Masculinity (Written 2011)

The issue of masculinity, as well as its counterpart, femininity, is at the core of family life. Since the industrial revolution marital roles have been rather sharply divided between male tasks and female tasks. As parents, husbands and wives have been likewise concerned with the masculine development of their sons and feminine development of daughters. However, in the wake of medical and social changes taking place today, there is growing confusion about the meaning of masculinity and how males in family life are to live it out.

Masculinity and femininity are the two categories of gender differences between females and males that are learned or taken on as a result of socialization. The concept gender is often combined with gender role to refer to behavior deemed appropriate for persons whose sex is correspondingly female or male. Gender is distinguished from sex, which is used to refer to purely biological contributions to male or female behavior. Family roles and behavior that are deemed appropriate for males and females can be thought of as gender appropriate "scripts." Also, while the contributions of biological sex might be assumed to be constant in families across cultures, the family scripts given males or females (gender roles) will vary from culture to culture.

The Concept of Masculinity

As a concept, masculinity is more ambiguous than gender because it is used in social science to refer to maleness based on biological and/or sociological factors. In its widest and most conventional usage, masculinity refers to behavior that is deemed to be most appropriate for a person who is a biological male. While masculinity is in part biologically and in part sociologically based, present knowledge is unable to assess with any precision the relative contribution made by these two factors. In all probability each has both a separate, and a combined, effect upon masculinity and femininity.

In the social science there was an initial attempt to conceptualize masculinity as one polar point on a continuum with femininity as its opposite. The obvious weakness in this approach is that defining qualities of masculinity and femininity were conceived as mutually exclusive. In 1974 the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem 1974) was designed to measure femininity and masculinity along two separate continuums. An individual who answered self-report statements resulting in a high masculine score and low feminine score was identified as traditional masculine; an individual scoring low on the masculine scale and high on the feminine scale was identified as traditional feminine; one who scored high on both the masculinity and femininity scale was identified as androgynous; and one who scored low on both masculinity and femininity was identified as undifferentiated.

The accumulating research on masculinity and femininity has contributed much to the ideology of both the contemporary women's and men's movements. This began with an emphasis on assimilation (women were encouraged to compete with men on their own terms), moved to an emphasis on androgyny (women and men were encouraged to blunt gender distinctives and incorporate the best of both male and female characteristics), and resulted in the present emphasis on differentiation (in which women and men are encouraged to recognize and embrace their own unique ways of being female and male respectively). The latest model is supported by evidence which suggest males and females are normatively different in regards to moral decision making (Gilligan 1982), style of conversing and relating (Tanner 1990), and the basis on which each gains selfesteem.* The differentiation model is also consistent with the biblical account of God's creation of humankind"male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27).

Biblical Models of Masculinity

Those who defend a traditional family form in which male and female roles are clearly divided, are fond of arguing that the current redefinition of gender roles are going against the Bible. However, when one goes to Scripture for evidence as to how God desires men and women to be different in the way they behave and relate in the family, there is little that throws light on the issue. Scripture does have much to say about Christian temperament: we read for instance that the "fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Gal 5:22). But in such passages no distinction is made between males and females as possessors of such qualities. Scripture has much more to say about how parents (both fathers and mothers) are to be in family life, than it does about how fathers as distinct from mothers are to as parents.

Jesus, who was completely divine and human, can be used as a biblical model of masculinity. Two contrasting images of the humanity of Jesus perpetuated in the church (Balswick 1992). At times Jesus has been so feminized (according to cultural definitions of femininity) that he bears little resemblance to a real man. This is the "meek and mild" Jesus, ever ready to turn the other cheek when challenged. Such a passive image of Jesus can especially be seen in pre-Renaissance Christian art. At other times, as in late Victorian literature, Jesus has been masculinized to fit a cultural ideal of a highly physical "manly" savior. Surveying the Gospels, we find a man who experienced a wide range of emotions. The most dominant emotional characteristic we see in Jesus is his compassion or love.* On numerous occasions Jesus showed both internal feelings (he loved and pitied) and external action (he helped the needy). Jesus' compassion was also expressed in sorrow, as he wept over Jerusalem because of the unbelief of its people, and with Mary and Martha at the death of Lazarus.

At other times Jesus' love moved him to express great joy (Lk 10:21; Jn 15:1011). Although Jesus was sensitive and nonmanipulative, he was also capable of anger and indignation. In a world under the curse of sin, Jesus responded angrily to human beings' cruelty, hardness of heart, unbelief and hypocrisy. The same Jesus who said, "let the little children come to me" (Lk 18:16), drove out those who bought and sold animals in the temple and upset the tables of the money changers. Jesus' anger at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees can be seen when he called them "whitewashed tombs" (Mt 23:27), "snakes" (Mt 23:33), or hearers of his message "swine" (Mt 7:6) and prophets "ravenous wolves" (Mt 7:15).

Jesus possessed a wide range of emotions and was harmoniously complete in his human individuality. Jesus seems to have embodied the best of the characteristics that by traditional standards are divided and assigned to males on the one hand and females on the other. The scriptural narratives do not support a masculinized or feminized image of Jesus. Taken alone, each view is incomplete. But taken together, they suggest the rich depth that characterized Jesus' human life, which can serve as a strong model for how masculinity is to be lived out in family life.

Masculinity and Family Life

As a result of the consciousness raising which has taken place in both the women's and men's movement, masculinity is now an issue in family life. According to the traditional model of gender roles, women's place was in the home* and men's place was in society. Correspondingly, in the past parents assumed that their sons quite naturally grew up with the strong and rational characteristics suitable for working in the marketplace, while daughters grew up to be sufficiently feminine with the personal nurturing qualities needed within the home.

The emergence of the social sciences called into question how much of this was "natural" and in so doing contributed to the current redefinition of gender roles. The contemporary redefinition of femininity, which has focused on women's involvement in society and family life, began in the late 1960s and has continued to the present. Men in support of the women's movement formed a men's movement in the mid1970s which called into question the traditional definition of masculinity as the reverse image of femininity. In challenging the traditional model of gender roles, the more modern model deemphasizes any sharp distinction between masculinity and femininity. For women this has meant a greater freedom to obtain a higher education and pursue a career and develop a life outside of her role within the family. For men, the redefinition of masculinity has freed him from defined himself solely in role of the bread earner. In addition to his work, a husband can devote greater energies to his role in the family and come to define himself in terms of his involvement in family life. The core arena within which issues of masculinity are most salient in the family center in the father/son relationship.

The Fathering/Son Relationship

Absence of strong fathering is a major contributor to the lack of adequate masculine development among boys. Before the Industrial Revolution most boys grew up seeing and hearing much more of their fathers, as they most likely learned to worked alongside of them. The fathers of most men who are fathers today were more involved in work outside of the home than in nurturing a relationship with them. Mother took over most of the parenting tasks, which had previously been shared with fathers.

Since the industrial revolution each successive generation of fathers have experienced less and less fathering from their own fathers. This means that the present generations of fathers are trying to father their own son while not having been fully fathered themselves. The void created by the father's absence from the home, although detrimental to both sons and daughters, has proved to have the most adverse effect upon sons. In one survey of over 7,000 men, almost none said they had been or were close to their fathers, while another found that fewer than 2% of sons described only good relations with their fathers. At the present time 40% of American children will sleep in homes without a father living there (Blankenhorn, 1995, see Single Parenting). In response to the absence of fathers in so many home, we might ask why fathers are necessary.

Fathers are necessary because it is they who predominantly orient their son to the world from a male perspective. What it is to be a man is mirrored back to the son through the father's actions and words. A son acts out what it means to be a man based upon what he has learned from his father or adult male caretaker. As he is embraced for these actions, his masculinity is validated and affirmed. However, it is possible for fathers to be physically present, but emotionally absent. Emotionally absent fathers mirror to sons is a distant masculinity. Since these fathers don't express emotions or communicate about things of the heart, their sons experience them as emotionally absent.

Men who were not validated and affirmed as males in their growing-up years will often be haunted by a fear that they are not man enough. Men who have heard from their fathers, "I love you," are much less driven by the fear of not being man enough. But the sad part is that many fathers today, in being deprived themselves of fathers who mirrored manhood to them, are merely repeating a cycle of non-fathering. As a result, they too are driven by fear, and the sight of their own sons mirroring back to them this fear and confusion only serves to reinforce their sense of masculine inadequacy.

The effect of being reared primarily by a mother is profoundly different for sons and daughters. An abundance of mothering, at the near neglect of fathering, makes girls better prepared than boys to become parents. Boys are at a disadvantage because they grow up lacking nurture from their parent of the same gender. This begins a different process of maturation in boys and girls.

While both boys and girls begin their lives with a primary emotional attachment to their mother, boys must learn to identify with their father by denying attachment to their mother. Girls, on the other hand, can continue to identity with and hold their primary attachment to their mother.

Yet a girl's relationship to her mother is significantly different from a boy's relationship to his father. While the girl is likely to be involved in a face-to-face relationship with her mother in the home, the fact that the father is absent from the home for long periods means that the boy must learn about masculinity from his mother or the culture at large. He doesn't have the advantage of an ongoing personal relationship with his father.

The close ties girls have with their mother means that they will likely desire to be nurturing mothers. Since boys are not closely tied to their father, and they deny their attachment to their mother for the sake of their own masculinity, when they in turn become fathers they will likely be emotionally distant from their children.

Coparenting: Bringing The Father Back In

In traditional families most of the parenting is in reality mothering. Yet scripture does not hold up mothering as more important than fathering. It is difficult for one parent to be all that they need to be to their children. But together, a mother and a father can complement each other by each being strong when the other feels weak and overextended and is in need of support. The important thing is that the parental unit is strong and that both parents be equally involved and bonded in the lives of their children.

There has been an accumulation of recent evidence demonstrating the benefits of co-parenting for children and parents alike (Balswick and Balswick, 1995, chapter 12). When both the father and mother are jointly involved in parenting, a family has what family therapists refer to as a strong parental subsystem: both father and mother take clear leadership when it comes to nurturing and guiding their children. When the mother and the father are not together in parenting, the parental subsystem is weak and less effective.

Recent research has shown that coparented children have a number of advantages when compared to non-coparented children. Co-parented children have a more secure sense of basic trust, can more successfully adapt to brief separations from the mother, and have closer relationships to both mother and father. They also develop better social discrimination skills, such as discerning who can best meet their needs. Finally, they display greater creativity and moral development, have less animosity toward the other gender, and are better able to develop strong friendship bonds with oppositesex children (Balswick and Balswick, 1995:168170).

The effect of co-parenting upon sons is especially noteworthy. Sons who had a strong bond with both their father and mother were more able to display empathy, affection, and nurturing behavior, thought highly of the way they were parented, and were more likely to state that they wanted to be a father when they grew up.

When fathers take a more active part in parenting, mothers also benefit by being relieved from having the major responsibilities of parenting. In the process, they too be effective mothers because they don't carry the burden of needing to be the primary caretaker.

The pay-off for greater involvement by father's with their children can in addition have positive effects upon themselves and their own relationships. Fathers who are highly involved with their children become more able to express their feelings as they develop the relational side of their personality. There is even evidence that highly involved fathers become more relational in their roles outside of the home, such as in their work relationships.

Implications

It's important that men reclaim their full masculinity. Since the family and the way parents interact with their children, is a primary learning ground for how to be a male, it is imperative that family life be lived out in a way that reflects a biblical model of masculinity. The Old Testament image of God as father is of one who has a tender strength, who loved with an unconditional commitment, who offered grace when the children of Israel failed him, and who wanted his strength to be theirs. Jesus can also provides a fuller model of Christian masculinity. Jesus was just as much a man when he wept and showed tenderness as when he was driving the moneychangers out of the temple. A Christian model of masculinity includes firmness, strength, determination, rationality and all the characteristics culturally identified with traditional masculinity as well as tenderness, nurture, caring, emotionality and other characteristics traditionally identified as feminine. One set of characteristics is not our masculine side and the other our feminine. Both are a part of our true, complete manhood. When the image of God as father is combined with the person of Jesus Christ, a model of masculinity emerges which is greatly needed, and can be the basis for how men are to be as they live within the complexities of modern family life.

See also Femininity; Love; Sexuality; Single Parenting.

References and Resources

G. Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985); J. Balswick, Men At The Crossroads: Beyond Traditional Roles and Modern Options (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1992); J. & J. Balswick, The Dual Earner Marriage: The Elaborate Balancing Act (Grand Rapids, MI: Ravell, 1995); J. Blankenhorn, Fatherless American: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books. 1995); C. Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982); J. Nelson, The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculinity, Spirituality (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988); D. Tanner, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: William Morrow, 1990).

—Jack Balswick