As Girly as it Gets
by Motte Brown on 07/31/2008 at 6:47 AM
A couple of weeks ago on The Boundless Show we talked about how our culture emasculates men. But somehow we missed Tony Glenville's 2006 Top to Toe: A Comprehensive Guide to the Grooming of the Modern Male, which is the pièce de résistance of emasculation.
Randy Stinson of The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood has some excerpts of the book on his blog. Here's one of my faves, "A special occasion calls for special treatment, and taking the time to visit your hairdresser, go for a massage, and have a facial scrub will all add to your confidence."
The least Glenville could have done was substitute "barber shop" for "hairdresser" and "hot towel" for "facial scrub." Seriously, do men have hairdressers? I mean, I cut my own hair with a grooming kit I bought at Target. But I digress.
Stinson does a good job of arguing the dangers of Glenville's male pampering recommendations. He said that it will lead men to an unhealthy "self-preoccupation" and away from self-sacrifice, which is the very definition of biblical masculinity.
Men reading Glenville's book will only be encouraged in their sinful tendency to look out for themselves. If men are focused on such trivial things as dry skin and pampering themselves with long baths, it will be all the more difficult to expect them to lead, provide, and protect.
But will Christian men give way to a preoccupation with skin creams and bubble baths? Stinson continues that if the church continues to follow culture,
... we will have plenty of "Top to Toe" men, able to shop with the best of them at Bath and Body Works, but unwilling and unable to fulfill the Gospel demands that require toughness, self sacrifice, and self-neglect. We do not need prettier boys. We do not need softer men. What we need is a church culture that will call boys and men to lives of self sacrifice as exampled by the picture of Christ in Ephesians 5 who loved the church and gave himself for her to his own neglect and sacrifice. What we need are pastors who will boldly preach about and press for an ethos in their churches that expects this type of behavior from their men. What we need is a church culture that will require boys and men to do hard things, to cultivate toughness, resilience, and courage, top to toe.
Can I get an amen, men?
HT: Tim Challies
1. obewan said the following at 7:07 AM on Jul 31:
Don't we have more important things to worry about than where a man gets his hair cut or how he baths? I don't see this as a trend that will impact the church at all. The whole blog seems homophobic to me. I get my hair cut at a hair dresser because I have curly hair that is very hard to cut. The complete buzz is the only other thing that would work if I wanted to go to a barber. I can't help the way God made my hair if I plan to not wear a buzz cut. As for baths, my sister gave me some minerals so I have to use them up, so there!
2. Phil Craig said the following at 7:25 AM on Jul 31:
Amen!
But I will still pay £25 (about $50) to get a decent haircut that doesn't look like I want to join the army. They wash my hair and massage my head, but they give me a beer as well.
I make sure to mention the beer to guys and it makes it all ok...
3. Leann said the following at 7:41 AM on Jul 31:
I read Stinson's post yesterday and although I agree mostly with the premise, I must say that I don't want a stinky husband who doesn't care how he looks or smells. I know that's not the whole point of the post, but I do like the my husband cares about his cologne and uses hair product. And he's a nice dresser. But he's no metrosexual and he does have dry elbows and nose hairs/eyebrows that need to be "manscaped". But I don't hound him about that because after all, he is a man. I don't think there's anything wrong with a man caring about his appearance and the article seemed a bit harsh to me, as if men shouldn't care at all and couldn't fulfill "toughness, self sacrifice, and self-neglect" because they like nice shoes. Maybe it was just my interpretation because I'm a female. Some of the most manly men I know are not the strongest Christians I know.
4. Tamara said the following at 7:43 AM on Jul 31:
Well, you can get an amen from at least this woman. My question, however, is does this apply to women? Does indulging in "such trivial things as dry skin and pampering themselves with long baths" make us less able/prone/ready to fill the role of a Biblical woman? Why is it different? Is the key not the action of getting a facial, but the mindset, priority, and focus behind it? Is it possible for us to enjoy and take care of our outer beauty as a way of glorifying God through and for our femininity? And on the flip side, is there any way for men to glorify God with similar actions, while retaining masculinity? Or are facials and baths somehow inherently inappropriate for men? I feel like the problem lies more in the mindset behind "metro-sexual pampering" than in the actual actions. Hm....
5. Dasha said the following at 7:54 AM on Jul 31:
Well, I'm not a guy, but I must agree with the sentiments described here. It seems a lot of society is devoted to making men "softer" and more "emotionally in tune" these days. I wonder if the men writing this stuff realize that we girls want to know men that are masculine?
6. P&P said the following at 7:59 AM on Jul 31:
Many years ago, I read an article about the last of the old-time matchmakers. This man would sit down with a man looking for a wife and interview him about likes, dislikes, ideals, deal-breakers, etc.
At the end of the interview, the matchmaker would open the closet to his office, which had a mirror on inside door and say "Look at this! Would the woman you describe want to be with a man like you?"
There's nothing wrong with a good haircut, regular trips to the dentist and some good quality clothes.
Think about it; they always say a woman is a sucker for a man in uniform. Could it be because he's required to be well groomed?
7. James said the following at 8:00 AM on Jul 31:
AMEN!
Though a massage (after a long week those feel SOOOOOO good) and then a trip to the barber's for a shave and a haircut (no longer 2 bits, and not in that order) is awesome for feeling great. Though with the way my beard grows, no barber has been able to shave it without nicking my neck pretty badly. I can do it fine with no cuts, but I cheat: I use a safety razor, while they use a straight blade. I did find a place that does a pretty good job, though. It's just a bit pricey, but still a barber shop.
I only go in for a shave when I also need a haircut, though. No sense in spending that $$ when all I need done is something I normally do myself.
I think, though, that being a well-groomed man is a good idea, but NOT to the point where you're obsessed about your looks and acting more girly than the girly-girls. That just makes you look like a pansy, not like a real man.
8. Melanie said the following at 8:02 AM on Jul 31:
You stated above: "Stinson does a good job of arguing the dangers of Glenville's male pampering recommendations. He said that it will lead men to an unhealthy "self-preoccupation" and away from self-sacrifice, which is the very definition of biblical masculinity."
Aren't both men and women called to self-sacrifice in the name of following Christ? And isn't this "unhealthy self-preoccupation" exactly what is common of our culture's women already?
9. Lucie said the following at 8:06 AM on Jul 31:
Randy Stinson badly needs to take a chill pill. Men are certainly capable of "doing hard things,cultivating toughness," etc. even if they choose to exfoliate.
10. Resa111 said the following at 8:06 AM on Jul 31:
I thought self-sacrifice is what Christians are called to, not just Christian men.
Anyway, I think it is a huge leap to say that a little pampering leads to self-centeredness. Anyone I know that has some of this type of "pampering" done, does so to relax and relieve some stress. I do not see how that takes away from anyone's masculinity (not that I buy into your complementarian views anyhow.)
11. Khalil said the following at 8:30 AM on Jul 31:
I think it is pretty sick and close to being prissy when men get manicures and pedicures. Just my opinion.
12. Rachael said the following at 8:55 AM on Jul 31:
I am not a male grooming expert in the least, but, say a guy does spend more time taking care of his body than an average person/man...I don't think that from that we can automatically deduce that that person won't step up to the plate and sacrifice less than himself than a man who approaches his looks with a more carefree style.
13. JJ said the following at 8:59 AM on Jul 31:
Going to get a haircut? Buying his own clothes? The horror! I'm sure a lot of men waste more time waxing their cars - but that would be ok right? Taking some extra time for hygiene does not mean a man can't fulfill his duties.
14. DannieA said the following at 9:05 AM on Jul 31:
a man who takes time to look good, is a-ok with me.
I concur with P&P last statement about women falling for men in uniform. I can't think of any other type of male that is trained to be more meticulous about his whole appearance and order then they. And I highly doubt that people think they are not masculine.
taking care of oneself and looking good does NOT equal self-centerdness or being a pansy
15. Dan Gill said the following at 9:31 AM on Jul 31:
You get a hearty "Amen!" from me. Frankly, the culture's preoccupation with women's outward appearance is over the top, and extending it to men is just making the problem worse.
Good grooming is one thing, obsession is another. We already reward men who dress well (i.e. expensively) and those who are tall and good looking. Let's not extend that trend, please.
Manhood is about stepping up, taking responsibility, protecting the helpless and oppressed, and walking with God.
I can't help but snicker a little at a man who's afraid to get dirty . . .
16. Rebecca said the following at 9:47 AM on Jul 31:
So.... We have Candace writing blogs telling ladies to lose weight, take extra care when grooming, and dress in a flattering manner (generally to focus on keeping up an attractive outward appearance) to attract a man.... and Randy basically saying that anything beyond basic bathing is unnecessary for men. This does not make any sense.
17. Craig M. said the following at 9:48 AM on Jul 31:
Yes, OF COURSE you can tell something about a man by the fact that he's comfortable with the idea of "pampering himself with a bubble bath and a manicure" before a "big night." Look, no one is saying guys shouldn't use deoderant, get their hair cut, comb their hair, shower and wear clean clothes that match. That's called being an adult. But here we're talking about what the Romans would have regarded as "Greek affectations." Being consumed with prettiness and comfort to the point that you're obsessing over manicures, eyebrow tweezing and facial scrubs is fundamentally unmasculine.
18. Miss S said the following at 9:53 AM on Jul 31:
Surely there is nothing wrong with looking nice with basic self-care as a man...but seriously - things like facials and manicures are just over the top. I have dated several men that are definitely too self-absorbed. It's a sad day when men care more about the details of their appearance then women do of themselves. There is something so...unmanly about that. I agree with Motte & Glenville.
19. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:19 AM on Jul 31:
Tamara (#4),
I was thinking the same thing when I was reading it...
Seriously I've always taken large issue with women who over-obsessed about shoes (shoes were made for walking, you don't need a pair for EVERY outfit) and their looks.
I definitly agree that selflessness is limited to only one gender...
But (as I've been learning lately), part of ME being a WOMAN, selflessness can come in my becoming SOFT and BEAUTIFUL for my husband...I sincerely hate spending an hour on my hair, wearing heels, doing my nails, and wearing makeup. But the look on his face when he opens the door and sees me is worth every second I spend (and I only do it on special occassions...)
My sister never took care of her feet (we were both tomboys and liked to run around barefoot), but her husband LOVES to give her foot massages and likes her feet soft...so she spends a lot of time keeping her feet manicured and soft...for him =p
As some women have noted, it is nice to have a man with good hygiene. But there's a difference between not biting nails, keeping them trimmed and going to get a manicure from a professional.
There's a difference between using Proactive and Neutrogena to keep your skin clear without wearing makeup to hide what is being stubborn and not going away.
A difference between spending an hour blow-drying, gelling, combing, hairspraying and getting a regular haircut, combing it everyday.
Really, I prefer a man with calluses on his hands and a farmer's tan over a guy with soft hands who goes to a tanning bed... There's a sense of strength, hardness, and attraction I find in a man unafraid to break a sweat... and I think it makes the softness I can bring to the relationship much more appreciated.
20. Craig M. said the following at 10:31 AM on Jul 31:
Rebecca (#16): Randy's complaint (and Candace would likely agree) is that excessive concern about one's appearance and an interest in "pampering" treatment is UNMASCULINE. Can you not understand how being unmasculine might be a fine thing thing for women, but not for men?
Honestly, is it really that hard to understand that men and women are different, and that some things that are appropriate for one sex are not appropriate for the other? It's like talking to a wall sometimes...
21. mallie said the following at 10:32 AM on Jul 31:
There seems to be many negative comments that insist Motte is going way overboard; but I think you guys are missing the point. I don't think he means that no guy is supposed to get his haircut, or that a bit of cologne is wrong. Of coarse you can give some attention to basic grooming, but I think his point is that, if for a guy building up himself (to feel goodlooking, confident,etc.) is more important than building up his wife, or even building those around him up, something is wrong.
22. Mike said the following at 11:10 AM on Jul 31:
Christina said -
Really, I prefer a man with calluses on his hands and a farmer's tan over a guy with soft hands who goes to a tanning bed... There's a sense of strength, hardness, and attraction I find in a man unafraid to break a sweat... and I think it makes the softness I can bring to the relationship much more appreciated.
It's interesting that, until very recently in history, a tan was not considered attractive on a woman. (Snow White, anyone?) Now, we have women doing the tanning bed thing three times a week - and turning their skin into leather in the process. But ruggedness in a man is a sign of strength, virility, all that good stuff. And, since sun exposure causes wrinkles - something that women fear but men tend to ignore - it seems to fit, no?
(Of course, there's the skin cancer angle, but let's not go there...it spoils the imagery...) :-)
23. Tigger said the following at 11:54 AM on Jul 31:
Really now. Hygiene and good grooming are quite different from pampering yourself. All adults, male, female, or what have you, ought to have good hygiene: washed, teeth brushed, combed hair, deodorant. But manicures, pedicures, professional shaving, softly lit and scented baths? Don't even we as women overdo that?
I too like a man in uniform. But I've grown up around men on Harleys, and so a beard and long hair I've found pretty attractive too. It's not the cleanliness I'm attracted to, because most people in the Western world really are clean (try sharing a hot-weather city with a large immigrant population from very poor places!), but the manliness of the uniform or the guy on a big bike.
It's not too much for either sex to care about how they present themselves to the world. Really. We just overthink this way too much.
And that is true about women having tans not being popular until recently. If you had a tan, it meant you were poor and worked outside. If you had alabaster skin, you could lay around all day under a parasol.
And funnily enough it works the same way for weight. The richer the culture, the skinnier the ideal for beauty. It means your culture is so secure in its wealth that you need never worry about whether you'll get your next meal. Not eating becomes the luxury. But for most of history, people were really poor - compared to now! So women with meat on their bones meant they were the cream of the crop; they didn't have to work for their food.
24. Liz said the following at 12:39 PM on Jul 31:
This post was just too much for me. While I totally get that men and women are different, exfoliation does NOT make a man feminine, and I would be willing to bet that there are many hairy, macho-types out there who are actually huge softies. Real manhood doesn't have a thing to do with presenting a "rough" image for women to swoon over. While God has a clear definintion for Biblical men and women, he as also created us (yes, even us Christians)with a wide variety of personalities, interests and personal tastes. To try to contain all of those differences under the same umbrella is just unrealistic. As a single, straight woman, I think chest hair is gross. Manscape away, lads!
25. Laurie said the following at 1:07 PM on Jul 31:
I don't think that the things Stinson lists in his second quote are mutually exclusive from men preferring to be well groomed and spending time on their looks. I think calling a book on grooming and pampering emasculating reflects a (culturally, personally, I don't know?) limited understanding of what masculine is.
I could understand the argument that the book is too materialistic, but I think that argument would apply if it was aimed to men or women.
26. Craig M. said the following at 1:17 PM on Jul 31:
"Exfoliation does not make a man feminine..." Yes, it does. So does excessive body-waxing or manicuring. These are quintessentially feminine pursuits, overwhelmingly favored by females. You can be into feminine men if you want, but that doesn't change that they are feminine men.
27. Alex A said the following at 1:26 PM on Jul 31:
Dan, in 15, says that "Manhood is about stepping up, taking responsibility, protecting the helpless and oppressed, and walking with God." Is this different than the calling women receive? I may not be protecting the helpless and the oppressed with my fists, but I think that Micah 6:8 applies to both genders.
Craig M (#17), what is "fundementally unmasculine" about getting "manicures, eyebrow tweezing and facial scrubs?" Obviously being obsessed and consumed about looks would be problematic for either gender. I think the problem is the definition of masculinity: we don't have one. I agree with the blogger that the character things are more important, but they are not mutally exclusive. In 20, you say that "concern about one's appearance and an interest in 'pampering' treatment is UNMASCULINE." Clearly excessive concern about these things is a character flaw, but on what basis do you consider concern for one's appearance and "pampering" (a loaded word) treatments? Who decides what is and is not sex appropriate? You? Boundless? Is it possible that Liz is correct(24), and enjoyment of grooming is something a man can enjoy as well as whatever you would consider masculine. Despite what Dan suggested (15), an individual can find enjoyment in grooming AND not mind getting dirt under their fingernails.
28. Alex A said the following at 1:33 PM on Jul 31:
Craig, in 26, you define a feminine pursuit as something "overwhelmingly favored by females." Is a college education now a feminine pursuit because there are more women in it than men? These may not be overwhelming. However, there are many things overhwhelmingly done by one gender. Is whitewater kayaking quintessentially masculine because it is overwhelmingly done by males? This definition would change based on cultural norms, and fails to account for the variety God has created within humanity. I would think the time of Biblical/ moral "quintessentially" masculine or feminine pursuits would be things that did not change based on time in history and culture.
29. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:40 PM on Jul 31:
Liz, #24:
As a single, straight woman, I think chest hair is gross. Manscape away, lads!
In which case, you'd go for my brother - who has never touched a razor to any part of his body. I don't even think he needs to shave his face.
Probly a bit young for you (being 19), very athletic, no hair on chest, and perfectly tanned.
By your own token, there are guys that come in ever shape and size. He'd appeal to you WITHOUT "manscaping" (which is just ridiculous).
And believe it or not, there are women out there that find chest hair QUITE attractive (ahem...me...). So you leave the hairy ones alone and leave them to a woman who will love them without the overly frivolous grooming.
Really, its appreciative to have a man that doesn't obsess over his looks like that. God help me if a nice warm bubble bath, soft music, candle lit bathroom, and a perfumed atmosphere appeals to the guy I marry for relaxation.
Call it stereotype, I don't care. It is NOT natural for a man to choose THAT for relaxation over a quiet fishing trip or whatever other hobby the guy has.
There was once a "That 70's Show" episode where Eric had made a comment about how he was just as beautiful as his girlfriend...
Doesn't seem quite right to me.
30. Adam said the following at 1:49 PM on Jul 31:
Consider the average white-collar male today:
Suit & tie
Nice shoes
Showered and shaved that morning
Haircut probably within no more than 6 weeks.
Deoderant
Reasonably clean fingernails
If you were to transplant this list to 200 years ago, it would probably be dismissed about being overly girly and how wrong it is.
So one person's ideal for males is moving a couple steps further. Big deal.
31. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:53 PM on Jul 31:
Alex A. (#28),
Is whitewater kayaking quintessentially masculine because it is overwhelmingly done by males?
Considering the ladies that like to climb trees, climb mountains, whitewater kayaking, camping, and hiking are typically considered "tomboys", I'd definitly say that yes, they are quintessentially "masculine".
I think that biology works here, too...Biology works in SO many places.
Masculine is HARD.
Feminine is SOFT.
Biologically? Men have less bodyfat than women. Actually, biologically, men NEED less bodyfat than women to survive...hard and soft.
God calls women to compose themselves in grace (without overindulging in makeup and jewelry...which actually goes quite well with this post in THEIR regard).
Men toil the earth.
Women...at home with children that require softness and gentleness...
Men...out in the fields or wars feeding and protecting the women and children.
Men's primary hormone is testoserone which causes extreme aggressiveness.
Women's primary hormone is estrogen which causes extreme softness.
The fall has created some complications in this (as hormone levels are probably not what they should be in people), but that's the way it is =p
Seriously (call it sexist, call it stereotypical), but the NATURAL order of things is, in fact, women have babies and men don't. And really, EVERYTHING in these discussions actually hinges on this.
I'm starting to wonder just how much Paul was REALLY trying to say when he said that Women would be saved through childbirth. I wonder if the MEN can be saved through women being saved through childbirth, too. Seriously, now.
32. mary kate said the following at 2:02 PM on Jul 31:
"If you were to transplant this list to 200 years ago, it would probably be dismissed about being overly girly and how wrong it is."
yeah, but men back then wore giant curly powdered wigs!!! talk about feminine?
seriously, i agree with many of the posters... this is SUCH a personal issue. some guys groom more than others. some girls care, some don't. i don't think men are being emasculated by getting manicures or massages.
a bit much, boundless, imho.
33. Carrie said the following at 2:24 PM on Jul 31:
"Really, I prefer a man with calluses on his hands and a farmer's tan over a guy with soft hands who goes to a tanning bed... There's a sense of strength, hardness, and attraction I find in a man unafraid to break a sweat... and I think it makes the softness I can bring to the relationship much more appreciated."
AMEN CHRISTINA (IN GREEN)!!!! Seriously, I am about to marry a man that we refer to as "Mountain Goat". :) He only shaves for Sundays(and special occasions) and is more comfortable in his own skin than anyone else I've ever met. Also, he still goes to Supercuts for the $12 haircut. But yeah, I am blessed. He rocks. ;) They are still out there girls! I promise!!
34. BDB said the following at 4:28 PM on Jul 31:
Liz (#24) wrote:
>>he as also created us (yes, even us Christians)with a wide variety of personalities, interests and personal tastes.<<
You'd be surprised how much personal "taste" is really shaped by the media someone consumes.
In my lifetime, first body-building became more popular - which involved the whole chest-waxing thing. Then that spread to MTV, and their various Spring Break shows. Now, it seems to be trendy for everyone in college.
It was NOT that way 20 years ago. I know some people who had a, er, "tradition" to tackle the bachelor at his bachelor party and shave some initials into his chest hair.
Now, there's a much higher chance that wouldn't work as a prank...
35. Tope said the following at 4:44 PM on Jul 31:
Christina (in green) - it hasn't always been the case that men would go out to work and women stayed home to tend children. For a good portion of human history women worked alongside men (and children too!) in the fields. It's not really accurate to present a situation that's only existed for the past 200 years (work taking place primarily outside the home/community, and primarily being done by men) as part of the "natural" order of things. It's anything but - it's a situation that's very much contingent on changing cultural and economic realities beginning in the 19th century.
Re: the post in general and Stinson's article, both are unfortunately characterized by logical fallacies, especially non sequiturs. It does not necessarily follow that a man who pays a lot of attention to his appearance will not be able or willing to make sacrifices, as Stinson claims. One's personal hygiene routine actually has nothing whatsoever to do with how self-sacrificial one is or is not. The two are not related. I'm amazed that this even needs to be said.
Stinson describes Glenville's hygiene routines as "feminizing" and also states that it encourages "self-absorption" in men. Does he really believe - as his article certainly implies - that self-absorption is "feminine" and therefore appropriate for women? Or does he believe that paying a lot of attention to one's appearance is not self-absorbed for a woman, but is for a man? If the latter, I wonder if he could point to a scriptural justification for this belief.
The thing is that the vast majority of these rules about what is "quintessentially" masculine or feminine are culturally and historically contingent. Standards of hygiene and appearance vary very widely from time to time and place to place. There was a time when many American women had leathery skin and callused hands - because they too had to work in the fields. This is still true of many women all over the world who still work in agriculture-based economies. Personally I was raised in a culture where women don't spend anywhere near as much time on their appearance as American women. I've worn makeup exactly four times in my life (one was my wedding day). This doesn't make me unfeminine or "hard" or not a "true woman." It's a real shame that Boundless is presenting standards that have everything to do with culture and nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel one way or the other as though they are biblical truth.
36. Jon Burgess said the following at 5:09 PM on Jul 31:
I'll give you a big Amen! Right on!
37. Vanessa said the following at 5:29 PM on Jul 31:
Amen, oh AMEN! It is really sad when a song like "I'm Still a Guy" by Brad Paisley has to point out the complete absurdness in a man having "creamy lotiony hands" and the song makes me and my friends turn the radio up and ask where have all the cowboys gone?
38. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:18 PM on Jul 31:
Tope (# 35),
I don't need a history lesson. I'm very aware of the historical basis of women and children.
Here's the historical basis:
CHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE RESPONSIBLITY OF THE WOMEN.
Man's primary responsibility has always been to provide for them.
That is historically accurate for every culture except, maybe, the amazonians.
This isn't about whether women and men worked, its not about whether the woman was a "stay at home mom" or not. Its about what the primary responsibility was. You know why women are given the primary responsibility of children? Well...probably because until recently only WOMEN could have babies...
why is that such a difficult concept to grasp???
Women have always been the supporters and the nurtures. Genesis calls them a "life giver" and help meet. Paul's letters call women to be graceful.
Women are NOT the aggressors. They are not made hard and rugged. Ask any artist which is softer - man or woman.
As such, women require an anti-thesis for completion. It would somehow make sense if men were hard to balance a woman's softness.
This isn't about a fallen human being's natural inclinations, its about how God created us. He created us male and female.
So yes, I do believe men were created a certain way and women were created a different way.
Masculine is hard.
Feminine is not.
And Paul makes it quite clear we each have different roles. Seriously, you can't argue with anatomy.
The only people that this should NOT be clear for is hermaphrodites.
39. BDB said the following at 7:35 PM on Jul 31:
And to be even-handed about how things change, I remember driving through campus for my sister's college graduation, and my mother complaining, "The girls all have hair that's long and straight."
I remember thinking, "What's wrong with that?"
40. DannieA said the following at 8:27 PM on Jul 31:
most of these comments made me roll my eyes.
luckily this is only opinions and not what matters....
let's face it...
some guys are handsome
some guys are cute
some women like handsome
some women like cute
In either case....men will still be from mars and women from venus.
41. Sean said the following at 9:06 PM on Jul 31:
Amen!Amen!and Well Amen!
Ok,maybe not.
Anyhow,while I think over-pampering
oneself is "unmanly",we must look at what can be considered "pampering".
A guy who loves music but owns more than 50 cds could be considered "pampering" if it's something that makes him feel good/makes him relax.
I'm a Christian and I swear A LOT!
Besides hurting my witness to Christ,
does it make me any more "manly".As a
Christian I believe not,but a lot of the guys I work with do.The same could be said about bodyshape and size.I'm a little shy of 6 foot tall and weigh about 350 pounds,and am a former powerlifter(unfortunately mostly fat now).Does than make me
more "manly" than a little skinny guy who goes to the hairdresser,wears a Brioni suit, and has well manicured nails.Not on your life.
What makes a man is his character.Nothing else,nothing more,nothing less.
42. Alex C. said the following at 10:03 PM on Jul 31:
Gah! I am getting sick and tired of how we keep confusing our *culture's* idea of what is masculine and feminine with actual biblical mausculinity and femininity. Guys who get facials, or manicures, or use lotion, aren't going to be able to lead their families biblicly? Is there even any behavioral evidence to back that up, or is it just paranoia? To be perfectly honest, I think that the fact that some of us are so threatened by the idea of men doing these things just proves that we're not as secure in our own mausculinity as we think we are.
I completely agree with Tope. She said everything I wanted to say, but better than I could ^^. I think that many of the things we view as masculine or feminine are just culturally based.
I'm a guy, also.
43. Texas Craig said the following at 11:34 PM on Jul 31:
I wouldn't rely too much on "how natural certain behavior is" as the basis for how we are to act. Sin is pretty natural for us. Throughout history, violence is pretty natural (particularly for men, who have more testosterone). That certain behaviors are natural does not make them right biblically.
I am encouraged that there have been plenty of people who have stepped up to question when the "Wild at Heart" mentality gets a little too out of hand.
It is fine for people to have preferences for what they find attractive in another person, but let's not equate our preferences with biblical values (unless they really are clearly supported by the Bible).
I am a firm believer that men and women are created differently and have different roles. But, I do not believe that whether a guy gets a massage, manicure, pedicure, etc. really has any bearing upon those, unless the actions are an attempt to deny one's gender or to associate with another gender. But, assuming a guy just likes to feel clean and well-groomed, then that seems fine to me. I certainly do not see a biblical problem with the concept. And, as others have said on here, if the guy gets obsessed with it, then we are dealing with an attitude that is unbiblical for either gender.
As for me, I have never had a pedicure or manicure, but I do get massages regularly. I also will confess to enjoying bubble baths (mainly just because the bubbles hide my ever-expanding gut). Does that make me girly? My wife doesn't think so, nor would the people that know me think that I am "girly" in any way.
So, let's just remember to separate our cultural views from biblical views! :-)
44. meg said the following at 11:56 PM on Jul 31:
aight..soo.. I'm wholly unfeminine because I love the outdoors and kayaking and fishing and because I have callouses on my feet because I wear boots and ride horses?
Or am too self centered because I feel I should occassionally get rid of my callouses, or go to a tanning bed to even out my lily white legs vs. dark upper body/face?
Do ya'll realize how ridiculous you sound?
A book about "male grooming".. yes, I agree it sounds a little gay... but there are guys out there who truly do need the help. Our problem is since someone took the extreme of writing a seemingly (I haven't read it so I can't offer personal opinion) girlie girl book for men, we who find it excessive feel the need to take the other extreme. That's soooooo ridiculous people!!!!!!!
We're taking extremes over personal preference! Male and female roles aren't the issue. I prefer a physically strong guy with a smooth chest, who isn't afraid of manual labor and doesn't mind getting dirty, but "cleans up" well (that is ... I could go to a fancy restaurant with him and not be embarrassed by lack of manners). That's just me. Doesn't mean I don't want to be the primary care taker of my children. It means personally that's what I find attractive to make the children in the first place. Can a hairy legged woman not take as good of care of her children as a woman who takes more time to shave? I'll tell you she's alot less likely to be having the children in first place according to society's standards. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The issue is caring so much about other things (in this case personal appearance) that we forsake the finer things in life.. like spending time with our Maker.. or learning to love each other the way God loves us. Personal appearance is important. Pleasing one's spouse is important. But whole heartedly loving God and being His Hands and Feet in this world... loving others with the love given us.. that's what's most important.
45. John Brunson said the following at 12:39 AM on Aug 1:
Okay, let's put it this way. I'm a guy. I don't go to hair salons, I go to a barber. I don't sing top 40 pop. I prefer my Heavy Metal and Hard Rock, thanks. I like the outdoors. I'm also very much a computer geek. I hate dressing up. My standard uniform? T-shirt, maybe a polo for a business environment, Jeans, tennis shoes. Don't like my appearance, my smell (I'm clean. hair will be combed, but no gel, thanks) or my sarcasm... that's your problem. :-) My suggestion? Be yourself. Really. It does work.
That includes the men who know how to do construction, who are rough around the edges and don't think Jesus is the same guy as shown in the paintings, the guy who never said a coarse word, who was nice to everyone. Just like Mr. Rogers. Bull. Jesus was a carpenter. He called the Pharisees out for being Sons of Hell, he tossed over temple tables and boldly declared, "My house will be called a house of prayer." And don't let anyone give you the excuse that "You can't do that because you're not Jesus." Because they don't get the concept of first century discipleship. A disciple was to emulate the master to the last detail.
Above all, don't let those who worship at the altar of "Nice" change who you are. That's the King's job. Not anyone else's. Emulate the King above all Kings. That is your only response, your only thought, your only concern. Jesus said "Any man who puts his hand to the plough and doesn't look back is not worthy..." and again, he said, "Anyone who loves his mother or father more than me, is not worthy..."
46. niki said the following at 6:41 AM on Aug 1:
It seems the greater, deeper issue at stake is the motivation behind the action.
There are really only two reasons someone would pay for any spa procedure (massage, pedicure, haircut, and the like; surgical procedures may also be included in this). One being that there is an obsession with appearance and a desire to disguise something undesirable. The other being that there is a health-related need which, if met, would provide greater ability to be productive.
For example, a pedicure. I'll get somewhat graphic here. My Grandmother's toenails are in such shape that it is nearly impossible for her to groom them herself. For health reasons, she gets a pedicure. It is also worth mentioning that she is nearly 75 years old and it is very comforting to her while a younger lady takes care of her swollen feet and listens to her talk (she lives alone, and she loves to talk). Therefore, it is therapeutic in nature.
On the other hand, many women who are perfectly capable of grooming themselves, have low-maintenance feet which would not require much effort and time to groom (all things being relative), are setting up pedicure appointments which are completely unnecessary. Sometimes women will even go in while their previous pedicure's benefits are still in effect. This is vain and wasteful.
So this is what should be asked: are men or women (regardless) seeking spa procedures for the benefit of their health (and to please their spouse) or to compete in a society of vanity?
47. J. Tucker said the following at 10:35 AM on Aug 1:
This article is really too offensive to resist, even though I'm a little late with a response.
I'd like to remind everyone that God made us all in his own image. Each an every one of us is "wonderfully" made. So what gives the author or anyone else the right to judge my masculinity. If I'm fulfilling God's purpose for my life, I will NOT be told that my personality and gender qualities are "unbiblical" because they aren't masculine enough to match a cowboy's.
Getting my haircut by a professional does not make me any less of a man. Going shopping does not make me any less of a man. And, Christina in Green, taking a bubble bath does NOT make me any less of a man.
I's also like to point out that some of the female commentors have also been offended by this discussion. Not all women were created by God to wear high-heals and carry purses. Not all women were created to get manicures and pedicures.
Don't you all see the danger of boxing up people into these culturally-based gender roles? Motte, as the author, you should know the consequences of impugning a man's masculinity. Having an issue with men that are less masculine than the Marlboro man is not okay. While I understand that your article argues that these feminine activities might distract a man from his Biblical duties, I think you need to take a long, hard look at what you are actually saying about men.
48. DannieA said the following at 12:36 PM on Aug 1:
I also have to comment on why people think pedicures equal evil self-centerdness...
anyone just feel the need to go and relax and drown out life's stresses by having a person massage and care for your feet? Trust me, it's more of a stress reliever than a beauty treatment.
49. mary kate said the following at 1:28 PM on Aug 1:
so, my brother.... one of the manliest men i know....
he's an infantry officer and an airborne ranger who has done a tour in iraq and a tour in kosovo. he was in both the 101st airborne division and an armored tank unit. he has more guns than i can count, and keeps them in a large manly-looking green gun safe. he's big and strong.
my brother also loves opera, fine wine, and dresses well. he can shop with his wife and me for hours. he dotes on their pet cat, a big fluffy thing he has nicknamed 'woob.' he dresses well, and cleans up very well.
all that to say, i agree with j tucker.
50. Lee said the following at 1:57 PM on Aug 1:
The problem with this article is that it implies that women aren't supposed to be tough, or courageous, or to love sacrificially -- that those qualities are mutually exclusive with femininity. No. If something -- an unhealthy obsession with looks, or money -- is wrong for one sex, it's wrong for the other. But this article just seems to assume that it's wrong for men to partake in certain things but okay, and even expected, for women to do those same things. The article goes on to say that when men do things women do, it keeps them from attaining Christian qualities.
This leads us to the conclusion that it's impossible for women, who are expected to do those girly things, to possess the qualities of a man listed in article. And what exclusively male qualities are we striving for here? Self-sacrifice, self-neglect, courage, toughness, resilience, and boldness. It's easy to come away from this article thinking that those are man things to do, and irreconcilable with doing things that women do. No! Those are, I hope, qualities of a Christian of either gender.
There is nothing about this article that should be exclusive to men, but it's written in its entirety to them. Basically, men are reprimanded for doing things that women are expected to do, and that's wrong. It short-changes all Christians.
We need to look at the heart of the matter, not any particular action -- and the difference between cultural expectations and Biblical teachings. I'm not trying to say that men should or shouldn't perform any particular grooming routine. I'm just pointing out a discrepancy in the way that the same sin in men and women is treated. The sin is focusing on self instead Christ, and it's not okay for women any more than it is for men. Much of the problem, in my mind, is that our culture expects to be middle-class, well-fed, well-dressed, with two cars and 2.5 kids and enough money to take a vacation once a year. That's not right. Christians in America (and other civilized nations, no doubt) have a hard time preaching the Gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation whenever it means getting out of our comfort zone, and we certainly don't expect to be persecuted (II Tim 3:12). I'm including myself in this!
That's a whole other topic, and I won't go on. This got much longer than expected anyway. But one last thing...
I hesitate to even bring this up, but I feel that often in Christian circles, it's taught that in marriage, a wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to love the wife sacrificially -- to lay down his life for her. But isn't the wife supposed love her family sacrificially as well, and possibly lay down her life if necessary? What about the husband's charge is unique to the man? A husband would never be commanded to submit to his wife, but I should hope I will love my husband and kids sacrificially and be willing to lay down even my life for them.
This article even says it: "Self-sacrifice [is] the very definition of Biblical masculinity." What about self-sacrifice is not feminine?! What about it is quintessentially masculine? Self-sacrifice is a characteristic of Christ: what makes it the definition of a male Christian and not of a female Christian?
[And what, then, is the definition of Biblical femininity? Boundless, I want to know! :) ]
This is irritating to me because I feel like the church teaches it as an exchange: husband, love; wife, submit -- but that's not right. Biblically, we're all commanded to love sacrificially, but only wives are commanded to submit in the church today. I know, I know, Ephesians 5. But let's not forget verse 21, and the first sentence of the chapter, which commands all of us, as dearly loved children, to be imitators of God.
I understand what the Bible teaches: that women are to submit. And I will, when and if I get married. Really. :) But it would help me a whole lot to know why!
51. BDB said the following at 2:11 PM on Aug 1:
I need to stand up for Meg (#44). I knew a girl in college who had grown up hanging out with a Boy Scout troop. They called her the "Eaglette" because she could keep up with - and in some cases leave in the dust - the guys.
At her wedding, she sat me with all her Scouting friends. I must say, she got married a lot earlier than most of the people I knew from college.
To a guy she met river-rafting.
She's a mom now.
52. Texas Craig said the following at 2:55 PM on Aug 1:
Lee (#50) - great thoughts. To add onto your points, I would contend that husbands are to submit to their wives in general.
"Whoa, hold on there, buddy!!" I can hear many of you calling out to your computer screens. But consider this:
Ephesians 5:21 tells us to submit to one another. That is not limited to wives. It is only the next sentence that tells wives to submit. Then, after that, husbands are called to "love" their wives as Christ loved the church. How are we to to do that? Well, consider Philippians 2, which tells us what the attitude of Christ is.
Philippians 2:3 says "in humility, consider others better than yourselves." Philippians 2:5-8 tell us we should have Christ's attitude, which was that he "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant" and "humbling himself." I would assert that any man that seeks to have his wife submit to him is not displaying the attitude of Christ. Rather, a true leader will lead by serving. Thus, after 13 years of very happy marriage, I have concluded that I should subjugate my desires to my wife's, except in those isolated instances where we disagree and I am compelled by God to take a certain course of action.
Moreover, I also like to point out to husbands that I counsel that Ephesians 5:22 starts out with "wives," - meaning that Paul is speaking to wives, not to husbands. Accordingly, husbands should skip over that verse and go to the one directed to them. Anytime a husband starts focusing more on the verse directed to his wife than the one directed to him, it is usually the sign of a significant issue in his life that needs to be addressed.
So, let's all focus on submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ!
Peace!
53. Rachael said the following at 3:16 PM on Aug 1:
Woo hoo Texas Craig!
No, I am not a feminist, but I like to see you acknowledge Eph. 5:21 about how we are supposed to submit to one another.
Although in my church I've not heard possibly any talk about this issue since I've been there (started going last year), my impression is that in some Christian circles/churches/families this issue is emphasized. I could be wrong.
Yes, I want to 'submit' to my future husband once married, but I hope he also considers my opinions and feelings. When there is a disagreement, hopefully I'll let him have the ultimate say. But he should be loving and not a dictator. I don't like seeing or hearing of dictator-type relationships.
It's nice to see your support of the submit to one another verse.
54. Rachael said the following at 3:20 PM on Aug 1:
P.S.
Just as I don't think Christians should leech onto the submission issue and neglect other issues, I don't think Christian communities should constantly focus and bash a particular sin to the extent that there is neglect of addressing other sins or aspects of the faith. Thankfully I believe I'm not in such a community, but from what I hear it seems they exist.
55. Jen said the following at 3:23 PM on Aug 1:
I have to agree with Texas Craig and J Tucker (47)!
56. Richard said the following at 3:28 PM on Aug 1:
I think a little bit of taking care of yourself is ok, but if a man spends twice as long in the bathroom as his girlfriend or wife, then I think that is a problem.
I think though the author is trying to make the Bible confirm his opinions. The Bible doesn't speak about this subject, so really the author shouldn't be trying to use the Bible to justify his ideas. Like when Paul said that it is good not to marry, he should qualify that as being his idea, not God's.
57. Jo said the following at 3:51 PM on Aug 1:
Richard, #56:
Ah, but is it a problem because he spends too much time in the bathroom, or because she doesn't spend enough? :P
58. Jacob said the following at 4:22 PM on Aug 1:
Just because some guys get facials and pedicures doesn't mean that it's a manly thing to do. Some men cheat on their wives, but that doesn't make it a moral thing to do.
It's obviously not a big issue, ultimately, but I think there is something to be said for supporting "otherness" among the sexes. Fewer distinctions make things only more confusing. So is it a "moral" issue, no not really, but I'm personally not convinced that it's a good idea, and I certainly wouldn't hold back from giving my buddies a hard time if any of them every did.
On the argument that it encourages men to be self-obsessed, I'm in agreement. Clearly there are women who are obsessed with themselves and we do not need more people like that. I'd also like to point out that this kind of narcissism is what John Eldridge promotes in Wild At Heart only instead of facials, it's hunting, bungeejumping and such, are the self-seeking conditions that must be met so as to have a "fulfilling" life, not sacrificing those things for the sake of family, as a real man ought to.
59. a sister said the following at 5:52 PM on Aug 1:
You can get an "amen" in the specific, for men should surely not be self-obsessed creatures. But the amen will be much more enthusiastic if you and so many others would cease calling only "manly" what is, essential "godly" behavior and therefore to be aspired to by humans - created in the image of God - of both genders.
You summarize:
"He said that it will lead men to an unhealthy "self-preoccupation" and away from self-sacrifice, which is the very definition of biblical masculinity."
Of "biblical masculinity"? What about "Christ-likeness"?
Is self-sacrifice unfeminine? surely not! is it more masculine than feminine? are men supposed to image God more fully than women (as Milton implied with his 'he for God and she for God in him').
But isn't self-sacrifice essential to being Christ-like? Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be clung to, but made himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant and humbling himself to the point of death on the cross.
Ought we ever, in our emphasis, imply that men are designed to be more Christ-like than women?
Women who are obsessed with fine grooming and waste Kingdom time in frivolous self-glorification find mercy in the same place that similarly self-focused men do -- in the Savior. There too, they find grace to change from self-glorifying creatures to true worshippers. Both men and women are human (and that's no mere redundancy) -- people who find their proper dignity as created beings -- not just any created being -- but those created in God's own image.
That is reason enough for eternal joy -- for men and women to put away self-glorification for the greater glory and greater pleasure of knowing and worshipping their Creator, Redeemer and Sovereign Friend.
60. a sister said the following at 6:03 PM on Aug 1:
Well said, Tope.
61. a sister said the following at 6:07 PM on Aug 1:
Alex C, are you available and passionate about the Lord? :-) I think an overemphasis on stereotypes defaces the image of God in man and woman. :-)
62. Mike said the following at 2:07 PM on Aug 2:
Jacob (#58) -
I think you're badly misrepresenting what Eldredge has to say. I challenge you to find anywhere in his book where he suggests abandoning your responsibilities as a father or husband to go hunting or bungee jumping. In fact, may I quote from Wild At Heart:
"The number one problem between men and their women is that we men, when asked to truly fight for her...hesitate. We are still seeking to save ourselves; we have forgotten the deep pleasure of spilling our life for another."
What he's talking about is pursuing activities that make men feel alive. Dangerous. It is those qualities that empower men to be able to go into battle for their women. Weak, domesticated, emasculated men won't have the strength to stand up for their women when they need to - so, yes, a man does need to find his center, his passion, his purpose. But that most assuredly does NOT mean abandoning his responsibilities. If I may quote again:
"The masculine journey takes a man away from the woman so that he might return to her. He goes to find his strength; he returns to offer it."
This is in no way narcissistic; it is training for battle - a battle to protect his woman from the attacks of the enemy. She desperately needs his strength, but he can't find it hiding behind her skirts. He needs those times alone, away from her, to commune with God.
63. David Potter said the following at 2:34 PM on Aug 2:
"Neglect" does not seem to be the right word. This word does not fit with "self-giving". Neglect implies a lack of thought and intentionality. Jesus' giving is anything, but that.
64. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:18 AM on Aug 3:
I haven't listen to the podcast (where I'm at makes it difficult to do so) and haven't read the external links but after reading the OP and responses I tend to believe that there are more important issues (or at least more important examples) than men getting facials and going to day spas.
In some ways it's dangerous to oversimply certain habits and tendancies as "sissy", "girly", etc. I think of the Simpson's episode where Homer was afraid Bart was turning gay (freaking out because he chose the pink snowball for dessert instead of the chocolate cupcake). There's a huge difference between a man who happens to like/do things typically feminine and a man who has sexual feelings towards men (which isn't hard to miss).
I also think it's inaccurate to assume that going to beauticians implies narcissism or preoccupation. Any behavior can be vain and self asorbing if taken to extremes. It would be saying that since women tend to do these things more than men, that women are more prone to vanity (maybe they are in the appearance sense but I've known a lot of men just as vain about their bodies as well).
For the record, I wouldn't mind every so often going to a good haberdasher (how many remember that term?) and getting outfitted really nicely. But that's a luxury which I cannot justify the cost.
65. Faith said the following at 6:12 PM on Aug 3:
I totally agree with the overall message of this article. Our society continues to promote men who are "softer" and excessively vain. Sadly, most of the secular women I know (and worse, even those who profess to be believers) are buying in the the world's definition of masculinity only to find themselves wondering why they can never find "the perfect guy". WAKE UP!!! The prefect guy will be a man who repeatedly displays the kind of sacrifice present in Ephesians 5, not a man who shaves his chest and smells divine 24/7. As for me, I have a real man.
66. Fred Walker said the following at 2:07 AM on Aug 4:
Haven't some people heard of generalisations? The point of the post is that men should be men and women, women. Although most behaviours cannot be distinguished as only male and only female, in general beauty treatments are a female domain and therefore men, in general, shouldn't follow likewise. Of course there are exceptions (e.g., actors), that's why it's called a generalisation, but it is still a valid point, in general.
67. robsmith said the following at 7:51 PM on Aug 4:
The silly preoccupation with beauty treatments for men is no more and no less silly than the silly preoccupation with beauty treatments for women. Manicures? Pedicures? Hairdressers? Shoes? Makeup? Wardrobes? Facials? Augmentations? The list goes on. Whatever happened to simply being clean (warm water and soap,) modestly dressed, and healthfully fed as the marks of beauty and health. It gives the lie to high-handed talk about living for and giving one's all for the Lord when women or men talk about the various "treatments" they are willing to pay multiple tens or hundreds of dollars for. Shame on them all!
68. John P. said the following at 12:19 AM on Aug 5:
You ever wonder why there are a million articles on Boundless and other Christian websites asking why women can't find a husband? Could it be because they're waiting on some mythical, rock-hewn Marlboro Man that doesn't exist? If your concept of a man's masculinity is defined by whether or not he uses moisturizer, you are every bit as shallow as you're accusing that man of being, and you're going to hate the 21st century a LOT.
69. Farmer Pete said the following at 3:19 AM on Aug 5:
Fred in entirely correct. Those who argue that because somnething is not always true, that therefore it is not generally true know little of logic. For example, the fact that there are women over 6 feet in height, and men under 5 feet, does not disprove the general rule that men are generally taller. This applies to most of the other traits that we refer to as masculine or feminine.
The whole point of such descriptions is that they are distinctive. They point out general differences, so those traits in which there is no significant tendency towards sex-differentiation are neither male, nor female, but simply human traits.
Those who arguie that the majority of sex-differentiated behavioural traits are culturally based are out of touch with current science on the matter. Not only is there considerable evidence that being male or female has as great an influence on our behaviour and thought patterns as it does on ourt physique, but geneticists are discovering that identical genes will express themselves differently in males and females.
A woman is not a man in a girl-suit, and a man is not a woman in a boy-suit.
The implication is that when we follow cultural imperatives counter to the way God has made us, we are likely to run into trouble..... and no appeal to our personal desires or cultural beliefs will prevent this.
As for me personally, when I look at my hands, I see scars. Old, part-healed and fresh. I canot recall a time when this has not been so. This does not prevent me from scrubbing up and donning a tailored suit when that is appropriate for my company, but I do not try and pretend that I am something that I am not.
I believe that taking reasonable care of our appearance is something that should come out of respect for our company and ourselves, but unreasonable care - otherwise known as vanity - is evidence of a serious character flaw.
Respectfully.......... Peter
70. Emily said the following at 8:31 PM on Aug 5:
I think this article touches on a bigger thing that is very prevalent in our society- vanity. We see ads for all kinds of beauty products and the advertisers say "you are worth it" and "you can be pretty and attractive if you buy our product." Men as well as women believe these lies, and so, we think we need every single beauty product imaginable. I think it is disgusting when guys and girls both are concerned about their nails and hair and spending huge amounts of money on beauty products when over a billion people live on this same earth in such desperate poverty that they can't afford to buy food. Those people could never even imagine spending $25 on getting a haircut or a manicure. Let's all (guys and girls) look outside ourselves and not get that next manicure, instead, lets send it to an organization to buy some people some food. I agree with robsmith (above) that being clean and healthily fed should do it for everyone, and lets make that the new standard of beauty.
71. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:06 AM on Aug 6:
Texas Craig,
I will definitly agree that Christ humbled himself in sacrifice for the church, placing her above himself.
But I would contend that that is submission.
Christ doesn't bend to Our rules and directions...but God calls wives to obey their husbands and submit to them.
The difference is in how we trust God's directions, commandments, and obey him out of trust vs. God laying down his life for us.
There's a difference there. Take a long time looking at that but nowhere does it say that Christ is called to obey the church.
In the same way, a wife obeys her husband's orders and trusts his descisions, giving him the ability to uphold his side of the deal, putting his wife and family above himself.
72. The Prof said the following at 10:52 AM on Aug 6:
This stuff really scares me. Here is what I think is happening to men and I mean Christian men today. Society has caused an Oprahfication of men.
I have been studying the GodMen movement and other Man Church discussions and find that in many cases men, whether young or old, have been emasculated within the church setting. Boys will be boys but if they become men, well the onions are removed.
Why aren't men the backbone of the church? Why do men find themselves distancing from the church? Look at the culture, the decorations, the colors, etc of the facility.
Well, I had a chance to visit with Paul Coughlin who is the author of No More Christian Nice Guy. We discussed the issue of dating and why the young men fail to step up to the plate. We discussed why men do not spend time at church. We also talked about why men do not participate in PromiseKeepers as they first did.
It is interesting to read some comments. It is also important to understand who Jesus was at the time of his visit on earth. Was he the tall blonde haired white guy that sat in the corner contemplating the next day or did he sit around the campfire and joked, laughed, and had fun in the process. Looking at the words he chose when dealing with the pharisees and the disciples, I think he was the fun guy that most churches would have a deacon or usher remove from the service. He was the manly-man so to speak. What we have done was emasculated Jesus and that is why there is the movements such as GodMen and books like No More Christian Nice Guy or Why Men Hate Going to Church.
This is just my opinion.
73. Emily said the following at 12:32 PM on Aug 6:
So much fear over metro-sexuality, American Christians tend to define masculinity from a cultural standpoint, rather than a Biblical standpoint. My husband sweats, he plays hard (mountain biking, road biking, trail running) and he works hard (at the office, putting on a new roof, re-doing our bathroom) but he showers! And he fixes his hair. He would not dare come to bed expecting me to love on a stinky man, and I feel valued by that. Paul says a man ought to nourish and cherish his wife the way he does his own body. Hmmm, if he didn't pamper himself a bit, why would he pamper me? If he neglects the body God gave him, that neglect will impact our marriage and his treatment of me. I praise the LORD for a manly husband who cleans up nicely.
74. Mike said the following at 2:29 PM on Aug 6:
The Prof (#72) - Right on, brother! Or, as John Eldredge might say, when did we get the idea that Jesus was some weird combination of Mother Theresa and Mr. Rogers in a beard?
75. Leah said the following at 12:30 AM on Aug 7:
I don't agree with the way Motte fusses over such miniscule things such as a man going to a hairdresser VS a barber. There isn't such a big difference as you make out. My husband has gotten his haircut at the campus hairdresser (we both work at uni) because it is close and he can get it done in his lunch hour. He has also had his hair cut at the hairdresser I used to go to; we'd get it done at the same time. His mum *used* to do it for him at home, but since he moved out he's had to find other places!
However, since deciding the uni place is too expensive and my favourite hairdresser has retired (a lovely local lady who my mum knows quite well and goes to one of the local churches), he has to find another place. He's going to try the barber who worked for my fave hairdresser and who has set up his own barbershop now.
Emily; I don't think anyone is criticising men for embracing basic hygeine like showering or for taking simple care in his appearance like doing his hair. It's when it begins to damage their masculinity that it's a problem.
76. Dan real*name said the following at 2:36 AM on Aug 7:
Well, in the spirit of post #72, and for that matter pretty much (am I, as a guy, allowed to type the word "pretty"?) every post here, this is MY opinion:
What makes a man a man isn't so black-and-white as some people would like to think/believe. To wit:
I am a man, I am attracted to women. I have asked out women on dates. I like baseball and football. I have seen a moose in the wild. I am artistic. I can be brought to tears by listening to some music. I can feel for people. I once in a while have facial hair. I only clip my toenails with a toenail clipper. I have put some gel in my hair from time to time. I have some hair on my head. I like techno music. I like Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and the Rocky movies. I have never been hunting. I don't like to fish. I don't golf. I can draw and paint. I can play the guitar. I am a good listener. I don't burp in public. I am not mechanically inclined.
By reading some of the books and ideas that some Christians put forth, SOME of what I just wrote would eliminate me from being considered a true man and eliminate me from consideration of being the kind of guy to base a men's ministry around.
SORRY FOLKS, but this is how my Lord and YOUR Lord made me. I make no apologies for who I am. If you are secure in who you are as the Lord made you, you are the most manly of men.