[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It depends on your source for masculinity, and I think the world at large would reject both our Christian definition and Lewis' allegory. I guess I meant more in generalizing terms - man is the provider, not the nurturer, in many cultures. So I see modern sexuality as playing more to male lust than anything else. So if the word "masculine" is loaded," let me change it to "male-centric" (phallocentric, perhaps - since gynocentric is a term).

I think either of those terms is a better description than "masculine," so sure.

Then again, I tend to reverse the modern dichotomy between the meaning of "sex" vs "gender."

Your two new terms are biological, not societal or psychological. They deal with "sex" and not with "gender."

It seems the etymologies are all wrong to use this dichotomy, though. They're linguistically all mixed up.

"Gender" is too much like "genus," "genital," "progeny" to have any but the anatomical sense.

"Sex," on the other hand, is related to division ("section") and deals with other differences.

I don't know how we got it mixed up. It used to be right. Feminism and homosexuality, I think.

We certainly haven't lost the biological element of sex, but we've lost the societal / psychological.

You said two things, that are not reconcilable, and that's where I think we'd still differ the most:

"I meant more in generalizing terms - man is the provider, not the nurturer, in many cultures."

"So I see modern sexuality as playing more to male lust than anything else."

This doesn't follow. "Man as provider" is not the same as "male lust," nor does it lead to it.

We don't have "man as provider" or "woman as nurturer" in the modern conception (ha!) of sex.

Reference the ever-rising number of absentee fathers and the ever-growing tab for welfare / child support.

That's why, I think, we don't have a "sexual" (using my dichotomy) picture of sex anymore. It's all biology.

Obviously, childbirth is a biological event, but it's something more than that, with societal implications.

We've reduced sex to something like what you described: phallocentric, nothing but physical lust.

All of the duty (both male and female), psychology (connections to the continuance of life) is lost.

"You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals."

"He was a boy, she was a girl, can I make it any more obvious."

The list could go on and on and on. Sex is just a biological event in the media.

We could say it has maintained the "male / female" qualities, but not the "masculine / feminine".

There's no "provider" or "nurturer" in the modern view; just a p**** and a v*****.

You know, Lewis uses the image of castration / emasculation (in a psychological, not purely physical, sense) in quite a few of his other works. My favorite, The Abolition of Man, has this particularly poignant section:

And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive', or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity'. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

I think these are the themes that Lewis was expanding on in the Space Trilogy.

Ransom is a "man with a chest". He isn't just a king and demigod, but an archetypal "everyman".

Mark and Jane's child isn't just an individual human exemplar, but a metaphor for an entirely new society.

The society is built on the newfound sex roles that Mark and Jane discovered. The society is Ransom's successor.

Reference the mixed up sexualities of all of the N.I.C.E. folks (especially Hardcastle) for more of this theme.

Hardcastle is exactly the kind of "aggressive" female that you describe. She plays a masculine role.

Almost all of the male N.I.C.E. members are, in contrast, sissies or fairies (funny, that's Hardcastle's name).

The whole reason for the third book (and why Thulcandra is the focus of it, rather than either of the first two) is to contrast the idealized femininity of Perelandra and masculinity of Malacandra with the hell that we have made of society here on Thulcandra because of our lack of either. Ransom has to travel to both of these other worlds before he can become the Pendragon who can restore his own.

[Nate]

I admit, I have no idea what this has to do with your poem. Heh.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

Your two new terms are biological, not societal or psychological. They deal with "sex" and not with "gender."

Actually, I would think they'd appeal to both. "Sex" as in division (which is done by physical characteristics, namely sexual organs) and "sex" as in the act - and same with "gender" as in divisions.

I'm a Freudian in the sense that I think there is great power to symbols, and often an unconscious power. When I think phallic object, I think of the symbolism, not merely the literal biology. In the same way, I think there's more to the idea of being gynocentric than just the biology. The way a woman's psyche is shaped by having that type of sexual organ is, I suspect, similar to how a man's is shaped by his. But neither are aware of the subtle ways their biology shapes them.

You said two things, that are not reconcilable, and that's where I think we'd still differ the most:

"I meant more in generalizing terms - man is the provider, not the nurturer, in many cultures."

"So I see modern sexuality as playing more to male lust than anything else."

This doesn't follow. "Man as provider" is not the same as "male lust," nor does it lead to it.

We don't have "man as provider" or "woman as nurturer" in the modern conception (ha!) of sex.

Reference the ever-rising number of absentee fathers and the ever-growing tab for welfare / child support.

Well, before you cast aside the connection between provision and male lust, think of the role man plays in most societies and in intercourse.

In intercourse, the man enters the woman. His sexual organs extrude from his body and enter a hidden place on the woman's body. His seed deposit half of a child's genetic material - but the woman not only produces the egg, her womb nourishes and stores the developing child. For man, his basic contribution to conception and childbirth is quick. He enters with all his strength, and withdraws spent. The woman, however, has nine months of contributions. Sex for the man has immediate rewards for providing - an orgasm is simple for a man to achieve, whereas it is comparatively difficult for a woman to achieve.

In most societies, the women spent almost all of their time in protected society (the womb of the village, so to speak), whereas the men head out to the forest or fields. The men engage in the most dangerous activity. The woman's time in the village is constant, whereas the man is less tied down.

So the provision connection I'm making is that man in instinctual human society usually has the dominant role, and is the one providing necessities - but it is the woman who nurtures and shapes his resources.

Male lust seeks to contribute as little as possible, and to be nurtured as much as possible. It has the basic mechanics right (man provides the genetic material)

Our culture has moved from the shameful attitude of the past few centuries that the female orgasm is wrong, but now we're moving toward the idea that it operates just like the male one. Most men would be content with as much sex as possible, but they'd generally also like to think they please the woman they're with. So men want the best of both worlds - the ability to have as much sex with as little responsibility, while still being seen as a good provider (providing the orgasm).

Basic lust is a biological gift that keeps us procreating. But a lustful worldview takes the male's instinct to provide and fractures it so he provides only what serves his own desires. Likewise, a fractured worldview for a woman may take the nurturing instinct and twist it into a possessive drive.

Look at the "extended adolescence" of our generation, dependent on their parents for longer and longer after high school. I suspect it is the fathers being disinterested in doing anything more than paying their children's bills, and the mothers being unable to let ago of their child.

Mark and Jane's child isn't just an individual human exemplar, but a metaphor for an entirely new society.

The society is built on the newfound sex roles that Mark and Jane discovered. The society is Ransom's successor.

Perhaps. I'd have to re-read the book to see if society can really be the new Pendragon.

Remember that I'm a post-post-modernist, so grand metanarratives still make me nervous. However, as a post-post-modernist, I suspect that there are necessary axioms to all areas of human existence.

If masculinity means providing for a family, then I'm excluded from that definition because I neither have one nor desire one. I'm not anywhere close to a real relationship at this moment, and am content with what I have, so I don't intend to get married at this point. Nor do I feel any pang of worry at the thought of being single forever. If masculinity means sex, same thing.

Many cultures viewed holy individuals are going beyond gender. I'm not comfortable with that either. Many of the great men in Scripture were single, or had their marriages downplayed. I wouldn't say, however, that Paul was "beyond sexuality" or "beyond gender."

I also know homosexual men that I feel are more ambitious, more intellectual, more personally responsible, etc. than average (and are not effeminate), so I view them as masculine.

I worry that many Reformed and evangelical thinkers, in their desire to save gender roles, are defining them in a way that excludes those of us not currently pursuing marriage. Not all of us want to be the shining knight rescuing the maiden - at least, not in the conventional sense. I think it's obvious that I view my personal work in poetry and philosophy as a pursuit to preserve what I find to be true and beautiful. But female authors do the same thing.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

I admit, I have no idea what this has to do with your poem. Heh.

Well, the title either refers to the one simile in the poem, or the idea that the entirety of the poem is a simile or sorts. One of the reasons (as a, natch, post-post-modernist) I seek elusiveness is because it can inspire many lines of thought. If I am tactfully elusive, I can inspire great thoughts that I myself as the poet never would have been able to conjure within you. If I try to write more prescriptively, I may block the process and inspire nothing within you.

This is the Age of Wikipedia, where using that hypertext Beulahland to check up Bazooka Joe leads you through two hours of clicking, only to find yourself at an article on swans. Hypertext has made us realize how every thinkable proposition can lead to another if it exists in the same body of knowledge.

There's also a great deal of opposition in this poem. The speaker headed west but his eyes are set east. The woman has left but it is as if she's still there. "the odd warmth of a cold bed," "a hill and a valley." The speaker says he's made his summer home in this locale, but then he discusses the woman's feet in the snow.

"the sweep of a ship upon the sea" is an allusion to Proverbs, where unfathomable, amazing things are listed. Beyond a ship, there's also a snake on the rocks, and the way of a man with a maiden.

Or maybe it's all ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ - hence why the old man of the deep speaks of "sealing wax," similar to the conversation at the Mad Hatter's tea party.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm a Freudian in the sense that I think there is great power to symbols, and often an unconscious power. When I think phallic object, I think of the symbolism, not merely the literal biology. In the same way, I think there's more to the idea of being gynocentric than just the biology. The way a woman's psyche is shaped by having that type of sexual organ is, I suspect, similar to how a man's is shaped by his. But neither are aware of the subtle ways their biology shapes them.

Sure.

Well, before you cast aside the connection between provision and male lust, think of the role man plays in most societies and in intercourse.

Hmm. I'm not sure I see a connection.

Whereas man's contribution to intercourse is momentary, his contribution to society and to family cannot possibly be.

Sex can maybe be a metaphor for the marital relationship, but it cannot be it. It can only explain so much. The link is weak.

Perhaps. I'd have to re-read the book to see if society can really be the new Pendragon.

Why must there be a new one?

I don't know. I'm probably misremembering bits and pieces of the book. It's been quite awhile since I last read it, too.

I do recall that it isn't just Mark and Jane's male-female relationship that is restored at the end: every character's is.

To use the analogy that's not quite perfect (and Lewis himself would probably have disdained), "It is finished," I think.

Christ's successor was not a king, but a kingdom. After Christ accomplished His purpose, there were no other Christs.

It seems, to me, like the purpose of the unbroken line of Pendragons in Strength was fulfilled in the end with Ransom.

Why would he be named "ransom," after all? It always brought to mind "Who gave Himself a ransom for all, at the proper time."

If masculinity means providing for a family, then I'm excluded from that definition because I neither have one nor desire one. I'm not anywhere close to a real relationship at this moment, and am content with what I have, so I don't intend to get married at this point. Nor do I feel any pang of worry at the thought of being single forever. If masculinity means sex, same thing.

Many cultures viewed holy individuals are going beyond gender. I'm not comfortable with that either. Many of the great men in Scripture were single, or had their marriages downplayed. I wouldn't say, however, that Paul was "beyond sexuality" or "beyond gender."

I also know homosexual men that I feel are more ambitious, more intellectual, more personally responsible, etc. than average (and are not effeminate), so I view them as masculine.

I worry that many Reformed and evangelical thinkers, in their desire to save gender roles, are defining them in a way that excludes those of us not currently pursuing marriage. Not all of us want to be the shining knight rescuing the maiden - at least, not in the conventional sense. I think it's obvious that I view my personal work in poetry and philosophy as a pursuit to preserve what I find to be true and beautiful. But female authors do the same thing.

This is difficult.

In some sense, I think I would have to argue that masculinity cannot be so except within the bonds of marriage and family.

I'm not sure how far that can go, though. Obviously, that particular kind of masculinity (and femininity) must always exist.

To use a reductio argument of sorts: If masculinity allowed of celibacy, then non-procreative society could still have masculinity.

Somehow, I just don't think that masculinity could exist in a world without procreation or family. If it can't, it's somehow tied up in it.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

Hmm. I'm not sure I see a connection.

Whereas man's contribution to intercourse is momentary, his contribution to society and to family cannot possibly be.

Sex can maybe be a metaphor for the marital relationship, but it cannot be it. It can only explain so much. The link is weak.

Of course his contribution is not meant to be momentary. That's why I view male lust as a corruption of the provision angle. Man wants to provide as little as possible yet reap great rewards.

So to return to what started this debate, this is why I think the issue with modern sexuality is primarily that we've played to the masculine side too much. The penetrative side that seeks to send forth, not nurture.

Why must there be a new one?

I don't know. I'm probably misremembering bits and pieces of the book. It's been quite awhile since I last read it, too.

I do recall that it isn't just Mark and Jane's male-female relationship that is restored at the end: every character's is.

To use the analogy that's not quite perfect (and Lewis himself would probably have disdained), "It is finished," I think.

Christ's successor was not a king, but a kingdom. After Christ accomplished His purpose, there were no other Christs.

It seems, to me, like the purpose of the unbroken line of Pendragons in Strength was fulfilled in the end with Ransom.

Why would he be named "ransom," after all? It always brought to mind "Who gave Himself a ransom for all, at the proper time."

I dunno, I thought a successor, implied to be a person, was prophesied in the book itself. I may be wrong. I don't think there needs to be one, anymore than I think that Ransom needed to even been a Pendragon.

This is difficult.

In some sense, I think I would have to argue that masculinity cannot be so except within the bonds of marriage and family.

I'm not sure how far that can go, though. Obviously, that particular kind of masculinity (and femininity) must always exist.

To use a reductio argument of sorts: If masculinity allowed of celibacy, then non-procreative society could still have masculinity.

Somehow, I just don't think that masculinity could exist in a world without procreation or family. If it can't, it's somehow tied up in it.

You might enjoy the graphic novel Y: the Last Man, where practically every man (the main character is the exception) is killed by a plague.

To take this argument to another logical conclusion, if God calls a man to celibacy, does He therefore call him to be unmasculine?

I'd love to have these Lewis/theology/sociology debates in person, but I wonder if we'd be able to converse there like we do here. Of course, I worried about the same thing with Role Modlin...

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I dunno, I thought a successor, implied to be a person, was prophesied in the book itself. I may be wrong. I don't think there needs to be one, anymore than I think that Ransom needed to even been a Pendragon.

I think it was, but it was left wide open as to how it was fulfilled. I think Ransom obtained the title directly from the prior Pendragon, at his deathbed. Ransom, however, disappears before naming a new Pendragon. Seems like a strange break in an otherwise unbroken succession.

You might enjoy the graphic novel Y: the Last Man, where practically every man (the main character is the exception) is killed by a plague.

To take this argument to another logical conclusion, if God calls a man to celibacy, does He therefore call him to be unmasculine?

I don't know.

I think He calls him to, at least, a different type of it. Paul seems to imply that an unmarried man is not concerned with the things of this world, and only with those of the next.

He also writes that in Christ there is neither male nor female. The eschatological image of the Church is strictly feminine. "There, they neither marry nor are given in marriage."

I suppose the question is whether earthly masculinity / feminity is completed in heaven, or whether it is exchanged for something else. I think I know Lewis' answer.

If earthly masculinity / feminity is made perfect in heaven, then it must now include the unmarried, since all of the saints will be so. If it is changed, it could be different now.

I'd love to have these Lewis/theology/sociology debates in person, but I wonder if we'd be able to converse there like we do here. Of course, I worried about the same thing with Role Modlin...

I don't know. I'm much less talkative in real life.

[Jeffrey]

Is there, then, a call for all men to be masculine? Do all men need to be masculine?

If so, then I return to my earlier grumble: that in presenting the need for stronger men, pastors do not clearly define masculinity and thus create a standard by which celibate men will fail.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Is there, then, a call for all men to be masculine? Do all men need to be masculine?

I don't know.

If so, then I return to my earlier grumble: that in presenting the need for stronger men, pastors do not clearly define masculinity and thus create a standard by which celibate men will fail.

Driscoll et al? ("Jesus was a dude.")

Eldridge et al? ("Wild at heart.")

I can certainly relate to a grumble about a very vaguely defined "manliness" (almost "machismo", really) pervading the church's response to modernism / feminism.