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 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Rev, my husband has just told me I’m over-reacting, so I apologise if I read far too much into your post!
I read your post as being a direct response to mine earlier, and a suggestion that you can’t both own a house and send your kids to music lessons and follow Jesus. Which I think is completely untrue.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I think i agree with both bec and rev (if that’s possible?) I think we do assume kids need more stuff than they do, but i say that coming from a background where I travelled overseas, went to a private school and visited the theatre etc. and really enjoyed my childhood. but that does not mean my parents were materialistic - they really sacrficied to give me those experiences, we always had ring-ins for christmas lunch etc and was always involved helping out at the caravan park, world vision etc, opening up our home to whomever.
i currently find myself in the predicament about schooling…intellectually I believe in state education (there’s no way I could home school because I would lose my mind and I think school is a positive experience anyway) but believe at my local schools my kids will get a better education at a private school. It will cost us, there’s always the argument that the money could be put to better use…and yet, I do believe education is really important.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
awwwwww Emma…are you surrrrrrre??
May 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I mean about the education bit!
May 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
just thought I should add - bec’s parents being hardcore state teachers
- that i certainly believe state education can be great (I had a state education primary, private high), it’s just where we are the private schools happen to be a lot better.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
is that what you mean??
May 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Emma…I don’t think the education in private schools is ever better. I think that private schools sometimes have fewer discipline issues, due to the background of the kids that attend them. But I don’t think the education is better - in fact, I am very confident that I received a better education (teachers who pushed me harder, marked me harder, and gave up their weekends for me) at our local state school than I would have at the private schools. However the private schools were definitely better resourced…ohhhh how I loved their glossy new instruments. My parents and brother are all teachers, so I hear lots of interesting gossip about who’s getting what jobs and on what basis, too.
It’s interesting, but my friends who went to elite private schools got themselves into far more trouble (and I mean serious trouble - legal trouble) than did any of my friends at state schools. And I hear of lots of drug busts at private schools, but not nearly so many at state schools. So…I’m not even convinced that the kids at private schools have fewer discipline issues!
May 14th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Thta’s interesting to hear you POV, especially with your background. Here’s my thoughts: I agree with you about “elite” schools, but the private school I went to wasn’t really elite. At my school, the toilets smelled like impulse and deoderant…my girlfriends who went to the state high schools battled through a fog or marijuana every time they went to the bathroom! Their experience certainly wasn’t one of teachers giving up any time. One friend only made it through her HSC English exam because of an outside-hours class run by my school that she was allowed to attend. my teachers very much cared, prayed with me, for me, we invitved a few to our wedding…the other thing is that I have spent a fair amount of time tutoring and it sounds awful but the only students I thought were anywhere near up to scratch were the ones that went to the local catholic school. the others were showing me work that they were getting good marls for that I found barely passable…and then they were shocked when they did poorly in the HSC…the other thing that makes we think twice about our local state high schools is the existence of a state selective high down the road. I really dislike them. Basically they take all the top kids out of the area and the rest go to the other local state high. Needless to say, this school does very poorly in terms of results, there’s a huge drug problem….it’s fine of you’re kids mart enough for the selective high, but what if they’re not?
May 14th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I should add too that I am referring specifically to my area…if we lived where we used to, I would have been happy with the state education on offer
May 14th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Oh, I definitely think it depends on the area. However I really, really hope to be able to support the state system (God help me if I don’t - I’ll have my parents to answer to!). I see the Catholic system as quite different to the private system - the Catholic system offers a religious alternative. I support state schools because I think education is one of the key sources of privilege, division etc in society.
I think it did me good. My sister and I were both regarded as “gifted” kids (whatever that means), and I’m so glad my parents never gave in to my whinging and took me out and put me in a selective school, or one with streamed classes. Doing welding, sheet metal etc and being really bad at it did me a world of good!!
For me it’s not just about the formal education either, but about the people my kids (if I ever have them!) are exposed to…I actually want them to be exposed to a broad range of people rather than grow up in a really sheltered environment. The stats still show that state school kids do better at uni, and when I went to uni, I started to see why…some of my friends were so sheltered, many had no clue how to relate to the opposite sex, let alone someone from a different social/cultural background to them.
But yeah - of course we don’t always have the luxury of choice.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
^ ^ Or at least, making that choice isn’t as easy as we like to think it might be!
May 14th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
yeah, that’s right! and like I said, intellectually I agree with everything you’re saying - that’s why it makes this decision hard! I guess you always come back to your experience - like I said my private school was a low-fee paying Christian school, and so I guess not being “elite” it means it wasn’t sheltered either…still it was pretty conservative politically so I did always feel like the odd one out in that regard.
i haven’t totally made up my mind, anyway, my oldest son is “gifted” too whatever that means and I think would do well no matter where he went…but I would hate to have one kid wind up in a selective high and the other in the “normal” high. I really dislike stratifying society like that, and it’s ironic that in my local area it’s the state schools that are doing it, by way of the selective school, and you are probably going to wind up with a better picture of society if you did go to one of the christian school. I think community education works best, but everyone has to be committed to it..including me…
btw i think it’s ridiculous the funding private schools get…
May 14th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
oh, I think the funding’s outrageous…aside from anything else, it’s completely unjustifiable that many private schools get more than state schools.
I can understand the fear of having one kid at a “selective” school and the other not - that would be really tough. I also know what you mean re: state schools doing the stratifying - I think often they’re doing it just to survive, unfortunately. So many state schools offer streamed classes now because it’s the only way they can compete with the private schools…sad…
Emma, chances are your kids will be fine wherever they go. I had a huge advantage in that Dad taught maths and science, and Mum was an English and humanities teacher…I had all bases covered!
The advantage I would have seen in going to a city private school would have been networking…so many of my friends have had a leg-up because they went to certain schools and churches. Not so long ago, one of my friends, when I was trying to decide whether to go overseas, asked me why my church’s missions board wouldn’t fund it…she could believe that (a) we didn’t have a missions board and (b) there wasn’t that much money! 
May 14th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
yeah it can be a different world out there!
gotta go…small children to put to bed…thanks for your thoughts, it’s certainly given me plenty to think about
May 14th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Bec and Emma
a couple of warnings about schooling and your kids - I’m at the other end - and at least two or three of mine are gifted.
If yours are gifted or the reverse and the school of whatever persuasion they are going to doesn’t cater for that - don’t waste your time - mov’em on.
My oldest son was almost crushed beyond repair by a school with a principal that would cater for nothing other than middle of the road - it was flat out denied that he was gifted despite being in the top 1% of language while on migraine drugs.
My daughter if one particular teacher hadn’t fought for her to skip a year would have been a master criminal by age 9.
You do what’s best for your kids - you don’t owe anything to anyone else - your primary responsibility is not for other people’s kids - although often you do try and do whatever you can. I’m sorry if that sounds “over the top”, but it has been a long struggle and the local public schools despite my best intentions were never going to cut it, and the first private school our kids went to had a very early “use by date” - this school in my view still has a default position of pushing kids to settle for much less than what they’re capable of.
In terms of our kids, we came to the position of “much is expected of those who have been given much”. Hope that makes sense.
Cheers
MN
May 15th, 2007 at 7:55 am
it does…and you’re right, different schools do cater for different kids/giftings whatever. That’s where I feel i’m at now…I do have “intellectual” beliefs about education but the bottom line is from the schools on offer where we are, they will fare better in the private system.
i wish it weren’t so!
May 15th, 2007 at 9:17 am
mn…
Plus conventional schooling doesn’t take into account the many forms of giftedness…there’s not much scope for the kids who are brilliant at art, drama or music unless they go to a specialised school…and you’re completely left out in the cold if your gifted with, say, mechanics. My mother specialises in remedial teaching, and some of her kids struggle read, but boy! can they put a car back together!
I was considered gifted - top 1% in English, top 5% in maths etc - I’m not sure how much stock I place in that stuff. There’s some interesting stuff around on the prevalence of “giftedness” these days!
I agree with much of your post, but I guess my concern is that “giftedness” focuses on one aspect of a person, not the whole person…and often kids who are gifted are put into a narrower, more restricted kind of environment. I remember meeting kids who were 15 and didn’t have to study language, because they were deemed gifted at maths and science. I also met kids who were 9 years old and studying with 16 year olds. I often wonder where these kids are down the track…I didn’t receive any of that sort of treatment, but my parents always ensured that I was being pushed (they had the advantage of being teachers - mum was particularly aware that “pushed” meant quality, not quantity!) I went to a country school - a high school that merged with a tech - my year 12 English class was dominated by kids that didn’t want to be at school, let alone in English. It really peeved me at times…but on the flip side, I am really, really confident that my educational and family background made me far more flexible and adjustable. Many of my friends who went to private schools don’t have a clue how socially and economically privileged they are - many of them are involved in aid agencies and understand that there’s poor people in Africa…but when it comes to the poverty that exists in their own backyard, they have very little idea. They know there’s people who are homeless in Melbourne, but often they think they’re all junkies who “deserve it”. Or, if they have compassion for the urban homeless, they have no clue how tough lots of country people are doing it.
I had to do workshop subjects…sheet metal and welding and stuff…with kids who’s parents often thought that welding was a more useful skill than French…and hey, maybe it was…I’m not going to gloss over the downside of this - maybe I would have benefited from being in streamed classes, finishing school earlier etc etc…but hey, I did well enough at uni to score a PhD scholarship in law, which is no mean feat. I don’t think it’s done me any harm academically. I know that my educational environment has done me a lot of good socially - I’ve ended up working in really male-dominated areas like emergency management, and I have no problem relating to the men in these sectors…and when I mean relating, I mean that I don’t ever compromise my feminity, or try to relate to them by getting pissed or taking up golf.
I’m not sure how much sense I am…I’m not trying to say that my experiences can be extrapolated to every child, but I *am* trying to say that I think our society can over-emphasise academic achievement, just like it over-emphasises monetary “achievement” (ie the richer you are and the more stuff you have, the more successful and worthwhile you are). Sure, I’m glad I did well and I’m glad I’ll be able to earn a living, but to be honest, I often find myself surrounded by so-called “successful” people that don’t have a very broad worldview, that don’t understand “how the other half lives”, that aren’t very relateable or compassionate. I don’t really care how “successful” someone is in terms of marks, scholarships, earnings etc…I care about whether or not they can relate to other people, whether or not they can be Christ in the world. I can’t imagine myself lying on my death bed and thinking “hey, I really kicked-a at uni…I’m so glad I published lots of journal articles”. I hope I can lie there and think “yeah…I really did do my best to show the world Christ’s love.”
May 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Bec
don’t worry - my oldest son went to a private school that simply expanded the number of people he was exposed to, and was filled with teachers who at least recognised whether someone was bright or not. He did OK with out being spoilt. If he had gone to the local state high school he would have run away from home - that is no exaggeration.
My daughter on the other hand got herself a scholarhisp to an elite school - when I say she got it - that is what I mean because we didn’t encourage it. At 13 she did it all by herself.
But the same thing applies for kids that can’t cope as well.
I need to read your post in detail tonight, but one thing I can say is that we haven’t pushed our kids, with the exception of doing their best at what ever they are doing whether it be garbology, or engineering.
Cheers
MN
May 15th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
oh - mn - my posts were directed at anyone in particular, more a general musing…
May 15th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
That’s also very impressive re: your daughter!
And I couldn’t agree more re: kids that can’t cope. The demise of the techn system was a tragedy…I can’t believe the Libs are talking about bringing it back…what a WASTE of infrastructure!!
May 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
the trouble is no one really is pushing for genuine equality in education at the moment, even labour has gone too far in the whole user pays, neo-liberalist marketing of education strategy. the result is that we’ll be left with a terribly stratified society catering for those who can afford education. It’s not good, not matter which way you look at it.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
^ ^ yep.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
In terms of your own decisions Emma… I’m a bit of a believer in listening to the Holy Spirit in terms of what is right for you and your family. Although I nod my head in terms of hoping for equality in the political system, the truth is that this is fighting the tide and I do believe SOME children will thrive in one type of school and become very negative in another type of school… and this doesn’t just impact academic achievement but character development (which is the most important part of parenting)
I don’t see that sending your two children to two different schools is a disaster… my eldest goes to a private school that specializes in learning difficulties… his first 4 years of schooling were at the local state school, but he was at risk of learning almost nothing in a class of 28 (there are 7 students in his class). My youngest still attends the local primary happily. I do think there are difficult choices to be made when your own children don’t fit into the 95% at one end of the spectrum or the other. A friend of mine in Sydney has a gifted child (there’s gifted and gifted by the way… I don’t just mean an A student) and her son had a year at school that was absolutely soul destroying for everyone concerned… including the teacher who was completely unable to cope. I believe if you pray for wisdom in this, you’ll find it.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Janet, I couldn’t agree more re: “there’s gifted and gifted”…but I’m so cynical about how this is measured. I have very little faith in IQ testing, based on my own experiences with them…they always say I should be extremely good at maths, but I never have been!
Also…while I do believe there are “gifted” people - I saw one last night on Australian Story (William Barton - look him up if you don’t know who he is!). However I don’t think that indicates where you might end up later in life…I think social networks, financial resources, motivation and ambition are far more determinative factors.
I agree re: the Holy Spirit. However I also think of this in theological terms - and I see Jesus as someone who crossed social boundaries to his own expense, rather than someone who supported the power structures of the day.
Of course, I also don’t have any kids, so this is all very easy for me to say.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I agree… I think motivation, diligence and good character bring about “success” in whatever sphere of life we’re talking about… whether in marriage, parenting, a chosen career or ministry… and being “gifted” is rather over-rated. (One parent told me that her year 11 son had been diagnosed as “gifted”… to which I had to answer that was all very well, but there was no evidence of this in his school performance… where he was barely scraping a pass in anything…. I thought future employers might be more interested in his capacity to do work than in his alleged brilliance.)
Having said that… my friend’s child does seem to have some exceptional abilities… it’s a very difficult and stressful task to keep that sort of child engaged and happy within the school system.
“Jesus crossed social boundaries at his own expense”… well, not really when he was 5… these were adult choices. Although young children are very accepting if exposed to different people…
May 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
^ ^ I think that crossing boundaries as a child makes it far easier to do so as an adult. I’m so grateful to my parents for the values they instilled in me…they did it so gently that often I haven’t realised what they were doing until years later…ie little comments here and there when we were driving through Toorak.
I guess I can only speak about this from my own experience - my sister and I both believe that we could have become stuck up little brats if it wasn’t for our parent’s attitude, and us being cut-down-to-size at school.
I compare that to the local private schools, where kids were constantly being told how wonderful they were, either expressly or impliedly - and I don’t mean positive reinforcement, I mean the sort of arrogance I encountered in law school (which, incidently, was very private school dominated).
May 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
It’s those darn biological realities again… I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think mothering doesn’t have a highly significant impact on women’s lives.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Bec:
“I don’t really care how “successful” someone is in terms of marks, scholarships, earnings etc…I care about whether or not they can relate to other people, whether or not they can be Christ in the world. I can’t imagine myself lying on my death bed and thinking “hey, I really kicked-a at uni…I’m so glad I published lots of journal articles”. I hope I can lie there and think “yeah…I really did do my best to show the world Christ’s love.”
Yes
Mothering is one of the most important things anyone can do, but then again so is fathering, and I mean in more than the biological sense.
Its a tough gig either way, but I wouldn’t trade it for quids - but neither do I profess to be any good at it - quite the reverse.
Cheers
MN
May 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Thanks Janet, I agree - I have two children who are opposites in personality so probably will need different things in terms of education.
bec you said “my sister and I both believe that we could have become stuck up little brats if it wasn’t for our parent’s attitude, and us being cut-down-to-size at school” and I see where you’re coming from, but I have to add that I think it is a generalisation that if you go to a private achool you’re in more danger of becoming a stuck up brat…this certainly wasn’t my experience at all, in fact some of the most arrogant people I went to school with went to state schools, I think it has far more to do with home environment. In fact at my private school we used to find it amusing that the state school kids spent most of their time looking down on us because of some weird snobbery reversal thing that was going on! and some of the most compasisonate, caring, crossing boundaries type people I know are from my school days. We certainly weren’t told that we were wonderful all the time in any arrogant way at all. I guess it’s just stereotypes can work both ways.