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

[Nofear]

I confess that I look at the Art of Manliness from time to time and agree that the site is not about decrying feminism and such. It is actually quite pro-female (and not in the supposedly pro-female "traditional" stay-at-home barefoot in the kitchen way). I certainly don't do much of the manly stuff advocated in the blog but I understand the potential value for some and hence understand its popularity. In my opinion much, though not all, of the content is quite gospel compatible (as opposed to things like Men Going Their Own Way).

That said, I also confess I really didn't like these articles or even the premise. To be specific, in addition to the immeasurable worth of the atoning sacrifice, Christ is the Great Exemplar -- for all -- both men and women. Aligning our lives with his teachings brings us closer to both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. His example of living applies both to men and women. I quite suspect he was married in mortality and not even automatically opposed to the idea of children (albeit I'm much less certain about that). But the scriptures are silent about that aspect of his mortal life. While perhaps part of the plain and precious things, I suspect it more deliberate. While Christ is male, his example was, I believe, intended to be gender stewardship neutral. His example lays the foundation for me to be a better husband and father. His example lays the foundation for my wife to be a better wife and mother. Upon the foundation of Christ's teachings we can be then be and are taught, among many other things,  more stewardship specific ideas. Such teachings come from the Spirit and the prophets and the examples of those who have successfully integrated gospel teachings into their Christ centered lives.

So in short, yes, yes men will be better men by following Christ. But so will women be better women by following Christ. Christ is the foundation and finisher of our faith. But there is plenty that goes in between appropriately adapted to our fallen mortal world. Christ is the center and any attempt to push him and his example this way or that, just a bit closer to this side or that side, is ultimately I think a misappropriation. Christ is not of any more worth to me as, a man, than he is to my wife, a woman.

[halconero]

I can agree with this. Having read the articles more fully in the past day I still agree with much of the content, but also see problematic passages regarding women comprehending the pattern of Christ, the assumption that Christ's occupation and behaviours are "manly" in some instances, but "feminine" in others.

Where I largely agree, especially in conjunction with the associated podcast (which is MUCH more nuanced) is that mainstream Christianity in the West has a male attendance problem, that cheap "Christian football" night isn't the solution, and that rites of passage, bonding experiences, and the cultivation of brotherhood and virtues are absolutely necessary in a masculine ideal which doesn't fit to the sexist connotations such a terms conjures up.

[Calm]

My current problem with the blog is the few posts I read I don't have a problem with the general premise but then the author goes to stereotypical caricatures of men/women relationships that belittle the relationship and women, imo, possibly because they are trying to be humorous or attention getting.  I may keep reading and hope to find that is only a problem with the few.

[Calm]

Okay, I have read about a dozen or so...most of which have nothing to do with women and were informative (how to use kitchen knives, for example).  They do those well, imo.  So I decided to see if there was any significant difference in posts about women.  A couple were quite good, one was written by the Mckays, one of the husband and wife teams.  Devoid of snide remarks while still light enough to be enjoyable reading.  Another was a gift suggestion, informative and some good ideas.  Then there was a wish list for women doing more....; not inherently problematic.  But then there is this unnecessary dig...in the author's opinion there are tons of lists out there that women have produced about men, but anyone doing it about women is going to get pounced on for sexism, thus explaining the dearth of such articles.  Problem is there are tons of articles on "what your man wants" and other versions on the theme.  There is this chip on the shoulder of 'men are victims, this doesn't happen to women' which is based on false assumptions.  It is not in all the posts on women, but if you hit these first or read too many of them, it just becomes a 'you have got to be kidding me' moment...at least for me.  It becomes hard to take the author's pov seriously when they miss so badly what would have taken little effort to find or just asking a woman about it in some cases.

"What’s interesting, is that over the years people have sent us several iterations of this kind of article, but we’ve yet to see a list by men of things they wish women still did. Because of course, writing such a list would get you clobbered over the head with charges of sexism. This double-standard generally extends to all articles about the sexes these days–it is generally okay to complain about the deficiencies of men, but never women. One cannot imagine an article entitled “The End of Women” or “Where Have All the Good Women Gone?”"

http://www.artofmanliness.com/trunk/1897/womanly-things-we-wish-women-still-did/

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Even the Mckays who are generally very balanced slip into this mindset.  I think it is highly problematic when either men or women view themselves as victims of the other gender (in general, it may be appropriate in specifics).

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/12/20/what-can-manly-men-expect-of-women/

"But it’s also indicative of a new double standard that has emerged in our modern age. Women are still free to flog men for their shortcomings and expect a lot from them, but if a man has any expectations for women, the conversation is bound to go something like this...[followed by a cartoon of a woman listing desires while the man doing the same gets slammed]."

[Nofear]

Jonathan Haidt wrote this piece: http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/

It talks about, among other things, a culture of victimhood and microaggression. This lens will offer, I think, some interesting perspectives on sites like this and their popularity (and our responses to them). Note: this article and my posting of it is not to be considered a disagreement with anything anybody wrote. I'll endeavor to be direct when I choose to disagree.

[Nevo]

On 8/26/2016 at 10:37 PM, flameburns623 said:

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. 

Not according to Armand Mauss:

Quote

What is evident in our classes, pulpits, and youth camps, we see in today’s missionary lessons where prospective converts are invited to "feel" the confirmation of the Holy Spirit during the missionary’s testimony and are assured that what they feel is indeed the Spirit bearing witness of the truth of the message. Such is a very different style of proselyting from what was common in earlier times. . . . On the basis of anecdotal evidence from the New England mission in which I served in the late 1940s, I would say that the retention rate of converts was greater then than it is now, although I cannot quantify that. Certainly the recent retention rates (20 percent in most of the world, perhaps 40 percent in North America) are not convincing evidence of the lasting effectiveness of today’s proselyting approach. One thing which the current approach will do, however, and which it is doing, is guaranteeing that converts entering the church in recent years will be inclined to depend heavily on feelings in assimilating their new religious culture, whether official or popular. In other words, an emotional approach in proselyting converts or recruits selects those among the investigators who are most influenced by affective, as contrasted with cognitive, foundations for their religious commitments. . . .

Trends in Mormon music have been documented by British scholar Warrick Kear, primarily on the basis of the American LDS Church setting, though to some extent in Britain as well. Kear notes a process he calls "feminization" in reference to a certain softening of the rhythm and melodic lines that congregations have come to prefer. . . . Using definitions admittedly somewhat subjective, Kear’s feminine musical characteristics include "a gentler rhythm and pulse, slower tempi, less angular [and] more flowing melodic lines, with more introvertly personal or devotional lyrics," as for instance Hymn 143, "Let the Holy Spirit Guide." By contrast, masculine music is "generally energetic, with jaunty rhythms, fast tempi, strong pulse, wide-ranging melodic lines, and powerful up-beat lyrics," such as Hymn 243, "Let Us All Press On." In comparing the latest LDS hymnal (1985) with the earlier one (1948), Kear notes that seventy hymns were dropped and ninety-two new ones added. Of those dropped, 41 percent were masculine and 29 percent feminine by his criteria, while the ratio was drastically reversed for those newly added, with only 14 percent masculine and 64 percent feminine. . . .

Indeed, it is significant to me that I cannot recall the last time I heard a young man or boy, or even a male youth chorus, provide the "special musical number" for a sacrament service. By contrast, teenage girls are regularly featured, crooning at the microphone with loving words about Jesus set to melodies reminiscent of romantic ballads. Kear points out that the church in recent years has simply not provided music that male youth are inclined to sing. After Primary, boys are musically disenfranchised, as it were. In the early 1970s, the church discontinued publication of earlier collections attractive to male youth such as M.I.A. Let’s Sing and Recreational Songs, which contained many tunes "geared for the outdoor, robust pursuits and aspirations of boys and men." For the girls, the new sacred ballad rushed in to fill the vacuum, but no corresponding genre has become available for young males aside, perhaps, from the popular, often profane hard rock of the outside world. In that connection, Kear offers a sobering final thought:

"If the young men of the church are singing the songs of Zion only on a Sunday, and that reluctantly in many cases, and humming the songs of the world the rest of the week, so to speak, it does not auger well for the perpetuity of the church’s rich musical culture."

Whether or not one uses conventional gender stereotypes to label such developments in popular Mormon culture, they seem palpable to anyone with a long enough chronological perspective. At least in the American west, if not throughout North America, pulpit sermons, public testimonies, and music have all taken on a softer quality than I remember as a youth.

(Armand L. Mauss, "Feelings, Faith, and Folkways: A Personal Essay on Mormon Popular Culture," online at http://signaturebooks.com/excerpts-proving-contraries/)

Although I don't necessarily pine for a return to Progressive Era "muscular Christianity", I feel some of Mauss's pain. Though, as you mention, the Church's all-male priesthood structure makes the LDS Church more male-friendly than most of the competition.

Here's an interesting article from a few years ago: "Empty Pews: Where Did All the Men Go?" (This could be us in a few years if we don't start getting more up-tempo hymns )

Edited August 29, 2016 by Nevo

[Storm Rider]

I never recognized the difference in the music - or at least I never used this kind of language.  All I knew was that I have never liked the new hymnal and much of the new music.  I chalked it up to my enjoying tradition too much and was just really slow in adapting to the new hymnal and the like.  

It is apparent that education has long been feminized and works against most little boys in elementary school - sit still, don't move, no recess, listen, etc.  Then as the young male grows he must only work communally, in teams without leaders or direction.  This is particularly prevalent in college where team grades are often given.  Little solo competition, no leaders, just everyone hug and sing cum-ba-ya and cheer one another on to nirvana.  I digress and it is an old whine of mine over a battle that has been lost for decades with the advent of feminism and only women being capable, intelligent, aggressive and men being stupid, weak, rapists, and sick....and on medication from childhood to keep them passive.

[Bernard Gui]

Being in the music business for 50 years and having served many decades in Church music callings, I have often contemplated the role of men and music in the Church. As a music major at BYU, I was advised several times to pursue a more manly profession. Knowing how hard I was working, I brushed those comments off as being well-meaning but uninformed. But I think there is a sense among some LDS that the arts are not a "worthy" or suitable profession for men or won't provide an adequate salary to support a family.  I think that attitude has existed for a very long time, and has its roots in an American cultural bias. It persists in the Church today.

For example, take a look at the gender balance in the string sections of the Orchestra at Temple Square and the BYU Provo and Idaho orchestras. The male violinist is a rare bird. I've sensed a feeling of mistrust for musicians by some leaders because of our "tempermental" attitudes. I'm not aware of any professional musicians among the current or past General Authorities, so maybe there is some basis for the suspicions.  

Professional LDS musicians are expected to donate their time for Church productions and social activities, even weddings, for which they normally would be paid, implying their skills don't deserve remuneration. I understand that men from many professions donate time to the Church, but I have never even been offered money for my services and I know LDS tradesmen and professionals who are paid for theirs in Church situations. I know...it's a labor of love and we're supposed to share our "talents," but some of us make our living with our "talents." Much of what happens today in Church music, at least that which gets noticed, consists of arranging hymns or creating pop spiritual music albums.

There has been a softening of the older concepts of manhood in our culture in general and to some extent in the Church. Even that bastion of LDS ceremonial manliness, the blessing of the baby, is under attack. But contrary to Mauss, we still have all-male choirs that sing in the Priesthood session of General Conference. I was once pleasantly surprised when I heard the all-boy orchestra (60 members) from Brisbane Australia Boys Grammar School, a kind of old Vienna Philharmonic in miniature. Won't see much of that in the Church, The Piano Guys notwithstanding.

On the other hand, my first orchestra teaching job was in the Springville UT schools back in the early 70s. First day in the high school, the majority of players in the orchestra were boys, and most of them wore lettermen's jackets. Later, after recovering from the shock, I looked up the coach and asked him what was going on. He said, "When I was in school, I played football. I won a college scholarship, but one season I suffered a career ending injury, and I realized I couldn't do anything else. When I became a coach, I vowed none of my boys would ever say that. If they want to be on my teams, they will join the orchestra, choir, or drama clubs." I have never forgotten that coach, and I have never met another like him. 

Pardon the long rant. I don't know what came over me.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

In the Utah Valley youth orchestra I went to see awhile back, all the big stuff was played by males, flutes and such were primarily female, horns male, violin was about 2/3 female, percussion all male as were all the interns (appeared to be young men who had been in the orchestra and moved up when they got too old as there were two of the oldest male cellists helping out, the administration was mostly male as well).

Two conductors were male, one female.

That orchestra I think was majority male but probably not by much (hard to see the horn section) but shifted to predominantly male for paid positions.

-----

In this ward and the previous one, we had a number of musicians.  One chorister female, the other male, both were permanent fixtures even with the other candidates.  One stutters when not singing so it seems an excellent fit for her.  Both choirs were run by men, women supported by playing when needed, but the men were the ones who made their own arrangements, did the fancier stuff.  The best trained female organist was put in the library for some reason though she was also very gifted.  In my current ward, the young women sing more but it is men that do the instrumental pieces more.  Perhaps the heavy male presence in all my wards I remember is due to being near universities or something else that is consistent with our various locations.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Calm

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Being in the music business for 50 years and having served many decades in Church music callings, I have often contemplated the role of men and music in the Church. As a music major at BYU, I was advised several times to pursue a more manly profession. Knowing how hard I was working, I brushed those comments off as being well-meaning but uninformed. But I think there is a sense among some LDS that the arts are not a "worthy" or suitable profession for men or won't provide an adequate salary to support a family.  I think that attitude has existed for a very long time, and has its roots in an American cultural bias. It persists in the Church today.

For example, take a look at the gender balance in the string sections of the Orchestra at Temple Square and the BYU Provo and Idaho orchestras. The male violinist is a rare bird. I've sensed a feeling of mistrust for musicians by some leaders because of our "tempermental" attitudes. I'm not aware of any professional musicians among the current or past General Authorities, so maybe there is some basis for the suspicions.  

Professional LDS musicians are expected to donate their time for Church productions and social activities, even weddings, for which they normally would be paid, implying their skills don't deserve remuneration. I understand that men from many professions donate time to the Church, but I have never even been offered money for my services and I know LDS tradesmen and professionals who are paid for theirs in Church situations. I know...it's a labor of love and we're supposed to share our "talents," but some of us make our living with our "talents." Much of what happens today in Church music, at least that which gets noticed, consists of arranging hymns or creating pop spiritual music albums.

There has been a softening of the older concepts of manhood in our culture in general and to some extent in the Church. Even that bastion of LDS ceremonial manliness, the blessing of the baby, is under attack. But contrary to Mauss, we still have all-male choirs that sing in the Priesthood session of General Conference. I was once pleasantly surprised when I heard the all-boy orchestra (60 members) from Brisbane Australia Boys Grammar School, a kind of old Vienna Philharmonic in miniature. Won't see much of that in the Church, The Piano Guys notwithstanding.

On the other hand, my first orchestra teaching job was in the Springville UT schools back in the early 70s. First day in the high school, the majority of players in the orchestra were boys, and most of them wore lettermen's jackets. Later, after recovering from the shock, I looked up the coach and asked him what was going on. He said, "When I was in school, I played football. I won a college scholarship, but one season I suffered a career ending injury, and I realized I couldn't do anything else. When I became a coach, I vowed none of my boys would ever say that. If they want to be on my teams, they will join the orchestra, choir, or drama clubs." I have never forgotten that coach, and I have never met another like him. 

Pardon the long rant. I don't know what came over me.

This may just be perception.  We've seen many medical professionals,  mechanics, roofers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, teachers etc  volunteer time in church.  Even my electrical engineering husband who designs computer chips was once asked by someone to provide professional time - even though that didn't happen and there is just not a lot of call for chip designers.

I think of the well known LDS musians I know.  Most of those I know of who are women sing by themselves - Jenny Oaks Baker, Hilary Weeks, Lindsey Sterling.  At the moment I can only think of one group of women - Heartbound. But I can think of a lot  men's groups -  BYU Men's Choir, Vocal Point, Jericho Road, Afterglow. 

 

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Being in the music business for 50 years and having served many decades in Church music callings, I have often contemplated the role of men and music in the Church. As a music major at BYU, I was advised several times to pursue a more manly profession. Knowing how hard I was working, I brushed those comments off as being well-meaning but uninformed. But I think there is a sense among some LDS that the arts are not a "worthy" or suitable profession for men or won't provide an adequate salary to support a family.  I think that attitude has existed for a very long time, and has its roots in an American cultural bias. It persists in the Church today.

For example, take a look at the gender balance in the string sections of the Orchestra at Temple Square and the BYU Provo and Idaho orchestras. The male violinist is a rare bird. I've sensed a feeling of mistrust for musicians by some leaders because of our "tempermental" attitudes. I'm not aware of any professional musicians among the current or past General Authorities, so maybe there is some basis for the suspicions.  

Professional LDS musicians are expected to donate their time for Church productions and social activities, even weddings, for which they normally would be paid, implying their skills don't deserve remuneration. I understand that men from many professions donate time to the Church, but I have never even been offered money for my services and I know LDS tradesmen and professionals who are paid for theirs in Church situations. I know...it's a labor of love and we're supposed to share our "talents," but some of us make our living with our "talents." Much of what happens today in Church music, at least that which gets noticed, consists of arranging hymns or creating pop spiritual music albums.

There has been a softening of the older concepts of manhood in our culture in general and to some extent in the Church. Even that bastion of LDS ceremonial manliness, the blessing of the baby, is under attack. But contrary to Mauss, we still have all-male choirs that sing in the Priesthood session of General Conference. I was once pleasantly surprised when I heard the all-boy orchestra (60 members) from Brisbane Australia Boys Grammar School, a kind of old Vienna Philharmonic in miniature. Won't see much of that in the Church, The Piano Guys notwithstanding.

On the other hand, my first orchestra teaching job was in the Springville UT schools back in the early 70s. First day in the high school, the majority of players in the orchestra were boys, and most of them wore lettermen's jackets. Later, after recovering from the shock, I looked up the coach and asked him what was going on. He said, "When I was in school, I played football. I won a college scholarship, but one season I suffered a career ending injury, and I realized I couldn't do anything else. When I became a coach, I vowed none of my boys would ever say that. If they want to be on my teams, they will join the orchestra, choir, or drama clubs." I have never forgotten that coach, and I have never met another like him. 

Pardon the long rant. I don't know what came over me.

I don't appreciate the expectation of some that because "you" are LDS you will devote your professional expertise to them for free. When these situations develop we, individually, need to speak up.  When asked to play (or whatever) we should say these are my rates, but my calendar is quite full.  What day were you needing?  

On the other hand, we need to already have our rates in hand and ready.  My wife is a quilter and has used the same woman to do the quilting - sewing the back and front together - for years.  A young woman in our ward recently got a long-arm sewing machine and wanted to begin her business.  She demonstrated her skills and my wife talked to her about a job.  The rates changed three times and my counsel to her was don't use her again.  If I have problems it is with Mormon businesses.  With others I have no problem speaking up and disputing an issue; however, with a LDS I feel constrained and hesitant to dispute issues when they develop.  

[mfbukowski]

On 8/28/2016 at 0:19 AM, flameburns623 said:

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

The point of the articles is that Christianity has largely been a bastion of femininity for over the past thousand years, with women outnumbering men at rates approaching three to one in some cases.

And this despite the fact that nearly all Christian bodies have, until the mid-20th Century, excluded women from many pastoral & leadership roles. 

The very first article discusses how other world religions manage to maintain rough parity in participation between the genders. IOW, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etcetera, have far less of a gender gap than does Christianity; while men slightly outnumber women in Islam.

These days, denominations with widespread female clergy and hierarchs (the chief example given was the Church of England), are coming to have congregations comprised of upwards of 90% women.

Yet, for the first 1200 or so years (so nearly we can tell), Christianity ALSO had roughly equal appeal for both women and for men.

The blog author took some pains to define what he meant by the expression "feminization": and that he was not suggesting there is anything wrong with feminine values or virtues. Only that in an institution where such virtues or values predominate to the exclusion of masculine counterpart values and virtues, men will lose interest. And will stay away in large numbers. 

In reading the articles (particularly the concluding article), it occurred to me that Mormonism manages to straddle that gender gap better than most Christian bodies. .

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. 

This evening's Stake Priesthood meeting brought home that fact, again, as it told the story of three young men whose efforts enabled many Saints to cross a half-frozen river--at sacrificial cost to those three young men, who apparently perished as a consequence.

Art of Manliness has not carried a reputation of being an "anti-woman" blog. It has seldom addressed specifically religious issues before, to my recollection.

Juliann: it is tangential to this discussion, but you might find this AoM podcast ( by a woman psychologist) more to your liking:

 http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/26/podcast-229-how-men-and-women-socialize-differently/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheArtOfManliness+(The+Art+of+Manliness)&mc_cid=7e5f3eaa18&mc_eid=79697a0b51

I agree - I did not find the blogs "anti-woman" at all, but raising important questions about the FACT that men do not come out to church as much as women do

I don't see how asking that question has anything to do with being "anti-woman"

If anything it suggests that modern Christianity has a problem attracting men to participate, and asking why that is.   Good topic- very interesting

Wondering what we can do to change that

[mfbukowski]

On 8/28/2016 at 11:56 AM, 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.

That idea that our culture discourages expressions of emotions from men has been has been repeated again and again since the 70's.   That used to be the case much more than it is now.

Today you cannot even discuss these issues as flame is doing here without getting blasted as a misogynist,

The fact is we are losing men. What do we do about that??

[mfbukowski]

On 8/28/2016 at 0:52 PM, Rain said:

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?

Or one always has the option of not posting if one has not read the subject under discussion.

Posting is not required and we need to stop dumbing down these threads.

[Storm Rider]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree - I did not find the blogs "anti-woman" at all, but raising important questions about the FACT that men do not come out to church as much as women do

I don't see how asking that question has anything to do with being "anti-woman"

If anything it suggests that modern Christianity has a problem attracting men to participate, and asking why that is.   Good topic- very interesting

Wondering what we can do to change that

It seems to become ingrained in the culture - you cannot say anything about men that portrays helping them or questioning why something does not work for them without immediately becoming a rabid hater of all things feminine.  It is verboten to mention men in this context.  Now, if you want to portray men as stupid then the door is wide open and you are much congratulated for your wisdom and insight.  

It used to be that boys did well in school at all levels.  Now, they fall behind at every level.  What has changed?  Why?  What has made the classroom toxic for little boys and young men?  

[mfbukowski]

On 8/29/2016 at 8:10 AM, 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?

Interesting quandary.  But we are also losing women over this issue if something is not done to fix it.

It is clear that we must give some sort of priesthood/leadership role for women.  One very good idea a poster has suggested is to acknowledge the priesthood women already have that has not been revealed yet in detail.

I am not sure this would hurt men joining the church, but I don't understand the problem men have in attendance in the first place

I have maybe one good male friend, but all my "best friends" have always been women.   I really don't understand what the problem is with men and church.   I must be one of those effeminate guys  

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It seems to become ingrained in the culture - you cannot say anything about men that portrays helping them or questioning why something does not work for them without immediately becoming a rabid hater of all things feminine.  It is verboten to mention men in this context.  Now, if you want to portray men as stupid then the door is wide open and you are much congratulated for your wisdom and insight.  

It used to be that boys did well in school at all levels.  Now, they fall behind at every level.  What has changed?  Why?  What has made the classroom toxic for little boys and young men?  

I think the very existence of this blog points to the need for us to re-define masculinity on our terms, not dictated by ..... the other sex.   Dare I say that?  Free speech is another casualty of political correctness as we see on college campuses

[mfbukowski]

On 8/29/2016 at 4:21 PM, Storm Rider said:

I never recognized the difference in the music - or at least I never used this kind of language.  All I knew was that I have never liked the new hymnal and much of the new music.  I chalked it up to my enjoying tradition too much and was just really slow in adapting to the new hymnal and the like.  

It is apparent that education has long been feminized and works against most little boys in elementary school - sit still, don't move, no recess, listen, etc.  Then as the young male grows he must only work communally, in teams without leaders or direction.  This is particularly prevalent in college where team grades are often given.  Little solo competition, no leaders, just everyone hug and sing cum-ba-ya and cheer one another on to nirvana.  I digress and it is an old whine of mine over a battle that has been lost for decades with the advent of feminism and only women being capable, intelligent, aggressive and men being stupid, weak, rapists, and sick....and on medication from childhood to keep them passive.

Pick any sitcom and look at how the father is portrayed.

Prima facie evidence that you are right.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

This may just be perception.  We've seen many medical professionals,  mechanics, roofers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, teachers etc  volunteer time in church.  Even my electrical engineering husband who designs computer chips was once asked by someone to provide professional time - even though that didn't happen and there is just not a lot of call for chip designers.

I think of the well known LDS musians I know.  Most of those I know of who are women sing by themselves - Jenny Oaks Baker, Hilary Weeks, Lindsey Sterling.  At the moment I can only think of one group of women - Heartbound. But I can think of a lot  men's groups -  BYU Men's Choir, Vocal Point, Jericho Road, Afterglow. 

 

I get to do financial planning for free all the time. I am not sure why simple welfare cases need a financial planner but I guess that's the way it goes.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pick any sitcom and look at how the father is portrayed.

Prima facie evidence that you are right.

There was a fundamental shift in the 80s where the father figure is more likely to be portrayed as a lovable buffoon then a role model. I think the more dangerous tenet of this is that the longsuffering (and usually more attractive) wife, while chiding or mocking, always puts up with these idiots. The mother is the composed and sensible one who keeps everyone in line. Then real men are surprised when women do not put up with this behavior. I have watched more then one sitcom and wondered why the wife did not divorce the stupid idiot.

This is an understandable blowback from the sitcoms of the previous generation where the father is a sage figure (think Andy Griffith and Brady Bunch) who always knows the answers and always has good advice. Like a drunk man riding a mule if we almost fall off one side we overcompensate and fall off the other.

Masculinity needs a little cultural redefining in Western Society. If not the primary breadwinner and the undisputed head of the house who is obeyed in all things (I think the former has some merit and the latter is rightfully dying) then something else. One area where I think feminism has gone too far is the idea that women do not need men to complete them. While the tenet is useful to avoid desperation and toxic relationships it is also false. I do not think it is emotionally or spiritually healthy to be single after the time comes to find a spouse.

I know I have found the truth of the divine statement that it is not good for man to be alone and find myself battling selfishness (I only need to think of me in my home life), loneliness (self-explanatory), and unfulfilled romantic and paternal urges (easy to fall into sin of envy and the sickeningly sweet self-indulgent sin of self-pity). Single women face similar dangers.

Of course through the atonement of Christ all can be saved. I do not think singles are damned but their path is spiritually sub-optimal in terms of happiness even if some are called/doomed to walk that path. I use "doomed" here in the more archaic sense more akin to a cross between what we usually mean by "doomed" and just being "fated".

[Rain]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Or one always has the option of not posting if one has not read the subject under discussion.

Posting is not required and we need to stop dumbing down these threads.

There were 3 articles/posts linked in the OP. My post was directed to what I perceived to be the idea (from several) that one should read the whole blog before making a judgment.  Reading back I can see that the OP was just talking about the series mentioned in the OP. I apologize for getting that wrong.

I don't think that it is dumbs down things though to limit the seemingly (to me) required reading to a few articles/posts when talking about a specific subject when the blog is about a variety of topics.  It just makes common sense. 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I get to do financial planning for free all the time. I am not sure why simple welfare cases need a financial planner but I guess that's the way it goes.

I didn't mention a financial planner so I'm not sure why you say that. Nor did I mention welfare cases. When I said "accountant" I was thinking specifically of an accountant in my ward called as a stake assistant auditor. 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Pick any sitcom and look at how the father is portrayed.

Prima facie evidence that you are right.

It is unfortunate that the dumb, but allegedly lovable character has been so consistently a top draw in media.  It is, imo, easy, lazy humor (for the writers and probably for actors as well save for the slapstick physical workouts).  In the past it was dumb blondes and wacky redheaded women and dumb, subservient blacks and other minorities.  It seems absurd to me that society figured out that it wasn't funny to paint women and minorities that way, but somehow missed the boat on white males.

The dumb blonde character is apparently still a go to oldie, but gaggy choice for some writers and watchers.  On a list of the top 10 dumbest TV characters a recent (current) candidate was Brittany from Glee...a show I have never seen so I will have to trust them.  Another show I have never seen is the cartoon Family Guy which has Jillian.

http://tvline.com/gallery/dumbest-tv-characters-list-photos/#!7/dumbest-tv-characters-glee-brittany/

Edited August 31, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It is unfortunate that the dumb, but allegedly lovable character has been so consistently a top draw in media.  It is, imo, easy, lazy humor (for the writers and probably for actors as well save for the slapstick physical workouts).  In the past it was dumb blondes and wacky redheaded women and dumb, subservient blacks and other minorities.  It seems absurd to me that society figured out that it wasn't funny to paint women and minorities that way, but somehow missed the boat on white males.

I have come to distrust the media in general and Hollywood most of all.  I wish it were just coincidence, but I have almost concluded they promote sitcoms and movies with specific social agendas that meet their objectives.  It is not that they have not learned, but they purposely promote some groups while consciously demeaning other groups.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is unfortunate that the dumb, but allegedly lovable character has been so consistently a top draw in media.  It is, imo, easy, lazy humor (for the writers and probably for actors as well save for the slapstick physical workouts).  In the past it was dumb blondes and wacky redheaded women and dumb, subservient blacks and other minorities.  It seems absurd to me that society figured out that it wasn't funny to paint women and minorities that way, but somehow missed the boat on white males.

The dumb blonde character is apparently still a go to oldie, but gaggy choice for some writers and watchers.  On a list of the top 10 dumbest TV characters a recent (current) candidate was Brittany from Glee...a show I have never seen so I will have to trust them.  Another show I have never seen is the cartoon Family Guy which has Jillian.

http://tvline.com/gallery/dumbest-tv-characters-list-photos/#!7/dumbest-tv-characters-glee-brittany/

Good point that white males were the last politically correct group to target!

But can you imagine if someone actually tried to say that white males were "oppressed"?  THAT would be ........  interesting.

It is amazing how social reality changes.  As a kid I could see how wrong it was for there to be segregated schools in the south.  Clearly black people were being oppressed.  

But then along came the 70's and suddenly white people were being oppressed also.   How could white people be "oppressed"??   How was it possible that these folks were now complaining about white people being oppressed??   It made no sense.

People in MY FAMILY were being oppressed??   Ridiculous!

It became clear that I had drawn the line of "possible oppressed people" by race and not even considered other criteria for oppression. 

Who were the white people in my affluent family who were being oppressed?

Women.

Suddenly the world turned upside down with my view of oppression.   Women in my family??  They were affluent, they were among the race favored by society, they were in my family but did not include me as a male

To see the possibility that in fact these people in my family were being treated unfairly was a shocking paradigm shift.   Oppression happened to other people in far-away places, not to people I knew and loved.

Maybe it is time to at least look at the shocking paradigm shift that perhaps white males, though not "oppressed" have been pushed around a little more than they like.

For every action there is a reaction, and I think the reaction is upon us.   I am in the oldest wave of baby boomers and have always been in the leading edge of social change in my generation.   I was a hippie before there were hippies, I was a yippie before there were yippies, I was a yuppy before there were yuppies.  I gave up being a liberal and turned conservative before others, I understood religion without God before others (and then of course I found God).   None of this was due to my intelligence or anything else more than when I was born.  Others born right at the end of WW2 went through the same experiences.

But now I see that perhaps a reaction has begun, as seen in the very existence of the "Art of Manliness" blog.

I cannot stand Trump, but he sees it too.  He is a year older than I am.  We are both on the leading edge, the oldest big brothers of the baby boomers.  Our entire lives we were older than the other boomers and could see the way our generation, one of the largest in history, was going. That has been very useful in my life to see the trend, then jump out in front of the bus already headed in a direction and become a "leader" just by running in the same direction others had already started to run before others noticed the movement.  

It is a symptom of being born when both of us were born.

He is trying to manipulate people who are fed up with political correctness, in an extremely scary way, but the point is that there ARE many many people who are fed up with political correctness.  I honestly think he is evil. That he has been able to get as far as he has with his idiocy proves that a large segment of the population agrees with him at least that far.

I am not identifying Trump with this blog at all- I am just saying that both phenomena point to an underlying wave that could become a tsunami if we do not see it.  Take it from an old old hippie who was one before there were hippies!

Edited August 31, 2016 by mfbukowski