Month: December 2024 (Page 3 of 4)

Richard V. Reeves, who has become an outspoken voice for boys, had some insightful observations about the election, in his blog  entitled, “Memo to Dems: Don’t blame sexism,” with a subtitle, “Or it will be longer than four years in the political wilderness.”  He is rather blunt when he points out, “If the Democrats conclude that sexism propelled Donald Trump to victory, their spell in the political wilderness will last a lot longer than four years.”   Reeves believes, “There is no strong evidence that young men are turning against gender equality.”  But Reeves does believe, ” they [young men] have turned away from the left because the left has turned away from them.  The problems of young men are not the confections of reactionaries.  This is a story of elite neglect, not voter chauvinism.”  

Then Reeves recites a litany of issues regarding men and boys as he  called attention to: “Suicide rates among men under 30 have risen by 40 % since 2010 and are four times higher than among young women.   Male suicide accounts for as many deaths as breast cancer.  Men are less likely than women to go to college or buy a house.  They are more likely to be lonely and are more vulnerable to addiction.  Young white men from lower-income homes are worse off than their fathers on almost every economic and social indicator.  There is a bigger gender gap on the campuses today than in 1972 – when the government passed Title IX to prevent sex-based discrimination in education – but today the disparities in college enrollment and performance are the other way around.”

In Reeves’ opinion the Democrats and progressives have “a massive blind spot” with male issues.  “Men are seen not as having problems but as being the problem.”  Young men have resisted terms like “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy” specially as they struggle to find their place in the economy.  “For too long,” observes Reeves, “the gender debate has been trapped in a zero-sum frame.”  “Policy makers have overlooked the challenges that are increasingly affecting boys and men, seeing them as somehow in conflict with their efforts on behalf of girls and women.”

The results of the elections should bring about a new approach to boys and men and the issues they care about.  Reeves closes with this observation.  “Voters are capable of holding two thoughts in their head at once: that there is much more work to do for women and girls, and that we must also pay more attention to the  challenge facing boys and men.  In the end, we rise together.” 

Here are some of my thoughts after digesting Reeves’ blog:

1. It seems Reeves has become more outspoken for men and boys.  I believe the time has come for the rest of us to dare speak up for a Christian model of man and wife, going back to creation. “He created them male and female, and blessed them” (Gen. 5:2).  We can grow in “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15).

2. My wife and I, have lived with a complementarity view of marriage for almost 60 years.  I am calling men back to consider anew the challenge of Jesus. “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female'” (Matt. 19:4).  Lord, help me be a good example.

3.  There is a desperate need for older men, like myself to reach the younger generation.  I am grateful and humbled at how God has carried Judy and I over these years. “I will be your God throughout your lifetime – until your hair is white with age.  I made you, and I will care for you.  I will carry you along and save you” (Is. 46:3b-4).  

John Halsey Wood Jr. from Wake Forest University wrote an interesting substack on the recent election, exploring how traditional gender dynamics influenced the 2024 presidential election, noting that “Masculinity [was] indicted by association.”  He goes on to offer his hypothesis: “The political differences between men and women in the ’24 election stem from the different social proclivities of men and women.”  Wood agrees there is agreement concerning men and women in our cultural narrative, but significant disagreement between good or bad. 

Wood astutely points out the differences between male and female in course of the election cycle.   The differences, “suggest that men tend to be more outward-directed and women tend to be more inward-directed.  The masculine ethos tends to emphasize mission, defiance, and action, while the feminine ethos tends to emphasize consensus-building, relational connection and joy.  Women are centripetal and men are centrifugal, and somehow, together they keep the plants in alignment.”  The differences seem to be in our souls, having penetrated deep into our “cultural imagination.”  The differences can lead to a conflict between, what Wood refers to as the, “mission and manor,” that is, being either outward or inward orientation.

Wood believes the Trump campaign “felt more masculine” while Harris campaign “felt more feminine.”  “Harris’s campaign foregrounded the feminine consensus-building impulse by her appeal to joy.  Trump’s power lay in his appeal to difference, his willingness to buck the system, drain the swamp, and his repudiation of established political mores.”  Wood points out the  gender differences in the supporters of both candidates, especially the extreme ones.  “When Trump lost, his most extreme supporters went out and rioted….Trump provided them with a sense of mission even in defeat.”   However, “when Harris lost, her most extreme supporters stayed in and took self-care days.”  

Anthony Bradley, in response to this article, offers the following, “Wood cautions against oversimplifying these dynamics, emphasizing that while gendered differences are real, they are not inherently good or bad.  Instead, they reflect complementary approaches that, when balanced, can enrich social and political life. For instance, men’s outward focus on leadership and mission pairs with women’s inward emphasis on relational cohesion to create a fuller picture of human engagement.”

Wood gives an example from his marriage.  He reflects how his wife tells him to turn left out of the driveway, even though it is familiar to him.  He muses, “If I tell her to turn left it’s because I am conveying information.  If she tells me to turn left it’s because she is building consensus.  She’s maintaining contact.  Directions are a means to that end…….If I don’t know where I am going when I exist the driveway, as the proverb goes, any road will get me there.  She’s there to make sure we arrive together.”

What is  interesting to me, is the response of my wife and myself, as we watched both of the candidates giving their “stump” speeches.  My wife saw too much feminine inwardness, while I respected Trump for his strength, looking for more humility and  compassion.  My wife and I are committed to the complementarity model, with the husband as the head and the wife as the very necessary helpmate.  It seems the election revealed deeper societal patterns rooted in historical and cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity.  

I believe one of the most effective model in the day to come will be our marriages.  I will be tested for my part in marriage.  I heed the words of I Peter 3:7 “Husbands must give honor to your wives.  Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life.”