- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was reading at article stating most churches are 60 to 75% women. Why the lack of interest from men? What would be the causes? Is this a problem? If not, at what point would we say there is a problem? The article is way off. Here are the actual numbers. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/gender-composition/ If we discuss this further, let’s focus on the question in a way that is tied to our mission and any issues the question raises for participants here.
Old-Timer wrote:
The article is way off. Here are the actual numbers.https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/gender-composition/ If we discuss this further, let’s focus on the question in a way that is tied to our mission and any issues the question raises for participants here.
The Pew Research stats were 46% men to 54 % women on average, and may vary drastically in different regions.
I think that there are actually 2 thematic questions being raised:
1. Does the Church organization have a problem
attractingyoung men to church? 2. Does the church organization have a problem
retainingyoung men in church? Those are not the same question.
I suspect that men are turned off of joining the church due to the level of commitment required to join the church and the community (WoW, etc.) and concerns of historical honesty based on more widespread information about Joseph Smith and the Mormon narrative.
NOTE: I believe that historical concerns are a leading reason that men drift away from the church organization and culture.
I think that some men do not join the church because of the way that authority is organized along gender lines and what culture that creates (and some do).
From what I can see based on my experiences with male family members who have drifted away from the church, it is “historical issues”, it is “community issues” (my family members didn’t fit the male mold / didn’t want to fit the male mold closely enough to stay), and that the church culture is not meeting an entertainment/social need that my family member has. While it could be defined as “lazy” what it actually is looks like, “other activities are more transparent/interesting/accessible to me and cost me less – so I will spend my time there”.
Some men leave the church community when their spouse does because their spouse was providing the catalyst to “show up” by making sure that the items were ready to wear, that the car had gasoline in the tank, and that people got up, got ready, and were there on time and on target. This is actually talked about in General Conference indirectly as a reason why it’s more devastating for a mom to leave the community (as the mom was the one making sure the husband and kids had all the things and showed up).
StayLDS MissionOur site’s connection to men leaving or staying engaged with the church doctrine, church culture, and church community is complicated.
– There are lots of posts about “being male and being a member” and some of the related concerns.
– There are lots of posts about “how to stay” and “how to determine levels of personal engagement”.
I think that a lot of men who are part of the cohort of the “20% doing 80% of the work” are burned out from community-building related service. I respect them greatly.
This is a complicated question, since “churches” is so broad a term. Absolutely, some churches struggle to attract and keep men (which varies by age, as well) – and some don’t (Islam) – and some struggle to attract and retain women (Islam) and some don’t (liberal Protestantism) – and some struggle to attract and/or retain both men and women (Community of Christ) – etc.
Even those categories are complicated, since the answers vary radically by location (Africa and USA, for example) and generation (my children’s generations vs. mine, for example).
Some of the differences are based on sex, but many are based on culture and generational views (like equality of the sexes and historical roles).
The most difficult aspects of my experience as a man in the Church are quite different than my wife’s – but her experiences are part of mine because of our marriage and my respect for her. In a real way, hers are more difficult than mine (even though she is more orthodox than I am, generally speaking) – but I have “more” issues than she does, philosophically, and due also to feeling hers (at least in some way to some degree) without her feeling all of mine.
Some will say that women are more spiritually sensitive than men. I don’t know if there is any truth to that, and it’s probably even taboo to refer to gender differences in this way. In the LDS Church, there is a lot of drudgery involving being a male leader. So to with female leadership roles, but as a man, it’s one reason I don’t engage as much with the church. There was a lot of time “invested” (I want to say “wasted”) in activities that bear no fruit in priesthood leadership.
I heard one Bishop say that service is a lot of non-results peppered with flashes of light. I find it hard to sustain that over time. My father in law, when I spoke about this, shared with me a story about a man being asked to push against an immovable rock. The man asked why he was required to do that when it resulted in so little movement of the rock. He was told that his was to be obedient and push against the rock and let God worry about the movement.
I found that a very unsatisfying tale. To me, it’s like sipping on a straw when there is nothing left in the cup.
It is why I’ve found myself a lot more amenable to community service. I have found I can have a much bigger impact per unit of effort expended, and I still get to meet a lot of good people. The church doesn’t have a corner on good people, and it is not the most rewarding place to serve either. I have often felt it would be good if the church was more in touch with how people feel about the LDS experience rather than pushing down higher ups ideas and calling them unchallengeable and inspired — when a lot of the time it’s just sheer opinion and rules without research…
SilentDawning wrote:
Some will say that women are more spiritually sensitive than men. I don’t know if there is any truth to that, and it’s probably even taboo to refer to gender differences in this way.
It comes up. But defining “spiritually sensitive” is hard to do. My hot take is that being “spiritually nurturing” and “spiritually aware” are executive functioning and socialization skill sets that girls develop early and that I have seen LDS culture rewards early. Most of the time, the “women are more spiritual” line of thinking leads to disconnect between men and women because it allows women to grow contempt for men, and men to isolate themselves from the women’s experience (that they are contributing to).
SilentDawning wrote:
It is why I’ve found myself a lot more amenable to community service. I have found I can have a much bigger impact per unit of effort expended, and I still get to meet a lot of good people. The church doesn’t have a corner on good people, and it is not the most rewarding place to serve either. I have often felt it would be good if the church was more in touch with how people feel about the LDS experience rather than pushing down higher ups ideas and calling them unchallengeable and inspired — when a lot of the time it’s just sheer opinion and rules without research…
I think that tying one’s community service to the after life (on whatever level it gets done) is ultimately un-motivating.
I think that committing to community service is in essence, “calling” oneself to a personal ministry – and that “self-calling” matters a lot.
Part of the problem that the church organization has is that is a super generalist organization competing against specialist organizations (that are not churches) that have deeply delved into those branches. The collaboration of the church organization and the BSA was the 1 area that I know of where the church chose not to compete (and that era is over – say what you will about how it all worked out).
Just a general observation, I don’t think the church has a problem attracting young men as much as holding onto them.
I think that the church as an organization has both the problem of attracting and retaining men. I think that the greater problem is one of retention though. The church as an organization is one of many that have this problem though. My analysis of the situation is that there are organizations and situations out there that are more attractive to men to pay their attention and affiliation to. It is super hard for the church to compete against media-based group activities. I would specifically cite Super Bowl Sunday (and related activity-based groups), and video games (and related communities and platforms).
NOTE: I would recommend that anyone seriously researching this issue read Dave Barry’s “Guide to Guys” – a very irreverent book that has the premise that there is a huge difference between “Men” and “Guys”. I think that our religious culture makes it worse by expecting males to always be disciplined, insightful, priesthood-holding Men when that might not always be the case (and should not be the case).
As missionaries in Chile, a practicing worthy priesthood holder was a huge asset. Part of this is because our local church organizations required so many of them. There are many things that we have determined cannot be done by women.
I also felt that there was a culture in Chile of what I would call “Machismo” (translated machoism?). This culture prescribed for the men to engage in regular recreational drinking of alcohol and playing soccer on Sundays. These were displays of masculinity.
Conversely, the church was a huge support to the women. It provided a network and helps for teaching children, raising families, and providing motivation to live honest, hard-working, and chaste lives. These were all more feminine tasks.
For a man to join the church in this environment was to be seen as somewhat forsaking his friends and the male gendered role.
What I’m about to say is sure to be sexist. I live, I learn. I’m sorry. Something random that popped in my head… the more fundamentalist LDS sects that still practice polygamy. In those communities there are often a disproportionate amount of women. The prominent men end up with multiple wives, leaving no partners for many of the males, so the younger men with no prospects often leave (or are forced out in more extreme cases).
Then I think about some of the cultural conditions present in our church. Specifically, the lay clergy, lack of autonomy, and the patriarchy.
Where am I going with this? No seriously, I’m asking.
The average member has no real voice in the church. If it doesn’t come from the top, it’s probably not going to get off the ground. Only a few select members of the church with very specific callings have a voice. We also have a lay clergy, that means that a person that currently finds themselves in a calling with no voice could potentially be called to a calling that has a small voice (even if it’s just perceived).
Women don’t have any callings in the church where they get to call the shots whereas men have the potential to be called into a calling that does. I think this creates a little hope/drive in men that may not exist among women (or probably does but manifests in different ways). If that’s true, some men will leave the church once it becomes clear that they’re not on track to land one of the callings with a perceived voice.
In the comparison, the prestigious calling in church is the prominent man with all the wives in the polygamous community and the young men that leave the polygamous community are the people that get overlooked for said callings.
I think the lack of voice is also becoming a larger and larger issue for women in the church. Perhaps in the past it was expected that men would be the leaders but now that the expectation in larger society is that women can do everything that men can do, more and more women will become frustrated by a lack of voice in the church and potentially leave over it. Maybe what we’re seeing is the feminist movement from many decades ago finally catching up to a church that has traditionally lagged far behind societal norms.
In a similar vein, it’s possible that in the past men met most of their social needs at work, meaning they didn’t need to look to church as their social outlet, whereas women needed the church to make social connections. Now that women with careers are commonplace, more and more women are similarly meeting their social needs in the workplace, there’s less of a reliance on church as a social outlet, and we’ll see a similar delayed shift in church culture where women leave at similar rates to men.
nibbler wrote:
What I’m about to say is sure to be sexist. I live, I learn. I’m sorry.
I read this several times and I do not find it sexist. I think the distinction is that this post reads as a description of how things are, not a prescription for the “status quo”.
nibbler wrote:
Then I think about some of the cultural conditions present in our church. Specifically, the lay clergy, lack of autonomy, and the patriarchy.The average member has no real voice in the church. If it doesn’t come from the top, it’s probably not going to get off the ground. Only a few select members of the church with very specific callings have a voice. We also have a lay clergy, that means that a person that currently finds themselves in a calling with no voice could potentially be called to a calling that has a small voice (even if it’s just perceived).
Women don’t have any callings in the church where they get to call the shots whereas men have the potential to be called into a calling that does. I think this creates a little hope/drive in men that may not exist among women (or probably does but manifests in different ways). If that’s true, some men will leave the church once it becomes clear that they’re not on track to land one of the callings with a perceived voice.
The kicker is that women are supposed to be the ones who call the “nurturing” shots while raising children at home. In my family of origin, my mother did preside over the emotional support for our family – and that was legitimate – both in treating my mother as the nurturing subject matter expert and as the presider of that jurisdiction. In my marriage, it got weird because I am better at providing and presiding, and the default is to challenge my nurturing judgement calls at first rather then defer to them.
I think that what happens for some of these men is that they are not supported in their private demon fights and they “are told what to do” by leadership and it winds up looking like the message is “the leader’s way or the highway” – so they take the highway. Some men legitimately do not want to preside over anyone or anything and just collaborate on what needs to be done without personal judgement and personal values entering into the equation – and they don’t get that in our gendered church leadership innately.
nibbler wrote:
I think the lack of voice is also becoming a larger and larger issue for women in the church. Perhaps in the past it was expected that men would be the leaders but now that the expectation in larger society is that women can do everything that men can do, more and more women will become frustrated by a lack of voice in the church and potentially leave over it. Maybe what we’re seeing is the feminist movement from many decades ago finally catching up to a church that has traditionally lagged far behind societal norms.
I hadn’t put the narrative together in quite this way, but I like it:)
The lack of voice is part of it. Part of the discontent is coming from a place of information in the areas where “what we have now wasn’t what the church started with”. It matters that women who had given birth gave other women blessings before delivering a baby – that was personal, feminine, and communal. It matters that women trained women on social worker practices as part of a “visiting teaching” and community help to keep children healthy and provide familial support – and our stake leaders are booted from being on the stand at some meetings “for the look of the thing” when that could have been connecting families in need with a face to go to in requesting support.
nibbler wrote:
In a similar vein, it’s possible that in the past men met most of their social needs at work, meaning they didn’t need to look to church as their social outlet, whereas women needed the church to make social connections. Now that women with careers are commonplace, more and more women are similarly meeting their social needs in the workplace, there’s less of a reliance on church as a social outlet, and we’ll see a similar delayed shift in church culture where women leave at similar rates to men.
I think that online communities are meeting a greater amount of social needs for both men and women. I think this can be helpful in that some individuals can access online communities where they couldn’t access local communities. I think that this is also harmful if individuals also do not have offline associations (phone calls with family, counseling – even video counseling, friend events) as well as online associations. I get it. A good video game among online friends is a great sustained dopamine rush that is really hard to replace with even board games or other activities sometimes. And really, church activities and other locally based activities are in competition for that attention and hormonal reaction – and it would be nice if the church leaders were actually aware of that. It would be nice if the likely less dopamine but more oxytocin chemical combo that the church culture can offer was seen for what it is and actually curated.
I think another problem is that this is the “more” generation. Women still do a lion’s share of the family executive functioning, are still engaged in extended family considerations (case management if nothing else) – and parents and grandparents are living longer with conditions that literally used to kill them. Middle-aged men who perceive themselves as worthless and without power are still a population at risk for suicide, for serious depression – and in the LDS church, the women are still their primary emotional support. The average age of matrimony and motherhood for women has increased – so women are dealing with the intense phases of child-rearing with less energy (and in some cases toddlerhood and menopause at the same time – which would suck). “More” is expected of mothers to properly support their children – more activities, higher standards of behavior, dress, and ability, especially if CPS and charges of neglect are to be avoided. But women have been dealing with that for ages on some levels. The real kicker is that the nuclear family “home central, external organizations supported” model focused everything back in the home (which is usually run by mothers and grandmothers) without the supports of the good old past (which wasn’t necessarily much better for different reasons).
I rambled a bit. How to sustainably and effectively support middle-aged men and women in living a meaningful life with children is an ongoing subject of interest to me. It isn’t the reason I walked away from the church, but I lost a lot of respect for the church organization when it dawned on me that from my cheap seats, I knew more about and was able to implement more effective ways to create a meaningful life. I know why the church didn’t advertise “these teachings may induce anxiety and shame and not be for everyone”, but I expected more from a system that was supposed to be divinely appointed to solve all the problems – and usually it wound up victim-shaming the members when the system couldn’t solve the problems.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.