Question: Are women "softer and weaker" than men?

[Janelle]

Please forgive me as this is going to be a rather long post. I recently read The Railway Children by Edith Nesbit, a children's classic from 1906, and it touched on an issue of interest to me. I wanted to get others' feedback and thought this might be the best place.

In chapter 13 the following conversation takes place between one of the main characters (Peter) and the village doctor.

“Well then, you see. Boys and girls are only little men and women. And WE are much harder and hardier than they are—" (Peter liked the "we." Perhaps the Doctor had known he would.)—"and much stronger, and things that hurt THEM don't hurt US. You know you mustn't hit a girl—"
"I should think not, indeed," muttered Peter, indignantly.
"Not even if she's your own sister. That's because girls are so much softer and weaker than we are; they have to be, you know," he added, "because if they weren't, it wouldn't be nice for the babies. And that's why all the animals are so good to the “the mother animals. They never fight them, you know."
"I know," said Peter, interested; "two buck rabbits will fight all day if you let them, but they won't hurt a doe."
"No; and quite wild beasts—lions and elephants—they're immensely gentle with the female beasts. And we've got to be, too."
"I see," said Peter.
"And their hearts are soft, too," the Doctor went on, "and things that we shouldn't think anything of hurt them dreadfully. So that a man has to be very careful, not only of his fists, but of his words. They're awfully brave, you know," he went on. "Think of Bobbie waiting alone in the tunnel with that poor chap. It's “It's an odd thing—the softer and more easily hurt a woman is the better she can screw herself up to do what HAS to be done. I've seen some brave women—your Mother's one," he ended abruptly.”

Feminism has taught us that women are as strong as men, and that there is no difference between the sexes. Many feminists would be angry with the sentiment expressed in this conversation, that women are softer or more sensitive than men. Yet as I thought about it I could see the doctor's point. Many times I've seen women and girls react to things that wouldn't bother a male at all. So I ask myself, is the sentiment in this conversation correct (as a generalisation) and if so, is it such a bad thing, as the feminists would suggest?

[Werner]

Janelle, I took the liberty of moving your thread to this folder, and changing the title to make it clearer what the question is about. I think it's a good question, that might spark some worthwhile discussion. For what it's worth, I'll share my initial thoughts for starters. (They say that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread...." :-) )

"Feminism" means different things to different people. I think of myself as an equalitarian feminist (you don't have to be female to be one!), meaning someone who believes that men and women have equal worth, rights, and general capabilities. That doesn't mean there are no differences between them, but it means interpreting the differences in that context. And while you can calculate "average" ratings for each sex in different traits, you have to keep in mind that both sexes have many individuals who are both above and below average for any trait. That definitely applies to physical strength.

Nesbit's doctor character was probably thinking of upper body strength. Measured by weight lifting ability, the male average in that area is higher than the female one. But individuals' natural muscular endowments vary wildly in both sexes, and exercise and training make a considerable difference. There are some females who are stronger than most men (and who could lift most men over their heads!); Olympic weight lifter Grace Jones comes to mind, but she's not alone by any means. I've read somewhere that on average, women also score higher than males in physical endurance, as opposed to lifting prowess, though individuals vary wildly there too. My wife has more upper body strength than I do (I'm small in build and not heavily muscled), but I have more endurance than most males or females. (I don't know if that's related to smaller stature or not.)

As for sensitivity of temperament, in the sense of being more easily hurt by words, I'd say that there may be an average difference there too. Some of this comes from the different ways women and men are socialized in most cultures, but it may be partly biological. There are documented gender differences in neural anatomy; and women tend to have more estrogen than testosterone, whereas for males the reverse is true. These differences may have a bearing on psychological as well as physical traits. In Ursula LeGuin's story "Sur," when an all-female exploring party comes upon a base camp abandoned by an all-male party, the narrator is quite indignant at the squalor, and thinks something to the effect that "they could at least have tried to wash the dishes!" That may highlight a psychological gender difference that's fairly average, though it wouldn't reflect a stronger vs. weaker dichotomy. Even there, though, I think there are individual differences. All females have some testosterone, and all males have some estrogen; and individuals vary in the amounts they have.

As Nesbit's doctor realizes, there are different kinds of strength, not all of which have anything to do with physical musculature. He recognizes the great capacity for courage that women can demonstrate, and the strength of will to do things that are demanding and unpleasant; so I don't think the thrust of his comments are meant to be demeaning. Some women might feel patronized by his attitude that males shouldn't hit women. But I think decent guys do have an instinctive tendency to be deferential to women, not because they're "weaker" (that's just the way guys try to explain it to themselves, and each other), but because virtually every guy was mostly raised by a woman, usually his mother; and especially in very early infancy, she was the Goddess --the center of his whole world, the source of warmth and nourishment, the locus of attention. That rubs off on the way that healthy males relate to all females, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. That said, if a female is engaging in some kind of aggressive violence that absolutely has to be stopped physically, I think it's appropriate for a male to hit her. (And for a female to clobber a male, if the situation is reversed!) But between peaceful members of both genders, I think it's appropriate for neither of them to hit each other.

I don't know if that helps to answer your question or not, Janelle; but it's just my thoughts on the subject, off the top of my head! Others might want to weigh in with their thoughts, as well.

[Janelle]

Thanks for your thoughts Werner. I think I'll need some time to digest them.
In asking this question I'm hoping to gather some different perspectives on the sentiments in this quote. The context of it was the doctor trying to educate Peter in the nature of females after he had teased his sisters with images of surgery and broken bones.
Having myself grown up with two rough brothers and a neighbourhood dominated by boys, I've not ever experienced any deference by males, and have always felt uncomfortable with the suggestion of females being weaker than men, even though the Bible mentions this (in Peter I think). But I have observed a greater emotional sensitivity in the females in my family as opposed to the males. And I've struggled with a sense of inferiority because of it.

[Werner]

I Peter 3:7 speaks of the woman as the "weaker vessel," vessel referring to the physical body. Again, he's speaking in terms of the average, and has in mind upper body strength. Like the doctor, he uses it as an argument for consideration, not exploitation.

Don't ever feel a sense of inferiority because you and other females in your family have greater emotional sensitivity than the males do! Being sensitive to how things affect you emotionally goes with (and is the necessary other side of the coin) to being sensitive to how they affect others. That's something those others rightly appreciate, and a quality that both genders ought to aspire to. You should see it as an interpersonal skill and strong point, IMO.

[Janelle]

Thanks for your comments and encouragement, Werner. As an adult I've learnt the value of sensitivity, even though I haven't always embraced it. But as I kid, I had no clue. I guess part of growing in Christ is being able to look at those beliefs and habits you learnt as a child, see them as they are, and now grow in the truth of God's word.

[Werner]

Well said, Janelle!

[Janelle]

You made me curious, Werner, about the context and meaning of 1 Peter 3:7
so I took a look in my Holman's Commentary. I thought what I found there was very encouraging.

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."


"Husbands should be considerate as they relate to their wives. This word (gnosin) carries the meaning of “wisdom and understanding.” Husbands should approach their marriage relationship intelligently. They are to live with their wives according to knowledge, not fantasy. Marriage is a real-life relationship, not a soap-opera drama. To live with your wife and demonstrate wisdom suggests a deep desire to understand your wife, to get to know her at more than just a surface level. It suggests a sensitivity to her needs and a desire to respond to these needs knowledgeably. In many ways, this sounds like submission, although the language is different. It hints at the concept of mutual submission (see Eph. 5:21).
Beyond this, husbands are to treat their wives with respect. “Treat” has a special significance. Classical Greek writers always used it in reference to what is due from one person to another. The giving of respect or honor to your wife is not simply a “nice guy” kind of thing to do. It is the husband’s recognition of her because it is her due. This emphasis is reiterated in the word respect. This word is sometimes translated as “price” or “precious.” It indicates value and esteem. It suggests the giving of respect because a wife is precious to her husband.
This kind of understanding, consideration, and respect is directed toward a wife for two reasons. First, she is the weaker partner. This weakness does not refer to intellectual, spiritual, or emotional weakness, but only to physical weakness. Such “weakness” does not make a woman any less important in God’s eyes. Husbands should recognize and understand this physiological difference and adjust to wives in a positive manner. The second reason for an approach of consideration and respect is spiritual. In no way are wives inferior to their husbands spiritually. Each is an equal recipient of God’s grace in salvation and should be treated in that light.
Finally, a husband’s prayers will be hindered if this model is not adopted. Hinder means “to interrupt.” Some interpreters suggest that this means that the husband’s prayers are prevented from reaching their destination with God. A more likely understanding of “hinder” represents a more practical interpretation. A husband who treats his wife in the wrong manner will himself be unfit and unable to pray, not to mention that he will likely have little inclination to pray. To put it another way, a husband’s spiritual health depends, in significant measure, on the way he treats his wife."

[Werner]

Good quote, Janelle; thanks for sharing it! (I definitely believe in mutual submission, as articulated in Eph. 5:21.)