|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A church for men
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Maybe liberal churches, where it's OK to admit to such thoughts, aren't too good at advertising themselves?
I don't think this has anything to do with the theological position of the church. Doubting / exploring assumes that all options are open. I've been to several liberal churches where the one thing you are not allowed to doubt is your doubt!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It's no disrespect to the many suggestions above, which all merit discussion, but I increasingly feel that the danger is of over-analysing this. The fact remains that for whatever reasons, going to church has become sucked into the orbit of "gender". You don't need any more explanations once that happens - it's the explanation in itself and not a symptom.
There is still the matter of how it got there, and how we might get it out again, assuming we want to do that, though.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
So many posts, and I still don't buy the thesis that men are fleeing the Church in droves because there is something "unmanly" about the Church. IMHO this is at heart an excuse cooked up by conservative misogynists in (mostly Protestant) churches as a passive-aggressive way to take a swing at women achieving or hoping to achieve gender equity in those churches.
From everything I've read, in general younger adults of both genders are fleeing churches because they find organized religion scientifically and socially backward and hypocritical...and unlike past generations who felt a certain social pressure to be at least nominal churchgoers, the under-40's of today have no pressure at all to keep up religious appearances -- not even in their teens, when they're still living at home. These people have simply said, "To hell with it all," and walked away.
And of course the holy folks wringing their hands over "not enough men in church" are not going to want to address this much larger issue, because many of the younger generations' complaints against Christianity directly attack their theological and social-policy sacred cows.
[ 30. January 2011, 20:48: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Something in that. My wife and I agree more often on the doubts and worries and annoyances than we do on the "message".
We are both turned off by the same sorts of attitudes expressed in churches. Attending a particular church today because of an announcement by the bishop to be made there revealed to us a place that was more concerned about the choreography of the service than it was about the meaning of what they were doing. Not a happy-making place.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Also, like it or not, many men do not like being preached at by women, whether they admit it or not.
So some men are sexist bigots? What's new?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So many posts, and I still don't buy the thesis that men are fleeing the Church in droves because there is something "unmanly" about the Church. IMHO this is at heart an excuse cooked up by conservative misogynists in (mostly Protestant) churches as a passive-aggressive way to take a swing at women achieving or hoping to achieve gender equity in those churches.
From everything I've read, in general younger adults of both genders are fleeing churches because they find organized religion scientifically and socially backward and hypocritical...and unlike past generations who felt a certain social pressure to be at least nominal churchgoers, the under-40's of today have no pressure at all to keep up religious appearances -- not even in their teens, when they're still living at home. These people have simply said, "To hell with it all," and walked away.
And of course the holy folks wringing their hands over "not enough men in church" are not going to want to address this much larger issue, because many of the younger generations' complaints against Christianity directly attack their theological and social-policy sacred cows.
Bingo.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Marvin's notion that people don't come (or stop coming) because they don't believe is probably true.
Actually, Chorister, Marvin said that men don't come to church because 'they don't believe in all that crap'; not that people don't come to church for that reason. Women apparently are still believing the crap. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm intrigued, too, by his assertion that there is nothing for men at church. Considering Church is still basically what it has always been from early times, a collaboration of men's institutionalism, men's theology, men's doctrine, men's liturgy and men's leadership, Marvin's claim is at least interesting if not revealing!
For those men who find that a woman's voice in the pulpit is dislikeable, because it is a woman's voice (as suggested by another poster), little can be done on that score by the female preacher. I find my dislike in listening to any speaker - in or outside of church - lies in the content of what they say rather than their sperm count, but I daresay that's very biased of me.
The 'weaker sex' has managed to put up with endless millenia of listening to the male voice drone on from pulpit, lectern, woolsack, family table, head office and despatch box and managed to survive without emptying the building. Surely what is achievable by a mere girl is at least potentially within the grasp of the superior animal?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So many posts, and I still don't buy the thesis that men are fleeing the Church in droves because there is something "unmanly" about the Church. IMHO this is at heart an excuse cooked up by conservative misogynists in (mostly Protestant) churches as a passive-aggressive way to take a swing at women achieving or hoping to achieve gender equity in those churches.
From everything I've read, in general younger adults of both genders are fleeing churches because they find organized religion scientifically and socially backward and hypocritical...and unlike past generations who felt a certain social pressure to be at least nominal churchgoers, the under-40's of today have no pressure at all to keep up religious appearances -- not even in their teens, when they're still living at home. These people have simply said, "To hell with it all," and walked away.
And of course the holy folks wringing their hands over "not enough men in church" are not going to want to address this much larger issue, because many of the younger generations' complaints against Christianity directly attack their theological and social-policy sacred cows.
Bingo.
I'm not sure specifically what 'social policy sacred cows' LuthernChik is referring to but 'double-bingo' for the rest.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is getting stupid. Why don't men go to church? Because they don't believe in all that crap.
So if it's crap, you're saying that women just aren't smart enough to figure that out, and men are?
I phrased the comment exactly the same way most non-churchgoing men I know would answer the question "why don't you go to church?"
I imagine most non-churchgoing women I know would answer in a similar vein as well. But this thread is about men.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm intrigued, too, by his assertion that there is nothing for men at church. Considering Church is still basically what it has always been from early times, a collaboration of men's institutionalism, men's theology, men's doctrine, men's liturgy and men's leadership, Marvin's claim is at least interesting if not revealing!
OK, here's an idea. I'll think of a non-churchgoing male friend of mine at random (I have many to choose from), and you try to think of one thing church can offer him that he actually thinks he needs. If you're so sure church has so much to offer, it should be easy, right?
OK, I pick Alex. He's early 20s, in a long-term relationship (no marriage plans I'm aware of), from a reasonably rich family, and has never been a religious sort of person. He likes going out to clubs, holidays in Spain, football and cricket. What has church got that he's going to want? Anything?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Marvin the Martian: I am not at all surprised by your choice of Alex, in demographic terms, as a person unlikely to attend church.
Since this thread relies on stereotypes and gross generalizations about men, I'll go with that. A young (let's say 18-25 year old) Western heterosexual male probably is unlikely to see much value in church attendance or participation. That particular demographic might be more interested in education/job training, working, leisure activities, and getting laid. Churches usually don't offer much in the way of helpful access to education or work (scholarships, networking opportunities). Liberalish mainline denominations don't involve themselves with the relevant sports and leisure activities. Church as a place for easy hook-ups: it's certainly not organized or promoted as such. So there isn't much overlap with the stereotyped interests of Alex and his peers.
However, I have seen - I would even say often - that young men return to or start attending and participating in church upon becoming husbands, or especially dads. When the kids are 5-12 years of age, dads show up. The age 25-50 age bracket of men is not as absent from church in my experience as it is of ken's.
How could Christianity appeal to young men like Alex? Should we present the possibility of violent and glorious jihad? Access to social prestige? The youth group as jailbait? I don't find these possible, let alone palatable. So I guess we will need more imagination, or something, to appeal to Alex and his ilk; or we can just wait them out. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
After all, these very young men who have no business with "weakness" soon will. They will have infants, children, elderly parents, partners who become sick - all weak, all in need of compassion and help. Ayn Rand won't suit them forever, because they will (hopefully) come to realize that they are an anomaly in what they perceive as strength and self-direction. Not that Christianity should capitalize on that weakness (or let's call it brokenness, perhaps)... but I do think that people who have experienced brokenness are more open to the Christian message.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
No kidding. My congregation includes several custodial dads, several men providing primary caregiving to homebound elders or spouses.
Once again, I find the entire attempt to polarlize men and women over the issue of church attedance to be so much bullshit. And, once again, I find that the biggest proponents tend to be males who have issues with women in leadership positions in churches, who are projecting their own anxieties onto other men and onto the Church itself.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Alex is just the sort to be invited to an alpha course. The popular image of it, at least, is of well-off 20 or 30 somethings who will respond to a presentation by a lawyer to several people of similar background. I don't know if it's normal now, but there was a theory going round several years ago that some of the success was that they looked behind the apparent strength of such people and discovered a weakness in the past (eg. being abandoned at boarding school at age 7). The theme of 'healing past hurts' especially in the later stages of the course, eg. weekend away, was apparently rather effective at breaking down these barriers.
I must admit I don't like this philosophy much - and it can be found in other places than alpha courses; I've seen it on general church weekends away and at Saturday celebrations / study days - why does someone need to be broken down in order to persuade them that they need the church? And what if they're broken down and can't be put back together again?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Interesting how "Alex" also falls into the demographic of those most likely to commit suicide (admittedly, that's looking at age and gender only, not taking into account factors like socioeconomic status).
I don't believe in "breaking people down" -- that sounds terrible -- but if it is true that everyone has a need for God and salvation (which is debatable, I realize, but I think it's true) then you do have a problem with the fact that some people are likely to be much more aware of that need than others are. Is it the job of the church to help people become aware of their need for God, to point out areas of need, pain, emptiness and sin in their lives which they may be in denial about? Or do we just sit back and wait till people's life circumstances bring them to the point where they do feel a need for God?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... why does someone need to be broken down in order to persuade them that they need the church?
I did not say that, nor would I endorse that (if this was addressed to my post). I specifically said that Christianity should not capitalize on brokenness, but that people who had experienced brokenness were more likely to be receptive. If your church preaches that people ought to be "broken down" in order to be persuaded... uh... Run Away!
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
No kidding. My congregation includes several custodial dads, several men providing primary caregiving to homebound elders or spouses.
Once again, I find the entire attempt to polarlize men and women over the issue of church attedance to be so much bullshit. And, once again, I find that the biggest proponents tend to be males who have issues with women in leadership positions in churches, who are projecting their own anxieties onto other men and onto the Church itself.
Yes. As I said early on, any time I've heard this question raised, the answer always seems to be some version of John Edridge/ Mark Driscoll's "muscular Christianity"-- one that elevates masculinity by diminishing women (e.g. Eldridge's every woman is a "princess-waiting-to-be-rescued fairy tale"). Everything that's been said so far on this thread seems to bear that out. If there's a reasonable argument to be made that there actually IS a decline in male attendees (rather than, as has been noted, a decline in overall attendance) and if that can be addressed w/o throwing women under the bus, yes, I'd be happy to hear it. But so far I've yet to hear it.
This debate reminds me of the recent furor around the "gender gap in higher education". Within the last decade, the percentage of women going on to college has risen so that women now make up 56% of college graduates. This has been spun into a "war on boys" and all sorts of hand-wringing about how our educational system is "failing boys". Until more thoughtful statisticians looked more closely and realized that the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
Seems like the same thing may be at play here.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
cliffdweller wrote:- quote:
This debate reminds me of the recent furor around the "gender gap in higher education". Within the last decade, the percentage of women going on to college has risen so that women now make up 56% of college graduates. This has been spun into a "war on boys" and all sorts of hand-wringing about how our educational system is "failing boys". Until more thoughtful statisticians looked more closely and realized that the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
"The war on Boys" spiel clearly comes from some sort of culture wars hinterland. But this sort of finding doesn't seem to track recent British stats. I have seen. Would you mind citing a reference for it, please? (I don't want to debate it, just get an idea for what is going on).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
"The war on Boys" spiel clearly comes from some sort of culture wars hinterland. But this sort of finding doesn't seem to track recent British stats. I have seen. Would you mind citing a reference for it, please? (I don't want to debate it, just get an idea for what is going on).
If you google "gender disparity in college graduation" you'll get a ton of hits covering a wide variation in interpretation. Here's a couple written from different perspectives:
sees cause for concern
sees less alarming factors at play
Are you saying you don't have the same so-called gender gap ("so-called" because 56% doesn't seem like that big a gap) in the UK?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... why does someone need to be broken down in order to persuade them that they need the church?
I did not say that, nor would I endorse that (if this was addressed to my post). I specifically said that Christianity should not capitalize on brokenness, but that people who had experienced brokenness were more likely to be receptive. If your church preaches that people ought to be "broken down" in order to be persuaded... uh... Run Away!
I would just like to make it clear that my comment was not in reply to Leaf, or anyone else specifically. It was a general query, related in some part to observations made at a rather disturbing weekend I attended, plus comments from a fellow churchgoer who had been subjected to these techniques.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having looked around a bit, I don't think the problem is "why aren't men going to church?" so much as it is "why aren't people going to church?"
I rather agree with the comments about stereotyping men. Women are just as likely to NOT go to church, although there may be some difference in the reasons.
"Church" doesn't offer much to people who don't even see the need the church would like to think is there. And "Church" speaks a language that is completely alien to the ears of over half of the population.
I recently attended a church which has shrunk to one-quarter of the congregation it had ten years ago. The solution? Better quality of chant in the sung Eucharist! That'll get them knocking the doors down!
Not.
Nothing like repeating what you've been doing, even if it has had negative results.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Marvin the Martian: I am not at all surprised by your choice of Alex, in demographic terms, as a person unlikely to attend church.
...
However, I have seen - I would even say often - that young men return to or start attending and participating in church upon becoming husbands, or especially dads. When the kids are 5-12 years of age, dads show up. The age 25-50 age bracket of men is not as absent from church in my experience as it is of ken's.
...
After all, these very young men who have no business with "weakness" soon will. They will have infants, children, elderly parents, partners who become sick - all weak, all in need of compassion and help. Ayn Rand won't suit them forever, because they will (hopefully) come to realize that they are an anomaly in what they perceive as strength and self-direction. Not that Christianity should capitalize on that weakness (or let's call it brokenness, perhaps)... but I do think that people who have experienced brokenness are more open to the Christian message.
While I agree that the church has little or nothing to appeal to Alex and his friends, at least as the church now operates and teaches, I think you do them a disservice by referring to Ayn RAnd. Their opinions are not particularly based on her kinds of teaching, and I don't really think they are based on a disdain for or ignorance of weakness. THeir opinions are firmly based on what they think the church is and on what (little) they know (or misunderstand) about what it teaches. When my son was at a comparable age, his comment to me when I asked was that his friends "know" that the church is made up of literal fundamentalists or priests buggering little boys. You don't hve to be a follower of Ayn Rand to want to stay miles away from that.
As for "Well, they'll come back when they have kids of their own", that certainly used to be true. But it has largely stopped being true in much of Canada over the last 10 years or so. It's just that we're so used to relying on the reappearance of the late 20s and their families that we forget that many of them never "appeared" at all -- so there's going to be no "re-appearance". The critical change in attendance happened 30 years ago or more, when people now in their 50s and 60s stopped attending themselves, and stopped bringing their own children to church.
[ETA: For Canadians and some other inhabitants of North America: Reginald Bibby did a study several years ago in which he found that churches (all of us, of every stripe) retain or get back as adults one in ten of those who ever as children attended church, church school or a religious "day school". That's a maximum of how many we actually have in our tight grasp today aged 10 or under will likely "reappear"]
John
[ 31. January 2011, 21:52: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... When my son was at a comparable age, his comment to me when I asked was that his friends "know" that the church is made up of literal fundamentalists or priests buggering little boys. You don't have to be a follower of Ayn Rand to want to stay miles away from that.
In this card game, an anecdote beats a stereotype, and I don't have an anecdote to counter yours. Oh well. Whether or not individuals have read Ayn Rand and decided, officially and thoroughly, to adopt her philosophy - or whether they simply live in an "I'm all right, Jack" version of it - the effect is the same, no?
quote:
As for "Well, they'll come back when they have kids of their own", that certainly used to be true.
And may still be true as a kind of holdover effect among Lutherans, due to family and cultural pressures. But it's true that these pressures are rapidly evaporating. I agree, it's likely that that rate of return is diminishing and will probably continue to do so.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
My three sets of close friends who are atheists are very socially aware and responsible, and very good parents.
They don't go to church because they think it is superstitious nonsense, and because of the harm they see caused both now and historically by religious violence and intolerance.
Their non-attendance is not a product of lack of care for those around them, or inferior moral reasoning.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Marvin the Martian: I am not at all surprised by your choice of Alex, in demographic terms, as a person unlikely to attend church.
If you think I was cheating by picking him, I can pick friends from other demographics. How about Steve: early fifties, married with a kid, runs his own business, likes his golf? Or Dave: thirties, seven kids, casual employment? Or Tony: retired, grown-up kids, enjoys a tipple?
These are all real people, not stereotypes. I could give you their phone numbers if it wasn't completely unethical to do so.
The point is: none of them have any interest in church. What is church going to do about that: blame them for not liking it as it is, or blame itself for not being able to reach out to them in any meaningful way? I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm intrigued, too, by his assertion that there is nothing for men at church. Considering Church is still basically what it has always been from early times, a collaboration of men's institutionalism, men's theology, men's doctrine, men's liturgy and men's leadership, Marvin's claim is at least interesting if not revealing!
OK, here's an idea. I'll think of a non-churchgoing male friend of mine at random (I have many to choose from), and you try to think of one thing church can offer him that he actually thinks he needs. If you're so sure church has so much to offer, it should be easy, right?
OK, I pick Alex. He's early 20s, in a long-term relationship (no marriage plans I'm aware of), from a reasonably rich family, and has never been a religious sort of person. He likes going out to clubs, holidays in Spain, football and cricket. What has church got that he's going to want? Anything?
How would I know? Do I know Alex's inner spiritual life? No. Do I know anything about his ability to convince himself he don't need God or the friendship of Christ because he's got a nice car and goes clubbing in Ibiza? No. Do I think the church is about advertizing itself as a problem-solving machine to the world? No.
As I understand the OP it's about the distinction between why women do go to church and why men don't. And your Alex sounds exactly like many women of the same ilk.
So you tell me what's different about Alex's staying away from a place he doesn't believe can help him and Alex's girlfriend staying away from a place she doesn't believe can help her?
For my own part just because I don't believe a place or an institution can't help me doesn't mean it can't. Presumably Alex is a big boy who can make his own decisions. It may not be very evangelical of me but if that's Alex's grown up decision about religion, I would respect it.
For what it's worth, I've been telling people for years that declining attendance is exacerbated by the 'I've got everything I want, what can the church give me' attitude. I suspect that people have always felt this way, as materialism has been around since Adam ate the apple; but in recent times we don't expect attendance of 'respectable' people any more so people don't bother any more.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The point is: none of them have any interest in church. What is church going to do about that: blame them for not liking it as it is, or blame itself for not being able to reach out to them in any meaningful way? I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
The best thing they all have is a friend who is a Christian, who treats them like normal people, and who isn't just their friend in order to persuade them to come to church or to convert.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
"The war on Boys" spiel clearly comes from some sort of culture wars hinterland. But this sort of finding doesn't seem to track recent British stats. I have seen. Would you mind citing a reference for it, please? (I don't want to debate it, just get an idea for what is going on).
If you google "gender disparity in college graduation" you'll get a ton of hits covering a wide variation in interpretation. Here's a couple written from different perspectives:
sees cause for concern
sees less alarming factors at play
Are you saying you don't have the same so-called gender gap ("so-called" because 56% doesn't seem like that big a gap) in the UK?
Thank you for the links, cliffdweller. I'll take a look at them a.s.a.p.
To answer your question - yes, we see a similar "gender gap" here too - that wasn't what I meant. What I was thinking about was the following bit:-
quote:
the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
What seems to have happened here is that up to the end of the immediate post-WW2 period there was a substantial bias in the number of males going to university over females. Since WW2 there has of course been substantial progress made in rectifying this imbalance. This started well before the women's movement crystallised though of course they came to play an important part in due course.
It was what happened around the early '90's (IIRC) that kicked the current concerns off here. The general working assumptions we had were that boys and girls should have equal access to HE, and that was an early objective of first-wave feminism. However, as the percentages converged, instead of behaving asymptotically, as had been expected, the changes appeared to accelerate. Indeed, they crossed over and the year-on-year change seems to be accelerating still.
I have some literature on this - if you are interested I could probably locate it, but it may be worth a separate thread. However, the concerns certainly have nothing to do with conservative christians in the way you mean in the US context - it is a current hot topic in education and has been the subject of some anxious papers by the last Labour government, included funded research.
Back to your scheduled service...
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
Yes, I do. What do you think that would be?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller: Within the last decade, the percentage of women going on to college has risen so that women now make up 56% of college graduates... the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
Twenty years ago the word was that the schools were failing girls. Were they? At any rate, changes were made. Now that there's evidence that they are disproportionately failing boys, all kinds of excuses are made to pay no attention.
The fact that many more girls are going to college now is partly attributable to university growth to accommodate them. Given this, doesn't it stand to reason that the percentage of boys going to college should grow somewhat as well? There's no preferential treatment for admission of girls. On the contrary, college admissions departments are beginning to worry that the ratio will begin to exceed 3:2, at which point both men and women find the campus atmosphere vaguely unpleasant and will prefer to attend one where this is not the case. The problem is a relative shortage of qualified male applicants. This can be due to one of two causes. Either boys inherently tend to be less qualified for higher education (read: dumber), or their school experience is somehow creating a handicap, either in their ability or their ambitions.
Which is it?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The fact that many more girls are going to college now is partly attributable to university growth to accommodate them. Given this, doesn't it stand to reason that the percentage of boys going to college should grow somewhat as well? There's no preferential treatment for admission of girls. On the contrary, college admissions departments are beginning to worry that the ratio will begin to exceed 3:2, at which point both men and women find the campus atmosphere vaguely unpleasant and will prefer to attend one where this is not the case. The problem is a relative shortage of qualified male applicants. This can be due to one of two causes. Either boys inherently tend to be less qualified for higher education (read: dumber), or their school experience is somehow creating a handicap, either in their ability or their ambitions.
Which is it?
While I agree with you in some of what you're saying, there is I think more at work here.
The fact is that men can get fairly high-paying work with a high-school diploma, in construction for instance. Males also become auto mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, firefighters, and truckers at a much greater rate than women do. Women with only high school degrees end up, instead, as cashiers at Walmart or caretakers of some sort.
Men, in other words, can earn a pretty good living as skilled laborers without having to go to college. (Women can do these things, too, but we don't see their numbers rising here, either, as far as I know.) In fact, after the dot-com bubble, some of the guys I was working with at the time who got laid off wondered if it might not be better - and more steady in terms of career - to become plumbers. Not sure whether they did it or not.
[ 01. February 2011, 22:37: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually firefighting requires a 2-year degree, at least in these parts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
A combination of school experience and peer/social pressure is pushing boys away from further education.
There's quite a lot of research to show that preschool boys mature at a later age than girls, which means that their manual dexterity is worse, and there attention span and ability to sit is less developed. So, when they are found to be unable to colour between the lines or form letters, thay are marked as "substandard" educationaly, with "why can't you sit still like the girls do?" thrown at them far too often.
And then they get behind in reading level
And then they begin to react defensively
It also doesn't help that too many primary teachers are Math-phobic and science-illiterate, so the boys end up with fewer of the clues than they need in all sorts of ways.
AND, in all sorts of advertising, magazines, TV, Internet and parental attitude, guys are supposed to be yeling buffoons who drive ATVs through streams, who cavort drunkenly to show off (to hide their incompetence?), or who can't cook, or...all sorts of negative imaging, so they have even less incentive to sit up, pay attention and actually do the work.
Just look at the general societal attitude to geeks and nerds or other people who know anything, as expressed by politicians as well as by the actual party guys (who are pretty close to being bullies too much of the time).
Why would you expose yourself to open ridicule by knowing something, if you are at all uncertain?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually firefighting requires a 2-year degree, at least in these parts.
Yes, I think qualifications are different in different areas.
And actually 2-year colleges are another place you find a lot of guys who aren't planning to get 4-year degrees or more.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
Yes, I do. What do you think that would be?
I'm the one saying it hasn't got anything relevant to say to them, remember? I'm interested in what you think the church has got that's so amazing they should be flocking through the doors if only they'd open their ears.
[ETA:] I mean, isn't that part of the problem here? People who are already in church are asking why others don't share their love of it. It's like they're saying "christianity is so amazingly wonderful, why doesn't everyone else want to be part of it?"
And I'm thinking, well I think railway photography is amazingly wonderful, but I don't expect everyone else to want to do it as well. It's just that religious peopole do expect that. It's like they find it hard to understand that perfectly normal people, with no particular reason to dislike the church, simply aren't interested.
[ 02. February 2011, 10:22: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The fact that many more girls are going to college now is partly attributable to university growth to accommodate them.
No, its entirely because girls on average get better exam results at school.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Men, in other words, can earn a pretty good living as skilled laborers without having to go to college.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) Those jobs you just mentioned are not labouring jobs. They are all skilled trades. There is a difference. They are not at all the equivalent of working on a checkout. And the time it takes to train for them isn't much different from the time you'd spend getting a degree.
The truth is that labouring jobs have almost disappeared. They hardly exist any more. And it is now typically harder for an unskilled or low-skilled man to earn money than it is for a woman in the same circumstances.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually firefighting requires a 2-year degree, at least in these parts.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Here it only needs a driving licence!
Not that that means they take anyone - they have thousands more applicants than jobs every year so they can pretty much pick who they want. And there is a lot of training involved.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There's quite a lot of research to show that preschool boys mature at a later age than girls, which means that their manual dexterity is worse, and there attention span and ability to sit is less developed.
Yes. Except you don't need research, its obvious to anyone who has ever met a child. And forget preschool, the difference in maturity peaks at puberty. Basically an average 12-year-old girl is at the same developmental level as an average 14-year-old boy.
So girsl get a head at school at that age because at that age they really are, on average, cleverer. And they really are more mature. So they really are capable of better work. So if other things are equal they get better marks at school. The boys typically catch up sometime between age 16 and 18 but by that time at least some of them will have become discouraged and dropped out. At least in their own heads, even if they are still turning up to school. Not all of them, not most of them, probably not even many of them. But easily enough to explain why more girls get in to college, and why more girls want to get into college.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Men, in other words, can earn a pretty good living as skilled laborers without having to go to college.
Those jobs you just mentioned are not labouring jobs. They are all skilled trades. There is a difference. They are not at all the equivalent of working on a checkout. And the time it takes to train for them isn't much different from the time you'd spend getting a degree.
The truth is that labouring jobs have almost disappeared. They hardly exist any more. And it is now typically harder for an unskilled or low-skilled man to earn money than it is for a woman in the same circumstances.
You're not paying attention to what the topic is here, or to what I've said, either.
First: I did use the word "skilled." See it up there?
Second: Yes, there is often an apprenticeship, or vocational training for these skilled jobs - but that's not the question here. Alogon's question is about "college applications and admissions."
Third: I totally agree that "they are not at all the equivalent of working on a checkout" - that's the whole point. "Working on a checkout" is what women with only high school degrees mostly have to look forward to. This article says:
quote:
Furthermore, entering the workforce or going to college are not the only options after high school. One option is apprenticeship programs, such as those for electricians, plumbers, contractors, auto mechanics, etc. The number of people in apprenticeship programs in the United States is difficult to find, but the breakdown in Canada for 2001 was 197,500 men and 20,060 women, or just over 90% men. (9) In the United States, women make up only about 6-7% of apprenticeship programs. (10) In 1999, men comprised 98.5% of carpenters, 98.5% of auto mechanics and 97.8% of electricians. (11) Men also make up the vast majority of police officers, firefighters and military personnel: positions that don’t necessarily require a college degree, but can be a very solid career path. In 2009 for example, 10% of male high school graduates who did not attend college were in the military at the age of 21. (13) Again, whether by social construct, biology, or undeniably a mix of the two, men tend to favor manual labor more than women. So it is no surprise that these fields have been and continue to be dominated by men.
So stop being . You haven't read what I've actually written here.
The point is that men often do something besides going to college, and can get paid pretty well for doing it. For women, on the other hand, college itself is the way to good pay.
[ 02. February 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
The idea of slow, unmotivated boys just doesn't match my own experience in public school. In my classes the boys very often set the academic pace, while the girls -- even if they were very bright -- "played dumb" because of the family/societal/peer expectation that they do so.
Once again -- I don't think any of this has anything to do with "There's no men in church because the church isn't masculine enough." I think that's utter crap. Bullshit. Bollocks. And so far I've not read a single post here that would lead me to change my mind...it's just so much regurgitated popular-whizdumb whineging from alarmist morning teevee.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The idea of slow, unmotivated boys just doesn't match my own experience in public school. In my classes the boys very often set the academic pace, while the girls -- even if they were very bright -- "played dumb" because of the family/societal/peer expectation that they do so.
I think what's being argued here - and has been argued for awhile - is that this situation has reversed itself in the past 20 years or so. That, IOW, girls are getting all the attention in school now and boys are being left behind.
There may be some truth to this - but it's still sometimes true that girls "play dumb," I think. Not anywhere near as much as used to be the case, though. But of course, I don't have kids of this age so I'm not totally sure. (I've taught special-needs kids of high-school age, but that's a different sort of situation that might not say much about any other.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
First: I did use the word "skilled." See it up there?
Then you contradicted it with "labouring".
You really weren't comparing like with like - those jobs are the equivalent of the sort of jobs you go to college for, not unskilled ones like a checkout.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The idea of slow, unmotivated boys just doesn't match my own experience in public school. In my classes the boys very often set the academic pace, while the girls -- even if they were very bright -- "played dumb" because of the family/societal/peer expectation that they do so.
Almost certainly the teaching was biased to favour boys. As it still is in most schools - teachers seem very very bad at realising they are doing it. Sexism is so ingrained in the ways most of people think that when we believe we are bing fair we are nearly always favouring boys over girls.
Which is why you need a to pay attention to boring measurable things to be genuinely even-handed. Treat the sexes equally, and girls start doing better.
Whern I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s they actually fixed 11-plus and A-level results in favour of boys - girls had to get more marks in the exams to get the same grade.
[ 02. February 2011, 13:21: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
First: I did use the word "skilled." See it up there?
Then you contradicted it with "labouring".
You really weren't comparing like with like - those jobs are the equivalent of the sort of jobs you go to college for, not unskilled ones like a checkout.
Perhaps a pond difference then; "Trades" and "Skilled Labor" are interchangeable here.
And I was specifically attempting to make a contrast, yes! Which was this: that women mostly don't have anything but the checkout counter to look forward to - they are only 9% at most in the "trades" - unless they go to college.
That WAS and IS my point in actual fact - the contrast itself!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This article says:
quote:
Furthermore, entering the workforce or going to college are not the only options after high school. One option is apprenticeship programs, such as those for electricians, plumbers, contractors, auto mechanics, etc.
We have some of those too. We call them "Poland" and "Lithuania".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
With regard to girls and boys in school, there does seem to be evidence that, in general, girls' and boys' brains work slightly differently. Boys are slower to develop language, and are more likely to have a language difficulty. Girls find spatial thinking harder. So, as well as cultural influences, there are also biological differences that make girls more likely to excel at subjects like English and boys more likely to excel at subjects like maths.
Of course, that is a generalisation and won't apply to everyone - but with regard to churches, they do tend to be very language-based in my experience, so possibly something more visual/spatial or more about numbers would appeal more to men.
One church I attended where the men got really enthused was when the pastor decided to look at outreach from a business perspective.There was a new guy to the church who was a businessman, and the pastor put him in charge of this, and we had a meeting which was basically like a business meeting - using business jargon and sales jargon, and seeing outreach in terms of how to make our church appeal to people, how to make it sell. The men got very enthused, while the women disagreed with this approach. I didn't much like it, because I find business jargon annoying, and it seemed to be taking the personal element out of faith and looking it as a sort of business challenge - but maybe that technique could be combined effectively with the more caring touchy-feely techniques, to bring in a more objective perspective, and to cater for the different ways people's minds can work.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
..., they do tend to be very language-based in my experience, so possibly something more visual/spatial or more about numbers would appeal more to men.
Well, yes, but, except that the differences are statistically insignificant in adults. Yes, on average girls of a certain age are better at language then boys of the same age. But once we've all grown up there is hardly anything in it. Certainly not enough to explain the huge difference in things like churchgoing - or even football-match-going. The overlap between the two sexes on any measurable character is likely to be huge, so most people of either sex are in pretty much the same ballpark as most of the other sex.
Quite a lot of popular writing or journalism on the difference between women's and men's brains, or between teenagers and adults, is - to use the technical scientific term - bollocks. To a first approximation I'd say all of it is. Effectively all of it is either trying to sell you something or to scare you into agreeing with some political view. So when you read an article on it or see a TV programme the best thing to do is to try to work out what they are trying to mainipulate you into, not whether or not its true, because frankly it isn't. Popular science journalism is mostly crap when it comes to neurology, sex differences, and drugs. There are honourable exceptions - the Economist of course, and most of what the Guardian publishes (though not its sister paper the Observer) - but even the Telegraph or the BBC are piss-poor.
But some are specatcularly bad. The Daily Mail's medical and scientfic coverage is a disgrace. It varies from a joke to a lie. And its not even consistent, for example: Coffee makes your brain more alert and Coffee makes us less alert and Coffee causes Alzheimer's and Coffee protects against Alzheimer's and best of all, in today's issue: Coffee makes women's brains work better and men's worse.
Its impossible to imagine that their science editor even beleives this sort of shite - they look on it as a kind of humour I think, mocking the poor little nerds who dare to try to actually think for themselves and find things out about nature intead of believeing what the Great White Goddess tells them.
All is not lost however! There is an antidote available! Just read Language Log and The Daily Mail list of 'Things that give you cancer' (including cofee of course) and most of all Bad Science
[ 02. February 2011, 15:10: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
On the dumbing down thing, I wonder if we aren't in the middle of a flip-flop. It used to be that the girls were most likely to dumb down to avoid appearing "too smart". It seems, anecdotally at least and I realize that isn't research but it can point to places where research should be done, that more and more boys are doing this. It isn't "cool" in teen male culture to be seen as "too smart".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
tangent alert:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[QUOTE]
I have some literature on this - if you are interested I could probably locate it, but it may be worth a separate thread. However, the concerns certainly have nothing to do with conservative christians in the way you mean in the US context - it is a current hot topic in education and has been the subject of some anxious papers by the last Labour government, included funded research.
Back to your scheduled service...
I wasn't implicating conservative Christians in the hand-wringing, it is indeed a hot topic in academia here as well (I'm a univ. prof.). My point was simply that stats that are often read as alarming from a male pov simply reflect great strides among women. The same I suspect is true when it comes to men's involvement in church. Of course, in both cases (as in most things) it's more complex than that-- multiple factors, causes, at play.
Again, back to the scheduled discussion...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whern I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s they actually fixed 11-plus and A-level results in favour of boys - girls had to get more marks in the exams to get the same grade.
In Plymouth there are two grammar schools for girls but only one for boys. I cannot believe that pupils need exactly the same grades to get in - when the schools are full, they are full.
Actually, that's a thought - given how competitive many men are (and women too?) why not say the churches are full - there's nothing like being put on a waiting list to make people really keen to join something. (Church schools are a case in point.)
Of course, there's always the risk that they'll turn round and say, 'Oh well, I'll do something else instead then'.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
in all sorts of advertising, magazines, TV, Internet and parental attitude, guys are supposed to be yeling buffoons who drive ATVs through streams, who cavort drunkenly to show off (to hide their incompetence?), or who can't cook, or...all sorts of negative imaging, so they have even less incentive to sit up, pay attention and actually do the work.
Oh my, yes. Today, in cartoons and advertising it's usually the wife who outsmarts the husband and gets the last word. When I was young, it was usually the other way around: the husband lecturing the bimbo wife and setting her straight. Both stereotypes are demeaning and unfair.
quote:
Just look at the general societal attitude to geeks and nerds or other people who know anything, as expressed by politicians as well as by the actual party guys (who are pretty close to being bullies too much of the time).
Maybe it's just part of living in a university town, but I often hear "geek" or "geeky" as almost a compliment. Even if you don't want to be a geek, it can make life easier to know one. I also recall a report of research showing that the trait women most often value and seek in men is intelligence.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Oh my, yes. Today, in cartoons and advertising it's usually the wife who outsmarts the husband and gets the last word. When I was young, it was usually the other way around: the husband lecturing the bimbo wife and setting her straight. Both stereotypes are demeaning and unfair.
In terms of comedy entertainment, screwing up because of incompetence or foolishness is usually equated with "being the lead character". (Doing something in a smoothly competent manner usually isn't all that funny.) Given that understanding, complaining that men have more buffoonish roles in contemporary comedy is essentially complaining that there are too many men in leading comedy roles.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I DON'T live in a university town, ad the "nerds" and "geeks" tend to be the ones singled out for "attention" (in the negative sense)
And there is a university town about 40 minutes away, one that used to have two iron foundries as well. The town is still hierarchically split along "gown", "town" and "ewww, workers" lines, twenty years after the foundries closed. Rejection works both ways.
While the children of the "gown" get mobility from their education and go away, the children of the "workers" tend to get turned off education before they find the ticket out. That's the source of most of the "educated people don't really know anything, anyway" sentiment that the politicians love to spout.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
LutheranChik wrote: quote:
And so far I've not read a single post here that would lead me to change my mind...it's just so much regurgitated popular-whizdumb whineging from alarmist morning teevee.
OK - let's try again.
1. We need to be reasonably clear what we mean by "gender" here. Originally just meaning "a sort or variety" (as remains the case in grammar), as a result of feminist thought it has come to mean (helpfully I think) matters related to what different sexes do or think, apart from their reproductive functions, for which the word sex is retained. It is not a prissy euphemism for the word sex.
2. But let's step back a moment. Anthropology tells us that not absolutely all societies have developed ideas of gender that track sex. Most do, to be sure, but not all. Nobody would argue that the sex urge is not a powerful force. It seems that the need to to divide ourselves up into sorts is even stronger. We don't know of any society that doesn't divide itself up into genders, whether or not they are based on a sex template. In any event, ideas of gender and gender roles do track sex in all western countries and that is the way it works at present. Perhaps in some future world we might divide ourselves into sorts based on something else. But pretending we can construct unsorted societies looks like moonshine, until perhaps we evolve into something else.
3. As Ken has pointed out, there are indeed differences between the sexes that are not directly related to reproductive function, but in general their distributions are pretty well overlapped. As a simplistic criterion, they do not have the power to explain large divergences such as the ones cited in church attendance.
4. However, church attendance is hardly the only thing where sorting of the sexes takes place. It's too well known to bother citing many other examples. We need a strong explanation for things of this order of magnitude. Nobody is going to lose much sleep over the existence of old-men's boozers or all-women coffee mornings, but things that relate to the personal flourishing of the individual, and the economic wellbeing of society cannot be ignored that way.
5. So the thesis is this:- Men don't go to church in such numbers as women because they don't want to. It really is that simple. It's not that they are "afraid of women" or any hokum like that. It's just that they think church is not for them. It is meaningless to say that you don't believe this to be a gender issue - the sorting by sex is what gender is. For whatever reason, going to church - in a certain place, at a certain age - has become gendered.
6. We may wring our hands as to how this came about, why it continues, and how it can be got rid of, which is I think what most people are engaged in, to greater or lesser degrees. But in terms of understanding what is going on, all that is necessary to know is that this sort of thing is what humans do. Any - indeed close to every - topic under the sun could potentially be co-opted into ideas of gender. What constitutes appropriate gender roles varies dramatically from society to society (which is what we mean by it being constructed).
Well, there you go - you bewailed the absence of engagement with science in churches earlier - here is your chance to commit yourself to the scientific process of testing the theory. Do you have a stronger, more fruitful explanation? What criteria will you use to critique it? Will counterexamples be strong enough to discount the theory, or will they just be interesting exceptions?
And yes, I did post the basis of this earlier, and no, you didn't engage with it.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
