Men Only Classes

Growing up in the church, I understand the thought process why men have their own classes and retreats:

1. Men are leaders and need specific training.
2. Men want a place where they can bond with other men.
3. Men and women have different roles and expectations in the church.

Equality gets a passing nod by adding a Women's Class, even though the teacher is always a woman and therefore has all the same disadvantages her students have, since she obviously never had any more exposure than her students to the skill sets our men are taught. Generation after generation have perpetuated the cycle of disadvantage because someone long ago decided women don't need the same skills as men and no one ever questioned the practicality of that idea.

Here are the notes I made on my bulletin yesterday:

If the church taught me women how to lead the way it teaches men, maybe I'd have more tools to deal with being the de-facto spiritual lead of my house.

• Not a teacher.
• Taught and inclined to follow.
• Barely able to keep up my end of the housework (at all until recently).

WHAT IS THE POINT OF BANNING WOMEN EXCEPT TO TEACH MEN SKILLS THAT WOMEN DON'T "NEED" (BUT ACTUALLY DO). 

WOMEN DON'T HAVE TO LEAD SERVICE TO BE LEADERS.

We are expected to be leaders in situations with kids but are never given the tools.

Really starting to identify with women who
trash talk "the patriarchy" all the time.

Underneath those notes is a lot of anger and grief. Because I was never prepared for this. And no one ever thought that maybe girls might find a use for the skills they teach boys.

My husband, who also grew up in the church but no longer believes in God (and screw those of you now thinking about all the tactics I can use to change his mind and prepping your comments to coach me about it; how we deal with it in our marriage is none of your business, nor is my referencing it an invitation to weigh in), he said he's always been bothered by the way women are excluded. He told me exclusion is the point. I said I don't think people even consciously understand what it's doing to women or the position it puts us in, that it's just habit and tradition by now. Men's classes are a thing, they've always been a thing, and nobody really thinks about them beyond the surface reasons for having them.

Separating the sexes for gender-targeted teaching has screwed me over as the only Christian parent in my home. Because I was always taught, always told, that my husband would be the spiritual leader of my house.

But that's not what happened. And it's not what happens for widows or divorcees or single moms. Women need these skills not only because it would help us be co-spiritual leads to our children but because some of us are the only spiritual leads for our children.

And we are not prepared.

I shouldn't have to be playing catch-up. And women with leadership qualities shouldn't have to find ways to use those for the benefit of the church in spite of the church. If women at the front make you uncomfortable, fine. Women have a long history of helping behind the scenes, taking charge of programs involving traditionally female roles, but they are still at a disadvantage when the church insists on teaching men skills but refuses to teach those same skills to women.

I need those skills. And I was never encouraged to develop them. I am naturally inclined to follow, and I have always been fine with that. Plenty of boys aren't inclined to lead but are forced to learn because that's "their role," and that's a lot of unfair pressure to put on them. The church talks about women as "helpers" but how can we help take some of that load if we have no idea how? Why does the entire burden fall on the men? It's unfair to everyone involved.

Separate men's and women's classes is point-blank denying one group the chance to learn what the other is learning. Giving one group the lesser teachers, different lessons, leaving women out.

The few times I've encouraged the men in my family to have a guys' night, my sister-in-law has insisted that she be allowed to go because we're all friends and they're usually considering doing something she wants to do, like playing a game she also enjoys, or watching a movie she wants to see, and you know what? They're fine with that. Because they're not interested in excluding anyone based on gender, and they're not doing anything women can't be part of. They're not the kind of men who act differently without women around. They don't have some juvenile "no girls allowed" mindset.

We aren't lesser members of the family. We aren't considered weaker (or stronger in only feminine ways, which is a nicer way of saying weaker), and we all like each other on our own merit as people.

So when my husband and I were talking about this subject and he started joking about finding things to exclude me from, I understood it as the parody of church policy that it was. "Maybe we can randomize what we exclude you from. Like, one day we'll say no women at game night, the next time it'll be a movie you really want to see, and you'll never know when it's coming so it has that extra punch to it."

Churches need to prepare women the same way they prepare men to be spiritually strong and to lead if the occasion arises. Not to lead as women but to lead, no qualifier, end of sentence. Because the situation does arise. It has for me. It will for others. And we're not at all prepared.

Oh, and those of you who spent less of this listening to my point and more of it trying to parse together the story of my husband's situation and how much I knew when we got married and what happened and why so that you can decide how and where to assign blame? Fuck you. You're an asshole.