Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission

[Pergamum]

I will add my tentative thought here -- throughout Paul's epistles he connects 'Adam' to Christ, and when he suddenly moves to OT female figures like Hagar and Sarah he is thinking in a way that ties into his whole theology and eschatology. I think his switching here to Eve, talking about the 'Woman' (taken from Man, first formed) and the part she played in sin and the promise of a Saviour to her, connects with his whole 'Adam' theology. Creation points us toward new creation.

I think C. S. Lewis says that we are all feminine to His masculinity in That Hideous Strength. The Woman (in the new creation, the church) does need protection from false teaching. The second Adam does that for her. Christ's masculinity is symbolised to his church in male office bearers.
This new creation significance of 'male and female' bears on how we live out male and female especially in those arenas (marriage, church) where we are showing these realities forth.

I understand how the questions of generalisations come in, and how obvious some of them are on the face of things. There is real biological created difference, and that often factors into psychological (for lack of a better word) difference. In general, women are more tender hearted than men and emotion is easier to manipulate. (Yet I can easily think of a number of men who are more emotional than their wives.) In general women are weaker in their physical frame than men, though some women are stronger than their husbands (and some women are very strong!). We have historically been more easily abused in that weakness and tender heartedness. Because of that one -- there should be such caution about false steps here. Leaps with texts can so easily come to making us *less human*, less capable of rational thought or judgment, less allowed to form or express an opinion, etc. These verses have been used that way by Christian men toward their wives and daughters. That is fudging what God has actually said. But it is also in real lives, endangering those that in general, men should care more specially to protect.

Paul can say in Galatians that in Christ, there is no male or female -- and call us not to compete but to love. I think that when we apprehend all that we are heirs of we're able to live out the roles we are called to more lovingly because the focus is not on us, or what we're able to scrape out of this world. It's on Jesus, and maleness we all have in Him (sons and heirs) and femaleness we all are to Him (his bride) and the world to come.

I have probably said much inadequate in all this, and don't wish to become argumentative about it so I won't. Just to give a positive explanation of some of what I think Paul is getting at in calling up creation and redemptive history.

Pergy you are a beloved brother and I try to pray for you daily. I hope I didn't sound snarky above -- forgive me if so. I know you how much you value your wife as a wife and mom and also in her insights and training and ability to do highly skilled work beside you in a hard field. Many men aren't treating their wives with that kind of respect, and misinterpreted verses seem to give them a 'right' to the *pride* of being male that one is called to lay aside in Christ. Pride is a root in all of us of so much evil -- definitely in me. Though from what has been said there is much I'd disagree with in Ms. Miller's book -- I can deeply appreciate her concern for that.

The Apostle Paul says there is no bond or free in Christ and yet still tells servants to obey their masters.

Yes, I also appreciate her book. She is certainly no heretic, but a solid sister.

And yes, there are some awful men out there looking for any excuse to dominate. I see reaction and counter-reaction constantly on these issues, and the teams line up along gender lines.

In Papua we are working towards the rights of women, ironically, to go to school and to not be married off without consent and we have preached and advocated against domestic violence. I suppose I am a first wave feminist.

And yes, I believe women are more tender-hearted and relational.

Otherwise, I hold to traditional gender roles that existed for hundreds of years before these strange new labels such as Complementarian and Egalitarian sprung up.

 

[a mere housewife]

Yes, we're still called to live out the authority and submission -- with this understanding that like slave and master it isn't ultimate. It isn't based in our humanity or intelligence or ability or in any ultimate way on degrees of created glory (because we share even now in the sonship of Christ, as you do in the bride).
I was not trying to undermine the teaching on authority and submission to which we are called here -- just to explain why I think Paul is basing all the specific instruction about this around creation, new creation, Christ and the church -- rather than saying 'all women are x (or even, most women are x), therefore they cannot do y'.

[edit: I'm sure the part about the degrees of glory could be better phrased -- what I mean is that I believe even that is teaching us especially about Christ's eminence, and what we all put on in Him in the new creation.]

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Re: 1 Timothy 2:14, I once gladly agreed, my own experience confirming it, so I thought, that a woman’s greater susceptibility to deception was part of the the grounds for her not teaching or having authority over men. I still would gladly agree to it, but came to see it differently, helped through an old thread on Puritanboard. Basically, if being easily deceived to such magnitude was inherit only in women’s nature, and a reason for her prohibition in teaching men, then it logically follows she should not teach anyone. Yet we do see that older women are to teach younger women (not doctrine, per se; yet how to love and care for their husbands and families will involve doctrinal truths); and we see Priscilla named along with her husband Aquila as helping Apollos.

I will add that I also hold to more traditional views of Christian women taking public leadership positions. I’m uncomfortable about books like the one being discussed here. I do believe that God’s command for women to have a meek and quiet spirit is our guide, and works itself out in so many ways in the home and in public. Still a work in progress!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That's a straw-man. Those taking issue with Miller espouse no such nonsense. This issue is stated fairly by Master:

I think you need to read my post more carefully. Where did I write that anyone who takes issue with Ms. Miller's book fits the broad category that I described? If you re-read what I wrote I stated that she is reacting a a shallow Christianity that pretends that all of life can be proof-texted by a couple of verses. I'm not "straw-manning" anyone. I've met them in real life and gave Doug Wilson as an example who has the appearance of wisdom but his approach to Wisdom literature is casuistic.

It's interesting because, just today, I was talking to a friend who heard from a woman who is now divorced from a man who bought the patriarchy movement hook, line, and sinker. Even now, after abandoning his wife, he still is trying to act as "head of household". I've seen the wreckage in multiple families literally abandon the faith because their dad gloms on to a shallow "Scribes and Pharisees" approach to the Scriptures on the issue of manhood and womanhood.

It'd be convenient to paint me in the pattern of the "liberal guy" who just thinks that submission means we're supposed to submit to one another but it would just be another example of the childish inability of many to think that if you're not *FOR* a shallow patriarchy that you're against Biblical manhood. It's the same shallow idea that if you're not for the heresy of Eternal Subordination of the Son then you're an egalitarian.

I made the specific point that I had read the article you quoted and I agree with it. I also read Jone's article and agree with it. Their criticisms are valid and I pointed out that she needs work thinking through some of the Scriptural and natural law issues rather than simply criticizing a patriarchy-movement and coming up with a shallow alternative to it. The point is, however, that some people can only be shallow critics of her. They won't engage in the broader natural law issues or the theological broadness but the solution to one kind of abuse of proof-texting is simply to engage in another form of proof-texting. My larger point is that life and Godliness is much, much broader than trying to find a single verse that fits all the issues that life throws at us.

So, in summary, I'm sympathetic to the concern raised by the book that people abuse the Word in the construction of a "Scribes and Pharisees" form of the roles of men and women. What I don't agree with is the way that people are using a "scribes and Pharisees" rule set to criticize her. I prefer the criticism in the articles raised that point out the shallowness of her Biblical treatment, historical treatment and that the solution to the problem would be found by a healthy combination of deeper exegesis combined with Biblical and law of nature wisdom.

 

[Pergamum]

I think you need to read my post more carefully. Where did I write that anyone who takes issue with Ms. Miller's book fits the broad category that I described? If you re-read what I wrote I stated that she is reacting a a shallow Christianity that pretends that all of life can be proof-texted by a couple of verses. I'm not "straw-manning" anyone. I've met them in real life and gave Doug Wilson as an example who has the appearance of wisdom but his approach to Wisdom literature is casuistic.

It's interesting because, just today, I was talking to a friend who heard from a woman who is now divorced from a man who bought the patriarchy movement hook, line, and sinker. Even now, after abandoning his wife, he still is trying to act as "head of household". I've seen the wreckage in multiple families literally abandon the faith because their dad gloms on to a shallow "Scribes and Pharisees" approach to the Scriptures on the issue of manhood and womanhood.

It'd be convenient to paint me in the pattern of the "liberal guy" who just thinks that submission means we're supposed to submit to one another but it would just be another example of the childish inability of many to think that if you're not *FOR* a shallow patriarchy that you're against Biblical manhood. It's the same shallow idea that if you're not for the heresy of Eternal Subordination of the Son then you're an egalitarian.

I made the specific point that I had read the article you quoted and I agree with it. I also read Jone's article and agree with it. Their criticisms are valid and I pointed out that she needs work thinking through some of the Scriptural and natural law issues rather than simply criticizing a patriarchy-movement and coming up with a shallow alternative to it. The point is, however, that some people can only be shallow critics of her. They won't engage in the broader natural law issues or the theological broadness but the solution to one kind of abuse of proof-texting is simply to engage in another form of proof-texting. My larger point is that life and Godliness is much, much broader than trying to find a single verse that fits all the issues that life throws at us.

So, in summary, I'm sympathetic to the concern raised by the book that people abuse the Word in the construction of a "Scribes and Pharisees" form of the roles of men and women. What I don't agree with is the way that people are using a "scribes and Pharisees" rule set to criticize her. I prefer the criticism in the articles raised that point out the shallowness of her Biblical treatment, historical treatment and that the solution to the problem would be found by a healthy combination of deeper exegesis combined with Biblical and law of nature wisdom.

I've seen this, too. There is a growing "Red Pill" Movement within Christian circles that seems to promote a caricature of masculinity and which bears many similarities to the MGTOW Movement (Men Going Their Own Way). Many of them seem to hate women. I believe many Christian men (tired of feminism and tired of evangelical pastors that look effeminate) gravitate towards these caricatures out of a reaction. But it only worsens the already-bad battle of the sexes.

 

[Susan777]

They won't engage in the broader natural law issues

Rich, what are the natural law issues you are referring to? How does natural law play into the conversation? I’ve gone back a number of times to old PB threads to try to get a better understanding of it but it’s still really murky to me. In the present context would it mean looking at what God has revealed in nature concerning spheres of activity of each sex or is it something entirely different?

 

[Pergamum]

Rich, what are the natural law issues you are referring to? How does natural law play into the conversation? I’ve gone back a number of times to old PB threads to try to get a better understanding of it but it’s still really murky to me. In the present context would it mean looking at what God has revealed in nature concerning spheres of activity of each sex or is it something entirely different?

He probably means that it is only natural (according to nature) that we would see more men as lumberjacks and and crane operators, and more women as pedicurists and daycare workers.

 

[ZackF]

I've seen this, too. There is a growing "Red Pill" Movement within Christian circles that seems to promote a caricature of masculinity and which bears many similarities to the MGTOW Movement (Men Going Their Own Way). Many of them seem to hate women. I believe many Christian men (tired of feminism and tired of evangelical pastors that like effeminate) gravitate towards these caricatures out of a reaction. But it only worsens the already-bad battle of the sexes.

I was red pilled before the Matrix and I was probably in those categories about 15 years ago for two years though I wasn't angry but exhausted. Never considered myself an alpha power man nor loser beta man on the other side. I didn't hate women but was certainly tired of feminism and women I thought would be great to go out with or marry if they would just get over this desire to pay homage to feminism for reasons they couldn't explain. "Who are you trying to impress?" was a common thought?

One woman I was getting to know was planning on racking up nearly six figures in student loans to become a counselor. When I told her I wasn't interested in pursuing things any further because of that decision she became indignant about my "old fashion" beliefs. This was after hearing how much she wanted to be at home and raise a family but work part-time and put kids in daycare 20 hour per week. My argument to her was why not study as you can, debt free, over a longer period and enjoy family life and then begin a counseling practice. No dice.

 

[Pergamum]

Typical of modern arguments about the current categories of complementarianism and egalitarianism is this comment just sent to me on Facebook:

"complementarianism....you don't think Edwards held to that? Pretty sure he did. If I recall, he rejected egalitarianism."

What? Edwards didn't affirm one and deny the other because these labels would be anachronisms if we tried to place them on Jonathan Edwards. These labels simply did not exist until about 3 or 4 decades ago at the most.

 

[Pergamum]

I was red pilled before the Matrix and I was probably in those categories about 15 years ago for two years though I wasn't angry but exhausted. Never considered myself an alpha power man nor loser beta man on the other side. I didn't hate women but was certainly tired of feminism and women I thought would be great to go out with or marry if they would just get over this desire to pay homage to feminism for reasons they couldn't explain. "Who are you trying to impress?" was a common thought?

One woman I was getting to know was planning on racking up nearly six figures in student loans to become a counselor. When I told her I wasn't interested in pursuing things any further because of that decision she became indignant about my "old fashion" beliefs. This was after hearing how much she wanted to be at home and raise a family but work part-time and put kids in daycare 20 hour per week. My argument to her was why not study as you can, debt free, over a longer period and enjoy family life and then begin a counseling practice. No dice.

Well, how did things finally work out for you? Did you land a June Cleaver at last?

 

[ZackF]

Well, how did things finally work out for you? Did you land a June Cleaver at last?

We'll "June" and I just celebrated 10 years of marriage last year. No Beaver or Wally. Just two Beavettes!

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I think you need to read my post more carefully.

My reading is fine. You just need to speak more carefully.

 

[py3ak]

My reading is fine. You just need to you need to speak more carefully.

From the stutter above, it looks like Rich is in good company!

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

From the stutter above, it looks like Rich is in good company!

Typos are not the same as substantive disagreements. But thanks for pointing it out.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Steven Wedgeworth posted this on The Calvinist International. Herman Bavinck provides some very balanced observations on the ontological distinctions between men and women...

Nevertheless, we can both underestimate and overestimate this distinction. The first defect often hobbled people in previous centuries. In practice people frequently viewed the woman as a being of lower order than the man, and theoretically people often denied her the status of being fully human. Over against that view, we must maintain, with the help of Scripture which alone supplies an explanation regarding the origin and essence of a human being, that both man and woman are created in God’s image, and that therefore both are human beings in the fullest sense of the term. The second chapter of Genesis presents the woman especially as a helper suitable for the man, but let us not forget that this chapter has been preceded by the first chapter of Genesis. Here we read that God created man and woman together in his image; the woman can be a helper suitable for the man only because she is his equal and reflects God’s image just as much as he does. The question that has been raised upon occasion in the past, namely, whether the woman may be called a human being, is not at all appropriate. The woman is a human being no less than the man, because she no less than he was created in God’s image. Scripture speaks in a very human way about the essence of God, but it never transfers the sexual differentiation to him; God is never portrayed or presented as being feminine. But if the woman is said to be created along with man in the image of God, then that includes the fact that the uniqueness and richness of feminine qualities no less than those of the masculine capacities find their origin and example in the divine Being. God is a Father who takes pity on his children, but he also comforts like a mother comforts her son.

Because of this unity of human nature, then, the well-known saying is not entirely true that claims that the man is incomplete and half a person without the woman, and the woman without the man. It is true only insofar as each is viewed separately in his or her own particularity. But the expression is less correct when one thinks of human nature, which is common to both. Each of the two is complete as a person. Man and woman each have a soul and a body, a mind and a will, a heart and a conscience, a spirit and a personality. There is no single capacity of the body and no single quality of the soul that is exclusively unique either to the man or to the woman. Each of the two has a fully human nature and is a uniquely independent personality. For that reason, the question is so difficult to answer as to whether the woman possesses less of an aptitude for some activities and functions than the man. For although understanding and rationality, head and hand, undoubtedly function in a different way with the woman than with the man, that does not at all imply either a different or an inferior aptitude, and is not at all identical to inability.

Related to this is the difficulty of describing crisply and clearly the distinction between man and woman. Judgments span a wide range, and it requires no artistry to arrange alongside one another the contradictory opinions of those with profound understanding of human nature. Down through the centuries and among all nations, among philosophers and among the unreflective masses, women haters have exchanged places with women worshippers. And men have hardly remained constant in their own judgment, but frequently move from the one to the other extreme. At one time or another, the woman is an angel or a devil, a queen or a vixen, a dove or a serpent, a rose or a thorn. The feminine is identified as divine, and then again as demonic. The man kneels before her in worship, only then to pin her under his foot. Frequently the conclusion is that the woman is a riddle; the man does not understand her, and yet he often understands her even better than she knows herself.

Nevertheless, the distinction exists, and it is set in terms of its main features as well. There is outward difference between man and woman, in terms of the body and all of its organs. Difference in the size of the head, in the development and weight of the brain, in the tint of the skin, in the growth of hair, in the shape of breast and stomach, in the form of the hands and feet. Difference also with regard to the strength and tone of the muscles, the sensitivity of the nervous system, the gracefulness of movements, the color of the blood, the flow of tears, the pulse rate, the sound of the voice, the multiplicity of needs, the capacity to suffer, the weight and strength of the body. In her entire development, the woman is closer to the child and reaches full adulthood sooner than the man.

No less important is the distinction between man and woman that exists in the life of the soul. People have said that the soul has no sexual differentiation, but even though the nature and capacities of the soul are the same for man and woman, they function in a different way. By means of observation the woman acquires sense impressions more quickly and retains them longer and more deeply than the man. Her imagination is characterized by greater liveliness and quicker connectivity. Her thinking and evaluating are characteristically more visual than analytic, attaching more value to the amenities of life than to abstract principles and rules. She seeks truth preferably along the route of an idealizing view of reality, rather than by the method of conceptual analysis. With the man, the volitional capacity is more logical, more capable of persistence, more persevering in striving for a goal, but the woman surpasses him in forbearance and patience, in the capacities for suffering and adapting.

The human nature given to man and woman is one and the same, but in each of them it exists in a unique way. And this distinction functions in all of life and in all kinds of activity. Already the outward appearance of the woman makes an entirely different impression than that of the man, and has an entirely different significance for her than for him. Clothes and jewelry are less important for the man, but with the woman they are an important part of her life. For that reason people often call women “the fairer sex.” That entails no insult, as long as it does not intend to portray the masculine sex as “the ugly sex.” For just as the description of women as “the weaker sex” [1 Peter 3:7] does not imply that all forms of weakness are combined in the woman, similarly the description of women as “the fairer sex” does not imply that all beauty has been bestowed on the woman. The man is beautiful as well. Only an unhealthy school of thought relating to beauty and art acknowledges no higher beauty than that of a naked female body, time and again abusing her in various seductive and hideous poses as though she were nothing more than an ornament.

Such an unhealthy school of thought also entails that people no longer have an eye for the beauty of the man. Yet, such beauty exists as well. It is a different beauty, quite surely, but of no less value. It is the beauty of loftiness that the man embodies, even as the beauty of comeliness is the possession of the woman. But both man and woman are beautiful; both display the features of the image of God in which they are created. To the man belongs the strength of physical prowess, the wide chest, the commanding eye, the full beard, the powerful voice; to the woman belongs a delicate shape, sensitive skin, full bosom, round shape, soft voice, long hair, elegant carriage, and supple movement. He engenders respect, she engenders tenderness. In terms of beauty, Michelangelo’s Moses is not inferior to Raphael’s Madonna.

Similarly, the woman is constructed differently than the man in terms of religion, intellect, and morality. The same laws of logic and morals, the same religion and morality apply to both. The man is not intellectually superior to the woman, and the woman is not morally superior to the man. But how entirely different each of them takes hold of religion and morality, art and science! The man sees in religion first of all a duty, the woman considers it a pleasure and a privilege. For the man, the good functions more in the form of justice, for the woman it takes the shape of love. The man wants justice and law, the woman sympathy and participation. The man strives for the truth of an idea, the woman pursues the reality of life.

Accordingly, each must be on guard for a particular set of sins. The man must struggle against forcing his principles and pressing upon others every possible consequence, and the woman must wrestle continually against her deficiency in logic that is manifested both in rigid tenacity and incorrigible willfulness, as well as in a fickleness that defies every form of argument. The man is susceptible to the danger of doubt and unbelief, rationalism and dead orthodoxy, while the woman risks no less a danger of superficial piety and superstition, mysticism and fanaticism. The loquaciousness of the woman contrasts with the incommunicativeness of the man. The vanity of the woman is no worse than the coarse indifference of the man. The infidelity of the man is matched by the stubbornness of the woman. Indeed, man and woman have nothing to hold against each other. Each has quite glorious virtues and each has rather serious defects. There is room for neither disparagement nor deification with respect to either of them.

The Christian Family, pp. 65-70.​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To that fulsome and fairly balanced perspective offered by Bavinck (which is in certain respects a reflection of 19th century psychological theories blended with biblical insight), we must take into account that men and women as individuals and combined into their respective sexes as collectives occupy two rather well-distributed bell-curves of combined character traits.

Consider Bavinck's unnuanced declaration that man is the logical sex, and the woman the sensitive sex. He writes, "the woman must wrestle continually against her deficiency in logic." That's a rather blanket assessment; and I can assure the reader that there are many women "logically superior" to many men; this is a truth, even if it were possible to rate all men and women everywhere on a scale of logical prowess or inclination, and the men were definitely "ahead."

That is because those bell-curves that would plot the distribution of logical strength (or another trait) by sex, against an axis of a standard, overlap. The median value could possibly be, or perhaps (to give Bavinck a measure of respect for natural insight) most likely is higher on the Male bell-curve, than on the Female bell-curve.

The "general rules" that are used to classify this trait or that as "masculine" or "feminine" are for the most part not much more than very indistinct, almost vague generalities. Then also, every individual person of either sex possesses a unique collection of those very same widely variable character traits. The man of great logic is not necessarily for that strength found equally weak in sensitivity (emotion). At best, it appears to someone like Bavinck that in the general distribution, these two isolated for consideration seem to correlate within each sex collective as dominant to a comparable degree. Logic and sensitivity are not, strictly speaking, contraries; however they do appear in certain lights to be complementary, and so might be indicative of a helpful balance between the sexes.

So, it is possible for a man or a woman to have great strength (or weakness) in both logic and sensitivity. This person might be on the tail end of a bell-curve plot of these two traits combined. There could be more men or maybe more women who are found in that tail-end cluster, but what would such confidence of knowledge tell us? Each person is so much more than either logic or sensitivity alone or combined. There are a thousand different character traits and inclinations; and each one is capable of being registered at a high point or a low. Each person is composite of those myriad traits, and we often have little choice in the kind of person that we are, given our genotype, and epigenetic factors; not to mention the environmental factors that interplay with the epigenetic, and the psychological. And the Christian would add spiritual factors to the picture.

People are complicated. Wisdom is required for the purposes of counseling, encouraging, correcting sin and promoting healthy development of one's character and personality in a God-honoring, respectful manner. To tell a "sensitive man," who is having troubles fitting in to some social scene: Hey, the answer is in recognizing that you're not MAN enough, and that the solution is to take testosterone supplements and anabolic steroids, and be assertive; and make your life verse Ps.144:1--is in no way to point him to godliness. Manliness of itself is no closer to godliness than cleanliness, even if either could be a way to glorify God--and otherwise, to demonstrate pride and godlessness.

Some great male artists were "sensitive men." Did that mean they were sinning in their calling, and taking on a too "feminine" role in society? Should Rembrandt or van Gogh have hung up his painter's smock, and thrown on a firefighter's helmet? Perhaps he was sinning simply by not being more logical, or more brawny...?

I doubt that Bavinck was so ham-handed as that. What he wrote was but little controversial for his era, yet I suspect he had room in his taxonomy for people who were not perfectly in sync with "ideal" standards of masculinity and femininity for his time. This is not to claim there are no limits on what is acceptable in terms of our inclinations (all imperfect and fallen), when it comes to defining, describing, and exhibiting our character. Much of our native character is supposed to be mortified, the rest sanctified in accordance with the Word.

But I'm afraid there is a wisdom-deficiency in our time, when much sane reliance on commonsense norms is being undermined; so we have a desperate grabbing for laws (with a biblical prooftext for each) that it is believed will give a neat prescription, so reducing the complex human nature to a convenient 2D map for conformity. But, as Rich was pointing out, there is a distinction to be respected between law and wisdom.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Certainly men and women exhibit aspects of all qualities. But I see no reason why what Bavinck said in the 19th Century should be any more controversial for those of us in the 21st Century who are willing to look at this situation objectively. For what it's worth the studies are numerous which show that the distinctions described by Bavinck are true: to boil it down to the most basic level men, on average, prefer things and women, on average, prefer people. So men gravitate towards activites and professions which are concerned with things (like engineering, mathematics, the STEM fields) and women towards activies and professions which are involved with people (like nursing, teaching, social work). At the risk of posting cringe, Jordan Peterson does talk about this a lot. His favourite example is Sweden where there has been a concerted effort by the government to flatten out the percevied "gender inequality". Policies have been enacted to make it as easy and as attractive as possible for men and women to enter any profession they want, and not to follow "gender stereotypes". But what happened was that despite all that the field of engineering was still overwhelmingly male and nursing female. When given the choice men and women make, overall, predictable choices based on their sex. The differences between the sexes in these attributes may, statistically, not be much but, again as Peterson would say, even one deviation point can have a profound effect on how things play out on the ground.

We see this in all sorts of places. We're always being told that women are discriminated against in software engineering: Google has a 4-1 ratio of male to female software engineers. Society at large is 1-1 therefore there must be discrimination. But of course society at large is not the place to look for how many men and women we should expect to be software engineers, rather we should look at those training to be software engineers. And currently the ratio of men and women training to be software engineers is around 4-1. According to the statitistics the highest percentage of women studying in the field was around 35% in the 80s after increasing from around 11% in the 70s and then declining again to current levels. These are just some examples of how these differences in temperament, logic, sensitivity &c. play out. Generalities actually produce quite concrete results in how people interact and behave and which are replicated across society.

We all have a mixture of these various attributes but to say that we are complicated, when it comes to talking about this sort of thing, is too romantic a view of humanity. We often hear today that we are all unique individuals and we should be free to express ourselves however we want. This is often said by people who have adopted the identical "uniform" of the modern radical: dyed hair, black clothing and grossly overweight. Once we get past all the noise about how we are all unique and the patriarchy isn't going to tell us how to be, we see that actually, the vast majority of people are not unique. We're not special. We're not originals. Millennials whine about how individual they are while they all have an iphone and wear exactly the same hipster clothing. We're just average people who follow the same route through life and the same patterns as everyone else and as those who went before us. There are periods of radical change and then everyone fits into the new trends, the new reality and society carries on. Sure there are always different groups in society: those who are more traditional, those who are more radical. But people, by and large, are followers. They find the group identity they like and they assimilate to it. This is as true for the "radicals" as for the traditionalists.

All this is to say that generalities actually speak to the reality of men and women. We can go through periods where the distinctions are more or less enforced from the top down, but these distinctions are fundamental. If women had never been given the vote would society be just the same as it is today? Giving women the vote, allowing them to be involved in the political process, has had a profound effect on the course of our societies. "Empathy" has become the guiding principle of our politics. Empathy is not necessarily a good thing in politics. It has resulted in the ever expanding welfare state, in the intrusion of the government into private and family life, "hate speech" laws, the erosion of liberty. Women are nurterers and when this is expressed on a national level we get the sort of policies we are seeing today.

Men are the builders of our societies. Look around you: who is building the ships, laying the roads, operating the cranes, digging the coal, sweeping the streets, unclogging the sewers, building the buildings, keeping the electricty on, maintaing our offices, unloading the containers from the ships, fitting your new kitchen and plumbing in your new bathroom. It's men. Camille Paglia said that if women had been in charge of building civilisation we'd still be in grass skirts. Generalities speak to the ontological reality of men and women. As women have come into politics and the professions they have been altered dramatically. As women have come into the workforce, it has altered dramatically. The MeToo movement is just the logical consequence of men and women working in close proximity together for the first time basically in human history. It wasn't so much a problem for our mothers and gradmothers because they wanted to fit in, they didn't rock the boat. But with women becoming more assertive in our society and not willing to assimilate to the working culture, the differences are coming into play and the inevitable tension and incompatibility is manifesting.

These realities are just a few reasons why this sort of book is very worrying. To reduce the difference between men and women to our anatomical differences and nothing else is a recipe for disaster. By ignoring the ontological differences between men and women and how this plays out in our psychology, physicality, understanding of the world and how Paul uses these ontological differences as justification for his rules is dangerous and unBiblical. People have said "that's not the book she wanted to write". And yeah that's the problem. She didn't want to deal with these realities.

 

[Elizabeth]

It wasn't so much a problem for our mothers and gradmothers because they wanted to fit in, they didn't rock the boat. But with women becoming more assertive in our society and not willing to assimilate to the working culture, the differences are coming into play and the inevitable tension and incompatibility is manifesting.

Women today also want to fit in, and not rock the boat.

If women could only see what they've given up, and the price they are paying for their 'freedom'. That the feminine has as much worth as the masculine in God's rubric.

Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating. You are seeing the modern version of 'not rocking the boat' play out in front of your eyes.

Little in it for men not to like. They can become restful creatures, depending on their women for keep. They can sexually dally as they like, with little fallout, etc.

Men are doing quite well under this new rubric, aren't they? At least by secular measure.

In other words,: this mash-up of men/women into a great blender of sameness is due not solely to women stepping out of roles, but also to men encouraging them to do so and become 'little men'.

Same old story, right back to Adam: "she gave me to eat..".

 

[Pergamum]

In the latest on Twitter the author and her female friends are seeming to claim persecution or misogyny because some male writers disagree with her premises.

Now, I am sure that could possibly be true. But it does seem that many women authors run to the high ground of victim-hood when their writings are critiqued. It's not because of bad scholarship, or misunderstanding her sources, they claim. The critiques come due to hatred from males and misogyny, many claim.

I am prone to dismiss all that these women are saying out-of-hand following these tactics. Misogyny must mean more than merely disagreeing with a woman, after all.

....and then.....I find that some who are critiquing her are the likes of Douglas Wilson and I have to back up and say, "hmmm.....she might be right. It might be misogyny, after all."

Women today also want to fit in, and not rock the boat.

If women could only see what they've given up, and the price they are paying for their 'freedom'. That the feminine has as much worth as the masculine in God's rubric.

Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating. You are seeing the modern version of 'not rocking the boat' play out in front of your eyes.

Little in it for men not to like. They can become restful creatures, depending on their women for keep. They can sexually dally as they like, with little fallout, etc.

Men are doing quite well under this new rubric, aren't they? At least by secular measure.

In other words,: this mash-up of men/women into a great blender of sameness is due not solely to women stepping out of roles, but also to men encouraging them to do so and become 'little men'.

Same old story, right back to Adam: "she gave me to eat..".

"Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating. You are seeing the modern version of 'not rocking the boat' play out in front of your eyes."

Who are these men? Point them out and I'll go slap them around for the good of all of us!

 

[alexandermsmith]

Women today also want to fit in, and not rock the boat.

If women could only see what they've given up, and the price they are paying for their 'freedom'. That the feminine has as much worth as the masculine in God's rubric.

Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating. You are seeing the modern version of 'not rocking the boat' play out in front of your eyes.

Little in it for men not to like. They can become restful creatures, depending on their women for keep. They can sexually dally as they like, with little fallout, etc.

Men are doing quite well under this new rubric, aren't they? At least by secular measure.

In other words,: this mash-up of men/women into a great blender of sameness is due not solely to women stepping out of roles, but also to men encouraging them to do so and become 'little men'.

Same old story, right back to Adam: "she gave me to eat..".

This is true to a degree. But I don't think one can look at the workplace, or the university, and argue seriously that it is men who are benefitting from the increasing participation of women in areas of life once the preserve of men. There is widespread hysteria over "sexual harrassment", young men are being persecuted on college campuses because of imagined offences (or by young girls who are trying to cover up their promiscuous behaviour). For those men to whom you refer I think they would say their plan had backfired.

 

[Susan777]

Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating

In my experience it has actually been the exact opposite, that is, many women and some men are denigrating women’s traditional roles. It is not a movement fueled by men.
In my lifetime it is startling to see the extent to which the ascendancy of the female has occurred. In American culture today the (white, heterosexual) man is the oaf, the clueless one, the butt of the joke. Or else he is an oppressor, a possessor of “toxic masculinity”. In terms of the Church, and those who name the name of Christ, it is alarming to see some of the same subtle attitudes being displayed, the same kind of grasping after authority and power.

 

[alexandermsmith]

In my experience it has actually been the exact opposite, that is, many women and some men are denigrating women’s traditional roles. It is not a movement fueled by men.
In my lifetime it is startling to see the extent to which the ascendancy of the female has occurred. In American culture today the (white, heterosexual) man is the oaf, the clueless one, the butt of the joke. Or else he is an oppressor, a possessor of “toxic masculinity”. In terms of the Church, and those who name the name of Christ, it is alarming to see some of the same subtle attitudes being displayed, the same kind of grasping after authority and power.

I think it is true to say that for a certain section of men, women's "liberation" was very convenient. It gave them greater access to women (and what they wanted from women), less or zero responsibility and it cast aside the old protections men owed to women. And this proved a pretty good deal for men for a while. But we are living with the disastrous consequences of that revolution in our society. The only way it was ever going to work out is if trust could be maintained between the sexes but that trust has been eroded over the years. Maybe it wasn't inevitable and men and women really can live and work in close proximity on a society wide scale without these problems. I personally don't think that is the case. But of course it is more than just whether men and women are working in the same office.

 

[SolaScriptura]

About sums up the on-going argument:

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Some great male artists were "sensitive men." Did that mean they were sinning in their calling, and taking on a too "feminine" role in society? Should Rembrandt or van Gogh have hung up his painter's smock, and thrown on a firefighter's helmet? Perhaps he was sinning simply by not being more logical, or more brawny...?

Both Rembrandt and van Gogh were immoral men. Van Gogh was a homosexual who cut off his ear during an argument with his male lover. Their being accomplished artists doesn't negate whatever was blameworthy in their character. But that seems irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't deny their is overlap in between the characteristics of the sexes. But I do deny it is as blurry and indistinct as you make it out to be. It is, I believe, much closer to Bavinck's description than many suspect. But that is owing to the widespread and continuous rejection of these differences by the broader society. They might easily observe them if they would open their eyes. But as it is, their are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

I am thankful for those fair-minded individuals who recognize Miller's sloppy scholarship and have been willing to call it out. I would hope it would have the effect of making her give more thought to this subject and reconsider her conclusions. But as @Pergamum points out, it is more likely she will double-down and accuse detractors of chauvinism and misogyny. But such is the state of things.

 

[Taylor]

...it is more likely she will double-down and accuse detractors of chauvinism and misogyny. But such is the state of things.

Indeed, the topic of the OP aside, it is the state of many things in the church. Long gone, it seems, are the days when actual arguments are made. Now, the easiest thing to do is attach some heat-generating, baggage-encumbered label to someone. It's almost as if we are living in The Crucible, and all it takes is the accusation "witch" to get people to draw their pitchforks. No trial necessary.

 

[Pergamum]

Both Rembrandt and van Gogh were immoral men. Van Gogh was a homosexual who cut off his ear during an argument with his male lover. Their being accomplished artists doesn't negate whatever was blameworthy in their character. But that seems irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't deny their is overlap in between the characteristics of the sexes. But I do deny it is as blurry and indistinct as you make it out to be. It is, I believe, much closer to Bavinck's description than many suspect. But that is owing to the widespread and continuous rejection of these differences by the broader society. They might easily observe them if they would open their eyes. But as it is, their are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

I am thankful for those fair-minded individuals who recognize Miller's sloppy scholarship and have been willing to call it out. I would hope it would have the effect of making her give more thought to this subject and reconsider her conclusions. But as @Pergamum points out, it is more likely she will double-down and accuse detractors of chauvinism and misogyny. But such is the state of things.

I would not call it sloppy. It was a commendable effort, but just flawed. It is not heretical. And is no more flawed than some patriarchal views.

It was a pretty good effort....for a woman!

But it was written in a context, and that context is a reaction against what is perceived as patriarchal views. Some womenfolk have just got to get in there and correct us men. This is an itch that some must scratch and it becomes their main focus. I have suspicions about woman such as this, just as I have suspicions of any "patriarchal man" whose main message is about how the wife must submit to the husband. If that is the drum they are always beating, this is indicative of a major problem in both their theology and their own psychology.

Instead of writing books about how to be a better wife and mother to their household, many women are focusing on books like Aimee Byrd's book on why adult men and women (even those married to somebody else) can be close friends. This is an evidence of foolishness. It is clear that many of these authors do not delight in motherhood and serving their home or traditional femininity, but they have an itch to push back and correct traditional views and to fight against the prevailing view held by many traditional men who are Reformed.

I'd like to call all Reformed women authors to write also about keeping the home, bearing children, raising a family, and loving and serving their husbands, and then I will listen to their musings on theology. If their only body of work consists of grievances, then I'll never give a dime to any of their writings.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I would not call it sloppy. It was a commendable effort, but just flawed.

On that, I hope we can agree to disagree.

But it was written in a context, and that context is a reaction against what is perceived as patriarchal views. Some womenfolk have just got to get in there and correct us men.

This comment assumes Miller speaks for all women against the viewpoint of all men. But of course, she doesn't. Thinking of men and women as a monolith is a error exploited by the proponents of identity politics. There are as any men who subscribe to her view as women who don't. Reactionary arguments never age well. We don't tolerate them in serious scholars. Doing so in Miller's case would only be another example of the 'soft bigotry of low expectations.'

 

[alexandermsmith]

Indeed, the topic of the OP aside, it is the state of many things in the church. Long gone, it seems, are the days when actual arguments are made. Now, the easiest thing to do is attach some heat-generating, baggage-encumbered label to someone. It's almost as if we are living in The Crucible, and all it takes is the accusation "witch" to get people to draw their pitchforks. No trial necessary.

If we were living in The Crucible things would be a lot better, In my humble opinion.