Absolutely loving this article, and can't wait to read the rest of the series. So much conservative conversation about women and men talks as if a person is primarily a man or a woman, not primarily a person.
A breath of fresh air to read this morning, Kerri. I will be sharing!! It is so discouraging to hear really faulty ideas being pedaled that lose sight of the y truths of what it means to be HUMAN. It kind of reminds me of the idea of virtues — how extremes on either side become damaging — because it that seems that this conversation around women, femininity, etc… constantly swings back and forth like a reactionary, huge pendulum. It practically makes you dizzy, and makes for so many unnecessary “teams”.
So good!! Thanks!! My one example of common humanity is the way my professors treated the women in class at a small liberal arts college I attended. Classes were Socratic method and we all - men and women - had much to say. I never once thought of myself as a woman, but as a thinking being who was politely given a chance to speak my mind to a professor ten times more intelligent than me. But my thoughts truly mattered to him. You can’t fake that sincerity. It made me feel fully and thoughtfully human. Gender never entered in. It was a tremendous experience!
Thank you Denise! This is a lovely example and one that rings true from my experience in a classical education, too. There’s something wonderfully human about discussing great ideas with both men and women!
Great article!! So glad to see you post on this. I really enjoyed the Word on Fire article. Earlier this year I read Sayers’ “Are Women Human”, and I liked it but I struggled with it on one count: is there a baseline “human” experience? Can I experience things just as a “human”? Because I am an embodied soul, I can only experience things as a human woman. Sayers took issue with people asking things about what it’s like to do or consider something *as a woman* because she didn’t think the experience of womanhood was something that would have made a difference (in certain circumstances, not all of them, I can’t quite remember!). I am not sure what I think about that because being female is how I exist and image God, and to say “oh I’m a person first and foremost and a woman afterwards” seems to me to relegate womanhood lower down on the scale of importance when I think it’s such an important thing! Would be delighted to hear any thoughts (of anyone here!!) on that.
But as to what I would tell women of this generation about their own humanity…it is full and glorious and images God. I’d also say I can’t believe we’re still having this conversation because the answers have been around for so long 😅
This is a great question! I did find her phrasing a little unhelpful at times in that essay (keeping in mind that it was a lecture and not a piece of systematic theology or philosophy).
Aristotle classes sex as a particular/ special kind of accident. More essential than hair color, but not on the same level of essential-ness as humanity, so to speak. Certainty it is impossible for these things to exist without one another- every human exists as male or as female (despite sometimes confusing situations), and the abstraction is in idea only. So I think it can be helpful to speak of aspects of the self being more or less relevant to a particular thing. For instance, I’m not sure how much my woman-hood is relevant to my preference for certain types of food; perhaps my background, ethnicity, or personal preference is more relevant. In that sense, we might talk about culinary preference as more of a human experience than a female experience, per se; whereas with something to do with fertility, my woman-hood is directly more relevant than other aspects of my personhood. This gets very tricky the further one gets into the parsing, and I do think at some point we have to bow before the mystery of the human person as God’s image and likeness- not as a cop-out, but just in recognition of our own limited understanding!
Hey Kerri, your article is fantastic & fascinating looking at it from the lens of anthropology vis-a-vis creationism. The issue of women and men in this present world evoke lots of interesting dynamics. Men were men and women, women in the 60s and 70s but for some decades, living in a supersonic cum media driven culture, the trajectory has totally changed. Men are trying to evolve into women and vice versa. That someone naturally created by God either male of female by the creator will one day decides to change to something artificial remains a mockery to God the creator. Science and technology are laudable things to emulate, but to amplify and claim that science and technology are superior to the creator makes it bazaar and nonsensical.
Fundamentally, we’re persons made in the image and likeness of God and never evolved from another creature nor from nothingness. It’s mind boggling and absurd to see how human beings have developed and decided to remake themselves into whatever they choose to be called, irrespective of their natural gender nor make-ups. One may ask the daunting question, Quo Vadis?. It looks like human beings are groping in the darkness of error by turning themselves into beasts that haven’t instinct nor senses to discern between good and evil.
Kerri, will not wait to read your follow up articles on this fascinating topic you delved into that may reshape the minds and hearts of humanity created in God’s image and likeness.
Absolutely loving this article, and can't wait to read the rest of the series. So much conservative conversation about women and men talks as if a person is primarily a man or a woman, not primarily a person.
Thank you, Dixie! Yes - the conversations that claim “dual natures” are just as disturbing as the ones that claim no difference at all!
Well said.
A breath of fresh air to read this morning, Kerri. I will be sharing!! It is so discouraging to hear really faulty ideas being pedaled that lose sight of the y truths of what it means to be HUMAN. It kind of reminds me of the idea of virtues — how extremes on either side become damaging — because it that seems that this conversation around women, femininity, etc… constantly swings back and forth like a reactionary, huge pendulum. It practically makes you dizzy, and makes for so many unnecessary “teams”.
Thank you, Annelise! Reactionary pendulum is a great description of so much of what’s going on.
So good!! Thanks!! My one example of common humanity is the way my professors treated the women in class at a small liberal arts college I attended. Classes were Socratic method and we all - men and women - had much to say. I never once thought of myself as a woman, but as a thinking being who was politely given a chance to speak my mind to a professor ten times more intelligent than me. But my thoughts truly mattered to him. You can’t fake that sincerity. It made me feel fully and thoughtfully human. Gender never entered in. It was a tremendous experience!
Thank you Denise! This is a lovely example and one that rings true from my experience in a classical education, too. There’s something wonderfully human about discussing great ideas with both men and women!
"A Woman Is a Human Person" is an excellent article to keep the discussion focused on fundamentals. Thank you for writing this.
Thank you!
Great article!! So glad to see you post on this. I really enjoyed the Word on Fire article. Earlier this year I read Sayers’ “Are Women Human”, and I liked it but I struggled with it on one count: is there a baseline “human” experience? Can I experience things just as a “human”? Because I am an embodied soul, I can only experience things as a human woman. Sayers took issue with people asking things about what it’s like to do or consider something *as a woman* because she didn’t think the experience of womanhood was something that would have made a difference (in certain circumstances, not all of them, I can’t quite remember!). I am not sure what I think about that because being female is how I exist and image God, and to say “oh I’m a person first and foremost and a woman afterwards” seems to me to relegate womanhood lower down on the scale of importance when I think it’s such an important thing! Would be delighted to hear any thoughts (of anyone here!!) on that.
But as to what I would tell women of this generation about their own humanity…it is full and glorious and images God. I’d also say I can’t believe we’re still having this conversation because the answers have been around for so long 😅
This is a great question! I did find her phrasing a little unhelpful at times in that essay (keeping in mind that it was a lecture and not a piece of systematic theology or philosophy).
Aristotle classes sex as a particular/ special kind of accident. More essential than hair color, but not on the same level of essential-ness as humanity, so to speak. Certainty it is impossible for these things to exist without one another- every human exists as male or as female (despite sometimes confusing situations), and the abstraction is in idea only. So I think it can be helpful to speak of aspects of the self being more or less relevant to a particular thing. For instance, I’m not sure how much my woman-hood is relevant to my preference for certain types of food; perhaps my background, ethnicity, or personal preference is more relevant. In that sense, we might talk about culinary preference as more of a human experience than a female experience, per se; whereas with something to do with fertility, my woman-hood is directly more relevant than other aspects of my personhood. This gets very tricky the further one gets into the parsing, and I do think at some point we have to bow before the mystery of the human person as God’s image and likeness- not as a cop-out, but just in recognition of our own limited understanding!
Hey Kerri, your article is fantastic & fascinating looking at it from the lens of anthropology vis-a-vis creationism. The issue of women and men in this present world evoke lots of interesting dynamics. Men were men and women, women in the 60s and 70s but for some decades, living in a supersonic cum media driven culture, the trajectory has totally changed. Men are trying to evolve into women and vice versa. That someone naturally created by God either male of female by the creator will one day decides to change to something artificial remains a mockery to God the creator. Science and technology are laudable things to emulate, but to amplify and claim that science and technology are superior to the creator makes it bazaar and nonsensical.
Fundamentally, we’re persons made in the image and likeness of God and never evolved from another creature nor from nothingness. It’s mind boggling and absurd to see how human beings have developed and decided to remake themselves into whatever they choose to be called, irrespective of their natural gender nor make-ups. One may ask the daunting question, Quo Vadis?. It looks like human beings are groping in the darkness of error by turning themselves into beasts that haven’t instinct nor senses to discern between good and evil.
Kerri, will not wait to read your follow up articles on this fascinating topic you delved into that may reshape the minds and hearts of humanity created in God’s image and likeness.