There seems to be a growing idea in our world today that we don’t actually need men for much more than their “contribution” to the furthering of the human race. This idea has become so prevalent that an opinion piece about it has made its way to the New York Times. Greg Hampikian, the author of the NY Times piece, “Men, Who Needs Them?”, argues that men – outside of their miniscule contribution to reproduction – are not necessary for bearing and raising children, thus implying that perhaps we don’t need men at all. So who needs men anyway?
As Husbands and Fathers
Where would we be without the example of St. Joseph, who listened to the voice of the angel in his dreams and sheltered Mary so that Jesus would be brought into the world? We need men who listen readily to the voice of God, thus leading and protecting the family unit.
Our need, however, for men, goes much deeper than their contribution to reproduction – however biologically insignificant that may be. Men, as Paul famously details in Ephesians 5, are the head of the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church. Men witness, in a profound way, the meaning of sacrificial love. The sacrifices of love teach us what love is really about: willing the good of another. When males minimally contribute to reproduction are they truly willing the good of another? To create life is good, but to father, guide and raise that new life is a far greater good to will. Women sacrifice for their children in a special way during pregnancy and child-rearing, while men sacrifice for their wives and children by laying down their lives and hearts before them, serving to protect and provide for a family. St. Joseph sacrificed by fleeing in the middle of the night to Egypt. We, Scripturally speaking, know very little about Saint Joseph, though I trust that God would not have trusted His only Son to the care of Joseph had Joseph not been willing to sacrifice and protect both Mary and Jesus.
This is not to say that women are helpless without men. Certainly, we are not. The truth, however, is that we need each other, and for far more than basic reproduction and continuance of the human race. We are made out of the relationship of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and are therefore made for relationship. If, someday, God allows me to be a mother, I want to be one in relationship, and not simply with a sperm donor, as Hampikian suggests. Furthermore, I want my child to be in relationship with his/her father, and to be fathered by (God-willing) my husband, and in a much deeper sense than having provided the “minimally necessary contribution” to reproduction. In the same vein, if God calls me to married life, it will be a vocation lived out in relationship with a man, not a robot. Married life, motherhood and fatherhood, are relational and require vulnerability, heart, trust, and faith to thrive. Parenting should not, and cannot, be divorced from deep relationships (as opposed to short relationships that occur in artificial insemination, as Hampikian implies).
As Men
Some may still argue that we don’t need men as fathers and husbands, though I disagree, does that mean that we don’t need men at all? No. The world needs men because without men our world would be unbalanced. The way women tend to look at, analyze, and solve problems is different than the way men do. Good, bad, or otherwise, we face problems differently, and it is through coming together that we reach solutions. Our genders were made to complement each other, whether we are married, raising children, or not. As a single women, I need men in my life. Men have a greater tendency to keep me grounded and focused on what is really important. Men, far more than my female friends, have the necessary gift of leading me to Christ. Whether it is through the gift of the priesthood, the diaconate, or simply as brothers in Christ, men have the great charge and duty to lead others to the heart of Jesus. I, for one, would be lost without the witness of my brothers in Christ. They challenge us in a different way than our sisters in Christ do, and that challenge is necessary for us to grow in holiness. By imaging Christ, men, true men, spur women on to seeking the heart of Jesus.
Not Boys
I would contend that what the world needs is more men, less boys. Age is no longer a determining factor for manhood. Women today – whether we readily admit it or not – are hungering for true men. The world is hungry for men who lead and love as Christ did, men who witness Him in all that they do, whether it is working at a menial job or fighting for our country. However, boys seem to run rampant. Boys, as opposed to men, are not nearly as focused on Christ and imaging His love. Boys tend to be selfish, and are only interested in furthering mankind by “donating” as little to the process as possible. Men, on the other hand, want to get dirty, so to speak, as Christ did. Men have a heart that is set on fire for their brothers and sisters, and it is this heart that leads them to contribute as much as they can – their very lives, if it is asked of them – for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
What the world needs is more men who strive, every day, to image the love of Christ. Who needs true, Christ-like men? We all do.
17 thoughts on “The Necessity of Men”
Thanks for writing, Amanda! Great job. I like it.
You’re welcome, glad you enjoyed it!
This topic seems timely, especially in light of Mrs. Ann Romney’s speech last night at the Republican National Convention in which she said the following:
This is truly wearisome. It is attitudes like these, so prevalent in our society, that tempt many men, at least those who aren’t pandering for votes or other forms of popularity contests, to throw up their hands and ask, why bother? We are accustomed to thinking that the Republican party is not as rabidly feminist as the Democrat, but could Mrs. Romney been more effective in expressing ingratitude to men than she was here? In the first paragraph quoted above she tempts men into thinking that she may appreciate them just as much as women, only later to remind them that their contributions, compared to those of women, are insignificant.
The Romney’s appear to be the lesser of two evils: I guess we have been settling for that in last couple of elections.
As far as this article: not too bad. However if leadership is shown by example, then $$$$ is probably the biggest factor in determining manhood in the Catholic Church and amoung Catholic Women.
Would today’s 20-30 Catholic women prefer the $27,000 and up Catholic Church Wedding with all the nice tuxes, dresses, country club reception and foriegn honeymoon with a successful man ($$$) who may have some flaws such as a wondering eye over a modest wedding where the man may wear his best suit and the reception is a simple dinner if this man is a true Catholic?
If you had the misfortune of going to a “Catholic” College, their entire emphasis towards is alumni is we want money, we want money, we want money. You are only as good as your check book.
As a woman, I couldn’t disagree more. Money, while it can be a determining factor for many women, is not the biggest factor of determining manhood. Manhood is determined far more by maturity, faith, and the ability to lead – whether that leadership takes place in relationships, family, career, or all of the above.
As for your note about a Catholic woman preferring the fancy wedding to the man with some flaws over the modest wedding to the truly Catholic man, I would contend that if a female prefers the fancy wedding (given the conditions you have listed) then she’s not really a woman, she is more a girl. There is a large difference between boys and men, as well as women and girls. Peronally speaking, I’d rather have the modest wedding to a Catholic man. The value of such a man cannot be put into numbers, and even if it could, it would far outweigh the fancy wedding extravaganza. I want a strong and stable *marriage* over a fancy *wedding* any day of the week.
I’m not entirely sure if your last comment was directed at the college I attended for not, but I can assure you the focus of my time in college was not on money, nor was it on how much money I could or should donate upon graduation. My college focused on excellence and virtue and being a well-rounded, wholesome person. My college never once led me to believe that I am only as good as my checkbook, and I had the great fortune of being able to attend a passionately Catholic college.
I really don’t know where you are getting this “anti-saintmaking babble” from. Mrs. Romney is speaking as a mother, to mothers. Quite simply, she appealed to women, who have been told by the media and the Democratic party that that the Republicans have it out for them. Her goal was to connect with women, to show them that yes, these eeeviiilll Republicans really do know what its like being a woman, and respect women for all the work they do. To think that a woman who sacrifice her career for her family would go about bashing the role of men is ridiculous. You’re reading too much into it.
To put things in perspective, imagine someone, man or woman, getting up at the convention and expressing similar sentiments about men as Mrs. Romney did with women (e.g., instead of women, it is men “who work a little harder…who hold the country together…who always have to do a little more…who have to work a little harder to earn respect”). Even if it was a woman speaking of men this way, it would not have been received well; if it was a man doing this, everyone would be calling to lop off his misogynistic head.
This is not an appeal by me to view men as the real victims in our society, or to demonstrate how unfair everything is for men these days. It’s an appeal to step back and take a look at what is truly being said, and how it reflects on the assumptions we make as to what is true. I’m not suggesting someone should begin to praise men in a similar way that Mrs. Romney has praised women. I am suggesting that the path of the saints is made less accessible by the empty flattery that comes from the mouth of politicians and public figures when they tempt women to self-conceit and unrealistic self-important views of themselves. If all baptized are called to be saints, how do Mrs. Romney’s words help women in this endeavor, when she inflates the ordinary duties of a woman as wife, mother, daughter, etc. as something heroic? Contrast this with the instruction of our Lord in the Gospel, where he calls each of us to consider ourselves to be “unprofitable servants” even if we have accomplished monumental tasks in the eyes of the world.
Men count on women to live this humility out in their own particularly feminine way, because there is almost assuredly no other instructor to compare with that of truly feminine humility as only women can live out. When women abandon this role, as so many have in our day, there is nothing that can replace it.
Fitting point, buckyinky. The truth of the matter is that we need each other. While, as Mrs. Romney says, men may not fully understand our struggle, I don’t think we fully understand the struggle of manhood. What we need is not to tear down the genders but to build them up in the ways that they complement each other. Are there ways we could be better, as women, and as men? Surely. The important piece to remember is *constructive* criticism that eggs us on to holiness, as opposed to criticism that tears us down, demotivates us and keeps us further from the heart of Jesus.
I hope women can see through the empty flattery of Mrs. Romney’s and other speeches from last night. There was a lot of anti-saintmaker babble.
Great post, Amanda.
I’m convinced more and more that my own vocation has something to do with inspiring guys to be men. I’m tired of grown boys playing video games instead of manning up to take care of their families!
Amen to that!
I love my dad and am glad to have him…he’s different and yet we’re so alike.
Are men needed? See the following and draw your own conclusions.
An anthropologist by the name of J.D. Unwin initiated a study with the premise that marriage was not necessary and possibly even detrimental to the development of great societies. At the end of this study he completely reversed his hypothesis.
“Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations,” writes Fitzpatrick, “was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin”:
In “Sex and Culture,” Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society’s destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment.
Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression, and achieved greater social development.
In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative and geographically expansive societies on earth.
The following are grave words for the USA that come from noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin who found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.
Now we can do a basic analysis of marriage in the USA. Current illegitimacy rates are as follows:
Black 73%
Hispanic 53%
White 29%
for an overall rate of 42%. The future of the USA has been written. Currently the rate of illegitimacy for women of all races under 30 is 53%.
“Once a society departs from a social norm of absolute marital monogamy, social chaos ensues within three generations.” — Anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin
Some statistics from single parent families
– Graduate from high school less frequently
– Suffer more addictions
– Suffer more abuse
– Twice as likely to become an alcoholic
– Three times more likely to have a baby out of wedlock
– Five times more likely to commit suicide
– Five times more likely to fall into poverty
– Twelve times more likely to be incarcerated.
I would say it’s difficult to be a man in today’s world because society has taught women for the past 2 generations that you don’t need men. So you get a society of men who are truly despondent because they have been berated by women their entire lives. If you wanna see men be men, it’s time for women to act like women.
Pingback: The Necessity of Men
Pingback: Men and Contraception: Loving Our Wives and Laying Down Our Lives : IgnitumToday
comment