<p>Michael Rea offers several objections to the traditional view that it is more accurate to characterize God as masculine than as feminine. The objections depend on several premises drawn from perfect being theology and the doctrine of the image of God. They amount to a cumulative argument that (roughly) if God is accurately described as predominantly masculine, then either women are inferior to men (because masculinity would be a great-making property) or women are not made in God’s image (as the <i>imago Dei</i> doctrine teaches). I argue that Rea’s arguments fail, and that divine masculinity would not entail the inferiority of women. In fact, in at least one sense, it might entail the inferiority of men. I do not thereby argue that traditionalism is right—only that Rea’s argument does not overturn it. I close with some suggestions for the future of gendered natural theology that may escape the problems I raise for Rea’s approach.</p>