Allowing Men to be Men

[GoodBoy]

The latest pew polls found out that church congregations are about 61% female and 39% male. I've read a few theories on why this may be. Many believe that most churches have been "feminized" where it is all about the softer, emotional aspects that appeal to women more than they do to men. Our relationship with the divine has been turned into that of a committed lover (not sexual of course) instead of a strong powerful military leader that kicked butt and got things done as is more portrayed in the old testament.

The Mormon church's exclusion of women from leadership may give men a more meaningful role in the church than they would otherwise have. Do you think this is good for male participation in the church? Do you think that if the women had the priesthood and were church leaders that the men would slip away like they have done in so many other Christian denominations? Do you think that the church allows men to be men, or discourages them from truly being and acting like men?

[Servant]

Here is what me and a few other men i know see that the church does.

You chop your testicles off and give one to your wife, the other to the president.

Then you walk around with a dumb look and sad smile for the rest of your life.

It's a slow death.

Not for me thanks.


Oh by the way, the hymns written by women are often toxic to healthy male happiness.

Best to avoid them.

[Corsair]

This is a controversial topic but I suppose I can risk a contribution. I suspect that the male exclusive priesthood of the LDS church, while deeply politically incorrect, is also a demographic strength of the LDS church. I am not 100% sure how this could proven or disproven. This is an entirely different question than whether or not there is a moral or spiritual imperative to have ecclesiastic equality.

The Community of Christ has arguably shrunk along with other liberalizing Christian denominations. When historically conservative churches open up the ranks of clergy to women, do the churches grow in number, stay the same, or shrink? This sounds like the kind of study that the Pew Research Foundation would do (assuming it has not already). I'll bet that conservatives and fundamentalists would be interested. While church attendance is in decline in the west, this type of question might need to be examined worldwide with careful and strict statistical rigor.

[LSOF]

Not a recent phenomenon. Three words: Song of Solomon.

[document]

I'm in a church that has that approximate demographic. Our sect also does not take gender into account for any leadership role in the church. In about three months, my hierarchy in the diocese will be entirely female: female deacon, female priest, and female bishop. At the same time, our presiding bishop is male, our current bishop is male, our supply priest is male, and our senior warden (think of as the practical, budget side of a bishop) is male. The majority of our vestry is male currently.

Because I switched from a male-leadership-only church to one of gender neutrality this topic has always been on the somewhere floating in my mind. When I first came over I was quite desperately trying to determine the benefits (as it was not Mormonism) of having a female priest or female leadership. I thought about men and whether they were "repressed" or not allowed to be men, or I looked at women and thought if they were more empowered, etc.

Here's what I realized after a few years. Gender neutrality deepens the pool and at the unites people and gives greater opportunity for men to be men and women to be women in that environment. Gender-dependent leadership only forces people into roles that are pre-defined femininity and masculinity. Men are to preside, be strong, be disciplinary, be leaders. Women are to assist, nurture, love, and serve. These arbitrary roles assigned to gender are hogwash.

The elimination of gender roles doesn't emasculate the male or man-up the female! It allows individual talents and abilities to shine forth creating a richer environment.

Curious though, I found myself doing more traditional-"manly" stuff when I left the LDS church than when I was in. Despite gender-neutral leadership, people still do congregate together in some groups according to gender. This month alone I have, based upon my gender in those groups, repaired a water fountain, installed a cabinet, gone out for beers to watch a Seahawks game, and watched "Suckerpunch" with my male-church-mates. This month would have provided only a single opportunity were I LDS to do something manly in a church setting, I would break down tables at the ward party (which I did anyway as I was invited as went anyway).

It also doesn't emasculate because it allows me to be me.

I'm a male who love opera, music, dance, theater, poetry, and literature.
I'm a male who loves baseball, hockey, video games, punk music, 80s violent movies, and (going to be honest) boobs.

[moksha]

If I remember right, the two fastest growing Christian Churches are the Assemblies of God and the Jehovah Witnesses. The Assemblies of God allow women in the ministry and the Jehovah Witnesses do not. The JW's even embrace the idea that women are to view men as their head.

The fastest growing of all religions is Islam. They believe in an absolute patriarchy.

[Red Ryder]

Here is what me and a few other men i know see that the church does.

You chop your testicles off and give one to your wife, the other to the president.

Then you walk around with a dumb look and sad smile for the rest of your life.

It's a slow death.

This reminds me of the Man Post on reddit a week or two ago.

As a man, like the rest of you, my identity was worthless. The only thing that was valuable about me was what could I give to everyone else. I was nothing more than a walking ATM machine to my wife, a drone to fill nonsense roles in the Ward, and a proxy for the real man of the house: The Church. Anything original about me was something to be toned down, done away with, or feel embarrassed about.

Perfectionism set by a corporation intent on molding me into an identity-less guilt ridden not too smart faithful man instead created an angry, frustrated, and depressed human being. How much did we give away of ourselves to pursue a life of passionless mediocrity, trapped into early obligations, marriages, children, all of it by design to rope you into compliance at the expense of your authenticity?

Being a man, in this life, quite often means you're disposable. Our inherent value is what we can give others who are in positions of wealth or power. The Mormon church, instead of elevating us out of this existential prison only reinforces these social norms. You feel trapped. You are trapped. And when you escape that prison you often pay a heavy price by losing everything.

Talk about privelege, patriarchies, and all that is good and fine. However, in practice the only thing being a male in this world has truly afforded me is abuse, isolation, and crushing expectations that weren't my own.

[GoodBoy]

The fastest growing of all religions is Islam. They believe in an absolute patriarchy.

This is interesting since there is much greater male participation in Islam than female. Maybe this is also because the God of Islam is still a "kick butt and get things done" God.

Red Ryder, thanks for sharing that post from Reddit. Very thoughtful and well written!

[GoodBoy]

The elimination of gender roles doesn't emasculate the male or man-up the female! It allows individual talents and abilities to shine forth creating a richer environment.

It also doesn't emasculate because it allows me to be me.

This is good stuff.

[Leukarktos]

It also doesn't emasculate because it allows me to be me.

In other words, it doesn't e-ME-sculate because it allows me to be me.

[alas]

I don't think the church does allow men to be men. It doesn't even allow them to be human, and it defines for them how to be men. It pushes them all into predefined gender roles that are overly narrow. If the deviate from the church's definition of being a priesthood holder=man, then it shames them. It actually shames them for even being a man, with all kinds of shaming for normal sexual feelings and responses. It shames them for being a man by telling they "need priesthood" to bring them up to the spiritual level of women. It tells them that if women were given priesthood, that the women would do a much better job and take over and run the church because as men, they are inherently worthless and lazy.

And personally, I don't find Peter Priesthood all that manly. Your "good Mormon man" is obedient to authority, never turns down a calling, and puts "God" by which they really mean "church" above wife and children. Just what is manly about this version of manhood?

No, I think the church flatters/shames men into giving up their manhood, handing it over to the church. The church tells them how special they are, not because of who they are, but because the church is going to make them special by giving them some magical power. But it gets its hook into men by shaming them for being a normal male, and tells them that only it can make them real men by giving them magical powers only given to Mormon men. The church treats them like little princes, giving them privilege and fun activities the girls don't get. The privileged position teaches them that they are better that women and girls. It teaches them to see women, not as people, but as pure angelic wives and mothers, or whores. Women are either up on the pedestal, or they are worthless. It tells them it is preparing them to be leaders, but honestly it is preparing them to be middle managers who are unquestioningly loyal to the machine.

I think Islam does the same to its men, allowing them to think they are special and better than women, but in reality taking away their manhood and trading it for loyality to the machine.

A real man puts his wife and children as his top priority, not an organized religion. He has his own values, not preprocessed values handed to him by some man higher up the food chain. He is willing to fight to defend his loved ones, his principles, his community. He isn't afraid to be nurturing to children, or to do or enjoy "feminine" things. He isn't ashamed of the softer side of himself because he is secure in his manhood. He doesn't need a God who kicks butt, because he has the wisdom to know you get more done by loving people than you do by kicking their butt. More like Jesus, less like Hulk Hogan. Jesus didn't just kick butt and get things done, but sat and talked to the woman at the well. He sat and talked with Mary, and even chided Martha for being too into the standard female role of cooking and serving the men. Sure, he can kick butt when he needs to, but knows that most of the time he gets more done by love and encouragement. He leads by doing, not just talking. He leads men into war rather than sending them. He knows he needs to have a self before he can give that self in service to others. The church doesn't ever let people develope their self, but demands that they give away that self in service to the church.

I think all of theses same things apply to women. A real woman puts her husband and children ahead of the church. She has her own values and isn't afraid of her softer side because she knows that if she needs to she can kick butt and get things done, and that any man who is angry at her when she does need to kick butt and get things done is just afraid of losing his own insecure manhood. The idea that one needs to have a self before they can give that self to others is probably more of a problem for women, who are expected to sacrifice themselves for husband and children, sacrifice themselves for church.

So, no, I don't think a male only priesthood helps men in the church be men. I think it is the shame hook that destroys their manhood and keeps them loyal to the machine.

[Servant]

Nicely writen Alas.

Thank you, and thank you for sharing such insights from a woman's experience.


Not to detract from that. I would insert my understanding.

You wrote that a man's top priority should be his wife and children.

I agree, yet would add something.

The reason I agree that a man's wife and children should be his top priority is that they are his present and living primary responsibility. If he doesn't love them first, whom will he love at all?

However, I want to insert something into the picture.

I want to insert the notion of God.

I would encourage my son to place God (not religion) above family or children.

This needs explaining.

In this context the word God means 'everything that is good, true, just, right.

You see, I either have a notion of that which is better than my will or my wife's and children's will, or else I do not.

There isn't really any middle ground on how we live our lives.

Either my will is paramount, or I self check my will against conscience and contemplative reasoning.

So I would not remove 'God' from the picture.

Because I came to this as my conclusion for me, for my life, for my contentment, so I then explain to my wife ( and children) that I will subject what I do to what I believe to be true, just, right, best and good. And that when I don't know I will counsel with my wife, and spend time in contemplation, AND I will pray about it.

Using the results of such process I will make my best decision. A decision that has an explanation.

The course I then feel content to follow could well be everything my wife counsels, or something we both come to though counselling, but the notion of , 'what is best here?' will be asked.

That's mostly how I see keeping 'God' first in my life.

[alas]

I think for me, God is one of those values or principles that a man needs to have. The values, morals, principles don't come after wife and children, because caring, providing, loving, protecting wife and children are all part of that values set. Freedom, equality, loving God, truth are values that are expressed in how we relate to our fellow human beings. So, if your relationship with wife/husband is causing you to violate such values, then the person has to come as a lesser priority than the values/morals/relation to God. The first and second of what Christ called the greatest commandments are intertwined. Love of God cannot really be separated from love of fellow man and self. So, the first and greatest commandment is love God, but you do that be keeping the second. You can't separate them, but you can get them backwards and put love of self as way more important than love of others or even put love of one person over love of God/morals/values/principles.

[Servant]

From all we have both said here, would it be fair to say that giving God, or the idea of a 'God of goodness' a high place in our lives and minds is something we can only grow into individually?

And that such growth, such becoming, is best nurtured and encouraged a little a a time, not too often. Never forced.

I think so.