The Men In My Neighborhood
Toxic, passive, or positive, there is only one kind of masculinity
I was raised by men. These men were fathers, uncles, neighbors, hunters, teachers, and coaches. I owe my boy-to-man transformation to these dedicated men. Although not exclusively the rule, (see my series titled Almost Paradise) men, much more than women, can make parenthood optional. The men of my childhood were of the variety that chose to make the parent commitments.
To put this article in perspective, the formative years of my youth were the 1970s where I entered that decade at age five and left it at fifteen. In the post psychedelic decade, Al Gore had not yet invented the internet and TV was boring. For a young boy in Northern Minnesota, being outside was everything. It did not matter about the seasons, the half a dozen neighborhood boys I grew up with and I traveled the streets in packs. In the summer months, we built tree forts and sought unsanctioned swimming opportunities. In the winter months, we took to the hill in our back yard with our sleds and toboggans. As I grew through the 70s, downhill sledding gave way to downhill skiing. All I remember is, once we were freed from the confines of institutional holds, we dropped our excess supplies at the front door and went outside to meet our friends. This put our supervision, what little there was, in the hands of neighborhood elders that were closest at hand.
In the 70s, men taught boys masculinity, no adjectives necessary, just masculinity. Regardless of race, religion, economic status or political persuasion, men simply taught boys masculinity.
Because I was raised by men, I have always been aware of my manhood. That knowledge translated to my ability to love and respect the women in my life. Secure in my masculinity, I did not waste time contemplating the oft used adjective "toxic" nor any other modern boutique colloquialism associated with that term. I treated those adjectives like the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine, just BS words designed to get neurotic souls to purchase the rag and get lost in a word salad article designed to justify their inadequacies all the while proffering pop-psychology as the quick fix answer over the actual hard work of self-examination and real personal improvement.
But when Newsweek published this article about the stunning masculine specimen who just may be our next Vice President, I could no longer remain neutral on the ridiculous "adjectifying" of the word, "masculinity." According to Newsweek, Governor Walz, the Kelce brothers and Ryan Reynolds are picture-perfect examples of the modern man - they are the poster men of "positive" masculinity.
The Newsweek article was written by Life and Trends Reporter, Alyce Collins and titled, Tim Walz, the Kelce Brothers and a New Era of 'Positive Masculinity'. After she first issued a blanket statement that every single masculine trait endued in me by the men of my youth are ipso facto defined as toxic, she went on to describe the much more desirable and softer side of manhood dubbed "positive" masculinity. Ms. Collins wrote, "But now, it seems as though we're headed toward a softer kind of masculinity, with politicians talking about fertility, football players dancing to Taylor Swift and a renowned Paralympic athlete cheering on his wife as she won Olympic gold."
What in the world, I wondered, is positive masculinity? Apparently, this description from Collins’ article is supposed to help me understand the term better. "As a white, heterosexual male who served in the military, taught in high school, was a football coach and spends his spare time hunting, Walz might not seem like the epitome of positive masculinity. But he isn't solely defined by these characteristics because he's also a family man, an advocate for women's rights and a champion of women in power."
I read this description of Gov. Walz and it certainly sounds positive. In fact, it looks exactly like the description of the men who raised me in my opening paragraph. Those men were white, heterosexual, served in the military, taught high school, hunted, coached football, were family oriented, respected their wives and, more important than anything else Ms. Collins attributed to Walz, understood the power of femininity. If the men who raised me embody the same Walz attributed characteristics, then why does he get the moniker of "positive" and all the men of my youth are permanently labeled "toxic?" To unpack this quandary, I will describe some of the men who influenced my youth.
In grade school, Mr. Anderson was our neighborhood referee. When boys in "the hood" got into fights, Mr. Anderson moved the scuffle to his basement where he would lace ridiculously large boxing gloves to our scrawny hands and instruct us to "settle it in the ring." He taught us an early form of conflict resolution that often ended with more respect for our opponent. That type of man bonding made us tighter as a group of friends and set the standard that if you were going to be an ass, be prepared to take one on the chin.
My sixth-grade teacher, Mr. Dahlen, was an avid bow hunter. During hunting season, he used the class overhead projector to diagram his deer stand and the patient manor he went about stalking and shooting an 8 - point buck. For a restless young man, that lesson came in handy when the following year I was allowed to join my father at hunting camp. It also made boring school a little more tolerable for a young lad who wanted to be anywhere but there.
Our family went on camping vacations and my father taught us to start fires, collect berries, paddle canoes and chop wood. He bought me my first pocketknife when I was eight years old. I was so proud that I was deemed old enough to be given that “weapon” that I promptly cut my finger. In Ralphie-like fashion, I sucked it up, not showing my pain because I did not want to let the adults know that I was not mature enough for that gift and the responsibility that came with it. My wound was unceremoniously bound and not a word was spoken of that incident by either mother or father.
As I advanced into jr. high, my sister and I were allowed to participate in duck club. My father had purchased, along with eight other men, a 250-acre slew. We spent an entire summer clearing some land and erecting a two-room hunting shack with an outhouse downhill and downwind from the abode. The hut was heated by wood and lit by gas lamps. The men taught us to play the card games of In-Between and Cribbage and we listened to many hunting stories of their youths. The language at duck camp was raw and unfiltered. It was at duck camp where I learned what is said at duck camp, stays at duck camp. But most importantly, I learned that men don't stand for stupid shit. If I was going to make a comment, I damn well better know what I was talking about and be prepared to defend it.
My father also taught me hard work and hard drinking, and in the resort town of my youth, those two everyday occurrences went hand in hand. He owned restaurants, and in the 70s, men were up at the crack of dawn and went to work. By the time I was fifteen, I was at the restaurant at 5:30 AM, heating the flat top, cooking the bacon, and getting ready to feed the exclusively male customers that filled the restaurant by 6 AM. Little did those hard-working family men of the 70s know, that “positive” masculinity means avocado toast and lattes at 8:00 and not bacon and eggs at sunrise. Those men taught me that masculinity was working with your hands, tilling your fields, and building your castles.
To this day, I will never forget the day Pres. Reagan was shot. I was in ninth grade gym class, taught by Mr. Anderson. (A different Anderson than for my neighborhood.) This Mr. Anderson was a gruff man and hockey coach with a booming voice. No one, including the tough and "too cool for school" type boys went against Mr. Anderson. We were midway through our gym class when the school principal announced the Ronald Reagan was shot. There was a handful of students that openly cheered after hearing that news. Mr. Anderson snapped in the most deafening voice, "Shut up, he is our president! This is a big deal, regardless of your politics, you respect that position!" You could have heard a pin drop in that gymnasium. I wonder what a teacher and coach Walz, Mr. “positive masculinity” himself, would have said if he were in Mr. Anderson's shoes and the announcement was, "Pres. Trump was shot!"? The “toxic” coach of the 70s got it right with Reagan, would a “positive” Gov. Walz be able to separate the man from the position? More importantly, would Walz be the adult male role model in the room to teach young boys the significance to our country the assassination of a leader carries?
Another masculine figure from my youth was my track and field coach, Mr. Mohr. Somehow, he spotted in me a sprinter and pole vaulter in seventh grade. And I trusted his guidance enough to run as fast as I could down a 50-yard track, carrying a twelve-foot pole, planting it into a small metal box and allowing the momentum of that effort to fling me twelve feet into the air and over a horizontal bar. It was the most exhilarating activity I had ever done. But Coach Mohr did not just do that for me. He cobbled together the students from my jr. & sr. high that the other coaches ignored. He taught them to put shots, throw discuses, high jump, run hurdles, sprint and compete for distance. At track meets, he moved rapidly from event to event urging his athletes to compete at their best. He could be a half a track away and spot me lining up for a pole vault attempt and would shout from that distance in a voice loud enough to reach the next county, “Give ’m hell Nellie!” He was the first leader I played for that made me try harder, not just for my own satisfaction, but for him because he had faith in me as a member of the team.
I varsity lettered in track six years in a row in pole vaulting and our boys and girls track squad won mid-state track and field championships all six years as well. Coach Mohr’s “can do” attitude and leadership had a greater impact on me than all my other coaches I trained under. There are some coaches, and in the business world, managers, that will only work with the best. Coach Mohr taught me, you work with the team you have and encourage them to give their best.
The men of my youth knew what it was like to be a man so they could understand humor associated with manhood. The movie, Blazing Saddles (1974) would most certainly be banned in the 21st century for its racial insensitivity. But Blazing Saddles was not about racism, it was entirely constructed to mock masculinity. The humor of Mel Brooks’ farcical western was based on parodying masculine stereotypes. As with all humor, there must be some truth in the mockery. But the men of my youth could recognize the absurdity of that film and laugh at it, as well as themselves. Could today’s “positive” masculine specimens do the same? Somehow, I envision a “positive” masculine type like Gov. Walz clutching pearls more than busting a gut at Mel Brooks playing the character of Gov. William Le Petomane.
If one truly wishes to explore what positive masculinity looks like, perhaps he should dust off C.S. Lewis’ essay, The Necessity of Chivalry. According to Lewis,
The word chivalry has meant at different times a good many different things – from heavy cavalry to giving a woman a seat in a train. But if we want to understand chivalry as an ideal distinct from other ideals – if we want to isolate that particular conception of the man comme il faut which was the special contribution of the Middle Ages to our culture – we cannot do better than turn to the words addressed to the greatest of all imaginary knights in Malory’s Morte d,Arthur. ‘Thou wert the meekest man,’ says Sir Ector to the dead Launcelot. ‘Thou wert the meekest man that ever ate in the hall among ladies; and thou wert the sternest knight to thy mortal foe that ever put spear in the rest’
Lewis makes the point that chivalry is an art form. That man is not born innately chivalrous, but that he is a blank canvas and that his training, and more important, his actions form the brush strokes of his masterpiece. I contend that masculinity mirrors that same concept. Being born a man does not make one masculine. Being masculine takes time, starting with a lump of clay and patiently sculpting it until a real man emerges. There are no shortcuts and the men in my life all took turns with the clay sculpting stylus.
Men need to be taught masculinity because there is always a “positive” masculine architype waiting in the shadows to usurp moral cultures and take the reins of power for nefarious ends. Societies need real masculine types to thwart the “positive” wannabes. As C.S. Lewis stated:
…if we cannot produce Launcelots, humanity falls into two sections – those who can deal blood and iron but cannot be ‘meek in hall’, and those who are ‘meek in hall’ but useless in battle – for the third class, who are both brutal in peace and cowardly in war, need not here be discussed.
Masculinity is not to be mistaken as a modern caring sensitive man who changes dirty diapers and empties a dishwasher. When it comes to a dude, he will gladly perform those tasks if it counts towards his partner’s approval. Masculinity is respecting the femininity of his significant other and sporting her in her ambitions. Whether it be as a board room executive or a nurturing mother. Being a man is more than mere support of women, being a man mean protecting the ambition of women above all else. It means being meek in the hall among ladies and fierce on the field, whether on the battlefield of arrows or ideas, a man is a stalwart to reason, a shield of protection to the innocent and a revenant soul to God. A real man deals justice, not with hate and vengeance, but as God does with mercy and forgiveness.
Because if masculinity does not emulate, I Am, the One in Whose image we are all created, then we get the worst of man. We do not get masculinity, we get the absence of masculinity. For all adjectives placed before masculinity are shields in attempt to hide from God. Like fig leaves in the Garden of Edan, “positive” is added before masculinity to hide accountability of one’s actions. Real men own their actions.
The entire DNC convention was full of men not owning their actions. Walz trained his National Guard troops but bailed on seeing them through their Afghan deployment. Walz pushed and signed the most progressive legislative agenda in Minnesota’s last legislation session. He destroyed Minnesota. What is sure, whether he becomes out next Vise President or wonders off to some other democratic pasture, he will not be around to see what his Californication of Minnesota wrought. And when it comes down to it, isn’t that the problem with all politicians, regardless of party, they all enact crap legislation and, though they stick around for years like Joe Biden, they never own their decisions. Unmanly lack of ownership is what Ms. Collins calls “positive” masculinity.
Julius Caesar did not cross the Rubicon because the Senators in Rome embodies masculinity. Ceasar’s marched on Rome was made possible precisely because the bickering and action avoiding men of the senate were performing “positive” masculinity. Caesar filled the void left by adjective obscuring masculinity. And if the west doesn’t find its masculinity, another “Caesar” will rise and cross the Potomac. He will bring war to a hapless Capital and take the levers of power duly sacrificed by the “positive” masculine types like Gov. Walz. Positive masculinity is precisely what C.S. Lewis calls the worst kind of manhood, the type that is bold in the hall and meek on the battlefield.
The men in my life raised me, the women in my life tamed me. That is the Ying and yang of life. I have the deepest respect for all who both nurtured and subdued me because masculinity is not a word used to modify a man, it is simply a state of being. If one must waste adjectives to define it, one simply doesn’t have it. All the men in my neighborhood knew that.