We are losing sight of masculinity in the West.
In his post, Is BINARY SEXUALITY passé?, Darrow once again wonderfully illuminates the principle of “ideas have consequences.” The idea that “my thoughts and feelings about myself alone determine my reality” leads to devastating ends.
Darrow’s article posted the same day a parallel commentary published in the Wall Street Journal by Erica Komisar, “Masculinity Isn’t a Sickness – A denial of biology in the American Psychological Association’s new report on men and boys.”
Ms. Komisar’s sub-title parallels Darrow’s article. In her piece she describes the APA’s conclusions that masculinity (as traditionally described) is a “disease.”
In my practice as a psychotherapist, I’ve seen an increase of depression in young men who feel emasculated in a society that is hostile to masculinity. New guidelines from the American Psychological Association defining “traditional masculinity” as a pathological state are likely only to make matters worse.
The author first acknowledges that ideas about masculinity and femininity have evolved, sometimes for the better, in the past half century. She immediately declares, however, that the APA has now “demonized” masculinity rather than embracing and affirming its strengths, blaming masculinity for all oppression and abuse of women. The APA report “encourages clinicians to evaluate masculinity as an evil to be tamed rather than a force to be integrated.” Komisar cites the report to make a powerful statement on the consequences of ideas:
The association urges therapists to help men “identify how they have been harmed by discrimination against those who are gender nonconforming”—an ideological claim transformed into a clinical treatment recommendation. [emphasis mine]
Here is the consequence of an idea—“an ideological claim transformed into a clinical treatment recommendation.” A belief becomes “science” by those who claim “science” as “god” (in the toxic new religion).
Humans bear the image of God
Thankfully, there are voices of light and truth exposing these scientist/priests for the naked emperors they are. Darrow is one such voice. Ms. Komisar, another. And, interestingly, in the remainder of the piece we see a female psychoanalyst defending traditional masculinity and femininity. She describes a number of masculine and feminine (psychological) traits, and their underlying biological roots. She decries the derision and shame modern society lays on men and women who embrace these (traditional) traits and associated roles. Finally, Ms. Komisar comes to two conclusions (ideas), which embrace truth and affirm, rather than disparage, the image bearers of God.
What’s unhealthy isn’t masculinity or femininity but the demeaning of masculine men and feminine women.
We will probably never return to rigid sex roles, and maybe we shouldn’t. But it’s wrong to devalue the important and positive differences between men and women that have complemented and enriched our relationships for tens of thousands of years.
My years of association with Darrow, and reading Francis Schaeffer, have taught me that one way to show the fallacy (sometimes the absurdity) of an idea, philosophy or worldview is to press its adherents to follow the idea’s consequences to its logical (or often illogical) conclusions. Darrow begins to do this in his closing paragraph.
If there is no fixed reality, every individual human being will be defined by the terms of their own existence. The trans movement of self-definition will not confine itself to sexuality, but will radiate outward to race, age, species and cyborg. Indeed, it already is.
How far might it go?
Yes, sadly, it already is, as both articles so aptly illustrate. But if I may press a little further toward the absurd end of this idea of self-defined reality: what will the proponents of this view of reality and personhood say when, for instance (speaking hypothetically with no specific person in mind), the biologically male human who self identifies as a female dragon also self identifies that female dragons subsist on human flesh, particularly of young virgin females?
Absurd? Yet we are halfway there already.
– Bob Evans
Print this page
