Manliness

One of the casualties of modern feminism has been the idealization of manhood. In the past and up until the sixties, there was an ideal, widely propagandized, of manhood as the protector of women and children. This ideal was explicitly described in the Boy Scout oath, to which many, perhaps most middle class boys were exposed. Thus: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." And the law: "A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."

Perhaps the general notions of admirable manhood of the times were that they should at all times be truthful (which meant that one could rely on their words, and also meant that one could enter into a contract with them without fear of failure to fulfill its provisions), and loyal to all that relied on them.

Of course this ideal was seldom or never lived up to, but, none the less, the ideal was there to be strived for however unsuccessfully. Many came close to fulfillment and they were, many if not most times, chosen as the leaders of the culture.

An ideal is a role model of sorts. Children are presented with the ideal and given to understand that this is what they should be like. On the positive side, many will go far towards achieving the ideal and will admire themselves greatly for their achievement and will therefore continue the tradition. On the negative side, many will fail to a greater or lesser extent and will therefore suffer guilt and denial, the twin forces most responsible for complex formation.

A movie, made in the late forties or early fifties, best dramatizes the ideal in three different characters and its opposite in two others. This movie, "From Here to Eternity", was based on a novel of the same name. I think the author was James Jones.

In this movie, we are introduced to a lower class Easterner from an Italian family, called Magio and played by Frank Sinatra, his friend, Pruitt, and the First Sergeant, played by Burt Lancaster. The story takes place in Hawaii at the time of the Japanese attack. Pruitt is attached to a company in hopes that he will bring glory to it by boxing and is pressured unmercifully by the other boxers and the commanding officer, one of the anti-men in the drama (Pruitt declines because he had accidentally killed a man in the ring in the past). Magio sticks up for his friend and also has trouble with the local jailer who is an anti Italian bigot. Eventually, Magio, who thinks he has been stuck with guard duty unfairly, succumbs to temptation and goes AWOL to drink and play with the girls. This results in his imprisonment and intimidation by the jailer, which produces rebellions in Magio, which results in various forms of torture being applied to him. Of course the jailer, played by Earnest Borgnine, is pursuing a strategy all the while to bring about this exact result.

So Magio is presented as a person, loyal to a fault towards his family, which results, due to his failure to realize the importance of duty, in his death, since Fatso's (the jailer) torture leads him eventually to attempt escape and to die in the process.

Pruitt, confronted by this outrage, concludes that his duty, because of his loyalty to his dead friend, requires him to avenge his death, even though that causes him to violate the law. He does so, but is wounded in the process and evades responsibility by hiding out at his girlfriend's house. Eventually he realizes this also violates the code of manhood, and when the Japanese attack, attempts to right things by rejoining his unit. Unfortunately, or fatefully, he is shot dead by a guard.

The First Sergeant is watching all of this drama play itself out and, due to his endorsement of the ideals of manhood and his sophistication of realization that not all subscribe to the same ideals and that he is in fact required to subordinate himself to men who fall far from the mark indeed, finds himself in sympathy with Pruitt and Magio, but, unable to help. The commanding officer is such a one (a man who is identified as a gentleman by the Army but who fails to live according to the standard), having failed his wife at a moment of crisis due to drunkenness. The Sergeant finds himself attracted to her and an affair soon ensues. She wishes for him to pursue a commission but this thought leads him to the conclusion that to do so would be a demonstration of an unmanly lack of loyalty to his class. So, he demurs and the affair ends.

So, two of the characters are sacrificed to the demands of loyalty and the other loses his love for the same reason. The anti-men, Fatso and the Captain, both lose, one by death and the other by being discovered by his superiors to be subverting his men in pursuit of boxing glory. By having all of the males lose, the author points out that the ideal is destructive on both sides, and also meets the audience need to see miscreants punished.

What are we to learn from this representation of manhood? Well few will find their ideals to be confronted so dramatically and in such a deadly way. But, these events have, no doubt, occurred many times and are implicit in the ideal itself. Is it worth it? The men certainly think so. They have something, apparently more dear to them than life. Their families no doubt think so, and those who find themselves with a husband or father that does not live up to the ideal feel themselves deprived, as dramatized by the Captain's wife.

So, how is it that this ideal was summarily discarded in the sixties? Well, at the point of receiving the ideal, most doubt they can live up to it, so they will grasp any opportunity to avoid having to put themselves to the test. Feminism, in its demand that men avoid discrimination against others for failing to live up to these standards in the interests of compassion, gave them the opportunity and drove a stake right through the heart of the ideal. (You may question my association of the ideal with Dracula, but it is realistic. The men die and even take others with them. That is they sacrifice their own material existence to the ideal. This certainly qualifies as blood sucking.)

However, in the end, feminism is anticreative and this ideal is particularly creative, so feminism will find it dispensable.

The state of manliness is an esoteric notion, similar to religion, and must be achieved, if at all, through an act of creativity.

The common notion of manhood, the mature male, is not what is meant by manliness. Manliness is that state of being, to which a male can aspire, in which he achieves a condition in which he has an accurate view of the world and himself, such that he finds no reason to complain, functions as a leader within his family, and is untempted by destructive practices of any kind. He has character, which means that he understands his life, his strengths and weaknesses and therefore can be relied upon to keep his word. On the other hand he is flexible and does not demand from his relations that which cannot be provided. He is objective, in that he looks outward toward that which he can do profitably and which will accrue both to his own and his relations' advantage. He is a role model and therefore is likely to produce children that are also admirable human beings.

Manliness does not entail the acquisition of wealth but may include it simply because such a one will compare favorably with his peers and will therefore, frequently be chosen for honors and awards. This, however, is unnecessary to the state and may well be absent in those individuals that are unusual in other ways, whether blessed with talent or beauty or unusual skills, and therefore are led to unrecognized achievement. A man will pursue his own agenda, exploiting the gifts that God has provided, whether or not they are approved by his peers.

Manliness was transformed in the recent past to the notion of gentlemanliness which added to the list of attributes a gentle nature and posited an opposite sex equivalent called lady. This may have been the beginning of the end for the ideal. I think gentleness is uncalled for in a man and may work against the requirements of manhood. It no doubt is a Christian acquisition and has a definite feminist quality. A man must be capable of defending himself and his family, should the occasion arise and if this means violence, then he must also be capable of that. A man is strong, and therefore is capable of looking upon the most horrific examples of human depravity without quailing. He never becomes physically ill or powerless due to psychological experience.

In fact a man will seldom experience illness at all, since most illness results from improper life experiences, those which don't accrue to good health. Of course he is subject to infections, as are all humans, but, since he will have a very robust immune system, he will not often succumb. It is conceivable that a physically weak person, one with a poor genetic inheritance, could achieve to the status of manhood, but it would require very unusual parents indeed.