Sunday, December 25, 2016

Feminine Christianity

Listening to an Art of Manliness podcast on the sex imbalances in contemporary American churches got me wondering if membership and self-affiliation numbers told the whole story. Pew's enormous Religious Landscape Survey revealed that US Christianity is, across denominations (with the exception of Orthodox Christians) a predominately female affair, but the gender gaps are no more than 10 points with the exceptions of black churches (shocker) and Jehovah's Witnesses (who are heavily NAM).

The gender gaps on the ground are starker still. Not only are men less likely to be church members, they're also less likely to go to church if they are members. The following table shows the sex distributions among those who attend religious services at least once a month by religious affiliation, from most feminized to least so. For contemporary relevance all data is from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are large except for in the Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, and Orthodox cases (146, 97, 60, and 44, respectively):

Religion%Male%FemaleGap (F-M)
Methodist37.362.725.4
Baptist37.862.224.4
Episcopalian39.260.821.6
Catholic41.858.216.4
Presbyterian42.157.915.8
Lutheran43.156.913.8
Orthodox45.254.89.6
Mormon46.253.87.6
Jewish54.345.7(8.6)
Muslim70.929.1(41.8)

Among Baptists and Methodists there is an almost 2-to-1 female numerical advantage. That's staggering. Having been raised in a Lutheran household, I do recall more women present but the disparity wasn't immediately noticeable, at least not to me. That was a couple of decades ago and in the least female-dominated major mainline Christian denomination, however. The shift has presumably continued since then.

The feminization of Christianity is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. As the author interviewed in the podcast explains, as fewer men have anything to do with church, churches correspondingly become less attuned to and tailored for the needs and concerns of men. It's a common observation among the red-pilled that institutional Christianity has largely become SJW-converged. The cathedrals have become part of the Cathedral.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2014), SEX, RELIG(3,9,10), DENOM(10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,50), OTH16(60-64)

13 comments:

sykes.1 said...

It would seem that if a man has any religious sensibility he might be attracted to Islam. The Five Pillars are exceeding simple: (1) Allah is One, and Mohammed is his Profit; (2) daily prayer (five times); (3) charity, personal giving; (4) ritual fasting; (5) Hajj, pilgrimage to Mecca.

The side benefit is that the imposition of Sharia Law would properly subordinate women and crush the SJWs.

chris said...

I have often thought about converting from Catholic to Orthodox just for the more traditional women/(in other words Patriarchal culture).

Dan said...

@sykes -- "The side benefit is that the imposition of Sharia Law would properly subordinate women and crush the SJWs."

The appeal of Islam to the left is that it is aligned against whites. In the unlikely event that whites tried to use Islam to re-establish a patriarchy, the left would in that instant discover that it had been anti-Islam all along.

@AE --

The gender disparities with churchgoing no doubt are due in some part to the fact that the most reliable churchgoers are the old and the old skew female because they live longer. That said, there some truth in these gender disparities.

I do think that young men should strongly consider church for practical reasons. As distasteful as the feminization of church can sometimes be, it is way better than the alternative, which is "women" (e.g. Amanda Marcotte, Lena Dunham) who think nothing of their own femininity, or of marriage or of children or of virtue.

Churchgoing young women tend to take better care of themselves, tend to believe in having children and families, and are understanding of conservatives because they know so many from church. Churchgoing women also usually understand that wives are supposed to meet a husband's needs.

Trump won a majority of white women, and this was probably due mainly to churchgoing women. As has been noted, evangelicals broke hard for Trump (80/20).

I wouldn't agree that the cathedrals are part of the Cathedral. They are still the resistance, God help them. Consider how the Catholic Church resolutely refuses to have female priests. That is a damn bold position in this modern world where not a single all-male golf club or military unit escapes SJW attack.

Sigma K said...

I read this last night and had to have a long think on this. This is a very deep issue.

For me this starts at the Vatican reformation from decades ago when the church was feminized to attract more women. The church lost its old ways way before that but it accelerated at that point.

Women are easier to control and the church wanted to align with the 1st wave feminists for that reformation. Dalrock talks a lot about how messed up churches are these days.

I have not believed in a God for 2 decades but I believe in the old church and even further back to some of the pagan religions a lot of the churches teachings come from. With the decline of the men in the church so goes the church. As the church becomes more subjective to suite wymyn it loses it objective truths and loses the men that hold it all together.

This, in my opinion is the deep seated problem we have in the West; no common moral compass. We can have secular countries but we need one basic set of laws all peoples abide by. Those laws necessarily need to be rooted in the Judeo-Christian ways as Muslims will eventually destroy the secualr nature of the country.

As history has proven, as the religion goes so do the people.

DissidentRight said...

Darwinism broke the institutional church’s back. We lost the moral high ground: it’s hard to take Jesus seriously as “the Truth” if he’s a liar. Atheist theology was a direct consequence. The feminist mop-up operation succeeded because all the high socio-sexually ranking men are now gone. The deltas who remain can barely slow the progress of feminism, no matter what tools you give them.

Fortunately, Darwinism is wedded to academia, whose collapse is inevitable. If as, many of us believe, Darwinism cannot survive open criticism any more than globalism, the dominos will begin to fall, white men will return to the fold, the heresy of Feministianity will become a strange tale for our grandchildren to explain to their grandchildren, and the future of Christendom (and by extension the nations of the West) will be very bright indeed.

Anonymous said...

The Anglican church I attend in Kailua, Christ the Foundation, is about 45/55 male female. It is population is young and has lots of loud children.

They are the hope of the future.

tanabear said...

Though he disliked priests, and would not put his foot inside a church for anything, he believed in God. Were not the proclamations against tyrants addressed to the peoples in the name of God and Liberty? "God for men - religions for women," he muttered sometimes.
Nostromo, Joseph Conrad

Audacious Epigone said...

Sykes,

Compare Christianity and Islam and there's no contest in terms of which one is more feminine and which more masculine, especially as Christianity has put more and more emphasis on the gospels at the expense of everything else (to the extent that the emphasis is scriptural at all).

Chris,

A couple of months ago I sat down with a good friend from high school who I hadn't seen in a decade and we talked for several hours. He converted to Russian Orthodoxy a couple of years ago for that reason (among other attendant ones, like traditional worship, etc).

Dan,

There are many on the left who are aware of the patriarchal nature of Islam. They alternatively think it'll go through the same sort of muddling that so many mainline Protestant churches have (supporting same-sex marriage, having lesbian pastors, etc) or that it's manageable in the future and effective now as a tool to use against middle America.

It's insinuated in all you discuss, but you won't have to worry about a churchgoing woman running around on you.

Sigma K,

There are second- and third-order (and tenth-order, etc!) effects here. A civilization without a unifying sense of teleology and transcendence is a sick civilization. A civilization that instinctively recoils from the history of that unifying sense--as the West does with the Crusades, the Inquisition, missionary work, vis-a-vis science--is a moribund one.

I'm not a spiritual person (that's not an excuse, it's an explanation). It's not necessary to be one to realize that this doesn't bode well for our future.

Dissident Right,

Will you pithily define Darwinism as you're using it here? It seems quite distinct from the actual work of Darwin. I still regularly dig up excerpts from Descent of Man (written after OoS) to send leftists who "Fucking Love Science!". So much of academia is vulnerable to what is the logical extension of what Darwin 'started'.

Anon,

Exceptions can be inspirations. Fecundity isn't an Episcopalian thing from my experience, though.

Tanabear,

Institutions that aren't dominated and led by men just don't last.

DissidentRight said...

Today, neo-Darwinism or neo-Darwinian evolution. “Though agreement is not universal on the parameters of the modern synthesis, many descriptions hold as basic (1) the primacy of natural selection as the creative agent of evolutionary change; (2) gradualism (accumulation of small genetic changes); and (3) the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (changes within species) to macroevolutionary trends (changes about the species level, such as the origin of new designs and broad patterns in history). Evolutionary change is a shift of the frequency of genes in a population, and macroevolutionary trends come from gradual accumulation of small genetic changes.”

So much of academia is vulnerable to what is the logical extension of what Darwin 'started’.

Sure, but that’s not saying much when academia consists of SJWs and midwits.

My question is whether civilization as we know it can survive without the Church (I think not), and whether the Church can become great again as long as white men believe Christianity is essentially a lie (I think not). But if Darwinism is essentially a lie, then it will be exposed as such soon. If not, civilization as we know it will never recover.

Dan said...

"My question is whether civilization as we know it can survive without the Church (I think not), and whether the Church can become great again as long as white men believe Christianity is essentially a lie (I think not). "

I think Trump and Putin (as well as Reagan previously) are instructive of the way forward for men who don't naturally vibe with religion. They are not strikingly pious or religious but are strongly supportive of Christianity as a main pillar of our civilization. Those in Trump's family (i.e. Ivanka's family) that are more religious find at least a strong ally in him, and religious Americans too find a strong protector and ally, even if he isn't going to be leading any services.

Calling Christianity "essentially a lie" isn't a helpful thing to say (and not something an ally would say) because as you noted it seems essential for civilization. I have no doubt that during many great eras infused with a strong religious culture, many great men were this way. For example, I think of Victorian Era men and America's Founding Fathers, who were generally supportive of the faithful and the Church even if wasn't really their cup of tea.

DissidentRight said...

Our leaders’ sympathetic secularism is necessary but not sufficient—and actual piety would be preferable. But the reason they aren’t actually pious is the same reason the nation isn’t actually pious, whatever people may say about the merits of Christianity.

It’s because Darwinism means Christianity is essentially a lie, and currently white guys default to believing Darwinism. Now, I happen to hold that Darwinism is what’s essentially a lie. But few of us have the time or interest to study the arguments made by the various creationist/intelligent design people.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Well put. That is a better stated version of what I argued regularly throughout the primaries with tradcons hesitant to support Trump. "He may not be one of you but he'll fight for you better than many of your own will."

DissidentRight,

Among GSS respondents in 2004--and the country has secularized a lot since then--the breakdown is ~45%-45%-10% that God created man, evolution occurred but God guided it, evolution is fully explanatory, respectively.

Is the accommodating idea that Darwinism was overseen by God's hand viable?

DissidentRight said...

(I should sit down and figure out how to use the GSS.)

If that’s the whole country then it includes an awful lot of women and non-whites. Take white men by themselves and break them down by education level. Could be wrong but I’d bet a plurality of us are in “evolution only”, and an outright majority for those with college degrees or better.

“Is the accommodating idea that Darwinism was overseen by God's hand viable?”

IMO, it depends on whether God is merely pasted on, or whether you believe (for example) that macroevolution couldn’t have occurred without God injecting the information into the system.