The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity

[puzzleannie]

:thumbsup:Glad to hear that is your reason, because the book delves much deeper than that. t.

perhaps but OP’s intro and subsequent discussion have not

btw, when you ask for opinions, and someone offers and opinion that disagrees with you, it is not being combative, not at least until I take my gloves off

 

[CDNowak]

Well, you all know who stood at the foot of the cross. John and several women, so it appears to have been from the get go. I am in my 74th year and can testify that long before Vatican II and the expanded role for women in the Church, the girls/women were always disproportionately represented in those who one might label as strong in their faith. More than a few men felt and probably still feel that being religious means having to control one’s attitudes and behavior to a greater extant than they want to. I still have male friends and acquaintances of my advanced years who think it is cool go gaga over huge, bare breasts. That is just one example of their lack of restraint. In my opinion there are many men who never really grow up. They are stuck in the adolescent paradigm.

The book in question marks a shift with the spiritual eroticism of Bernard of Clairvaux. Prior to that you had Christian men exhibiting masculine and Christian virtues either through martyrdom or “white martyrdom”. I would add that the rise of national identities evolving around the Crusades, introduced a more fierce notion of patriotism, which demanded more of the masculine virtues, but not always the Christian ones.

 

[CDNowak]

Your comment has nothing to do with the OP though. The OP is talking about how the Catholic Church has become “feminized” and gives an example of a priest who didn’t have the guts to preach Church teaching to his flock.

i.e. the OP claims that cowardice and weakness = feminized. So this brings me back to why men in general tend to associate negative traits with femininity. Why is it that one of the worst things you can call a man is a woman/girl?

Why not look at that example of the priest and say why has the Church become weak, why use the word “feminized”?

The OP’s example is right, the priest who refuses to teach his flock is acting in a more feminine manner. His reasoning on why it is an example of feminization is wrong, however. The priest in this case is expressing a feminine virtue (maintaining unity) instead of the masculine virtue (courage, drawing the line). Furthermore, he expresses the feminine virtue badly, as he is not suited to it.

You are asking the wrong question, why isn’t it one of the worst things you can call a woman is a man/boy?

 

[CDNowak]

perhaps but OP’s intro and subsequent discussion have not

btw, when you ask for opinions, and someone offers and opinion that disagrees with you, it is not being combative, not at least until I take my gloves off

Well, let’s change the discussion then to a productive one. I’m trying my best.

 

[flyingfish]

You are asking the wrong question, why isn’t it one of the worst things you can call a woman is a man/boy?

Because being a man is not regarded as an inferior/worse state by women, or at least not by most women.

The author is arguing against the concept of Christianity as a feminine religion, highlighting self-sacrifice as the pinnacle of virility. The zeal of the Apostles, the role of the Father (and therefore of fathers), the priestly office, all this is also part of Christianity and the best part of masculinity.

On the title, both masculine and feminine become impotent in seeking to become the other (in this day and age, quite literally). The author would bemoan a Church or denomination dominated by masculinized women as much as he bemoans the current situation where feminized men rule the roost.

You misunderstood the point I was making though. The same line of stereotypes that says that unwillingness to stand up for beliefs is a feminine trait would also say that self-sacrifice, charity, loving your neighbor etc. are feminine traits.

The author wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants so much to subscribe to the stereotype that has women be weak and cowardly, but redefine stereotypes of men to include self sacrifice and charity?

 

[CDNowak]

You misunderstood the point I was making though. The same line of stereotypes that says that unwillingness to stand up for beliefs is a feminine trait would also say that self-sacrifice, charity, loving your neighbor etc. are feminine traits.

The author wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants so much to subscribe to the stereotype that has women be weak and cowardly, but redefine stereotypes of men to include self sacrifice and charity?

1. The author doesn’t use the same example as the OP, and if he did his explanation would be along the lines of what I posted previously, the priest poorly displays feminine virtues in place of masculine virtues. It is just as wrong as a nun poorly displaying masculine virtues in place of feminine virtues.
2. Self-sacrifice is a masculine virtue, or perhaps, a virtue that has both feminine and masculine expressions. Yes, that is better put. The masculine expression of self-sacrifice is often quite literal: the soldier diving on the grenade, the man pushing the woman out from in front of the bus.

Charity, according to the author, seems to be the natural provence of the feminine, not the masculine.

If you have the time, I would encourage you to read the book (if you don’t have enough time for all of it skip to ~ chapter 5).

 

[flyingfish]

1. Self-sacrifice is a masculine virtue, or perhaps, a virtue that has both feminine and masculine expressions. Yes, that is better put. The masculine expression of self-sacrifice is often quite literal: the soldier diving on the grenade, the man pushing the woman out from in front of the bus.

Well, that particular example of self sacrifice may be masculine. But outside of dying for someone else, if you see self sacrifice as putting others before self it is a very feminine virtue. The idea of submission, serving others ahead of self, turning the other cheek, loving neighbor as yourself are stereotypically feminine traits, and a man who turned the other cheek and was submissive to the needs of others would not meet the masculine stereotype.

Stereotypically male virtues are strength, competence, ability to hold leadership/power, individualism, risk taking, athleticism or other displays of physical ability, multiple sexual conquests and so on.

 

[markeverett49]

If you want to make it about stereotypes, Christianity itself is a feminine religion. .

I think Peter and Paul would have disagreed with you here.

 

[markeverett49]

i.e. the OP claims that cowardice and weakness = feminized. So this brings me back to why men in general tend to associate negative traits with femininity. Why is it that one of the worst things you can call a man is a woman/girl?
QUOTE]

I am responsible for the OP and think you mischaracterize it here. Nothing in Podles’ book suggests that “weakness = feminized.” I gave an example from my own experience of a priest who refused to to preach dogma for fear of offending someone, making him a milquetoast. If you read that to mean that I thought there is something wrong with women who hate to give offense, then I apologize.

Podles’ work is there for the reading. Please do not confuse my intro with his argument. That is unfair to him.

 

[Ender]

The OP’s example is right, the priest who refuses to teach his flock is acting in a more feminine manner. His reasoning on why it is an example of feminization is wrong, however. The priest in this case is expressing a feminine virtue (maintaining unity) instead of the masculine virtue (courage, drawing the line). Furthermore, he expresses the feminine virtue badly, as he is not suited to it.

This is a pretty good point. It’s like the difference in discipline one normally expects from a father rather than a mother. We are seeing Mother’s discipline; Father isn’t home.

You are asking the wrong question, why isn’t it one of the worst things you can call a woman is a man/boy?

I like this one too. I don’t have an answer but the question is intriguing.

Ender

 

[CDNowak]

Stereotypically male virtues are strength, competence, ability to hold leadership/power, individualism, risk taking, athleticism or other displays of physical ability, multiple sexual conquests and so on.

I think part of the problem is the author (and if I might be so bold, myself) are seeking to cut through stereotypes to the essence of masculinity and femininity. We reject such things as the multiple sexual partners as authentically masculine and raise points where we don’t see masculine virtues (or the masculine expression of virtues) that are part of authentic masculinity.

 

[silentstar]

Children and adults who have been identified as “gifted” are more likely to be androgynous in their interests and behavior than other people.

I’m just putting this out there for consideration. I have only skimmed a couple chapters in Podles’ book and I don’t know how this work compares to his conclusions. However issues of personality and talent development of males are discussed here.

Here are some links:

hoagiesgifted.org/gender.htm

These links focus on issues for boys and men as well as for women and girls.

Since we’re focusing on the behavior of males, I’ll pick a link that has to do with boys and men. There is a book called Smart Boys: Talent, Manhood and the Search for Meaning. By Barbara Kerr and Sanford J. Cohn.

From Amazon:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/091070743X/thehoagiesgifted/

From Library Journal
This practical and provocative book explores the phenomenon of youthful male giftedness. Both professors of psychology in education at Arizona State University, Cohn and Kerr (Smart Girls: A New Psychology of Girls, Women, and Giftedness) combine original research based on a follow-up study of an accelerated-learning class from St. Louis, MO, in 1969 with a literature review of previous studies to ground their conclusions about giftedness and masculinity. Discussions cover life-cycle issues and the impact of giftedness on the academic and social adjustment of such boys, including problems of underachievement and antisocial personality characteristics. In addition to analyzing gifted minority youth, the book offers inspiring suggestions for guiding and parenting gifted boys.

Conveying a clear sense of the loss of potential demonstrated by the starkly conventional lives of the St. Louis children as adults, the authors tackle deficiencies in the educational system and broader societal issues that inhibit talented boys. Accessibly and clearly written, this wide-ranging book should enrich the understanding of parents, teachers, and mentors. Its gender specificity also allows for concrete analyses and specific suggestions. Recommended for public libraries and specialized education collections. Antoinette Brinkman, formerly with the Southwest Indiana Mental Health Ctr. Lib., Evansville
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

Ideals of masculinity that stress physical agility over intelligence compel smart boys and men “to ignore the urgings of their intellect and creative selves in order to fulfill socially ordained masculine roles,” according to psychologists Kerr and Cohn. Kerr authored Smart Girls, Gifted Women (1985) and follows up by focusing on the particular challenges facing smart boys, given changes in sex roles and increased attention to the needs of girls.

The book cites research and case studies showing that many gifted boys don’t live up to their potential and suffer social isolation, having to choose between excellence and “normality.” Kerr and Cohn start by examining how intelligence figures in images of American males and look at the developmental stages of gifted boys from infancy to manhood. Finally, the authors offer guidance to parents on how to nurture gifted boys and overcome their particular challenges, including ambivalence about their gifts and concerns about masculinity. Parents and teachers dealing with particularly bright boys will find this book a useful and encouraging resource. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

 

[silentstar]

Here is another link that discusses raising boys:

Understanding and Raising Boys: The Search for Masculinity

pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/masculinity.html

I read some of the stuff Podles said about boys and tests/rites of passage they go through in different societies to become men.

From the link:

Figuring out the rules of masculinity and trying to live up to them is part of every boy’s childhood. Most boys find the “tests of” masculinity scary and hard to pass. And some boys find this process especially painful because they feel they don’t have the right skills and interests to be successful at being a boy.

"Parents are often baffled by why boys work so hard at being boys,"says Michael Thompson, Ph.D., host of the PBS RAISING CAIN documentary. “Sometimes they wish their boys could just be themselves’ and not constantly measure themselves against the societal standard of masculinity. But boys do this, whether you like it or not (as girls do with femininity). Only in time do children develop a sufficiently independent identity so they can say with confidence and pride, ‘That’s not me. This is who I am.’”

A couple of points from this discussion:

• the “tests” often involve not being feminine and the more violent the environment, the more violent the “tests” of masculinity will be.
• boys get ideas on how to be men from the media. Which lately is promoting sexually explicit and violent images and also consumption of alcohol.
• courage is emotional as well as physical. I think this relates to one of Podles’ main arguments: that priests and other leaders need to be able to take a stand when necessary. Boys might be raised to think that courage involves taking physical risks, but it also involves emotional strength. (And I think that courage needs to be shown by women in the Church as well.)

Again, I’m just putting this out there; it seems like there is some overlap between this and some of the stuff Podles is saying. I can see that although men may have avoided religious services for a long time (but not everywhere or in every faith) that it would be a problem if boys are learning how to be men from the media which tends not to promote religious values.

 

[flyingfish]

I think part of the problem is the author (and if I might be so bold, myself) are seeking to cut through stereotypes to the essence of masculinity and femininity. We reject such things as the multiple sexual partners as authentically masculine and raise points where we don’t see masculine virtues (or the masculine expression of virtues) that are part of authentic masculinity.

Then why not similarly reject the stereotype that says it’s a feminine trait not to fight for one’s beliefs?

It seems that the essence of masculinity gets rescued from the common stereotypes, but that of femininity does not.

 

[CDNowak]

Then why not similarly reject the stereotype that says it’s a feminine trait not to fight for one’s beliefs?

It seems that the essence of masculinity gets rescued from the common stereotypes, but that of femininity does not.

While the author does not go on at length about the recovery of femininity, that is not his topic, as the Church is not suffering from an absence of the feminine virtues (although it would be possible to note some lack among certain leadership conferences of women religious).

Furthermore, no one, including the OP continues to support that stereotype, so you may consider yourself victorious in that regard if necessary.