"feminization"

[zoegirl]

lol, I think I am the topic of his latest blog....about foolish women....

[Canuckster1127]

That's the nice thing about sexists. All you have to do to find them is to listen to what come out of their mouth .....

They're convenient that way.

[DannyM]

lol, I think I am the topic of his latest blog....about foolish women....

He is one insecure cookie...

[Jac3510]

The term doesn't refer to weakness or strength. A strong person is simply one who will stand on their convictions, and this whether they are male or female. It has nothing to do with the intellect. There are smart men and smart women, and, dare I say, stupid men and stupid women. The issue isn't even with authority. In my view, the Bible demands male leadership, but that isn't what [most] people are speaking of when they complain of the feminization of the Church.

What is being addressed are the characteristics of men. As is well known, men and women are different, not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically. I even tend to believe that there are spiritual differences (which is not to be unexpected, given nature of marriage). The mistake people make when talking about these differences is to say something like, "Men tend to be more aggressive; women tend to be more diplomatic." This may be true, but it is only true in certain contexts, and more importantly, it misses the point by stating it incorrectly; this phrasing allows people to make the silly argument, "Well, I know aggressive women and diplomatic men!" which is also certainly true. And once that argument starts, the main point never gets addressed.

What we mean is this: "Aggression is perceived as a masculine trait; diplomacy is a feminine trait." Stated this way, it should be apparent that neither trait is superior, and that neither sex is superior. Thus, you have this statement: "Rationality is a masculine trait; emotionalism is a feminine trait." This is not to say that men are more rational than women or that there are no emotional men. This is to say that, as a trait, rationality (cold logic) is masculine and feelings are feminine. As an aside, I think it is precisely this point that has caused people through history to wrongly regard women as less intelligent than men.

It shouldn't be hard for anyone to take any range of traits and assign to them their appropriate gender. Decisiveness, compassion, justice, mercy, risk-taking, protectiveness, etc. In this light, when people complain about the feminization of the church, they are arguing that the feminine traits are becoming promoted as superior to the masculine traits. Neither should be promoted above the other. Both are necessary.

As it happens, the feminization of the church is just tracking the feminization of western culture. The masculine traits are progressively being seen as unsavory, distasteful, and downright unacceptable. It goes with trend of post-modernism in which everything is relative; why can't we all just get alone? No one is right. No one is wrong. Do what feels good. No war. No hate. No aggression.The Alpha Male, once regarded with respect, is looked at as a shameless bully and nothing more. The result has been the emasculation of men, which I believe has had a direct impact on the strength of our society.

Feminization, no less than patriarchy, is church or society is bad. Neither are God's plan.

[zoegirl]

Here's what drives me nuts. The idea that I can't even challenge this guy's thoughts on anything without then being labeled as the woman who "tears down her house" or a contentious woman that is described in scripture.

I had some disagreements about several things he had said, the lack of support for what he had said, (generalization, poor logic, etc) which made me very very leary of his real view towards women (and which I simply wanted clarification). To which he declared that I was being judgmental about men (even though I took great lengths to show that I knew many many Godly men and had great respect for men and even though he goes to great pains in his blog to teach young men how to judge the women they date)

And I can understand that there is a time and a place for challenge and debate, but in a private discussion, if I see something I want clarified, if I see arrogance, I shouldn't have to think "but is it a woman's place to challenge a man?" (as he has implied).

So if this ws his idea of feminization of the church, that I was simply asking his thoughts and clarification, then I must confess, I want no part of his idea of a "manly" church. If this makes me a contentious woman, then sadly, I am fine with being contentious.

[Jac3510]

Obviously I've not been interacting with him, zoe, but it doesn't sound to me like his problem has anything to do with his view of women so much as it has to do with the mere fact that he's more interested in preaching than talking. He wants to stand on high and pronounce, and that's the end of it. Even if his view was correct, the Bible speaks against lording over people . . .

What does concern me, though, more in line with the topic of your post, is the possibility of an overly masculine backlash. Certainly, the loss of masculinity is one of the great casualties of the twentieth century, but a counter assertion of male dominance would be problematic as well. Maybe it's possible we are seeing some of that in people like your "friend" (or is it fiend?) here.

[zoegirl]

Well, on that point alone I wouldn't be able to form an idea of how he views women, but there were plenty of other pieces of evidence that he bordered on misogyny, although he claimed he wanted a woman who could keep up with him, several comments revealed his real contempt of women.

However, all that aside, I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter. It is something that carries so much emotional baggage that it really takes effort to discuss this without hurting people and you gentlemen have succeeded wonderfully. It's unfortunate that we seem to have an either/or attitude towards this issue and both genders can manage to throw the other under the bus in order to lit the other up.

[Proinsias]

He doesn't sound very nice Zoe, but then maybe he just doesn't express himself too well.

I'd like to nominate B.W's post as the best forum post I've read on the internet this year.

I;m not only talking about the excitement of the relationship but also of shared goals within the relationship, of the spiritual battle, of life's adventures....

Indeedydo, I agree with you. But I have met a girl who is not an avowed Christian, so I can't really think in those terms.

Of course you can. A relationship with a girl who is not an avowed Christian will at the very least result in spiritual battles and adventures in life, and at the very most will end you up with someone for the rest of your days and for whom you would give up everything. For a happy middle ground you might end up really caring about and understanding someone with very different views to you, even if you both decide it's not going to work out in the long term.

"Rationality is a masculine trait; emotionalism is a feminine trait." This is not to say that men are more rational than women or that there are no emotional men.

Why is rationality a masculine trait if the male is no more rational than the female?

Feminization, no less than patriarchy, is church or society is bad. Neither are God's plan.

You know God's plan?

Things may not be going to plan but after a long bout of patriachy it might take a bit of matriarchy before we can walk the middle ground.
I think that after so long in a patriarchy if we want to have a system which keeps everyone happy we might need more input from the feminine side than the masculine one. I imagine the differences between men and women would be most apparent if we went from the current position of men holding the vast majority of powerful positions, from a monetary and political perspective at least, to women doing so. In seeing these differences we could then look to reconcile them.

Or we could tell women not to seek money and power as we have already tried it, and how could they possibly make a better go of it?

This is to say that, as a trait, rationality (cold logic) is masculine and feelings are feminine.

How does one determine if logic is hot or cold without feeling it?

[Canuckster1127]

Sadly, misogyny has flown under the cover of sanctified religious approval for quite some time. The pendulum can swing back too far and become misandrogeny which has been mentioned is neither a desirable or legitimate response. I think the popularity of books celebrating maleness, such as Eldridge of late have been something of a response to where the pendulum is perceived as having indeed swung too far.

Part of it is cultural. As our society becomes more technological the values of physical strength have diminished. What is called feminization is simply a change in the traits society values. In our general culture, the hunter, laborer, disciplinarian is not valued as highly as social networking skills, intelligence etc.

[zoegirl]

I worry that in the process of trying to strengthen men, by using the term feminization, by declaring some traits masculine and others feminine, that we end up reinforcing this idea that men think, men act and women sit there and cheer them on. At best this breeds weak-minded women who don't use their talents and at worst we breed women who feel that they cannot challenge or even say anything. (the idea that women shouldn't debate or else they are "contentious women").

Sometimes it seems that in the opposition to feminism (which correctly can lead to misandrogeny) we have inappropriately fed the fuels of bitterness towards women and fear that letting them speak will lead to them dominating.

take, for instance, the simple idea that rationality is a masculine trait. Taken not even to the extreme, you have the lop-sided idea that pervades some churches that men must be the ones that teach and only men, because they are the rational thinkers. What women, desiring to be Biblical and a Godly woman, wants to somehow be labeled masculine for wanting to express herself in the company of men? And I have noticed this, subtly, with the way churches create theirs programs, with the women's groups and men's groups being woefully one-sided in their teachings of apologetics. And perhaps this has more to do simply with women wanting to focus on their children at that time, but if this is reinforced as the only way, then we are in trouble for generations to come.

[DannyM]

Indeedydo, I agree with you. But I have met a girl who is not an avowed Christian, so I can't really think in those terms.

Of course you can. A relationship with a girl who is not an avowed Christian will at the very least result in spiritual battles and adventures in life, and at the very most will end you up with someone for the rest of your days and for whom you would give up everything. For a happy middle ground you might end up really caring about and understanding someone with very different views to you, even if you both decide it's not going to work out in the long term.

She's not an atheist, and if she was I wouldn't mind so long as she didn't spout all kinds of atheist nonsense to me. From what I know she is a Christian but rather passive in that she doesn't take an interest in religion like I do. I'll go with the flow...