women become devoted to God when the Devil no longer wants them

Anthropologists and developmental psychologists who have studied masculinity have come up with a fairly widely agreed upon topology of masculinity. I will begin with child development, because that is something almost all of us are familiar with.


A boy is born of a woman and has an intense and close relationship with a woman for the first years of his life. At first the child is not even aware of his mother as a separate being. He gradually realizes that his mother is a separate being, a separate person. He then starts realizing that his mother differs from him in an extremely important respect: she is what he cannot and should not become—a woman. The boy must break this intense, close relationship with his mother to establish his separate identity. The girl is separate, but she can become feminine by imitating her mother. The boy cannot become masculine by imitating his mother; he must turn from her to other models, usually his father.


Intense pressure is put on the boy to make this break. If he does not make the break, he is called a momma’s boy, a girl, and much harsher things. He learns that at all costs he must become a man. A man has other responsibilities in life; he takes up the dangerous work of a society. He may work himself to death as a lawyer, or get shot in war, or anything in between. Even in the United States, men hold almost all the dangerous positions in our society, as measured by the chance of death or serious injury. Only after he earns his spurs as a man can the male reconnect to the world of women by marrying and becoming the father of a family. As a boy the male is protected and provided for; as a man he must protect and provide for others, even at the cost of his own life.


This pattern is almost universal. Societies in general have what Yale anthropologist David Gilmore calls an ideology of masculinity. Boys all over the world are subject to initiations and trials to break their relationship with their mothers. Boys must learn to endure pain and suffer deprivation, so that they will undertake the dangerous and destructive work that all societies have.



The feminine world is (for a man) far safer: he doesn’t have the hazard of childbirth. Therefore he must be constantly pressured to distance himself from the feminine world. He is given a higher status in return for assuming the masculine role, but he pays a price. Michael Levin says: “If sex roles are to be regarded as the outcome of bargaining in which men received dominance in exchange for the risk of violent death, it is hardly clear that they got the better deal.”


Western Christianity has become part of the feminine world from which men feel they must distance themselves to attain masculinity. That is why men stay away from church, especially when they see that the men involved in church tend to be less masculine. The most religious denominations, those that have the most external display, have the worst reputation.

Anglo-Catholics were lambasted in the Victorian press as unmanly because they devoted themselves to lace and plaster statues (in some cases, this criticism was justified). Psychological studies have detected a connection between femininity in men and interest in religion.

Interesting. It is men's turn to get the attention.

I don't think one can critique the 'feminisation' of religion without an understanding of what religion is and how it arises in people.

It seems to me to be part of the humanity of people to have some religious sensitivity, and women are as much a part of humanity as men are.

'Feminisation' is not in the same category as 'Feminism'.

A boy is born of a woman and has an intense and close relationship with a woman for the first years of his life. At first the child is not even aware of his mother as a separate being. He gradually realizes that his mother is a separate being, a separate person. He then starts realizing that his mother differs from him in an extremely important respect: she is what he cannot and should not become—a woman. The boy must break this intense, close relationship with his mother to establish his separate identity. The girl is separate, but she can become feminine by imitating her mother. The boy cannot become masculine by imitating his mother; he must turn from her to other models, usually his father.


Intense pressure is put on the boy to make this break. If he does not make the break, he is called a momma’s boy, a girl, and much harsher things. He learns that at all costs he must become a man.

This is the sort of nonsense one has come to accept as doctrine from psuedo-psychologists.

she is what he cannot and should not become—a woman

The break happens when a small boy is barely cognitive, at around nine months to a year. 'Should' doesn't come into it. Prof Liam Hudson studied this break and determined that is was a profound shock for a boy that he is different in kind as well as degree. But this is a sense not a cognition.

The boy must break this intense, close relationship with his mother to establish his separate identity.

Using the term 'must' is inappropriate, The little chap has no choice in the matter. His identity formation which was underway, is diverted to the father, a more remote person compared to the symbiotic relationship he had with the mother for the 9 month s prior to his brth and the following 9 months of initial nurturing. Masculinity is an outcome, not a deliberate intent of a nine-month old child.

The quoted piece above in the thread goes on trying unsuccessfully to link the child's experience to his later self-determination, making a conflation of quite distinct and seperate issues. No link is provided between the two.

Western Christianity has become part of the feminine world from which men feel they must distance themselves to attain masculinity.

This is just nonsense. There is no rationale; no logic to it; no syllogism.

That is why men stay away from church, especially when they see that the men involved in church tend to be less masculine. The most religious denominations, those that have the most external display, have the worst reputation.

Unsupported assertion; codswallop. The author has an ax to grind and is sending sparks flying in all directions.

Anglo-Catholics were lambasted in the Victorian press as unmanly because they devoted themselves to lace and plaster statues (in some cases, this criticism was justified). Psychological studies have detected a connection between femininity in men and interest in religion.

The first part of this jumble locates the time and place where Protestantism would say any stupid things to rubbish Catholics. It is unrelated to the feminisation of religion, rather the differentiation of sects and a false grab at sectional superiority.

As for the psychological studies 'detecting' connection, what the fuck does that mean?

Percy, you did a great job breaking it down. Thank-you for that.

I have noticed that when writing essays like this thesis, you are to question things and provide answers.

No points for conclusion they say. We want you to think for yourself.

However, you have to add the points you are TAUGHT. So you are not really thinking at all.

They are using the tool "If the person figures it out themselves, it will have a better effect on them."

It is a bit frightening to think that the next leaders will be following this.

A another great example of where we totally disagree with each other again Percy. I have read his book from cover to cover and have it beside me here, along with other great efforts. I consider it a classic.

There is a lot in the psychological profession I have problems with, but what he is talking of is very basic and not new at all. To question this basic breaking from mother is to say all of psychology is bunk (for everything else is even harder to prove in this area of thought.

Sure a boy doesn't think logically about the break from mother, but cognition doesn't mean that, and that is how you are using it. I think a defination is due here:

Cognition: Something that comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, intuition or knowlege-Heritage Dictionary 1982

The break can come at many points in a boys life depending on when he reaches maturity and if he chooses to leave mom's apron strings. Those who study this aspect all say that a boy has many ways in which he can go. He can never fully cross into the male area (as he becomes scared of the male region of his world). He can stay with mom's forever in fact as our society allows for that now.

He can cross and go back to the female world (though extremely rarely does this happen, for those that stay long enough to learn the male world in full usually almost always stay as it fullfills much).

Many egalitarians are trying to be in the middle of the two dominate spheres, and they fail to see that women don't need to break from mom at all, and are born close to the sex they will remain for all of their lives. So they have no idea of the male world, and it remains an unknown thing to them. Nature only tends to get them to go over to mate and then they rush back to their zone, as it is dangerous to hang out with say bikers. Feminism is an envasion and wish to make the male world like the women's. They use these kind of men in the front ranks, as again it is dangerous to be in the front ranks.

This is why when women act brave they do so with sex (act like a whore) or in words (act like a sailor). Boys that cross over midway, so as to be in the proper middle of the sexes ground (so they can remain in the perfect political gender position) may never have been over to the total male zone at all. Many young males learn from women their forms of bravery and tehn go off and have lots of sex and talk like a sailor like such tough bitches do. Whoopie! You are now like a tough bitch, so what!

Most full ground men that cross long enough to learn the male zone in full, seldom return to the female side, and even more to the balanced political egalitarian position in between. In fact most of the men balancing in the middle have had no dad around, have never liked the male world when they have experienced it in true form, or in deformed forum, and have never really come to understand it, and simply dismiss it out of hand as violent (which is what women say, as they don't know it either). Those most afraid of this tend to shout loudest and connect sex to what a man is, which again is more like what women think is tough.

As for the religious issues he covers in his book, he isn't anti-catholic, for he in fact shows the eastern European churches are least influenced by effeminate a feminist ideas. He has never been a member of those churches, but gives them their due.

Podles: That is why men stay away from church, especially when they see that the men involved in church tend to be less masculine. The most religious denominations, those that have the most external display, have the worst reputation.

His proof of this idea is massively supported in his book from way back in history. Monks were choosen from the non-fighting stock in ancient times and gay sex in the church is not a new problem at all.

I don't really underrstand any of your other arguments here at all Percy, as you have much passion in showing that he isn't logical and that reform churches aren't filled in the pews with a mass majority of women. This is a fact by every major western church in every western nation. This is a fact and all you have to do is go down to any church and see for yourself.

The modern reforms have all come from this base of women who want to have the same happy group harmony, and thus change the word of God to make nice and be polite to loudly aggressive types in their mists.

This is why so many males have joined the Moslem religion, as it often offers them a huge numbers of men to talk to and discuss some of the ideas we do here. Yet unlike this forum they can be found at a local Mosque. Now grant you the ideas found in those mosques are of a different level of discourse, but for a young man to have 30 men around him, all of the same position, all telling him ideas that come from ages ago, and have wisdom in them still, must be a tour du force should it not?

The Moslem see this weakness and they are pushing harder here than anywhere else. I'm sorry if you feel your church is insulted by being called effeminate and a feminist breeding grounds, as I would feel the same if someone said that of a place I went to for a long time. Yet didn't you see just lately a reform church in Canada is doing away with Jesus and replacing it with some other group think term!

At some point you have to admit that an institution is lost, and it is time to build a new.

I don't think you should bite the head off the messager. To get men back in church is going to take a miracle.

To question this basic breaking from mother is to say all of psychology is bunk (for everything else is even harder to prove in this area of thought.

Your premiss is unsound, Tim. Questioning one aspect of a huge field does not render all the field as wrong. All scientists ought to question and all fields of study are open to question.

I indicated the leading Psychological theorist in that field, Liam Hudson, and there have been reams of papers from his peers questioning even his views. I did not say that all psychology is bunk.

The quoted piece talks of the initial break from the mother that a boy has to do. It is a very distinct break. He has to do two things, both difficult. He has to disengage from and dis-identify with his mother, due to his sudden realisation - at a felt level - that he is different in kind, and engage with and identify with his father, with whom he has not had a symbiotic relationship. The psychic break opens a huge gulf from which an enormous energy flows. Masculine creative energy, at its best, and many other oddities of character at the worst.

You are talking of an ongoing departure from one to the other lasting into late teen or early adulthood. There I don't see a disagreement with you. That is far more culturally determined and can have affects on character and identity. It is particularly important that a father provides the needed guidelines and the the boy gathers and absorbs the father's experiences vicariously.

May I suggest you read Parzival (Wolfram's) where that 'hanging on' to even a mother's words can have long term affects on his success in the world. Negative and positive. There is probably more insight into masculinity in that mythical account than in history books.

Very few modern people are raised in an 'ancient' tradition; tribal. Most people do remain affected by both their parents. It is an arguable point that the old ways were the best ways. I would argue though that rites of passage are a needed aspect missing from our modern world.

As for the view you have of monastic recruits, it was the common practice in the early last millenium for lands and wealth to be passed to the oldest son. Second and third sons had few options: Independant swords, usually becoming tied to a Prince or King or other warlord; the priesthood/monastry; or 'letters'. The determination was birth order, not prowess and the prefered 'Masculine' role was as landowner, not soldier of fortune.

"To get men back in church is going to take a miracle".....or a condom...lol

comedy relief:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNgotUM4gk8"]YouTube - Monty Python - Every Sperm Is Sacred.avi[/ame]

Quote from Percy

I would argue though that rites of passage are a needed aspect missing from our modern world.

I would agree with you.

Percy: The quoted piece talks of the initial break from the mother that a boy has to do. It is a very distinct break. He has to do two things, both difficult. He has to disengage from and dis-identify with his mother, due to his sudden realisation - at a felt level - that he is different in kind, and engage with and identify with his father, with whom he has not had a symbiotic relationship. The psychic break opens a huge gulf from which an enormous energy flows. Masculine creative energy, at its best, and many other oddities of character at the worst.

This is well put, and much of the rest of what you wrote seems reasonable as well. I can't disagree with you on anything in this second effort on this topic.

So here are some facts and points from his :

The UD Census: Eastern Orthodoxy the ratio of women to men .75-.99 to one, Roman Catholics 1.09 to one; Lutherans,1.04-1.23 to one;Mennonites, 1.14-1.16 to one: Friends, 1.25 to one; Presbyterians, 1.34 to one; Episcopalians, 1.37-1.47 to one;Baptists, 1.35 to one; Assembly og God, 1.71 to one; Pentecostalistis, 171-2.09 to one;, Christian Scientists, 3.19 to one. Because the respondents to the census identified themselves by denomination, the census probably overstates the proportion of men in the liturgical churches because they practice infant baptism: a current non-believer who was baptized as a Catholic, for instance, will tend to identifiy himself as a Catholic.

The same women who are said to be closely tied to the church have a almost majority that read horoscopes every week. Since this is pagan in origin, and is frown on by the church, this is telling as other data points to women being both expermental in religion as they often hang on formally to the rituals to avoid the appearence of heretical ideas. In other words they act like they are closer to those who don't want change, yet are infact the ones indirectly bring about spiritual change. This is critical, as women are not center on change in other areas, compared to men.

The departure of boys from Sunday school after age 12 was likewise noticed and lamented: "Sunday school lost 60-80 % of their boys between ages 12 and 18."

-quote from another author

Here is the time when boys leave religion and they do not come back. Like in school and other facts of our lives these facts are ignored, dismissed and played down as we center on women's needs.

I'll place more later, after I get some input on these facts.

I think this example is what women do with all institutions. They are attracted to secure organizations and jobs, then once they come into these organizations they indirectly change them, as they appear to be the strongest supporters, but in fact change them through group think, politeness to a fault, and the over emphasis of feelings of others as the way to following their own ideas over the stated success to date of the ideas of an organization.

This is why men have often removed women from organizations. Women today allow all women groups, but stop all men organizations, and call this equality!!! This is yet again holding strongly on to the new god of equality, and following their own desires in action. I'm just amazed that others don't see this constant thread in their nature. They do it by instinct, if not by intent. The method isn't as important as the results which are unmistakeable.

It says somewhere in the Bible...Romans, I think...that women should not be allowed to speak at all in church. It says that they ask questions, and that if they have questions they should wait until they get home to ask the questions of their husbands rather than asking questions in church.

Seems women have been challenging ideas and authority for a long, long time. Is that bad? Guess it depends on how you want to look at it.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36

"The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?"

Quote from TERA

1 Corinthians 14:34-36

"The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?"

The author of this directive knew what he was doing. Women have a natural tendency to apply "critical theory". That was however not in the interest of the community. The whole idea of religion, apart from meeting psychological needs, is to structure society, maintain its stability and channel the various passions. The last thing they needed was a bunch of obstinate females "questioning authority".

Quote from TERA

Seems women have been challenging ideas and authority for a long, long time. Is that bad?

One woman's noble challenge is another one's rebellion.