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?
May 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
If you want controversy I find the whole thing about the “sisterhood” bemusing to say the least. Very tribal, us and them etc.
Also there seems this desperation to “have a job”. It is like motherhood is not enough.
Now I’m in no way making any comments about those who have to work or starve and get evicted etc.
I am also fully aware of women who “need” to work for their sanity.
The other issue implicit in this is that of almost dragging men back to the house with a “whats good for the goose is good for the gander mentality”.
What is this really saying?
There chew on that.
Cheers
MN
May 9th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
And in addition what are these issues really saying about raising kids?
And please don’ take the above comments as a ruse to get men out of child minding, domestic duties, changing nappies etc (that would be good, but not likely to happen in my lifetime:) )
Neither would I want it because in this day and age with the silly society determined to burn itself out, possibly one of the few ways left to connect with kids.
Cheers
MN
May 9th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
mn…
you have a problem with “sisterhood”? what about “mateship”?
I don’t have a problem with it…if boys get to bond, so do girls. My husband has his poker nights at which girls are not allowed (though I’m sure we would be if we reallllly wanted to go, but frankly I find poker, scotch and cigars thoroughly boring!), and equally, I really enjoy my weekends in Melbourne without him, hanging out with my girlfriends and/or having girly chats with his Mum! I dunno…surely we can strike a balance between being so “us and them” that we exclude the other gender, and between the other extreme of kidding ourselves that “we’re all the same”?
I don’t dispute that motherhood should be seen as a very good and worthwhile job. My own mother and father decided it was best for her to give up her “job” to be at home - this was discussed between them and they both agreed it was best given their interests, skills etc. I have no problem with this kind of approach, I think it’s a great one! However that’s a very different approach to the one that ASSUMES men and women belong in certain roles, spaces etc.
I have no problem with the idea that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”…but then my hubby is far more interested in domestic affairs than I am, and he’s always said he reckons he’ll be the one to stay at home with the kids!
May 9th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Bec I think your hubby has go u right where he wants u
He one smart cookie!
Cheers
MN
May 9th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
But going back to Janet’s comments about the undeniable properties of the boob (of course meaning only the strictlly utilitarian ones!
…..
What do you make of the differences between societies where in some societies, kids are on their til 4 or 5?
Do you think that says something on a broader front (or not) about westerners have re-arranged roles to suit themselves as opposed to a pre-ordained order? Or is it just an evolutionary quirk that men don’t produce milk?
Cheers
MN
May 9th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
mn, on a serious note, my hubby has made me realise how much I have to learn about feminism/equality. he genuinely does want to stay at home with the kids btw - and I’ve got a few other male friends who want to stay at home too, so it’s not that unusual in our age bracket (late 20s, early 30s).
I don’t have a problem with breastfeeding until kids are a bit older - my own mother breastfed my brother for quite a while (I can’t remember how old he was, and he def. wasn’t that old), and she copped it a little.
Societies where kids are breastfed until that age - I reckon you’d find they’re more communal societies still. Ie in Melanesia, you’ll hear people talk about how gender norms are really strong and women have very few rights. To an extent that’s true…but then kids belong to the tribe, not the parents, and everyone takes responsibility for them. Adoption is common, kids are often raised by aunts, uncles etc, and even when their primary care givers are their own parents, they still have LOTS of other people who spend a SIGNIFICANT amount of time with them. We don’t really have that here.
I don’t deny that men and women are naturally built differently - but nor do I place too much stock in that, especially in a modern, industrialised society. What you’re suggesting isn’t too far from what my grandmother used to say about flying…apparently, if God had wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings.
I adored my Grandmother, btw…
May 9th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Bec
there aren’t many things to disagree with that you - the whole point of these conversations yes - but….
men and women are different quite clearly apart from the obvious biological differences - I don’t have the knowledge or time to comment beyond that.
However the important thing that I would pick from what you said above was your contrast between communal Melanesian and modern industrialised society - and the “you don’t place much stock in that”.
My question is what does a modern industrialised society have to do with any original design that God did or didn’t have? That seems to be a human idea not a God idea.
Janet wrote: “.. how does one manage biological realities without starting to sound like one is “betraying the sisterhood”?
I think your point and that of others is we try and manage the best way we can given the particular circumstances that each individual and family face. No issue there - that is just being pragmatic.
But is there in all of this a preference that God has?
I’ll offer an uninspiring “fatherhood” statement - whatever brings the most “good” to the family. Good being defined as something that encourages a strong marriage relationship in its own right - which in turn models to the kids - harks back to what Rev said last week, same with the kids, and just as important if not moreso - the encourages and works towards relationship with God.
I’m not sure if that is a practical or teachable template, but I think these words offer something towards the issue that maybe sidelines the issues of who works and who doesn’t etc as feminism in my view seems to characterise it.
BTW - I would’ve loved the opportunity to stay home with the kids for a while but never worked out.
Cheers
MN
May 10th, 2007 at 9:17 am
MN…I don’t have much to add, except to say that I think we’re pretty much on the same page. I certainly agree that the focus should be on building healthy relationships, rather than on who does what (that’s a part of building healthy relationships, rather than the other way around).
May 10th, 2007 at 10:07 am
i think in the age of the nuclear family parenting if at all possible shuld be shared. we were designed to be in extended families, but if we can’t have that, then i think kids would benefit most from both parents working part time( this is not always possible obviously). I was stay-at-home at first because hubby earned money than me…i always used to think his temperament was better suited to being with kids, he’s more patient than me, better at being “present” with the kids and honestly enjoys wrestling for an hour. but then I realised i bring different things….I like doing craft with them, cooking, reading, etc. Any stay at home paretns who is with kids 12 hours a day without family support will go batty, it can be very isolating. but if parents could genuinely share the load, I think it would mae a huge difference. at the moment i work 2 days a week, hubby 3 days and we just love our time with the kids, it’s not a strain beacuse it’s not 5 days a week.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
‘Whatever brings the most “good” to the family…’
I think that’s wise…
Emma, I think your kids are very lucky to have the gift of time with two very different people who love them.
I think that men can feel just as trapped having to work long hours as the “breadwinner” as some women do in the home…
Maybe some of the other blokes out there could comment?
May 10th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
thanks janet, i’d be interested in hearing the opinions of other men too…though just yesterday my dad, who spends heaps of time with my sons (his grandkids) expressed regret he didn’t have that kind of time for me growing up.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Come on boys… er… men…
I’d be really interested in your thoughts and feelings on shared parenting and part time work for parents of young children. (No right or wrong answers in my book… just perspectives).
I have a hunch that part time work and part time parenting makes for a healthier life balance than one partner working full time and the other caring for children full time… and it also means taking advantage of the tax free threshold twice… I would imagine two part time professional people earning (say) 30 K each would have more take home pay than 1 full time professional person earning (say) 60k. (Probably that’s complicated by carer payments etc…)
Do you think men might like this kind of arrangement.? Or to quote MN:
‘The other issue implicit in this is that of almost dragging men back to the house with a “whats good for the goose is good for the gander mentality”.’
Is this just trying to ignore the biological (spiritual?) instincts of the sexes?
May 13th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Orright… I’ll have a lash… (I should caveat this by saying that I’ve had a beer, it’s mother’s day tomorrow, and I haven’t spoken out loud for 3 hours)
I reckon that part (up to 3/4) time work would fit great with parenting.
Being able to catch up with the kids pretty much straight after school for a big chunk of afternoon would make for very good relationships, which (I hope!) could help especially when kids start getting a bit older, and all of the ‘who loves me’ questions start to surface.
I reckon that a lot of dads actually LOVE their position of ‘Oh - I’ve gotta work 85 hrs a week or the company would collapse’. They don’t SAY they love it, but I think they do.
BECAUSE (as I hear the masses ask ‘why Toddy?’) working is easier than parenting. At work, you do a job that is measured by KPIs, or raises, or ‘good on you’s’ and ‘we can’t do it without you’s’, whereas parenting is ‘Daaaaad, can you please get off your hairy sofa and play with me?’ and ‘Dad, why is maths important?’ and ‘Dad, you’re such a dork and you don’t understand my special unique problems’.
Who’d opt for that as a preference? I think a lot of dads get a taste of that during holidays, and, completely unaware of how to handle it without resorting to violence or moving to another state, simply look forward to going back to work, where they know what to do.
Now of course, this is a gross generalisation, but I think it is at least at the base of the fears held by many men. (not the ones saying ‘but I love it’ - the other ones!)
I’m lucky. I get to spend a bit of time with my kids. Not as much as I should (ideally) but more than a lot of other dads. I’m getting ok at it, but that fear still remains at times (and my kids are still young!!) I am constantly aware of how much I don’t know about my kids and the lives they lead at school etc, that sometimes, it would be easier to simply work more and know less about what I don’t know!
I am always really choked up by stories I see of dads who are able to spend chunks of time with their kids, and who do projects, and go camping, and play sport, and who build relationships - I feel like I’m watching, in the child, the contruction of a potentially perfect person.
(just re-read this - I may need another beer!)
May 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Toddy…
for what it’s worth, I got choked up reading your post. I reckon your kids are really lucky.
May 13th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
good on you toddy
May 14th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Well, I have worked part time our entire life, so I could do ministry on the side, and we also did much of our ministry out of our home so I was there a whole heap. In addition we home schooled our kids until high school. Not to shelter them, living in our house alone would be considered dangerous
But rather because we felt that the kids would benefit from more time with both their mother and I, and being around our church community more. I think that because of this my girls got to spend an enormous amount of time with Raquel and I, and in so doing we have provided a very stable environment for them, even though we lived in such an unstable way. If that makes any sense.
I think the bread winner thing becomes a problem because we feel we need way more bread than we really do.
rev
May 14th, 2007 at 11:09 am
and it also needs to be top quality bread - not just Bi-Lo bread available for 99 cents per loaf.
Rev can you email me your phone number?
my email
May 14th, 2007 at 11:18 am
That’s definitely true, Rev…
But then I hope my husband and I can own a house at some point. I like the idea of having the security of being able to up and leave jobs if we don’t like them or whatever. I love watching my parents contemplate retirement - they own a house on a gorgeous block, they don’t need much to live on because they’re almost self-sufficient, their retirement will probably involve voluntary work overseas…they couldn’t do this if they didn’t own a house.
I also hope we can afford plenty of music, dance, sport etc lessons…my parents have never had a lot of money, but they saved on things like clothes (homemade) and splurged on music lessons…I’m so grateful that they did! I have to say, I also think that living cheaply is easier in the country - there’s just fewer things to spend your money on, and things like music lessons cost significantly less. Plus house properties are obviously heaps less.
I know what you mean about providing a stable environment despite living unstably…I think we all know people who’ve suffered because their parents are pastors, social workers etc…in my experience the baggage comes about not because of having certain people in the home, or being exposed to certain things, but because the parent’s spent more time and gave more attention to people other than their kids.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Thanks for sharing Toddy… I think your kids are lucky too.
I eavesdropped on an interesting conversation with Wolfgang Simpson about money… he talked about a stage of life where you build up financial resources in order to give and to be freer to do ministry later…
He also talked about how some are called into “God’s economy” (as he is… and the Rev I’d wager)… where you just live by faith. This “works” too.
As the Spirit leads you Bec!
Any other brave men out there who’d like to share about parenting-work balance?
May 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
^ ^ Yeah, I think you’re right Janet…it’s very much an “as the Spirit leads you” issue - we should be shaped by theology, of course, and by community, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I can’t simply say that Christians should not have big houses - for me the central queston is always about stewardship - “what are you doing with what you’ve got?” I know people who are very well off and are extraordinarily generous (in terms of time, money and personal space), equally, I know people with less who aren’t particularly generous at all.
Parenting-work balance…I told my husband last night that the idea of kids scares the sh*t out of me because I love what I do so much…yet there’s also so many horror stories in women’s mags these days by and about women mourning the fact that they never had kids……if we had more community-oriented churches these things wouldn’t be half as much of an issue…I don’t want to over-romanticise things, but whenever I go to somewhere like Vanuatu or the Solomons, I’m reminded that kids DON’T need to have just one or two primary carers, but can do really well with a whole stack of them, plus different ’safe places’…and that in such societies, not having biological children doesn’t mean you don’t have children.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Brilliant post, Bec. I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.
Some industrialised countries have got the idea, Aus is woefully behind the times. All work places should have workplace daycare and be child friendly so parents can spend lunch times etc etc with their children.
Wake up Australia.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
bec having kids scared me too and to be honest I don’t find fulfillment being with them day in day out but I don’t believe in institutionalised day care so hubby and i sharing the care is the best opton - plus grandparents when they can be roped in!
there are days when I love being home, and other days when i think I will die of boredom. my advice would be if you and your hubby could manage part time that would be best for both of you
May 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I think if you’re intentional about building a network of close contacts you can approximate the “village” in your child raising… but you have to be very intentional in our society. It’s difficult when people feel significant work and time pressure.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
^ ^ Yeah, all of that is true. Good to hear your experiences Emma…so often I think women are told that either you’re the kind that has kids and feels 100% fulfilled by the experience, or you’re a hard-a**ed career-driven b*tch who doesn’t want them!
To be honest, I have actually seriously thought about moving to Vanuatu!! There’s quite a lot of young Aussies who’ve gone over there on volunteer work, ended up marrying and having kids, and are staying there ’til the kids are a bit older. The more village-oriented life, affordability of nannys (which is perfectly socially acceptable, because adoption has always been a huge part of Pacific cultures), better working hours etc all mean it’s easier for them to be parents and do what they’re passionate about!
In-laws won’t be in a position to babysit, either because they’re working or too far away. There are multiple reasons I’m pursuing a PhD though…more conducive to child-rearing than commercial law!
My husband has always said he’d be happy to stay at home though…I think that he believes he can start a business out the back while looking after small children.
I have suggested that looking after kids might be more complicated than that…
May 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
um, yeah he might find that!
but i had my kids ridiculously close together. I think if you have a bigger gap there’s more chance of it fitting in more with other parts of your life.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Ok 2nd man into the fray.
I would give toddy’s left and right testacles to be able to stay at home for a couple of days a week to look after the kids - although my own children are getting beyond all that, the kids I avhye with my partner would certainly benefit.
I worry about earning money and getting enough to get by, the more I earn (and I certyainly earn more than the average - but seem to be able to do less with it!) the more I worry about what I’d do if I didn’t have it - but when I was on a samller income I didn;t care.
Anyway - I;m in for looking after the kids.
I’m also in for drinks after work
May 14th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
my daughters were taught art by real working artists, they were taught urban survival skills by squatter punks, they were taught martial arts by professional fighters, all for free. When you have a real community, everyone helps everyone.
As to your desires, I understand your desires, ofcourse we all want a nice life like that. But the problem is, if you want that life you have to sacrifice your life to it, and that is not an option for me. I don’t think it is a matter of calling, Jesus never says, well some people can follow me completely and others should just do what they can. Jesus is quite clear that money, family, career whatever, must be sacrificed if it gets in the way of the kingdom. And in the parable of the seeds, it is quite clear that the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of riches will choke out the good work of God in our lives.
rev
May 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
so greg, in your experience the more money you have, the more you worry about and stress over money? Isn’t that what I have been saying all along?
rev
May 14th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Rev…
I’m too angry to respond to that. All I can say is you make a helluva lot of assumptions without even knowing people.
You know nothing about me, or my upbringing, or the work that my parents do.
Greg,
That’s my experience too.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Actually, I am going to respond.
Firstly, I was heavily involved in brass-banding, and that was virtually free. A very small annual membership fee, which included instruments, uniforms, the lot.
Secondly, you’ve firstly made the huge assumption that my folks’ weren’t heavily involved in our community, which is just…well, completely foolish. They’re two of the most involved people I’ve met in my life. Further, I have no problem with learning things for free - that’s great that your girls had that option! However I have no problem in paying for them either - it supports people’s livelihoods!
Thirdly - my mother only worked part-time, and if we weren’t with her, we were with our grandmother or very close family friends. I don’t see a problem there. They never paid for babysitting, that’s for sure!!
My parents work because they love it - they’re both hardcore ALP-voting state school teachers (see, I was brainwashed from an early age). They’re totally committed to what they do, and they believe God called them there. They’re hardly “deceived”. My mother has literally saved kid’s lives with her work.
Same goes for me…I can’t imagine not working, because I love what I do. I work in human rights, aid and development related issues. I happen to get paid for it. I don’t do it because I get paid - I do it because I believe in it. I have already pumped most of what I’ve earnt back into travelling to visit friends I do work with. I do free work for NGOs in my sector all the time. I would like to own a house because this gives me greater financial freedom to up and leave a job and do what I already do. I would like my kids to have music lessons, swimming lessons etc because (a) it will expand their horizons, and (b) I think it’s a way of supporting the livelihoods of people who often struggle to support their livelihoods.
I never said I wanted to be rich - and yet you jump in with a post that assumes that I come from a wealthy, selfish, “deceived” background, and that I am all those things.