Sorry. My post was meant to be an irony targeting myself.
I often fail the manly subtlety test.
Some of my leisure time gets spent on kitten videos, truth be told.
The good and the bad of "Patriarchy"
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
I often fail the manly subtlety test.
Some of my leisure time gets spent on kitten videos, truth be told.
MountainPilgrim
Puritan Board Freshman
No apology necessary, sir! That wasn't directed at you, I should have been more careful. I should also say that clearly the relationship between father and son is a different dynamic altogether and the father should indeed challenge his son's sense of leisure.
If anyone wants to criticize the watching of kitten videos, they can fight me, and we'll see who the *real* man is
On an unrelated note, I see you're up in Lewiston. Though I cannot say I've been particularly taken by the town, I sure do love the country up there. Northern Idaho will always have a special place in my heart (go Vandals!), though I fear even the more rural areas will not be left unaffected by the current "invasion" our beloved state is suffering.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The definition of manhood here is more worldly than biblical. In scripture, manliness is primarily defined in moral terms. Obviously, that will have physical implications. For instance, manly self-control means that one ought not to be a gluttonous, obese slob. There is, however, no natural nor biblical requirement for all men to look like the Incredible Hulk. Instead, the Westminster Standards get it right when they stipulate that moderate physical exertion is part of our sixth commandment duties.
Obviously, precisely how moderate that should be will vary according to the man's place and station. Perhaps we could all spend twenty hours a week in the gym, and we might all gain a bit more muscle if we did, but at what price? Would it be good stewardship of our time or would it be vanity? Nature has also made a distinction between men, which is obvious to anyone with any common sense, that some are more suited to physical exertion and others are more suited to mental work. Hence, the one size fits all approach is contrary to experience.
And let us not forget that a certain apostle Paul was one with an unimpressive physical appearance (2 Corinthians 10:10). According to John Gill, "he made a mean figure, being of a low stature, and having an infirm body". Was he any less of man because of his weak appearance or was it not the case that God's strength was displayed in what the world regarded as weakness?
Obviously, precisely how moderate that should be will vary according to the man's place and station. Perhaps we could all spend twenty hours a week in the gym, and we might all gain a bit more muscle if we did, but at what price? Would it be good stewardship of our time or would it be vanity? Nature has also made a distinction between men, which is obvious to anyone with any common sense, that some are more suited to physical exertion and others are more suited to mental work. Hence, the one size fits all approach is contrary to experience.
And let us not forget that a certain apostle Paul was one with an unimpressive physical appearance (2 Corinthians 10:10). According to John Gill, "he made a mean figure, being of a low stature, and having an infirm body". Was he any less of man because of his weak appearance or was it not the case that God's strength was displayed in what the world regarded as weakness?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That is the most profound and succinct sentence anyone has written on the topic.
I only like stupid cats falling off tables...so that is more manly!
"When David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and be a man, and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn." (1 Kgs 2:1–3)
There is a moral component to masculinity, sure, but let's not pretend all godly bookworms are manly. Being strong is part of manliness. This is spiritual, emotional, but also physical. Being strong and standing like men is impossible if you possess the frame and mannerisms of a 12-year old girl.
The bible gives a full-orbed picture. The world reacts and distorts that picture to manliness=Clint Eastwood. Then the church over-reacts and distorts that picture the other way to manliness=godly bookworms. We must stay balanced. If a man must provide, lead, and protect his own, there are, indeed, some Clint Eastwood type traits that he must possess.
There is a moral component to masculinity, sure, but let's not pretend all godly bookworms are manly. Being strong is part of manliness. This is spiritual, emotional, but also physical. Being strong and standing like men is impossible if you possess the frame and mannerisms of a 12-year old girl.
The bible gives a full-orbed picture. The world reacts and distorts that picture to manliness=Clint Eastwood. Then the church over-reacts and distorts that picture the other way to manliness=godly bookworms. We must stay balanced. If a man must provide, lead, and protect his own, there are, indeed, some Clint Eastwood type traits that he must possess.
gjensen
Puritan Board Freshman
Being a man is not some level of physical fitness over and above the rest. This is not to say that health and fitness do not matter. I am saying that it has been over-emphasized here.
The life of the ideal man was lived out by our Lord, the express image of God. He is our ideal. We do not need another example.
The life of the ideal man was lived out by our Lord, the express image of God. He is our ideal. We do not need another example.
The same Jesus who walked days on end and endured much hardship and lack of sleep in service to His Father. He displayed a grit and stamina that most western man lack.
If you are a weak man, it is better to make yourself stronger than try to redefine strength. If you are winded walking up a slight hill, you are less manly no matter how many theology books you read, and you should start doing more physical work to master yourself.
"Act like men, be strong." - The Apostle Paul.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11889
Guest
What I'm observing here is a defining of manliness according to one's own proclivities. Better to stick to what's been so well-said above: that Biblical manliness is primarily a moral concept. If that is encouraged and followed, other areas will start to fall in line.
On the other hand, going beyond Scripture unnecessarily puts down those with legitimate physical issues. As you have ample experience with serious health problems, surely you agree that it is unfair to challenge one's manliness on a physical basis. Perhaps, then, we should stop putting our favored spin on verses, because the same Paul also said "bodily exercise profiteth little".
This is why Biblical manliness is not about strength training. Because the failure of Western men in this department is primarily a moral failing with physical ramifications, the solution needs to be moral and start with the heart, not with a set of dumbbells. For those who have families, helping with housework and yardwork, taking steps to protect one's household, being involved in childrearing (ah, those midnight training sessions with a 12-lb weight that's colicky and unhappy): these are better ways of making a start at Biblical manliness than the judgmental dismissive "get to the gym, you weak sissy" approach. Without this Biblically prescribed start, there's no basis for doing any physical strengthening anyway. Often the American men most interested in physical fitness are far from adhering to any semblance of Biblical manhood anyway.
Christopher Robin
Puritan Board Freshman
Poor nutrition and other factors stumped my childhood physical growth, so that from age 11 to about 22, I didn't gain and inch of height nor a pound of weight. At 18 when I reached legal adulthood, I still looked like a middle school kid, tiny and frail. But on the inside, because I was a disciple of Christ, I was as manly, I like to think, as any other guy. I had a work ethic, I stood up for those who couldn't stand up for themselves, and became "a servant to all," which according to Christ, is great manliness (Matt. 23:11). To this day, at age 63, I still can't grow a full "manly" beard. I was a "pretty boy" for half my life, but no less a man than the big, hairy, stocky, bodybuilder types who can't handle responsibility, who don't know how to treat others respectfully, and who bully others to get their way.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Fair enough, but I still think they can pretty fun sometimes. If you waste all day playing them, that is obviously a problem. However, I don't see how they are any different than sitting around watching TV, Netflix, YouTube, etc. I think video games are a far better option for "screen time".
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
Since I have had children, we have really taken a liking to Nintendo games. It is awesome family bonding time, they are really good for development, really good for coordination and problem solving, and a pure and innocent recreational hobby. I am very intentional about exhibiting manly qualities and I always strive for this, while being a hard worker, balancing family life, and serving in various ministries, and yet I have found video games to be an enjoyable hobby to have. This is actually one of those hobbies that have kept me so close with my children, as this is something we both share a common liking in. As in most things in life, if there is balance, if we are pursuing the best things in life, if we are doing things that are innocent and pure, and if we hold to the principles of the bible, I have found that video games have been a blessing to our family.
I think you bring up a good point about other ways that screen time is used. I honestly don't really even have a desire to watch shows or movies anymore, because they just don't hold my attention anymore. But we just bought a video game called Mario Maker, and it allows you to design your own levels. To me, if our children are going to be doing screen time, having them designing levels and using mental creativity while having fun, to me is a much better use of their time.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
I'm a teacher and most of my students destress with video games. I've also been a gamer myself, so I'll offer my thoughts here:
Games exist primarily for training, sharpening, and leisure. If you look at animals, for example, the young use games to learn valuable life skills.
I think if games legitimately fulfill any of these functions, as preparation for or relaxation from, life, they are a net good.
The real problem seems to arise when games begin to replace some elements of life. School work is left uncompleted, for example, or valuable training and reading is neglected in favor of games. Perhaps someone even settles for a substandard position in life because they find their satisfaction in games. The reward comes in the virtual world, because fear of failure fills their external world.
Speaking personally, I find as an adult i have turned to video games when I have a very difficult and stressful job, and lack the energy to pursue more meaningful and rewarding activity, such as reading or language study.
I'm not sure what to make of that. I enjoyed the games, and i don't think it was wrong to do so. But I also wish it could have been different, and the job hadn't taken so much out of me, because there were better things i could have done.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Your assessment seems to miss the fact that today's video games are created to be immersive and addictive. And on the whole, they are pretty effective at getting people hooked so that they play for hours and days on end. No, I think video games have wreaked havoc on the younger generations, with scores of young people wasting their lives playing video games and watching p0rn. Sorry, but I really can't get anywhere close to calling them a net good. I've had to deal first-hand with the problems they create in marriages and families and it isn't pretty.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
This description sounds like many things. Are any of you alcohol drinkers? The same principles apply. Though I'm sure alcohol will be defended by most here. Anything can become an idol. We have to be fair all across the board and not dismiss things as good or bad based on preference. I do agree that certain things have more of an addictive tendency, and we should be mindful of them.
Thanks for your opinion!
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
Well, I was referring to games in general to build my theory. But to add to Ryan's excellent comment -- addictive and immersive? Have you heard of Facebook?
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes. Facebook is bad.
.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
But apparently not all social media (or you wouldn't be here). But all or most video games are singled out as harmful.Yes. Facebook is bad.
Seems inconsistent.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
When Hugh Latimer said, "Play the man, Master Ridley" he was not telling him to lift a set of dumbells. The biblical definition of strength is not merely physical strength. If it were, then Paul himself would have failed the test. The notion that anyone less buff than me is less of a man is nonsense. And, by the way, the man who has read a lot of books has to engage in such manly characteristics as discipline, self-control, and denying oneself the pleasures that others enjoy so that he can gird up the loins of his mind. Studiously reading books for 12 hours a day is a lot more difficult than pumping weights in a gym. While obviously, it is good for a scholar to do some physical exercise, if he neglects his studies to lift dumbells, he is not being manly - he is being a waster.
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes I have, and I don't recommend being on it. But you are comparing apples and oranges. I would say that most social media platforms are addictive, but I would not say they are immersive. You don't lose all track of time using social media the way one does playing Call of Duty™. I doubt many would say they've ever got onto Facebook after dinner and stayed locked into it until 3 a.m. But that is precisely what happens with todays video games.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
That isn't apples and oranges; that's apples and bigger apples.
But this is, of course, missing the point. I was a gamer, and I stayed up late reading sci-fi novels far more often than playing video games.
People behave this way because they're dissatisfied with their real lives.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm sorry, but Facebook and video games are not the same thing. I'm not sure why anyone would dispute it.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
The Bible says be strong, be a man. And to stand and be men.
If we throw out any physical attributes to manliness such as the ability to 1. protect and 2. to provide as marks of manliness then you should just say that to be a man is to have one X and one Y chromosome and nothing more because you've neutered the definition to make way for modern weakness.
By all means, if you need to grab some dumb-bells or get some training or take up hiking to cure your weakness from either disease or weakness because you've sat immobile most of your life or failed to ever push yourself, then by all means do so. Think of sickly Teddy Roosevelt who saw his deficiencies and struggled through them to become strong.
To stand and to protect and to provide does require some physical grit.
Some people who cry out that the bible passage about women being the "weaker" sex MERELY refer to physical strength and not other aspects such as mental and emotional weakness now try to say that being a man is NOT about physical components at all.... this is terribly inconsistent. People are whole beings and the strength that men are to possess is not only moral, but emotional and physical as well. All components must be there, the mental, moral, and even the physical/endurance aspect.
I see church people minimize any physical aspect of manliness while the world over-emphasizes it. We must not minimize any aspect.
If we throw out any physical attributes to manliness such as the ability to 1. protect and 2. to provide as marks of manliness then you should just say that to be a man is to have one X and one Y chromosome and nothing more because you've neutered the definition to make way for modern weakness.
By all means, if you need to grab some dumb-bells or get some training or take up hiking to cure your weakness from either disease or weakness because you've sat immobile most of your life or failed to ever push yourself, then by all means do so. Think of sickly Teddy Roosevelt who saw his deficiencies and struggled through them to become strong.
To stand and to protect and to provide does require some physical grit.
Some people who cry out that the bible passage about women being the "weaker" sex MERELY refer to physical strength and not other aspects such as mental and emotional weakness now try to say that being a man is NOT about physical components at all.... this is terribly inconsistent. People are whole beings and the strength that men are to possess is not only moral, but emotional and physical as well. All components must be there, the mental, moral, and even the physical/endurance aspect.
I see church people minimize any physical aspect of manliness while the world over-emphasizes it. We must not minimize any aspect.
Last edited:
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Sufficed to say, I don't mean to do that. My drive by remark was partly tongue-in-cheek. If someone can contain their gaming( or Facebook) habits to where they don't damage the rest of their lives then more power to them. I've seen employees let go because their all-night gaming were not reigned in enough for them to show up and do their work.
I can't help myself. I was reminded of my wife's experience long ago:
In 1997, I bought my wife a new computer. The idea was to improve access to this thing called the internet so she could do legal research more effectively from her home office. After figuring out Windows 95 (she had been an MS-DOS ace) and getting the applications installed, she was on her way to figuring out this new system.
First thing she asked: "what this thing?"
I looked. "It's a demo video game. They probably want you to try playing it and then entice you into buying the full thing. I'd just ignore it."
I had to leave for a few hours. When I got back I saw that she was into some video game. "Oh well," I thought.
Then, 20 minutes later, I hear this come from her office:
"Worm beaters! Malevolent and twisted worm beaters! I reached level 6 and now they froze the game unless I pay them money! I want this so-called game abolished to outer darkness!"
We tried to uninstall it, but it wouldn't go through the normal uninstall method. Finally I hacked the registry to remove reference to it, deleted the shortcut, and said "it is now residing in outer darkness."
She still was outraged, "three hours of my life devoted to a wormbeating fraud. If there are any other 'games' on this computer, I don't want to know about it!"
I had never heard the term "worm beater" before, but it seems appropriate for a lot of these kinds of things.
Is the (current) minimum passing on the APFT (for one's age group) the standard for "man enough?" Does a "real man" have a min/max bench press quotient? Where on the bell curve of physical capacity do we mark the cutoff for sufficient manliness to say he's got it?
Because if its a matter of one's being a man that he has to hit a certain target, then we can eliminate most wheelchair bound, the bedridden, many past victims of various abuses--because they can't make the grade. When we set a standard for being something, those who don't meet it aren't that thing. At best they are less-than what they should or must be by some percentage. These don't measure up.
Just because a man with crushed testicles, a eunuch, couldn't enter the Temple in the OT, doesn't mean Christians today should treat the same man today as someone who can never be an elder, because he possibly won't ever marry and can't reproduce. I think the logical outworking of some of today's thought leads to just the opposite conclusion: that the only candidates for God's service are men of a "type" that without exception includes physical stereotype. The OT typological standard is turned into a timeless norm.
It is wrong to take the full variety of capacities found in a given population, fixate on one--even a common one, one that there's a broad middle around--and decline the man-card of anyone who doesn't have enough grams of testosterone, or whatever. The XY may not, should not be all the criteria for church leadership; or even for manliness most fully realized and idealized. But in certain respects, it is a sufficient criteria for setting the baseline. It need not be a "failure" of masculinity to come up short in some other man's estimation.
Because if its a matter of one's being a man that he has to hit a certain target, then we can eliminate most wheelchair bound, the bedridden, many past victims of various abuses--because they can't make the grade. When we set a standard for being something, those who don't meet it aren't that thing. At best they are less-than what they should or must be by some percentage. These don't measure up.
Just because a man with crushed testicles, a eunuch, couldn't enter the Temple in the OT, doesn't mean Christians today should treat the same man today as someone who can never be an elder, because he possibly won't ever marry and can't reproduce. I think the logical outworking of some of today's thought leads to just the opposite conclusion: that the only candidates for God's service are men of a "type" that without exception includes physical stereotype. The OT typological standard is turned into a timeless norm.
It is wrong to take the full variety of capacities found in a given population, fixate on one--even a common one, one that there's a broad middle around--and decline the man-card of anyone who doesn't have enough grams of testosterone, or whatever. The XY may not, should not be all the criteria for church leadership; or even for manliness most fully realized and idealized. But in certain respects, it is a sufficient criteria for setting the baseline. It need not be a "failure" of masculinity to come up short in some other man's estimation.
For a man who has duties galore, wasting one’s time on video games is immoral.
If my father played video games, I’d respect him less.
Then again, had he grown up playing video games, he probably wouldn’t have developed such an indomitable work ethic or the ability to unflinchingly stalk and hunt game alone in backwoods grizzly country, using a flashlight to walk out after nightfall. Undeniably masculine traits.
Not the sum of manliness, but still masculine.
Question: manliness being mostly a moral thing, what’s the moral pronouncement upon a man too weak to protect or provide for his family (more than a trip to the store), who only ever physically stands up for what is good by doing it in a game, and who is dependent upon someone else for almost everything in his life (fixing his car, building his home, killing his food, protecting his homeland, etc.) ?
If my father played video games, I’d respect him less.
Then again, had he grown up playing video games, he probably wouldn’t have developed such an indomitable work ethic or the ability to unflinchingly stalk and hunt game alone in backwoods grizzly country, using a flashlight to walk out after nightfall. Undeniably masculine traits.
Not the sum of manliness, but still masculine.
Question: manliness being mostly a moral thing, what’s the moral pronouncement upon a man too weak to protect or provide for his family (more than a trip to the store), who only ever physically stands up for what is good by doing it in a game, and who is dependent upon someone else for almost everything in his life (fixing his car, building his home, killing his food, protecting his homeland, etc.) ?
Although I personally am of the same bent and opinion, I think this goes too far.
What exactly is wasting time?
Enjoying a bit of down-time is commended.
Ecc 5:18-19 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
19 Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.
Pursuing pleasure for its own sake is not. Isaiah 56 (and elsewhere)
11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.
- Status
