Recently, there has been a rising cry against masculinity in America. This has been shown across many different genres of the culture. In marketing, Gillette and Harry’s, two razor companies that depend on men to survive, put out ads against their core buyers.

In Gillette’s ad, they called upon men to “do more” because it’s by them that all the issues in the culture are their fault, not realizing that if men are the problem then doing more is not the answer. Similarly, Harry’s, in wanting to trump its competitor, came right out in saying that masculinity itself needs to be redefined and that most traditional traits of masculinity should be trashed. These two campaigns brought a lot of controversy, but much of the attack against men has been allowed without comment for years.

Just look at popular television shows over the last twenty years. Gone are the fathers and leaders like Andy Griffith or Hugh Beaumont (leave it to Beaver). With the conception of Homer Simpson, television fathers and husbands became weak, passive, goofs that did not care for themselves or anyone else. With the average household in America consuming over seven hours of television a day, it’s clear that these on-screen models of a family have taken their toll on our culture.

After years of the media showing us that the traditional family, fatherhood, and masculinity are weak and/or toxic, it is no wonder that we are seeing a greater pushback against men.

The American Psychological Association (APA) is where the campaign against men is truly vocalized, not just for marketing, but for a new societal identity.

Recently, the association came out with a report entitled APA Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men that is designed to give insight into how to help the men of today. Reading through the guidelines though, it becomes increasingly apparent that there really is no interest in helping men. Instead, they intend to redefine men.

The definition given, regarding traditional masculinity immediately shows where the APA stands, stating,

"Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology (Levant & Richmond, 2007)."

So how then can masculinity be better if at its foundations it is toxic? The APA gives no answers, they only say that more needs to be done to get men into the psychologist’s office. In fact, the real issue that is pushed through in this paper is the beginning of an argument that will actually rip apart society.

To be clear, there are obviously issues in America and the world today that are more specific to men, but as we look at the issues, where should we fall? What the APA aspires to do is to strip all traditional ideas of masculinity and create a subjective realm of gender. This will not only affect men but all of society.

As a Christian, I believe that each person is created in the image of God, as stated in Genesis 1:27, and I believe each person has value and a purpose from before they were even born, as seen in Ephesians 2:10 and Psalm 139. Being made male and female are distinct foundations that inform our actions on this earth. No one was born as a mistake. So when we take an objective biological fact, that is the sex you were born, and suddenly separate gender into an idea that can be changed moment by moment, it begins to strip away the principle view of reality and humanity.

This study, while quite in-depth, never actually lifts off. If gender and sex are separated, and gender is an ever-changing identity based on how an individual feels, then there should be no argument for masculinity or femininity. Rather there should be no genders, no pronouns, and no assumptions at all. The APA goes so far as to interject that parenting a child to be masculine is harmful, stating: “policing of masculinity expression in boys by their caregivers tends to be ineffective and emotionally damaging to the child and creates tension in the relationship.” According to their report, we should allow children to parent themselves and let the social powers decide what is best for them. If anyone thinks this is too extreme a read of the article, then you have not been paying attention to the case of  Petra and Dirk Wunderlich.

This German couple’s four children were seized by the state for a week because they wanted to homeschool them. Their lawsuit was recently denied after five years of court battles, setting the precedence that the state knows best for your children than you do.

If we follow the supposed science of the APA, we find a self-defeating idea of humanity. Over and over again it is stated that the goal of the report is to “aspire to help boys and men over their lifetimes navigate restrictive definitions of masculinity and create their own concepts of what it means to be male.” Based on what? Based on no objective standard. I am not against helping men and women become better people through counseling, but to be better or “do more”, as Gillette reminded us, wouldn’t there have to be a set standard to shoot for?

Men are not the issue and women are not the issue. This move by secularists is based on selfish desires. If I want to be a man, a woman, or an elephant, I can be and should be, according to them. In fact, these voices want to tell each individual who to be. In contrast, looking at the biblical and biological design for mankind to grow healthily, there must be sacrifice from both sexes.

When God created Adam in Genesis 1 (the Hebrew is “Ha’adam” which means human), he was called “man” (“Ish”), and from his side his rib was sacrificed to create “woman” (“Ishshah”). There had to be a sacrifice for the creation of both sexes to be perfected. “Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh;” is the design for society. If we continue to try and prop up one sex at the expense of the other, all will lose in the end. This secular movement must be stopped. Instead, let’s declare that each individual was born the right sex, that they matter, that each sex is distinct, and that it is ok.

Rather than allowing marketing, secular illogical “science”, or television to give identity to our future, we must stand on the truth that has been in effect since creation.