A woman can be a tough subject to define. In 1533 John Knox, infuriated that England had a Catholic Queen, wrote that women were presumptive, unstable, and foolish. How did John Knox come to this conclusion? His definition of a woman seems to point all negative feelings toward women as inferior to have any standing in society and to hold any power, but does not look at the whole picture of male and female traits.
Are women really the only ones who appear unstable, foolish and presumptive? What about men? Men’s egos must not effect their decisions. They must think everything through to the fullest. Not true. Men can have the same qualities. They just come at instability, foolishness, and presumption a different way. Men let their pride affect their actions, which often clouds judgment. The instability of an individual comes from their inability to stick to their morals and ethics. They let others influence them. This does not just pertain to women, but also men.
Why would John Knox say this about women? One who defines women as presumptive, unstable, and foolish seems to be scared of the fact that a woman has control. They, mostly men, become relentless to give over the power they once held. Fear drives their malice toward women. Men do not like to submit to anyone. When threatened with submission they resort to hateful words and accusations to bring their opponent down. The ultimate goal for a man at this point revolves around gaining ultimate control.
A woman tends to have a dominant emotional side. The majority of the time women think with their feelings instead of their logic. They make decisions based on what they feel as right. This makes them foolish and unstable. Emotions influence men too, just in a different form, the ego. According to the Greek philosophers emotion, pathos, defines a sound and competent individual. Emotions make one take in account the feelings of others, which in turn makes them a better person. It allows them to look at people...