Category: philosophy/religion topics
So I know some folks who belong to various religions, I assume Christian at this point, and many times they talk about going to various group meetings at church which seem to be single-gender things, like women's Bible study or men's prayer groups, etc. I don't quite understand why churches would want to separate men and women that way if all you're doing is praying or studying the Bible or even being social. Do they really think that if you put women and men together, even married couples, that the presence of the other gender would get in the way of whatever intellectual or spiritual things they're trying to pursue?
I can only speak for myself, having seen both the pros and cons of segregated groups.
PROS: My husband has been part of a bi-weekly men's Bible study for the past few months, and it has encouraged him greatly. I, as his wife, and women in general, have certain expectations (reasonable or not) about being married; having the guys get together and study the Bible encourages the talk to be about more spiritual things than football and beer. It has pushed him to be more open both with his buddies and with me about things he's struggling with, things that make him happy, etc.
CONS: Particularly with women's Bible studies, it is entirely too easy to have it become a bitch session about our husbands, lament manhood in general, etc. I think there are times and places for that, but those are girls' night at the pub - not in times designed to speak spiritually.
I am not against joint Bible studies - and any student of New Testament churches will tell you - that churches were not segregated. But I think there are benefits to men speaking openly to each other, and women doing likewise... perhaps because I am a woman I can definitely sense the propensity for gossip.
Kate
So I can answer some of this for you if you care and it wasn't only in gest.
Christians do this one way, while Jews and Muslims another. Jews and Muslims segregate the sexes in their temples, mosques and what have you. I don't know why.
Christians do it because they believe each gender "struggles with different issues" and so those can be addressed in the same-sex groups. It isn't, contrary to popular opinion, because they think males and females can't keep their minds off each other.
Also, Christians think that men have trouble with same-sex bonding and so they try to synthetically create a terrarium in which these bonds allegedly grow.
Ironically, they most often believe the women have no such troubles, which according to my wife and others, can't be further from the truth.
But to understand modern Christendom and men, take all Gloria Steinam's writings and those of every author you read in sociology / women's studies, change the names and faces of the deities around a bit, and you have modern Christianity's views on men. All men everywhere are responsible for absentee fathers. Even if you are a present dad. And, I heard by one notable speaker, *especially* if you are a present dad, because you aren't doing enough to get others to do the same. So they apparently believe just because you do something must mean you have the power to change another's mind.
All I say to that was, out of good intentions once, I attempted to do just that for a friend of mine, convince him to get involved with his kid, and I will say that I was a complete, utter, and abject failure at it, and not too proud to admit it. Granted, I wasn't preachy, but ....
Anyhoo back to your question: Study what Promise Keepers purports, a bunch of men who turned fifty in the 1990s and went through a midlife crisis. I can't really judge a midlife crisis as I've been justifiably accused of being in one now. The difference between someone like me and someone like them? They asserted everyone everywhere must be doing the same things, and cookie-cut a response.
Me? I'll take ownership of being more of a cynic than a skeptic sometimes now, sometimes being a crank, and maybe an all-out douche about it, though I do try and control this. However, I'll never say everyone everywhere is doing it my way, right or wrong.
Anyway out of that particular marketing campaign, plus a lot of reconfiguring of churchianity you have what it is you're looking at. Men now are responsible for the acts done to women in 1950, men who are fathers get to sit through and are supposed to nod in abject agreement with talks about how we as men have failed.
Hey, I will admit my own failings. But I rejected the we're-all-guilty foolishness from the women's studies in college, so I don't know how the Christians thought I was gonna buy the same dish sold on a different platter.
Ironically though, women who are competent have a tough time seeking positions there, even though they talk a big line about how we're supposed to improve towards women. They believe things about this which you formerly read about in history textbooks. My friend calls it a Soft Patriarchy.
Anyway most churches are more heavily populated by women, women are seen as more spiritual which they might or might not be, I don't know. Men are sinners today the way women were said to be so yesterday. Instead of blaming Eve for all sin for all time, they blame Adam for not stopping her. Nowhere do they just say, everyone's responsible for their own affair, each had their own part in it. Ah but there I stray again.
Although there are men there, do what I did and get a few alone with you. Not the alphas, you understand, not the ones moving on up, just average guys. They look every bit like you, they are there for her mainly. Maybe even like me they did their level best to comply for awhile. But She is generally right. More often than not, and I were one, when they wanted as part of a magic show charade for a male to pray or read something, he'd get the cues from Her as to what should get covered. I did. I'm not ashamed to admit this.
Oh, and if the father isn't complying? He is ruining it for the kids, and the kids may burn in hell because they only follow the father's conversion. Pretty tenuous situation if you actually buy it and are a new convert.
Personally I see nothing wrong with single sex groups, male or female. I know it's neither polite nor politically correct to say so, at least if it's men who are involved. Women have maintained their own spaces during the inclusive times.
But more to the point, interest-specific groups are probably of greater relevance than gender, or vocation, or even parents. Though it sure helps to be together with other parents if you are one.
Anyway I hope this is some kind of background, if you were genuinely curious, as to how that particular monkey's puzzle actually works. Some of it would be denounced and denied by people too cowardly to admit it, or by feminists who want to believe it is only their way, or by someone who has had a different experience.
Put it to you this way, Godzilla. It was considered revolutionary when a marriage book came out in Christendom telling a woman maybe she should be nice to her husband. Yesterday, perhaps, women were seen as impure. Today, men in the church are seen as the dogs of the earth, responsible for all sin at all time, and any problem in the family is because the man is not spiritual enough.
Every Father's day is a litany about bad fathers. Yet the only father present are those who genuinely care enough about their kids to be doing whatever it takes to keep the family together. That would be like going into a grocery store and yelling at every single person about shoplifting and how terrible humans are because some of them shoplift. And meanwhile the shoplifters take off with the loot. Father's day was one event where often you felt like you needed a shower after you went.
And their latest, before I quit hanging about the edges of these magic shows? There is something now called spiritual adultery. Which means pretty much anything you want. A fluffbunny word to absolve her of divorcing him for whatever reason she wants. Which, of course, she can with modern courts anyway. Spiritual adultery only applies to men as the adulterer, so these men's groups help to keep this at bay. She is seen as the better one if she gets her husband to attend these and improve.
But if you darken the door to one of these places, if you have a penis, anything that happens is in fact your fault, because you are the Priest of the Home, they say. I did a text search on BibleGateway once and can't remember finding that in there anywhere in the Bible.
George Orwell's 1984 is alive and it is doing extremely well, financially, spiritually and in oh so many other ways. Thoughtcrime is, to them, a crime, though they use different words for it. And their Hell is the ultimate Room 101, whose engineer, architect and designer was their deity.
What Kate says about men and women my wife has echoed. Though I would never propose how that would get solved.
Again, churches do have the right to segregate, and I don't think that single-sex spaces are inherently wrong. I don't even believe most people involved in the things I mentioned earlier are deliberate. I think it is one major cosmic accident, to be honest, the things I mentioned anyway.
But segregating into groups by gender is not inherently wrong, or your women's colleges would be wrong, your women's clubs all over Portland would be wrong, and every female-only space would be wrong. Which of course in polite politically correct society nobody would claim. And most of us genuinely decent people wouldn't either.
The difference, and in my opinion, the unfair flak that Churchianity has taken for this, is that men segregate into groups, some of them at least. I have with varying results on a few occasions. Even when I did not, I supported their natural right to do so because it's clear, peple only complain if it is men segregating to do so, as though we bunch of average guys were going to come up with a conspiracy. Lol most are there and their wives are open about how this is making him a better husband.
And we're not talking doing the dishes and all that: this is normal fare for most people most of the time. We're talking in the abstract here, how much time spent in the quiet time, and what is being said or not said about it, and how much you back what they're saying regarding kids.
Lol ironically I was a terrible priest of the home if priest there actually is, because I refused their conferences, seeing as I worked long hours and had rather spend time with my only and favorite daughter. She is taking more of her mom's spiritual path but I did always encourage her to think things through, not just either accept or write something off. And in a lot of ways, the Wife is a lot stronger of an opinion on a lot of things in our house, often it sounded reasonable enough to me so I went along with things. That doesn't make me some kind of a abducating father or what have you.
But these are the things most often told men in those groups. Unless things have changed in the past few years. This was the going thing throughtout the latter 90s and early 2000s.
A bit of a gold nugget here which I did not know until I'd been around this stuff awhile: Generally speaking, the Church is 20 years behind the rest of us. That means the ways of thinking that were popular in 1993 could be seen as what is popular now in the church. So you're dead set in the 90s tail-end of second-wave feminism and everything that went along with it from 20 years ago.
If you're a young man, you can maybe take it. If you were a boy raised in the 70s and told by being male you were responsible for everything from mammograms to vaginal births, then rolled on into college and through all that false guilt mess, then you rolled into Churchianity which merely changes the names and faces of a few people and still indicts you for past crimes and assumes you gilty of current ones, it gets old. Gets old and does absolutely nothing to actually lend a hand to someone who is being beat, or some kid who is abandoned by his parents, or what have you. Reminds me of some of the Magic People out here who claim themselves to be environmentalists, because they wave their hands and have feelings of love to the environment. Not because they invent green technologies or do anything constructive.
I personally just cannot buy all that. And to be honest, I'm using their word now, I'll be transparent enough to say I never did buy their lines about us working dudes.
I think though that what I describe might be unique to American fundamentalists and in particular the large churches, though this I don't know. The Chick wants to go to one of these smaller house church things, so that may be different. Nothing is perfect anywhere, so I have no illusions, but I will refuse to judge a new set of people based on previous encounters with others. I kinda have a lifetime of experience on the south end of that one, so it'd be patently unfair of me to do that.
Jesus didn't segregate the genders.
Leo, I'm actually not kidding. Church culture is something I've never experienced, so when I see people I know talking about all these women-only and sometimes men-only groups they're in, I wondered why they'd keep guys and gals separated and what that had to do with being in church, even if all you were doing was praying or having some kind of learning experience. As for the myth of female bonding, you're right. I know plenty of women who say they can't stand hanging out with other gals because they see them as too bitchy and shallow and backstabbing and find men easier to talk to.
Well I hope what you got here was an explanation, admittedly biased, but I'm neither justifying it nor saying it's wrong: I can't stay alive and stay in it. It's life-draining.
And I don't know if this is a fundamentalist phenomenon, an American phenomenon or what.
But remember Godzilla, these are Starter Husbands who are sent to these male groups in order to improve the model. Make you no mistake: they as much as said it at a Promise Keepers event, the only one I ever went to. And every man was supposed to get down and wail and say how terrible we were and are as men.
In real life this is just flat out dirty and makes you feel like trash as a man, and does nothing useful. Have I been wrong? More often than I care to count. Have I had to apologize for it? Sure, and my preference is to do so to Her without any caveats, no I'm sorry buts here. I refuse to take responsibility for what isn't mine. And that is what ultimately sealed the deal for me regarding many of these groups.
I have very little against most of the men in those places, and most of the women either. I think it is a cosmic accident, a collision of two worlds or something, something neither man nor beast could maybe stop from happening. Only I have forfeited my place in the perpetual crossfire.
Personally the most memorable things I have of those places, with fond memories, was when the whole group as a unit, regardless of rank or gender or spirituality, would get together for some kind of community assistance. I for one am perfectly happy to scrub out the pots, stoke the fire, clean up, haul boxes, sharpen knives or do whatever She asks in those situations.
Well, Leo, I'm just glad I opened up the topic and I await others to weigh in if they wish to. I dunno about this whole bit about blaming men for all the evils in the world, I mean, OK we had this patriarchical system and did treat women and others pretty much like property for a time, but just going into backlash mode and playing roll reversal isn't going to repair any of this. I've made my share of mistakes in life just because I'm a human and we do this, not because I'm a man and I'm dumb or some kind of monster. It's just easier for a lot of folks to blame other people for life being unfair than to just make a little shift of point of view. Misery is easy and herd animals tend to go for what's easy.
Me man. Me kill and eat big meat.
Leo, you know I like you, but you totally lost me in several of those board posts. Smiles. But I don't think the church's having groups for men only or women only has anything to do with fear of same-sex bonding, or at least that's not been it in any church I've ever been a part of.
Godzilla, I think Kate said it best in her response to you. And also keep in mind that not all church groups are gender separated. Many churches do offer those options, but they also offer plenty of study groups and classes that are open to both genders at the same time. Being part of a men's or women's group isn't a requirement or anything, it's just an option some churches have if people want to take advantage, and it seems many do. I'd go into the reasons, but I'd only be duplicating Kate on this. I personally have never participated in a women's group. I too find most women to be shallow, gossipy, and whiney, so I tend to stay away from that kind of thing. I have, however, taken classes that were open to all.
This is going to steer the topic away a bit but I need to say it. SisterDawn, you seem to reflect an attitude I see a lot at least amongst the women I know and I'm one of these guys with mostly female friends. Now I'm wondering if same-sex bonding was invented either by Hollywood or the marketing departments of assorted alcoholic beverage producers, let alone the church. LOL!
Hahaha, Godzilla. Maybe women are less shallow when it comes to guys? I'm one who, growing up and well into my 20's, had far more guy friends than female ones. that is starting to balance out a bit, as I'm working and making more female friends, but I still don't have much use for girly. And I guess the other way to think about the church group thing is that some colleges have sororities, (OK, sorry if I slaughtered that spelling, I don't have time to go look it up), and fraternities. Students can join those if they wish, but don't have to. Maybe the same idea here.
Alicia's right though. And although I did not very often attend the men only groups, I did fiercely defend their right to not just exist but thrive.
Also what many don't say is that churches have interest groups: golf groups, groups of fishers and hunters, groups for getting together and doing all sorts of things.
I do not understand, however, why Churchianity gets criticized from within and without for these groups. They are free to do as they wish and I can't for the life of me see any harm.
The one area that began to surface when I was there, which I was total agreement with was supporting and aiding people who are in some kind of positions there, trying to keep them from burnout. I had no idea the demands many put on those people, as I never went to their offices without the Chick and only for a few things.
And you know what? Nobody will talk about it, but there are groups for people who want to lend the staff people a little aid, and I was for one very glad to join up and lend a hand.
Not to derail the thread, just to say that you often have huge numbers of people at these places and so it is natural for people to diversify into groups to do things.
And again I say, any group that wants to convene has the right to not just exist, but thrive, in my opinion.
Alicia, my daughter says the same about girls also. Of course, I'm a guy so what can I say? But she and her mom both say we guys are more often than not just easier to deal with, and like her mom says, less complicated.
Again I am just one the pack, so who am I to say, but I will roll with the punches.
And sorry for my useless ramble of posts that confused you earlier. I don't take misunderstanding of a ramble to be dislike.
Perhaps it could be because a lot of religions believe that each gender has a specific purpose, or gender role as I learned in a sociology class. They didn't say in the class that this was what religions do, but we learned about the term gender role which is something that many societies have, if not all. They are stereotypes that people may have about genders without seeing them as stereotypes. I also can't speak for every religion there is, or every form of Christianity. I can speak from my experience in the Mormon church however. When I went to the Mormon church men and women were required to meet separately at a point in Sunday's services. The men, myself included, were required to meet in what was called the Preasthood meeting. One of the major turn offs to this to me was it seemed like they were trying to get every male who participated in the Mormon Church to join the Priesthood and become a Priest. This was and never will be a goal of mine. I don't want to start a firestorm but this was one reason why I ran from religion, because I don't want people trying to dictate what I can and will do. I gave it a try and it didn't work for me and I'll leave it at that. But back to the original topic, at least from my experience I see it as they believe in gender roles, that at least in my situation, the men's role is to be a Priest, and the women have other duties such as serving as missionaries.
Now Leo, I didn't know churches had things like golfing groups and that sort of thing. That's a new one on me. I figured any groups that met there that were sponsored by the church would have some spiritual aspect to it, outside of groups who arranged with the church to use it as a meeting space, like some volunteer group that wasn't part of the church itself but arranged to meet there every Tuesday or whatever.
Yes, they do have these groups, and in my thinking at least, they are unfairly judged for doing so. Both from within and without.
I might disagree with many things in Churchianity but I would not in the slightest back down from fighting for their right to practice as they wish. Which has shocked more than a few of them who knew my position on their intrusion into the sciences.
At the risk of derailing the topic, I need to say this. Ryan, I'd say keep one thing in mind. Before you judge all religion, in this case, all Christianity, remember that your primary experience comes from one denomination, and not even one of the mainline denominations at that. I think Mormon is a lot more strict than most of mainline Christianity, both in its rules and its ideas about the genders. It's kind of like how I was raised Catholic, which also has very strict rules and rituals. Any time I heard the word, Christian, I immediately associated it with Catholic, and was turned off. Until I realized that they were not all the same. Kind of like if you judged any organization by one sect. For example, I judged the whole NFB by the Iowa affiliate for years, and therefore ran as far as I could from the whole organization, till I learned later that not everyone was like that. No, let's not start a blindness discussion, that's just my closest example.
Sorry for going off the topic there, guys. Anyway Godzilla, yes, a lot of churches have groups that don't have anything to do directly with spiritual things. I think the idea is just to participate in hobbies with friends who, at the core, have a common spiritual bond. and that getting to know one another in a more relaxed arena would lead to friendships where those friends could turn to each other for spiritual support if and when needed.
Yes, Alicia makes a very fair and valid point. I think with a lot of these sects it is less about beliefs and more about personality traits of the majority of the sect in question.
Oh absolutely. I want to make sure I'm not stereotyping all forms of Christianity in the sense that they are all extremely similar to the Mormons because that is not the case. I've also gone to other churches but not usually more than once and so any other argument I tried to make wouldn't really be as strong. I was saying this more so to hear about other experiences from other denominations, and see if more go along with what I was saying or if more went against it.