Effeminacy: "The Forgotten Vice in Seminary Formation"

[KnightofChrist]

The Pope wears a cassock and Cardinals wear lace. I'm sure both Popes and Cardinals have had many discussions about their formal dress though out the ages. But hopeful not in ear shot of immature and/or judgmental Americans.

[Maggyie]

Yahhhh if a bunch of cardinals get together and are talking about which lace pattern is the frilliest of them all, that's very very effeminate.  Not the slightest bit masculine. I'm sure if you poll the college of Cardinsls, interest in types and prettiness of lace is quite low. Since they are clergymen and not a ladies sewing circle. 

[Ice_nine]

Right - put them in the closest thing to dresses you can find, and that will make them less effeminate. 

"But when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity"

don't know why you got downvotes there.

 

anyways this thread offended me. I'm so offended.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

"But when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity"

don't know why you got downvotes there.

 

anyways this thread offended me. I'm so offended.

That must be the exact quote I was referencing. Where did you find it?

[Ice_nine]

I googled "GK Chesterton on skirts" and then clicked around a bit. I also used magic.

[Nihil Obstat]

Witch!

[Benedictus]

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.

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by Benedictus

[Nihil Obstat]

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!

 

In and of itself perhaps not, but the concept of a gay 'dialect' or 'accent' is a fairly well established linguistic phenomenon. Obviously it is more complex than a "gay lisp". But there certainly are linguistic features that, as a whole, indicate homosexuality.

[Benedictus]

 

In and of itself perhaps not, but the concept of a gay 'dialect' or 'accent' is a fairly well established linguistic phenomenon. Obviously it is more complex than a "gay lisp". But there certainly are linguistic features that, as a whole, indicate homosexuality.

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.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

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.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I think it to be misled for holy scripture says " in the kingdom of heaven there will be neither man or women, slave or free." Though there are physical differences between a man and women culture through the centuries has held woman and men different in a spiritual light, which they are not for God created man in his image and likeness, and in genisis the man used here is neutral meaning mankind which includes man and women. I could be wrong. Though of course it is not right for man to dress as a woman. But i also believe it is good for a man to have a soft side, a soft side can lead us away from danger and not act like a block headed warrior charging into battle therefore causing a fight/battle which need not have occurred with the correct tender diplomacy, though truly also that block headed warrior is indeed also needed at times of peril and threat which both man and woman need to defend themselves. Though of course there needs to be one head of a household who needs to have the final when a descision can not be reached through diplomacy and that chosen one was man as in the masculine/men.

to avoid confusion and a battle for supremecy in a family unit.

Unsure why God chose man as the head but he had to choose one or the other, and just to make it real the priests bishop and pope are the head of Gods house on earth.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And all layman outside of the holy priesthood(layman as in laykind[men and women]) should be viewed as equals, except of course in the case of having the final say in a holy matrimony dispute, but at all other times equal without reserve.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Benedictus]

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.

OK. So how do those contradict what I already said?

[Nihil Obstat]

OK. So how do those contradict what I already said?

There is a clear link between voice and sexual orientation. As I said, obviously it is not as simple and un-subtle as a gay lisp. But it exists and it is a real phenomenon.

[Benedictus]

There is a clear link between voice and sexual orientation. As I said, obviously it is not as simple and un-subtle as a gay lisp. But it exists and it is a real phenomenon.

That's not what the research says. 'The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production' (your link) - 'These results are inconsistent with the conjecture that innate biological factors have a broadly feminizing influence on the speech of gay men and a broadly masculinizing influence on the speech of lesbian/bisexual women. They are consistent with the idea that innate biological factors influence GLB speech patterns indirectly by causing selective adoption of certain speech patterns characteristic of the opposite sex.'

The issue of speech and communciation is therefore seperate from sexual orientation. However, people have an innate ability to mimic voice and communciation. Men will, especially if around women, copy those speech patterns. These speech patterns can form in a way that would be typical of the opposite sex, but it is reliant on social conditioning. Gay men may well mimic the speech patterns of women, but it will vary.

Heterosexual men are far more likely to break a speech pattern identified with the opposite sex due to cultural conditioning and social cues, whereas Gay men 'may' not due to different influences.  That, as far as logic and common sense goes, should be obvious. We know this simply by listening to different homosexual men speak. A man can 'sound black' to people but it doesn't mean he has black skin. The same measure applies. This is The New Yorker write up on the doc film being made and outlines some of the issues around accents and speech patterns. The issue is, in this case, more a nurture than a nature issue.

Aside from this one issue -  the church struggles to remain relevant to men and, it seems, some would prefer to find easy reaons for the fallout in this area. The core article shows how far the denial and insular thinking has become.