Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Rabbi Steven Greenberg
. . . Resh Lakish sheds his heavy gladiatorial vestments, surely hopeful of a sexual conquest, and pole vaults over the river to find neither a woman nor a delicate boy, but the famous scholar R. Yohanan. Seemingly unflustered by the intrusion, the rabbi comments on the virile power of his would-be attacker with a brief statement, “Your strength for Torah,” meaning, “Your manly power could be put to better use in the study of Torah.” . . .
The wise rabbi does not criticize or reprimand. He merely suggests that if the young man wishes a conquest, then the conquest of Torah is more valorous than gladiatorial conquests. Resh Lakish does not respond to this point and instead . . . says to him, “Your beauty for women!” Again a brief expression, this retort can be read in two very different ways. “Your beauty is for women” might mean “only a woman should possess such beauty” or alternatively “your beauty should be properly used for seducing women; let's go!”
In this terse dialogue between the two men, it appears that each is attempting to belittle the manhood of the other. R. Yohanan is marking Resh Lakish as a gentile-Jew who is less than a full man because real men study Torah. Resh Lakish is marking R. Yohanan as a man-woman because real men are not beautiful objects of desire but aggressive sexual predators. . . .
The progression of R. Yohanan's responses to Resh Lakish is also of import. R. Yohanan had originally intended to address the masculine power and aggression of his intruder by assuring him that these masculine arts ought to be deployed in Torah study (“Your strength for Torah!”). Once Resh Lakish makes clear that his interest is in beauty and sex with women (“Your beauty for women!”), R. Yohanan understands that he now must address the topic of desire. He responds that if it is a beautiful woman that Resh Lakish wants, he can arrange that too. R. Yohanan has a sister who is even more beautiful than he. He offers to the gladiator his sister's hand in marriage, if Resh Lakish will abandon his brigandage and follow him to the academy.
The critique of Roman masculinity is not that it is aggressive per se, but that its aggression is played out in the wrong arena. Jewish masculinity is won in valorous contests fought with words. The wise students of Torah engage upon a textual battlefield, tongues in place of swords, subduing a feminine Torah, whose secrets they uncover. While the Torah will not be taken without her suitors dueling over her, such contests over real women are not necessary. Resh Lakish is assured that he does not need gladiatorial aggression to get sex. . . .
When Resh Lakish agrees to the bargain, immediately he cannot vault back across the river to get his clothes. His lance no longer works. The garments of his prior identity are irretrievable. The symbols of Roman mastery, lance and toga, are relinquished for the study of Torah and marriage with a nice Jewish girl. The story peaks when Resh Lakish is taught Mishna and Gemara and becomes “a great man.”
If the story ended here, it would simply be a paean to the rabbis' masculine ideal transforming physical violence into debate, substituting marriage for sexual aggression. However . . . the rabbis critique their own gentler and kinder form of masculinity and its ideals by reporting a story that, despite its lack of physical violence, ends in death. In order to understand this text a single detail regarding the laws of ritual impurity should be understood. Ritual impurity can only adhere to completed vessels. Until the object is finished, it cannot become impure, for example, by contact with a corpse. The following discussion is about when weapons would be considered “finished” and thus susceptible to impurity.
Rabbi Yoḥanan taught Reish Lakish Mishna, and taught him Talmud, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger [vehapigyon], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general.
These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me Master, and here, too, they call me Master. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence.
Wrestling With God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Rabbi Steven Greenberg
The debate in the study hall is over weapons. It is here that our two rabbis tragically renew their debate on violence and words of Torah. R. Yohanan's sarcastic remark, “a brigand is expert in brigandage,” may have been delivered as a sharp personal attack or as a teasing jest. We would have no way of knowing. . . . Where the misunderstanding begins does not really matter. By the end both men are personally insulted and deeply hurt. Most important is that R. Yohanan has taken to heart Resh Lakish's biting critique that Torah scholarship is not so different from gladiatorial prowess. Both are mere power games of men seeking to be called “master” by other men. . . .
. . . The sister of R. Yohanan (the wife of Resh Lakish) comes to beg her brother to prevent her husband's death. At first he does not even pay attention to her. He was ready to marry her off without asking her in advance and now seems ready to see her widowed without a bit of consideration. . . . The fact that she gets nowhere with R. Yohanan attests either to his utter rejection of her subjective interests (which we have seen before) or that her tearful entreaty only further incites a very jealous man to rashness. . . . The story rejects the Roman male virtue of physical aggression but admits that even in the world of rabbis men can die of wounds they inflict on one another. It demonstrates that the kinder, gentler men can still impose their will on women, albeit in less overtly violent ways, and that verbal repartee between men can at times be no less bloody than physical sparring.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/toxic-masculinity
toxic masculinity [tok-sik mas-kyuh-lin-i-tee]
noun
- a cultural concept of manliness that glorifies stoicism, strength, virility, and dominance, and that is socially maladaptive or harmful to mental health:
Men and women both suffer when toxic masculinity perpetuates expectations that are restrictive and traumatizing.
“The Problem With a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity” by Michael Salter (The Atlantic)
The question is: Where do these sexist attitudes come from? Are men and boys just the victims of cultural brainwashing into misogyny and aggression, requiring reeducation into the “right” beliefs? Or are these problems more deep-seated, and created by the myriad insecurities and contradictions of men’s lives under gender inequality? The problem with a crusade against toxic masculinity is that in targeting culture as the enemy, it risks overlooking the real-life conditions and forces that sustain culture.
Case study: “The 'Toxic Masculinity' Smear” by Ben Shapiro (National Review)
On Monday, the New York Post ran a story about Warrior Week, a boot camp for men run by Garrett J. White, “a 40-year-old blond with tattooed biceps who looked like a video-game soldier.” For the low, low cost of just $25,000, White will run you through a regimen of physical torture and mental preparation that involves being punched in the face, hiking while holding logs, and reciting the poem “Invictus.” White explained:
“We teach them how to be a man. . . . Women are leading across the board in business and at home . . . and living more powerfully than men today. And that’s causing complete chaos for men.”
The first question on the application for White’s training program: “Have you ever been punched in the face by another man?”
[. . .] I’m married, with two children of my own. I own several guns. I spend my days writing and speaking and thinking; I believe the fundamental proposition that Western civilization was built in order to prevent people from punching each other in the face.
But I’ll admit that for a split second, I felt the urge to check out White’s website. Why? Because men have an innate drive for aggression. They feel the need to test themselves against their limits. That drive can be channeled toward building themselves and protecting those around them. Or it can be unleashed in waves of destruction. Or, alternatively, it can be tamped down, killed. Men can be emasculated.
Twitter responds to Ben Shapiro mocking Harry Styles for wearing a dress:
"So Ben Shapiro thinks masculinity is somehow harmed by Harry Styles wearing a dress? Hm that's a bold statement coming from the guy who looks like the non-cartoon version of the kid from American Dad” - @elle_em
"ben you're 5'3, can't grow facial hair and weigh 100lbs soaking wet. if we can both be considered men, you should probably be a bit more open minded about gender expressions. it's clearly not as rigid a binary as you try to imply it is.” - @hasanthehun
"The Problem With a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity” by Michael Salter (The Atlantic)
The concept of toxic masculinity encourages an assumption that the causes of male violence and other social problems are the same everywhere, and therefore, that the solutions are the same as well. . . . While themes of violence, entitlement, and sexism recur across communities, they show up differently in different places. In one Australian Aboriginal violence-prevention program that I evaluated with colleagues, Aboriginal educators worked in partnership with men and boys to identify the key drivers of gendered violence and inequality. Solutions were rooted in cultural pride, tailored to local contexts, and underpinned by recognition of the intergenerational impacts of racism and trauma. The program understood that masculinity itself isn’t toxic, and instead sought to understand and change the roots of toxic gendered behavior.