Hermenuetics

Comments

Hi Glenn

My understanding of the objections that people had was not that men and women were different or that both were not needed but that the definitions may have been too narrow to validate some women's experiences.

For example, if a woman tells her child in the playground to 'see if you can make it to the top', does it make her unfeminine? If you believe it to be generally true that Mums hold children close for comfort while Dads throw them up in the air, is there room for Mums to encourage adventure and Dads to provide comfort?

Posted By: Tamie | February 10, 2011 12:01 AM

Tamie:

I appreciate your point. Of course it does - of course!! - and I address that in the book, something neither review addressed. At the beginning of my book I explain to the reader that I use the word "tend to" a great deal because men will universally "tend" to do this, and women will "tend" to do that. But not all do all the time!! Obviously. And I also say many times in the book, there are masculine ways to feminine things and feminine ways to do masculine things. Your boy wants to be go into ballet? Don't freak. Introduce him to the work of Baryshnikov. Your daughter wants to be a carpenter? There are great role models for her. Introduce her to Amy Wynn Pastor, the awesome carpenter from Trading Spaces.

My original title of the book was "Beyond Pink and Blue" to communicate these lines can be more blurry than we would like to admit sometime, but we can also talk meaningfully about what male and female actually are, and from a humanly universal perspective.

Posted By: Glenn | February 10, 2011 9:17 AM

Glenn,

What you said in your comment was more uplifting, freeing and informative than what you said in the article. Please major more on what God can and does do with men and women than in what men may think women can/should be doing.

And your lists of what you think men and women tend to (from Caryn's review) are IMO hugely flawed. Women need to know that they are NOT just sexual beings and their whole lives need NOT to be centered around their sexuality. As well, men need no help remembering they are sexual beings which is probably why your list for men is not leaning in that direction as much as the woman's list is.

Posted By: Teacher | February 10, 2011 10:21 AM

As a mother of a five year-old girl who is a tomboy and very different from me, I would like to say that I did not find Glenn's definition of gender narrow at all. I found his book refreshing! We live in a society that continuously tells us that gender does not matter, and that mothers and fathers in particular do not really bring anything unique or necessary to childrearing. And I think this was the whole point of Glenn's book—to provide a Biblical and Truthful response to the gender neutral lies we continue to hear from the media and other elites. To remind us that generally speaking, men and women are naturally different and we each bring different yet necessary things to raising children. I am also the child of a single mother, and I can tell you from experience that mothers can't be dads, even if they are "aggressive" moms like mine had to be, and dads can't mother, no matter how hard they try. It is important to consider the context of Glenn's book and why he wrote it.

Posted By: Alysse | February 10, 2011 10:32 AM

Instead of claiming "there are masculine ways to do feminine things and feminine ways to masculine things" why not just say there are human things that humans do, your method just seem to complexify things unneccessarily.

Let people be all they can be and reveal ALL the gifts that God may have given them. Do not restrict them or try to force them into some preset role.

Posted By: Don Johnson | February 10, 2011 10:33 AM

I appreciate the response; however, as a mother who has raised eyebrows both for tossing her then-infant son in the air as well as for sometimes fitting the overprotective mom stereotype, I'm not sure that those examples help. And while things may have changed some over the years, are the fathers in the playground encouraging their daughters to "climb to the top!" with the same vigor they do their sons?

Nature vs. nurture - complex and as yet not thoroughly plumbed. I agree; it's foolish not to recognize and respect the range of differernces among people created in God's image. But it's also destructive to overemphasize differences or grant them unwarranted theological or mystical significance. Much of the pagan religious and cultural sexual sins Biblical writers confronted arose from exaggerated or spiritualized notions of masculinity and femininity, not under-emphasis. We have to be careful; for example, is Genesis 1 expounding the differences between male and female - or their common humanity bearing alike God's image?

Posted By: sg | February 10, 2011 10:46 AM

"We live in a society that continuously tells us that gender does not matter, and that mothers and fathers in particular do not really bring anything unique or necessary to childrearing."

That's an oversimplification and as such inaccurate. Gender does matter. And it matters in many things. Mothers and fathers absolutely bring unique gender differences to their children's upbringing, just not in the narrow ways that some perceive.

God made the human as male and female just like all of creation. Being gendered is not nearly so important as being human. It is as human beings that we are to guide the earth, care for the land and it's creatures and nurturingly guide our children. Our genders flavor our contributions, not limit them.

Posted By: Teacher | February 10, 2011 11:04 AM

It is not an oversimplification to state that it is poltically incorrect today to say that gender differences matter, and matter a lot. Gender is part of being human, such an important part that God said He made us male and famle in His image. As Glenn eloquently points out in his book, our gender differences actually reflect God's image in the world.

It has become so unpopular today, even apparently among Christians, to say that gender differences are important, and that they are natural. It is as though we are afraid that if we admit to these natural and important differences we are going to go back to the extremes of the past, when women were considered less than men. As Christians, we need to be careful not to adopt the false mentality of this world that tells us that gender is really not all that big of a deal because the end result of that extreme is the redefinition of not only gender, but also marriage and parenting and the family.

Posted By: Alysse | February 10, 2011 12:08 PM

”It has become so unpopular today, even apparently among Christians, to say that gender differences are important”

This is also an oversimplification. We cannot escape our gender. In fact IMO many of the problems can be attributed to the facts that to some people gender matters too much. It is possible that most if not all of the abuses of women are because gender matters too much, and people have forgotten that women are equally human.

Posted By: Teacher | February 10, 2011 12:58 PM

From the author:

"If what we say about being authentically male or female doesn’t apply to those working in a shop in Lincoln, Nebraska, as it does to those working rice fields in Longyan, China, then it is not genuinely masculine or feminine.... we should then be able to speak meaningfully about a general, universal masculinity and femininity."

"I use the word "tend to" a great deal because men will universally "tend" to do this, and women will "tend" to do that. But not all do all the time!!"

I can't help feeling like the author is having his cake and eating it too. A "universal tendency" is a bit of an oxymoron. If every person doesn't have something, it's not universal. And if not everybody, will, can or needs to have it, then why encourage it?

And let me tell you, my dad was the one saying "Don't climb any higher," even today. He has never, ever thrown a grandchild into the air (and there are seven), and looks on nervously as others do. Growing up our motto when something worrisome happened was "Don't tell Dad!"

Posted By: Anonymous | February 10, 2011 1:25 PM

Sorry, I think the one sentence in my post should read, "If not everybody has something", not "If everybody doesn't have something."

Posted By: Anonymous | February 10, 2011 1:29 PM

"The social and child-development sciences point to hundreds of other ways that the differences between mothers and fathers provide rich and essential developmental experiences for children."

So how is a single parent (of either gender) to provide a "rich and essential developmental experience" for their children? Do you address this in the book? I'm not a single mom, but I see single moms who struggle to know how to raise their children when no one is willing to step in an act as a father-figure. Any thoughts on this?

Oh, and thanks for being willing to respond to the last blog post. I appreciate hearing your perspective.

Posted By: Laura K. Droege | February 10, 2011 1:49 PM

I did not read all of the comments and I'm growing old and tired. Also, I'm wondering why we can't simply accept each other as we are. I do love everyone and I do so enjoy all my friends and relatives. They are of "all kinds." Some are more "this way than that." I love them for the qualities they have. We compete in games. We cooperate with each other and accomodate each other as well as we can in our living together. God does not make clones. God makes clowns and Thank God for all the differences among my friends and relatives. Amen. P. S. I do not in any way wish to imply that we accept unnatural behavior.Duri

Posted By: LOUIS SANDBERG | February 10, 2011 2:38 PM

Mr. Stanton, would you mind clarifying what you meant by "The woman knows what she wants, and she draws it to herself"? I've rarely seen things work that way for either women or men, and I was wondering how "drawing it to herself" is meant to work. Thanks.

Posted By: Gina | February 10, 2011 2:42 PM

The problem I have is that not only are these differences stereotypical and confining (my husband was the one on the edge of a high place telling the kids "Get back from the edge!" while I was saying, "Look down there, do you see that?" And yet I am a very "womanly" woman and he is quite a "manly" man.) My real problem is that these types of gender differences seem constructed to support the interpretation of the Bible that results in female subordination to males. There is nothing in the Bible that says women are designed to be like this and men are designed to be like that. So if we weren't insisting that the Bible says men get to lead women in the church and home, would we accept these supposed gender characteristics as accurate?

Posted By: Kristen | February 10, 2011 2:44 PM

As I read these comments, I can't help but notice that many of these concerns are addressed with grace and clarity in Glenn Stanton's book, Secure Daughters, Confident Sons, where he states, "God makes every one of us distinct individuals.... And He delights in this individuality. Our job as parents is to honor that uniqueness and nurture it." I found not one single word in the book to suggest that women are subordinate to men; in fact, Stanton highlights a woman's ability to wield influence in a variety of ways. What I do see in the book is a helpful resource for parents who are inundated with messages about how letting our children express their unique personalities means we cannot and should not direct them in gender-appropriate ways. Consider the recent Today Show segment titled, "My son likes to wear dresses. Big deal." It featured a mother whose five-year-old son constantly wears sparkly purple dresses because it makes him happy. He calls himself "a princess boy." When my son was that age, it would have made him happy to eat only desserts--and it was a genuine expression of his sugar-loving self. But isn't it my job as his mother to gently direct him toward healthier expressions of his preferences? And is it perhaps worth considering that, in an echo of this desire to avoid "confining stereotypes," this mom has abandoned her role to guide her son in finding gender-appropriate ways to express his love of beauty and his own unique flair for life? Have we been so steeped in political correctness that we can't see the value in raising boys into confident men and raising girls into women who are secure in themselves? That is, after all, what the book is all about. I do wonder if we women are just a little too ready to take offense, so that we see an insult where none was given.

Posted By: Mother of two art-loving boys | February 10, 2011 5:02 PM

Mother of two, I appreciate your response. However, there are many in the online community of believers who have heard all the cliché’ phrases and know that they are two sided. One side sounds nice while the other side is meant to keep women from fully expressing their potential. And of course this is what gets passed down to our children, both genders.

1. “a woman's ability to wield influence in a variety of ways”. What this means is that women should be restricted from real leadership in home and church and allowed influence only. She can only influence men, never actually speak into their lives with Holy Spirit authority. Of course, though many speak the lingo fewer actually will do that in all areas, because it really doesn’t fit spiritual life. So we try to raise our boys to be leaders and our girls to be supporters. But facts are that those boxes won’t fit all boys nor all girls.
2. “I found not one single word in the book to suggest that women are subordinate to men”. That’s OK, but they are there. The two lists of what supposedly makes for good men and women is strongly geared that way. Honestly there may be a few men and women who fit those lists but the majority of people do not. And to think of raising our children to conform to something that doesn’t fit them flies in the face of Stanton claiming he encourages individuality. What about raising boys and girls that are BOTH secure and confidant in themselves?
3. “gender appropriate”! This phrase has been so abused yet sounds so good. Of course we want our children to be gender appropriate because otherwise they may slip into homosexual behaviors. That’s the hidden clincher. In fear we freak out when our boys want to play family with their sisters, and the girls want to play cowboys and football with the boys.

What Stanton says about individuality, encouraging our children’s unique personalities is awesome. We shouldn’t be getting so worrisome that we think we have to control every aspect of a child’s character and try to fit their personality into these worrisome lists of what things men and women should do according to people whose children probably are nothing like ours.

Posted By: Teacher | February 10, 2011 5:45 PM

Mother of two art-loving boys, I made my comments on the assumption that when Caryn Rivadeneira quoted from it on "what makes a good man" and "what makes a good woman," the lists she quoted were accurate. The lists themselves, as quoted, support the idea that women were designed for subordination and to be the receivers of what men give them, while men were designed to be the actors and leaders. I also know what Focus on the Family portrays itself as supporting, and that is, unequivocably, female submission to male authority in the church and home. If the rest of the book contradicts the Focus on the Family stance (and the author is a director in that organization), or if it contradicts the message given in the lists that Ms. Rivadeneira quoted, she makes no mention of it in her review. I understand that Mr. Stanton represents that there are variations within the sexes-- but those lists, in and of themselves, do support the outlook I was protesting.

Posted By: Kristen | February 10, 2011 5:50 PM

BTW, my son liked to put on dresses when he was five and younger. I didn't worry about it. My view was that as long as his play wasn't harmful to himself or others, he was free to express himself however he wished.

He grew out of it naturally, without gender confusion of any kind.

Posted By: Kristen | February 10, 2011 5:56 PM

Ok ladies, let me see if I can help with some clarity and answers. I hate to be reviled.

First, the lists that Caryn offered in her review were not me saying, "hey, women are these things" or "guys are these things". These lists were some convenient short-hand reminders at the end of two lengthy chapters that went into great detail explaining how different girls and boys can show forth many of these qualities. Caryn knew that because I suppose she read the book, but she didn't think that was important to tell her reader. And yes, working only from those lists is not something I would recommend anyone do. that is why if offer my reader not just two, but actually 6 in depth chapters explaining these male/female differences.

Second, I clearly state up front and many times through that this book is nothing about power of one gender over another. Goodness!! In fact, I take great pains to explain that women (like my four daughters and wife) are immensely powerful as women. In fact, in one place, I explain that *Lord of the Flies* would have ended very differently had there been just one girl among the boys. Read SDCS, you will see what I am saying. If you read the book and still think I am marginalizing women, I will refund your money, come to your house and scrub your toilets. Serious.

Third, for those who ask "Why can't we just be human?" Were you offended when your friends and family asked you what you were having when pregnant? "Why can't you just be happy I am having a human?" Do you tell people who give you forms to fill out why you have to check "male" or "female" and why you can't just be "human"? We don't live that way in any manner. I will say it again, to be human is to be gendered. And if you have a beef with that, talk to God. He didn't make us just as humans, but particular kinds of humans. Am I really radical for bringing the subject up? For another view on this, read Sylviane Agazinski's *Parity of the Sexes.*

Fourth, for the nice question about what single-moms do, yes, I do address that in the book in a full way. Mom cannot be a dad, but others can go a good way in filling in. And mom and her children can observe men and women who are good role models, as well as those who are poor role models. These can be hugely instructive. Discuss it with your children. My wife and I do this all the time with our kids. Mel Gibson or Tiger Woods: exemplary males? Not so much. Mr. Rogers or Jay Leno? Sure. Boys can learn about healthy manhood from single moms this way. Boys want to know what kind of men their moms think are good men.

Fifth, do I think girls should be encouraged by dad to climb higher, push further, lead, go for it, whoop the boys? Please. If that's a question, I would ask you what makes you think I would think otherwise.

It is curious for me to read all these conclusion about what I believe. Let me propose that you critique what I say by actually reading what I say in full. Read the book. This is a complex issue and not even two reviews - no matter how well or poorly written - can hope to sort it all out. Then we can talk. If you have beefs with me then, I will be most happy to address those, based on what I actually said.

If you think this invitation is sly way to get you to buy the book, well then you are smart.

Or if you don't want to make me filthy rich, just go to the bookstore, read a chapter or two. But critiquing what you assume someone is saying is just not productive.

peace and grace,

glenn

Posted By: glenn | February 10, 2011 9:51 PM

I know that there are people who find help and identify with books like this, just like the books Wild at Heart and Captivating because it speaks to their experience. What I hear in discussion about masculinity and femininity is that I don't belong, that I'm not normal, that I'm not a real women. I know that's not what the authors or the people talking about mean but it's what I hear. For as long as I can remember I've felt like I can't be me, who hates wearing dresses, played rugby in college, threw my God-daughter in the air (and caught her), loves action movies, never where's make-up, and has no mothering bone in my body, and really be a women. For me to feel that way something is broken in this world and in our churches. I don't know how to fix it. I do know that I find things like this contributing to the brokenness, not restoring it.

Posted By: Jane | February 10, 2011 10:35 PM

What has happened to absolute Truth? We didn’t make the rules; God did. Each of us is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn’t necessarily make us right. In the beginning … God created. All things. He created man in His image. He created woman from man’s side. Not from his feet to be below him or to be trampled; not from his head to be above him. But from his side to walk beside him. And when He created them, just like there was order in this Universe, there was order in the intricacies of man and woman.

I did not conclude from "Secure Daughters, Confident Sons" that Dr. Stanton was attacking equality. Nor is he challenging one’s qualities over the other. He is merely appreciating the roles assigned to male and female by God; not by man. He created man to be the provider and protector, to be respected. God created woman to nurture, and we do it well. He also created us to desire man.

The qualities He placed in a man would be appealing, attractive and longed for by woman. Women would come equipped with an innate need to attract the male gender so that he could provide security, protection, as well as to experience love and satisfy our emotional needs. He created man and woman to complete, not to compete. If their qualities had mirrored one another, there would have been no thirst for the other.

Try as we might, that dynamic will never change. Satan may well use our minds against us in order to divide the Truth from our thinking. Diluting the spoken Word does not change its original intent.

God’s intention for woman to be the “weaker” gender was only in physical stature. He recognized woman’s worth. Why, Jesus was the forerunner in liberating women! God’s intent was never for man to “lord” over the woman. When man understands that he is to love his “wife” as Christ loves the Church, the union between man and woman is a beautiful completion. That is God’s instruction to men.

God appreciates the bold, strong, and intelligent woman. He spotlights these kinds of women throughout His Word. I am a strong, independent, ambitious, godly woman. But I am a woman who appreciates the qualities that set me apart as a woman. I love and celebrate womanhood and everything that comes with it! Including the fact that I was designed to desire a man, to love and want the way my man protects and provides for me (even though I have owned my own business for 30 years). He has a ministry, as do I, but we’re not in competition with one another. We complement one another in all we do. We’re merely completing what God began in us. I can do many things a man can do, and often have. But, as I said, I love the unique qualities that God placed within me that set me apart merely because I am a woman.

It is man that has skewed God’s intention in His creation. Once sin entered the world, Satan began to tamper with the minds of every one of God’s children, just like he did Eve’s in the Garden. Men began and continue to suppress women; they still abuse them; they continue to confuse and use the “submission” part of God’s instruction as only belonging to that of the wife to the husband, while they ignore the scripture about loving the wife as Christ loves the Church and to “bring no harm” to her.

We (and sometimes even Christians) have annihilated God’s original design. We have taken the pattern, shortened the hemline here and stripped off a sleeve there in order to create a more seductive, contemporary look and call it equality. We have blended polka dots, stripes, plaids and textures in order to be politically correct so as not to leave anyone out of the fashion plate. We slip into the fit of the world because that’s what’s hanging on the rack. We have tucked and sucked, nipped and ripped, and seasoned and reasoned our design until it has taken the shape of what the world says is acceptable and interchangeable in all men and women. We have done so to the point that we don’t even recognize one from the other.

Kudos to Dr. Stanton for reminding each of us that we have been created to celebrate our assigned gender and the unique qualities that accompany it, as assigned by God. Being a mother and grandmother, I appreciate the advice to encourage us to guide our children to embrace the roles assigned to their gender, as well. Again, I didn’t glean, nor can I stretch from his extraordinary writing that he was saying we, as humans, can’t appreciate some of the same qualities in both genders. He is only acknowledging that there are certain attributes that cannot be interchanged. It’s not Dr. Stanton’s standards. God created the blueprint. Dr. Stanton is only recognizing the intent of its original design.

Posted By: Joyce Oglesby | February 10, 2011 10:40 PM

All right, Glenn. If I have misunderstood where your book was coming from, I apologize. But surely you will admit that the juxtaposition of your first "male" trait as "explorative" with the first female trait of "confidently enticing" was-- unfortunate, to say the least. The nature of woman (like that of men) is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, not to entice men-- confidently or otherwise.

I do have three questions for you. Do you believe that if you and your wife disagree, you have the power and right to make the final decision and that she is supposed to graciously submit to it?

If one of your daughters told you she felt God's call on her life to someday be the lead pastor of a church, would you support her in that?

Finally, if you would say no to the first question and yes to the second-- then how does the rest of the staff at Focus on the Family deal with your stance on these matters being so opposite of what they publicly support?

Posted By: Kristen | February 10, 2011 11:32 PM

”If you read the book and still think I am marginalizing women, I will refund your money, come to your house and scrub your toilets. Serious.”

Really!? That is a challenge I will accept. And I’ve got one toilet that’s a real challenge. Of course you might like to take the trip just to come to Hawaii. :^) But I’ll give you a chance now to back out. Otherwise, I could just hold you to it.

While it is true that we all live within gender differences, even the animals, this is not the ‘beef’. The beef is the numerous lists that try to pigeonhole what is proper personality and characteristics for women. Invariably, men give themselves the greatest characteristics along with the most desirable jobs telling women it isn’t womanly to want to be or operate in them. Sure there are going to be women and men who fit them. There are a diverse range of personality types within humanity. However the urgent question is how many women have to complain that they don’t fit these lists and even don’t want to fit these lists before the men who create them will listen and just accept these women for who God created them to be.

Posted By: Anonymous | February 11, 2011 1:19 AM

I forgot my name on the above anonymous post.

No disrespect meant to you Glenn, but many women are really weary of being constantly reminded about their sexuality. We are not more of a sexual being than men are and many women simply don’t want to be referred to in those terms anymore. Any woman who has had a child loves her children. And a married woman loves her husband. But there is more to life for many women than wifely and motherly duties. Many women don’t want to be referred to as sexually enticing, seeking intimacy, wisely (read obediently) receptive, trying to be connecting, holding soft ‘power’, and so forth. ALL of it is sexual in nature. Women are more than sexual beings and some women really resent being seen in this light. This is where the cry “can’t we just be viewed as human?”, comes from.

I’ll tell you who will make millions on a book! The first person, male or female, that stops talking about a woman’s sexuality and starts recognizing women as more than sexual beings made for men, and starts recognizing them as the other half of humanity made in God’s image for God’s works and enjoyment; that is a book that will really sell.

Posted By: Teacher | February 11, 2011 1:52 AM

If I may -- I think it may be a mistake to conflate letting women be senior pastors with treating women as equals. Some of us believe that the Bible doesn't show women as called to that particular job. But that doesn't put us all in the camp of thinking that they're supposed to just go around enticing everybody and everything. :-)

Posted By: Gina | February 11, 2011 6:58 AM

Maybe I'm weird but when I read the list from Dr. Stanton's book (haven't read the book) I only read 1 thing that even made me think of sexuality.

Confidently enticing - to entice is to lure, to attract. Yes that can be sexual - but we can also entice women (friends), entice children (in a nuturing way) - that word is very multi-faceted and to use just one attribute is very likely not what he meant.

Seekers over intimacy over action - again not sexual. How many of us have gotten annoyed when we've been venting about an issue to our husbands, boyfriends, or male friends and we just want to talk and have him listen and he wants to go out and fix the issue?

Wisely receptive - Women are much more receptive then men. I've known many couples where the man is so thankful for his wife because she is more receptive/attuned to the spiritual world and can usually provide better spiritual insight into a situation than he can.

Prefers of modesty - actually I don't have a clue what this is supposed to mean because it makes no sense. I've been pretty sure this was a typo. But if its Prefers Modesty then that also makes sense - as Christian women don't we want to be modest? This isn't a clothing thing - its the way we act and talk. Modesty also means moderation. This term doesn't have to have anything to do with our sexuality. At all.

Care-seekers - How many women do we know that can take care of themselves without issue but yet still love for their men to take care of situations. I know I do!

Word - users - I know a man who talks in images (he gets an image in his head and he describes it to get a point across) He reinforces the stereotype that men are very visual. Men use images, women use words. Its a scientific fact that women, on average, speak many many more words then men do.

Desirous of equity and submission - I think Gina nailed that one.

Wielders of soft power - most women I know would rather use passive aggressive techniques to lead. Others (like me) would rather assist the leader than be the leader. Doesn't mean I'm not equipped to lead if God calls me to do so, but its not my natural place.

All about connecting - we women do love to connect with others, don't we.

I'm pretty flummoxed by those who are saying that this list is viewing us as sexual objects, when none of it is. And I haven't even read the book.

Posted By: Leslie | February 11, 2011 8:58 AM

Leslie - Many posters have already pointed out, in this thread and the other one, that not all of those qualities apply to them and every woman they know.

Secondly, some of your interpretations of Stanton's list strike me as odd:

1) Women "entice children"? I would never in a million years have picked the verb "enticing" to describe my mother. "Enticing" does not mean "nurturing" - look it up in the dictionary. To entice is to "draw" or "attract." Why use the word "enticing" over "nurturing", when "enticing" has undoubtedly sexual connotations? Imagine someone commanding you to "Nurture the baby" vs. "Entice the baby." The latter is nonsense. I understand you are trying to defend the author (I'm sure he has the best of intentions), but here it simply can't be done.

2) Women "usually provide better spiritual insight then men"? I'm surprised to hear someone say that in DEFENSE of this author, considering many of the qualities he lists for men tend toward leadership. Not to mention, the verb "provide" means to "give"; but this directly contradicts the quality you are trying to explain, which is "wisely receptive." To be "receive" and to "provide" are opposites.

3) Care-seekers - ok for this one, all I have to say is "man cold." lol

Posted By: Nadine | February 11, 2011 12:02 PM

Did I miss something? I thought her.meneutics was as follows: "The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women."

Unless this Glenn fellow has something surprising to tell us, I suspect he doesn't fit the bill. Why not invite a woman writer who shares his views to post?

Meanwhile, his gender-essentialist parenting tips earn a big YAWN from me.

Posted By: Hannah | February 11, 2011 3:33 PM

Leslie: "Women are much more receptive then men....she is more receptive/attuned to the spiritual world and can usually provide better spiritual insight into a situation...."

I think you may be thinking of *perceptive* which means showing sensitive insight not *receptive*. Receptive does not mean "attuned to the spiritual world" or having the ability to have spiritual insight. Receptive means able or inclined to receive. While this reflects the physiological makeup of females, I am not sure it adequately expresses their psychological or their essence as a whole, especially when you wonder to what is she to be receptive or able to receive.

I suspect Stanton's word choice is intentional. Each trait is artfully worded, but I suspect is code. Present example, I suspect "wisely receptive" means she wisely receives the loving authority of her husband.

Posted By: Angie | February 11, 2011 6:00 PM

Leslie: "Word - users - I know a man who talks in images (he gets an image in his head and he describes it to get a point across)"

As a Word-User, he uses words to describe the images.

"Men use images, women use words. Its a scientific fact that women, on average, speak many many more words then men do."

Really?

Do women talk more than men?

No.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2007/07/05/psychology/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-talk-more-than-men

"University of Pennsylvania linguistics professor Mark Liberman speculates, "My current best guess is that a marriage counselor invented this particular meme about 15 years ago, as a sort of parable for couples with certain communication problems, and others have picked it up and spread it, while modulating the numbers to suit their tastes." "

Posted By: Angie | February 11, 2011 6:09 PM

You know, the Bible has only a very, very small amount of information on gender - far, far less than it has on obeying God, loving others, caring for the poor, etc. The Christian publishing industry, though, has found a cash cow in gender roles, so therefore book after book after book. So, in other words, Christianity isn't about gender. Jesus didn't address the topic, but of course, he wasn't out to sell books.

Posted By: P. | February 12, 2011 1:30 AM

Oops. Sorry for the double post!

Posted By: P. | February 12, 2011 1:31 AM

Mr. Stanton, thank you again for replying to our questions and comments with such grace. I appreciate that you answered my question regarding single moms; I'll check out the book and see what else you have to say about that.

P.--Your last comment made me crack up! Jesus didn't make a lot of $$, did he?

Posted By: Laura Droege | February 12, 2011 1:50 PM

I have an academically focused question: It seems that in contemporary gender studies in (at least secular) academia, that there has been a difference drawn between sex and gender that is not shared by Mr. Stanton. (I have not read the book, so I make this assumption based on the usage of man/male and woman/female in the short article above.) My question, then, is: What do you, Mr. Stanton, think of this differentiation? Does culture make requirements for men and women that are not based on a universal maleness or femaleness? Surely culture has some effect on these views. So, then, shouldn't Biblical gender studies be to truly get to the universals as you set out to do? Also, why do you choose not do adopt these functional linguistic differentiations? Furthermore, to what extent do Christians have a responsibility to submit themselves to their unique culture's views of masculinity and femininity?

Also, it seems that in many of these posts, (and, to me, in much of Christian gender talk) that there is very little, if any, difference made in the roles of women/men and wives/husbands. These cannot be the same thing, for not all men are called to be husbands and not all women are called to be wives. The intrinsic qualities of femininity or masculinity cannot involve anything to do with marriage or marriage roles, but must flow naturally (and unobstructed by culture) from our created designed maleness and femaleness.

Posted By: Timothy | February 13, 2011 2:59 PM

Sorry, I just thought of something else. To what degree or in what areas are Adam and Eve our models for masculinity and femininity and to what degree or in what areas are they our models as husbands and wives?

Posted By: Timothy | February 13, 2011 3:20 PM

As a mother of a boy(18) and a girl(6) I see the natural differences first hand. I was a single parent with my son when he was young, but he saw his father regularly. Being sort of a tomboy growing up myself I never tried to feminize him. I just expected him to respect me and that's how I raised him(also in the Christian church which helped alot)! His father is a non-believer. He was never a huge lover of sports although he has participated in some but it wasn't his thing. He took martial arts for 4 years as a child and he loved that. He is very smart and he is a thinker. He likes biology, science and technology which neither his father nor I are remotely interested in.

My daughter, whose father is with her everyday because we are married, is very energetic, curious, smart and artistic. She loves reading and drawing but she also loves to go outside and play. She is in first grade but she has already showed interest in some sports. I will let her natural abilities determine what kind of woman she grows up to be, but she will grow up to be a woman, just like my son grew into a man. We are all different but we are women and men, all with God-given gifts. If gender didn't matter God wouldn't have bothered with it. According to His plan it must be very important!

Posted By: Cheryl D | February 14, 2011 12:20 PM

As a mom of both a boy and a girl I would like to mention the natural differences of raising them. My son, who is 18, is very brainy and a thinker he is interested in biology, science and technology. Neither his father nor I have ever expressed interests in these subject matters and he grew interests through classes in school. He was never interested in sports but did participate in some. It wasn't his thing. He did take martial arts as a child and loved that.

My daughter, who is 6, is very energetic, smart, curious and artistic. She loves the outdoors and playing outside just as much as she likes reading and drawing. She has an interest in some sports. She is in first grade right now but as she gets older she will be allowed to try out for whatever sports she wants. I expect one thing from my kids and I raised them to be respectful. My son is, for the most part and my daughter who is more outspoken will be harder to teach this. But my point is that my son grew into a man and my daughter will grow into a woman regardless of their childhood interests or activities. They have benefited from the unique input that each parent put into their lives, but mostly Jesus and being raised in a Biblical church. If gender was not important then God would not have bothered with it. Obviously, according to His plan, it matters.

Posted By: Cheryl D | February 14, 2011 1:33 PM

Timothy:

I do address that topic in the book. based on some very interesting published studies on the topic, i reject the distinction as largely a false one. It is used more in the softer social sciences and very little in the harder sciences. In addition, it finds its genesis in academia in John Money and his work has been utterly discredited. But yes, I do address that in the last chapter of the book.

Posted By: Glenn | February 14, 2011 7:10 PM

I do gender studies work in our non-profit, largely because the confusion is so great. And partly because the jury is still out on the distinctions that Stanton says are so clear. Yes, there are extremes to avoid, but I find Stanton's rebuttal more on the fringe of one of the extremes and not in the middle.

I'd consider _Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home_ to be more in the middle.

I agree our gender is more than our plumbing. But I also think men and women are far more similar than Stanton's list. And the example of dad's throwing their children more than mom's, that can be explained in simpler terms than women are nurturing and men are questers. My wife throws my little son around too, not nearly as vigorously as I do, not because I'm more adventurous (she's scaled the 14er when I turned around) but because I have a stronger upper body. The difference is in our strength, not in our disposition.

I'm suspicious of Stanton's citations. In this short space, when you pull out your best material, why quote from Gurian and Mead? Isn't Michael Gurian a pop-psychology writer? And Margaret Mead as a source? The research of the mother of Planned Parenthood is very old. And "cutting apron strings" is more Jungian than it is Christian. The book _The Courage to Raise Good Men_ is a better alternative. Studies have shown that boys need their mothers as much as their fathers. To "cut the strings" is Robert Bly, not Paul of Tarsus.

A ceremony is needed for boys to become men?... and Stanton's example is a Bar Mitzvah. This practice is medieval Rabbinic Judaism, not Biblical. Jesus didn't have one. He didn't need to be raised with one to become a man. But Stanton overlooks the example he uses, for he says that girls naturally become women in the same paragraph but ignores girls also have a Bat Mitzvah in the same tradition.

Stanton points out that boys and girls "tend" to be a certain way on the list. I appreciate his willingness to be flexible. But this also means Caryn, on her post, "tends" to be masculine. I've worked with so many people outside those boy/girl lists (my generation and younger that the lists are not helpful). And we should never have to say that a woman is more masculine or a man more feminine. Those are absurdities. Instead of redefining our lists, we end up wrongly labeling the actual people. We need broader strokes. I find lists like these lend themselves to illusions of control to insecure parents by defining things that are sometimes mysterious and often unclear. If you study your child, you don't need a list. If Stanton agrees (which he hints at above), then why make lists at all? This approach feels 10 years old when evangelicals were just getting serious about thinking on these things. This is not the discussion today.

And why does Stanton call certain activities "masculine"? Does he realize how culturally conditioned that language is? There is no such thing as a "masculine" or "feminine" activity.

As for neuroscientific discoveries on the differences between men and women, that does reveal some things, though not as much as some like to claim. Neuroscience has also revealed that our brains can change based on the culture and surroundings. When a father teaches his son not to play with dolls, even though he enjoys playing with dolls, the brain changes. Neuroscience is not nearly as hard and fast as some would like to believe.

What I gather is that the language of this book satisfies the constituency of Focus on the Family. Readers in that group will likely feel this is cutting edge because it is not as rigid as so many other books in their group on these topics. This book will sell to that group, but it doesn't go far enough to advance the conversation out in the public square.

If readers here want to get serious about exploring gender, for femininity, try "Ruby Slippers." And for masculinity, try a research professor's work in "My Brother's Keeper: What the Social Sciences Do (and Don't) Tell Us About Masculinity." It is out of deeper studies of who we are that will better tell us how to be flexible between the two extremes in our parenting.

Posted By: Dale | February 14, 2011 9:54 PM

as a single woman approching marriage (and more than likely motherhood), i appreciate the perspective. i belive it's vitally important that we look to both mothers and fathers for the ideal delopment of children. as glenn discusses, the culture would like us to believe there is no difference but it's important to realize and embrace the unique differences and challenges to each. certainly there is fluidity in the lines, but how boring if we really all are the same!

Posted By: katie | February 15, 2011 1:02 PM

I kind of doubt the pervasive view among Christians that "the culture would like us to believe there is no difference" between males and females. I simply don't see this playing out in the popular culture at all. It is certainly untrue that most Christians who believe men and woman are not only equal in nature, but equal in function, think men and women are exactly alike.

I think the issue, really, is about whether one is going to celebrate the individual child for who he or she is, regardless of whether she or he fits standard ideas of what is supposed to be masculine or feminine-- or try to make the child fit stereotypical roles that may not be borne out by what is known scientifically about sex and gender in the first place.

Of course men and women are different, but the variations within each sex are actually greater than the variations between the sexes. Let's let our children be the people God created them to be, which they will become naturally if we just give them support, security, nourishment and challenges.

Posted By: Kristen | February 15, 2011 3:08 PM

I have huge concerns that the Bible is always cited as the source for promoting gender differences, but there are never contextual, cogent specifics given for these differences. Complementarianism talk a great line when it comes to "God ordained" gender roles, but what we actually read in the Bible shatters that myth.
Let me give just one powerful example: What is the biggest gender distinction we hear about in church sermons where we so progressively address human sexuality? That women are emotionally driven, and males are visual. Knowing many women who struggle with visual temptation please don't just take my word for it. Instead turn to Genesis 39:6-12. Potiphar's wife takes notice that Joseph is "well-built and handsome," and subsequent verses describe a woman looking not for cuddling or an emotional connection, but a purely physical encounter. It seems like this would be a terrific opportunity for the Lord to make distinctions in the human/gender response if He so intended. And this is just one example.
WHY the urgency to attribute differences to gender as opposed to individual human wiring? I believe the poster who asserted an agenda on the part of FOTF to keep women in a subservient position has hit pay dirt. We actually heard them say on the radio broadcast the other day (2/10/11) that men are the ones drawn to business because it's like "the hunt." My husband and I didn't know whether to laugh hysterically or gag.

Posted By: Wendy Holland | February 15, 2011 3:49 PM

"That women are emotionally driven, and males are visual."

Besides the wonderful example you gave of Potiphar's wife, Wendy....Has anyone ever observed women in a clothing store? Visual describes them very well, thank you! Lol Perhaps the object of our focus is just different!

Posted By: Victorious | February 18, 2011 2:53 PM