Sissy Jesus

There has been some discussion on various blogs about whether the traditional depiction of Jesus is as a "sissy" and, if so, how that should be countered. Some argue that Jesus should be made more masculine, more "manly." That would, presumably, be a more attractive and appealing Jesus to "real men."

Donald Sensing writes:

In the tame, domesticated and frankly feminine images of Jesus we use, we suppress Jesus’ masculinity, of which shepherding is one example. It’s a cultural thing, you see. Boys and men find it overwhelmingly important to be seen as manly men, independent, confident and self-assured, but Christian faith is culturally seen as a sort of wimpy crutch for people who can’t handle life on their own. Such stereotypes are reinforced by artistic and verbal images of Jesus that I think would make his first apostles wonder just whom we are talking about.

Presumably, girls and women aren't independent, confident, and self-assured, so they don't need to be seen in such a manner. Of course, if boys and men really were independent, confident, and self-assured, then they wouldn't be so consumed with how others see them - they would be independent of others' opinions, they would be confident of their own self-image, and they would be self-assured enough to go about their lives regardless of what others think.

Sensing's ideas touch upon those expressed by Kim du Toit - so let's examine central premise in an essay of his that has been making its rounds on the web:

Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools -- all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure. ... I want our culture to become more male.

Notice how quickly he elides from what he likes to what it means to be male - as if it should be obvious to readers that there isn't really any difference. What should be obvious to readers with some education about logical fallacies is that we are simply seeing and example of a non sequitur. Just because Kim really, really, really enjoys something doesn't mean that that activity is necessary to be a True Male.

There are women who like guns, politics, hunting, power tools, and so forth - are they True Males? Would Kim argue that they aren't True Females, simply because they like what he likes? Again, a non sequitur - but it's actually a non sequitur that masks another fallacy, the No True Scotsman fallacy. That fallacy occurs whenever someone argues that a person is a "true" member of a group on an ad hoc basis, using irrelevant criteria every time something unpleasant comes up.

Here, we see it being used in reverse - ad hoc criteria are employed right from the beginning to mark off a category in a manner inconsistent with logic, reason, or reality. Kim wants culture to become "more male," but his definition of what it means to be "male" is simply an ad hoc creation based upon what he happens to enjoy - thus, he wants culture to conform more closely to his own likes and dislikes. He wants conformity. But why? Is he so insecure that he needs others to agree with him? That doesn't make much sense if he were really "independent, confident and self-assured."

Unfortunately, this is an attitude which is very common. People argue that "True Christians" are those who agree with one's own preferred doctrines and habits, refusing to acknowledge that Christianity is a category that extends well beyond one's own narrow mental walls. Others argue that "True Atheists" are those who adopt a particular position on rationality and skepticism for the same reasons. Then we have those who would ascribe gender to certain activities, insisting that a "True Male" and "True Female" act and think only in certain prescribed ways - ways which are, obviously, cultural rather than biological, ad hoc rather than logical.

This is, almost inevitably, the attitude of someone who is insecure in how they define themselves - insecure in the idea that the labels they use might apply to more than people like themselves. Such insecurity is perhaps inevitable in the modern world where developing personal identity has become more complex than in prior generations. Before, social roles and social labels were much more rigid and much more strictly enforced - being a Christian, a male, a father, and so forth put you into a rather narrow set of options for behavior. Today, the options are greater - there is more you can do while still using those labels, but at the same time it is more difficult to figure out what you should do.

This has always been the paradox of liberty: being allowed to do more makes it harder to be sure what you should do. This, in turn, leads to an understandable insecurity for a lot of people. Being unsure of how to behave as a father, as a man, as a Christian, as an atheist, etc. can readily cause anxiety and stress; having rigid roles which limit one's options may then seem appealing because the make one's course clear and simple... but at the cost of liberty, not only for themselves but also for others who either didn't experience that anxiety or who didn't find it so difficult to deal with.

This brings us to the True Males like Donald and Kim. Why the desire to make sure that others see them as True Males? Why the desire to make sure that the larger culture helps enforce their choices about how to express their personality and desires? I can't speak about their personal situations - I can, however, note that their writing is not at all inconsistent with the above trends and likely fit in with them. This is, after all, not a question about whether they feel that their masculinity is expressed through power tools. It's a question about their claim that masculinity per se must be expressed through only certain behavior (like power tools or hunting). It's obvious that there is neither logical nor biological warrant for such claim; psychological motivations, however difficult to decipher, are all that is left.

An interesting analysis of du Toit's essay can be found a Philosoraptor:

[D]u Toit’s essay is brilliant in a way he probably never intended—it’s a masterpiece of self-confirmation. His main thesis is that Western males are becoming wimps, and his essay itself proves that there is at least some truth in the thesis; never before in human history has there been so much puling and whining about such inconsequential irritations. Du Toit’s groundless blubbering is, in the end, itself a partial confirmation of his point. In fact, du Toit’s essay probably deserves to spawn a neologism: duToitification and its cognates. You become duToitified when you’ve got it so good that you lose all perspective on the world and as a result exaggerate minor unpleasantries into vexations of Biblican proportions. That is, you become an insufferable weenie.

I can think of plenty of examples of duToitification. For example, many evangelical Christians have become duToitified because they see themselves as being persecuted on account of their not being able to enforce their Christianity on everyone else. Compare that to the experiences of Christians elsewhere in the world who actually risk death for their faith. The duToitification of evangelical Christians is especially ironic given the fact that du Toit is an atheist!

Read More:

• Books on Science and Skepticism
• Skepticism & Critical Thinking