Why do men hate going to church?

[GrumpyTroll]

Flowers and art are not feminine.

It is artistic.

Good art is a very masculine thing.

In good art there is inspiration, but also a simplicity and agreement with all the elements. It is highly masculine to see such order.

Bad art tends to be include multiple styles mixed together, opulence and the "more is better" concept. It also tends to be glaringly emotional, and not ordered and measured in its effects. This type of "art" is not masculine, because it is much more emotional, which tends to be a more feminine trait.

Your statements would make a good neo-classical creed (not that I am opposed to neo-classicism), but they overlook the purpose of art, which is to stimulate the human senses and provoke through them emotions and contemplation; art is intrinsically emotional, whether subjectively good or bad, a judgment which in itself can only be pronounced based on these emotions.

[IrishMonk]

You may disagree as you wish, but if men had been warriors for their Church we might not be where we are today.   The Church we have is a result of passive men.   I see far more devout Catholic women around me then I do men.   The problems in the Church are not an excuse for mens lack of support or holiness...   Of course you can say the Church has now failed the modern man, and it has, but this was the result of a failure over generations.
Men do not want watered down, feminized theology.  This was not what was delivered to the apostles.  Yet this is what is delivered from the pulpit in the majority of our Churches today.

[MagisterMusicae]

Your statements would make a good neo-classical creed (not that I am opposed to neo-classicism), but they overlook the purpose of art, which is to stimulate the human senses and provoke through them emotions and contemplation; art is intrinsically emotional, whether subjectively good or bad, a judgment which in itself can only be pronounced based on these emotions.

There's much more to art than emotional appeal and manipulation. There are various ways that art can affect a human being. Emotion is one level, but art can also appeal to the intellect and to the passions as well.

Part of the purpose of art may be to stimulate the human senses, etc. but the ultimate purpose of art is what the purpose of anything is: An aid to assist us in the salvation of our souls. In so far as it accomplishes this purpose it is good art, in so far as it fails, it is bad art. There is some subjectivity in the goodness, but, to some extent, it is more objective than most are willing to admit.

[Archbishop_10K]

I think I misrepresented myself when I posted the image of the Mass with the flowers and lace. I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was "bad", just that it could be seen as "feminine".

There was a thread I started a long time ago in the "About Men" section about men's fashions for formal wear, then and now. I posted a couple pictures of frock coats from the 1700's which were embroidered with filigrees and "flowery" patterns, and were rather colorful, and asked why men's formal wear today is so drab, what with almost all men's suits being plain black, brown, or dark blue (I agree with the "trad sentiment" of wearing formal attire regularly, but have a strong aversion to drab suits, especially the penguin tux. I often wear dress shirts and ties with strong colors). A few posters replied that it's natural for men to wear simple clothes, and that the colorful and ornate styles of the 18th century were influenced by effeminate Frenchmen and Italians. I vaguely recall DominusTecum saying something to the effect that men's formal wear is intended to make men look uniform, while women's formal wear is intended to set them apart (DT, correct me if I misrepresented you). To me, the idea that men should wear drab clothes sounds kind of Puritan, because I've always thought of Catholic art and culture as colorful, ornate, and even "opulent". Hence, Chesterton once said, â

Good art is a very masculine thing.

In good art there is inspiration, but also a simplicity and agreement with all the elements. It is highly masculine to see such order.

Bad art tends to be include multiple styles mixed together, opulence and the "more is better" concept. It also tends to be glaringly emotional, and not ordered and measured in its effects. This type of "art" is not masculine, because it is much more emotional, which tends to be a more feminine trait.

Hmm.... does this mean that women make "bad art", and men make "good art"?

[MagisterMusicae]

Hmm.... does this mean that women make "bad art", and men make "good art"?

No.

[Archbishop_10K]

Hmm.... does this mean that women make "bad art", and men make "good art"?

No.

Alright. But, then, what does it mean? If good art tends to be masculine, and bad art tends to be feminine...?

[StevusMagnus]

Jarrod & All Interested,

You must read this book:

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity,  by Leon Podles

He is a Catholic and former Marine.

Studies the reasons men are turned off by today's Christianity.
He examines Protestant Denominations and the Catholic Church.

Excellent and insightful read!

[CarolusMagnus]

I followed that link and i found there is a book called "Why do men hate going to church?"
seems someone has already answered this question

[StevusMagnus]

But the Church Impotent book is written from more of a Catholic perspective.

[kjvail]

A distinction needs to be drawn between the eternal masculine and feminine archetypes and the localized, culturally conditioned expression of each.

This image for example, Louis XIV of France. One of the most assertive men in history but what would we say today if someone dressed like this walked down the street?



It is obvious to me that apparel has nothing to do with masculinity except insofar as it accords with the prevailing, culturally-conditioned standards.
What is not cultural but universal are traits inherent in masculinity: discrimination, rationality and assertiveness or femininity: receptivity, emotionality and inclusiveness. (these lists are not complete but rather illustrative)

Now before anyone goes off half-cocked about stereotypes lets note that a whole and healthy individual has a balance of both.
Male traits only would result in a cold-calculating monstrosity and female traits only would result in a doormat.
Each individual has some amount of both and properly relating to these archetypes is essential for a person to be socially and psychologically functional.

The West's inbalance began long ago and reached a zenith in Vicotorianism and the end of the 18th century. We have been swinging wildly back and forth ever since (Enantadroamia: (GR)  - running the other way). We now have a hyper-feminized society, including the Church.
I do think this has alot to do with the lack of vocations - when there are few masculine priests (60%-70% of the Catholic priesthood is likely homosexual) then teenage boys who are discovering their masculinity will want nothing to do with them.
Unfortunately our society does not teach people to be healthy masculine and healthy feminine, in our rush to repair the distortions of the recent past we have tried to say there is no distinction at all. This is very unhealthy.