clue-by-four » Blog Archive » Men’s Monday #1: why do some guys “step up” when others don’t?

»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«

Men’s Monday #1: why do some guys “step up” when others don’t?

September 29th, 2008 by Paul Daniel Ash

Okay.. this is the first edition of what I hope will be a semi-demi-hemi-regular feature here on the new blog: Men’s Monday. I am trying to start a dialogue at a level that I’m just not seeing out there a lot – men willing to take on the many challenges of being a guy in the 21st century… and not whine about it or be macho and act like it’s all about sucking it up. Because in my experience, most men (this one included) tend to go too far to one or the other extreme.

I want to talk about “stepping up.” I grew up without a strong father figure, and me and my best friend sort of raised each other up. Through osmosis from the men around us we idealized, and (probably most importantly) through movies and books, we developed this ethos that a guy is there for his buddies and the women in his life, does what he says he’s going to do, and treats everybody with respect. It didn’t hurt that we were both raised by tough single moms.

I’m not saying I think we were all that unique. And I’m definitely not saying I always live up to the ideal. But I do see a lot of the new-age soft type and the strong silent psychopath out there, and not a lot in between.

There’s one significant exception to this rule. I see a lot of men with strong character in communities of faith, especially (but of course not exclusively) among young evangelical Christians. Problem is… I’m not religious. Respect it, but I’ve been there, done that, doesn’t work for me.

So here’s my quandary, and my challenge: what is it about religious belief that tends to make guys more accountable and willingness to step up… and what can non-religious guys take from it that might help put some steel in our spines?

4 Responses

michelle of bleeding espresso writes:

September 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am

What a great idea for an ongoing discussion. Bravo! And an excellent point about some religions seeming to “ground” men.

My first thought was that there’s a moral component, but you should know I’m certainly not one of those people who thinks organized religion folk have a cornerstone on morality.

So then, with my feminist glasses on, I thought about how many (most) organized religions are patriarchal, perhaps the more a man is involved in one, the more he feels responsible for and to women? And how maybe that isn’t such a bad thing, dare I say?

Will have to give this more thought….

anonymous writes:

September 30th, 2008 at 11:52 am

I don’t think it’s so simple to extrapolate a generalization from it all. I’ve met flaky people both among the faithful and among the secular. Maybe it’s the appeal to a higher authority that the faithful have that provides them the desire to be “accountable” and “have the willingness to step up”?

I had an atheist->agnostic period for about 4 years before returning to the church, so I’ve come to terms with a sense of earthly morality that doesn’t require referencing a higher authority. 1) Treat others as you want yourself treated. 2) Don’t do things that hurt others. 3) Especially don’t do things that create gain for yourself at the cost of others.

Oversimplifying a lot, but those three ideas summed up a lot of my moral decisions without the need for a higher authority.

A lot of people (women and men) just don’t do #1. There’s some self-satisfaction people get by putting others down. Whether it’s “I don’t eat honey like the bee-enslavers”, or “I use a Mac, not like the unwashed M$ masses”, or “God hates gay people”. There are people that can’t just be happy with the choice they made for themselves. There has to be a degradation of another person in order to feel better about it.

Back to the question. I think the faithful’s appeal to a higher authority and a purpose provided by that authority would explain what you observe. The secular can fall into the trap of lack of direction, especially when they lose a sense of meaning to their life. I’m not saying one can’t live a fruitful, secular life. It’s possible, but requires a very strong sense of self-identity and will. And I definitely think most people out there lack both of those.

Italian woman writes:

October 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 am

Paul,
I have been thinking about this, but the problem is that I don’t know any men or actually people in general not exposed to religion at an early age. Take me: 13 years of Catholic education! Who would I be without that? I can’t possibly know, for good or bad.

It’s perfectly possible, in other words, to have plenty of training but not walk the walk when it comes to being a good person. Most people have had religion and look at them.

I think it comes down to character. You either have it or you don’t. And also you have to have the desire to be a good man, whether married or single, with kids or not.

Some people just don’t need or want that. So they are MIA.

Paul Daniel Ash writes:

October 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 am

Candace, I hear you and I agree – but I’m groping around blindly for what separates the “have-its” from the “don’ts.” And, as I’ve said, I don’t think religion is a magic bullet by any means, but it seems to be a featherweight on the scale pushing it in the direction of “have it.” And my question is, what’s another featherweight that we heathens can use to suck in our guts and beef up our hearts?

Anon, no generalization intended, it’s just my own personal experience. I think you hit the nail on the head viz. the Golden Rule. Sure, a lot of religious people ignore that too, though the evangelicals I am thinking of tended to take the Biblical injunctions more to heart — both the ones I share as well as ones with which I disagree. “Treat others as you want yourself treated” seems like something humanists could get behind too… but it’s a question of how many people (again, religious and not) can be committed to applying it CONSISTENTLY. And the answer seems to be: not so many.

Michelle, yours is a view I’ve wondered (and worried) about since I first noticed the apparent correlation. To paraphrase the great Walter Sobchak, say what you will about the submission of the Christian wife (Eph. 5:21-32), at least it’s an ethos! I’m still hoping it’s possible to save the baby of male strength-of-character while throwing out the bathwater of patriarchalism.

There’s a reason why I put Men’s Monday first, kids! This could be a blog unto itself…