Sen. Josh Hawley has a new book out called Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. It’s a combination of a manhood book and a politics book. He frames it as a battle between a biblical view of manhood and an “Epicurean” one that he associates with leftism. In the balance of this battle is the future of the American Experiment. Thus Hawley presents a smaller battle - right vs. left - as an echo of a larger one - the Bible vs. Epicurus. By beating back leftism today, one is not just winning a contemporary political struggle, but striking a blow in a cosmic struggle.
There is some confusion here on the desirability of "status" with some saying seeking it is wrong. Well, seeking it for its own sake is probably prideful and a waste of time, but without it, men won't be able to attract a mate and if they do happen to find a woman they will be dominated by her.
Men having status is absolutely a part of God's design. He designed women to be attracted to three things in a man as a mate. Physical size. Women want a man that is bigger than them. Greater intellectual ability. And status. Most women will settle for two of the three.
Men on the other hand were designed a wee bit more simply when it comes to what they are looking for in a woman. Fertility. And either thru hard wiring in creation or by evolutionary means, fertility is translated into beauty. Looks. Men will overlook a LOT of crazy/low IQ/whatever for a hot dime. Now, this fact drives the Left and feminists absolutely NUTS!!! And they have spent the past 75 years trying to make this reality not be what it is, reality. But they lose, every single time.
As for Hawley's view on a man's authority within the family. If he adhered even to the complementarian view (which IS NOT BIBLICAL! Scripture is quite clear that a patriarchy is the proper order of family, society and the church) his political career would be over.
What is the difference between "thick complementaranism" and "Biblical patriarchy" in this kind of discussion?
I asked once on Twitter when someone postulated a big difference, but they refused to "do my research for me" etc., etc. Typical online dead end. I am genuinely curious.
Or are you referring to "thin complementarianism" when you use "complementarianism" here?
Sorry for the delay. I make no distinction between thick and thin. For me, it is clear that scripture teaches a strict hierarchy for gender roles for society, the church and for the family. That hierarchy comes in the form of the patriarchy.
As for the difference between the complementarians and the egalitarians I see it like this. Since complementarians don't consider themselves "feminists", strictly speaking, they made a compromise between the feminists/egalitarians and those who follow the bible, the patriarchy folks. It is simply an attempt to make the bible and its teaching less offensive. And when we do that we make the bible irrelevant to our lives. Cuz the bible, its not changing. Or as Lady Thatcher famously put it, "This lady is not for turning". In other words, she wasn't looking to compromise, in her case with socialists. In the case of the bible on the patriarchy, with feminists. And remember, feminism is simply one wing of communism. It is the wing of communism dedicated to destroying the family. And damn if it has done a hell of a job!
In reality, complementarians really only apply their complementarian approach to the pulpit and no where else. MOST CERTAINLY NOT IN THE HOME! I mean, Adam was actually the first egalitarian when he chose to not correct his wife and instead disobey God. God had given him this amazing fellow human being that was awfully pretty and he could have sex with and get along with and support him in his work of bringing all of creation under his dominion. He wasn't going to let a little rule from God screw that up, was he?
And since the late 1800's in the West, man has been choosing this direction to the absolute destruction of society and the family.
I would HIGHLY recommend the book "Masculine Christianity" by Zachary M. Garris. In chapter 3, titled "Complementarian's Compromise" the author talks about an organization called the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" that outlined its core beliefs in the Danvers Statement of 1987. In this statement they chose the name "complementarian" instead of the much more precise and much more descriptive term, "patriarchy". Want to guess why they chose such a confusing term when a much better term was already in the public vernacular? Yep, they didn't want to alienate those pesky feminists. So, rather than do the hard but certainly doable work of redeeming a word that had been demonized by the fems, they chose the easy way out. And they have been paying for that ever since.
So, even in its founding, complementarianism was already bending to the culture instead of standing strong with scripture. And it has been downhill ever since.
But it would take some doing to stand against the culture. Lots of courage and a willingness to let some single moms and other women leave your church. And those people tithe. See the problem?
Also, men in our culture are saddled with women who are feminists, plain and simple. Even the ones like my wife, who was raised in a strict, conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran home. On farm no less. We are in our 60's. So both of us have been swimming in a river of feminism our entire lives. It is in her blood. She has been told both overtly and subversively, to "not be a door mat", "you can do anything a man can do", "you deserve this", etc. etc. It is the same for women my age as the young folks now who believe, understandably, that the climate is going to kill us all, or that men and women are the same except for their plumbing. Lies all, but when it is all you have heard since you were a wee lass in short britches, it is all you know.
I watched my dad live a miserable existence with a woman, my mother, who ruled the home and when she didn't get her way, it was hell on earth for my father and I for weeks on end. So, as an adolescent I resolved to not allow my wife to rule me that way. The deal was sealed, so to speak, when I attended a Bill Gothard "Seminar on Basic Youth Conflicts" and realized that scripture taught that happiness in the home comes when the father is the sole leader.
And as a result, since I have been unwilling to cave like most men, we don't have much peace in the home. One thing that wives do to their husbands, in addition to using sex as a weapon, is wives (with the Deceiver's assistance) throw their husband's imperfection in their face as an excuse to not follow their lead. I have chosen to not allow my sin to drive me to abdicate my responsibility to lead my wife.
I have gone on too far, much too far, but this is a subject for which I have a great deal of passion. Have a great day. I look forward to your reply.
Your claim that complementarians limit their approach to the pulpit and most certainly not the home is the very DEFINITION of thin complementarianism, and is untrue for thick complementarianism. So you leave me with my original impression that you just don't understand the terms and their differences.
I guess I would add that Christians and conservatives have for too long, ceded way too much ground to the Left when it comes to language. We have allowed the Left to determine what is "allowed" to be said in polite company.
And since we think in our native tongue, i.e. we form ideas and thought with language, the Left has successfully narrowed the scope of what can be said and even thought.
Patriarchy is simply one example.
The Right needs to grow a pair and speak the truth. The bible (and experience) teaches that people are drawn to the Truth spoken boldly. Folks are repelled by mealy mouth compromise. For proof, I give you all the mainline denominations; Episcopal, Methodist, most of Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. and the old guard GOP which has zero support among the masses and is only kept alive by the donor class.
How many folks do you know that actually practice "thick" complementarianism? I don't know that many. Mostly at the church we attend, where the entire congregation of 250-300 people are extremely conservative culturally. Only one family sends their kids to a public school, all the rest home school. A couple of kids attend a conservative Lutheran HS.
But of all the other Christian families I know, I don't know of a single one that practices what you call "thick" C.
As for terms and definitions, if you want to call what I refer to as the patriarchy as "thick" C., then be my guest. However, one of those terms is MUCH more easily defined and understood by most people than the other. I will let you decide which one.
My larger point remains. Nearly all of mainstream Evangelicals do not follow scripture when it comes to how they order heir lives and their homes.
To lift a line from "The Sting" I would ask, "you folla?"
I would say that "patriarchy" brings in associations that lead to misunderstanding. When Saudi Arabia did not allow women to drive, that was part of their patriarchy, but not likely what you are advocating. At one time in America, it was hard for a woman to own property or have her own credit, and the laws even caused problems for widows. All of these associations with the word "patriarchy" make it a poor choice for labeling thick complementarianism. It is simply not very precise.
The thin complementarians limit the pulpit to men, but seem to look for ways to accommodate women in every other way that they can argue lies beyond some specific Biblical prohibition: leading prayers, song leading, basically everything besides the sermon. They are dragged along kicking and screaming by certain Bible verses, but they do not believe that God ordained a natural order with men leading in family and faith, so they are egalitarian in every way that is not ruled out by their Biblicism. My congregation, like MANY, does not fall into that description.
Rather than read bad motivations into the choice of the word "complementarianism" I would be charitable and recognize that they avoided a word that already had connotations that would not be accurate.
I will just repeat one thing, for emphasis, that I said earlier. Patriarchy has only recently become a word that is loaded with negative connotations. And that was something the feminists did on purpose.
For hundreds of years patriarchy was not considered controversial in the least, as it accurately and precisely described the hierarchy laid out in scripture for family, church and society. The organizers of the meeting in 1987 chose to come up with a new word that few laymen can define instead of doing the hard but honest work of redeeming an accurate and precise biblical term. IMHO, that was their first, in a long line of, mistakes.
I have enjoyed our gentle jousting. I will add one last point, sort of in jest, sort of not. Having read the bible, especially but not only, Genesis, I ALWAYS assume bad motives until I know otherwise:). Best.
Another very good article. You are right that the key missing link in messaging to young men today - from all authorities - is that they should be ambitious and pursue power and status to the best of their abilities. There is nothing immoral about that. It will help them to lead a more enjoyable and more meaningful life, and also to do more good where appropriate. It will also give them more motivation to improve themselves, instead of being alienated and directionless, as so many young men are today.
It seems plausible to me that Hawley pulled his punches on the most controversial subjects in order to protect his future. A straightforward defense of patriarchy as a good thing would give his opponents a lot of ammunition. I have no doubt that Hawley examines every word in the light of his future ambitions.
It is interesting, also, that the only review of this book that is cited in this article is not from a fellow Christian man, nor even a Christian woman, but rather from a Jewish woman. It seems likely that this was the most prominent review of this Christian man's book in the US media. It is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs really.
The contradictions and what you call a "low grade level" might be better explained if we know who Hawley's ghostwriter was for the book. Obviously a sitting Senator does not have time to write a book like this, so someone else did most of the work here. I have suspected for several years that nearly every book "written" by a politician is done for two reasons. The first and most important is a way for donors to skirt campaign finance restrictions. The second is to give the politician a framework he can push in campaign speeches, interviews, etc. I don't know how well his book does that from your review of it, but it may be part of the reason he doesn't offer a lot of practical advice for men in it. The primary purpose is to let young men knows he cares about their plight so they should vote for him.
Yes, this sounds right to me (the stealth campaign finance element rings especially true).
But I'll further speculate that the book was trying to squeeze between two goalposts.
1. Write a book about which Hawley can say, "Look, men (and women who love them), I'm in your corner. I see how men are falling behind. I wrote a whole book about manhood and masculine virtues, which the left is trying to tear down." None of those men will actually read it; the entire point is just to be able to say that he wrote a book about it.
2. See to it that the actual text of the book is so anodyne that it's extremely difficult to pull even a no-context quote out of it that can be used as a "gotcha" to imply Hawley hates women.
After some over the top excerpts of Earth in the Balance were used against Al Gore on the campaign trail almost all these books are written to avoid the no context quote problem.
Politicians have been running the book sales scam for awhile. One of the only ones to ever get prosecuted for it was Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh who sold more copies of her book to a non profit than were actually printed. I would assume most of them who know how to do it have plausible deniability like the old college football and basketball coaches who knew their players were getting paid by boosters but were intentionally kept in the dark on the details.
One thing I have found to be profoundly missing from all of these types of modern books on masculinity is the absence of the very thing I've always associated with its very essence: arete or excellence. I haven't read the book, so perhaps Hawley discusses it and it didn't make it into the review. But arete is the male urge to be the best, the rational ordering of thymotic competitive drives. Rather than competing with others, however, it is the competition with the ideal which drives men to seek perfection. It's my great-grandfather saying "A quarter inch off is still off. Do it again."
Social status is socially constructed, for the most part, but arete confers a status that bypasses the taste-makers of society. "Hey ya'll, watch this" doesn't need to be anything of value in society, but it earns respect nonetheless if nobody can replicate it. When it is something valuable, the taste-makers of society are completely disarmed, and must bow to the natural superiority of the man of excellence, regardless of their desires. Consider the number of people who are by-and-large despised by our current elites but grudgingly granted status because of their irreplaceability and excellence.
This is the problem with some of the neo-masculinists today - they aren't doing anything that can't be replicated by anyone else. Sleep around with cheap women? Buy cars and clothes? They get their brief moment, but then disappear because literally anyone can replicate that if they're willing to make the same sacrifices. "Hey ya'll, watch this! I'll make a basket from the free-throw line." Same thing with the "man up" crowd. There's no excellence in letting people walk on your face or doing thankless work for the benefit of people who despise and exploit you. It's just embarrassing. Shake the dust off your sandals, bro, and walk away.
I hate to think in Machiavellian terms (/s is necessary here?), but elites need compliant, dutiful serfs to pull the plow, accept their exploitation, and turn over the fruits of their labors to the masters, in order to retain their elite status. There is nothing the elite hate more than a body of freemen who practice excellence in all things, especially political organization. Which makes me wonder about the intentions of a U.S. Senator who tells men to "man up," take on a greater burden, and save the poor elites at risk of losing their cushy positions to rising social and political disorder.
I would add that many of the good outcomes in life come as a side effect of "doing the right thing." When people focus on achieving the side effect directly, they often fail.
In this case, pursue excellence for its inherent value, and as a side effect you will get respect, status, women will be attracted to you, etc. Pursue those side effects directly and you will be likely to go astray.
"The pursuit of happiness" is similarly misguided. Do the right thing, find your place in God's order, live a life that you can be convicted is pleasing to God, and happiness follows. Most of the self-help books that consist of anything else (navel gazing, dealing with your problems and your imperfect childhood and your baggage from the past, etc.) are worse than worthless. Go find a positive way to live; don't "pursue happiness."
Ditto for all the young men and women ruing their loneliness. Pursue excellence as a human being, become more interesting and attractive to the opposite sex as a side effect. The Manosphere/Game direct approaches are a sham by comparison.
I like the way you put it: that one should do the right things; the side effect of that will likely be a good outcome. By "right things," I'm sure you mean living by Christian principles. A good pastor I once knew gave a sermon titled, "When doing good leads to doing well." The point of his sermon was not quite what we're talking about here. He was concerned with good intentions going awry, but implicit in the title is the idea that doing the right thing often leads to success.
Certainly it is desirable for a man to use and develop his talents. To not do this would be akin to letting a field with rich soil become full of weeds.
As a side note, Renn's blog above mentions that women are often attracted to men with high status. Be that as it may, seeking status is worldly and not focused on God's Kingdom. Does any man really want a woman who is strongly attracted to status? It makes sense for every woman to want a reliable, capable man who can provide for her and the family, but a desire for more than that is toxic to a marriage.
One of the discussions that Aaron has touched on several times is the fact that a young man will be evaluated in two ways. (This is my expression of it, not his.) The first category is "husband material." Will he be a provider, good father to their children, treat her well, be a spiritual partner and leader within the family, etc.
The second category is attractive, interesting, intriguing, special in some way compared to other men, not just average in all respects, etc.
Many Christian young men are told to only concern themselves with the first category. Aaron has pointed out that this is unrealistic, does not grasp normal female instincts, and is bad advice.
Similarly, a young woman should be evaluated in two categories: wife material, and attractive/interesting, etc.
If you can make the case that the second category is inherently evil to desire, then we can tell young Christian men and women to not worry about being in shape, being attractive, developing talents that make them interesting or intriguing to the opposite sex, etc. But if desiring such things in a spouse is not evil, it is simply unnatural and clueless to tell young Christians not to concern themselves with that category.
I am sure Aaron could link to a previous newsletter that discusses these things in his own terminology.
The second category that you mention is logical: that both women and men want a spouse who will be interesting and intriguing in a special way. Certainly being in shape or having some talents that a potential spouse appreciates are good things. Overall, I see this as resonance in their personalities. Maybe a women loves horses and is strongly attracted to a man who also likes horses and is a good rider, or a man dislikes clutter and is attracted to a woman who is very neat and has an immaculate apartment. My concern was about a woman who wants status in a man that goes beyond the respectability of being a faithful spouse, good father, solid citizen, and good provider.
Obligations are enabled by and rewarded with status, honor, and privileges. Egalitarianism simply doesn't work, not in the marketplace, not in voluntary organizations, not anywhere.
There is some confusion here on the desirability of "status" with some saying seeking it is wrong. Well, seeking it for its own sake is probably prideful and a waste of time, but without it, men won't be able to attract a mate and if they do happen to find a woman they will be dominated by her.
Men having status is absolutely a part of God's design. He designed women to be attracted to three things in a man as a mate. Physical size. Women want a man that is bigger than them. Greater intellectual ability. And status. Most women will settle for two of the three.
Men on the other hand were designed a wee bit more simply when it comes to what they are looking for in a woman. Fertility. And either thru hard wiring in creation or by evolutionary means, fertility is translated into beauty. Looks. Men will overlook a LOT of crazy/low IQ/whatever for a hot dime. Now, this fact drives the Left and feminists absolutely NUTS!!! And they have spent the past 75 years trying to make this reality not be what it is, reality. But they lose, every single time.
As for Hawley's view on a man's authority within the family. If he adhered even to the complementarian view (which IS NOT BIBLICAL! Scripture is quite clear that a patriarchy is the proper order of family, society and the church) his political career would be over.
Thanks to Aaron for another great, fair review.
What is the difference between "thick complementaranism" and "Biblical patriarchy" in this kind of discussion?
I asked once on Twitter when someone postulated a big difference, but they refused to "do my research for me" etc., etc. Typical online dead end. I am genuinely curious.
Or are you referring to "thin complementarianism" when you use "complementarianism" here?
Sorry for the delay. I make no distinction between thick and thin. For me, it is clear that scripture teaches a strict hierarchy for gender roles for society, the church and for the family. That hierarchy comes in the form of the patriarchy.
As for the difference between the complementarians and the egalitarians I see it like this. Since complementarians don't consider themselves "feminists", strictly speaking, they made a compromise between the feminists/egalitarians and those who follow the bible, the patriarchy folks. It is simply an attempt to make the bible and its teaching less offensive. And when we do that we make the bible irrelevant to our lives. Cuz the bible, its not changing. Or as Lady Thatcher famously put it, "This lady is not for turning". In other words, she wasn't looking to compromise, in her case with socialists. In the case of the bible on the patriarchy, with feminists. And remember, feminism is simply one wing of communism. It is the wing of communism dedicated to destroying the family. And damn if it has done a hell of a job!
In reality, complementarians really only apply their complementarian approach to the pulpit and no where else. MOST CERTAINLY NOT IN THE HOME! I mean, Adam was actually the first egalitarian when he chose to not correct his wife and instead disobey God. God had given him this amazing fellow human being that was awfully pretty and he could have sex with and get along with and support him in his work of bringing all of creation under his dominion. He wasn't going to let a little rule from God screw that up, was he?
And since the late 1800's in the West, man has been choosing this direction to the absolute destruction of society and the family.
I would HIGHLY recommend the book "Masculine Christianity" by Zachary M. Garris. In chapter 3, titled "Complementarian's Compromise" the author talks about an organization called the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" that outlined its core beliefs in the Danvers Statement of 1987. In this statement they chose the name "complementarian" instead of the much more precise and much more descriptive term, "patriarchy". Want to guess why they chose such a confusing term when a much better term was already in the public vernacular? Yep, they didn't want to alienate those pesky feminists. So, rather than do the hard but certainly doable work of redeeming a word that had been demonized by the fems, they chose the easy way out. And they have been paying for that ever since.
So, even in its founding, complementarianism was already bending to the culture instead of standing strong with scripture. And it has been downhill ever since.
But it would take some doing to stand against the culture. Lots of courage and a willingness to let some single moms and other women leave your church. And those people tithe. See the problem?
Also, men in our culture are saddled with women who are feminists, plain and simple. Even the ones like my wife, who was raised in a strict, conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran home. On farm no less. We are in our 60's. So both of us have been swimming in a river of feminism our entire lives. It is in her blood. She has been told both overtly and subversively, to "not be a door mat", "you can do anything a man can do", "you deserve this", etc. etc. It is the same for women my age as the young folks now who believe, understandably, that the climate is going to kill us all, or that men and women are the same except for their plumbing. Lies all, but when it is all you have heard since you were a wee lass in short britches, it is all you know.
I watched my dad live a miserable existence with a woman, my mother, who ruled the home and when she didn't get her way, it was hell on earth for my father and I for weeks on end. So, as an adolescent I resolved to not allow my wife to rule me that way. The deal was sealed, so to speak, when I attended a Bill Gothard "Seminar on Basic Youth Conflicts" and realized that scripture taught that happiness in the home comes when the father is the sole leader.
And as a result, since I have been unwilling to cave like most men, we don't have much peace in the home. One thing that wives do to their husbands, in addition to using sex as a weapon, is wives (with the Deceiver's assistance) throw their husband's imperfection in their face as an excuse to not follow their lead. I have chosen to not allow my sin to drive me to abdicate my responsibility to lead my wife.
I have gone on too far, much too far, but this is a subject for which I have a great deal of passion. Have a great day. I look forward to your reply.
Your claim that complementarians limit their approach to the pulpit and most certainly not the home is the very DEFINITION of thin complementarianism, and is untrue for thick complementarianism. So you leave me with my original impression that you just don't understand the terms and their differences.
I guess I would add that Christians and conservatives have for too long, ceded way too much ground to the Left when it comes to language. We have allowed the Left to determine what is "allowed" to be said in polite company.
And since we think in our native tongue, i.e. we form ideas and thought with language, the Left has successfully narrowed the scope of what can be said and even thought.
Patriarchy is simply one example.
The Right needs to grow a pair and speak the truth. The bible (and experience) teaches that people are drawn to the Truth spoken boldly. Folks are repelled by mealy mouth compromise. For proof, I give you all the mainline denominations; Episcopal, Methodist, most of Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. and the old guard GOP which has zero support among the masses and is only kept alive by the donor class.
How many folks do you know that actually practice "thick" complementarianism? I don't know that many. Mostly at the church we attend, where the entire congregation of 250-300 people are extremely conservative culturally. Only one family sends their kids to a public school, all the rest home school. A couple of kids attend a conservative Lutheran HS.
But of all the other Christian families I know, I don't know of a single one that practices what you call "thick" C.
As for terms and definitions, if you want to call what I refer to as the patriarchy as "thick" C., then be my guest. However, one of those terms is MUCH more easily defined and understood by most people than the other. I will let you decide which one.
My larger point remains. Nearly all of mainstream Evangelicals do not follow scripture when it comes to how they order heir lives and their homes.
To lift a line from "The Sting" I would ask, "you folla?"
I would say that "patriarchy" brings in associations that lead to misunderstanding. When Saudi Arabia did not allow women to drive, that was part of their patriarchy, but not likely what you are advocating. At one time in America, it was hard for a woman to own property or have her own credit, and the laws even caused problems for widows. All of these associations with the word "patriarchy" make it a poor choice for labeling thick complementarianism. It is simply not very precise.
The thin complementarians limit the pulpit to men, but seem to look for ways to accommodate women in every other way that they can argue lies beyond some specific Biblical prohibition: leading prayers, song leading, basically everything besides the sermon. They are dragged along kicking and screaming by certain Bible verses, but they do not believe that God ordained a natural order with men leading in family and faith, so they are egalitarian in every way that is not ruled out by their Biblicism. My congregation, like MANY, does not fall into that description.
Rather than read bad motivations into the choice of the word "complementarianism" I would be charitable and recognize that they avoided a word that already had connotations that would not be accurate.
I will just repeat one thing, for emphasis, that I said earlier. Patriarchy has only recently become a word that is loaded with negative connotations. And that was something the feminists did on purpose.
For hundreds of years patriarchy was not considered controversial in the least, as it accurately and precisely described the hierarchy laid out in scripture for family, church and society. The organizers of the meeting in 1987 chose to come up with a new word that few laymen can define instead of doing the hard but honest work of redeeming an accurate and precise biblical term. IMHO, that was their first, in a long line of, mistakes.
I have enjoyed our gentle jousting. I will add one last point, sort of in jest, sort of not. Having read the bible, especially but not only, Genesis, I ALWAYS assume bad motives until I know otherwise:). Best.
Look at newsletter #30. I use complementarianism to refer to both the thick and thin variety.
Right. I am asking Mark Griffith about his usage in his comment.
Another very good article. You are right that the key missing link in messaging to young men today - from all authorities - is that they should be ambitious and pursue power and status to the best of their abilities. There is nothing immoral about that. It will help them to lead a more enjoyable and more meaningful life, and also to do more good where appropriate. It will also give them more motivation to improve themselves, instead of being alienated and directionless, as so many young men are today.
It seems plausible to me that Hawley pulled his punches on the most controversial subjects in order to protect his future. A straightforward defense of patriarchy as a good thing would give his opponents a lot of ammunition. I have no doubt that Hawley examines every word in the light of his future ambitions.
It is interesting, also, that the only review of this book that is cited in this article is not from a fellow Christian man, nor even a Christian woman, but rather from a Jewish woman. It seems likely that this was the most prominent review of this Christian man's book in the US media. It is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs really.
The contradictions and what you call a "low grade level" might be better explained if we know who Hawley's ghostwriter was for the book. Obviously a sitting Senator does not have time to write a book like this, so someone else did most of the work here. I have suspected for several years that nearly every book "written" by a politician is done for two reasons. The first and most important is a way for donors to skirt campaign finance restrictions. The second is to give the politician a framework he can push in campaign speeches, interviews, etc. I don't know how well his book does that from your review of it, but it may be part of the reason he doesn't offer a lot of practical advice for men in it. The primary purpose is to let young men knows he cares about their plight so they should vote for him.
Yes, this sounds right to me (the stealth campaign finance element rings especially true).
But I'll further speculate that the book was trying to squeeze between two goalposts.
1. Write a book about which Hawley can say, "Look, men (and women who love them), I'm in your corner. I see how men are falling behind. I wrote a whole book about manhood and masculine virtues, which the left is trying to tear down." None of those men will actually read it; the entire point is just to be able to say that he wrote a book about it.
2. See to it that the actual text of the book is so anodyne that it's extremely difficult to pull even a no-context quote out of it that can be used as a "gotcha" to imply Hawley hates women.
After some over the top excerpts of Earth in the Balance were used against Al Gore on the campaign trail almost all these books are written to avoid the no context quote problem.
Politicians have been running the book sales scam for awhile. One of the only ones to ever get prosecuted for it was Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh who sold more copies of her book to a non profit than were actually printed. I would assume most of them who know how to do it have plausible deniability like the old college football and basketball coaches who knew their players were getting paid by boosters but were intentionally kept in the dark on the details.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/21/781787102/former-baltimore-mayor-pleads-guilty-in-childrens-book-scandal
One thing I have found to be profoundly missing from all of these types of modern books on masculinity is the absence of the very thing I've always associated with its very essence: arete or excellence. I haven't read the book, so perhaps Hawley discusses it and it didn't make it into the review. But arete is the male urge to be the best, the rational ordering of thymotic competitive drives. Rather than competing with others, however, it is the competition with the ideal which drives men to seek perfection. It's my great-grandfather saying "A quarter inch off is still off. Do it again."
Social status is socially constructed, for the most part, but arete confers a status that bypasses the taste-makers of society. "Hey ya'll, watch this" doesn't need to be anything of value in society, but it earns respect nonetheless if nobody can replicate it. When it is something valuable, the taste-makers of society are completely disarmed, and must bow to the natural superiority of the man of excellence, regardless of their desires. Consider the number of people who are by-and-large despised by our current elites but grudgingly granted status because of their irreplaceability and excellence.
This is the problem with some of the neo-masculinists today - they aren't doing anything that can't be replicated by anyone else. Sleep around with cheap women? Buy cars and clothes? They get their brief moment, but then disappear because literally anyone can replicate that if they're willing to make the same sacrifices. "Hey ya'll, watch this! I'll make a basket from the free-throw line." Same thing with the "man up" crowd. There's no excellence in letting people walk on your face or doing thankless work for the benefit of people who despise and exploit you. It's just embarrassing. Shake the dust off your sandals, bro, and walk away.
I hate to think in Machiavellian terms (/s is necessary here?), but elites need compliant, dutiful serfs to pull the plow, accept their exploitation, and turn over the fruits of their labors to the masters, in order to retain their elite status. There is nothing the elite hate more than a body of freemen who practice excellence in all things, especially political organization. Which makes me wonder about the intentions of a U.S. Senator who tells men to "man up," take on a greater burden, and save the poor elites at risk of losing their cushy positions to rising social and political disorder.
Excellent analysis.
I would add that many of the good outcomes in life come as a side effect of "doing the right thing." When people focus on achieving the side effect directly, they often fail.
In this case, pursue excellence for its inherent value, and as a side effect you will get respect, status, women will be attracted to you, etc. Pursue those side effects directly and you will be likely to go astray.
"The pursuit of happiness" is similarly misguided. Do the right thing, find your place in God's order, live a life that you can be convicted is pleasing to God, and happiness follows. Most of the self-help books that consist of anything else (navel gazing, dealing with your problems and your imperfect childhood and your baggage from the past, etc.) are worse than worthless. Go find a positive way to live; don't "pursue happiness."
Ditto for all the young men and women ruing their loneliness. Pursue excellence as a human being, become more interesting and attractive to the opposite sex as a side effect. The Manosphere/Game direct approaches are a sham by comparison.
I like the way you put it: that one should do the right things; the side effect of that will likely be a good outcome. By "right things," I'm sure you mean living by Christian principles. A good pastor I once knew gave a sermon titled, "When doing good leads to doing well." The point of his sermon was not quite what we're talking about here. He was concerned with good intentions going awry, but implicit in the title is the idea that doing the right thing often leads to success.
Certainly it is desirable for a man to use and develop his talents. To not do this would be akin to letting a field with rich soil become full of weeds.
As a side note, Renn's blog above mentions that women are often attracted to men with high status. Be that as it may, seeking status is worldly and not focused on God's Kingdom. Does any man really want a woman who is strongly attracted to status? It makes sense for every woman to want a reliable, capable man who can provide for her and the family, but a desire for more than that is toxic to a marriage.
One of the discussions that Aaron has touched on several times is the fact that a young man will be evaluated in two ways. (This is my expression of it, not his.) The first category is "husband material." Will he be a provider, good father to their children, treat her well, be a spiritual partner and leader within the family, etc.
The second category is attractive, interesting, intriguing, special in some way compared to other men, not just average in all respects, etc.
Many Christian young men are told to only concern themselves with the first category. Aaron has pointed out that this is unrealistic, does not grasp normal female instincts, and is bad advice.
Similarly, a young woman should be evaluated in two categories: wife material, and attractive/interesting, etc.
If you can make the case that the second category is inherently evil to desire, then we can tell young Christian men and women to not worry about being in shape, being attractive, developing talents that make them interesting or intriguing to the opposite sex, etc. But if desiring such things in a spouse is not evil, it is simply unnatural and clueless to tell young Christians not to concern themselves with that category.
I am sure Aaron could link to a previous newsletter that discusses these things in his own terminology.
The second category that you mention is logical: that both women and men want a spouse who will be interesting and intriguing in a special way. Certainly being in shape or having some talents that a potential spouse appreciates are good things. Overall, I see this as resonance in their personalities. Maybe a women loves horses and is strongly attracted to a man who also likes horses and is a good rider, or a man dislikes clutter and is attracted to a woman who is very neat and has an immaculate apartment. My concern was about a woman who wants status in a man that goes beyond the respectability of being a faithful spouse, good father, solid citizen, and good provider.
Obligations are enabled by and rewarded with status, honor, and privileges. Egalitarianism simply doesn't work, not in the marketplace, not in voluntary organizations, not anywhere.