Skip to main content

Recently, I've started to examine gender dynamics inside my Meeting.  As I began I started from the premise that every religious gathering reflects the particulars of the larger world outside it.  I've contemplated many of these, but I haven't examined one specific facet of this in much detail until recently.  In participation, active membership, and consistent attendance, women significantly outnumber men.  In the Young Adult Friend group which I help organize, the most consistently involved members are female.  Men often seem reluctant to take the plunge, nervously circling and re-circling the outskirts, hanging back, anxiously sailing around the perifery.  Male participation is often minimal and short-lived.  There is no in-between here.  The few who do come to stay often become fixtures of the group, but they are always in the minority.

As I began my research, websites with specific strategies to attract male membership often had to be taken with a grain of salt.  Their tone towards the gender imbalance present in houses of worship was heavily colored with male privilege.  Often implied was the belief that religious gatherings as they existed were feminizing, almost contagiously so.  Why would any man want to inhabit those spaces?  In contradiction, the feminist part of myself believes that, socialization aside, masculine and feminine expression really isn't all that dissimilar.  But I also have to also concede how many men still fear being somehow less masculine in any small way, regardless of how isolating and damaging that concept may be to me.

The consensus opinion of most of my sources looked something like the passage to follow, though one can, of course, ignore the obvious dig at feminist theory.  I should add here that I only considered Christian or at least historically Christian groups within my analysis, since their traditions are most familiar to me.  Much of the politics, policy, and opinions of the source below I find deplorable and offensive, but in this regard, what is mentioned here has proven to be helpful.

Church is not a women’s thing—it’s a men’s thing! It certainly looks that way, doesn’t it? After all, a man and His male disciples founded Christianity, most of its major saints and heroes were men, men penned all of the New Testament books, all of the popes were men, all of the Catholic priests are men, and 95 percent of the senior pastors in America are men. Feminists have been telling us for years that the church is male dominated and patriarchal. Are they right?

Male pastors come and go, but faithful women provide a matriarchal continuity in our congregations. Women are the devoted ones who build their lives around their commitments to Christ and His church. Women are more likely to teach and volunteer in church and are the greatest participants in Christian culture. The sad reality in many churches today is this: the only man who actually practices his faith is the pastor.

I'm a member of a faith group (Quaker) who deliberately abolished the role of the clergy.  Individual members and regular attenders are supposed to step in and fill that role themselves.  So I would argue in this regard that most decisions made in my own Meeting are made by women.  Women historically have placed more of an importance and emphasis on attendance and upon doing the work within at a church or other religious gathering.  Reasons are many and they also reflect the outside world.  Unable to rise up the ladder within their day jobs, women instead transferred their ambitions to where they worshiped.  A generation of young women, many highly educated, often affluent, usually white, have been socialized to be super achievers.  Sacrificing their very selves for the sake of some coveted, altruistic, desired ends, this attitude makes its way into Meetings, churches, or other houses of worship.  On First Day (Sunday) and beyond it I'm able to see evidence of matriarchal society, both in its impressive strengths and in its glaring weaknesses.    

To some extent, I could make the very same observations about the whole of Quaker culture.  DC's unique makeup only intensifies the existing trend.  Cities in general skew slightly more female than male.  Washington contains many more women than men.  Female residents in search of a male relationship partner know this all too well.  But even when I lived elsewhere, I found evidence of same, though not as prominent.  Reasons are many and at least some of them are discussed here.

Although males have not completely abandoned the church, manly men...have all but disappeared. Tough, earthy, working guys rarely come to church. High achievers, alpha males, risk takers, and visionaries are in short supply. Fun-lovers and adventurers are also underrepresented in church. These rough-and-tumble men don’t fit in with the quiet, introspective gentlemen who populate the church today. The truth is, most men in the pews grew up in church. Many of these lifers come not because they desire to be transformed by Christ but because they enjoy participating in comforting rituals that have changed little since their childhood. There are also millions of men who attend services under duress, dragged by a mother, wife, or girlfriend. Today’s churchgoing man is humble, tidy, dutiful, and above all, nice.  

I take no small liberty with certain sections.  Attending religious services out of habit is as true for women as for men.  I have known friends raised in church who attend worship only in times of intense crisis and self-doubt, since the routine is familiar and comfortable.  As is true for many, I completely rejected religion in my teens, then re-embraced it later in life, in part, because it reminded me of fond childhood rituals.  But my faith certainly runs deeper than that.  Speaking for myself here, I wasn't just going through the motions.  This article seems to imply that the faith of most men is mealy and unsubstantial.  I would argue that men need faith now more than ever, but that the culprit goes beyond the gender binary or even traditional gender roles.  And any discomfort with female-dominated spaces and a matriarchal system is only part of the greater issue.    

Quakerism may not be the most ideal faith for those not inclined to introspection.  The very nature of silent worship demands inward contemplation, not immediate action.  As far as spiritual disciplines are concerned, that might as well be the one we most highly emphasize.  Decisions made and opinions voiced are supposed to "season", as the phrase goes, before being expressed.  But neither is this a faith for the meek by the meek.  Though Friends tend to shy away from direct confrontation, conflicts can and do bubble to the surface.  They sometimes take different forms like passive-aggression.  And I note as well that sometimes the most impulsive and hot-heated Friends I've known are not male.

It is still, nonetheless, my belief that a little introspection goes a long way.  Any person with privilege is often inclined to act rashly and in ways that are abrasive and disrespectful.  Because such people possess more agency and power than others, their decisions rarely go unchallenged.  And, if we are speaking of men alone, I don't think that embracing wisdom and self-restraint are necessarily un-masculine.  Nothing could be more manly, if by manly we mean essentially human.  If encouraging men to attend worship should take any set form, it will not be one which gives license to perpetuate an unequal balance of power.  In faith groups which do retain a clergy, there is still a gender gap evident, but cracking that glass ceiling is another post for another time.  And a very complicated one, at that.

Yet, being that we still do not live in a post-gender world, certain accommodations and changes must be made to attract and retain male membership.  I don't think a band-aid approach will work, be it one ideologically conservative or liberal.  The source I've extensively mentioned above believes that a "man-first" approach works best, which only reinforces these same gender roles and distinctions that are the silent torment of many.  It accuses feminists of blatant hypocrisy, misrepresenting its criticisms of concentrated patriarchal influence as some desire to feminize even the spaces which ought to be rightly reserved, in their opinion, for men.  

In contrast, I encourage men to take part in religious gatherings, not as some form of punishment, and not even as some exercise in privilege denial. Rather, I'd hope they'd observe that female-dominated spaces possess positive characteristics and severe limitations to the same degree as with those which are male-dominated.  I myself don't think that one model is especially superior to the other, but I do think each would only be enriched if greater participation were to occur.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. - Eugene Debs.

    by cabaretic on Tue May 03, 2011 at 05:01:30 AM PDT

  •  Daily Kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74, Prof Haley

    Dedicated to electing more and better ... men to the Quaker Church?

    wtf.

    "Ha! Obama wouild have to kill Bin Ladin before he'd ever get my vote again! HA HA HA HA.....wha-? ...aw fuck."

    by Detroit Mark on Tue May 03, 2011 at 05:08:25 AM PDT

  •  Interesting predicament. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, OHdog

    Much of American religion does devalue a lot of what we might think of as stereotypically masculine (note that it also devalues much of what we think of as stereotypically feminine); it's not surprising, then, that men might avoid it.

    I wonder what the figures are out there for males and females who consider themselves "solitary practicioners" to borrow the neo-pagan phrase.

    grieving citizen of the murdered Republic, unrepentant rebel against the Empire.

    by khereva on Tue May 03, 2011 at 05:48:03 AM PDT

  •  It's an interesting cultural question. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prof Haley

    I think that men are generally less interested in community, more interested in self-direction with their family & established group of friends--"tribe."  Unless they retain tribal membership in a faith community from youth, there seems to be less impetus to find a new one, except for instances where great challenges drive a man to find the extra support he needs.  

    I'd also guess that increasingly, men are socialized in ways that emphasize individualism, power, competition and loudness.  Kind of the exact opposite of many settings for communal worship, let alone core Christianity.

    •  It's actually bass fishing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leftcandid

      # 1.

      Or golf. Which is a form of anti-religion.

      Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

      by vets74 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:18:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's one perspective (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OHdog, Prof Haley

      another angle would be that men are so oppressed in their youth by the crap shoved down their throat from their families bullshit relgious delusions they run screaming from it the first moment they get in early adulthood.

      That effect would just as easily explain the phenomenon.

      "Ha! Obama wouild have to kill Bin Ladin before he'd ever get my vote again! HA HA HA HA.....wha-? ...aw fuck."

      by Detroit Mark on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:25:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Makes sense, to a point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Focusmarker

      but everyone's experience is different. I'd consider myself poorly socialized by your proposed measure. Power, competition and loudness are things I avoid. Yet tribe is much more important to me than any externally-assigned community, including family; "communal worship" is, as Cole Porter put it, my idea of nothing to do.

      I once saw my father take communion. On his knees, for a crumb of bread, from some alleged authority figure whom I knew was no better than he. I was embarrassed and humiliated for his sake. I never wanted to see that again. I've never done it and never will.

      The great weakness of the diary, for me, is that there's no clear description of what one is supposed to do there. Introspection, okay. In my garden, at the end of a day tending it. No community needed or desired. For a discussion of why men don't go to the meetings, it would help to post the agenda.

      into the blue again, after the money's gone

      by Prof Haley on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:13:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you want to see the reverse, (0+ / 0-)

    it's easily found.  You want a Church group/community where men are the primary movers, the ones who immerse themselves in Church life?  Look for a society where traditional power is held by women; a Matriarchal society.  You will find the roles in Church reversed.  I suggest you have a look at the Inuit.

  •  American churches tend to emphasize aspects of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prof Haley, Leftcandid

    your inner psychological life and contemplation of those states. It seems that women (statistically speaking) are more comfortable with acknowledging those issues and discussing them with other people. More men than not would rather submit to tooth extraction than to spend an hour exposing feelings.

    I don't dislike all conservatives... mainly just the ones that vote Republican.

    by OHdog on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:54:59 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, my inner psychological life (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greatferm, OHdog

      is mine. If I'm going to talk about it, it will be with my life partner, with a professional whose work makes sense to me personally, or on rare occasions with trusted friends where I'm free to leave at any time. "An hour exposing feelings" sounds like hell's vestibule to me. An hour? Exposing to whomever shows up? To compare and contrast with interpretations of myth-called-sacred? I guarantee I have something better to do.

      But then, my social needs are satisfied with a fairly low level of contact, and my greatest peace derives from actually, tangibly, moving things from "to do" to "done."

      into the blue again, after the money's gone

      by Prof Haley on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:41:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think one way to sell church (0+ / 0-)

    is as emancipation from chasing our silly images of false masculinity.

    American masculinity is defined by lack of intimacy, domination, and a certain amount of cruelty.  Religion gives a safe space to escape these, if you want it.

    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

    by Punditus Maximus on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:32:33 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site