The Mission-of-Manhood Argument
For no women in leadership
The Argument: “It is the mission of men to protect and provide for those weaker and more vulnerable than themselves. If men allow women to be leaders in the home or church, they will be putting women into an unprotected position where women will be making provision for and protecting men. This is backwards. If men do this, they will be failing the mission of manhood.”
Counterargument 1: This argument jumps to several unsupported conclusions. It assumes leadership is synonymous with the “mission of men.” It assumes that if men allow women to lead, women would lead the same way as men. It also seems to assume that if women were to lead, men couldn’t provide for or protect those women.
Examples: If a mother asks her oldest daughter to help nurture the younger siblings, this doesn’t mean the mother isn’t doing her job or can no longer nurture her oldest daughter, or that the daughter is now nurturing the mother. If a boss asks an employee to help oversee his business, this doesn’t mean the boss no longer oversees that employee or that the employee now oversees the boss. If a husband asks his wife to help him lift a heavy object, it doesn’t mean he is no longer lifting the bulk of the weight. It simply means he is humble (poor in spirit) enough to accept help from someone perceived as less than himself.
Counterargument 2: If men see leadership as a position where every man must support, provide, and protect himself, then the above argument may be true. However, this kind of leadership discourages men from confessing their vulnerabilities, weaknesses, or needs to women, thus leaving men vulnerable and weak in areas where women best protect and provide for them.
Counterargument 3: Most leadership teams support and protect one another. If men protect and support one another on a team, why would they stop doing that for a woman if she were to join the team?
Counterargument 4: This reasoning tends to create the very situation it is trying to avoid. If women are not allowed to help in the protection and provision of others, they do not learn these skills and responsibilities for themselves or others. This, in turn, makes them weaker and more vulnerable, and attracts more predators, thus jeopardizing their safety.
Counterargument 5: The Bible teaches both men and women to provide and protect the weak and vulnerable, and to respond compassionately to human need; God models this himself in his saving acts towards Israel; Jesus taught both men and women to give up everything and to lay down their lives in love for each other. The Bible also doesn’t discourage men from accepting help from women. Jesus relied on women for his provisions during his years on earth (Luke 8:3). Mark 15:41 lists several women who ministered to Jesus while he was in Galilee. And Jesus allowed women to be with him as he died. Jesus wasn’t failing his calling by having women support him or suffer with him.
Counterargument 6: While most men do seem better suited physically and mentally for the job of physical protector, this argument reduces men to a physical function instead of valuing men for who they are as individuals with unique giftings, strengths, and callings. This narrows men’s mission to be one centered around the physical flesh rather than one centered around the life of the spirit. It also means that men cannot accomplish their mission without having earthly physical power.
For more arguments and counterarguments, click on the links below: