The New “Conservative” Gender Egalitarianism, a Critique of Abigail Favale’s The Genesis of Gender and Nancy Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity

As American culture continues to degrade, Christians increasingly find themselves needing to defend biblical ways of thinking. Two recent books aggressively defend the Christian view of man and woman by debunking important and influential misunderstandings present in the broader culture. Yet, as helpful as these books are, they inadvertently abandon the natural differences between the sexes and the practical, functional outworking of those differences.

Abigail Favale’s The Genesis of Gender artfully deconstructs the idea that transgenderism is good for human beings, especially women.^[1] Starting with its origins in feminism, she explains the emerging “gender paradigm,” which “affirms a radically constructivist view of reality,” according to which “there is no creator and so we are free to create ourselves. The body is an object with no intrinsic meaning.”^[2] In contrast, the Christian view affirms God as Creator and sees both men and women as beings of high intrinsic worth. She writes, “once understood as created, selfhood, including one’s sex, becomes a gift that can be accepted rather than something that must be constructed. This initiates a different orientation to all of reality, even one’s own body: a shift from control to receptivity.”^[3] We can receive our created natures as gifts that have a purpose. In the case of sexual difference, she argues this purpose is symbolic: representing love, unity, and wholeness from two different angles. The male/female difference is a difference in being that has a symbolic meaning; there is no difference of activity or function. She writes that we shift “from doing to being. This opens the possibilities of sex-lived-out, freeing us from constricting stereotypes and compelled performance.”^[4] Thus, Christian men and women are freed to live out their distinctive mode of being in an endless variety of ways, all of which testify to God’s creative goodness.

Nancy Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity debunks the idea that men and masculinity are inherently “toxic.”^[5] She shows the value of men and manhood, contrasting the false narrative of “the real man” with the true narrative of “the good man.” She traces how in the industrial revolution work shifted outside the home and so men became increasingly detached from children and the household. Looking at examples ranging from Victorian tracts to twentieth-century Westerns, Pearcey argues that the ideal of manhood detached from the family and recentered on living in carefree independence. In response to this false picture, Pearcey defends devout Christian men as the most attached to their wife and children, the least likely to abuse those close to them, and the most likely to have happy marriages.

Pearcey’s book was written in large part as a response to the widespread accusation that Christian men are abusers or that biblical Christianity, including the idea of male headship, is more likely to make men into abusers.^[6] Thus, what she includes and doesn’t include is calculated to speak to that audience — an audience like herself in that they have been abused or know someone who has been abused and are skeptical of the claims of Jesus Christ as a result.^[7]

Each book is praiseworthy for what it accomplishes, yet each work has significant problems which render them unable to provide the intellectual foundations for manhood and womanhood in the twenty-first century. Rejecting transgender ideology and toxic caricatures of manhood is good, but it is not enough to serve as the basis for male and female discipleship for the problems of our day. A properly biblical approach recovers not merely symbolic contrasts, but functional and practical ones as well. Both books argue for a complementarity which, in practice, is a functional egalitarianism.

No Functional Difference

Despite offering a trenchant critique of transgender ideology, which rejects the sexed nature of the body, Favale’s book fails to adequately reckon with the practical and functional differences between men and women.

I recognize this claim may seem surprising on the surface. Favale’s stated purpose in writing the book is to recover “essentialism” about the differences between the sexes. She seeks to “respect material reality,”^[8] and thinks the Christian understanding treats “sexual difference is understood and experience as gift, as a source of fruitfulness and love. There is a dynamic balance between sameness and difference.”^[9] Favale believes there is an indelible biological difference between men and women that grounds their identities as men and women. Her view would initially seem like one tailor-made to reveal the natural complementarity of the sexes.

Yet, in actual practice, the material, biological differences between the sexes serve merely to provide a symbolic difference, not a functional one. There is a difference in the symbolic meaning of manhood and womanhood, but no difference in role or activity. Following Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, Favale argues that our bodies are signs of our persons and therefore sacramental: the body reveals the person.^[10] We are not mere mortals, but a unity of soul and body, and the sexed body in particular was created by God to reveal truths about himself and creation. After describing the creation of Eve, and Adam’s spontaneous recognition of her person through her body, Favale writes:

Our bodies, then, serve a sacramental function, by revealing and communicating a spiritual reality. To use John Paul’s words, “the body, in fact, and only the body, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It has been created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the mystery hidden from eternity in God, and thus to be a sign of it.”^[11]

This sacramental difference between men and women is a profound idea, for it points toward the loving relationship between Christ and his church. Yet if it is to have any real potency it must be based upon a difference of activity. If men and women don’t really move differently in the world, engage actively in a way that is structurally distinct from one another, then the symbolism loses all its power.

For Favale, why doesn’t this symbolic difference lead to a difference of function, activity, or role? Because it is merely a difference of “being,” not of “doing.”^[12] To make role or activity a part of being a man or a woman is to give into “our postmodern moment” and to approach these issues in the way that “feminism and its progeny, gender theory,” do.^[13] Roles or activities are social constructions that are surface-level, change over time, and exclude some biological men and women. For Favale, making differences of role or function into essential parts of manhood and womanhood is making the same mistake as the modern transgender movement: substituting something social and variable for something fixed in the natural body. To guard the idea that the body has intrinsic meaning, Favale thinks she must lodge manhood and womanhood in metaphysics — in merely being a man, not acting like men or performing the social role of a man.

But, this, I submit, is itself a failure of metaphysics.   If there is no difference in function, then they are two of the same thing. If men and women don’t function differently, then there is nothing different about them in any essential way — there would be no more difference between a man and woman than between an old woman and a young woman. There would be superficial differences of size, color, etc., but no essential difference because there is no difference of potentiality, actuality, or function. If two things have all the same powers, they are two of the same kind of thing.

Favale’s own view points strongly in this direction, despite her denial of the conclusion. In an important part of her book, she is committed to thinking men and women are different, and that this difference includes an essential difference in function. In her chapter on “Sex” she defines male and female in terms of the potential for certain functions: “A woman is the kind of human being whose body is organized around the potential to gestate new life.”^[14] This, of course, is the potential for a kind of activity, not merely a potential to signify or to exist. The potential for this kind of activity is what directs the organization for the body. That is, the way that the body is set up is aimed at enabling that distinctive activity. And, not only the body is set up with that aim, but the soul, too, and the person as a whole is organized toward this end. Favale writes, “womanhood must include bodily sex, but must also extend beyond it to consider the whole person.”^[15] This entire framework from Favale begs to be extended into a further study of the physical and psychological differences between the sexes which systematically enable them to carry out their maternal and paternal functions with excellence. Yet, Favale steadfastly abstains from this endeavor. To talk about the differences as more than symbolic is to run into the dangerous waters of “stereotypes”^[16] and construct a “superficial box around maleness and femaleness.”^[17]

Given the importance of the symbolic difference, and the revelatory nature of the body, she says surprisingly little about how our bodies reveal distinctively male or female persons. How does the male body reveal male personhood? How does the female body reveal female personhood? In a brief comment that should be pregnant with meaning, but which receives very little elaboration for the woman and none at all for the man, she writes,

The man has the capacity to transmit life outside of himself, while the woman has the potential to gestate new life within. If we take these biological realities as a mirror for God and humankind, the male sex is analogous to God because God endows life from himself but stands apart from it; he transcends. The female sex is representative of humankind because its power lies in receptivity; the human being is created to receive the love of God, be inwardly transformed, and let that love bear fruit.^[18]

This is a profound observation and describes, of course, a difference in doing. Men and women do different things in the process of reproduction and this is the fundamental marker of the sexes themselves. Men and women have different modes of activity in the world. In other words, the body reveals the person.

Can you have a symbolic difference without an underlying bodily difference? I submit not. The symbolic loses its power, even becomes wholly arbitrary in its expression, if there is nothing in material reality that undergirds it. If there is something in reality, a sex difference within creation, that reality will make a functional difference.

Role Differences for Manhood and Womanhood?

Unlike Favale, Peacey is willing to countenance the idea of gender roles, granting in-principle differences between the roles of father and mother, husband and wife. However, the way she articulates these roles has the effect of negating their differences, undermining their activities, and undercutting their foundations in nature.

Pearcey’s plan to refute the idea that masculinity is toxic is to argue that biblical and traditional masculinity avoids those toxic elements and ennobles masculinity itself. Men who regularly attend church are the most involved fathers and have the happiest wives and marriages.^[19] They are the furthest thing from toxic. To achieve this, though, they have to give up the secular script of being a “real man,” which says that to be a man you have to be “tough, strong, never show weakness, win at all costs, suck it up, play through pain, be competitive, get rich, get laid.”^[20] Instead, they are “good men,” which amounts to being an involved father and dutiful husband.

Pearcey’s praise for involved fatherhood, and the emotive richness that mirrors God’s deep love for us, is the most compelling part of her book. The importance of fathers’ emotional investment in their children can hardly be overstated. More than our money, our children need us. In describing the emotional investment of ancient Hebrew men in their children, Leon Podles writes that “Patriarchy is a system in which fathers care for their families and find their emotional centers in their offspring.”^[21] This emotional investment, even more than the authoritative governing, is the key feature of Christian fatherhood.

But what allows fathers to love in their uniquely paternal way, a way that is distinct from the feminine? Pearcey artificially contrasts the “real man” and “good man” ideas in a way that makes it nearly impossible for a man to achieve dignity as a man. To see this, consider how Pearcey articulates the traditional roles of the man: “protection and provision.”^[22] This starts as physical protection and provision, but leads to deeper, spiritual forms. This spiritual responsibility even involves a kind of “headship.” But, for Pearcey, this headship does not involve any directive leadership of the family, it merely amounts to men being “tasked with responsibility for the spiritual growth of every member of the family.”^[23] Men have a role of “taking the lead” in ensuring the growth of every member of the family, but headship does not mean ruling, it means the responsibility of serving. There is no unique directive capacity in being a husband or father, there is only the unique responsibility of being the initiator of service. She writes:

In other words, a godly husband takes the lead and says, like Jesus, ‘Follow me.’ If he wants a better marriage, he takes the lead in doing the emotional work and says, ‘Follow me.’ If he wants his wife to have a richer spiritual life, he deepens his own relationship with God and says, ‘Follow me.’…to lead means to be out in front living a life that is worthy of emulating.^[24]

That Christians should serve one another in diverse acts of kindness is uncontroversial. And, that husbands are not to “lord it over” their wives is also uncontroversial. But, the view that Pearcey articulates here is one where the husband has responsibility without authority.

Regarding the role of the wife, her discussion is a classic example of how some complementarians spend all their time saying what submission is not rather than what it is. Perhaps it is merely a limitation resulting from the sociological and apologetical nature of Pearcey’s book, but there is no clear articulation of what kind of “submission” she thinks is biblical, just a clear and extensive argument for what submission does not mean, with an eye toward avoiding anything that could be thought of as passive. She emphasizes that the wife who “submits” should speak her mind, wrestle with her husband as Jacob wrestled with God, pour out her sorrows, perhaps be depressed at times, not hold back in communicating her needs, thoughts, and ideas, bring her strengths to the table, offer her best insights, and generally not remain quiet and go along.^[25]

The view which emerges from her arguments is a functional egalitarianism: there is no real difference of role. Men and women are identically called to improve their marriage, grow closer to God, be warm and close to their children, and be an example to one another. That they do this by engaging in different-but-complementary functions, activities, or non-figurehead roles is not part of the story.

But, the “real man” qualities Pearcey rejects are what provide the natural basis for the “good man” to succeed in the roles of protector and provider. To actually protect, either physically or spiritually, you must actually possess strength, toughness, and the ability to stand strong when you are tempted to be weak. Physical strength itself is one of the largest differences between the sexes, and psychologically men are more likely to be “disagreeable” than women, a kind of psychological intransigence.^[26] Likewise, a husband who will protect and provide needs to be able to withstand pain, both physical and psychological, in order to persevere strongly in pursuit of what is good. Competitiveness, too, is one of the major psychological differences between the sexes, with men more strongly motivated to compete. Even the stronger male desire for sexual union (dismissively rendered as a desire to “get laid”) is crucially important in establishing marriages. In fact, the male sex drive is the most unifying force in all human societies — it drives men to work, to commit, to strive, to sacrifice, and to respect the woman whom they seek to woo. It can be abused, as every good thing can, but in its essence it is very good.

These qualities, at root, are simply courage and its raw materials, a virtue possessed by both men and women but needed conspicuously by men in the carrying out of their distinct role as protector and provider. Thus, Pearcey calls for men to be “good men” while cutting them off from the qualities which enable them to do so effectively. As C.S. Lewis quips in The Abolition of Man, on a related point, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function…we castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”^[27]

At some level, Pearcey desires to have it both ways, wanting to acknowledge real differences while making sure they make no difference. Two side-by-side section headings in her first chapter tell the tale: “No Pink and Blue Boxes” and “What’s the Difference?”^[28] In the former, she argues that there are no real divisions between men and women, but that all things are shared between them: the cultural mandate, beatitudes, the gifts of the Spirit (including teaching), and the fruits of the Spirit.^[29] Empirically, she claims, “men and women are more alike than different. Most psychological characteristics can be described by bell curves that overlap closely.”^[30] However, she then goes on to say, “This is not to deny the reality of differences between the sexes,” describing differences in involvement with children (beginning with pregnancy), hormone levels, career decisions, physical strength, competitiveness, and risktaking.^[31] She concludes this section with a lovely image of complementarity: “Our goal should not be to deny those differences but to be grateful for the unique contribution of each of the sexes. Men and women exercising their gifts are like a violin and a cello playing a duet, blending in harmony while retaining their unique, individual tones.”^[32] A lovely image, but what does it amount to? What are those different contributions? Are there any we can point to without having them shot down as stereotypes, preferences, or cultural irrelevancies? The rest of the book provides us with no solid direction.

Renewing Real Complementarity

Pearcey advocates a view that is traditional in many ways, but fails to recognize the centrality of male headship and sexual complementarity in the family, church, and civil society.^[33] Pearcey admirably accomplishes her purpose of showing how churchgoing Christian men shatter the false cultural idea that religious men are more likely to be patriarchal abusers. But, in the end, Pearcey’s view ends up looking similar to Favale’s: There’s no difference of function, only a difference of symbolic meaning. Both authors want to embrace a real difference, but can’t find any practical work for that difference to do. At one level, they seem to know the differences are there, but at the level of commitment they instead constrain them to mere biological function or symbolic representation.

In the long term, it is not viable to have a difference of being without a difference of function (Favale’s position) or a difference of function without a difference in being (what is often considered the standard complementarian position). The similarities and differences between the sexes are a matter of both function and being. We are the same in being human, therefore we share the same functions insofar as we are human — we are living animals, we have rational souls and human bodies, and we have the same kinds of emotions and perceptions. Compared with everything else in creation, man and woman are the same — we are human and in God’s image.

Yet, we also differ in being from one another — what it is to be a man is different from what it is to be a woman. This difference of being involves a difference in function. In particular, men and women have different functions in procreation, in the first case a biological difference in gamete production and pregnancy, but our whole organization as persons is built on this foundation. Our psychologies, social predilections, and ways of interacting with the world all reflect our glorious, sexually-distinct natures. The body has a purpose, and God has a purpose in creating us as men and women, wonderful gifts to one another, destined to live lives of service and love as we fulfill that divine intention.

[1] Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2022).

[2] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 30.

[3] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 224.

[4] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 238.

[5] Nancy Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books 2023).

[6] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 14-15.

[7] In the Introduction and Chapter 14 she explains the heart-wrenching story of how her father abused her and her siblings, and how she went through a decades-long recovery process.

[8] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 162.

[9] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 51.

[10] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 40, 135.

[11] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 40-41.

[12] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 233–234.

[13] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 233.

[14] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 120.

[15] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 121.

[16] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 158.

[17] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 134.

[18] Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 237.

[19] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 37.

[20] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 19.

[21] Leon Podles, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of American Christianity, (Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing Company, 1999), 67.

[22] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 61.

[23] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 57.

[24] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 55.

[25] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 60–61.

[26] On disagreeableness, see chapter 5 in Roy Baumeister, Is there Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[27] C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947), 16.

[28] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 30-31.

[29] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 30.

[30] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 30.

[31] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 31.

[32] Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 31.

[33] This theme is explored carefully and extensively by Zachary Garris in his review of The Toxic War on Masculinity. See “The Leaven of Egalitarianism,” American Reformer, October 10, 2023. https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/the-leaven-of-egalitarianism/