Hi, Brain! Thanks for your comments! They were very interesting to me. 🙂
Before I respond to your comments, however, I would like to make clear what I meant by a gentleman. I did not mean a man who comes in to save a woman because she “cannot” fend for herself. I did not mean a man who uses physical violence to meet his goals, even if they are worthy goals. I said it lightheartedly earlier, but I meant it when I said I did not think punching people was gentlemanly. I am a firm pacifist, and do not see the point or need for violence in almost any situation.
I consider a man a gentleman when he is kind, honest, and values the needs of others. So, similar to your dictionary definition.
Now, to your comments. 🙂
In this modern age, more than any other time in history, there is an upheaval and a shifting of general perceptions on what a male should be. Lost are the true ideas of chivalry, where males were praised for physically defending the honor of a slighted female.
Yes, I do think you are right here that these ideas have been lost. However, I do not think that they are necessarily the “true” ideas or ideas that can fit into this age in the first place. I think because of modern weapons, “physically defending a slighted female” can be anywhere from helping a girl who twisted her ankle across the street, to shooting someone who was trying to rob her. I don’t think we should be promoting aggressive ideas that lead men to think shooting someone just for the sake of saving a woman’s purse, let alone calling it valiant.
Men are blamed entirely for the world’s ills, which they do share a part in (See Adam’s fall & 1 Corinthians 15:22, 43-58), but they cannot be entirely blamed for it, because both sinned, even though Adam (and all born of man) received the wider curse because of his awareness rather than deception.
I would like to say that superlatives are dangerous words, and because of your word choice, I strongly disagree. More often than not, I hear women blamed for the fall, since Eve was the one who took the fruit. I also don’t understand how you are comparing degrees of curses. Although I’m not a mother, I think that preganacy and giving birth are quite a lot of pain. Additionally, if we’re taking the curses in Genesis literally, I think women are only slightly less affected by Adam’s curse: the hardening of the soil. Women make up 43% of the agricultural workforce in developing countries, and accordingly have to deal with the same hardships of farming that the remaining 57% men do. (Source )
Young boys are routinely reprimanded for natural expressions of their physical nature in instances that do not involve harming someone else.
What I am saying is sometimes boys play rough as a natural expression of growing into manhood.
I agree, they tend to be reprimanded for aggression. However, I think like you said, this is a part of growing into manhood. If boys were not reprimanded for certain acts of aggression, what would happen?
There is a term in psychology called the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. Essentially, it means, that once given a little, a person will ask for even more. So, I can understand why banning games like dodgeball seems extreme, but maybe it’s simply to prevent boys’ aggression from growing even more. Maybe the thought is that we don’t want to have aggressive boys grow up to become men who beat their wives. After all, would that be natural manliness? I think part of this growing into manhood is learning where aggression is appropriate.
Did you know that males have the highest rates of suicide?
No, I did not. That puts a different light on things.
Again, thanks for your thoughts, Brian. It was interesting. 🙂