Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Maris Ayin On Entering A Reform "Temple"


הרב אלימלך יוסף הכהן סילבערבערג

רב ושליח כ"ק אדמו"ר - וועסט בלומפילד, מישיגן


שו"ע או"ח סי' רמד סעי' ו: "יהודי הקונה מכס, ומשכיר לו אינו-יהודי לקבל מכס בשבת, מותר אם הוא בקבלנות, דהיינו שאומר לו לכשתגבה ק' דינרים אתן לך כך וכך.

"הגה: וכן יכול להשכיר המכס לכל השבתות לא"י, והא"י יקח הריוח של שבתות לעצמו, ולא חיישינן שיאמרו לצורך ישראל הוא עושה, דבמקום פסידא כה"ג לא חששו".

ועיין בשו"ע אדמה"ז סעיף יד: "וכן מותר לו להשכיר לנכרי את המכס שיטול לעצמו מה שיגבה בשבת, הן רב הן מעט, והוא יתן לישראל דבר קצוב, שנמצא שהוא טורח לעצמו ואינו כשלוחו של ישראל. וכשמשכיר המכס לנכרי, וכן כששוכר לו הנכרי בקבלנות, אין חוששין למראית העין, שהרואה יאמר שכיר יום הוא אצלו, לפי שבמקום הפסד גדול לא גזרו על מרה"ע, ואף אם לפעמים הוא הפסד מועט, מ"מ כיון שעל הרוב דרך להיות הפסד גדול במניעת קבלת המכס בשבתות, לא חלקו חכמים והתירו לגמרי גזירה זו של מראית העין במכס, ובכל כיוצא בזה שדרך להיות שם הפסד גדול על הרוב".

והנה הט"ז בס"ק ו' כותב, דהטעם שלא חששו למראית עין הוא משום חשש שמא יעשה איסור גדול מזה, דאדם בהול על ממונו, אבל דעת אדמה"ז שמשמעות לשון הרמ"א הוא שלא גזרו כלל על מראית עין במקום הפסד כזה, עיין בקו"א ס"ק ז.

והנה לפי דעת רבינו שבמקום פסידא כזה לא גזרו כלל על מראית עין, ואין שום צורך להענין של "שמא יעשה איסור גדול", נראה שאפשר שיש מקום להקל במראית עין במקום הפסד אחדות המשפחה, וכדלקמן:

באגרות משה או"ח חלק ב' סי' מ' דן באיסור הכניסה ל"קאנסערוואטיבי" או "ריפארם טעמפעל", במקום שיש באותו בנין חדר מיוחד שבו מתפללים מנין עם מחיצה כשירה. ופוסק שאסור ליכנס להבנין, משום החשש שיאמרו שהוא נכנס להתפלל במקום שאינו כשר.

והנה מפעם לפעם באים לפני בעלי תשובה, שהוריהם תובעים מהם ליכנס ל"טעמפעל" במקום שמתפללים, ע"מ להשתתף בבר מצוה של אחיהם, ולפעמים הבעלי תשובה טוענים, שאם הם לא ילכו בתוך ה"טעמפעל" כדי לשמוע אחיהם האומרים ההפטרה, זה עלול לגרום להרס וסכסוך במשפחה.

והנה לפי דעת אדמה"ז (שלא הלך בשיטת הט"ז), שמתיר מראית עין מפני הפסד מרובה אפילו במקום שאין חוששין שיעשה איסור יותר גדול, א"כ בנידון דידן, שיש חשש של הפסד המשפחה, לכאורה יש מקום לומר שאין חוששין למראית עין.

(ועיין שם בהתשובה, שר' משה ז"ל כותב, שבכלל משמע שספק מראית עין מותר, וא"כ במקרה שאיש ירא אלקים נכנס לטעמפעל כדי להשתתף בבר מצוה של אחיו, לכאורה כל מי שרואהו נכנס לשם יאמר שהוא נכנס לשם כדי להשתתף בהבר מצוה ולא כדי להתפלל שם).

Conservation Of Money

I am a conservative. Not only do I like to conserve traditional values, I also like to conserve money. The Mishna says "הקב"ה חס על ממונם של ישראל" - G-d Himself is concerned that we should save money and I try to follow His path. So my theory is - if you can get 25 percent off when you buy something in a certain store, you can get 100 percent off if you don't buy it. I have saved a lot of money over the years with that philosophy. Another thing that helps is to realize that advertisements are all brainwashing. They spends millions upon millions on mind games trying to get you to buy their products. I don't buy it - pun intended. I just received an email telling me that I can get a discount on buying gas. 

Exciting. 

But it won't help. When I was a yeshiva bochur, I didn't have the money to get drivers license. In Israel, driving lessons are very expensive and [at the time] one had to take a minimum of 20. Then I got married and I still couldn't afford lessons. I had to pay the rent and for food and that was more than I could afford. So no driving lessons. I am 47 years old and I still can't drive. Frankly, I have no desire to do so. Cars are expensive to buy [or even lease], then there is the upkeep, gas, insurance, repairs etc. It really adds up. So I have saved tens and tens of thousands of dollars by not driving. At times, I am envious of those with cars who aren't dependent on public transportation but in the big picture, I don't feel I am missing out.     

I am well aware of the fact that everyone reading this drives and might even think I am a bit kooky [which, given my proclivity for a certain tzadik in the previous century, wouldn't be far from the truth] but I am not saying that everyone should do it. Most of us live in places where you can't survive without a car. We are almost all well to do and live in the suburbs where a car is absolutely necessary. Most people have at least two. But I grew up [did I ever do that?] in the city where public transportation was readily available and having a car was a huge hassle forcing one to find parking where there was none and to move the car early in the morning [when opposite side of the street parking rules were in effect] etc. Then I moved to Yerushalayim where there is also a lot of public transportation. Now I live in Givat Zeev where there are frequent buses to where ever I need to go. It is just one less huge expense in life and only a minor inconvenience. So when I see the ad telling me how I can get a discount on gas I remember that I am doing even better - I don't spent a cent on gas [which is also much better for the environment].

I also walk a lot more which is great for your health. I see my friends driving to and from shul when the few minute walk would be much better for them. Plus, they would get שכר פסיעות. But - they are used to the comfort and convenience of their cars. So they drive. 

Another way to save money is to leave the house without money or a credit card. I do it all the time and nothing bad ever happens. You can't spend it if it is not available. When I was single and my father gave me spending money, he never gave me a credit card. Only cash. Now I understand that this was to ensure that I only spend what I am given so there is a limit. My friends would walk around with credit cards and there was no limit. Now - I no longer get spending [or any other type of] money from my father [he should live and be well] so I spend even less of his money. Good for him!! He saves and I save. I save because I walk out of the house without money. That is something you can try. Or at least to only take a certain amount of cash to limit what you spend. Also, many people have a harder time spending cash than by credit card. It hurts to give away those crisp bills while the plastic comes right back into your wallet [if you have one - I don't:-) - another money saver] and you don't feel the expense. Just some vague idea that at some future point you will have to pay it - from your phone or computer so it won't really ever cost you "real money". 

Another way to save money is to delay gratification. When you see something you want to buy - promise yourself that you will get it next week. Next week you might realize you don't really need it after all. We constantly buy things we don't need and are just products [no pun intended] of the abject consumerist society in which we live [I don't usually have the opportunity to use the word "abject" so I am happy I did now]. By pushing things off, we buy less, less frequently. We also train ourselves to be less materialistic people. 

Another way to save money - vacations. Is it really worth 800 dollars a night to sleep in a hotel? You can sleep at home for free!! People go bananas paying their mortgages off and then go to hotels to sleep. Why? You have SUCH a comfy home!!! MORE COMFORTABLE than first class on any jet. So see it as a four thousand dollar a night experience as first class would cost. If you need to get away - OK. Go. Enjoy. But go to a place that is less expensive that you will enjoy just as much as a more expensive place. Like, instead of flying overseas, stay domestic. Go to Miami or something instead of Scotland or the south of France. Unless of course you are just DYING to go to those places. After you go and paid, ask yourself if it was worth it. If it wasn't - consider that next time you want to go away to an exotic location.     

If you save money you can retire earlier, you become less materialistic [as we already mentioned] and you have a lot left over to give to those less fortunate than you are. We are living in such affluence that for hundreds of millions, living one day with our creature comforts [clean water coming from our faucets, electricity, comfortable shoes, ample food etc.] would be the experience of a lifetime. They would feel like kings and queens having what we totally take for granted. 

If money needs to be spent - like on one's spouse or children, then spend it. Frugality is a middah you should practice willingly on yourself but not to be imposed on others. 

The BEST SPENT MONEY is either on shalom bayit [if you want shalom - then "buy it"] mitzvos and on tzedaka. Those last FOREVER!!!  

Ted's Yeshiva Bachur Friend

Ted Cruz tweeted:

"Pretty cool: A good friend is studying in Yeshiva in Israel. His rabbi told him he liked my beard, elaborating “It gives Cruz a Talmudic & Rabbinic look & presence that will put the fear of the Lord into Israel’s enemies & promote Middle East peace.” Wow. Perhaps a bit much...."

Which Yeshiva rabbi says "Lord"? 

What About "Custodian" And "Gored"?

Top 5 exclusively Jewish English words.
 1. Sharecropper 
2. Threshing Floor 
3. Retroactively 
4. bathhouse 
5. Innkeeper

[Floating around]

Links

This post reminded me of this post

The New Anti-Semitism

By Victor Davis Hanson 

The old anti-Semitism was mostly, but not exclusively, a tribal prejudice expressed in America up until the mid 20th century most intensely on the right. It manifested itself from the silk-stocking country club and corporation (“gentlemen’s agreement”) to the rawer regions of the Ku Klux Klan’s lunatic fringe.

While liberals from Joe Kennedy to Gore Vidal were often openly anti-Semitic, the core of traditional anti-Semitism, as William F. Buckley once worried, was more rightist. And such fumes still arise among the alt-right extremists.

Yet soon a new anti-Semitism became more insidious, given that it was a leftist phenomenon among those quick to cite oppression and discrimination elsewhere. Who then could police the bigotry of the self-described anti-bigotry police?

The new form of the old bias grew most rapidly on the 1960s campus and was fueled by a number of leftist catalysts. The novel romance of the Palestinians and corresponding demonization of Israel, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War, gradually allowed former Jew-hatred to be cloaked by new rabid and often unhinged opposition to Israel. In particular, these anti-Semites fixated on Israel’s misdemeanors and exaggerated them while excusing and downplaying the felonies of abhorrent and rogue nations.

Indeed, evidence of the new anti-Semitism was that the Left was neutral, and even favorable, to racist, authoritarian, deadly regimes of the then Third World while singling out democratic Israel for supposed humanitarian crimes. By the late 1970s, Israelis and often by extension Jews in general were demagogued by the Left as Western white oppressors. Israel’s supposed victims were romanticized abroad as exploited Middle Easterners. And by extension, Jews were similarly exploiting minorities at home.

Then arose a relatively new mainstream version of Holocaust denial that deprived Jews of any special claim to historic victim status. And it was a creed common among World War II revisionists and some American minorities who were resentful that the often more successful Jews might have experienced singularly unimaginable horror in the past. The new anti-Semitism that grew up in the 1960s was certainly in part legitimized by the rise of overt African-American bigotry against Jews (and coupled by a romantic affinity for Islam). It was further nursed on old stereotypes of cold and callous Jewish ghetto storeowners (e.g., “The Pawnbroker” character), and expressed boldly in the assumption that black Americans were exempt from charges of bias and hatred.

Anti-Semitic blacks assumed that they could not be credibly charged with bigotry and were therefore free to say what they pleased about Jews. Indeed, by the 1970s and 1980s, anti-Semitism had become the mother’s milk of a prominent post–Martin Luther King Jr. black-activist leadership, well beyond Malcolm X and the Black Panthers — even though Jews had been on the forefront of the civil-rights movements and had been recognized as such by an earlier generation of liberal black leaders.

Soon it became common for self-described black leaders to explain, to amplify, to contextualize, or to be unapologetic about their anti-Semitism, in both highbrow and lowbrow modes: James Baldwin (“Negroes are anti-Semitic because they’re anti-white”), Louis Farrakhan (“When they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know what they do, call me an anti-Semite. Stop it. I am anti-termite. The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a great name. Hitler was a very great man”), Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Al Sharpton (“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”), and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (“The Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me”).

Note that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both ran as Democratic candidates for president. Sharpton officially visited the Obama White House more than 100 times, and Wright was the Obamas’ longtime personal pastor who officiated at the couple’s wedding and the baptism of their daughters and inspired the title of Obama’s second book.

In the past ten years, however, we have seen an emerging new, new anti-Semitism. It is likely to become far more pernicious than both the old-right and new-left versions, because it is not just an insidiously progressive phenomenon. It has also become deeply embedded in popular culture and is now rebranded with acceptable cool among America’s historically ignorant youth. In particular, the new, new bigotry is “intersectional.” It serves as a unifying progressive bond among “marginalized” groups such as young Middle Easterners, Muslims, feminists, blacks, woke celebrities and entertainers, socialists, the “undocumented,” and student activists. Abroad, the new, new bigotry is fueled by British Labourites and anti-Israel EU grandees.

Of course, the new, new anti-Semitism’s overt messages derive from both the old and the new. There is the same conspiratorial idea that the Jews covertly and underhandedly exert inordinate control over Americans (perhaps now as grasping sports-franchise owners or greedy hip-hop record executives). But the new, new anti-Semitism has added a number of subtler twists, namely that Jews are part of the old guard whose anachronistic standards of privilege block the emerging new constituency of woke Muslims, blacks, Latinos, and feminists.

Within the Democratic party, such animus is manifested by young woke politicians facing an old white hierarchy. Progressive activist Linda Sarsour oddly singled out for censure Senate majority leader Charles Schumer, saying, “I’m talking to Chuck Schumer. I’m tired of white men negotiating on the backs of people of color and communities like ours.”

In attacking Schumer, ostensibly a fellow progressive, Sarsour is claiming an intersectional bond forged in mutual victimization by whites — and thus older liberal Jews apparently either cannot conceive of such victimization or in fact are party to it. With a brief tweet, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez dismissed former Democratic senator Joe Lieberman’s worry over the current leftward drift of the new Democratic party. “New party, who dis?” she mocked, apparently suggesting that the 76-year-old former Democratic vice-presidential candidate was irrelevant to the point of nonexistence for the new progressive generation.

Likewise, the generic invective against Trump — perhaps the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish president of the modern era — as an anti-Semite and racist provides additional cover. Hating the supposedly Jew-hating Trump implies that you are not a Jew-hater yourself.

Rap and hip-hop music now routinely incorporate anti-Semitic lyrics and themes of Jews as oppressors — note the lyrics of rappers such as Malice, Pusha T, The Clipse, Ghostface Killah, Gunplay, Ice Cube, Jay-Z, Mos Def, and Scarface. More recently, LeBron James, the Los Angeles Lakers basketball legend, tweeted out the anti-Semitic lyrics of rapper 21 Savage: “We been getting that Jewish money, everything is Kosher.” LeBron was puzzled about why anyone would take offense, much less question him, a deified figure. He has a point, given that singling out Jews as money-grubbers, cheats, and conspirators has become a sort of rap brand, integral to the notion of the rapper as Everyman’s pushback against the universal oppressor. The music executive and franchise owner is the new Pawnbroker, and his demonization is often cast as no big deal at best and at worst as a sort of legitimate cry of the heart from the oppressed.

Marquee black leaders — from Keith Ellison to Barack Obama to the grandees of the Congressional Black Caucus — have all had smiling photo-ops with the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, a contemporary black version of Richard Spencer or the 1980s David Duke. Appearing with Farrakhan, however, never became toxic, even after he once publicly warned Jews, “And don’t you forget, when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s forever!”

Temple professor, former CNN analyst, and self-described path-breaking intellectual Marc Lamont Hill recently parroted the Hamas slogan of “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” — boilerplate generally taken to mean that the goal is the destruction of the current nation of Israel. And here, too, it’s understandable that Hill was shocked at the ensuing outrage — talk of eliminating Israel is hardly controversial in hip left-wing culture.

The Democratic party’s fresh crop of representatives likewise reflects the new, new and mainlined biases, camouflaged in virulent anti-Israeli sentiment. Or, as Princeton scholar Robert George recently put it:


The Left calls the tune, and just as the Left settled in on abortion in the early 1970s and marriage redefinition in the ’90s, it has now settled in on opposition to Israel – not merely the policies of its government, but its very existence as a Jewish state and homeland of the Jewish people.

In that vein, Michigan’s new congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, assumed she’d face little pushback from her party when she tweeted out the old slur that Jewish supporters of Israel have dual loyalties: Opponents of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement, which targets Israel, “forgot what country they represent,” she said. Ironically, Tlaib is not shy about her own spirited support of the Palestinians: She earlier had won some attention for an eliminationist map in her office that had the label “Palestine” pasted onto the Middle East, with an arrow pointing to Israel.

Similarly, Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) — like Tlaib, a new female Muslim representative in the House — used to be candid in her views of Israel as an “apartheid regime”: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” On matters of apartheid, one wonders whether Omar would prefer to be an Arab citizen inside “evil” Israel or an Israeli currently living in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Sarsour defended Omar with the usual anti-Israel talking points, in her now obsessive fashion. Predictably, her targets were old-style Jewish Democrats. This criticism of Omar, Sarsour said, “is not only coming from the right-wing but [from] some folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.” Again, note the anti-Semitic idea that support for the only functioning democracy in the Middle East is proof of lackluster support for democracy and free speech.

The unhinged Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) has derided Trump as a Hitler-like character, and Trump supporters as a doomed cadre of sick losers. He had once wondered whether too many U.S. Marines stationed on the shores of Guam might tip over the island and capsize it, so it was not too surprising when he also voiced the Farrakhan insect theme, this time in connection with apparently insidious Jewish destroyers of the West Bank: “There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself.”

Out on the barricades, some Democrats, feminists, and Muslim activists, such as the co-founders of the “Women’s March,” Tamika Mallory and the now familiar Sarsour, have been staunch supporters of Louis Farrakhan (Mallory, for example, called him “the greatest of all time”). The New York Times recently ran a story of rivalries within the Women’s March, reporting that Mallory and Carmen Perez, a Latina activist, lectured another would-be co-leader, Vanessa Wruble, about her Jewish burdens. Wruble later noted: “What I remember — and what I was taken aback by — was the idea that Jews were specifically involved, and predominantly involved, in the slave trade, and that Jews make a lot of money off of black and brown bodies.”

Progressive icon Alice Walker was recently asked by the New York Times to cite her favorite bedtime reading. She enjoyed And the Truth Will Set You Free, by anti-Semite crackpot David Icke, she said, because the book was “brave enough to ask the questions others fear to ask” and was “a curious person’s dream come true.” One wonders which “questions” needed asking, and what exactly was Walker’s “dream” that had come “true.” When called out on Walker’s preference for Icke (who in the past has relied on the 19th-century Russian forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in part to construct an unhinged conspiracy about ruling “lizard people”), the Times demurred, with a shrug: It did not censor its respondents’ comments, it said, or editorialize about them.

These examples from contemporary popular culture, sports, politics, music, and progressive activism could be easily multiplied. The new, new anti-Semites do not see themselves as giving new life to an ancient pathological hatred; they’re only voicing claims of the victims themselves against their supposed oppressors. The new, new anti-Semites’ venom is contextualized as an “intersectional” defense from the hip, the young, and the woke against a Jewish component of privileged white establishmentarians — which explains why the bigoted are so surprised that anyone would be offended by their slurs.

In our illiterate and historically ignorant era, the new, new hip anti-Semitism becomes a more challenging menace than that posed by prior buffoons in bedsheets or the clownish demagogues of the 1980s such as the once-rotund Al Sharpton in sweatpants. And how weird that a growing trademark of the new path-breaking identity politics is the old stereotypical dislike of Jews and hatred of Israel.

The Mark Of A True "Man"

Chazal say אשרי מי שבניו זכרים which could mean that people are fortunate when they have sons [in the time of the gemara that was the preferred gender, as it still is for many - but certainly not all. I myself have received limitless joy and nachas from my daughters הי"ו]. It can also mean [and this is the literal translation] fortunate is one whose sons are boys and not girls i.e. masculine and not feminine. Femininity is is beautiful - on girls. But not on boys. Let boys be boys and men be men.   

Denise McAllister


The American Psychological Association has released a report that says “traditional” masculinity is the cause of an array of pathologies, including sexual abuse, murder, mental illness, and even suicide. Masculinity, it claims, “encourages men to adopt an approach to sexuality that emphasizes promiscuity and other aspects of risky sexual behavior, such as not learning a partner’s sexual history or engaging in sex without protection from pregnancy or disease transmission. Indeed, heterosexual men’s adherence to traditional, sexist aspects of masculinity has been connected to sexual assault perpetration, as well as decreased condom use and increased casual ‘hook-up’ sex.”

This description of “traditional masculinity” is far from the truth. Yet it’s the premise psychologists, educators, activists, and politicians use to form judgments about men and masculinity—judgments that affect not only policy but relationships.

The truth is, masculinity is good—or at least morally neutral. Men’s physical strength, sexual drive, emotional reticence, and raw competitiveness are simply natural traits that can be exercised for good or bad.

The same is true with feminine traits. A woman’s sexual power, emotional awareness, intuition, and guarded competitiveness are merely aspects of her femaleness. They can be noble or degraded, according to how they’re applied.


Why, then, do so many steeped in modern feminine ideology consider masculine traits toxic? Why do they oppose cultivating them in our society and encouraging boys and men to express themselves as they are designed? Why do they call masculinity toxic?

The obvious answer is they have misidentified masculinity as something it’s not. They have assumed that “men behaving badly” is masculinity itself. As a result, they have concluded that this natural aspect of a man must be rejected, suppressed, reconditioned, and manipulated into something else—something more feminine, or, as they have posited, a new kind of masculinity—a subjective, socially contrived masculinity, which is individual-centric and sensitive to men who struggle to be masculine, and bears little relation to actual masculinity.

This effort to eradicate masculinity from society is dangerous because it disrupts social cohesiveness and the relationships that depend on the complementary nature of masculinity and femininity to flourish. The idea that masculinity can be transformed through the sheer willpower of social awareness means that a person can be redefined through external social conditioning, either voluntarily or involuntarily, depending on the extent of the powers granted to those who deem masculinity a threat to society.

Real Men Can Control Their Strength

 Controlling urges when their fulfillment is inappropriate is true masculine strength. [איזהו גבור ....]

The APA says traditional masculinity is violent, but consider the fact that in the 18th century there was a stark decline in individual violence—murder, rape, abuse, and domestic violence. There were still wars and conflicts between groups of people, but the individual violence was nothing compared to the 20th and 21st century, despite their ebbs and flows.

What was going on, then? If masculinity was so toxic, why was there such a decline in individual violence when masculinity was fostered and held in high esteem? Violence declined because men, informed by a religious worldview that coupled a man’s nature with his rational and moral ability to mold it, exercised self-control. Boys and girls were taught what it really meant to be a man.
The culture sought to develop and train men to use their masculinity for the good. Key to this development was self-control.

Society did not seek to, in essence, rewrite men’s genetic code or recondition them to be something they weren’t. The culture sought to develop and train men to use their masculinity for the good. Key to this development was self-control. This, more than anything else, was a sign of manhood.

Because of their overpowering strength compared to women and their sexual drives, men were trained to control their impulses. Their strength was honed for an honorable purpose. Boys were taught to become husbands and fathers one day. Their masculinity wasn’t just something to express however they wanted. It had a designed purpose—to care for those they loved, to sacrifice, provide, nurture, and die for them.

A “real man” was a man who used his strength to defend and cherish his family, community, and nation. The purpose of his sexual vitality was to bear children and connect with his wife, and his emotional quietude was to endure the hardships of caring for those under his charge without complaint. By controlling his emotions instead of spilling them for the world to see, those under his care were free to express theirs and find strength in him.

Men and Women Are Satisfied in Each Other

Within the bonds of marriage a man revealed his emotional side—with his wife, not with a cabal of babbling cronies. In the context of a trusting, close relationship they intimately expressed themselves as friends and lovers. Wives responded to their husbands, not with demands and competition cloaked as equality, but with appreciation and respect.

An interesting observation Alexis de Tocqueville made in the early days of America was that women didn’t mind “submitting” to their husbands because men and women entered into marriage by choice, not arrangement. They had chosen them, and trust was a strong component of their relationship.

“I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, nor that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it,” Tocqueville wrote. “It appeared to me, on the contrary, that they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will, and make it their boast to bend themselves to the yoke, not to shake it off. Such at least is the feeling expressed by the most virtuous of their sex.”

This notion that masculine men are automatically unemotional and sexual deviants is contrary to historical evidence. Men were the poets, passionate inventors, and soulful warriors who kept dairies and wrote letters to their loved ones. During the Revolutionary War, one soldier penned a poem about marriage that reveals the longings many men shared:

When in thine arms I recline,
Enraptured still to call thee mine
To call thee mine for life!
I glory in those sacred ties,
Which modern fools and wits despise,
Of Husband and of Wife.
One Mutual flame inspires our bliss,
Even years have not destroyed.

Men longed to be married because it supplied sexual satisfaction. It also served as protection against sexual immorality—not perfectly, of course, but a strong deterrent. In the early colonies, sex in marriage was so highly valued that they allowed for divorce not only for infidelity and sexual wrongdoing but also for sexual inability.

A man’s sexual vitality was not determined by how many women he had sex with, as seems to be the case today, but how many children he had with his wife. A man who showed sexual aggression toward women or was known for his sexual wantonness, as so many are in these post-sexual revolution times, was not considered masculine. Quite the contrary. He was looked down upon as an embarrassment to manhood because he failed to exercise self-control.

Today, many men and women have little self-control. Sex is too often the goal, not a relationship. This causes marriages to become deserts of intimacy and sex. Women neglect men because they want intimacy first, failing to see that sex is the gateway to intimacy. And men only reinforce a woman’s lack of desire because they see sex as the goal and don’t open its door into intimacy and deeper knowledge of the one they love.

Masculinity Can Be Deeply Fulfilling

The APA report says masculinity leads to mental illness, depression, and even suicide, but the truth is that masculinity, which is cultivated and nurtured in a healthy marriage, finds peace and emotional fulfillment in that space. With marriage on the decline, high levels of divorce, and toxic marriages where men are oppressed by anti-male feminist notions, men are not finding the emotional release and comfort in a trusted relationship as they once did.

Instead of exercising self-control, expressing their manhood by leading a family as the protector and provider, and enjoying sexual expression with one trusted woman, they are experiencing loneliness, isolation, and disconnected sex through empty hookups and pornography.
Men are not finding the emotional release and comfort in a trusted relationship as they once did.

A fascinating quote from the 18th century might sound odd to our modern ears, but it has much to say about men and out-of-control sex: “The semen discharged too lavishly occasions a weariness, indisposition to motion, convulsions, leanness, dryness, heats and pains in the membranes of the brain, with a dullness of the senses.”

It might seem a bit funny, but maybe there’s some truth to it that we should heed. One thing is for sure: sexual promiscuity, which dulled the brain and caused more depression than many men might care to admit, was certainly not “traditional masculinity.”

Masculinity is at its best when a man is married, but it takes two. How can a man be a man if women don’t want him to be a man? This is the conundrum and the deleterious consequence of modern feminism and its war against masculinity—and marriage.

Men who want to be men need women who want the same. The loss of marriage as the sacred realm of both masculine and feminine expression has created a social vacuum that has been filled with deviance and degradation.

The ills the APA cites are not caused by traditional masculinity, but by its loss. We have abandoned, devalued, and disrespected the role and nature of true manhood, replacing it with a degraded representation of its former self. We have failed to nurture men and then blame men for their toxic masculinity—a masculinity made toxic only by its neglect and abandonment.