational, receiving, protected ones.
DeleteI think there are numerous examples throughout Scripture of men and women overstepping these roles. You see Deborah leading men, and Paul nurturing people and Joshua receiving protection from Rahab. I think we find comfort and security in the roles, because it gives us this clear vision of manhood and womanhood, but I just don't see that anywhere in the Bible. What I do see is a clear picture of how Christ lived his life, and so I strive for that. So it's not that Biblical men and Biblical women don't exist, I just think that sometimes it looks different than the typical definition of "biblical manhood and womanhood." Does that make sense?
Wow, yes! I had never thought about it like that before! Thanks for explaining :) Keep up the great work!
DeleteAnthony, I am just wondering: do you think there are any characteristics that do, or should, define a "real" man or manhood, or what it means to be masculine, or are all of those only defined by anatomy?
ReplyDeleteThat's a really great question, Uncle Brent. While I definitely think manhood and womanhood rely on more than basic anatomy, I don't believe we're all created to match a specific man-made ideal. Throughout the Bible, we get numerous clear examples of godly men and women, but they don't all look the same or play the same part. The blog post's main intention was to stand up against the rigid definitions that undermine the confidence of males who don't fit the "manly man" ideal. I don't think there's one definition of what a man has to be. What he is can't be changed by something he isn't. He is defined more by what he does than what he doesn't do. A real man is one who is brave enough to be true to who he is in Christ. Striving to imitate Christ will look different in everyone, so I don't think that everyone can conform to the same rigid standards.
DeleteI think that there needs to be some characteristics that define what it means to be a man (or a women for that matter). If there aren't any definable characteristics, or if they are whatever each person wants them to be then those words don't have any meaning.
ReplyDeleteI think that, "one who is brave enough to be true to who he is in Christ" is a really good characteristic of a "real man", but I am not sure that is the only one. I agree that some of the "manly man" ideas that people have are twisted at best and lies as worst.
It is an interesting topic to think about.
Yeah, it is a super interesting topic to think about, and one that I don't think has many super clear answers. Being brave enough to be true to who you are in Christ is an awesome quality of a real, godly man, but it's also true for godly women. The problem starts to come when we look in Scripture, and see all of these godly men and women. And yet not all of the men had the same characteristics, nor did the women. But the same, constant theme running through all of them was a love for God and a willingness to follow his will. A book I read once talked about how it's not that preaching and leading is just for men, nor is nurturing and submitting just for women, but fathering, 'brothering' and 'husbanding' is for men, just as mothering, 'sistering' and 'wiving' is for women. We are defined more by our relationships than our roles.
DeleteI don't think there's much of anything in Scripture that show us clear cut characteristics that make men men and women women. We get a few passages on marriage, but that doesn't apply to men and women in general. I think a lot of manhood and womanhood is shrouded in mystery, just like a lot of concepts in the Bible (the Trinity, for example). We aren't fully able to grasp it, but there's beauty in the tension, in having to come to grips with the balance and seeing that men and women are different and equal, as challenging as that is to think about.