G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
W.F. Price continues the discussion of the place for men in social conservatism and Christianity. He writes:
Many of the men writing on this issue, including Dalrock and Elusive Wapiti, are Christians themselves, and they’ve done a great job exposing the rampant man-bashing in contemporary Christianity. Dalrock recently pointed out how Christians even go so far as to excuse female-initiated divorce for trivial reasons, and cannot boast any more success in keeping families together than secular society.
Price is referring to Dalrock’s example of a female social conservative arguing that a woman has grounds to divorce her husband for porn addiction. Dalrock and Price’s criticism of Christianity and social conservatism has a lot of merit, but I think that it would be useful to look at why men do not find a home in the Church.
As a non-believer myself, I think that other non-believers are ignoring the weightier force that leads to “man-bashing” in these realms. That force stems from Christian doctrine itself. I’d argue that it isn’t so much that the Church or social conservatism is winnowing men from the flock. Christianity is a set of narrowly-defined doctrines that assumes homogeneity in the natures and behaviors of all humans. Christianity proscribes different gender roles, but it does not discern between differences in the behaviors, hormones, or sex drives of men and women. An acceptance of inherent differences between masculine and feminine desires and behaviors – which Darwinists and non-believers accept – would lead one to conclude that it is Christianity itself that winnows men out of its flock. Given that people tend to avoid places or institutions that don’t share their same set of values, men avoid a Church that, by its very design, frowns upon the masculine vis a vis the feminine. So if the problem is that men aren’t welcome in church or that man-bashing is rampant, this is because the Church is merely carrying on with the same absolute authoritarianism that it’s always had. If you have a complaint with the way churches treat men then you have a problem with the fundamental roots of Christianity rather than its contemporary stylings.
Take pornography, which Dalrock mentions in his posts. The church frowns on porn. But there is no distinction made between a man looking at porn and a woman looking at porn; porn and sexual impropriety falls outside the boundaries of good and proper behavior. But we all know that men are more apt to do these things just as we’re more apt to lust after many different strange women. Those who follow evolutionary psychology and biology to Game acknowledge differences in sex drives, so this shouldn’t be a controversial point. By the strict confines of church, men are “bad” while women are “good”.
But if we are arguing within the frame of Church Doctrine as Dalrock et al are, it pains me to say, churches are right. Using those metrics of badness and goodness, a higher percentage of men are bad compared to women. The problem is that we’re arguing within that frame, which is the wrong foot for us to get off on. We’re arguing within a framework which posits what I consider to be hocus-pocus.
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame wrote about men being Pegs in a Holey world. He argued that men’s natures – when we look at the entire overlay of male behavior and actions placed on top of a narrow window of “acceptable” behavior – place them on the wrong side of “morality”. Basically, women are more pro-social than men because society has been defined in terms of a morality that women have an easier time adhering to. Men just don’t fit. We see this in many realms starting most prominently in school where “boys being boys” is enough to get detention or heavy medication.
Men have been pushed out of the pews and found residence in other conservative circles – the alt-right sphere being a prominent mopping agent for that spillover. Men have entered these circles because they still maintain the conservative structure and a constrained vision of humanity without requiring the submission to something that is really difficult to believe in, even for followers of God. Take a Rush Limbaugh. He is socially conservative and nominally Christian, but he is not an evangelical who constantly touts submission to an authoritative being. It is politics without the preaching (though Limbaugh does try to paint himself as a demigod at times).
This is my long way of saying two things. First; men struggle acclimating to a religious hierarchy with a narrowly-defined moral script that begins with God/Jesus and moves down through pastors, priests, and deacons. We tend to buck authority, so we avoid the Church. Second; if you are Christian then you must buy into the frame that men and women are accountable to the same authoritative rules of morality. If one rejects that then they would reject the Church even before considering how it handles men and marriage.