ENNA writes:

I have recently discovered both the “manosphere” and the small number of anti-feminist blogs. While I disagree with some of the writings at both types of blogs, most of what is written has forced me to confront and deepen my conception of human nature, and I am glad of it. I have come to realize more (although I was already aware to some extent) the differences between men and women, and the general strengths and weaknesses that each sex possesses. However, I encounter some confusion when I try to apply these principles to myself. In your recent post, “Men are Slow to Ripen,” you wrote:

I used to be baffled by why men seem so much slower at housework. I now think this is a major reason. They are trying to figure out a system, like a boy building a castle with Legos. They are architects, not housekeepers. Most women, even those who are extremely neat, don’t create abstract plans as they work. If they were domestic strategists, the world would fall apart within a matter of hours. Similar disaster would ensue from the failure of men to conceptualize.

You see, I am (and always have been) a very conceptual thinker. Ever since I was a teenager, I have tested an INTP (nicknamed The Architect) in the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator; I am a “systems thinker,” very spatially oriented, and am always trying to discover the underlying plan behind any activity or way of thinking. I also have trouble with housework–I’m too caught up in the “abstract plan.”

I have been trying to cultivate a feminine attitude in myself, especially as I learn the toxicity of feminism, but am somewhat unable to reconcile this with my supposedly masculine way of thinking. I try not to think of it as “wrong” because my brain is God-given, and I could not stop myself from analyzing and abstracting any more than I could stop myself from breathing. Sometimes I am unsure of how to act or think because my experience as a woman does not match up to many of the generalizations I read here and on other blogs.

I guess my questions for you are these: If someone does not fit under the ideal woman, does that make her less feminine, or somehow inadequate for womanly tasks? (I have a hard time thinking so, as God made me a woman and not a man, but it’s hard for me to reconcile that fact with how women are supposed to act and think.) How far can these generalizations go? And what can or should be done when people don’t fit completely under them?

Laura writes:

Our culture encourages women to think and act like men. Women who are more masculine by nature may have an especially difficult time being feminine. They may have to consciously cultivate the habits of thought and being that make it possible for them to live well as women. When this cultural inducement to femininity is missing, a woman can almost become a man. However, no woman is ever a man and very few women are happy living as men. 

I know a woman who was a successful architect in New York City. I remember thinking when she was single and in her late twenties that she would never be anything else. She was so ambitious and focused on her work. She is now the mother of four children and has entirely abandoned her profession. In the years she was an architect, I think I barely ever saw her smile.  I assume she has some of your conceptual skills as she is very bright.

You refer in your last paragraph to “how women are supposed to act and think.” Men and women have general tendencies, with men given more toward the abstract and impersonal. But there are so many exceptions and differences within the sexes, with some women possessing a more masculine type of intelligence, that it would be wrong to say that women are “supposed to” think in a certain way. And no matter how masculine in thinking a woman may be, no woman is physically or spiritually a man. A woman inhabits a different natural setting and, just like someone who has lived in England all his life cannot really know what it is like to live in the tropics, a woman can never think exactly like a man. She does not have his body or live in his material mode. Biology is destiny. There is no such thing as a woman trapped in a man’s body or a man trapped in a woman’s body. There are strange cases of women and men who strongly desire to be the other sex. But all are shaped by biology from early in life. Early on, a boy learns that he is not the same type of being as his mother and that he will never be a grown woman like his mother. This fact automatically distinguishes him from every single girl on the planet and colors his thinking.

You are not only physically a woman, you  are spiritually one. You have a feminine soul. This means you have certain spiritual obligations, mainly to love, to nurture life and serve the individual, the duty to bear and to raise children if these are at all possible. Masculinity and femininity don’t just express our inborn natures, but are directed to certain ends. Perhaps if you could devise a cure for lung cancer, a cure that no one else could invent, it would be more important than loving and serving others as a woman, but this is not likely.  There is nothing of more value or significance than fulfilling this common spiritual role.

You seem to be saying that because of your abstract style of thinking, you can’t enjoy traditional womanly tasks or even do them well.  But there is only one trait that renders a woman unable to do these things well and that is the inability to love. The women who are categorically unsuited to traditional feminine tasks are not those who are lousy housekeepers or who don’t enjoy festooning their homes with stencilled flowers or who think like architects or who have been influenced by feminist thinking all their lives, but the women who are selfish or unable to connect with other people because of some serious weakness or handicap. Some women do have a special calling to do something other than marry and raise children, but even they possess the strong inborn drive to meet these feminine obligations, and the ones who are happy are those who are involved in work that allows them to achieve this feminine form of love in some way.

Traditional sex roles allow for differences in intelligence and psychology. That’s the most important point. Women who are more abstract thinkers can meet some of their children’s higher intellectual needs better than women who are naturally domestic. Those who are masculine thinkers, instead of doers, ideally have husbands who appreciate that quality and this shapes their lives together. Women tend to the private sphere of life and that differs dramatically from home to home. This domestic work involves the cultivation of privacy, order, civility, learning, health, morality, reverence, and the inner life. Any woman who is attuned to other people can be reasonably successful at this; a woman who has high intelligence, and who is loving, is likely to be very succcessful at it. 

Again, our culture encourages women to think and act like men. Women who are more masculine by nature may have an especially difficult time being feminine. They have to consciously cultivate in themselves the habits of thought and being that make it possible for them to be happy as women. The most important of these ends is to love and serve. Having the mind of an architect does not prevent a woman from being an Ideal Woman in these essential ways and from being happy in the fulfillment of these ends.

                                                    — Comments —

Jesse Powell writes:

It is natural and normal for men to have some of the abilities that women tend to be better at in the feminine sphere, and for women to have some of the abilities that men tend to be better at in the masculine sphere. In other words, the typical man is half-way functional in performing the roles of women, and the typical woman can be half-way functional in performing the roles of men. This makes perfect sense in terms of how evolution or God would design humanity. Specialization and division of labor is beneficial, which is why women are better at some functions and men are better at other functions, in general, but still it is important that a woman be somewhat able to do the tasks of a man and vice versa so if an abnormal situation or problem arises the functions of each sex can be done, even if the man or woman cannot perform their usual tasks for one reason or another. 

That being said, there is a strong tendency for men to function best and serve society best by acting in the male role, and a strong tendency for women to function best and serve society best by acting in the female role. There are some exceptions to this, but not many, and the overall feminist cultural climate exaggerates greatly the reasonableness of women acting as men and vice versa, and seeks to undermine the whole concept of sex roles by overemphasizing the similarities between men and women and downplaying or denying outright the differences. 

Even if a woman does have some strengths and characteristics that are more typical of men, it is probably still true that she has many of the characteristics and strengths and desires consistent with her biological sex. She may have one or two “manly” attributes, but she doesn’t have the whole manhood package that a biological male has. 

There is a reason why biological males act as men and biological females act as women, and it goes beyond merely the possession of a few traits typical of their gender. First of all, men in general have the characteristics of men and women in general have the characteristics of women; there are real and important differences between the sexes. Secondly, when people interact with you, they automatically assume you have the characteristics typical of your sex. Thirdly, in the romantic sphere, it is very important that one act according to their gender because a man needs to be attractive to women and a woman needs to be attractive to men. Even a woman who thinks more abstractly wants a big strong man to take care of her. Just because a woman has some cognitive skills that are more typical of men doesn’t mean her whole template of what is attractive in a man is thrown off. A man will still have to be manly to appeal to a woman, regardless of the specific details of the intellectual traits of that woman. Same goes for the woman. The woman has to be feminine to be attractive to men. 

Another factor is the identity and sense of purpose of the man. If the woman tries to take over the man’s sphere, even if the woman is better at manly tasks than the average woman is, that will displace the man’s role and undermine the sense of purpose he has in the relationship. Furthermore, if the man allows his role to be usurped by the woman, then he will appear less manly and attractive in the woman’s eyes, since he is allowing himself to be pushed around, showing himself to be a weakling, not the kind of man a woman needs as her provider and protector.

Lastly, in the family context, just because a woman may be better than the average woman at performing masculine functions doesn’t mean she is as good as the average man at performing those masculine functions. Furthermore, even if the woman is comparatively good at manly functions that doesn’t mean the man she is with is good at the feminine functions she may abandon if she sees herself as playing more the masculine role. 

In short, there are many reasons why males need to act as men and females need to act as women. The exceptions to the rule are much rarer than the culture would have you believe and there are many factors involved that make adherence to one’s biological gender role a good idea. 

The segregation of gender roles is not absolute but it is very clear and very strong. A woman who possesses some typically masculine strengths should use those God given abilities within her feminine role as a woman, she should not use those abilities as a justification for invading the male sphere and displacing the functions and purposes of men.

Please follow and like us: