Effeminacy: "The Forgotten Vice in Seminary Formation"

[Nihil Obstat]

I never once said it was caused by something innate or biological. Just that it exists.

[Gabriela]

I find some good bits in this, especially about asking about the lack of male involvement in western Christianity, the need for more self awareness and better public speaking/image, but much also that I thought was meh.

How many stereotypes and inflated presumptions could be forced into one article piece?  A lisp is a sign of effeminacy? I think a speech therapist may have something to say about that!

I also didn't particularly like the cultural bias towards what is considered 'normative', the glossing over or avoidance of wider theological questions/problems, the failure to address the shifts in societal, political and cultural change and the collapse of Christianity in the west generally. Why would men care for any of that in relation to their cultural conditioning? The church, like most institutions, is stuck in the middle of a wider array of transitions and rebellions.  Power structures, assumptions and social group patterns are changing.

Wherever the church places itself on the spectrum there will be problems. Some see the outflow of men from the church as a sign that God is slowly bringing the breaking down of patriarchy. On the one hand there are some men who will reject the male dominated church structures and or simply leave through lack of conviction (like many women do too). On the other hand there are some men who will reject any change and or simply leave to join a more hardline church (maybe some women too). The rest are somewhere in the middle and it results in cultural wars. But, I don't think anyone can deny, that once the number of men declines they are reliant on the cooperation of women to maintain the status quo. Will men, at least those expecting cultural/theological norms to remain stable, stay on in parishes if they lose power and where women have, and demand, equal input? Surely the dominant group, women, will simply create an environment that then meets their own needs? I mean, look at Phatmass. Clear examples of imbalances here and it's not even a parish!

I had to think whether I knew any priests like that outlined in the article. I personally don't. I can't help thinking that the issues raised are mostly a good scapegoat for a wider and more complicated failure to connect, convince and remain relevant. I think this article pinpoints matters that are a distraction, in the main, and aren't going to help. Sure, improve formation but ease up on making the whole analysis a mockery and a joke. This one issue isn't going to win back the masses, so lets keep it real. if anything this isn't the time to nit pick and belittle priests. The task of church transformation and engagement, in any event, needs more grassroot effort. The days of using the priest as a tool of blame or to perform all dirty errands are probably over.

However, what about the bigger elephant in the room? How about dealing with the challenge of a God that lets himself be executed out of love and how this rings of emasculation to a certain strain of cultural machismo? 

I can similarly see that some may see all priests as a bad role model, simply for what they represent and not for how they act. A priest, like Jesus,  is celibate, lacking in wordly success and not seeking to acquire power. What is attractive in western cultural terms about that in relation to how men are conditioned to evaluate value and themselves? I think that's a more relevant question for the church to grapple with and to challenge the culture about. Some ideas about what is masculine, or not, are false and damaging. The link between such ideas, and say, fundamentalism and violence is probably well documented.

 

You make some good points here that I also thought of while I read the article. There is also much I disagree with in here, but it's late and I'm headed to bed. I would, however, encourage you to post this same comment on the HPR website.

 

That is false, as far as I understand the research. Voice doesn't seem to be linked to sexual orientation. I mean there are homosexual guys that don't have those voice attributes, and vice versa.

The findings, if I remember correctly, were that it's about vocal patterns and who children copy when they learn to communciate. If you're around women alot, say mother and sisters etc, then you may pick up their tones and aspects of communicating as a child. If anything the man, Gay or not, may simply learn to adjust the pitch and tone later on, either though association with other men or via voice coaching. A heterosexual man has different pressure factors or cues that cause him to adjust and adapt to roles.

There is a film production being done about it called : 'Do I sound Gay?' There was some publicity about it in the last few months in many national papers, mostly in Europe and online though I suspect.

 

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=584
(Arnold Zwicky)

"[...] It's now well established that men with linguistic features that indirectly index their sexuality — and there are a number of these — use these features differently in different contexts. (Rob Podesva has discussed the phenomenon in detail in several places, most significantly in his 2006 Stanford Ph.D dissertation, Phonetic detail in sociolinguistic variation: Its linguistic significance and role in the construction of social meaning.) An elevator to a party for Interview would strike me as a natural place for gay men who have these features available to them (many do not) to deploy them."

The papers I was able to track down quickest:

http://www.panix.com/~kurisuto/publications/crist_onset.pdf  - Duration of Onset Consonants
in Gay Male Stereotyped Speech
https://quote.ucsd.edu/cogs101b/files/2013/01/PierrehumbertGLB_vowels.pdf - The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447005000379 - The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgments of women and men's sexual orientation from read speech
http://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6250 - Language and sexuality: Searching for the phonetic correlates of gay- and straight-sounding male voices

And this is the paper Dr. Zwicky referenced: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1689&context=pwpl
Apparently Dr. Zwicky is gay, if you consider that relevant.

To both Benedictus and Nihil: I think you're both going to deep. Whether "gay-sounding speech" objectively exists or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether people think it does. It's all about perception.

[Nihil Obstat]

To both Benedictus and Nihil: I think you're both going to deep. Whether "gay-sounding speech" objectively exists or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether people think it does. It's all about perception.

You sound just like a prescriptivist. ^_^

[Gabriela]

You sound just like a prescriptivist. ^_^

Hardly. I'm referring to the original article. I'm saying that whether scientists have discovered that "gay-sounding speech" objectively exists or not is irrelevant for priests. What matters for priests is whether people think they sound gay. If people do, it may give scandal.

I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying it's so.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hardly. I'm referring to the original article. I'm saying that whether scientists have discovered that "gay-sounding speech" objectively exists or not is irrelevant for priests. What matters for priests is whether people think they sound gay. If people do, it may give scandal.

I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying it's so.

In that case you sound just like a descriptivist!  

Edit: I actually meant to say descriptivist first, and for some reason my brain crossed its wires and decided, "nope! prescriptivist!" Anyway, that was the intention.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Era Might]

 

Because Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose masculinity is somewhat doubtful.  By this I do not mean homosexuals, although a certain type of homosexual is included.  Rather, religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life and, therefore, attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world dominated by women.  These are men who have problems following the path of masculinity.

I think society in general is emasculating. There's a famous book I like from the 60s that talks about this, "Growing Up Absurd" by Paul Goodman:

 

Growth, like any ongoing function, requires adequate objects in the environment to meet the needs and capacities of the growing child, boy, youth, and young man, until he can better choose and make his own environment. It is not a psychological question of poor influences and bad attitudes, but an objective question of real opportunities for worth-while experience . . . .

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

In our society, bright lively children, with the potentiality for knowledge, noble ideals, honest effort, and some kind of worth-while achievement, are transformed into useless and cynical bipeds, or decent young men trapped or early resigned, whether in or out of the organized system. My purpose is a simple one: to show how it is desperately hard these days for an average child to grow up to be a man, for our present organized system of society does not want men. They are not safe. They do not suit.

One of the marks of being a "man" is to "get a job." But is a "job" really manly? What is a job? It's a role directed by someone else. Of course, working is an important part of becoming a man, but "having a job" in itself can just as easily emasculate as ennoble a young man. A boss becomes like a surrogate father.

The idea of the priesthood as a way not to escape a "secure world dominated by women" probably has some truth to it, but it's not limited to the priesthood. What do men work for? To impress women, largely, lol. To be "in the world" and to be a "manly man" is not necessarily a real manliness.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Era Might

[MarysLittleFlower]

Benedictus: "However, what about the bigger elephant in the room? How about dealing with the challenge of a God that lets himself be executed out of love and how this rings of emasculation to a certain strain of cultural machismo? 

I can similarly see that some may see all priests as a bad role model, simply for what they represent and not for how they act. A priest, like Jesus,  is celibate, lacking in wordly success and not seeking to acquire power. What is attractive in western cultural terms about that in relation to how men are conditioned to evaluate value and themselves? I think that's a more relevant question for the church to grapple with and to challenge the culture about. Some ideas about what is masculine, or not, are false and damaging. The link between such ideas, and say, fundamentalism and violence is probably well documented."

Do you mean that in a society with an incorrect view of masculinity, the priesthood would always seem effeminate, though its not? I think boys should be taught what real masculinity is from real examples not from media. In reality giving ones life for someone is way more masculine than exaggerated worldly images. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Anomaly]

This is Phatmass  ^

[Socrates]

The willful foregoing of material wealth and worldly power has absolutely nothing to do with the effeminacy the author is talking about.  I don't think anyone would call, say a priest who gives up the promise of a comfy desk job to go serve the poor on a mission, "effeminate."

Interestingly, there's no lack of men or male involvement in the more conservative or traditional parishes I've been part of.  The sexes seem pretty evenly balanced.

[Gabriela]

Interestingly, there's no lack of men or male involvement in the more conservative or traditional parishes I've been part of.  The sexes seem pretty evenly balanced.

That's a good point.

[MarysLittleFlower]

This is Phatmass  ^

? 

The willful foregoing of material wealth and worldly power has absolutely nothing to do with the effeminacy the author is talking about.  I don't think anyone would call, say a priest who gives up the promise of a comfy desk job to go serve the poor on a mission, "effeminate."

Interestingly, there's no lack of men or male involvement in the more conservative or traditional parishes I've been part of.  The sexes seem pretty evenly balanced.

I've noticed that too... Also I totally agree there's nothing effeminate about the priesthood and giving up worldly stuff.

[HopefulHeart]

? 

 

I believe Anomaly was responding to a now-deleted post by Tab.

[Benedictus]

Benedictus: "However, what about the bigger elephant in the room? How about dealing with the challenge of a God that lets himself be executed out of love and how this rings of emasculation to a certain strain of cultural machismo? 

I can similarly see that some may see all priests as a bad role model, simply for what they represent and not for how they act. A priest, like Jesus,  is celibate, lacking in wordly success and not seeking to acquire power. What is attractive in western cultural terms about that in relation to how men are conditioned to evaluate value and themselves? I think that's a more relevant question for the church to grapple with and to challenge the culture about. Some ideas about what is masculine, or not, are false and damaging. The link between such ideas, and say, fundamentalism and violence is probably well documented."

Do you mean that in a society with an incorrect view of masculinity, the priesthood would always seem effeminate, though its not? I think boys should be taught what real masculinity is from real examples not from media. In reality giving ones life for someone is way more masculine than exaggerated worldly images. 

Yes, I think society has a distorted view and that this can, sometimes, sneak into discourses within the church. It's not that society see's the priesthood as necessarily effeminate, simply impotent and lacking in value/meaning in terms of what western culture deems appropriate for men. The priest is essentially countercultural, and so it's an uphill struggle to make waves and encourage men to engage in discernment when there's a backdrop of negativity, even hostility. There are other factors too, of course.

I agree regarding media and images -  good images and role models are important, but often lacking, for loads of reasons. These are things the church should be tackling in a constructive way. I don't think the article did that at alll, not even close, in terms of substance or tone.

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I agree with some of the o.p now. Soft soft soft, and not just seminarians, we dance around the book of leviticus presently like it's a ballet and not a beast that needs to be wrestled and subdued! 

After more examination that's just what came to light to me about effeminacy, and thought i would bring up leviticus. God forbid we even start wrestling with the dark arts and getting our hands dirty and mention Satan, no way.

[superblue]

 

when this was a topic way back when, this is what came to my mind, and thusly, i just can't anything in this regard serious.

 

less men are expect to be acting like this ?