Independent Actors

I keep telling myself I'm going to spend less time on Facebook. I even deactivated my account a few months ago, but I didn't stay away for long. Then I find something that gets me thinking and I remember why I keep going back. I don't do it because the platform deserves it, but because the world keeps putting interesting problems in unfortunate places.

This time the algorithm fed me a page called MenNeed To Be Heard that said this:

Every movie plot in 2026:

Dad = useless
Husband = clueless
Boyfriend = idiot

Women = perfect

Groundbreaking storytelling? No.

My gut reaction was to say that "This script has been playing at least since Home Improvement in the 90's. Or a little further if you go to the Simpsons." The Simpsons began in 1987. Home Improvement first aired in 1991. Certainly relics from my upbringing.

This is some of the redpill content that still comes through on my page, as I went through a phase where I was deeply immersed in this kind of content. It often went further and painted women as the sole problem in society — liberated past the point of accountability, now seeing themselves as morally superior to men.

I found myself walking the path of MGTOW — Men Going Their Own Way. My inability to find the companionship with a woman that I wanted led me to say, "To hell with them, I'll make a go on my own." While independence is important, I carried it to an extreme where I became what I found out is counterdependent. That is to say, I came to rely on myself to the point that I didn't look for it at all elsewhere, and that was so mentally taxing that I eventually needed a change. It's part of what spurred me to get back into therapy back in October.

The Pinnacle of Creation

This is some of what made me reflect on my experiences in the Mormon church, where there was a tension between the genders that was often played. Women were often touted as "The pinnacle of creation." Gordon B. Hinckley in 2004 said the following after the passing of his wife: "And so Eve became God's final creation, the grand summation of all of the marvelous work that had gone before."

This is just one example of a number of times that women were put on a kind of pedestal in a church setting. It was routine enough to teach me to do the same.

How interesting that this church that tries to recognize women as the grand summation of God's work denies them positions of leadership that are reserved exclusively for men. There is not one woman in the Quorums of the Seventy, the Quorum of the Twelve, or the First Presidency. Recently, women were afforded the chance to be called as Sunday School presidencies. However, this is contingent on the fact that the counselors must also be women.

So while this seems like a step forward, it still carries a strange segregation of the genders. It makes men and women independent actors instead of partners.

Queens and Priestesses—Eventually

The temple ceremonies do say that men are to be kings and priests in the priesthood, and that women are to be queens and priestesses. But I think this is one of those things that religion often does: it defers the problem to the afterlife. It says we don't need to fix the problem now because it will be fixed later.

What might the church look like if there were more women in its leadership? Women have just as great a capacity to lead and to bring their own unique perspectives to the challenges being faced. In my ideal world, they would be given more of a voice and would be more involved in the day-to-day affairs of managing the church. The "grand summation of God's work" deserves a seat at the table, not a deferred coronation.

No Wonder

This is all to say that there was a strange tension where I was expected to be a leader, a bearer of the priesthood, an example to my future wife and children of the divine attributes of manhood — with my wife as the pinnacle of creation whose most vital role was to bear and raise our children.

No wonder, with this subtext, that I am so quickly drawn to jump in the camp of "man good, women bad," despite my trying to hold the genders in a different light.

The redpill crowd and the Mormon church are, in a sense, running variations of the same script. One puts women on a pedestal while blaming them for society's ills. The other puts women on a pedestal while keeping them out of the room. Both end up in the same place: men and women as independent actors, competing or deferring, rather than partners in the actual work of living.

What a King Actually Looks Like

When I think of an example of the kind of man I want to be, I think of Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings and some of the other traits of masculinity found in characters like Sam and Frodo.

Aragorn is one of the first that I go to because I remember when I first watched the films and was amazed at Viggo Mortensen's ability to wield a sword like a badass. He was cutting off the heads of orcs and rode with a seeming lack of fear into a host of enemies outside the gates of Mordor. His martial prowess was undeniable. He was the king that didn't want to be king. He didn't seek power. It was pushed onto him. But how he rose to the occasion.

But one of the most riveting scenes to me now, while the others still have great power, is the scene of Boromir and Aragorn toward the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, when Boromir has been pierced by several of the Uruk-hai's arrows. Boromir confesses to Aragorn with some of his final breaths that he tried to take the ring from Frodo. Aragorn does not condemn him. Rather, he absolves him: "The Ring is beyond our reach now." He tells Boromir that he fought bravely, that his honor was preserved. Boromir says that he would have followed Aragorn. He calls him his captain, his king. And when Boromir finds his end, Aragorn kisses Boromir's forehead as a tear rolls down his cheek.

As much as superhero movies became a thing shortly after 2001, when The Fellowship was released, and as much as masculinity tries to stand on strength and dominance, I think that moments of heroism expressed through compassion and understanding serve us all much better than aggression ever could.

Samwise the Brave

There is a common argument about who the true hero of The Lord of the Rings is. Is it Frodo, who destroys the One Ring? Or is it Samwise, who was Frodo's companion through all his perils? Personally, I lean towards Sam. Frodo said it himself: "You've left out one of the chief characters: Samwise the Brave. I want to hear more about Sam. Frodo wouldn't have gone far without Sam."

Sam accuses Frodo of making fun, but Frodo pushes back and says he wasn't. That seems to catch Sam by surprise, and then he settles into the role: Samwise the Brave.

It was Sam who carried Frodo over the last stretch to Mount Doom. And while it was ultimately the result of Frodo's pity and Sméagol's desire for the ring that destroys it, it would never have gotten that far without the humble hobbit who said, "I will take the Ring to Mordor. Though I do not know the way."

What They Don't Do

But notice what these characters don't do: they don't try to minimize women's roles.

Aragorn asks Eowyn, "You're skilled with a blade?" Eowyn's retort is as sharp as her blade: "Women of this country learned long ago — those who don't wield a sword can still die upon them."

The redpill comment I started this piece with would look at Aragorn swinging his sword, cutting off the heads of orcs, and say that is what men should look like. And they'd be partly right. Aragorn would have been made far worse if he'd been cast as unintelligent or needing a woman to point him in the right direction. But look at his softer moments. Look at the tenderness when Aragorn kissed Boromir's forehead. Look at Sam hoisting Frodo onto his back. I would say that is more of what we need to see, not just in cinema, but in life in general.

Going Farther Together

Women have been put into a place of inferiority for centuries — and I think it's pointless to try to deny it. The Bible alone is full of examples of women treated as nothing more than property. Their role, most often, to remain a virgin and to bear their husband's offspring. It's no wonder that they might overcorrect when trying to reclaim the autonomy that has been denied them for so long.

So maybe women have pushed back a bit harder than they needed to, and Hollywood has been something of a willing accomplice. But the question I find myself asking is, "Should we expect anything different?"

The answer is that it needs to be acknowledged that men have dominated society for a long time. Women have largely played secondary roles. In a world that isn't so much about survival and is more about abundance, it seems that now is the time for women to stop hiding behind men, and for us to face the challenges of today's world — and those that will come in the future — together.

The maxim that we'll go farther together than we will apart applies here as much as it does anywhere. Sam didn't save Middle Earth by going it alone, and he didn't save it by insisting Frodo stay out of the way. He carried someone who couldn't carry themselves, and they finished the journey together. Eowyn killed the Witch-king of Angmar. Arwen caused the broken blade to be reforged.

That's the script I'd rather be living.