Her.meneutics: When Gender-Based Parenting Goes Too Far

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

email to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« What Are Wedding Vows For, Anyway? | Main | Are Single Women Too Picky? »

February 1, 2011

When Gender-Based Parenting Goes Too Far

A review of Glenn Stanton's Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity.

Caryn Rivadeneira, guest blogger

I have never once second-guessed my gender, my sexuality, or my femininity. But a new book has tempted me to. Even though I recently spent eight years either growing babies in my womb or feeding them from my breasts, according to Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity (Multnomah), I am in fact a man — and a good one at that.

Consider author Glenn Stanton’s description of what “makes a good man,” in the chapter “What Makes a Good Man?” These men are:

- Explorative
- Determined to deliver the goods
- Needing to know what’s next
- Opportunists
- Chance-takers
- Initiators
- Active and aggressive
- Competitive and dominant

I am all of these things, in one way or another. Now consider what Stanton, the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family and author of several books on marriage and parenting, says “makes a good woman,” in the chapter “What Makes a Good Woman?” These women are:

- Confidently enticing
- Seekers of intimacy over action
- Wisely receptive
- Security-seekers
- Prefers of modesty
- Care-seekers
- Word-users
- Desirous of equity and submission
- Wielders of soft power
- All about connecting

Now I’m confused. After all, I use words. I might even be “confidently enticing,” though I’ll need to ask somebody. A quick tally of this list, and maybe I am a woman, though not all that great of one.

Of course, I jest, to illustrate the problems in pigeonholing men and women by lists of traits — especially when an author seeks to help parents understand the differences between their sons and daughters, and emphasizes the importance of having both male and female influences in a child’s life.

This is not to say I don’t believe men and women are different. Remember, I once spent eight years pregnant and/or nursing, while my husband . . . did not. Also, I have two boys and a girl. As I write this, my daughter is creating drama between her Rapunzel doll and some generic princess, while my boys are punching each other and fighting over the "WiiMote." I didn’t teach my daughter to play like that any more than my husband taught my boys to fight over video games. Those are “gifts” of nature, not nurture.

So what makes me nervous about gender discussion is not the highlighting of differences, but rather the conclusions drawn on what we can do and be in Christ according to those differences.

In many ways, Stanton’s book set me at ease on this front. The scientific evidence he offers on the differences between the male and female brain (“The increased level of serotonin [in the female brain] is what moves your daughter toward being . . . more measured, more reticent, more cautious, and better able to focus longer on one task . . .” — thus, the doll drama vs. WiiMote battle in my living room) piqued my interest. Stanton’s assertion that a man’s “male essence points him beyond” and serves as evidence of a man’s adventurous ways cracked me up. And the loving stories he tells of his wife (even of him submitting to her wisdom) and his children charmed me. Stanton is quick to state that gender differences are never carved in stone, so perhaps I shouldn’t take his lists so seriously.

Yet for all the wisdom Stanton offers, I find some of his conclusions — namely, that we should be raising our kids to seek different life goals based on gender — troublesome. Contrary to the title, we should not be raising “confident sons” and “secure daughters.” Rather, we should be raising both sons and daughters who are both secure and confident.

When it comes to what we raise our kids to do and be, certainly gender plays a role. But it isn’t, as Stanton believes, “the center of the human story,” at least not for Christian parents keen on raising their kids to follow Jesus.

Even as male and female reflect God, our gender doesn’t matter more than our God-given gifts or the gospel itself when it comes to playing our part in the kingdom. The Holy Spirit certainly doesn’t impart gifts according to gender. Many of us debate whether God outlines different gender-based roles in marriage and church life, but certain spiritual gifts do not require a certain biological makeup. And Jesus didn’t offer gender-tailored rules when he told us to love our neighbors as ourselves and go and make disciples of all nations.

Throughout this book, I kept wondering if Stanton forgot this fact, especially when he makes statements like, “Men lead because the male’s orientation is to shape, mold, create, and change things that are bad into something good.”

While Stanton says that women can also “shape, mold, and influence” by wielding the power of “simply being good, healthy women,” this isn’t the same. In fact, if only men are oriented to transform this world, women are in trouble, because a woman who is being “good” and eating healthy, hoping that the world changes for the better as it twirls around her, isn’t living the gospel.

As image-bearers of our Creator and Redeemer, we should all have a world-changing orientation. If we don’t, we ought to pray for it. And as Christian moms and dads, we’d better be working hard to raise our boys and girls to right the wrongs of the world in Jesus’ name. How we do that might look different according to our gender, gifts, or temperaments, but in Christ, in whom there is no male or female, it should become our very nature — and the center of our human story.

I am confident that Stanton agrees. It’s clear from his new book that he is smart, he loves his family, and he loves God. From the final heartbreaking story he tells about his dad — the one that left me crying, like a girl — I can tell that Stanton is a good man, list or no list.

Caryn Rivadeneira is a writer, speaker, and mother of three, and the author of Mama's Got a Fake I.D. as well as a book forthcoming from Tyndale House. She has written for Her.meneutics on boycotting Amazon, Halloween, burqas, fathers, Mother's Day, spanking, happiness, and pregnant Olympians.

Comments

Fantastic post.

"...A woman who is being 'good' and eating healthy, hoping that the world changes for the better as it twirls around her, isn’t living the gospel."

Amen!

"Those are “gifts” of nature, not nurture."

I'm not entirely sure of this statement. While I agree nature has *some* part to play, I believe nurture wins out over this nature every time.

I remember when my kids, and those of many of my friends, were young (toddler age to a little older, say maybe 4 years old)... The boys were always willing to hug mom. They were sweet and gentle and most of the time, played well together.
The daughters would be just as likely to pull hair as hug. There were often battles over toys. The girls seemed to need to be taught gentleness more than the boys.

In many species (including humans, in my opinion) the female is the naturally aggressive being. The male is the learned aggressive being.

Just my 1 1/2 cents on it all :)

Great post and thanks for it! I seriously almost bought this book. The most ironic part of all of this in my opinion is this: According to this, not only am I man, I want to be one..And truly, I'm not a women's lib type. I recognize that there are differences in genders and I appreciate that. But the over generalization... Yeah, that drives me nuts. Thanks!

Ppl who push stereotypes about gender just turn. me. off.

Very well said, Caryn.

Now to go work on my confident enticingness. :D

I'm so glad we can talk about these questions and share experiences. I am a dominant, high influencing woman. I'm also loud and a shameless opportunist! I do want to grow in the areas of domesticity and nurturing. My husband is so much better at these things!

I can totally relate, Caryn. I've spent entirely too much time worrying about whether I'm a "biblical woman" since I have all the "male" qualifications the author describes. These sorts of books hurt both boys and girls who grow up to become confused men and women.

"I have never once second-guessed my gender, my sexuality, or my femininity."

Me either until after I read John Elridge's "Wild at Heart".

"Those are “gifts” of nature, not nurture."

My nieces tie into it quickly and fiercely over who is going to get control of the Little Tikes car or doll or whatever the other one wants at the time. I think it reflects our nature--selfish nature. Add another daughter in the mix, and the scene at one time or another is likely to play out more like your sons.

"The scientific evidence he offers..."

Right,what about the scientific evidence that says differently? It is even a guess as to any correlation between "evidence" revealed in one study and behavior.

"...if only men are oriented to transform this world, women are in trouble, because a woman who is being “good” and eating healthy, hoping that the world changes for the better as it twirls around her, isn’t living the gospel."

That's great!

Lists like the two you cited make me nervous. If those are the traits that make a "good woman" and I possess more of the "good man" traits, what does this say about me? I'm glad that he says that these aren't set in stone.

One thing I wondered was the affect it has on children if their parents ascribe to these gender distinctions too strictly and in a less-than-loving way. Are the more dominant, aggressive girls suppressed in their home evironment? Are the more submissive, connection-needing boys prodded into being more "masculine"? What affect does this have on their sexuality?

Thanks for discussing this issue. I don't have kids, but I teach at a Christian school and consequently take part in a lot of discussions about which aspects of behavior are related to gender and which are not.

I think it's important--as we learn about our kids--to keep our statements about them descriptive, not prescriptive. It's valid to say, "I notice that most of the girls in the class seem to be able to focus for a longer period of time than most of the boys," but not "Girls should be good at staying focused," and certainly not something like "Boys who are real boys don't focus on tasks." Sadly, the latter is all too common in Christian discussions of gender. I'm not sure why--an overreaction to secular claims that gender has NO role to play?

Amen! My husband and I have struggled with over-generalizations our entire marriage. We have done a number of marriage classes or Sunday classes and always feel like freaks. They don't describe us and our desires and our needs.

We have decided that much of life is a spectrum, and that you can put two opposing characteristics on a line and put everyone on that line, more females are going to be on one end of the line and more males on the other, but there will be crossover and we need to accept that and accept the people who don't fit the "molds" society (whether secular or Christian) has decided you belong.

And based on the lists above, my husband is the female and I'm the male. I can't be enticing even when my life depends on it and I'd much rather act than be intimate. But we have supported and grown together as a couple for almost 23 years and have two healthy, well-adjusted children (one male and one female) who actually tend to fit both lists depending on their mood and the moment. So I think we raised confidently secure children.

Who determines "authentic" masculinity and femininity???!!!

I'm tired of all that jargon.

Books like this with their black and white view of the world are what keep me out of "Christian" bookstores and are why I do not take my children to church (and do not attend myself).

I have a daughter who is far more "male" by the list, and a son who is far more "female" by the list. Does this mean that they are bad or wrong in who they are (they both have been the way they are from the moment I was able to sense them in my womb)? I answer, "Absolutely not!" It is simply who they are and they are treasured for the individuals that they are with the gifts they have.

My son is a very sensitive person, he notices when another is hurting and does not hesitate to do something about it. He helped a stranger in 2nd grade, a child he had never laid eyes on, was upset at being left on the first day of school and the mom and teacher were trying to calm the child. My son (who was also new to this school) saw the situation and then got up and introduced himself to the child, helped the child find his seat and cubby for his backpack. The school counselor was sent on her way, the mother departed and the day went on without any more fuss. I asked my son why he did that, all of the other children were either laughing or looking away in discomfort. My son informed me that he knew what it was like to be alone and afraid and that he felt he could do something to help because he understood the child, so he did. So simple, so profound.

Not very masculine, though... according to some list, at least. I would hope every child learns compassion and empathy for another, no matter what their gender! I hope that churches figure out that their insistence on black and white worlds is not only repulsive, but it is also unhealthy, and adds to the destruction we see all around us.

I have to wonder along with Angie, what effect these stereotypical gender profiling lists have on our children's sexuality. I think that is an interesting topic to broach...but not for this post.

I have three boys. My one goal is to raise them to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. PERIOD. They need to live life like he did, as do I. This means helping your neighbor when he is sick. It means lending a hand. It means sharing your lunch. Or, just walking over to someone who is alone and befriending them. I am blessed that my boys' do this without much prompting from me, because they see their dad and I modeling this whenever we get a chance. And, as a family we engage in social justice activities together. Or, as much as we can. To love is central to the gospel and Jesus' life. Love is a steotypical feminine trait according to this list.

These values are not masculine. They are not competitive. If Jesus was this stereotypical list I have to wonder if we'd even have a saviour...

Oh, while I'm on a roll...since when did aggressiveness become a good Christian value? Is that the example we are left in the gospel? Which disciple was aggressive? Growing Godly men means going against the wordly culture that tells us men need such *masculine* values.

Vic, that was a lovely story about your son. I would call that "masculine" in the best sense of the world: tender and protective and giving, like all the really good men I've known.

I was hoping somebody would comment on "confidently enticing" and specifically what Stanton means by it.

Yes! I often feel so uncomfortable in conversations with other Christians, when they start expounding on what women are like. I stand there uncomfortably wondering what they are trying to convey, since it doesn't describe me. Ironically, I rarely have this problem with non-believers.

I'm intellectual, literal minded, analytic, good at computers, and I'm bad at decorating, cleaning, and other supposedly female traits. I'm hopeless at small-talk, and don't even comprehend points of etiquette where you say things you don't mean in order to be polite. I'm baffled by the rules where you make an offer which is refused a certain number of times and then finally accepted. I figure that if I offer to help do the dishes, or whatever, and you say no, that the interchange is over and we are both content.

I'm impressed by and appreciative of friends of mine who homeschool their kids, and enjoy domesticity. But that does not describe me. Only in the church does that make me somehow less than a woman.

Books like these rarely make any claims to science but instead use anecdotal evidence. The author will say something like "all you have to do is look at a boy/girl to know that this is true." But what if my child is different than yours? Then which child do we look at as the "norm"? FOTF continues to run toward irrelevance with such books. Great review.

Thank you for your post. I think that books like that do more harm than good in the discussion of parenting and especially parenting as a follower of Christ. What a shame. Thank you for taking time to write a response to this book. I pray for more women and men, for that matter, will step up and write and act in ways that will empower both men and women to be the people God created them to be like you have done here.

Caryn, GREAT opening paragraph. I seriously laughed out loud. This entire post is so well-written and so on point. I could not agree more. I worry when Christian virtues are distinguished from one another as being inherently male or female. It gives both genders an excuse from pursuing Christ fully.

I too would love some expansion on what he means by "confidently enticing." My initial reaction was a visceral "ewwwwww." Is that some kind of Christianese for "sexy"?

As the mom of a girl who has many traditional "masculine" traits and a boy who has some traditional "feminine" traits (as well as another girl who embraces a number of traditional feminine traits in her own exuberant, unique way), I'm very glad I haven't heard these kinds of stereotypes from my pastors and fellow Christians. My kids have dealt with enough of that in the larger culture. Who needs it in church?

Good response to this Christian book. Being a man who breaks the mold on pretty much everything that I have been taught I should act like (especially being a man who grew up in Texas), I really have long questioned the topic of what differences God imbued in the genders. Having studied many different cultures and traveled and lived overseas, I have come to think that much of what Western Christians think is gender-based is really culturally based. Kids often imitate their parents and those around them, if even subconsciously. So, aggressive boys and demure girls are simply following the pattern of society, not what is God-ordained. I think that even many of the gender tests do not gauge truly what is genetically predispositioned simply for the fact that they test after nuture has begun. Though, in the end, we should simply love God as we are - male or female.

I pray and pray for a day when all will recognize the fact that God does not distribute personalities and gifts based on the possession of certain sex organs. What I don't understand is why, why, WHY this myth continues to be pertpetuated by CHRISTIANS when it is not biblical. Why do people buy this trash?

I am a woman. Of the above list of traits, I possess the following:
- Explorative
- Determined to deliver the goods
- Needing to know what’s next
- Opportunists
- Chance-takers
- Initiators
- Active and aggressive
- Competitive and dominant
- Word-users

Did you notice that only one of those is from the "female" list?

From childhood people in the church disapproved of me for not being the "right kind" of girl/woman. I nearly walked away from Christianity because of it until some wise and kind believers showed me that God created me as a truth-speaking leader with the spiritual gift of teaching because he wants to USE me as a full member of the body of Christ for his glory. In fact, I am sinning if I bury my gifts, and anyone who forces me to bury my gifts is sinning against me and against God who gave them to me. I know many other women who have either rejected or left Christianity because of the sexism (bot explicit and implicit) perpetuated against them by God's people.

People need to know that the sinful sexism of the Church is a barrier to the gospel.

I enjoy books (and people) who encourage me to seek God and find my identity in him! It's amazing and meaningful to go straight to him to find out who I am.

I don't know if any of us fit in the box of 'gender roles'. If you do, then please enjoy being who God made you! That's awesome! And if you don't, please enjoy being who God made you! I love that each of my kids is unique and beautiful in their own way. In some ways they fit the generic boy and girl assumed roles, and in some ways they don't.

God is so amazing that he can make us all unique and beautiful!!

I, too, have been perpetually disheartened by the insistence of certain "family" based ministries that God imbues individual psyche based on genitalia.

As asserted above, and evidenced from multiple accounts, this is neither Scriptural nor fact-based. And I can't imagine how damaging it is to those who actually believe the lie that they are "supposed" to present in keeping with gender stereotypes. We know for sure that many within the church (women struggling with porn, anyone?) will avoid seeking help because they buy into the fallacy that they are the anomaly.

I'm struck by the increasing desperation conveyed in books and broadcasts that purport God-ordained gender roles. They seem to believe that if they say it long enough, loud enough, and stridently enough, people will live it out. I'm happy to see that--based on the above posts and the evidence of our lives, families, and culture--that strategy is finally beginning to fail.

Maybe now we can begin ministering based on the way God has created us individually, as opposed to basing it on the genitals we're born with.

Hey, all. Thanks for the great comments to my post! Thought I'd clear up a couple things:

1.Stanton defines "confidently enticing" (BTW, my friends have all laughed at this which means I must not be after all!) as "to know where the center of your life is and to know what you want. The woman knows what she wants, and she draws it to herself." As opposed to going out and getting it. This is part of our non-inclination, he says, to look outward for our lives. We look inward. I'll let you all make of THAT what you will.

2. When I said that my boys punching each other or my daughter playing dolls were gifts of nature not nurture, I wasn't discounting the role nurture (family or cultural) plays. I was simply saying that never once did I (or my husband) teach my boys to punch each other when someone took something nor did I teach my daughter to play dolls. They came by this honestly. And they certainly display "gender-bending" (according to this book) behavior at other times. My doll-playing, nurturing daughter is by far the most adventuresome of my kids. She loves to explore.

My oldest son's hair is longer than my daughter's. And hers ain't short. When I asked my son if he cared when people think he's a girl because of his long hair, he says, "No. Girls don't own long hair."

Just two examples of many. Again, thanks for all the comments. Blessing to you all!

Please allow me to interject one biological reminder into this discussion. Boys are not men and girls are not women. Until puberty boys and girls are not really all that different in many ways. It is the on-rush of male and female hormones at puberty that makes actual differences in the brain itself and create the stark differences. So a 2nd grade boy with feminie characteristics is not out acting out of character. Nor are a group of 4th grade girls pulling out each others hair over a doll. It's at puberty - the transition into adulthood - manhood and womanhood when BOTH nature and nurture come to bear. It's at puberty that most children begin both intense self examination and seek role models for themselves. There is nothing wrong at that point in presenting a Biblical world view of the male and female roles. Those who object are simply clinging to a Humanistic and non-Biblical world view. That's their right but they do not have the right to criticizes those of us who chose to read and follow The Owner's Manual.

Christians rightly no longer tolerate racial segregationists in our midst. We don't engage them as if there are actually two sides to that debate any more. This is a good article, but ten years into the new Millenium, it's time we begin to treat the hardcore complementarians in the same way we do racial segregationists -- as beyond the pale.

Rigid adherence to strict gender-dictated roles defies the very essence of God's magnificent creation of humanity in all its many permutations. The notion of a single "ideal" version of "woman" and a separate and completely different "ideal" version of "man" is oddly Platonic and not Christian at all.

I had an experience similar to Robyn's. It was a campus minister from Navigators/Young Life in the late 1970s. He asked why I was wasting my time at [a very competitive Northeastern] University when I should be planning to be married and raise a family? He explained that while God may have given me the talents and skills to be successful at college and as a lawyer, God did not want me to use them and that I should consider having been given gifts that I was not permitted to use as some sort of God-given affliction like that given to Paul as a way to strengthen my faith. Little did he realize, but that campus "minister" was responsible for launching me on my first baby steps away from evangelicalism. For that, at least, I thank him.

"The woman knows what she wants, and she draws it to herself."

Hmm. Sounds a little too much like "The Secret."

If Larry is still following....

“It is the on-rush of male and female hormones at puberty that makes actual differences in the brain itself and create the stark differences.”

The *women* commenting here are saying they possess characteristics on Stanton’s list of qualities that make for a “good man”. How is that explained? Are they not authentically feminine? Or, are they women who possess characteristics that are neither uniquely male nor female?

“There is nothing wrong at that point [puberty] in presenting a Biblical world view of the male and female roles. Those who object are simply clinging to a Humanistic and non-Biblical world view.”

Long before puberty, I think most children understand boys can only be daddies and husbands, and girls can only be mommies and wives, and I think it appropriate to affirm that as part of God’s good plan for and blessing on humanity. I’ve not read here any objections that God created humanity male and female and their relational roles flow out of that i.e. male=husband, father, son, uncle…..female=wife, mother, daughter, aunt….

However, what Stanton does, which I understand this post to be about, is create a list of traits that he contends makes for “A Good Man” and a separate list of traits he contends makes for “A Good Woman”. Those are traits, qualities, characteristics, not roles. I contend that the traits on the “good man’s” are wholly appropriate for a “good woman”. I also contend that traits on the “good woman’s” are completely appropriate for a “good man” except for “confidently enticing” since I don’t understand what that is about.

But, then after chapters on what it means to be a good man and a good woman and how to raise a secure daughter and a confident son, according to Rivadeneira, Stanton qualifies his use of lists with the disclaimer that “gender differences are never carved in stone”. Could it be because Stanton's list of traits are not unique to either gender?

“That's their right but they do not have the right to criticizes those of us who chose to read and follow The Owner's Manual.”

If you or someone was criticized, that is regrettable.

It is possible to follow genuinely and with integrity The Owner’s Manual while not interpreting it to be prescribing character traits or qualities that only women are to perform or possess for all time and a separate set of character traits or qualities that only men are to perform or possess for all time.

Huh? Isn't that what they accused Eve of doing? And their excuse as to why women can't to be leaders? I guess they really want to keep us in what they think of as "our place." /-:

I could go on and on. That people in the 21st century could write such tripe is amazingly frightening. My kids loved listening to FOTF's Adventures in Odyssey when they were young (okay, I confess - I loved listening, too). But they are so far out in left field in this issue that I can't even enjoy it anymore even though such things aren't mentioned.

Confidently Enticing and yet Prefers Modesty.
No wonder our teenage girls are confused. Even after Caryn's explanation of the text, you know what that says to me? Manipulative and Deceptive.

I would much rather be an Honest Initiator than a Deceptive Enticer who tries to "draw it to herself". Is this really the kind of women we want our girls to be? I don't have daughters, but I will encourage my nieces and the teens at my church to always be honest and upfront about what they want, what they think, and how they feel.

Thanks for your thoughtful critique of this "list-oriented" way of thinking about gender in the context of parenting. I'm six and a half months pregnant with my first child (a boy) and thinking a lot lately about what it will mean to teach my son to be a man of God. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with the lists in this book. In fact, I think God has given us his own list already:

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, goodness, kindness, gentleness and self-control. Wow, not very masculine, eh?

I agree that men and women are different in some qualitative ways, but I prefer, like some other folks above, to see those differences as lying on a spectrum.

This same kind of bifurcated view of men/women has shown up in popular books in recent years like "Wild at Heart" and the other one that makes me a little crazy, "Love and Respect." I don't really see how one can argue that women want love and men want respect. Don't we all want both? I don't want to have to choose between the two qualities in my relationship with my husband. Don't patronize me with your love if you don't respect me. Likewise, don't marry me if you respect me but love comes trailing along after. Aren't they two sides of the same coin?

I think some of us find it easier to make sense of simple lists or black and white contrasts because it doesn't require us to do the hard work of integrating ourselves as whole people. But in the process of putting people in boxes with hard edges I think we also do violence to the holistic identities we are meant to have in Christ.

Yes, I'm still following the discussion.
I find it interesting when people like science when it fits their cause and ignore it when it doesn't. Case it point - liberals are still hunting for the 'gay gene' in hopes of proving that homosexuality is nature, not nuture. And there have been studies that show the homosexual brain reacts differently that the heterosexual. LIKEWISE, MRI and brain studies have shown that female brains and male brains ract differently to the same stimuli. So, yes, there are basic personality traits and reactions that are inately male / female. The ancients were right to take the word "hysteria" from the Latin word for uterus.
Modern American society is hell-bent on making men and women equal as though there is something terribly wrong with being one or the other and embracing it.
The Bible isn't patriarchial by default, but by intent.
(Insert plethora of feminist comments here.)

Equal, Larry? Here's a point to ponder (from Madeleine L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time"): "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!"

No, there are NOT basic personality traits that are innately male or female. New science in the field of neuroplasticity shows that the brain is plastic, that is changeable. The brain can be and is changed by experiences, perceptions. The only reason any given male or female brain would react differently to any stimulus is due to its having been shaped by nurture, which begins the moment the parents know which sex a child is, these days even in the womb. But the brain is not fixed but changeable, to reiterate. Therefore any attempt to draw conclusions based on a statistical model of male or female brains is already biased as it begins with an erroneous hypothesis, i.e. that brain makeup is fixed and static. Men and woman are not only equal, they are the same in essence, in character, in thought, in being. The only differences are superficial physical ones that do not affect the intrinsic being, and even those are not fixed across the board when you consider the existence of androgynous individuals which are significant in number. No, there is no gender difference, only individual differences, which is what so frightens the patriarchalists who want desperately to maintain their false authority structure. The reason Adam was happy to see Eve was because she was the same as he, thus making him no longer alone, as he was with the animals, none of whom were the same. Only woman is the same being as man.

This is so well thought out and precise. Where else are we fed into little boxes-- but confining Christianity and church. Christ did not ask us to be good women and leave us a list or good men. He asked us to be loving people.

And I agree, we should raise our children to be both secure and confident. If we forget that confidence is for women, we've yet again made women lesser, but not encouraging them to have a voice and stand up for themselves. A scary thing to not teach our women to be.

I would also make a very good man.

Larry: "I find it interesting when people like science when it fits their cause and ignore it when it doesn't."

Stanton’s list is not science. My questions related to this blog post and in response to comments you made about the post:

“The *women* commenting here are saying they possess characteristics on Stanton’s list of qualities that make for a “good man”. How is that explained? Are they not authentically feminine? Or, are they women who possess characteristics that are neither uniquely male nor female?”

have remained unanswered. I understand the blog post to be addressing Stanton’s idea of what constitutes authentic masculinity and authentic femininity, not homosexuality.

Larry: “So, yes, there are basic personality traits and reactions that are inately male / female.”

I ask again……What are the basic personality traits that are innately unique to males? What are the basic personality traits that are innately unique to females?

Larry: “The ancients were right to take the word "hysteria" from the Latin word for uterus.”

How were they right in doing so? From what I remember reading, they believed the uterus to be a separate “animal” apart from the woman that if it became dry or went for an extended period of time without becoming pregnant would ascend to the upper region of the woman’s body and produce symptoms. In light of modern medicine, could you explain how they were correct?

Larry: “Modern American society is hell-bent on making men and women equal as though there is something terribly wrong with being one or the other and embracing it."

There is actually something very beautiful, good, and right about the complementary nature of humanity created as male and female, yet, are male and female not both equal in value and dignity? If you deny that, then you are at odds with many prominent hierarchical proponents.

Can you provide an example of how you believe modern American society is hell-bent on making men and women equal?

What I am asking you to do is back up your claim that there are personality traits that are innately unique to males and personality traits innately unique to females.

"The Bible isn't patriarchial by default, but by intent."

The Bible is the revelation of God and the redemptive plan of God given in a patriarchal context.

Larry: "(Insert plethora of feminist comments here.)"

This isn't a criticism or a slight, is it?

I remember when our young married class in church listed all of woman's traits in one column and man's traits' in another. I actually raised my hand and said if this list is correct, then I'm male! What disturbs me is that the supposed female traits are used to limit women more then men. I have heard of girls who were told that they could not be engineers, because girls were not good in math. However, I have never heard of boys being told they couldn't be a editor, writer, or even politician because boys don't have the verbal skills.

It drives me crazy when people pervert the gospel by reducing it down to "men should act and do this; women should act and do that." Christ never said anything like that, but then again, he wasn't out to sell books.

Great article Caryn, and very well said.

I'm a grandma now, and have been in senior ministry for over 30 years. One thing that has happened to me in those years is that I've stopped reading that type of book. I'm sure the bloke is a good guy, and I appreciate you saying that, but honestly, I got sick and tired of feeling like a 'failed woman' because I wasn't willing to change the world by letting it twirl round me.

I've raised up hundreds of leaders, both female and male, a bible college, an orphanage for abandoned kids with AIDs in Uganda, a Christian women's magazine as well as a family of four kids. I did this at the same time as loving my husband and leading churches and a movement of churches with him. Of the two of us, I am the one most likely to initiate, and then he is the one most likely to facilitate the vision to make it work. Others may see that as being a role reversal but it works for us and we've been married nearly 40 years. Both men and women look to both of us for mentoring, not just in leadership but also in human relations.

It gets tiring seeing good, godly people deciding that what works for them is what God has ordained for all of us. We are what we are. We've submitted our lives and temperaments to the God who created us in Christ for good works which He prepared beforehand that we should walk in.

Now, in the final years of my life, I believe I can go to heaven and hear HIm welcome me in... and I'm not expecting a scolding for stepping out of gender roles.

Ha, Ha. Reading those lists made me laugh. I imagined the author sitting down to write and confidently making a list of what it means to be a man, then putting his pen to paper to write a list of what it means to be a women and he hesitates...writes down a few random things with his eye brows bunched then yells out to no one, "I have no idea what it means to be a woman!"

Ha, Ha. He should have asked a woman. The second list says nothing and means nothing. =) Just another example of men never being able to figure us women out. =)

Awesome read! I can't tell you how many people have been robbed of their God-given potential because they were pigeonheld to this sterotypical standard. If this were true of gender, I wonder what the author would have thought of Jesus if he had actually met him in person, for he seemed to possess most of the qualities he said a woman had:
-Confidently enticing
- Seekers of intimacy over action
- Wisely receptive
- Security-seekers
- Prefers of modesty
- Care-seekers
- Word-users (definitely loved to use descriptive language filled with parables and illustrations)
- Desirous of equity and submission
- Wielders of soft power (with the exception of overthrowing tables at the temple, I don't think he had a dominant bone in his body)
- All about connecting (He most certainly was more concerned with establishing relationships more than independence)

And none of the qualities men possess:
Explorative
- Determined to deliver the goods
- Needing to know what’s next
- Opportunists
- Chance-takers
- Initiators
- Active and aggressive
- Competitive and dominant

Every time I hear this stuff at my church, it's like listening to fingernails on chalkboard. I certainly don't expect to raise my child this way, and will focus on making sure she seeks Christ-like qualities in others, especially the man she will eventually marry.

You can be sure that as a part of leadership at Focus on the Family, Mr. Stanton's goal in writing this book is preserving and promoting patriarchy as a key tenant to being Christian. My wife and I lead divorce recovery groups and have found some valuable materials from Focus on the Family. I have a hard time recommending them because of their underlying assumptions of male headship. Does not go over very well with women leaving abusive Christian husbands. It also reinforces the selfish entitlement of misguided men. We need to set this destructive concept aside, just as we did slavery.

You're a good man, Caryn R-D.
No really - fabulous, thoughtful post. And funny.
So grateful for wonderful, active, curious people like you.

Thank you for posting this article and giving women a chance to respond. Books like Stanton's are revealed to be all the more pitiful in the light of scripture, ie Proverbs 31.

Thanks for this article. The Bible doesn't actually say any of these things about what a man should be like or what a woman should be like. The only reason I can see why these gender stereotypes are promoted is that people want there to be some justification for men getting to be in charge and women being restricted to subordinate roles. They read the Bible in ways that support male domination, and then, because they don't want to believe that God is arbitrary or unjust, they decide that men must have been designed to be in charge while women are designed to be subordinate-- all the while insisting that men and women are fundamentally equal.

The only way to do this is to swallow all kinds of pseudo-scientific twaddle which, if it didn't support the precious notion that men are meant to lead women, they wouldn't look twice at but would reject for being the wisdom of the world.

" “The ancients were right to take the word "hysteria" from the Latin word for uterus.”

Larry, I want you to think carefully about the fact that that statement reflects a dislike of women that sounds deep. Any form of ridicule of fellow believers ESPECIALLY in the form of inherent nature (in the form of race, gender, skin color, unchangeable forms) is contrary to the love of God that we are admonished to share amongst ourselves. It is impossible for the Holy Spirit to speak through us when we are engaged in attitudes contrary to the fruit of the Spirit.

... books like this make me *so* glad that I am no longer part of evangelicalism.

It was so painful to be constantly confronted with stereotypes that I had no hope of fitting, and the constant refusal to recognize the gifts and abilities that men and women had as individuals (regardless of their physical sex and/or cultural gender "norms" and expectations).

Really, this sounds like it came straight out of some of the late-1950s books I read when I was a kid - that claimed that all girls could be were moms, nurses and (maybe) teachers. Boys got all the "active" jobs, and "teacher," "nurse" - and "father" - were nowhere on those lists.

Hmm. (Does not sound very Jesus-like, I'm thinking.)

I would posit that you and others did teach your children to play the way that they do. I think it just happened a lot quicker and less obviously than you're used to noting. People begin treating girls and boys differently the *second* they are born, and imitation and the pressure of expectation are powerful *pre-language* teaching tool. The only way to tell for sure that no one "taught" your children certain behavior is for them to exhibit behavior that it is NOT modeled or caused by their environment. Good luck finding that.

Confidently enticing! Oh my GOODNESS.

It reminds me of when I read Wild at Heart. Eldredge said something about women having a strength that was "exotic." I read this as a missionary kid in college who was still not very familiar with American terminology; I could have told you what an exotic dancer was but it certainly wasn't the first thing that leaped to mind. Actually the first picture in my head was of a pineapple! After a few moments' thought I realized he meant *erotic*. Gee, thanks, Eldredge.

It would be nice if the people who make these lists left our sexuality *out* of them. (They don't put sexuality on the male list and it's at *least* as big a force in their lives. Unless "aggressive" is supposed to cover it. Gack.) There's something about "confidently enticing" that gets me, actually (after I'm done laughing). I think because actually it's a good description of a happily married person doing stuff that is *none of anyone else's business.*

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

When Gender-Based Parenting Goes Too Far

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

When Gender-Based Parenting Goes Too Far

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives