Where man up goes wrong

I haven’t disappeared completely. I’ve been thinking long and hard about where my post on Christian attraction should go because I think this is an important topic to define potential recommendations for young men (and women) wanting to marry.

However, I do want to briefly address why the Christian manosphere is so averse to the “man up” line.

I’ve discussed before that “man up” is a useful tool from other men to other men in order to fix problems in their lives. For example, if a man is afraid to public speak, or do something difficult for him, or is avoiding a conflict and being passive aggressive for any type of reason this is the type of line of thinking that men use for each other to motivate them to action. I spoke of this in masculinity is the truth.

Basically, Jesus does the same thing with His disciples very often. He criticisizes them for their lack of faith, or their lack of action, or getting things wrong such as worrying about who is the greatest, denying the little children from coming to Him, not allowing the sick and the hurting to speak with Him and receive healing, etc.

This is the positive aspect of “man up” where men can motivate other men to do the right thing or criticize each other to do the right thing.

  • Men can use “man up” positively to other men in order to get such men to overcome their fears, adversity, or other difficulties in life.

However, the “man up” mantra gets hairy when you start to involve women into the picture.

“Man up” in regard to women is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if a man admits that he wants to talk to a woman to ask her out on a date or some variation such as that it’s a good thing to stimulate a man into action in this case if he has performed his due diligence in vetting her character and in prayer.

However, the place where the “man up” mantra goes off kilter is in traditional churchianity:

  1. Pastor tells a husband or the dating Christian man, often from the pulpit, to “man up” and “lead” / “love” his wife.
  2. Especially if the husband wants more sex, or the Christian man wants to get the woman to like him.
  3. Pastor then gives some examples of what it means to “man up.”
  4. Examples include doing chores, give her compliments, buy her gifts, and of course the penultimate “make her feel loved” often by doing more things for her.

Dalrock outlines this well in Reframing Christian marriage.

Doing good things, compliments, and whatever else are not necessarily bad things. HOWEVER, when they’re put in this context multiple things go wrong:

  • The wife can hear the pastor telling husbands to do X, Y, Z for her. If the pastor is saying this and the husband doing it then it’s not the husband leading.
  • This “love” and “leading” is not love or leading. Love is given freely, and the pastor is teaching the incorrect notion that “love” and “sex” are something to be bargained for and of a transaction nature. They are not as taught in the Scriptures.
  • Finally, as Dalrock states in the above the goal is of the man up is to “make his wife/girlfriend/etc. FEEL loved” and not actually about the husband actually leading himself.

I’m not one to criticize without giving answers, so I’d like to put forth an alternative presentation of what pastors can actually do in order to give men a good message that actually helps them lead their wives.

  1. Stop worrying about how your wife is feeling. Instead, make decisions based on spiritual health rather than physical feelings. The very fact that men tunnel in on how their wife is feeling means that they start to make everything about how their wife is feeling which means they are following their wives instead of following God. Do not fall into this trap.
  2. Take your wife’s feelings/opinions/etc under advisement. She is your helpmeet. She is giving you advice which you can take in to make the decision.
  3. Anything that you do for your wife you should not do it under the expectation that you will receive anything back for it. If you do anything under the expectation of tit-for-tat you are reinforcing poor behavior. You can’t “buy” or “negotiate” respect, sex, or anything in a relationship. If you reinforce that behavior you’re teaching your wife the wrong spiritual attitude in a relationship, and you will reap the consequences of such.
  4. Remind husbands and wives (if this is a sermon) that there needs to be both grace and forgiveness from each side. Holding things over each other, like tit-for-tat, is entirely unChristian and going to lead to terrible relationship dynamics.
  5. And last but not least, obviously reminder of the various Scriptural roles and responsibilities of husbands (head, love, not embittered, honor as co-heirs) and wives (helpmeet, respect, submission) in marriage.

All of these points are good start.

I think one of the biggest things that Christian husbands must be told to do is that if the wife is fighting for control of the relationship in marriage that he should stand up to her. Obviously, the wife should be told to stop attempting to usurp authority as that is a sin. However, a husband voluntarily acceding control of the relationship is a sin too. It is not a sin to fight for what God wants which is a husband led marriage.

This is what the real “man up” should be about. The husband should assert himself in the marriage. It’s better for a husband to be too strong of a leader than not enough.

edit: deti adds how “man up” is/was co-opted by feminists:

*** feminists appropriated the phrase “man up” to mean something very different from its original meaning, and Matt Walsh has fallen prey to it. It’s why a lot of men (myself included) bristle at the phrase, particularly when uttered nowadays.

“Man up” was a rebuke and a correction from men to other men and boys who needed a good kick in the pants. They needed encouragement or sometimes just a stern reproof from another man to get with the program, stop being such a whiny b*tch, stop being a p*ssy, pull your weight, get your sh!t done, etc. “Man up, son! The rest of the tribe needs you to get with it!”

Today, the phrase isn’t uttered to get men lined up with other men. Now, men are told to “man up” when they aren’t doing what women and feminized men want and expect them to. In this culture, “man up” is a demand that a man submit himself to the feminine imperative. He needs to hitch himself to a plow, get a job, make money and “put away childish things” not for his own good, but for the specific purpose of making himself useful to a woman. He needs to do these things not because it will sharpen him and make him into a man; but because they will benefit some woman in his preordained role as her husband and father to her (not their, HER) children.

“Man up” used to mean “your tribe needs you”. Now, it means “marry the slut”. It means “a woman needs your money, services, and labor”.

You can see how men and women used it differently. Now men are using it on other men because of feminism and this is bad.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Where man up goes wrong

  1. donalgraeme says:

    The biggest problem when it comes to “man up” is that the phrase is now engraved into the minds of most Christian men as being part and parcel of false Churchian teaching. I see it as being corrupted/contaminated for most for at least a generation.

  2. @ Donal

    Yeah, I definitely think that “man up” is a useful tool. Very poorly explicated by so many pastors. And I don’t think it is because all of them are deceived either.

  3. bradford says:

    DS, I like your five points of advice, particularly numbers one and three. I struggled with both of these in my marriage. I finally realized that (1) I couldn’t manage my wife’s feelings and (2) I couldn’t bribe her into loving me more. So I stopped worrying about making her happy and also doing phony stuff that she knew was a bribe anyway (and never responded to). I just focused on leading and prayed that The Lord would help me show her love. I wish I could say that making these changes made my marriage a loving and happy one, but it hasn’t. It has made it a livable marriage for me and evidently for my wife (she’s still here). It also enabled us to give three great kids a good home with their birth parents and to get them properly launched into the world (which I see as the primary responsibility and goal of a man/father in marriage).

  4. @ bradford

    Thanks for the kind words. I want to delve a bit deeper into what you said:

    (2) I couldn’t bribe her into loving me more.

    This is actually ingrained feminist thinking.

    There’s nowhere in the Scriptures where wives are told to “love” (agapao) their husbands. In Titus 2 wives are called to love (philadelphia) their husbands and children. Interesting that agapao love is not associated with going up into the authority hierarchy.

    You can tell a husband/wife or man/woman attitude if they say they want respect or love. You should desire respect from her as that puts you in the right frame of mind to lead.

    If there are any happily married older Christian couples in the church you attend it may be a good idea to ask for some advice from the husbands especially if they are the masculine variety. Most will be willing to help and should be able to offer good life advice on how to deal with wives.

    As scary as it is to say, God never promised happy marriages to Christians, and He did promise trials. So keep on fighting the good fight.

  5. bradford says:

    DS, great point about looking for love from the wife. You are absolutely right about it not being in scripture. I would say I have her respect. I believe that’s why she’s still here (that and some low intensity dread game). I’m relatively new to red pill thinking and sometimes I forget that as men we cannot expect that unconditional love from our wives which society tells us is available.

  6. @ bradford

    My advice would be to read through the Scriptures and pray about them with the God-opened eyes. It’s crazy how much of a difference that makes when you can see that everything is revealed.

  7. deti says:

    Here’s an on-topic comment I left at Dalrock’s a couple of days ago:

    *** feminists appropriated the phrase “man up” to mean something very different from its original meaning, and Matt Walsh has fallen prey to it. It’s why a lot of men (myself included) bristle at the phrase, particularly when uttered nowadays.

    “Man up” was a rebuke and a correction from men to other men and boys who needed a good kick in the pants. They needed encouragement or sometimes just a stern reproof from another man to get with the program, stop being such a whiny b*tch, stop being a p*ssy, pull your weight, get your sh!t done, etc. “Man up, son! The rest of the tribe needs you to get with it!”

    Today, the phrase isn’t uttered to get men lined up with other men. Now, men are told to “man up” when they aren’t doing what women and feminized men want and expect them to. In this culture, “man up” is a demand that a man submit himself to the feminine imperative. He needs to hitch himself to a plow, get a job, make money and “put away childish things” not for his own good, but for the specific purpose of making himself useful to a woman. He needs to do these things not because it will sharpen him and make him into a man; but because they will benefit some woman in his preordained role as her husband and father to her (not their, HER) children.

    “Man up” used to mean “your tribe needs you”. Now, it means “marry the slut”. It means “a woman needs your money, services, and labor”.

  8. @ Deti

    Thanks for that. I’ll add it to the end of the OP.

  9. Pingback: Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social conservatism? Part 2 | Atavisionary

  10. en_sigma says:

    MAN UP has quickly lost all incentive and fallen into invective. Today, most “manly” professionals use the quaint colloquialism “put your big girl panties on.” Either way, words don’t really mean anything to even the churchian crowd anymore.

    When “man up” was used (and I have no chronological basis for that “when”), it was used in order to indicate usefulness to the collective. I would assume that yes, you did need to provide money and protection and labor to women – hopefully you had a woman that was among those seeking your efforts. But the women of the collective also provided something to the men. Today, the answer that women give to the question, “What do you offer?” is, “….I am the girl.” Man up cannot be used any longer due to those that co-opted the meaning. Previous to our current state of affairs, men knew that without the combined effort in the same direction, the collective would not advance. And that is what every man’s goal is – to better himself. When married, that “himself” included his family. So, then the goal would be to better his family (and through combined effort the collective) in security, comfort, health and happiness. In turn, helping those of his line that he will never meet this side of the pearly gates.

    THAT OUTLOOK IS NO LONGER VIABLE

    In the current state of the world, there are men who are willing to stand aside and watch it burn, clear away the rubble, and start over again. And I think that, as the men find their logic and realize they are waist deep in a strong current and have been pushed far from where they intended, the membership will only grow among church members.

  11. Pingback: Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social Conservatism? Part 1 | Atavisionary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s