If I was to describe the dominant approach to gender during my lifetime, I think I would say it would be ‘to eradicate all gaps’. I think that’s what I’ve picked up from the culture at large – changes in policies at government level, changes in representation in media, general what is seen to be ‘a-good-thing’ or ‘bad-thing’ etc. But I think there’s also been a shift in what that means and the shift is interesting. I think equality messaging for a while played out as ‘men & women are equal and therefore interchangeable’ while at the same time seeking to boost the qualities that women bring to the table.

So for example, the case was made that women lead differently and we would all benefit greatly as a result. For example women are less aggressive and if we had more women leaders there would be less war and that’s a good thing. At the same time Hollywood has gone to great lengths to show women action heroes who could kick-ass just as much as the men. These GI Janes can take a punch and give a punch as good as any James Bond wannabe. Despite the fact that when push becomes punch that’s patently ridiculous.

Thoughts around the gender pay gap (which still exists but not the way you think) have been modified to take into account of the now seemingly indisputable fact of gender work aspirations, and preferences.

In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women’s empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women’s empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in.

Sex Differences in Work Aspirations

Which goes at least some way to explaining why there are no male midwives in Sweden and 99% of all dental nurses are women.

Today I think it is fair to say that the complementarity of the sexes is now both bitterly contested & entirely established fact. The bitter contest is seen as transgender ideology seeks to erase spaces for women but as they’ve sought to do so more and more evidence is presented on the physical and psychological differences that exist between men and women. Sex differences are real, sex preferences are real, leading to signifcant differences. Men and women are not the same. Never were, never will be. And while there is still room to discuss nature v nurture issues the direction of travel now appears to be to celebrating those differences.

In the church this has lead to an interesting situation. Complementarity has won the day. Complementarianism not so much. Which means a vocal advocate for egalitarian church leadership like Ian Paul can say he is, and those who agree with him are, the ‘true complementarians‘.

Although apparently this complementarity is actually 1980s feminism. In her critique of complementarity Natalie Collins says,

I can say with confidence that Andrew Wilson’s complementarity is a repackaged version of 1980s romantic feminism, which is different enough from 2018 modern feminism to lull delegates into believing they are maintaining their complementarian convictions, even though they’re actually embracing something very different from Grudem and Piper.

Although Collins seems to reject innate differences when she says, ‘This version of feminism/complementarity relies upon a presumption of innate male and female difference. What does this mean for the women who do not conform to femininity?’ but those are two different issues. This complementarity/romanticism allows for variance in what femininity and masculinity looks like.

If complementarity really has won the day then the theological debate is mainly over application. In what ways do these differences play out in marriages, families, churches and society? Is it perhaps possible that this could play out in some ways that seem to be more complementarian and in other ways that are clearly more egalitarian although this would probably just upset everybody.