As we’ve studied in the first three articles of this series ( I, II, III), God’s creation communicates that dissimilarities are profound because differences illustrate love in that one uses his opposing nature to serve the other to complete what the other is lacking while the other does the same in return. The research we’ve seen communicates the opposing natures of God’s inner formula as the female is inward, soft, emotional-thinking, relationship-centered while the male formula represents outward, assertive, logic-thinking and truth-centered.
Now, there exists a modern movement that articulates that women and men should break free of the character traits listed above, or in some sense they should mix and mash these character traits. Men should be soft and emotional and women should be aggressive and assertive. However, as Mary Eberstandt showed in her book, Adam and Eve after the Pill, women who want to be more like men and enter into the corporate world are not as content as women who stay at home. Moreover, researchers have noticed the paradox as women have become more independent from their traditional roles, they have become less happy. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have produced an in-depth analysis of this correlation in their academic article, “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.” Other reports outline how feminists are significantly less happier than non-feminists. Why are they not happy? At this point, the reason is obvious. They aren’t satisfied because they are attempting to break away from their true feminine nature. Their whole biology, chemistry, and psychology points them to the traditional female nature but they refuse to accept this and, instead, want to be something their not. In a similar vein, a fish was designed to be in the water. If a fish tries to be something he is not and experiments at living as a bird in a new environment, of course, he would experience distress. In short, the scientific data communicates that we need to ditch the new gender recipe where the woman acts like the man and the man acts like the woman and go back to the original recipe of the sexes.
One of the main functions of the original recipe is that the opposite ingredients of men and women work in harmony. The key point is when these opposing gender aspects are joined they help what the other is lacking and fulfills the human experience.
To understand the connection, we need to grasp how women and men respond to messages differently. Women were created with special sensors within which they have a closer attachment to the environment outside her than men have. As Manfred Hauke observes of women, “This, along with a larger number of nerve endings in the skin results in greater sensitivity to tactile stimuli and thus in a special attunement to the things encountered in the immediately surrounding areas of the environment.” In other words, women are more emotionally connected to the relationship-world. If women are more “attached” to their surroundings, they are less likely to engage in thought or activity that will negatively affect their emotional equilibrium with their environment. In short, women have a “let us all get along” attitude given their emotionally centered essence of being relationship focused.
The danger with this attitude is that women may unknowingly attach themselves to false teachings to keep the relationship steady. Furthermore, because women respond to emotional messages, women are more likely to fall trap to deceptive teaching that is camouflage with positive words. Scam artists tend to target gullible and naïve people through emotional, arousing narratives. A successful con artist mentioned that in his tactics, “It’s all about emotion, not logic” (see here). Most all examples of scam artists tactics indicate they use emotional stories that stress relationship connectivity to perform their fraud on unsuspecting people (see here). The last thing a con artist wants is a person to use reason and little emotion to discern his message. Given that women reason through emotion and they can become too attached to this emotional-relationship environment, they stand as easy prey for scam artists. Therefore, because men utilize reason over emotion in their thought process and aren’t as worried about the short-term health of relationships, the male nature is a great tool for the female nature to utilize so as not be deceived in finding the truth.
Because women stand vulnerable to false teacher’s persuasion through emotional messages the temptation narrative in Genesis becomes intriguing. After God gives his instructions to Adam to pass on to Eve, the serpent makes an appearance to attempt to trick them. The New Testament identifies this “ancient serpent” with Satan himself (see Revelation 12:9, 20:2). Also, the author indicates that the serpent was the “most cunning of all the creatures” (Genesis 3:1). The term used here (arum) is often used to describe a wise man who is “shrewd” (see Proverbs 12:16, 13:16) or the “stealth” and “guile” of the wicked (see Job 5:12, 15:5). In other words, this serpent thing is crafty at duping people away from the truth. It is also interesting that the cunning serpent went straight to the woman and not the man. At this point, the reason should be obvious why he chose the woman. Given her nature to reason through emotion and her ability to respond more to emotional phrases, she makes an easier target than the man does. After the serpent twisted the wording of the divine commandment, he then made his teaching “pleasing to the eye and desirable for gaining wisdom” (Genesis 3:6). Therefore, the serpent used deceptive language and emotional imagery to trick the woman. At this point, one may be tempted to blame the woman for the great fall of humanity. However, the real blame goes to Adam. Given man’s nature to evaluate without being conned by emotional language, Adam should have known better. Indeed, Adam’s primary responsibility was to protect his wife from deceptive and false teaching. In this role, he failed.
A man’s natural instinct is to protect and defend those that cannot protect themselves. It is no wonder that far more men are interested in the protecting field of the police force, military, and rescue services. Additionally, it is relevant to ask what primarily do men have to defend women from? If women are open and receptive by nature, this is good; however, the downside is they will be too open to flawed, dysfunctional teaching that attempts to come across as emotionally uplifting. Indeed, the Bible repeatedly teaches that false teachers come by way of a “wolf wearing sheep’s clothing” or an “angel of light” in which on the surface they look nice and sweet but underneath are dark and ugly (Matthew 7:15, cf. 24:11, 24:24, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 13-14, 2 Timothy 4:3).
In sum, the man is in the position of Adam. With his ability to discern what is true and untrue, free from emotional persuasion he can guard and protect the woman from the flawed, deceptive teaching in the pop culture. Therefore, given the creation story and the psychological and scientific evidence, the man’s primary function is to use his nature to serve and protect the woman. If women want to detach themselves and become “free” of men, then sadly they will have removed their protective cover off and become open to the propagation tricks of the pop culture. From the pop culture’s perspective, without the natural essence of the man to guide her, women might as well have the word “sucker” attached to their forehead. Today, men still stand as servants of women to guide them to the truth and protect them from false teaching that is couched with emotional appeal.
Let’s show one small example of how this is played out. When people watch entertainment they go into passive mode in which their logical center of the brain shuts down and they become open to the subtle propaganda messages embedded in the show. In short, what Hollywood does is take a person from created to think to now created to be entertained. In this stage, the person is susceptible to their mind being manipulated from the entity that is entertaining them. For example, psychologist Jordan Peterson recently described the story line of Disney’s Frozen movie as a brain washing ploy of feminist propaganda in which masculinity is represented as evil on one hand and clueless on the other. The film showcases that the real hero of the day is the female’s rise to power in an individualistic manner above the corrupt male. In fact, as Ben Shapiro articulates in his book, every time people turn the TV on they are opening their selves up to the cunning propaganda that is transmitted into their brains. Given that femininity is inward and passive by nature while masculinity is active by nature, the role of the man is to be able to filter certain garbage from entering his wife’s mind so she, and the family at large, do not become compromised by the flawed messaging of the pop culture.
Going beyond being susceptible to emotion and propaganda another problem area for women is they are too concerned with the health of the relationship over and above discovering the truth. The reason for this is that often in discovering the truth, a relationship will have to endure hard ache. For women, they would rather sacrifice the truth than sacrifice the “everyone gets along” aspect of the relationship. Prominent philosopher Jean Guitton confirms this theory as he writes,
“Instead of analyzing and synthesizing the object, she [woman] places herself at a central point, deciding the relationship which the object has to her own life. We express this by saying that she is intuitive . . . On the contrary, man has compartments, sectors, and pigeon-holes in his mind; he likes things to be separate and each in its order (emphasis added).”
Guitton underlines that women approach a topic with simply the relationship in mind. Moreover, the emphasis is to keep the relationship pleased and satisfied. Given this fact, men stand in a better position to help the person from flawed teaching because men can separate a negative message from the person. Also, men are more concerned with finding the truth rather than having a “let’s all get along” disposition. The outward, aggression nature of men is good in that it allows a man not to be overly concerned about feelings as he pursues the truth and simultaneously declares that a message is false. In short, men are better than women in telling people (especially those in a relationship), “You’ve got the wrong teaching.” A woman will hardly ever tell her friends or family that they are wrong. Why? They don’t want to cause a strain on the relationship.
Saint Augustine famously taught one needs to love the sinner and hate the sin. Since men are well adapted to compartmentalize, men are better suited to separate the person from the person’s negative act. However, since women do not compartmentalize well, they are not as well suited to love the sinner while hating the sin. Because the female perspective focuses on keeping the relationship even-keeled and avoiding negative feelings, they cannot separate the person from that person’s damaging act. With a lack of compartmentalization, the female mind tends to think if they hate the sinner’s sin, they must simultaneously hate the sinner. And, since invoking animosity will likely hurt the relationship, the female avoids this situation at all costs. This crucial distinction is one of the reasons women need men so they can better discern between the message and the person or relationship. This fact is why Catholicism puts men in teaching and authoritative positions (see Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Timothy 2:12-14, Colossians 3: 18-19, 1 Peter 3: 1-7). As spiritual teachers and seekers of the truth, men can better guide women to the truth even if it entails a temporary strain on the emotional balance in the relationship.
Moreover, the balance of spiritual teacher as male and student as female fits the formula of giver-male and receiver-female as to teach the faith one gives and to be a student of faith one is in the disposition to receive. Here, we also see why priests can only be men. Throughout the Bible priests were father figures that personified the masculine trait of giver as Christ gave. Jesus hand selected 12 male disciples for a reason – so they can give his body just like he gave. Therefore, women can’t be priests simply because they are not givers just as men can’t become pregnant because they are not receivers.
The formula of why God gives women men to lead and teach them is rather simple given the evidence we’ve cited in this series.
- Women are more emotional and less analytical than men.
- The logical center of your brain shuts down when you are in an emotional state.
- Therefore, men help guide women to think properly on big picture, emotional topics such as sex, religion, and politics.
To articulate why men need to be teachers and women can become teachers through learning from men, we need to put all the characteristics of the genders together. Recall that previously this study reasoned that women fixate toward relationship development while men are more geared to truth-seeking. To this end, women will demand one to diminish truth-seeking if in the truth-seeking one negatively affects the relationship. If women perceive a thought might disturb the connection of the people in the relationship, they will avoid this because a women’s mind is set to bring people together in a comforting setting. For example, an Oxford study revealed that women, in general, are less interested in politics than men are, and as another report stated, “Women Know Less about Politics than Men Worldwide” (see here).
In general, women are not attracted to the topic of politics and governing of world affairs for two reasons. First, this area requires a heavy dose of rational thought to pursue. Indeed, those that attempt to understand politics through an emotional lens are usually the ones that know little about the topic. Second, politics require an outward aggressive demeanor in which both parties must prove one group is correct, and the other group is wrong. The process of political debate often invokes tension on relationships in convincing the other is wrong and ushers in negative emotions. Therefore, women want nothing to do with this area. Indeed, when the topics of politics, religion, and sex come up women want to scurry away from the conversation as quickly as possible. These topics are like a trigger in which they become taken over by emotion, and thus can’t think properly about them. Men, on the other hand, have trait patterns that make them more suited for this type of process and discussion. Therefore, men are better at researching, learning, and discussing ideology – the study of ideas. Because men can typically study ideas in a non-emotional, non-bias manner, men can help women sniff out false, deceptive ideas that come attached under an emotional lens. Here, one will notice that in areas women have weaknesses men can act as a strength for their weakness.
In Christianity, the concept is similar to politics in how the male nature is the best fit given the teaching of Christianity. As this author has proved, women will more likely accept a teaching based on her immediate emotional reaction and contact within the relationship rather than examining the data. Moreover, if a message poses a tension in the relationship, women will likely avoid that message. However, in Christianity, the teaching is, at first, supposed to put a strain on the human relationship. To show that men are more suited to the teaching role in the Church first consider that the whole concept of Christianity is that because of human sin, the truth is going to be hard to get at. One cannot primarily use feelings to comprehend truth because Christianity declares that human feelings are flawed. Therefore, the male nature of reason and logic is the principal mode to the truth.
Second, once a person discovers the truth in Christianity it generally elicits negative feelings. To unpack this idea, one must first understand that Jesus defined himself as the truth (see John 14:6, 18:37). Then, when Jesus appeared and manifested his truth to people, their response was that of fear (see Mark 16:8, Luke 24:36-38, Mark 9:6, Matthew 17: 6-7, Revelation 1:17). Even the announcement of the birth of Jesus disturbed all of Jerusalem (see Matthew 2:3). Not only did Jesus manifestation of the truth frighten people but his teachings, as well, upset many. Indeed, shortly after announcing the mission to his twelve disciples, Jesus declared, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come not to bring peace but the sword”(Matthew 10:34). Now, theologians indicate the sword Jesus is referring to is the truth (cf. Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 6:17, John 18:37). Therefore, what Jesus is communicating is that the truth is going to be uncomfortable to hear at first.
Throughout the Gospels Jesus teaches that when his followers give up their way of thinking for his way of thinking, it will entail much suffering and hardship (see Matthew 16:24-25, 10:16-25, 38-39, 23:34-35, Luke 9:23, 14:27, 17:33, John 12:25). Jesus plainly indicated that when a person passes on his teaching to others, they will not like him (see John 16:2, 15:8). Moreover, the crucial point is that Jesus suggested that his teaching will even cause relationship tension in one’s family (see Matthew 10:34-35). Additionally, when Jesus taught people in the synagogue the direct truth about who he is and their flawed nature, they violently revolted at him and wanted to throw him off a cliff (see Luke 4:20-30). In fact, Jesus even said that the world is going to hate him and his disciples because of his teaching (see John 7:7, 17: 14-16). Indeed, people took up stones to throw at him because of his instructions (see John 8:59). To sum up the entire Gospels is that people disliked Jesus’ teaching so much they tried to kill him (see John 10: 31-33, John 11: 53) and eventually did kill him.
Many people were constantly put off by Jesus’ teaching and his approach (see Matthew 16:24-25, 19:10, 19:25, Mark 6:3). Therefore, Christianity is declaring that the truth will at first illicit negative emotions and cause a strain on the relationship. In knowing this, one can see how the male nature is required to lead and guide the female nature. First, the male mind fixates more towards understanding the truth. Second, the male can better handle the negative messages that the truth communicates in Christianity. The evidence cited in this series reveals that women revolt to negative ideas and generally respond to adverse messages and emotions with equal adverse emotions and anxiety. However, men are better suited to handle undesirable messages as men can compartmentalize negative images in an non-emotional fashion. Moreover, men tend to fixate outward on the larger questions in life.
In short, women want to avoid conflict and negative feelings while men don’t. Christianity requires leaders who aren’t afraid of conflict and eliciting negative emotions. Therefore, as Paul articulates, men need to take the leadership roles in the home and in the church.
Men are well fit to handle the hard to hear teachings of Christianity that women are not. It is almost as if God gives women men as a sturdy resource in which they can understand the truth and be able to handle the truth to bring them peace and happiness. Men are a great counterbalance to help the anxious and fearful emotions of women. Men are a secure pillar in which women can draw on to find calmness and stability. Men’s more reserved, less emotional nature is a great tool for women to counter their up-and-down emotions. If there exists no stable man for the woman, her emotions will pull her all over and take her on an emotional roller coaster that will produce anxiety and fear for her.
In fact, Paul best expressed how the male nature can help humanity. In the following passage, notice how Paul connects the knowledge of God to the full maturity in Christ (truth) in that false teachers’ emotional messages no longer take people in all directions.
“Until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4: 13-14).
In bringing women to the truth, men are loving women. Additionally, in this loving of women, there exists a sacrificial aspect for men. Men will experience suffering in this process because people in general, just like in Jesus day, will revolt to the truth. When a man teaches the truth, the culture is likely going to vilify him and punish him in some way. There are numerous examples that illustrate this. Recently, Google fired a man because he stated the obvious fact that more men work at Google than women because men are more interested in software engineering than women (see here). Therefore, by giving a woman his nature of grasping the truth and teaching the truth while knowing people will reject him in the process, a man gives himself up to the woman much like Jesus gave himself up for his bride, the church (see Ephesians 5: 22-27).
What a woman does in pregnancy for the man in going through pain to deliver him a child, a man does for a woman in delivering her the truth similarly by going through suffering. When a woman utilizes the male nature in its full flowering, a woman will be closer to the truth. The gift of the male to humanity is so that through the original essence of men, people can draw closer to the truth and become more at peace.
The final question we now come to is how does this great exchange of male and female natures take place? The uniting, bonding, and exchange of natures we’ve continually talked about takes place most concretely in the sexual act in a marriage when no contraceptive barriers exist. Notice we’ve repeatedly used the word “nature” and “natural” to describe the inner ingredients of male and female. These words need to be also applied to the very act that creates life – sex. Therefore, an artificial block to this act acts a watering down of the very ingredients of that person. We’ve mentioned natural family planning (NFP) but it bears mentioning that NFP communicates when the female body is fertile and when she is not. The idea in NFP is that if a couple wants a child to have sex when the female is fertile, and if a couple does not want a child to have sex when a woman is not fertile. When couples practice NFP they are in pure giver and receiver form, and because of this their marriage and relationship thrives. Researchers have documented many benefits associated with the use of natural family planning (NFP), including greater marital communication and respect, enriched spirituality, low cost, and increased awareness of the woman’s body.
This logic of NFP applies to nature itself. You can’t grow tomatoes in the winter time similarly a woman can’t grow life in her during the infertile periods. Therefore, a women’s body mirrors nature in that it comes with seasons and cycles. Here, both creation and a woman’s body communicate they come as a receiver. The universe and the earth itself was created by God. Therefore, all of creation (earth, sun, matter) stands in position of the receiver – it receives life from without. The man, imaging God (see 1 Cor. 11: 7) acts as a giver who comes into the receiver. If an artificial block exists between the giver and the receiver then they both can’t fulfill one another. Here, the giver can’t match Jesus statement that, “This is my body given up for you.” Rather, he cheapens this statement to, “This is my body which is not fully given up for you” (Luke 22:19). Conversely, if a contraceptive block exists for the woman she can’t utter the preeminent statement as receiver that Mary declared, “Let it be unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). Instead, she communicates “Do not let it be unto me according to your word.”
As we come to the conclusion of our study we can see that the whole point of God’s plan is for one to find his or her identity by giving their nature to the opposite gender and, in turn, receiving the other gender’s nature to fulfill them. In short, the greatest thing a woman can do for a man is make him a father, and the greatest thing a man can do for a woman is make her a mother. In the role of father, a man satisfies his traits of truth-seeking, outward nature, and teacher. Additionally, in the role of mother, a woman satisfies her traits of relationship seeking, inward nature, intuition, and nurturing. Moreover, the reason a person finds completion in parenthood is that in this role he or she focuses on helping the other, not the self. From God’s perspective, this is the great exchange where both sexes complete the human portrait.
Let’s drop this false idea that women will be happier when they break “free” from men. Quite the opposite is true. Just like men need women, women very much need men. Now that we know this, let’s embrace the natural great exchange of men and women that God gave us.
Hauke, p. 88.
Alyson Hurt, “By The Numbers: Today’s Military,” NPR, July 3, 2011, https://www.npr.org/2011/07/03/137536111/by-the-numbers-todays-military> (19 May 2017). Val Van Brocklin, “Why Aren’t There More Women In Police Work?” Police One, <https://www.policeone.com/women-officers/articles/6539439-Why-arent-there-more-women-in-policework/> (19 May 2017).
Jean Guitton, Feminine Fulfillment (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1965), p. 3.
Leona VandeVusse et al., “Couples’ Views of the Effects of Natural Family Planning on Marital Dynamics,” Journal of Nursing Scholarship 35 (2003): 171–176; Gunter Freundl, Irving Sivin, and Istvan Batar, “State-of-the-Art of Non-Hormonal Methods of Contraception: IV. Natural Family Planning,” European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 15 (2010): 113–123.