Negotiations of Masculinity in Evangelical Self-Help Literature

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Why Evangelical Men Really Love Jesus

2. Men As Providers
2.1. What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women
2.1.1. Characteristics of a Man
2.1.2. What Is Wrong With Men?
2.1.3. How to Make Your Wife Happy

3. Men As Tender Warriors
3.1. Tender Warrior
3.1.1. The Pillar of the King
3.1.2. The Pillar of the Warrior
3.1.3. The Pillar of the Mentor
3.1.4. The Pillar of the Friend

4. Men As Dangerous Warriors
4.1. Wild at Heart
4.1.1. A Battle to Fight
4.1.2. An Adventure to Live
4.1.3. A Beauty to Rescue

5. Conclusion

Works Cited

1. Introduction: Why Evangelical Men Really Love Jesus

“Real Men Love Jesus Ain't scared to pray, ain't scared to fight"

- Michael Ray With his song Real Men Love Jesus, Michael Ray probably speaks from the heart of all Evangelicals. He sings of several activities that 'real man' like to enjoy, such as football, fishing, cars and of course praying. I chose the title of his song for my master thesis, because it represents the common ground for all negotiations of masculinity within evangelical self-help literature, that 'real men love Jesus,' which will be discussed in this master thesis. The song was released in 2015 on Michael Ray's debut album with the major record label Atlantic Records. It was praised for its representation of strong family values and was listed among Billboard's US Hot Country Songs in 2015.

Evangelical culture is permeated with interpretations of masculine and feminine ideals. This thesis aims to identify negotiations of masculinity in evangelical self-help literature, which presents an underrated genre and has received considerably less attention by other scholars. However, self-help literature is ranked among the best-selling genres in the world today (Lamp- Shapiro 12). Whether its focus is on finances, spirituality, or emotional well­being, it encourages its reader to improve his or her life (33). The desire for self­improvement has deep roots in American culture (361). The 'pursuit of happiness' is enshrined as a fundamental right in the Declaration of Independence and calls for personal growth (361). In a way, self-help manuals can be read as a step-by-step guide towards the American Dream and represent core values of American society (362). I believe that Christian, or precisely evangelical self-help books, call for attention because they can shape Evangelicals' definition of what it means to be a man or a woman. In fact, there are dozens of self-help manuals which promote militant masculinity and argue that evangelical men need to be aggressive and that war is essential to manhood. Especially contemporary self-help literature has become hyperbolic in its definition of masculinity. For that reason, I am interested in what ways evangelical spokespersons and famous authors promote these masculine ideals from the 1970s until today. By looking at negotiations of masculinity within evangelical self-help books, I contribute to the growing body of research that tries to connect gender and religion. Therefore, this thesis is concerned with the question, in how far negotiations of masculinity in evangelical self-help literature have become more aggressive and more militant and ultimately perpetuate the subordination of women. It will also explore which cultural and historical events led to changing ideals of masculinity and are articulated in the selected self-help manuals. My primary goal is to analyze how these negotiations foster a hostile attitude towards sexual minorities and maintain the oppression of women. I argue that ‘traditional' characteristics of masculinity, such as strength, aggression and assertiveness are promoted in the selected self­help manuals under the pretext of Bible teachings. In expressing these concerns I try to respect the writers' faith and their commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority.

An introduction to American Evangelicalism seems to be the right place to start this thesis. In order to understand the selected self-help books, the religious foundation they are based on must be understood. Therefore, I will point out some core theological standpoints that are crucial to the beliefs of Evangelicals. Evangelicalism is a subset of Christianity, specifically Protestantism. The roots of American Evangelicalism can be traced back to the ‘First Great Awakening' during the 1730s until the 1740s (Hankins 4). This awakening describes a religious revival, which encouraged people to have a more personal relationship with God (4). Two important figures of this movement were Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield (4). Both gave passionate sermons and spread the message of the Christian faith (6). As a pastor in Northampton, Massachusetts, Edwards placed less emphasis on predestination and focused more on an individual's experience of salvation (6).

He is most famous for his sermon ‘Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God,' in which he vividly describes the terrors of hell (5). George Whitefield, on the other hand, toured throughout the colonies and preached to common people, as well as slaves and Native Americans (7). The main purpose of his sermons was that people only need to repent in order to avoid damnation (9). Graham became known to give passionate speeches in support of his belief in God and Jesus Christ (6). He convinced his audience that they could leave their troubles behind if they trusted in God, since God had a plan for everyone (6). The First Great Awakening brought many Protestants from different denominations together and created a common evangelical identity (11).¹

According to David Bebbington, there are four main characteristics which define Evangelicalism, namely conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism (2). Conversionism refers to the belief that people need to be converted (2). Evangelicals also define themselves as being ‘born again,' meaning that they have experienced some kind of conversion experience themselves (3). Conversionism can relate to any life-transforming event that marks the beginning of your faith (5). Activism refers to their willingness to spread the Christian message through preaching and missionary work (10). Every effort must be made to have others believe in Christ as well (10). Etymologically, ‘evangelical' is derived from the Greek word euangelion, which means ‘good news.' As this term suggests, Evangelicals want to pass on the good news of the gospel. Biblicism means that the Bible has final authority in matters of faith and practice because it is considered to be God's written Word (12). Evangelicals have a literal understanding of the Bible and believe that it has no errors (13). This biblical inerrancy will be of great importance in regards to their gender ideology. Crucicentrism emphasizes reconciliation with God through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross (14). Evangelicals emphasize the atonement of Jesus, which ultimately created the salvation for humanity (14).

Today, about 25% of American adults identify themselves as evangelical (Masci and Smith). This group is predominantly white, although the number of Hispanic, Asian and Black Evangelicals has increased since recent years (Masci and Smith). Most Evangelicals reside in the Southern United States, such as Alabama, Tennessee and Oklahoma (Masci and Smith). Evangelicals represent one of the most vocal religious groups in America. In regards to politics, they have the reputation to lean conservative and are loyal voters of the Republican Party (Masci and Smith). In 2016, Evangelicals supported Donald Trump in the presidential election and some even argue that they were essential to his victory (Gabbatt). Donald Trump promised to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, which was of great concern for white Evangelicals (Gabbatt). And indeed, Trump kept his promise with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 (Gabbatt). Furthermore, he appointed many evangelical politicians to key government positions, such as Mike Pence as Vice President, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy (Gabbatt).

Evangelicals usually support socially conservative politics and are known for their opposition against abortion, same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights (Dowland 180). Of course, not all Evangelicals represent and are in accordance with these values. Among the diverse group of Evangelicals, there are some people who are more liberal, frequently called ‘progressive Evangelicals' or the ‘Evangelical Left' (Miller). However, this thesis will solely focus on highly conservative, right-winged, white, Christian fundamentalists and from here on, I will always refer to them as Evangelicals. The authors whom I will discuss in this thesis are situated at the far right of the political spectrum. Some of them are also notorious for their extreme attitudes towards homosexual people, and their efforts to end legal abortions and the extension of LGBTQ rights. Therefore, it is important to note that the authors' opinion on gender identity may present an extreme version compared to the small percentage of more liberal Evangelicals.

Obviously, Evangelical's gender ideology is mostly based on the Bible. They support ‘traditional' views about gender and believe in God-given gender roles (Dowland 3). They advocate binary genders which God created as man and woman. The Story of Creation in Genesis is often cited to legitimize a strict gender division. Adam and Eve were created as man and woman, which leaves no room for other interpretations of the sexes. Furthermore, it also establishes a gender hierarchy because God first made Adam and then Eve (New International Version, Gen. 1.27). Additionally, Eve is made from one of Adam's ribs and explicitly created for him (Gen. 2.21-22). Throughout the Bible there are numerous passages which are interpreted by Evangelicals to support male dominance over women, most notably that “the head of the woman is man" (1 Cor. 11.3). Evangelicals will argue that God assigned men and women with different roles to fulfill in life and usually refer to Bible passages that supposedly prove men's role as providers and protectors, and portray women on the other hand as nurturers of the family (Dowland 157). As a punishment for eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Eve's punishment is to have children under painful labor and Adam has to work on the field and “through painful toil you will eat food from it" (Gen. 3.16-17). Amongst other passages, Evangelicals believe that it assigns women to the domestic sphere as caregivers of the children, while men on the other hand have to work outside of the home to provide for the family (Dowland 157). Ultimately, the defense of ‘traditional' family values and masculine gender norms coincided with society's debate about American manhood in the 1960s (157).

Ever since the 1960s, the interest for men and masculinity studies has increased and in more recent years the media and popular culture has shown enthusiasm for studies on masculinities as well (Martschukat and Stieglitz 9). In the United States, the academic field of ‘Men's Studies' first appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as a reaction to Second-Wave feminism (Martschukat and Stieglitz 34). Tim Edwards created a three-phase model of masculinity studies (Edwards 1). In the 1970s, studies of the first phase dealt with the development of the sex role paradigm and focused on masculinity as a social construct which could potentially harm men, in regards to their mental and physical health (2). It was followed by the second phase in the 1980s, which criticized the understanding of masculinity of the first phase as predominantly white and solely focused on members of the middle-class (2). The second phase introduced the power dynamic between hegemonic masculinity and subordinated as well as marginalized masculinities (2). A popular representative of this phase is Raewyn Connell whose theory I will present in much more detail later on. The third wave of masculinity studies is influenced by poststructuralist theory and centers around questions of normativity, performativity, and sexuality (2). A heated discussion about the relation between socio-cultural and biological sex became the focus in the 1990s (Martschukat and Stieglitz 21). Among the most significant researchers of the third phase belongs Judith Butler (Edwards 2).

In 1990, Butler published her highly influential book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Butler vii). Immediately after its publication it has caused much debate among representatives of gender studies until today (vii). She challenges the idea that sex and gender are inherently natural (10). In her book, Butler argues that sex as well as gender are both socially constructed (10). A central concept of her theory is that gender is performative, meaning that the way we behave, creates our gender identity (178). Performativity refers to a repetition of acts on a daily or at least on a regular basis (178). She argues that these rituals of our everyday behaviors, speech, gestures and clothes produce a masculine or feminine identity (179). These performative acts adhere to social expectations and maintain a seemingly natural gender binary (69). Butler proposes to challenge and redefine gender through alternative performative acts (xxxi).²

Today, one of the most influential scholars of masculinity studies is Michael Kimmel. He is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies and also director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University (“Biography"). In his book Manhood in America: A Cultural History, Kimmel presents the history of manhood and how it has been constructed in the United States. He argues that throughout the years, men had to prove their masculinity through sports or economic success, or as soldiers during two world wars, and from farmers to self-made men (Kimmel 173). He states that the changing ideal of masculinity has frustrated men and he urges them to take the women's movement as an example in order to free themselves from this ideal (174). As a strong advocate for gender equality, Kimmel calls for a “democratic manhood" (335) that combines strength with compassion and nurturing (335).³

It is safe to say that there is a fair amount of research done on manhood and masculinity. One of the crucial findings of all of these studies is that 'masculinity' does not exist, but rather there are multiple masculinities (Martschukat and Stieglitz 26). However, the amount of research published on gender studies, or masculinities in particular, exceed the scope of this master thesis.⁴ Therefore, I decided to present only one theory on masculinities, which will be used for the analysis of this research.

For my master thesis I will use Connell's theory on hegemonic masculinity to provide the theoretical tools for my analysis of the selected self­help manuals. Since the 1980s, Raewyn Connell's theory has been used to explain the supremacy of heterosexual, white men and the subordination of women, as well as marginalized men (Gender 185). Professor Raewyn Connell is a well-known Australian sociologist and has made important contributions on gender issues. Especially Connell's theory on hegemonic masculinity has raised her to prominence in the emerging field of Men's Studies and the sociology of masculinity. In 1995, she published her famous book Masculinities, in which her concept of hegemonic masculinity is used to explain the persistence of male dominance over women and other minority groups of men (Connell, Gender 185)

In her book Masculinities, Connell describes gender as a social construct, that changes throughout time and cultures (Masculinities 63). She defines masculinity as “simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture" (71). According to Connell, the power relation among Western gender order perpetuates the subordination of women to men (Gender 185). This dominance might refer to economic advantages, better education, and also religious practice (184). She claims that there are multiple masculinities and that they exist in relations of hierarchy (Connell, Masculinities 73). This hierarchy includes four types of masculinities: hegemonic, complicit, marginalized, and subordinate masculinity (73).

First, hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the dominant form of masculinity within a society (Connell, Masculinities 77). Hegemonic masculinity refers to white, heterosexual and middle class men and praises certain sets of characteristics as being masculine, such as physical strength and the suppression of emotions other than aggression (77). To illustrate the concept of hegemonic masculinity, R.W. Connell uses the prime example of the actor John Wayne, but also other fictional film characters, who are often broad shouldered, strong, able-bodied, wealthy, heterosexual men (Gender 184-185). This form of masculinity is visible in European and American societies, its media and culture (185). Interestingly, evangelical authors also make use of several film characters, who are glorified for their masculine traits. Figures such as James Bond or John Wayne are prominent references and will be pointed out in the following analysis of the selected self-help books.

Moreover, hegemonic masculinity represents an ideal of a man and is culturally valued the most (Connell, Masculinities 77). It is expected in our society and it serves as a form of orientation on how to be a ‘real man' (77). It praises men who possess qualities such as whiteness, heterosexuality, physical strength, autonomy, valor and many more (Connell, Gender 185). Qualities of hegemonic masculinity are also embedded in social institutions such as the state, education, and the family (Connell, Masculinities 77). Therefore, the concept of hegemonic masculinity is not only linked to the appearances of a man, but also related to power within society (77). In her own words, Connell defines hegemonic masculinity as "the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy" (77). Those men who achieve qualities, such as wealth and strength, will hold the most social and cultural power (81). They are favored in society and are rewarded with economic advantages, such as higher incomes and better education (82). This encourages gender inequality and allows men to dominate over women (82).

However, the ideals of hegemonic masculinity cannot be achieved by many men (Masculinities 79). Therefore Connell defines a second type of masculinity, namely complicit masculinity (79). According to Connell, the majority of men adhere to the qualities of complicit masculinity (80). It refers to all men who strive for hegemonic masculinity, but do not achieve this ideal (79). For example, a white man who lacks in physical strength, but honors the qualities of hegemonic masculinity, would fall into the category of complicit masculinity (79). Complicit masculinity does not challenge hegemonic masculinity, but rather wants to achieve it. Therefore, it upholds the current gender order and the subordination of women to men (79). However, Connell states that complicit masculinity should not be confused with men being particularly mean to women (Gender 185). On the contrary, she states that in reality a partnership is always about making compromises and that men do help out in the household, instead of asserting their authority (Connell, Masculinities 79-80). However, in general, she argues that the majority of men benefit from this patriarchal system and the subordination of women (Connell, Gender 142). Those benefits might include a higher income, better housing, authority, service and safety in comparison to women (142). Privileges that accrue to men, simply because they are men, are what Connell calls the “patriarchal dividend" (142). This dividend includes all professional or social advantages that men may get in comparison to women (142). As Connell claims, “the patriarchal dividend is the main stake in contemporary gender politics. Its scale makes patriarchy worth defending" (142). The patriarchal dividend enables men to directly benefit from their dominance in society. In this sense, it can only be reduced with the help of gender equality (142). The concept of hegemonic masculinity is not only connected to the suppression of women, but it “is always constructed in relation to various subordinated masculinities as well" (Connell, Gender 183). In this way, hegemonic masculinity produces dominance not only over women but also over other masculinities.

As a result, Connell defines marginalized masculinity as another form of masculinity (Masculinities 80). The concept of marginalization can be regarded as the opposite of complicit masculinity (80). It usually refers to men who belong to a socially disadvantaged group and are unable to conform to hegemonic masculinity (80). Those might include unemployed men who failed to attain economic success (80). The concept of marginalization not only refers to different classes of society, but also to other ethnic groups as well (Connell Masculinities 80). For example, Connell argues that men of color are affected by ethnic discrimination, even though they might adhere to qualities which are emphasized by hegemonic masculinity, such as heterosexuality, physical strength and the suppression of emotions (81). As a result, marginalized masculinities do not receive as many advantages from the patriarchal dividend and might end up with a lower income or poorer education (81).

The last type of masculinity Connell describes in her theory is subordinate masculinity (Masculinities 78). Men who fall under this category exhibit qualities that oppose characteristics of hegemonic masculinity (78). This might include physical weakness of a man, or the expression of emotions like sadness (78). Because this behavior undermines stereotypical masculine norms within society, those men are regarded as effeminate (78). Often, these men experience verbal or even physical abuse by other men and are insulted with words like wimp, sissy or mother's boy, only to mention a few (79). As all of these insults suggest, “the symbolic blurring with femininity is obvious" (79). Of course, to maintain dominance over women and subordinate masculinities, defenders of hegemonic masculinity have a great interest in oppressing masculinities that would ruin the authority of ‘real men' (78). Subordinate masculinity can be best exemplified by the dominance of heterosexual men over gay men (78). Homosexuals face daily discrimination, from name-calling to street-violence or insufficient healthcare (“LGBTI Rights"). These discriminations go hand in hand with a limited access to the patriarchal dividend. Gay men may find it difficult to get their share of the patriarchal dividend, because they do not conform to qualities of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, Gender 141). Even though homosexual men can favor from the patriarchal dividend in regards to economic advantages, benefits such as prestige, honor or authority are most often denied to them (142). In this way, subordinate masculinities ensure the preservation of hegemony by other men (Connell, Masculinities 78). However, subordinate masculinities also represent the strongest opposition to hegemonic masculinity (Demetriou 349). By opposing stereotypical masculine norms, they put the whole concept into question (349).

Of course, women can challenge hegemonic masculinity as well (Connell, Masculinities 191). Although Connell emphasizes the importance of the relationship between men and women, in order to change qualities of hegemonic masculinity, she does not focus as much on femininities as she does on masculinities. Just like masculinities, forms of femininities vary and change throughout time (Connell, Gender 186). Connell argues, that there is no ‘hegemonic femininity,' because it is always constructed in relation to men's hegemony (186-187). However, she coined the term ‘emphasized femininity,' which is complimentary to hegemonic masculinity and accommodates to the desires of men (183). Emphasized femininity can be defined as cultural ideals of female behavior and qualities that complement male hegemony (188). It emphasizes characteristics such as, empathy, gentleness and sensitivity among others (187). For young women, emphasized femininity might be associated with sexual receptivity, while among older women it implies motherhood (187). Furthermore, there also exist subordinated femininities which resist notions of emphasized femininity (188). Those subordinated femininities are often silenced, since characteristics of emphasized femininity are more honored and valued in Western societies (188).

However, since this master thesis focuses on changing negotiations of masculinity, Connell's concept on hegemonic masculinity shall prove sufficient and would not require a more elaborate definition of femininities. I would argue that Connell's theory on hegemonic masculinity reflects Evangelicals' gender ideology very well. It proves to be relevant for negotiations of masculinity in evangelical self-help literature, because her theory identifies a social hierarchy among men and further explains the oppression of women and other masculinities. In a way, the authors of the selected self-help manuals uphold the system of hegemonic masculinity that is also promoted by their faith.

Several researchers used interviews to investigate Evangelicals' understanding of masculinity in regards to their religious beliefs (Burke and Hudec; Gallagher and Wood). While these interviews found that "men's lived experiences are complex and often do not fit the ideals of their traditions" (Burke and Hudec 331), this thesis aims to explore these masculine ideals by means of self-help manuals. The study of evangelical masculinity, that promotes male headship and wifely submission, is of particular importance. Evangelicals' increased influence in politics is shaped by their gender ideology and therefore Evangelicals represent a group that should not be underestimated. As self-help manuals advocate a particular conception of man- and womanhood, it proves to be an interesting field of research.

For the analysis of this master thesis I selected one self-help book as a representative for the 1970s, 1990s and early 2000s. I situate my master thesis at the beginning of the 1970s, since this time represents a defining moment in Evangelical's presence in American society, but was also the starting point for a heated discussion about men and masculinities. Since both of these topics overlap in my research paper, it seems to be a decent starting point. I chose the specific time frame of the 1970s until the early 2000s as my main focus, because it represents dramatic changes in regards to Evangelicals' defense of family values and their definition of supposedly God-given gender roles. I will do a close reading of selected self-help books, in order to examine how the authors relate to issues of manhood and discuss their definition of masculinity. I will pay particular attention to negotiations of masculinities and in how far they changed throughout time.

At first, there will be a chapter that deals with Evangelicals' negotiations of masculinity during the 1970s. It will provide a short historical overview on sociocultural movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to a ‘crisis of masculinity' for Evangelicals (Randels and Beal 161). Furthermore, this chapter will entail an in-depth analysis of James Dobson's book What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women. Probably the most vocal among the selected authors, James Dobson wrote numerous books, especially on child-rearing. I will discuss his book What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women, which was already published in 1975 . It is one of his earliest work in which he presents his understanding of gender identity and what characteristics make up a ‘real man' and a ‘real woman.' The analysis is divided into three subchapters, which will point out Dobson's definition of masculinity, what he believes has gone wrong with men, as well as his suggestions for a happy marriage. Within these subchapters, the relation between cultural changes and Evangelicals' adjustment of masculine ideals will be presented. It will further highlight how the debate about male headship maintains the oppression of women. The next chapter will focus on developments during the 1990s and present the famous Promise Keepers Movement. For the analytical part of this chapter, Stu Weber's Tender Warrior serves as an exemplary Promise Keepers' manual. Weber is not the most prominent member within the evangelical community, but his book exemplifies character traits of the Tender Warrior that was promoted by the Promise Keepers Movement in the 1990s. The analysis is divided into four subchapters that represent Weber's construct of the four pillars of manhood, namely man as king, warrior, mentor, and friend. These subchapters will focus on Weber's assigned roles for men that portray a fearless leader who is superior to women on the one hand and a tender father figure on the other hand. The following chapter will deal with Evangelicals' negotiation of masculinity after the terrors of 9/11. This chapter will include the analysis of Wild at Heart by popular author John Eldredge. The self-help manual was an immediate success and is praised by many evangelical spokespersons. In his book, Eldredge calls all men to return to ‘authentic masculinity,' to be dangerous, adventurous and heroic. His book was such a great success that he and his wife also wrote the complementary companion Captivating about ‘authentic femininity.' Finally, the last chapter of this thesis will be a conclusion, which sums up the results achieved. Furthermore, it will provide an outlook for future research on negotiations of masculinity within the evangelical subculture.

2. Men As Providers

The 1970s were characterized by the previous decade, which led to several cultural changes due to the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, the Gay Rights Movement and of course the Women's Liberation Movement (Dowland 17). All of these movements were regarded with suspicion by Evangelicals, but probably the biggest threat presented feminists who disrupted the idea of the nuclear family (17). Initiated by Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique, which revealed that the majority of American housewives were unhappy and unfulfilled with their lives as only wives and mothers, Second-wave feminism encouraged many women to fight for true gender equality (Churchill). In the opinion of conservative Evangelicals, the Women's Liberation Movement was a sign that American society was in a moral decline (Dowland 17). On the one hand, the amount of women in the workforce, as well as divorce rates and the number of single parents drastically increased in the 1970s (“Changes in Women's Labor Force Participation"; “The American Family"). On the other hand, the birth rate declined with women bearing 1.7 children during their lifetimes by 1976, less than half the figure of 1960 (“Fertility Rate"). Clearly, feminists posed a threat to the institution of the family and rejected biblical gender roles (Dowland 130).

Ultimately, Evangelicals' opinion of the family resonated with conservative politicians during the 1970s, who supported the so-called ‘family values' (Dowland 7). Both demanded a return to the idealized family, with a breadwinning husband and a stay-at-home mother who was devoted to the upbringing of her children (7). It is needless to say, that the family was supposed to be constituted of a heterosexual man, married to a heterosexual woman, and their biological children (111). According to Seth Dowland, Evangelicals refused “to see anything but the heterosexual, two-parent family as a legitimate family" (111). Defending family values became intertwined with the opposition towards feminist ideas, abortion, gay rights, and changing morals in regards to sexuality that were brought on by the sexual revolution in the 1960s (7). Conservative politicians as well as Evangelicals believed that only the institution of the family would be able to restore American society and save them from their downfall (12).

In 1973, one particular issue divided American society. Many women fought for their right to have legal abortions, which culminated in the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade (Dowland 110). The case divided American society into a pro-choice and a pro-life camp, with Evangelicals at the forefront of the latter group (113). While feminists defended abortions as a constitutional right, Evangelicals framed it as an assault on the family (17). In their opinion, abortion was equivalent to murder, comparing it to the Holocaust and framing it as a genocide of innocent children (Holland). The famous lawsuit of Roe v. Wade was filed by Norma McCorvey, better known by her alias Jane Roe, who sought to have an abortion in Texas, but was denied the procedure under Texas law ("Roe"). When Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of Jane Roe ("Roe"). It was argued that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed a right to privacy and therefore encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion ("Roe"). Finally, the decision in Roe v. Wade legalized abortions in all states ("Roe"). However, the ruling only intensified the nationwide discussion about abortions and increased Evangelicals' involvement in politics among others (Holland). Some of them founded radical organizations, such as ‘Operation Rescue,' whose members took part in sit-in demonstrations to block the entrance of abortion clinics (Holland). Furthermore, evangelical as well as catholic leaders urged their fellow Christians to engage in politics in order to stand up for Christian values (Dowland 112).

As they gained more and more influence in politics, Evangelicals became highly involved in the culture wars in the United States (Dowland 2). They not only opposed abortion, pornography, obscenity, but also gay rights and any other perceived threats to the family (2). Evangelicals endorsed conservative politicians and hoped to reestablish a Christian nation that would honor traditional family values (2). Evangelicals became known for their immense grassroots activism and high voter turnout (Lindsay 42). In their perception, the restoration of America as a Christian Nation could only be achieved by reestablishing the God-given gender roles (Dowland 3). As mentioned earlier, this included a stay-at-home mother and a providing father as the head of the family (3). Since the aim of this thesis is to discover how evangelical authors negotiated masculinity in self-help literature for men, the following subchapters will analyze What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women by the highly influential James Dobson. The book was published in 1975 and provides helpful insights into Dobson's definition of gender and guides men to achieve biblical manhood.

2.1. What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women

Dr. James Dobson is an American psychologist and is one of the most influential evangelical leaders until today (Domenico and Hanley 170). He has earned his PhD from the University of Southern California in the field of child development and raised to prominence with several books on education and child-rearing, such as Dare to Discipline and Preparing for Adolescence in the 1970s (171) . Dobson is known for his opposition against same-sex relationships and claims that children need a mother and a father to raise them (Lovdal Stephens 14). Dobson himself has been heavily involved in governmental activities throughout his life (Domenico and Hanley 172). From 1982 to 1984 he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and consulted President Reagan as well as President George H.W. Bush on family matters (172) . Furthermore, Dobson's influence on the evangelical community played a great role in the election of George W. Bush as president, since his approval persuaded many conservative Americans to vote for Bush in 2005 (Lovdal Stephens 156).

[...]

¹ For more information on the history of American Evangelicalism see Barry Hankins' American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement.

² For more information on gender performativity see Judith Butler's Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1999.

³ For more information on the history of American manhood, see Michael Kimmel’s Manhood in America: A Cultural History.

⁴ For comprehensive information about the academic field of Men’s Studies, see Kimmel Michael S., et al., editors. Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities.