Insufficient Superficiality

After reading Henricus Cornelius Agrippa's, "Declaration on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex," I'm left quite dissatisfied. I was totally gung-ho when he was the soulful equality with which humans have been made. When he moved into his arguments stating why women are superior I hopped off the band wagon. His first argument....that they're more beautiful. For one thing, this is so superficial!! Are we going to set standards on the sexes based on our differing physical appearances? When I think of women worthy of honor, certainly not of greatest importance is their outward attractiveness. He also commences to describe the perfect white woman. So if a woman is to be superior to a man must she be Caucasian? Again I'm confused. Adding to this is that by his own earlier statement he cannot use this argument to support female superiority. He says that he will set aside the divine essence of the soul in humans to delve into his discussion.........what more is there to a human? If you remove our soul from the equation then all you are describing is the fallen, carnal husk our soul embodies. This body is not what we are. Furthermore, he states that beauty is the refulgence of the divine countenance shining through the body............but haven't we removed the divine countenance from our argument? This means that beauty isn't actually what makes women superior because it isn't women who are beautiful it's God shining through that actually constitutes beauty. I appreciate what the author is trying to do, but he has too many holes in his argument. Too many. Probably left behind from removing our souls. 

P. S. I commented on Brannen's post.