Morality and Manliness

It is often the case that, when a society has successfully aligned its masculine ideal with its moral or religious ideals, men will say that an immoral man is not a man.

This confuses the definition of manhood and gives rise to myths about masculinity being completely culturally specific or relativistic. This confusion leads people to believe, as many today do, that masculinity is relative—that it is “whatever you want it to be.”

Manhood, detached from its basis in strength, becomes meaningless and trivial.  It becomes as superficial as the line

There is an important distinction to be made between men and good men.

Bad or immoral men can and often do demonstrate strength and masculinity and dominance. To say that they are not men because they are immoral is a grave mistake. Young men idealize men who demonstrate strength, and if your bad men always appear to be stronger than your good men—your sons will idealize bad men.

Men almost universally enjoy tales of manly crooks and villains, but sane societies hold their heroes higher and make them appear to be stronger. Unless you want to raise a bunch of villains, you make sure the hero triumphs in the end, or dies admirably and wins through dying.

It is not necessary to claim that a man who clearly demonstrates “the ability and drive to exert his will over objects, over nature, over other men, or over himself” is not a man.

Masculinity is separate from morality.

An immoral man is simply a bad man, or a man who has different values than your own. If he is from a different culture—especially if he happens to be your enemy—he may well be a moral man in his own people’s eyes. Wars often pit good men against each another.

We can acknowledge the manliness of pirates and raiders and mobsters and tyrants without redefining masculinity to exclude them.

At the same time, we must differentiate between good men and bad men.

In the simplest terms, we need our good men to be strong so that they can stand up to and defend us from bad men!

Masculinity seems to have a morality of its own, a code of honor that grows from the selective exercise of strength.

A man can be good at being a man without necessarily being a good man.

Strength

“They worshipped strength, because it is strength that makes all other values possible. Nothing survives without it. Who knows what delicate wonders have died out of the world, for want of the strength to survive. ”

- Han, Enter the Dragon

Masculinity is strength.

If you take a thing apart or modify it, there are certain aspects which must remain intact or be replaced for it to retain its identity. Without certain parts, it becomes something else.

Without strength, masculinity becomes something else, a different concept.

Strength is not an arbitrary value assigned to men by human cultures.  Increased strength is one of the fundamental biological differences between males and females. Aside from basic reproductive plumbing, greater strength is one of the most prominent and consistent measurable physical differences between males and females.

This should be obvious, but our gender neutral culture frowns on associating masculinity with strength because to do so seems insulting to women. To say that strength is a masculine quality seems to imply that women aren’t able to demonstrate strength. This interpretation is incorrect. But to change language and meaning to accommodate women out of a sense of chivalry implies that changing language will somehow alter the basic human truth that men are different from, and as a group, stronger than women. This is also incorrect. Women can demonstrate strength, but strength is a quality that defines masculinity—greater strength differentiates men from women.

I am not an advocate of intelligent design of any kind.  I am no expert on evolutionary theory, either. But men are stronger than women and that strength has a function. In the human equation, men have a different purpose and a different role.  Others have speculated at length about what that role is. Those who claim that the roles which demand strength from men are no longer necessary or relevant must be exceptionally privileged, optimistic or short-sighted. We still need men, and we still need men to be strong. That is their role. Human biology and human nature demand it.

To be strong, and perhaps more accurately, to be stronger, is the role of men. Strength determines what men are and what they do. On a mundane level, we are most often asked to move and open things because we can. Because it is easier for us to do so. At the other extreme, men are most often placed in peril or charged with defending our people (or aggressing on their behalf) because, as a group, we are better equipped to meet certain kinds of physical challenges.

In defining masculinity it is necessary to begin with physical strength because strength is the root from which all other masculine virtues grow. Strength is the physical reality that grounds the more abstract concepts which also define manhood.

And what is strength, really?

Muscular strength is the ability to move the body, to use the body to do something.

Strength in animals is the ability to exercise instinct, the use of the body to fight, to hunt, to protect, to run, to mate.

Strength in man is sometimes employed in the exercise of instinct, but because humans are self-aware, strength is most often employed in the exercise of will. Strength, in man, is the ability to exert will over the muscles to achieve something. The very young and very frail—the weak—must employ all of their strength to perform very simple processes, like sitting upright or feeding themselves.  The stronger you are, the greater your ability to exert your will over yourself and your environment. Any exertion of will over something is in some sense a form of mastery, of control, of dominance. And philosophically speaking, it is here that strength becomes somewhat abstract.

The ability to use the muscles in your body to exert your will, to accomplish something, is the simplest definition of strength. It is the basic analogy from which all other definitions of strength are modeled.

Men acknowledge more than one kind of strength. Muscular strength is the root analogy, but as physically strong men who are ruled by clever men (and women) know, it is not the only sort of strength. But all abstractions of strength are essentially forms of mastery, control, or dominance. Strength in the abstract sense is the ability to exert will over objects, over nature, over other men, and over oneself.

It is also important to recognize the element of will or drive in the definition of strength. Strength, by itself, is simply a quality or ability. Strength without drive is potential energy. It is a powerful engine that sits in a garage. Strength as an aptitude or ability exists independently of drive, but unless strength is exerted, its potential is never realized and cannot be properly appreciated. Strength without drive is wasted and has no impact on anything. A man must use his strengths, he must demonstrate them, for us to truly regard him as strong in any meaningful sense. The cowering hulk is weaker than the willful man who dominates him.

When all of these aspects of strength are pulled together into a comprehensive, working definition that includes its abstract uses, we get something like this:

Strength is the ability and drive to exert one’s will over objects, over nature, over other men, and over oneself.

This one statement can be used to determine whether or not virtually any behavior is masculine in the most basic sense.

Strength is dominance. Weakness is submission.

Every masculine virtue is a demonstration or an acknowledgment of strength in some way. Cultures develop a variety of ways to acknowledge strength in men and either cultivate it or channel it for the benefit of the larger social group.

Societies that do not acknowledge the need for men to demonstrate and exert strength and then channel it effectively will eventually find that their men have become either weak and stagnant or adolescent and destructive.

We need positive masculine role models who are strong. They can also exhibit compassion; they can stand up for what they believe to be morally right. They can be smart and they can be creative. But they must also be willing and able to kick ass if necessary.

You can “re-think” strength. You can say that winning isn’t everything. You can tell young men that crying is OK, and that being “tough” is false and destructive. You can tell them that up is down and weakness is the new strength.

But nature pays no attention to fashionable ideals, and eventually, nature will out.