Those damn women
I had been up for over an hour this morning before it registered with me that it is International Womens’ Day, but some people are not so lax, and I had an email from commenter Alan in my inbox by the time that I got to work. I am sure that Alan wouldn’t mind me quoting a couple of excerpts:
Well, there’s a most peculiar development going on in the churches at the moment.Archbishops and ethics lecturers are mounting a new campaign to get men into church.The argument runs like this:men hate the church(that of course will be news to women who look around and find its men who run the place),for five reasons:
*church meeting styles are feminine
*church leadership model is weak
*church is boring and safe:no risk
*church doesn’t relate to a man’s world
*blokes like to get their hands dirty
(”Five reasons why men hate the church”,Jeremy Halcrow,29.1.07 Syd Anglican website)
But maybe there’s another reason.
Perhaps men look around the church and don’t like the way other men are treating women.Maybe there’s too many men now comfortably and easily working with, working for,being directed by,in partnership with, women, that they are uneasy about the kind of blokey culture about in too many of our churches, and dont want to be a part of it!
I don’t know whether I agree with the latter commentary, but I find that there is a real paradox about the church/gender debate. First it seems clear that there are many more men in formal leadership in churches than women. If anything this is even more true of church plants and alternative model churches. As much as I embrace the “emerging” discussion, the movement does seem to have a more than usual affliction with the “angry young man” syndrome. No offence intended to any angry young men in the audience.
However, at the same time, there is a concern about the fact that men as a demographic are under-represented among church attenders. The NCLS says that only about 39% of church attenders in Australia are male and suggests a number of theories as to why. Part of this imbalance is almost certainly due to the fact that the elderly are over-represented in churches and women on average live longer than men. But what of the rest of the difference?
Increasingly, as Alan has pointed out, I have heard people discuss the idea that men are less likely to be involved with the church because church culture is somehow uncomfortable or anti-male. These are the arguments for people who endorse or at least condone a “bloke”inisation of leadership and culture in the church to “correct the balance”. I find these positions to raise some logical conflicts. I think we can point to the following facts that seem to be fairly well established.
- More women than men are regular church attenders
- More men than women are in formal leadership in the church
Which raises a whole bunch of questions. If the culture of the church is anti-church, then who creates the culture? If the leaders create the culture, then why are a group of predominantly male leaders creating such a “feminine” culture so as to be anathema to men? What about the culture of the church is feminine? The worship? The openness? The confessional? The singing? What?
In response to that, if the culture of the church is too female, then what changes will make the place more attractive to men? Surely most men are more sophisiticated than to respond to an increase on the ‘bloke’iness dial? So I have a couple of simple questions I would like an answer to, and I think that the commenters at signposts on this day are well qualified to give me those answers:
- Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
- What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
- Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
- What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Janet
at the end of the day there must be some way for anyone to exercise their gifts and talents, otherwise why would God give us these things? The question has always been about how, when, in what circumstances etc. I think that applies to all of us. As you point out getting to the heart of Scripture is not easy sometimes.
Have you read the Silence of Adam by Larry Crabb? I always find those sorts of books a bit dense to get through, but again worth the read. I probably need to re-read it- it has been a while.
Cheers
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
No… but I have read “Men and Women: Enjoying the Difference” by said author. As I think I’ve stated… I do think most men and most women are “wired” quite differently, and he does reflect on this in his book.
When theological reflection and social science research revolve around how men and women can best bless one another, especially in the context of marriage, I think it’s a worthy field of endeavour.
Sometimes theology is (I suspect) used in terms of power and control instead of blessing… women cannot do this or that because God says so. I know that’s not your intent, but it has been used that way.
How’s your back now?
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
My back is getting better slowly thank you - have been off work for 5 of 6 working days. Tomorrow off and back for Thurs - then another 4 days to recover. Its the sort of experience that encourages me to look after myself a bit better, cause there’ll come a day when that will be too late to make a difference…
“Sometimes theology is (I suspect) used in terms of power and control instead of blessing… women cannot do this or that because God says so. I know that’s not your intent, but it has been used that way.”
The trouble is I actually think that God has drawn lines in the sand - and it does have something to do with authority - despite the reading you showed us yesterday, and that I agree with the general thrust of that reading. I think it is both simple and complex all at the same time.
By the way I have seen some stuff on the net before re egalitarian - non-hierarchical complementarian etc - don’t have the references handy.
The guts of it is that I don’t think any of us like authority being exercised over us - whether it be rightly or wrongly - we all kick against it. I agree that we may have lost something of how it was supposed to work from the early church - (or is that a hankering after Utopia?). I don’t trust “current” thinking, cause it is always right whether it is or isn’t, and yet we have the Holy Spirit and we’re supposed to be able to work it out.
Look I don’t think I am actually adding anything to the debate - my thinking is too muddy and uninformed at the moment.
But I’ll keep looking with interest for your postings on the matter, and I’ll add anything I find, but sometime in the next year or two to make sense I have to do some real work on it. then may be I’ll have something to say.
Cheers
MN
April 4th, 2007 at 9:14 am
CBE does have interesting stuff to read… I think in their own delightfully scholarly way they test the scriptures that have been used to stop women exercising their spiritual gifts and blow them right out of the water.
As you say… it takes time to get one’s head around it all.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
“The guts of it is that I don’t think any of us like authority being exercised over us - whether it be rightly or wrongly - we all kick against it.”
That’s probably true… but this comment raises concerns for me… because it can be used as a “stick” to stop the argument. (”Well, women rant about oppression in the church because they just don’t like authority… they should just get over it and submit their hearts to Christ.”)
Imagine you were a priest in the Roman Catholic Church trying to argue that the verses used to support celibacy were specific to a time or place, or reflected a very unique spiritual gift, but that people without this gift should be able to exercise a “priestly” function.
Well… you could quickly attempt to silence such a priest by claiming they had personal struggles with celibacy and needed prayer to overcome them… or they had an attitude problem with the authority of the church… or they REALLY needed to surrender their heart to Jesus because they had a struggle with the clear teaching of the bible…
It shifts the ground from an academic discussion: “perhaps the church has incorrectly interpreted the bible” to “you have an attitude problem”
I think when the ground shifts here it matters not a whit how much you stand on the theological high ground, you’ve lost the argument because you’re the problem.
And I think the same happens for women who seek to suggest that the verses that have been used to keep women in the kitchen, the women’s group and the Sunday School only have been incorrectly interpreted… well, they’re “just bitter and have an attitude problem”.
Sometimes I think men need to pick up this battle for women… because it can be a “no win” for women.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“Sometimes I think men need to pick up this battle for women… because it can be a “no win” for women.”
I agree with you on this score - it is also perhaps why it is best for me to stay relatively mute on this until i have firmed up a case one way or the other.
I have had people throw articles at me as evidence for their point of view before only to read it and know the other person hasn’t…. if they had they wouldn’t have given it to me.
On a tangent generally it is a bit like th quickest way to stop an argument sometimes is to call your opponent argumentative - at that point you need authoritative third party corroboration. A healthy dose of the truth always helps.
The dilemma you’re painting is absolutism v relativism - and we absolutlely live in the philosophical age of relatvity…
Both have their pitfalls, but I believe in absolute truth - otherwise I wouldn’t be a Christian- it is just I don’t have this issue and some related ones sussed yet. Its hard making my way thru the veils of mist and gray - thru a darkened mirror we see…
April 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
“The dilemma you’re painting is absolutism v relativism”
Um… how?
I was simply saying you can kill an intelligent dialogue by implying the other person has a personal / attitude problem… then everything they say can be discounted. I’m not exactly sure what you mean.
I suppose where I stand is that there are some absolute truths… eg there is a creator God who has revealed himself in Christ Jesus is an absolute truth IMO… those who disagree with me are wrong!
There are many areas of life where there are no absolutes. What is the right way to discipline? (it depends on child and the parents and the culture) Should priests be celibate? (This is a good idea in some situations… eg in times of persecution… but I do not believe the scriptures that speak of this should be interpreted as a binding rule for all priests for all time). Should Christians tithe? etc. etc. etc.
I think the freedom we have in Christ means there are a lot a grey areas where we depend on the Word, the Spirit, our conscience and our common sense to make decisions.
Not sure if that’s what you’re talking about…
April 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Although it’s a brain strain… there’s a fascinating theological thrash out about men, women, headship etc. etc. at Jesuscreed… see:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2143#comments
April 28th, 2007 at 11:02 am
OK Daisy… “those damn women” is officially resurrected.
Your friend doing theological study might have the intestinal fortitude to wade through the jesuscreed thread linked to above… she’s probably already wading through issues of the culture of the New Testament churches and the intricacies of Koine Greek!
If anyone would like to have a go at women in society, work-family balance, equality in partnerships, economic pressures etc., let’s pick it up here and leave the homosexuality thread to be about homosexuality.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Emma Whale Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Governments always seem to confused about what it is women want…I think mostly (in terms of economics) we want choice. If we want to have a career, then we should have the option of childcare available…if we want to stay at home and raise our kids, then we should not be made to feel like we are not contributing, I agree with Janet. The “best case” scenario for me would be for myself and my husband to work part-time and look after kids part time. But it is nearly impossible to find a job that makes sense career-wise that will allow part time work. What I have seen most is that whoever is earning the most money (and this is very usually the man) is forced to stay in full-time work while the lesser earning partner, mostly the mother, agrees to sacrifice her career for 5-10 years.
Done it for you Emma!!!
April 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I’m going to shift some posts across here!!!
Emma Whale
Governments always seem to confused about what it is women want…I think mostly (in terms of economics) we want choice. If we want to have a career, then we should have the option of childcare available…if we want to stay at home and raise our kids, then we should not be made to feel like we are not contributing, I agree with Janet. The “best case” scenario for me would be for myself and my husband to work part-time and look after kids part time. But it is nearly impossible to find a job that makes sense career-wise that will allow part time work. What I have seen most is that whoever is earning the most money (and this is very usually the man) is forced to stay in full-time work while the lesser earning partner, mostly the mother, agrees to sacrifice her career for 5-10 years.
Bec
Janet, Daisy…I’ve only got to your posts in the 1920s, still have to read the rest, but I just wanted to throw a comment out there - I’ve been part of a few communities, including some that regard themselves as ultra-progressive, and I include both Christian and secular organisations in this. Something I’ve observed is that sexism appears to be harder to combat and point out in more progressive organisations…I find that my conservative Christian male friends are far more open to me saying “hey, I feel that a bit unfair ‘cos…” than are my progressive Christian, or atheist Socialist friends (sorry for the generalisations and labels there, but I’m generalising anyway…)
Bec
Anyway, loved your post at 1932. I think you’re spot on. I frequently cop jokes about being a “strong woman” and “wearing the pants”, and while those jokes are always coming from a good place, they also wear a bit thin at times…because a bloke would never get the same kind of treatment. I’ve never heard a guy get affectionately ribbed for being ambitious, outspoken, determined etc…yet women get it all the time.
Having said that, I think blokes get a rough deal out of it too…guys who stay at home with the kids get ribbed for doing so, they’re regarded as somehow less masculine. I can’t think of any examples appropriate for a public place, but just as I’m fascinated by the gender-stereotypes implicit in the good-natured ribbing I cop, so too am I fascinated by the jokes made about my husband.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I think “progressive” organisations just don’t think they have a problem, so they’re not very teachable.
To be perfectly honest, the “jokes” thing isn’t a battle I feel much like picking…
I think rather guiltily of my sisters in other parts of the world… who get less food, less education, have to do more of the work, are aborted more often, are killed as infants, have less money, less access to health care, have far less power in society than men (etc. etc. etc.)… I just feel like there are far bigger fish to fry on a global scale than whether or not one faces sexist jokes…. issues that are often a matter of life and death (I’m also a bit thick skinned when it comes to humour, which helps.)
Although… another part of me feels like I should care more in solidarity with those who really do get distressed by this kind of joking behaviour… I know it does say a bit about what people REALLY think.
What should I do?
April 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I think “progressive” organizations don’t believe they have a problem, so they’re not very teachable.
I have trouble getting too worked up about sexist jokes to be honest… I think guiltily of what women face in the developing world…
Aborted more often, killed at infancy more often, they get less food than men, they do more work than men, they have less education than men, they have less access to money and health care and personal or political power… they suffer massive disadvantage and discrimination, often in matters of life and death….
Jokes seem like a small thing to me by comparison. (and I’m quite thick skinned with humour) Yet part of me thinks… well, I should stand more in solidarity with my sisters who might get really distressed by this kind of behaviour.
Should I care more? And why? What do you think?
April 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I think it is a grey area, in my experience humor is often a great way to break tension and recognize how stupid racism and sexism is. But sometimes it is really ugly. Like someone once said about pornography, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. When a joke victimizes someone, it is wrong.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Mmm… it’s really about kindness and sensitivity and loving your neighbour as yourself, isn’t it?
April 28th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I hear Jesus is on about that quite a bit.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
The cricket is about to start, Rev. Your work here is done.
But don’t get hooked, OK?
April 28th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I am getting a beer out of the fridge right now, and heading next door to watch cricket until morning. Wish my traditional little wifey was making us some snacks to enjoy, but she took my two daughters out for a girls night out.
rev
April 29th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Has anyone here given much thought to how the pill has fundamentally changed social and economic structures over the last 40 or so years?
I think it is has been the single most influential thing in the last 250 years over transport and the computer.
It has totally changed the dynamic of the family in westen societies for better or worse, and the expectations and baselines of women in particular.
For example pre-pill men initiated most divorces. Post pill women initiate most divorces. Could go on.
Wonder if you think it has had a flow on in churches in any way (this is a very broad question - not talking about divorce but fundamental relationships, structures, and expectations).
Cheers
MN
April 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Janet, by “sexist jokes” do you mean the jokes I’m talking about? I don’t mind gentle ribbing - I get it all the time. I can handle it - often it’s funny, and it’s invariably coming from a very good place - it’s people showing their affection for me. However it’s also hard not to deconstruct such jokes, and at times, the gender stereotyping inherent in the jokes can get a bit tiring…and when I’m tired and emotional, then it can p**** me off. To be honest, I don’t understand why the fact of women being ambitious and outspoken is funny. It’s not funny at all…unless of course there is a part of you…a part of you that’s very deep and still a bit mysterious to even you…that still sort of, maybe, slightly thinks that women should be quiet and gentle and at home barefoot with the kids. Or something like that. THEN it might be a little bit amusing. Do you get what I’m saying?
But that said, it doesn’t phase me too much - I guess I find it interesting more than anything.
I do find strongly sexist, or sexual, jokes in the workplace completely inappropriate and unprofessional, and I would complain about them if I felt it necessary…and even if something doesn’t upset me personally, I will back any complainant to the hilt. Last year I was at a conference where the entertainment was a gymnast, and it was perhaps a tiiiiiiiny bit raunchy. Didn’t phase me at all - I didn’t see things the way other women did - but lots of women WERE offended, and when they explained to me why, I could see their point of view - and I will back them 100% in terms of their complaint. Why? Because I think they have a good point, and as far as I’m concerned, if they’re uncomfortable, and they have good reason to be, the question of whether I was comfortable or not is irrelevant.
MN - I’m intrigued by your assertion that the advent of the pill has seen divorces become more commonly initiated by women. Do you have anything that backs that up that we could read?
Just personally, I think the advent of the pill was really significant, but I think it wasn’t as significant as is sometimes made out…I think washing machines, dishwashers etc may have been equally significant…
April 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Bec
I’ll see if I can find something
Cheers
MN
April 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Bec
Rather than make u wade thru this if you don’t want to the short answer is I can’t find specific research that says more men initiated divorce pre-pill, and more women do post-pill although I think it is a dead cert
A number of interesting quotes and sources about changes in the last 100 years. The critical change is the one to increasing independence of women. Doubtless you will have your own views but I think the move to individual independence of the last 50 years whether for man or woman hasn’t necessarily for the best. That’s what got us into trouble at Eden. Note the reference to labour saving devices in the last quote.
Cheers
MN
this info relates to who initiates divorce in 2004.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Women-saving-their-pennies-for-divorce/2006/04/20/1145344179975.html
n 2004, 21,614 divorces in Australia were launched by wives compared with 16,365 by men, the Bureau of Statistics found.
Another
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/15/1081998303773.html
Women initiate divorce 64 per cent of the time, according to the Australian Bureau or Statistics. They initiate because they are no longer dependent on men to survive, says Gee, but as initiators, women can also prepare themselves, mentally and emotionally, for the break.
A Barton lecture in 2001 that covers changes for womenin Oz since Federation covering the usual territory of what bastards we men were (are ) (my words), but some very pertinent comments about family etc
An interesting quote follows:
There is lots of talk about globalisation and the economy, but what is rarely considered is what it means for women. Yet the gender revolution is itself a main feature of the processes of globalisation. German sociologist Ulbrecht Beck sees globalisation as stemming from processes of individualisation and this is a key to women’s liberation. Individualisation involves acting in terms of what one sees as one’s own interests, rather than acting in a traditional fashion as for example, a daughter, wife and so on. Beck notes general movement towards a society based on what he calls reflexive modernisation. He uses the term reflexive to distinguish this from earlier industrial modernisation. The new form is reflexive because it involves individuals constantly reflecting on their lives and choices in an increasing range of areas and with an expanding range of options. Conventional, taken for granted ways of behaving are thus challenged and people act more as individuals. Women have more to gain here, because their choices have been particularly constrained in the past by their family roles.
If you search on divorce rates you can find this info:
# For most of the 20th century there was a slow but steady rise in the divorce rate, increasing from annual averages of 0.1 divorces per 1,000 population between 1901 and 1910 to 0.8 per 1,000 between 1961 and 1970.Divorce Rates in Australia
# However, the most important factor involved in the higher divorce rates in the latter quarter of the century was the introduction of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) which came into operation on 5 January 1976. This legislation allows only one ground for divorce: irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, measured as the separation of the spouses for at least one year.
Some more from 1993
# In the early 1980s, in 57 per cent of cases the decision to separate was made mainly by the wife, and in 26 per cent of cases the decision was made mainly by the husband. In the remaining 17 per cent of cases, the decision was joint.
Is the divorce rate increasing?
Divorce rates in the mid-1960s showed that about 10 per cent of marriages ended in divorce. The accompanying graph shows the very large number of divorces occurring in 1976, the first year of operation of the Family Law Act 1975.
An interesting quote pertaining to the writings of a guy called Fukuyama:
Cultural explanations do not explain why things changed so suddenly in the 1960s. More important than all of these, Fukuyama contends, is “the rise of moral individualism and the consequent miniaturisation of community”. Although he does not say so directly, he appears to concur in the argument that the “rights revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s came at the expense of shared values.
Another one about Sweden:
The high breakup level of relationships in Sweden, the report comments, “is testimony to the fragility of modern marriage in which most of the institutional bonds have been stripped away - economic dependence, legal definitions, religious sentiments, and family pressures - leaving marriage and other pair- bonds held together solely by the thin and unstable reed of affection.”
A quote from FACS that touches on the impact of the pill as well as other social changes
http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/VIA/ResFaCSsheets/File/FacsSheet6.pdf:
After 1961, the total fertility rate fell rapidly, to 2.9 babies per woman by 1966. This was due mainly to a change in people’s perception of desired family size and by the availability of the contraceptive pill. In the 1970s the total fertility rate dropped again, falling below the replacement level4 in 1976, where it remains. This fall was more marked than that of the early 1960s and has been linked to the increasing participation of women in the labour force and changing attitudes to family size, standard of living and sharing of domestic labour including caring for children.
A comment about the impact of women’s increased earnings on divorce:
In accordance with much of the literature, the rise in female earnings over the past four decades is found to have increased Australian divorce rates.
Lastly this one:
The rate of divorce also reflects attitudes to marriage and relationships. Marriage educator Margaret Andrews writes:
In former times, marriages were based around economic factors. Personal
relationships were of relatively low priority. The marriage was considered a
success if it survived economically. Husband and wife roles were very clearly defined. Man’s value was in his ability to provide a living; the woman was primarily the mother and housekeeper.
However, we live in an age that places different expectations and pressures on marriage. The advent of labour-saving devices, both within and outside the home, means that the couple experience more leisure time. They look for personal fulfilment, particularly through their marital relationship. Increased education and greater economic independence of women is also a factor in contemporary marriage. Women no longer feel obliged to stay in unhappy marriages. Indeed two out of three divorces are initiated by women.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Bec, now I stop to think about it, I’ve only worked in a Catholic school, a church school, a Christian school, and a denominational office for any length of time, so the “sexist” jokes I’ve experienced are at the mild (and funny) end of the spectrum. When they border on sexual harassment and make people very uncomfortable it’s a whole different ball game, isn’t it?
April 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
MN - I’ll need to set aside some time to properly read your post and digest it, but those stats are really interesting!! I wonder, though, whether independence is as bad a thing as you suggest??? I mean, we always look at divorce statistics as a sign of failure - failed relationships etc. Of course they are - but we’ll never know how many of them “failed” because of, say, increased independence, a lack of commitment etc…and how many “failed” because women now have the means to get out of abusive relationships? In the latter instance, divorce is in some sense a sign of “success” rather than “failure”.
Janet…I’ve heard sexist jokes across the full spectrum, and yes, it’s an entirely different ball game when they border on harassment. But I’m also referring to those little niggling, ribbing jokes…you know the ones, they involve ribbing a woman who’s opinionated, strong-willed, ambitious etc. There’s a part of me that finds those jokes frustrating at times, for the reasons I’ve pointed out above. Blokes never bear the brunt of those jokes.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
My grandparents were married for over 50 years - for most for that time - it was a loveless marriage which did enormous harm to the children - my grandmother stayed in the abusive marriage because she had a no choice .
Divorce although sad can be a positive choice
April 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Thanks for sharing, Smithus.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I don’t disagree with your points generally, but I do want to take issue with this last point. I think that recently there has been a huge increase in the acceptability of making sometimes quite nasty jokes at the expense of men. Along the lines of “what would you expect, he is a man” implying that men are of low intelligence, lazy neanderthals, particularly in comparison to women. I have seen this a bit including in the workplace, though my senses aren’t as attuned to it as much I must admit. Whether it is an evening of the emphasis or whatever, I think it can be just as sexist.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
^ ^ I agree, Dan.
Btw, how does one do those quote things??
April 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
blockquote inside pointy brackets, then whatever you want to quote, then open pointy brackets, backslash blockquote close pointy brackets. Hope that makes sense.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Except all in one line - not formatted like I just did - if I’d done it the way you should do it - you would not have seen the HTML code