A Man for This Season

The Admirable Crichton was a popular play written about 120 years ago by J.M.Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan. It revolved around the aristocratic Loam family of London who found themselves shipwrecked on a remote desert island. Lacking real-life skills and incapable of foraging for food, lighting a fire, or building a shelter, they become dependent upon Crichton, their butler who can do all these things and more.

With masculine masterfulness, Crichton builds a mini civilization on the island enabling the Loam family to thrive. Naturally, the Loam’s daughter and heiress falls in love with Crichton and their romance blossoms. It’s worth reading, so I won’t spoil it for you by telling you what happens at the end of Act 3 and during Act 4. However, I will tell you that it reveals that Barrie understood how the world REALLY works.

When all is going smoothly and normally, as it did for British aristocrats in the 19th century, one can afford the indulgence of a feminized culture and a feminized leadership. When the chips are down, when you’re stuck on a desert island or the barbarians are rattling the gates of your compound, you need masculinity.

I hate to offend inadvertently so let me make clear that I am not talking about any actual men or women; I refer to the qualities of masculinity and femininity. Justin Trudeau is a very feminine man and Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel in the early 70s was a very masculine woman. Of course, I realize that our woke elite has done all it can to stop people noticing male-female differences, let alone talking about these stark distinctions. I hope this doesn’t offend you, but if it does, well, I guess it isn’t inadvertent.

Scripture uses different Hebrew words for the two types of man. The generic biological adult human male is Adam while Ish is used for the man as described in Kipling’s magnificent poem, If, which ends with these words, “And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!”

For instance, “And the man, Moshe, was exceedingly humble…” (Numbers 12:3) could just as easily have read, “And Moshe was exceedingly humble…”. After all, his name has already appeared numerous times. The word Ish is there to teach us that while it is relatively easy for a lowly man of no station in life to be humble, Moshe was at the height of his prominence and prestige. He was an Ish. Yet he was “exceedingly humble”. Now that is something.

We see another example of the meaning of Ish in Leviticus 19:3:

An Ish must fear his mother and his father. We’ve already read the Fifth Commandment, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ in Exodus 20:12, so what does this verse in Leviticus add? It is there to tell us that regardless of how powerful and prominent a man may become, even if he is an Ish, he must still fear his mother and his father. Regardless of his accomplishments, a man never outranks his mom and dad.

I have been translating and explaining the special Hebrew word Ish, as a powerful, prominent, prestigious individual, and that is all true. But it is important not to omit another part of the word Ish. It is unmistakably and unapologetically masculine. That becomes clear the very first time it is used in Scripture, in Genesis 2:24:

“Therefore, a man (ish) shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” [Curious to know more about this verse?]

It is used in the context of his relationship with a woman. In other words, Ish is a man at the height of his masculinity.

One of the differences between masculinity and femininity is that when confronting an existential crisis, femininity empathizes and accommodates, while masculinity throws itself at the problem to defeat it or die. Again, we are discussing qualities, not individuals. Women in the pioneering days of the west, for example, did seize rifles to fend off marauders. In so doing they were reflecting vitally necessary masculine qualities. Men express necessary feminine qualities when they rock a crying baby.

Neville Chamberlain, who repeatedly accommodated to Hitler’s aggressiveness, was a feminine prime minister. Winston Churchill was unmistakably masculine. Today’s academics’ distaste for Churchill has much to do with the culture’s view of masculinity as toxic. President Obama was a very feminine president. Proclaiming his preference for diplomacy over war, Obama’s two terms ended with the Army smaller than at any time since before World War II. The Navy and Air Force were likewise at historically small levels. Instead of responding to Iran with decisive force as will inevitably and eventually have to be done, he tried to buy them off with favors. This is exactly what so many girls have done, hoping to ingratiate themselves with thuggy boys. In his case, President Obama’s favors to Iran amounted to $150 billion.

President Trump, like him or not, is a masculine man. Clearly and unapologetically. President Biden, just as clearly is feminine.

America’s woke elite in politics, media, and academia, is unmistakably feminine. Part of their fury at President Trump is surely the subconscious loathing of masculinity by lonely women and feminized men. Come to think of it, that is kind of how the voting played out. Happy, married women voted for Trump as did rural, masculine men. Effeminate, woke, urban men, went for Harris.

Masculinity is reviled mostly by women whose safe and secure lives are assured chiefly by government and its agencies rather than by a husband. Masculinity is also feared by feminine men. Those who recognize the perils peering hungrily in from just beyond the fragile fence of civilization as did the Loam family, welcome masculine leadership.

---

What do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts on this Thought Tools post.
We Happy Warrior members can both read and write comments HERE.

Not a member yet? Thought Tools is a reader-supported publication.
To support our work, consider signing up for a Basic membership and join the conversation.

---