The Introduction to Are Women Human? The introduction is written by Mary McDermott Schideler. I found as much meat and interesting infrmation in this introduction alone as I’ve found in many other entire books.
For starters, Ms. Schideler emphatically asserts that despite three essays on the subject of women in society, Mrs. Sayers was not a feminist. In fact, Dorothy Sayers considered the aggressive feminism of her day as dangerous. Dangerous. In 1938 she considered the feminist movement dangerous. I wonder what she’d say about today’s feminism.
As Ms. Schideler states, “The liberation of women was not a cause that she espoused, but a way of life that she practiced on the premises that male and female are adjectives qualifying the noun, ‘human being’ and that the substantive governs the modifier.”
I think this is important because if Dorothy Sayers was “just another feminist,” it is tempting to discard her views because of the bias behind them. Just as a seeker for Jesus doesn’t want to hear, “I believe it so it’s true” neither does someone seeking logic in the realm of women want to go to the choir to see if the preacher is making sense.
Ms. Schideler also discusses the tendency of women, and offers suggestions as to why they have these tendencies, to ask “What does this man want?” rather than “What do men want?”
The question, “What do women want?” on the other hand, is a universally understood joke. Whether or not it is a valid joke should be considered, certainly.
There are general truths that cant’ be ignored, however. People say that men are logical and women are emotional. As a matter of course, this is true. I can’t ignore it. I know many many more emotional women than men. And, I must admit, most women allow those emotions cloud their logic. I’ve wondered why this is true but I dont’ know the answer. My guess is that when God said “I will make a helper suitable for him (Adam),” this is what He meant.
There is no evidence in scripture that women were an after thought. God didn’t finish Adam, wait until he’d named the animals and think, “Oh rats! He needs help! I better make him a helper.” Let’s face it, God made Adam first, and then set him up to see how much he needed the “completer half.”
So, in the realm of emotionally driven decisions vs. logic based ones, God knew that without the emotions, men would lose sight of the person behind the action. It’s a guess, of course, but I suspect that God wired Adam (and subsequently most of Adam’s sons) with a strong sense of logic and justice. Then, as He created the perfect counterpoint to Adam, He infused her with mercy and compassion which is, of course, an emotional response. She of course, would pass this onto her daughters. It’s in the genetic make-up of men and women. However, when you mix genetic material, the dominant traits sometimes switch.
Of course, it’s all conjecture, but it does explain why it seems that men and women are like this. Then again, perhaps it is because they’ve been conditioned to be. When you consider homonal differences, body type differences, and the like, it strongly suggests design rather than conditioning.
As I said, anomalies do happen. I am generally not a very emotional person. I also tend to be fairly logical. (Or at least, people allow me to think so.) Conversely, I’ve met highly emotional men who don’t seem to comprehend the concept of logic.
I’ve pontificated on all of that to say, her point is a valid one. Perhaps women tend to think about men as individuals because of conditioning, or perhaps it is because of their more emotional bent that sees the emotional need of humans to be regarded as individuals instead of part of the pack. An interesting paradox isn’t it?