Missing from Action: A Powerful Historical Response to the Crisis Among American Men


#1

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Has anyone read the above book? It is an excellent book and I strongly recommend it to all men, especially those who plan on marrying one day. Women would do well to read it, too, but it is more meant for men. The basic idea of the book is how men in America have lost their manliness and have become very weak. He makes the case that things started going down hill for American men right have the Revolution in the late 1700s.

I think the author is spot-on completely. He writes that men need to return to the authoritative, biblical role and in doing so can help turn the tide in the culture war. I borrowed it from my priest, but if anyone wants to buy it Amazon has it.

Discussion, comments? :slight_smile:

In Christ,
Andrew


#2

My thesis is that unprecedented prosperity, permissive childrearing, and the sexual revolution made a lot of men act very immature and very “entitled”, which caused a lot of women to go on strike, which caused a new generation of men to be afraid of angering women and angry at women at the same time, which caused a male strike in return. Also, hormones feminized men, probably. Then the generations that expected to be more successful than their parents but were less so (such as mine) had trouble seeing their “real” adult lives as already happening, so they further delayed marriage and as they waited longer they expected more. That added pressure and further strained the whole structure.
But that’s just my guess.
Out in public I look at young men’s faces. It’s surprising how many are childlike, puffy, and glazed over. Guys never used to look like that, except a few of the most famous drug users in the scene.


#3

I am going to read this, I think. Ironically, I have been looking for a new book to read…thanks for the suggestion! There are other threads here on the subject…suffice to say, my opinion tends to agree with you. I think that when men and women ‘swapped’ roles so to speak, things started slipping downhill. Coupled with what the above poster suggests…basically, when women gave men permission to not take responsibility, they stopped. It’s a team efforts, men and women. Men can’t be REAL men without women being REAL women. Authentic feminine women. I believe women should have the right to vote, go to college, have jobs, etc…Being educated, and self sufficient is a good thing. But, many women were not satisifed with that…many wanted to actually be ‘like’ men, whether they want to admit that or not. Feminists …wanting to be like men? Yep. I think so. The Gloria Steinhems of the world…all fed us young women lies about not relying on men, they are “bad,” and so forth. If you keep telling men (our society tells them this through the feminist agenda) that they are not good, they will eventually start behaving as that. This is why we see those “puffy faced, glazed over” looks on young men.

That said, it’s not just women…again…it takes a team effort to make the world function best…and men and women need to stop pointing fingers and start embracing their authentic roles as God created. Without a society turning BACK to God…we will not see these tides turn, I’m afraid. People need objective Truth. We have subjective truth…and that’s the problem. When God is pushed out of a society, that society will turn on itself. :frowning: Sadly, that’s what’s happening.

Just my ramblings for the night. :slight_smile: Thx for the book suggestion. *


#4

Personally I have to disagree, however I might purchase the book at read it. What some American men think are correct gender roles are pretty disgusting IMHO. Men can be strong, protective, set limits, punsh, protect and love. The idea of the distant authorative father produced from American fiction is not reality and if it was for a while… it’s not the way humans have been through history.

My guess is that this book, like so many like it, are from a protestant misinterpretation of the Bible. On the Amazon review the guy states that Orthodox understanding of the Christian male… what he means is the overbearing judgmental narcissistic male that left England so he could be that kind of guy.

As most Theologians, especially Catholic ones, will point out, the understanding of the gender roles in the NT is really equal. Yet for years the understanding, because the Protestants heeded to no authority, was that women should always submit and parents should beat their kids (spare the rod and spoil the child, which of course is wrong - the “rod” was a tool to teach, if you don’t “teach” your kids you will spoil then).

Like most protestant theological arguments, those understandings leave out the rest of the verses, you can’t do that and get a complete picture.

A Christian Man should be willing give all for his spouse - be humiliated, beaten, flogged and even crucified if necessary. Those are all submissive acts, not authoritarian. A true man leads rather than demands and when a man truly acts like that, he will find his wife obeys because they are on equal ground not because he demands she be submissive to him.

Hahn has a theory about the fall based upon some ancient Hebraic textual understandings of certain words in Genesis. The understanding being that Adam’s fall was not so much that he “ate” the fruit, but that he didn’t protect Eve from the beast (the hebrew translanted as dragon in this case rather than serpent which may actually be more correct). Rather than defending her from the dragon he let her fall and then chose to be submissive rather than fight.

This paints a much different picture than the common patrichial understnading of the fall yet… and yet… IMHO is much more in line with what Christ taught in the NT. And not it’s not contradictory to my first paragraph. Adam chose to be submissive rather than stand up for what he believed it. What he should have “believed in” was in God’s protection and his own ability to defend his mate, even if that required death. Thus Adam refused to sacrafice himself for Eve and thus the chain started with each male failing God’s Covenant until Christ. Not what we have been taught but not necessarily heretical either… (I believe the theory is in the book “First comes Love”)

Anyway, I would be leary about any book that “claimed” to say we needed to return to what REAL Christian men are because from what I have found, most of those definitions aren’t quite right.

If I get a chance though I’ll try to pick that up, my instincts on the book could be wrong. Note though it’s from 1996 as well.

Joe


#5

What exactly do you mean when you say women want to be like men?

I hear conservatives say this again and again, but their explanation for manliness in women is usually that these women are educated, have jobs, and are strong. The definition of femininity tends to be someone who is weak, not very smart, and who depends on her husband.

You say that women should be educated, have jobs, etc. Then what would make women “like men” in your eyes?

(And I think the puffy, glazed over look is because they are fat and don’t exercise.)


#6

Oh…hmmm…I might have to rethink this, then! I will have to do some more research. I agree also with you, that real men show to be servant-leaders…like Christ was, when you think about it. He didn’t force His teachings on anyone…He admonished sinners when necessary, but with a simple task…‘go and sin no more.’ He did show visible, righteous anger at times, but Jesus was the quintessential servant-leader, than any man would be right to mirror. (and women to mirror as well, but as authentic females, and how blessed is it that we also have Mary to follow as an example).


#7

Huh?:confused:

As most Theologians, especially Catholic ones, will point out, the understanding of the gender roles in the NT is really equal. Yet for years the understanding, because the Protestants heeded to no authority, was that women should always submit and parents should beat their kids (spare the rod and spoil the child, which of course is wrong - the “rod” was a tool to teach, if you don’t “teach” your kids you will spoil then).

Like most protestant theological arguments, those understandings leave out the rest of the verses, you can’t do that and get a complete picture.

A Christian Man should be willing give all for his spouse - be humiliated, beaten, flogged and even crucified if necessary. Those are all submissive acts, not authoritarian. A true man leads rather than demands and when a man truly acts like that, he will find his wife obeys because they are on equal ground not because he demands she be submissive to him.

I don’t know what you’re disagreeing with about the book, because the author specifically talks about this and it is how a man should be. But he also acknowledges that men are supposed to be authoritative, but not overbearing about it. After all, the father’s responsibility is for the physical and spiritual well-being of his family. The day of doormat dad’s needs to end. Now.

Hahn has a theory about the fall based upon some ancient Hebraic textual understandings of certain words in Genesis. The understanding being that Adam’s fall was not so much that he “ate” the fruit, but that he didn’t protect Eve from the beast (the hebrew translanted as dragon in this case rather than serpent which may actually be more correct). Rather than defending her from the dragon he let her fall and then chose to be submissive rather than fight.

This paints a much different picture than the common patrichial understnading of the fall yet… and yet… IMHO is much more in line with what Christ taught in the NT. And not it’s not contradictory to my first paragraph. Adam chose to be submissive rather than stand up for what he believed it. What he should have “believed in” was in God’s protection and his own ability to defend his mate, even if that required death. Thus Adam refused to sacrafice himself for Eve and thus the chain started with each male failing God’s Covenant until Christ. Not what we have been taught but not necessarily heretical either… (I believe the theory is in the book “First comes Love”)

Anyway, I would be leary about any book that “claimed” to say we needed to return to what REAL Christian men are because from what I have found, most of those definitions aren’t quite right.

If I get a chance though I’ll try to pick that up, my instincts on the book could be wrong. Note though it’s from 1996 as well.

Joe

I myself could not deny that men in America have lost their way and as whatevergirl said, most have switched roles with women. To me, there is a difference between being submissive and being submissive when necessary. Let’s face it, most men in America have not lived up to their God given duties. They have become weak and are afraid of women. It’s the old adage of “who wears the pants?” The author points out Job as being a great example of a biblical man and father. Even though the book is from 1996, it offers great wisdom and insight and certainly applies to men today. I still strongly recommend it!

In Christ,
Andrew

PS, it seems like the book was directed towards Protestants because the author is somewhat critical of how Protestantism changed how men and women acted (it’s a very interesting and thought provoking argument). He is an Orthodox priest, but he talks about the early Church, a common place that both Catholics and Orthodox share. :slight_smile:


#8

See the quote about dad being a doormat is what I disagree with… what is meant by that? If someone chooses to sacrifice rather than force their will they are a doormat? From my experiences (I was a Protestant in 1996 and read some similar works) men aren’t subservient to women and women haven’t taken the place of men, that have gained some equal footing but are STILL far behind in equality.

And why would you say most men are afraid of women? I know a lot of people and I don’t know any that are afraid of women. Yet back in the day I heard these same “concerns” from a few far right wing fundamentalist groups.

Like the whites of the South after the Civil war some men are just scared they are going to have to actually do something or be more than they have been. They are going to have to help raise their children, they are going to have to share in the housework, they are going to have to lead rather than demand and to a lot of men, this is pretty scary. Their life of ease of going to work 8 to 5 then coming home to a hot cooked meal and a spotless home with perfect children isn’t a reality… So how do you change that, you tell people they aren’t being good Christians. If enough buy into it, maybe their wives will do… It was similar theories, yet based upon race, that kept African Americans oppressed for over a 100 years after slavery and in some ways still goes on today (yes, even though we have a Black President).

Why can’t women do most of the jobs of men? and how does that hurt men at all if they do? They can and it won’t unless a man has a fragile ego. Just because a woman can do the same job how does that matter? Now I do disagree with quotes or hiring or promoting people just because of those factors but if a woman does a job better than a man, move her up and let him work a little harder next time.

It’s true though that there are genetic differences and many women have found that the feminist movement didn’t always help things. Many women my age were taught to put off childbearing, they didn’t need men and everyone could do everything.

Well that’s not true either. Many women have found that some do want to be SAHMs, not all but some and there is nothing wrong with that. It some ways I believe the movement had to go overboard to prove it’s point and it did but now many young women are working on find a balance. We as men need to help on this, not try to reverse it.

I’m a man, I can be as macho or as submissive as I want to be or as sacrificial (with God’s help) as humanly possible. It’s kind of like the Promise Keepers movement… sounded great but if you really started reading the material it wasn’t theologically on the up and up in my opinion.

I truly may have to pick this up because I would like to see what he says about the early Church. While our Priest and Bishops were definitely men, women played a much bigger role because they were more inconspicuous than men at the time. One of the Roman Emperors is even quoted as joking that “Christianity was the religion of women and slaves”

My point would just be to be cautious and verify what the authors says with the CCC and other Catholic writings.

Joe


#9

But, many women were not satisifed with that…many wanted to actually be ‘like’ men, whether they want to admit that or not.

I feel that those women wanting to be like men are imitating men at their worst - not imitating the good traits of men, such as being strong or being leaders. Young women seem to me that they have become cruder than they were even when I was young…not all young women, of course…but I am sometimes appalled by the things I hear them talking about to each other in class (I am a returning college student) or on their cell phones. I have to hear about things that make my hair curl. Is nothing sacred any more? :blush:


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.