Some readers might be alarmed by this open-book presentation of facts. You might be jaded. You might jump to a dozen or more preconceived conclusions as a result of having lived in this fallen, degenerate world of ours. So all I can say is this: I'm just laying it all out here. This is the way it is. This is my opinion...
“Be still, and know that I am God!
I will be honored by every nation.
I will be honored throughout the world.”
The LORD of Heaven’s Armies is here among us;
the God of Israel is our fortress.
When a man sees a woman he finds attractive, there is this internal impulse. Some kind of fundamental drive. Who knows where it comes from? But it transcends sexuality, for it comes up whether he's admiring his own wife, his daughter, his niece, or a friend's wife or daughter. It is a thing that arises out of the beautiful "femaleness," or perhaps the perfect femininity of the woman or girl. As a man, he sees this and admires it. He might be momentarily captivated by it.
The man thinks to himself, "I want to hold her."
I believe it is reflective of God's love for His people—indeed, reflective of God's love for all humanity. I believe it is as fundamental to the man's makeup as is the woman's drive to nurture and care for her children, and for those who come under the same care and concern in her heart and mind.
Some men foolishly despise the woman's nurturing impulse, though I believe they are few. On the other hand, many women errantly mistake the man's drive to love for something base and self-serving. Furthermore, if a middle-aged man finds a young girl attractive, it's easy for us to find something sleazy or perverse in that, but it needn't be so. I suspect most mature men would admit to being magnetically attracted to their own daughters, as well as to other girls their daughter's age. The attraction is just that—an attraction. Any sexual dimension to it is a choice he makes himself, and if he is wise, and if he is upright, he sets that part aside immediately, since it is simply inappropriate. But that doesn't mean the impulse of attraction isn't there. Trust me, it is.
This attraction is something he should act on in very carefully measured ways—and probably never at all. But the attraction is there. The impulse presents itself, and it manifests itself thus:
"I want to hold her. I want to get close. I want to squeeze her, to hold her in my arms, to secure her from all harm, to be her protector, her provider, her preserver."
It's how God made the man. It's part of his basic makeup.
But what God made for a good and useful purpose, sin has perverted and corrupted. Thus we see the many manifestations of untoward desires and actions by so many men today. Because of our fallen nature, this impulse of love becomes, in so many cases, destructive instead of constructive.
And as our society has rejected God on so many levels, we see this perverse action on the part of many men. This is just another example in the long list of examples of how the enemy of our souls has ushered us unto the brink of our own internal self-destruction as a society. And as a result, most men simply keep their thoughts to themselves, regardless of whether their thoughts are righteous or otherwise.
But when our Savior returns, we will all be freed. We will be freed from this bondage of sin and general sinfulness, which serves to suppress our desires and natural impulses to love in a righteous way, apart from any innuendo or inference of perversion. Not only that, but our own motives will be cleansed and purified, so that we CAN love in a perfect and righteous way! Oh, how I look forward to that day! The Day of light. The Day when righteousness reigns, for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ will reign in our hearts, in our minds, and over all society as well!
. . . . .
Meanwhile, what are we to do? Upright men of character know what not to do. They know not to act affectionately toward any woman for whom his affection is not reserved—namely, toward anyone other than his wife. As for the women, what should they do? Well, women should, of course, be conscious of the temptations they potentially present to men. I'm not saying they are responsible in any way for any man's actions—they are not, and only a fool or a tyrant would impose that responsibility upon them. Today, however, an increasing number of women are learning and being trained to use the man's temptation to their own advantage. There are now many forms of prostitution in active use and utilization in our society, and most do not see it for what it actually is.
But what can a righteous wife do in light of the fact that her husband comes under an unprecedented level of temptation just by being in the modern world? Can she help him? Should she help him? Should she even have a desire to help him? Or should she assume the attitude that if her husband needs help in this area, then he simply is not as strong as he should be, and that if he truly loved her, he would not need or ask for her help?
I believe these are questions that need to be asked. I believe that our feminist movement has done us no favors in light of these questions. I believe that it is time for the wives to rise up, above the feminist rhetoric, and give an answer to these questions.
Feminism has hardened the hearts of women. They have not become more feminine, they have lost their femininity—the rich and valuable attributes that should define them. The defining cry of feminism goes out: "I don't need men, and I don't need a man." This women believes she seeks equality, which may well not be an ignoble pursuit in and of itself. But what she and her peers likely fail to recognize is that their pursuit of equality has quickly morphed into the pursuit of equivalency, which is actually only destructive to themselves and to society as a whole. The woman who holds equality as her highest value will, in the long run, find out what that pursuit has cost her: the forfeiture of any deep, intimate relationships with men, or with a man. How can I say this with such arrogant self-assurance, you may ask?
Because men are not interested in women who want to be equal to themselves. Sorry, it's just how it is. Ladies, your feminist girlfriends won't tell you this, because they haven't taken the time to investigate the internal structure of the man. They are preoccupied with the external—the place where equality can be observed and measured. They have gone down a road. Are you sure you want to follow them?
I suspect there are many women who like to proclaim the feminist cry ("I don't need a man."), but who secretly think to themselves, "… nonetheless, I want one." Yes, I believe many women are conflicted, for society has so firmly implanted the various feminist mantras into their thought life, and yet they must confess (if they be honest with themselves) that they seem to have some kind of need for a man.
This should come as no surprise. Seriously… if this is true, are you really surprised by this? I am not. You must only look at a man and a woman at the most superficial level, and observe the obvious: these two are not the same, yet they are complementary! Each completes the other in an amazing assemblage! Could it be that God created them this way? Could this be of God's design? I'm pretty sure it is.
A common problem for women seeking men, however, is that there are so few real, genuine men out there, and many women simply get short-changed in the deal. Too many women end up married to a self-centered, narcissistic little boy who thinks that she is just there to meet his personal needs. And of course, this situation only adds fuel to the fire from which rises the feminist cry. And I agree, for no woman needs that! No woman needs to be controlled by a self-agrandized control freak who is more concerned with the appearance of things than with the happiness and personal fulfillment of his own wife!
But let us admit that, as an effort to fix this problem in men, the feminist movement has failed miserably, and offers no help.
So here's my syllogism:
- There is a problem with men.
- Feminism has attempted to resolve the problem by empowering women.
- By empowering women, feminism has done nothing to help resolve the problem with men.
The end result, in my opinion, has been a continued—if not accelerated—degradation of society's concept of manhood, coupled with a distorted view of what are the essential components of womanhood.
0ne way of looking at it is this: Women stood up and simultaneously said,
- "I am no different than a man. I can be whatever a man can be; " and,
- "Men are defective, and grossly in need of correction."
With tongue in cheek, I can ask the feminist promoters, "Exactly what result did you have in mind? You hate men, but you want to be like them… what result were you hoping for?"
Is it any wonder that the feminist movement has failed to deliver on its promises? In its effort to elevate the woman to a supposedly higher standard, it has simultaneously degraded said standard to a level well below its original target. The fallout: men don't know how to be men, and women still want to be equal to that which no one knows what it is! Weird, but true. So now nobody really knows what they or anybody else wants, but they all want it. It just keeps going. Today, women want to be equal, but can they actually express exactly what they want to be equal to, in concrete terms? No, because they cannot, and certainly will not (if they can), tell us what is the essence of manhood.
And how could they? How can a woman tell us what is at the core of a man? But part of the problem is that somewhere along the line men decided to let the women define them. How did this happen? Here's my theory:
The weakness of the man has a central point of focus. All the weaknesses of men can be distilled down to this point of origin: the woman. Yes, she is his greatest weakness. The man so desires her happiness that he will find himself willing to sell his own manhood in exchange for it. To what extent will a man go in order to secure the happiness of his woman? History tells us that he will commit heinous crimes for her—yes, even against his own conscience. Herod had John the Baptist beheaded simply to please a woman (a woman whose affection he had no business seeking, by the way).
So is it any wonder that the men of our society have slowly and gradually sold their manhood in exchange for the appeasement and happiness of their women? It has come upon us in very small increments, step by step, up to our current state: Ask a high school boy what it means to be a man. He will not have an answer, and he furthermore will not understand the question. Ask a high school girl what it means to be a woman. Her answer will contain something about equality, but equal to what, she cannot elucidate, for no one knows what manhood is. No one.
When I was a kid, the popular notion of what made a guy become homosexual was: an overbearing mother. I'm not being crass, I'm telling you how it was. Now, today, we have basically a proliferation of homosexuality. I don't care… call it good or bad… whatever you want. I offer no opinion either way. But could it possibly be a a byproduct of the feminist movement? Think about it, if you will (which you probably won't)… is it possible that feminist thinking has so invaded our society as to effectively step in as that overbearing mother which most of us lacked? Something to think about.
So what, then, is manhood? And how is it any different from womanhood? I only wish to offer here one small dimension of it. A man desires to hold his woman.
- He wants to hold her.
Unfortunately, most women today have been trained to dislike being held, and to resent their man's desire to hold them. Sometimes being held means being still, and women who have been trained in the ways of "equality with men" don't like being still.
So I offer a tip—nothing more—to any woman who has a desire to support her man. If you want to bolster his manhood, if you desire to see him thrive, to excel, to really be a man… let him hold you. Be the willing target of his affection. Receive his love, as he desires to give it.
Let him hold you.
Let him be a man.