Intellectual/Emotional Composition of Men and Women

Davidius · #1 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 06:38 PM

I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women (see this thread), but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church. Women are often not expected to know theology or even care about understanding and being able to articulate/discuss important truths merely because they're women, and such things are "for men."

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women, but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church.

That idea found tremendous impetus in the secular Enlightenment (I often point out to feminists that they can't use Enlightenment standards of reason for that point).

Davidius · #3 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women, but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church.

That idea found tremendous impetus in the secular Enlightenment (I often point out to feminists that they can't use Enlightenment standards of reason for that point).

And it goes back at least as far as Aristotle. I have no doubt that it also entered the Church through the Roman Catholic scholars of the Middle Ages who considered "the Philosopher" to be as much an authority as the scriptures.

a mere housewife · #4 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 07:11 PM

I want to say thanks to Davidius: certainly the video is simply satire and not even of women but of repressive attitudes towards them: but at the same time I want to qualify somewhat.
Most women I know are not very interested in theology in the abstract; and when they do talk about doctrinal things it is often very emotional. Initially this frustrated me trying to have conversations with other women at church esp. because I realized it was not due to the repression of their husbands or of our church etc, but to their own interests (and of course there are exceptions to this: please don't mistake me for saying something I'm not). Then I realized that most of the women I interacted with at church were doing ten times the amount of practical godly things in an hour that I accomplish in a week. Not in every case certainly but women do tend to be more motivated by practical and emotional 'reasons' than men do, and tend to want to talk about practical or emotional things. To recognize that is to acknowledge their difference from men but not their inferiority. In our day and age to suggest that women are not always as interested in intellectual subjects as their husbands seems like a slur because it sounds like you're saying that they don't measure up to men in this area, and the feminists have framed the value of women in terms of their being not equally valuable but equally the same as men.

Most of the people discussing theology on this board are men. If you talked with their wives many of them would talk about their kids more readily than about Calvin's sacramentology. They might even get up and leave the room while you talked about that and make you something to eat. If they interjected something it would in many cases be (as here) an argument from experience; often charged with emotion. I believe they deserve honor for this. I've come to appreciate them precisely for it. I learn a lot from them.

I do have female friends with whom I can discuss theology, again almost entirely on the learning end. Laura for instance of this board has read more Puritan literature than most men I know. But I don't undervalue my other dear friends who are raising seven kids in an admirably godly way, and would rather talk about daily struggles.

PuritanCovenanter · #5 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women, but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church. Women are often not expected to know theology or even care about understanding and being able to articulate/discuss important truths merely because they're women, and such things are "for men."

Some of the women I have known are very intellectual and theological and rather emotional about being theologically intellectual.

a mere housewife · #6 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 08:43 PM

Randy, I think I understand what you're saying. I don't stress out about hurting feelings etc. when I disagree with a man. It's very difficult to bring myself to contradict other women because there is whole different layer of emotion involved. Maybe this is because I'm also a woman and men feel the same pressure with men, I don't know. They don't seem to.

I wanted to clarify that I didn't say what I said to try to say women are not very great or anything. I (obviously) think it's silly for people to discount women's opinions. But I think it's easy - at least it was for me- to slip into error on the other side thinking that women are equal to men therefore they are equally intellectual and so feeling superior or undervaluing the many women who would rather knit a cap for a premature baby while praying for it in their spare time than sit down to some intellectual pursuit. Or denying that these women exist in hordes and are the backbone of many godly homes and happy childhoods, in order to think women are equal. Why should a more practical or emotional motivation be less valuable in the whole spectrum of things than a more intellectual one?

Davidius · #7 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 08:48 PM

How would we know that women are less intellectual than men? The bible certainly doesn't say that they're made that way. Is there something about being given the task of homemaker that makes women less intellectual? I don't see why this would be the case. Men, like women, also have callings, yet they are still expected to know the Bible and study theology. Why not women, too (under the leadership and guidance of their husbands of course)? Since there is no logical link between authority and intellect, we have no logical reason to believe that a woman's place under the authority of man means she is less inclined to contemplation. I would rather my wife be good with children and be able to explain the doctrine of imputed righteousness than only the former.

We shouldn't make Aristotle's mistake. He surveyed Athenian culture and said, "Hmmm, well, all of these slaves are big and strong, but stupid. Therefore, they must naturally be made for slave labor" when the fact was that the slaves were doing more manual labor and had less education, so of course they were stronger and less intelligent. He did the same thing with women. He saw a bunch of dumb Athenian women who were such because they had never been given an education and thought, "well, all of these women seem to be dumb, therefore they must lack the strongly rational part to the soul which men have." Coincidentally it was the men who received formal educations. If men can learn how to be carpenters, teachers, scientists, etc., etc., and also become theologically astute, why can't women be homemakers and become theologically astute?

Many men are emotional. Many women are intellectual. I think it is wrong and potentially dangerous to make any broad psychological assumptions about how men and women "are" without biblical warrant.

a mere housewife · #8 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:07 PM

Davidius I'm certainly not arguing that women are dumb or don't have rational faculties. But what I experience is that the women I know are indeed more emotional than the men I know, and that most of them would consider for instance, the discussion that goes on on this board rather irrelevant. (Indeed several have told me so.) They are more interested in a practical than a 'theoretical' subject. They generally use their intellect to solve different problems and are generally more interested in what is more immediately relevant to those problems.

This isn't to say that most women I know can't explain imputed righteousness. They can. They just care more about it as an applied doctrine, applied in practical and emotional ways to daily circumstances, than 'intellectually' or in the abstract. I understood the point you were making to be that women were equally as interested in purely intellectual pursuits as men. As a generalization I would have to disagree: there are quite enough exceptions that to say 'women are necessarily less intellectual than men' is silly; but that women are usually as interested in intellectual pursuits as men isn't something I experience, or that I think many peoples' experience would bear out through life. As a defense of anyone's value I object to speaking in terms of being equally as intellectual because I don't think biblically, human value is based on intellectuality. But you might not have been saying that? (There should be a distinction made between being a rational creature -- that is possessing a rational faculty -- and being an 'intellectual'.)

Would you say that men as a whole have been given the position of rule and women that of nurture without regard to their created suitability? I believe not only the role of submission doesn't imply inferiority to men, but the general focus I have seen on more practical things, and in a more emotional way doesn't, either.

Davidius · #9 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Davidius I'm certainly not arguing that women are dumb or don't have rational faculties. But what I experience is that the women I know are indeed more emotional than the men I know, and that most of them would consider for instance, the discussion that goes on on this board rather irrelevant. (Indeed several have told me so.) They are more interested in a practical than a 'theoretical' subject. They generally use their intellect to solve different problems and are generally more interested in what is more immediately relevant to those problems.

This isn't to say that most women I know can't explain imputed righteousness. They can. They just care more about it as an applied doctrine, applied in practical and emotional ways to daily circumstances, than 'intellectually' or in the abstract. I understood the point you were making to be that women were equally as interested in purely intellectual pursuits as men. As a generalization I would have to disagree: there are quite enough exceptions that to say 'women are necessarily less intellectual than men' is silly; but that women are usually as interested in intellectual pursuits as men isn't something I experience, or that I think many peoples' experience would bear out through life. As a defense of anyone's value I object to speaking in terms of being equally as intellectual because I don't think biblically, human value is based on intellectuality. But you might not have been saying that? (There should be a distinction made between being a rational creature -- that is possessing a rational faculty -- and being an 'intellectual'.)

Would you say that men as a whole have been given the position of rule and women that of nurture without regard to their created suitability? I believe not only the role of submission doesn't imply inferiority to men, but the general focus I have seen on more practical things, and in a more emotional way doesn't, either.

What do the women you know find irrelevant about the PB? Discussions about the nature and meaning of the sacraments? Worship? Christology? Ecclesiology? Why should women not know these things? Why should they not be interested in them? Women shouldn't think that theology is irrelevant, and they shouldn't be taught that it's okay for them to find theology irrelevant because it just ain't their ballgame. Do men want their wives, who will be training the children for the majority of the day, to be theologically destitute? If not, how are we to expect our wives to teach our children if they themselves do not know? or worse, if they do not know and have no interest, even finding (some?) theology irrelevant?

Also, from what I've read on the PB, a dichotomy between men and women positing opposed approaches to application is false. As I've seen in many threads here, all of theology is to be applied. No one is supposed to sit around gathering theological knowledge for the sake of having a larger vocabulary and library. Women and men may apply their knowledge in different ways, but we have the same bible, the same Confession (in many cases), and therefore the same knowledge.

I want to emphasize the difference in our approaches. You are saying that women must be more emotional and less interested in intellectual matters because the women you see around you are like that, but this conclusion does not follow. Even if most people's experiences in life would bear this out, that's still not enough to give us a normalization. We must go to the bible to discover what is beneficial for our souls, and the bible says indiscriminately that seeking wisdom and knowledge is part and parcel to the Christian life.

I definitely don't believe that value is based on intelligence, but I do not see a distinction made in scripture which calls for men and women to differ in their pursuit of understanding. One good example is Paul's chastisement that a certain group should have moved on to spiritual meat, but is still on the milk. He was surely addressing men and women. There are many other examples, too, dealing with things such as "growing in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

PuritanCovenanter · #10 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:40 PM

My personal experience between the male and female is that we had more girls in the accelerated classes in school than we did boys. Girls tend to mature more intellectually than boys do in the early years. Then something happens to both male and female and they become even more messed up in their teen years. Somehow they emerge into a world of responsibility and either adapt or become even more degenerate. It matters not what you are.

When Christ save he saves and regenerates the talents that are laden in each person he redeems. Be reminded the Word says not many wise. I am one who is of the crowd (not many wise).

(1Co 1:25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1Co 1:26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

(1Co 1:27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

(1Co 1:28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

(1Co 1:29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

(1Co 1:30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

(1Co 1:31) That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Personally I have seen more women who have had more of a heart for God then men. David had a heart for God and probably tended to be more emotional. His son Solomon was the wisest man in knowledge. David had the better gift in my opinion. I tend to be rather jealous of the those who have a tender heart for God and his ways then I do of those who are wise. I love wisdom but a broken and contrite heart is something that God is very pleased in. He also doesn't want any of us to be unwise either. But to have a heart for God is very valuable and hard to receive or attain.

I foresee many more women a head of me and who will be closer to the throne because of their hearts for God. They are obtaining the most necessary thing. And they are wise in doing so.

Davidius · #11 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:44 PM

Mr. Snyder,

Your references to emotional men are very helpful and important to the discussion. All I've been trying to say is that both genders should have both qualities; there's no biblical reason to see it otherwise, regardless of what we see in the society around us. If it's harder for men to have that heart, then we need to work on that. If it's harder for women to be interested in serious study for the gleaning of knowledge and wisdom, then they should work on that and we should do our best to help them. The answer is not to shy away from something difficult, counter-culture, or whatever by assigning one trait to each gender and saying that this is just how it is. I, too, err on the side of cold intellectualism. Perhaps my fiance can learn something about the pursuit of knowledge from me and I can learn something about the importance of a warm, "soft" heart from her.

a mere housewife · #12 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:49 PM

Davidius, so are you saying that I'm being more 'emotional' and 'practical' in my argumentation than you are?

And my reasons are less valid because of this?

(I'm smiling, by the way)

They [my friends who find the puritanboard irrelevant] don't see how most of these discussions bear on their own daily lives, the immediate problems they are engulfed in. It isn't real life to them, and doesn't help with real life. They simply aren't interested. They are taught theology at church and in daily devotions -private & with their husbands; they love the truth they learn there but the puritanboard is not a pursuit they find helpful or enjoyable as something to do in their free time. They would rather do something to help the lady who lives next door. In this way their enjoyment of truth is more 'practical' than 'intellectual'. I think we agree on most of what you are saying: women should learn the doctrines, have joy in them, be able to teach them to their children: all of theology should be applied, etc. But the application most of my friends make of the theology they learn is to use their spare time to do something for the lady next door, while their husbands use the same spare time for further study or getting on the puritanboard.

I think you aren't making a consistent distinction in your arguments between having a rational faculty and being more prominently motivated by intellectual than practical concerns. I am not trying to argue that women are somehow lower down on the scale of rational being than men. I am concerned to point out that women who quietly and diligently, with a richness of emotion and practical thought about details, provide a nurturing home for their children and help their husbands - but aren't all that interested in the puritanboard - are no less valuable as humans or Christians than men. They have good practical and emotional reasons (emotion and practicality are real aspects of life: indeed intellect without them is nowhere near justice or truth) for what they think, even if their reasons aren't primarily 'intellectual'.

JBaldwin · #13 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Mr. Snyder,

Your references to emotional men are very helpful and important to the discussion. All I've been trying to say is that both genders should have both qualities; there's no biblical reason to see it otherwise, regardless of what we see in the society around us. If it's harder for men to have that heart, then we need to work on that. If it's harder for women to be interested in serious study for the gleaning of knowledge and wisdom, then they should work on that and we should do our best to help them. The answer is not to shy away from something difficult, counter-culture, or whatever by assigning one trait to each gender and saying that this is just how it is. I, too, err on the side of cold intellectualism. Perhaps my fiance can learn something about the pursuit of knowledge from me and I can learn something about the importance of a warm, "soft" heart from her.

I agree with you. I, too, have thought about the importance of training my children (and other women) in the Scriptures. My husband is not with them as much as I am. I have many long theological discussions with my daughters, and I am thankful that I was Biblically trained in churches and schools where women were expected to know as much as the men, even though we were not allowed to preach or lead the church.

PuritanCovenanter · #14 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:55 PM

Men and women do think different brother. It is a physical thing as much as a spiritual thing. Our offices in life are necessarily different and so our desires were created differently. Our gifts and talents are different also. Our pursuits should be different also.

Our sanctification will be different because we are called to different things. As far as virtue goes we are all to pursue virtue. But our offices will require different forms of wisdom concerning ruling and submission, vocation and homemaking, and each of us will respond differently towards our children. No ones temperament is like the others. So our level of relating to wisdom and emotion will all differ. But everyone's goal should be that of becoming Christlike. We should all reflect God's goodness and Glory.

etexas · #15 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Mr. Snyder,

Your references to emotional men are very helpful and important to the discussion. All I've been trying to say is that both genders should have both qualities; there's no biblical reason to see it otherwise, regardless of what we see in the society around us. If it's harder for men to have that heart, then we need to work on that. If it's harder for women to be interested in serious study for the gleaning of knowledge and wisdom, then they should work on that and we should do our best to help them. The answer is not to shy away from something difficult, counter-culture, or whatever by assigning one trait to each gender and saying that this is just how it is. I, too, err on the side of cold intellectualism. Perhaps my fiance can learn something about the pursuit of knowledge from me and I can learn something about the importance of a warm, "soft" heart from her.

I agree with you. I, too, have thought about the importance of training my children (and other women) in the Scriptures. My husband is not with them as much as I am. I have many long theological discussions with my daughters, and I am thankful that I was Biblically trained in churches and schools where women were expected to know as much as the men, even though we were not allowed to preach or lead the church.

Good stuff, I want my sister to have talks about Scripture with my niece. Sis is divorced so that would be a great thing!

Davidius · #16 (**permalink**) 01-14-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Davidius, so are you saying that I'm being more 'emotional' and 'practical' in my argumentation than you are?

And my reasons are less valid because of this?

(I'm smiling, by the way)

They don't see how most of these discussions bear on their own daily lives, the immediate problems they are engulfed in. It isn't real life to them, and doesn't help with real life. They simply aren't interested. They are taught theology at church and in daily devotions with their husbands; they love the truth they learn there butthe puritanboard is not a pursuit they find helpful or enjoyable as something to do in their free time. They would rather do something to help the lady who lives next door. I think we agree on most of what you are saying: women should learn the doctrines, have joy in them, be able to teach them to their children: all of theology should be applied, etc. But the application most of my friends make of the theology they learn is to use their spare time to do something for the lady next door, while their husbands use the same spare time for further study or getting on the puritanboard.

I think you aren't making a consistent distinction in your arguments between having a rational faculty and being more prominently motivated by intellectual than practical concerns. I am not trying to argue that women are somehow lower down on the scale of rational being than men. I am concerned to point out that women who quietly and diligently, with a richness of emotion and practical thought about details, provide a nurturing home for their children and help their husbands - but aren't all that interested in the puritanboard - are no less valuable as humans or Christians than men. They have good practical and emotional reasons (emotion and practicality are real aspects of life: indeed intellect without them is nowhere near justice or truth) for what they think, even if their reasons aren't primarily 'intellectual'.

Haha! Well, I guess that's what I was trying to say.

You win.

I guess it does sound like we're saying pretty much the same thing.

Just for clarification, though, I never said that I think all women should become members of the PB. My entire angle the whole time was to respond to those who have taken a pagan view of women by saying that they don't have the same faculties men have, basically saying that they aren't created in the image of God. This has led some throughout history to believe that women shouldn't be educated at all, because it was assumed that they just would never get it, that education in general is only for men because women can't think, etc. This is what Aquinas said, i.e. that the only possible reason why God could have wanted to create women was to have babies because men are better for everything else.

By "intellectual" I never meant to imply that some certain volume of time spent talking about doctrine, or debating doctrine, is a sign of wisdom or knowledge. This is, of course, not even true for men. My main issue was that I thought you were saying women don't even need to know doctrine or be interested in it (not the PB, or debate, etc.).