Taking Back "Manning Up"

A Brief Intro

Sometimes I write when I'm angry. Those journal entries and blog posts usually stick out and the tone often hurts my arguments. After all, why would someone affected by something as sensitive as, say, abortion want to read something by an angry young man? On the other hand, sometimes I find it necessary to write when I'm mad. When I'm so passionate about something that I can't hold it back any longer, I find no other choice than to say exactly what I feel. This is one of those posts.

Manning Up

I've always found the modern use of this phrase to be insulting. In the case of my uncle who first used it, at a time when I was 12, he was deeply interested in me growing into a responsible man. He had nothing but positive motivations, though I recall he was quite pissed at the time he said it. He overcame his obvious anger at the time and, as a role model, tried to improve me. Since then I worked on being assertive, while admitting when I was wrong, making eye contact, and keeping my hands out of my pockets. I hated the phrase then because he was right, which was an obvious turning point in my life. Now I hate how people self-righteously and incorrectly use it today.

Despite my personal demons, I can recall being told to "man up" various times, but I'll use examples of my senior year of high school. I was told to man up to lying about a workout sheet, except I wasn't lying; the man accusing me couldn't man up to his inflexible schedule and the dangers it brought in lifting, God rest his soul. I was told to man up to the fact that I raised my voice to a class of belligerent students despite my mentor being unable to man up and admit he had done the same thing.  That was senior year.

I was told to man up about lying about a Calculus 2 textbook and homework debacle, but I didn't lie. The professor was a woman, but she couldn't take responsibility for being unclear with what she said, let alone how she applied that standard unfairly. I was told to man up to my crippling social anxiety, which I'd later find out to be clinical depression. It was an impossible situation, yet I was emasculated for it. I was told to man up and "formally" ask out a girl who said she had no interest. That was freshman year of college.

I was told to man up and explain why I was getting bad grades, even though my health was obviously crap while I struggled to maintain a 110 pound body weight, which would drop to about 100 (I'm now still 5'7", but 150ish pounds when causally working out).  I was told to man up about not going to class with a particular individual, except that individual had campus safety watching me without my knowledge. Even once I knew, I was told to man up and go anyway, despite the personal danger due to the incredibly strict harassment codes at that university. That was sophomore year of college.

I was told to man up and apologize for being smart. For being critical. For being unwilling to needlessly confront people. For even being angry. For situations I couldn't control. For yes, having feelings and having them hurt. I was made to apologize for my reactions. Rather than being taught not to have pride, vent anger on others, and how some situations weren't as hopeless as I thought, I was emasculated. Why are these things "manning up?" Does it even resemble the phrase as originally used?

The Point

"Manning up" used to be something tough, necessary, and good. When my uncle used it, he did so to make me see my weakness, accept it, overcome it, and move forward. Now it's used to emasculate men, making them into doormats. You refused to try to control a hopeless situation? You weren't aggressive despite your personality? You didn't "man up!" You didn't take that woman home because it would violate your integrity? "Man up!" 

Absurd! These aren't qualities of "manning up!" Just today I was told to "man up" and "own" my feelings about a particularly painful memory. I didn't find a joke funny as a result of this memory. I didn't flip out; I respectfully explained why I responded the way I did. "Man up?" What about respect? That's something the men in my life taught me growing up. It was missed by the person in question. Men respect others by letting them function, as long as it's fulfilling the original meaning of manning up: taking care of business with integrity, owning mistakes, and treating others with respect, even when their ways are different.

My grandpa respected how emotional I was despite his generation seeing being emotional as not masculine. For him to act completely counter to his entire upbringing is a massive show of respect. My uncle (different one from earlier) would make fun of my brother and I and we'd carry on. Once, I said "Yeah, I am a wuss," his favorite term, "the guys at school are saying I don't act right." My uncle turned really serious and told me to have self-respect and stop giving a crap what those guys thought; to him, having self-respect was "manning up," not bowing to the crowd . My dad told me to only get into relationships I was comfortable with. No "manning up" and chasing a woman to get a girlfriend just for the sake of it. Notice how that term, "getting a girlfriend," is possessive? It's based on insecurity, not masculinity. True men earn a woman's trust and affection. Notice how "manning up" contrasts with the manning up of these men being respectful, yet sticking to their guns. They didn't compromise themselves, but they built me up through their use of the term.

Conclusion

I've put a lot of personal detail into this post. The integrity of this post depends on my vulnerability and letting go of ego and pride. My sincerity is reflected through my obvious anger at the misuse of this phrase and how it excludes guys who aren't archetypical. The effectiveness of this post relies on the willingness of people to let go of the modern use of the term and to see it's original use. It's time for men to start acting with integrity and doing the right thing for the sake of it, not to fill society's view of a man. It's time for self-assessment to see if we're doing the right thing and owning our mistakes so we can improve as men. It's time to truly man up and stick to our guns, not society's.

Hobby Lobby and Entitlement

Introduction

I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the SCOTUS decision about Hobby Lobby, and by extension, other closely held companies. Some people, like Wil Wheaton (@wilw), have fantasies about Rastafarians, as seen by his retweet of a @JohnFugelsang. Or to better illustrate, Wheaton's nearly concurrent tweet says that "women need to incorporate, if they want to have things like 'rights' and 'freedom'" No educated individual should conflate such things as "freedom" with "you aren't entitled to a company giving you what you want."

Making an Example

Wil makes the following mistakes: strawman (attacking the ideas of rights and freedom rather than addressing the ruling); makes a red herring (he might have a point, but it's irrelevant to the case and how it was decided), loads the question (or implication, as if women have no rights or freedom at all unless they incorporate); and perhaps some appeal to fear or emotion. In a single tweet, especially with the tone of the other tweet mentioned, Wil Wheaton not only makes a complete ass of himself, but he shows the sense of entitlement I often see in social media.

Perhaps some reductio ad absurdum is in order. Let's say I'm working for a warehouse, as I did a few summers ago. I had no benefits. Likewise, in this pretend example, I sue the company, not only for not having benefits, but because I'm not being provided contraception, let alone something that is an abortifacient. Odds of success: 0%. Odds may increase if I was a woman. I feel dumber just for typing this. Women and men alike can work elsewhere if they don't like what Hobby Lobby or any company does or doesn't offer, including but not limited to,  pay, benefits, time off, and promotions. I am no more entitled to benefits at the warehouse than others are entitled to contraception. Note that this is not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Closing

A great irritant to me is celebrities who do stupid things like Wil Wheaton did. They step out of what they're good at, influence the masses, and are usually much less informed then they think they are. The issue isn't "women's rights." It's that people aren't allowed to follow their conscience. If you'll excuse me, I need to order a cake from a Muslim Bakery with a hot lady on it. After all, I'm entitled to it.

That One Thing

Notice my posts? I mainly cover abortion, LGBT stuff, and evolution. I think I’m missing something, something a bit less mainstream but a bit more in need of coverage. If you answered “mojitos,” then you’re a good guesser, but you’re wrong. No, I’m talking about pornography. For years I’ve debated on posting about this issue. For one, it’s not too popular to sit down and criticize it, especially in today’s more sexualized society. Sadly, it’s also “Christians,” the “puritanical” ones, that make it difficult. As if not speaking about it will make it go away. Or maybe topics about sex are icky. Whatever the case, the main thing preventing me from posting is my future career as a teacher. Now that employers will stalk the crap out of a potential employee through the internet before hiring, I’ve avoided this and other subjects. As can be seen here, I’ve decided to take that risk, along with any other backlash that may come up.

Enough about me. Anyone reading this post is probably wondering how this post will be any different than other posts by Christians about pornography. If you read my last post, it will differ in two ways: first, to make a “secular” argument and show how it supports Scripture instead of the other way around, and secondly, to use real situations and effects of the matter to show the human condition. After all, if porn wasn’t appealing to people or filled a need, I wouldn’t even write about it. It’d still be disgusting and manipulative, but then I could leave it to rot and not worry about legality or other arguments.

To sum up a thesis, I intend to cover two points. First, what is porn? Is it just stuff hidden away or is it more prevalent? And does the content even matter? Second, what effects does it actually have? Is it actually harmless and some people just have a problem with sex, the internet, etc, or does porn have negative effects on the brain?

Watch anything past 9pm, especially on cable. You’re bound to run into a sexy commercial or two. The kind I’ve encountered most are Victoria’s Secret commercials. Notice how such ads have nearly as many effects as a Michael Bay movie. Close ups, wipes, smoky effects, gloss effects, the list goes on. This isn’t to mention the come-hither looks, the body language, and the group shots (I can’t remember a VS commercial with less than three women, and honestly, I’ve tried). I refer only to number due to novelty, of which something porn offers an infinite supply.

Compare this to something more clinical. I distinctly remember a commercial because of the hilarious comment I made to my father while watching it. It was a commercial for a bra for bustier women. Despite the close up, the commercial was short with only a monologue explaining the product. While the VS commercial is sexed up by effects and directing, the latter commercial, despite having underwear and boobs as well, is simply a demonstration.

The point I’m making here is of two things, arousal and intent. While the VS commercials are about sexiness and intent to sell the product for the consumers’ (and their lovers’) enjoyment, the clinical commercial was functional despite sharing some elements. Its intention is to sell a product, yes, but also about comfort and other aspects of the product. Sure, both can be appealing, but the VS commercials attempt to capitalize on that. Some would say because of this, such ads like those of VS, regardless of product and company, are softcore porn. While that may be an extreme conclusion to some, there’s a point to which I’m leading up.

Even more revealing, pun intended, is that VS commercials and their ilk have no nudity, portray no sexual acts, and I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that the women aren’t in those ads to make porn. No genitals, no sex, nothing like that, yet there’s a case to be made for porn here. To satiate all of the literalists out there, let’s take a look at the definition of pornography. Meriam-Webster defines it as “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement.”

Let’s be real here. The VS commercial doesn’t show naked people or sex, so it’s not porn, right? I’d argue otherwise. Even if the intent isn’t to get men turned on, it probably does. I argue that porn is, metaphysically, “any material causing sexual arousal, not limited to nudity or focus on genitals.” In softcore porn galleries, there are plenty of lewd shots without nudity or sex. Yet it’s still porn. Does removing the nude/sex pictures from such a gallery suddenly make the other pictures not porn? Obviously not. Now, not all comparable cheesecake shots are shot as pornography. But the reaction to the material is the same. If a woman is beautiful, it doesn’t take underwear shots to prove it, and if a man is searching for such material then “porn” becomes completely subjective, hence my broad definition.

This is why Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue fares so well. What, you thought guys like checking out expensive swimwear for their girlfriends or wives? Again, the women involved are probably not thinking of producing porn and the photographers are just capitalizing on sex appeal. Yet it is generally consumed as pornography, thus blurring the line most people see. The question isn’t “is it porn?” and becomes instead “can it be used as porn?”, classic cases of porn standing on their own still.

To make a quick disclaimer: first, I’m not calling for the outlawing of sexiness. Second, while I’m using men as the primary examples here, women use porn as well. Third, I’m not saying to use my definition legally. It’s a metaphysical outlook and thus would be a legal mess. I also digress about sexy magazine covers and the like, but that’s a different issue.

Now that we have established that porn is different in intents and perceptions, let’s look at effects porn has on the brain. Is it damaging? Or are mindless surfing, compulsive masturbation, and OCD-like behavior to blame individually or together? 

This article here has technical speak and talks about the reward deal and the chemicals involved. Plasticity does indeed seem to happen with sex addiction as related to porn (read the second and third to last paragraphs of the linked article for that specifically). Addiction to seeking material and/or compulsive masturbation are thus separate issues that may or may not be involved as well.

Anyways, I think I’ve proved my point. Porn is addictive. It makes sense that Christ warned us against adultery in the heart. He doesn’t want us enslaved to sex, which is exactly what porn does in many cases. It seems safe to say that God has it right, and that’s why He tells us sex is for marriage. Thus ends my “secular” case, leading into Scripture as a sort of “soft proof.” You don’t have to be a Christian to accept the argument, but it still supports the biblical view.

Share your thoughts, reblog. Even if you don't agree, let's get a conversation started. It could go places.

A New Direction

After a sabbatical for finals and a bit of vacation, I find myself returning to my blog. Every so often, I find myself promising a different direction to my blog, but never getting it onto paper. For a long time, I've wanted to advance this blog beyond canned Christian issues and hot topic outrage posts.

What I mean by this is not posting safe, obvious responses to hot news stories and attaching Scripture just to make sure it sounds Christian. Instead, I wish, to delve deeper into issues and demonstrate Scripture. For example, showing that life begins at conception by science confirms the Bible, but can stand on it's own if someone is really adverse to the Bible. In other words, I take "secular" arguments and show that God got it right. Compare this to "proving " Scripture. It can get kinda circular to a non-Christian. Thus it's preaching to the choir and largely useless as an outreach tool. I also find the former method better for convincing people.

To sum up, rather than post rhetoric, I wish to analyze the human condition and connect it to Scripture. After all, we're all human. If someone wants to reject my end pieces that demonstrate the Bible, they can. Look at Frankenstein for a great example. The doctor plays God and pays for it. His condition was one of proving himself at any cost. We can all relate to trying for too much; pride and greed, two big Biblical principles. Take his creation, who only wanted a mate and to be left alone. The doctor wasn't ready to afford his creation human status, despite that others did so. The creation's condition is one we all know: belonging, a need for love, socializing. Not exactly a Christian novel, but I can connect it to God's Word and show these things. In English and Philosophy classes, some of these things are "universal truths."

If it convinces you of God, great. If not, the rest of my point exists on its own to show whatever my aim is. Someone might say God doesn't exist, but they still have to get around life beginning at conception, per my earlier example. Leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Consistency

Introduction

Logic must be consistent. Sometimes it's easy to refute a string of thought, sometimes it's harder, and sometimes it's impossible. As Hikmat Hanna said, logic can even be used legitimately to get to an evil conclusion. I agree. Still, logic can be useful for good and either way it must be consistent, for better or worse.

More important is Biblical consistency, an oft-made point of unbelievers. Biblical Consistency by Joseph Cook is good for answering those questions and as a support material for believers. He also brings up some good points: is consistency faith-breaking in (whatever case)? This is a good point. If there's a small error in name, does it matter? Even if a connection is made that two historical figures probably shared different names between cultures, is it truly important that it's not 100% sure? The overarching idea is that many points are just a smokescreen for unbelievers; it's easy to tell who wants answers and who wants arguments.

Finally, there's consistency in faith. There are a lot of angles that can be discussed here, but I'll narrow my focus to Christianity and CINOs, that being Christians In Name Only. Let's see what the Bible says about consistency:

Revelation and Consistency

John the Apostle is called to write in Revelation to seven churches. To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God's creations says: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of My Mouth."  Rev 3:14-16

Looks like the church of Laodicea was consistent at being middling! Likened to water, God would spit Laodicea out. As verse 22 says "Anyone who has an ear should listen to what the Spirit says to the churches." Looks like the church wasn't too keen on going "by the Book," pun intended.

Ephesians 5:15-17 echoes this as well as our world today: Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk -not as unwise people but as wise- making the most of time, because the days are evil. So don't be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

Christians who adopt the ways of the world are not walking in accord with God's will. As much as anyone else, I have difficulty with this. The consistency I want to hit on is when people actively, continuously go against God but claiming fellowship with Him. They've deluded themselves and while much less important, they've given compassionate Christians a bad public image. I'm not so concerned with my image, it's that it affects our ability to reach people.

Closing

That digression aside, I wrote this article because of recent interactions with a friend. I'm not sure he realizes how his worldview is not harmonious within itself, let alone with God. Rather than bring him down, I'd like to use our interactions for this post as an example. Far from attacking him, I want to remind him and those like him that having one's cake and eating it too is a worldly deficit creeping into our lives today. We can't ignore God or tell Him off and then expect His blessing.

All verses are taken from the NASB version, which I recommend. Mine is a Holmans' The Apologetic's Study Bible, courtesy of my wonderful mother. I recommend it because it has many commentaries and food for thought sections inserted throughout. Sadly, yours won't come with the notes my mother wrote. Make your own and pass them on to accomplish this feat.

Social Expectations in Short Long-Hand

Introduction

I often talk with one of my good friends from high school. He's a student with me here at university and our conversations are never fluffy. Time after time, we talk about, in no small detail, social expectations. We cover a broad range, from physical appearance to "standard double standards". To cover each category in one post would be mind-numbing, perhaps lethal, both in writing and reading. Thus I have selected a few topics I deal with in my everyday life, some that I feel I can speak best on.

Expectations of Women

Perhaps the most potent expectation is that of physical appearance. Far from looking trendy, I just wear whatever is available. Most guys dress decently, with the exception of droopy drawers. You probably saw this coming a mile away, but I'll be focusing on the role women are expected to play. Literally from birth, we're all bombarded by advertising and messages of all sorts. The troubling trend I see is that women are expected to be sexy, yet then demeans them for it. Spiritually, I'd argue that modesty preserves one's dignity. Still, even if a woman wants to show herself off, she's then degraded for it. This is one of the rare times that I suspend my own beliefs; truly, women are forced into a no-win scenario. If she's modest, she's under huge social pressure to change. If she's trendy, that's cool but probably not to the degree society expects. Then if she is up to snuff, she's subjected to all sorts of crap for it. If she flaunts it...you get the idea.

Is it any wonder why we still see teen pregnancies, among other such hallmarks? Rather than at least prevent society's schizophrenia, we have have a dualism that defeats itself. True, I wish to see a world where the expectation is a modest, dignified beauty that women can be proud of. No need to show off, just living life and using her abilities to impress, like men pretty much do now (not boys, if you catch this brief differentiation). That's what I'd like to see. Still, the problem of "being to hot" for society's standard would pervade. It's a classic no win scenario. Humans are shallow. This only stirs the surface of the issue.

Teaching, a Cure-all

And now for something completely different. Have you ever had a bad teacher? How about a good one? We've all had a teacher, or at least a mentor, that we loved dearly. Perhaps that individual caused a chosen career path, or a passionate hobby. Teachers are pretty darn important. They're expected by society to be caretaker, counselor, taskmaster, knowledge dispenser, and even other jobs. Yet we see continually harsher expectations with the same amount of resources.

I could teach just about any math class back at my old high school at a pretty high success rate (for a young teacher, that is) despite my low experience. I know the material, what to expect in that social area, and so on. I know I'd have the resources to succeed, at the very least.

This is not the case everywhere. There are many neighborhoods where education is already on the brink of self-destruction. No Child Left Behind creates a usually-destructive trend that kills schools in such areas. What then? Is there a replacement? If so, does it fare better? I actually shudder to know; truth is, I haven't checked. The expectation of kids to suddenly want to learn more or learn better despite higher expectations with the same limited resources is baffling.

Learning becomes an evil machine rather than an enlightening process. Is it any wonder that a neighborhood composed of people of color will accuse a white person of privilege? Other issues aside, their kids will have a snowball's chance in Hell to get an education just to attempt to work their way up in life. Again, this is only a hair's breadth of the issue.

Professionalism, a.k.a People Suck

Finally, a sort of rhetorical question, something that's irked me for some time now. Why is it that if someone misses a date or meeting, or even work, the response is to verbally guillotine them? Throughout my life, I've had the privilege of being asked why I wasn't in my designated spot. Upon responding, I would always be told that the reason isn't good enough. This includes: nearly sliding off the road at 15 mph after the bus came early; being clinically depressed and arriving late to class and thus having homework rejected; simply being honest (don't get me started on law enforcement); and let's not forget people who start meetings/class/etc. five minutes late but penalize students who come in after the class is scheduled to start, but before anything actually happens. These are all situations I have experienced.

Why should an accident mean so much to someone's career? It's like in a sitcom: some friends are hanging out and they get ticked/sad/overly hopeful that the token outcast person didn't show up. Then they figure out he was mugged or something. Then it's tears and they accept the outcast and all that good stuff. Why is it that it takes something so drastic for an absence or tardy to be acceptable? Professionals might not have a choice: a barking dog preventing sleep, a faulty alarm (or several), exhaustion, the list is nearly endless. Society expects people to literally pay in blood, and usually mental health, for a mistake. Honesty means nothing; explanations are just excuses. Perhaps I've grown cynical in my experiences, but I've lived this trend.

Conclusion

Well, that's certainly a long post. Hopefully I've given you something to think about. Make a positive change about one of these points. Whether it's words of encouragement or volunteering your time, work for "the least of these" as Christ said.

A "Quick" Note

I decided to keep this separate from any other post, and it was too long to simply tweet. Two things are often posed to me in conversation and I figured it'd be good to list them here. One is use of Scripture and the is church attendance.

I think I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I'll repeat myself here. The point of this blog is to make arguments for Christianity, morality, and so on in a secular manner to show that the Bible is correct. Rather than do what many Christians do, my aim is to give unbelievers a reason to see consistency in Christianity. In terms of the faith, it's good to use the Bible to prove itself. However, if someone has no reason to find the Bible or the faith valid, then they'll need something else to do so. That's my aim here. The worst that happens is non-Christian people agree with me and Christians tell me Scripture I could use. Bombarding a nonbeliever with Scripture won't magically make them convert. Intellectualism will always attempt to be a substitute for Jesus Christ; my use or non-use of Scripture is not going to change that.

Secondly, church attendance. Nearly every ministry that I've spoken to a member of in the past few years will ask me what I believe, if I'm a Christian, and if I attend a church. Personal feelings aside, the big issue I see here is some "mustache growing." For unfamiliar readers, it's something I say instead of another male comparison. Anyways, I find that many ministries are interested more in numbers than anything else. With so many apostate churches, it's hard for me to take seriously very many claims by ministries.

This addition is mainly for Christians and "Christians": Asking me, or anyone else, what we believe, listening, and then asking if we have accepted Jesus when at least I, personally, already said I have in response to the first question, is a complete insult. Yes, some of us are intellectuals. We've all tried to be "normal" at some point (though I digress from that word now). We aren't going to want to attend your church if you undermine our entire thought process by assuming we're like the "intellectuals" that reject Christ. Never mind that many of us who scrutinize every detail won't attend a church with even a hint of apostasy.

I think you all get the picture, and I'm sure some of you, believers and nonbelievers alike, can relate. If something doesn't make sense to us who think in our way (mathematically in my case), we'll never get to the faith part. Ministries around the world are losing numbers by apostasy and limiting new numbers by alienating those of us who go intellectual->faith process rather than the opposite.