Originally posted by Matt Black:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
wtf has capitalism got to do with it? quote:Have you read anything about Jesus? If you have, have you really understood it??
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Finding anything on 'manliness', whether Christian or not, that isn't at least vaguely violent/militaristic and also misogynistic, not to mention totally heteronormative and absurdly clichéd, is always an uphill struggle. And, yes, that is a problem.
quote:How is that a response to my post? Jesus is a splendid example of humanity, but he's seldom if ever, portrayed as 'manly' in the normal use of that term (and note that I did use the scare around 'manliness' in my original post as well). In fact, I would associate the 'manly' Jesus with the religion of public school chapels in the height of the British Empire, which was definitely part and parcel about what I meant (and also of very dubious relationship to the gospels).
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Have you read anything about Jesus? If you have, have you really understood it??
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Finding anything on 'manliness', whether Christian or not, that isn't at least vaguely violent/militaristic and also misogynistic, not to mention totally heteronormative and absurdly clichéd, is always an uphill struggle. And, yes, that is a problem.
quote:I'm sure they will claim to be more biblical than almost all of us, but I really wonder if they understand Jesus!
Originally posted by Garasu:
And yet, those authors would claim to be much more biblical than me...
quote:
But sometimes religion also talks about justice; occasionally it even speaks about the justice we men owe women. Still, even when it does that it is usually men giving other men moral advice, with women being spoken about and waiting off stage. When dealing with the heritage of the sacred, and deal with it we will whether we want to or not, we are dealing with both a presence and an absence. For women to become present in the sacred is "to have a say," to become an "I" and a "we" ? no longer the "them" listening off stage. For us men, to search the sacred in our struggle for justice is not to struggle "for them" but to struggle for ourselves, to recover from dishonesty, to hear the unheard male bias in our heritage of worship, and so give clarity to our hearts and what they cling to and rely upon.
quote:I read a fascinating book about the rise of 'muscular Christianity' in England. Around 1820 an influential book was written praising 'manliness'. The author used manliness as the opposite of childishness. The idea gradually metamorphosed into the concept that manliness meant masculinity, and especially physical ability. The rest is history.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It wasn't always like this-- the idea of "muscular Christianity" didn't really become popular until the early 1800's, at least in the US.
quote:Your question seems to assume that Christianity is this monolithic, monochromatic thing.
Originally posted by Garasu:
Has Christianity sold out entirely to the idea that men must be soldiers? Or is there stuff out there that has alternatives?
quote:I don't think it's a question of 'muscular Christianity'. That was something that was actively promoted by some parts of the church, so I understand, but what we have nowadays is the sort of hyper-masculinity that finds the church fairly alienating.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why shouldn't reflective, caring, liberal, educated, etc, etc men get support from their brothers in arms for being just that? (oh shoot, I just used a military metaphor, didn't I?)
It wasn't always like this-- the idea of "muscular Christianity" didn't really become popular until the early 1800's, at least in the US. Medieval mystics had plenty of praise for the gentle, humble man of God-- indeed, many of the (male)saints were celebrated for their ability to turn away wrath with kindness.
quote:Nope. Masculinity itself is not the problem, it is how it has been defined.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.
quote:Here, here! The language fails us. What are we going to say now, Adultly?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:I read a fascinating book about the rise of 'muscular Christianity' in England. Around 1820 an influential book was written praising 'manliness'. The author used manliness as the opposite of childishness. The idea gradually metamorphosed into the concept that manliness meant masculinity, and especially physical ability. The rest is history.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It wasn't always like this-- the idea of "muscular Christianity" didn't really become popular until the early 1800's, at least in the US.
quote:I wish we had a link to daronmedway's original post, because I don't want to unfairly respond to it by gainsaying Kelly Alves's post.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Pulled from another thread, because it fits here.
quote:Nope. Masculinity itself is not the problem, it is how it has been defined.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.
quote:Perhaps you would wish that the expression of masculinity was of some ideal type of virtue. But, the facts show otherwise.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's not that I don't' agree those things are a problem, it's that reinforcing the idea that those things are an expression of masculinity-- MUCH evidence to the contrary-- not only insults men, but reinforces the idea that engaging in such actions prove one's masculinity. It's unhelpful on several levels.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The Silent Acolyte
quote:My question still remains, why would you (both) see 'girly' and 'effeminate' as insults? In fact, you seem to equate feminine with childish and manly with grown up.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I have a very strong wife with higher academic qualifications than I. She has established a highly successful charity focused on the alleviation of suffering, poverty and distress leading to relational and familial breakdown. She is a qualified social worker with experience in child protection. She also happens to hold a complementarian view of ministry in the church in her own right on the basis of her understanding of Scripture. She would be similarly dismissive of your effeminate god, so no, it's not sexist. It's biblical.
quote:I wish.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think those books are written to appeal to very culturally masculine men, the type who are the least likely to be found in church.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:I mostly agree with you, but beware generalisations. It's entirely possible that women haven't usually initiated war only because they haven't been in a position to do so.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men ... initiate war ...
quote:I'm not sure that that isn't a case of continuing to dig when in a hole.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I was using the term girly-god to describe a god who is characterised largely by qualities that appeal to women, not necessarily qualities that typify women.
quote:"Laddish"?
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Isn't "lad" and "ladism" the male equivalent of girley? Not sure if there is an adjective though.
quote:It would be laddish - I ran it through my brain, and considered it the grammatical equivalent of girlish, which does not have the same negativity. Boyish is quite attractive. Laddish isn't as negative as it might be, either, despite the "lads' mag" connection. It has a touch of "boys will be boys" about it. There was a pub near my old home called "The lads of the village", which wouldn't have had the name if it meant "the young thugs of the village". (Never went in it, even so.)
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Isn't "lad" and "ladism" the male equivalent of girley? Not sure if there is an adjective though.
quote:This is a false dichotomy, or at least a sweeping generalisation, surely? Many of these so-called "qualities that appeal to women" appeal to me, a man.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's nothing wrong with the qualities that appeal to women so long as they are not emphasised to the detriment of those that appeal to men.
quote:Please list some of these qualities.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's nothing wrong with the qualities that appeal to women so long as they are not emphasised to the detriment of those that appeal to men.
quote:I think "girly" is used differently from "girl" as in "girls' night out" (note plural), and I have never heard it without a an implication of childishness.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's nothing wrong with the qualities that appeal to women so long as they are not emphasised to the detriment of those that appeal to men.
As for the word girly - women use it themselves without any sense of infantilisation or denigration. Usually it's used by women to imply the temporary social exclusion of men - girl's night in/out etc.
So I'm using the term girly-god for the vision of God which overtly asserts - or a best merely implies - the temporary (or even semi-permanent exclusion) of men from the heart of the faith through an overly feminine picture of who God is and what God is like.
quote:Have you got any evidence for this? Because it still feels like (to this man at least) one huge stereotype, or set of stereotypes at least.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Penny S, I haven't said God hasn't got a "feminine side". I've said that an over-emphasis on what appeals to women in the character of God is unhealthy. Essentially, if you take your indignation goggles off you see that I'm saying the same as you but from a male perspective.
Generally, an over-emphasis on what appeals to women tends to create the lenient god of liberal protestantism who has no wrath.. Likewise, an over-emphasis on what appeals to men creates the legalistic god of impersonal judgementalism who can't be loved.
quote:A man who is secure in who he is will be very unlikely to read any such book, imho. They seem more to affirm those who are wavering about the reality of that cultural masculinity.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think those books are written to appeal to very culturally masculine men, the type who are the least likely to be found in church. They're not meant for reflective, caring, liberal-leaning male university graduates. Books for this group of people are less likely to be promoted on the basis of gender, I imagine.
quote:I didn't say there's never been "a problem", so there's no justifiable reason to take offence. The indignation I'm talking about is the indignation at what I'm saying about the church now, not about something I didn't say about the errors of the church fathers. I'm saying that there's a different problem in the church at this particular moment in history: and that problem is the over-feminisation of God.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Have you got any evidence for this? Because it still feels like (to this man at least) one huge stereotype, or set of stereotypes at least.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Penny S, I haven't said God hasn't got a "feminine side". I've said that an over-emphasis on what appeals to women in the character of God is unhealthy. Essentially, if you take your indignation goggles off you see that I'm saying the same as you but from a male perspective.
Generally, an over-emphasis on what appeals to women tends to create the lenient god of liberal protestantism who has no wrath.. Likewise, an over-emphasis on what appeals to men creates the legalistic god of impersonal judgementalism who can't be loved.
And writing off a legitimate complaint about the exclusion of women within Christianity over much of its history as "indignation goggles" is at best grossly insensitive and at worse deeply offensive and denying there's ever been a problem.
quote:So, the over-feminised God lacks wrath, is liberal, lenient and protestant. Apparently women find this version of God appealing, which is news to me.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, an over-emphasis on what appeals to women tends to create the lenient god of liberal protestantism who has no wrath.. Likewise, an over-emphasis on what appeals to men creates the legalistic god of impersonal judgementalism who can't be loved.
quote:So legalistic and impersonal judgementalism appeals to men, does it?
Originally posted by daronmedway
Likewise, an over-emphasis on what appeals to men creates the legalistic god of impersonal judgementalism who can't be loved.
quote:Tell me why you feel insulted, Arethosemyfeet. What has offended you in what I've actually said?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't insult the other men here by claiming your perspective is the "male" one, daronmedway.
quote:I am not sure how God is being over-feminised, when we have a notionally masculine Trinity, 12 male apostles, 4 male gospel writers and huge swathes of the church convinced that women cannot serve in the Sanctuary.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm saying that there's a different problem in the church at this particular moment in history: and that problem is the over-feminisation of God.
quote:There's plenty of women in the church who would answer yes to that question.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:So legalistic and impersonal judgementalism appeals to men, does it?
Originally posted by daronmedway
Likewise, an over-emphasis on what appeals to men creates the legalistic god of impersonal judgementalism who can't be loved.
quote:I note you didn't answer the first part of my post - some evidence for this "overly-feminine" view of God that is too liberal and lacking in wrath and the "overly-masculine" view of God that is insufficiently loving and too keen on wrath. It still feels like a huge, and largely illusory, stereotype. Why do you associate those traits with males and females? Do you have anything to back it up with?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I didn't say there's never been "a problem", so there's no justifiable reason to take offence. The indignation I'm talking about is the indignation at what I'm saying about the church now, not about something I didn't say about the errors of the church fathers. I'm saying that there's a different problem in the church at this particular moment in history: and that problem is the over-feminisation of God.
quote:The idea that my views should have something in common with yours simply because I also have a Y chromosome is pretty insulting in itself. Plus the insinuation that unless I have a legalistic and judgmental idea of God then I'm not a real man.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Tell me why you feel insulted, Arethosemyfeet. What has offended you in what I've actually said?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't insult the other men here by claiming your perspective is the "male" one, daronmedway.
quote:Obviously your experience of life is rather limited. I work for a company in which almost the entire management is made up of women, and I have never experienced such cynical and brutal exploitation of workers and flagrant greed and incompetence. (Greed and exploitation are, of course, forms of rape: financial rape). It's impossible to blame 'men' for this. This is the so called 'care sector'.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte
Men perpetrate rape, they initiate war, they subject women to sexual apartheid, they conduct the bestial economic activity known as sexual slavery, they deny women economic and educational freedom. The list goes on and on.
quote:Where is this male dominated Christianity which needs to be opened up to women? Every congregation I've ever been in men have been outnumbered by women by nearly 3 to 1. And anyway, are you really saying that keeping women out of a sanctuary where men regularly cross dress in lace and wave smoky hand-bags around is preserving some kind overly masculine vision of God? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:I am not sure how God is being over-feminised, when we have a notionally masculine Trinity, 12 male apostles, 4 male gospel writers and huge swathes of the church convinced that women cannot serve in the Sanctuary.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm saying that there's a different problem in the church at this particular moment in history: and that problem is the over-feminisation of God.
A small step towards remembering that the Wisdom of God is feminine, and that she too was with God in the beginning, as the Wisdom of Christ himself, has the potential to do a great deal of good. Nothing to do with lacking wrath or being liberal; everything to do with remembering that people are both male and female. And that we are made in the image of God.
quote:The first sentence is just a repetition of indignation without any substantiation. The second sentence is based on something I have not said.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:The idea that my views should have something in common with yours simply because I also have a Y chromosome is pretty insulting in itself. Plus the insinuation that unless I have a legalistic and judgmental idea of God then I'm not a real man.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Tell me why you feel insulted, Arethosemyfeet. What has offended you in what I've actually said?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't insult the other men here by claiming your perspective is the "male" one, daronmedway.
quote:My own personal experience of membership in different local churches is evidence enough. Even a cursory look at the theological differences between conservative evangelicalism on the one hand and liberalism on the other suggests a correlation. The 'sin' of conservative evangelicalism seems to me to be legalism and an impersonal understanding of God. God is distant and angry. The 'sin' of liberalism seems to me to be gentle Jesus meek and mild who is just very, very nice. God is gentle and nurturing. Now, answer me this question. Which genders tend to lead and influence these two different expressions of Christianity?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:I note you didn't answer the first part of my post - some evidence for this "overly-feminine" view of God that is too liberal and lacking in wrath and the "overly-masculine" view of God that is insufficiently loving and too keen on wrath. It still feels like a huge, and largely illusory, stereotype. Why do you associate those traits with males and females? Do you have anything to back it up with?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I didn't say there's never been "a problem", so there's no justifiable reason to take offence. The indignation I'm talking about is the indignation at what I'm saying about the church now, not about something I didn't say about the errors of the church fathers. I'm saying that there's a different problem in the church at this particular moment in history: and that problem is the over-feminisation of God.
quote:I don't know - you're the one making the assertion, please provide evidence to back it up (beyond your own claims about the make-ups of the different types of congregations).
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My own personal experience of membership in different local churches is evidence enough. Even a cursory look at the theological differences between conservative evangelicalism on the one hand and liberalism on the other suggests a correlation. The 'sin' of conservative evangelicalism seems to me to be legalism and an impersonal understanding of God. God is distant and angry. The 'sin' of liberalism seems to me to be gentle Jesus meek and mild who is just very, very nice. God is gentle and nurturing. Now, answer me this question. Which genders tend to lead and influence these two different expressions of Christianity?
quote:Men, on both sides. What was your point again?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Which genders tend to lead and influence these two different expressions of Christianity?
quote:Not true.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Men, on both sides.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Which genders tend to lead and influence these two different expressions of Christianity?
quote:That may be true, but that is not what you were saying. You were making a general point about "what appeals to men". You were not saying that this kind of judgmentalism appeals to a few men, some men or even most men, but just 'men'.
Originally posted by daronmedway
quote:There's plenty of women in the church who would answer yes to that question.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
So legalistic and impersonal judgementalism appeals to men, does it?
quote:No you haven't, not really; you've just made assertions and claims without (ironically, given your response here to AreThoseMyFeet) any substantiation.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I've answered the question. You don't like my answer. I've said what I've said.
quote:Was I? Show me where I said that legalistic and impersonal judgementalism appeals to men? I didn't. I said that the things that appeal to men can lead to legalistic and impersonal judgementalism in contrast to how the things that appeal to women can lead to gentle Jesus meek and mild or (as someone else said) Jesus is my boyfriend Christianity. I wasn't applauding the merits of either. In fact, I see them both as weaknesses.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:That may be true, but that is not what you were saying. You were making a general point about "what appeals to men". You were not saying that this kind of judgmentalism appeals to a few men, some men or even most men, but just 'men'.
Originally posted by daronmedway
quote:There's plenty of women in the church who would answer yes to that question.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
So legalistic and impersonal judgementalism appeals to men, does it?
quote:I just still don't see this dichotomy as being a male/female thing. Perhaps you could provide examples of one parish falling into each category, where the theology/praxis is definitively influenced by men, and women respectively.
The 'sin' of conservative evangelicalism seems to me to be legalism and an impersonal understanding of God. God is distant and angry. The 'sin' of liberalism seems to me to be gentle Jesus meek and mild who is just very, very nice.
quote:Totally agree.
Originally posted by The Midge:
I think the Ephesians 5 reference to loving wives as Christ loves the church is a key one. It forces us to rethink the way wives have been treated through the ages. If we bought our family and church relationships into line with the way Christ loves the church it would answer much of our dilemmas. And it challenges our male sense of self too.
quote:Yes. St Helen's Bishopsgate (men) and an all female Team Ministry in which a female friend is in ordained ministry. The two simply don't compare.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:I just still don't see this dichotomy as being a male/female thing. Perhaps you could provide examples of one parish falling into each category, where the theology/praxis is definitively influenced by men, and women respectively.
The 'sin' of conservative evangelicalism seems to me to be legalism and an impersonal understanding of God. God is distant and angry. The 'sin' of liberalism seems to me to be gentle Jesus meek and mild who is just very, very nice.
quote:Since Episcopalians are just funny Anglicans I am supprised at that.
It's rare you hear mainline churches like the Episcopalians or the ELCA employ a lot of warrior imagery in songs or sermons or prayers.
quote:This isn't just about the clergy, in fact far from it. It's about the whole congregation. So maybe you're comfortable in a more feminine or dare I say feminised expression of Christianity. Whatever floats your boat. I'm just saying that you are probably more prone to misrepresenting God in one way and I in the other.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've worshipped in places where all the clergy and all the PCC except me have been female, and somehow managed to avoid feeling excluded. In fact I've worshipped in places where all the clergy we male, all were female, and where there was a mix of the two, and I can't see any link between the character of those congregations and the gender of the clergy. If anything, the place that was most "right on" liberal (strong links with SCM, slow burning feud with the Christian Union) was where all the clergy, Methodist, Anglican and Roman Catholic, were male.
quote:'Lad' has undergone a real semantic shift in my living memory. I would say that it used to be used, and still is by an older generation, almost entirely affectionately. It perhaps had a romantic connotation, of the England of Housman or Rupert Brooke: lads playing football or cricket on the village green. It was the male equivalent of 'lass', which doesn't seem to have changed its meaning in the same way. At a church where I served, the (all male) serving team might be addressed as 'gentlemen' or less formally as 'lads'.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:It would be laddish - I ran it through my brain, and considered it the grammatical equivalent of girlish, which does not have the same negativity. Boyish is quite attractive. Laddish isn't as negative as it might be, either, despite the "lads' mag" connection. It has a touch of "boys will be boys" about it. There was a pub near my old home called "The lads of the village", which wouldn't have had the name if it meant "the young thugs of the village". (Never went in it, even so.)
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Isn't "lad" and "ladism" the male equivalent of girley? Not sure if there is an adjective though.
quote:You still haven't explained what is feminine about it. Different people and different churches are, no doubt, wrong about God in different ways, but there is no particular reason to think your view masculine and mine feminine.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:This isn't just about the clergy, in fact far from it. It's about the whole congregation. So maybe you're comfortable in a more feminine or dare I say feminised expression of Christianity. Whatever floats your boat. I'm just saying that you are probably more prone to misrepresenting God in one way and I in the other.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've worshipped in places where all the clergy and all the PCC except me have been female, and somehow managed to avoid feeling excluded. In fact I've worshipped in places where all the clergy we male, all were female, and where there was a mix of the two, and I can't see any link between the character of those congregations and the gender of the clergy. If anything, the place that was most "right on" liberal (strong links with SCM, slow burning feud with the Christian Union) was where all the clergy, Methodist, Anglican and Roman Catholic, were male.
quote:The Church is serially unfaithful to Christ, her spouse, yet he forgives her, time and again. From my perspective as a struggling wife, it's a beautiful model for marriage - not sure most men I know would agree though.
Originally posted by The Midge:
If we bought our family and church relationships into line with the way Christ loves the church it would answer much of our dilemmas. And it challenges our male sense of self too.
quote:I see that. I'm all for something to appeal to 'unchurched' men or the help appeal to Christian men who feel on the fringes, but as a single man, I really can't get excited about getting together with a bunch of men.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many men I know today on the fringes of church life, particularly those of a more 'blokish' bent, are still put off throwing themselves wholeheartedly into church life because of this perceived feminisation of the church. Throw in a few rather wet "one lump or two" vicar stereotypes and a few "Jesus is my boyfriend" charismatic-evo choruses (particularly if written by Darlene Zshech) and they run a mile. Happily, organisations like Christian Vision for Men are doing their best to put forward an alternative picture.
quote:I grew up in a working class MOTR Anglican church in the choral tradition. There was a very strong social aspect to choir membership which extended way beyond Sunday worship. The families spent time with one another socially (i.e. drinking) and even holidayed together. Oh, a quite a few of the men were gay, especially the organists and their boyfriends. Not saying it's like that everywhere but I suspect that others will recognise the pattern.
Originally posted by Chorister:
There are a larger than average number of men in our church and also a larger than average number of men in the robed church choir. Not sure if there is a correlation there. But something is obviously confirming these men in their faith.
quote:The pastoral model follows a feminine way of relating (i.e. intense pre-arranged group conversations over tea or coffee). The worship songs convey ideas of "intimacy" with God with romantic overtones. The primary language of deep spirituality is of one nurture and comfort. God is described in ways which appeal to women: loving, caring, nurturing etc.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:You still haven't explained what is feminine about it. Different people and different churches are, no doubt, wrong about God in different ways, but there is no particular reason to think your view masculine and mine feminine.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:This isn't just about the clergy, in fact far from it. It's about the whole congregation. So maybe you're comfortable in a more feminine or dare I say feminised expression of Christianity. Whatever floats your boat. I'm just saying that you are probably more prone to misrepresenting God in one way and I in the other.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've worshipped in places where all the clergy and all the PCC except me have been female, and somehow managed to avoid feeling excluded. In fact I've worshipped in places where all the clergy we male, all were female, and where there was a mix of the two, and I can't see any link between the character of those congregations and the gender of the clergy. If anything, the place that was most "right on" liberal (strong links with SCM, slow burning feud with the Christian Union) was where all the clergy, Methodist, Anglican and Roman Catholic, were male.
quote:Is there such a thing as a 'more masculine mind'?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
All these things are true and good but they don't paint the full picture of God in his glory, power, might, strength, holiness, omnipotence and so on: ideas which, I believe, generally appeal to a more masculine mind.
quote:I'm not talking about post service coffee. I'm talking about post-relationship coffee! Men don't tend to go for that kind of pastoring. They prefer the late-night last minute phone call when things are imploding.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Who on earth has intense conversations over coffee? Churches I've been to are happy with general chit-chat and a bit of church business.
Re songs, there are certainly many such terrible songs such as you describe. I can't stand them either. If others in your church agree, you might try to get a new church musician, because they certainly are not at all universal.
quote:What a delightful bit of transphobia.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Where is this male dominated Christianity which needs to be opened up to women? Every congregation I've ever been in men have been outnumbered by women by nearly 3 to 1. And anyway, are you really saying that keeping women out of a sanctuary where men regularly cross dress in lace and wave smoky hand-bags around is preserving some kind overly masculine vision of God? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:I am not sure how God is being over-feminised, when we have a notionally masculine Trinity, 12 male apostles, 4 male gospel writers and huge swathes of the church convinced that women cannot serve in the Sanctuary.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm saying that there's a different problem in the church at this particular moment in history: and that problem is the over-feminisation of God.
A small step towards remembering that the Wisdom of God is feminine, and that she too was with God in the beginning, as the Wisdom of Christ himself, has the potential to do a great deal of good. Nothing to do with lacking wrath or being liberal; everything to do with remembering that people are both male and female. And that we are made in the image of God.
quote:If not just a presentational shift but something of a cultural shift, then, yes, absofuckinglutely!!
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I guess the real question is whether they (the blokey blokes, or indeed anybody) would actually come to faith in Christ purely because of a presentational shift.
quote:It may be politically incorrect to resist the homogenising agenda of post-modern gender theory but please be assured that there are plenty of people (both men and women) who believe that men and women really do think differently. There's a spectrum, to be sure, but the reality is this: men and women aren't just physically different; we are essentially different and that difference includes our religious affections.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is there such a thing as a 'more masculine mind'?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
All these things are true and good but they don't paint the full picture of God in his glory, power, might, strength, holiness, omnipotence and so on: ideas which, I believe, generally appeal to a more masculine mind.
I doubt it very much.
quote:So what is your gaffe, and what songs do you sing?
For example, I know of two blokes (I'll call them that, cos that's how they see themselves), previously unchurched, who got involved in our gaffe a few years ago through a couple of ministries, the Men's Ministry (breakfasts and pub) plus a Saturday morning club for dads and their kids, both of whom are now converted, one training for ordained ministry and the other a street pastor.
quote:I prefer to approach worship thinking rather than feeling. That isn't just a gender thing.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Who on earth has intense conversations over coffee? Churches I've been to are happy with general chit-chat and a bit of church business.
Re songs, there are certainly many such terrible songs such as you describe. I can't stand them either. If others in your church agree, you might try to get a new church musician, because they certainly are not at all universal.
quote:I'm inclined to agree. I've never had much sense of gender identity. I'm male, heterosexual and entirely content with that condition, but in all my life I've never felt that those two things imply anything much beyond dress, sexual behaviour and personal hygiene.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is there such a thing as a 'more masculine mind'?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
All these things are true and good but they don't paint the full picture of God in his glory, power, might, strength, holiness, omnipotence and so on: ideas which, I believe, generally appeal to a more masculine mind.
I doubt it very much.
quote:As a somewhat introverted person, I have no interest in that sort of thing either though. Does that mean that a church run by people like me would be less effeminate than a church run by a male pastor who loves that stuff?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:I'm not talking about post service coffee. I'm talking about post-relationship coffee! Men don't tend to go for that kind of pastoring. They prefer the late-night last minute phone call when things are imploding.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Who on earth has intense conversations over coffee? Churches I've been to are happy with general chit-chat and a bit of church business.
Re songs, there are certainly many such terrible songs such as you describe. I can't stand them either. If others in your church agree, you might try to get a new church musician, because they certainly are not at all universal.
quote:Well, we are in complete agreement on our distaste for the word nice. You and I might have different things we'd like to focus on that are not nice, but I completely agree that all this sanitized church is horrifying. Trying to help all the people who are going hungry in our own country would not be nice. It would be painful and hard as hell. (Note I didn't suggest discussing it more.) Working to stop supporting military-industrial complex wouldn't be nice, etc. On the other hand, I don't see what niceness has to do with women. I'd say it has to do with cowardice. We are afraid to do the work that Christ has set before us, so we will instead be nice to one another.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As for the worship songs. Well, the Jesus is my Boyfriend type songs can be replaced by songs by men like Stuart Townend and Keith Getty but generally speaking MOTR Chrstians like to "tone them down" a bit in order to make them a bit "nicer".
quote:Click on my sig for one of my favorite portrayals of Jesus as human. It's based on multiple bible passages and shows a rather tough and manly Jesus, so it might please you.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:How is that a response to my post? Jesus is a splendid example of humanity, but he's seldom if ever, portrayed as 'manly' in the normal use of that term (and note that I did use the scare around 'manliness' in my original post as well).
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Have you read anything about Jesus? If you have, have you really understood it??
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Finding anything on 'manliness', whether Christian or not, that isn't at least vaguely violent/militaristic and also misogynistic, not to mention totally heteronormative and absurdly clichéd, is always an uphill struggle. And, yes, that is a problem.
Yep, you've about nailed it. I too am not terribly 'blokeish' (more artistic and academic and have never been to a football match in my life) yet even I have to resist the urge to vomit on the occasions in my past when I have sung "Isn't He beautiful" as part of corporate worship. wtf has capitalism got to do with it?
quote:I think it's got a lot more to do with biology than capitalism. Also, since when did you get to speak for me, or for any other man out there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'Gender' differences are just personality type differences taken advantage of by capitalism. Introverted men will like similar things to introverted women, and vice versa.
quote:If you're referring to my post about the Thatcher woman, I don't know, but I was thinking of her judgementalism and militarism, which have been mentioned on this thread as 'male' characteristics. IMHO this is closely connected with capitalism, but you might disagree and it's not worth derailing this thread to discuss it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Off the top of my head I'd guess that those men have learned to speak the ecclesial and emotional languages of their congregation members which, I wouldn't mind betting, are majority female. They are emotionally bi-lingual.
Originally posted by Gwai:
ButchCassidy: You have noticed that toy soldiers are a kind of doll? They're just ones boys are allowed to have. But yes, males are more aggressive on the whole than females.
Your assumption that church discusses emotions because women want to seems to be on weaker ground though. Church leadership is hugely male. If men don't want to make people discuss emotions, why does it keep happening?
quote:But why would they want to do that, unless they were predisposed to think in that way anyway?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Off the top of my head I'd guess that those men have learned to speak the ecclesial and emotional languages of their congregation members which, I wouldn't mind betting, are majority female. They are emotionally bi-lingual.
Originally posted by Gwai:
ButchCassidy: You have noticed that toy soldiers are a kind of doll? They're just ones boys are allowed to have. But yes, males are more aggressive on the whole than females.
Your assumption that church discusses emotions because women want to seems to be on weaker ground though. Church leadership is hugely male. If men don't want to make people discuss emotions, why does it keep happening?
quote:I used to prefer the plastic soldiers (with whom to make mass WAR etc) than the action-man type, so I can't really speak for them, though I do think Action Man is more story driven (and, importantly, has enemies. Could they sell a Barbie-rival? Apart from Sindy..).
Originally posted by Gwai:
ButchCassidy: You have noticed that toy soldiers are a kind of doll? They're just ones boys are allowed to have. But yes, males are more aggressive on the whole than females.
Your assumption that church discusses emotions because women want to seems to be on weaker ground though. Church leadership is hugely male. If men don't want to make people discuss emotions, why does it keep happening?
quote:Do we though? As I mentioned above, that's far from my experience in a vast range of Anglican churches, nor is it true in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox parishes I've known. It does seem to be true for the URC churches round these parts, though.
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
.
Most importantly, there is, whether you like it or not, a gender imbalance in churches.
quote:I used to go along with this, took some of the brain-gender tests that were popular in the media a few years back. Mostly questionnaires, where the questions were typically so transparent they were really just a test of self-image.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Weirdly enough, support for my contention that men and women's brains are physiologically as well as psychologically different finds support among those who work with transgendered individuals. The common theory is that certain individuals really do have the 'wrong' brains in the wrong bodies. It is a physiological issue. This theory of transgenderism suggests to me that men and women do think differently and that this thinking is very closely linked with the physiological aspects of gender identity.
How do I know this? Because members of my church run a charity for transgendered people and this is the theory which they advocate.
quote:Many many visits to all sorts of ordinary evangelical churches suggest to me that men make up between about a tenth and a half of the congregation depending on where you are.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
My one visit to a large and well-known conservative Evangelical church seemed to suggest that their congregation was pretty equally mixed with regards to gender (they were uniformly under 30 and seemed very middle class, as well as somehow managing to be notably better looking than the average population, 'evangelical are all fitties' was a comment I heard later).
quote:No, its the plain truth.
I wonder if 'men don't attend church' isn't code for something like 'real men don't attend church', which seems like a variant of the old 'no true Scotsman fallacy'.
quote:I think you need to explain what you mean by "essentially".
Originally posted by daronmedway:
... the reality is this: men and women aren't just physically different; we are essentially different ...
quote:But what's the point in turning the church into a pale parody of the pub in order to attract men who can just go to the pub anyway if they want? I mean we go to church to worship God. If we want to stand around boozing and shouting at people and being blokish we go to places where you do that. (And I'm off to a Millwall match in a couple of hours...)
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Alright, then, 'blokey blokes'. The sort I have a pie and a pint with 'dahn the pub' every fourth Thursday.
quote:That's because being male and heterosexual are the unmarked state. I can't say I have a "masculine" identity either. Any more than I have a "white" identity. Or much of a national identity (though that does to stand out a little more because of the internalised tensions between being British and english) Because being male and white and English are the normal default case in our society. its what we assume everybody is unless there is some reason to disbelieve it. So if you are those things you aren't so likely to worry about identity, or to have yout identity challenged, than if you aren't.
Originally posted by argona:
I've never had much sense of gender identity. I'm male, heterosexual and entirely content with that condition, but in all my life I've never felt that those two things imply anything much beyond dress, sexual behaviour and personal hygiene.
quote:I really don't think its a debated issue that there is a gender imbalance in UK churches. A Google search brings up Tearfund reports and journal articles discussing it. Not to say that all churches are: it often seems to be the active shrine-churches that draw men: IME, churches like St Helens Bishopsgate for the evos and Brompton Oratory.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:Do we though? As I mentioned above, that's far from my experience in a vast range of Anglican churches, nor is it true in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox parishes I've known. It does seem to be true for the URC churches round these parts, though.
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
.
Most importantly, there is, whether you like it or not, a gender imbalance in churches.
In re the matter of 'masculine' songs: on Sunday our three hymns were one Wesley (I don't remember which one, I'm afraid), 'Jerusalem the Golden', and 'Guide me, O thou great Redeemer'. None of those hymns seem to me 'feminine', even if we do accept the normative definition of femininity. But those are by and large the sort of hymns that people who sing hymns tend to sing. In the New English Hymnal (by far the most commonly used hymnal in this area and I think in the CofE more broadly, at least outside of markedly evangelical parishes) I can think of maybe one hymn that is 'feminine' in the way I presume you mean, and it is not among the most sung (I mean 'Thou didst leave thy throne and thy kingly crown'). There's a reason for this: the people who edited hymnals have a very low tolerance for what hymns they saw as 'sentimental' or, yes, 'effeminate'.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
but also unhelpful and not how I (or I think many men) approach God in private prayer. But we are trained in that language, I agree, it is religious bi-lingualism.
quote:This was in London. At one of London's more famous Con. Evo. parishes. And the congregation had about the same portion of black people as normal in any London parish (although a larger number in absolute terms). If my impression was correct, though, there were more Nigerians and fewer people with routes in the Caribbean.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Many many visits to all sorts of ordinary evangelical churches suggest to me that men make up between about a tenth and a half of the congregation depending on where you are.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
My one visit to a large and well-known conservative Evangelical church seemed to suggest that their congregation was pretty equally mixed with regards to gender (they were uniformly under 30 and seemed very middle class, as well as somehow managing to be notably better looking than the average population, 'evangelical are all fitties' was a comment I heard later).
Here in London evangelicals aren't younger or more middle class than other Christians though they are blacker. Also black men seem to be more liekly to go to church than white men (though still a lot less likely than black women) So as our church has got more African over the last 20 years it has also got less female - though women still outnuimber men by nearly two to one most Sundays.
quote:'New men' and 'new women' presumably referring to post-op transsexuals?
Originally posted by ken:
that new women attending churches in London outnumber new men attending by five to one.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Not saying that there aren't a large number of gay men in choirs, but that doesn't fit with my experience. In fact, the choirs I know have quite a history of the choirmen marrying the choirgirls. I guess having a love of music doesn't apply to all men but, for those that have, it's a much stronger call than one related to sexuality or gender.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I grew up in a working class MOTR Anglican church in the choral tradition. There was a very strong social aspect to choir membership which extended way beyond Sunday worship. The families spent time with one another socially (i.e. drinking) and even holidayed together. Oh, a quite a few of the men were gay, especially the organists and their boyfriends. Not saying it's like that everywhere but I suspect that others will recognise the pattern.
quote:Because they want to keep the flock they've got? Because they've adopted the emotional language of the majority group? Because they were pastored in the faith by women from the cradle to the day they went to university? Because they don't want to incur they wrath of the Mother's Union by talking a different spiritual dialect? Because they've lost touch with the tougher, more challenging, dare I say more offensive face of Jesus Christ?
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:But why would they want to do that, unless they were predisposed to think in that way anyway?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Off the top of my head I'd guess that those men have learned to speak the ecclesial and emotional languages of their congregation members which, I wouldn't mind betting, are majority female. They are emotionally bi-lingual.
Originally posted by Gwai:
ButchCassidy: You have noticed that toy soldiers are a kind of doll? They're just ones boys are allowed to have. But yes, males are more aggressive on the whole than females.
Your assumption that church discusses emotions because women want to seems to be on weaker ground though. Church leadership is hugely male. If men don't want to make people discuss emotions, why does it keep happening?
quote:So if sentimental stupid language is what is driving men away and if churches used to be more manly, then then the more old-fashioned the church the higher the male to female ratio should be. Except it doesn't work that way. As noted, most churches have more men regardless of churchmanship.
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I note that the hymns you used are largely the old classics, and I agree they did tend to favour more manly imagery (being the age of manly Christianity after all).
quote:I think that even gender is pretty much on a spectrum - not set in stone.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In that we are essentially different in our gender. And those differences are more than physical. Those differences are spiritual, emotional, and mental and they extend to our emotions and our affections.
quote:I also find some of the language like this most unhelpful. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote something along the lines of needing to speak to people in their strength. Maybe the problem isn't bei8ng 'feminised' but infantalised?
Thinking about intercessions, I remember drafting some and finding I had written 'Lord, help us to be more vulnerable and open to you', not only [Projectile] but also unhelpful and not how I (or I think many men) approach God in private prayer. But we are trained in that language, I agree, it is religious bi-lingualism.
quote:Jesus says that we were created male and female. That doesn't sound like a spectrum to me. Sure, human sexuality appears to be on a spectrum, but not gender.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I think that even gender is pretty much on a spectrum - not set in stone.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In that we are essentially different in our gender. And those differences are more than physical. Those differences are spiritual, emotional, and mental and they extend to our emotions and our affections.
quote:YES! I also think that ButchCassidy had a good point about being trained to expect that kind of junk. (Although I disagree that junk is more associated with my gender.) We select for that kind of crap even though we don't like it. Sigh.
Originally posted by Chorister:
Don't get me started on 'being infantilised'! I sometimes think we are all being jollied into having such a good time in church that we don't realise there is no content to what is going on.
quote:Even physically it's pretty clear that some people aren't obviously male or female. I'm also not sure that 1st century Palestine had a concept of the separation of sex and gender.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Jesus says that we were created male and female. That doesn't sound like a spectrum to me. Sure, human sexuality appears to be on a spectrum, but not gender.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I think that even gender is pretty much on a spectrum - not set in stone.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In that we are essentially different in our gender. And those differences are more than physical. Those differences are spiritual, emotional, and mental and they extend to our emotions and our affections.
quote:I know pretty much what you think, but I don't agree with your conclusions.
Originally posted by Gwai:
You do understand we don't think there is one femininity either, right?
quote:Boethius, bless him, wasn't a pope. As far as I recall, he wasn't even a Christian, though frequently cited in the middle ages as if he were.
Originally posted by Penny S:
, Pope Boethius,
quote:It's pretty obvious that these exceptions simply prove the rule. Please note that I'm not saying that God created people masculine and feminine. I'm saying he created them male and female.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Even physically it's pretty clear that some people aren't obviously male or female.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Jesus says that we were created male and female. That doesn't sound like a spectrum to me. Sure, human sexuality appears to be on a spectrum, but not gender.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I think that even gender is pretty much on a spectrum - not set in stone.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In that we are essentially different in our gender. And those differences are more than physical. Those differences are spiritual, emotional, and mental and they extend to our emotions and our affections.
quote:I disagree. They're tied to societal expectations. Classic examples include "blue for boys and pink for girls", which is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't think football is a more naturally male sport than hockey, but societal expectations tell us it is so. I don't think long hair is more naturally female than short her, but societal expectations tell us it is so.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, the concepts masculinity and femininity are tied to physical gender and in this sense they are a creation ordinance. Of course, it's always possible to run a different Operating System on the same hardware if you do enough tinkering. But it's not really the norm.
quote:So human preference for one socially-constructed form of interaction (football and the watching thereof) over a different form of socially-constructed interaction (hockey and the watching thereof) is itself socially-constructed, as we'd expect. The idea that a gender divide in participating in socially-constructed interactions must be at least in part biologically based seems counter-intuitive.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The fact that men in our culture generally love football and not hockey is down to historical happenstance, I agree. The fact that men rather than women gather together in large numbers to watch some form of competitive sport cannot be explained in the same way.
quote:Sorry, what's you're plain and obvious point? That there's a near-universal dislike of athletics among women and a near-universal rate of participation among men?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. Engaging in mental gymnastics in order to deny the plain and obvious is what's counter-intuitive.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, if there were such a natural, biological division such external enforcement would be unnecessary.
quote:I've worked with kids of a variety of ages, and my experience is, given firm examples of equal treatment, sport is a great equalizer. Once the kids get used to the co-ed situation, the adapt pretty quickly-- when you are in the game, you are less concerned about lustful thoughts than about who is best positioned to get the ball in the goal. And the more you have to rely on someone for things like goal-placing, the more your stereotypes become cumbersome.
[The school administrator] told Cassy Blythe, Madison’s mother, that boys were going to start having lustful thoughts about Madison, and if she were to continue on the team, she might overhear some “locker room talk”. ”Men and women are created equal but different.” Stuart (photo left) told Ms. Blythe. He said he’s been praying about Maddy and came to the conclusion that he was making the right decision for the school.
I wonder if he ever prayed on what was right decision for his students?
If Mr. Stuart feels his boy have a lust problem, why isn’t Strong Rock removing the offending BOYS from the team, to teach them the valuable lesson of how men are supposed to behave toward women? If the problem is BOYS with potty mouths; why isn’t Strong Rock teaching its young Christian BOYS to speak with respect, instead of removing the girl from earshot? Why is the girl deprived of an opportunity to play a sport she loves, because Mr. Stuart fears the boys around her might misbehave?
quote:Even if such a gender-biased preference existed (and you would have to both demonstrate it because it is most certainly not obvious) it is tiny in comparison to the social reinforcement of the same. I played and followed football as a child because it was a heck of a lot easier than putting up with being bullied for not doing so. The social pressure to conform to gender (and other) norms is enormous, particularly among young teenagers.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The fact that men in our culture generally love football and not hockey is down to historical happenstance, I agree. The fact that men rather than women gather together in large numbers to watch some form of competitive sport cannot be explained in the same way. Oh, and just for the record, I happen to be one of those men who knows nothing about football and doesn't particularly like crowds or competitive sport. Do I think this is explainable - at least in part - by socialisation? Yes, I do. Do I think it is the only variable in the equation? No, I don't.
quote:You mean that behind every great pastor there is a greater congregation of [mostly]women?*
Originally posted by Matt Black:
IME, although the leadership may be male, I reality it's women who run the show more often than not; if they didn't, church life would grind to a halt pretty quickly
quote:** which are ever so conveniently ingrained impulses.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:You mean that behind every great pastor there is a greater congregation of [mostly]women?*
Originally posted by Matt Black:
IME, although the leadership may be male, I reality it's women who run the show more often than not; if they didn't, church life would grind to a halt pretty quickly
*Picking up all those lovely admin and hospitality tasks
quote:personally I am fairly good at the cooking but don't make the grade at cleaning up.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:** which are ever so conveniently ingrained impulses.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:You mean that behind every great pastor there is a greater congregation of [mostly]women?*
Originally posted by Matt Black:
IME, although the leadership may be male, I reality it's women who run the show more often than not; if they didn't, church life would grind to a halt pretty quickly
*Picking up all those lovely admin and hospitality tasks
quote:I remember hearing of a study a few years back that tested small children's reactions to a gender-neutral play object (a white handkerchief) based on whether or not they were told it was meant for the opposite gender. Being told "white handkerchiefs are for [boys/girls]" apparently discouraged opposite-gendered children from playing with it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am actually of the opinion that it is not gender activity that is biologically motivated, but the very urge to seek gender templates is very much so. When there is variances in what constitutes a gender expectation from group to group, there is also variance in behaviour. But the desire to model same-gender behavior seems deeply ingrained. ANd there are always certain kids that role play opposite-gender behavior-- and they also seem compelled to do so.
quote:(Wow! Object lesson!
Originally posted by The Midge:
personally I am fairly good at the cooking but don't make the grade at cleaning up.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where is this male dominated Christianity which needs to be opened up to women? Every congregation I've ever been in men have been outnumbered by women by nearly 3 to 1. And anyway, are you really saying that keeping women out of a sanctuary where men regularly cross dress in lace and wave smoky hand-bags around is preserving some kind overly masculine vision of God? I don't think so.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Bollocks to the first of those.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually sex and gender are on a spectrum
quote:This also contradicts the people who say that because they're a woman who likes to play rugby/whatever, gender divisions are artificial. As I said: centred set, not bounded set.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's so much here that can be explained in two words: bell curve.
That's pretty much it. For every human behaviour that's supposed to be gender-specific, there's an overlap with the other. Consequently, every comment that starts with "Men do" or "Women are" is axiomatically wrong. Even "tends to" or "are more likely to" are fraught with so many counter-examples as to render them almost meaningless.
quote:No, Ken, that's not it. The default position is to don one's allotted "drag" (I hope it's clear I'm not talking about clothing). Failure to do so has consequences which only begin in the playground, though on that point, at one primary school I attended for a year, I was dragged into a secluded corner every break time, morning, lunchtime and afternoon, and "tortured" - my arms pulled out at full stretch and twisted until I cried out, and then some more. I never told anyone. Perhaps a man who dons the drag and conforms to type is in the position you outline. Step out of type and, male or female, you'll have difficulties. But then, freedom always comes at a price.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's because being male and heterosexual are the unmarked state. I can't say I have a "masculine" identity either. Any more than I have a "white" identity. Or much of a national identity (though that does to stand out a little more because of the internalised tensions between being British and english) Because being male and white and English are the normal default case in our society. its what we assume everybody is unless there is some reason to disbelieve it. So if you are those things you aren't so likely to worry about identity, or to have yout identity challenged, than if you aren't.
Originally posted by argona:
I've never had much sense of gender identity. I'm male, heterosexual and entirely content with that condition, but in all my life I've never felt that those two things imply anything much beyond dress, sexual behaviour and personal hygiene.
quote:If I've got this right, a bounded set is a set of finite size with definite boundaries. A centred set is partially ordered set with either an upper or lower limit. What's that got to do with this?
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:This also contradicts the people who say that because they're a woman who likes to play rugby/whatever, gender divisions are artificial. As I said: centred set, not bounded set.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's so much here that can be explained in two words: bell curve.
That's pretty much it. For every human behaviour that's supposed to be gender-specific, there's an overlap with the other. Consequently, every comment that starts with "Men do" or "Women are" is axiomatically wrong. Even "tends to" or "are more likely to" are fraught with so many counter-examples as to render them almost meaningless.
quote:Oh, okay. That's bollocks, of course. If enough women do X, where X has usually been done by men, X is no longer a masculine role.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Well yes, that's the point. That some women do traditionally male stuff and vice versa does not mean that male and female, or masculine and feminine, are indistinguishable, or even that the distinction is artificial.
quote:Holy cow, that's intense.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I remember hearing of a study a few years back that tested small children's reactions to a gender-neutral play object (a white handkerchief) based on whether or not they were told it was meant for the opposite gender. Being told "white handkerchiefs are for [boys/girls]" apparently discouraged opposite-gendered children from playing with it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am actually of the opinion that it is not gender activity that is biologically motivated, but the very urge to seek gender templates is very much so. When there is variances in what constitutes a gender expectation from group to group, there is also variance in behaviour. But the desire to model same-gender behavior seems deeply ingrained. ANd there are always certain kids that role play opposite-gender behavior-- and they also seem compelled to do so.
quote:Yep I'm with you on all of that. There's somehow the assumption that to be a "bloke" you have to like Jeremy Clarkson, cars, football, breakfast and enjoy bonding over a pint. None of works for me except the trough.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
[QUOTE]I see that. I'm all for something to appeal to 'unchurched' men or the help appeal to Christian men who feel on the fringes, but as a single man, I really can't get excited about getting together with a bunch of men.
I'm not a blokish bloke and really don't want to join a bunch of men for breakfast to discuss how to be better husbands to their wives, fathers to their children and strong leaders of the Church. They seem to have the air of having escaped the wife and family for a couple of hours in order to 'bond' (ugh!) and discuss their idea of the male role. (But why the hell breakfast?)
About the CVM link: it doesn't immediately appeal (including a festival for men? No thanks!) but even feeds the stereotype by including a list of top ten strangest (military) tanks! Really!
quote:Yep I the very lovely lady I share my life with (and our 3 daughters) would agree with you on that one. As would I.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
[QUOTE]Only I and God have any say about how much of a woman I am.
quote:It's not an interpretation that many of us would recognise as being faithful to the language or context. To suggest that it means Jesus is OK with all sorts of positions on the male:female gender identity and/or sexuality continuum, is to read one's own perceptions and agendas into the text. They just don't exist there.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Friend Jade, that is not an interpretation of Genesis which would have occurred to me.
quote:Yes - both my sons happily played with dolls and prams until they went to school, after which they ignored them.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Backs up my observations with 0-5 years set-- most kids seems game to try anything that looks engaging, but once one of their meddling little playmates comes up and sniffs, "That's for girls/ boys!" they get all self conscious.
)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
. quote:You worship a failure then, mousethief.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Male" and "female" are sexes, not genders. And there are some people who are intersex. SO, people who posit only two genders, or only two sexes, FAIL.
quote:Huh? Where did I say anything about gay? I've identified the faux effeminacy of camp sacerdotalism. I didn't say anything about sexuality or misogyny.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where is this male dominated Christianity which needs to be opened up to women? Every congregation I've ever been in men have been outnumbered by women by nearly 3 to 1. And anyway, are you really saying that keeping women out of a sanctuary where men regularly cross dress in lace and wave smoky hand-bags around is preserving some kind overly masculine vision of God? I don't think so.
Gay misogyny is just as offensive as straight. Neither is feminine; both are masculine.
quote:You're quite right.
Originally posted by Huia:
Kelly, I've seen the off putting effects of other children claiming something was a girls' toy. It's my impression that girls playing with toys that are labelled as being for boys is not seen in quite as negative a way (except if a particular boy wants the toy).
My own favourite toy as a 3-4 year old about 56 years ago was my wind up train, which died of being loved too much
Huia
quote:Heterophobia is an ugly, ugly thing Adeodatus.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's reading threads like this that confirms my long held opinion that heterosexuals are weird.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:If only we would just own it.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's reading threads like this that confirms my long held opinion that heterosexuals are weird.
quote:It's views like that which put the cause of sexual equality back into the dark ages.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's reading threads like this that confirms my long held opinion that heterosexuals are weird.
quote:But I'm gay. Which means I can take an ugly thing and give it a zippy makeover. In a manly way.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Heterophobia is an ugly, ugly thing Adeodatus.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's reading threads like this that confirms my long held opinion that heterosexuals are weird.
quote:More likely running the show and calling the shots behind the scenes IME.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:** which are ever so conveniently ingrained impulses.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:You mean that behind every great pastor there is a greater congregation of [mostly]women?*
Originally posted by Matt Black:
IME, although the leadership may be male, I reality it's women who run the show more often than not; if they didn't, church life would grind to a halt pretty quickly
*Picking up all those lovely admin and hospitality tasks
quote:Snap! I absolutely love cooking. But I trash the kitchen pretty much every time I do it. And I'm a bloke (but not in a particularly 'blokey' sort of way
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:(Wow! Object lesson!
Originally posted by The Midge:
personally I am fairly good at the cooking but don't make the grade at cleaning up.
Word for word, Midge, same here. I am a huge slob. When I do attempt cooking, I leave the kitchen looking like a bomb hit it. And nothing in my nature says to me, "This is unacceptable." It says "Meh, the Queen ain't coming to tea, it'll keep a couple hours."
).
quote:Mine was a Hoveringham truck - which I still have
Originally posted by Huia:
My own favourite toy as a 3-4 year old about 56 years ago was my wind up train, which died of being loved too much
quote:Why? The Hebrew used is not putting genders or sexes into neat boxes, it suggests a spectrum in itself. It's about the actual words used, not any particular perception.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:It's not an interpretation that many of us would recognise as being faithful to the language or context. To suggest that it means Jesus is OK with all sorts of positions on the male:female gender identity and/or sexuality continuum, is to read one's own perceptions and agendas into the text. They just don't exist there.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Friend Jade, that is not an interpretation of Genesis which would have occurred to me.
quote:I think scientists working in the field of gender studies would like to disagree with you. There is still a lot that's not understood about gender, but genderqueer people have existed for a long, long time.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:Bollocks to the first of those.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually sex and gender are on a spectrum
quote:This also contradicts the people who say that because they're a woman who likes to play rugby/whatever, gender divisions are artificial. As I said: centred set, not bounded set.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's so much here that can be explained in two words: bell curve.
That's pretty much it. For every human behaviour that's supposed to be gender-specific, there's an overlap with the other. Consequently, every comment that starts with "Men do" or "Women are" is axiomatically wrong. Even "tends to" or "are more likely to" are fraught with so many counter-examples as to render them almost meaningless.
quote:I had no idea that the Hebrew was 'male and female' but indicating that it meant 'including male and female' until a University of Manchester lecture on gender and sexuality in the Bible. I would recommend The Queer God by Marcella Althaus-Reid (one of the lecture's source texts) if you are interested in the subject.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Friend Jade, that is not an interpretation of Genesis which would have occurred to me.
quote:Er...no, quite the opposite is being said here I think.
Originally posted by Gwai:
So if sentimental stupid language is what is driving men away and if churches used to be more manly, then then the more old-fashioned the church the higher the male to female ratio should be. Except it doesn't work that way. As noted, most churches have more men regardless of churchmanship.
quote:Sorry but "zippy makeover" isn't a particularly manly term, Adeodatus. Something like "pimping my prejudice" would sound much more manly.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:But I'm gay. Which means I can take an ugly thing and give it a zippy makeover. In a manly way.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Heterophobia is an ugly, ugly thing Adeodatus.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's reading threads like this that confirms my long held opinion that heterosexuals are weird.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
As Doc Tor has noted, while sex is a biological reality, gender is a social construct and we can rip it down. Doing so would reveal the meaninglessness behind terms such as genderqueer.
There are men, there are women, either can do whatever they like and they'll remain men/women, but none of this affects the truth that there are real differences between the two sexes. Those differences, both the ones that come from culture and the ones that are more ingrained, mean that men are under-represented in churches, and I'm really worried that our failure to reach out to them will mean that they'll be under-represented in Heaven too.
For that reason, I think it's imperative from the great commission that we try to reach out to our weaker brothers, that we be allowed to do that without being accused of sexism, and that people such as yourself stop standing on the sidelines and sneering at the people who are engaging in real mission work to a minority group.
quote:Precisely. And simply identifying the present reality of gender difference in relation to the social and ecclesiological life choices of men isn't necessarily an affirmation or endorsement of those differences. It's merely an observation of a present reality - that men don't go to church because they see it as effeminate. Some of those reasons may be justified and some may be erroneous but the reality is this: many men perceive the sub-cultural mores of Christianity as being of greater appeal to women. In order to reach men for Christ our job is to address both problems. We need to change our sub-cultural mores where they are inordinately weighted towards the culturally feminine and to challenge the pre-conceptions of non-Christian men when they are misogynistic and mistaken.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Well yes, that's the point. That some women do traditionally male stuff and vice versa does not mean that male and female, or masculine and feminine, are indistinguishable, or even that the distinction is artificial.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I'm really worried that our failure to reach out to [men] will mean that they'll be under-represented in Heaven too.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
So unless you book a seat in heaven by getting your bum on a church pew first, you're sunk???
quote:Amen brother!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In order to reach men for Christ our job is to address both problems. We need to change our sub-cultural mores where they are inordinately weighted towards the culturally feminine and to challenge the pre-conceptions of non-Christian men when they are misogynistic and mistaken.
quote:List, please. Seriously. You keep on asserting that there's a real difference between men and women, without actually specifying what those differences are.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
There are men, there are women, either can do whatever they like and they'll remain men/women, but none of this affects the truth that there are real differences between the two sexes. Those differences, both the ones that come from culture and the ones that are more ingrained
quote:I think this worry is very much your problem - not the reality.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Those differences, both the ones that come from culture and the ones that are more ingrained, mean that men are under-represented in churches, and I'm really worried that our failure to reach out to them will mean that they'll be under-represented in Heaven too.
quote:Do I really need to go find quotes of where people said on this thread that Jesus is my boyfriend language drives men from church or that old songs were more masculine? Because the opposite isn't what was said. Perhaps you just don't like the implication?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Er...no, quite the opposite is being said here I think.
Originally posted by Gwai:
So if sentimental stupid language is what is driving men away and if churches used to be more manly, then then the more old-fashioned the church the higher the male to female ratio should be. Except it doesn't work that way. As noted, most churches have more men regardless of churchmanship.
quote:I think Matt was referring to this bit.
Originally posted by Gwai:
As noted, most churches have more men regardless of churchmanship.
quote:So what are those differences? If they're exploitable, they must be known, and you can tell us what they are. Or is this another assertion without basis?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consider the advertising industry. Advertising to men and women differs greatly. Apparently, men and women differ greatly in the way they think about consumer products.
quote:No, I was taking issue with your claim that 'most churches have more men' and that others have also 'noted' that. They don't IME. And I don't think anyone else has 'noted' it.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Do I really need to go find quotes of where people said on this thread that Jesus is my boyfriend language drives men from church or that old songs were more masculine? Because the opposite isn't what was said. Perhaps you just don't like the implication?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Er...no, quite the opposite is being said here I think.
Originally posted by Gwai:
So if sentimental stupid language is what is driving men away and if churches used to be more manly, then then the more old-fashioned the church the higher the male to female ratio should be. Except it doesn't work that way. As noted, most churches have more men regardless of churchmanship.
quote:On the contrary, the differences between men and women are obviously and undeniably there and need no justification, from the many physiological differences (not just plumbing) to the different emotional approaches, to the differences in spatial awareness, competitiveness, aggression, the general propensities for different subjects at school, etc etc. The here who are making a claim they need to justify, are those who are saying that none of those differences are intrinsic, but all are socially engendered. That idea may fit your ideology, but where's your evidence?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So what are those differences? If they're exploitable, they must be known, and you can tell us what they are. Or is this another assertion without basis?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consider the advertising industry. Advertising to men and women differs greatly. Apparently, men and women differ greatly in the way they think about consumer products.
quote:There is plenty of evidence (particularly on the school subject issue comparing single sex and mixed sex schools) that these differences are social in nature. Where is evidence of any intrinsic (i.e. genetic, epigenetic, hormonal) component?
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:On the contrary, the differences between men and women are obviously and undeniably there and need no justification, from the many physiological differences (not just plumbing) to the different emotional approaches, to the differences in spatial awareness, competitiveness, aggression, the general propensities for different subjects at school, etc etc. The here who are making a claim they need to justify, are those who are saying that none of those differences are intrinsic, but all are socially engendered. That idea may fit your ideology, but where's your evidence?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So what are those differences? If they're exploitable, they must be known, and you can tell us what they are. Or is this another assertion without basis?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consider the advertising industry. Advertising to men and women differs greatly. Apparently, men and women differ greatly in the way they think about consumer products.
quote:I can tell you what differences I see in advertising but that won't necessarily mean that I endorse or affirm the differences that are being exploited. I'm saying this because I get the impression that you are trying to trap me in my words, rather than trying to engage me in debate. So, if I tell you some differences that advertising appears to be tapping into I will need you to give me the respect of not assigning opinions to me that I do not hold.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So what are those differences? If they're exploitable, they must be known, and you can tell us what they are. Or is this another assertion without basis?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consider the advertising industry. Advertising to men and women differs greatly. Apparently, men and women differ greatly in the way they think about consumer products.
quote:Far from it. So far your arguments have been as substantial as smoke. You (and DS) keep on making assertions that differences between male and female behaviour are clear and intrinsic without ever giving examples. I'm asking you to give examples of something concrete we can actually discuss the meat of, rather than boxing at shadows.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I get the impression that you are trying to trap me in my words, rather than trying to engage me in debate.
quote:You could start with this:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
An assertion that there is plenty of evidence is not in itself evidence. Citations please.
quote:And while anecdote is not data, having taught Design Technology in a primary school for the last four years, it became quickly clear that the very best girls were as good as the very best boys at solid engineering tasks. Also, that the worst boys were far worse than the worst girls.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:You could start with this:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
An assertion that there is plenty of evidence is not in itself evidence. Citations please.
http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/file_58196.pdf
Girls in single sex schools are much more likely to take Physics to A-Level than girls in mixed sex schools (graph section 1:15).
Now your evidence please.
quote:I haven't actually spoken about differences in male and female behaviour. I spoken about differences in perception, motivation, and religious affection. It may be that we are talking about the same or comparable behaviours like grooming and personal hygiene or following Jesus Christ. I'm talking about the way men and women perceive their own behaviours, rationalise their motivations and articulate their religious affections.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Far from it. So far your arguments have been as substantial as smoke. You (and DS) keep on making assertions that differences between male and female behaviour are clear and intrinsic without ever giving examples. I'm asking you to give examples of something concrete we can actually discuss the meat of, rather than boxing at shadows.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I get the impression that you are trying to trap me in my words, rather than trying to engage me in debate.
quote:The fact that you chose to address that one sentence out of the post serves as evidence that my impressions were correct.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Far from it. So far your arguments have been as substantial as smoke. You (and DS) keep on making assertions that differences between male and female behaviour are clear and intrinsic without ever giving examples. I'm asking you to give examples of something concrete we can actually discuss the meat of, rather than boxing at shadows.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I get the impression that you are trying to trap me in my words, rather than trying to engage me in debate.
quote:"Jesu lover of my soul
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[ I can think of maybe one hymn that is 'feminine' in the way I presume you mean, and it is not among the most sung (I mean 'Thou didst leave thy throne and thy kingly crown').
quote:Well, now. Here I am trying to assure you of my good intentions, and you use that to think I'm getting at you.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:The fact that you chose to address that one sentence out of the post serves as evidence that my impressions were correct.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Far from it. So far your arguments have been as substantial as smoke. You (and DS) keep on making assertions that differences between male and female behaviour are clear and intrinsic without ever giving examples. I'm asking you to give examples of something concrete we can actually discuss the meat of, rather than boxing at shadows.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I get the impression that you are trying to trap me in my words, rather than trying to engage me in debate.
quote:So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys? I'm happy with that. No problem. At least you've admitted that legitimate gender based evidence for difference can and does exist.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And while anecdote is not data, having taught Design Technology in a primary school for the last four years, it became quickly clear that the very best girls were as good as the very best boys at solid engineering tasks. Also, that the worst boys were far worse than the worst girls.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:You could start with this:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
An assertion that there is plenty of evidence is not in itself evidence. Citations please.
http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/file_58196.pdf
Girls in single sex schools are much more likely to take Physics to A-Level than girls in mixed sex schools (graph section 1:15).
Now your evidence please.
quote:What? English please.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys?
quote:Sorry. I meant to say, "So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than girls?" But of course you knew that really.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:What? English please.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys?
quote:Nobody has disputed that there is evidence of gender differences, what is in dispute is the source. You have repeatedly claimed such differences are inherent without any support for such a claim.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys? I'm happy with that. No problem. At least you've admitted that legitimate gender based evidence for difference can and does exist.
quote:It seems to me that the "intrinsic nature of maleness" is that an organism produces relatively many small mobile gametes, rather than relatively fewer, larger, less mobile ones.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
ken, by essentially I mean that the intrinsic nature of maleness is different to that of femaleness.
quote:Exactly!
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As a society, we make that shit up, and we can tear it down again just as easily. It hasn't descended from on high, inviolate and unchallengeable.
quote:Actually, I think daronmedway's position has consistently been that some characteristics are intrinsic and some are social, but that we need to play the ball we're thrown - which means that we need to become Greeks to the Greeks etc, rather than being sneery at male culture when men don't come to a church they see as being a bit girly.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Nobody has disputed that there is evidence of gender differences, what is in dispute is the source. You have repeatedly claimed such differences are inherent without any support for such a claim.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys? I'm happy with that. No problem. At least you've admitted that legitimate gender based evidence for difference can and does exist.
quote:And what would you actually propose churches do with this "cultural masculinity"? Put on a video of top gear, hand out Carling and discuss the football results? Resolve theological issues with a good punch-up after the service?
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:Actually, I think daronmedway's position has consistently been that some characteristics are intrinsic and some are social, but that we need to play the ball we're thrown - which means that we need to become Greeks to the Greeks etc, rather than being sneery at male culture when men don't come to a church they see as being a bit girly.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Nobody has disputed that there is evidence of gender differences, what is in dispute is the source. You have repeatedly claimed such differences are inherent without any support for such a claim.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys? I'm happy with that. No problem. At least you've admitted that legitimate gender based evidence for difference can and does exist.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:That's not my reading of the Hebrew nor that of any of the (usually) accepted texts on the passage.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:I had no idea that the Hebrew was 'male and female' but indicating that it meant 'including male and female' until a University of Manchester lecture on gender and sexuality in the Bible. I would recommend The Queer God by Marcella Althaus-Reid (one of the lecture's source texts) if you are interested in the subject.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Friend Jade, that is not an interpretation of Genesis which would have occurred to me.
quote:That's clever and most likely true, but it restricts and artificially subordinates gender discourse to scientific terms and concepts - terms and concepts which have only recently come into existence.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:It seems to me that the "intrinsic nature of maleness" is that an organism produces relatively many small mobile gametes, rather than relatively fewer, larger, less mobile ones.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
ken, by essentially I mean that the intrinsic nature of maleness is different to that of femaleness.
quote:The last suggestion has some mileage. Seriously. I'd rather be part of a church where this was a possibility than a church which settles everything in hushed tones over an open box of kleenex.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:And what would you actually propose churches do with this "cultural masculinity"? Put on a video of top gear, hand out Carling and discuss the football results? Resolve theological issues with a good punch-up after the service?
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:Actually, I think daronmedway's position has consistently been that some characteristics are intrinsic and some are social, but that we need to play the ball we're thrown - which means that we need to become Greeks to the Greeks etc, rather than being sneery at male culture when men don't come to a church they see as being a bit girly.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Nobody has disputed that there is evidence of gender differences, what is in dispute is the source. You have repeatedly claimed such differences are inherent without any support for such a claim.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys? I'm happy with that. No problem. At least you've admitted that legitimate gender based evidence for difference can and does exist.
quote:Why should that be an issue, though? Are we not happy also to talk about a heliocentric solar system, gravity, evolution and the like even though those terms and concepts have only come into existence comparatively recently?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
terms and concepts which have only recently come into existence
quote:Most blokes IME have background music in their sheds. We'd want that. Not stuff you're expected to sing to, though. It's not a football match and we're sober, which means the two circumstances where male singing is acceptable do not apply.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Then we'd need a bit of peace and quiet; perhaps a reflective, contemplative service?
quote:From what he writes here daronmedway's position seems to be that gender characteristics apply to almighty and eternal God. Which seems to be self-contradictart nonsense. Its a sort of divide-by-zero premise you could use to prove anything.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Actually, I think daronmedway's position has consistently been that some characteristics are intrinsic and some are social...
quote:So what? Gender categories are made up by people and based on sexual differences. That was always so even if people didn't know they were doing it.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:That's clever and most likely true, but it restricts and artificially subordinates gender discourse to scientific terms and concepts - terms and concepts which have only recently come into existence.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:It seems to me that the "intrinsic nature of maleness" is that an organism produces relatively many small mobile gametes, rather than relatively fewer, larger, less mobile ones.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
ken, by essentially I mean that the intrinsic nature of maleness is different to that of femaleness.
quote:No. A mix of stale beer, oil, miniature model paint and glue might be more likely.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Just to flesh out the shed-substitute idea: when I, a woman, enter a pub which is a shed-substitute, I don't feel unwelcome, as such, but I'm aware of, and accepting of the fact that I am the one that has to fit in and adhere to shed norms. It can be a very relaxing environment, provided you accept it for what it is.
For a church like mine that has daily services, I don't see why some services couldn't set out to cultivate that sort of atmosphere. Can you get incense that smells like pipe smoke?
quote:Anointing with WD40.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
For a church like mine that has daily services, I don't see why some services couldn't set out to cultivate that sort of atmosphere. Can you get incense that smells like pipe smoke?
quote:Karl, when was the last time you had a decent theological dust up with someone at church in the same way as you do it here on the ship?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If manliness = violence and punch-ups, then I think we need less manliness, not more, Numpty. Seriously, I view church as a refuge from the violence of much secular masculinity. I really wouldn't want it there. Perhaps I'm not really a man.
And what would be the point? You can bloody my nose better than I can dislocate your jaw, therefore your view of the doctrine of the Trinity is better than mine?
quote:Actually, one of the complaints often made about church life is that too often conflicts are never resolved conclusively. They're allowed to simmer and fester while everyone puts on a smile. Often the only solution is for one party to leave the church.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If manliness = violence and punch-ups, then I think we need less manliness, not more, Numpty. Seriously, I view church as a refuge from the violence of much secular masculinity. I really wouldn't want it there. Perhaps I'm not really a man.
And what would be the point? You can bloody my nose better than I can dislocate your jaw, therefore your view of the doctrine of the Trinity is better than mine?
quote:Now, that's what I talking about!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:No. A mix of stale beer, oil, miniature model paint and glue might be more likely.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Just to flesh out the shed-substitute idea: when I, a woman, enter a pub which is a shed-substitute, I don't feel unwelcome, as such, but I'm aware of, and accepting of the fact that I am the one that has to fit in and adhere to shed norms. It can be a very relaxing environment, provided you accept it for what it is.
For a church like mine that has daily services, I don't see why some services couldn't set out to cultivate that sort of atmosphere. Can you get incense that smells like pipe smoke?
Interestingly our bogs at church are papered with pages from old graphic novels. Very man friendly; you can read Batman and piddle at the same time without having to bring your own.
quote:Well, it's less likely at church because there's less variety of opinion in a given congregation.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Karl, when was the last time you had a decent theological dust up with someone at church in the same way as you do it here on the ship?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If manliness = violence and punch-ups, then I think we need less manliness, not more, Numpty. Seriously, I view church as a refuge from the violence of much secular masculinity. I really wouldn't want it there. Perhaps I'm not really a man.
And what would be the point? You can bloody my nose better than I can dislocate your jaw, therefore your view of the doctrine of the Trinity is better than mine?
One problem I have with the the local church is that the default setting for resolving differences appears to be drawn from middle class and largely feminine ways of interacting. Hushed tones. Lots of talk about feeling being hurt and how things were said. Blah, blah blah. God forbid a voice getting raised or someone sharply disagreement happening. My question is this: have we mistaken this way of interacting as intrinsically Christian when is simply part of genteel, middle class, and yes, feminine church culture?
Where's the room for piss-taking, hyperbole, overstatement, sarcasm and good old ding dong?
quote:Punch ups don't do that in my experience. If someone laid a fist on me in an argument, firstly I'd call the police and press charges, then I'd avoid them like the plague because I consider such people dangerous. Nothing resolved, and certainly not "cleanly".
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Actually, one of the complaints often made about church life is that too often conflicts are never resolved conclusively. They're allowed to simmer and fester while everyone puts on a smile. Often the only solution is for one party to leave the church.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If manliness = violence and punch-ups, then I think we need less manliness, not more, Numpty. Seriously, I view church as a refuge from the violence of much secular masculinity. I really wouldn't want it there. Perhaps I'm not really a man.
And what would be the point? You can bloody my nose better than I can dislocate your jaw, therefore your view of the doctrine of the Trinity is better than mine?
I'm not saying that churches should have punch ups, but the 'message' in punch up problem resolution is that it's possible to resolve a problem cleanly and then move on.
quote:I'm not Karl, but the last time I had one was at the church that I tend to avoid because it's too full of sentimentality. (See what a manly man I am.) He was much more conservative than I was, but he fully convinced me he is a good person, in fact a bigger man than I, and a good Christian. It was a wonderful and very productive discussion.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
]Karl, when was the last time you had a decent theological dust up with someone at church in the same way as you do it here on the ship?
quote:Have you considered the possibility that comics/graphic novels are coded "male" in large part because of the well-known hostility of comic fandom to female fans? In other words, it's an artificial distinction created largely by enforced social pressure.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Now, that's what I talking about!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Interestingly our bogs at church are papered with pages from old graphic novels. Very man friendly; you can read Batman and piddle at the same time without having to bring your own.
quote:So what. I'm interested in the isness, not the whyness of the situation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Have you considered the possibility that comics/graphic novels are coded "male" in large part because of the well-known hostility of comic fandom to female fans? In other words, it's an artificial distinction created largely by enforced social pressure.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Now, that's what I talking about!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Interestingly our bogs at church are papered with pages from old graphic novels. Very man friendly; you can read Batman and piddle at the same time without having to bring your own.
quote:For is it not written "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, wade in and give that motherfucker an asskicking, for otherwise thou art a pussy"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's fair enough. But I'd prefer a church where the possibility of punch ups was precluded because people are actively following Christ than a church where punch ups don't happen because passionate disagreement is governed by middle class, feminine cultural taboos.
quote:Because saying "the way things are is the way things must be" is both lazy thinking and a great way to perpetuate existing injustice. For example, promoting the idea that men should consider anything feminine to be anathema tends to teach men to hold women (who are, definitionally, feminine) in contempt.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:So what. I'm interested in the isness, not the whyness of the situation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Have you considered the possibility that comics/graphic novels are coded "male" in large part because of the well-known hostility of comic fandom to female fans? In other words, it's an artificial distinction created largely by enforced social pressure.
quote:Well if that's why we have a pretty equal gender balance I can reveal the solutions:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Now, that's what I talking about!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:No. A mix of stale beer, oil, miniature model paint and glue might be more likely.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Just to flesh out the shed-substitute idea: when I, a woman, enter a pub which is a shed-substitute, I don't feel unwelcome, as such, but I'm aware of, and accepting of the fact that I am the one that has to fit in and adhere to shed norms. It can be a very relaxing environment, provided you accept it for what it is.
For a church like mine that has daily services, I don't see why some services couldn't set out to cultivate that sort of atmosphere. Can you get incense that smells like pipe smoke?
Interestingly our bogs at church are papered with pages from old graphic novels. Very man friendly; you can read Batman and piddle at the same time without having to bring your own.
quote:Real ale would be a *great* idea.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think that's a bit of a Black Sheep myself...
quote:So how would you propose to 'church' such men? Socially and politically re-educate them first before they're allowed to participate in anything at least vaguely Christian? Cos I can really see that working...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because saying "the way things are is the way things must be" is both lazy thinking and a great way to perpetuate existing injustice. For example, promoting the idea that men should consider anything feminine to be anathema tends to teach men to hold women (who are, definitionally, feminine) in contempt.
quote:Precisely. But can I ask you a question? Do you interact with the other women at church as robustly as you interact with people here on the ship? I doubt that you do. Here's the point. Is it because interactions here on the ship are actually conducted in an ungodly manner? Sometimes yes, but generally no. So what is it? I think it's because we all know that our churches just aren't set up to deal with genuine disagreement or heated debate. They just settle for genteel and superficial tolerance and achieve their ends by means of indirection and informal "influence".
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:I'm not Karl, but the last time I had one was at the church that I tend to avoid because it's too full of sentimentality. (See what a manly man I am.) He was much more conservative than I was, but he fully convinced me he is a good person, in fact a bigger man than I, and a good Christian. It was a wonderful and very productive discussion.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Karl, when was the last time you had a decent theological dust up with someone at church in the same way as you do it here on the ship?
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female
quote:Don't think it hasn't been suggested.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:Real ale would be a *great* idea.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think that's a bit of a Black Sheep myself...
quote:You definitely may ask, and perhaps statistically you would be right, I don't know. However, if so, you have definitely picked the wrong woman to prove your point. I am known to be "intense" in real life. For instance, that excellent theological discussion I mentioned? It was the second time I spoke to that man, an usher there. The first time I spoke to him, I told him that his behavior was "unChristian and driving people away from the church." And yes, that is a quote. That's why I say he's a bigger man than I to still be willing to have an interest in an extended talk with me. I was right about his behavior, and he later admitted it, but that was a terribly over-aggressive way to say it and I could have easily driven him away with my anger. So yes, I do robust in person too. *dry grin*
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Precisely. But can I ask you a question? Do you interact with the other women at church as robustly as you interact with people here on the ship? I doubt that you do. Here's the point. Is it because interactions here on the ship are actually conducted in an ungodly manner? Sometimes yes, but generally no. So what is it? I think it's because we all know that our churches just aren't set up to deal with genuine disagreement or heated debate. They just settle for genteel and superficial tolerance and achieve their ends by means of indirection and informal "influence".
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:I'm not Karl, but the last time I had one was at the church that I tend to avoid because it's too full of sentimentality. (See what a manly man I am.) He was much more conservative than I was, but he fully convinced me he is a good person, in fact a bigger man than I, and a good Christian. It was a wonderful and very productive discussion.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Karl, when was the last time you had a decent theological dust up with someone at church in the same way as you do it here on the ship?
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female
quote:I wouldn't.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So how would you propose to 'church' such men?
quote:Can you read? Seriously. Can you? I guess I've got two options. 1) I could say everything all over again just for your benefit (and everyone else's irritation) or 2) you could do the hard yards yourself and just re-read the thread.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:For is it not written "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, wade in and give that motherfucker an asskicking, for otherwise thou art a pussy"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's fair enough. But I'd prefer a church where the possibility of punch ups was precluded because people are actively following Christ than a church where punch ups don't happen because passionate disagreement is governed by middle class, feminine cultural taboos.
quote:Because saying "the way things are is the way things must be" is both lazy thinking and a great way to perpetuate existing injustice. For example, promoting the idea that men should consider anything feminine to be anathema tends to teach men to hold women (who are, definitionally, feminine) in contempt.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:So what. I'm interested in the isness, not the whyness of the situation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Have you considered the possibility that comics/graphic novels are coded "male" in large part because of the well-known hostility of comic fandom to female fans? In other words, it's an artificial distinction created largely by enforced social pressure.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:I don't think they are. I think they just wanted to make a point about comic book culture.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My last post was indeed in response to Croesos. So why the fuck is s/he interested in what sort of men might or might not come to church?
quote:Well, I think "definitely" would sound a bit too decisive for some on this thread Gwai. I'm really not sure if ken and arethosemyfeet would allow you the right to such arrogant certainties.
Gwai said:
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female.
quote:Is this thread still in Purgatory? I merely ask.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, I think "definitely" would sound a bit too decisive for some on this thread Gwai. I'm really not sure if ken and arethosemyfeet would allow you the right to such arrogant certainties.
Gwai said:
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female.
quote:Well, I did say in my post that I wasn't advocating punch ups! However, if you call the police and get the individual locked up that sounds like a resolution to me!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If someone laid a fist on me in an argument, firstly I'd call the police and press charges, then I'd avoid them like the plague because I consider such people dangerous. Nothing resolved, and certainly not "cleanly".
[...]
You can beat me into a bloody pulp and still have been utterly wrong.
quote:I think daronmedway is worried that 'new men' are the only sort we've ever had.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
you have to be careful in trying to get new men that you don't just lose the men you already have.
quote:Where did I ever say that you couldn't be definite about someone being female?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, I think "definitely" would sound a bit too decisive for some on this thread Gwai. I'm really not sure if ken and arethosemyfeet would allow you the right to such arrogant certainties.
Gwai said:
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female.
quote:Jesus is still incarnate. The Son of God is still a man. He has a risen body. Are you suggesting that his glorification involved the retention of his scars but the removal of his genitalia?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Where did I ever say that you couldn't be definite about someone being female?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, I think "definitely" would sound a bit too decisive for some on this thread Gwai. I'm really not sure if ken and arethosemyfeet would allow you the right to such arrogant certainties.
Gwai said:
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female.
All I'm saying is that it nonsense to try to use biological categories like male and female about God. And its also nonsense to use social categories like masculine and feminine about God. As explained in my longer post above.
quote:Forgot about that - and I was at a house with a wall display of international engines yesterday! (And I was praised for asking the right question - what gauge were they! But I have forgotten the answer.)
Originally posted by Angloid:
Model trains perhaps? There's a long history of church men (especially clergymen) being passionate about railways. Volunteering at your local steam railway is a possibility, except that they tend to run trains on Sunday mornings.
quote:I'm quite happy to take people at their word with regard to their gender. I don't think it has a great deal to do with how they "should" act.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, I think "definitely" would sound a bit too decisive for some on this thread Gwai. I'm really not sure if ken and arethosemyfeet would allow you the right to such arrogant certainties.
Gwai said:
*Just to be clear, I'm definitely female.
quote:YES. IME.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Would doing things together help? Followed by a meal together, not laid on by the women, and more social or discoursive activities?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus is still incarnate. The Son of God is still a man. He has a risen body. Are you suggesting that his glorification involved the retention of his scars but the removal of his genitalia?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
OMG - you really think that Jesus' genitals have some sort of wider meaning - that they say something about the nature of God (or the nature of gender, for that matter)? In case it's not already clear, I'm staggered.
quote:Well, Stations of the Cross would fit in well.
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a garden scale track with seats, and constructed features for teaching purposes - the stable, the tomb, and so on. And singing "This train is bound for glory"? No, perhaps that is just silly, and would come over as a version of getting down wiv the yoof.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Are you suggesting that his glorification involved the retention of his scars but the removal of his genitalia?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus is still incarnate. The Son of God is still a man. He has a risen body. Are you suggesting that his glorification involved the retention of his scars but the removal of his genitalia?
quote:I'm sure you'd agree that the BVM's gender has a lot to do with her identity. She is a glorified woman. And please don't tell me that the BVM tells us nothing about femininity.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Are you suggesting that his glorification involved the retention of his scars but the removal of his genitalia?
No, of course not. Why would anyone?
Jesus being male does not mean that God ican be describned as masculine. Why would anyone think it would?
quote:She is 100% human and so is Christ.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
But the BVM isn't god, not a member of the trinity.
quote:Pre-incarnation, I think no. Post-ascension, I think yes.
Is it possible to discuss a sex/gender for the second person of the trinity pre-incarnation or post-ascension?
quote:Since no one is prepared to nail their colours to the mast and say which behaviours are supposed to be feminine and which are masculine, it's difficult to tell.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And, while incarnate, didn't he display a lot of so called "feminine" traits (talking, listening, caring, multitasking) as well as so called "masculine" characteristics?
quote:Exactly. Beards as feminine is unlikely because the majority of women do not produce obvious facial hair, though as one of the minority who does, I wish it were more acknowledged that they can. In fact on bodily hair in general there is increasing pressure on women to be clean shaven everywhere. In my generation it was pits and legs, but word has it teenage girls are increasingly expected to shove their pubes too.
Originally posted by ken:
(*) I think that gender is constrained by sex and emerges from sex but isn't determined by sex - so for example there have been societies where men wore makeup and women didn't (though not many of them) There are societies where men are more likely to wear skirts and women trousers. There are societies where men veil their faces, and others where women do, and even more where nobody does. Some gender categories have no inherent connection with sex at all - for example the colour pink couuld as easily be a mascuuline symbol as a fg3minine one and has been in some times and places - others do have an inherent or natural connection. I'd imagine that there have never been any cultures which thought of beards as a feminine feature (though there have been siome which though being clean shaven was more masculine than having a beard, which I find pretty bloody weird, even though I was brought up in one) I'd be pretty sure (but not quite as sure) that there have been few if any human societies that thought war-fighting a more feminine than masculine activity, or child-reading a more masculine than a feminine one (though there have been societies where women were expected to fight, and where men were expected to look after children) So contrained by sex but not determined by it./QB]
quote:And, beyond Margaret Thatcher, there are Golda Meir, and, I don't know, Catherine the Great, Jezebel, whatever Wikipedia might serve up if I could be arsed to look, and the fabled one-breasted Amazons.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I mostly agree with you, but beware generalisations. It's entirely possible that women haven't usually initiated war only because they haven't been in a position to do so.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men ... initiate war ...
quote:What you say is true; however, women are nowhere near up to scratch.
Violence done by women is a growing concern in our culture (or it should be). It seems the old principle is at work: the formerly oppressed, when they become empowered, are under no obligation to be better than their former oppressors.
quote:This is just special pleading. You offer one example of vicious women and expect that to be evidence against my assertion that violence, especially against women, is an almost entirely masculine affair.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Obviously your experience of life is rather limited. I work for a company in which almost the entire management is made up of women, and I have never experienced such cynical and brutal exploitation of workers and flagrant greed and incompetence. (Greed and exploitation are, of course, forms of rape: financial rape). It's impossible to blame 'men' for this. This is the so called 'care sector'.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men perpetrate rape, they initiate war, they subject women to sexual apartheid, they conduct the bestial economic activity known as sexual slavery, they deny women economic and educational freedom. The list goes on and on.
Some of us are working to do something about it, on behalf of all the workers, and guess what... the workers who care the most about this situation are (wait for it...) the male staff.
quote:Don't be silly; that is just petulant ridiculous rhetoric.
Of course, unlike you, I would not blame all women - or women generally - for this injustice.
But that's because I understand the evil of accusing innocent people through stereotyping. Do you understand this?
quote:I don't think I've said anything about Jesus on this thread, but had I said anything, I would probably have said the sort of thing you seem to be agreeing with.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Or to flip what Adeodatus said about Jesus-- perhaps they are just behaving like a human being.
quote:No, you're thinking of ordination in the CofE.
Are you suggesting that his glorification involved the retention of his scars but the removal of his genitalia?
quote:You keep asking for a list of different "behaviours". But as I've said before, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the behaviours are different. When it comes to the practice of Christianity the behaviours will often be the same: worship, prayer, pastoring, mission, bible teaching, fellowship etc.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Since no one is prepared to nail their colours to the mast and say which behaviours are supposed to be feminine and which are masculine, it's difficult to tell.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And, while incarnate, didn't he display a lot of so called "feminine" traits (talking, listening, caring, multitasking) as well as so called "masculine" characteristics?
May be He was just behaving like a human being.
quote:When I was Chair of Governors of a local school we recognised that nationally boys underperformed irt English. The school therefore focussed attention on this issue, and paid attention to English with all pupils, but ensured that boys were particularly encouraged with books etc that would appeal to them.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Sorry. I meant to say, "So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than girls?" But of course you knew that really.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:What? English please.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, are you saying that boys are, in fact, statistically worse at D & T than boys?
quote:Clearly you have not met the ladies at my former church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
One problem I have with the the local church is that the default setting for resolving differences appears to be drawn from middle class and largely feminine ways of interacting. Hushed tones. Lots of talk about feelings being hurt and how things were said. Blah, blah blah.
God forbid a voice getting raised or a sharp disagreement happening. My question is this: have we mistaken this way of interacting as intrinsically Christian when in fact it's simply part of genteel, middle class, and yes, feminine church culture?
Where's the room for piss-taking, hyperbole, overstatement, sarcasm and good a old ding dong?
quote:This is correct.
Originally posted by ken:
Some gender categories have no inherent connection with sex at all - for example the colour pink couuld as easily be a mascuuline symbol as a fg3minine one and has been in some times and places - others do have an inherent or natural connection.
quote:It may come as something of a surprise to you, but adverts of that kind are produced by advertising agencies working on behalf of marketing departments. Anthropologists tend not to be involved. Yours would seem to be a very LCD form of cultural interpretation.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As with the examples from advertising, the behaviours are the same (i.e. grooming, waering clothes etc.) but the motivations, self-perceptions, rationalisations, and affections to which the advertisements appeal is very different.
quote:I disagree. The advertising agencies want us to think that there is a difference, so that they can get a family of one man and one woman to buy two separate brands of everything. In fact, this is not necessary. Men want to be clean, so do women. One brand of soap is sufficient; the advertisers want us to buy two. When we have a child, they want us to buy three. When we have a boy and a girl, they want us to buy four.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In terms of Christian manliness, I'm talking about the way men and women perceive their own behaviours, rationalise their motivations and articulate their religious affections. As with the examples from advertising, the behaviours are the same (i.e. grooming, waering clothes etc.) but the motivations, self-perceptions, rationalisations, and affections to which the advertisements appeal is very different.
quote:We live in a society which has constructed largely artificial cultural constraints around accepted 'male' and 'female' behaviour, and you want the church to reinforce them?
So my question is how can the church acknowledge these stereotypical gender differences - without necessarily endorsing them - in the way conducts its mission and ministry?
quote:Why the obsession with quiet, and either a fixed hierarchy or a flat structure? Both noise and testing of leadership can be present without either being raised to pathological levels.
Originally posted by Penny S:
... and a period of silent reflection for the rest of the day?
.... to work in companionable quiet producing food for the local food bank?
... but I've been very impressed by groups of men, where who was alpha was not an issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Imposing a gender division on this is totally unnecessary. We are not marketing people seeking to segment a market sector in order to increase sales. We are the Body of Christ.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:No, it doesn't come as a surprise. And yes, I know those adverts intentionally seek to exploit gender difference (stereotypical or not). The point is this: gender specific advertising works because gender difference exists whether we like it or not and whether they are intrinsic or socialised.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:It may come as something of a surprise to you, but adverts of that kind are produced by advertising agencies working on behalf of marketing departments.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As with the examples from advertising, the behaviours are the same (i.e. grooming, waering clothes etc.) but the motivations, self-perceptions, rationalisations, and affections to which the advertisements appeal is very different.
quote:I disagree. In fact I'd go so far as to say that studying the nature of our advertising is an incredibly good way of interpreting values, convictions and aspirations of our culture, especially popular consumer culture. Of course we need to be aware of the agenda of advertising, but we should certainly take notice of the techniques and strategies of advertising because those strategies are specifically designed to tap into (and reinforce) powerful motivators.
It is not really sensible to interpret any culture by its tv adverts.
quote:Precisely. And I've seen this happening increasingly in church services too, especially from the pulpit.
A quick overview of ours would indicate that men are invariably dim and invariably have clever wives who put them down constantly, even in front of their children.
quote:You've seen what happening? Dim men put down by clever women preachers? Dim preachers conforming to lazy stereotypes? Please explain.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Precisely. And I've seen this happening increasingly in church services too, especially from the pulpit.
A quick overview of ours would indicate that men are invariably dim and invariably have clever wives who put them down constantly, even in front of their children.
quote:I agree. But unlike you I'm saying that the church has inadvertently (no pun intended) adopted an informal marketing strategy that takes its cues from what the advertising industry typically associates with feminine aspirations, motivations and affections.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Imposing a gender division on this is totally unnecessary. We are not marketing people seeking to segment a market sector in order to increase sales. We are the Body of Christ.
quote:Preachers (often but not necessarily women) mocking men for not being able to multi-task, being emotionally illiterate, blah, blah blah. All very tongue in cheek and arguably a little reactionary but yes, I've seen it.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:You've seen what happening? Dim men put down by clever women preachers? Dim preachers conforming to lazy stereotypes? Please explain.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Precisely. And I've seen this happening increasingly in church services too, especially from the pulpit.
A quick overview of ours would indicate that men are invariably dim and invariably have clever wives who put them down constantly, even in front of their children.
quote:What kind of church do you go to???
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I agree. But unlike you I'm saying that the church has inadvertently (no pun intended) adopted an informal marketing strategy that takes its cues from what the advertising industry typically associates with feminine aspirations, motivations and affections.
For example, the church typically sells itself as a place where people can find self actualisation and inner peace, rather than as an organisation with a challenging and exciting mission to accomplish.
The church sells itself much more in the vein of L'Oreal (because you're worth it), Dove (be beautiful) and Gillette Venus (reveal the godness in you) than it does L'Oreal (men expert), Lynx (the Lynx effect) and Gillette (cutting edge technology).
These products do the same basic thing, but their advertising taps into very different motivators, and they do that for a very good reason. [/qb]
quote:[DS does a quick count of the congregations in the churches round here]
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The motivation for going to church is to meet with the Living God, and hopefully a few of his children as well. Marketing techniques are not required.
quote:This is what has appealed to me in some of the 'How to be a good Christian man' books that I've read. The idea that as the church, we are on a mission together; we aren't just focused inward. How much I live out this message and ethos is, of course, a different matter...
Originally posted by daronmedway:
For example, the church typically sells itself as a place where people can find self actualisation and inner peace, rather than as an organisation with a challenging and exciting mission to accomplish.
quote:I am afraid I disagree.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
]No, it doesn't come as a surprise. And yes, I know those adverts intentionally seek to exploit gender difference (stereotypical or not). The point is this: gender specific advertising works because gender difference exists whether we like it or not and whether they are intrinsic or socialised.
quote:A study of advertising says nothing about our culture. It reveals only the values, convictions and aspirations of marketing departments.
I disagree. In fact I'd go so far as to say that studying the nature of our advertising is an incredibly good way of interpreting values, convictions and aspirations of our culture, especially popular consumer culture. Of course we need to be aware of the agenda of advertising, but we should certainly take notice of the techniques and strategies of advertising because those strategies are specifically designed to tap into (and reinforce) powerful motivators.
quote:Precisely. And I've seen this happening increasingly in church services too, especially from the pulpit. [/QB][/QUOTE]
A quick overview of ours would indicate that men are invariably dim and invariably have clever wives who put them down constantly, even in front of their children.
quote:Evangelising =/= marketing.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:[DS does a quick count of the congregations in the churches round here]
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The motivation for going to church is to meet with the Living God, and hopefully a few of his children as well. Marketing techniques are not required.
Yep, our product still needs marketing.
quote:Disagree. It shows what the marketing department thinks will sell. Marketing departments want at bottom line to make a sale. If something is too out of whack with our cultural values, it won't sell, and the marketing department will get fired and replaced with a new marketing department. So it's not a perfect barometer, but advertising does track cultural values.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
A study of advertising says nothing about our culture. It reveals only the values, convictions and aspirations of marketing departments.
quote:I am sorry to hear that. I will try to explain, if I can. I apologise in advance if I don't manage it.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And add me to those who think we absolutely need to market our product. (Deliberate use of the jargon!) We have something that we would love others to access - the love of God and the joy of being adopted into his family. Therefore we need to think about how we share this 'product' with others, to (hopefully) avoid sharing it in such a way that leaves people cold and uninterested. I don't see what's controversial about this idea, to be honest.
quote:What's controversial about overt, vocal, evangelism?
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And add me to those who think we absolutely need to market our product. (Deliberate use of the jargon!) We have something that we would love others to access - the love of God and the joy of being adopted into his family. Therefore we need to think about how we share this 'product' with others, to (hopefully) avoid sharing it in such a way that leaves people cold and uninterested. I don't see what's controversial about this idea, to be honest.
quote:OK, once more with feeling.
Anglo Catholic Relict said:
Marketing techniques are not required.
quote:I dispute your premise, but were I to accept it, in fact, we live in a world where men lost the coin toss.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am totally with Adeodatus. Patriarchy is more or less a coin-toss-- it could have just as easily been matriarchy. People of both genders suck.
quote:You are more than welcome to disagree.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Disagree. It shows what the marketing department thinks will sell. Marketing departments want at bottom line to make a sale. If something is too out of whack with our cultural values, it won't sell, and the marketing department will get fired and replaced with a new marketing department. So it's not a perfect barometer, but advertising does track cultural values.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
A study of advertising says nothing about our culture. It reveals only the values, convictions and aspirations of marketing departments.
[ubb]
quote:In some places, no doubt.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:OK, once more with feeling.
Anglo Catholic Relict said:
Marketing techniques are not required.
I believe that marketing techniques are already being employed.
quote:Oh yes, of course! I'm sorry for implying otherwise. But I did say that what we have to offer is 'the love of God and the joy of being adopted into his family', not 'unending joy and happiness'.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Christianity can be joyful, but it can also involve carrying a very heavy cross through a very difficult life. God does not always give us sunshine and roses around the door, and we are lying if we give the impression that he does.
God promises always to be with us, never to abandon us, and never to allow anything to separate us from his love. He does not promise us unending joy and happiness.
quote:The word 'marketing' is pretty loaded, so maybe it's not a good word to use. But I've been using the word deliberately to stress that (IMO) we have something that we want others to also have. Our motive may well be different from that of a professional marketer, whose job it is to convince people to acquire something that the marketer themselves may not care for. But our task is very similar, ISTM.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Marketing distorts. Our faith is not about distortion, but about telling the truth... Our faith is not a product. It is a relationship with the Living God.
quote:But I didn't say 'overt, vocal, evangelism'. And that's certainly not what I intended to imply!
Originally posted by Evensong:
What's controversial about overt, vocal, evangelism?
It's been done so badly in the past (through fear of hell and damnation and through images of an abusive God punishing his son) that the path has been too marred and scarred and is almost irredeemable.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:And you think our culture values real? Need a bridge?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Many of those sales are indeed totally out of whack with our cultural values. They sell as real that which is not real.
quote:Yes. As I said. But I said nothing about telling the truth. We were talking about cultural values, not truth. Our culture wants to be lied to. Look at the shit that gets forwarded around the internet ("World will run out of fish in 2050" or "Scientists find sure-fire cure for obesity"). Our culture values what sounds good, not truth.
Those who buy them often will not realise. They are sold a lie, and buy a lie. Advertising is not about telling the truth; it is about selling. About making money.
quote:Is this the place were we insert a well-worn crack about British teeth?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
...toothpaste...is a luxury.
quote:Why assume that cases based on observation of activities chosen by groups of men are the result of an obsession? Men choose to sit around lakes in silence. Men work close to each other on allotments with very little conversation most of the time. I assumed that men liked these activities. I also assumed that some men choose to work in situations without a hierarchy because I have seen it working.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Why the obsession with quiet, and either a fixed hierarchy or a flat structure? Both noise and testing of leadership can be present without either being raised to pathological levels.
Originally posted by Penny S:
... and a period of silent reflection for the rest of the day?
.... to work in companionable quiet producing food for the local food bank?
... but I've been very impressed by groups of men, where who was alpha was not an issue.
quote:I agree completely; you make the point better than I did.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Since no one is prepared to nail their colours to the mast and say which behaviours are supposed to be feminine and which are masculine, it's difficult to tell.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And, while incarnate, didn't he display a lot of so called "feminine" traits (talking, listening, caring, multitasking) as well as so called "masculine" characteristics?
May be He was just behaving like a human being. Emphasis added.
quote:So the incarnation has somehow changed the nature of God?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:She is 100% human and so is Christ.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
But the BVM isn't god, not a member of the trinity.quote:Pre-incarnation, I think no. Post-ascension, I think yes.
Is it possible to discuss a sex/gender for the second person of the trinity pre-incarnation or post-ascension?
quote:I actually agree with you that the focus you describe is incorrect, though I think that sort of self-centered approach is not characteristic of all forms of Christianity. There is a strain in evangelicalism (and it's not all evangelicals by any means) that looks at everything in terms of the believer doing things: we should tithe because it's right that we should give, not that the money should be put to good use, for example.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I agree. But unlike you I'm saying that the church has inadvertently (no pun intended) adopted an informal marketing strategy that takes its cues from what the advertising industry typically associates with feminine aspirations, motivations and affections.
For example, the church typically sells itself as a place where people can find self actualisation and inner peace, rather than as an organisation with a challenging and exciting mission to accomplish.
quote:I didn't say the incarnation changed God, I said it is possible post-ascension to discuss the sex/gender of the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ. We're discussing it now.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:So the incarnation has somehow changed the nature of God?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:She is 100% human and so is Christ.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
But the BVM isn't god, not a member of the trinity.quote:Pre-incarnation, I think no. Post-ascension, I think yes.
Is it possible to discuss a sex/gender for the second person of the trinity pre-incarnation or post-ascension?
quote:We're not straying to far from the subject at hand. We are discussing whether the church has adopted marketing techniques which promote the Christian faith in ways which are very similar to the ways in which secular advertising attempts to sell products to women.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:In some places, no doubt.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:OK, once more with feeling.
Anglo Catholic Relict said:
Marketing techniques are not required.
I believe that marketing techniques are already being employed.
Whether that is ethical is another matter.
However, perhaps we are straying too far from the subject at hand; Christian manliness.
quote:That first one sounds like an ad for a dating website, something which, almost definitionally, wants to attract both men and women.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare these two statements about Christianity.
Christianity offers you fulfilment through an intimate relationship with someone whose tender love is unfailing.
Christianity offers you a sense of purpose by calling you to join the rescue mission of God.
Both of these statements are true. We need them both. But when viewed through the lens of secular advertising one sounds more feminine and the other more masculine.
quote:I don't think there is any part of God's true nature which can be described at irrelevant. I would, however, agree that, soteriologically speaking, the NT makes it quite clear that our shared humanity - as bearers of the imago die - is more central to our nature that either our gender or sex. However, I do not believe that gender and sex are now irrelevant for those who are in Christ. And I do believe that Christ's maleness is just as relevant as any other aspect of his human nature. Why wouldn't it be?
Originally posted by Angloid:
So if the second person of the Trinity only acquired a sex/gender at his human birth, and that didn't change the nature of God, then his sex/gender is an irrelevant part of his true nature. So by analogy the important thing about us is our humanity, not our sex or gender.
quote:I mean the rescue mission belonging to God, or God's rescue mission. But you knew that anyway.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That first one sounds like an ad for a dating website, something which, almost definitionally, wants to attract both men and women.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare these two statements about Christianity.
Christianity offers you fulfilment through an intimate relationship with someone whose tender love is unfailing.
Christianity offers you a sense of purpose by calling you to join the rescue mission of God.
Both of these statements are true. We need them both. But when viewed through the lens of secular advertising one sounds more feminine and the other more masculine.
And what exactly does God need to be rescued from?
quote:Indeed, for is it not written:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, I do not believe that gender and sex are now irrelevant for those who are in Christ.
quote:I fixed the obviously defective bits for you.
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is []either Jew []or Gentile, []either slave []or free, [and] there [is] male and female, for you are all [separate] in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then [some of] you are Abraham’s seed, and [a few are] heirs according to the promise.
quote:There is no part of this statement that I can agree with.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
We're not straying to far from the subject at hand. We are discussing whether the church has adopted marketing techniques which promote the Christian faith in ways which are very similar to the ways in which secular advertising attempts to sell products to women.
Compare these two statements about Christianity.
Christianity offers you fulfilment through an intimate relationship with someone whose tender love is unfailing.
Christianity offers you a sense of purpose by calling you to join the rescue mission of God.
Both of these statements are true. We need them both. But when viewed through the lens of secular advertising one sounds more feminine and the other more masculine.
I think the church says tends to say the first sort of statement more frequently than the second.
quote:Christianity as Thunderbirds?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I mean the rescue mission belonging to God, or God's rescue mission. But you knew that anyway.
quote:I think a more relevant question is whether our faith values real, or whether it is content to follow advertising down the path of deception, and use the same techniques to deceive people.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And you think our culture values real? Need a bridge?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[qb]Many of those sales are indeed totally out of whack with our cultural values. They sell as real that which is not real.
quote:When was the last time you led a man to Christ following the pattern of St Andrew?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:Christianity as Thunderbirds?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I mean the rescue mission belonging to God, or God's rescue mission. But you knew that anyway.
Does nothing for me.
quote:Imo any statement relating our faith to promises of joy is likely to be misleading.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Oh yes, of course! I'm sorry for implying otherwise. But I did say that what we have to offer is 'the love of God and the joy of being adopted into his family', not 'unending joy and happiness'.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[qb]Christianity can be joyful, but it can also involve carrying a very heavy cross through a very difficult life. God does not always give us sunshine and roses around the door, and we are lying if we give the impression that he does.
God promises always to be with us, never to abandon us, and never to allow anything to separate us from his love. He does not promise us unending joy and happiness.
quote:Marketing is about selling stuff to people who may or may not actually want it. The actual needs of those people is NOT the motivation, because a marketing person is perfectly happy to sell something to a person who cannot afford it, does not need it, will never use it, and will get into debt buying it. None of those factors matter in the slightest; he or she is concerned only to persuade us to buy what we otherwise would not think of buying.
The word 'marketing' is pretty loaded, so maybe it's not a good word to use. But I've been using the word deliberately to stress that (IMO) we have something that we want others to also have. Our motive may well be different from that of a professional marketer, whose job it is to convince people to acquire something that the marketer themselves may not care for. But our task is very similar, ISTM.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
When was the last time you led a man to Christ following the pattern of St Andrew?
quote:If .... then .... fallacy at its best.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
He uses means. If someone is not interested in the rescue God offers to humanity - and his command to participate in that rescue mission - then a person's commitment to Christ is at best incomplete and at worst insincere.
quote:You see, I know plenty of men who crave an intimate, romantic-love relationship (I'm one of them, and I'm fortunate enough to have found mine). That's ... not feminine unless, I don't know, you think men shouldn't want that sort of relationship and are wrong for doing so.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare these two statements about Christianity.
Christianity offers you fulfilment through an intimate relationship with someone whose tender love is unfailing.
Christianity offers you a sense of purpose by calling you to join the rescue mission of God.
Both of these statements are true. We need them both. But when viewed through the lens of secular advertising one sounds more feminine and the other more masculine.
quote:If there's no benefit from signing on to God's agenda, why bother?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Very often there is joy; very often there is not. Joy is by no means a constant offering, either from us or from God.
quote:You appear to be saying that if joy is not constant, there is no benefit at all. Why is constant joy your only metric for benefit?
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:If there's no benefit from signing on to God's agenda, why bother?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Very often there is joy; very often there is not. Joy is by no means a constant offering, either from us or from God.
quote:That sounds depressingly like the contributor to the 'High Tory socialist' thread who would only consider socialism if it was going to increase his pay packet.
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:If there's no benefit from signing on to God's agenda, why bother?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Very often there is joy; very often there is not. Joy is by no means a constant offering, either from us or from God.
quote:You're nicely proving my point about the fruits of the Spirit. To review, the fruits of the spirit is a list of desirable spiritual traits (formulated by a guy) that was given to the leaders of an early Christian congregation as a template for behavior (and those leaders were largely male-- exclusively male, depending on who you talk to.)
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare these two statements about Christianity.
Christianity offers you fulfilment through an intimate relationship with someone whose tender love is unfailing.
Christianity offers you a sense of purpose by calling you to join the rescue mission of God.
Both of these statements are true. We need them both. But when viewed through the lens of secular advertising one sounds more feminine and the other more masculine.
I think the church says tends to say the first sort of statement more frequently than the second.
quote:Your situation is constant joy? Simply wow.
Originally posted by Garasu:
So I should sign up to a programme that would make my situation worse?
quote:I don't think they are girly terms either, especially when you read them in their original context rather than on posters with swirly, curly and (dare I say it) girly fonts and soft focus flowers.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:You're nicely proving my point about the fruits of the Spirit. To review, the fruits of the spirit is a list of desirable spiritual traits (formulated by a guy) that was given to the leaders of an early Christian congregation as a template for behavior (and those leaders were largely male-- exclusively male, depending on who you talk to.)
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare these two statements about Christianity.
Christianity offers you fulfilment through an intimate relationship with someone whose tender love is unfailing.
Christianity offers you a sense of purpose by calling you to join the rescue mission of God.
Both of these statements are true. We need them both. But when viewed through the lens of secular advertising one sounds more feminine and the other more masculine.
I think the church says tends to say the first sort of statement more frequently than the second.
Here's what I think-- Paul (or whatever acolyte repeated his teachings) had no problem throwing around girly terms like "love, joy, patience gentleness" because he didn't see them as feminine at all!
quote:Yes. Probably.
My question is-- if those guys felt they had permission to talk about "real stuff" (whatever that might mean to them) with other guys, don't you think they would choose them first?
quote:That, to me , is the front line.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Yes. Probably.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My question is-- if those guys felt they had permission to talk about "real stuff" (whatever that might mean to them) with other guys, don't you think they would choose them first?
quote:Oh dear. As a single mum, obviously my children and I are not a real family. After all, we have no-one to win the bread and mow the lawn...
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As i said, this is a soteriological passage. There are other passages in the NT that maintain gender distinctions, particularly passages which address family life.
quote:OK. For the sake of argument we'll assume that relationships is the USP of the church. I'm not saying that relationships aren't manly. Of course relationships can be manly.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by daronmedway:
[qb]What Church offers is relationships. That's pretty much all we've got when the lights go out. That might not sound 'manly' enough for you, but it's enough for me.
quote:The words maybe true.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that what the church is actually offering is the closest thing to truth this side of the grave. The reason to believe and follow the way isn't because you like it or it helps you or it helps others or anything else. It's because it's true.
quote:Paul did.
So I should sign up to a programme that would make my situation worse?
quote:I can't remember the last time I read so many incorrect stereotypes and generalisations in one post.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The problem, I think, is that the church tends to speak about relationships (with God and each other) in a way that appeals to women rather than men. Many worship songs speak of having a "beautiful, intimate and tender relationship with Jesus in the secret place". We speak of opening ourselves to Jesus, being surrounded by his love and being made complete. If the church chooses these types of songs without balancing them with songs of a more objective or declarative nature there will be an imbalance in how the Christian life is perceived and lived out.
quote:No - it always seems to end up flying into the sun. (Or maybe that was just the once and I've seen it too many times.)
Originally posted by Jane R:
Garasu:quote:Paul did.
So I should sign up to a programme that would make my situation worse?
(bagsie Thunderbird 3)
quote:Absolutely right! So why do you need to cloud the issue by trying to categorise either as 'masculine' or 'feminine'?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If the church chooses these types of songs without balancing them with songs of a more objective or declarative nature there will be an imbalance in how the Christian life is perceived and lived out.
quote:Of course, "I want to know You" and "This is my desire", which are presumably the two songs to which you refer, Daron, are both written by men. As are most of the so-called "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:OK. For the sake of argument we'll assume that relationships is the USP of the church. I'm not saying that relationships aren't manly. Of course relationships can be manly.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by daronmedway:
[qb]What Church offers is relationships. That's pretty much all we've got when the lights go out. That might not sound 'manly' enough for you, but it's enough for me.
The problem, I think, is that the church tends to speak about relationships (with God and each other) in a way that appeals to women rather than men. Many worship songs speak of having a "beautiful, intimate and tender relationship with Jesus in the secret place". We speak of opening ourselves to Jesus, being surrounded by his love and being made complete. If the church chooses these types of songs without balancing them with songs of a more objective or declarative nature there will be an imbalance in how the Christian life is perceived and lived out.
quote:Ouch! Spot on!
Last week I read an article on a popular Christian website that accused feminism of ruining "the art of servanthood," meaning, women have stopped submitting unilaterally to their husbands and therefore women are responsible for the lack of men in the church because they're just so damn bossy. A Christian blaming the fall of society on feminists? Oh, how shocking. How totally unfamiliar that must be.
quote:I haven't found many lads in the youth groups/ my sons peers who will admit to being fans of Justin Bieber and the other latest boy band offerings. There couldn't be a parallel between these offerings for Tweenage girls and the Christian music scene surely? Some seem to love pretty boys singing sickly love songs.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
QUOTE]Of course, "I want to know You" and "This is my desire", which are presumably the two songs to which you refer, Daron, are both written by men. As are most of the so-called "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs.
As an aside, I think that Daron is correct in thinking that there should be a spread of songs which are used in worship; Old hymns, contemporary material, objective, subjective, even just plain tub-thumping fun (think "Days of Elijah", which is pretty risible lyrically, but a great sing.
quote:I don't quite agree with this. One of the chief differences between charismatic and conservative evangelicals is that charismatics tend to favour the "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs because they stress what they consider to be a vital element of following Christ - encounter and spiritual experience.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Absolutely right! So why do you need to cloud the issue by trying to categorise either as 'masculine' or 'feminine'?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If the church chooses these types of songs without balancing them with songs of a more objective or declarative nature there will be an imbalance in how the Christian life is perceived and lived out.
Paradoxically, it tends to be the evangelical churches most eager to stress gender roles, who use the more sentimental songs.
quote:Have you ever been to Glastonbury festival? Most of what you'll hear there is lyrically risible but thousands upon thousands of people sing along with great enthusiasm. Of course drink and drugs play a big role in that but, nonetheless, I think it's very possible to sing complete and utter nonsense and enjoy it a very great deal.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential I suppose, but I find if something's lyrically risible that disqualifies it from being a "great sing".
quote:Indeed. But not, for me, I find, in church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Have you ever been to Glastonbury festival? Most of what you'll hear there is lyrically risible but thousands upon thousands of people sing along with great enthusiasm. Of course drink and drugs play a big role in that but, nonetheless, I think it's very possible to sing complete and utter nonsense and enjoy it a very great deal.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential I suppose, but I find if something's lyrically risible that disqualifies it from being a "great sing".
quote:Well, that's nothing a shot of JD and line of charlie couldn't solve.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Indeed. But not, for me, I find, in church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Have you ever been to Glastonbury festival? Most of what you'll hear there is lyrically risible but thousands upon thousands of people sing along with great enthusiasm. Of course drink and drugs play a big role in that but, nonetheless, I think it's very possible to sing complete and utter nonsense and enjoy it a very great deal.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential I suppose, but I find if something's lyrically risible that disqualifies it from being a "great sing".
quote:If you add the word "some" before "men" in the last sentance, and add "and some women" after that, I think you're bang on.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that a focus on spiritual experience and encounter with Christ is wrong. I think it's very right. What I am saying is that the language of spiritual experience and encounter in contemporary worship songs seems to be unduly influenced by the language of erotic and romantic love - a language which secular culture (rightly or wrongly) largely associates with heterosexual eroticism and sexuality. This not using the language of femininity and masculinity as a binary distinction between good and bad. I'm simply suggesting that men might find certain elements of contemporary worship spiritually unappealing because it inadvertently apes the sexualised language of secular gender stereotyping.
quote:Absolutely. I think that, at one time, he did have an obsession with PSA that seemed to creep into everything he wrote. He now has a much broader theological palette. Check out "Vagabonds", for instance. He's also a great tunesmith, and, as opposed to most contemporary worship songwriters, he writes songs that can actually be sung by people with voices of a normal pitch range.
originally posted by daronmedway
However, Stuart Townend isn't a "normal" conservative evangelical despite the fact that conservative evangelicals think he's the DBs.
quote:I think its largely to do with ecclesiological socialisation. Personally, I'm OK with it. It's become part of my spiritual vocabulary over the years. I sometimes cry during worship and I'm happy to tell Jesus I love him. I don't think that's feminine in any negative sense.
Originally posted by Earwig:
quote:If you add the word "some" before "men" in the last sentance, and add "and some women" after that, I think you're bang on.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that a focus on spiritual experience and encounter with Christ is wrong. I think it's very right. What I am saying is that the language of spiritual experience and encounter in contemporary worship songs seems to be unduly influenced by the language of erotic and romantic love - a language which secular culture (rightly or wrongly) largely associates with heterosexual eroticism and sexuality. This not using the language of femininity and masculinity as a binary distinction between good and bad. I'm simply suggesting that men might find certain elements of contemporary worship spiritually unappealing because it inadvertently apes the sexualised language of secular gender stereotyping.
Some people like it, some don't. I think that's to do with church tradition, experience, personality, understanding of faith etc rather than gender or sex.
quote:There are plenty of church services where I'd need that to survive...
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, that's nothing a shot of JD and line of charlie couldn't solve.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Indeed. But not, for me, I find, in church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Have you ever been to Glastonbury festival? Most of what you'll hear there is lyrically risible but thousands upon thousands of people sing along with great enthusiasm. Of course drink and drugs play a big role in that but, nonetheless, I think it's very possible to sing complete and utter nonsense and enjoy it a very great deal.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential I suppose, but I find if something's lyrically risible that disqualifies it from being a "great sing".
quote:That's a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Absolutely. I think that, at one time, he did have an obsession with PSA that seemed to creep into everything he wrote. He now has a much broader theological palette. Check out "Vagabonds", for instance.
originally posted by daronmedway
However, Stuart Townend isn't a "normal" conservative evangelical despite the fact that conservative evangelicals think he's the DBs.
quote:I think you're spot on with this, daronmedway. And if people are unhappy with the gender distinction (as earwig has noted), let's just say some people find the 'language of erotic and romantic love' spiritually unappealing and might prefer worship songs with more declarative language about God's nature or with more focus on our mission to spread the good news and bring about God's will on earth.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that a focus on spiritual experience and encounter with Christ is wrong. I think it's very right. What I am saying is that the language of spiritual experience and encounter in contemporary worship songs seems to be unduly influenced by the language of erotic and romantic love - a language which secular culture (rightly or wrongly) largely associates with heterosexual eroticism and sexuality. This not using the language of femininity and masculinity as a binary distinction between good and bad. I'm simply suggesting that men might find certain elements of contemporary worship spiritually unappealing because it inadvertently apes the sexualised language of secular gender stereotyping.
quote:You know Daron, there are times when I just love you, in spite of myself!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:That's a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Absolutely. I think that, at one time, he did have an obsession with PSA that seemed to creep into everything he wrote. He now has a much broader theological palette. Check out "Vagabonds", for instance.
originally posted by daronmedway
However, Stuart Townend isn't a "normal" conservative evangelical despite the fact that conservative evangelicals think he's the DBs.
quote:You know Daron, there are times when I just love you, in spite of myself!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:That's a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Absolutely. I think that, at one time, he did have an obsession with PSA that seemed to creep into everything he wrote. He now has a much broader theological palette. Check out "Vagabonds", for instance.
originally posted by daronmedway
However, Stuart Townend isn't a "normal" conservative evangelical despite the fact that conservative evangelicals think he's the DBs.
quote:That's a cool song, but I think it would be a bit cheesy for the average church. (But your church may well not be 'average'....) I mean, in many cases you'd be singing at people who aren't there to hear you. It would make more sense at an open air event where there's a chance it might be heard by a good random mixture of 'ordinary' folk, not just churchy people.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
[Stuart Townend's 'Vagabonds' is] a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
quote:It may well be my church isn't "average" then, because I'd hazard a guess at there being quite a few people who would personally identify with one or more of the "groups" mentioned in the song. However, might I suggest that it is in fact quite normal and that you've perhaps underestimated the life experience of the average local congregation?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:That's a cool song, but I think it would be a bit cheesy for the average church. (But your church may well not be 'average'....) I mean, in many cases you'd be singing at people who aren't there to hear you.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
[Stuart Townend's 'Vagabonds' is] a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
quote:No.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just to throw a cat among the pigeons, is Timothy Dudley-Smith the antidote to the "Jesus is my boyfriend" repertoire?
quote:Surely not?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Most of what you'll hear there is lyrically risible but thousands upon thousands of people sing along with great enthusiasm. Of course drink and drugs play a big role in that but, nonetheless, I think it's very possible to sing complete and utter nonsense and enjoy it a very great deal.
quote:Girlies the lot of you! Any real man would demand Thunderbird 2!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:No - it always seems to end up flying into the sun. (Or maybe that was just the once and I've seen it too many times.)
Originally posted by Jane R:
Garasu:quote:Paul did.
So I should sign up to a programme that would make my situation worse?
(bagsie Thunderbird 3)
quote:Quite possibly!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:It may well be my church isn't "average" then, because I'd hazard a guess at there being quite a few people who would personally identify with one or more of the "groups" mentioned in the song. However, might I suggest that it is in fact quite normal and that you've perhaps underestimated the life experience of the average local congregation?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:That's a cool song, but I think it would be a bit cheesy for the average church. (But your church may well not be 'average'....) I mean, in many cases you'd be singing at people who aren't there to hear you.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
[Stuart Townend's 'Vagabonds' is] a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
quote:Brave? Why? I can't see why anyone would object to any of the invited groups there.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:That's a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Absolutely. I think that, at one time, he did have an obsession with PSA that seemed to creep into everything he wrote. He now has a much broader theological palette. Check out "Vagabonds", for instance.
originally posted by daronmedway
However, Stuart Townend isn't a "normal" conservative evangelical despite the fact that conservative evangelicals think he's the DBs.
quote:Try suggesting the church doesn't need as many flowers and see what happens.
Originally posted by Chorister:
What I really, really don't get, though, is all the flower arranging.
quote:There are a number of people in my congregation who might object to their abusers being present.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Brave? Why? I can't see why anyone would object to any of the invited groups there.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:That's a great song. I think it's one of the best on The Journey album. What I like about is there's invitations made in there to which just about everyone can object. It'd be a brave church that decided to sing it to kick off a Eucharist. I've thought about it...
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Absolutely. I think that, at one time, he did have an obsession with PSA that seemed to creep into everything he wrote. He now has a much broader theological palette. Check out "Vagabonds", for instance.
originally posted by daronmedway
However, Stuart Townend isn't a "normal" conservative evangelical despite the fact that conservative evangelicals think he's the DBs.
quote:Turn it around. If our only motive for 'signing on' is a selfish one, what kind of faith is that?
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:If there's no benefit from signing on to God's agenda, why bother?
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Very often there is joy; very often there is not. Joy is by no means a constant offering, either from us or from God.
quote:Do they?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:OK. For the sake of argument we'll assume that relationships is the USP of the church. I'm not saying that relationships aren't manly. Of course relationships can be manly.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by daronmedway:
[qb]What Church offers is relationships. That's pretty much all we've got when the lights go out. That might not sound 'manly' enough for you, but it's enough for me.
The problem, I think, is that the church tends to speak about relationships (with God and each other) in a way that appeals to women rather than men. Many worship songs speak of having a "beautiful, intimate and tender relationship with Jesus in the secret place".
quote:Oh dear.
We speak of opening ourselves to Jesus, being surrounded by his love and being made complete. If the church chooses these types of songs without balancing them with songs of a more objective or declarative nature there will be an imbalance in how the Christian life is perceived and lived out.
quote:Yes - ecclesiological socialisation. That's the bunny. I think most of my unchurched friends would think it simply creepy, whether they were women or men.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:I think its largely to do with ecclesiological socialisation. Personally, I'm OK with it. It's become part of my spiritual vocabulary over the years. I sometimes cry during worship and I'm happy to tell Jesus I love him. I don't think that's feminine in any negative sense.
Originally posted by Earwig:
quote:If you add the word "some" before "men" in the last sentance, and add "and some women" after that, I think you're bang on.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that a focus on spiritual experience and encounter with Christ is wrong. I think it's very right. What I am saying is that the language of spiritual experience and encounter in contemporary worship songs seems to be unduly influenced by the language of erotic and romantic love - a language which secular culture (rightly or wrongly) largely associates with heterosexual eroticism and sexuality. This not using the language of femininity and masculinity as a binary distinction between good and bad. I'm simply suggesting that men might find certain elements of contemporary worship spiritually unappealing because it inadvertently apes the sexualised language of secular gender stereotyping.
Some people like it, some don't. I think that's to do with church tradition, experience, personality, understanding of faith etc rather than gender or sex.
However, I'm not sure my unchurched next door neighbour would be OK with it on a first visit to church.
quote:Uh, that's sounds pretty darn objective and declarative to me! But, I have to admit, that looks like a pretty amazing experience. It looks like liturgical dance can be redeemed.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And if you are wondering, I am pretty sure all they are saying is "al-la ilaha illallahu" (part of the shadaada- "There is no God but Allah.")
quote:I would have thought that the words of The God of Abraham Praise were pretty objective and declarative, and it's based on a Hebrew Yigdal ,or doxology, which is a hymn of praise. The words aren't like the gushing emotiveness of the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' worship songs, which I would consider the opposite of objective.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...
Because "objective and declarative" is about the most polar opposite concept from that of "praise" that I can think of.
...
quote:Perhaps a good place to start would be with the gendered notion of "women's work"? Why is it that certain tasks "have" to be performed by women?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If, as some people here imply, the 'traditional' (flower-arranging?) lady is a dying or an increasingly irrelevant breed in British churches, then the church in general is going to struggle to live without her. Your church may be in the happy situation of not needing her; the churches I see around me aren't so lucky.
The modern, professional, ambitious woman who hates girly swirly pink, etc., is going to have to take the 'traditional' woman's place if many British churches have any hope of survival, but like the alpha males we're talking about, she's absent from many churches. So perhaps we should consider that changing the temperature/emphasis/approach of church life isn't just about getting more masculine men to attend, but will also create connections with the kinds of women who, outside of certain fashionable congregations, don't feel that church life has anything to offer them that would justify the expenditure of their precious time, or that the professional skills they have would be received with respect.
quote:When you chant it over and over again while swaying in unison with a hundred other people? Shrieking it out like you would a lover's name at climax? Writing tomes of poetry comparing God to both Beloved and Lover? (and if you are not familiar with Sufi poetry, that is very often the vibe they emit.)
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Uh, that's sounds pretty darn objective and declarative to me! But, I have to admit, that looks like a pretty amazing experience. It looks like liturgical dance can be redeemed.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And if you are wondering, I am pretty sure all they are saying is "al-la ilaha illallahu" (part of the shadaada- "There is no God but Allah.")
quote:Because if we want men back in church, we need to make it clear that the jobs with prestige and clout are being held exclusively by men. Because men are biologically incapable of working harmoniously alongside women unless they know they are in charge.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps a good place to start would be with the gendered notion of "women's work"? Why is it that certain tasks "have" to be performed by women?
quote:I didn't say that there was such a thing as 'women's work', but you will find that most flower-arranging in British churches is done by women. It would be great to get the men involved in that, and in the other activities that have often been carried out in church by women.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Perhaps a good place to start would be with the gendered notion of "women's work"? Why is it that certain tasks "have" to be performed by women?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If, as some people here imply, the 'traditional' (flower-arranging?) lady is a dying or an increasingly irrelevant breed in British churches, then the church in general is going to struggle to live without her. Your church may be in the happy situation of not needing her; the churches I see around me aren't so lucky.
The modern, professional, ambitious woman who hates girly swirly pink, etc., is going to have to take the 'traditional' woman's place if many British churches have any hope of survival, but like the alpha males we're talking about, she's absent from many churches. So perhaps we should consider that changing the temperature/emphasis/approach of church life isn't just about getting more masculine men to attend, but will also create connections with the kinds of women who, outside of certain fashionable congregations, don't feel that church life has anything to offer them that would justify the expenditure of their precious time, or that the professional skills they have would be received with respect.
quote:I'm secure enough in my masculinity not to need the psychological boost of a large craft; Thunderbird 4 was always my favourite.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Girlies the lot of you! Any real man would demand Thunderbird 2!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:No - it always seems to end up flying into the sun. (Or maybe that was just the once and I've seen it too many times.)
Originally posted by Jane R:
Garasu:quote:Paul did.
So I should sign up to a programme that would make my situation worse?
(bagsie Thunderbird 3)
quote:Yes, you did.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The modern, professional, ambitious woman who hates girly swirly pink, etc., is going to have to take the 'traditional' woman's place if many British churches have any hope of survival.
*
*
*I didn't say that there was such a thing as 'women's work.'
quote:Let me try to explain. In the churches I know, there is work that's generally done by women. This is just a fact, although in no sense am I saying that that this work is somehow specially ordained by God or biology to be done by women. But since the women who have traditionally done this work are now dying out (literally as well as figuratively) then it'll either have to be done by other kinds of people, or else won't get done. If the work isn't done then the rate of church closures will increase rapidly.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Yes, you did.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The modern, professional, ambitious woman who hates girly swirly pink, etc., is going to have to take the 'traditional' woman's place if many British churches have any hope of survival.
*
*
*I didn't say that there was such a thing as 'women's work.'
quote:What? You mean that churches will have to close when there's nobody to do the flower arranging?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Let me try to explain. In the churches I know, there is work that's generally done by women. This is just a fact, although in no sense am I saying that that this work is somehow specially ordained by God or biology to be done by women. But since the women who have traditionally done this work are now dying out (literally as well as figuratively) then it'll either have to be done by other kinds of people, or else won't get done. If the work isn't done then the rate of church closures will increase rapidly.
quote:Several years ago I visited a Methodist church in the South Sheffield circuit with my uncle. Out of the 60 people in the leadership and congregation, he and I were the only men. The only way that church will ever get back to an even balance of the sexes is by merging with another church that consists entirely of men... if it can find one.
Studies show that the age and gender profile in many British churches bodes ill for the future. It's a serious concern for the denomination I know best, the Methodist Church, and it definitely worries me. I fully accept that where you and other people live things are very different. I'm simply concerned about the scenario where I am.
quote:Which was the one with the corkscrew on the nose that drilled into the earth? That was my favorite.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm secure enough in my masculinity not to need the psychological boost of a large craft; Thunderbird 4 was always my favourite.
quote:Flower-arranging was a rather frivolous example. However, the women who do the flower-arranging also do plenty of other work in the church.
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
You mean that churches will have to close when there's nobody to do the flower arranging?
quote:They could merge with the Unitarians since they have far more men than women, apparently! Seriously though, your rather extreme experience highlights a real issue. It's one that we prefer to ignore most of the time.
Several years ago I visited a Methodist church in the South Sheffield circuit with my uncle. Out of the 60 people in the leadership and congregation, he and I were the only men. The only way that church will ever get back to an even balance of the sexes is by merging with another church that consists entirely of men... if it can find one.
Angus
quote:The Mole.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which was the one with the corkscrew on the nose that drilled into the earth? That was my favorite.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm secure enough in my masculinity not to need the psychological boost of a large craft; Thunderbird 4 was always my favourite.
quote:This is now getting worryingly Freudian!
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:The Mole.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which was the one with the corkscrew on the nose that drilled into the earth? That was my favorite.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm secure enough in my masculinity not to need the psychological boost of a large craft; Thunderbird 4 was always my favourite.
quote:When (British) Quakers are running courses for boys on "becoming a spiritual warrior", I think I can claim that there's something of a tide...
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Your question seems to assume that Christianity is this monolithic, monochromatic thing.
quote:Again, the issue of 'Christian manliness' is only an issue for those churches that face such an issue! For those that don't, they can continue in their own merry way, untroubled by such challenges.
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps the flower arranging wasn't such a daft topic after all?
Actually, we do have a male flower arranger at my church - he's rather good at it. And he went to give a demonstration at the youth group, where he got all the youngsters (male and female) to make their own arrangements in unusual containers eg. welly boots. It went down well because it was so different from the sort of things they usually did.
So you never can tell.
quote:Carried in the belly of Thunderbird 2...
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:This is now getting worryingly Freudian!
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:The Mole.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which was the one with the corkscrew on the nose that drilled into the earth? That was my favorite.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm secure enough in my masculinity not to need the psychological boost of a large craft; Thunderbird 4 was always my favourite.
quote:The only way? Really? You mean it's absolutely impossible for men to choose to start attending a church full of women?
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The only way that church will ever get back to an even balance of the sexes is by merging with another church that consists entirely of men... if it can find one.
