Weird Ole' Agrippa

Agrippa begins conventionally enough: men and women share the same essential nature as humans and have the same souls and the same goal of eternal happiness. Well, this is a proposition that even the most conservative theologian would have agreed with. But after that, he comes up with some pretty strange conclusions. Though he initially  seems to be trying to prove that in every way except external physical traits, women are fully equal to men, most of his essay, or at least to me, seem to argue for the superiority, rather than equality, of women. Since we share the same Creator and the same human nature, men and women are inherently equal. Yet, according to Agrippa, from the very beginning women have been superior. “Adam” means earth, and “Eve” is translated as life. Eve was the summit of creation, because she was the last creature made directly by God (Adam only the next-to-last.) He argues that Man was created outside of Paradise among the beasts and then placed in Eden; Eve was created in it. Then, Agrippa says Woman is also superior in terms of the material that she is composed of: Eve was not made out of clay, as Adam was, but from a purified body having life and a rational soul (from Adam, that is). Man is the work of nature; woman, the creation of God. So, therefore Agrippa thinks women are better. 

But that's just weird...

Ps. I commented on Mary Kate's.