Posted by Helen on: 08.07.2006 /
A couple of months ago I wrote Warriors and Princesses, a blog entry about two Christian books, Wild at Heart for men and Captivating for women. Paul just posted these thoughtful comments in defense of Wild at Heart.
Doesn’t it strike you that there are some gender differences?
we’ve been brought up to think in terms of equality, acceptance, no real gender divide anymore - this is a good thing in many ways and a confusing thing in many ways as well - roles are blurred, people say what is expected and feel something else inside and others genuinely believe it.
of course no one can shoe horn 3 billion of each gender into a book and of course there are going to be exceptions (in millions) but having been married for 9 yrs and doing a lot of work with marrieds/couples/singles of both sexes doesn’t it strike you that there are some genderish differences. Like check out the whole chick lit phenom - go to a book store and look at gal summer reads (oh trashy as hell but could fun right) and then look at books recomended for bloke summer reads… check out the audience analysis for types of films is there a reason why rom/coms are referred to as chick flicks? Snakes on a plane anyone - how many fans on the net for this film are male? How many men do you think will be in the audience? Think about just good ol fashioned communication… take the phrase “I have nothing to wear” when I say it I mean all my clothes are in the wash, when my wife says its she means that she needs a new outfit…
I confess I love the thrill of the chase
Now back to the book - literally it does not mean that men dress up as knights and women start growing their hair and hanging around in tower penthous apartments waiting to be rescued - c’mon right that’s just patronising sexist bigot talk right…right? I confess I love the thrill of the chase, the adventure of doing something new that scares the pants off me, of triumphing over and mastering something - even if its as boring on the outside as a new deal for staples supplies at work.
loving my wife how she wants to be loved is the most worthwhile adventure of my life
With my wife the hardest thing is not to get complacent, there is so many opportunities to chase after someone else, and when the flirting starts there is a rush - i admit i want to win with women on the other hand that is also a massive battle within me - loving my wife how she wants to be loved which is different to me (check out Gary Chapman’s book on 5 love languages) - it is one of the things that is the most worthwhile adventure of my life - learning that as Paul puts it in ephesians “love is about giving not getting” learning to lay down my rights, is like the hardest thang I do and often fight like hell not to do…
church can be so dull and boring
But here’s the rub - i found the book helpful, i didn’t take it literally but for me that church can be so dull and boring (c’mon where’s the excitement in singing and praying really???) , why the most significant battles in my life, the most significant adventures are often the most honest, revealing, exciting encounters where I get to be me, not some stereotyped version of who I think I should be.
Wild at Heart gives many people a reference to help them live life
Its quite ok to think that the whole wild at heart thang is just surpressed macho bullshit or some throw backs to 50’s (18 or 19 you choose). On the other hand I know a lot of people who the book has helped a lot, who think ok this gives me a reference to help me live life - you don’t get to be a best seller from people reading the backs of books, thinking crap and walking away :)
Comment by: Helen M.
1Paul, thanks for sharing these comments with us.
First of all, yes, Wild at Heart has been a best seller and that does imply many people (men, I assume, since it’s for men) have found it helpful. On the other hand, that doesn’t prove what it says is true.
I hear what you’re saying about how the book connects with your frustration that church is boring and constrains you to be some stereotyped version of who you think you should be. And how helpful it is that the book affirms your longing for adventure and to have encounters in which you are free to be you and gives you permission to go do those things.
I think that’s great and I’ve heard other men say how helpful that is. What I don’t like is how Eldredge depicts this as a male problem. Why does he? What makes him think women aren’t bored in church and constrained into a stereotype? What makes him think women don’t long for adventure and encounters in which they can truly be who they are?
I think many women do and that’s why I find the book unaccountably sexist.
Thank you for your comments about loving your wife being a worthwhile challenge. And for your mention of The Five Love Languages. I think Gary Chapman has done a very helpful thing in pointing out that the best way to love someone is not to think “How would I like to be loved?” and do that. This is the common mistake many people make and then they get upset when their spouse (or whoever) doesn’t appreciate it. Gary Chapman says, this works way better: find out how they would like to be loved and love them in that way.
I think there are differences between men and women that do hold true for many men and women. I think it’s good to be honest about these and educate people about them because it helps men and women get along better. I’ve learned a few true things about these differences from Christian books - it’s helpful that Christians feel no pressure to minimize or deny the differences.
On the other hand, I find most Christian books about men and women are way too rigid and extreme and stereotyping in how they characterize men and women. I am nowhere near fitting their description of a woman. Which might be why I often (not always) prefer to talk to men. This seems to be a viewed as a ‘problem’ by a number of church goers, who are hyper-sensitive about men and women’s roles and relationships.
I’ve been warned off talking to men (in person or on the internet) a few times, because of what it may ‘lead to’. (And told I need a man ‘over’ what I am doing on the internet - well, I guess I’m ok there as far as this blog goes :)) But here I am talking to men again - I just don’t listen… ;)
Comment by: Paul
2First up can I just say what a great job of editing my post - putting those headings in makes it look/flow real good so thank you for making the presentation look a lot better than it was…
second up I did preface my comments in my original post around the post modern dislike of labels, including being labelled post modern, I think we have a natural and healthy distrust of being included in any group so I can only post on my experiences of the book and observations I make - as i think we both say stereotypical does not mean we have to conform to any image/expectation/curve of normality that someone has suggested in a book or indeed any other media form.
Defense of wild at heart might be too strong a title :) I think it is more some observations from my own experience and how its helped me and a few other folk i know along on the journey…
I don’t know enough about Eldridge or his beliefs on men/women to comment whether he thinks these adventure boredom issues are exclusively a male issue - clearly he wrote a book for men but does that make him sexist? Maybe he just didn’t feel qualified enough to write something on the female perspective with a high enough degree of confidence whereas the male he felt a lot more comfortable with, wise man if you ask me ;)
Now my wife would probably give you a big amen on your prefering to talk to men - she’s always had better male friendships than female ones. I don’t pretend to have an answer on that one but she’s a pretty sensible person who i think is able to judge how much to confide, how etc. I know that bugs the hell out of some evangelical types but only cos they have been taught all about safety nets, keep one foot on the floor at all times etc - there may be some wisdom in it, on the other hand it comes down to trust and relationship and knowing what your weak points are and indeed those of the person you’re talking too. Me i try and go with the pauline approach of limiting my own rights/freedoms if its gonna be better for me or the other person or indeed anyone else who wouldn’t benefit - that’s difficult cos they are my rights but i guess that is a whole different post :)
Comment by: Helen
3Hi Paul - thanks for your response.
Re: the editing - you’re welcome!
Re: your comment about dislike of labels - yes, I did leave that out; to be honest I wasn’t quite sure how that tied in to the rest of your comments. I apologize if it was necessary context I should have left in.
Re: the title - I take your point. I guess I was thinking that, in comparison with the other comments, yours was a defense!
It doesn’t make Eldredge sexist that he wrote a book for men, per se. However I’m fairly sure Eldredge does talk about women later in Wild at Heart and say that what they want is to be beautiful and loved, whereas men want adventure.
I wonder if I would like to talk to your wife - I wonder if women who like to talk to men like to talk to each other? ;)
I also apply those Pauline principles in a direct sense - meaning, I would never try to make a man talk to me who felt uncomfortable about men talking to women in whatever context we were in. But I don’t feel it’s reasonable to apply them indirectly i.e. I wouldn’t not talk to men because some third party has a bee in their bonnet about men and women talking. I think that’s their issue, not mine.
Comment by: Julie marie
4aieeeeeee. thats all I have to say. but if you could see the gestures…
Comment by: Helen
5I hope they’re ‘Christian-appropriate’ gestures, Julie Marie… I’m afraid to look just in case! ;-)
Comment by: Dan
6For my money, I really enjoyed “Wild at Heart”.
I didn’t agree with everything he said and I certainly wouldn’t take his, “battle to fight, adventure to live, woman to rescue”, formula as the definition of manhood, but I did find what he had to say useful and it resonated with some quite deep things in my own personality.
I guess out of the three, the one I’m least sure about is the, “woman to rescue”. I do like to play the hero sometimes but I never wanted a damsel in distress - I want a woman who can stand up for herself and join in the adventure. That said though, his wife Stasi does pick this up in “Captivating”, which you (Helen) quoted on the original thread about this book (here): “Every woman longs … to play an irreplacable role in a great adventure”. My impression of Stasi, from the chapter of “Captivating” included at the end of “Wild at Heart”, is of a spirited woman, not someone who goes about swooning and waiting for a man to rescue her all the time! I’m now in my 15th month of marriage and have already been aware of the need to be a “knight” sometimes - to fight for my wife’s emotional freedom and to help her to become everything she can be. Sometimes that means fighting against my own selfish impulses, and sometimes it means doing my best to cope with hers in an unflinching spirit of grace. Mostly it’s not very glamorous - it’s just coping with everyday things in everyday ways. Eldredge makes it sound glamorous (because in essence I think it is), but I don’t think he shies away from the everyday humdrum reality either.
So on balance, I don’t think this book is the be-all and end-all, but I think there’s some useful stuff in there which I found really helpful. Eldredge writes quite poetically and he uses a lot of imagery that could come across as old-fashioned or stereotyped - perhaps to some extent that’s because it is(?) but he also does a good job (in my opinion) of tapping into the male psyche and showing how some of the best of it should be redeemed and celebrated rather than discarded.
Comment by: Helen
7Dan, thanks for your comments!
It’s encouraging to hear that you think of the woman described by the Eldredges as ’spirited’. It sounds like your wife is very fortunate to have a husband like you who is helping her become everything she can be. To me that is what love is all about!
Comment by: Helen
8Hey everyone - I found an article in this week’s Economist that could be relevant:
Differences between the sexes: The mismeasure of woman
Men and women think differently. But not that differently
Comment by: Julie Marie
9Interesting article, Helen. I wish I had kept a copy of an article someone gave me on a scientist (I can’t remember what type, but trust me, the credentials and the school were impressive) who had been born a woman and was now a man. He said the bias and the discrimination are very much present in the ivory towers and works now to help promote women in the sciences…and he talked at some length about the outreage at Sumners, the Harvard President who said the differences were biological.
I rememer the flap over the comment. Funny, it didn’t bother me at the time because I’ll admit, math was hard for me. I’d sure rather blame it on biology than on my lack of discipline to learn something hard….
Comment by: Eliza
10Helen - thanks for that link.
That article mentions general differences in early toy preferences - I was one of those who thought we’d raise a child with gender-neutral toys, only to find that very early on our son demonstrated a clear preference for trucks, cars, trains, and building toys. (And now that he’s 8 - for things that go boom, blast, ka-pow…! But that interest might be helped along by interaction with boys at school.) Kind of amazing, how much gender differences do seem to be inborn, rather than learned. (Does Wild at Heart address this?)
Comment by: Dan
11Hi Eliza,
>> … (Does Wild at Heart address this?)
I think it does, although not from an academic perspective. It tends to assume what you’re saying - that men and women are born different - and relies on everyday experience such as you’re describing to support this.
Comment by: Paul
12Heh helen
thanks for your generous response - my wife reckons men are less complicated which is why she gets on with them - could be a genda difference or just an agenda one… :)
As for the point on adventure I think it has already been picked up by some other posters - I don’t think Eldridge denies that women want adventure after all what’s the fun in being a man who loves adventure without my soul mate to share it with…after all when i get into trouble i need someone to get me out again!
Thanks for the link to the article - very interesting stuff - I think it shows that in terms of intelligence and ability women are no different to men, its interesting to see though how this can be expressed in ways though depending on the gender, maybe that is where a lot of the difference lies in expression and in the understanding of that expression?
Comment by: Paul
13oh i should not have quoted the ol pauline thang without putting in the flags that a) he always made the gospel his no 1 thang to limit his freedom about (hence all that head covering stuff for certain particular females in a geographic location - wonder what it would be today for me?) and b) it was a reflection of maturity i.e. the more we grow in christ the more aware we become of it, i was gonna say easier it gets but since i have never found it that easy at all - got way too much pride, lol. Of course it could also be that I’m just not as mature as I think I am :)
Comment by: Rachel
14Here is a link to a book review of Captivating from Christianity Today Online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/008/25.60.html
Comment by: Helen
15Paul wrote:
You’re welcome :)
LOL - maybe so!
I like the idea of wives and husbands sharing the adventure together.
I’m glad you found the article from the Economist interesting.
I understand the principle of limiting one’s freedom for the sake of the gospel. How are you tying that into men and women? - I didn’t quite get that part.
Comment by: Helen
16Rachel, wow, how timely - that CT article was just posted today! I wonder what caused the author to write about Captivating now - since it’s not a new book.
I see that she, like me, has reservations about the book.
Comment by: Rachel
17Me too, Helen! At a wedding I attended recently, the pastor read this text as part of the ceremony. I thought it was a beautiful selection for a wedding.
Two people can accomplish more than twice as much as one; they get a better return for their labor. If one person falls, the other can reach out and help… And on a cold night, two under the same blanket can gain warmth from each other… A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12)
Comment by: Helen
18Rachel - yes, what a great choice for a text to read at a wedding!
Comment by: Helen
19By the way, Paul posted about Wild at Heart on his own blog recently, here:
Wild at something
Comment by: Paul
20Hi Rachel, Matt who left this comment on my blog has read both th e book and the review you posted and doesn’ think that the reviewer has read the book… i haven’t read it though so can comment no more than that…
Comment by: andrew
21i know i’m a few months late, but just dropping a note to say that i’ve found this conversation quite interesting. i just received Wild at Heart as a christmas gift from my parents and am still on the fence regarding my view of the book….
Comment by: Helen
22Thanks Andrew - please let us know what you think after you’ve read the whole book: I’d be interested to hear.
Comment by: Ann
23Hi Helen! Here are 3 bad things from the book that women shouldn’t be: 1) Tough; 2) Efficient; 3) Independent. I guess it is how you interpret what those words mean that could make them “bad”. As Christian, a woman, and an attorney (and probably a bit older than most who post blogs) I was curious to see what other women thought about, well, “women” after reading the book. Back to those bad words at the top: Here’s how I define each: 1) Tough: Ethical. Strong sense of fairness. Standing up for what you know is right even when it is unpopular. Being in a clear frame of mind. Able to parse out difficult decisions. 2) Efficient: Judicial economy. Wise. Balanced use of time and available resources. 3) Independent: Able to trust your own decisions, particularly when you have prayed about them. Seeing an issue from a different angle than most people, to separate your opinion from the crowd and test it. To think independently. Comfortable in your own skin; standing up for yourself. In terms of real women I admire, I think Condi Rice is a great example of a tough, efficient, independent woman. Margaret Thatcher is another. Our first woman to the Supreme Court of the United States, Sandra Day O’Connor. Need I mention Rosa Parks? The female abolitionists who made unpopular intellectual arguments against slavery? Does the book has a fairly narrow view of women and their place in the world? Or, perhaps most American women simply don’t fit in the same category as the great women I mentioned?
Comment by: Ann
24Hi Helen! The book sounds like it has been very helpful to many men and that alone is great — many men feel that the book touches squarely on issues that no one tried to tackle before. And again, I’m very grateful for that. However, taking this book from a woman’s perspective, I read that there were 3 bad things that a woman shouldn’t be: 1) Tough 2) Efficient & 3) Independent. I guess it is how you interpret what those words mean that could make them “bad”. As a Christian, a woman, and an attorney (and probably a bit older than most who post comments) I was curious to see what other women thought about, well, “women” after reading the book. Back to those bad character traits at the top -here’s how I define each: 1) Tough = Ethical; Strong sense of fairness; Standing up for what you know is right even when it is unpopular; Being in a clear frame of mind; Able to parse out difficult decisions. 2) Efficient = Judicial economy; Wise; Balanced use of time and available resources. 3) Independent = Able to trust your own decisions, particularly when you have prayed about them; Seeing an issue from a different angle than most people, to separate your opinion from the crowd and test it; To think independently; Comfortable in your own skin; standing up for yourself. In terms of real women I admire, I think Condi Rice is a great example of a tough, efficient, independent woman. Margaret Thatcher is another. Our first woman to the Supreme Court of the United States, Sandra Day O’Connor. Need I mention Rosa Parks? The female abolitionists who made unpopular intellectual arguments against slavery? Does the book has a fairly narrow view of women and their place in the world? Or, perhaps most women simply don’t identify with the great women I mentioned in these terms?
Comment by: Ann
25Sorry about accidently posting this comment twice (see above) — wanted to edit it to let the men know I respected their opinions of how the book has helped them and had neglected to put that in the first post (the 11:55 one)
Comment by: Helen
26Hi Ann, thanks for your comment. I reposted it here:
Is it wrong for women to be tough, efficient and independent?
Comment by: sarah
27I think it’s great that thousands of men have been really helped by this book. BUT, my main issue with a genderised book about who we are (rather than what we do) is that we’re all unique and different, with different passions, desires, dreams, motivations, experiences, behaviors and characters. Men and Woman.
To tell men that this is really how they tick is actually another external pressure to be like something rather than go direct to papa God and find out who they are from Him. the only true source of identity and purpose. It also says to woman that they are not like this, which disempowers all those woman out there who want adventure and to be hero’s too. The majority of christians on the mission field are woman. Many woman are co-laboring with God to rescue a planet. gender boxes don’t help anybody.
oh and i suggest that if you find ‘praying and singing (aka worshipping)’ boring, then you are not really doing it. talking to the creator of the universe and being caught up in the glory are the biggest adventures of all.
Comment by: Helen
28Sarah wrote:
Thanks Sarah. Excellently expressed.
Mightn’t individual differences come into play here too? As you just said, “we’re all unique and different, with different passions, desires, dreams, motivations, experiences, behaviors and characters.” Why wouldn’t that apply to how much a person enjoys singing and praying?
(By the way I like what you’re doing through your website - neat idea.)