Art of Manliness blog on the feminization of Christianity: its' relevance for Mormonism?

[SteveO]

12 minutes ago, halconero said:

Trust me, that's not what the person in the podcast is advocating. They're arguing for the development of a virtuous, compassionate, confident, humble, and spiritually driven individual.

That's not what is being advocated on this thread though, and the blog was a little ambiguous in spelling that out--see Juliann's post below

Edited August 28, 2016 by SteveO

[juliann]

8 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Respectfully: I'm thinking you did not read the links, certainly not with any degrer of care. 

 

I stopped after the first article because of this:

Quote

Among the men who are in attendance, you’ll probably notice a couple of characteristics: First, many of the men who are there will be present in body only; you won’t see them singing and they’ll be paying more attention to their phones than the pastor. Second, you’ll observe that the majority of the males adhere to a certain type: white collar, sensitive-seeming, and unfit (either very thin or overweight) — fellows you’d categorize as “nice guys.” You’ll see only a few men who seem to work with their hands, or who you’d describe as athletic, virile, earthy, tough, or rugged.

Quote

Among men who are committed Christians, why do they seem to be more effeminate, on average, than the male population as a whole? 

He is question begging in the extreme. There is a good question buried in there, why are there more women in Christian congregations, but he has already decided it is because it turns men into "sissies."  

Quote

First, we’ll outline various theories as to how, when, and why Christianity became feminized and unattractive to many men. We’ll then delve into the history of a time in which there emerged a dedicated response and effort to revive the masculinity of the faith — a movement that went by the name of “Muscular Christianity.”

 

[mapman]

The thing is that I think categorizing attributes as being masculine or feminine is problematic. The natural man and natural woman is probably different in some aspects on a general level, but on the individual level many of us don't really fit into those categories. There's already plenty of boys that don't like Scouting or other attempts to get them to do "manly" things, and if we try to increase the manliness of our youth we are just going to drive more people away or screw up more people emotionally that don't fit in that way.

It's all just delusions anyways. Men and women are all more alike than they are different, and we all are supposed to be following the same example of Jesus Christ.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, BCSpace said:

I have to agree that the Church has become over feminized.  Right at the top of the list: one usually sees only one aspect of Christ, the 'weak' one, the only one females can tolerate, presented in Church.  Now before you say "Yes well, Blessed are the meek...." take a good long look and ask yourself why we can't have robust discussion and debate in Church?  It's because women, by and large, can't tolerate it (and a bunch of feminized men as well).  The meekness of Christ presented because of female intolerance is NOT the meekness of the Biblical Christ.

Look also to the 'social programs' of the Church.  Home/Visiting teaching?  Long meetings?  Now wait a minute!  Didn't JS and BY stand at the pulpit for hours on end?  Yes they did.  But guess what?  It was fire and brimstone and that is why a man can tolerate, and even enjoy, such things.

I'm sure you can think of more et. al.....

Now before you women start brawling (Proverbs 25:24), there is an erroneous perception in the Church that women are somehow more spiritual than men.  Obviously not true but men themselves lend credence to that abominable notion because we ourselves are not doing our duty.  If we were, the women of the Church would not be dictating the 'social programs' of the Church.  Because we men are not doing our duty, the leaders of the Church know it is the women where the strength of the Church lies hence the Church is tailored for them.

Now the Church is ready to be led by men again, but we have to get off our duffs and lead our families in FHE and family prayer etc. and also go out into the world and combat SJW's and the like to regain our honor.  The women will be excited because despite all their intolerance of things we men prefer, women above all, prefer a real man who does his duty. And you don't even have to be a Peter Priesthood to do it (women really don't like those just as men really don't like Molly Mormons).

Though I was a bit tongue in cheek here, I'm also dead serious.

 

 

 

Wow.  Simply wow.  Though given the other nonesense you spew this from you is not surprising.   And some wonder why religion can be dangerous.   BC is a fine speciman to examine when asking such things.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Trust me, that's not what the person in the podcast is advocating. They're arguing for the development of a virtuous, compassionate, confident, humble, and spiritually driven individual.

AoM is primarily a blog, which added podcasts a few years ago.

It does not set feminism against masculinity and is not some sort of machismo chest-beating site.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/about-2/

I don't think it is useful to stop reading and launch into full-bore critque without reading the full argument. 

And the full argument of this blog series is that Christianity, generally, is LOSING MALE PARTICIPANTS AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE because it lacks appeal to the majority of men.

I would wonder aloud if Mormonism doesn't hold onto it's male membership more successfully than, say, the Church of England has done, precisely because we DO PRESERVE some venues for healthy, Christian expression of masculinity.

If so: would giving those venues over to equal access to both genders do to the CoJCoLDS do to us what it has done to the Anglicans? Render us a Church of 90% women attendees?

[mapman]

I'm not convinced that it is Christianity that is at fault here. Another possible explanation is that our culture's ideal of masculinity discourages expression of emotions and so they feel less interest in being religious. Churches should continue to fight toxic masculinity so that more men want to participate.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

AoM is primarily a blog, which added podcasts a few years ago.

It does not set feminism against masculinity and is not some sort of machismo chest-beating site.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/about-2/

I don't think it is useful to stop reading and launch into full-bore critque without reading the full argument. 

And the full argument of this blog series is that Christianity, generally, is LOSING MALE PARTICIPANTS AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE because it lacks appeal to the majority of men.

I would wonder aloud if Mormonism doesn't hold onto it's male membership more successfully than, say, the Church of England has done, precisely because we DO PRESERVE some venues for healthy, Christian expression of masculinity.

If so: would giving those venues over to equal access to both genders do to the CoJCoLDS do to us what it has done to the Anglicans? Render us a Church of 90% women attendees?

No one has time to read everything and we all have different interests and need.  Perhaps we could limit the discussion to one or at most two blog posts per thread rather than discussing of the whole blog?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

Trust me, that's not what the person in the podcast is advocating. They're arguing for the development of a virtuous, compassionate, confident, humble, and spiritually driven individual.

If that site does not advocate that, I am wondering why the blogger chose to go with the comments that Juliann quoted instead of a more nuanced approach.  That blog post comes across as if intentionally meaning to be inflammatory to me.  It is unfortunate that for many of us this is our first exposure to the site.  If it weren't for the endorsements saying that is not what is actually being advocated, I would probably never give the site another glance.  Now I am having to fight my distaste for this blog post to make an effort to become more familiar with the overall site.  I wonder which will win.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Calm

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If that site does not advocate that, I am wondering why the blogger chose to go with the comments that Juliann quoted instead of a more nuanced approach.  That blog post comes across as if intentionally meaning to be inflammatory to me.  It is unfortunate that for many of us this is our first exposure to the site.  If it weren't for the endorsements saying that is not what is actually being advocated, I would probably never give the site another glance.  Now I am having to fight my distaste for this blog post to make an effort to become more familiar with the overall site.  I wonder which will win.

The AoM blog was put out by a husband and wife team, starting around 2010 or so. It grew exponentially in popularity and now features various contributors. 

From the introductory post of The Art of Manliness blog, which explains what the goals of the bloggers was from the kickoff:

 

Quote

 

Growing up I always truly admired my own grandfather — William D. Hurst. A member of the “Greatest Generation,” a veteran of WWII, and a federal forester, he loved to tinker, be out in the wild, could fix almost anything, and was a straight-shooting, thoroughly upright guy. He was

 manly.

A lot of my peers idealized their grandfathers too, and wanted to be more like them. But the gap between their generation and ours seemed huge.

Many men today feel adrift and have lost the confidence, focus, skills, and virtues that men of the past embodied. In an increasingly androgynous society, modern men are confused about their role and what it means to be an honorable, well-rounded man.

The causes of this male malaise are many — from the cultural to the technological. One factor is simply the lack of direction offered men in the popular culture. Men’s magazines today are largely about sex, sports cars, and getting six-pack abs.

The Art of Manliness seeks to fill this void and offer an alternative to those who believe there’s more to being a man than expensive clothes and the hot babe of the month.

AoM is a blog about growing up well, aimed at men and their unique challenges and interests. We explore all things manly — from the serious and philosophical to the practical and fun. We seek to uncover how to live with grandpa’s swagger, virtue, and know-how in the present age by wedding the best of the past to the best of the present. The end goal is to create a synergy of tradition and modernity that offers men a way forward and signposts on how to live an excellent, flourishing life.

Ultimately, the Art of Manliness aims to encourage our readers to be better husbands, fathers, brothers, citizens — a new generation of great men.

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by flameburns623

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Wow.  Simply wow.  Though given the other nonesense you spew this from you is not surprising.   And some wonder why religion can be dangerous.   BC is a fine speciman to examine when asking such things.

 

Yeah.I think there is a lot of women who would love to have discussions..debate and participate in something like this..

 

 

[Five Solas]

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

--Galatians 3:28

That said, I don't personally appreciate long-haired representations of Jesus.

;0)

--Erik

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I went and sparred yesterday to work out my aggression. I heartily recommend the practice. If you are not finding activities to vent aggression you are doing it wrong. Fix it.

I take out my aggression playing Prokofiev on my violin. Not as manly as sparring, but just as effective. Sounds like you might be a BLADE.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[UtahTexan]

my gosh....what a thread.

I never noticed the feminizing of Christianity.  Of course, growing up in the country in Texas, maybe it was just that I was surrounded by country folk.  Country men were tough....the men were men, the women were women.  And you messed with a country woman at your peril.  

Guess I just am awestruck by this conversation

[Yirgacheffe]

On 8/27/2016 at 0:37 AM, flameburns623 said:

The Art of Manliness blog has run an extremely interesting series on the feminization of Christianity, generally. Links here:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/01/christianitys-manhood-problem-an-introduction/

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/08/is-christianity-an-inherently-feminine-religion/

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/22/the-feminization-of-christianity/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheArtOfManliness+(The+Art+of+Manliness)&mc_cid=d540c2b03b&mc_eid=79697a0b51

I would note that I think the LDS Church, with it's current structure and emphasis upon an all-male priesthood, perhaps avoids some of the pitfalls of such feminization. 

For one thing, I think the role of Christ as a Leader and as a Standard-Bearer, rather than as a confidante and even as a Lover, get played up more in Mormonism. The 19th Century struggles of Saints during persecution and on the frontier lead us to talk more of the heroic, "manly" virtues than other Christian churches might. 

Given these considerations, I would question whether extending the Priesthood to women would be healthy for the LDS Church.This, although I do favor greater roles for women in the Church where proper and possible. 

Thoughts?

From another post on The art of Manliness the source of all the articles.

 

Quote

First, let’s define approval as it relates to our relationships with women. Approval is her permission for you to take an action. Approval is her acknowledgment that she won’t take you to task for your choice…maybe. Approval is giving away your power to do as you see fit. In other words, needing the approval of women makes you a pleaser.

After reading a number of blogs not really impressed with the source.

[Yirgacheffe]

13 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

In fact, there are those, likeCatholic scholar Leon J. Podles who argue that the way of Christ isprimarily masculine in nature — that “Women can participate in this spiritual masculinity, but men could be expected to have a greater natural understanding of the pattern.”

 

 

13 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

 

 

 

Sounds more like men who think very little of women and would rather they shut up and do women things.

[Yirgacheffe]

20 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

While the Relief Society has been an often ground-breaking vehicle for encouraging strong women, the Priesthood has been a place where faithful men could still be men. WITHOUT dishonoring women or womanhood in the process. 

 

Because men just can't be men if any women are around.

[Yirgacheffe]

12 hours ago, halconero said:

Trust me, that's not what the person in the podcast is advocating. They're arguing for the development of a virtuous, compassionate, confident, humble, and spiritually driven individual.

That doesn't have to listen to the ideas and view points of women because men aren't men if they listen to women.

[Yirgacheffe]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

I stopped after the first article because of this:

He is question begging in the extreme. There is a good question buried in there, why are there more women in Christian congregations, but he has already decided it is because it turns men into "sissies."  

 

While we (my little nuclear family) do not attend a church many of my friends neighbors and family do, and this is NOT an accurate description of the men I know who attend church. 

[Yirgacheffe]

9 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

AoM is primarily a blog, which added podcasts a few years ago.

It does not set feminism against masculinity and is not some sort of machismo chest-beating site.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/about-2/

I don't think it is useful to stop reading and launch into full-bore critque without reading the full argument. 

And the full argument of this blog series is that Christianity, generally, is LOSING MALE PARTICIPANTS AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE because it lacks appeal to the majority of men.

I would wonder aloud if Mormonism doesn't hold onto it's male membership more successfully than, say, the Church of England has done, precisely because we DO PRESERVE some venues for healthy, Christian expression of masculinity.

If so: would giving those venues over to equal access to both genders do to the CoJCoLDS do to us what it has done to the Anglicans? Render us a Church of 90% women attendees?

Really a site that puts out that Christianity is primarily a masculine, a masculine thing, that women can participate in but not fully understand?  It absolutely sets femininity against masculinity, with out even acknowledging that femininity has a place in Christianity at all.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I take out my aggression playing Prokofiev on my violin. Not as manly as sparring, but just as effective. Sounds like you might be a BLADE.

I need to check my chart and see where violin playing fits on the effeminate to rugged manly man scale before I can reply.

[Kenngo1969]

 Christ is who He is, but He lets different aspects of His Divine personality dominate, depending on what the situation calls for: tender one minute, tough the next.  As my buddy and erstwhile poster here, Kevin G, put it in his signature line (paraphrasing/going from memory), "The next time someone asks you, 'What would Jesus do?,' remind them that He wasn't above upending tables and scourging people."

I said this a few weeks ago when a similar subject came up.  (They do seem to get recycled an awful lot around here ... ) Mormon theology avoids/overcomes/answers the whole, "Is Christ/God too masculine or too feminine?" debate/question: God the Father wouldn't be God without God the Mother, and God the Mother wouldn't be God without God the Father.  (Go do proxy sealings in the temple: That particular point is driven home very clearly in that ordinance.)  I don't want to turn this into another gay marriage thread ("Why not, Ken? We haven't had one of those in, like, a whole three seconds.  Isn't it about time for another one?") but the same points are made in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

[flameburns623]

10 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Really a site that puts out that Christianity is primarily a masculine, a masculine thing, that women can participate in but not fully understand?  It absolutely sets femininity against masculinity, with out even acknowledging that femininity has a place in Christianity at all.

The blog actually suggests that Christianity is so thoroughly femininized already that actively obsevant women outnumber active men two-to-one already. That feminization of Christianity is driving men out of active participation in Christian faith.

And, where that feminization has accelerated, as in the Anglican Church, active women now outnumber active men TEN to ONE, per the blogs I linked in my OP.

MEANWHILE, in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, there is approximate parity of active men as opposed to active women.

While in Islam, actively practicing men outnumber women slightly. (The same is true, anecdotally, in Asatru/Odinism: slightly more males than females; that is offset by the fact that in the larger pagan community, women usually outnumber men. But this aside is drawn from personal experience and anecdote, since my wife is Pagan). 

One of the concerns of the series of blogs is that this is driving men away from Christianity even more quickly than women, at a time when the Church in Western nations is already seen as largely in contraction.

I had wondered aloud, given this, if the LDS Church, itself supposedly already experiencing record numbers of inactivity and defections, might accelerate such if it moved too quickly to try to give traditional male roles such as the Priesthood to women?

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, mapman said:

I'm not convinced that it is Christianity that is at fault here. Another possible explanation is that our culture's ideal of masculinity discourages expression of emotions and so they feel less interest in being religious. Churches should continue to fight toxic masculinity so that more men want to participate.

This may be true.  A shame..I have alwa.ys been attracted to men who were unafraid to cry.  Belief and church attendence should have nothing to do with gender..but individuals  Everyone should be there because they want to.

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Sounds more like men who think very little of women and would rather they shut up and do women things.

Sounds more like you did nothing to read the article or the links to the other articles.  Instead, you are doing a heck of lot of knee-jerk reaction using canned responses.  I guess that is good for spin and protecting a chosen agenda, but it does absolutely nothing for a discussion.  

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

The blog actually suggests that Christianity is so thoroughly femininized already that actively obsevant women outnumber active men two-to-one already. That feminization of Christianity is driving men out of active participation in Christian faith.

And, where that feminization has accelerated, as in the Anglican Church, active women now outnumber active men TEN to ONE, per the blogs I linked in my OP.

MEANWHILE, in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, there is approximate parity of active men as opposed to active women.

While in Islam, actively practicing men outnumber women slightly. (The same is true, anecdotally, in Asatru/Odinism: slightly more males than females; that is offset by the fact that in the larger pagan community, women usually outnumber men. But this aside is drawn from personal experience and anecdote, since my wife is Pagan). 

One of the concerns of the series of blogs is that this is driving men away from Christianity even more quickly than women, at a time when the Church in Western nations is already seen as largely in contraction.

I had wondered aloud, given this, if the LDS Church, itself supposedly already experiencing record numbers of inactivity and defections, might accelerate such if it moved too quickly to try to give traditional male roles such as the Priesthood to women?

I am not sure there is a viable comparison when discussion Islam.  Men are strongly encouraged to attend Mosque to pray, particularly for Friday prayer, Jumu'ah, Women can pray at home or anywhere else - the mosque is not emphasized for women.  Thus, the exact questions asked are vital for obtaining a comparable response.

Regardless, the fact that these other religions have a more balanced participation by both genders is interesting.  I don't see a lot of discussion on this thread as to explain why there is a difference - except that anything on the Manliness blog has to be wrong, must be wrong.