Discussion of “Malestrom” by Carolyn Custis James (Part Five)

Last updated on: September 1, 2015 at 8:11 am by Roger E. Olson

Discussion of “Malestrom” by Carolyn Custis James (Part Five) 2015-09-01T08:11:14-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Discussion of Malestrom by Carolyn Custis James (Part Five)

Here I will be responding to Chapters 6 and 7 of Malestrom: “The Marginalized Man” and “Gender Role Reversal” respectively. Some of what I say here may be confusing if you are not reading the book and have not read my previous discussions of the book here.

I suppose it might be worth asking and answering why I am spending so much time on this book here? I get many books from authors and publishers who hope I will review them on my blog. Some I do; some I don’t. I am especially interested in issues of society and gender, religion and gender because I think I have some insights and perspectives most others who take up the subject do not. Many disagree with me and think my alleged insights and perspectives are flawed if not simply false. That’s okay; what I want to do is add a dimension to the discussion rarely heard—a man’s perspective on what it means to be male. I want to raise consciousness about the unfair disadvantages of being male in contemporary Western societies.

James’ book is one of the first ones, perhaps one of the only ones, that joins me in this. And it is by a woman—an added point of interest in it. James clearly agrees with me (or I agree with her) that there are distinct disadvantages as well as distinct advantages to being male in contemporary Western societies. She shines a much needed spotlight on the problems many men face.

In Chapter 6, “The Marginalized Man,” James discusses how patriarchy disadvantages many, perhaps most, men—not compared with women but compared with what they could be themselves. “Patriarchy at its core is an unjust system that advantages and empowers some men and disadvantages and disempowers others.” (135) I agree, even as I cringe a bit at identifying the world’s fallen systems of domination and power-over “patriarchy.” But then James says “Jesus undoes the world’s value system that exalts one man over another. He completely dismantles all of the criteria that make men culturally important.” (151) I would agree with that statement if she had worded it slightly differently. As it is written it implies that men are not culturally important—that being a man is of no particular value to anyone. What about fatherhood? Earlier in the book she seemed to express the idea that boys need fathers. This statement seems to contradict that. Here is how I wish she had expressed her idea: “Jesus undoes the world’s value system that exalts one person over another. He completely dismantles all of the criteria that make one kind of person more culturally important than other kinds.”

Another statement with which I have problems comes near the end of this otherwise very good, insightful, helpful chapter. James talks about Christian men she has met who “broke the cycle of violence and injustice the malestrom perpetuates. They forgave their enemies and lived out that forgiveness in tangible ways…. The world doesn’t have categories for this kind of manhood.” (152) Really? The clear implication is that outside of Christianity “manhood” is violent, unjust and unforgiving. Surely in Christ both men and women find fulfillment of their manhood and womanhood, but is it true that outside of Christ, apart from being truly Christian, all “manhood” is evil? Are there no examples or categories of true manhood that are good “in the world?” James seems to believe that manhood itself is a fallen category and that it is only of value if redeemed. Would she say the same about womanhood?

Again, I agree with most of what James says in Chapter 7 “Gender Role Reversal.” She decries double standards that work against men. “Women aren’t the only ones who are objectified” in popular culture. (155) She talks about changing gender roles and how they can be both helpful and good, on the one hand, and a challenge for both men and women on the other hand. Today many women, a steadily increasing portion, are the main “breadwinners” in the family and many husbands are staying home to take care of the children. But there’s still a social stigma attached to that. Many men are made to feel less than masculine just because they spend time with their children and do housework while their more highly educated wives earn the family’s “bread and butter.” James celebrates changing gender roles; so do I. I travel a lot and often to cities more amenable to these changes than others. I have taken my granddaughter to parks and malls and amusement parks and have seen many men alone with their children or grandchildren—during the “work day” when their wives or daughters are probably working. This is a trend with which popular culture has not caught up. I do not see it reflected very often on television, for example, in positive ways that portray the men in a good light. The implication still is that there’s something wrong with them as men for doing housework, taking care of the children, etc.

But here is a paragraph in this chapter that really confused me:

“In the twenty-first century West, seismic cultural and economic changes raise new challenges for gender identity. Manhood initiation rites are missing, manhood has morphed into superficial and temporary rather than substantive qualities that have enduring significance, and gender roles are in flux. Women may be crossing gender barriers for education and careers. But men are transitioning too. Gender roles clearly delineated in previous generations (and still in many regions of the world) are up for grabs in the West. The world seems swallowed up in ambiguity. What is happening?” (158) (italics added)

On the one hand, in this chapter as throughout the book, James seems to celebrate these changes and regard them as beneficial for both genders and society as a whole. What disturbs me is the inclusion of the italicized portion of the second sentence in that paragraph. Is it good that manhood rites are missing, that manhood has morphed into superficial and temporary rather than substantive qualities that have enduring significance? What if we reversed the gender and said that “Womanhood rites of initiation are missing, womanhood has morphed into superficial and temporary rather than substantive qualities that have enduring significance?”

The problem, as I see it, is not that women are now doing what has traditionally been considered “men’s work” and achieving full equality with men in terms of opportunity and privilege everywhere. Nor is it that men are now often doing what has traditionally been considered “women’s work” and making room for full equality of women with men. The changing of roles is good—except that I still believe only a female can be a good mother and only a male can be a good father. Those, I believe, are perhaps the only roles assigned permanently by God to males and females. (Which implies something more about sex-gender differences than only physiology and social assignment.) The problem I have is with the implication that “manhood” itself is only “superficial and temporary” with no “substantive quality that has enduring significance.” If that were the case….

Imagine a world without men. Imagine a world in which some strange genetic disease (for example) has wiped out all the males. This imaginary world contains only female human beings. And, in this futuristic utopia or dystopia (depending on your perspective), a way has been found for women to reproduce without males. What “substantive qualities” would be missing? Any? Or, scale that down to a society without males. Imagine a “women’s church” where men are not welcome. Would any substantive quality be missing? (All of this imagining is not ridiculous; a serious discussion about the obsolescence of males is taking place in the higher echalons of academia and there are churches only for women.)

Once again, I am raising a question James seems to ignore. I asked it earlier; I’ll ask it again. Are there any good and valuable masculine traits that themselves contribute something valuable to the world? Put another way in light of the above troubling paragraph: “Are there any substantive qualities of ‘manhood’ that have enduring significance apart from physiology and socially-assigned, temporary roles?” If so, what are they? Why hasn’t she (James) identified them? If not, are there any “substantive qualities of ‘womanhood’ that have enduring significance apart from physiology and socially-assigned, temporary roles?”

These are my questions that arise, admittedly, primarily from living in my world—education. I am surrounded in the larger academy (but also in my own institution) by calls for girls and women to be included more equally in certain disciplines, professions and careers because those disciplines, professions and careers will be better with more females in them. Obviously that implies that females do have certain “substantive qualities” with “enduring significance” apart from socially-assigned, temporary roles. But what about males? I hear no calls for greater efforts to include more males in disciplines, professions and careers where they are underrepresented because those disciplines, professions and careers will be “better” with more males in them. To me this implies a double standard of belief about males and females. The neglect implies that either males have no “substantive qualities” with “enduring significance” to offer those disciplines, professions or careers or that all of them are negative (so keeping males out of them is beneficial to them).

Where, if at all, does this touch the wider world—outside the academy? I frequently read and hear very negative things said about boys and men—males—with no shame or pushback. A recent column in Time was by a woman about her three teenage sons and her struggles with them during “summer” (out of school time). In the middle of the column she talks about the “teenage male brain” in extremely negative ways. If you pay attention to popular culture at all, you cannot miss the negative message in it about males. Sure, it’s still a “man’s world” in terms of “men hold most of the top positions of power and influence.” I’m not challenging that; it is the case. I think it should change. I would like to see equality of women with men at the top of all institutions, organizations and even government. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about social attitudes. At present, and for a long time now, it is perfectly acceptable for women especially to verbally “bash” males without fear of pushback. A few years ago I was watching one of the major network morning talk shows (half news, half human interest stories and a lot of chit-chat among the talking heads). It was the day before Mothers Day and the talking heads were discussing research showing that mothers who stay at home and take care of the house and the family ought to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in the twenty-or-so years they are in that role (raising kids). One of the male talking heads asked “I wonder what a father is worth?” The female talking head (a well-known journalists and anchorwoman) immediately responded very disdainfully “About seventy-five cents.” Everyone laughed. I disagree with anyone who claims these are rare examples; exceptions that do not matter. Boys are growing up today in a social environment that sends them messages that girls and women are more valuable than they.

So far I don’t see how James’ book is helping matters much. I wish she had more positive things to say about men and manhood in general. The overall message is that men who become more Christlike in character are good. Of course that’s the case. So are women. But a problem is the value of manhood itself—in and of itself. I am not seeing that mentioned or discussed. And in our present social climate that needs to be heard and discussed.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 29, 2015

Is It "Christianity versus Science?" (What Brunner Said)

Next Post

September 3, 2015 Some Things I Have Learned from Blogging

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth