At Bible study today, there was a lady who I think has a degree in theology and possibly a PhD (or equivalent) in Pauline studies. Somehow we got into “inclusive” language in the Bible, after the study had finished and we just chatted.
She said that as a “literalist” she feels discriminated against and excluded when the Bible speaks of “man” or “men”, even when it includes women. Then, she stated that apparently Saint Thomas Aquinas called women something like “misbegotten men” or so. Is that true? I have never heard of this before!
I always keep this in mind for ladies who make similar remarks: God the Son took flesh as a man. Is that a discrimination? Does the Incarnation lower the dignity of women?
To say yes is, of course, blasphemy and nonsense. But we often feel free to say it in a parallel way, referring to Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition - as if
that was all-right. But it is not.
God “created man - male and female He created them”. That is the point in Scripture and Tradition.
As for Aquinas, we read in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Article 1:
It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that “the female is a misbegotten male.” …]
I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.
This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power.
Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other.
But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: “And they shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence …] On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.
As we see, Saint Thomas is not stating that “women are misbegotten men” (a gross misrepresentation of this great philosopher and doctor of the Church which we can hardly justify in someone with the qualifications you mention).
Rather, he reports that “the Philosopher” (meaning Aristotle) makes that case, and he
refutes that point by arguing that as regards human nature, woman is not misbegotten and that she is formed by God just like man is - in full accordance with His will, and thus “very good”.
He savages the argument of Aristotle by pointing that indeed there seems to be an apparent defect to the eye of reason, because the seed of a male would be expected to produce a male, and if a female is produced the man from 2300 years ago could not help but wonder what exactly had happened. Now we know that it all boils down to the “XY sex-determination system”, and we learn that these ancient thinkers were not entirely misled: it is the male’s Y chromosome that contains the SRY gene which acts as a signal to set the developmental pathway towards maleness. It is indeed the father who determines the sex of the child. How does that happen, science still does not quite know (I am serious). But indeed it so happens that for some complex reasons the man’s chromosomes oftentimes leads to a woman to be generated.
Aquinas is not claiming that women are “defective and misbegotten”, he is only explaining (to the best of his ability) what Aristotle was trying to say. And immediately afterwards he clarifies that it’s all good from the standpoint of speculative reason to say such oddities, but when it boils down to nature and creation, woman is equal in dignity to man.
Overall, we simply see the deleterious influence of feminism in both cases.
That being said, there is some truth in your friend’s complaint.