On Tuesday, October 16, the Choate Rosemary Hall student body gathered for a special program. On this occasion, the invited speaker was Jeffrey Marx who presented ideas from his book, Season of Life, published in 2004.
First, Marx explained how Ehrmann, while playing for the Baltimore Colts, took the time to reach out to those around him. Subsequently, Marx described who Ehrmann has become: a white-haired minister who coaches high school football and runs a program called Building Men for Others.
Many themes appear in Marx’s book, of which the most important is “masculinity.” Marx gave the word a more philosophical meaning, defining masculinity as the capacity to love and be loved, and to focus on others rather than on yourself. Although, by definition, masculinity refers only to men, Marx applies his definition to women as well. To me, Marx’s effort to transform chauvinistic word into a Christian definition of generosity seemed absurd. You cannot turn a word that refers to a human male into one that could apply to any living creature simply by attributing to it a definition it does not contain.
As his speech progressed, Marx showed more of Joe Ehrmann’s methods of coaching. Ehrmann’s most shocking technique is a ritual; during practice, Ehrmann asks them, “What is our job as coaches?” and they answer, “To love us.” Then he asks, “What is your job?” and they answer, “To love each other.” Although this may sound like a perfect community, it is hard to believe that every single boy in that team really believes in the whole “love-us-love-each-other” principle. Furthermore, it seems likely that the team wins games because of its athletic prowess, and not because the members of the team love each other.
Later on, the book reaches an episode where Marx and his father reconcile. As he continues to explore his relationship with his father, he embraces manifestations of love such as hugging and saying “I love you.” I agree with his concept of sharing his feelings with his father. It is archaic to see men only as emotionless, rational creatures.
I think Marx’s objective was to show that manhood is not about money, physical appearance, or sexual conquests. Manhood, Marx tried to explain, is about learning how to make an honest living, and about balancing your life between family and work responsibilities. These goals are relevant to women as well. He confused the audience with an image of masculinity that was foreign to everyone. He would have been more effective if he had described manhood first and derived his definition of masculinity from his description.
It is easy to invent a new way of seeing life and to find evidence to back it up, and it is not my place to refute a perspective or a belief. As my English teacher always says, “Do not begin to read a book with a preconceived thought to find evidence to back it up. Read the book and then make a conclusion about it.”
In addition, I believe that many, if not all, of the female students in the audience—maybe even the female faculty members too—felt detached from the book, for which I do not blame Marx. But I do find it odd that he repeatedly tried to include females artificially into the subject of manhood and masculinity.
It is always interesting to have a speaker bring new ideas to Choate. I believe that exposure to different or novel points of view is an indispensable part of an education. And, although Marx’s points may not have been clearly stated or at all applicable to some of the students listening, his visit certainly did meet this criterion.
