Bobbitt and Malehood: World's Apart
by Brian C. Stiller
The MacLean’s Magazine, along with North American tabloids, cable networks and radio shows have flogged the boondoggle affair of the now infamous Bobbitts. Most of the coverage made it clear that in their view Mr. Bobbitt, in his nefarious encounter with his wife and her knife wielding blow, had lost his "manhood."
What constitutes one's manhood? Is a man's sexual appendage central to his self-image and sense of being? If you've followed Hugh Hefner's logic, you might assume that since sexual prowess and conquest define male success, then the penis is king. Does it follow that after a mastectomy a woman loses any of her womanhood? And what of people who lose their eyesight. Do they forego any of their personhood? Also, what about men who have been celibate for a lifetime? Are they any less men?
Granted, one's sex organs are important to a man's life. But life itself, they are not. Sexual activities can enrich marriage relationships through intimacy and extend life into future generations. But the loss of one's male sexual organs is not synonymous with being de-masculinated. I can hear the groans and jokes of the drinking boys in the bar--wink, wink, nudge, nudge--and the pleased murmurings of some feminist enclaves as they comment, "That will show those guys..." But seldom within the fanfare of words or glut of gossip do I hear thoughtful questions of what it means to be male and the nature of manhood.
The macho claptrap of Mr. Bobbitt himself contradicts everything I believe manhood is. His boasting of adding more sexual conquests to his hit list further illustrates his tragic misunderstanding. The long-term damage is not only in this couple's broken and fragmented lives, but as this inordinate media flap continues, it is in the message it sends to our young adult generation. It distorts the nature of maleness, sexuality and personhood.
Manhood by its very nature seeks to complement womanhood. Sharing a mutual partnership in creation, manhood is an understanding of what it means to live, fulfilling the call of God's creation. While we know a woman can do some things a man cannot (and vice versa), to be caught in this debate by equating manhood with an organ is nothing more than reductionism; silly and misleading.
The us versus them debate--women against men, feminists fighting it out with rednecks--has pointed out inequities and unfairness in the home and market place. In reading some female columnists I'm left with the clear impression that being a male makes me unfit for this human order. However, the anti-feminist rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk adds little to our understanding of life.
Raised in a western Canadian prairie manse, mom and dad lived out a rather typical 1950s home in the sharing of work. While the work load was divided, it was done on the basis of mutual appreciation and an understanding that the work arrangement was just that, an arrangement. What I did learn was that manhood is a state of being and not one of conquest. Dad was a great cook. That made him no more or less a man. He also loved--tenderly--his children. But I recall that his growing manhood was not a function of the six children he sired but what he learned from his wife, his children, friends and associates, and then modelled for his children that manhood is seeing all of life as a gift to be treasured and nurtured.
In their search for the meaning of manhood, males look around for models and descriptions. Arnold Schwarzenegger describes one identity. Gloria Steinam describes another. Then there is everything in between, marketed by movies, taught by manuals on management and informed by jokes told among kids at school break. Are we to be tough, "in your face," or meek and wimpy? Whatever you want, take your choice; it's all there.
Men deserve much of the anti-male rhetoric. Because we are physically bigger and moulded by the traditional notion that we must be the chief breadwinner, men too often have been unwilling to listen to the call for fairness and understanding. Trapped by our past stereotypes, we've failed to learn that we were not placed into this creation for the purpose of dominance, but to be good stewards. If manhood is about anything, it is about caring for life.
The narcissism of this generation, however, encourages one is search of sexual gratification. The greatest affliction is seen as being sexually impotent. Not to be able to score sexually is seen as the end of life. Marketing people know what to say or depict in order to feed our egos and exacerbate our anxieties. We have bought into the culture of self so completely that it's not surprising when those who philosophise on Mr. Bobbitt inevitably focus on the severed member. In trying to decipher the Bobbitt vernacular and to understand his apparent presuppositions, one could argue that if one's malehood is enshrined in the male sex organ, then rape is excusable or seen as the ultimate statement of malehood.
Men, in our search for male identity and sense of being, let's celebrate our sexuality, but celebrate it as one of the many aspects of life.
Remember, one organ does not a man make.
What constitutes one's manhood? Is a man's sexual appendage central to his self-image and sense of being? If you've followed Hugh Hefner's logic, you might assume that since sexual prowess and conquest define male success, then the penis is king. Does it follow that after a mastectomy a woman loses any of her womanhood? And what of people who lose their eyesight. Do they forego any of their personhood? Also, what about men who have been celibate for a lifetime? Are they any less men?
Granted, one's sex organs are important to a man's life. But life itself, they are not. Sexual activities can enrich marriage relationships through intimacy and extend life into future generations. But the loss of one's male sexual organs is not synonymous with being de-masculinated. I can hear the groans and jokes of the drinking boys in the bar--wink, wink, nudge, nudge--and the pleased murmurings of some feminist enclaves as they comment, "That will show those guys..." But seldom within the fanfare of words or glut of gossip do I hear thoughtful questions of what it means to be male and the nature of manhood.
The macho claptrap of Mr. Bobbitt himself contradicts everything I believe manhood is. His boasting of adding more sexual conquests to his hit list further illustrates his tragic misunderstanding. The long-term damage is not only in this couple's broken and fragmented lives, but as this inordinate media flap continues, it is in the message it sends to our young adult generation. It distorts the nature of maleness, sexuality and personhood.
Manhood by its very nature seeks to complement womanhood. Sharing a mutual partnership in creation, manhood is an understanding of what it means to live, fulfilling the call of God's creation. While we know a woman can do some things a man cannot (and vice versa), to be caught in this debate by equating manhood with an organ is nothing more than reductionism; silly and misleading.
The us versus them debate--women against men, feminists fighting it out with rednecks--has pointed out inequities and unfairness in the home and market place. In reading some female columnists I'm left with the clear impression that being a male makes me unfit for this human order. However, the anti-feminist rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk adds little to our understanding of life.
Raised in a western Canadian prairie manse, mom and dad lived out a rather typical 1950s home in the sharing of work. While the work load was divided, it was done on the basis of mutual appreciation and an understanding that the work arrangement was just that, an arrangement. What I did learn was that manhood is a state of being and not one of conquest. Dad was a great cook. That made him no more or less a man. He also loved--tenderly--his children. But I recall that his growing manhood was not a function of the six children he sired but what he learned from his wife, his children, friends and associates, and then modelled for his children that manhood is seeing all of life as a gift to be treasured and nurtured.
In their search for the meaning of manhood, males look around for models and descriptions. Arnold Schwarzenegger describes one identity. Gloria Steinam describes another. Then there is everything in between, marketed by movies, taught by manuals on management and informed by jokes told among kids at school break. Are we to be tough, "in your face," or meek and wimpy? Whatever you want, take your choice; it's all there.
Men deserve much of the anti-male rhetoric. Because we are physically bigger and moulded by the traditional notion that we must be the chief breadwinner, men too often have been unwilling to listen to the call for fairness and understanding. Trapped by our past stereotypes, we've failed to learn that we were not placed into this creation for the purpose of dominance, but to be good stewards. If manhood is about anything, it is about caring for life.
The narcissism of this generation, however, encourages one is search of sexual gratification. The greatest affliction is seen as being sexually impotent. Not to be able to score sexually is seen as the end of life. Marketing people know what to say or depict in order to feed our egos and exacerbate our anxieties. We have bought into the culture of self so completely that it's not surprising when those who philosophise on Mr. Bobbitt inevitably focus on the severed member. In trying to decipher the Bobbitt vernacular and to understand his apparent presuppositions, one could argue that if one's malehood is enshrined in the male sex organ, then rape is excusable or seen as the ultimate statement of malehood.
Men, in our search for male identity and sense of being, let's celebrate our sexuality, but celebrate it as one of the many aspects of life.
Remember, one organ does not a man make.