Regular readers will remember that, a few months ago, I began a series to look at gender issues. Having never examined them previously to any depth, I thought it was time. I am grateful for resources, limited though they may be, at my disposal (time, books, etc.).
As I look at the material, though, I fairly despair of producing any worthwhile posts because there is just so much to respond to. So much to reference. So much more I don't have time to read. I don't know how to use footnotes in a blog post, nor would it probably be worth my time to learn. So please bear with me as I attempt to write about the things I find most notable, which don't require further research.
My search for the bottom of the issues, for their origin and what drives them, has taken me to some surprising places. Looking into the term "feminization" was one such venture. My first quest was to learn just what it meant. Apparently, as applied to men, it means evidencing "female" characteristics and being afraid (or lacking knowledge) to be truly masculine, ostensibly due to the influences of feminism which render only "feminine" traits culturally acceptable. (Which I mostly don't buy.) But, as I've come to find, "feminization" didn't originally refer to the emasculation of men, but to the addition of females and their concerns to the ranks and services of social organizations: the term was used in the late 1970s to refer to women in poverty. (Someone please clue me if it goes back farther.)
As applied to the church, the term seems to have meant both this and the fact that there are more women in church than men, and therefore church purportedly caters more to women. Admittedly, when I first read this I had to ponder, and wonder, because it hasn't been my personal experience in the many churches I've attended in my 44 years. Honestly. According to Leon J. Podles, this means that either I "have not noticed," or have "[chosen] to deny the obvious because of a feminist, or...a traditionalist agenda." However, I'm not aware that my powers of observation are particularly lacking, nor would I say that I have either a feminist or a traditionalist agenda.
If there were more women than men in the churches I've attended, the disparity wasn't glaringly obvious, except perhaps for there being more elderly women than men. I figure that's because women generally outlive men, and because there are less younger people in older, traditional (on the conservative side) churches. But does a disproportion of elderly matrons in a church mean that it is feminized? (Note that I don't expect that my experience matches everyone else's, and by the same token I find it hard to believe that few others' do.)
Out of curiosity, I looked through my church's directory (a few years old, but sufficient) and found that there are, indeed, more women than men, including children (206 to 171). I attend a 129-year-old Evangelical Covenant Church in a relatively small community. I'd say that the reason women outnumber men is that there are more single women (some with children) whose families belong to the church than single men (there are several families with three generations in attendance), and more elderly widows than widowers (the bulk of the imbalance).
If the women get more attention (have more programs) than the men, it's only slightly, and these mostly support the older women. Nor would I say that our worship is particularly effeminate; if it is, then there are a lot of effeminate men at my church, and they'd surely bust a gut at hearing that. Lay leadership seems to be pretty well split between the sexes. (There are also some families in which one spouse attends our church and the other attends another.)
The "contemporary" worship style and songs (of the early service) are offered for the sake of the community and younger members; many of the older members also prefer that service (and many younger members attend the later, traditional service). The "rock" style of most of the praise songs is considered contemporary, not feminine. Is it feminine? I wouldn't say so...I would call some of it "sappy" (don't tell them I said so) and lacking in depth. But I wouldn't say that "sappy" is particular to gender. (Would you?)
Anyway, I really can't say there is preference or imbalance in "catering" shown either gender at my church, and if I have a bias, it's certainly not toward feminism in the sense of where my attention's been, or for liking sentimental, whitewashed worship (I don't), or for being happy with the women's programs at my church. They are wonderful and serve their purpose, but are not in general geared toward the more pressing interests of a woman like me (not that they would not benefit me nor I them). But I love my church and the people in it; God has put me there and that is where I worship and serve.
My husband doesn't think there's a preference shown either, and he is quite conservative, and in my (biased) opinion, a manly man. He co-administrates the church softball team.
So there you have the introduction to a sub-series to my gender-issues series, which will look at the so-called feminization of men, the culture, and the church.
