By Bob Sullivan
In my last two columns (Jan. 17 and 24), I undertook a comparison of two differing approaches to solving the current “man crisis” in our culture. I compared the secular (Godless) perspective to the Catholic Christian perspective.
If the conclusion is to redefine masculinity into a “new masculinity,” all you will get is something which is not masculinity. If you doubt this, all you need to do is consider how femininity was redefined by radical feminists in the 1960s and 1970s. Betty Friedan and other radical feminists made a lot of promises and predictions back then, but none of them has come true. What promises await men if we redefine masculinity today? Will men become happier, more confident, healthier?
I don’t know about you, but I am constantly amazed at the weakness and ignorance displayed by some men today. About eight years ago, a moderately well-known actor said he was ashamed to be a white man, due to all the privilege he enjoyed in life. The actor passed away last year, so he will remain nameless in this column, may God have mercy on his soul. However, his remark provoked many a good man to shake his head and wonder how this actor could have become so beaten down. Apparently, Hollywood has a way of doing that to many of its residents.
Masculinity is not a social construct, but self-loathing and virtue signaling are purely social constructs. It is obvious that there is a segment of society who would love to see a “new masculinity” include traits such as male shame and self-loathing. Satan would revel in it.
The fact is, confidence and self-determination (and the willingness to fail) have always been part of the American culture. Today, some people are trying to change this, especially in reference to men. Such people sound a lot like the temptations of Satan: “Don’t take the risk. It is better to have never tried than to try and look like a fool.” “Others will do it better than you.” “You fell. Stay down.” “You don’t have what it takes.” “You are a liability.”
It is ridiculous to think anyone can redefine masculinity. Masculinity is simply the effort to live virtuously. This is the same definition of femininity. Therefore, when people like Christine Emba (the columnist whose work I brought up in my first column) propose that there is or can be a “new masculinity,” they are ignoring the fact that truth, beauty, and goodness exist, and that they are not relative. In fact, they transcend time, circumstances, and place. This is why basing one’s masculinity in virtue is the one and only way to live a masculine life. Too many men have been basing their masculinity in things which are not virtuous, or they are taking something which would be virtuous if practiced in moderation, and obsessing on it.
Is it possible that the virtues of the past are no longer applicable to us today? To an extent, some virtues might seem to trickle down the list of priorities over time, but I would categorize these as values or skills, not necessarily virtues. Virtues of 4,000 years ago—such as honesty, courage, fortitude, and love—have always been essential virtues and still are core virtues today.
Philosophers, theologians, and civil leaders have directly or indirectly written or spoken about virtue over the centuries. Most of our founding fathers thought about these things as well, probably because virtues were intentionally taught to youth long ago. One of these men, Benjamin Franklin, actually set out to systematically grow in virtue. Although Franklin wasn’t a saint, nor was he Catholic, his approach to virtue is something from which we could all benefit today. His list of virtues was:
Temperance: Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
Order: Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
Industry: Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
Moderation: Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
Chastity: Franklin’s understanding of chastity was not fully compatible with the Catholic faith, so I recommend that you review the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2337-2359 for a deeper understanding of chastity.
I’ve been told that his list originally included only 12 virtues. When he shared the list with his friends, they pointed out that he had forgotten humility. I wonder if that tells us something! In any event, he swallowed his pride and made his list a baker’s dozen by adding, “Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.” If this part of the story is not true, it is still humorous.
Many virtues on this list might seem unfamiliar, but if you match these against the vices identified by Emba, you have someone very close to the opposite of the men she described as lost. Franklin laid out some – but not all – of the basics of a man who strives to be the man God created him to be.
